No, it can definitely see the size of your wallet. The problem it has is seeing what counts as justice.
Just because it's only a search engine doesn't exempt it from the fact its primary use was to find and distribute copyrighted materials. The reason google and alta vista are immune is they're searches are not primarily used for illegal purposes.
Bullshit. The law doesn't distinguish what something is 'primarily' used for. If something has a legitimate use, then it's perfectly legal. The primary use of cigarette papers is probably to roll joints these days, but because they can be used to make hand-rolled cigarettes, they aren't illegal. Similarly, look at the recent Californian decision over Kazaa. Kazaa is unquestionably primarily used to download warez, mpegs and mp3's, but because it can have other legitimate uses, their defence against the RIAA prevailed.
As I recall, most states require a permit to own a lockpick.
If so, it's because they've passed a law requiring such. Point us to an equivalent law outlawing the use of search engines...
Computer technology means that today everyone with a couple of grand can own their own studio and produce their own records that are virtually indistinguishable from that of the studios.
Today, the limiting factor is creativity, not money.
Perhaps it was done this way because the publisher didn't have automatic rights over his next book. Not certain (IANA agent), but that was how it was done back then.
Even then it would have been very unusual. Perhaps it was because he had a good relationship with the editor who signed him and he'd agreed to go to print on that basis?
However, I've got one friend who never even delivered the M/S, and his publishers never sought to recover the advance, and another whose publisher decided that the book was unpublishable and again, they didn't attempt to recover either.
In the latter case, the advance was for $80k, of which the publishers had stumped up half.
This is a subject that's preoccupying me somewhat at the moment, as the second draft of my first book was due a month ago, and I've not even started it yet, so now I'm hoping that Canongate don't behave like Hodder and Stoughton.;-)
Yeah, I'm talking about high street solicitors in the North West of England. Although they nominally bill at around £120 an hour, they'll also do you a property conveyance or a divorce for a £300 flat fee. Hiring rates for a legal aid lawyer in these parts is around £25k a year.
I think a problem exists when people can be bullied like that simply because they don't have as much money to throw at a lawyer when compared to the person attacking them.
Oh, on this I agree with you absolutely. There's very little justice involved in civil law. It tends to operate on the principle of the golden rule -- ie, he who has the gold, makes the rules.
Kind of off topic but doesn't it seem a little odd that one person's weekly pay is equivalent to another person's life savings?
I don't want to come off as some sort of apologist for lawyers, but the fees someone charges is *not* the same thing as their take-home pay.
The fees have to cover things like premises, staff, training, legal indemnity insurance, etc., etc. Some lawyers that I know bill at around $200 an hour, but take home salaries that are equivalent to that of a schoolteacher.
i was saying its not a bank robbery in that this kid's money isn't being taken, or "grabbed" away.
I think you'll find that lots of bank robberies don't actually net as much as $12,000. The main difference between this and a bank robbery though, is that this is the powerful 'grabbing' from the powerless, rather than vice-versa.
Read my lips, it was SETTLED. The kid and the RIAA came to this agreement.
That's a bit like saying the war in Afghanistan was 'settled'. When someone comes at you with overwhelming force and resources, and you know they'll kill you unless you surrender, it's a bit much to say that what we have here is a settlement.
He agreed to pay this money. He may have settled because he didn't think he'd win and have to pay more, or maybe this money isn't a huge deal to him, who knows.
Do stop being so fucking obtuse. He didn't know whether he'd win or lose because the issue was neither here nor there. The point is that like 98% of the population, he didn't have the resources to find out. Now if that's your idea of a settlement, perhaps you won't mind if I come around to your house and enjoy a similar sort of 'settlement' with your sister/girlfriend/mother/wife?
Same with any publishers' advance; my father once had to pay back about 1000 GBP after disappointing sales of one of his books. That was on a 3000 GBP advance.
