When the UK Government first started thinking "Something Must Be Done" (because some murderer happened to have previously looked at a website featuring porn that the murder victim's mother didn't like), their first response was to try to get the sites shut down. That didn't work, because the sites were legally hosted in places like the US (well, actually, some were also hosted legally in the UK). So instead they decided to criminalise UK citizens themselves for just looking at naughty pictures (it even applies to entirely private personal pics).
Don't get me wrong, I don't find that stuff appealing, but I don't find gay sex appealing either. That doesn't mean it's wrong -- it's just not my thing.
Exactly. If only more people could get this. With this law, it was depressing to see how many people - from lobbyists to politicians - giving the "But it's disgusting" response as their justification.
Indeed - "violent" porn means porn between consenting adults, and anything that seems too extreme is probably simulated anyway. Same issue with "rape" porn. Many consenting adults are into BDSM - like many other adults, some of them may enjoy either taking photos of their acts for their own pleasure, or looking at sites with such images on. It's sad that it's now considered fair game to treat such people as comparable to those who commit non-consensual acts such as child abuse.
In the UK, simple possession such material is now illegal, punishable with up to three years in prison, and being placed on the Sex Offender register.
The bottom line is if it's abusive, it's illegal anyway, and if it isn't, it shouldn't be seen as a problem in the first place. But not a single example of people being forced into making "violent" porn has ever been discovered. Even the Government's own biased "research" had to admit that none could be found. Why would anyone produce it anyway - why risk breaking the law, the risk of getting caught, the difficulties of finding a continual supply of victims, when it's much easier to simulate it. Much like the snuff films / video nasty scare, it's just a myth used to scaremonger.
I'm not denying that this sort of thing can be a problem, but it is not squatting, nor does the submitter have any rights to the domain.
If people are able to get them for free, then perhaps it would be better to stop such free trials. And if people weren't so obsessed to pay for one particular URL, there'd be less profit in it. If the reality was that they had to pay out money for all the domains, and rarely got lucky with selling one on, it'd be much more of a gamble.
The fact that this problem exists is a symptom of the way the system has been set up, and I would be wary of misusing trademark laws in an attempt to patch up the problem.
If you think this thing is a problem, then I hope you are agreement that the advice to the submitter should be: Don't buy the domain. If he does, he's just adding to the problem by rewarding them.
He has no rights over a word he just thought up. Nor would a major company in the same situation. Why should he have more rights over the guy that registered it first? Like everyone else - individual or major company - you only get rights to a word if you've been using it as a trademark. Not if you just thought it up five minutes ago, especially after someone else already thought it up before you.
This example might not be 100% related to the issue at hand, but it proves that domain seizures due to trademark can and have occurred across markets.
But there is no trademark here at all, so this is 0% relevant.
And I know that trademarks can apply across markets, but this only applies with very famous well known brands, and isn't a general rule. I must admit, I'm still surprised that Madonna can own the word in any context, given it's a pre-existing word - although the comment from the reply to you suggests the facts may have been otherwise, and either way, that's not relevant to this case anyway.
Also this company are using the site, even if it's just a search site. Put those two together, and I fail to see how there's anything obvious about the allegations of cybersquatting. Even if they are doing "Buy a name for a site, and let's hope someone wants it", whilst it may be a bit annoying, at the end of the day that's business, and is not squatting.
Rubbish. Actual cybersquatters are extortionists, in that they take someone's existing trademark, and then offer to sell it back to the owner.
But RTFS - that's not what's happened here. In this case, it's the submitter who is the one who's chosen a name already in use. If he offers money to buy it, that's not extortion! That's basic business.
And if we dislike that people buy domains in advance in the hopes of selling them later, then he's part of the problem if he pays them money. If no one did this, they wouldn't make money from that. And if people still decide to register a domain in order to put a search page there, why is that wrong? Personally I'd rather use Google, but I fail to see why it's wrong for other people to try their luck.
Rather, they buy them in bulk, don't pay, let them go back, and buy them again.
If that's happened, then obviously that is wrong, and perhaps the submitter might try investigating if that is the case. But in general, I prefer not to make accusations on a particular case without evidence.
then go ahead and seize any domain violating your trademark.
Choose a name that someone's already using, and then seize their domain for using that name? (My apologies if I misunderstand you.)
It's not a trademark violation if they're not competing in the same market - and if they were competing in the same market, you'd be the one in violation if they got their first.
I have no sympathy for actual squatters who take names already used (or typos, etc), but this is not one of those cases, and it is misleading for the submitter to refer to this as a "cybersquatter". If any large company engaged in such tactics, there'd be outrage here on Slashdot...
