When driving to the "Googleplex", Google's employees drive on public roads. They drive on roads made safer by law enforcement. They're defended by a brave group of Americans that volunteered to give their lives when necessary. If they have an employee that's been in a car accident, many time a city/county EMS unit will take them to the tax-funded public hospital. If there's a fire at the Googleplex, the local fire department will respond.
And these employees pay taxes. And Google pays property taxes. And none of these things are provided by the federal government anyway.
You think the average tax accountant who gets a big income from tax planning laments that they "can't" spend their time on more useful pursuits, instead of taking all that dirty money? What stops them? Please.
I can only speak for myself, and not the average tax accountant, but I'd gladly have the government do away with the income tax system (*). I'd gladly find something else to do with my time, though I do feel my time is usefully spent helping people avoid paying more than they rightfully owe in taxes.
The way I look at it, my reliance as a tax accountant on the income tax system being complicated is no different than a firefighter's reliance on people's homes catching on fire. Sure, if what we help fix was eliminated we'd have to find a new job, but it'd be well worth it.
(*) That said, I don't support the FairTax, as I think it will turn out to be just as complicated and unfair as the income tax. The FairTax is not your run-of-the-mill sales tax that you are used to with state sales taxes. Read more about it before you say you support it.
Google's employees and founders have been unflinchingly supportive of Democrat candidates and policies. Those candidates and policies generally favor higher tax rates and oppose tax cuts "for the rich", and favor greater government spending on social programs. But now they're going out of their way to launder their money to avoid those same taxes.
Is it hypocritical? Yep.
No. It isn't hypocritical. Lobbying for higher taxes and not paying those higher taxes voluntarily are perfectly compatible. Furthermore, you are conflating the beliefs of the "employees and founders" with their actions as fiduciaries of a corporation. The founders are required by law to act in a way which maximizes profits for their company (while remaining within the law), regardless of their personal political beliefs. Employees have a duty of loyalty to their employer, and likewise have to get them every single deduction they legally can, regardless of their political beliefs.
Does anyone think that perhaps corporations shouldn't pay taxes at all?
Yes. Lots of people think this. In fact, I'm sure George Bush would sign such a law if it passed Congress.
As for myself, I'm not a huge fan of the corporate income tax, but I'd favor getting rid of the personal income tax first, and I'd favor getting rid of payroll taxes before even that. The corporate income tax is at least one that is optional - you don't have to run your business as a corporation.
In thinking about basic economic realities, I've been leaning in this direction. It sounds like a bit of a radical idea on the surface, but it's always seemed to me that taxing a corporation is really just an indirect tax on anyone who uses that corporations's services or products.
Well, it's not *that* simple. Those who use the corporation's services or products will likely pay some of the tax. The corporate shareholders will probably pay part of it. The employees of the corporation will pay some of it. The vendors of the corporation will pay some of it. The specifics depend on a lot of factors.
But what's inherently wrong with such an indirect tax in the first place? Corporations have to keep records anyway, so it's easier to tax them than it is to tax the customers directly.
Hooray, logic prevails! Welcome to 1998, glad to have you join us.
Sucks to be here, but thanks for the greeting. By the way, I still don't think you could win a case against someone based solely on their circumvention of a protection system in order to watch a DVD on Linux, but I now realize that it's not anywhere near as cut and dry as I made it out to be.
I did no such thing. I argued that the GPL claims that you accept it when you run it.
Oh, okay, that almost makes sense. Now, I'm quite certain the GPL is not intended to make that claim.
Agreed, though personally I think any license which claims that you automatically accept it when you do X is making a ridiculous claim.
For two, the GPL contains specific language addressing this: "The act of running the Program is not restricted". I'll accept there is ambiguity in the language. You could argue that the act of running the program is not restricted, but the copy necessarily made when running the program is.
Well, I wouldn't make that argument. In fact, I think the whole part about automatically accepting the license is completely unenforcible.
