We did this in our business - created a vb app which popped up a dialog box saying 'You just breached the network terms of use.' and logged the currently logged in username and IP address to a database.
We then emailed that to everyone in the company, from an outside address (and specifically allowed it in the email filters to simulate a worst case scenario), and sat back and watched who clicked and who didn't. It was quite enlightening.
Most Christians consider there to be a vast difference between the concepts of 'Christian Church' and 'the Christian Religion'. One is an actual body, the other not. You can practice Christianity without ever becoming involved with, or part of, a church.
Until I moved across the country and switched to Virgin, I had absolutely no trouble with O2 ADSL, who never contacted me for excessive usage, issued me a static IP address for a few extra quid a month, and never restricted any of my ports. My latency was low, my achieved transfer rate was high (consistently > 4MBit on their up-to-8MBit service, but that is of course highly dependent on your individual location), the two times I had to talk to a techie I was treated as another techie and the problem was solved much quicker (on one occasion I was asked 'how much do you know about computers?', and when I answered 'a lot, I'm a software developer and I run a companies infrastructure', he just asked me what I thought the problem was, checked it out, agreed with me and fixed it.) and I have never had a billing problem.
No, Im not putting a spin on it - this is *precisely* distribution, regardless of the fact that you seemingly do not like it. Tenenbaum willingly and knowingly had the files available on multiple p2p networks, his computer was active in making and sending copies of works to third parties with his knowledge. Thats distribution.
They aren't controlling the downstream sale of the product, they are controlling access to a related service, which does not contravene the first sale doctrine.
The issue came up in this exact case when the 'fair use' argument was put forward - the Judge made a comment on the issue as part of her rejection of that argument:
Gertner concludes, "While the Court recognizes that not every unauthorized download would represent a lost sale, it seems clear that some portion of paying consumers would shift to free downloads if this activity were deemed a fair use. Based on this finding, the private purpose of this use, the substantiality and lack of transformation, and those additional factors the Court is entitled to consider, the Court holds that Tenenbaum's alleged infringement was not a fair use."
That 'logic' falls apart when you realise that copyright law does not cover just the work as a whole, but also the work as a part. Which makes all seeders liable.
"This is me. I'm here to answer," said Tenenbaum. "I used the computer. I uploaded and downloaded music. This is how it is. I did it," he testified before a packed courtroom, whose spectators included an all-star cast of Harvard Law School copyright scholars: Lawrence Lessig, John Palfrey, and Jonathan Zittrain.
"Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings" on which the record labels brought suit, asked the plaintiffs' attorney Tim Reynolds.
"Yes," said Tenenbaum.
NOTHING about "distribution" at all. So if he actually did use that term, as you claim, please provide proof. Or consider yourself fully ousted as nothing more than a poor troll, and possibly a shill as well, exactly as NYCL has named you.
Uhm, right there in the first paragraph he says 'I uploaded and downloaded music'. Thats distribution right there.
The problem is, the $21 of actual damages assumes no breach of distribution rights, which can be very lucrative and worth a lot more than 30 cents per song. The case for the award being excessive in this case can certainly be made without trying to misrepresent the situation as you and NYCL have both done.
And your argument concerning who is responsible for the breach of copyright goes hard against established copyright cases.
The biggest thing in the NYCL summary that made me roll my eyes was the '35 cents lost profits' statement - the Tannenbaum case was not about him taking songs without paying for them (in which case it would be 35 cents there abouts), it was about him distributing songs, which is a whole different ball game when it comes to potential profits on sales of distribution rights (and is certainly not 35 cents).
NYCL has tried to put this kind of spin on these cases several times before - misrepresent the issue at hand in order to make the punishment seem excessive (when its perfectly possible to make it seem excessive without the misrepresentation...)
There is nothing stopping you developing a free and open app for the iPhone - there is no law against charging for distribution or the development tools, so Apple is not doing anything wrong in that regard.
While I agree with Gates, I find it ironic that he is the one making the statement, considering real netbooks (at least those fulfilling the original definition of the term, low price and tech) can't be found anymore, as they weren't really capable of running Microsoft's OS's
Is that the whole, entire definition of what a netbook is? Or just yours?
BT is mandated by OFTCOM (Office of Fair Trading - Telecommunications) to allow competitive and fair access to the last mile and termination space in exchanges, so any competitor that is willing to supply their own infrastructure can supply the same services to the end user without the worry of the last mile.
With regard to the Virgin Media fiber - its laid by whomever Virgin contracts it to be laid, and they dig their own trenches. They made a nice mess several years ago cabling through my town, but not cabling the houses (they did every major road, and put in junction boxes - they just didn't take it to each house). But in surrounding towns they dug up to the house themselves.
