This is exactly how things SHOULD be done. The little guy SHOULD be afraid to sue the big guy, and the big guy SHOULD be afraid to sue the little guy. Everyone should be afraid to sue anyone, because lawsuits should be last resort.
Lots and lots of frivolous nuisance suits would simply disappear under the threat of costs. And lawyers would spend a few moments actually contemplating the merits of a case before filing.
It would also help reduce (not eliminate) the big guy from yielding the big stick (i.e. large legal budget) and smashing the little guy to smithereens.
...that MS infamously paid no taxes last year [...] only serves to increase the probability that MS is hiding profits to reduce its tax bill...
Actually, MS uses some very creative, although perfectly legal, payroll accounting to reduce its tax bill. By paying a significant portion of employees' paycheck using stock & options, MS is actually allowed to claim their payroll as a benefit, meaning it becomes a credit against tax due. At the same time, they don't have to pay much of their payroll out of their bank accounts, because the market is paying their employees for them.
I'm not saying that there isn't profit smoothing going on, of course there is. Their cookie-jar was discovered a while back and IIRC both Billy and Stevie admitted that they engaged in such practices (put today's profits in the cookie jar and take it out tomorrow when things are bad).
Say what you will about MS developers, their accountants are genius!
It's fairly well known (at least here in Canada) that you attended McGill University for some time. They even went so far as to rename the Student Union building the Shatner Building.
I've heard that you were invited to the renaming ceremony, but refused to attend. I've also heard that you generally speak very poorly of your time at McGill. What was it about McGill that was so dreadful/horrible/annoying/etc that has made you so sour on the subject?
Nobody here is talking about duplicate laws. We're talking about license agreements.
Fair enough. This whole thread is a result of the AA EULA that basically said: You are in violation of this agreement if you do something illegal with our site. Kinda redundent, but I won't harp.
As for the software that has absolutely no legitimate use, I am waiting for an example. Hacker tools, rippers, DeCSS, etc, all have perfectly legal applications that are permitted in certain scenarios. Again, I won't harp.
I don't know what DMCA you're talking about, but that's not a valid interpretation of the one I've read.
The DMCA goes even further than what you've indicated in your post. It makes the analysis of copy protection software illegal. It prevents people from exercising fair-use rights. DeCSS, which was designed for a legitimate purpose (viewing DVDs on Linux), was deemed illegal. 2600 was sued under the DMCA and was given a cease and desist order for distributing it. How is the DMCA not attacking tools with legitimate purposes here?
When I got my driver's license [...] I signed a piece of paper saying that I understood that my license authorized me to operate any appropriate vehicle in accordance with the laws governing such use
As you said, that was not a contract. If you sped, you weren't prosecuted under the agreement which stated you would follow the laws, you were prosecuted under the law itself. Having a contract which states "Thou shalt do nothing that violates the law" is pointless, because the statutory law is "higher" than contract law.
This thread has drifted way off-topic, so let's try to swing things back a bit. Yes, locksmiths need to be licensed in many jurisdictions, just like drivers need to be licensed before they hop on the highways. The point is that it shouldn't be in the EULA/license/permit to restrict these activities since the law already does.
We live in a pretty litigious society, and we have plenty of laws (some good, some less good). We don't need duplicate laws to outlaw that which is already outlawed. This is one reason why laws like the DMCA are so loved around here: because they try to restrict tools that _CAN_ be used to engage in activities that are already illegal, but which have all kinds of legitimate uses. We don't need EULAs restricting what is already restricted.
When you get a driver's license, you don't need to accept a contract saying you won't kidnap anyone with your car, do you?
Kazaa has a perfectly legitimate use which is the peer-to-peer sharing of non-IP or copyrighted works. Despite what the RIAA wants people to believe, there are all kinds of files being spread around the net that have absolutely no IP restrictions on them.
This includes, but is in no way limited to, public domain information, jokes, freeware, shareware, independent artist music releases, etc, etc. Not everything being downloaded on Kazaa/Morpheus/Napster/GNUtella/etc is the latest Backstreet Boys single.
