I can totally relate. I have "I'm going to Hell" moments all the time, and that was one of them. Another one was when I laughed at this joke (not based on a true story, I hope) when a friend told it to me.
Well aren't you brave, Miss Anonymous pussy. I hope you enjoy saying things to people online that would get your sorry little ass kicked if you dared to utter them in person. But please give it a try in real life and let us all know how that goes for you.
Whine, whine, whine, cry, cry, cry. It was 60 years ago, people deal with tragedy through humor, and no one appointed you chief censor for the world. Get over yourself.
No shit. What the hell do we have here? Kamikaze moderators from the Imperial Japanese Air Force? Or a bunch of humorless fucking politically correct gits? Hard to tell. Anyways, I laughed my ass off. And no apologies to the simpering whiners out there who think I shouldn't.
I don't share your pessimistic assessment of the regular Joe or Jane's ability to understand what DRM is. Especially once they get a taste (for example, being unable to play a movie purchased on one PC and burned to a DVD-R in some DRM format at a friend's house; or not being able to play a CD burned from a music service in his car).
. . . Apple has been told quite clearly by the market that having the distinction of being the first mover in the locked down PC market won't be good for the share price.
So they went from "We're going to lock down OSX with Treacherous Computing" to "DRM? What DRM?"
They'll have to provide a version of Linux signed with the endorsement key for the Palladium/TCPA/NGCSB platform so they can pretend that it's not about DRM and vendor lock-in.
Not so fast. Apple has embraced Treacherous Computing--the Mactels use a TPM chip. (Of course, a Mac is only a $3,000 dongle for OS X, anyway--this just proves it.)
They're going to make money selling dossiers on us to corporations, governments, and the rich. Imagine what a politician could do with the Google searches of one of his enemies and all his family members. Will this somehow be avoided? I doubt it, but only time will tell.
Blows to the head sounds pretty gentle compared to the way he should have been killed. If he was to get what he deserved, they'd still be in the process.
Ah, the "violence begets violence" argument. But if spam isn't attacked, it's guaranteed to grow. With a counterattack, ISPs will be motivated to kick their spammers quickly, and the "cost" to spam increases. Eventually, when it is established that spam will be met with a swift and devastating network attack, it will become less common.
I think a few GB of traffic in an hour is just the ticket for spamvertized sites, and I always do my part for any one I come across.
For those who complain that ISPs end up footing the bill because the spammers don't pay, well, I guess they'll need to be more careful about vetting their customers next time. As if there are any really "innocent" ISPs hosting Internet "pharmacies" or "Rolex" dealers.
The DMCA requires that a copy protection measure be "effective." A measure such as robots.txt with no legal force that relies on voluntary compliance can hardly be so called.
Since by means the of the tired analogy to stealing, you've gone down that road, the appropriate analogy in this particular case is a that of a library being sued for having kept a copy of a marketing brochure and made it available to opposing counsel. (And don't forget that the marketing brochure would have been subject to discovery, were all copies of it not conveniently destroyed by those bringing this suit.)
Your argument acts as if the marketing brochure had been displayed under glass in a room with an armed guard preventing picture taking, and that someone had smuggled a copy out and distributed it. That is not the case. Nothing was "stolen," the Internet Archive merely accessed information that had been made publically available.
It would be poor public policy indeed to prohibit the Internet Archive or similar from doing this kind of work--were it not for the IA in this case, the plaintiffs in this suit would have gotten away with lying about what they had published. Surely their flimsy copyright interest in something they had distributed freely doesn't outweigh the public's right to fair adjudiction of the suit for which the brochure was evidence.
Yes, the HTTP has provision for no-cache, etc. -- but those are only protcol provisions, and don't carry any legal force. If someone wants to control the degree to which someone can use his content, it is up to him to provide his own network or controls that enforce that. Your gallery analogy is apt: an artist can decree that his work cannot be photographed or otherwise copied. However, it is his responsibility to see that it is displayed in a gallery that pays to support the kind of infrastructure necessary to support that. Similarly, if he wants the benefit of an essentially free display mechanism like the Internet, he has to be realistic about the ability of anyone who pleases to take a photograph of his work concomitant with that.
In short, if you want to lock down your content, provide your own network and infrastructure; don't bitch because you chose to use a public network and people make copies.
In some states, yes. But in lots of states, one party consent is sufficient to make a recording lawful. In any case, your comparison of wiretapping laws, which have been on the books for over fifty years with an entity archiving sites deliberately made publicly available is entirely without merit.
