By any reasonable assessment, there are - literally - millions and millions of people infringing copyright laws on a daily basis. A quick look at the current state of P2P networks will reveal this.
My question is this: Given the sheer volume and numbers you are dealing with, how does your agency decide how and to whom you should prosecute regarding enforcement of IP laws? How do you avoid "selective" prosecution and equal protection issues in doing so?
Followup question: Do you think your enforcement actions will have any impact on the problem as a whole or do you believe it will be rendered similarly to speeding (ie: everyone is doing it, only a very small few get caught) over the long term?
So if someone is caught with p0rn on their PC (ie: kiddie porn), does this mean that the virus could *potentially* provide a "reasonable doubt" about that person's guilt? Sure seems like it could...
Items like this seem to be happening more and more frequently (spyware, viruses, etc) and I am wondering what the impact will be on the legalities involved. I mean, in the old days, I controlled EVERYTHING that came into and out of my PC -- now, that has changed and there may well be things hiding on my PC that I am not aware of. I do my best to administrate properly but I don't know everything and I am certain that Joe Sixpack knows even less than me about his machines.
While I totally agree with your point above, it will (probably) never happen. Here's why.
Software Engineering is very similar to other kinds of engineering (civil, mech, chem, etc) - however, since software is abstract to 95% of the people making the decisions, it's much easier to make a decision NOT to pay for that engineering. With physical engineering, its easy to point out and sell the "quality" feature. ie: if there is bad civil engineering, the bridge falls down. However, since software is an abstract concept, it is virtually impossible to sell quality to someone who has no idea what quality even means with respect to software.
Until businesses realize this and employ the right kind of decision makers, this will not change. And for the record, there are absolutely no signs that is happening.....unless you work at NASA or some other mission critical organization where software quality is recognized. To the Fortune 500's, software quality is just another buzzword to throw on top of the pile.
note: I speak from experience - 10 painful years as an implementation senior manager
So if the RIAA or MPAA are allowed to "crack" our computers, what does that mean for DMCA-related issues?
I mean, if I traded through, say, freenet - and they cracked/reverse engineered freenet (assuming they could, technically), does that mean the creators of freenet can sue based on DMCA violations? After all, they would have to reverse engineer the encrypted datastream to first see what was actually being traded - and as I recall, cracking encryption was at the very heart of the DMCA.
As stated in many posts already, the FBI has plenty to do other than track down copyright infringers. Combine that with the sheer numbers of people infringing and you start to see a picture of futility. Can you imagine what would happen to the court system if they prosecuted just 5% of the people using p2p? It wouldn't hold up, barring some infusion of major amounts of cash. Do not misunderstand me, there will be a few "big guys" prosecuted but much like stealing cable or satellite, the vast majority of people will go on with business as usual and every once in a while, we will read a "news" story about a "successful" bust. Aside from that, the p2p trend will continue and newer, more secure versions will arrive, only making the problem worse for law enforcement.
Don't give a fuck. I don't care. But, I do take issue with your troll comment. I wasn't trying to be a troll. Simply stating that this was a BS story.
My original point, if you read my post, was that this is a non-story. We might as well be asking Ken Lay what he thinks about the global energy markets and this new energy product called "trading". While he may have some expertise and thoughts on the matter, what he says is really not all that important to the success/failure of the product. The same is true here. Who cares what a couple of techo-celebs have to say about a product that has miles and miles to go before it even shows up on peoples radars....
Having interest in such matters is exactly the definition of hype.
Perhaps you are right. I'd be much more interested in what he said about the original Imac and the many iterations IT had before being produced rather than this non-starter of a promotional news story.
Before I get modded flamebait, please realize I am serious here.
This whole story (and everything that preceeded it) smells to high heaven of: hype
The segway is a product for consumers to buy -- if they want it bad enough to pay that price for it. That's it. That's the story.
The rest of everything else, with respect to this "story" is fluff. I don't give a crap what Jobs thinks of it. I don't care what Bezos has to say about the issue. And I certainly don't give a fuck what Dean (the creator) has to say about the matter.
Why is this thing being shoved down our throats so hard? Yea, we saw it. It's a remarkable piece of engineering -- but I don't think I'll redesign my driveway around it quite yet.
So are you saying that someone who signs a peition calling for the banning of Dihydrogen Monoxide is innocent? C'mon....if you don't understand the damn thing, then why did you sign it?
I'm not sure what is scarier: the idea of ignorance running rampant or that someone is actually defending the ignorant because they were presented with "biased" information. My god -- everything in this world that presented to you is biased. Unless you create it yourself, it has a bias. So do we now say that nobody is responsible for anything because we all know nothing?
"fossil fules are cheap and easily replaceable while hydrogen is not?"