Even lock-picking equipment has a perfectly legal use: picking locks you own. There's an entire locksmithing industry out there that is totally dependent on the ability to defeat the security of the locks put in place by their clients who have lost their keys.
You would be pretty hard-pressed to find a single invention that has NO legitimate use whatsoever, which is why it's foolish to try and restrict their use through EULA's or other contracts. The law already forbids these illegal activities. If those laws can't be enforced then they need to be changed. Simply going after the tools is the lazy approach.
This is why his analogy is EXACTLY correct. What, precisely, is a crime-enabling product? It's pretty easy to break a law with virtually anything. The NRA and gun companies have repeatedly (and successfully) argued for more personal responsibility about how products are used (a la "guns don't kill people..."). Why should IP laws be any different?
Someone can rob a bank and use a getaway car, or they can use Kazaa to download illegal files. Does that make Ford more/less liable than Kazaa? Neither should be liable because it was the *user* who broke the law. The activity was already forbidden by law, the tools used are irrelevant because, guess what, each has a completely legitimate and legal use!
If some horny toad out there downloads child porn off usenet using Outlook Express, should MSFT be held accountable? (hmmm...actually that may be interesting!)
Granted I've only seen a few episodes (talk about a bad time slot), but I was under the impression that we were in a different system that was colonized by humans. Sure it would have taken years/decades/centuries for the original colonists to get from here to there and build up the colonies, but am I mistaken in my belief that we're in the future here?
Isn't the whole storyline of the Reavers about settlers who went out too far and lost sight of humanity?
Re:Suit and Tie do not make the programmer.
on
Suit Up Or Ship Out?
·
· Score: 1
Which group of programmers would you hire, a room full of suit wearing 9-5r's or a room full of cheesy-poof eating coffee drinking work around the clock for 3 days straight types (wearing god knows what).
I'd hire the group the most qualified for the job. I've personally worked in both a shirt/tie/suit and jeans/t-shirt environment. To be perfectly honest, I found neither had me working optimally.
In the tie environment, I was very reluctant to climb under a desk or "jiggle the cable", for obvious reasons. In the jeans environment I found myself goofing off more than I probably should have.
My current job (consulting) is typically a business casual environment (although it may vary from client to client). Slacks and golf-shirt/button-down is fine, with jeans on Friday. It's a very comfortable compromise, and tends to optimize productivity for me, and most of the people around me.
Seeing as how most of Canada (2nd largest land mass) and Russia (largest land mass) is completely unpopulated, and I mean WILDERNESS, that 83% number is highly suspect.
So that actually contradicts your previous statement, that MSFT supports Democrats, doesn't it? I realize that 3% is small, but it still shows some marginal support to the Republicans.
The analysis of donations by political party shows some surprising results. While Microsoft donations favored Republicans (who got 72 percent of the money from 1995 to 1998), its employees were more inclined to support the Democrats. Democratic PACs received $222,100 from the company's employees, compared to the $42,875 for Republican PACs.
So the EMPLOYEES favour Democrats while the COMPANY favours Republicans. Guess whose contributions are greater?
You know, man, you're absolutely right! Just the other day I saw a news story on an entire state that was being terrorized by a maniac with a kitchen knife!
He was randomly dicing up onions in people's homes, especially on Monday mornings. There was no pattern whatsoever to his choice of kitchen either, other than most of the houses were near gas stations. Can you imagine the boldness?!? Experts say that he may have culinary training, and could be especially dangerous if he starts Julienning the potatoes.
According to the local sheriff, "He stepped over the line" when he chopped up the baby carrots.
</sarcasm>
At least present an intelligent argument against gun registration here. Sure there are lots of things freely available that are capable of killing people, but how many of those are designed to kill?
I'm not suggesting we take guns out of anybody's hands. Just make sure that the registration of those guns is enforced. Why is it that to sell my car or house I have to transfer ownership and make sure EVERYBODY knows about it, but I can freely sell/trade/give away a gun without a single soul ('cept us, of course) knowing about it?
the US gov't is backing mega corps or conglamorates over "average joe". and thats not how this gov't was SUPPOSED TO BE. it was supposed to be "for the people by the people and of the people".
