Can you substantiate this claim? It seems that it would be patently illegal to ask for payment to play music that the RIAA members dont have copyright on.
Re:I may be just dumb, but...
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
I gotta say it takes some balls to even try and press this idea. Imagine a private company being able to control the distribution of the law? Even in my wildest darkest conspiratorial nightmares have I never dreamed of such a thing. Secret legislation passed into law. Only way to see if is by corporate permission. Imagine environmental passed in secret under NDA. You can never find out if the corporation that wrote them is abiding because its under copyright. Imagine (more) asinine consumer criminalization laws under secret copyright. You will no longer be allowed to know what you are being charged for.
Well we know hat everyone is worried about the immediate flaws with these systems, and should anyone be surprised. This is par for the course of, throw something together, make a happy fun sales pitch, have them buy it, and then fix the bugs on their dime while running up costs.
But that is not what I'm *really* worried about. What's got my knickers in a twist is that someone is going to get a cause of sour grapes.. and then there is going to be allegations of 'cyber-terrorist' hacking to undermine the US electoral system. I'm not even going to go into the more conspiratorial parts now. As of right now.. its a slow motion train wreck. I hope someone remembers this post when it happens. (or forgets it if it donest:)
It's yet another example of the wild-wild-west type environment that the Information Age is in now
Well the information age has become the age of the consumer, by default, is a criminal. So really the wild west analogy makes some sense here. If this current trend keeps up of "protecting" big business from all of their paranoid delusions there wont be anyone but 'criminals' left. We know full well that the RIAA/MPAA would ban what we know as 'fair use' in a heartbeat if it meant more sales. They wish to control sales, distribution and methods of consumption. Don't consume your music in fashion they want? You are a criminal.
Hehe I smell a poll question brewing in this post!
Who's website would you go to see if you knew it was defaced? * RIAA/MPAA * SCO * AOL * EMarketersAmerica.org * That other jackass spammer with the sports car in michigan? * Microsoft * the cowboy neal foot fetish extravangaza
*ahem* not that i condone this kind of activity, however if the announcement itself get at least a few lazy ass hack webmasters to move and do their damned jobs, then so be it.
Thing about the spirit of laws. There were laws already covering copyright infringement. And any one of them would cover what was "needed" but the dmca. Really copyright infringement isnt really a murky thing. and yet here we are.
or if you do keep away from MS, then how can you call them a monopoly?*)
That and your attempt to dodge about pi is irreverent. The court found MS to be an illegal monopoly. If you don't like it. well thats kinda too bad. You can say the sky is pink with yellow dots, but its not.
Anyway, I don't see how MS has the power to force a CD maker to unvoluntarily choose to not do business with others.
Because you missed the part where MS says the company signed a non-compete clause. See thats the whole thing with coerced, its an offer you cant refuse.
The shopping cart is a tool the vendor uses to check out customers, if the polices change when using the tool of the vendor this is fraudulent. Even if notification is given its still unethical as some places have no customer service to call. and if they do they are obliged to extend any online deal to any phone sales if the customers disagrees with the change in policy. This is effectively a privacy bait and switch.
that is a very good question. In NY I think codes vary from county to county as well as there may also be some state laws. You really need to check with a local govt code enforcement. However it has been recommend to me to use plenum if you wish to run inside of heating ducts, as they can get hot. You will want to avoid the insulation on the wiring breaking down and releasing toxins. I wouldn't worry about running along standard hot water baseboard heating though, there is usually enough play in the hole in the wall and hot water is only 212. You may want to worry if you have steam heat though. that gets much hotter. Now while network cable is low voltage and there is no danger you are going to electrocute yourself, that doesn't mean the building code people know any better:)
Well not only does this company not to seem to know WTF their contracts are, but they may end up with only one customer. If Microsoft has a product in every market, what are they going to be allowed to duplicate? Games? nope MS makes games. Utilities? Does MS sell any separately? Reference material? MS sells the encrata encyclopedia. Office productivity SW is out. OSes are out. Browsers are out. Home finance is out. Data bases, out. how restrictive is it?
As for the SCO bit, the case is currently not on trial, not in a court in australia, and there is no injunction.
I skimmed over the article and kinda looked bewildered when I saw that rack monster. From the look of this it kinda take the 'new' this old house stance instead of the 'old' this old house stance. That is to say, looks like they are doing new construction as opposed to a geeky retrofit.
Knowing your house plan is important as well as plan plan planning.
