Great article but I find it humorous that the article stresses user friendliness but the web page is WAY to wide forcing me to horizontally scroll almost every line that I read.:0)
I understand what you are saying and to some degree agree with it. We have basically two facets to the question of intellectual property.
1. The law.
2. The Moral obligations of both the corporations and the average citizens.
Under the law only the law matters. There is no justification under the law for civil disobedience with regard to breaking laws governing intellectual property. If you do the crime be prepared to do the time.
So what we are left with is the moral aspect, which laws do not address. Specifically does the alleged actions of the entertainment industry justify civil disobedience in the form of refusal to compensate the copyright holders for the intellectual property that they control?
As with all moral questions, each individual must answer it for himself. I would caution anyone contemplating stealing intellectual property as a form of civil disobedience that, in my opinion, it is a poor form that will not attain a desirable outcome.
Most people who trade intellectual property are not doing it as a result of the backroom deals that corporations have made with our politicians. The vast majority of people do it because they want to possess the intellectual property but they don't want to pay for it and the chance of getting caught is very low. So much for the moral high ground.
Your concerns about our corrupt political system are valid. The corruption is wide and deep and very serious. It is also a separate problem that does desperately need to be addressed. However, I don't think that the theft of intellectual property is the correct way to address it.
>>You are stealing intellectual property. Something that someone else has labored to produce and deserves to be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his/her labor.
"In the US this certainly isn't the case."
What part don't you agree with? That copying intellectual property without permission isn't stealing? That someone else labored to produce the intellectual property? That the person who creates the intellectual property deserves to be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his/her labor?
"Since copyright is intended to encourage further production."
Yes it is, by preventing people from reducing or eliminating the copyright holder's monetary compensation. If the creators of intellectual property can expect that instead of being compensated people will instead just steal (copy) their work there is little incentive to labor to product the intellectual property.
"Whilst Hollywood might moan about lots of things they are still making movies."
This is irrelevant to the argument.
"Copyright laws are already completly out of step with their supposed intent. e.g. both copyright as an inherent right of the author and that described in the US constitution cannot logically create something which outlives the author."
You may disagree with the law but that does not give you the right to ignore it. If you don't like the law then work to change it.
"Copyright was taken away from publishers 2-300 years ago for some very good reasons. Since then they have been trying to get it back..."
Huh?? No... The copyright laws are still on the books.
If the experiments succeed it may give us some insite into gravity but don't look to this device to free us from the bonds of Earth.
A super cooled, electrically charged, rapidly spinning super conducting disc that reduces the gravity field above the disc is interesting. However, taken as a whole, the entire system would still crash to earth.
Sort of like putting a sail on one end of a skateboard and a fan blowing air on it on the other end. It still isn't going anywhere.
The definition of "Theft of intellectual property" has already been established by the courts. You may not like it but there it is. It is NOT the theft of copyright, patent or trademark. It does, however, include coping the intellectual property in question without the owner's permission. And by doing that you ARE denying him/her the right to distribute it AS HE/SHE PLEASES.
"Should I not be allowed to make a copy of something provided I do not try to make money off it?"
If you are talking about fair use then absolutely yes. If you are talking about ripping a copy of a borrowed DVD or music CD then absolutely no! One is fair use the other theft. Even if you don't make money from it.
"You wouldn't, or at any rate shouldn't, find anything wrong with a guy recording the Superbowl and playing it back later for his friends, nor even of giving the tape to someone who didn't see it."
Recording the Superbowl for your own use is "fair use" but strictly speaking giving the tape to another is probably a violation.
I'm going to decline to comment on the futuristic fantasy of "copying food."
You are stealing intellectual property. Something that someone else has labored to produce and deserves to be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his/her labor.
I am glad that they caught these guys. Pirating is stealing whether it's videos on DVDs or videos sent over the internet or music traded on-line.
All of the excuses I've heard for doing so is bullshit. Is the entertainment industry gouging the consumer with high DVD prices? Yep. Does that justify stealing their intelecual property? Nope.
Everytime we violate a copyright by illegal traiding we make the MPAA and RIAA arguments for built-in hardware copy protection more justifiable. It's going to be a hard enough fight without giving the corporations additonal ammunition.
I joined the Mandrake Club to support a great distro. They have a member's message board and on that board they asked members if they really needed StarOffice 6.0. The vast majority and myself included, conveyed the sentiment that although StarOffice 6.0 would be nice, we would be satisfied with OpenOffice.
After/. posted Mandrake's plea for help which was met, in large part, with comments like "hell no we won't pay" and "If they go out of business, we don't care." I don't blame them for rethinking their business model.
