"Honestly, Apple has not attempted to deceive anyone on this issue, and they make it clear that service is with AT&T only. If you don't want to be locked-in with AT&T, then don't buy an iPhone. Period. If you still must absolutely have a class-action lawsuit, then do it against the Steve Jobs backdating accounting scandal."
If, hypothetically speaking, it comes out that Apple deliberately engineered the update to brick modded phones while claiming that this was just a possible outcome that might happen despite no effort on their part to make it happen, will you take back your claim that Apple has not attempted to deceive anyone?
"I don't understand how someone can share their AP without fear of someone doing something nefarious over their connection. I'd be more willing to participate once there is more precedence over who's going to get busted (not me)."
If this were the United States, you would be perfectly safe (theoretically) so long as you comply with the DMCA safe harbor provisions. However, doing that is a pain in the ass. I think you're probably safe anyway, since you're just extending someone else's network and they are still responsible for access control and so on.
However, there is certainly a risk that you might have to fend off a lawsuit regardless of how clear it is that you are in the right. I wonder if BT is going to assume that risk on behalf of their customers. Seems like it would make sense since they already assume this risk for the access they extend to these same people.
If you look at the features that they break the rules for and introduce into service packs, you'll find they're generally features that benefit Microsoft in some way. For example, XP SP3 will likely include a Windows Media player update. That helps Microsoft push their media technologies (and media server software) over competitors. The new product activation "features", well, that's pretty obvious.
The "network access protection" features are just more face-saving because the services themselves are so insecure. It's cheaper and easier to add more firewalling than to fix the services so that they're secure. So it's not a new feature so much as a substitute for bug fixes Microsoft is not willing to do.
"Because the file is not destroyed as it is sent, the server is make an additional copy so the servers owner is make an addition copy for distribution each time the file is downloaded. That is why the Rafiaa goes after the distributer, they are always liable. If I download a file lets say of the Doors song the I have on a scratched up vinyl, I could argue that its legal for me to have the file as a backup for the vinyl copy and a jury might buy it."
The server's owner is not downloading. If the server's owner duplicates during a download, then downloading is not duplicating. Uploading may be duplicating, but downloading is not.
The RIAA has a serious problem. They can only identify people who make one or more songs available for download to others. They cannot tell when and how many times a particular user actually transfers a song to another user.
If the act that violates their copyright is the person who makes a song available for others to download each time another person downloads a song, then the RIAA has to identify these transfers. This is essentially impossible for them to do.
"Your argument might hold water if the server offering the file for download actually erased the file as the packets left the machine."
I don't see how you can possibly make that point. There are two main reasons that argument supports my position rather than weakens it.
First, whether or not the server offering the file erases its copy or not is completely under the control of the server. So to say that the receiver is making a copy because of something the server doesn't do defies reason. If it's the fact that there's two copies on the server that makes it a violation, then the violation occurs where the copy is made.
Second, if the server did delete its copy, and that would support my argument, that would meanthat the fact that only one copy results would be a defense. However, on the receivers end, only one copy does result. They get one set of packets, produce one file on disk, and discard the packets. So the recipient just gets one copy and keeps one copy. How is that duplication?
Sorry, my response misunderstand your argument. Somehow I thought you were saying that having to give up the passphrase violates rights against self-incrimination or rights to remain silent. I see that wasn't what you were saying. Not sure how I misread you, maybe I was thinking of another post of something. Maybe I need more sleep.
As far as I can see, and I'm not a lawyer, this new section of RIPA breaches the right to silence and against self-incrimination - which have been judged in the courts to be intrinsic aspects of a 'fair trial'. This is in addition to reversing the burden of proof.
It seems to me that anyone banged up for 'forgetting' their pass phrase would have excellent grounds for appeal, and overturning the law. And let's face it, this morally corrupt, authoritarian Labour government has had it's nefarious laws overturned before.
It's trivial for a clever prosecutor to avoid this. He simply gives you transactional immunity for giving him the password/passphrase. He can still use the encrypted information against you, since he got that from a search or lawful seizure. He doesn't want to use the password/passphrase against you.
The only way this limits him is he can't argue that the data was yours because you knew the passphrase. But he probably can prove its yours already since he seized it on your computer or it had your name on it or whatever.
I think this is complete and utter nonsense. Any real space currency would be mathematical, cryptographically verifiable, and easily converted from electronic to physical form on demand. We rarely use physical money here just on Earth because it's impractical to store it, protect it from theft or damage, or move it from place to place fast enough.
I'm not defending the RIAA, I'm defending the jury's verdict. It's reasonable if you agree with the RIAA on the facts. You may disagree with the idea of statutory damages, but the jury didn't think that up.
