The more I think about it the more I agree this is exactly what the broadcast flag is about.
It's good to see that more people are starting to wake up to this.
It has always been my belief that all of the forms of DRM we have seen proposed over the last few years are more about content control than they are about protecting copyright. DRM will make it possible to not only control copying and viewing of files, but will also make it possible for the makers to dictate what software and users are permitted to view content, to produce content, and to distribute content.
It's about stopping low-budget Mac-wielding filmmakers from threatening Hollywood...
It's not just the Movie and Recording industries that are getting into the game, with the combination of DRM in Office, and the proposed "Trusted Computing" initiative that Microsoft and our government are cooperating on, this kind of content control can be extended to documents, reports, and web content.
I would be very surprised if there are not projects in the works for DRM in Explorer, Outlook, IIS, and Exchange as well. Adobe's products are likely canidates for this as well.
If we wait until it is in place to accept that this is a possibility, it will be too late.
f you want free software rather than open source, Linux is the way to go, its under the GPL.
It's easy to argue that the BSD license is "more free" than the GPL.
With BSD, you can license any derivative product you might create under any license you wish. Under the GPL, you must use the GPL for all derivative works. Therefore, BSD is "more Free".
On the other hand, this limitation that the GPL imposes gives an advantage that the BSD license does not to most users of software and tech support people. Namely that you will always have free access to the use of the software that your business is relying on, with no possibility of that software changing licenses after you've established your business.
If you are in the business of selling software, then the BSD license is clearly better for your business, but if you are in any other business, it seems that the GPL license would be more to your advantage.
Adobe's Acroreader runs fine on my FreeBSD desktop
Why not use xpdf? Much faster to load, and much nicer to use (IMHO) than Adobe. The more recent Acrobat versions seem to be suffering from the "creeping featurism" design bug.
He wrote the damn thing, he should be familiar with it.
It's not that he's just blowing his own horn either (although that may be part of his motivation), but that it's a good program that exemplifies a programming style, is relatively complete, is readable enough for students, and is widely used.
It's also convenient enough for (possibly unfair, but humorous) criticism whenever ESR is within earshot.
Yes, but Taxachusettes sounds funny, and therefore is easy to remember and must be true (as are all things if you are able to convince enough people).
You need to learn to think like a Republican if you want to understand these things.
Re:Uhh...
on
Watching You
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Imagine devices that monitor the breathing rythems of workers who are on the clock, watch programmers at thier keyboards, and track office staff as they leave thier desks for "the copier"; that can keep an eye on those expensive paperclips and let us know if our staff is stealing them. Machines might watch our coffee intake to deduct any "extra" from our pay, monitor air quality at our home and our calorie intake to adjust our health insurance premiums.
Thanks for the tip. Here's a link to the actual act.
The act is an amendment to the US copyright law under titles 17, chapters 1 and 5, and 18, chapter 113.
If I am understanding the law(s) correctly (IANAL), downloading a file would be a violation of title 17, chapter 5, which states that anyone expecting to recieve an unauthorized copy would be punnishable, but those distributing unauthorized copies would not be guilty until they have distributed more than $1000.00 in retail value of copyrighted works during a 180 day period.
It seems that it is safer to rip and distribute (upload) than it is to download. Could such a law be enforcable? That would be like making it against the law to buy any amount of drugs, no matter how small, but legal to sell drugs, as long as you sell less than $1000.00 dollars during any 180 day period. How f*cked up is that?
Am I reading this correctly? Any lawyers out there?
They have. The RIAA and the Secret Service have teamed up on raids.
Inapropriate example. The raid in question was recording from images of pre-release CD's and from actual CD's (mostly pre-release also) which clearly does not indicate filesharers, but does indicate the participation of music industry insiders. The same can be said for most of the high quality counterfit DVDs on the mrket (hence the "screener ban").
The RIAA is targeting those who are sharing MP3s, with these lawsuits, not the people making and selling counterfit CDs. They should be cleaning up thier own house, not chasing after children with poor taste in music.
"Is it that violations of copyright are not actually criminal acts but rather are civil matters to be disputed between the copyright holder and the unauthorized publisher?"
Not hardly. You're spreading incorrect information. Here's what the law says.
First of all, it's a question, not a claim.
Second of all, I'm addressing the parent posts claim that downloading is illegal, as I do recognise the illegality of unauthorized redistribution.
Third, most of the cases do not stand the test of the law as is written in your link
506. Criminal offenses5
(a) Criminal Infringement. -- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either --
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
(1) How is someone making MP3s available online recieving "personal financial gain" from that act.
(2) Is the person who is downloading making the copy? Or is it the person who is making it available the copier? According to the law, if you only make 1009 copies in 180 days, then you haven't broken the law. If you are alleging that the downloader is guilty of making copies, then anyone who downloads fewer than 1010 songs during any 180 day period (assuming the retail value of an electronic copy of a song is $0.99, in keeping with most industry aproved online music services) that person has still not broken the law you presented as your argument.
and (from the same link):
For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
I think that speaks for itself.
perhaps you should be more careful about accusing people "making shit up". Also, you shopuld read the material carefully before you provide the link, it might not actually say what you want it to.
those that download it are COMMITING A CRIME ENFORCABLE BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Really? What law is this?
