Re:forging sender address
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
How do you equate a desire to not have your personal life broadcast to the world with a desire to get bombarded with unwanted, bandwidth stealing, trash?
Spam senders have to be anonymous to thrive. If there were no such thing as anonymity, then spam would die very quickly.
Please note that I am not defending spam. I am merely commenting upon an oddity of human emotion--to hate one thing (spam) and love another (privacy), even though both of these things depend upon the existence of a common source (anonymity).
Re:forging sender address
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why isn't this the same crime as handing someone an ID card which says you are someone you are not?
While I hate spam as much as the next guy, this is not the same thing. Spam with modified headers is like somebody calling you up and saying their in Oregon when they're really in Nevada. That's not illegal, nor should it be.
Your analog is more like forging (or stealing) secret PGP keys.
BTW, I've always thought it funny that/. folks are so against spam, yet they're all for anonymity on the net. Weird.
Re:How early can you drop?
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
8th grade dropout? How early can you drop?
In some places it's age, not grade, that determines whether or not you can decide to drop out. Also, if this guy is from as rural a place as he claims, it's possible the age was very low.
Re:1-2 percent?
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If he's sending 240 million emails a day and getting 1-2 percent return, even if he only make a few dollars off each sale that's a profit in the order of billions a year. Do you get the feeling he's lying to the senate?
No. "Response" and "sale" are clearly two different things. Of the 1-2% responses, probably less than 1% of those (i.e.,
If companies realized that, there would be no deterrent to breaking the GPL, and mass disobediance could follow. And, as the RIAA can tell you, you can't sue everyone for copyright infringement.
STD DISCLAIMER: IANAL
There are several ways damages could be assessed:
Actual damages: Although the source code was "free", it was only free on the condition that modified code would also be free. Using simple logic, the contrapositive of this statement is that if the modified code is not free, then the original code is also not free. A figure could be determined based on the number of developers that worked on the project times the average number of hours each developer donated to the project.
Punitive damages: Any money OpenTV may have made from the software could be determined to go to the FSF since the license was broken. This type of damages are the ones usually associated with huge amounts awarded by runaway juries -- you know, a million dollars for spilling hot coffee on yourself and crap like that.
GPL grants exceptions to copyright, which the government says is on all creative material by default. If you don't "agree" to the GPL, you end up with normal copyright, so you can do less with the software (ie you cannot redistribute it at all). For this reason it is irrelevant whether you agree or disagree with it. This is the big difference between the GPL and most EULAs and the reason GPL might be legal while EULA is illegal.
A license is a license, no matter what. The GPL has allowances and it has restrictions, just like EULAs have allowances and restrictions. Just because someone feels those allowances are "acceptable" doesn't mean that the terms of the license shouldn't be disclosed prior to purchase of the software.
The view is that you should assumme a box of software is copyrighted.
Only if it says it is.
The GPL is then like a gift certificate you find in the box that says you can do a few more things than you expected.
Again, the GPL is a license. Whether or not it's less restrictive than you thought (which is very subjective -- are you purporting to know what millions of consumers think they can do with something after they buy it? I'm sure there are many varied answers), a license (which is essentially a contract) should be disclosed PRIOR to purchasing the product in order for it to be binding.
It does not matter if you find that gift certificate or not. If you don't find the gift certificate you would assumme you cannot copy the code at all, and therefore you would not break the GPL.
Again, I'm glad you know what I assume. I do not make that assumption. I assume that I have a fair use right to copy and modify things, DMCA notwithstanding. While I might assume that I cannot redistribute it, others may not.
You cannot break the GPL without also breaking US copyright laws.
That's purely theoretical.
Now if the government repealed copyright, so that all things you aquire are copyable unless you sign some sort of NDA when you aquire it, then the GPL would have to be rewritten to be a contract, and it would be the same as a EULA. But for now it is different.
What would be the "right" ruling? I'd be happy to see one that says that clickwrap and eulas are not enforcable, that no contract was created by the act of clicking your mouse over a group of pixels that say "I agree". What about others?
I personally feel that if you can read a license before you open (i.e., unwrap or download) and install a piece of software, then it is certainly valid as a binding agreement. HOWEVER, if you can't read it until you've already purchased, opened (again, unwrapped or downloaded), and began installing it, then it should not be valid as a binding agreement. This, to me, is plain commonsense--you shouldn't be held responsible for a commitment you didn't know about before agreeing to it.
Since the GPL is readily available, and I would venture to guess that most GPL'd products are labeled clearly as such on their website and/or boxes, it should be binding (there may be some instances where, due to how they are packaged, some things such as certain linux distros that are sold in Best Buy would not meet this criteria, and I would have to say in those cases the GPL should not be valid).