Um, you don't have to give any information that you don't want people to see.
Is it depressing that you're posting on Slashdot? Obviously, you only publish or put on your profile what you want people to see.
I'd also point out that Facebook (as well as places like LiveJournal) are much better than Slashdot when it comes to privacy, as you can have several levels, e.g., restricting information to only be visible to some people. On Slashdot, it's visible to all. So why are you here?
Which is just yet more argument against the current practices.
Had the police taken a copy of the data (which could then be backed up), rather than stealing the suspect's equipment and leaving it to rot in some guy's office, this wouldn't have happened.
So if I steal or vandalise something that someone doesn't use for business, they aren't entitled to compensation from me? I don't think so.
What someone uses it is neither here nor there. Leaving aside your straw man 4chan reference, Internet access is fast becoming an essential part of modern life for many people. The fact that some people may lose their livelihood as well over such police incompetence just adds insult to injury, but the underlying problem applies to any innocent person who has all his equipment confiscated, business or not.
I'd also like to see a return to search warrants being just that - search warrants. The police can look all they like, but if the Government wants to steal all the electronic equipment that a person owns without compensation or guarantee it will be returned anytime soon, or in working order, it can pass a new law, and then require that police obtain specific seizure warrants. I suspect that the only reason the public tolerate this is because most people still have this idea that a search warrant means just what it says - a search.
Giving compensation should go without saying, I agree - I don't even care if it comes from public money, at least then the cost is spread (and the Government have to justify the increased taxes), rather than the risk of being the unlucky one who loses all access to the Internet, my personal documents, photographs, emails, and perhaps my livelihood, for an unknown amount of time, with not a penny of compensation.
I would also add that if they have a backlog, WTF are they stealing yet more computers? Finish with the ones they have.
Should parents not have the choice as to whether to allow their kids to be exposed to bad language, or are you advocating removing that responsibility from the parents?
But it's not the parents' choice here, Apple are the ones choosing.
I'm surprised - if any other platform only allowed applications released if the company decided, and then the company disallowed based on "Think Of The Children!", then whether or not any apps were mistakenly caught, I would have thought such a platform to be highly unpopular on here given the support for openness, and views against censorship. But I guess because it's Apple, they're held to a different standard...
And as for 'special' phones where internet access is restricted or prohibitively expensive, try just about every non-'smartphone' on the market.
In the US maybe. Elsewhere such as here in the UK, bog standard phones have had unrestricted Internet access for years. And at the same choice of rates as "smart" phones. To be honest, the "smart" distinction doesn't really apply anymore (except perhaps for Iphone shills, who want to hand pick an arbitrary market to greatly inflate Apple's market share).
Firstly, even if no tax can be made from it, the taxpayer is still better off due to not having to pay for enforcement of laws (nevermind that "we can't tax it" is a ludicrous argument for criminalising something).
Secondly, even if everyone did grow their own at home, that doesn't mean it can't be taxed (even if it's harder to enforce).
Thirdly, your claim is ludicrous - plenty of people spend extra money to save making something themselves (especially those with no gardens). There's no end of examples. Do people make their own beer and wine, in order to escape taxes? And you'd seriously put that as a reason to therefore criminalise alcohol?
This isn't about them being good or bad. You can think drugs are bad, and still not support putting people in prison for doing something that should be none of your business. Views and laws regarding tobacco would be an obvious example of this (it's harmful, there are laws that control its sale and use in public, but no one is put in prison for smoking in their own homes, or possessing cigarettes).
Slashdot Mirror
You've found a browser that actually works with Slashdot? I'm amazed :)
Outside of ad blocking, none of this sounds essential, much less useful to me. It does sound a lot like bloat.
Opera 9.61 - 5.4MB
Firefox 3 - 7MB
I prefer the Firefox model.
Who cares how many features there are that you don't use, when the resultant file size is still less bloated?
It isn't illegal in the US (unless it falls under obscenity laws, in which case it would be illegal to publish).
It is illegal to possess in the UK, as of January this year, if it falls under one of their rather vague definitions that they made up in the law (see http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ , http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/24/extreme_pron_law_live/ ).
When the UK Government first started thinking "Something Must Be Done" (because some murderer happened to have previously looked at a website featuring porn that the murder victim's mother didn't like), their first response was to try to get the sites shut down. That didn't work, because the sites were legally hosted in places like the US (well, actually, some were also hosted legally in the UK). So instead they decided to criminalise UK citizens themselves for just looking at naughty pictures (it even applies to entirely private personal pics).