I was certain that copyright law only covers publication rights, not the recieving of copyrioghted material published by an unauthorized source. Perhaps you could educate me.
I'll agree that those who are making other peoples work available (in any form) without permision are breaking the law, but I doubt that the law also covers the downloaders. Perhaps they could be charged with aiding and abbetting the comitting of a crime, but if that is the case, then why has no-one been charged with this?
Why has no-one been charged with a crime at all? Is it that violations of copyright are not actually criminal acts but rather are civil matters to be disputed between the copyright holder and the unauthorized publisher?
Has the outcome of any of the RIAA lawsuits actually been determined in court? Or have they all been settled out of court? Is it possible that the amount of damages the RIAA is claiming is so large that it would be difficult to substantiate in court? Or that there is no reasonasble method for determining the actual damages? Or possibly that any reasonable method for determining the actual damages (such as the number of actual downloads times the potential revenue from the potential sale of a copy of that particular song) would show that the actual damages are not enough to justify going to court in all but the most extreme cases?
When you download copyrighted music, you're doing so illegally and subject to the laws of your jurisdiction.
Again, I'll agree that uploading music that you do not have distribution or publishing rights for is and should be illegal. But this emphisis on downloading seems a little disengenuous. Could it be that the RIAA wishes to scare people away from the idea of downloading altogether? What about all of the music that is freely available for download or redistribution? Do not the artists who are using music downloads and P2P networks for advertising thier (non-RIAA) music on CDs and thier performances deserve the right to use this means? Is the RIAA perhaps worried that the free distribution of music could impact negatively on thier ability to controll the marketing and distribution of music to the extent that musicians who have not contracted to RIAA studios and labels might be able to win away a portion of the market?
Is it possible that with P2P technology, the web, and with other network technologies (internet radio) that the RIAA and thier associated companies (ClearChannel) might be obsolete and no longer needed by the artsts who wish to make a living from thier art? That sounds like a win for everyone except the RIAA.
Advice to filesharers: Do not distribute the crap purveyed by the RIAA. Use P2P to promote music by atrists that you know, artists that do nott share the product of thier creativity with the RIAA member companies, andartists who are knowingly distributing thier music in this manner in order to promote thier own, privately funded CD sales and performances. There is no longer any need for the media conglomerates, and unless the flow of money into thier coffers is lessened, they will buy congress to ensure that they and thier parent companies (Time-Warner, Disney, CBS, ClearChannel, the other RIAA members and the members of the MPAA, and the Network Broadcast Association) are given the right and the power to own and regulate the internet and networked communications in general. Use the technology to change the culture of music (and other media) consumption.
Wean yourselves and other listeners off of the corporate teat and you'll find that there is sweeter milk to be found elsewhere.
Do not allow the RIAA to spread the idea that all P2P downloads are illegal.
why the hell a lot of states hold this much control over alcohol distribution
The theory is that volume purchasing can keep the price reasonable, the program can pay for itself and makes money that would otherwise be gathered from taxes, and that it is much easier to enforce drinking age laws when the sales people are state employees rather than private business people who might see drinking age laws as interference in thier pursuit of a livelyhood.
It's not really a Stalinist policy. I doubt that anyone in these regions believe that the same system could be effectively applied to anything but addictive wares that will be in demand no matter who the seller might be.
Personally, I'd rather be giving the profits from my liquor purchases to the state than having them take that amount from my paycheck (they take enough already).
"Liberals" have actually shown an incomprehensible faith in electronic voting,
This is in part due to the "liberal ethic" of attributing the better of possible motives to an individual or group until it is demonstrated otherwise.
even Diebold machines.
This is taking one's "liberal ethic" a little too far.
As for the ACLU, thier embracing of electronic voting is a (perhaps misguided) attempt to have the same or equivalent voting equipment installed at all polling stations in a given district. The most common machine error that is found in voting machines is the non-registration of votes (votes not being counted as opposed to false votes being created by the machine). This allows for defective voting machinery to be selectively placed in neighborhoods based on thier voting tendancies in hopes that the increased incidence of undercounting errors will be enough to diminish the influence of the voters who use that polling station.
1) Quagmire? Shouldn't we wait for a year to pass bfore we rush out to use the word Quagmire? Oh and news flash, we won the war, we're rebuilding their cities.
A.) More American soldiers have been killed since Bush announced the end of the war than during the declared war.
B.) Defense analyst in the DOD were among the first to declare the situation a "quagmire". The Bush administration admitted that they had no exit plan. It wasn't until Powel and the State department was given free reign to negotiate with the UN without interference from Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Condoleeza Rice that he was able to get the UN to commit to pulling us out of this quagmire.