Wrong. Choice C: It's a trade secret, like the formula for Coke Cola, which can be protected against publication essentially forever. And there are legal consequences -- strong ones -- against anyone who reveals it.
So what happens when a trade secret is no longer a secret? There has to be some sort of legal precedent. Do they just try to shut up pandora's box again, or what?
First, is CSS patented? I mean, it's gotta either be patented or be in the public domain, right? Is there another choice I'm missing?
Anyway, assuming it is patented, then the patent is up in 20 years, right? So, once the patent is up, who can legally argue that you broke the decryption?
On the other hand, how do you show that breaking CSS has substantial non-infringing use?
Long term: Someday, presumably (yes, I'm making a big assumption), all the crap Hollywood puts out on DVD now will be in the public domain, at which point if it is still illegal to break CSS, then it will essentially be illegal to access public domain materials! (Actually, this could potentially happen now as well.)
Short term: You're assuming that somebody is recording DVD-2-DVD -- however, it may be that I do not have a DVD writer yet (which in fact I don't). I may then want to backup my movies to SVCD or some other format. Backing up my DVD to a different medium is just as legitimate (i.e., non-infringing) as backing it up to the same medium.
unless they shut down P2P networks, which have already been ruled in court (Grokster) as non-copyright-infringing
Not quite. It's been ruled that the software used to create these networks has significant uses that are non-infringing, and that the software maker cannot reasonably held liable for infringement of copyright perpetuated by software users.
Having said that, I agree with what (I think) your point is--to wit, that DVD copying should be legitimate, legal, and fair in many instances.
Once this happens the game will be over and MS will have to *totally* re-invent themselves - another product release won't save them.
Right, just like the MPAA re-invented themselves when people wanted to play DVDs on their linux boxen; or like the RIAA re-invented themselves when people wanted to download music.
Unfortunately, monopolies don't see new technology and an smaller customer base as a chance to redefine their strategies. Rather, they use it as a chance to flex their muscle--both market and political--to force the public to do what they want. Microsoft's involvement in the TCPA shows that they already know the threat of their demise and are taking preemptive steps to demolish that threat (cf. Bush's preemptive steps to demolish the "threat" of Iraq).
Personally I'm not a fan of "Come with me", Puff Daddy+Jimmy Page's remake of Led Zepplin's song "Cashmere", but at least it had the original Artist's approval.
Uh, I think you mean "Kashmir" (as in the country) not "Cashmere" (as in the fabric).
Just because they did the research means nothing because they would not have been able to do it in the first place without government grants. I think they could care less for the odd million research grant considering we're talking about 100s of millions here.
I was perhaps over-generalizing in my initial post. Of course, R&D depends on funding, wherever it comes from, and each drug would have to be analyzed separately. I found a pretty good source on U.S. Government Role in Health Care R&D. Saying that, however, there are quite a few pharmaceutical projects that rely (or have relied) heavily on government grants.
I think Novartis usually posts about 15 to 20% gross margin, meaning they could lower their prices somewhat, but price gouging they aren't. Not as badly as people like MS at least.
[testimony by an accused gangster] "Yes, your honor, I've broken some people's kneecaps, roughed 'em up a little, but at least I ain't killed nobody like Jimmy the Weasel."
Saying, "Hey, those people over there break the law more than I do" is not a valid argument for the accused's innocence.
However, while there are places like SquareTrade [squaretrade.com] that remove feedback, I still find eBay's policy of NOT removing libellous comments irresponsible at best.
You go on to say that you have a several feedback items that are negative, yet simply being "negative" does not mean it is "libellous". If somebody was not happy with your service, for whatever reason, they are fully entitled to let others know why. If I go to a restaurant and I think the food sucks, I'm gonna tell my friends the food sucks, no matter how many other people may like it. That's not libel; that's opinion.
Also, you have to remember that most people are working off only one experience, or at best a few experiences, with a particular seller on eBay. If that one experience is bad, then that taints their relationship with that particular seller. If that's the case, and if they then post negative feedback, there's no reason to call that feedback "libel". It's just an opinion.
You are already talking YEARS and you're nowhere near selling the product, this is all expense and no promise of reward because at any time you could find a flaw and the whole project goes belly up.
You forgot to mention that many of these expenses are paid for by millions of taxpayer dollars. Why should a pharmaceutical company be the sole financial beneficiary of tax-funded research? Just because they did the research means nothing because they would not have been able to do it in the first place without government grants.
Additionally, there's the moral aspect of it. Musicians buy instruments, etc., blah, blah, blah -- but the musician's "product" isn't something that could save the lives of millions of people (philosophical arguments about music aside). Pharmaceutical companies make exactly that type of product--i.e., drugs that can save lives. This kind of information should be shared with the public, not hidden away and legally trapped so that the bottom line stays favorable for a handful of pharmaceutical executives.