In a word: yes. If you think that, volume-wise, Hydrogen is less expensive to deal with than fossil fuels, I challenge you to prove your point. The idea that Hydrogen is cheaper than fossil fuels is just plain wrong. The fact is, fossil fuels are used precisely because they are cheap -- relative to the other possibilities. For example, when an oil well flows UNDER 4000 barrels per day, they cap it in the middle east -- because its too small. Multiply that by 55 gal/barrel and by the number of wells across that area and you begin to understand how big the numbers are here. Producing that amount of Hydrogen is just not feasible at the moment and will not be for the forseeable future. Ever see a Hydrogen well? Yea, I haven't either. You know why? Because they don't exist. Hydrogen has to be manufactured in 99% of cases.
"Costs will depend on how it is produced, but hydrogen is certainly easily replaceable, far more so than fossil fules."
This statement is just crazy. You clearly have no understanding of the basic economics behind fossil fuels and processing. I'd guess you also haven't priced Hydrogen (or made it) recently. The fact is, hydrogen is expensive to produce and transport. MUCH MUCH more expensive than traditional fossil fuels. I won't spend anymore on this point because its a waste of energy.
"Infrastructure will not tolerate it? Why do they tolerate leaks of fossil fuel? "
Because its cheap, relative to Hydrogen. That's why they tolerate it. Its much cheaper to tolerate a 10% leakage rate that might cost your company $1 million than it is to install $2 million of equipment just to recover that 10%. Got it? Now, realize that won't work with Hydrogen because the stuff is so expensive in the first place.
ANYTHING -- yes, ANYTHING -- dealing with Hydrogen is a Class I Div II (minimum) certified piece of equipment. Just ask anyone who does anything with manufacturing and they will tell you that your hair-brained idea of H in the home is crazy.
Dealing with H is NOT as easy as dealing with fossil fuels. Period. There is much much much more to think about when handling hydrogen. These simple statements like "we'll just make it wherever" are totally unfounded.
Why do I know this? Well, I work with Hydrogen -- and let me tell you, the tolerance is VERY VERY small between success and disastrous failure (ie: explosions).
Penn and Teller did a bit on this recently on their show "Bullshit!" on Showtime.
They tooks these points (almost exactly, in fact) and sent a woman out to gather signatures during "Earth Day". The woman gathered signatures from 85% of the people she talked to. Her petition was to ban dihydrogen monoxide because it was bad for the environment. Their point was that most, but not all, of the people consumed by the environmental movement are doing so out of emotion and really did not even have a basic understanding of the issues at hand. Let's just say they made their point VERY well.
"No matter what we do, we will pollute and destroy."
Pollute and destroy according to who? Us? Why does that matter? I mean, the earth doesn't share our prejudices towards "pollution" and our "destruction" of resources. From the earth's point of view, that is just another event taking place within a larger system -- that we, as humans, also happen to be a part of. Remember, nature includes EVERYTHING. It's not just trees and birds and butterflies. It's *everything*. The nastiest, most toxic, nuclear radiation is nothing more than a small piece of a much much larger system. The earth does not discriminate between "good" things and "bad" things. It just is.
If the pollution get so bad, the earth will simply create a new paradigm that goes something like this:
Earth + pollution - people = new paradigm
...and with Hydrogen, which is expensive, you can bet your last dollar that the infrastructure in place will not tolerate even 2% leakage. Companies will not have the tolerance for leaking Hydrogen like they currently do with fossil fuels, which are cheap and easily replaceable.
You are on to something here. I have always been confused on why it is so hard to track these ppl down. In most spam, there is a good or service for sale.
Follow the money. Even spammers and suppliers have bank accounts and deposit records.
The people in the do not spam database have - at some point - taken a conscious action to have their e-mail addresses added to the database. Thus, it is safe to say that they are, somewhat, more sophisticated than the newbies when it comes to spam.
Also, this would be VERY easy to track down.
1) Get yahoo/hotmail account
2) Add to do not spam db
3) wait...wait...
4) If you receive any spam, you know the db has been compromised
Slashdot Mirror
By any reasonable assessment, there are - literally - millions and millions of people infringing copyright laws on a daily basis. A quick look at the current state of P2P networks will reveal this.
My question is this: Given the sheer volume and numbers you are dealing with, how does your agency decide how and to whom you should prosecute regarding enforcement of IP laws? How do you avoid "selective" prosecution and equal protection issues in doing so?
Followup question: Do you think your enforcement actions will have any impact on the problem as a whole or do you believe it will be rendered similarly to speeding (ie: everyone is doing it, only a very small few get caught) over the long term?
Are you friggin' kidding me? He actually calls himself a "Business Savant"? What a laugh that is.
