I'd cynically figure that employees hustle to delete or underreport spam that might show they're not using their machine solely for business, like they're supposed to most places. Then, of the charitable view, employees DO recognize they shouldn't be using the their work email for private pursuits and so don't share it. The average business doesn't need its employees roaming the internet, anyway, and there aren't many good reasons to be giving out your work email except to people who you do business with -- hopefully not spammers.
At home, hey, we live closer to the edge. But I object to the stereotype of home users just not knowing how to deal with spam, like it's their fault. Perhasps they should be more careful, but nothing about being carelss makes one "deserve" spam (or fill in crime of your choice). It takes nontrivial sophistication to filter, and anyway stuff gets through. The filters are getting smarter, which is like building stronger locks to keep burglars out, rather than stopping the burglars from trying. Not that spam is anything but wonderful (someone here will say it is); how dare I imply it should be illegal.:)
Besides, spam can only grow -- it's not going away on its own.
Fair enough. In all honesty, I've always hated free speech law -- I'm OK with free speech, but the law and philosophy gets on my nerves for some reason.
I only really wanted to draw out that your absolutist position is not now, nor has ever been, the rule here. Conceivably it could be, though I don't see how without trampling other concerns to out detriment. There will always be those tired examples such as yelling Fire! in a crowded theater, libel, and so on. The lack of a clear line between legal and illegal gives us this morass called free speech law. But even political speech can go too far, esp. with falsehoods.
I care a lot more about fair trials than fair elections; at least the latter don't usually get the loser executed. Of course, speech/press rights pop up in trials with regularity, as with the occasional need for secrecy. I'm not enthralled, for example, with the experience of cameras in the courtroom in the O.J. trial -- though i really do wish cameras were possible. Now Frontline wants cameras in a jury deliberation room for a capital trial in TX. The trial judge said OK, the appellate court said no, justify it first.
It's hard to come away from studying law with many absolutist positions. The reality tends to be balancing competing concerns rather than picking one over the other. If free speech undermines fairness or justice, there's going to be some limitation. Absolutist free speech would make penalties for libel impossible, a tremendous advantage to some people.
The sedition laws -- I don't know much of their history, but limiting "severe criticism" of the gov't sure would benefit one political candidate -- the incumbent! Of course, the sedition laws themselves may have been unconstitutional, though it appears the framers did not think so. Their conception of free speech may have been limited to the "core" of political speech, yet even further subordinated to the perceived need for state order.
So all this is about is what you want for yourself.
My concern was not whether this was in fact your opinion, rather whether you were weighing the interests of others. I'm sure I could find some examples of speech that you wouldn't want free... political sound truck rolling down the street at 3 AM... last-minute defamation of a candidate in a close race... and so on.
Odd thing to think about -- the route fair election interests may go is public financing of elections, which I like in some ways, but at bottom it seems to substitute a carrot for the stick.
Any restriction that prevents me, Dan Heskett, from saying anything I want about a candidate for office is unconstitutional. Period.
That's not the law, nor will it be, nor has it ever been. Never; if you think there was some halcyon period before Watergate, there was not -- check out the sedition laws. The campaign finance reform laws will doubtless be trimmed back by the courts -- and this quiet period is clearly the most suspect -- but an absolute right of free speech? Not a chance, and it would be a disaster anyway. I don't understand where you think you've acquired this clairvoyance to tell what is constitutional, but your vision is shared by few, and never has been by the Supreme Court. So all this is about is what you want for yourself.
Yep, i was wondering that, too. Except I wouldn't start off with a rant.:) Maybe give them a link here...
I agree this sort of game is offensive and damaging. They should try to make good for your reasonable understanding that you weren't sacrificing functionality in exchange for the upgraded features.
But customer service does occasionally... serve. Good luck, and next time take your dollers elsewhere to a more ethical company... that is, until they pull the same stunt... but you won't be suckered twice, will you?
I avoid upgrades for as long as possible on the Luddite theory "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Isn't there something counterintuitive to say we don't like our government, so we're going to entrust them with more authority in our future elections?;-)
I don't know much about Swiss politics but would hesitate to assume much could be transplanted easily. The general sentiment in American law is the cure for bad speech is more speech. The "quiet period" before elections in the new law is one of the more suspect provisions -- even the ACLU opposes it, and they do a lot of work towards fair elections along with the high profile stuff for free speech. A bunch of stuff got trimmed out of the much weaker Watergate-era laws on constitutional grounds, and they're breaking new ground here.