Remember this statement when it comes time go to the polls. So who did you vote for? I doubt it's a coincidence that as soon as dubya gained access to the White House the case against MSFT faltered, sputtered, stalled, and rushed to settlement.
All you americans have the ability to effect change. Change policy by changing government. Instead of electing illiterate, incompetent executioner Texans, bring back the womanizing!
Clinton was too busy getting screwed himself to screw the average joe too badly.
Actually, I think you may also misunderstand evolution. In order for there to be an evolution, a mutation has to provide a distinct survival advantage. That's the other part of the equation (natural selection).
Just adding a new appendix (sic) to one particular genetic stream won't "contaminate" the global gene pool sufficiently to cause evolution unless that mutation gives members of that stream a competitive advantage (breed faster, eat more, expend less energy, etc, etc) over members of other genetic streams.
But the point of this is not to eliminate porn! Quite the opposite. The point of this is to make porn accessible to those that want it, and easily avoidable to those that don't.
You don't like the idea of imposing fines? OK, then, have the recourse be a transfer to the.xxx domain, nothing more. Indeed new sites will pop up every day, but they will be relegated to the.xxx. Eventually, as the law of diminishing returns dictates, the people hosting the.com porn sites won't bother registering.com porn sites. They'll hit the.xxx right away so that they won't risk losing their domain.
I'm not some crazy zealot that's out there to rid the world of evil sexy images. I know that there are many ways to disseminate porn. Isn't that the only point of Usenet nowadays? All I know is I haven't seen a whole lot of spam linking to Usenet messages, but I have seen lots that link to web sites.
I'm just suggessting that properly classifying porn at a TLD reduces the chances that
Your 10-year old will blindly follow a link and wonder what that woman is doing with that dog
Your 17-year old porn addicted teenager will circumvent your filtering s/w
Nowhere have I advocated the elimination of porn or sexuality on the net. We shouldn't be subject to the tyranny of one country's morality. By enforcing TLD rules, we're just classifying info better, making it easier to search/sort/find/avoid.
I both agree and disagree with you. Yes, there's definitely a need for more personal responsibility. If you don't like the spam (porn or otherwise) flooding your inbox, do something about it. However, I disagree that we should shy away from a.xxx because of "...a staggering amount of regulatory power..." required to accomplish this.
We have already seen large changes in how.com's are handled in relation to IP infringement with the WIPO STOP program. Remember that while the content is global, the registry is centralized. (NOTE: I think the STOP program is flawed and needs to be changed to favour the little guy, but the ideas behind it are sound).
Establish a central monitoring/enforcement watchdog organization. If porn is being hosted outside the.xxx, allow people to report it, and have the watchdog shut it down/transfer to.xxx/issue fines/etc.
As for the international nature of porn throughout the world, I believe that even WIPO allows for procedures to be handled through document exchange and, if needed, hearings may be held in a venue amenable to both parties. Since the complainant here is an international body, it would be feasible to hold any necessary hearings in the respondents venue of choice. Of course, I suspect that hearings would be unnecessary in most cases.
Given the opinions being tossed around here, I'm actually surprised no-one has brought up the idea of a.xxx TLD.
This topic is broached every once in a while, and I think that here we've got the ability to really change things in a positive way.
I don't think that there are too many people here that would argue that little Janet, aged 11, should have her inbox flooded with "XXX - HARDCORE, see the hottest ladies do it with donkeys", or trip across it while looking up the latest Disney movie.
Who pays the fine? The website owner? What if someone else submitted his site without his consent or knowledge? The search engine?
With a.xxx TLD, it's simple. Make all pornographic, or even sexually explicit (there is a difference after all) sites be hosted under the.xxx domain. Fine sites that stray outside of this.
In this model there would be true accountability. Net Nanny-style blocking software can block.xxx domains, rather than ridiculously blocking keywords like "breasts" which no student would actually _EVER_ search on for legitimate purposes. Let the adults have their porn. Let the children have their safe environment. Win-Win to me. N'est-ce-pas?
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly how things SHOULD be done. The little guy SHOULD be afraid to sue the big guy, and the big guy SHOULD be afraid to sue the little guy. Everyone should be afraid to sue anyone, because lawsuits should be last resort.
