If the courts rule that it's legal to steal from me, the results are obvious and inevitable. No more fax, no more junk mail, no answering machine (same legal logic applies), no telephone. You want to talk to me, you'll do it just like the Founding Fathers expected - you'll send a letter or you'll visit me in person because the cost of me offering any alternative is too high.
But that's exactly why spam is not theft. You are voluntarily offering to be contacted by random people via email. You can't expect to have the power to retroactively reject certain emails which you do not want. If you don't want unsolicited emails, set up your mail server not to accept them.
Right, because I didn't "create" my DNA. My parents "own" the copyright on my DNA, because my parents created it, and it is an original work of authorship.
The IP laws should be "Can" Based. That's where Licenses like GPL come in.
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
If it were presented as "this is our product, as music", then I'd probably agree that it's just corporate game-playing with IP. But what if a performance artist had themselves sequenced, and made the sequence into music? Would that be art? If so, what's the difference between the two, besides just presentation?
I agree. DNA can be made into music, and copyrighted. But that doesn't copyright the underlying work, the DNA. In fact, it doesn't even stop someone else from making the same DNA into the same music.
It's just like the fact that my typing of "iqowpertyukalsjdhfgmznxbcv" does not copyright the entire alphabet, it only copyrights that particular arrangement of the alphabet (and doesn't even stop someone from independently creating that same arrangement).
So the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is unconstitutional, but the Digital Millenium Copyright Act isn't? I guess we have to rename the DMCA to the Digital Millenium Consumer Act. Then maybe it'll be deemed unconstitutional...
Without seeing the actual ruling of course it's hard to say how serious I am. I'm assuming the TCPA was thrown out due to free speech issues...
The term ''barter exchange'' means any organization of members providing property or services who jointly contract to trade or barter such property or services.
Until January 2000, that included such "barter exchanges" as LinkExchange...
I'd suggest that before you write your congresscritter that you find out where they are likely to stand on the issue. You might find out that they are already against the bill, or that they are already firmly in support of the bill. If it seems that they are firmly against the bill, perhaps sending a letter is a waste of your time. If they seem like they would be against the bill, perhaps a letter thanking them for their past postitions and urging them to keep up the good work would be appropriate. If they are strongly against the bill, it's probably stupid to waste your time at all. Instead try to tell others about what they are doing. Especially try to convince others who support this representative to reconsider. As far as I'm concerned, some representatives (Hollings for instance) have shown their idiocy enough that I would not vote for the guy no matter what. He's not worth my time trying to convince to change his mind. Finally, if they seem neutral or mildly in support of the bill, a letter with lots of facts and a few opinions might be appropriate. Argue your case. Offer to speak with the representative in person about the issue. Finally, save your ultimatums for those bills for which you truly are willing to change your vote based upon. If these articles are accurate in their description, this might be one of them, but it's up to you to decide that.
if it really does "[prohibit] the sale of any kind of electronic device -- unless that device includes copy-protection standards to be set by the federal government." But it's a scary thing to think of. If this ever passed, 20 years from now we'd be technologically behind where we are today. I know the 1984 references are old and tired, but I seem to be reminded of:
Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing. This failed to happen, partly because of the impoverishment caused by a long series of wars and revolutions, partly because scientific and technical progress depended on the empirical habit of thought, which could not survive in a strictly regimented society. As a whole the world is more primitive today than it was fifty years ago.
If the key used to specifically identify you is publically available, you are vulnerable to identity theft, simple as that.
No, not at all. For instance, I know Bill Gates' SSN, but I can't steal his identity. The problem with the SSN is that it's used as an identifier and as a password simultaneously. It's too late to stop using it as an identifier, so we have to stop using it as a password. The easiest way to do that is to make it publically available.
Yes, this alone does not stop identity theft. But it does reduce identity theft, and I for one would feel much more secure if my SSN were public knowledge.
Because it stops institutions such as banks from using information such as social security numbers as passwords. When everyone knows your social security number, no one can use your social security number to pretend to be you.
Case in point: Bill Gates Social Security Number is 539-60-5125. I'd like to see you use that number to steal his identity. Security through obscurity does not work.