Since a lot of contract interpretation is about intent, I think the Preamble would make it difficult for you to make that argument stick in court -- even before you got to the fact that fair use makes the argument moot.
That actually raises an incredibly complex issue, though. Whose intent is supposed to be interpreted? Unless Eben Moglen is the author or the copyright holder (or maybe the licensee), I don't see how his intent matters. If we're dealing with a simple case of one person granting a second person a license under the GPL, then it is their intent that matters. But it's usually not that simple, and you're talking about multiple people granting a license under the GPL to everyone in the world. I have no idea what a court is going to do to determine intent in that kind of case.
Another complicated issue is that of the termination clause. According to the GPLv2, if you "copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License" (or even attempt to do so), your license is automatically revoked. Now what if that copying, modification, or distribution didn't require a license? For instance, it could be fair use, or it could be first sale, or it could be the exercise of your rights under Section 117 (software installation). If you do this in a way not expressly provided under the GPL, do you forfeit your rights under the GPL? This is actually resolved in GPLv3, which requires notification before termination. But under GPLv2, it's really an open question.
I just re-read what I wrote there and it was horribly written. So yeah, my arguments got all morphed together.
The policies of "no original research" and "include facts cited from verifiable sources" are enormously helpful in using a wiki to create an encyclopedia, but they don't solve every problem, and sometimes they even get in the way of creating a good article. In any case, they aren't strictly followed in Wikipedia. Take a look at this list of articles with unsourced statements. There are probably tens of thousands of articles in that category.
"appeal to authority" is a classic logical fallacy and in no way provides evidence that any given information is true.
Perhaps so, but it sure does act as a good initial filter.
Experts can be just as wrong as other people and they can lie. Facts need to be determined by logic, not emotional dependance upon someone's supposed certification.
This seems awfully extreme to me. When you need to have an illness diagnosed, do you go up to random people on the street and ask them to give you a logical explanation of what is wrong, or do you go to a doctor? When you get arrested and charged with a crime that you didn't commit, do you send in an Ask Slashdot and then filter through the answers looking for the most logical ones, or do you hire a lawyer?
Experts can be wrong. But they tend to be right more often than the average Joe.
Perhaps one of wikipedia's requirements for being an admin should be to read and understand the wikipedia page on "logical fallacy" so that admins can make logical choices.
But...Wikipedia pages can be wrong too. Maybe the Wikipedia page on "logical fallacy" is wrong. Maybe the following quote from Wikipedia is wrong: "On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is plausible: it is likely true, we just don't know for sure, because authority alone is not a proof." The section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#C onditions_for_a_legitimate_argument_from_authority seems to be appropriate reading too. It seems to suggest that arguments from authority can be useful, if done properly.
Ahh, but since anyone can be become an admin and admin status is not in any way tied to whether or not one has particular educational certificates how does this particular instance reflect the disparity?
I really don't know enough details to say for sure. Maybe the admin we're talking about never got involved in a dispute over his claimed area of expertise. If so, then no harm was actually done. I'd still recommend deadminning though, because I think such a lie throws the person's character into question. It's a big lie, in my opinion.
Sadly, this reflects a problem with the users of wikipedia, the admins, and the general populace. Most people don't understand logical decision making and thus make illogical decisions. This is not so much a failing of wikipedia as a failing of the general populace and the educational system reflected upon wikipedia.
I don't really think it's the educational system so much as lack of raw intelligence. But even then, I don't think the issue is as black and white as you make it out to be. I think it's a matter of degree, and all of us at some point have to resort to a reliance on authority. Some of us are naturally smarter, have a better education, and/or have more life experiences, and don't have to rely on authority as much, but we all have to do it once in a while.
Since there is supposed to be no original research on Wikipedia and articles are only supposed to include facts cited from verifiable primary sources, it doesn't matter whether the editors of Wikipedia are Nobel-prize-winning physicists, illegal aliens, or baby killers.
Nope, you forgot to carry that word "supposed" all the way through. Maybe it is supposed to not matter whether the editors of Wikipedia, but when the admins are the ones these rules in the first place, it does matter who the admins are.