Lots and lots of frivolous nuisance suits would simply disappear under the threat of costs. And lawyers would spend a few moments actually contemplating the merits of a case before filing.
It would also help reduce (not eliminate) the big guy from yielding the big stick (i.e. large legal budget) and smashing the little guy to smithereens.
Stuck in an airport.... In France....
Last time I checked Vancouver was in Canada.
Actually, MS uses some very creative, although perfectly legal, payroll accounting to reduce its tax bill. By paying a significant portion of employees' paycheck using stock & options, MS is actually allowed to claim their payroll as a benefit, meaning it becomes a credit against tax due. At the same time, they don't have to pay much of their payroll out of their bank accounts, because the market is paying their employees for them.
I'm not saying that there isn't profit smoothing going on, of course there is. Their cookie-jar was discovered a while back and IIRC both Billy and Stevie admitted that they engaged in such practices (put today's profits in the cookie jar and take it out tomorrow when things are bad).
Say what you will about MS developers, their accountants are genius!
It's fairly well known (at least here in Canada) that you attended McGill University for some time. They even went so far as to rename the Student Union building the Shatner Building.
I've heard that you were invited to the renaming ceremony, but refused to attend. I've also heard that you generally speak very poorly of your time at McGill. What was it about McGill that was so dreadful/horrible/annoying/etc that has made you so sour on the subject?
Nobody here is talking about duplicate laws. We're talking about license agreements.
Fair enough. This whole thread is a result of the AA EULA that basically said: You are in violation of this agreement if you do something illegal with our site. Kinda redundent, but I won't harp.
As for the software that has absolutely no legitimate use, I am waiting for an example. Hacker tools, rippers, DeCSS, etc, all have perfectly legal applications that are permitted in certain scenarios. Again, I won't harp.
I don't know what DMCA you're talking about, but that's not a valid interpretation of the one I've read.
The DMCA goes even further than what you've indicated in your post. It makes the analysis of copy protection software illegal. It prevents people from exercising fair-use rights. DeCSS, which was designed for a legitimate purpose (viewing DVDs on Linux), was deemed illegal. 2600 was sued under the DMCA and was given a cease and desist order for distributing it. How is the DMCA not attacking tools with legitimate purposes here?
When I got my driver's license [...] I signed a piece of paper saying that I understood that my license authorized me to operate any appropriate vehicle in accordance with the laws governing such use
As you said, that was not a contract. If you sped, you weren't prosecuted under the agreement which stated you would follow the laws, you were prosecuted under the law itself. Having a contract which states "Thou shalt do nothing that violates the law" is pointless, because the statutory law is "higher" than contract law.
This thread has drifted way off-topic, so let's try to swing things back a bit. Yes, locksmiths need to be licensed in many jurisdictions, just like drivers need to be licensed before they hop on the highways. The point is that it shouldn't be in the EULA/license/permit to restrict these activities since the law already does.
We live in a pretty litigious society, and we have plenty of laws (some good, some less good). We don't need duplicate laws to outlaw that which is already outlawed. This is one reason why laws like the DMCA are so loved around here: because they try to restrict tools that _CAN_ be used to engage in activities that are already illegal, but which have all kinds of legitimate uses. We don't need EULAs restricting what is already restricted.
When you get a driver's license, you don't need to accept a contract saying you won't kidnap anyone with your car, do you?
Kazaa has a perfectly legitimate use which is the peer-to-peer sharing of non-IP or copyrighted works. Despite what the RIAA wants people to believe, there are all kinds of files being spread around the net that have absolutely no IP restrictions on them.
This includes, but is in no way limited to, public domain information, jokes, freeware, shareware, independent artist music releases, etc, etc. Not everything being downloaded on Kazaa/Morpheus/Napster/GNUtella/etc is the latest Backstreet Boys single.
Even lock-picking equipment has a perfectly legal use: picking locks you own. There's an entire locksmithing industry out there that is totally dependent on the ability to defeat the security of the locks put in place by their clients who have lost their keys.