Think about this for a moment: assume for the moment that the RIAA deserves compensation for every copy of a song downloaded without the copyright holder's consent. How would you suggest they get it? They can't sue every single distributor for the value of the infringement because there is no reliable way to calculate it. The only reasonable solution is to sue those they catch for far more than their individual damages cause.
This is really necessary to discourage intentional torts. If you damage someone for $20, and you do intentionally and knowingly, knowing there's only a 1 in a 1,000 chance you'll get caught, only a $20,000 penalty when you get caught will discourage a rational person. We need laws that discourage rational people from intentionally committing torts.
"This was a civil trial, not a criminal court. It isn't the job of a civil trial to deter crime."
No, it is not the job of a civil trial to deter crime, but to deter intentional torts. Google "punitive damages" some time and come back when you have a clue what you're talking about.
This was a cases where the jury believed that an intentional tort had been committed. You can certainly disagree with the jury on the facts, but if you agree with the jury on the facts, the award is entirely appropriate. Awarding sufficiently high damages to deter the conduct is entirely appropriate.
"Also, downloading a CD is duplicating it, Einstein."
If that were true, you would need a license to listen to the radio. Downloading is *not* duplicating. There is one incoming stream of data that becomes one file. Duplication is a "one becomes more than one" process.
Suppose you get caught stealing $10 in such a way that the odds of you getting caught were one in ten thousand. How large a fine do you think is enough to ensure that everyone doesn't steal because it is rational to do so?
The penalty has to be enough to make the harm irrational.
If you make $10 by harming someone and the odds of you getting caught are one in a thousand, the penalty if you do get caught has to be $10,000 just to make it not rational to cheat them.
We would have a lot more bank robberies if all we made the robbers do is give the money back.
"From what I gathered FTFA, anyone can sniff the network and grab the passphrase when the IT guys do the unattended automated reboots."
Umm, no. What kind of idiot would send a passphrase over a network unencrypted? Competent IT personnel use passwords on remote machines dozens of times a day, every day, and they never send a password in the clear. Every remote access tool from ssh to PCAnywhere provides encryption. Do you think they use telnet?!
Actually, it won't help you in that case. How would you know to turn it on before the power went out? And if you leave it on all the time, there's no point in running an encryption product at all.
"Companies like monster cable rely on ignorance to stay in business."
Compared to Pear, their customers are geniuses.
Re:business and government are run by aliens?
on
GAO Report Slams FCC
·
· Score: 1
Right, but let's not forget that these are also the people most heavily affected by the proposed legislation. It might benefit the public as a whole for $1 billion to be taken from every person with a net worth of over $3 billion and divided equally among the American people, but surely the billionaires have a right to have their objections heard. That.01% of the population deserves half the government ears on a proposal like this because they're the victims.
"That's just insanity in the guise of an authoritative-sounding quote. How did the "state" give Microsoft its monopoly power to force PC vendors not to carry competitors' OS products?"
While I don't agree with the argument, I do know it. It goes like this: The State has these things called copyright and patents that grant companies monopolies. How long would Microsoft hold its position if not for the state-granted artificial property right?
But in any event, I don't agree with the argument because Microsoft was never a monopoly. The only way you could consider Microsoft to be a monopoly is to create a sufficiently narrow product category. Yes, Microsoft had a monopoly on desktop operating systems for PC-compatible computers. But you can turn almost any company into a monopoly by a sufficiently narrow product definition.
How frickin' stupid are you people?! Of course they're not liable. Why would they be?
For one thing, there's a law that says they're not liable. For another thing, there is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever why they would be. The whole "if you ever filter anything, you're liable for anything you don't filter" argument is obvious complete nonsense.
FedEx will stop a shipment if they have reason to suspect it contains child pornography. In what possible universe does this make them liable for a shipment that they don't know and have no reason to suspect contains child pornography?
Please present one argument that makes any kind of sense that would say that reserving the right to stop activity they do detect makes them liable for activity they do not detect. I bet you can't do it.
The idea that the scheduler should focus on processes rather than threads is one of those well-known wrong ideas that comes up all the time. The thinking is that it doesn't make sense to give twice as much processing time to a process just because it uses two threads. The thing is, does it make sense to give a job twice as much processing time just because it uses two processes rather than two threads?
There is no reason for the scheduler to treat a thread better or worse just because of which process it belongs to. There is simply no rational defense for this position.
The term "brick" doesn't imply that it's non-fixable. In fact, the term "brick" strongly implies a software defect that IS fixable, just not through the ordinary operation of the device. The term "brick" implies no physical damage, but a device that is as useful as a brick and cannot be recovered by following simple steps that a typical user could do.