The person's arguments don't enter into it, because those arguments aren't filtered through the person's credentials, but through Wikipedia policy.
This might be true if a computer were implementing Wikipedia "policy", but Wikipedia "policy" is implemented by humans. These policies (which are really very sparse, most of them are non-binding "guidelines") are not enforced systematically and consistently, so of course a person's credentials come into play.
Anyway, if a person's credentials don't matter, then why not let everyone be an admin? If a person's credentials don't matter, then surely this particular admin will have no problem being re-granted adminship after a new review.
If you see a situation where this isn't true, be bold and make an effort to correct the problem.
I've tried that many times in the past. It doesn't work.
Now, if this guy is using his fake credentials to get a job, money, media attention, or whatever else, then there's a problem, but I agree with Jimbo in the context of Wikipedia on this one - as long as his adminship was based on his activity on Wikipedia and his efforts to uphold Wikipedia's policies, Wikipedia should be blind to his real-world foibles.
Personally I think the dichotomy between Wikipedia and the real world is a false one. Wikipedia is not a MMORPG. It's a real effort to make a real encyclopedia for the real world.
The major premise of wikipedia functionality is that it can be edited by anyone, yes?
Well, not exactly anyone. It is possible to get banned from Wikipedia. If this person has been using those fake credentials to gain support from others while editing articles, then maybe a ban is appropriate. De-adminship is also certainly appropriate if those credentials were presented before the community approved of his adminship.
Unless he is maliciously mucking up the software itself, he hardly has any more potential for corrupting the content than I do or some random schmuck browsing wiki at a library.
Actually, admins have quite a bit of potential to corrupt Wikipedia content, especially if they can gain the support of other admins by presenting them with false credentials. Users can be blocked and pages can be protected from editing except by admins.
But at wikipedia is rather duplicitous to criticize it for *both* it's egalitarian editing policy and the character flaws of its administrators. The former mitigates the latter.
But Wikipedia doesn't really have a totally egalitarian editing policy. When the content of a page is disputed by an admin and a non-admin, the admin is going to win the dispute 9 times out of 10. That might not be explicit policy, but it is the de facto reality of the situation. Admins tend to support other admins. Even moreso if the admin claims to have certain credentials.
Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimbo Wales, says 'I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it.'
That's the only part that really concerns me. If any editor, let alone an administrator, is using fake credentials to try to bolster support for his arguments, that should be a serious concern. This seems to be the essence of the rule against sockpuppetry, though that particular rule probably doesn't handle a case where the user has only one account.
Now that this is out in the open, I think this person should be deadminned and asked to re-apply for adminship without lying.
3) Fair Use is not a defense against DMCA access control provision violations -- by (1) and (2)
OK, I can agree with that: Section 107 is not a defense against DMCA access control provision violations.
"Which is exactly what the GPL does [attempts] implicitly by stating that "by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so." I'd like to see you install something without modifying it."
I was referring there to a claim which the GPL makes. I don't think that claim is correct. In fact, I think that claim is ridiculous, and it seems that you agree with me. The GPL claims that by modifying or distributing the Program you indicate your acceptance of the GPL. But that's nonsense - the same nonsense that other EULAs try to pull.
You accused me of "arguing that you had to accept the GPL to run free software because the act of running the program created a copy which would be illegal without the authorization provided by the GPL". I did no such thing. I argued that the GPL claims that you accept it when you run it. Big difference.
And yet, three judges already rejected this argument, and another one is going to reject it again. What will be your excuse then? I guess these judges are all incompetent too.
All these judges, all these RIAA lawyers, all the MPAA lawyers, everyone in the US attorney's office, they're all idiots. But not you. After all, you have a blog!
No, it isn't, and I challenge you to show the language that says it is.
I don't believe "copyright violation" is defined in the law, so it is merely a colloquial term. I think a reasonable definition for "copyright violation" would be "a violation of copyright law", and you agree with me that the DMCA is part of copyright law, right?
