I never understood and still don't get why people get their panties all in a bunch about a few emails from businesses that they have to read through and delete or whatever.
A few emails?!?! - Are you daft?
I get anywhere from 20 to 67 (record so far) spam-emails every day! - Sure, my email address has been around the net since 1988 and it has been featured heavily on both websites and newsfeeds, but still... That's not a 'few'!
I didn't ask for any emails and still I get them. I don't want them! How hard is that to understand?
Why should I 'hide' myself just to escape the junk mail avalanche? - I cannot and will not accept that, and neither will a lot of other people. Leave my mailbox alone, dammit!
"It wouldn't take long for a freedom of speech case to come up."
This is exactly the defense that must be used! - Add reviews, editorials and so on to the site, written by users of the site, and then blocking the site will block free speech. Force the judge to weigh the first amendment directly against DMCA and similar commercial legislation.
What is important here is to efficiently stop RIAA (and MPAA) from playing their stupid little greedy power games on the net.
Make the choice this simple: If you continue to fight 'unauthorized copies' on the net, we will make more of those copies and do what we can to spread them in an act of civil disobedience. Work with us, wise up and change your prices and distribution policies so it is possible to acquire legal versions of a given title anywhere in the world about the same time as we normally see the first pirated versions pop up.
I mean, the main reason why pirating occur is availability, closely followed by price. As long as a DVD costs as much as it does (most of that price is profits) and is released months after theatrical release, and often several more months later in different territories, there will be a need for people to jump the queue. And that's a fair need because the MPAA clearly abuses its distribution powers to discriminate people based solely on their geographical location. Same thing with the RIAA, although their power isn't as great because the CD-format is global without any regional restrictions.
I've always felt that sales should finance the network real estate as it usually also does for real life real estate.
Ads are always unwanted, obnoxious and annoying to me and I use The Proxomitron with some pretty nifty and aggresive filters and I see *no* ads of any type anywhere. Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!
Yes, a lot of people do things (with or without the aid of a P2P network) that violate copyrights, but I think the issue isn't as much enforcement as it is supply to meet the demand.
Look at what you find pirated, and you can roughly divide it into these categories: Unreleased stuff, deleted stuff and expensive stuff.
Funny enough, the copyright holders have the means to deal with all these and thus remove the major reasons for most piracy; they can release music and movies simultaniously on all formats in all regions, they can give us legal means to obtain older or rare releases, and they can lower their obscene profits and make things affordable for a lot more people.
After all, there's no need to go to full-blown war (which will be the result of such legislation) when a lot of the piracy can simply be made obsolete by the legitimate market.
Well, the Napster issue is central here because there's no way anyone really can stop the sharing of music and movies. Blocking or throttling certain ports will only make the services move and the cat-and-mouse game will end up resulting in all ports being affected and everybody else as well.
And the sharing using Napster-like services will continue as long as there's stupid release policies on movies, stupid region codes on DVDs and monster profits on CDs and DVDs. Remember that over 55% of the money you pay for a CD is pure profit for the label and less than 5% actually goes to the artists (if any at all). On DVDs the artists (cast and crew) rarely gets anything from the DVD sales at all so it's all profits or at best return on the production investment.
I'd suggest that all musical artists set up a 'conscience fund' for themselves where pirates (anonymously) can pay $2-$5 when they've made copies of these artists works. This way the artists will get compensated but the labels will learn to cut back on those obscene profits or go out of business. If the record executives cut back on the coke and the wild parties they might even return to reality long enough to realize this. The music user has had enough of the milking of the market and demands the profits be taken down a lot!
Excuse me?! - "The stupidity of the SETI project"?
Why on Earth would you call that project "stupid"? - It is a very serious project conducted by accredited scientists for a very worthy purpose, and if you can't see that, I'd venture as to call you "stupid" as well... But this discussion belongs elsewhere.
As to the case at hand, I think the important issue here is what the intent was. Schwartz did not intend to steal anything, nor did he intend to do any harm.
In matters of violence the issue of intent is central and there's a lot of difference between intentionally causing harm and accidentially causing harm. In this case there's no intent to cause any harm whatsoever and no accidential damage was done either. In other words, the matter is entirely disciplinary and a matter of breached rules and policies.
Taking this to a criminal level is a tragic farce that only shows the humourless attitude of the prosecuting parties involved and the utter arrogance of the Intel management.
Yes, Schwartz probably should be fired because of what he did because the company policy is clear on the use of password cracking tools. But a criminal prosecution is overkill and a testimony to the utter lack of knowledge of both the technology, the law and the principles on which it is built.
