the RIAA goes after distributors because they hope to avoid taking every single person to court and if the larger distributors are forced into inactivity then file sharing will slow to a crawl.
Making any copy (except for fair use) is an infringement. To the extent that radio stations pay a royalty for burning the program cds that are played on air.
If a file appears on your hard disk and you put it there then you created the copy.
Sec 1008 just says that the mere act of making, owning, or using a copying machine does not constitute copyright volation. It doesn't say that you can't violate copyright while using one. What does the definition of noncommercial use say.
So that's why they will hire companies to promote their records -- record companies
With what will they hire these record companies. Oh, I know. The record companies will know a bank who might lend the band some money to pay the record company to promote themselves. And then they could pay the bank back out of royalties on their record sales.
It's not "piracy". Piracy is a crime committed on the high seas, involving armed robbery and murder.
To be polite about it, piracy is a common usage for those involved in copyright infringement of various types. Everyone knows what is meant. To be pedantic about the definition of piracy is, well, pedantic.
For example when I suggest that you are a dull prick, I am not saying that you are a blunted but once sharp object which annoys people who come into contact with it. Well maybe the last bit. I'm not sure how sharp you once were.
It is just as easy to say that any white hat is merely a really smart black hat who hasn't been caught yet and the reason why you wouldn't hire them is that they aren't very good at black hatting.
If, as you say, black hats arise from white hats who specifically... did not have the moral fortitude to remain on the white side how can anyone be sure that any given white hat will never turn to the black side if the incentive/threat is great enough.
if a black hat did have some profound change,
You make it sound like they are evil incarnate. If the BH you are looking at did time for money crimes or e-vandalism maybe you'de think twice about trusting them but if it was pure challenge based hacking maybe a blanket no-hire wastes talent.
Seems to make more sence to hire good people who haven't shown any serious criminal activity and then watch them very closely white and black.
I wonder if African tribes and australian Aboriginas realize they're sitting on a gold mine, that they should start collecting on their millenia-old drum "samples" copyrights.Ask the congolese pygmie girl whose voice is sampled on the Deep Forest song. She tried to get something for it and was thrown out of court.
I read this somewhere some time ago so it could be not totally true but it does sound good doesn't it.
An insane heavily armed brother living in the upstairs flat who is currently playing chicken with the Tactical Armed Response Group who are camped in the living room. A bunch of neighbours who stole their house once and might have another go. An uncertain job in a dying industry.
Their only bright spot is they have Broadband . And an obsession with lan games that has led to some playing themselves to death. Then MS lets Slammer close down the korean system.
It's a wonder they haven't f**king invaded Redmond let alone sue.
Funny you should use that example but a Sydney (Australia) restaurant sued a food critic for the Sydney Morning Herald for a bad review a couple of years ago. I can't remember what the result was though.
Re:Got a whole lotta hype
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
If you see no problem with either violating state and federal laws or ignoring medical reccomendations just to feel good, why should a potential employer believe you would pay any attention to company and government health and safety requirements? Because if I don't I could get killed in an industrial accident or fired from my office job which would not make me feel good. You are my office boss so in the office I do what you say. My home boss lets me get away a lot more.
I try not to base my actions on what is legal or illegal as I don't see those terms as synonomous with moral and immoral. As a boss I'm sure you approve. Legal or illegal just effects the price of some of the things I do because based on my take on the morality of the actions.
If you're having difficulty not breaking the law, why wouldn't you violate company policy? So if I break one law you believe that I am as likely to break every other law or committment I make to any person or organization.
You must be very lonely.
Re:Got a whole lotta hype
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
I think it will be a long time before we see any sort of thing like public brain scanning
Lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable and they are used extensively by organizations that know they aren't reliable.
A recent report in the US quoted a DOJ officer who effectively said they knew polygraphs didn't work except maybe on people who thought they worked (or who didn't know they didn't work) The problem is that once you start using them you have to accept the result every time.
Re:Got a whole lotta hype
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
Now you are confusing
1)the finding of fact at law ie. you killed someone unlawfully which looks at who pulled the trigger, with
2)the sentencing procedure which takes into account why they pulled the trigger.
That's why the trick or treat killer will be in court at all even if he might be in jail for a shorter time than the tie hater.