C.) Bush is stating that the rebuilding of Iraq will cost the U.S. $87 billion dollars during the next fiscal year. The vast majority of this money is being earmarked to go to Halliburton and Bechtel for services supplied to the troops and in contracts for managing the reconstruction. Both companies are owned primarily by Dick Cheney and other ex-CIA staffers and operatives, such as Frank Carlucci, as well as former Reagan/ Bush the first staffers (Cheney, Carlucci, and Rumsfeld). This may not be a quagmire for those who are in the right club, but it certainly is for the rest of us who will be left holding the bill.
2) Actually lots of WMDs have been found, you just don't want to count _those_ WMDs.
3) Leak? This story is the most idiotic POS the Left has tried so far. Notice how it whimpered away? It had no legs b/c it was shit. She wasn't EVEN a SPY, she was a mid level analyst.
She was a former operative (there all "former" operatives), which is why there is an investigation. It is not against the law to reveal the identities of CIA staffers, so that would not have been much of a news story. It is likely that she was outed by one of the former CIA people in the Bush administration, as they would have been the best positioned to know such details , and by law of averages, as there ore more senior whitehouse staffers that are former CIA (both staffers and operatives) than not. As it is likely that she was in agreement with her husbands claim that there was no eviodence that Iraq had approached Nigeria (or any other African country) in order to obtain uranium, there was a revenge or punishment motive for her not being loyal to the company. It is odd that Bush was so sure that the source of the leak would never be found when he repeatedly assures the American people that we will find Osama Bin Laden and Sadamm Husein. At least we do know where the the culprit is in the case of the "leak".
They are not counting on a direct return on investment from this action. They are attempting to kill Linux and the Free Software movement because it threatens the software vending business model, the media distributioon business model, thier basic understanding of how the economy works, and thier shared control of media outlets.
There is no possibility that these investors could be looking at SCO as legitimately being the holder of IP rights over Linux, or that a court decision based on precident in contract or copyright law could be in favor of SCO in thier suit against IBM, but they are planning on the judge ignoring legal precident, finding in favor of SCO, and invalidating the GPL.
They are not backing SCO because they think that SCO has a good product, or that SCO is a good investment with a future as a software vendor. They are backing SCO because they see this fight as a fight against the "liberal" (meaning anything that does not benefit them directly) forces that threaten to change the business environment.
I'd like to remove them from my/etc/dnsroots.global and I think anyone who runs a dns service should do the same (or from your "named.ca" if you run bind).
If I recall correctly, VeriSign is only adminstrating four of the root servers, so removing these will leave you with nine more to query. If enough admins take this measure, I'm sure that ICANN, if not VeriSign, will get the hint that VeriSign has crossed the line, has abused thier authority, and is no longer trusted to provide that service.
If you think the guy gets too much credit, then perhaps you should put your efforts behind something else. If you've been using Linux for more than a few years, and you follow the kernel mailing list (or at least read "Kernel Traffic") then perhaps you would understand why Linus makes the perfect frontman for Linux development.
The public desires a front man, a face to associate phenomena with. It is this that propels Linus into the public eye, and I'm sure that the greater share of his fellow kernel hackers are more than pleased that it is not them who has to be singled out for scrutiny and has to represent the conmmunity as a whole. Linus is definately not an "attention seeker".
There are many persons involved in Free Software that do not get the public recognition that you seem to think that they desire, but the vast majority of them could care less what people that they do not know and who do not understand thier work think of them. To them, the only recognition that matters is that which comes from thier peers in thier chosen field.
The kernel hackers don't really seem to be the attention seeking types, and I'm sure that if you were to suggest to them that they were somehow being slighted by Linus in regards to "credit", I'm sure they would either point out thier credits in the source code, the documentation, and the changelogs. That code belongs to them, and anyone who is so concerned about such things as "credit" will probably look at the copyright files in order to learn who wrote what.
If you pressed the issue, I'm sure they would tell you to fuck off and quit trying to stir up trouble where there is none.
I've seen polls showing 90%+ in favor of leaving the Pledge as-is.
Could you provide us with a link? I'd like to see who conducted these polls, the way the questions were worded, perhaps who was paying for the polls to be conducted. I'd hardly believe that a poll paid for by the Moral Majority, Inc. would be objective, and I'm relatively certain that there's damn little that 90% of Americans would agree on.
Is there anything wrong with the Pledge? Is there anything wrong with saying it? Is there anything wrong with believing what you are saying? Is there anything wrong with having pride in your country, even if you don't agree with its government sometimes?
Yes, no, no, and no. The point is that if a state is requiring the pledge be recited in school, you better pull that stupid line about god out of the otherwise harmless piece of idolitorous poetry. Requiring the pledge is requiring the students to declare belief in a religeous system that they might not hold. And that, my friend is anti-American.
This is to say nothing about the fact that the pledge is declaration of devotion to a piece of cloth (idolitory?), and a nation without any reference to the principles upon which this great nation was founded. Perhaps a pledge to the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be more apropriate, but then the religeous conservative lobby would hardly be in favor of that now, would they.
Anti-Americanism within America is really annoying.
