The real question is, are they truly supportive of it as a matter of principle, or do they simply enjoy getting something for free; being unwilling to pay for it if it was available through legal means?
I'm truly supportive of it as a matter of principle because I and others like me are unwilling to pay for it if it was available through legal means.
Click on the keyboard twice, and enter the password "reload" to get to the new material.
You just offered to the public a technology that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work.
I'm sure there would be holes - please point them out!
The hole is that it costs 2%, yet much fewer than 2% of sales are scams. If you are a high volume trader, the law of large numbers will work to your benefit when you don't use escrow services.
However, when I moved to Phoenix, Arizona, they flagged my card twice (easy to reverse for me) because I was purchasing gasoline and paying house bills online.
I've had this happen to me with my Visa card. Gasoline purchases are a big scam, because there is usually no signature required (at least in self-service states).
Do you really believe the Sony/Nintendo/RIAA theory that anything that could possibly be used in an illegal manner should itself be illegal? I'm really curious. From Pentium processers to bleach, I'll bet I can find an illegal use for just about anything.
Hmm, since Sony/Nintendo/RIAA have never sued the makers of Pentium processors or bleach, I guess they don't subscribe to the theory that "anything that could possibly be used in an illegal manner should itself be illegal" now do they?
And don't try to claim "that's different", unless you're willing to argue that copyright violation is so much worse than murder that it merits much more legislative and judicial intervention in peoples' daily lives.
The difference is that DMCA regulated items are made primarily for the purpose of committing illegal acts. Rocks are not.
a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Unfortunately, the court can't just presuppose that Proetto's claim is invalid, like you do.
The initial court must make a ruling on whether or not Proetto's claim is valid, but there is certainly not a requirement that the U.S. Supreme Court step in every time someone claims to have his/her fourth ammendment rights being violated.
Again, I was perhaps too broad with some of my statements I made earlier, but I'm sticking to my opinion that it's highly unlikely that the U.S. Supreme court will (or should) hear this case.
Proetto tried to suppress evidence based on the 4th amendment (among other reasons.) Is Proetto right? Hell no. Is he making the claims anyway? You bet.
Agreed. I guess I am misphrasing myself, because I think we both agree on the law here. Yes, Proetto may apply to the supreme court to have his case reviewed for violation of his 4th ammendment rights. But AFAIK, the precedent for violation of the 4th ammendment already states that the wiretap is legal without a warrant if there is consent of one party. As such (and assuming I'm correct in that regard), I don't see why the Supreme Court would actually accept the case, since whether or not email/IMs fall under wiretap laws is irrelevant.
If the PA court finds that it doesn't apply, or that it does apply but still admits the evidence you will see this case in the Supreme Court.
Clearly if the PA court finds that the "two-party" law does apply, but still admits the evidence, you have a federal issue (due process). But if the PA court finds that the "two-party" law doesn't apply (more specifically, that there was implicit consent by the second party), then the only federal fourth ammendment issue would be the "one-party" law, correct?
In any case, after reading your comments, I concede that there is a chance that the supreme court would take this case, but I still doubt it.
Well, the federal issue would be PA allowing a search and seizure (wiretap) without adequate 4th Amendment protections.
There was no search and seizure. The tapes were obtained with the permission of the owner.
Note: I haven't RTFA, so I make no claims as to the strength of this freak's 4th amendment claims, I'm just pointing out the federal issue.
Not RTFA on slashdot is only possible if you assume that the editors screwed all the facts up and jumped to every conclusion possible. There was no search and seizure. There is no federal issue. Actually, I'll rephrase that, since I haven't read the actual case. There is nothing in the article which points to a fourth ammendment issue.
While I would agree with your conclusion, I really do not think that whether the guy was trying solicit sex from a minor has any relevance to the case.
It certainly has relevance to the case, since that's what the case was about. What it doesn't have relevance to, is whether or not there was an illegal wiretap.
Additionally, any information I receive pertaining to criminal activities that is not obtained as a result of my being a lawyer, doctor, priest, is mine to do with as I wish.