But that's exactly what's been happening to me right now. Every night I go onto talk.creationism.whatever to defend the indefensible and in the background all these punk rock songs get downloaded to my computer. Tell me how I can stop it
It *starts* at your first part, with minor inconveniences, and ends with the second, with major injustice and pain.
Yes I'm sorry, I totally forgot that every time throughout history where a state has falsely arrested someone there inevitably followed the brutal repression of the general population and the uncontrolled reign of para-military death squads intent on liquidation of dissenters and unworthy minorities based on race, creed, colour and/or sexual preference without forgetting those with physical or mental disabilities including age and general infirmity.
I, for one, would like to head the Nazis off at the pass.
So, you support the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq then. Which brutal fascist dictatorship do you think the coalition should go after next. Syria? Saudi Arabia? North Korea?
And you wouldn't understand 'a little' if you looked at your dick!
No, but you would.
So when is a little injustice alright?
Are you suggesting that somewhere in my post I gave someone the impression that I believed that a little injustice is alright. Can I just state clearly right here then that the ends do not justify the means. OK. Do you understand that.
I am talking about the propensity of some people to inflate language in the way described by Orwell.
The government is guilty of causing an injustice Yes
The geek was 'disappeared' No.
It seems to me that you are the one who has difficulty in telling the difference between small and large. If you can't see any difference between the two situations I outlined then we have nowhere to go with this conversation.
completely ignoring the man's Constitutional rights for six weeks
vs
kidnapped by death squads and tortured for no reason other than infliction of pain then executed in secret, body dumped in secret mass grave, no information ever given to family.
that's scale. Even you could pick the 'little injustice' involved here as distinct from the grossly illegal activity of state sponsored terrorists.
And how could he change his tune if he already is "not suggesting "tolerating" the little injustices. In case you don't understand plain english that means he doesn't agree with what happened here.
You wouldn't understand irony if you read the definition.
How can anyone read the parent post and think that it says 'At least he wasn't murdered'.
It's quite obviously a complaint against the inappropriate use of 'disappeared' in relation to someone who has been in plain sight over the whole time he was in custody. "Disappeared" refers to someone who just disappears, is never seen or heard from again and who invariably turns out to have been murdered by extra-judicial death squads.
If anyone from South America is reading the initial post they might have different ideas of how appropriate it is to describe what happened here as 'disappeared'.
As far as the whining complaint is concerned, I tend to agree that this guy is no Skylarov and the case is probably not really/. material. That doesn't mean I agree with what happened to him.
Diamond's supposedly "most surprising" revelation is the most obvious one: tragedy of commons. This is old hat.
Diamond does say it is the most surprising reason why groups fail in decision making but he does not finf it surprising because it's a new reason to him. The other three reasons for failure are roughly 1) they didn't anticipate a problem that hadn't yet occurred, 2)they didn't recognize a problem as a problem when it arrived, and 3)they failed to fix the problem after they recognized it.
Diamond says that surprisingly the commonest failure is to not actually do anything to fix a problem after it has been recognized. He uses the tragedy of the commons as an example.
he gives only passing mention to perhaps the biggest problem of all: uncertainty
How can you say this. That's the whole point of his first factor. The first item on my road map is that groups may do disastrous things because they didn't anticipate a problem before it arrived.
Based on the following lie
reconsider Diamond's arguments: it is assumed implicitly that "we" have identified the problems and the main barrier to fixing them is bending individual will to society's best interest
I assume that you aren't at all a McCarthyist but a Randite, which is immeasurably worse. Two of the problem identified by the author explicitly deal with failure to identify the problem and one with failure to solve a problem because of technical shortcomings. And the discussion on the failure to actually do something about identified problems is not actually friendly to the concept of rationality. The tragedy of the commons arises from purely rational actions of individuals. That's one of the problems of rationalism. But you can't attack rationalism can you so you bring the term 'collective rationality' into the discussion as merely a pretext to escalate the rhetoric to "communism". Diamond uses no such term or anything like it in the article which is about failure of group decision making at a societal level.
You know there is nothing in that article that is new. It is all application of standard judgement and decision making theory to problems at a societal level. He could have just as easily spoken about the Bay of Pigs.
Only someone who believes that problems are only allowed to be solved at an individual level because problem solving at a collective level is coercion, could read that article the way you have. For you there is no tragedy of the commons because there would be no commons, someone would own it and be allowed to do with it what they will.