Breaking an access control mechanism is a crime unto itself, separate from copyright.
Breaking an access control mechanism is a crime listed in Title 17 of the US Code, and the heading of Title 17 is "Copyrights". In fact, DMCA stands for Digital Millenium Copyright Act. So of course it's part of copyright law, not separate.
I have a real hard time believing that you really think Sec. 1201 which says "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that-- `(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;" is talking about copyright infringement.
Well good, because I don't. I said it was a copyright violation, as in a violation of copyright law, not copyright infringement, which is defined in the code.
You know I seem to remember you arguing that you had to accept the GPL to run free software because the act of running the program created a copy which would be illegal without the authorization provided by the GPL, despite there being an explicit exception for such copies in copyright law.
No, I certainly didn't say that. You never have to accept the GPL. Of course, if you do run free software in a way which creates copies not explicitly provided by the GPL, then the GPL is automatically revoked.
Forgive me if I find your legal theories suspect.
Only if you get your facts straight.
But if you want your case, try Sony vs Filipak. It wasn't specifically about Linux and DVDs, however it does clearly indicate a case where an action which is not copyright infringement was illegal, copyright infringement was not alleged, and thus fair use defenses did not apply.
Filipak was trafficking in circumvention tools for commercial purposes, not merely using the tools for non-profit purposes. So I don't see how fair use defenses would apply. Also, a quick google search for "Sony filipak "fair use"" yields nothing, so I don't see that fair use was even raised in that case.
Assuming you don't mean right now, fucking of course I am. It's a ludicrous law, and I will not respect it. I bought the fucking DVD, I'm going to watch it and not feel guilty
Ah, you misunderstood my question. It wasn't whether or not you were watching DVDs on Linux, but whether you were breaking the law by doing so.
The DMCA also says quite plainly that breaking an access control without permission is a crime regardless of whether or not you subsequently violate copyright.
So there is a contradiction, and it comes down to which part overrides the other. Since the part about fair use explicitly references the rest of the DMCA, I'd say it's pretty obvious that part overrides the other parts: "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
The DMCA makes criminal things that have nothing to do with copyright violation.
Violating the DMCA is a copyright violation.
It can't be enforced, just like speed limits can't beyond a limited extent, but it's still a criminal act. I may speed, but I don't flaunt it in front of the cops.
But speed limits can be enforced to some extent, and I can point out multiple examples of people who were charged with speeding (whether or not speeding is a criminal act actually varies from state to state, though).
If you want to keep the speeding analogy though, would you complain that it's illegal to rush your
If you're going to tell me something is legal, when there are penalties for an incorrect interpretation of the law, then I'm sorry but it's you who hold the burden of proof.
I'm sorry, but until you show me some shred of evidence that the DMCA makes it illegal to watch DVDs using Linux, I'm not going to buy it. The DMCA clearly says that it does not override fair use. The judge in Felton v. RIAA clearly said that the DMCA did not override fair use (when Felton tried to make an argument very similar to yours). No one has ever been charged for watching a DVD on Linux.
Would I still be breaking the law every time I play a legally purchased DVD on my Linux-based computer using decss-derived software?
Are you doing so now?
Though on the other hand, being able to say "I am breaking the law every time I watch a DVD on my computer" is a simple and clear way to demonstrate how crazy copyright has become by outlawing what is so obviously ethical behavior.
The problem is, I bet you can't come up with a single instance of someone who was convicted or even charged with copyright infringement simply because they watched a DVD on their computer. You can't point out how crazy a law is by making up a hypothetical situation and then claiming that the law covers it. The DMCA says quite plainly that it does not affect fair use. If you want to claim otherwise, the burden is on you to prove that your interpretation is correct.
In two years maybe we'll have a Democratic president and then he'll be in a position to pass a more sweeping bill.
Maybe the Democrat Mary Bono will run for President, and she'll be in a position to pass a much more sweeping bill, like her idea to make copyright last for "forever minus a day".
