Interesting. IANAL (of course), but if the policyholder "agrees" to the polygraph conditions, wouldn't they be enforceable as a civil matter? I don't think that inadmissibility in court would prohibit two "freely associating" parties from "aggreing" to the polygraph provisions of an insurance policy.
As you can see from the overuse of quotes, I don't believe that with the asymmetry of power between insurance companies (who are an oligopoly which sells a product required in order to own a home or drive a car) and individual citizens that there can be any true agreement.
I really don't believe they would be allowed to do this without prior consent.
That would be a condition of your policy, absent any consumer protection legislation to the contrary, which given the current U.S. administration is not bloody likely.
You're right! That's why GCHQ monitors the U.S., and NSA monitors the Brits, and they trade intelligence, making the state of affairs the same as if each were allowed to monitor without limitation in its own country. q.v. Echelon.
Unless the RIAA manages to stamp out Usenet in every country on earth, I don't think you'll have much to worry about. There will be some company in Eastern Europe or Asia offering "premium NNTP service" over SSL the second the first court precedent is set here.
That, and I don't find DVDs to be particularly out of line pricewise. I don't agree with their viewpoint, and certainly don't want to help fund them purchasing legislation, but I agree that trying to win the "hearts and minds" is a lot smarter than what the jackbooted DMCA wielding thugs at the RIAA are up to.
. . . rumors from unnamed sources on the Hill are that the only MP3 file that will be able to be shared within the U.S. and its possesions without fear of prosecution by the Department of Homeland Security will be Horst Wessel Lied.
But their action contradict their words. How does one legally make a backup of a copy protected CD? If one can't legally make a backup, they should be required to provide replacement media, in perpetuity, for no or nominal cost.
Ah, but they say he doesn't have a right to a backup copy either. They can't have it both ways. Either he only has a license (in which case RIAA members should be obligated to provide replacement media for free or a nominal charge) or he owns it, in which case the First Sale Doctrine fully applies and he has a right to a backup copy.
You're in error, at least in the U.S. The No Electronic Theft Act clearly covers copyright infringement as a criminal violation:
[*2] SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.
(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated paragraph relating to the term 'display', the following new paragraph:
"The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'.
(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
"(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000 shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.
Every time I ran across one of those pricks that required a PayPal "donation" to access their HL server, I fired off a note with their IP to the SPA and with their PayPal ID to PayPal. Probably didn't make anything happen, but made me feel better.
If you can chat with people, you can transfer files over that medium--but it isn't necessarily pretty. There's a script called UUIIP on Freenet that aims to allow file transfer over IIP.
The mp3.com case was one of the dumbest ones the RIAA ever pursued. I bought a couple of CDs there, and got the instant gratification of being able to download the tracks. Those were the last non-used RIAA label CDs I bought.
Yes, but in the case of Linux and GNU, copyright is only being used to hoist the software industry with its own petard. Ideally, there would be no copyright, but if there must be copyright, it can be used to protect the freedom of software. Of course, the government will never help enforce GNU's copyright.
DRM can never protect fair use better than its absence. Therefore, the only possible net effect is the reduction in the ability to make fair use of material. DRM is evil. DRM needs to be killed in the womb.
What numbers? You've thrown out a single number which isn't even backed up by the article you linked.
What are you talking about? The article specifically cites 50,000,000 (in the U.S. alone, no less--200,000,000 world wide):
But how can 50 million people (over 200 million worldwide) be wrong?
Now if you're saying that I haven't personally researched the numbers, and relied on the statistics cited by the expert author, you're right.
I've applied the number of people who have ever used P2P networks to the number of people who are being threatened by the RIAA.
I'm going to torture an analogy here--that's like saying the only travelers threatened by terrorists are the ones whose planes blew up. Everyone who files is threatened. Similarly, those using file sharing are all threatened even though the RIAA only has the resources to sue a few.