I'd give you my SSN right now if it wasn't for the fact that I might be held responsible legally for the unauthorized use of it (since I made no effort to keep it a secret). My ex-landlords knows my social security number. I trust you a lot more than I trust them.
However, I hold a chauffeur's license. It requires that I furnish my Social Security number, which should not be publicly available.
Hell, I live in New Jersey. Everyone is required to furnish their SSN to get a driver's license. But my take on SSNs is that they should be publicly available. Publish them in the phone book next to people's names and addresses. That is how you stop identity theft.
The electronic trails created by scanning driver's licenses are raising concerns among privacy advocates. Standards and scanning, they say, are a dangerous combination that essentially creates a de facto national identity card or internal passport that can be registered in many databases.
For full access to our site, please complete this simple registration form.
If he was never authorized to license it out in the first place, then the licence is null and void, and the company can demand that anybody using it stop, and that all copies be destroyed, and that nobody distribute it.
What if the code he wrote was a derivitive work of other GPLed code? In that case his employer can claim the copyright on the derivitive work, but they are required to GPL it.
I hope this sends a message to the Hewlett and Packard families that they've lost control of the company that bears their name. "The HP Way" (a trademark stolen from one of the cofounders) hasn't existed at Hewlett Packard for years now.
I voted for this merger because I'd much rather see Walter Hewlett resign from the board of directors and the Hewlett and Packard families start pulling their money out of this lost cause. Plus they'll lay off some 5 million more workers some of whom will find new jobs at companies that are doing good in this world. Hopefully HP will be so kind as to call the new company "Compaq".
- A former employee of the now closed HP FPK facility (no I wasn't laid off).
only instead of waiting for rentals, I can see first run movies.
I'd hardly call "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Brotherhood of the Wolf", "Beautiful Mind", "Donnie Darko", "We Were Soldiers", and "Royal Tennenbaums" first run movies.
Slashdot Mirror
If the courts rule that it's legal to steal from me, the results are obvious and inevitable. No more fax, no more junk mail, no answering machine (same legal logic applies), no telephone. You want to talk to me, you'll do it just like the Founding Fathers expected - you'll send a letter or you'll visit me in person because the cost of me offering any alternative is too high.
But that's exactly why spam is not theft. You are voluntarily offering to be contacted by random people via email. You can't expect to have the power to retroactively reject certain emails which you do not want. If you don't want unsolicited emails, set up your mail server not to accept them.
You don't "own" your DNA ...
Right, because I didn't "create" my DNA. My parents "own" the copyright on my DNA, because my parents created it, and it is an original work of authorship.
The IP laws should be "Can" Based. That's where Licenses like GPL come in.
Hmm, sounds like a "can not" to me.
If it were presented as "this is our product, as music", then I'd probably agree that it's just corporate game-playing with IP. But what if a performance artist had themselves sequenced, and made the sequence into music? Would that be art? If so, what's the difference between the two, besides just presentation?
I agree. DNA can be made into music, and copyrighted. But that doesn't copyright the underlying work, the DNA. In fact, it doesn't even stop someone else from making the same DNA into the same music.
It's just like the fact that my typing of "iqowpertyukalsjdhfgmznxbcv" does not copyright the entire alphabet, it only copyrights that particular arrangement of the alphabet (and doesn't even stop someone from independently creating that same arrangement).
So the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is unconstitutional, but the Digital Millenium Copyright Act isn't? I guess we have to rename the DMCA to the Digital Millenium Consumer Act. Then maybe it'll be deemed unconstitutional...
Without seeing the actual ruling of course it's hard to say how serious I am. I'm assuming the TCPA was thrown out due to free speech issues...
Because the EFF wastes its money on stupid things like the Felton case.
Informative link. Thanks.
If you like that one you'll love this one.
Until January 2000, that included such "barter exchanges" as LinkExchange...