I have heard that if they don't get enough support to survive they may concider not releasing new versions of Mandrake until they do receive enough support to justify it.
Sometimes the users of open source are their own worst enemy!
Microsoft is going to use its monopoly power in the OS area to push its Passport service. For instance, when you buy a computer with XP on it, you are prompted to create a Passport account. If you just wait the prompt will eventually disappear. However, it returns again and again. Eventually if you don't agree to create a Passport account the MSN explorer and the MSN messenger software are disabled!
Once Microsoft succeeds in gaining a clear dominate position in the global authorization area they can begin to offer software as a service.
I agree that Java and.NET have similarities. In fact I believe that Microsoft developed.NET, in part, to hurt SUN. However,.NET does lend itself to cross language development better then Java's VM.
A internet service can be what you describe but Microsoft's vision of internet services is quite different. They want everyone to have a Passport account so that our identities can be validated from anywhere. The will begin to develop.NET applications that can be sent over the Internet to the PC that you are logged on (After being validated by their Passport servers.). That way they won't have to "sell" software anymore. They can simply sell the right to use a service. Maybe you will pay five bucks per month for their "Office suite service." You would be able to logon to any computer with an internet connection and after being validated by their Passport services you would be allowed to access.Word or.Excell or what ever services you have paid for.
This is coming in the future but not the far future.
What Microsoft would like to see is a world where everyone would have a Microsoft Passport account. You could then logon to any computer that had an Internet connection (a fast one) and after verifying your identity they could pump the byte codes to the applications that you have licensed.
This shifts Microsoft's business model from a seller of software to a seller of services. Instead of buying software like MS Office we would pay Microsoft for a service that would allow us to use the software from ANY PC.
.NET and Passport work hand in hand and Microsoft is betting on being able to monopolize Internet services. And IMHO they are using their Monopoly power in the current OS market to do that.
What you describe is Microsoft's.NET and Passport strategy. I'm not trying to get modded down as Flamebait but to tell you the truth, the biggest disadvantage IMHO is that it would be controlled by a company that I don't trust. Specifically Microsoft.
I like the concept of being able to access MY desktop from anywhere but it opens up a few security concerns. Security doesn't seem to be Microsoft's strong suit.
I love stories like this where the individual triumphs over evil.
In the State of Washington you can sue for up to $250.00 per spam. Spam is defined as unrequested commercial bulk email that has either a misleading subject line and/or invalid return address.
The real problem with trying to collect is that most spammers make it VERY difficult to trace the email back. They may bounce it off of an open relay or use stolen accounts and they almost always use a false return address.
You can usually find the domain that the email came from by looking at the header information but if they bounced it off of an open relay in China it may not do you any good.
Really, the only ones that you should try to go after should be the ones that are stupid enough to provide you with real information in the body of the letter that will allow you to track them down.
Most of the time the spammer wants one thing: Your money. So he may give an 800 number or a web page URL. If you can convince him that you need his real address to send him money the may provided it and you can send him a subpoena instead.;-)
Some spammers will try to get your credit card number. Once they have it you may find yourself the unwilling donator of a brand new laptop or some other piece of property that the spammer can sell on the black market.
Never, never, never, give a spammer your credit card number.
I have a friend who was deeply into Scientology back in 1974. He actually signed a contract with them, which basically made him their slave for life. Of course the contract would never stand up in court but it really showed me what this cult was all about.
If you read the claims that L Ron Hubbard makes about what he's done during his life and you start totaling up the years, you will learn that the man was a liar. Either that or he was able to use some kind of time warping because they don't add up.
Microsoft has already been found guilty of using it's monopoly power illegally so your position makes no sense. They are a monopoly and that is not illegal. They use their monopoly power to maintain their monopoly position through anti-competitive practices and THAT is illegal.
The fact that you may choose to use Open office rather than Word pad is irrelevant. Most people choose to use IE an not hassle with downloading and installing other browsers. This is true with most software that gets bundled with Windows. You my friend are the exception to the rule not the rule.
"An e-mail marketing firm on Tuesday said it has filed lawsuits against two e-mail list providers, alleging the lists it bought from the companies were full of non-existent addresses and people who hadn't asked to receive commercial marketing messages."
So what you are telling me that either there are ethical spammers or they are worried that they aren't getting their moneys worth.
Hmmmm.... I wonder what they are going to do about all those fake email addresses?
Black hats are going to love this
on
ORBZ Shuts Down
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I seems to me that if Orbz can send certain SMTP envelopes that cause Lotus Domino servers to go into a loop those servers are going to need to be fixed.
