"AOL reaps millions and millions of dollars each year in advertising revenue because it has this captive audience of subscribers who are bombarded with these ads"
This says it all. Even going back to 1994 when the users didn't have the option to turn off the ads (allegedly - I dont' use AOL, so I don't know for sure) they were still free to change ISPs. But the lawer still calls the audience captive.
So all they are saying is that if you don't pay what you owe them, they will take the name away form you. This seems reasonable as long as you are notified of it before hand. Anyone hear of a "Repo Man?"
I don't see why this is a "crappy legal precedent." Take any Weird Al song, Saturday Night Live commercial or other parodies. The names are not exactly the same as a trademark or copyritten work, but there are changes in spelling or words. This just seems to be an extension of the regualar law applied to the web.
It's very easy to advocate ballance or limited copyrights when you're not the one shelling out millions of dollars trying to create a useful product only to have groups of pirates stealing your work. I'd like to see someone suggest a real solution of balance which would 1) Not be Draconian to legal consumers 2)be fair to the Companies' rights and 3) somehow prevent the pirates from illegally stealing software.
MR. GOLD: That's not good enough, because, among other things, I don't want to wake up and see this transcript in the newspaper tomorrow, and I have reasons to believe that that is a possibility, but I won't get into that thoroughly.
Hmm. Paranoia? Maybe he reads slashdot.
Seriously, is there any legal reason for the confidentiality discussion?
Development of a single type of attachment mechanism for all surfaces may not be feasible, with this in mind a hybrid approach such as seen in nature will be employed, claws for softer materials and adhesives for other surfaces.
Following nature's model, I doubt that any one animal can scale every suface. Even though "geckos are able to crawl up and over almost any obstacle," this implies that even they cannot climb over some things (though not elaborated). I suppose, the more one machine can do the better.
Forget them. If this is a community where all the members participate, we all should get options:). Heck, tie it on Karma points - the higher the Karma the more options you get. A great way to end the "First Post" comments. I suppose it would give a new meaning to the term "Karma Whore" though.
While people might lease cars and the like, they still have the option to buy. Of course this is because the seller is willing to relinquish ownership over the item. You have similar phenomena with the web. You don't own most software because the companies are only selling you a license. Were they to sell you the copy outright, you would own it. Therefore, there are similarities, but nothing all that unusual or original.
It could be a control thing. I remember a few years ago Bill Watterson going after anyone with a website remotely connected to Calvin and Hobbes. He either shut them down or incorporated them with his official site.
Practically, it also may serve to block negative web sites as well.
I fail to see the difference between libel in print or on the web. If this person were to write the same things in a newspaper as an article, he could be sued just the same and no one would think twice. Just because it's on the web doesn't mean this is a whole new area with a whole new set of consequences. People who spread libel outght to be held accountable.
At some point it may become aiding and abetting a crime. In this case they are not only telling people where to get illegal MP3s (a print statement) but also providing with a convinient hyperlink which actually takes them there. Granted, this is could only be a crime if a person actually downloads an illegal file.
Not to say I agree with this, but I'm assuming this is RIAA's logic.
As much as I would like to see completly free internet access, I am skeptical as to how "free" this will be. Two possibilities for evil (and money) would be 1) making this ad based 2) the government could start tracking (and possibly selling) users' transmissions.
If you have an automated defense system, I don't see as how that is "taking the law into your own hands," you are just protecting your system against intuders and ensuring they won't come back. If you wait a while and then go after their server, that seems more like revenge IMHO.
Once certain problem you have is potential blacklisting. That is, someone could start planting false negative data about you and therfore prevent you from making any on-line purchases.
This still would be useful for some sites, especially dealing in high-risk trade and could prevent credit card losses.
However, like all technology, this could be used for good or evil.
They also mention keyboard which are supposed to be wireless. Will the keyboard be keyless and programmable as well? That I'd like to see: smash the corner 3 times for an "E." Heck, make the whole thing with voice recognition and get rid of all those pesky periphirals.
I'd like to see them put together a full working program, but print various parts of the code on different cans. When they start selling the stuff, the "users" can buy lots of cans and might wind up with a new server or something. Maybe even have a "greatest hits" open source and print something like Apache on the cans.
Slashdot Mirror
"AOL reaps millions and millions of dollars each year in advertising revenue because it has this captive audience of subscribers who are bombarded with these ads"
This says it all. Even going back to 1994 when the users didn't have the option to turn off the ads (allegedly - I dont' use AOL, so I don't know for sure) they were still free to change ISPs. But the lawer still calls the audience captive.