So if someone is caught with p0rn on their PC (ie: kiddie porn), does this mean that the virus could *potentially* provide a "reasonable doubt" about that person's guilt? Sure seems like it could...
Items like this seem to be happening more and more frequently (spyware, viruses, etc) and I am wondering what the impact will be on the legalities involved. I mean, in the old days, I controlled EVERYTHING that came into and out of my PC -- now, that has changed and there may well be things hiding on my PC that I am not aware of. I do my best to administrate properly but I don't know everything and I am certain that Joe Sixpack knows even less than me about his machines.
Food for thought...
and yet he still commands - BY FAR - the largest part of the desktop market as well as the most popular browser.
I'm betting he gets at least part of it, don't you think?
Nor sure what the impact of this will be -- but I definitely know eBay does business in California (and is based there IIRC).
This may change things a bit.
Just read it and consider it. Draw your own conclusions.
While I totally agree with your point above, it will (probably) never happen. Here's why.
Software Engineering is very similar to other kinds of engineering (civil, mech, chem, etc) - however, since software is abstract to 95% of the people making the decisions, it's much easier to make a decision NOT to pay for that engineering. With physical engineering, its easy to point out and sell the "quality" feature. ie: if there is bad civil engineering, the bridge falls down. However, since software is an abstract concept, it is virtually impossible to sell quality to someone who has no idea what quality even means with respect to software.
Until businesses realize this and employ the right kind of decision makers, this will not change. And for the record, there are absolutely no signs that is happening.....unless you work at NASA or some other mission critical organization where software quality is recognized. To the Fortune 500's, software quality is just another buzzword to throw on top of the pile.
note: I speak from experience - 10 painful years as an implementation senior manager
You got it. Selective prosecution is the heart of any good police state.
So if the RIAA or MPAA are allowed to "crack" our computers, what does that mean for DMCA-related issues?
I mean, if I traded through, say, freenet - and they cracked/reverse engineered freenet (assuming they could, technically), does that mean the creators of freenet can sue based on DMCA violations? After all, they would have to reverse engineer the encrypted datastream to first see what was actually being traded - and as I recall, cracking encryption was at the very heart of the DMCA.
This law will not matter.
As stated in many posts already, the FBI has plenty to do other than track down copyright infringers. Combine that with the sheer numbers of people infringing and you start to see a picture of futility. Can you imagine what would happen to the court system if they prosecuted just 5% of the people using p2p? It wouldn't hold up, barring some infusion of major amounts of cash. Do not misunderstand me, there will be a few "big guys" prosecuted but much like stealing cable or satellite, the vast majority of people will go on with business as usual and every once in a while, we will read a "news" story about a "successful" bust. Aside from that, the p2p trend will continue and newer, more secure versions will arrive, only making the problem worse for law enforcement.
Unenforceable laws are not laws at all.
Don't give a fuck. I don't care. But, I do take issue with your troll comment. I wasn't trying to be a troll. Simply stating that this was a BS story.
My original point, if you read my post, was that this is a non-story. We might as well be asking Ken Lay what he thinks about the global energy markets and this new energy product called "trading". While he may have some expertise and thoughts on the matter, what he says is really not all that important to the success/failure of the product. The same is true here. Who cares what a couple of techo-celebs have to say about a product that has miles and miles to go before it even shows up on peoples radars....
Having interest in such matters is exactly the definition of hype.
Perhaps you are right. I'd be much more interested in what he said about the original Imac and the many iterations IT had before being produced rather than this non-starter of a promotional news story.
Before I get modded flamebait, please realize I am serious here.
This whole story (and everything that preceeded it) smells to high heaven of: hype
The segway is a product for consumers to buy -- if they want it bad enough to pay that price for it. That's it. That's the story.
The rest of everything else, with respect to this "story" is fluff. I don't give a crap what Jobs thinks of it. I don't care what Bezos has to say about the issue. And I certainly don't give a fuck what Dean (the creator) has to say about the matter.
Why is this thing being shoved down our throats so hard? Yea, we saw it. It's a remarkable piece of engineering -- but I don't think I'll redesign my driveway around it quite yet.
"No matter how you slice it, there is no reason that wind power should not be the major U.S. source of electricity in 2020."
Except for the fact that we'd have to cover Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas to get as much as we need.
Did you know that wind power and ALL alternative electricity models only account for 2% of total energy available in the US?
So are you saying that someone who signs a peition calling for the banning of Dihydrogen Monoxide is innocent? C'mon....if you don't understand the damn thing, then why did you sign it?
I'm not sure what is scarier: the idea of ignorance running rampant or that someone is actually defending the ignorant because they were presented with "biased" information. My god -- everything in this world that presented to you is biased. Unless you create it yourself, it has a bias. So do we now say that nobody is responsible for anything because we all know nothing?