I don't know that justice was done on WWII for a long time, but won't pretend to be an expert (I intend to read more though). My source isn't CNN, BTW! Things like this Frontline report are closer to the truth -- and note the dates of recent $1+ billion settlements are very recent. I don't believe the investigations are merely political.
Asking the questions wasn't exactly what I had in mind; taking the blame and paying the reparations are. Wars are not particularly moral, period, but pointing to the guilt of someone else is context, but not a defense. Certainly the Americans have done quite a few things of their own, but it doesn't take a saint to smell something rotten. I don't care whether the Swiss are better or worse than others, but do that they come clean.
A lot got swept under the rug in the name of the Cold War, so there should be more interesting things surfacing over time. And I still don't want a cuckoo clock.;-)
Free speech is not an absolute right. It has to play nice with our other rights.
We went through the 1st A. problem with the Watergate era laws. The thing that has to be evaluated in addition to the guarantee of free speech is the right we all have to untainted elections. Yes, these laws are clearly abridgements on some levels (much less so for corporations, which are not real persons).
A quibble: None of this is really content-based discrimination in the legal sense. Limiting all political ads is one thing, selectively banning "Vote for Joe" is.
I'm not endorsing the recent round of finance reform nor the entirety of Supreme Court law on freedom of speech, and frankly am waiting to see the whole thing played out in the courts -- it will be fascinating. I do emphasize that sometimes two unalienable rights bump into each other, as is the case with campaign corruption. Another example might be the right of the free press versus the right to a fair trial tension, or the right to free speech versus the right of others against breaches of the peace, or many others. A first-year law student will tell you are many exceptions to free speech, such as fighting words ("Wanna fight?!? Huh?!? Wanna fight, right now, right here?"), criminal conspiracy, libel, and so on -- note that these are instances of balancing one right against another, and are undeniably limitations on free expression.
Aside from the overwhelming constitutional problem, to ban advertising would be to forbid the candidate from speaking to the polity except through official state channels. Actually, that last idea scares the hell out of me. We do have some limitations on fundraising, much more so with McCain-Feingold, but the proposed level of state-enforced structure is disturbing to me, and most Americans.
The other point I'd raise is: Do we want to be Switzerland? On the serious side, Switzerland failed to ask itself hard questions about its involvement in WWII, a war that it is of questionable honor to sit out, and far more questionable to remain neutral and even profit through laundering Nazi gold.
On the lighter side it the old joke: What has 500 years of Swiss peace brought us? The cuckoo clock.:)
The thing is the DMCA did curtail "fair use," by the back door as you say. It was just a sacrifice the industry was willing to make.:)
It's only illegal (pay attention, this is the important part) to provide anyone else with tools or information that will allow them to do so!
I'm not so sure even self-help, which would work for few of us anyway, is permitted. The weird thing about the DMCA is that whereas it specifically disavows any curtailment of fair use, it also fails to provide adequate exceptions to the anti-circumvention measures. See this FAQ. It could be said this is a back door attack, or more likely sloppy legislative drafting. That's what I would argue to a court, and I'm sure has been, that Congress goofed and it's clear intent to preserve fair use should override its implicit repeal in the anti-circumvention section. That's a tough argument though, and would leave the court in the position of creating new language for the anti-circumvention checklist. They're going to leave that to Congress, I think, and anyway the courts should not be in the lawmaking business so broadly.
Fair use is mostly not a constitutional question. The problems would come, IMHO, when it runs up against the First Amendment, and that would about to near evisceration of fair use, itself a mere statute.
You are incorrrect there was no federal speed limit. There was, enforced via the Spending Clause. Yes, there is no Speeding Clause (who would have anticipated one, and it would have been thought a state matter anyway), but this exercise of power is valid. Believe me, a wide spectrum of laws are rooted in this power, it's nothing novel.
More to the point, the federal gov't was up front about what it was doing. Yes, people debated endlessly whether this was appropriate policy. I imagine it was challenged constitutionally. Note that the rule was defeated politically.
The rest is just policy. And the game's not over becuase (1) the courts have not finished deciding what all those clauses in the DMCA mean (e.g., "showing that the prohibition has a substantial adverse effect on noninfringing uses of a particular class of works") -- which in the 2600 case was kind of untenable, IMHO... that's opinion!); (2) Congress is aware that people are upset by the incursion into fair use. Re the partricularly draconian CBPTPA (rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?) see here.