So all they are saying is that if you don't pay what you owe them, they will take the name away form you. This seems reasonable as long as you are notified of it before hand. Anyone hear of a "Repo Man?"
Also check out this Wired article and a href="
Goodhew added that C# allows "developers (to) access any hardware and software."
Yes!!! We can take over MS with their own language!
I don't see why this is a "crappy legal precedent." Take any Weird Al song, Saturday Night Live commercial or other parodies. The names are not exactly the same as a trademark or copyritten work, but there are changes in spelling or words. This just seems to be an extension of the regualar law applied to the web.
It's very easy to advocate ballance or limited copyrights when you're not the one shelling out millions of dollars trying to create a useful product only to have groups of pirates stealing your work. I'd like to see someone suggest a real solution of balance which would 1) Not be Draconian to legal consumers 2)be fair to the Companies' rights and 3) somehow prevent the pirates from illegally stealing software.
MR. GOLD: That's not good enough, because, among other things, I don't want to wake up and see this transcript in the newspaper tomorrow, and I have reasons to believe that that is a possibility, but I won't get into that thoroughly.
Hmm. Paranoia? Maybe he reads slashdot.
Seriously, is there any legal reason for the confidentiality discussion?
Development of a single type of attachment mechanism for all surfaces may not be feasible, with this in mind a hybrid approach such as seen in nature will be employed, claws for softer materials and adhesives for other surfaces.
Following nature's model, I doubt that any one animal can scale every suface. Even though "geckos are able to crawl up and over almost any obstacle," this implies that even they cannot climb over some things (though not elaborated). I suppose, the more one machine can do the better.
Forget them. If this is a community where all the members participate, we all should get options :). Heck, tie it on Karma points - the higher the Karma the more options you get. A great way to end the "First Post" comments. I suppose it would give a new meaning to the term "Karma Whore" though.
While people might lease cars and the like, they still have the option to buy. Of course this is because the seller is willing to relinquish ownership over the item. You have similar phenomena with the web. You don't own most software because the companies are only selling you a license. Were they to sell you the copy outright, you would own it. Therefore, there are similarities, but nothing all that unusual or original.
It could be a control thing. I remember a few years ago Bill Watterson going after anyone with a website remotely connected to Calvin and Hobbes. He either shut them down or incorporated them with his official site.
Practically, it also may serve to block negative web sites as well.
Ban them all and let slashdot sort them out.
I fail to see the difference between libel in print or on the web. If this person were to write the same things in a newspaper as an article, he could be sued just the same and no one would think twice. Just because it's on the web doesn't mean this is a whole new area with a whole new set of consequences. People who spread libel outght to be held accountable.
At some point it may become aiding and abetting a crime. In this case they are not only telling people where to get illegal MP3s (a print statement) but also providing with a convinient hyperlink which actually takes them there. Granted, this is could only be a crime if a person actually downloads an illegal file.
Not to say I agree with this, but I'm assuming this is RIAA's logic.
As much as I would like to see completly free internet access, I am skeptical as to how "free" this will be. Two possibilities for evil (and money) would be 1) making this ad based 2) the government could start tracking (and possibly selling) users' transmissions.
People who intentionally spread a computer virus face a seven-year prison sentence and a $15,000 fine in Pennsylvania
Is this for viruses started in Pennsylvania or viruses which end up there? I'd like to see other state's reaction to this if there is a distinction
If you have an automated defense system, I don't see as how that is "taking the law into your own hands," you are just protecting your system against intuders and ensuring they won't come back. If you wait a while and then go after their server, that seems more like revenge IMHO.
Once certain problem you have is potential blacklisting. That is, someone could start planting false negative data about you and therfore prevent you from making any on-line purchases.
This still would be useful for some sites, especially dealing in high-risk trade and could prevent credit card losses.
However, like all technology, this could be used for good or evil.
They also mention keyboard which are supposed to be wireless. Will the keyboard be keyless and programmable as well? That I'd like to see: smash the corner 3 times for an "E." Heck, make the whole thing with voice recognition and get rid of all those pesky periphirals.
I'd like to see them put together a full working program, but print various parts of the code on different cans. When they start selling the stuff, the "users" can buy lots of cans and might wind up with a new server or something. Maybe even have a "greatest hits" open source and print something like Apache on the cans.