Slashdot Mirror
"Honestly, Apple has not attempted to deceive anyone on this issue, and they make it clear that service is with AT&T only. If you don't want to be locked-in with AT&T, then don't buy an iPhone. Period. If you still must absolutely have a class-action lawsuit, then do it against the Steve Jobs backdating accounting scandal."
If, hypothetically speaking, it comes out that Apple deliberately engineered the update to brick modded phones while claiming that this was just a possible outcome that might happen despite no effort on their part to make it happen, will you take back your claim that Apple has not attempted to deceive anyone?
It doesn't void your warranty. Read up on Magnusson-Moss sometime.
Do you think Ford can say, "if you let anyone but our dealers do your oil changes, it voids your warranty"?
Nope. Not legal. Thanks for playing though.
"I don't understand how someone can share their AP without fear of someone doing something nefarious over their connection. I'd be more willing to participate once there is more precedence over who's going to get busted (not me)."
If this were the United States, you would be perfectly safe (theoretically) so long as you comply with the DMCA safe harbor provisions. However, doing that is a pain in the ass. I think you're probably safe anyway, since you're just extending someone else's network and they are still responsible for access control and so on.
However, there is certainly a risk that you might have to fend off a lawsuit regardless of how clear it is that you are in the right. I wonder if BT is going to assume that risk on behalf of their customers. Seems like it would make sense since they already assume this risk for the access they extend to these same people.
If you look at the features that they break the rules for and introduce into service packs, you'll find they're generally features that benefit Microsoft in some way. For example, XP SP3 will likely include a Windows Media player update. That helps Microsoft push their media technologies (and media server software) over competitors. The new product activation "features", well, that's pretty obvious.
The "network access protection" features are just more face-saving because the services themselves are so insecure. It's cheaper and easier to add more firewalling than to fix the services so that they're secure. So it's not a new feature so much as a substitute for bug fixes Microsoft is not willing to do.
"Because the file is not destroyed as it is sent, the server is make an additional copy so the servers owner is make an addition copy for distribution each time the file is downloaded. That is why the Rafiaa goes after the distributer, they are always liable. If I download a file lets say of the Doors song the I have on a scratched up vinyl, I could argue that its legal for me to have the file as a backup for the vinyl copy and a jury might buy it."
The server's owner is not downloading. If the server's owner duplicates during a download, then downloading is not duplicating. Uploading may be duplicating, but downloading is not.
The RIAA has a serious problem. They can only identify people who make one or more songs available for download to others. They cannot tell when and how many times a particular user actually transfers a song to another user.
If the act that violates their copyright is the person who makes a song available for others to download each time another person downloads a song, then the RIAA has to identify these transfers. This is essentially impossible for them to do.
"Your argument might hold water if the server offering the file for download actually erased the file as the packets left the machine."
I don't see how you can possibly make that point. There are two main reasons that argument supports my position rather than weakens it.
First, whether or not the server offering the file erases its copy or not is completely under the control of the server. So to say that the receiver is making a copy because of something the server doesn't do defies reason. If it's the fact that there's two copies on the server that makes it a violation, then the violation occurs where the copy is made.
Second, if the server did delete its copy, and that would support my argument, that would meanthat the fact that only one copy results would be a defense. However, on the receivers end, only one copy does result. They get one set of packets, produce one file on disk, and discard the packets. So the recipient just gets one copy and keeps one copy. How is that duplication?
Sorry, my response misunderstand your argument. Somehow I thought you were saying that having to give up the passphrase violates rights against self-incrimination or rights to remain silent. I see that wasn't what you were saying. Not sure how I misread you, maybe I was thinking of another post of something. Maybe I need more sleep.
It's trivial for a clever prosecutor to avoid this. He simply gives you transactional immunity for giving him the password/passphrase. He can still use the encrypted information against you, since he got that from a search or lawful seizure. He doesn't want to use the password/passphrase against you.
The only way this limits him is he can't argue that the data was yours because you knew the passphrase. But he probably can prove its yours already since he seized it on your computer or it had your name on it or whatever.
I think this is complete and utter nonsense. Any real space currency would be mathematical, cryptographically verifiable, and easily converted from electronic to physical form on demand. We rarely use physical money here just on Earth because it's impractical to store it, protect it from theft or damage, or move it from place to place fast enough.
What idiots!
I'm not defending the RIAA, I'm defending the jury's verdict. It's reasonable if you agree with the RIAA on the facts. You may disagree with the idea of statutory damages, but the jury didn't think that up.
Think about this for a moment: assume for the moment that the RIAA deserves compensation for every copy of a song downloaded without the copyright holder's consent. How would you suggest they get it? They can't sue every single distributor for the value of the infringement because there is no reliable way to calculate it. The only reasonable solution is to sue those they catch for far more than their individual damages cause.