I'm not trying to contradict you in every way I can -- you are right in law and principle in general -- rather this is an area of law that interests me. From my inexpert opinion, the EFF has some good evenhanded orientation materials on the content, litigation, and public opinion fight of these different initiatives.
Finally, boycott is possible and perhaps morally compelled. For example, a LOT of people are used to the idea of ripping their own music CD's, and will go WTF when they realize that's gone. Civil disobedience is a possible, too, but I think too many people are simply stealing for their own convenience. Those who commit civil disobedience must be prepared to go to jail for it. Is fair use a good enough reason for a felony conviction? Between CD and lobbying Congress, the latter is the better choice for me. I mean, this is so far about entertainment and only one form of it.
Again, I'm not sure evn your own cracking is OK, and even if it is almost none of us will have access to the tools. I really wouldn't want to ask others to break the law and risk serious legal trouble to help me, even if they're willing. That's probably their civil disobedience choice to make, unless they're profiting, in which case they're mostly garden-variety criminals.
The LoC survey deadline comes up in a few days, there's a place to start.
I agreed with his reasosn, but added that nothing in fair use here authorizes breaking the law. There is no priority given a "more established" (older?) law. Fair use is merely an exemption from copyright law.
Stealing is not civil disobedience, and violates plain old copyright law anyway. If you don't like the product don't buy it, there is no more powerful message to a capitalist. I'm perplexed why some people justify not doing that -- nothing would send a clearer message to the companies or bring change faster.
Again, his reasons are all good ones; I personally agree. I don't like the DMCA, and for that matter I don't like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. But there's no reason for breaking these selfish laws but selfishness, a desire to have the product and boycott it, too.
Books are available in other and, IMHO, superior forms. Our local library has even started offering free online access to eBooks.
I'm not trying to be contentious, just arguing for the moral high ground.
As a member of the legal system, I'm quite sure your blind hatred is misplaced. I have known many fine attorneys, and I encourage you to get to know some of them, and to learn more about this "screwed up" legal system of ours. One thing a lot of people don't realize is that 95% of lawyers don't go anywhere near a courtroom or sue anyone.
Even the worst slimeball deserves the benefit of legal counsel. It is one of the strengths of our society that we don't condone the vigilante justice that may give you warm fuzzy feelings but has been used to justify everything down to lynchings. Don't bother to share your opinion of those.
Aside from that, I won't bite on your troll. I know better.
Yep, for various independent reasons. There's no intent to break the law, the affected copyright holders couldn't possibly care about interfering with their vendor trying to enforce their rights, the copying of illegal "cracked" copies is germane to their lawsuit, and, believe it or not, it's probably fair use.:)
The DMCA doesn't kick in so far as I know -- these are just plain text files.
I think you're blending "if the technology in use was obsolete or had known faults that prevent legitimate access" together with "a fault with the anti-circumvention software that causes it to fail to protect against new cirvumvention tools." The first is an example of a valid licensee losing access; the latter, simply progress in cracking tools.... if I understand you right...
You give a lot of good reasons -- that people shouldn't buy e-books. Not reasons that they should break the law to get the terms they wanted in the first place.
The analogy to burglar tools is off, as you note, but it's right in the sense of identifying the cracking tools as something with legitimate and illegitimate uses. It seems likely that they will be trying the Betamax defense, the key case for this sort of thing.
There's absolutely no legal difference between digital and analog. Both can be (mis)used to violate copyright.
The thing that bugs the copyright holders is that digital copies are immortal and copy without loss. They raised a ruckus over DAT, and wanted some sort of built-in copyproofing, like you could only make one copy or whatever. So this may be what you're thinking of -- they fear digital more.
Kudos. I gotta remember to come to you when I need some sarcatic irony for something.:) (Er, but will people get it? I guess the last line is a giveaway.)
No sooner do I write what I wrote, so I notice that of course there is a page dedicated to Boston, cited from the very helpful NYC reference. Should've figured! Other pages for othe cities abound. I only thought this was an obscure interest.:)
Isn't the net cool? For bringing us information like this that we really, really need? Well, beats watching sitcoms.
I know of one abandoned station on the "T" -- the old Harvard stop -- and think there may be another. It's an odd thing to glimpse in the tunnels. I can only imagine how much dirt, dust, and grime collects over the years. The bus-like Green line, which is a bit like an amusement park ride as it winds it's way under the city, has some very interesting views when, as often happens, the driver has to jump out the door to kick some ancient signal over that's preventing passage.