Excluding non-disclosures, trade secrets, patents, copyright, etc, the question in this case is whether or not that "recording" was obtained legally. If you send someone an IM, and they record it, are they breaking the law? I see how one could argue, in PA, that they are. If so, apparently that recording can be supressed as evidence.
I phone the person and tell the person I committed another crime not related to the initial investigation. Can the authorities use that information to prosecute me?
My understanding of the law (IANAL), is that they can use that information. But that is a much different situation.
The answering machine "beep" doesn't beep every few minutes when recording a conversation.
Mine does.
The beep notification is for live conversations, and there is no expectation of privacy against another party for an answering machine message you leave any more than they can't turn over a threatening letter you might send to the police.
Leaving a message on an answering machine is a live conversation. Other than the beep, the other exception is that you have knowledge that the message is being recorded.
Your answering machine has a "beep" for a reason. In all states that I know, recording a conversation is legal if you have an audible "beep" every few minutes.
It seems to me that any time during the course of an investigation you intercept a communication intended to be private that it should require a court order...
Did you read the article? Nothing was "intercepted". Some pervert solicited sex from a 15 year old girl. That 15 year old girl turned over the transcripts. Now that pervert wants to supress that evidence.
According to RMS, if I write code that links with a GPL'd library (say, readline), my code must be GPL'd.
Not true. If you write code that links with a GPL'd library, you have not created a derivitive work.
If you link your code to readline, you have created a derivitive work. If you distribute your code with readline, you have created a derivitive work (and are distributing and probably copying). If you give your code to someone else, knowing that they are going to link it to readline, then that person has created a derivitive work, and you are guilty of contributory copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
The real question is, are they truly supportive of it as a matter of principle, or do they simply enjoy getting something for free; being unwilling to pay for it if it was available through legal means?
I'm truly supportive of it as a matter of principle because I and others like me are unwilling to pay for it if it was available through legal means.
I wish I had time to click every single little screen to try to find some of the good stuff...
It's a game, not a website, and I've given up on finding every little screen in games since Zelda.
Click on the keyboard twice, and enter the password "reload" to get to the new material.
You just offered to the public a technology that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work.
I'm sure there would be holes - please point them out!
The hole is that it costs 2%, yet much fewer than 2% of sales are scams. If you are a high volume trader, the law of large numbers will work to your benefit when you don't use escrow services.
However, when I moved to Phoenix, Arizona, they flagged my card twice (easy to reverse for me) because I was purchasing gasoline and paying house bills online.
I've had this happen to me with my Visa card. Gasoline purchases are a big scam, because there is usually no signature required (at least in self-service states).
Feel free, and I'll go on knowing I'm right, and you'll go on thinking you're right.
We are, aren't we?
Your distinction of "live conversations" seems completely arbitrary. Does it have any basis whatsoever in law?
What have I said about the beep which was incorrect?
Do you really believe the Sony/Nintendo/RIAA theory that anything that could possibly be used in an illegal manner should itself be illegal? I'm really curious. From Pentium processers to bleach, I'll bet I can find an illegal use for just about anything.
Hmm, since Sony/Nintendo/RIAA have never sued the makers of Pentium processors or bleach, I guess they don't subscribe to the theory that "anything that could possibly be used in an illegal manner should itself be illegal" now do they?
And don't try to claim "that's different", unless you're willing to argue that copyright violation is so much worse than murder that it merits much more legislative and judicial intervention in peoples' daily lives.
The difference is that DMCA regulated items are made primarily for the purpose of committing illegal acts. Rocks are not.
Unfortunately, the court can't just presuppose that Proetto's claim is invalid, like you do.
The initial court must make a ruling on whether or not Proetto's claim is valid, but there is certainly not a requirement that the U.S. Supreme Court step in every time someone claims to have his/her fourth ammendment rights being violated.
Again, I was perhaps too broad with some of my statements I made earlier, but I'm sticking to my opinion that it's highly unlikely that the U.S. Supreme court will (or should) hear this case.
Proetto tried to suppress evidence based on the 4th amendment (among other reasons.) Is Proetto right? Hell no. Is he making the claims anyway? You bet.
