The fact is that the (inter)national computer infrastructure should be made watertight down to the last mile. There should be unique, hardware dependent IDs and administrator password escrow so that rogue computers can be shut down remotely to prevent damage to the whole.
This is only going to get worse and drastic measures are required.
Really, Senator Hollings, shouldn't you be voting on a bill or something instead of trolling Slashdot?;)
If you copy a GPL program in a way not permitted in the GPL, you are violating the copyright. That's it. That's all. You are not agreeing to a contract.
I don't understand how a programmer, having viewed the source code of a program and thus implicitly read the GPL said program was released under, could fail to understand that they are agreeing to the contract. Perhaps that's one test for the courts. I hope someone brings up the EULAs used by Microsoft and various ISPs while arguing this point.
The GPL wants you to think that you are, and the statutory penalties for violating copyrights are high enough that you might later wish to agree to the contract to settle, but you can't be made to agree to a contract because you copied something.
Methinks a double-standard that favors those who can afford litigation is implied. I'd love to run your assertion by lawyers from the entertainment industry.
At least I certainly hope so. Courts might rule either way, but I think we would not want them to rule in favor of the GPL, because of all the other ways such implicit contracts are used (no reverse engineering, must donate firstborn son, etc.)
I'm with you...I hope they rule against software licenses, EULAs, the DMCA, eternal copyright, etc. etc. And if the GPL proves to be the vehicle to topple the myth of "intellectual property", I for one would say that it served its purpose.
But copyright itself does not list among remedies, "Make them release their code under the GPL."
Of course it doesn't because licensing violations are covered by contract (tort?) law, right?
I think people tend to forget that the basic premise of the GPL is to point out how ridiculous and counter-productive it is to attempt to secrete source code for profit. The GPL might be called "copyleft", but its enforcement has little to do copyright law. The genius of the GPL is that it uses contract law to hack copyright law.
My experience is that commercial outfits steal GPL code without fear and without hesitation. I've seen it in my previous three jobs. The first time I saw it happen, I was thanked through clenched teeth for pointing it out, but the code stayed there, they just made sure to change the copyright and remove the license terms. The second time, I was told to shut up, and further that I was likely to be sued by my own employer for Obstruction of Evil if any action was taken against them as a result of me blabbing. I got smarter after that.
That is interesting and I don't blame for your attitude given that history. However, I believe you should s/smarter/jaded/ on your last sentence.
The GPL is regarded as a fucking joke by small to mid sized companies (and I'm talking multinationals here). Sometimes it's viewed with such contempt that they don't even bother removing the copyright or license terms.
IMHO, it really doesn't matter how the GPL is viewed or how many companies incorporate GPL'ed code. Again, the genie is out of the bottle and, while it will probably take a long time, proprietary software has been rendered obsolete. Think about it. What's the alternative end-game scenario? Federally licensed programmers? (Might work in the US, but won't work in the rest of the world.) Government control of Internet access? (The P2P networks have shown that it is possible to route around this type of control.)
We can either accept the Internet and adapt as a society or adapt our society to control the Internet. I prefer the former option.
I'm sorry if you believe differently, but your absense of such experience doesn't invalidate mine.
I do believe differently and my reply was not meant to invalidate your post. In fact, your reply to my post is exactly what I was soliciting. Thanks for sharing your experiences.
Moglen is all talk. When he proactively starts putting the GPL to the test where it matters, in court, I'll reconsider.
While your experience may differ, my recollection of every lawyer that I've ever dealt with is that all of them are "all talk"...I just figured that was part of their job. Your bias is revealed by your assertion that it is "proactive" to decide matters in court. Actually, Eben has been the one who has been proactive by keeping these matters out of court for a decade, thus saving the courts' time. You seem to believe that the validity of the GPL must be decided by a court. I believe that the fact that the GPL has never been contested in court for over ten years makes a strong argument in favor of both the validity of the GPL and Eben's success at enforcing it.
Well, let's shake the jar and make them fight...
There is no fight, unless you believe that putting the genie back in the bottle is a fight. The only fight that is relevant is the fight that people with your perspective must engage in to adapt to a new environment. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in that endeavor.
remember the slashdot excuse pre-crackdown: go after the offenders, not the technology. support going after the offenders.
I still prefer: Prove the harm (via objective studies specifically not funded by the RIAA or its affiliates) to your business before you go after anything.
If someone were able to objectively explain the cost to the recording industry that song-swapping represents (or provide a link), I'd have at least a little more sympathy for their thuggish behavior.
Hey, Eben, when's the last time you won a case? When's the last time you were even arguing before a judge or jury court?
This might be difficult, but try to wrap your head around the concept that your second question actually answers your first. It could be argued that the best lawyers never have to go to court because they're able to build such a strong case that those opposed to them realize that they would lose and therefore do not pursue the matter.