Speaking of relics, the big dig (multibillion $ replacement of the main artery with tunnels) brought up all sort of oddities, such as hollowed-out tree trunks used as sewers in the 18th century. The mysteries that stir beneath.
Surely the Chicago L, Paris Metro, and so on share these features. And, given the nature of the web where one person's trivia is another's lifelong obsession, I'm sure the info is out there, somewhere.
Thanks for the NYC cite. NYC has all sorts of interesting things buried there.... And I can't help but say there are a lot of public works in the city that are not abandoned -- and should be.:) (A couple of those bridges, for example.)
I've been glad to here a bunch of people stick up for Farscape here. I was starting to worry it was the most obscure show in the universe. I also think it is clearly the anti-Trek -- all that is technological replaced by the biological. Thank goodness.
And, of course, it is now cancelled. The SciFi FAQ citied elsewhere is at least a balanced appraisal of their decision. I don't think some of their assumptions hold up, however; the time slot in particular irritated me. Friday night is about the weakest in the week. But this won't be the first time a network has chosen tripe over substance.
BellSouth employees will not be allowed to lend a hand in any official capacity
It is important to be cautious in drawing many conclusions from a single press account. As everyone knows, sometimes the press does a mediocre job.
The key word is "official" -- the company should and must control its employees' official activities, because they are then acting as representatives of the company. This is standard business law. True, the company would get credit for the good things the reps did in their spare time, but it would also get the blame or, worse, monetary liability.
So the employees shouldn't do it if told not to. That might be dumb business logic for the company, but who knows, is is their call. Assuming the reps were doing a good jobs and not generating complaints, their committment sounds laudable. I've avoided calling for tech help of any sort for years b/c of frustration with clueless techs (not always, but too often).
That's the right; but here it *sounds* like the companies here are also being jerks about it and treating their employees reprehensibly. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax, and one for which I am entirely unsympathetic.
Well over a million people disagree, in the States alone. Don't trouble yourself with improving our tastes. That you don't have the same preferences in "shit" means... nothing. Actually it's kind of a compliment.
Yes, everyone should be passive about changing the things they care about. Let it go. We're helpless. Drifting down the stream called life.
Hmm, that would eliminate half the posts on/. -- a real time-saver.
Really, the model here is the rescue of Star Trek for one more season, 30+ years ago. If no one says anything SciFi will only be sure that their judgment as to its declining popularity was correct (see the FAQ). I think the fan reaction is admirable in an age where people people complain about their TV shows, and politicians, and so on, without ever doing anything about it.
Now, if you don't like the dissensiom, "Move on." -- there are other stories to read.
I think it was the NYT that reported recently a guy who was entering the White House after a medical procedure and heart a faint electronic noise go off. He was instantly surrounded by the Secret Service which, given their limited sense of humor, is a pretty frightening thing. (I am proud that years ago I got one of them to smile.:)
I don't think he was strip-searched (he didn't work there but was a VIP of some sort).
Not at all. The spammer is the one actually engaged in something arguably illegitimate: sending spam. Whether harassment is appropriate or even legal is debatable. But the lawyer is simply being a lawyer. Lawyers are not required to enforce your values, least of all if you attempt to harass them into it. That's coercion, and anonymous at that.
And I wrote elsewhere, if you have don't like it, sent a letter or email communicating that. But activities designed to harass rather than inform, especially against 3rd parties, are not kosher -- and will end up damaging the anti-spam cause.
I understand you're being tongue-in-cheek at the end, and the only point I'd make is that "rights" does not have a narrow technical definition you suggest. Of course on has a right to a legal defense, and a long list of other paramount rights, but the freedom to conduct your livelihood without harrassment is no less a right. Certainly that's the exact core of the dispute many of us have with spam in the first place. Retaliating in kind against the spammer is one thing, doing the same to someone who is possibly facilitating the spammer is another. Should we go after the spammer's landlord, bank, hairdresser....
Yeah, it gets silly trying to draw a line, but it's important to consider whether to hide behind anonymous schemes at all. Some of the opt-in merchants being duped into this are probably legitimate companies that do respect people's privacy -- and they're losing money as someone else's weapon.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd cynically figure that employees hustle to delete or underreport spam that might show they're not using their machine solely for business, like they're supposed to most places. Then, of the charitable view, employees DO recognize they shouldn't be using the their work email for private pursuits and so don't share it. The average business doesn't need its employees roaming the internet, anyway, and there aren't many good reasons to be giving out your work email except to people who you do business with -- hopefully not spammers.
