I already explained that. Read the rest of the paragraph.
If I have done business with you in the past, and you reported that the business was satisfactory, and I have a new good or service to offer, why is it unreasonable to expect you might like to know about it?
Because I signed up for a list explicitly telling you that I don't want to know about it.
It covers the RIAA and MPAA no more or less than it covers works released under the GPL. Why do you choose to spin it one way?
Wait a second. My statement about going too far was in reference to the phone list, not the spam list. Did you read my post? I made two separate points. You know what, just read my post again and get back to me.
Prisons are for those who are dangerous to society, and spam is just annoying, not dangerous.
It's not dangerous, but it can be more than just annoying. There are plenty of people in jail for fraud, or non-violent theft. That's the level I'd put spam at. Prison for a first-time offender? Maybe not. But what happens when a spammer starts setting up throwaway corporations and claiming bankruptcy every time she gets caught? You gotta allow for prison at some point.
The laws are unenforced because they're largely impossible to enforce. Giving big brother an extra $130 million dollars [sic] isn't going to help all that much. It'll take a few million dollars just to shut down a single spammer who is covering her tracks half decently.
Rather than raise the price of domains by $5, make a really simple identity check on the purchaser, and sign a PGP key they generate. Now get every domain which sends mail to sign it with the key of the domain name. Sure, it's not a fool-proof solution, but it'll work a whole lot better than enforcement.
Umm. So? What are you trying to prove? A better test would be to list both accounts publically somewhere. A even better test would be to list both accounts publically somewhere, receive legitimate mail in each, and use spam filtering software on each.
If it is, then that's a match and the spammer must remove that address from their spam-list.
Or they can use the match as confirmation that the address is valid.
A better solution is to allow entire domains. Hell, you combine the two and allow MD5 hashes of those entire domains. It makes more sense, too, since the domain is going to correspond more closely to the owner of the mail server anyway.
You know, just like any Unix/Linux password encryption scheme?
Ever hear of a dictionary attack? Ever hear that you shouldn't choose a word in a dictionary or a name for your password? Now how many email addresses do you think are random strings of characters, and how many do you think are names or words, possibly with a number or two at the end?
Free speech protects you when you're standing on a corner preaching your religious views or publishing a political opposition newspaper. It does not force everyone to stop and listen to you speak, nor force anyone to buy a copy of your newspaper.
How does spam force you to listen? Last time I checked it was easier to hit delete than it was to hold my ears while walking past a street corner.
I agree with you that a do-not-spam list is constitutional, but your whole "forcing people to listen" argument is stupid.
I wouldn't go that far. It's somewhat useless (I won't be putting my main address on the list), but there's nothing horrible about it. If you don't like it, don't use it. At least this will shut up the lobbyists who have been begging for a law against spam. Maybe they'll even turn their efforts to something productive.
If I have a credit card with a bank, and the banks calls me out of the blue to try to sell me anti-fraud protection, that is legal, and should be.
Should be? I wouldn't go that far. If you're on the DNC list, no one should be allowed to call you to try to sell you something without prior consent. If they're calling to tell me I'm over my limit, or even that I'm nearly over the limit, that's fine. Calling to try to sell me something isn't. Of course, it really doesn't matter all that much. If someone is going to harrass me like that, I'll just cancel my service with them. But to say that it should be legal... That goes a bit too far.
I fail to see the problem, or even while this special exemption was necessary.
There isn't a problem, and it probably isn't necessary. It's still interesting to see that the RIAA managed to get this one in to cover their asses just in case someone tries to use the law against them. It really goes to show you who makes the laws in this country.
Ah, but you're not making digital musical recordings on your audio CD-R. You're downloading copies of data from an illegal distribution source.
Umm, sounds like the same thing to me.
The AHRA specifies "making digital [or analog] musical recordings" - as in, you playing guitar or singing into a mic and recording that.
Why would you need to be exempted from copyright infringement for that? That doesn't make sense.
Otherwise, you're just copying data.
The law is more commonly used for exempting people from recording off the radio, or copying a cassette tape from a friend. So it seems to me that copying certainly is included in the scope of the law. And so is recording when that recording doesn't include an A/D conversion. The word "record" includes copying.