This vulnerability is public knowledge now so how many black hats are going to be doing this just for fun and giggles?
I can't help feeling that when a company gets shutdown rather than a obvious corrective action being taken that there is a hidden agenda lurking about. Just my suspicious nature taking over.:=)
Being that I work in a building full of lawyers and judges, I can tell you that they are just people too. You can "rub them the wrong way."
It sounds to me like this kid went in with no understanding of law and wanted to control the courtroom. This WOULD rub the judge the wrong way.
I have a friend whom, when he was young, was the same way. Once he got pulled over on a traffic violation and during the course of his conversation with the patrol officer he said: "Just how stupid do you think I think you are!"
As my friend learned, when dealing with people in authority, it is better to show respect and to play by their rules. Just a truth of life.
At my place of work they are beginning to crack down on internet access. There are just too many web based worms to allow users to surf. We can't keep up with the patches to our NT servers and Windows 2000 desktops.
Luckily we run virus protection on our exchange server. It catches an infected email every few days!
The short of it is that network security is a full time job and we can't afford to hire a dedicated network security person. So what are we going to do?
You may as well save your breath. By the tone of this guys messages he's either a gradeschooler or immature high school student.
A lot of people don't realize that if we don't support the company's that support us we all lose in the end.
The great thing about Linux compays is that if you can't afford to contribute you are still allowed to download the distribution. This is empowering and if we can break out of the box and do what is necessary then it will be a good thing for us all.
Don't expect any high standards from this individual. Lots of people complain about Microsoft but are unwilling to support anything better.
I believe that open source company's will fail because we as a society try to apply our traditional capitalistic values on a very untraditional business model.
Also, I sensed by the original posters comment "We don't care.. "(If Mandrake goes out of business.) That he may not have a lot of compation for the needs of other people. Imagine if the world had no one who felt differently! Not a world I would like to live in.
Slashdot Mirror
Does Microsoft really care if they get sued? Probably not very much as long as the politicians that they purchased can limit Microsoft's liability.
I had to laugh when I read that Microsoft was complaining that the states were bringing up new violations.
States: "You are still violating the law!"
Microsoft: "Put it on our tab."
Great article but I find it humorous that the article stresses user friendliness but the web page is WAY to wide forcing me to horizontally scroll almost every line that I read. :0)
Just struck me as funny.
I understand what you are saying and to some degree agree with it. We have basically two facets to the question of intellectual property.
1. The law.
2. The Moral obligations of both the corporations and the average citizens.
Under the law only the law matters. There is no justification under the law for civil disobedience with regard to breaking laws governing intellectual property. If you do the crime be prepared to do the time.
So what we are left with is the moral aspect, which laws do not address. Specifically does the alleged actions of the entertainment industry justify civil disobedience in the form of refusal to compensate the copyright holders for the intellectual property that they control?
As with all moral questions, each individual must answer it for himself. I would caution anyone contemplating stealing intellectual property as a form of civil disobedience that, in my opinion, it is a poor form that will not attain a desirable outcome.
Most people who trade intellectual property are not doing it as a result of the backroom deals that corporations have made with our politicians. The vast majority of people do it because they want to possess the intellectual property but they don't want to pay for it and the chance of getting caught is very low. So much for the moral high ground.
Your concerns about our corrupt political system are valid. The corruption is wide and deep and very serious. It is also a separate problem that does desperately need to be addressed. However, I don't think that the theft of intellectual property is the correct way to address it.
>>You are stealing intellectual property. Something that someone else has labored to produce and deserves to be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his/her labor.
"In the US this certainly isn't the case."
What part don't you agree with? That copying intellectual property without permission isn't stealing? That someone else labored to produce the intellectual property? That the person who creates the intellectual property deserves to be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his/her labor?
"Since copyright is intended to encourage further production."
Yes it is, by preventing people from reducing or eliminating the copyright holder's monetary compensation. If the creators of intellectual property can expect that instead of being compensated people will instead just steal (copy) their work there is little incentive to labor to product the intellectual property.
"Whilst Hollywood might moan about lots of things they are still making movies."
This is irrelevant to the argument.
"Copyright laws are already completly out of step with their supposed intent. e.g. both copyright as an inherent right of the author and that described in the US constitution cannot logically create something which outlives the author."
You may disagree with the law but that does not give you the right to ignore it. If you don't like the law then work to change it.
"Copyright was taken away from publishers 2-300 years ago for some very good reasons. Since then they have been trying to get it back..."
Huh?? No... The copyright laws are still on the books.
If the experiments succeed it may give us some insite into gravity but don't look to this device to free us from the bonds of Earth.