Having met the man and attended one of his presentations, I have absolutely no doubt that Eben is exactly that good. If "leading expert" could ever be applied to someone in the legal career field, I believe it is most definitely applicable here.
We, your customers (aka the people you depend upon for revenue), have spoken. Deal with it or pull the ripcord on your golden parachutes. We're willing to pay for songs, but only for songs that we like. Your exploitation of copyright law is over because we'll route around it until you get a clue. Welcome to the future!
definetly MS is the 'good guy' here (argh, thought I never say it!).
Before you choke on that lump in your throat, consider the possibility that Microsoft programmers and Microsoft business managers are two separate entities.
We can beat (well, at least get even with) MS by just continuing as we do now, MS can't really fire anything at us that we can't handle fairly easily (possibly part from, that's right, patents)
I don't think we're competing with the programmers at Microsoft. Let's face it...they're getting paid to code and we do it for fun and recognition. It's also important to note that our efforts are standing upon the shoulders of giants while, unfortunately, their efforts are built upon a very unstable house of cards. We can do anything they can do but it will take us longer to get there because we don't spend eight hours a day on that target. Ain't disruptive technology a bitch?:)
Software patents are far more scary and serious threat to the Open Source movement than MS, IMHO.
I agree. What we have is an economy of physical products going head to head with an economy of ideas. The only people making any money from this conflict are lawyers (apologies to Professor Lessig).
I have a respect/disdain attitude towards Microsoft programmers. I respect their ability to abstract things (such as saving an Excel spreadsheet to HTML) but I disdain their inability to consider the security implications that these abstractions create. As for Microsoft's management, I respect their business sense but I think their arrogance and thugishness will continue to bite them in the ass until they, like the RIAA and MPAA, realize that the playing field has been leveled and that the people they used to call "consumers" are now actually people with a voice and a choice.
I am so sick of this esoteric patent corporate raider bullshit. I hope MS fucks them up!
Parent was modded Troll, and I can't help but wonder why. Was it an anti-Microsoft moderator or a pro-software patent moderator?
This particular thread might just be the Slashdot Singularity.:) Of course, I'll probably get modded Offtopic by both camps now, but I think it's an interesting question.
Kinda puts a whole new spin on "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"....who is my enemy in this case?
Hate to pop your bubble, but there is no violation of the 4th amendment here. The 4th amendment simply requires a warrant, sworn out by a court upon probable cause and that specifically describes the search and seizure to be conducted.
Thanks for the info but, far from popping my bubble, you just gave it a titanium lining. So basically, you're saying that subpoenas now carry the same power as warrants...only it's a media cartel instead of law enforcement that wields it and a clerk instead of a judge that grants it.
The second branch of the government (you know that pesky branch that is elected by the people), has instructed the courts via legislation, that evidence of illegal downloading is, ipso facto, sufficient evidence and probable cause. Therefore, there is no need for judicial review, and the clerk (who is an official of the court) can simply sign the supboena.)
It sure is a good thing that the second branch of government always passes perfect laws since they represent all of us. Good point about the clerk being an official of the court...that's probably necessary but if it is, their powers need to be limited. Clever hack by the media cartels and their paid-off legislators (those pesky people that get elected and then promptly accept campaign money to blow off their constituents), I'll give them that.
Personally, I find it a bit refreshing that the representatives elected by the people are defining this instead of a few robed justices on a bench acting like dictators. We have too many judges making law already from the bench. The Arizona state supreme court has even had the temerity to rule on multiple occasions that amendments the state constitution violated the state constitution.
That, my friends, is tyranny.
While I'm with you that no one branch should ever gain too much power, I question your interpretation of the balance of powers...especially in light of today's environment. Where you seem to believe that the Judicial branch has too much power, I believe that the Legislative branch has been bought off and is no longer representative of its constituents. So while you see the Judicial branch saving us from the Legislative branch, I percieve the situation from the opposite point of view.
Tyranny can come from any direction, be it clueless judges, bought-off legislators, or power-happy executives. The goal of the constitution is to make these threats sufficiently at odds enough that the end result is palatable.
Actually, Verizon is still traveling that road. They appealed again. RTFA
And this is important because it's finally a large corporation without the backchannel communications and handshakes that is willing to stand up to the recording cartel.
It got me to thinking "What can I do to support Verizon's case?" (even though I happen to work for one of their biggest competitors). I asked a few lawyer friends and they told me that I could file an amicus ("friend of the court") brief directly with the court hearing the appeal but unless I was representing a lot of other people from a major organization...it would pretty much be spinning my wheels. They said the best thing to do is to write letters to the editors of every paper in my area laying out the whole situation and the potential risk to our privacy. Even though federal judges are appointed and not elected, public opinion can often sway the legal interpretation that federal judges adopt (after all, nobody likes to be unpopular and flamed in the press) and it also influences future appointments.