With DSL you have a bit of room to play. If possible (and environment permitting) I like to tap the phone line right where it comes into the house (usually the basement). Setting a nice shelf on the wall for your modem and (mandatory) router. A small 12" patch panel (larger if you want to do a phone retrofit). With Cable you are sometimes more tied to where the cable comes in, and thats not always the basement.
But planning is the key. Find where you want to be the heart of the network and try to run stuff there. If possible split the incoming broadband only once before the downlink device (modem).
Now comes the big question mark that hangs over most people's heads.. how to I do the jacks? Most people are just plain not familiar with the products in this category. There are several manufactures of this stuff I have experience, and happen to like the Panduit mini-com line of products. Most of the vendors have similar competing products. These jacks are not cheap. Try not to skimp and use low quality product. These are modular jacks that snap into not only the patch panel but also wall units that mount into standard electrical boxes (use the blue plastic ones please.. don't slice your data lines). The jacks are color coded and then snap together. You (almost) cant mess it up.
Now nearly all of your do-it-yourself people will not have a proper TDR (time domain reflectometer) to do exhaustive testing with. If you buy one of those 15 buck line continuity tester and if you use the (nearly) mistake proof jacks, you will probably be just fine for your updated geek home of tomorrow.
PS. Just because I like to my self I recommend that you run 2 lines if you are going to run one. The cable is cheap and you are already committed to the effort of running it.
PPS I'll leave the cable choice discussions up to other threads and the article. But if possible, match your jacks to the type of cable you choose.
I've also done thin-net installations, I can answer a few questions there if someone is a masochist:)
Well lets recap a couple of things, the Vivendi owned Blizzard has gone after bnetd and freecraft. Would this have happened if they weren't owned by a corporate monster? We will never know. By the same token, did these 4 guys leave because they got tired of being ground under the corporate boot? Well we may never know that either.
When yo look at someone's compiled code, you are seeing that which you were not meant to see.
What is it that you are not meant to see? The are distributing it, and yet they dont want you to see it?
Tim, while i can see you are trying to express something here, I think you need to get some more fully formed thoughts out.
Lets begin, you claim companies have NDAs to prevent people from seeing their 'code'. I can only assume you mean source code, as when you send a product out the door everyone gets to see the object code. Now if a competitor is disassembling a product they not only (usually) haven't seen the code but aren't under NDA. So the point is moot.
As for theft, well this is a really different thing than what is generally termed 'reverse engineering' If they were 'pure theft' they would change all the names and release it as their own product (which sadly does happen). However R.E. is meant to dissect the inner workings as to recreate the 'black box' if you will. This has been decided to be legal a bunch of times.. please see Compaq vs IBM (PC bios) and Connectix vs sony (playstation emulator).
Technically speaking yes.. disassembly would be 'for their own benefit', the benefit of making a compatible system. Familiarity with the terms it really vital here.
In this world the 'regulating' government bodies will call the regulated 'customers' (See mike powell head of the fcc) and consumer will be defacto criminals (see RIAA, MPAA etc)
I have coined a phrase for this, the high-tech dark age.
Please, email all of the other editors and malda@slashdot.org and petition for the removal of Anonymous Coward from the blahblah bling bling. If we work together, we can make this website yadda yadda yadda moomoo beep beep beep. (sarcasm)
"Revocation of corporate rights is revocation of individual rights in disguise. "
I'm afraid you are quite incorrect. The 'revocation of rights' for corporations as you call it does not infringe or revoke the rights of the individual. As, you have correctly stated, a corporation is an imaginary construct we are real people can but any or all the limitations on them as we deem fit. To raise a corporation to the level of 'being', that we afford actual people implies that corporations are the equal of said individuals. Thus making a corporation more than it is, or we, people, less than we are.
"By opposing corporate rights, Anticorporatists seek to deny rights to a specific group of individuals who hold views opposing their own: the representatives of corporations. Reborn in modern liberals, it is the age-old totatiltarian instinct to deny rights to those who think differently; Special rights for special classes, not equal rights for all."
