I am furious that the "expert" went through and read every document he could find. He read the guy's resume, which had nothing to do with inspecting the hard drive for signs of shared music. He also mentions the lack of email. From this I would assume that if emails were stored on the computer, that he would have read each one looking for anything that could be used in court. The hard drive was subpoenaed to find evidence of Kazaa and of music files. Any other investigation is an invasion of privacy and I think the Lindors should sue the expert. What if he had naked pictures of his wife or emails to his lover?
BATMAN BEGINS, the best Batman movie in my opinion
THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, another excellent movie, although I didn't like the jerky camera action either, but I understand why it was necessary to hide the poor fight-work
HULK, guess you missed Ebert and Roper giving it two thumbs up
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, I haven't seen this one. If someone I know owns it I may borrow it, but I'm not going to give Tom Cruise one more dollar to give to Scientology.
What good movies (other than Army of Darkness) were the losers? Oh, I see at the bottom that "Field of Dreams", "Crash" and "A Christmas Story" are dishonorable mentions...
These "fixes" are just common sense. Who would design an interface that worked the way it did before the fixes? First off you can't tell if a server is full. Second, if you connect to a full server, you get kicked back to the main screen and have to search for servers all over again. That is just ridiculous.
Apparently there's actually a whole system in place to allow deaf people to watch TV by putting captions on the screen displaying words for what people are saying! Even more shockingly, blind people would like to be able to go out of their house unassisted. They actual capture and enslave poor dogs into walking them around so they don't get hit by traffic! When will disabled people learn that the they should stay quietly indoors and that the world wasn't meant for them?!?!
I thought the main reason we have extended copyrights was to get them in line with other countries... I personally don't see how the public is served by a term any longer than the original 28 years. If you haven't made enough money off your copyrighted works by then, I doubt the extra you make will further encourage you to create more works.
Oh, ok, so you are against copyrights in general? Then just say so and argue that point, instead of the passionate crap about "home healthcare aids".
I am indeed against copyrights being used against people that are not profiting from them. If you're not trying to make a profit from copying, I don't think that should be illegal. I thought that was pretty clear. I am for copyrights in that a company shouldn't be able to make money off the copyrighted works of others. That would preserve the limited monopoly granted by copyright law to promote progress in science and the useful arts.
Immoral is not illegal. Copying someone else's work without permission -- to give away or for oneself -- is immoral too.
That's your opinion, mine happens to differ. I see nothing immoral about copying someone else's work without permission. Do you have a TiVo? Did you ever have a VCR or a tape player? Chances are that you copied someone's work without their permission. Have you ever sung a song in the shower or to yourself? I doubt you had the author's permission. Did your mom ever make you a Superman outfit for Halloween when you were a kid? Did you ever sing a song with different words to be funny? Ever sing along with the radio? Do you consider those acts immoral? If not, then what makes them moral and not other acts? Just because something is illegal does NOT make it immoral.
If RIAA went after "trustafarians" and CEOs copying music, would you approve of them? No, you wouldn't, because you think, there should be no copyright on music. Then stop pretending, it is about "home healthcare aids"...
I only mentioned "home healthcare aids" in a quote from the previous author. I never pretended, I would also be against the RIAA going after anyone this way because it is harassment. I don't know why you're putting words in my mouth. I just think that personal copying not for profit should not be illegal. If you have every taped a song off the radio or recorded a TV show, you are a hypocrite. If you think that laws are the genesis of morality instead of thinking that laws should reflect morality, then you are an idiot.
Mono has been around for 2 years and yet winforms is still not finished the last time I took a look at it last spring. Winforms has been around since.net 1.0. I have yet to see a single app that could cross compile to Linux and Windows nor have I ever seen any successfull non Windows sites use ASP.net using mono.
One version of Winforms was around in.NET 1.0, there were a lot of changes with 2.0. I think the reason it has taken so long though is because the community actively avoided it since it was tied so closely to Microsoft Windows. There's a lot of junk in there (at the low level) linking directly with MS Windows message passing and GDI. The community instead mostly uses GTK# I believe. I don't thing the idea of mono was really to enable direct cross-compilation on Linux, but more to allow the new environment and language.