I'd hardly call unflagging commitment to the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights "anti-Americanism", but then Joseph McCarthy probably would have disagreed with me. And apparently so would you. The whole loyalty oath issue really pisses me off, as it has been used in the past (and I'm sure it will be again in the near future) to paint loyal Americans as being anti-American for the simple crime of having commitment to thier beliefs and some grain of integrity.
One of the principle ideals that makes this country the great nation worth your (and my own) loyalty is that we have the right to dissent against our government, to dissagree with the authorities, and to hold differing beliefs (or no belief at all) about god, divinity and religeous expirience. If you throw these ideals to the wind in order to satisfy your nostalgia for a rather poorly written and misguided poem, you've just cheapened our basic national principles as a whole.
(I served my country to defend your right to burn it's flag. The piece of cloth fluttering above is rather pretty, but it doesn't mean shit if the paper this country is built upon is forgotten.)
the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company.
There is no reason that using the GPL is going to "screw the company" as long as the company is careful how they implement thier code and they share any changes they happen to make to GPL code. If they use the standard interfaces to LGPL libraries (sorry, get your own "readline") as thier method of comunication between thier propietary programs, or create libraries (released under GPL compatible licenses) to intermediate between the GPL code and thier own prpoietary code, there would be no problem.
These issues arise not because the companies find the GPL difficult to understand, but because they think that they'll get away with it.
They have lawyers that can write and interpet licensing agreements and contracts consisting of dozens (if not hundreds) of pages of confusing legalese, but they can't understand a single page document that consists of perhaps 20 paragraphs and twelve itemized conditions written in what is close to plain english.
Really.
Perhaps if it were translated into legal-speak they might take it a bit more seriously. At least they'd find it a bit more threatening, and perhaps we wouldn't be reading so many stories asking the Free Software world to take pity on multi-billion dollar corporations.
Even without GPS in a cell phone, three towers should be enough to pinpoint the location of a particular telephone. The slight differerences of when the signal reaches a tower gives you the distance from each tower, draw your arcs (or have your pc draw them) and the intersect betrays your victim.
This has been in use for quite a while already. And don't let the "terrorist and criminal" talk give you any comfort. The "counter terrorism" experts are the same guys that formerly abused thier positions as "counter intelligence" agents back during the cold war. If they think they can profit from fucking with you (they need surveilance targets to get funding), they will.
It does not seem as though these directors are forbidden to submit screeners of works that are not under contract with thier studios or associated with the MPAA. The ban only applies to the MPAA members works, and I cant see how the MPAA could enforce a ban on screeners for films that are not being paid for or distributed by MPAA members.
This still makes the protest against the screener ban a little less than genuine in motive.
The problem is that she doesn't have a good intuitive understanding of geometry.
Seeing that she is a talented musician, it is unlikely that geometric principles would be beyond her grasp, if she desired to learn them.
It is more likely that she has difficulty with the abstract and arbitrary classification without reference to the point of origin.
Or it could be the platform she is using. Operating systems that do not have individual user home directories and that defauld storing of files to the desktop do not encourage good filekeeping. If it were impossible for her to store her word processing output in the word processors folder, it is likely that she would put more thought into where she was leaving it. As in "if I'm not supposed to store my files there, then why does the computer let me?"
what's stopping any movie studio from simply ignoring the ban and sending them out anyway?
The MPAA represents these directors and producers as a lobbying group, and uses thier strength (derived, of course, from having these members) to controll the distribution of films. Most of them (the directors etc) do not want a truly free market in which independant films are reviewed by the Acadamy members, as they enjoy the power of being able to select which independants get to be reviewed, nor do they wish to give up thier membership in the MPAA, as this membership affords them the luxury of having thier work distributed even if it is not worthy of being viewed by the public (Gigli?).
I'm sure that there is no chance of a mass exodus of directors and producers from the MPAA member roles, and very little chance of even a few of them exercising that option, no matter how pissed they are about not being able to promote films through the distrobution of screeners. The threat of not having thier work shown in theatres is too great, and that is what is likely to result unless they all chose to walk in solidarity.
Don't these directors have buttloads of money? Are they stupid enough to sign a contract that prevents them from starting their own studios, associations, and whatnot?
These guys are not being geniuine about thier motives, screeners give them an opportunity to get thier films shown to Acadamy members who otherwise have not attended thier showing. It also gives them a chance to promote the work of thier hand puicked students who they are sure will be future fellow MPAA members like themselves, and it prevents those film makers who are truly outsiders from having an equal chance of being viewed, as the Acadamy members are sure to be more likely to pop that dvd into the player if it is accompanied by a note from Martin or Robert than if it is submitted by some person they never heard of.
Truly independant film makers have a very hard time getting thier work shown, no matter how good it is, largely in part to the advent of an "independant" film market that consist of films by artists that have already been selected by established Hollywood producers and directors.
The question that these artists face is who do I dare accept help from, while these directors are seeking new artists that will help them further thier own careers.
Slashdot Mirror
The more I think about it the more I agree this is exactly what the broadcast flag is about.