:)
At home, hey, we live closer to the edge. But I object to the stereotype of home users just not knowing how to deal with spam, like it's their fault. Perhasps they should be more careful, but nothing about being carelss makes one "deserve" spam (or fill in crime of your choice). It takes nontrivial sophistication to filter, and anyway stuff gets through. The filters are getting smarter, which is like building stronger locks to keep burglars out, rather than stopping the burglars from trying. Not that spam is anything but wonderful (someone here will say it is); how dare I imply it should be illegal.
Besides, spam can only grow -- it's not going away on its own.
Fair enough. In all honesty, I've always hated free speech law -- I'm OK with free speech, but the law and philosophy gets on my nerves for some reason.
... political sound truck rolling down the street at 3 AM ... last-minute defamation of a candidate in a close race ... and so on.
I only really wanted to draw out that your absolutist position is not now, nor has ever been, the rule here. Conceivably it could be, though I don't see how without trampling other concerns to out detriment. There will always be those tired examples such as yelling Fire! in a crowded theater, libel, and so on. The lack of a clear line between legal and illegal gives us this morass called free speech law. But even political speech can go too far, esp. with falsehoods.
I care a lot more about fair trials than fair elections; at least the latter don't usually get the loser executed. Of course, speech/press rights pop up in trials with regularity, as with the occasional need for secrecy. I'm not enthralled, for example, with the experience of cameras in the courtroom in the O.J. trial -- though i really do wish cameras were possible. Now Frontline wants cameras in a jury deliberation room for a capital trial in TX. The trial judge said OK, the appellate court said no, justify it first.
It's hard to come away from studying law with many absolutist positions. The reality tends to be balancing competing concerns rather than picking one over the other. If free speech undermines fairness or justice, there's going to be some limitation. Absolutist free speech would make penalties for libel impossible, a tremendous advantage to some people.
The sedition laws -- I don't know much of their history, but limiting "severe criticism" of the gov't sure would benefit one political candidate -- the incumbent! Of course, the sedition laws themselves may have been unconstitutional, though it appears the framers did not think so. Their conception of free speech may have been limited to the "core" of political speech, yet even further subordinated to the perceived need for state order.
So all this is about is what you want for yourself.
My concern was not whether this was in fact your opinion, rather whether you were weighing the interests of others. I'm sure I could find some examples of speech that you wouldn't want free
Odd thing to think about -- the route fair election interests may go is public financing of elections, which I like in some ways, but at bottom it seems to substitute a carrot for the stick.
Any restriction that prevents me, Dan Heskett, from saying anything I want about a candidate for office is unconstitutional. Period.
That's not the law, nor will it be, nor has it ever been. Never; if you think there was some halcyon period before Watergate, there was not -- check out the sedition laws. The campaign finance reform laws will doubtless be trimmed back by the courts -- and this quiet period is clearly the most suspect -- but an absolute right of free speech? Not a chance, and it would be a disaster anyway. I don't understand where you think you've acquired this clairvoyance to tell what is constitutional, but your vision is shared by few, and never has been by the Supreme Court. So all this is about is what you want for yourself.
Yep, i was wondering that, too. Except I wouldn't start off with a rant. :) Maybe give them a link here...
... serve. Good luck, and next time take your dollers elsewhere to a more ethical company ... that is, until they pull the same stunt ... but you won't be suckered twice, will you?
I agree this sort of game is offensive and damaging. They should try to make good for your reasonable understanding that you weren't sacrificing functionality in exchange for the upgraded features.
But customer service does occasionally
I avoid upgrades for as long as possible on the Luddite theory "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Isn't there something counterintuitive to say we don't like our government, so we're going to entrust them with more authority in our future elections? ;-)
;-)
I don't know much about Swiss politics but would hesitate to assume much could be transplanted easily. The general sentiment in American law is the cure for bad speech is more speech. The "quiet period" before elections in the new law is one of the more suspect provisions -- even the ACLU opposes it, and they do a lot of work towards fair elections along with the high profile stuff for free speech. A bunch of stuff got trimmed out of the much weaker Watergate-era laws on constitutional grounds, and they're breaking new ground here.