Either your father had a particularly dodgy publisher, or he's been telling you fibs, but that isn't how it's normally done. They might deduct disappointing sales from royalties of a subsequent book, but they don't normally ask you to pay back your advance back. Publishers and recording studios see the advance as an investment -- sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.
Gee, I wonder why people think he is a pompous prick...
You're clearly not somebody that ever gets asked to do these things are you.
Personally, I think ESR is a complete asshole, but his demands here are eminently reasonable. He's giving up his time *for free* and all he asks is that his expenses are taken care of.
Now I'm nothing like as in-demand as Raymond must be, but I know what a pain in the arse it is to run around the UK doing free or expenses only speaking gigs like this. When you're speaking for free, not only are you not being paid, you're actually *losing* money, because you cant get paid for the stuff you'd normally be doing.
In light of that, the very least you can expect is that the people who invite you ensure that you're as comfortable as possible and not out of pocket -- and if they can't do that, then they've no business asking you.
So yes, he may well be a pompous prick -- but there's nothing in this list of demands that indicates that. Unfortunately, there's more than enough evidence in his other writing to compensate...
I don't really have any problem with people using open source software with proprietry software. Free as in freedom, and all that good stuff.
However, it seems to me that when you've got somebody out to destroy you, it's insane to be giving them freebies while you do it.
So SCO don't like Linux? Well, lets see how their customers feel about that. Given the choice between running SCO software, and having access to the vast quantities of GPL'd software, I wonder which they'd choose?
My guess is that denying SCO's customers access to GPL software would kill them faster than any court case.
You may see that as petty. I see it as denying your enemies the opportunity to slaughter you using your own weapons, and as such, that's just common sense.
That's right. But we still need to buy the hemp. Then we fashion a noose, form a posse and ride on out to Utah for a good old fashioned Slashdot lynching party.
They've certainly removed themselves effectively from the pool of OSS developers.
I'd like to see it go further than this. I'd like to see the GPL amended so that the code can be used by anybody except employees of SCO and their customers.
Unfortunately, as I'm not a programmer (and as a result I'm not overly familiar with the GPL), I don't know how feasible such a move would be, but it would certainly be a cute case of tit for tat.
SCO threatens Linux customers, Linux threatens SCO's customers right on back -- and eventually we'll see who has history on their side.
You can't fool me -- this is clearly yet another goatse.cx troll, only rendered in ascii.
Years of repeated slashdot exposure mean that today I'd recognize that savaged sphincter anywhere -- even if it is hiding in a couple of ascii characters.
Well, I'll happily concede that there's some argument over the actual nation that coined the maxim. The Arabs attribute it to the Greeks, and I've also seen it attributed to the Moroccans, so I'll administer corrective surgery as requested.
However, Arab or not, I'd strongly recommend the novel by John Fortune and John Bird that draws its title from said aphorism. Unlike either Greeks, Arabs or the goatse.cx man, the protagonist in this story might be the person for whom the term 'tree hugger' was invented.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but the law is not blind.
No, it can definitely see the size of your wallet. The problem it has is seeing what counts as justice.
Just because it's only a search engine doesn't exempt it from the fact its primary use was to find and distribute copyrighted materials. The reason google and alta vista are immune is they're searches are not primarily used for illegal purposes.
Bullshit. The law doesn't distinguish what something is 'primarily' used for. If something has a legitimate use, then it's perfectly legal. The primary use of cigarette papers is probably to roll joints these days, but because they can be used to make hand-rolled cigarettes, they aren't illegal. Similarly, look at the recent Californian decision over Kazaa. Kazaa is unquestionably primarily used to download warez, mpegs and mp3's, but because it can have other legitimate uses, their defence against the RIAA prevailed.
As I recall, most states require a permit to own a lockpick.
If so, it's because they've passed a law requiring such. Point us to an equivalent law outlawing the use of search engines...
One LAST time...
Computer technology means that today everyone with a couple of grand can own their own studio and produce their own records that are virtually indistinguishable from that of the studios.
Today, the limiting factor is creativity, not money.