All I can say is HUH? Im not quite sure when this became an 'anti-corporation' argument. And I haven not suggested denying rights to any individuals. People who represent corporations have all the rights as an individual has. Being part of a corporation does not grant them some new superset of rights or privileges. Might I remind you that your attempt to 'labelize' liberals as totalitarians is not only currently false but also historically. Generally speaking those who wants equal rights for all people don't usually end up becoming totalitarian dictators. If you are wishing to advocate equal rights for all fine. A corporation is not part of 'all', they are not real, they do not breathe, they do not eat. they do not bleed or have children. Its an abstract construct concocted by humans. Thus human have the final say about what the privileges and responsibilities we foist upon such entities. If you wish to advocate that a non-being has the same level of 'being-ness' as you do, feel free. I choose to think otherwise.
That is a very insightful question. However as I said corporations have privileges and not rights as individuals have.., but lets move on,
In a number of cases they are based on religious teaching or spiritual beliefs of (classical) right and wrong. However in civil society (as its commonly used), these rights are codified into law by agreement amongst the members of the society. The codification of these assists in avoiding a 'sliding scale' of compliance. This is, of course, sadly the ideal situation.
I am not sure if you goal was to take the polar opposite stance of the post you are replying to but you have made just as grievous errors. Let us begin.
You seem to imply that valuing one's customers is only a side effect of the best interests of the company (which your point seems to be is to make money). This is a terribly cynical POV, however is the the view most companies take. Perhaps on the other hand a company should have a goal of making profit but not have it be the blinding exclusive goal.
Point 2. I am not sure what book you got our definitions from but just generally one does not associate strong personal freedoms with Marxism and communism. Unless you are look only at the alleged 'anti- private business/ownership' angle. Of course both of those are in the theory. As we all know the practice of those philosophies turned out different. As for unions, well (again ideally) they are supposed to advocate the rights of the workers.
Instead of driveling on here let me sum up. I believe that businesses (corporations) should have no 'rights' in the sense that individuals have. Corporations are artificial entities. We as people with rights can grant on to them (corporations) privileges, that may mimic the rights an individual has. However with all privileges we stipulate the responsibilities that that one has to meet in order to keep those privileges. Thus a business can run and make money for its owners, pay its employees, while not gaining the illusion that it it entitled to the rights and actions of an actual human being.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you substantiate this claim? It seems that it would be patently illegal to ask for payment to play music that the RIAA members dont have copyright on.
I gotta say it takes some balls to even try and press this idea. Imagine a private company being able to control the distribution of the law? Even in my wildest darkest conspiratorial nightmares have I never dreamed of such a thing. Secret legislation passed into law. Only way to see if is by corporate permission. Imagine environmental passed in secret under NDA. You can never find out if the corporation that wrote them is abiding because its under copyright. Imagine (more) asinine consumer criminalization laws under secret copyright. You will no longer be allowed to know what you are being charged for.
Well we know hat everyone is worried about the immediate flaws with these systems, and should anyone be surprised. This is par for the course of, throw something together, make a happy fun sales pitch, have them buy it, and then fix the bugs on their dime while running up costs.
But that is not what I'm *really* worried about. What's got my knickers in a twist is that someone is going to get a cause of sour grapes.. and then there is going to be allegations of 'cyber-terrorist' hacking to undermine the US electoral system.
I'm not even going to go into the more conspiratorial parts now. As of right now.. its a slow motion train wreck. I hope someone remembers this post when it happens. (or forgets it if it donest:)
Umm this one was in fact fixed a long time ago by a checksum on all the packages.
It's yet another example of the wild-wild-west type environment that the Information Age is in now
Well the information age has become the age of the consumer, by default, is a criminal. So really the wild west analogy makes some sense here. If this current trend keeps up of "protecting" big business from all of their paranoid delusions there wont be anyone but 'criminals' left. We know full well that the RIAA/MPAA would ban what we know as 'fair use' in a heartbeat if it meant more sales. They wish to control sales, distribution and methods of consumption. Don't consume your music in fashion they want? You are a criminal.
I think lots of money for r&d should be pumped into this. Why? So that we can assist the future darwin award winners win faster.
Hell id pay for soemtont to write somethign that can autotranslate my bad typing into english.
My irc 'pals' have made me a verb to stand for typos.
Hehe I smell a poll question brewing in this post!
Who's website would you go to see if you knew it was defaced?
* RIAA/MPAA
* SCO
* AOL
* EMarketersAmerica.org
* That other jackass spammer with the sports car in michigan?
* Microsoft
* the cowboy neal foot fetish extravangaza
*ahem* not that i condone this kind of activity, however if the announcement itself get at least a few lazy ass hack webmasters to move and do their damned jobs, then so be it.
i can say with 100% certainty that my computer has never been infected via email. But then again I still use elm:)
Thing about the spirit of laws. There were laws already covering copyright infringement. And any one of them would cover what was "needed" but the dmca. Really copyright infringement isnt really a murky thing. and yet here we are.