It's good to see that more people are starting to wake up to this.
It has always been my belief that all of the forms of DRM we have seen proposed over the last few years are more about content control than they are about protecting copyright. DRM will make it possible to not only control copying and viewing of files, but will also make it possible for the makers to dictate what software and users are permitted to view content, to produce content, and to distribute content.
It's about stopping low-budget Mac-wielding filmmakers from threatening Hollywood...
It's not just the Movie and Recording industries that are getting into the game, with the combination of DRM in Office, and the proposed "Trusted Computing" initiative that Microsoft and our government are cooperating on, this kind of content control can be extended to documents, reports, and web content.
I would be very surprised if there are not projects in the works for DRM in Explorer, Outlook, IIS, and Exchange as well. Adobe's products are likely canidates for this as well.
If we wait until it is in place to accept that this is a possibility, it will be too late.
f you want free software rather than open source, Linux is the way to go, its under the GPL.
It's easy to argue that the BSD license is "more free" than the GPL.
With BSD, you can license any derivative product you might create under any license you wish. Under the GPL, you must use the GPL for all derivative works. Therefore, BSD is "more Free".
On the other hand, this limitation that the GPL imposes gives an advantage that the BSD license does not to most users of software and tech support people. Namely that you will always have free access to the use of the software that your business is relying on, with no possibility of that software changing licenses after you've established your business.
If you are in the business of selling software, then the BSD license is clearly better for your business, but if you are in any other business, it seems that the GPL license would be more to your advantage.
Adobe's Acroreader runs fine on my FreeBSD desktop
Why not use xpdf? Much faster to load, and much nicer to use (IMHO) than Adobe. The more recent Acrobat versions seem to be suffering from the "creeping featurism" design bug.
Read the pdf. The vast majority of the document is exactly what you say wasn't there.
Of course reading the entire thing is likely to take quite some time.
he's familiar with the program,
He wrote the damn thing, he should be familiar with it.
It's not that he's just blowing his own horn either (although that may be part of his motivation), but that it's a good program that exemplifies a programming style, is relatively complete, is readable enough for students, and is widely used.
It's also convenient enough for (possibly unfair, but humorous) criticism whenever ESR is within earshot.
Yes, but Taxachusettes sounds funny, and therefore is easy to remember and must be true (as are all things if you are able to convince enough people).
You need to learn to think like a Republican if you want to understand these things.
Imagine devices that monitor the breathing rythems of workers who are on the clock, watch programmers at thier keyboards, and track office staff as they leave thier desks for "the copier"; that can keep an eye on those expensive paperclips and let us know if our staff is stealing them. Machines might watch our coffee intake to deduct any "extra" from our pay, monitor air quality at our home and our calorie intake to adjust our health insurance premiums.
Sounds like a wonderful world, doesn't it?
Thanks for the tip. Here's a link to the actual act.
The act is an amendment to the US copyright law under titles 17, chapters 1 and 5, and 18, chapter 113.
If I am understanding the law(s) correctly (IANAL), downloading a file would be a violation of title 17, chapter 5, which states that anyone expecting to recieve an unauthorized copy would be punnishable, but those distributing unauthorized copies would not be guilty until they have distributed more than $1000.00 in retail value of copyrighted works during a 180 day period.
It seems that it is safer to rip and distribute (upload) than it is to download. Could such a law be enforcable? That would be like making it against the law to buy any amount of drugs, no matter how small, but legal to sell drugs, as long as you sell less than $1000.00 dollars during any 180 day period. How f*cked up is that?
Am I reading this correctly? Any lawyers out there?
Good post. Good idea.
I wish I had some mod points.
Inapropriate example. The raid in question was recording from images of pre-release CD's and from actual CD's (mostly pre-release also) which clearly does not indicate filesharers, but does indicate the participation of music industry insiders. The same can be said for most of the high quality counterfit DVDs on the mrket (hence the "screener ban").
The RIAA is targeting those who are sharing MP3s, with these lawsuits, not the people making and selling counterfit CDs. They should be cleaning up thier own house, not chasing after children with poor taste in music.
Not hardly. You're spreading incorrect information. Here's what the law says.
First of all, it's a question, not a claim.
Second of all, I'm addressing the parent posts claim that downloading is illegal, as I do recognise the illegality of unauthorized redistribution.
Third, most of the cases do not stand the test of the law as is written in your link
(1) How is someone making MP3s available online recieving "personal financial gain" from that act.
(2) Is the person who is downloading making the copy? Or is it the person who is making it available the copier? According to the law, if you only make 1009 copies in 180 days, then you haven't broken the law. If you are alleging that the downloader is guilty of making copies, then anyone who downloads fewer than 1010 songs during any 180 day period (assuming the retail value of an electronic copy of a song is $0.99, in keeping with most industry aproved online music services) that person has still not broken the law you presented as your argument.
and (from the same link):
I think that speaks for itself.
perhaps you should be more careful about accusing people "making shit up". Also, you shopuld read the material carefully before you provide the link, it might not actually say what you want it to.
those that download it are COMMITING A CRIME ENFORCABLE BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Really? What law is this?