Also, downloading direct to CD-R is not legal under the AHRA. I've got no idea where you got that from (if it doesn't touch your hard drive, it's not infringement?).
Did you read the AHRA?
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
An Audio CD-R is considered a digital audio recording medium under the Audio Home Recording Act. A hard drive is not.
Whatever floats your boat. Just make sure that the software you distribute is indeed yours.
Let's see. It's on my hard drive, which is in my computer, which is in my apartment. Yep, I'd say it's mine. Notice we don't attribute ownership to the builder of the hard drive, or the computer, or the person who built the house.
If "your" software includes stuff that I have written and distributed under the GPL then you do not have the right to deny the source to the users.
Huh? So when I downloaded Mozilla onto my uncle's computer, I violated someone's rights?
Well, technically, yes
That's ludicrous. No. Technically, no. I didn't violate anyone's rights. Not technically, not morally, not at all. If you think I did, then you're a moron.
If your uncle was a hardcore programmer and wanted to actively make contributions to the Mozilla project then yes, you have violated his rights by not giving him the source {although your obligation probably would have been satisfied by telling him truthfully where he could have obtained it}.
His rights? His rights!?!? Absolutely not. You don't have a right to have me give you source code. That's not a right. It might be a nice thing for me to do. I might be a bastard for not doing it. But it's not a right.
The users of software have an absolute right to the source code by sole virtue of the software's existence.
I'm glad the martians came down and told you that. Here on planet earth we've never heard of such a thing.
Easier yes, but without the source code, it is frankly next to impossible to create a derivative work.
Actually it's really easy. Just go in and randomly change a few bits.
You want a useful derivative work? Well that all depends on the software. Lots of software will let you add binary modules. That also creates a derivative work.
More weasel words. Why should it say so in the licence?
Because that's what licenses are meant to do.
It is an implicit assumption.
Since I'm the author of one of those two licenses, I can tell you for a fact that it is absolutely not an implicit assumption with it.
Every human being is obliged to help every other being to the fullest extent possible without actually harming themself.
LOL. That's a good one. IHBT, I guess.
The real question I find myself asking is why would you want to release something in binary form only?
For profit, of course.
Do you think people will laugh at your commenting style or the way you use curly brackets?
I'd make sure to run it through indent before releasing it.
you didn't talk about the process of getting you to court in the first place in your post, so I didn't either
Learn to read. "That is, if the RIAA could even get a subpoena in the first place. After all, how are they going to get probable cause?"
this wouldn't be an issue if it were offered to you by the (c) holder or you d/l'd it without that permission.
If you're not sharing, then how do they know that you're downloading if they're not the one who's sending it?
as for the rest, whether the riaa is wrong (which they are) or right, you're just not going to win given copyright law.
No, I would win. But the RIAA isn't going to sue me for merely downloading.
Yes I read your post and you're just wrong. the mp3.com case shows this.
The mp3.com case is irrelevant. They were infringing copyright for profit purposes. It's completely different.
Even if it didn't, the fact that you admitted to hundreds of "violations" to which you'd be willing to pay if sued also does, and more effectively at that.
Actually, I haven't violated copyright on RIAA music in years. Longer than the statute of limitations.
You may have read the law, but you don't know how it works.
If you fought in court and you were only downloading you'd still lose. that's because if you violatate either the "reproduction" or the "distribution" right under copyright law you are hosed, as they say, per se.
Did you read my post? There are a lot of affirmative defenses, and they don't even have to be used unless the RIAA can show a preponderance of the evidence.
They don't need probable cause. this is a civil suit.
They need probable cause for a subpoena to get your information from the ISP, or to confiscate your computer, which they'd need to do to have any chance of actually winning the case. The fact that someone at such and such IP address downloaded a single file which was offered to them by the copyright holder isn't going to cut it.
it's not a fair use. look up the fair use factors in the civil code. they are, in effect (1) he nature of the copyrighted work (a song) ; (2) the nature of the "infringing work" (just a replication of the whole song); (3) the amount of the copying (the whole thing); and (4) the effect on the market (the court will say in the aggregate it is devastating)
Yeah, so how do they know you don't already own the CD? That would make the effect on the market zero.
no one would ever buy that you we downloading directly to cd-r as OK by AHRA if you douwloaded the song off p2p to your computer
I think someone definately would buy that I've done it, because I'm the kind of person who has done a lot of research into such things and know exactly how to get around the law. I'd provide receipts of the CD-Rs and this Slashdot post as evidence.
i object to the current state of the law, but the law as is stands id completely different than you seem to think it is.