I don't know that justice was done on WWII for a long time, but won't pretend to be an expert (I intend to read more though). My source isn't CNN, BTW! Things like this Frontline report are closer to the truth -- and note the dates of recent $1+ billion settlements are very recent. I don't believe the investigations are merely political.
Asking the questions wasn't exactly what I had in mind; taking the blame and paying the reparations are. Wars are not particularly moral, period, but pointing to the guilt of someone else is context, but not a defense. Certainly the Americans have done quite a few things of their own, but it doesn't take a saint to smell something rotten. I don't care whether the Swiss are better or worse than others, but do that they come clean.
A lot got swept under the rug in the name of the Cold War, so there should be more interesting things surfacing over time. And I still don't want a cuckoo clock.
Free speech is not an absolute right. It has to play nice with our other rights.
We went through the 1st A. problem with the Watergate era laws. The thing that has to be evaluated in addition to the guarantee of free speech is the right we all have to untainted elections. Yes, these laws are clearly abridgements on some levels (much less so for corporations, which are not real persons).
A quibble: None of this is really content-based discrimination in the legal sense. Limiting all political ads is one thing, selectively banning "Vote for Joe" is.
I'm not endorsing the recent round of finance reform nor the entirety of Supreme Court law on freedom of speech, and frankly am waiting to see the whole thing played out in the courts -- it will be fascinating. I do emphasize that sometimes two unalienable rights bump into each other, as is the case with campaign corruption. Another example might be the right of the free press versus the right to a fair trial tension, or the right to free speech versus the right of others against breaches of the peace, or many others. A first-year law student will tell you are many exceptions to free speech, such as fighting words ("Wanna fight?!? Huh?!? Wanna fight, right now, right here?"), criminal conspiracy, libel, and so on -- note that these are instances of balancing one right against another, and are undeniably limitations on free expression.
Aside from the overwhelming constitutional problem, to ban advertising would be to forbid the candidate from speaking to the polity except through official state channels. Actually, that last idea scares the hell out of me. We do have some limitations on fundraising, much more so with McCain-Feingold, but the proposed level of state-enforced structure is disturbing to me, and most Americans.
:)
The other point I'd raise is: Do we want to be Switzerland? On the serious side, Switzerland failed to ask itself hard questions about its involvement in WWII, a war that it is of questionable honor to sit out, and far more questionable to remain neutral and even profit through laundering Nazi gold.
On the lighter side it the old joke: What has 500 years of Swiss peace brought us? The cuckoo clock.
The thing is the DMCA did curtail "fair use," by the back door as you say. It was just a sacrifice the industry was willing to make. :)
... that's opinion!); (2) Congress is aware that people are upset by the incursion into fair use. Re the partricularly draconian CBPTPA (rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?) see here.
It's only illegal (pay attention, this is the important part) to provide anyone else with tools or information that will allow them to do so!
I'm not so sure even self-help, which would work for few of us anyway, is permitted. The weird thing about the DMCA is that whereas it specifically disavows any curtailment of fair use, it also fails to provide adequate exceptions to the anti-circumvention measures. See this FAQ. It could be said this is a back door attack, or more likely sloppy legislative drafting. That's what I would argue to a court, and I'm sure has been, that Congress goofed and it's clear intent to preserve fair use should override its implicit repeal in the anti-circumvention section. That's a tough argument though, and would leave the court in the position of creating new language for the anti-circumvention checklist. They're going to leave that to Congress, I think, and anyway the courts should not be in the lawmaking business so broadly.
Fair use is mostly not a constitutional question. The problems would come, IMHO, when it runs up against the First Amendment, and that would about to near evisceration of fair use, itself a mere statute.
You are incorrrect there was no federal speed limit. There was, enforced via the Spending Clause. Yes, there is no Speeding Clause (who would have anticipated one, and it would have been thought a state matter anyway), but this exercise of power is valid. Believe me, a wide spectrum of laws are rooted in this power, it's nothing novel.
More to the point, the federal gov't was up front about what it was doing. Yes, people debated endlessly whether this was appropriate policy. I imagine it was challenged constitutionally. Note that the rule was defeated politically.
The rest is just policy. And the game's not over becuase (1) the courts have not finished deciding what all those clauses in the DMCA mean (e.g., "showing that the prohibition has a substantial adverse effect on noninfringing uses of a particular class of works") -- which in the 2600 case was kind of untenable, IMHO
I'm not trying to contradict you in every way I can -- you are right in law and principle in general -- rather this is an area of law that interests me. From my inexpert opinion, the EFF has some good evenhanded orientation materials on the content, litigation, and public opinion fight of these different initiatives.