You would be pretty hard-pressed to find a single invention that has NO legitimate use whatsoever, which is why it's foolish to try and restrict their use through EULA's or other contracts. The law already forbids these illegal activities. If those laws can't be enforced then they need to be changed. Simply going after the tools is the lazy approach.
Box cutters also fit that profile, but I don't hear too many calls to make the use of box cutters illegal.
This is why his analogy is EXACTLY correct. What, precisely, is a crime-enabling product? It's pretty easy to break a law with virtually anything. The NRA and gun companies have repeatedly (and successfully) argued for more personal responsibility about how products are used (a la "guns don't kill people..."). Why should IP laws be any different?
Someone can rob a bank and use a getaway car, or they can use Kazaa to download illegal files. Does that make Ford more/less liable than Kazaa? Neither should be liable because it was the *user* who broke the law. The activity was already forbidden by law, the tools used are irrelevant because, guess what, each has a completely legitimate and legal use!
If some horny toad out there downloads child porn off usenet using Outlook Express, should MSFT be held accountable? (hmmm...actually that may be interesting!)
I heard that he didn't like the direction that the show was taking, so he asked to be killed off. Totally unconfirmed, though.
Granted I've only seen a few episodes (talk about a bad time slot), but I was under the impression that we were in a different system that was colonized by humans. Sure it would have taken years/decades/centuries for the original colonists to get from here to there and build up the colonies, but am I mistaken in my belief that we're in the future here?
Isn't the whole storyline of the Reavers about settlers who went out too far and lost sight of humanity?
Which group of programmers would you hire, a room full of suit wearing 9-5r's or a room full of cheesy-poof eating coffee drinking work around the clock for 3 days straight types (wearing god knows what).
I'd hire the group the most qualified for the job. I've personally worked in both a shirt/tie/suit and jeans/t-shirt environment. To be perfectly honest, I found neither had me working optimally.
In the tie environment, I was very reluctant to climb under a desk or "jiggle the cable", for obvious reasons. In the jeans environment I found myself goofing off more than I probably should have.
My current job (consulting) is typically a business casual environment (although it may vary from client to client). Slacks and golf-shirt/button-down is fine, with jeans on Friday. It's a very comfortable compromise, and tends to optimize productivity for me, and most of the people around me.
Seeing as how most of Canada (2nd largest land mass) and Russia (largest land mass) is completely unpopulated, and I mean WILDERNESS, that 83% number is highly suspect.
Anyone think that this may be related to the Linux.Slapper worm that was reported last month?
I suppose this could be a coincidence that slapper was so widely spread and had DDOS code in it, too.
Actually, McGill is part of the project, so YES, this is a Quebec University
Hell hath no fury like a lawyer on retainer!
So that actually contradicts your previous statement, that MSFT supports Democrats, doesn't it? I realize that 3% is small, but it still shows some marginal support to the Republicans.
No, they're gonna force her to use XP for the rest of her life!
Double check those figures. Here's a snippet from a ZDNet News article (http://netscape.com.com/2100-1104-835267.html?leg acy=zdnn)
The analysis of donations by political party shows some surprising results. While Microsoft donations favored Republicans (who got 72 percent of the money from 1995 to 1998), its employees were more inclined to support the Democrats. Democratic PACs received $222,100 from the company's employees, compared to the $42,875 for Republican PACs.
So the EMPLOYEES favour Democrats while the COMPANY favours Republicans. Guess whose contributions are greater?
You know, man, you're absolutely right! Just the other day I saw a news story on an entire state that was being terrorized by a maniac with a kitchen knife!
He was randomly dicing up onions in people's homes, especially on Monday mornings. There was no pattern whatsoever to his choice of kitchen either, other than most of the houses were near gas stations. Can you imagine the boldness?!? Experts say that he may have culinary training, and could be especially dangerous if he starts Julienning the potatoes.
According to the local sheriff, "He stepped over the line" when he chopped up the baby carrots.
</sarcasm>At least present an intelligent argument against gun registration here. Sure there are lots of things freely available that are capable of killing people, but how many of those are designed to kill?