How would you be paying twice as much for cable? Currently very few channels are in HD, but you only pay around $10 more I think to get digital channels. You don't have to buy a blu-ray (or HD-DVD) unit, normal DVDs look better and sharper if you use component or HDMI connections. You can connect your computer to a VGA, DVI, or HDMI port to display movies, games, or even act as a recorder. You can get HD content for the major networks for free if you have an over-the-air antenna.
Advertisers may not want to pay a premium to show their ads in HD yet, but they do look better. Maybe one reason is that not many people have HD (or digital) TV sets yet. The main problem holding HD back I think is all the new protections the content providers are trying to put in place or strengthen. I was hugely excited when TiVo came out with the TiVo Series 3, but then I looked at the specs and it no longer supported TiVo2Go or storing and editing shows on your computer. They have an E-SATA port to allow you to expand your storage with an external hard drive, but it isn't activated yet either. The sole reason is that the CableCARD organization doesn't want you to be able to do those things with your shows, and the Series 3 relies on a license from them for the technology accessing digital cable.
The guy apparently tried to avoid getting served at home. All we know for sure about that is that someone at his house probably gave misleading information to the process server, who tried seven times to serve him there. Maybe the son has an active social life or stays at his girlfriend's house. Maybe he lives with his stepfather and half-brother, or a friend and his father who may have misrepresented who they were. I doubt the process server mistook him for his own father due to the age difference.
After that, the server was apparently harassing and threatening, and embarrassed him at work. The server apparently decided to talk directly to his boss and leave the subpoena with him after falsely claiming he was ducking service. All this for a subpoena of a third party to the lawsuit. A subpoena which is being quashed because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Of course the employer would not want the computer to fall into the RIAA's (and their lawyers') hands if it has company information on it. There is no likely reason to connect his computer with copyright infringement by the defendant. If the RIAA wishes to accuse the son of something and subpoena his computer, they should file suit against him.
How was the employer contacted? Are you talking about having a reason to contact the employer? Surely it's not standard practice to harass someone's employer while serving them and act in a threatening manner, then leave the subpoena with the employer without actually serving it?
How do you know he was in the wrong? You are simply taking the third-hand word of the process server, which is at best circumstantial evidence with unfounded conclusions of the Plaintiff thrown in.
No, but when the person serving the subpoena acts in a threatening manner and the items being subpoenaed contain material and confidential records of the business, there is cause for concern. Apparently the employer read the subpoena and was contacted directly by the Plaintiff.
That's your opinion, it looks like it to some.
First, I have to take issue with the term pirate. In the case against Kazaa, the judge correctly chastised the plaintiff's lawyer for using that derogatory term (along with theft) to describe people and actions incorrectly. The correct terms would be "copyright infringer" and "copyright infringement". What is your data to suggest that the aim is largely correct? I've heard that between 50% and 90% are incorrect.
Exactly. The RIAA gains from harassing and terrorizing innocent people, like a fascist regime.
When people stop buying so many CDs, they just blame piracy for it directly.
In fact, the year Napster debuted, CD sales shot up 20% and they had their best year ever. After they closed Napster down, CD sales plummeted and they actually blamed file sharing!
Well they are subpoenaing a third party to the lawsuit for starters, and requesting every computer or music device that he has control over. That is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and an invasion of privacy. Having failed to find any evidence that the defendant in their lawsuit had improperly done anything, they should have immediately dismissed it. If they wish to subpoena the son's computers and records, they should file a lawsuit against him.
So, the unemployed and the "home healthcare aids" are allowed to infringe on copyright? How about crossing the street on red signal? Perhaps, they can also drive with a suspended license?
Copyright infringement has no direct negative effect on another. Crossing the street on a red signal? You might get run over, cause an accident, or at least interfere with traffic. Also, I see people do it all the time and not get caught when the street's not busy (but I always wait) and I don't think it's a big deal. Driving with a suspended license? If you have a suspended license, you probably were involved in unsafe driving (numerous moving violations, DUI, etc.) and there is a good reason to keep you from operating a two ton killing machine.