So, eloquent Slashdot posters with a real understanding of the case...take your next Slashdot post and | lp -d editor. I know I will.
That's a good question actually. It is a violation of privacy (I've never seen that called "privacy infringement"...are you affiliated with the RIAA?) because the DMCA allows the lawyers acting on behalf of the RIAA to obtain these subpoenas without sufficient judicial oversight. They file their claims with a clerk, pay the fee, and voila! Usually, to obtain a subpoena that grants the right to violate the Fourth Amendment, one must actually prove harm sufficient enough to justify the violation of that Constitutional right to a judge. But thanks to the good ole DMCA (a copyright lawyer's bestest friend!), the quaint notion that you must actually prove your case before being granted a subpoena has been neatly side-stepped.
You're doing something illegal (copyright infringement), you are then caught, and you are then identified.
Hmmmm....so let's apply your logic to another set of criminal circumstances. You're doing something illegal (selling crack), you are then caught, and you are then identified. See, when it comes to selling crack, the police have to actually identify the offender first in order to obtain a warrant. (And, by the way, warrants are issued by judges...not clerks.)
Is their a reasonable expectation of privacy when transmitting your IP address to millions of other users when using Kaazaa? Hardly.
I do think you have a good legal argument with your final statement but the existence of proxies nullifies it on a technical level. (Then again, how often does technical common sense actually scale with legal theories?) How many of the 871 subpoenas obtained by the RIAA will turn out to be people running open proxies on the Internet? Last I heard, we haven't made that illegal yet.
"Privacy infringement"....I do like that term. It's a nice check on the power we've given to those who are rabid in their pursuit of unsubstantiated losses due to copyright infringement.
Heil hitler, and toss another email on the fire eh? I thought/. readers were a bit more forward thinking than they have demonstrated in this thread.
I'll overlook your invocation of Godwin's Law and your generalization of Slashdot readers. This is, after all, a passionate subject and people have staked careers on the belief that people are incapable of seeking out the products that they want.
Is unsoclicted direct mail in your regular mailbox "tresspass to chattels" as well?
Yes. The only difference is that I don't pay for that spam and, thanks to those anonymous bulkmail response envelopes, I am able to stick it to the assholes where it hurts: right in the pocketbook.
I understand and sympathize with those affected by the deluge of fraudlent offers, forged headers and those that send 1 mil+ mails/day.
Respectfully, I don't think you really get it because you followed this statement with:
But I draw the line when honest businessmen, arent allowed to send even one unsolicted advertisement. If the offer is bonafide, the headers aren't forged, it's not bulk, the message is clearly marked ADV:, and requests not to recieve future mail are honored... the commercial mail should be allowed!
I disagree with you to a large extent. I believe that you're thinking that we still need a "push" mechanism to present options to customers...and we do to some extent. But the scope has been slashed by the Internet. The last time I bought I car, I walked into the dealership with a printout of what I wanted. All that was left to do in our transaction was to negotiate the price. I realize that there are people today that don't have an Internet connection so there is probably still a need for direct marketing. But I suspect that that need will continue to decrease as we turn out generations that take the Internet for granted.
Any attmept to prohobit such mail sets a dangerous anti-capitalistic precedent.
How? How would the prohibition of direct marketing ruin any company that provides a product or a service to people? The prohibition of direct marketing would put a lot of people out of work which really sucks, but paradigms shift and these days I question the legitimacy of their livelihood.
The freaks who want to live in a society with 0 advertising are welcome too, try moving to the backwoods of Africa. and oh by-the-way you probably wont have to worry about recieving any of my mails there either.
Oh crap, I think I just got trolled by a spammer. News flash, bud: You're a pimple on capitalism. We're just finally getting around to popping you.
Take you ha off and deal ALL (yes ALL) Software has bugs, Exploits or problems. Before you show your Ignorance compare how many realeases your favorite distro has had and compare it to MS.
I agree. I subscribe to BugTraq and the ratio of free/opensource software submissions to proprietary software submissions is something on the order of 10:1. I have no problem telling people this because, if the same ratio were applied to units of time for a response and a fix, the inverse seems to be the case.
Of course all reasonably sophisticated software has bugs; it's an indisputable fact. The problem with proprietary software is that their business depends upon (downplaying|denying|obfuscating) this fundamental fact. It's like the caretakers of the Hoover Dam denying cracks that are pointed out by obsvervant visitors because they're paid to keep it solid.
I have a theory about why free/opensource software gets fixed so much more quickly than most proprietary software: I think that when someone's reputation is on the line, they strive harder to fix their code but when their paycheck (and perhaps even future employment) is at stake, the same pressure doesn't exist because they are shielded from public scrutiny and are probably busy earning their paycheck writing more propietary code at the behest of their employer.