C'mon, who voted for the DMCA? Who signed the DMCA? Who voted for/signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act? Who voted for/signed the No Electronic Theft Act?
Yet again, the bill does not appear to deliver on what most observers want: clear protection for making personal use copies of encrypted materials.
Section 107 of Title 17 already does that: "the fair use of a copyrighted work...is not an infringement of copyright". Even the DMCA itself says that "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
Whichever way the ruling goes it will have a large impact across the Internet.
I doubt it. The RIAA has made it clear in their "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint" that they are alleging "downloading" and "distribution" in addition to "making available". It's therefore quite easy for the court to punt on the issue of "making available", and that's probably what they'll do. This will cause no impact across the Internet whatsoever.
I got fooled by the sensational story and headline, but this whole incident is really much ado about nothing.
"Mizzone takes a screenshot, downloads a few of the songs and, through another proprietary process, determines the dynamic IP address assigned to the screenshot." So, you seem to agree that the files are being downloaded. Aren't they therefore being "transmit[ted] or otherwise communicate[d]"? Isn't this transmission to the public? Are you saying that the transmission isn't being made by the defendant, even though the defendant instructed his computer to make the transmission?
If this doesn't constitute copying, distribution, or public performance, then haven't you basically nullified copyright law for the purposes of the Internet? There's no way in the world the courts are going to go for that.
There is no such thing as "making available" in the Copyright Act.
No, but there is a such thing as "perform[ing] the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission". If the RIAA had sued for public performance by digital audio transmission, would it have stated a legitimate complaint?
It seems to me public performance is what the RIAA should have been suing over. Of course in the case of certain public performances of sound recordings there is a statutory license available, so the damages of the lawsuit would be more limited.
So, let's say I make 100 copies of a CD (ignoring the fact that doing this is already infringement), put them on a table outside the local grocery store and then walk away. Is this distribution? Or, do I need to actually go through the step of physically handing them to people?
This isn't a good analogy though, because the person making the copies is the downloader. A closer analogy would be if you just left your one copy of a CD on a table outside the local grocery store, with a sign saying "make free copies here", and then the RIAA hired someone to take the CD, make a copy, and then put it back.
Even if the valid copyright holder downloaded the available content, the person making the content available is the one doing the distribution, and hence the one violating the copyright.
That doesn't seem cut and dry to me. If I take a picture (and thus make a copy) of a poster you have hanging on the wall, have you distributed that poster? Certainly not. What if I hang the poster outside for anyone to come and take a picture of? Still no, though this would constitute a public display.
Maybe the RIAA could have argued public display or public performance in this case, but that's not what they're doing. And most likely they're not doing that because sound recordings have very limited protections for public performances, and there are statutory licenses available for such transmissions which are protected.
Slashdot Mirror
And these employees pay taxes. And Google pays property taxes. And none of these things are provided by the federal government anyway.
I can only speak for myself, and not the average tax accountant, but I'd gladly have the government do away with the income tax system (*). I'd gladly find something else to do with my time, though I do feel my time is usefully spent helping people avoid paying more than they rightfully owe in taxes.
The way I look at it, my reliance as a tax accountant on the income tax system being complicated is no different than a firefighter's reliance on people's homes catching on fire. Sure, if what we help fix was eliminated we'd have to find a new job, but it'd be well worth it.
(*) That said, I don't support the FairTax, as I think it will turn out to be just as complicated and unfair as the income tax. The FairTax is not your run-of-the-mill sales tax that you are used to with state sales taxes. Read more about it before you say you support it.
No. It isn't hypocritical. Lobbying for higher taxes and not paying those higher taxes voluntarily are perfectly compatible. Furthermore, you are conflating the beliefs of the "employees and founders" with their actions as fiduciaries of a corporation. The founders are required by law to act in a way which maximizes profits for their company (while remaining within the law), regardless of their personal political beliefs. Employees have a duty of loyalty to their employer, and likewise have to get them every single deduction they legally can, regardless of their political beliefs.