I've certainly read links to this story at least twice (though I couldn't say what it was modded at.)
Damn, I just can't resist it.
I believe you meant to write:
every time McBride and Sontag flap their gaping holes
Would Apple Mac be a good choice?
Nah. I'd go for a Fudge-Packard Bell.
Now I know where their company name comes from, going around 'fixing' people.
This is clearly one area where MS have learned from Eunuchs.
Perhaps it was done this way because the publisher didn't have automatic rights over his next book. Not certain (IANA agent), but that was how it was done back then.
;-)
Even then it would have been very unusual. Perhaps it was because he had a good relationship with the editor who signed him and he'd agreed to go to print on that basis?
However, I've got one friend who never even delivered the M/S, and his publishers never sought to recover the advance, and another whose publisher decided that the book was unpublishable and again, they didn't attempt to recover either.
In the latter case, the advance was for $80k, of which the publishers had stumped up half.
This is a subject that's preoccupying me somewhat at the moment, as the second draft of my first book was due a month ago, and I've not even started it yet, so now I'm hoping that Canongate don't behave like Hodder and Stoughton.
maybe you know different lawyers than I do
Yeah, I'm talking about high street solicitors in the North West of England. Although they nominally bill at around £120 an hour, they'll also do you a property conveyance or a divorce for a £300 flat fee. Hiring rates for a legal aid lawyer in these parts is around £25k a year.
I think a problem exists when people can be bullied like that simply because they don't have as much money to throw at a lawyer when compared to the person attacking them.
Oh, on this I agree with you absolutely. There's very little justice involved in civil law. It tends to operate on the principle of the golden rule -- ie, he who has the gold, makes the rules.
Kind of off topic but doesn't it seem a little odd that one person's weekly pay is equivalent to another person's life savings?
I don't want to come off as some sort of apologist for lawyers, but the fees someone charges is *not* the same thing as their take-home pay.
The fees have to cover things like premises, staff, training, legal indemnity insurance, etc., etc. Some lawyers that I know bill at around $200 an hour, but take home salaries that are equivalent to that of a schoolteacher.
i was saying its not a bank robbery in that this kid's money isn't being taken, or "grabbed" away.
I think you'll find that lots of bank robberies don't actually net as much as $12,000. The main difference between this and a bank robbery though, is that this is the powerful 'grabbing' from the powerless, rather than vice-versa.
Read my lips, it was SETTLED. The kid and the RIAA came to this agreement.
That's a bit like saying the war in Afghanistan was 'settled'. When someone comes at you with overwhelming force and resources, and you know they'll kill you unless you surrender, it's a bit much to say that what we have here is a settlement.
He agreed to pay this money. He may have settled because he didn't think he'd win and have to pay more, or maybe this money isn't a huge deal to him, who knows.
Do stop being so fucking obtuse. He didn't know whether he'd win or lose because the issue was neither here nor there. The point is that like 98% of the population, he didn't have the resources to find out. Now if that's your idea of a settlement, perhaps you won't mind if I come around to your house and enjoy a similar sort of 'settlement' with your sister/girlfriend/mother/wife?
France, if they dont give up first
Dear Monsieur Bush,
We give up.
Our twelve thousand francs is in the post.
Your pal,
Jacques
Same with any publishers' advance; my father once had to pay back about 1000 GBP after disappointing sales of one of his books. That was on a 3000 GBP advance.
Either your father had a particularly dodgy publisher, or he's been telling you fibs, but that isn't how it's normally done. They might deduct disappointing sales from royalties of a subsequent book, but they don't normally ask you to pay back your advance back. Publishers and recording studios see the advance as an investment -- sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.
Do you recall who his publisher was?
I thought we were up to Linux 9 or something.
LinuSX 10.2.6, surely?
Not that ESR is particularly ugly by any reasonable person's standards
You've got a very strange idea of a reasonable person's aesthetic standards.
ESR makes RNS look like Justin Timberlake by comparison.