In other words, I think the actual programmers at companies like Microsoft are really talented, clever people but the business droids make them look bad. I have never met a real programmer that was able to look at code they wrote weeks/months/years ago and say "Wow, that is truly perfect." I doubt proprietary programmers at the bigger firms have the freedom to peruse and improve their code like those who do it for fun. And, since they're nameless and shielded, I suppose it would be easy to become complacent and shrug off all but the most serious complaints. So when it comes to Microsoft, I have some respect for their coders and reserve most of my vitriol for the people that manage them.
I will continue to argue the point that it is open season until REAL/DECENT legislation is passed that makes it illegal.
I'm willing to agree that my home-invasion analogy is probably not the best (after all, there's not much emotional trauma involved with spam...unless you're a parent whose child views porno-spam but in that case I would argue that you need to be a better parent). I'm also willing to agree that it's just common sense to avoid posting any email address anywhere on the Internet if you don't want spam sent to that email address.
I'll even buy the argument that I subsidize the cost of direct snail-mail spam by buying stamps...up to a certain extent. The difference is that I'm basically forced to buy stamps to pay bills. And increasingly, it is becoming more necessary to have an Internet connection for the very same reason. What an interesting recursive phenomenon. Here we have an industry (advertising) that in many ways has indirectly managed to force us to actually help pay the costs required for them to annoy us! Brilliant business move, I'll give them that.:)
I'm curious about what you think "REAL/DECENT legislation" illegalizing spam might be? Because in my opinion, there is no way to legislate the problem and even if there were, enforcement would be a nightmare. The only cure to the spam problem would have to be a public information campaign to educate people about the problem and advise them to boycott spam-friendly ISPs and stop doing any business with companies that choose to advertise that way. That's the only way I think we can effectively remove the profit-motive while at the same time keeping the legitimate channels open. The problem then of course becomes...how do you launch a worldwide public information campaign? I got it! What we need are anti-spammer...SPAMMERS!;)
And why advertisers have to shout lounder and louder to get through a mass of untargeted ads?
I would prefer that they shut up and listen to me rather than attempt to shout over each other. My money goes to the companies that annoy me the least.
That being said, I don't really have much of a problem with NYT registration...but as the grandparent post reveals, I doubt they're getting as much bang for their buck as they might think (or as their management team is likely being told by hordes of shouting advertising suits).
--K.
Re:I have said it before and I will say it again..
on
In Pursuit Of A Spammer
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Bill,
It's unfortunate that your comments were modded down to -1. Given the opportunity, I would have modded your statements Interesting even though I disagree with you.
It's their right to send it and it's your right to block it.
This really drills down to the core issue of spam: money. Based upon what I've read on the subject, I (via my subscription fee) am subsidizing the cost of a spammer's business. I welcome any evidence that contradicts this, but until that time I would analogize your statement as follows: "It is their right to barge into your home and shove an ad in your face and it's your right to stop them....and by the way, this process will cost you $$."
That kind of thinking doesn't work because I can't legally put a bullet into a spammer's head. One's right to free speech ends at my doorstep. Any alternative interpretation of the First Amendment opens up a number of conflicts with the Fourth Amendment.
So future generations will pull content to them? that's why you're reading slashdot, right?
Yes, exactly. I read slashdot because I choose to. I don't understand the analogy you were trying to make. If every time I fired up my web browser, slashdot loaded and I was unable to change that behavior, I could understand your analogy but I come here by choice which is a foreign concept to those whose job it is to insert their ads into my life.
Like nobody will:
start up a website "myindyfavs.org"
post their favorite bands
add message board
start getting ad&tshirt money
work a deal with some VC who hopes the bubble is back
grow a bunch
become music geek central
and then turn into a crusty ol business once they shift from "this is what I like" to "this is what they like" to "this is what I'm getting money to tell them they like"
Ahhh ok. I think I understand your position more clearly now. Respectfully, I think that your statements represent the sentiments of the dinosaurs of industry today. You might want to take a hard look at this if you wish to remain relevant.
My position is actually that the RIAA exists because there is actually a demand for the service it provides.
I almost agree with you here. I say "almost" because I believe that your position fails to account for the disruption caused by the Internet. The recording industry is not the only business being turned head-over-heels by the Net...observe the impact to the telemarketing industry taking place in the US these days. The days of corporate "push" are numbered. Future generations will regard the in-your-face tactics of multinational corporations as offensive intrusions because they will grow up knowing how to "pull" information to them. So having said that, I agree that the service provided by the RIAA is still relevant at this point but I think even the CEOs of the companies it represents must know that they're headed for DoDo-land.
People don't know what music to like. The service the RIAA provides is to tell them.
I disagree. People know what they like and it is this arrogant assumption by the recording industry that has created the problem we are now finally dealing with. The inability of the big-five to meet the needs of their customers is what has given rise to what they like to call "piracy".