A defensive patent like this stops an unscrupulous company from filing future patents built upon this discovery. If this knowledge was just made available in the public domain, then a small variation/incremental improvement could legally be patented. Right now, this can't be done without licensing the information from the current patent holder, which seems unlikely given their political stance.
Just out of curiosity, what happens if the patent is rejected? Would then "small variation/incremental improvements" still be patentable?
Seems to me like rejecting this patent would be the best thing -- then the information would stay in the public domain, and a good precedent would be set for not allowing viruses to be patented.
FTA:
A Canadian patent lawyer said it could take at least a year before any legal decision is made on who has the rights to the SARS virus.
Perhaps the answer is -- ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INFECTED!
Seriously, you can't have rights to a virus. Besides the fact that 1) it's already been created (prior art) and 2) viruses don't care about laws and such. I mean, seriously, what would you do if you owned the rights to a virus -- sue everyone who got sick from it?
"Yes, your honor, he caught my virus. I'm asking for both punitive and compensatory damages due to his *cough* alleged *cough* illness."
When voters are effected by this stuff, and when they are effected enough so that they get angry, matters like this will suddenly get the attention they deserve. So long as lobbyists and campaign contributors are the only ones making noise, there won't be anything reasonable coming out of our politicians.
The problem is, will voters even realize the root cause? Take the following scenario for example: Mom has Tivo; it works fine, until one day it stops working. Mom says, "Stupid technology -- damn thing don't work." She goes to Best Buy. The Best Buy rep tells her that she needs to buy [insert name of MPAA approved PVR] -- because it "works much better than Tivo". Mom buys MPAA approved product, it works, and she's suddenly happy. She now loves Big Brother, despite the fact that Big Brother was the one who made the problems for her in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Spam senders have to be anonymous to thrive. If there were no such thing as anonymity, then spam would die very quickly.
Please note that I am not defending spam. I am merely commenting upon an oddity of human emotion--to hate one thing (spam) and love another (privacy), even though both of these things depend upon the existence of a common source (anonymity).
While I hate spam as much as the next guy, this is not the same thing. Spam with modified headers is like somebody calling you up and saying their in Oregon when they're really in Nevada. That's not illegal, nor should it be.
Your analog is more like forging (or stealing) secret PGP keys.
BTW, I've always thought it funny that /. folks are so against spam, yet they're all for anonymity on the net. Weird.
In some places it's age, not grade, that determines whether or not you can decide to drop out. Also, if this guy is from as rural a place as he claims, it's possible the age was very low.
No. "Response" and "sale" are clearly two different things. Of the 1-2% responses, probably less than 1% of those (i.e.,
STD DISCLAIMER: IANAL
There are several ways damages could be assessed:
A license is a license, no matter what. The GPL has allowances and it has restrictions, just like EULAs have allowances and restrictions. Just because someone feels those allowances are "acceptable" doesn't mean that the terms of the license shouldn't be disclosed prior to purchase of the software.
Only if it says it is.
Again, the GPL is a license. Whether or not it's less restrictive than you thought (which is very subjective -- are you purporting to know what millions of consumers think they can do with something after they buy it? I'm sure there are many varied answers), a license (which is essentially a contract) should be disclosed PRIOR to purchasing the product in order for it to be binding.
Again, I'm glad you know what I assume. I do not make that assumption. I assume that I have a fair use right to copy and modify things, DMCA notwithstanding. While I might assume that I cannot redistribute it, others may not.
That's purely theoretical.
You have not shown that it is different.
I personally feel that if you can read a license before you open (i.e., unwrap or download) and install a piece of software, then it is certainly valid as a binding agreement. HOWEVER, if you can't read it until you've already purchased, opened (again, unwrapped or downloaded), and began installing it, then it should not be valid as a binding agreement. This, to me, is plain commonsense--you shouldn't be held responsible for a commitment you didn't know about before agreeing to it.
Since the GPL is readily available, and I would venture to guess that most GPL'd products are labeled clearly as such on their website and/or boxes, it should be binding (there may be some instances where, due to how they are packaged, some things such as certain linux distros that are sold in Best Buy would not meet this criteria, and I would have to say in those cases the GPL should not be valid).
Just my $.02
So what happens when a trade secret is no longer a secret? There has to be some sort of legal precedent. Do they just try to shut up pandora's box again, or what?
First, is CSS patented? I mean, it's gotta either be patented or be in the public domain, right? Is there another choice I'm missing?
Anyway, assuming it is patented, then the patent is up in 20 years, right? So, once the patent is up, who can legally argue that you broke the decryption?
Just some thoughts.
Long term: Someday, presumably (yes, I'm making a big assumption), all the crap Hollywood puts out on DVD now will be in the public domain, at which point if it is still illegal to break CSS, then it will essentially be illegal to access public domain materials! (Actually, this could potentially happen now as well.)