I've read the law, and I know what it is.
I mean, "probable cause,"... dude, that has nothing to do with this.
Hmm, I looked at the link, and while people were indeed saying that you shouldn't sue Napster, because they were only providing a tool, I didn't see any suggesting that the RIAA sue the people doing the infringement. I only got through about a quarter of the posts. But that's enough to say that it certainly wasn't a huge cry by/.ers.
Has anyone considered a class action countersuit on behalf of p2p users for harrassment and extortion by the RIAA.
But... Then couldn't they sue you back for harrassment and extortion? And then you could sue them back again for harrassment and extortion. And then they could sue you back for...
if you were to make that argument in court the riaa lawyer would chuckle and say something to the effect of "thanks for playing, game over." and then you'd get the hose of justice where i'm sure you don't want it.
Actually if you fought it in court and you were only downloading, you'd probably win. That is, if the RIAA could even get a subpoena in the first place. After all, how are they going to get probable cause? It could be fair use. It could be accidental (you were looking for a live recording which isn't copyrighted by the RIAA). You could be downloading directly to an Audio CD-R, which is legal under the Audio Home Recording Act. You could argue that since the RIAA offered the song to you that you had an implied license.
Name one thing -- that FSF doesn't own rights to -- that it has tried to stop anyone from distributing.
Huh? When did I say they didn't "own rights" to these things?
He who writes the code picks the license.
Apparently you missed the beginning of this thread. The person I was responding to was the one who made the claim that "What is immoral is hoarding the source code and denying people the right to copy and distribute software." Legally, he who writes the code picks the license, of course.
So now it's all about you?
No, it's not all about me. But I'm one of the people being harmed. If someone wants to make a binary only patch to a piece of GPLed software I use, it's illegal for that person to distribute it to me. I'm not the only example, but I'm one of them. If you happen to have the time and brainpower to understand every single line of every single piece of software that you run, then it doesn't apply to you, I guess.
Shall we amend the GPL to say "but you don't have to distribute sourcecode to Anthony Dipierro"?
No. The GPL should be amended to say that you don't have to distribute source to anyone. Or if the RMS is too greedy to allow that, then it could say that they have to distribute source if they distribute binaries to RMS. The key is that if you have a willing distributor and a willing recipient, the FSF shouldn't get in the way and try to sue people. If you don't want the binary-only modifications, don't take them, they're not yours. If you can't make do without source, contact the author and offer to buy the source. I'm sure the author would be willing to make a deal with you.
You are at least free to ask anyone to help you fix it or repair it for you. Try that if you don't have the source.
Yeah. It's a nice advantage, having the source. If I ever have a choice between source and no source, I'll take the source. But some authors don't want to give away their source. They'd rather give binaries away for free and sell the source. And while I'd prefer the source, a free binary is better than nothing at all, but the FSF wants to take that right away from me. I guess they think it's for my own good. Well I'd prefer to choose for myself.
That would basically make it impossible to develop Free Software for certain platforms (AS/400, video game consoles, etc), as well as some very popular enviornments (Java, VB, etc)
So? If the compilation tools aren't freely available, why does it matter whether or not you have the source? BTW, isn't gcj freely available?
The reason that the FSF believes that proprietary software is immoral is because it thinks it is wrong to hoard something when it cost you nothing to give away. Yes there is an opportunity cost, as there is in every decision we make.
There are also a direct costs. Media fees, bandwidth charges, whatever costs are associated with your method of distribution. But the GPL does allow you to charge for these direct costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is that too far?
I already explained that. Read the rest of the paragraph.
If I have done business with you in the past, and you reported that the business was satisfactory, and I have a new good or service to offer, why is it unreasonable to expect you might like to know about it?
Because I signed up for a list explicitly telling you that I don't want to know about it.
It covers the RIAA and MPAA no more or less than it covers works released under the GPL. Why do you choose to spin it one way?