I agree with your suggested punishment though...:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I never understood and still don't get why people get their panties all in a bunch about a few emails from businesses that they have to read through and delete or whatever.
A few emails?!?! - Are you daft?
I get anywhere from 20 to 67 (record so far) spam-emails every day! - Sure, my email address has been around the net since 1988 and it has been featured heavily on both websites and newsfeeds, but still... That's not a 'few'!
I didn't ask for any emails and still I get them. I don't want them! How hard is that to understand?
Why should I 'hide' myself just to escape the junk mail avalanche? - I cannot and will not accept that, and neither will a lot of other people. Leave my mailbox alone, dammit!
"It wouldn't take long for a freedom of speech case to come up."
This is exactly the defense that must be used! - Add reviews, editorials and so on to the site, written by users of the site, and then blocking the site will block free speech. Force the judge to weigh the first amendment directly against DMCA and similar commercial legislation.
What is important here is to efficiently stop RIAA (and MPAA) from playing their stupid little greedy power games on the net.
Make the choice this simple: If you continue to fight 'unauthorized copies' on the net, we will make more of those copies and do what we can to spread them in an act of civil disobedience. Work with us, wise up and change your prices and distribution policies so it is possible to acquire legal versions of a given title anywhere in the world about the same time as we normally see the first pirated versions pop up.
I mean, the main reason why pirating occur is availability, closely followed by price. As long as a DVD costs as much as it does (most of that price is profits) and is released months after theatrical release, and often several more months later in different territories, there will be a need for people to jump the queue. And that's a fair need because the MPAA clearly abuses its distribution powers to discriminate people based solely on their geographical location. Same thing with the RIAA, although their power isn't as great because the CD-format is global without any regional restrictions.
Why the f*ck should Internet advertising work?
I've always felt that sales should finance the network real estate as it usually also does for real life real estate.
Ads are always unwanted, obnoxious and annoying to me and I use The Proxomitron with some pretty nifty and aggresive filters and I see *no* ads of any type anywhere. Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!
Yes, a lot of people do things (with or without the aid of a P2P network) that violate copyrights, but I think the issue isn't as much enforcement as it is supply to meet the demand.
Look at what you find pirated, and you can roughly divide it into these categories: Unreleased stuff, deleted stuff and expensive stuff.
Funny enough, the copyright holders have the means to deal with all these and thus remove the major reasons for most piracy; they can release music and movies simultaniously on all formats in all regions, they can give us legal means to obtain older or rare releases, and they can lower their obscene profits and make things affordable for a lot more people.
After all, there's no need to go to full-blown war (which will be the result of such legislation) when a lot of the piracy can simply be made obsolete by the legitimate market.
Well, the Napster issue is central here because there's no way anyone really can stop the sharing of music and movies. Blocking or throttling certain ports will only make the services move and the cat-and-mouse game will end up resulting in all ports being affected and everybody else as well.
And the sharing using Napster-like services will continue as long as there's stupid release policies on movies, stupid region codes on DVDs and monster profits on CDs and DVDs. Remember that over 55% of the money you pay for a CD is pure profit for the label and less than 5% actually goes to the artists (if any at all). On DVDs the artists (cast and crew) rarely gets anything from the DVD sales at all so it's all profits or at best return on the production investment.
I'd suggest that all musical artists set up a 'conscience fund' for themselves where pirates (anonymously) can pay $2-$5 when they've made copies of these artists works. This way the artists will get compensated but the labels will learn to cut back on those obscene profits or go out of business. If the record executives cut back on the coke and the wild parties they might even return to reality long enough to realize this. The music user has had enough of the milking of the market and demands the profits be taken down a lot!
Excuse me?! - "The stupidity of the SETI project"?
:-)
Why on Earth would you call that project "stupid"? - It is a very serious project conducted by accredited scientists for a very worthy purpose, and if you can't see that, I'd venture as to call you "stupid" as well... But this discussion belongs elsewhere.
As to the case at hand, I think the important issue here is what the intent was. Schwartz did not intend to steal anything, nor did he intend to do any harm.
In matters of violence the issue of intent is central and there's a lot of difference between intentionally causing harm and accidentially causing harm. In this case there's no intent to cause any harm whatsoever and no accidential damage was done either. In other words, the matter is entirely disciplinary and a matter of breached rules and policies.
Taking this to a criminal level is a tragic farce that only shows the humourless attitude of the prosecuting parties involved and the utter arrogance of the Intel management.
Yes, Schwartz probably should be fired because of what he did because the company policy is clear on the use of password cracking tools. But a criminal prosecution is overkill and a testimony to the utter lack of knowledge of both the technology, the law and the principles on which it is built.
I agree with your suggested punishment though...