I sincerely hope the webcasters pursue and win their antitrust case. The RIAA represents a house of cards that must be toppled. Fortunately, they're self-destructing in such a manner that this lawsuit will probably prove irrelevant in the annals of history.
Actually no I support open source. I'd be happy if all information were owned by the world.
The problem is, its not profitable and I'd be out of a job as all open source companies would force all our jobs to india.
Surely you must recognize the dichotomy that those two statements present. How can you say that you'd "be happy if all information were owned by the world" yet worry that you'd "be out of a job as all open source companies would force all our jobs to india"?
As for profitability, I have noticed that most people don't want to program computers and are happy to employ those who do. In other words, there is demand. And where there is demand, there is the potential for profit. The transparency of source code is largely irrelevant to the masses that don't read Slashdot. Free software only helps the programming community sell their software to the general public that doesn't give a hoot. Why recreate the wheel for a living?
And if there's a talented programmer in India that can write better code than I can, more power to them. I believe that you're worried about globalization; I am too. But your sig suggests that you've gone off the deep end with your concerns.
It's interesting that you should bring that quote to light.
Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them? Clearly everyone would agree that the television and clothing retailers should be able to investigate and prosecute shoplifters.
When I read this, my first thought was...."ummm, how about the police?". If copying songs is truly a crime, why aren't law enforcement agencies actively engaged in prosecuting these "criminals"? This is just a hunch, but my guess is that if law enforcement declared a War on Music Pirates, the backlash from the people would be orders of magnitude worse than it was with the Prohibition.
Here's another interesting Oppenheim statement:
The facts make clear that these networks are overwhelmingly being used to infringe music, movies, software, games and images.
The law does not care whether a technology can, is, or could be "overwhelmingly" abused. If the potential for fair use exists, the technology is legal. Our judicial branch is only now waking up to this fact given the recent ruling blocking an injunction against Morpheus and Grokster.
I'm still waiting for objective, unsolicited proof that P2P is affecting the bottom line of the companies that the RIAA represents. If someone (whose paycheck is not dependent on the recording industry) can map the industry's revenue losses directly to "evil pirates", I'll gain much more respect for the industry's position. Until that time (and given the industry's penchant for the wanton use of what amounts to a litigation tourniquet), I remain unsympathetic to their complaints.
What I dont like is the fact that as we buy information we dont truely own it, yet when we buy physical objects we own them. This makes no sense to me, I say if we buy music we should be able to do whatever we want with it.
HanzoSan, you are an enigma. I am baffled by your position that we should own information that we buy while at the same time advocating that it's perfectly proper for information in the form of computer code to be controlled in much the same way that the RIAA wishes to control songs. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position or perhaps you're just a troll that gets off on replies like this. If the latter is the case, enjoy.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Really, Senator Hollings, shouldn't you be voting on a bill or something instead of trolling Slashdot?
--K.
I can't wait for the backlash.
--K.
I don't understand how a programmer, having viewed the source code of a program and thus implicitly read the GPL said program was released under, could fail to understand that they are agreeing to the contract. Perhaps that's one test for the courts. I hope someone brings up the EULAs used by Microsoft and various ISPs while arguing this point.
Methinks a double-standard that favors those who can afford litigation is implied. I'd love to run your assertion by lawyers from the entertainment industry.
I'm with you...I hope they rule against software licenses, EULAs, the DMCA, eternal copyright, etc. etc. And if the GPL proves to be the vehicle to topple the myth of "intellectual property", I for one would say that it served its purpose.
--K.
I think people tend to forget that the basic premise of the GPL is to point out how ridiculous and counter-productive it is to attempt to secrete source code for profit. The GPL might be called "copyleft", but its enforcement has little to do copyright law. The genius of the GPL is that it uses contract law to hack copyright law.
But.....of course.....IANAL.
--K.
That is interesting and I don't blame for your attitude given that history. However, I believe you should s/smarter/jaded/ on your last sentence.
IMHO, it really doesn't matter how the GPL is viewed or how many companies incorporate GPL'ed code. Again, the genie is out of the bottle and, while it will probably take a long time, proprietary software has been rendered obsolete. Think about it. What's the alternative end-game scenario? Federally licensed programmers? (Might work in the US, but won't work in the rest of the world.) Government control of Internet access? (The P2P networks have shown that it is possible to route around this type of control.)
We can either accept the Internet and adapt as a society or adapt our society to control the Internet. I prefer the former option.
I do believe differently and my reply was not meant to invalidate your post. In fact, your reply to my post is exactly what I was soliciting. Thanks for sharing your experiences.
--K.
While your experience may differ, my recollection of every lawyer that I've ever dealt with is that all of them are "all talk"...I just figured that was part of their job. Your bias is revealed by your assertion that it is "proactive" to decide matters in court. Actually, Eben has been the one who has been proactive by keeping these matters out of court for a decade, thus saving the courts' time. You seem to believe that the validity of the GPL must be decided by a court. I believe that the fact that the GPL has never been contested in court for over ten years makes a strong argument in favor of both the validity of the GPL and Eben's success at enforcing it.