Violating copyright? I don't think the free exchange of information should be restricted. Making money off it should be restricted as that government-granted monopoly is designed to promote progress of science and the useful arts. Should the record companies be allowed to control the music however they wanted? Should they be able to keep you from listening to the radio whenever you wished? Should they be able to keep you from tape recording songs from a radio station? Should they be able to extort money from you if you are caught humming a tune on the street? Of course not. Not that they wouldn't like to, but the law just hasn't given them that power yet. I don't believe that copyright is a moral right, and I don't believe that copyright violation absent financial gain is morally wrong. I do believe that the RIAA's tactics are morally wrong, and I don't think they should even be allowed.
Anyway you cut it, this is a big corporation with huge resources picking on an individual with meager resources to defend themselves. Either case you cite would be settled in front of a judge, probably without having to hire an attorney. Here we are talking about a court case brought by a multi-million dollar company against an individual, not a violation of the law witnessed by a law enforcement officer. This case has probably already cost them thousands of dollars (many times the fines for jaywalking or driving with a suspended license), many hours of wasted time, invasion of their privacy and embarrassment. They have been unable to find anything against the person they brought suit against, so they are now trying to obtain every computer or music device their son has access to or control over.
I mean, I've written a lot of email software, some of which does IM, and I have no idea what distinction is being made here.
It's like the difference between sending someone a letter (email) and chatting with them on the phone (instant). Email is store-and-forward, in that you type a message and send it to the server. The server delivers it to the designated server of the recipient based on their address, where it sits until they use an application to gather their mail. Instant Messaging is just that, instant. You chat interactively with other people that are online at the same time. Messages arrive immediately, and only if the person has the chat program up and running. With email, you can go on vacation and leave all your computers turned off, and the messages sent to you in that time will be waiting for you when you check your mail. You can respond to them even if that person is now on vacation and his computers are off. With Instant Messaging, you can't even send a message to someone who is not logged in.
The law says the person must only think that the other person is a minor. I'm glad that is the case. I think the law should be amended to specifically include any online communications and not just 'electronic mail'. I have a friend that caught his 13 year old daughter chatting online with an older man. He installed software to watch the packets and read her online conversations. He didn't go into details, but it was sexual. 13 year olds aren't mature enough to handle something like that, and any older man willing to meet with them at a motel should get in trouble with the law. Looks like the guy only got 5 years probation, but hopefully it scared him enough that he won't try something like that again.
Apart from anything else, I simply found myself wondering why the people in question couldn't simply develop their own game, rather than spending time back engineering Blizzard's games.
You should learn more about fair use and the public domain. The limited monopoly on copyright was created in order to provide an incentive to create more works and to enrich the public domain. Just because Blizzard made a great game doesn't mean they would run the best online servers for that game for instance. Should Blizzard have the right to control how you play the game after you pay for it? Do you want book authors telling you that you can only read their books certain hours of the day, or that you cannot drink coffee while reading it since you might spill on your pages? These rules and restrictions are already stifling innovation. Tivo Series 3 now supports HD, but it no longer supports viewing shows on a second Tivo in a different room, TiVo2Go, or viewing shows on your computer. HDCP will prevent me from watching high-definition shows on my TV in full resolution if the broadcast flag bill ever gets passed.
But why bother grabbing the screen - most passwords just show up as *******'s anyway, so all a malware writer has
to do is log keyboard events.
Because this system gets around that by not using keypresses. This system displays the numbers randomly shifted below your PIN as images. After you click on one number, it tells the server where you clicked in the image and can shift the numbers again. This way, a keystroke logger will receive zero keypresses, only mouse clicks. The previous poster was making the salient point that the keystroke loggers can be replaced or added to so that they recognize mouse clicks and images where the user clicked, possibly even using OCR to recognize the digits or letters and transmitting them as a keystroke logger would. It makes it a bit tougher for the malware authors, but it certainly is no 'holy grail' of security.
# "If you follow the rules (your concideration), you can distribute (my concideration)" meets the criteria for a contract. Contracts supersede copyright law - per Sun v MS.
I don't follow you. If they have no right to distribute, how can they not be sued under copyright law? So if I purchase a DVD (money being my consideration and the DVD being the store's), and I then copy that DVD and distribute it on the internet, does the company have to do something with the "contract" of the purchase? No, I am violating their copyright. There isn't anything in the license that specifies copyright violations are void. Termination is often specified as a remedy for license breach. If you could violate a license and still continue to distribute after termination, that becomes meaningless.