Yes. Lots of people think this. In fact, I'm sure George Bush would sign such a law if it passed Congress.
As for myself, I'm not a huge fan of the corporate income tax, but I'd favor getting rid of the personal income tax first, and I'd favor getting rid of payroll taxes before even that. The corporate income tax is at least one that is optional - you don't have to run your business as a corporation.
Well, it's not *that* simple. Those who use the corporation's services or products will likely pay some of the tax. The corporate shareholders will probably pay part of it. The employees of the corporation will pay some of it. The vendors of the corporation will pay some of it. The specifics depend on a lot of factors.
But what's inherently wrong with such an indirect tax in the first place? Corporations have to keep records anyway, so it's easier to tax them than it is to tax the customers directly.
Sucks to be here, but thanks for the greeting. By the way, I still don't think you could win a case against someone based solely on their circumvention of a protection system in order to watch a DVD on Linux, but I now realize that it's not anywhere near as cut and dry as I made it out to be.
Agreed, though personally I think any license which claims that you automatically accept it when you do X is making a ridiculous claim.
Well, I wouldn't make that argument. In fact, I think the whole part about automatically accepting the license is completely unenforcible.
That actually raises an incredibly complex issue, though. Whose intent is supposed to be interpreted? Unless Eben Moglen is the author or the copyright holder (or maybe the licensee), I don't see how his intent matters. If we're dealing with a simple case of one person granting a second person a license under the GPL, then it is their intent that matters. But it's usually not that simple, and you're talking about multiple people granting a license under the GPL to everyone in the world. I have no idea what a court is going to do to determine intent in that kind of case.
Another complicated issue is that of the termination clause. According to the GPLv2, if you "copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License" (or even attempt to do so), your license is automatically revoked. Now what if that copying, modification, or distribution didn't require a license? For instance, it could be fair use, or it could be first sale, or it could be the exercise of your rights under Section 117 (software installation). If you do this in a way not expressly provided under the GPL, do you forfeit your rights under the GPL? This is actually resolved in GPLv3, which requires notification before termination. But under GPLv2, it's really an open question.
I just re-read what I wrote there and it was horribly written. So yeah, my arguments got all morphed together.
The policies of "no original research" and "include facts cited from verifiable sources" are enormously helpful in using a wiki to create an encyclopedia, but they don't solve every problem, and sometimes they even get in the way of creating a good article. In any case, they aren't strictly followed in Wikipedia. Take a look at this list of articles with unsourced statements. There are probably tens of thousands of articles in that category.
What's my point? I'm not sure any more. Submit!
Perhaps so, but it sure does act as a good initial filter.
This seems awfully extreme to me. When you need to have an illness diagnosed, do you go up to random people on the street and ask them to give you a logical explanation of what is wrong, or do you go to a doctor? When you get arrested and charged with a crime that you didn't commit, do you send in an Ask Slashdot and then filter through the answers looking for the most logical ones, or do you hire a lawyer?
Experts can be wrong. But they tend to be right more often than the average Joe.
But...Wikipedia pages can be wrong too. Maybe the Wikipedia page on "logical fallacy" is wrong. Maybe the following quote from Wikipedia is wrong: "On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is plausible: it is likely true, we just don't know for sure, because authority alone is not a proof." The section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#C onditions_for_a_legitimate_argument_from_authority seems to be appropriate reading too. It seems to suggest that arguments from authority can be useful, if done properly.
I really don't know enough details to say for sure. Maybe the admin we're talking about never got involved in a dispute over his claimed area of expertise. If so, then no harm was actually done. I'd still recommend deadminning though, because I think such a lie throws the person's character into question. It's a big lie, in my opinion.
I don't really think it's the educational system so much as lack of raw intelligence. But even then, I don't think the issue is as black and white as you make it out to be. I think it's a matter of degree, and all of us at some point have to resort to a reliance on authority. Some of us are naturally smarter, have a better education, and/or have more life experiences, and don't have to rely on authority as much, but we all have to do it once in a while.