95% of the modchips out there are trivial to detect. They'll have stupid stuff like custom commands that can be used to identify them, and broken or flat out incorrect implementations of standard commands. Seriously. They aren't even trying.
Why should they go out of their way to try? Why should they have to chase down every single different mod chip, find a way to identify it and implement that way? Why should they have to go to this effort?
The hardware as sold is in an expected configuration - if you are going to run it outside of the expected configuration in any way, then why are you expecting updates or addons to work at all?
What makes you think that the 'people' haven't already 'got it' and simply don't care? You do realise that to a lot of people, having ultimate control over something isn't an issue - I myself own an iPhone, and I have lots of apps on it. I am a software developer by trade, and have several publicly available private projects - but the perceived lack of 'openness' of the iPhone doesn't bother me in the slightest as its a tool that functions as well as I need it to. I made a choice when I bought into it.
The solution is to threaten to leave Video Furnace unless they amend their licensing contract or give you a way to convert to an open format that the professors can post where ever they want -- once you have the raw video, upload it to YouTube or Vimeo.
Surely the 'solution' would be for the customer, in this case the ACLU, to buy the correct licensing - not threaten the license holder...
Your suggestion smacks of 'wahhh I didnt buy what I should have but give it to me anyway!'
IMHO the entire concept of an 'orphaned work' is a fiction designed to push this agenda - a copyright holder shouldn't have to make themselves known to anyone, regardless of the reason.
I agree that shorter copyright durations should be granted, with a clearer expiration line for works, but the entire line of reasoning regarding 'orphaned works' should not be one enshrined in law anywhere.
The inevitable future being what? That of one where anyone can circumvent copyright (or indeed any other property law by extension) by making an agreement with a body that purports to represent an entire industry, but has no agreement with most of those supposedly represented?
Slashdot Mirror
We did this in our business - created a vb app which popped up a dialog box saying 'You just breached the network terms of use.' and logged the currently logged in username and IP address to a database.
We then emailed that to everyone in the company, from an outside address (and specifically allowed it in the email filters to simulate a worst case scenario), and sat back and watched who clicked and who didn't. It was quite enlightening.
Most Christians consider there to be a vast difference between the concepts of 'Christian Church' and 'the Christian Religion'. One is an actual body, the other not. You can practice Christianity without ever becoming involved with, or part of, a church.
Until I moved across the country and switched to Virgin, I had absolutely no trouble with O2 ADSL, who never contacted me for excessive usage, issued me a static IP address for a few extra quid a month, and never restricted any of my ports. My latency was low, my achieved transfer rate was high (consistently > 4MBit on their up-to-8MBit service, but that is of course highly dependent on your individual location), the two times I had to talk to a techie I was treated as another techie and the problem was solved much quicker (on one occasion I was asked 'how much do you know about computers?', and when I answered 'a lot, I'm a software developer and I run a companies infrastructure', he just asked me what I thought the problem was, checked it out, agreed with me and fixed it.) and I have never had a billing problem.
For all practical purposes, people are much more likely to find a remote exploit for your web server or database than the kernel or ssh.
Which is why OpenBSD includes a security audited httpd (Apache 1.something fork) in the base, right alongside sshd.
No it isn't - websites have to specifically request usage of Chrome Frame, and I have yet to come across one that does...
No, Im not putting a spin on it - this is *precisely* distribution, regardless of the fact that you seemingly do not like it. Tenenbaum willingly and knowingly had the files available on multiple p2p networks, his computer was active in making and sending copies of works to third parties with his knowledge. Thats distribution.
They aren't controlling the downstream sale of the product, they are controlling access to a related service, which does not contravene the first sale doctrine.
Gertner concludes, "While the Court recognizes that not every unauthorized download would represent a lost sale, it seems clear that some portion of paying consumers would shift to free downloads if this activity were deemed a fair use. Based on this finding, the private purpose of this use, the substantiality and lack of transformation, and those additional factors the Court is entitled to consider, the Court holds that Tenenbaum's alleged infringement was not a fair use."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/judge-rejects-fair-use-defense-as-tenenbaum-p2p-trial-begins.ars
That 'logic' falls apart when you realise that copyright law does not cover just the work as a whole, but also the work as a part. Which makes all seeders liable.
"This is me. I'm here to answer," said Tenenbaum. "I used the computer. I uploaded and downloaded music. This is how it is. I did it," he testified before a packed courtroom, whose spectators included an all-star cast of Harvard Law School copyright scholars: Lawrence Lessig, John Palfrey, and Jonathan Zittrain.
"Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings" on which the record labels brought suit, asked the plaintiffs' attorney Tim Reynolds.
"Yes," said Tenenbaum.
NOTHING about "distribution" at all. So if he actually did use that term, as you claim, please provide proof. Or consider yourself fully ousted as nothing more than a poor troll, and possibly a shill as well, exactly as NYCL has named you.
Uhm, right there in the first paragraph he says 'I uploaded and downloaded music'. Thats distribution right there.
The problem is, the $21 of actual damages assumes no breach of distribution rights, which can be very lucrative and worth a lot more than 30 cents per song. The case for the award being excessive in this case can certainly be made without trying to misrepresent the situation as you and NYCL have both done.
And your argument concerning who is responsible for the breach of copyright goes hard against established copyright cases.
The biggest thing in the NYCL summary that made me roll my eyes was the '35 cents lost profits' statement - the Tannenbaum case was not about him taking songs without paying for them (in which case it would be 35 cents there abouts), it was about him distributing songs, which is a whole different ball game when it comes to potential profits on sales of distribution rights (and is certainly not 35 cents).
NYCL has tried to put this kind of spin on these cases several times before - misrepresent the issue at hand in order to make the punishment seem excessive (when its perfectly possible to make it seem excessive without the misrepresentation...)
There is nothing stopping you developing a free and open app for the iPhone - there is no law against charging for distribution or the development tools, so Apple is not doing anything wrong in that regard.
While I agree with Gates, I find it ironic that he is the one making the statement, considering real netbooks (at least those fulfilling the original definition of the term, low price and tech) can't be found anymore, as they weren't really capable of running Microsoft's OS's
Is that the whole, entire definition of what a netbook is? Or just yours?
Seriously, who makes up these rules?
Fortunately, you are wrong.
BT is mandated by OFTCOM (Office of Fair Trading - Telecommunications) to allow competitive and fair access to the last mile and termination space in exchanges, so any competitor that is willing to supply their own infrastructure can supply the same services to the end user without the worry of the last mile.
With regard to the Virgin Media fiber - its laid by whomever Virgin contracts it to be laid, and they dig their own trenches. They made a nice mess several years ago cabling through my town, but not cabling the houses (they did every major road, and put in junction boxes - they just didn't take it to each house). But in surrounding towns they dug up to the house themselves.
Surely that depends on who is making up the version numbering? Both Firefox and Linux use minor release numbers to introduce major changes...
95% of the modchips out there are trivial to detect. They'll have stupid stuff like custom commands that can be used to identify them, and broken or flat out incorrect implementations of standard commands. Seriously. They aren't even trying.
Why should they go out of their way to try? Why should they have to chase down every single different mod chip, find a way to identify it and implement that way? Why should they have to go to this effort?
The hardware as sold is in an expected configuration - if you are going to run it outside of the expected configuration in any way, then why are you expecting updates or addons to work at all?
What makes you think that the 'people' haven't already 'got it' and simply don't care? You do realise that to a lot of people, having ultimate control over something isn't an issue - I myself own an iPhone, and I have lots of apps on it. I am a software developer by trade, and have several publicly available private projects - but the perceived lack of 'openness' of the iPhone doesn't bother me in the slightest as its a tool that functions as well as I need it to. I made a choice when I bought into it.
Can you mention Tesco on your in-store product advertising, including the labeling, when stocking it in Walmart? Why is this any different?
Partial copying for some uses is fine under fair use.
The solution is to threaten to leave Video Furnace unless they amend their licensing contract or give you a way to convert to an open format that the professors can post where ever they want -- once you have the raw video, upload it to YouTube or Vimeo.
Surely the 'solution' would be for the customer, in this case the ACLU, to buy the correct licensing - not threaten the license holder...
Your suggestion smacks of 'wahhh I didnt buy what I should have but give it to me anyway!'
Libraries aren't producing extra copies of works, they are operating under the first sale doctrine and nothing more.
IMHO the entire concept of an 'orphaned work' is a fiction designed to push this agenda - a copyright holder shouldn't have to make themselves known to anyone, regardless of the reason.
I agree that shorter copyright durations should be granted, with a clearer expiration line for works, but the entire line of reasoning regarding 'orphaned works' should not be one enshrined in law anywhere.
The inevitable future being what? That of one where anyone can circumvent copyright (or indeed any other property law by extension) by making an agreement with a body that purports to represent an entire industry, but has no agreement with most of those supposedly represented?