Not never, but you should be ready to yank your system if it turns out to be a real problem. Programmers need to take some responsibility for their work. And yes I am a programmer, and i would never have made napster because i'm not an idiot and would have knowen exactly what it would be used for.
the AC part: yes, this is exactly what i'm talking about IP addresses work well because they do'nt really tell you anything about the person, 'cept maybe where the general area they are from. But if ISP's logged things like this, and i'm sure alot of them already do, then you are no longer realy anonymous but almost no one can actuly figure out who you are, but if the police need to know then there is a chain to follow back to your door step.
No one is trying to stop you from using MP3, ok, well maybe the RIAA, but they suck on more levels than just the whole mp3/napster thing, but using/not using mp3s has nothing to do with napster. napster is getting hounded because they, much like big tobacco, are causing a problem but are not doing anything about it. They are forcing Metallica and the RIAA to take them to court instead of fixing their problems themselves. They know that 99% of the time their system is being used for piracy, just like PM knows that cigs kill people, but they claim ignorance even though everyone else in the world knows whats going on. If the second napster realized that their system was primaraly being used for piracy, if they had shut it down and tried to come up with a way to fix it, then there would be no law suits, instead they are pleading ignorance/immunity and are hoping their lawyers will get them out of this mess. Never send a lawyer to do a programmer/doctor's job.
People aren't beating down Yahoo because 99% of the activity of yahoo isn't illegal, napster on the other hand is used 99% of the time for illegal traficing of copyrighted material, if yahoo starts getting those kinds of number you bet someone gonna sue them.
C and D letters go into effect when you receive them not when they are written, you had 5 days from the second you received the letter into your hands, or on your screen. If you didn't check your mail for a year, thats their problem not yours, if it was that important they needed to use a more reliable method of informing you.
This does go a little far, but whats wrong with basic email confirmation? You obvoiously need to keep people from using hotmail, or yahoo as you can make an account anonymously there, but other than that its a good, easy situation and no one complains when they have to do it for a mailing list. I see no problem in making slashdot or any other provider that allows public content submission, verrify who is posting or censoring what is posted. Obviously/. isn't gonna do the second so its time they forced people here to take responsibility for what they say.
I'd love to hear of a way for Independent artists to distribute their music without throwing the RIAA's right to the wind. Either way someone rights are getting trampeled on. So tell me why the small minority of independent artists distributing their music on napster have more important rights than the RIAA.
Not at all, its up the person providing the service to handle things, your ISP knows who you are and can point the police to you if need be, after that what you do is someone elses problem as long as they are willing to yank your account if you do something illegal and they find out about it.
How does the first amendment give the right to be anonymous?? You can't hide behind being anonymous because you are afraid of being persecuted, if you have the right to say something unpopular to someone else, then they have the right to say it back to YOU, not some anonymous account. Are you talking about whistle blowers being persecuted by big business? Well guess what, those businesses have the right to know who is accusing them of something. Anonimity is not the way to free speach, at best its a crutch, the whole idea behind free speach is that you can say whatever you want, IF you can back it up, without hiding behind some shield of anonimity! Our speach won't be free untill we can rebut a specific person or thing and not an AC. You do have the right to be a nobody if you are not involved, but by using a service you are involved, and as such should be recognized.
Email accounts could just be foreced to be from non-free souces, well maybe no non-free, but something that goes to the trouble of making sure you don't just make a new one ever few days. Ala no hotmail, geocities email addresses. Then require a send back from that accoutn kind of thing. Thats how a slashdot account should be made, its not perfect but its at least a good attempt. As far as AC posting goes,/. should just log the IP address of the posts and keep them under wraps untill a cour order is issued. This is all alot of extra work that isn't being done now, but thats the price you must pay to be a public forum.
The problem is that some of the posts simply had the entire document in it. or VERY large chunks of the document. Thats illegal DMCA or not. Most non-fiction books have it marked on the copyright page that its ok to use small sections of the text in editorials. that doesn't mean the entire document. But as far as the links go, MS better not beable to touch them, they should, and have the right to go after ther person the links go to.
I agree, but if the posts had just a small section of the document, and the section is cited as being from the microsoft document, then surely this is fair use, i do this for research papers for my classes all the time.
Having your name tarnished in the eyes of a private company is most certainly damage if you didn't do anything wrong. This is assuming you did something stupid like use your real name and email address when you filled out your napster account.