There is no fight, unless you believe that putting the genie back in the bottle is a fight. The only fight that is relevant is the fight that people with your perspective must engage in to adapt to a new environment. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in that endeavor.
--K.
Hmmm, interesting. Does that mean E-bay is the precursor to an online Wall Street?
--K.
I still prefer: Prove the harm (via objective studies specifically not funded by the RIAA or its affiliates) to your business before you go after anything.
If someone were able to objectively explain the cost to the recording industry that song-swapping represents (or provide a link), I'd have at least a little more sympathy for their thuggish behavior.
--K.
This might be difficult, but try to wrap your head around the concept that your second question actually answers your first. It could be argued that the best lawyers never have to go to court because they're able to build such a strong case that those opposed to them realize that they would lose and therefore do not pursue the matter.
Having met the man and attended one of his presentations, I have absolutely no doubt that Eben is exactly that good. If "leading expert" could ever be applied to someone in the legal career field, I believe it is most definitely applicable here.
--K.
Dear antitrust-defying, price-fixing, clueless morons,
We, your customers (aka the people you depend upon for revenue), have spoken. Deal with it or pull the ripcord on your golden parachutes. We're willing to pay for songs, but only for songs that we like. Your exploitation of copyright law is over because we'll route around it until you get a clue. Welcome to the future!
--K.
Before you choke on that lump in your throat, consider the possibility that Microsoft programmers and Microsoft business managers are two separate entities.
I don't think we're competing with the programmers at Microsoft. Let's face it...they're getting paid to code and we do it for fun and recognition. It's also important to note that our efforts are standing upon the shoulders of giants while, unfortunately, their efforts are built upon a very unstable house of cards. We can do anything they can do but it will take us longer to get there because we don't spend eight hours a day on that target. Ain't disruptive technology a bitch?
I agree. What we have is an economy of physical products going head to head with an economy of ideas. The only people making any money from this conflict are lawyers (apologies to Professor Lessig).
I have a respect/disdain attitude towards Microsoft programmers. I respect their ability to abstract things (such as saving an Excel spreadsheet to HTML) but I disdain their inability to consider the security implications that these abstractions create. As for Microsoft's management, I respect their business sense but I think their arrogance and thugishness will continue to bite them in the ass until they, like the RIAA and MPAA, realize that the playing field has been leveled and that the people they used to call "consumers" are now actually people with a voice and a choice.
--K.
Parent was modded Troll, and I can't help but wonder why. Was it an anti-Microsoft moderator or a pro-software patent moderator?
This particular thread might just be the Slashdot Singularity.
Kinda puts a whole new spin on "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"....who is my enemy in this case?
--K.
Thanks, I feel better now.
--K.
Thanks for the info but, far from popping my bubble, you just gave it a titanium lining. So basically, you're saying that subpoenas now carry the same power as warrants...only it's a media cartel instead of law enforcement that wields it and a clerk instead of a judge that grants it.
It sure is a good thing that the second branch of government always passes perfect laws since they represent all of us. Good point about the clerk being an official of the court...that's probably necessary but if it is, their powers need to be limited. Clever hack by the media cartels and their paid-off legislators (those pesky people that get elected and then promptly accept campaign money to blow off their constituents), I'll give them that.
While I'm with you that no one branch should ever gain too much power, I question your interpretation of the balance of powers...especially in light of today's environment. Where you seem to believe that the Judicial branch has too much power, I believe that the Legislative branch has been bought off and is no longer representative of its constituents. So while you see the Judicial branch saving us from the Legislative branch, I percieve the situation from the opposite point of view.
Tyranny can come from any direction, be it clueless judges, bought-off legislators, or power-happy executives. The goal of the constitution is to make these threats sufficiently at odds enough that the end result is palatable.
--K.
And this is important because it's finally a large corporation without the backchannel communications and handshakes that is willing to stand up to the recording cartel.
It got me to thinking "What can I do to support Verizon's case?" (even though I happen to work for one of their biggest competitors). I asked a few lawyer friends and they told me that I could file an amicus ("friend of the court") brief directly with the court hearing the appeal but unless I was representing a lot of other people from a major organization...it would pretty much be spinning my wheels. They said the best thing to do is to write letters to the editors of every paper in my area laying out the whole situation and the potential risk to our privacy. Even though federal judges are appointed and not elected, public opinion can often sway the legal interpretation that federal judges adopt (after all, nobody likes to be unpopular and flamed in the press) and it also influences future appointments.
So, eloquent Slashdot posters with a real understanding of the case...take your next Slashdot post and | lp -d editor. I know I will.
--K.