*sigh* Personally I blame parker brothers for your lack of understanding.
or if you do keep away from MS, then how can you call them a monopoly?*)
That and your attempt to dodge about pi is irreverent. The court found MS to be an illegal monopoly. If you don't like it. well thats kinda too bad. You can say the sky is pink with yellow dots, but its not.
Anyway, I don't see how MS has the power to force a CD maker to unvoluntarily choose to not do business with others.
Because you missed the part where MS says the company signed a non-compete clause. See thats the whole thing with coerced, its an offer you cant refuse.
The shopping cart is a tool the vendor uses to check out customers, if the polices change when using the tool of the vendor this is fraudulent. Even if notification is given its still unethical as some places have no customer service to call. and if they do they are obliged to extend any online deal to any phone sales if the customers disagrees with the change in policy. This is effectively a privacy bait and switch.
that is a very good question. In NY I think codes vary from county to county as well as there may also be some state laws. You really need to check with a local govt code enforcement. However it has been recommend to me to use plenum if you wish to run inside of heating ducts, as they can get hot. You will want to avoid the insulation on the wiring breaking down and releasing toxins. I wouldn't worry about running along standard hot water baseboard heating though, there is usually enough play in the hole in the wall and hot water is only 212. You may want to worry if you have steam heat though. that gets much hotter. Now while network cable is low voltage and there is no danger you are going to electrocute yourself, that doesn't mean the building code people know any better:)
Well not only does this company not to seem to know WTF their contracts are, but they may end up with only one customer. If Microsoft has a product in every market, what are they going to be allowed to duplicate? Games? nope MS makes games. Utilities? Does MS sell any separately? Reference material? MS sells the encrata encyclopedia. Office productivity SW is out. OSes are out. Browsers are out. Home finance is out. Data bases, out. how restrictive is it?
As for the SCO bit, the case is currently not on trial, not in a court in australia, and there is no injunction.
Sounds kind of like using monopoly power for illegal restraint of trade.
I skimmed over the article and kinda looked bewildered when I saw that rack monster. From the look of this it kinda take the 'new' this old house stance instead of the 'old' this old house stance. That is to say, looks like they are doing new construction as opposed to a geeky retrofit.
Knowing your house plan is important as well as plan plan planning.
With DSL you have a bit of room to play. If possible (and environment permitting) I like to tap the phone line right where it comes into the house (usually the basement). Setting a nice shelf on the wall for your modem and (mandatory) router. A small 12" patch panel (larger if you want to do a phone retrofit). With Cable you are sometimes more tied to where the cable comes in, and thats not always the basement.
But planning is the key. Find where you want to be the heart of the network and try to run stuff there. If possible split the incoming broadband only once before the downlink device (modem).
Now comes the big question mark that hangs over most people's heads.. how to I do the jacks? Most people are just plain not familiar with the products in this category. There are several manufactures of this stuff I have experience, and happen to like the Panduit mini-com line of products. Most of the vendors have similar competing products. These jacks are not cheap. Try not to skimp and use low quality product. These are modular jacks that snap into not only the patch panel but also wall units that mount into standard electrical boxes (use the blue plastic ones please.. don't slice your data lines). The jacks are color coded and then snap together. You (almost) cant mess it up.
Now nearly all of your do-it-yourself people will not have a proper TDR (time domain reflectometer) to do exhaustive testing with. If you buy one of those 15 buck line continuity tester and if you use the (nearly) mistake proof jacks, you will probably be just fine for your updated geek home of tomorrow.
PS. Just because I like to my self I recommend that you run 2 lines if you are going to run one. The cable is cheap and you are already committed to the effort of running it.
PPS I'll leave the cable choice discussions up to other threads and the article. But if possible, match your jacks to the type of cable you choose.
I've also done thin-net installations, I can answer a few questions there if someone is a masochist:)
Well lets recap a couple of things, the Vivendi owned Blizzard has gone after bnetd and freecraft. Would this have happened if they weren't owned by a corporate monster? We will never know. By the same token, did these 4 guys leave because they got tired of being ground under the corporate boot? Well we may never know that either.
When yo look at someone's compiled code, you are seeing that which you were not meant to see.