But did Metallica send the documents to napster via a court? or did they just hand the list to napster? if it wasn't part of a court proceding it isn't purgury. However, the much messier lible suits could start pouring in. How were they hurt you might ask??? well they were kicked off of their napster service for starters. And as far as napster is concered they did something worng. Yes they can make a new account, but only by making up new info(assuming they didn't do that the first time.) I call that damage. While i think metallica is right, and i even think its great they went after the users like that, they better have some damn good documentation to back this up.
*smashes head agaist desk* oh please tell me this isn't true, and if it is please point me to a link. Trying to figure out what the judge was thinking just makes my head hurt.
You bet i mind if they make a random search of my house. And yes i have nothing to hide. Do i think that companies should be able to track you? NO! but if you do something wrong there needs to be a system in place that leads to your front door. so that you can be held acountable for what you have done.
But people are now using it for business, and aparently thats what people want, so its time that things changed. And the net was not designed to be anonymous, but when things first started, no one could imagine why you would want to be anonymous so they didn't put anything in to stop it. If the same people could go back and redesign their orginal systems using what they know now, i'm sure that security and accountability would be part of it.
Why should the users be anonymous??? They should be held acountable for what they do on the net just like every where else. Why should there be a way to keep who you are a secret from people?
If you are 'in the "below poverty" income bracket' then you are right, you shouldn't be buying CD's with your money. but if you aren't buying the CD's then you have NO right to be listening to the music. Period, just because you are poor doesn't give you the right to steal. Especialy something as non-essential as music.
Uh people did not create the internet specificly for porn and warez. Napster was created for trading of pirated mp3s. MOST of the trafic on the net is not warez and porn, essentialy all the trafic on napster is illegal.
Well there is that area of intent. It doesn't take much to realize that what napster has become is exactly what they intended it to be, they knew that there was going to be lots of illegal content, and they made an open login system to make it so they can block an account but not really kick the person off, they made it so you by default share what you download.
Also when ISP's find out that someone is doing something illegal they usualy shut that person down and do at least minimal policing of their own network, napster does none of this.
Slashdot Mirror
Not never, but you should be ready to yank your system if it turns out to be a real problem. Programmers need to take some responsibility for their work. And yes I am a programmer, and i would never have made napster because i'm not an idiot and would have knowen exactly what it would be used for.
the AC part: yes, this is exactly what i'm talking about IP addresses work well because they do'nt really tell you anything about the person, 'cept maybe where the general area they are from. But if ISP's logged things like this, and i'm sure alot of them already do, then you are no longer realy anonymous but almost no one can actuly figure out who you are, but if the police need to know then there is a chain to follow back to your door step.
No but someone would be able to recognize the person speaking, you can't do that on ther internet.
No one is trying to stop you from using MP3, ok, well maybe the RIAA, but they suck on more levels than just the whole mp3/napster thing, but using/not using mp3s has nothing to do with napster. napster is getting hounded because they, much like big tobacco, are causing a problem but are not doing anything about it. They are forcing Metallica and the RIAA to take them to court instead of fixing their problems themselves. They know that 99% of the time their system is being used for piracy, just like PM knows that cigs kill people, but they claim ignorance even though everyone else in the world knows whats going on. If the second napster realized that their system was primaraly being used for piracy, if they had shut it down and tried to come up with a way to fix it, then there would be no law suits, instead they are pleading ignorance/immunity and are hoping their lawyers will get them out of this mess. Never send a lawyer to do a programmer/doctor's job.
People aren't beating down Yahoo because 99% of the activity of yahoo isn't illegal, napster on the other hand is used 99% of the time for illegal traficing of copyrighted material, if yahoo starts getting those kinds of number you bet someone gonna sue them.
C and D letters go into effect when you receive them not when they are written, you had 5 days from the second you received the letter into your hands, or on your screen. If you didn't check your mail for a year, thats their problem not yours, if it was that important they needed to use a more reliable method of informing you.
This does go a little far, but whats wrong with basic email confirmation? You obvoiously need to keep people from using hotmail, or yahoo as you can make an account anonymously there, but other than that its a good, easy situation and no one complains when they have to do it for a mailing list. I see no problem in making slashdot or any other provider that allows public content submission, verrify who is posting or censoring what is posted. Obviously /. isn't gonna do the second so its time they forced people here to take responsibility for what they say.