I'd suggest that before you write your congresscritter that you find out where they are likely to stand on the issue. You might find out that they are already against the bill, or that they are already firmly in support of the bill. If it seems that they are firmly against the bill, perhaps sending a letter is a waste of your time. If they seem like they would be against the bill, perhaps a letter thanking them for their past postitions and urging them to keep up the good work would be appropriate. If they are strongly against the bill, it's probably stupid to waste your time at all. Instead try to tell others about what they are doing. Especially try to convince others who support this representative to reconsider. As far as I'm concerned, some representatives (Hollings for instance) have shown their idiocy enough that I would not vote for the guy no matter what. He's not worth my time trying to convince to change his mind. Finally, if they seem neutral or mildly in support of the bill, a letter with lots of facts and a few opinions might be appropriate. Argue your case. Offer to speak with the representative in person about the issue. Finally, save your ultimatums for those bills for which you truly are willing to change your vote based upon. If these articles are accurate in their description, this might be one of them, but it's up to you to decide that.
If this bill is passed, how will it affect canadians?
Well, for one thing, if this bill is passed, I'll be moving there (Canada).
If the key used to specifically identify you is publically available, you are vulnerable to identity theft, simple as that.
No, not at all. For instance, I know Bill Gates' SSN, but I can't steal his identity. The problem with the SSN is that it's used as an identifier and as a password simultaneously. It's too late to stop using it as an identifier, so we have to stop using it as a password. The easiest way to do that is to make it publically available.
Yes, this alone does not stop identity theft. But it does reduce identity theft, and I for one would feel much more secure if my SSN were public knowledge.
It will never be illegal to purchase things with cash or barter.
It already sort of is.
I may not complain, but I sure as hell wouldn't stay.
I don't doubt your honesty, but I think you are one of a very small minority.
How exactly does that stop identity theft?
Because it stops institutions such as banks from using information such as social security numbers as passwords. When everyone knows your social security number, no one can use your social security number to pretend to be you.
Case in point: Bill Gates Social Security Number is 539-60-5125. I'd like to see you use that number to steal his identity. Security through obscurity does not work.
I'd give you my SSN right now if it wasn't for the fact that I might be held responsible legally for the unauthorized use of it (since I made no effort to keep it a secret). My ex-landlords knows my social security number. I trust you a lot more than I trust them.
How many people would demand their ID back and complain to managment that it was none of the doorman's damn business?
Very few.
However, I hold a chauffeur's license. It requires that I furnish my Social Security number, which should not be publicly available.
Hell, I live in New Jersey. Everyone is required to furnish their SSN to get a driver's license. But my take on SSNs is that they should be publicly available. Publish them in the phone book next to people's names and addresses. That is how you stop identity theft.
For full access to our site, please complete this simple registration form.
Does anyone else find that hilarious?
If he was never authorized to license it out in the first place, then the licence is null and void, and the company can demand that anybody using it stop, and that all copies be destroyed, and that nobody distribute it.
What if the code he wrote was a derivitive work of other GPLed code? In that case his employer can claim the copyright on the derivitive work, but they are required to GPL it.
Why fork out the money for this box, when you can get a cheap old box and throw Linux on it?
Because then you'd have to run Linux.
It's quite common actually and it's hard to be confused when everything's conveniently color coded. Unless you're color blind.
Actually, since one proxy was green and the other was white, even the color blind have no excuse on this one.
I hope this sends a message to the Hewlett and Packard families that they've lost control of the company that bears their name. "The HP Way" (a trademark stolen from one of the cofounders) hasn't existed at Hewlett Packard for years now.
I voted for this merger because I'd much rather see Walter Hewlett resign from the board of directors and the Hewlett and Packard families start pulling their money out of this lost cause. Plus they'll lay off some 5 million more workers some of whom will find new jobs at companies that are doing good in this world. Hopefully HP will be so kind as to call the new company "Compaq".
- A former employee of the now closed HP FPK facility (no I wasn't laid off).
If this doesn't prove that the DMCA should be repealed, I don't know what will.
So you're saying that AOL should be held responsible for copyright infringements made by its users?
Further proof that the DMCA is designed to protect corporations rather than copyright holders
Huh? Aren't most copyrights held by corporations?
Movies are for being engrossed in a different world.
You've obviously never been to Rocky Horror Picture Show
only instead of waiting for rentals, I can see first run movies.
I'd hardly call "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Brotherhood of the Wolf", "Beautiful Mind", "Donnie Darko", "We Were Soldiers", and "Royal Tennenbaums" first run movies.