A "license" specifically grants you rights you would otherwise not have. The reason you don't have those rights is because of copyright law. Your remedies for someone using your work without permission are spelled out in copyright laws. Without the consideration (following the rules) on your part, you are not authorized to distribute and the author may seek remedies specified in copyright law.
I have no idea if legally that would hurt you, but I wouldn't think so. If they play their name before the beep, that is their fault. I think it would be the same as if they started playing their message before you picked up the phone, the actual call that you received didn't have that information.
F.E.A.R. and Doom I
on
Games and Fear
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That and when walking in the office building I turned a corner around a cubicle. It had been a long while since I had seen the girl and wan't thinking about it one bit. I swivel to check out the cube for anything of interest and BAM, she's there crawling like that creepy chick from 'The Ring', only faster.
One of the scariest moments I've had in a video game was also playing Doom I. There was an Aliens mod that replaced the monsters with different aliens from the movies, and replaced a ton of the sounds. Instead of the groan from the guys that threw fire, if the alien that replaced them was near you would hear a couple different sounds. One that would repeat every so often was the motion sensor sound from the Aliens movie. I was running around one of those maze levels in the dark and I couldn't find the guy. I wondered if he didn't get stuck in a wall or was in a hidden room. All of a sudden I decided to turn around and there he was screaming like an alien and attacking me.
Great idea for a good scare
on
Games and Fear
·
· Score: 1
Maybe for a game like Resident Evil... Have the game recognize a character name you enter. If you could have high-quality voice synthesis, that would be great. Maybe it could use the real name on an online account or something. Otherwise you could at least have a lot of common names pre-recorded. Imagine the game playing 2/3 the way through, then all of a sudden you hear your name whispered softly. So softly you cannot make out what it's saying at first, maybe only during a time when static is playing or something. This goes on about every 5 minutes getting louder until you can probably at least make out your name, then when you look at a monitor with static on it, a grisly face appears and shouts your name...
It's a collecting card game, you moron! The points aren't there to get you to buy the cards (the author admits he doesn't even play, he's buying just for the points), they are there to show appreciation for people that do buy the cards in order to play the card game! How did you possibly get it in your mind to buy collectible cards just to get points to spend on something you would get in WOW?
If that is all you are after, consider checking EBay, where people that play the card game are selling point cards since they don't care about them. You may also try finding people that do play the card game, and offer them the cards that you are not interested in for their point cards which they don't care about.
There's no reason to use military grade wiping? It used to be that forensic experts could use a more sensitive instrument than a hard drive read/write head to examine the platters and reconstruct data even after it had been written over. If you're just duplicating the drive and the RIAA never gets to see the original, there's no need for that. Heck, they can't even access data in bad sectors that your hard drive accounts for.
Slashdot Mirror
I am furious that the "expert" went through and read every document he could find. He read the guy's resume, which had nothing to do with inspecting the hard drive for signs of shared music. He also mentions the lack of email. From this I would assume that if emails were stored on the computer, that he would have read each one looking for anything that could be used in court. The hard drive was subpoenaed to find evidence of Kazaa and of music files. Any other investigation is an invasion of privacy and I think the Lindors should sue the expert. What if he had naked pictures of his wife or emails to his lover?
- BATMAN BEGINS, the best Batman movie in my opinion
- THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, another excellent movie, although I didn't like the jerky camera action either, but I understand why it was necessary to hide the poor fight-work
- HULK, guess you missed Ebert and Roper giving it two thumbs up
- MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, I haven't seen this one. If someone I know owns it I may borrow it, but I'm not going to give Tom Cruise one more dollar to give to Scientology.
What good movies (other than Army of Darkness) were the losers? Oh, I see at the bottom that "Field of Dreams", "Crash" and "A Christmas Story" are dishonorable mentions...These "fixes" are just common sense. Who would design an interface that worked the way it did before the fixes? First off you can't tell if a server is full. Second, if you connect to a full server, you get kicked back to the main screen and have to search for servers all over again. That is just ridiculous.