That's a good question actually. It is a violation of privacy (I've never seen that called "privacy infringement"...are you affiliated with the RIAA?) because the DMCA allows the lawyers acting on behalf of the RIAA to obtain these subpoenas without sufficient judicial oversight. They file their claims with a clerk, pay the fee, and voila! Usually, to obtain a subpoena that grants the right to violate the Fourth Amendment, one must actually prove harm sufficient enough to justify the violation of that Constitutional right to a judge. But thanks to the good ole DMCA (a copyright lawyer's bestest friend!), the quaint notion that you must actually prove your case before being granted a subpoena has been neatly side-stepped.
Hmmmm....so let's apply your logic to another set of criminal circumstances. You're doing something illegal (selling crack), you are then caught, and you are then identified. See, when it comes to selling crack, the police have to actually identify the offender first in order to obtain a warrant. (And, by the way, warrants are issued by judges...not clerks.)
I do think you have a good legal argument with your final statement but the existence of proxies nullifies it on a technical level. (Then again, how often does technical common sense actually scale with legal theories?) How many of the 871 subpoenas obtained by the RIAA will turn out to be people running open proxies on the Internet? Last I heard, we haven't made that illegal yet.
"Privacy infringement"....I do like that term. It's a nice check on the power we've given to those who are rabid in their pursuit of unsubstantiated losses due to copyright infringement.
--K.
I'll overlook your invocation of Godwin's Law and your generalization of Slashdot readers. This is, after all, a passionate subject and people have staked careers on the belief that people are incapable of seeking out the products that they want.
Yes. The only difference is that I don't pay for that spam and, thanks to those anonymous bulkmail response envelopes, I am able to stick it to the assholes where it hurts: right in the pocketbook.
Respectfully, I don't think you really get it because you followed this statement with:
I disagree with you to a large extent. I believe that you're thinking that we still need a "push" mechanism to present options to customers...and we do to some extent. But the scope has been slashed by the Internet. The last time I bought I car, I walked into the dealership with a printout of what I wanted. All that was left to do in our transaction was to negotiate the price. I realize that there are people today that don't have an Internet connection so there is probably still a need for direct marketing. But I suspect that that need will continue to decrease as we turn out generations that take the Internet for granted.
How? How would the prohibition of direct marketing ruin any company that provides a product or a service to people? The prohibition of direct marketing would put a lot of people out of work which really sucks, but paradigms shift and these days I question the legitimacy of their livelihood.
Oh crap, I think I just got trolled by a spammer. News flash, bud: You're a pimple on capitalism. We're just finally getting around to popping you.
--K.
I agree. I subscribe to BugTraq and the ratio of free/opensource software submissions to proprietary software submissions is something on the order of 10:1. I have no problem telling people this because, if the same ratio were applied to units of time for a response and a fix, the inverse seems to be the case.
Of course all reasonably sophisticated software has bugs; it's an indisputable fact. The problem with proprietary software is that their business depends upon (downplaying|denying|obfuscating) this fundamental fact. It's like the caretakers of the Hoover Dam denying cracks that are pointed out by obsvervant visitors because they're paid to keep it solid.
I have a theory about why free/opensource software gets fixed so much more quickly than most proprietary software: I think that when someone's reputation is on the line, they strive harder to fix their code but when their paycheck (and perhaps even future employment) is at stake, the same pressure doesn't exist because they are shielded from public scrutiny and are probably busy earning their paycheck writing more propietary code at the behest of their employer.
In other words, I think the actual programmers at companies like Microsoft are really talented, clever people but the business droids make them look bad. I have never met a real programmer that was able to look at code they wrote weeks/months/years ago and say "Wow, that is truly perfect." I doubt proprietary programmers at the bigger firms have the freedom to peruse and improve their code like those who do it for fun. And, since they're nameless and shielded, I suppose it would be easy to become complacent and shrug off all but the most serious complaints. So when it comes to Microsoft, I have some respect for their coders and reserve most of my vitriol for the people that manage them.
--K.
I'm willing to agree that my home-invasion analogy is probably not the best (after all, there's not much emotional trauma involved with spam...unless you're a parent whose child views porno-spam but in that case I would argue that you need to be a better parent). I'm also willing to agree that it's just common sense to avoid posting any email address anywhere on the Internet if you don't want spam sent to that email address.
I'll even buy the argument that I subsidize the cost of direct snail-mail spam by buying stamps...up to a certain extent. The difference is that I'm basically forced to buy stamps to pay bills. And increasingly, it is becoming more necessary to have an Internet connection for the very same reason. What an interesting recursive phenomenon. Here we have an industry (advertising) that in many ways has indirectly managed to force us to actually help pay the costs required for them to annoy us! Brilliant business move, I'll give them that.