Agreed. I guess I am misphrasing myself, because I think we both agree on the law here. Yes, Proetto may apply to the supreme court to have his case reviewed for violation of his 4th ammendment rights. But AFAIK, the precedent for violation of the 4th ammendment already states that the wiretap is legal without a warrant if there is consent of one party. As such (and assuming I'm correct in that regard), I don't see why the Supreme Court would actually accept the case, since whether or not email/IMs fall under wiretap laws is irrelevant.
If the PA court finds that it doesn't apply, or that it does apply but still admits the evidence you will see this case in the Supreme Court.
Clearly if the PA court finds that the "two-party" law does apply, but still admits the evidence, you have a federal issue (due process). But if the PA court finds that the "two-party" law doesn't apply (more specifically, that there was implicit consent by the second party), then the only federal fourth ammendment issue would be the "one-party" law, correct?
In any case, after reading your comments, I concede that there is a chance that the supreme court would take this case, but I still doubt it.
So it's like I said: "Other than the beep, the other exception is that you have knowledge that the message is being recorded."
Well, the federal issue would be PA allowing a search and seizure (wiretap) without adequate 4th Amendment protections.
There was no search and seizure. The tapes were obtained with the permission of the owner.
Note: I haven't RTFA, so I make no claims as to the strength of this freak's 4th amendment claims, I'm just pointing out the federal issue.
Not RTFA on slashdot is only possible if you assume that the editors screwed all the facts up and jumped to every conclusion possible. There was no search and seizure. There is no federal issue. Actually, I'll rephrase that, since I haven't read the actual case. There is nothing in the article which points to a fourth ammendment issue.
There was no search or seizure. The Fourth ammendment to the U.S. constitution does not apply.
The courts have taken the position that when you leave a message on an answering machine, you know it is being recorded, period.
What if your answering machine has no message, no beep, and you let it pick up 1 second before you answer the call?
While I would agree with your conclusion, I really do not think that whether the guy was trying solicit sex from a minor has any relevance to the case.
It certainly has relevance to the case, since that's what the case was about. What it doesn't have relevance to, is whether or not there was an illegal wiretap.
Additionally, any information I receive pertaining to criminal activities that is not obtained as a result of my being a lawyer, doctor, priest, is mine to do with as I wish.
Excluding non-disclosures, trade secrets, patents, copyright, etc, the question in this case is whether or not that "recording" was obtained legally. If you send someone an IM, and they record it, are they breaking the law? I see how one could argue, in PA, that they are. If so, apparently that recording can be supressed as evidence.
I phone the person and tell the person I committed another crime not related to the initial investigation. Can the authorities use that information to prosecute me?
My understanding of the law (IANAL), is that they can use that information. But that is a much different situation.
The answering machine "beep" doesn't beep every few minutes when recording a conversation.
Mine does.
The beep notification is for live conversations, and there is no expectation of privacy against another party for an answering machine message you leave any more than they can't turn over a threatening letter you might send to the police.
Leaving a message on an answering machine is a live conversation. Other than the beep, the other exception is that you have knowledge that the message is being recorded.
Your answering machine has a "beep" for a reason. In all states that I know, recording a conversation is legal if you have an audible "beep" every few minutes.
I don't see why this would go to the Supreme Court. There doesn't seem to be a federal issue in the case.
It seems to me that any time during the course of an investigation you intercept a communication intended to be private that it should require a court order...
Did you read the article? Nothing was "intercepted". Some pervert solicited sex from a 15 year old girl. That 15 year old girl turned over the transcripts. Now that pervert wants to supress that evidence.
According to RMS, if I write code that links with a GPL'd library (say, readline), my code must be GPL'd.
Not true. If you write code that links with a GPL'd library, you have not created a derivitive work.
If you link your code to readline, you have created a derivitive work. If you distribute your code with readline, you have created a derivitive work (and are distributing and probably copying). If you give your code to someone else, knowing that they are going to link it to readline, then that person has created a derivitive work, and you are guilty of contributory copyright infringement.
Point is, we don't know what's causing this effect, at least not from this article.
But at least we know what to answer on our life insurance application for "average hours of sleep per day".
Just more evidence that stationary (biological) clocks run faster.
Wal-Mart is a retailer that drives many other small local retailers out of business.
Open source software very often drives small local software developers out of business.