What is it that you are not meant to see? The are distributing it, and yet they dont want you to see it?
Tim, while i can see you are trying to express something here, I think you need to get some more fully formed thoughts out.
Lets begin, you claim companies have NDAs to prevent people from seeing their 'code'. I can only assume you mean source code, as when you send a product out the door everyone gets to see the object code. Now if a competitor is disassembling a product they not only (usually) haven't seen the code but aren't under NDA. So the point is moot.
As for theft, well this is a really different thing than what is generally termed 'reverse engineering' If they were 'pure theft' they would change all the names and release it as their own product (which sadly does happen). However R.E. is meant to dissect the inner workings as to recreate the 'black box' if you will. This has been decided to be legal a bunch of times.. please see Compaq vs IBM (PC bios) and Connectix vs sony (playstation emulator).
Technically speaking yes.. disassembly would be 'for their own benefit', the benefit of making a compatible system. Familiarity with the terms it really vital here.
In this world the 'regulating' government bodies will call the regulated 'customers' (See mike powell head of the fcc) and consumer will be defacto criminals (see RIAA, MPAA etc)
I have coined a phrase for this, the high-tech dark age.
Please, email all of the other editors and malda@slashdot.org and petition for the removal of Anonymous Coward from the blahblah bling bling. If we work together, we can make this website yadda yadda yadda moomoo beep beep beep. (sarcasm)
"Revocation of corporate rights is revocation of individual rights in disguise. "
I'm afraid you are quite incorrect. The 'revocation of rights' for corporations as you call it does not infringe or revoke the rights of the individual. As, you have correctly stated, a corporation is an imaginary construct we are real people can but any or all the limitations on them as we deem fit. To raise a corporation to the level of 'being', that we afford actual people implies that corporations are the equal of said individuals. Thus making a corporation more than it is, or we, people, less than we are.
"By opposing corporate rights, Anticorporatists seek to deny rights to a specific group of individuals who hold views opposing their own: the representatives of corporations. Reborn in modern liberals, it is the age-old totatiltarian instinct to deny rights to those who think differently; Special rights for special classes, not equal rights for all."
All I can say is HUH? Im not quite sure when this became an 'anti-corporation' argument. And I haven not suggested denying rights to any individuals. People who represent corporations have all the rights as an individual has. Being part of a corporation does not grant them some new superset of rights or privileges. Might I remind you that your attempt to 'labelize' liberals as totalitarians is not only currently false but also historically. Generally speaking those who wants equal rights for all people don't usually end up becoming totalitarian dictators. If you are wishing to advocate equal rights for all fine. A corporation is not part of 'all', they are not real, they do not breathe, they do not eat. they do not bleed or have children. Its an abstract construct concocted by humans. Thus human have the final say about what the privileges and responsibilities we foist upon such entities. If you wish to advocate that a non-being has the same level of 'being-ness' as you do, feel free. I choose to think otherwise.
That is a very insightful question. However as I said corporations have privileges and not rights as individuals have.., but lets move on,
In a number of cases they are based on religious teaching or spiritual beliefs of (classical) right and wrong. However in civil society (as its commonly used), these rights are codified into law by agreement amongst the members of the society. The codification of these assists in avoiding a 'sliding scale' of compliance. This is, of course, sadly the ideal situation.
Dear Sir,
I am not sure if you goal was to take the polar opposite stance of the post you are replying to but you have made just as grievous errors. Let us begin.
You seem to imply that valuing one's customers is only a side effect of the best interests of the company (which your point seems to be is to make money). This is a terribly cynical POV, however is the the view most companies take. Perhaps on the other hand a company should have a goal of making profit but not have it be the blinding exclusive goal.
Point 2. I am not sure what book you got our definitions from but just generally one does not associate strong personal freedoms with Marxism and communism. Unless you are look only at the alleged 'anti- private business/ownership' angle. Of course both of those are in the theory. As we all know the practice of those philosophies turned out different. As for unions, well (again ideally) they are supposed to advocate the rights of the workers.
Instead of driveling on here let me sum up. I believe that businesses (corporations) should have no 'rights' in the sense that individuals have. Corporations are artificial entities. We as people with rights can grant on to them (corporations) privileges, that may mimic the rights an individual has. However with all privileges we stipulate the responsibilities that that one has to meet in order to keep those privileges. Thus a business can run and make money for its owners, pay its employees, while not gaining the illusion that it it entitled to the rights and actions of an actual human being.