Wait a second. My statement about going too far was in reference to the phone list, not the spam list. Did you read my post? I made two separate points. You know what, just read my post again and get back to me.
Prisons are for those who are dangerous to society, and spam is just annoying, not dangerous.
It's not dangerous, but it can be more than just annoying. There are plenty of people in jail for fraud, or non-violent theft. That's the level I'd put spam at. Prison for a first-time offender? Maybe not. But what happens when a spammer starts setting up throwaway corporations and claiming bankruptcy every time she gets caught? You gotta allow for prison at some point.
The laws are unenforced because they're largely impossible to enforce. Giving big brother an extra $130 million dollars [sic] isn't going to help all that much. It'll take a few million dollars just to shut down a single spammer who is covering her tracks half decently.
Rather than raise the price of domains by $5, make a really simple identity check on the purchaser, and sign a PGP key they generate. Now get every domain which sends mail to sign it with the key of the domain name. Sure, it's not a fool-proof solution, but it'll work a whole lot better than enforcement.
Umm. So? What are you trying to prove? A better test would be to list both accounts publically somewhere. A even better test would be to list both accounts publically somewhere, receive legitimate mail in each, and use spam filtering software on each.
One question: does this federal law overrule the Calif law, and if so, is it for better or worse?
It's up to congress. If they specifically say that this law doesn't preempt state law, then it doesn't. But if they don't say, it does.
Of course, that California law is unconstitutional anyway, as it unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce.
If it is, then that's a match and the spammer must remove that address from their spam-list.
Or they can use the match as confirmation that the address is valid.
A better solution is to allow entire domains. Hell, you combine the two and allow MD5 hashes of those entire domains. It makes more sense, too, since the domain is going to correspond more closely to the owner of the mail server anyway.
You know, just like any Unix/Linux password encryption scheme?
Ever hear of a dictionary attack? Ever hear that you shouldn't choose a word in a dictionary or a name for your password? Now how many email addresses do you think are random strings of characters, and how many do you think are names or words, possibly with a number or two at the end?
Free speech protects you when you're standing on a corner preaching your religious views or publishing a political opposition newspaper. It does not force everyone to stop and listen to you speak, nor force anyone to buy a copy of your newspaper.
How does spam force you to listen? Last time I checked it was easier to hit delete than it was to hold my ears while walking past a street corner.
I agree with you that a do-not-spam list is constitutional, but your whole "forcing people to listen" argument is stupid.
I wouldn't go that far. It's somewhat useless (I won't be putting my main address on the list), but there's nothing horrible about it. If you don't like it, don't use it. At least this will shut up the lobbyists who have been begging for a law against spam. Maybe they'll even turn their efforts to something productive.
If I have a credit card with a bank, and the banks calls me out of the blue to try to sell me anti-fraud protection, that is legal, and should be.
Should be? I wouldn't go that far. If you're on the DNC list, no one should be allowed to call you to try to sell you something without prior consent. If they're calling to tell me I'm over my limit, or even that I'm nearly over the limit, that's fine. Calling to try to sell me something isn't. Of course, it really doesn't matter all that much. If someone is going to harrass me like that, I'll just cancel my service with them. But to say that it should be legal... That goes a bit too far.
I fail to see the problem, or even while this special exemption was necessary.
There isn't a problem, and it probably isn't necessary. It's still interesting to see that the RIAA managed to get this one in to cover their asses just in case someone tries to use the law against them. It really goes to show you who makes the laws in this country.
Ah, but you're not making digital musical recordings on your audio CD-R. You're downloading copies of data from an illegal distribution source.
Umm, sounds like the same thing to me.
The AHRA specifies "making digital [or analog] musical recordings" - as in, you playing guitar or singing into a mic and recording that.
Why would you need to be exempted from copyright infringement for that? That doesn't make sense.
Otherwise, you're just copying data.
The law is more commonly used for exempting people from recording off the radio, or copying a cassette tape from a friend. So it seems to me that copying certainly is included in the scope of the law. And so is recording when that recording doesn't include an A/D conversion. The word "record" includes copying.
Umm, there's one problem with your story. Disneyland is in California, not Florida.