A super cooled, electrically charged, rapidly spinning super conducting disc that reduces the gravity field above the disc is interesting. However, taken as a whole, the entire system would still crash to earth.
Sort of like putting a sail on one end of a skateboard and a fan blowing air on it on the other end. It still isn't going anywhere.
The definition of "Theft of intellectual property" has already been established by the courts. You may not like it but there it is. It is NOT the theft of copyright, patent or trademark. It does, however, include coping the intellectual property in question without the owner's permission. And by doing that you ARE denying him/her the right to distribute it AS HE/SHE PLEASES.
"Should I not be allowed to make a copy of something provided I do not try to make money off it?"
If you are talking about fair use then absolutely yes. If you are talking about ripping a copy of a borrowed DVD or music CD then absolutely no! One is fair use the other theft. Even if you don't make money from it.
"You wouldn't, or at any rate shouldn't, find anything wrong with a guy recording the Superbowl and playing it back later for his friends, nor even of giving the tape to someone who didn't see it."
Recording the Superbowl for your own use is "fair use" but strictly speaking giving the tape to another is probably a violation.
I'm going to decline to comment on the futuristic fantasy of "copying food."
Stealing movies, music and other forms of intellectual property has nothing to do with "freedom of thought."
I highly doubt that you would sit down and "accidently" write war and peace.
You are stealing intellectual property. Something that someone else has labored to produce and deserves to be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his/her labor.
It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.
I am glad that they caught these guys. Pirating is stealing whether it's videos on DVDs or videos sent over the internet or music traded on-line.
All of the excuses I've heard for doing so is bullshit. Is the entertainment industry gouging the consumer with high DVD prices? Yep. Does that justify stealing their intelecual property? Nope.
Everytime we violate a copyright by illegal traiding we make the MPAA and RIAA arguments for built-in hardware copy protection more justifiable. It's going to be a hard enough fight without giving the corporations additonal ammunition.
I joined the Mandrake Club to support a great distro. They have a member's message board and on that board they asked members if they really needed StarOffice 6.0. The vast majority and myself included, conveyed the sentiment that although StarOffice 6.0 would be nice, we would be satisfied with OpenOffice.
/. posted Mandrake's plea for help which was met, in large part, with comments like "hell no we won't pay" and "If they go out of business, we don't care." I don't blame them for rethinking their business model.
After
I have heard that if they don't get enough support to survive they may concider not releasing new versions of Mandrake until they do receive enough support to justify it.
Sometimes the users of open source are their own worst enemy!
Way to go guys.
Microsoft is going to use its monopoly power in the OS area to push its Passport service. For instance, when you buy a computer with XP on it, you are prompted to create a Passport account. If you just wait the prompt will eventually disappear. However, it returns again and again. Eventually if you don't agree to create a Passport account the MSN explorer and the MSN messenger software are disabled!
Once Microsoft succeeds in gaining a clear dominate position in the global authorization area they can begin to offer software as a service.
I agree that Java and .NET have similarities. In fact I believe that Microsoft developed .NET, in part, to hurt SUN. However, .NET does lend itself to cross language development better then Java's VM.
.NET applications that can be sent over the Internet to the PC that you are logged on (After being validated by their Passport servers.). That way they won't have to "sell" software anymore. They can simply sell the right to use a service. Maybe you will pay five bucks per month for their "Office suite service." You would be able to logon to any computer with an internet connection and after being validated by their Passport services you would be allowed to access .Word or .Excell or what ever services you have paid for.
A internet service can be what you describe but Microsoft's vision of internet services is quite different. They want everyone to have a Passport account so that our identities can be validated from anywhere. The will begin to develop
This is coming in the future but not the far future.
What Microsoft would like to see is a world where everyone would have a Microsoft Passport account. You could then logon to any computer that had an Internet connection (a fast one) and after verifying your identity they could pump the byte codes to the applications that you have licensed.
This shifts Microsoft's business model from a seller of software to a seller of services. Instead of buying software like MS Office we would pay Microsoft for a service that would allow us to use the software from ANY PC.
.NET and Passport work hand in hand and Microsoft is betting on being able to monopolize Internet services. And IMHO they are using their Monopoly power in the current OS market to do that.
What you describe is Microsoft's .NET and Passport strategy. I'm not trying to get modded down as Flamebait but to tell you the truth, the biggest disadvantage IMHO is that it would be controlled by a company that I don't trust. Specifically Microsoft.
I like the concept of being able to access MY desktop from anywhere but it opens up a few security concerns. Security doesn't seem to be Microsoft's strong suit.
I love stories like this where the individual triumphs over evil.