Short term: You're assuming that somebody is recording DVD-2-DVD -- however, it may be that I do not have a DVD writer yet (which in fact I don't). I may then want to backup my movies to SVCD or some other format. Backing up my DVD to a different medium is just as legitimate (i.e., non-infringing) as backing it up to the same medium.
Not quite. It's been ruled that the software used to create these networks has significant uses that are non-infringing, and that the software maker cannot reasonably held liable for infringement of copyright perpetuated by software users.
Having said that, I agree with what (I think) your point is--to wit, that DVD copying should be legitimate, legal, and fair in many instances.
....a bunch of JavaScript memory hogging arrays will need to be loaded each time I visit Amazon.com.
So how many poor unpaid interns do you think the RIAA has monitoring /. every day, logging all the various complaints and attacks?
I'm surprised they haven't sued /. yet. Of course, they would have no grounds, but that hasn't stopped them in any of their other pursuits.
Poor bastards.....
Go to Distributed Proofreaders and help put some public domain books online!
Right, just like the MPAA re-invented themselves when people wanted to play DVDs on their linux boxen; or like the RIAA re-invented themselves when people wanted to download music.
Unfortunately, monopolies don't see new technology and an smaller customer base as a chance to redefine their strategies. Rather, they use it as a chance to flex their muscle--both market and political--to force the public to do what they want. Microsoft's involvement in the TCPA shows that they already know the threat of their demise and are taking preemptive steps to demolish that threat (cf. Bush's preemptive steps to demolish the "threat" of Iraq).
Uh, I think you mean "Kashmir" (as in the country) not "Cashmere" (as in the fabric).
There is no such thing as guaranteed security.
I was perhaps over-generalizing in my initial post. Of course, R&D depends on funding, wherever it comes from, and each drug would have to be analyzed separately. I found a pretty good source on U.S. Government Role in Health Care R&D. Saying that, however, there are quite a few pharmaceutical projects that rely (or have relied) heavily on government grants.
[testimony by an accused gangster] "Yes, your honor, I've broken some people's kneecaps, roughed 'em up a little, but at least I ain't killed nobody like Jimmy the Weasel."
Saying, "Hey, those people over there break the law more than I do" is not a valid argument for the accused's innocence.
You go on to say that you have a several feedback items that are negative, yet simply being "negative" does not mean it is "libellous". If somebody was not happy with your service, for whatever reason, they are fully entitled to let others know why. If I go to a restaurant and I think the food sucks, I'm gonna tell my friends the food sucks, no matter how many other people may like it. That's not libel; that's opinion.
Also, you have to remember that most people are working off only one experience, or at best a few experiences, with a particular seller on eBay. If that one experience is bad, then that taints their relationship with that particular seller. If that's the case, and if they then post negative feedback, there's no reason to call that feedback "libel". It's just an opinion.
You forgot to mention that many of these expenses are paid for by millions of taxpayer dollars. Why should a pharmaceutical company be the sole financial beneficiary of tax-funded research? Just because they did the research means nothing because they would not have been able to do it in the first place without government grants.
Additionally, there's the moral aspect of it. Musicians buy instruments, etc., blah, blah, blah -- but the musician's "product" isn't something that could save the lives of millions of people (philosophical arguments about music aside). Pharmaceutical companies make exactly that type of product--i.e., drugs that can save lives. This kind of information should be shared with the public, not hidden away and legally trapped so that the bottom line stays favorable for a handful of pharmaceutical executives.
Just out of curiosity, what happens if the patent is rejected? Would then "small variation/incremental improvements" still be patentable?
Seems to me like rejecting this patent would be the best thing -- then the information would stay in the public domain, and a good precedent would be set for not allowing viruses to be patented.
Perhaps the answer is -- ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INFECTED!
Seriously, you can't have rights to a virus. Besides the fact that 1) it's already been created (prior art) and 2) viruses don't care about laws and such. I mean, seriously, what would you do if you owned the rights to a virus -- sue everyone who got sick from it?
"Yes, your honor, he caught my virus. I'm asking for both punitive and compensatory damages due to his *cough* alleged *cough* illness."
Damn, that's a good idea ... I'll get my lawyers on it right away....
Oh, wait...all my lawyers are jackals....
The problem is, will voters even realize the root cause? Take the following scenario for example: Mom has Tivo; it works fine, until one day it stops working. Mom says, "Stupid technology -- damn thing don't work." She goes to Best Buy. The Best Buy rep tells her that she needs to buy [insert name of MPAA approved PVR] -- because it "works much better than Tivo". Mom buys MPAA approved product, it works, and she's suddenly happy. She now loves Big Brother, despite the fact that Big Brother was the one who made the problems for her in the first place.
What exactly is considered public and private information anymore?