Finally, boycott is possible and perhaps morally compelled. For example, a LOT of people are used to the idea of ripping their own music CD's, and will go WTF when they realize that's gone. Civil disobedience is a possible, too, but I think too many people are simply stealing for their own convenience. Those who commit civil disobedience must be prepared to go to jail for it. Is fair use a good enough reason for a felony conviction? Between CD and lobbying Congress, the latter is the better choice for me. I mean, this is so far about entertainment and only one form of it.
Again, I'm not sure evn your own cracking is OK, and even if it is almost none of us will have access to the tools. I really wouldn't want to ask others to break the law and risk serious legal trouble to help me, even if they're willing. That's probably their civil disobedience choice to make, unless they're profiting, in which case they're mostly garden-variety criminals.
The LoC survey deadline comes up in a few days, there's a place to start.
No, he literally phoned it in, or so some posts thought. Bill's not a computer guy. Try reading the other posts next time. :)
And if it was emailed -- you do realize that's a nonliteral expression? (Sorry, some people here are painfully literal.)
A better interview -- and emailed in, I'm sure.
I agreed with his reasosn, but added that nothing in fair use here authorizes breaking the law. There is no priority given a "more established" (older?) law. Fair use is merely an exemption from copyright law.
Stealing is not civil disobedience, and violates plain old copyright law anyway. If you don't like the product don't buy it, there is no more powerful message to a capitalist. I'm perplexed why some people justify not doing that -- nothing would send a clearer message to the companies or bring change faster.
Again, his reasons are all good ones; I personally agree. I don't like the DMCA, and for that matter I don't like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. But there's no reason for breaking these selfish laws but selfishness, a desire to have the product and boycott it, too.
Books are available in other and, IMHO, superior forms. Our local library has even started offering free online access to eBooks.
I'm not trying to be contentious, just arguing for the moral high ground.
As a member of the legal system, I'm quite sure your blind hatred is misplaced. I have known many fine attorneys, and I encourage you to get to know some of them, and to learn more about this "screwed up" legal system of ours. One thing a lot of people don't realize is that 95% of lawyers don't go anywhere near a courtroom or sue anyone.
Even the worst slimeball deserves the benefit of legal counsel. It is one of the strengths of our society that we don't condone the vigilante justice that may give you warm fuzzy feelings but has been used to justify everything down to lynchings. Don't bother to share your opinion of those.
Aside from that, I won't bite on your troll. I know better.
Yep, for various independent reasons. There's no intent to break the law, the affected copyright holders couldn't possibly care about interfering with their vendor trying to enforce their rights, the copying of illegal "cracked" copies is germane to their lawsuit, and, believe it or not, it's probably fair use. :)
The DMCA doesn't kick in so far as I know -- these are just plain text files.
I think you're blending "if the technology in use was obsolete or had known faults that prevent legitimate access" together with "a fault with the anti-circumvention software that causes it to fail to protect against new cirvumvention tools." The first is an example of a valid licensee losing access; the latter, simply progress in cracking tools. ... if I understand you right ...
You give a lot of good reasons -- that people shouldn't buy e-books. Not reasons that they should break the law to get the terms they wanted in the first place.
The analogy to burglar tools is off, as you note, but it's right in the sense of identifying the cracking tools as something with legitimate and illegitimate uses. It seems likely that they will be trying the Betamax defense, the key case for this sort of thing.
There's absolutely no legal difference between digital and analog. Both can be (mis)used to violate copyright.
The thing that bugs the copyright holders is that digital copies are immortal and copy without loss. They raised a ruckus over DAT, and wanted some sort of built-in copyproofing, like you could only make one copy or whatever. So this may be what you're thinking of -- they fear digital more.
Kudos. I gotta remember to come to you when I need some sarcatic irony for something. :) (Er, but will people get it? I guess the last line is a giveaway.)
No sooner do I write what I wrote, so I notice that of course there is a page dedicated to Boston, cited from the very helpful NYC reference. Should've figured! Other pages for othe cities abound. I only thought this was an obscure interest. :)
Isn't the net cool? For bringing us information like this that we really, really need? Well, beats watching sitcoms.