I'm curious about what you think "REAL/DECENT legislation" illegalizing spam might be? Because in my opinion, there is no way to legislate the problem and even if there were, enforcement would be a nightmare. The only cure to the spam problem would have to be a public information campaign to educate people about the problem and advise them to boycott spam-friendly ISPs and stop doing any business with companies that choose to advertise that way. That's the only way I think we can effectively remove the profit-motive while at the same time keeping the legitimate channels open. The problem then of course becomes...how do you launch a worldwide public information campaign? I got it! What we need are anti-spammer...SPAMMERS!
--K.
I would prefer that they shut up and listen to me rather than attempt to shout over each other. My money goes to the companies that annoy me the least.
That being said, I don't really have much of a problem with NYT registration...but as the grandparent post reveals, I doubt they're getting as much bang for their buck as they might think (or as their management team is likely being told by hordes of shouting advertising suits).
--K.
It's unfortunate that your comments were modded down to -1. Given the opportunity, I would have modded your statements Interesting even though I disagree with you.
This really drills down to the core issue of spam: money. Based upon what I've read on the subject, I (via my subscription fee) am subsidizing the cost of a spammer's business. I welcome any evidence that contradicts this, but until that time I would analogize your statement as follows: "It is their right to barge into your home and shove an ad in your face and it's your right to stop them....and by the way, this process will cost you $$."
That kind of thinking doesn't work because I can't legally put a bullet into a spammer's head. One's right to free speech ends at my doorstep. Any alternative interpretation of the First Amendment opens up a number of conflicts with the Fourth Amendment.
--K.
Yes, exactly. I read slashdot because I choose to. I don't understand the analogy you were trying to make. If every time I fired up my web browser, slashdot loaded and I was unable to change that behavior, I could understand your analogy but I come here by choice which is a foreign concept to those whose job it is to insert their ads into my life.
Ahhh ok. I think I understand your position more clearly now. Respectfully, I think that your statements represent the sentiments of the dinosaurs of industry today. You might want to take a hard look at this if you wish to remain relevant.
--K.
I almost agree with you here. I say "almost" because I believe that your position fails to account for the disruption caused by the Internet. The recording industry is not the only business being turned head-over-heels by the Net...observe the impact to the telemarketing industry taking place in the US these days. The days of corporate "push" are numbered. Future generations will regard the in-your-face tactics of multinational corporations as offensive intrusions because they will grow up knowing how to "pull" information to them. So having said that, I agree that the service provided by the RIAA is still relevant at this point but I think even the CEOs of the companies it represents must know that they're headed for DoDo-land.
I disagree. People know what they like and it is this arrogant assumption by the recording industry that has created the problem we are now finally dealing with. The inability of the big-five to meet the needs of their customers is what has given rise to what they like to call "piracy".
I sincerely hope the webcasters pursue and win their antitrust case. The RIAA represents a house of cards that must be toppled. Fortunately, they're self-destructing in such a manner that this lawsuit will probably prove irrelevant in the annals of history.
--K.
Surely you must recognize the dichotomy that those two statements present. How can you say that you'd "be happy if all information were owned by the world" yet worry that you'd "be out of a job as all open source companies would force all our jobs to india"?
As for profitability, I have noticed that most people don't want to program computers and are happy to employ those who do. In other words, there is demand. And where there is demand, there is the potential for profit. The transparency of source code is largely irrelevant to the masses that don't read Slashdot. Free software only helps the programming community sell their software to the general public that doesn't give a hoot. Why recreate the wheel for a living?
And if there's a talented programmer in India that can write better code than I can, more power to them. I believe that you're worried about globalization; I am too. But your sig suggests that you've gone off the deep end with your concerns.
Thanks for the candid reply.
--K.
When I read this, my first thought was...."ummm, how about the police?". If copying songs is truly a crime, why aren't law enforcement agencies actively engaged in prosecuting these "criminals"? This is just a hunch, but my guess is that if law enforcement declared a War on Music Pirates, the backlash from the people would be orders of magnitude worse than it was with the Prohibition.
Here's another interesting Oppenheim statement:
The law does not care whether a technology can, is, or could be "overwhelmingly" abused. If the potential for fair use exists, the technology is legal. Our judicial branch is only now waking up to this fact given the recent ruling blocking an injunction against Morpheus and Grokster.
I'm still waiting for objective, unsolicited proof that P2P is affecting the bottom line of the companies that the RIAA represents. If someone (whose paycheck is not dependent on the recording industry) can map the industry's revenue losses directly to "evil pirates", I'll gain much more respect for the industry's position. Until that time (and given the industry's penchant for the wanton use of what amounts to a litigation tourniquet), I remain unsympathetic to their complaints.
HanzoSan, you are an enigma. I am baffled by your position that we should own information that we buy while at the same time advocating that it's perfectly proper for information in the form of computer code to be controlled in much the same way that the RIAA wishes to control songs. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position or perhaps you're just a troll that gets off on replies like this. If the latter is the case, enjoy.
--K.