I was certain that copyright law only covers publication rights, not the recieving of copyrioghted material published by an unauthorized source. Perhaps you could educate me.
I'll agree that those who are making other peoples work available (in any form) without permision are breaking the law, but I doubt that the law also covers the downloaders. Perhaps they could be charged with aiding and abbetting the comitting of a crime, but if that is the case, then why has no-one been charged with this?
Why has no-one been charged with a crime at all? Is it that violations of copyright are not actually criminal acts but rather are civil matters to be disputed between the copyright holder and the unauthorized publisher?
Has the outcome of any of the RIAA lawsuits actually been determined in court? Or have they all been settled out of court? Is it possible that the amount of damages the RIAA is claiming is so large that it would be difficult to substantiate in court? Or that there is no reasonasble method for determining the actual damages? Or possibly that any reasonable method for determining the actual damages (such as the number of actual downloads times the potential revenue from the potential sale of a copy of that particular song) would show that the actual damages are not enough to justify going to court in all but the most extreme cases?
When you download copyrighted music, you're doing so illegally and subject to the laws of your jurisdiction.
Again, I'll agree that uploading music that you do not have distribution or publishing rights for is and should be illegal. But this emphisis on downloading seems a little disengenuous. Could it be that the RIAA wishes to scare people away from the idea of downloading altogether? What about all of the music that is freely available for download or redistribution? Do not the artists who are using music downloads and P2P networks for advertising thier (non-RIAA) music on CDs and thier performances deserve the right to use this means? Is the RIAA perhaps worried that the free distribution of music could impact negatively on thier ability to controll the marketing and distribution of music to the extent that musicians who have not contracted to RIAA studios and labels might be able to win away a portion of the market?
Is it possible that with P2P technology, the web, and with other network technologies (internet radio) that the RIAA and thier associated companies (ClearChannel) might be obsolete and no longer needed by the artsts who wish to make a living from thier art? That sounds like a win for everyone except the RIAA.
Advice to filesharers: Do not distribute the crap purveyed by the RIAA. Use P2P to promote music by atrists that you know, artists that do nott share the product of thier creativity with the RIAA member companies, andartists who are knowingly distributing thier music in this manner in order to promote thier own, privately funded CD sales and performances. There is no longer any need for the media conglomerates, and unless the flow of money into thier coffers is lessened, they will buy congress to ensure that they and thier parent companies (Time-Warner, Disney, CBS, ClearChannel, the other RIAA members and the members of the MPAA, and the Network Broadcast Association) are given the right and the power to own and regulate the internet and networked communications in general. Use the technology to change the culture of music (and other media) consumption.
Wean yourselves and other listeners off of the corporate teat and you'll find that there is sweeter milk to be found elsewhere.
Do not allow the RIAA to spread the idea that all P2P downloads are illegal.
why the hell a lot of states hold this much control over alcohol distribution
The theory is that volume purchasing can keep the price reasonable, the program can pay for itself and makes money that would otherwise be gathered from taxes, and that it is much easier to enforce drinking age laws when the sales people are state employees rather than private business people who might see drinking age laws as interference in thier pursuit of a livelyhood.
It's not really a Stalinist policy. I doubt that anyone in these regions believe that the same system could be effectively applied to anything but addictive wares that will be in demand no matter who the seller might be.
Personally, I'd rather be giving the profits from my liquor purchases to the state than having them take that amount from my paycheck (they take enough already).
"Liberals" have actually shown an incomprehensible faith in electronic voting,
This is in part due to the "liberal ethic" of attributing the better of possible motives to an individual or group until it is demonstrated otherwise.
even Diebold machines.
This is taking one's "liberal ethic" a little too far.
As for the ACLU, thier embracing of electronic voting is a (perhaps misguided) attempt to have the same or equivalent voting equipment installed at all polling stations in a given district. The most common machine error that is found in voting machines is the non-registration of votes (votes not being counted as opposed to false votes being created by the machine). This allows for defective voting machinery to be selectively placed in neighborhoods based on thier voting tendancies in hopes that the increased incidence of undercounting errors will be enough to diminish the influence of the voters who use that polling station.
1) Quagmire? Shouldn't we wait for a year to pass bfore we rush out to use the word Quagmire? Oh and news flash, we won the war, we're rebuilding their cities.
A.) More American soldiers have been killed since Bush announced the end of the war than during the declared war.
B.) Defense analyst in the DOD were among the first to declare the situation a "quagmire". The Bush administration admitted that they had no exit plan. It wasn't until Powel and the State department was given free reign to negotiate with the UN without interference from Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Condoleeza Rice that he was able to get the UN to commit to pulling us out of this quagmire.
C.) Bush is stating that the rebuilding of Iraq will cost the U.S. $87 billion dollars during the next fiscal year. The vast majority of this money is being earmarked to go to Halliburton and Bechtel for services supplied to the troops and in contracts for managing the reconstruction. Both companies are owned primarily by Dick Cheney and other ex-CIA staffers and operatives, such as Frank Carlucci, as well as former Reagan/ Bush the first staffers (Cheney, Carlucci, and Rumsfeld). This may not be a quagmire for those who are in the right club, but it certainly is for the rest of us who will be left holding the bill.