Nope, you forgot to carry that word "supposed" all the way through. Maybe it is supposed to not matter whether the editors of Wikipedia, but when the admins are the ones these rules in the first place, it does matter who the admins are.
This might be true if a computer were implementing Wikipedia "policy", but Wikipedia "policy" is implemented by humans. These policies (which are really very sparse, most of them are non-binding "guidelines") are not enforced systematically and consistently, so of course a person's credentials come into play.
Anyway, if a person's credentials don't matter, then why not let everyone be an admin? If a person's credentials don't matter, then surely this particular admin will have no problem being re-granted adminship after a new review.
I've tried that many times in the past. It doesn't work.
Personally I think the dichotomy between Wikipedia and the real world is a false one. Wikipedia is not a MMORPG. It's a real effort to make a real encyclopedia for the real world.
Well, not exactly anyone. It is possible to get banned from Wikipedia. If this person has been using those fake credentials to gain support from others while editing articles, then maybe a ban is appropriate. De-adminship is also certainly appropriate if those credentials were presented before the community approved of his adminship.
Actually, admins have quite a bit of potential to corrupt Wikipedia content, especially if they can gain the support of other admins by presenting them with false credentials. Users can be blocked and pages can be protected from editing except by admins.
But Wikipedia doesn't really have a totally egalitarian editing policy. When the content of a page is disputed by an admin and a non-admin, the admin is going to win the dispute 9 times out of 10. That might not be explicit policy, but it is the de facto reality of the situation. Admins tend to support other admins. Even moreso if the admin claims to have certain credentials.
That's the only part that really concerns me. If any editor, let alone an administrator, is using fake credentials to try to bolster support for his arguments, that should be a serious concern. This seems to be the essence of the rule against sockpuppetry, though that particular rule probably doesn't handle a case where the user has only one account.
Now that this is out in the open, I think this person should be deadminned and asked to re-apply for adminship without lying.
OK, I can agree with that: Section 107 is not a defense against DMCA access control provision violations.
I was referring there to a claim which the GPL makes. I don't think that claim is correct. In fact, I think that claim is ridiculous, and it seems that you agree with me. The GPL claims that by modifying or distributing the Program you indicate your acceptance of the GPL. But that's nonsense - the same nonsense that other EULAs try to pull.
You accused me of "arguing that you had to accept the GPL to run free software because the act of running the program created a copy which would be illegal without the authorization provided by the GPL". I did no such thing. I argued that the GPL claims that you accept it when you run it. Big difference.
And yet, three judges already rejected this argument, and another one is going to reject it again. What will be your excuse then? I guess these judges are all incompetent too.
All these judges, all these RIAA lawyers, all the MPAA lawyers, everyone in the US attorney's office, they're all idiots. But not you. After all, you have a blog!
I don't believe "copyright violation" is defined in the law, so it is merely a colloquial term. I think a reasonable definition for "copyright violation" would be "a violation of copyright law", and you agree with me that the DMCA is part of copyright law, right?
Breaking an access control mechanism is a crime listed in Title 17 of the US Code, and the heading of Title 17 is "Copyrights". In fact, DMCA stands for Digital Millenium Copyright Act. So of course it's part of copyright law, not separate.
Well good, because I don't. I said it was a copyright violation, as in a violation of copyright law, not copyright infringement, which is defined in the code.
No, I certainly didn't say that. You never have to accept the GPL. Of course, if you do run free software in a way which creates copies not explicitly provided by the GPL, then the GPL is automatically revoked.
Only if you get your facts straight.
Filipak was trafficking in circumvention tools for commercial purposes, not merely using the tools for non-profit purposes. So I don't see how fair use defenses would apply. Also, a quick google search for "Sony filipak "fair use"" yields nothing, so I don't see that fair use was even raised in that case.
They have admitted no such thing. They haven't proven these things yet, because the case hasn't reached the fact-finding stage yet.