Bah. Utter nonsense.
No, you are correct. It is NOT just limited to the environmental folks. There are plenty of candidates for the throne....
I just mentioned it because that was the topic du jour.
"fossil fules are cheap and easily replaceable while hydrogen is not?"
In a word: yes. If you think that, volume-wise, Hydrogen is less expensive to deal with than fossil fuels, I challenge you to prove your point. The idea that Hydrogen is cheaper than fossil fuels is just plain wrong. The fact is, fossil fuels are used precisely because they are cheap -- relative to the other possibilities. For example, when an oil well flows UNDER 4000 barrels per day, they cap it in the middle east -- because its too small. Multiply that by 55 gal/barrel and by the number of wells across that area and you begin to understand how big the numbers are here. Producing that amount of Hydrogen is just not feasible at the moment and will not be for the forseeable future. Ever see a Hydrogen well? Yea, I haven't either. You know why? Because they don't exist. Hydrogen has to be manufactured in 99% of cases.
"Costs will depend on how it is produced, but hydrogen is certainly easily replaceable, far more so than fossil fules."
This statement is just crazy. You clearly have no understanding of the basic economics behind fossil fuels and processing. I'd guess you also haven't priced Hydrogen (or made it) recently. The fact is, hydrogen is expensive to produce and transport. MUCH MUCH more expensive than traditional fossil fuels. I won't spend anymore on this point because its a waste of energy.
"Infrastructure will not tolerate it? Why do they tolerate leaks of fossil fuel? "
Because its cheap, relative to Hydrogen. That's why they tolerate it. Its much cheaper to tolerate a 10% leakage rate that might cost your company $1 million than it is to install $2 million of equipment just to recover that 10%. Got it? Now, realize that won't work with Hydrogen because the stuff is so expensive in the first place.
ANYTHING -- yes, ANYTHING -- dealing with Hydrogen is a Class I Div II (minimum) certified piece of equipment. Just ask anyone who does anything with manufacturing and they will tell you that your hair-brained idea of H in the home is crazy.
Dealing with H is NOT as easy as dealing with fossil fuels. Period. There is much much much more to think about when handling hydrogen. These simple statements like "we'll just make it wherever" are totally unfounded.
Why do I know this? Well, I work with Hydrogen -- and let me tell you, the tolerance is VERY VERY small between success and disastrous failure (ie: explosions).
Penn and Teller did a bit on this recently on their show "Bullshit!" on Showtime.
They tooks these points (almost exactly, in fact) and sent a woman out to gather signatures during "Earth Day". The woman gathered signatures from 85% of the people she talked to. Her petition was to ban dihydrogen monoxide because it was bad for the environment. Their point was that most, but not all, of the people consumed by the environmental movement are doing so out of emotion and really did not even have a basic understanding of the issues at hand. Let's just say they made their point VERY well.
"No matter what we do, we will pollute and destroy."
....and the universe will continue on.
Pollute and destroy according to who? Us? Why does that matter? I mean, the earth doesn't share our prejudices towards "pollution" and our "destruction" of resources. From the earth's point of view, that is just another event taking place within a larger system -- that we, as humans, also happen to be a part of. Remember, nature includes EVERYTHING. It's not just trees and birds and butterflies. It's *everything*. The nastiest, most toxic, nuclear radiation is nothing more than a small piece of a much much larger system. The earth does not discriminate between "good" things and "bad" things. It just is.
If the pollution get so bad, the earth will simply create a new paradigm that goes something like this:
Earth + pollution - people = new paradigm
...and with Hydrogen, which is expensive, you can bet your last dollar that the infrastructure in place will not tolerate even 2% leakage. Companies will not have the tolerance for leaking Hydrogen like they currently do with fossil fuels, which are cheap and easily replaceable.
"However, they couldn't market. Look where it got them."
Yea. It got them bought - by Compaq. For billions.
Wow, that's the first time I've ever heard torque used when talking about computers.
:-)
Cool. I'm gonna use that now.
You are on to something here. I have always been confused on why it is so hard to track these ppl down. In most spam, there is a good or service for sale.
Follow the money. Even spammers and suppliers have bank accounts and deposit records.
The people in the do not spam database have - at some point - taken a conscious action to have their e-mail addresses added to the database. Thus, it is safe to say that they are, somewhat, more sophisticated than the newbies when it comes to spam.
Also, this would be VERY easy to track down. 1) Get yahoo/hotmail account 2) Add to do not spam db 3) wait...wait... 4) If you receive any spam, you know the db has been compromised
All it takes is one person to actually buy the crap they are selling. Then, you can follow the money very easily.