Apparently there's actually a whole system in place to allow deaf people to watch TV by putting captions on the screen displaying words for what people are saying! Even more shockingly, blind people would like to be able to go out of their house unassisted. They actual capture and enslave poor dogs into walking them around so they don't get hit by traffic! When will disabled people learn that the they should stay quietly indoors and that the world wasn't meant for them?!?!
I thought the main reason we have extended copyrights was to get them in line with other countries... I personally don't see how the public is served by a term any longer than the original 28 years. If you haven't made enough money off your copyrighted works by then, I doubt the extra you make will further encourage you to create more works.
I am indeed against copyrights being used against people that are not profiting from them. If you're not trying to make a profit from copying, I don't think that should be illegal. I thought that was pretty clear. I am for copyrights in that a company shouldn't be able to make money off the copyrighted works of others. That would preserve the limited monopoly granted by copyright law to promote progress in science and the useful arts.
That's your opinion, mine happens to differ. I see nothing immoral about copying someone else's work without permission. Do you have a TiVo? Did you ever have a VCR or a tape player? Chances are that you copied someone's work without their permission. Have you ever sung a song in the shower or to yourself? I doubt you had the author's permission. Did your mom ever make you a Superman outfit for Halloween when you were a kid? Did you ever sing a song with different words to be funny? Ever sing along with the radio? Do you consider those acts immoral? If not, then what makes them moral and not other acts? Just because something is illegal does NOT make it immoral.
I only mentioned "home healthcare aids" in a quote from the previous author. I never pretended, I would also be against the RIAA going after anyone this way because it is harassment. I don't know why you're putting words in my mouth. I just think that personal copying not for profit should not be illegal. If you have every taped a song off the radio or recorded a TV show, you are a hypocrite. If you think that laws are the genesis of morality instead of thinking that laws should reflect morality, then you are an idiot.Advertisers may not want to pay a premium to show their ads in HD yet, but they do look better. Maybe one reason is that not many people have HD (or digital) TV sets yet. The main problem holding HD back I think is all the new protections the content providers are trying to put in place or strengthen. I was hugely excited when TiVo came out with the TiVo Series 3, but then I looked at the specs and it no longer supported TiVo2Go or storing and editing shows on your computer. They have an E-SATA port to allow you to expand your storage with an external hard drive, but it isn't activated yet either. The sole reason is that the CableCARD organization doesn't want you to be able to do those things with your shows, and the Series 3 relies on a license from them for the technology accessing digital cable.
After that, the server was apparently harassing and threatening, and embarrassed him at work. The server apparently decided to talk directly to his boss and leave the subpoena with him after falsely claiming he was ducking service. All this for a subpoena of a third party to the lawsuit. A subpoena which is being quashed because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Of course the employer would not want the computer to fall into the RIAA's (and their lawyers') hands if it has company information on it. There is no likely reason to connect his computer with copyright infringement by the defendant. If the RIAA wishes to accuse the son of something and subpoena his computer, they should file suit against him.
In fact, the year Napster debuted, CD sales shot up 20% and they had their best year ever. After they closed Napster down, CD sales plummeted and they actually blamed file sharing!
Well they are subpoenaing a third party to the lawsuit for starters, and requesting every computer or music device that he has control over. That is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and an invasion of privacy. Having failed to find any evidence that the defendant in their lawsuit had improperly done anything, they should have immediately dismissed it. If they wish to subpoena the son's computers and records, they should file a lawsuit against him.
Copyright infringement has no direct negative effect on another. Crossing the street on a red signal? You might get run over, cause an accident, or at least interfere with traffic. Also, I see people do it all the time and not get caught when the street's not busy (but I always wait) and I don't think it's a big deal. Driving with a suspended license? If you have a suspended license, you probably were involved in unsafe driving (numerous moving violations, DUI, etc.) and there is a good reason to keep you from operating a two ton killing machine.