Ah, you misunderstood my question. It wasn't whether or not you were watching DVDs on Linux, but whether you were breaking the law by doing so.
So there is a contradiction, and it comes down to which part overrides the other. Since the part about fair use explicitly references the rest of the DMCA, I'd say it's pretty obvious that part overrides the other parts: "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
Violating the DMCA is a copyright violation.
But speed limits can be enforced to some extent, and I can point out multiple examples of people who were charged with speeding (whether or not speeding is a criminal act actually varies from state to state, though).
If you want to keep the speeding analogy though, would you complain that it's illegal to rush your
I'm sorry, but until you show me some shred of evidence that the DMCA makes it illegal to watch DVDs using Linux, I'm not going to buy it. The DMCA clearly says that it does not override fair use. The judge in Felton v. RIAA clearly said that the DMCA did not override fair use (when Felton tried to make an argument very similar to yours). No one has ever been charged for watching a DVD on Linux.
Are you doing so now?
The problem is, I bet you can't come up with a single instance of someone who was convicted or even charged with copyright infringement simply because they watched a DVD on their computer. You can't point out how crazy a law is by making up a hypothetical situation and then claiming that the law covers it. The DMCA says quite plainly that it does not affect fair use. If you want to claim otherwise, the burden is on you to prove that your interpretation is correct.
Maybe the Democrat Mary Bono will run for President, and she'll be in a position to pass a much more sweeping bill, like her idea to make copyright last for "forever minus a day".
C'mon, who voted for the DMCA? Who signed the DMCA? Who voted for/signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act? Who voted for/signed the No Electronic Theft Act?
Section 107 of Title 17 already does that: "the fair use of a copyrighted work...is not an infringement of copyright". Even the DMCA itself says that "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
I doubt it. The RIAA has made it clear in their "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint" that they are alleging "downloading" and "distribution" in addition to "making available". It's therefore quite easy for the court to punt on the issue of "making available", and that's probably what they'll do. This will cause no impact across the Internet whatsoever.
I got fooled by the sensational story and headline, but this whole incident is really much ado about nothing.
To perform or display a work "publicly" means - (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public...
If I display a work in my lobby, and my lobby is open to the public, then I've publicly displayed the work. Doesn't get more cut and dry than that.
(Yes, I might be allowed to do this, under fair use or under some other exception to copyright law. I never said it was necessarily infringing.)
"Mizzone takes a screenshot, downloads a few of the songs and, through another proprietary process, determines the dynamic IP address assigned to the screenshot." So, you seem to agree that the files are being downloaded. Aren't they therefore being "transmit[ted] or otherwise communicate[d]"? Isn't this transmission to the public? Are you saying that the transmission isn't being made by the defendant, even though the defendant instructed his computer to make the transmission?
If this doesn't constitute copying, distribution, or public performance, then haven't you basically nullified copyright law for the purposes of the Internet? There's no way in the world the courts are going to go for that.
No, but there is a such thing as "perform[ing] the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission". If the RIAA had sued for public performance by digital audio transmission, would it have stated a legitimate complaint?
It seems to me public performance is what the RIAA should have been suing over. Of course in the case of certain public performances of sound recordings there is a statutory license available, so the damages of the lawsuit would be more limited.
Maybe for public display, and maybe for contributory copyright infringement, but not for distribution.
This isn't a good analogy though, because the person making the copies is the downloader. A closer analogy would be if you just left your one copy of a CD on a table outside the local grocery store, with a sign saying "make free copies here", and then the RIAA hired someone to take the CD, make a copy, and then put it back.
That doesn't seem cut and dry to me. If I take a picture (and thus make a copy) of a poster you have hanging on the wall, have you distributed that poster? Certainly not. What if I hang the poster outside for anyone to come and take a picture of? Still no, though this would constitute a public display.
Maybe the RIAA could have argued public display or public performance in this case, but that's not what they're doing. And most likely they're not doing that because sound recordings have very limited protections for public performances, and there are statutory licenses available for such transmissions which are protected.