Nice troll. Welcome to reality: if you put it on the Internet, people can cache and store it, whether you like it or not, and whether it's "legal" or not. And if you tell lies on the Internet, someday it can come and bite you in the ass because of that.
Slashdot Mirror
I can totally relate. I have "I'm going to Hell" moments all the time, and that was one of them. Another one was when I laughed at this joke (not based on a true story, I hope) when a friend told it to me.
Well aren't you brave, Miss Anonymous pussy. I hope you enjoy saying things to people online that would get your sorry little ass kicked if you dared to utter them in person. But please give it a try in real life and let us all know how that goes for you.
Whine, whine, whine, cry, cry, cry. It was 60 years ago, people deal with tragedy through humor, and no one appointed you chief censor for the world. Get over yourself.
No shit. What the hell do we have here? Kamikaze moderators from the Imperial Japanese Air Force? Or a bunch of humorless fucking politically correct gits? Hard to tell. Anyways, I laughed my ass off. And no apologies to the simpering whiners out there who think I shouldn't.
Are we for full disclosure or security through obscurity? Let's decide which and be consistent, please.
Five million to harass small-time copyright infringers and the people who would otherwise be our saviors from creeping DRM. Wonderful.
I don't share your pessimistic assessment of the regular Joe or Jane's ability to understand what DRM is. Especially once they get a taste (for example, being unable to play a movie purchased on one PC and burned to a DVD-R in some DRM format at a friend's house; or not being able to play a CD burned from a music service in his car).
So they went from "We're going to lock down OSX with Treacherous Computing" to "DRM? What DRM?"
They'll have to provide a version of Linux signed with the endorsement key for the Palladium/TCPA/NGCSB platform so they can pretend that it's not about DRM and vendor lock-in.
Not so fast. Apple has embraced Treacherous Computing--the Mactels use a TPM chip. (Of course, a Mac is only a $3,000 dongle for OS X, anyway--this just proves it.)
They're going to make money selling dossiers on us to corporations, governments, and the rich. Imagine what a politician could do with the Google searches of one of his enemies and all his family members. Will this somehow be avoided? I doubt it, but only time will tell.
Blows to the head sounds pretty gentle compared to the way he should have been killed. If he was to get what he deserved, they'd still be in the process.
that telco should be stripped of common carrier status, and be held responsible for every questionable or illegal thing that travels on its wires.
"That cookie shit makes me nervous."
Ah, the "violence begets violence" argument. But if spam isn't attacked, it's guaranteed to grow. With a counterattack, ISPs will be motivated to kick their spammers quickly, and the "cost" to spam increases. Eventually, when it is established that spam will be met with a swift and devastating network attack, it will become less common.
For those who complain that ISPs end up footing the bill because the spammers don't pay, well, I guess they'll need to be more careful about vetting their customers next time. As if there are any really "innocent" ISPs hosting Internet "pharmacies" or "Rolex" dealers.
Actually, the ScramblePad security keypad does look like prior art, though.
I am sporting wood about this. And as jaded as I am, that says something.
The DMCA requires that a copy protection measure be "effective." A measure such as robots.txt with no legal force that relies on voluntary compliance can hardly be so called.
Wouldn't you have been surprised to find out that it was!
Your argument acts as if the marketing brochure had been displayed under glass in a room with an armed guard preventing picture taking, and that someone had smuggled a copy out and distributed it. That is not the case. Nothing was "stolen," the Internet Archive merely accessed information that had been made publically available.
It would be poor public policy indeed to prohibit the Internet Archive or similar from doing this kind of work--were it not for the IA in this case, the plaintiffs in this suit would have gotten away with lying about what they had published. Surely their flimsy copyright interest in something they had distributed freely doesn't outweigh the public's right to fair adjudiction of the suit for which the brochure was evidence.
In short, if you want to lock down your content, provide your own network and infrastructure; don't bitch because you chose to use a public network and people make copies.
In some states, yes. But in lots of states, one party consent is sufficient to make a recording lawful. In any case, your comparison of wiretapping laws, which have been on the books for over fifty years with an entity archiving sites deliberately made publicly available is entirely without merit.
Nice troll. Welcome to reality: if you put it on the Internet, people can cache and store it, whether you like it or not, and whether it's "legal" or not. And if you tell lies on the Internet, someday it can come and bite you in the ass because of that.
We tried to play Ministry of Truth and we would have got away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids at the Internet Archive. Let's sue!