Violating copyright? I don't think the free exchange of information should be restricted. Making money off it should be restricted as that government-granted monopoly is designed to promote progress of science and the useful arts. Should the record companies be allowed to control the music however they wanted? Should they be able to keep you from listening to the radio whenever you wished? Should they be able to keep you from tape recording songs from a radio station? Should they be able to extort money from you if you are caught humming a tune on the street? Of course not. Not that they wouldn't like to, but the law just hasn't given them that power yet. I don't believe that copyright is a moral right, and I don't believe that copyright violation absent financial gain is morally wrong. I do believe that the RIAA's tactics are morally wrong, and I don't think they should even be allowed.
Anyway you cut it, this is a big corporation with huge resources picking on an individual with meager resources to defend themselves. Either case you cite would be settled in front of a judge, probably without having to hire an attorney. Here we are talking about a court case brought by a multi-million dollar company against an individual, not a violation of the law witnessed by a law enforcement officer. This case has probably already cost them thousands of dollars (many times the fines for jaywalking or driving with a suspended license), many hours of wasted time, invasion of their privacy and embarrassment. They have been unable to find anything against the person they brought suit against, so they are now trying to obtain every computer or music device their son has access to or control over.
Now THAT would be totally cool...
The law says the person must only think that the other person is a minor. I'm glad that is the case. I think the law should be amended to specifically include any online communications and not just 'electronic mail'. I have a friend that caught his 13 year old daughter chatting online with an older man. He installed software to watch the packets and read her online conversations. He didn't go into details, but it was sexual. 13 year olds aren't mature enough to handle something like that, and any older man willing to meet with them at a motel should get in trouble with the law. Looks like the guy only got 5 years probation, but hopefully it scared him enough that he won't try something like that again.
But of course if the license is terminated by their breach, the license no longer applies and they are violating copyrights, correct?
I don't follow you. If they have no right to distribute, how can they not be sued under copyright law? So if I purchase a DVD (money being my consideration and the DVD being the store's), and I then copy that DVD and distribute it on the internet, does the company have to do something with the "contract" of the purchase? No, I am violating their copyright. There isn't anything in the license that specifies copyright violations are void. Termination is often specified as a remedy for license breach. If you could violate a license and still continue to distribute after termination, that becomes meaningless.
A "license" specifically grants you rights you would otherwise not have. The reason you don't have those rights is because of copyright law. Your remedies for someone using your work without permission are spelled out in copyright laws. Without the consideration (following the rules) on your part, you are not authorized to distribute and the author may seek remedies specified in copyright law.
I have no idea if legally that would hurt you, but I wouldn't think so. If they play their name before the beep, that is their fault. I think it would be the same as if they started playing their message before you picked up the phone, the actual call that you received didn't have that information.
One of the scariest moments I've had in a video game was also playing Doom I. There was an Aliens mod that replaced the monsters with different aliens from the movies, and replaced a ton of the sounds. Instead of the groan from the guys that threw fire, if the alien that replaced them was near you would hear a couple different sounds. One that would repeat every so often was the motion sensor sound from the Aliens movie. I was running around one of those maze levels in the dark and I couldn't find the guy. I wondered if he didn't get stuck in a wall or was in a hidden room. All of a sudden I decided to turn around and there he was screaming like an alien and attacking me.
Maybe for a game like Resident Evil... Have the game recognize a character name you enter. If you could have high-quality voice synthesis, that would be great. Maybe it could use the real name on an online account or something. Otherwise you could at least have a lot of common names pre-recorded. Imagine the game playing 2/3 the way through, then all of a sudden you hear your name whispered softly. So softly you cannot make out what it's saying at first, maybe only during a time when static is playing or something. This goes on about every 5 minutes getting louder until you can probably at least make out your name, then when you look at a monitor with static on it, a grisly face appears and shouts your name...
If that is all you are after, consider checking EBay, where people that play the card game are selling point cards since they don't care about them. You may also try finding people that do play the card game, and offer them the cards that you are not interested in for their point cards which they don't care about.
There's no reason to use military grade wiping? It used to be that forensic experts could use a more sensitive instrument than a hard drive read/write head to examine the platters and reconstruct data even after it had been written over. If you're just duplicating the drive and the RIAA never gets to see the original, there's no need for that. Heck, they can't even access data in bad sectors that your hard drive accounts for.
How about you only download files and share files from a virtual machine that you have on an external hard drive?