Would the world be better off or not if it was illegal to overpromote the functionality or features of software?
Overpromote in what way? If you say that a feature exists, knowing that it doesn't, with the intent to make a profit, that's fraud, and you should be charged criminally with it.
One sticking point you might notice with my definition is that you have to know that you are lying, and that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, all of those Microsoft splash screens during the installers for Windows 95, 98, 98SE, and Millennium could allow us to sue them?!
Civilly, sure. For criminal charges I think you'd have to prove intent a bit stronger. And "we" can't sue Microsoft criminally, only the government can do that.
Forget the RIAA, this is just putting money straight into the pockets of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. For every dollar this kid gets, he gets 40% less in financial aid. You'd be better off giving the money to his parents, then he only loses 10% of it in financial aid.
What are you talking about? It most certainly is a copyright issue. It's also a license issue. But the only reason you need a license is because of the copyright. As for whether it's the license of openSSL or that of gaim which the gaim developers are concerned about, I really can't figure it out. Presumably using gaim-encryption violates both.
Well, $1 probably isn't possible legally, but $200 is...
In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.
Now if it was an IBM employee who stole the code, that's not going to be applicable. But if it wasn't, and IBM can prove that it wasn't, then we might very well see a $200 fine imposed.
The big question is if a judge or jury will find any actual damages. If the code really is critical to the OS that's certainly possible. But it's hard for me to imagine such critical code coming from some unknown source and no one bothering to verify the integrity of that contributor. I don't know, we'll see, maybe.
Oh well, I already got it on Kazaalite (took about 5 minutes). But the point is, if you're going to have a P2P app, does it make very much sense to have a single point of failure? All you really need is the MD5 of the file. And even that part could be distributed with signatures. Yeah, sure, it's sounding like freenet, but freenet wastes too much effort trying to be anonymous. Oh well, I'm sure the protocol is too complicated for me to have time to implement anyway. The torrent file alone is a kludgy mess where some standard (like xml) could have just been used.
C'mon now. Most slashdotters don't realize that this speech was scripted. They think Gollum just started going off and MTV just couldn't cut to commercial quick enough.
This FCC ruling makes it so that this will no longer be possible and so telemarketers will be able to call cellphones and claim that they were not aware that it was a cellular number.
It doesn't matter. The law is one of strict liability. Ignorance is no excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Most sales and management usually are excluded from prosecution.
Would the world be better off or not if it was illegal to overpromote the functionality or features of software?
Overpromote in what way? If you say that a feature exists, knowing that it doesn't, with the intent to make a profit, that's fraud, and you should be charged criminally with it.
One sticking point you might notice with my definition is that you have to know that you are lying, and that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, all of those Microsoft splash screens during the installers for Windows 95, 98, 98SE, and Millennium could allow us to sue them?!
Civilly, sure. For criminal charges I think you'd have to prove intent a bit stronger. And "we" can't sue Microsoft criminally, only the government can do that.
Everyone is guilty of hyping unreleased stuff.
I'm not.
Huh? You can't get more financial aid, but you can get less.
Forget the RIAA, this is just putting money straight into the pockets of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. For every dollar this kid gets, he gets 40% less in financial aid. You'd be better off giving the money to his parents, then he only loses 10% of it in financial aid.
You can donate to the EFF.
What good has that done?
Future income. When you file for bankruptcy, you have to agree to partially pay your debtors over the next few years.
Even if he'd found a lawyer, it would have still cost him $12K.
But at least it would have cost the RIAA $12K too!
Two clicks... anyone do better?
I can do it in one click, but I'm not allowed to describe it, since it's patented.
What are you talking about? It most certainly is a copyright issue. It's also a license issue. But the only reason you need a license is because of the copyright. As for whether it's the license of openSSL or that of gaim which the gaim developers are concerned about, I really can't figure it out. Presumably using gaim-encryption violates both.
Well, $1 probably isn't possible legally, but $200 is...
Now if it was an IBM employee who stole the code, that's not going to be applicable. But if it wasn't, and IBM can prove that it wasn't, then we might very well see a $200 fine imposed.
The big question is if a judge or jury will find any actual damages. If the code really is critical to the OS that's certainly possible. But it's hard for me to imagine such critical code coming from some unknown source and no one bothering to verify the integrity of that contributor. I don't know, we'll see, maybe.
It has been discussed by the gaim developers and, if asked about gaim-encryption, they will tell you to stop using it
Whatever, the RIAA tells me to stop using Kazaa, too. Fuck copyright.
The idea of a major corp. distributing peer-to-peer encrpytion is somewhat odd in the Age of Ashcroft.
https://dont.use.ie/
Are you kidding me? Haven't you ever sent passwords over AIM? Haven't you ever talked about last night's drug use?
Umm, neither have I. Drugs are bad, mmmkay?
Not if it's end-to-end encryption, which is the only kind that's useful anyway.
Oh well, I already got it on Kazaalite (took about 5 minutes). But the point is, if you're going to have a P2P app, does it make very much sense to have a single point of failure? All you really need is the MD5 of the file. And even that part could be distributed with signatures. Yeah, sure, it's sounding like freenet, but freenet wastes too much effort trying to be anonymous. Oh well, I'm sure the protocol is too complicated for me to have time to implement anyway. The torrent file alone is a kludgy mess where some standard (like xml) could have just been used.
C'mon now. Most slashdotters don't realize that this speech was scripted. They think Gollum just started going off and MTV just couldn't cut to commercial quick enough.
That's so easy to fix, too.
Is there any better documentation of the protocol than this?
Just post the torrent file itself... It's small enough.
Too many connections? What the hell is the point of bittorrent if you can have "too many connections?"
Oops, you're right, I misread the page on FRS.
This FCC ruling makes it so that this will no longer be possible and so telemarketers will be able to call cellphones and claim that they were not aware that it was a cellular number.
It doesn't matter. The law is one of strict liability. Ignorance is no excuse.
Why doesn't Verizon just charge a number portability fee like the land-line phone companies do?
Are they allowed to raise their fees without excusing people from their contracts? I'd assume not.
Verizon has much, much better customer support and reception where I live. Don't they think they're going to win here?
Maybe they're just being honest when they say that it's going to cost them a lot of money to implement it.