So the worst case, that the lights are signalled green in all four directions at once can be mitigated by throwing an exception and falling into the flashing red mode
Except that would cause immeadiate gridlock. That's why they default to flashing orange so there can be some traffic.
Australian traffic systems seem pretty advanced from what I've seen. Very little is fully automated system wide but most traffic lights have street-side controllers that change the timing depending on the day/time based on traffic at that site. They can also be changed from central monitoring sites.
As well most non-major intersection lights have an induction loop in the road bed that changes the signal for the minor road traffic pretty much as soon as it arrives at the intersection. There can be a small delay if you arrive just after a change. None of that 'wait 10 min minimum till the next change'.
Slashdot Mirror
Billy's voice does that to me as well.
How do you know he's not an old prostitute.
The Special People involved.
the RIAA goes after distributors because they hope to avoid taking every single person to court and if the larger distributors are forced into inactivity then file sharing will slow to a crawl.
Making any copy (except for fair use) is an infringement. To the extent that radio stations pay a royalty for burning the program cds that are played on air.
If a file appears on your hard disk and you put it there then you created the copy.
Sec 1008 just says that the mere act of making, owning, or using a copying machine does not constitute copyright volation. It doesn't say that you can't violate copyright while using one. What does the definition of noncommercial use say.
With what will they hire these record companies. Oh, I know. The record companies will know a bank who might lend the band some money to pay the record company to promote themselves. And then they could pay the bank back out of royalties on their record sales.
Why didn't we think of that before.
To be polite about it, piracy is a common usage for those involved in copyright infringement of various types. Everyone knows what is meant. To be pedantic about the definition of piracy is, well, pedantic.
For example when I suggest that you are a dull prick, I am not saying that you are a blunted but once sharp object which annoys people who come into contact with it. Well maybe the last bit. I'm not sure how sharp you once were.
The rules on consent implied from actions is advanced enough in most common law jurisdictions to be useful. That's why it's still around.
The wheels of commerce would grind very slowly if we had to sign a written contract for every thing we agreed with another party.
If, as you say, black hats arise from white hats who specifically ... did not have the moral fortitude to remain on the white side how can anyone be sure that any given white hat will never turn to the black side if the incentive/threat is great enough.
if a black hat did have some profound change,
You make it sound like they are evil incarnate. If the BH you are looking at did time for money crimes or e-vandalism maybe you'de think twice about trusting them but if it was pure challenge based hacking maybe a blanket no-hire wastes talent.
Seems to make more sence to hire good people who haven't shown any serious criminal activity and then watch them very closely white and black.
I read this somewhere some time ago so it could be not totally true but it does sound good doesn't it.
An insane heavily armed brother living in the upstairs flat who is currently playing chicken with the Tactical Armed Response Group who are camped in the living room. A bunch of neighbours who stole their house once and might have another go. An uncertain job in a dying industry.
Their only bright spot is they have Broadband . And an obsession with lan games that has led to some playing themselves to death. Then MS lets Slammer close down the korean system.
It's a wonder they haven't f**king invaded Redmond let alone sue.
Funny you should use that example but a Sydney (Australia) restaurant sued a food critic for the Sydney Morning Herald for a bad review a couple of years ago. I can't remember what the result was though.
I don't know who you are Sir, or where you've come from. But you've done me a power of good.
Because the publisher of an article can get sued for libel. That's why newspapers get sued.
dunno. just seems relevant.
I try not to base my actions on what is legal or illegal as I don't see those terms as synonomous with moral and immoral. As a boss I'm sure you approve. Legal or illegal just effects the price of some of the things I do because based on my take on the morality of the actions.
If you're having difficulty not breaking the law, why wouldn't you violate company policy? So if I break one law you believe that I am as likely to break every other law or committment I make to any person or organization.
You must be very lonely.
Lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable and they are used extensively by organizations that know they aren't reliable.
A recent report in the US quoted a DOJ officer who effectively said they knew polygraphs didn't work except maybe on people who thought they worked (or who didn't know they didn't work) The problem is that once you start using them you have to accept the result every time.
1)the finding of fact at law ie. you killed someone unlawfully which looks at who pulled the trigger, with
2)the sentencing procedure which takes into account why they pulled the trigger.
That's why the trick or treat killer will be in court at all even if he might be in jail for a shorter time than the tie hater.
tomorrow.