;-)
In the State of Washington you can sue for up to $250.00 per spam. Spam is defined as unrequested commercial bulk email that has either a misleading subject line and/or invalid return address.
The real problem with trying to collect is that most spammers make it VERY difficult to trace the email back. They may bounce it off of an open relay or use stolen accounts and they almost always use a false return address.
You can usually find the domain that the email came from by looking at the header information but if they bounced it off of an open relay in China it may not do you any good.
Really, the only ones that you should try to go after should be the ones that are stupid enough to provide you with real information in the body of the letter that will allow you to track them down.
Most of the time the spammer wants one thing: Your money. So he may give an 800 number or a web page URL. If you can convince him that you need his real address to send him money the may provided it and you can send him a subpoena instead.
Some spammers will try to get your credit card number. Once they have it you may find yourself the unwilling donator of a brand new laptop or some other piece of property that the spammer can sell on the black market.
Never, never, never, give a spammer your credit card number.
I have a friend who was deeply into Scientology back in 1974. He actually signed a contract with them, which basically made him their slave for life. Of course the contract would never stand up in court but it really showed me what this cult was all about.
If you read the claims that L Ron Hubbard makes about what he's done during his life and you start totaling up the years, you will learn that the man was a liar. Either that or he was able to use some kind of time warping because they don't add up.
Microsoft has already been found guilty of using it's monopoly power illegally so your position makes no sense. They are a monopoly and that is not illegal. They use their monopoly power to maintain their monopoly position through anti-competitive practices and THAT is illegal.
The fact that you may choose to use Open office rather than Word pad is irrelevant. Most people choose to use IE an not hassle with downloading and installing other browsers. This is true with most software that gets bundled with Windows. You my friend are the exception to the rule not the rule.
Here are some more words of wisdom.
Choose your fights.
Going into court with an attitude or lipping off to a cop over a traffic viloation isn't smart.
"An e-mail marketing firm on Tuesday said it has filed lawsuits against two e-mail list providers, alleging the lists it bought from the companies were full of non-existent addresses and people who hadn't asked to receive commercial marketing messages."
So what you are telling me that either there are ethical spammers or they are worried that they aren't getting their moneys worth.
Hmmmm.... I wonder what they are going to do about all those fake email addresses?
I seems to me that if Orbz can send certain SMTP envelopes that cause Lotus Domino servers to go into a loop those servers are going to need to be fixed.
:=)
This vulnerability is public knowledge now so how many black hats are going to be doing this just for fun and giggles?
I can't help feeling that when a company gets shutdown rather than a obvious corrective action being taken that there is a hidden agenda lurking about. Just my suspicious nature taking over.
Being that I work in a building full of lawyers and judges, I can tell you that they are just people too. You can "rub them the wrong way."
It sounds to me like this kid went in with no understanding of law and wanted to control the courtroom. This WOULD rub the judge the wrong way.
I have a friend whom, when he was young, was the same way. Once he got pulled over on a traffic violation and during the course of his conversation with the patrol officer he said: "Just how stupid do you think I think you are!"
As my friend learned, when dealing with people in authority, it is better to show respect and to play by their rules. Just a truth of life.
Stories like this just really frost my cookie.
I think I'll create a software company called MicroCrap. Then let Microsoft sue saying: "That name sounds like us!"
At my place of work they are beginning to crack down on internet access. There are just too many web based worms to allow users to surf. We can't keep up with the patches to our NT servers and Windows 2000 desktops.
Luckily we run virus protection on our exchange server. It catches an infected email every few days!
The short of it is that network security is a full time job and we can't afford to hire a dedicated network security person. So what are we going to do?
(Sigh) If only we ran Linux.
You may as well save your breath. By the tone of this guys messages he's either a gradeschooler or immature high school student.
A lot of people don't realize that if we don't support the company's that support us we all lose in the end.
The great thing about Linux compays is that if you can't afford to contribute you are still allowed to download the distribution. This is empowering and if we can break out of the box and do what is necessary then it will be a good thing for us all.
Don't expect any high standards from this individual. Lots of people complain about Microsoft but are unwilling to support anything better.
I believe that open source company's will fail because we as a society try to apply our traditional capitalistic values on a very untraditional business model.
Also, I sensed by the original posters comment "We don't care.. "(If Mandrake goes out of business.) That he may not have a lot of compation for the needs of other people. Imagine if the world had no one who felt differently! Not a world I would like to live in.
You can also get your copy of Mandrake from the download site that is available to people belonging to the Mandrake club.
Its a fast download and there is additional software available there. i.e. commercial packages.
At $60.00 per year its a great value!