I know of one abandoned station on the "T" -- the old Harvard stop -- and think there may be another. It's an odd thing to glimpse in the tunnels. I can only imagine how much dirt, dust, and grime collects over the years. The bus-like Green line, which is a bit like an amusement park ride as it winds it's way under the city, has some very interesting views when, as often happens, the driver has to jump out the door to kick some ancient signal over that's preventing passage.
:) (A couple of those bridges, for example.)
Speaking of relics, the big dig (multibillion $ replacement of the main artery with tunnels) brought up all sort of oddities, such as hollowed-out tree trunks used as sewers in the 18th century. The mysteries that stir beneath.
Surely the Chicago L, Paris Metro, and so on share these features. And, given the nature of the web where one person's trivia is another's lifelong obsession, I'm sure the info is out there, somewhere.
Thanks for the NYC cite. NYC has all sorts of interesting things buried there.... And I can't help but say there are a lot of public works in the city that are not abandoned -- and should be.
I've been glad to here a bunch of people stick up for Farscape here. I was starting to worry it was the most obscure show in the universe. I also think it is clearly the anti-Trek -- all that is technological replaced by the biological. Thank goodness.
And, of course, it is now cancelled. The SciFi FAQ citied elsewhere is at least a balanced appraisal of their decision. I don't think some of their assumptions hold up, however; the time slot in particular irritated me. Friday night is about the weakest in the week. But this won't be the first time a network has chosen tripe over substance.
BellSouth employees will not be allowed to lend a hand in any official capacity
It is important to be cautious in drawing many conclusions from a single press account. As everyone knows, sometimes the press does a mediocre job.
The key word is "official" -- the company should and must control its employees' official activities, because they are then acting as representatives of the company. This is standard business law. True, the company would get credit for the good things the reps did in their spare time, but it would also get the blame or, worse, monetary liability.
So the employees shouldn't do it if told not to. That might be dumb business logic for the company, but who knows, is is their call. Assuming the reps were doing a good jobs and not generating complaints, their committment sounds laudable. I've avoided calling for tech help of any sort for years b/c of frustration with clueless techs (not always, but too often).
That's the right; but here it *sounds* like the companies here are also being jerks about it and treating their employees reprehensibly. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax, and one for which I am entirely unsympathetic.
PS. Farscape is shit. Flush it away
... nothing. Actually it's kind of a compliment.
Well over a million people disagree, in the States alone. Don't trouble yourself with improving our tastes. That you don't have the same preferences in "shit" means
Yes, everyone should be passive about changing the things they care about. Let it go. We're helpless. Drifting down the stream called life.
/. -- a real time-saver.
Hmm, that would eliminate half the posts on
Really, the model here is the rescue of Star Trek for one more season, 30+ years ago. If no one says anything SciFi will only be sure that their judgment as to its declining popularity was correct (see the FAQ). I think the fan reaction is admirable in an age where people people complain about their TV shows, and politicians, and so on, without ever doing anything about it.
Now, if you don't like the dissensiom, "Move on." -- there are other stories to read.
I think it was the NYT that reported recently a guy who was entering the White House after a medical procedure and heart a faint electronic noise go off. He was instantly surrounded by the Secret Service which, given their limited sense of humor, is a pretty frightening thing. (I am proud that years ago I got one of them to smile. :)
I don't think he was strip-searched (he didn't work there but was a VIP of some sort).
Your logic is failed here.
Not at all. The spammer is the one actually engaged in something arguably illegitimate: sending spam. Whether harassment is appropriate or even legal is debatable. But the lawyer is simply being a lawyer. Lawyers are not required to enforce your values, least of all if you attempt to harass them into it. That's coercion, and anonymous at that.
And I wrote elsewhere, if you have don't like it, sent a letter or email communicating that. But activities designed to harass rather than inform, especially against 3rd parties, are not kosher -- and will end up damaging the anti-spam cause.
I understand you're being tongue-in-cheek at the end, and the only point I'd make is that "rights" does not have a narrow technical definition you suggest. Of course on has a right to a legal defense, and a long list of other paramount rights, but the freedom to conduct your livelihood without harrassment is no less a right. Certainly that's the exact core of the dispute many of us have with spam in the first place. Retaliating in kind against the spammer is one thing, doing the same to someone who is possibly facilitating the spammer is another. Should we go after the spammer's landlord, bank, hairdresser....
Yeah, it gets silly trying to draw a line, but it's important to consider whether to hide behind anonymous schemes at all. Some of the opt-in merchants being duped into this are probably legitimate companies that do respect people's privacy -- and they're losing money as someone else's weapon.