Yes I'm sorry, I totally forgot that every time throughout history where a state has falsely arrested someone there inevitably followed the brutal repression of the general population and the uncontrolled reign of para-military death squads intent on liquidation of dissenters and unworthy minorities based on race, creed, colour and/or sexual preference without forgetting those with physical or mental disabilities including age and general infirmity.
I, for one, would like to head the Nazis off at the pass.
So, you support the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq then. Which brutal fascist dictatorship do you think the coalition should go after next. Syria? Saudi Arabia? North Korea?
No, but you would.
So when is a little injustice alright?
Are you suggesting that somewhere in my post I gave someone the impression that I believed that a little injustice is alright. Can I just state clearly right here then that the ends do not justify the means. OK. Do you understand that.
I am talking about the propensity of some people to inflate language in the way described by Orwell.
The government is guilty of causing an injustice Yes
The geek was 'disappeared' No.
It seems to me that you are the one who has difficulty in telling the difference between small and large. If you can't see any difference between the two situations I outlined then we have nowhere to go with this conversation.
vs
kidnapped by death squads and tortured for no reason other than infliction of pain then executed in secret, body dumped in secret mass grave, no information ever given to family.
that's scale. Even you could pick the 'little injustice' involved here as distinct from the grossly illegal activity of state sponsored terrorists.
And how could he change his tune if he already is "not suggesting "tolerating" the little injustices. In case you don't understand plain english that means he doesn't agree with what happened here.
You wouldn't understand irony if you read the definition.
It's quite obviously a complaint against the inappropriate use of 'disappeared' in relation to someone who has been in plain sight over the whole time he was in custody. "Disappeared" refers to someone who just disappears, is never seen or heard from again and who invariably turns out to have been murdered by extra-judicial death squads.
If anyone from South America is reading the initial post they might have different ideas of how appropriate it is to describe what happened here as 'disappeared'.
As far as the whining complaint is concerned, I tend to agree that this guy is no Skylarov and the case is probably not really /. material. That doesn't mean I agree with what happened to him.
Diamond does say it is the most surprising reason why groups fail in decision making but he does not finf it surprising because it's a new reason to him. The other three reasons for failure are roughly 1) they didn't anticipate a problem that hadn't yet occurred, 2)they didn't recognize a problem as a problem when it arrived, and 3)they failed to fix the problem after they recognized it.
Diamond says that surprisingly the commonest failure is to not actually do anything to fix a problem after it has been recognized. He uses the tragedy of the commons as an example.
he gives only passing mention to perhaps the biggest problem of all: uncertainty
How can you say this. That's the whole point of his first factor. The first item on my road map is that groups may do disastrous things because they didn't anticipate a problem before it arrived.
Based on the following lie
reconsider Diamond's arguments: it is assumed implicitly that "we" have identified the problems and the main barrier to fixing them is bending individual will to society's best interest
I assume that you aren't at all a McCarthyist but a Randite, which is immeasurably worse. Two of the problem identified by the author explicitly deal with failure to identify the problem and one with failure to solve a problem because of technical shortcomings. And the discussion on the failure to actually do something about identified problems is not actually friendly to the concept of rationality. The tragedy of the commons arises from purely rational actions of individuals. That's one of the problems of rationalism. But you can't attack rationalism can you so you bring the term 'collective rationality' into the discussion as merely a pretext to escalate the rhetoric to "communism". Diamond uses no such term or anything like it in the article which is about failure of group decision making at a societal level.
You know there is nothing in that article that is new. It is all application of standard judgement and decision making theory to problems at a societal level. He could have just as easily spoken about the Bay of Pigs.
Only someone who believes that problems are only allowed to be solved at an individual level because problem solving at a collective level is coercion, could read that article the way you have. For you there is no tragedy of the commons because there would be no commons, someone would own it and be allowed to do with it what they will.
Pick two.
in a software context.
Except that would cause immeadiate gridlock. That's why they default to flashing orange so there can be some traffic.
Australian traffic systems seem pretty advanced from what I've seen. Very little is fully automated system wide but most traffic lights have street-side controllers that change the timing depending on the day/time based on traffic at that site. They can also be changed from central monitoring sites.
As well most non-major intersection lights have an induction loop in the road bed that changes the signal for the minor road traffic pretty much as soon as it arrives at the intersection. There can be a small delay if you arrive just after a change. None of that 'wait 10 min minimum till the next change'.