2) Actually lots of WMDs have been found, you just don't want to count _those_ WMDs.
You must watch a lot of Fox
3) Leak? This story is the most idiotic POS the Left has tried so far. Notice how it whimpered away? It had no legs b/c it was shit. She wasn't EVEN a SPY, she was a mid level analyst.
She was a former operative (there all "former" operatives), which is why there is an investigation. It is not against the law to reveal the identities of CIA staffers, so that would not have been much of a news story. It is likely that she was outed by one of the former CIA people in the Bush administration, as they would have been the best positioned to know such details , and by law of averages, as there ore more senior whitehouse staffers that are former CIA (both staffers and operatives) than not. As it is likely that she was in agreement with her husbands claim that there was no eviodence that Iraq had approached Nigeria (or any other African country) in order to obtain uranium, there was a revenge or punishment motive for her not being loyal to the company. It is odd that Bush was so sure that the source of the leak would never be found when he repeatedly assures the American people that we will find Osama Bin Laden and Sadamm Husein. At least we do know where the the culprit is in the case of the "leak".
They are not counting on a direct return on investment from this action. They are attempting to kill Linux and the Free Software movement because it threatens the software vending business model, the media distributioon business model, thier basic understanding of how the economy works, and thier shared control of media outlets.
There is no possibility that these investors could be looking at SCO as legitimately being the holder of IP rights over Linux, or that a court decision based on precident in contract or copyright law could be in favor of SCO in thier suit against IBM, but they are planning on the judge ignoring legal precident, finding in favor of SCO, and invalidating the GPL.
They are not backing SCO because they think that SCO has a good product, or that SCO is a good investment with a future as a software vendor. They are backing SCO because they see this fight as a fight against the "liberal" (meaning anything that does not benefit them directly) forces that threaten to change the business environment.
I'd like to remove them from my /etc/dnsroots.global and I think anyone who runs a dns service should do the same (or from your "named.ca" if you run bind).
If I recall correctly, VeriSign is only adminstrating four of the root servers, so removing these will leave you with nine more to query. If enough admins take this measure, I'm sure that ICANN, if not VeriSign, will get the hint that VeriSign has crossed the line, has abused thier authority, and is no longer trusted to provide that service.
If you think the guy gets too much credit, then perhaps you should put your efforts behind something else. If you've been using Linux for more than a few years, and you follow the kernel mailing list (or at least read "Kernel Traffic") then perhaps you would understand why Linus makes the perfect frontman for Linux development.
The public desires a front man, a face to associate phenomena with. It is this that propels Linus into the public eye, and I'm sure that the greater share of his fellow kernel hackers are more than pleased that it is not them who has to be singled out for scrutiny and has to represent the conmmunity as a whole. Linus is definately not an "attention seeker".
There are many persons involved in Free Software that do not get the public recognition that you seem to think that they desire, but the vast majority of them could care less what people that they do not know and who do not understand thier work think of them. To them, the only recognition that matters is that which comes from thier peers in thier chosen field.
The kernel hackers don't really seem to be the attention seeking types, and I'm sure that if you were to suggest to them that they were somehow being slighted by Linus in regards to "credit", I'm sure they would either point out thier credits in the source code, the documentation, and the changelogs. That code belongs to them, and anyone who is so concerned about such things as "credit" will probably look at the copyright files in order to learn who wrote what.
If you pressed the issue, I'm sure they would tell you to fuck off and quit trying to stir up trouble where there is none.
I've seen polls showing 90%+ in favor of leaving the Pledge as-is.
Could you provide us with a link? I'd like to see who conducted these polls, the way the questions were worded, perhaps who was paying for the polls to be conducted. I'd hardly believe that a poll paid for by the Moral Majority, Inc. would be objective, and I'm relatively certain that there's damn little that 90% of Americans would agree on.
Is there anything wrong with the Pledge? Is there anything wrong with saying it? Is there anything wrong with believing what you are saying? Is there anything wrong with having pride in your country, even if you don't agree with its government sometimes?
Yes, no, no, and no. The point is that if a state is requiring the pledge be recited in school, you better pull that stupid line about god out of the otherwise harmless piece of idolitorous poetry. Requiring the pledge is requiring the students to declare belief in a religeous system that they might not hold. And that, my friend is anti-American.
This is to say nothing about the fact that the pledge is declaration of devotion to a piece of cloth (idolitory?), and a nation without any reference to the principles upon which this great nation was founded. Perhaps a pledge to the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be more apropriate, but then the religeous conservative lobby would hardly be in favor of that now, would they.
Anti-Americanism within America is really annoying.