Don't get me wrong, I don't find that stuff appealing, but I don't find gay sex appealing either. That doesn't mean it's wrong -- it's just not my thing.
Exactly. If only more people could get this. With this law, it was depressing to see how many people - from lobbyists to politicians - giving the "But it's disgusting" response as their justification.
I agree. And I saw this happen in the UK. According to my Government, "violent" acts between consenting adults, even if simulated, are just as bad as child pornography. Many police forces submitted evidence to the Government consultation saying that people who start out looking at such material will end up abusing children.
Indeed - "violent" porn means porn between consenting adults, and anything that seems too extreme is probably simulated anyway. Same issue with "rape" porn. Many consenting adults are into BDSM - like many other adults, some of them may enjoy either taking photos of their acts for their own pleasure, or looking at sites with such images on. It's sad that it's now considered fair game to treat such people as comparable to those who commit non-consensual acts such as child abuse.
In the UK, simple possession such material is now illegal, punishable with up to three years in prison, and being placed on the Sex Offender register.
The bottom line is if it's abusive, it's illegal anyway, and if it isn't, it shouldn't be seen as a problem in the first place. But not a single example of people being forced into making "violent" porn has ever been discovered. Even the Government's own biased "research" had to admit that none could be found. Why would anyone produce it anyway - why risk breaking the law, the risk of getting caught, the difficulties of finding a continual supply of victims, when it's much easier to simulate it. Much like the snuff films / video nasty scare, it's just a myth used to scaremonger.
Citation for them not owning the domain?
If they don't own it, why's there a problem?
how most of these squatters operate
What squatters? There's no trademark being squatted here.
I'm not denying that this sort of thing can be a problem, but it is not squatting, nor does the submitter have any rights to the domain.
If people are able to get them for free, then perhaps it would be better to stop such free trials. And if people weren't so obsessed to pay for one particular URL, there'd be less profit in it. If the reality was that they had to pay out money for all the domains, and rarely got lucky with selling one on, it'd be much more of a gamble.
The fact that this problem exists is a symptom of the way the system has been set up, and I would be wary of misusing trademark laws in an attempt to patch up the problem.
If you think this thing is a problem, then I hope you are agreement that the advice to the submitter should be: Don't buy the domain. If he does, he's just adding to the problem by rewarding them.
Nice straw man.
He has no rights over a word he just thought up. Nor would a major company in the same situation. Why should he have more rights over the guy that registered it first? Like everyone else - individual or major company - you only get rights to a word if you've been using it as a trademark. Not if you just thought it up five minutes ago, especially after someone else already thought it up before you.
This example might not be 100% related to the issue at hand, but it proves that domain seizures due to trademark can and have occurred across markets.
But there is no trademark here at all, so this is 0% relevant.
And I know that trademarks can apply across markets, but this only applies with very famous well known brands, and isn't a general rule. I must admit, I'm still surprised that Madonna can own the word in any context, given it's a pre-existing word - although the comment from the reply to you suggests the facts may have been otherwise, and either way, that's not relevant to this case anyway.
Also this company are using the site, even if it's just a search site. Put those two together, and I fail to see how there's anything obvious about the allegations of cybersquatting. Even if they are doing "Buy a name for a site, and let's hope someone wants it", whilst it may be a bit annoying, at the end of the day that's business, and is not squatting.
So are extortionists.
Rubbish. Actual cybersquatters are extortionists, in that they take someone's existing trademark, and then offer to sell it back to the owner.
But RTFS - that's not what's happened here. In this case, it's the submitter who is the one who's chosen a name already in use. If he offers money to buy it, that's not extortion! That's basic business.
And if we dislike that people buy domains in advance in the hopes of selling them later, then he's part of the problem if he pays them money. If no one did this, they wouldn't make money from that. And if people still decide to register a domain in order to put a search page there, why is that wrong? Personally I'd rather use Google, but I fail to see why it's wrong for other people to try their luck.
Rather, they buy them in bulk, don't pay, let them go back, and buy them again.
If that's happened, then obviously that is wrong, and perhaps the submitter might try investigating if that is the case. But in general, I prefer not to make accusations on a particular case without evidence.
then go ahead and seize any domain violating your trademark.
Choose a name that someone's already using, and then seize their domain for using that name? (My apologies if I misunderstand you.)
It's not a trademark violation if they're not competing in the same market - and if they were competing in the same market, you'd be the one in violation if they got their first.
I have no sympathy for actual squatters who take names already used (or typos, etc), but this is not one of those cases, and it is misleading for the submitter to refer to this as a "cybersquatter". If any large company engaged in such tactics, there'd be outrage here on Slashdot...