Slashdot Mirror
As you can see from the overuse of quotes, I don't believe that with the asymmetry of power between insurance companies (who are an oligopoly which sells a product required in order to own a home or drive a car) and individual citizens that there can be any true agreement.
I know that, but I'm saying the chances of legislation against the practice in the U.S. are nearly nil.
That would be a condition of your policy, absent any consumer protection legislation to the contrary, which given the current U.S. administration is not bloody likely.
You're right! That's why GCHQ monitors the U.S., and NSA monitors the Brits, and they trade intelligence, making the state of affairs the same as if each were allowed to monitor without limitation in its own country. q.v. Echelon.
As a Speakeasy customer, please allow me to tell you that you are the wind beneath my wings.
Tempest, without a doubt.
Unless the RIAA manages to stamp out Usenet in every country on earth, I don't think you'll have much to worry about. There will be some company in Eastern Europe or Asia offering "premium NNTP service" over SSL the second the first court precedent is set here.
I'm sure a site with a bit of balance could be put there by someone more talented (and with more money for a legal defense) than me.
That, and I don't find DVDs to be particularly out of line pricewise. I don't agree with their viewpoint, and certainly don't want to help fund them purchasing legislation, but I agree that trying to win the "hearts and minds" is a lot smarter than what the jackbooted DMCA wielding thugs at the RIAA are up to.
Citation, please?
I had no idea Cisco was named after cheap booze! BTW, is Night Train Express a mail only version of the Night Train personal information manager?
. . . rumors from unnamed sources on the Hill are that the only MP3 file that will be able to be shared within the U.S. and its possesions without fear of prosecution by the Department of Homeland Security will be Horst Wessel Lied.
But their action contradict their words. How does one legally make a backup of a copy protected CD? If one can't legally make a backup, they should be required to provide replacement media, in perpetuity, for no or nominal cost.
Ah, but they say he doesn't have a right to a backup copy either. They can't have it both ways. Either he only has a license (in which case RIAA members should be obligated to provide replacement media for free or a nominal charge) or he owns it, in which case the First Sale Doctrine fully applies and he has a right to a backup copy.
I'm sure they helped LEOs know what BBSs to get warrants for.
You're in error, at least in the U.S. The No Electronic Theft Act clearly covers copyright infringement as a criminal violation:
[*2] SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.
(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated paragraph relating to the term 'display', the following new paragraph:
"The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'.
(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
"(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000 shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.
The disclaimers don't mean dick.
If you can chat with people, you can transfer files over that medium--but it isn't necessarily pretty. There's a script called UUIIP on Freenet that aims to allow file transfer over IIP.
The mp3.com case was one of the dumbest ones the RIAA ever pursued. I bought a couple of CDs there, and got the instant gratification of being able to download the tracks. Those were the last non-used RIAA label CDs I bought.
Yes, but in the case of Linux and GNU, copyright is only being used to hoist the software industry with its own petard. Ideally, there would be no copyright, but if there must be copyright, it can be used to protect the freedom of software. Of course, the government will never help enforce GNU's copyright.
DRM can never protect fair use better than its absence. Therefore, the only possible net effect is the reduction in the ability to make fair use of material. DRM is evil. DRM needs to be killed in the womb.
should read
'The UK's broadband boom is likely to falter if more progress is made towards combating digital piracy'.
What are you talking about? The article specifically cites 50,000,000 (in the U.S. alone, no less--200,000,000 world wide):
Now if you're saying that I haven't personally researched the numbers, and relied on the statistics cited by the expert author, you're right.I've applied the number of people who have ever used P2P networks to the number of people who are being threatened by the RIAA.
I'm going to torture an analogy here--that's like saying the only travelers threatened by terrorists are the ones whose planes blew up. Everyone who files is threatened. Similarly, those using file sharing are all threatened even though the RIAA only has the resources to sue a few.
And he'd have been prosecuted by the FIAA (Fishing Industry Association of Armenia) for copying and sharing their intellectual property.