I'm not suggesting we take guns out of anybody's hands. Just make sure that the registration of those guns is enforced. Why is it that to sell my car or house I have to transfer ownership and make sure EVERYBODY knows about it, but I can freely sell/trade/give away a gun without a single soul ('cept us, of course) knowing about it?
the US gov't is backing mega corps or conglamorates over "average joe". and thats not how this gov't was SUPPOSED TO BE. it was supposed to be "for the people by the people and of the people".
Remember this statement when it comes time go to the polls. So who did you vote for? I doubt it's a coincidence that as soon as dubya gained access to the White House the case against MSFT faltered, sputtered, stalled, and rushed to settlement.
All you americans have the ability to effect change. Change policy by changing government. Instead of electing illiterate, incompetent executioner Texans, bring back the womanizing!
Clinton was too busy getting screwed himself to screw the average joe too badly.
Actually, I think you may also misunderstand evolution. In order for there to be an evolution, a mutation has to provide a distinct survival advantage. That's the other part of the equation (natural selection).
Just adding a new appendix (sic) to one particular genetic stream won't "contaminate" the global gene pool sufficiently to cause evolution unless that mutation gives members of that stream a competitive advantage (breed faster, eat more, expend less energy, etc, etc) over members of other genetic streams.
But the point of this is not to eliminate porn! Quite the opposite. The point of this is to make porn accessible to those that want it, and easily avoidable to those that don't.
You don't like the idea of imposing fines? OK, then, have the recourse be a transfer to the .xxx domain, nothing more. Indeed new sites will pop up every day, but they will be relegated to the .xxx. Eventually, as the law of diminishing returns dictates, the people hosting the .com porn sites won't bother registering .com porn sites. They'll hit the .xxx right away so that they won't risk losing their domain.
I'm not some crazy zealot that's out there to rid the world of evil sexy images. I know that there are many ways to disseminate porn. Isn't that the only point of Usenet nowadays? All I know is I haven't seen a whole lot of spam linking to Usenet messages, but I have seen lots that link to web sites.
I'm just suggessting that properly classifying porn at a TLD reduces the chances that
Nowhere have I advocated the elimination of porn or sexuality on the net. We shouldn't be subject to the tyranny of one country's morality. By enforcing TLD rules, we're just classifying info better, making it easier to search/sort/find/avoid.
I both agree and disagree with you. Yes, there's definitely a need for more personal responsibility. If you don't like the spam (porn or otherwise) flooding your inbox, do something about it. However, I disagree that we should shy away from a .xxx because of "...a staggering amount of regulatory power..." required to accomplish this.
We have already seen large changes in how .com's are handled in relation to IP infringement with the WIPO STOP program. Remember that while the content is global, the registry is centralized. (NOTE: I think the STOP program is flawed and needs to be changed to favour the little guy, but the ideas behind it are sound).
Establish a central monitoring/enforcement watchdog organization. If porn is being hosted outside the .xxx, allow people to report it, and have the watchdog shut it down/transfer to .xxx/issue fines/etc.
As for the international nature of porn throughout the world, I believe that even WIPO allows for procedures to be handled through document exchange and, if needed, hearings may be held in a venue amenable to both parties. Since the complainant here is an international body, it would be feasible to hold any necessary hearings in the respondents venue of choice. Of course, I suspect that hearings would be unnecessary in most cases.
Given the opinions being tossed around here, I'm actually surprised no-one has brought up the idea of a .xxx TLD.
This topic is broached every once in a while, and I think that here we've got the ability to really change things in a positive way.
I don't think that there are too many people here that would argue that little Janet, aged 11, should have her inbox flooded with "XXX - HARDCORE, see the hottest ladies do it with donkeys", or trip across it while looking up the latest Disney movie.
Who pays the fine? The website owner? What if someone else submitted his site without his consent or knowledge? The search engine?
With a .xxx TLD, it's simple. Make all pornographic, or even sexually explicit (there is a difference after all) sites be hosted under the .xxx domain. Fine sites that stray outside of this.
In this model there would be true accountability. Net Nanny-style blocking software can block .xxx domains, rather than ridiculously blocking keywords like "breasts" which no student would actually _EVER_ search on for legitimate purposes. Let the adults have their porn. Let the children have their safe environment. Win-Win to me. N'est-ce-pas?