Gee, I wonder why people think he is a pompous prick...
You're clearly not somebody that ever gets asked to do these things are you.
Personally, I think ESR is a complete asshole, but his demands here are eminently reasonable. He's giving up his time *for free* and all he asks is that his expenses are taken care of.
Now I'm nothing like as in-demand as Raymond must be, but I know what a pain in the arse it is to run around the UK doing free or expenses only speaking gigs like this. When you're speaking for free, not only are you not being paid, you're actually *losing* money, because you cant get paid for the stuff you'd normally be doing.
In light of that, the very least you can expect is that the people who invite you ensure that you're as comfortable as possible and not out of pocket -- and if they can't do that, then they've no business asking you.
So yes, he may well be a pompous prick -- but there's nothing in this list of demands that indicates that. Unfortunately, there's more than enough evidence in his other writing to compensate...
I don't really have any problem with people using open source software with proprietry software. Free as in freedom, and all that good stuff.
However, it seems to me that when you've got somebody out to destroy you, it's insane to be giving them freebies while you do it.
So SCO don't like Linux? Well, lets see how their customers feel about that. Given the choice between running SCO software, and having access to the vast quantities of GPL'd software, I wonder which they'd choose?
My guess is that denying SCO's customers access to GPL software would kill them faster than any court case.
You may see that as petty. I see it as denying your enemies the opportunity to slaughter you using your own weapons, and as such, that's just common sense.
Okay, well maybe I would rather see the Sun and get some pussy.
Ah. If wishes were horses... But as I'm feeling uncharacteristically charitable, I've got some free advice for you young man.
Sitting at home, reading Slashdot and flaming geeks on a glorious Saturday afternoon probably *isn't* the best way of achieving your stated goals.
I thought that the point was to have some sort of idea if it was actually SCO stuff.
And *then* they gotta prove that IBM were the people who put it in there in the first place.
I've still seen no evidence remotely persuasive of that possibility.
Dummy. Hemp ain't marijuana.
That's right. But we still need to buy the hemp. Then we fashion a noose, form a posse and ride on out to Utah for a good old fashioned Slashdot lynching party.
King Of The Hill get booted off by somebody who works harder or cheaper than the current "King"
Come off it. Nobody works harder at selling propane than Hank Hill does. The guy lives and breathes the stuff.
Oh I bought one a little bit earlier than that.
My first was a MacIIgi, and I've had one ever since - right up to my current 667 TiBook.
I bet if my first machine had been a Sinclair rather than a BBC, I'd have been a PC person though.
Well, even the first Acorn BBC computer was quicker
And cost around a fifth of the price. An Apple II sold for about a grand, whereas my BBC model A cost me £200.
I'd rather have had the Apple though.
They've certainly removed themselves effectively from the pool of OSS developers.
I'd like to see it go further than this. I'd like to see the GPL amended so that the code can be used by anybody except employees of SCO and their customers.
Unfortunately, as I'm not a programmer (and as a result I'm not overly familiar with the GPL), I don't know how feasible such a move would be, but it would certainly be a cute case of tit for tat.
SCO threatens Linux customers, Linux threatens SCO's customers right on back -- and eventually we'll see who has history on their side.
ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
Peace ribbon?
You can't fool me -- this is clearly yet another goatse.cx troll, only rendered in ascii.
Years of repeated slashdot exposure mean that today I'd recognize that savaged sphincter anywhere -- even if it is hiding in a couple of ascii characters.
this proverb was never an arabian one
Well, I'll happily concede that there's some argument over the actual nation that coined the maxim. The Arabs attribute it to the Greeks, and I've also seen it attributed to the Moroccans, so I'll administer corrective surgery as requested.
However, Arab or not, I'd strongly recommend the novel by John Fortune and John Bird that draws its title from said aphorism. Unlike either Greeks, Arabs or the goatse.cx man, the protagonist in this story might be the person for whom the term 'tree hugger' was invented.