This is really necessary to discourage intentional torts. If you damage someone for $20, and you do intentionally and knowingly, knowing there's only a 1 in a 1,000 chance you'll get caught, only a $20,000 penalty when you get caught will discourage a rational person. We need laws that discourage rational people from intentionally committing torts.
"This was a civil trial, not a criminal court. It isn't the job of a civil trial to deter crime."
No, it is not the job of a civil trial to deter crime, but to deter intentional torts. Google "punitive damages" some time and come back when you have a clue what you're talking about.
This was a cases where the jury believed that an intentional tort had been committed. You can certainly disagree with the jury on the facts, but if you agree with the jury on the facts, the award is entirely appropriate. Awarding sufficiently high damages to deter the conduct is entirely appropriate.
"Also, downloading a CD is duplicating it, Einstein."
If that were true, you would need a license to listen to the radio. Downloading is *not* duplicating. There is one incoming stream of data that becomes one file. Duplication is a "one becomes more than one" process.
Suppose you get caught stealing $10 in such a way that the odds of you getting caught were one in ten thousand. How large a fine do you think is enough to ensure that everyone doesn't steal because it is rational to do so?
The penalty has to be enough to make the harm irrational.
If you make $10 by harming someone and the odds of you getting caught are one in a thousand, the penalty if you do get caught has to be $10,000 just to make it not rational to cheat them.
We would have a lot more bank robberies if all we made the robbers do is give the money back.
I don't see how they can claim damages from you downloading a CD. It's the person who duplicated it that cost the damage, not you.
"From what I gathered FTFA, anyone can sniff the network and grab the passphrase when the IT guys do the unattended automated reboots."
Umm, no. What kind of idiot would send a passphrase over a network unencrypted? Competent IT personnel use passwords on remote machines dozens of times a day, every day, and they never send a password in the clear. Every remote access tool from ssh to PCAnywhere provides encryption. Do you think they use telnet?!
Actually, it won't help you in that case. How would you know to turn it on before the power went out? And if you leave it on all the time, there's no point in running an encryption product at all.
PRAT = Pace, rhythm, and timing
How a cable can have any of these three things is a mystery to me. I guess I'm a little bit too rational.
"Companies like monster cable rely on ignorance to stay in business."
Compared to Pear, their customers are geniuses.
Right, but let's not forget that these are also the people most heavily affected by the proposed legislation. It might benefit the public as a whole for $1 billion to be taken from every person with a net worth of over $3 billion and divided equally among the American people, but surely the billionaires have a right to have their objections heard. That .01% of the population deserves half the government ears on a proposal like this because they're the victims.
"That's just insanity in the guise of an authoritative-sounding quote. How did the "state" give Microsoft its monopoly power to force PC vendors not to carry competitors' OS products?"
While I don't agree with the argument, I do know it. It goes like this: The State has these things called copyright and patents that grant companies monopolies. How long would Microsoft hold its position if not for the state-granted artificial property right?
But in any event, I don't agree with the argument because Microsoft was never a monopoly. The only way you could consider Microsoft to be a monopoly is to create a sufficiently narrow product category. Yes, Microsoft had a monopoly on desktop operating systems for PC-compatible computers. But you can turn almost any company into a monopoly by a sufficiently narrow product definition.
How frickin' stupid are you people?! Of course they're not liable. Why would they be?
For one thing, there's a law that says they're not liable. For another thing, there is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever why they would be. The whole "if you ever filter anything, you're liable for anything you don't filter" argument is obvious complete nonsense.
FedEx will stop a shipment if they have reason to suspect it contains child pornography. In what possible universe does this make them liable for a shipment that they don't know and have no reason to suspect contains child pornography?
Please present one argument that makes any kind of sense that would say that reserving the right to stop activity they do detect makes them liable for activity they do not detect. I bet you can't do it.
Brilliant.
The idea that the scheduler should focus on processes rather than threads is one of those well-known wrong ideas that comes up all the time. The thinking is that it doesn't make sense to give twice as much processing time to a process just because it uses two threads. The thing is, does it make sense to give a job twice as much processing time just because it uses two processes rather than two threads?
There is no reason for the scheduler to treat a thread better or worse just because of which process it belongs to. There is simply no rational defense for this position.
I guess they don't teach either counting or spelling at Olin.
The term "brick" doesn't imply that it's non-fixable. In fact, the term "brick" strongly implies a software defect that IS fixable, just not through the ordinary operation of the device. The term "brick" implies no physical damage, but a device that is as useful as a brick and cannot be recovered by following simple steps that a typical user could do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick_(electronics)