I'd love to hear of a way for Independent artists to distribute their music without throwing the RIAA's right to the wind. Either way someone rights are getting trampeled on. So tell me why the small minority of independent artists distributing their music on napster have more important rights than the RIAA.
Not at all, its up the person providing the service to handle things, your ISP knows who you are and can point the police to you if need be, after that what you do is someone elses problem as long as they are willing to yank your account if you do something illegal and they find out about it.
How does the first amendment give the right to be anonymous?? You can't hide behind being anonymous because you are afraid of being persecuted, if you have the right to say something unpopular to someone else, then they have the right to say it back to YOU, not some anonymous account. Are you talking about whistle blowers being persecuted by big business? Well guess what, those businesses have the right to know who is accusing them of something. Anonimity is not the way to free speach, at best its a crutch, the whole idea behind free speach is that you can say whatever you want, IF you can back it up, without hiding behind some shield of anonimity! Our speach won't be free untill we can rebut a specific person or thing and not an AC. You do have the right to be a nobody if you are not involved, but by using a service you are involved, and as such should be recognized.
Email accounts could just be foreced to be from non-free souces, well maybe no non-free, but something that goes to the trouble of making sure you don't just make a new one ever few days. Ala no hotmail, geocities email addresses. Then require a send back from that accoutn kind of thing. Thats how a slashdot account should be made, its not perfect but its at least a good attempt. As far as AC posting goes, /. should just log the IP address of the posts and keep them under wraps untill a cour order is issued. This is all alot of extra work that isn't being done now, but thats the price you must pay to be a public forum.
The problem is that some of the posts simply had the entire document in it. or VERY large chunks of the document. Thats illegal DMCA or not. Most non-fiction books have it marked on the copyright page that its ok to use small sections of the text in editorials. that doesn't mean the entire document. But as far as the links go, MS better not beable to touch them, they should, and have the right to go after ther person the links go to.
If its obvious that they intended to get around copyright law with this then yank them. otherwise let the stay! (:
I agree, but if the posts had just a small section of the document, and the section is cited as being from the microsoft document, then surely this is fair use, i do this for research papers for my classes all the time.
Having your name tarnished in the eyes of a private company is most certainly damage if you didn't do anything wrong. This is assuming you did something stupid like use your real name and email address when you filled out your napster account.
But did Metallica send the documents to napster via a court? or did they just hand the list to napster? if it wasn't part of a court proceding it isn't purgury. However, the much messier lible suits could start pouring in. How were they hurt you might ask??? well they were kicked off of their napster service for starters. And as far as napster is concered they did something worng. Yes they can make a new account, but only by making up new info(assuming they didn't do that the first time.) I call that damage. While i think metallica is right, and i even think its great they went after the users like that, they better have some damn good documentation to back this up.
*smashes head agaist desk* oh please tell me this isn't true, and if it is please point me to a link. Trying to figure out what the judge was thinking just makes my head hurt.
You bet i mind if they make a random search of my house. And yes i have nothing to hide. Do i think that companies should be able to track you? NO! but if you do something wrong there needs to be a system in place that leads to your front door. so that you can be held acountable for what you have done.
But people are now using it for business, and aparently thats what people want, so its time that things changed. And the net was not designed to be anonymous, but when things first started, no one could imagine why you would want to be anonymous so they didn't put anything in to stop it. If the same people could go back and redesign their orginal systems using what they know now, i'm sure that security and accountability would be part of it.
Why should the users be anonymous??? They should be held acountable for what they do on the net just like every where else. Why should there be a way to keep who you are a secret from people?
If you are 'in the "below poverty" income bracket' then you are right, you shouldn't be buying CD's with your money. but if you aren't buying the CD's then you have NO right to be listening to the music. Period, just because you are poor doesn't give you the right to steal. Especialy something as non-essential as music.
But you ARE forcing artists to lose money. So don't give me any crap about not forcing people.
Uh people did not create the internet specificly for porn and warez. Napster was created for trading of pirated mp3s. MOST of the trafic on the net is not warez and porn, essentialy all the trafic on napster is illegal.
So artists rights mean nothing? As long as they can't stop you its ok to steal? I don't think so.
Well there is that area of intent. It doesn't take much to realize that what napster has become is exactly what they intended it to be, they knew that there was going to be lots of illegal content, and they made an open login system to make it so they can block an account but not really kick the person off, they made it so you by default share what you download.
Also when ISP's find out that someone is doing something illegal they usualy shut that person down and do at least minimal policing of their own network, napster does none of this.