I'd hardly call unflagging commitment to the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights "anti-Americanism", but then Joseph McCarthy probably would have disagreed with me. And apparently so would you. The whole loyalty oath issue really pisses me off, as it has been used in the past (and I'm sure it will be again in the near future) to paint loyal Americans as being anti-American for the simple crime of having commitment to thier beliefs and some grain of integrity.
One of the principle ideals that makes this country the great nation worth your (and my own) loyalty is that we have the right to dissent against our government, to dissagree with the authorities, and to hold differing beliefs (or no belief at all) about god, divinity and religeous expirience. If you throw these ideals to the wind in order to satisfy your nostalgia for a rather poorly written and misguided poem, you've just cheapened our basic national principles as a whole.
(I served my country to defend your right to burn it's flag. The piece of cloth fluttering above is rather pretty, but it doesn't mean shit if the paper this country is built upon is forgotten.)
the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company.
There is no reason that using the GPL is going to "screw the company" as long as the company is careful how they implement thier code and they share any changes they happen to make to GPL code. If they use the standard interfaces to LGPL libraries (sorry, get your own "readline") as thier method of comunication between thier propietary programs, or create libraries (released under GPL compatible licenses) to intermediate between the GPL code and thier own prpoietary code, there would be no problem.
These issues arise not because the companies find the GPL difficult to understand, but because they think that they'll get away with it.
They have lawyers that can write and interpet licensing agreements and contracts consisting of dozens (if not hundreds) of pages of confusing legalese, but they can't understand a single page document that consists of perhaps 20 paragraphs and twelve itemized conditions written in what is close to plain english.
Really.
Perhaps if it were translated into legal-speak they might take it a bit more seriously. At least they'd find it a bit more threatening, and perhaps we wouldn't be reading so many stories asking the Free Software world to take pity on multi-billion dollar corporations.
Three.
Even without GPS in a cell phone, three towers should be enough to pinpoint the location of a particular telephone. The slight differerences of when the signal reaches a tower gives you the distance from each tower, draw your arcs (or have your pc draw them) and the intersect betrays your victim.
This has been in use for quite a while already. And don't let the "terrorist and criminal" talk give you any comfort. The "counter terrorism" experts are the same guys that formerly abused thier positions as "counter intelligence" agents back during the cold war. If they think they can profit from fucking with you (they need surveilance targets to get funding), they will.
I still don't know if I'm pronouncing it correctly.
Some time ago, I found this wav file that showed me how I was pronouncing Linux incorrectly.
I still pronounce it quite incorrectly, but at least I try.
In reply to my own post:
It does not seem as though these directors are forbidden to submit screeners of works that are not under contract with thier studios or associated with the MPAA. The ban only applies to the MPAA members works, and I cant see how the MPAA could enforce a ban on screeners for films that are not being paid for or distributed by MPAA members.
This still makes the protest against the screener ban a little less than genuine in motive.
The problem is that she doesn't have a good intuitive understanding of geometry.
Seeing that she is a talented musician, it is unlikely that geometric principles would be beyond her grasp, if she desired to learn them.
It is more likely that she has difficulty with the abstract and arbitrary classification without reference to the point of origin.
Or it could be the platform she is using. Operating systems that do not have individual user home directories and that defauld storing of files to the desktop do not encourage good filekeeping. If it were impossible for her to store her word processing output in the word processors folder, it is likely that she would put more thought into where she was leaving it. As in "if I'm not supposed to store my files there, then why does the computer let me?"
what's stopping any movie studio from simply ignoring the ban and sending them out anyway?
The MPAA represents these directors and producers as a lobbying group, and uses thier strength (derived, of course, from having these members) to controll the distribution of films. Most of them (the directors etc) do not want a truly free market in which independant films are reviewed by the Acadamy members, as they enjoy the power of being able to select which independants get to be reviewed, nor do they wish to give up thier membership in the MPAA, as this membership affords them the luxury of having thier work distributed even if it is not worthy of being viewed by the public (Gigli?).
I'm sure that there is no chance of a mass exodus of directors and producers from the MPAA member roles, and very little chance of even a few of them exercising that option, no matter how pissed they are about not being able to promote films through the distrobution of screeners. The threat of not having thier work shown in theatres is too great, and that is what is likely to result unless they all chose to walk in solidarity.
Don't these directors have buttloads of money? Are they stupid enough to sign a contract that prevents them from starting their own studios, associations, and whatnot?
These guys are not being geniuine about thier motives, screeners give them an opportunity to get thier films shown to Acadamy members who otherwise have not attended thier showing. It also gives them a chance to promote the work of thier hand puicked students who they are sure will be future fellow MPAA members like themselves, and it prevents those film makers who are truly outsiders from having an equal chance of being viewed, as the Acadamy members are sure to be more likely to pop that dvd into the player if it is accompanied by a note from Martin or Robert than if it is submitted by some person they never heard of.
Truly independant film makers have a very hard time getting thier work shown, no matter how good it is, largely in part to the advent of an "independant" film market that consist of films by artists that have already been selected by established Hollywood producers and directors.
The question that these artists face is who do I dare accept help from, while these directors are seeking new artists that will help them further thier own careers.