But a high number of people being threatened by the mob wouldn't?
Also, downloading direct to CD-R is not legal under the AHRA. I've got no idea where you got that from (if it doesn't touch your hard drive, it's not infringement?).
Did you read the AHRA?
An Audio CD-R is considered a digital audio recording medium under the Audio Home Recording Act. A hard drive is not.
Whatever floats your boat. Just make sure that the software you distribute is indeed yours.
Let's see. It's on my hard drive, which is in my computer, which is in my apartment. Yep, I'd say it's mine. Notice we don't attribute ownership to the builder of the hard drive, or the computer, or the person who built the house.
If "your" software includes stuff that I have written and distributed under the GPL then you do not have the right to deny the source to the users.
Yep. I do.
Huh? So when I downloaded Mozilla onto my uncle's computer, I violated someone's rights?
Well, technically, yes
That's ludicrous. No. Technically, no. I didn't violate anyone's rights. Not technically, not morally, not at all. If you think I did, then you're a moron.
If your uncle was a hardcore programmer and wanted to actively make contributions to the Mozilla project then yes, you have violated his rights by not giving him the source {although your obligation probably would have been satisfied by telling him truthfully where he could have obtained it}.
His rights? His rights!?!? Absolutely not. You don't have a right to have me give you source code. That's not a right. It might be a nice thing for me to do. I might be a bastard for not doing it. But it's not a right.
The users of software have an absolute right to the source code by sole virtue of the software's existence.
I'm glad the martians came down and told you that. Here on planet earth we've never heard of such a thing.
Easier yes, but without the source code, it is frankly next to impossible to create a derivative work.
Actually it's really easy. Just go in and randomly change a few bits.
You want a useful derivative work? Well that all depends on the software. Lots of software will let you add binary modules. That also creates a derivative work.
More weasel words. Why should it say so in the licence?
Because that's what licenses are meant to do.
It is an implicit assumption.
Since I'm the author of one of those two licenses, I can tell you for a fact that it is absolutely not an implicit assumption with it.
Every human being is obliged to help every other being to the fullest extent possible without actually harming themself.
LOL. That's a good one. IHBT, I guess.
The real question I find myself asking is why would you want to release something in binary form only?
For profit, of course.
Do you think people will laugh at your commenting style or the way you use curly brackets?
I'd make sure to run it through indent before releasing it.
you didn't talk about the process of getting you to court in the first place in your post, so I didn't either
Learn to read. "That is, if the RIAA could even get a subpoena in the first place. After all, how are they going to get probable cause?"
this wouldn't be an issue if it were offered to you by the (c) holder or you d/l'd it without that permission.
If you're not sharing, then how do they know that you're downloading if they're not the one who's sending it?
as for the rest, whether the riaa is wrong (which they are) or right, you're just not going to win given copyright law.
No, I would win. But the RIAA isn't going to sue me for merely downloading.
Yes I read your post and you're just wrong. the mp3.com case shows this.
The mp3.com case is irrelevant. They were infringing copyright for profit purposes. It's completely different.
Even if it didn't, the fact that you admitted to hundreds of "violations" to which you'd be willing to pay if sued also does, and more effectively at that.
Actually, I haven't violated copyright on RIAA music in years. Longer than the statute of limitations.
You may have read the law, but you don't know how it works.
No, you're the one who doesn't know how it works.
If you fought in court and you were only downloading you'd still lose. that's because if you violatate either the "reproduction" or the "distribution" right under copyright law you are hosed, as they say, per se.
Did you read my post? There are a lot of affirmative defenses, and they don't even have to be used unless the RIAA can show a preponderance of the evidence.
They don't need probable cause. this is a civil suit.
They need probable cause for a subpoena to get your information from the ISP, or to confiscate your computer, which they'd need to do to have any chance of actually winning the case. The fact that someone at such and such IP address downloaded a single file which was offered to them by the copyright holder isn't going to cut it.
it's not a fair use. look up the fair use factors in the civil code. they are, in effect (1) he nature of the copyrighted work (a song) ; (2) the nature of the "infringing work" (just a replication of the whole song); (3) the amount of the copying (the whole thing); and (4) the effect on the market (the court will say in the aggregate it is devastating)
Yeah, so how do they know you don't already own the CD? That would make the effect on the market zero.
no one would ever buy that you we downloading directly to cd-r as OK by AHRA if you douwloaded the song off p2p to your computer
I think someone definately would buy that I've done it, because I'm the kind of person who has done a lot of research into such things and know exactly how to get around the law. I'd provide receipts of the CD-Rs and this Slashdot post as evidence.
i object to the current state of the law, but the law as is stands id completely different than you seem to think it is.