Do you have reading comprehension trouble? He said Opera.
I'm on Opera, and firehose is unusable. And the format used for "Idle" is unreadable (not that I'm missing much there...)
Wake me up when we stop getting stories for every minor release of Firefox.
Not to mention stories about even mere rumours when it comes to Apple.
Um, you don't have to give any information that you don't want people to see.
Is it depressing that you're posting on Slashdot? Obviously, you only publish or put on your profile what you want people to see.
I'd also point out that Facebook (as well as places like LiveJournal) are much better than Slashdot when it comes to privacy, as you can have several levels, e.g., restricting information to only be visible to some people. On Slashdot, it's visible to all. So why are you here?
Which is just yet more argument against the current practices.
Had the police taken a copy of the data (which could then be backed up), rather than stealing the suspect's equipment and leaving it to rot in some guy's office, this wouldn't have happened.
So if I steal or vandalise something that someone doesn't use for business, they aren't entitled to compensation from me? I don't think so.
What someone uses it is neither here nor there. Leaving aside your straw man 4chan reference, Internet access is fast becoming an essential part of modern life for many people. The fact that some people may lose their livelihood as well over such police incompetence just adds insult to injury, but the underlying problem applies to any innocent person who has all his equipment confiscated, business or not.
I'd also like to see a return to search warrants being just that - search warrants. The police can look all they like, but if the Government wants to steal all the electronic equipment that a person owns without compensation or guarantee it will be returned anytime soon, or in working order, it can pass a new law, and then require that police obtain specific seizure warrants. I suspect that the only reason the public tolerate this is because most people still have this idea that a search warrant means just what it says - a search.
Giving compensation should go without saying, I agree - I don't even care if it comes from public money, at least then the cost is spread (and the Government have to justify the increased taxes), rather than the risk of being the unlucky one who loses all access to the Internet, my personal documents, photographs, emails, and perhaps my livelihood, for an unknown amount of time, with not a penny of compensation.
I would also add that if they have a backlog, WTF are they stealing yet more computers? Finish with the ones they have.
It's not just child porn that's illegal to possess in the UK now. I'd be curious to know if their device would handle so-called "extreme" adult images - given that the law is so vaguely worded that neither the police (also here) nor the Crown Prosecution Service have a clue what should be illegal to possess under the law, I'd be curious to see how a USB device can do the job...
Should parents not have the choice as to whether to allow their kids to be exposed to bad language, or are you advocating removing that responsibility from the parents?
But it's not the parents' choice here, Apple are the ones choosing.
I'm surprised - if any other platform only allowed applications released if the company decided, and then the company disallowed based on "Think Of The Children!", then whether or not any apps were mistakenly caught, I would have thought such a platform to be highly unpopular on here given the support for openness, and views against censorship. But I guess because it's Apple, they're held to a different standard...
And as for 'special' phones where internet access is restricted or prohibitively expensive, try just about every non-'smartphone' on the market.
In the US maybe. Elsewhere such as here in the UK, bog standard phones have had unrestricted Internet access for years. And at the same choice of rates as "smart" phones. To be honest, the "smart" distinction doesn't really apply anymore (except perhaps for Iphone shills, who want to hand pick an arbitrary market to greatly inflate Apple's market share).
Next you'll be telling us you could care less about nonsensical American idioms.
Firstly, even if no tax can be made from it, the taxpayer is still better off due to not having to pay for enforcement of laws (nevermind that "we can't tax it" is a ludicrous argument for criminalising something).
Secondly, even if everyone did grow their own at home, that doesn't mean it can't be taxed (even if it's harder to enforce).
Thirdly, your claim is ludicrous - plenty of people spend extra money to save making something themselves (especially those with no gardens). There's no end of examples. Do people make their own beer and wine, in order to escape taxes? And you'd seriously put that as a reason to therefore criminalise alcohol?
They put in more effort and time doing things, therefore they're lazy? What sort of logic is that?
Of course, I'm sure posting on Slashdot is a prime use of your time.
isn't the answer to society's problems
And putting people in prison is?
This isn't about them being good or bad. You can think drugs are bad, and still not support putting people in prison for doing something that should be none of your business. Views and laws regarding tobacco would be an obvious example of this (it's harmful, there are laws that control its sale and use in public, but no one is put in prison for smoking in their own homes, or possessing cigarettes).
Even if what you say was true, then at the least, why is that an argument for criminalising something for someone without a driving licence?
Make it a choice if you must.
Also I hope you have evidence for such claims?