I've read the law, and I know what it is.
I mean, "probable cause," ... dude, that has nothing to do with this.
What is the standard to get a subpoena, then?
Hmm, I looked at the link, and while people were indeed saying that you shouldn't sue Napster, because they were only providing a tool, I didn't see any suggesting that the RIAA sue the people doing the infringement. I only got through about a quarter of the posts. But that's enough to say that it certainly wasn't a huge cry by /.ers.
How can a person learn about non-RIAA music while inside a moving vehicle?
Surely you live near a college which has a radio station, don't you?
The $100 million was the absolute maximum. She wound up settling for much less. So where's the surprise?
Has anyone considered a class action countersuit on behalf of p2p users for harrassment and extortion by the RIAA.
But... Then couldn't they sue you back for harrassment and extortion? And then you could sue them back again for harrassment and extortion. And then they could sue you back for...
if you were to make that argument in court the riaa lawyer would chuckle and say something to the effect of "thanks for playing, game over." and then you'd get the hose of justice where i'm sure you don't want it.
Actually if you fought it in court and you were only downloading, you'd probably win. That is, if the RIAA could even get a subpoena in the first place. After all, how are they going to get probable cause? It could be fair use. It could be accidental (you were looking for a live recording which isn't copyrighted by the RIAA). You could be downloading directly to an Audio CD-R, which is legal under the Audio Home Recording Act. You could argue that since the RIAA offered the song to you that you had an implied license.
Name one thing -- that FSF doesn't own rights to -- that it has tried to stop anyone from distributing.
Huh? When did I say they didn't "own rights" to these things?
He who writes the code picks the license.
Apparently you missed the beginning of this thread. The person I was responding to was the one who made the claim that "What is immoral is hoarding the source code and denying people the right to copy and distribute software." Legally, he who writes the code picks the license, of course.
So now it's all about you?
No, it's not all about me. But I'm one of the people being harmed. If someone wants to make a binary only patch to a piece of GPLed software I use, it's illegal for that person to distribute it to me. I'm not the only example, but I'm one of them. If you happen to have the time and brainpower to understand every single line of every single piece of software that you run, then it doesn't apply to you, I guess.
Shall we amend the GPL to say "but you don't have to distribute sourcecode to Anthony Dipierro"?
No. The GPL should be amended to say that you don't have to distribute source to anyone. Or if the RMS is too greedy to allow that, then it could say that they have to distribute source if they distribute binaries to RMS. The key is that if you have a willing distributor and a willing recipient, the FSF shouldn't get in the way and try to sue people. If you don't want the binary-only modifications, don't take them, they're not yours. If you can't make do without source, contact the author and offer to buy the source. I'm sure the author would be willing to make a deal with you.
You are at least free to ask anyone to help you fix it or repair it for you. Try that if you don't have the source.
Yeah. It's a nice advantage, having the source. If I ever have a choice between source and no source, I'll take the source. But some authors don't want to give away their source. They'd rather give binaries away for free and sell the source. And while I'd prefer the source, a free binary is better than nothing at all, but the FSF wants to take that right away from me. I guess they think it's for my own good. Well I'd prefer to choose for myself.
That would basically make it impossible to develop Free Software for certain platforms (AS/400, video game consoles, etc), as well as some very popular enviornments (Java, VB, etc)
So? If the compilation tools aren't freely available, why does it matter whether or not you have the source? BTW, isn't gcj freely available?
The reason that the FSF believes that proprietary software is immoral is because it thinks it is wrong to hoard something when it cost you nothing to give away. Yes there is an opportunity cost, as there is in every decision we make.
There are also a direct costs. Media fees, bandwidth charges, whatever costs are associated with your method of distribution. But the GPL does allow you to charge for these direct costs.