Good point--and one that probably won't be lost on Conway. Expect a nice lawsuit against Oracle when this is over. Oracle can't appear that they were merely trying to stop the PSFT purchase of J.D. Edwards, so Ellison is playing this up to make it look like they still want to buy.
I hadn't considered that they still might have something to gain by scaring ERP customers way until your post, though.
That's exactly what they want you to think. Perhaps they already had sniffed the evidence illegally, and needed to extract it from the servers under the cover of a search warrant in order to subsequently be able to use it in court.
This is all just speculation, naturally, but such a scenario would be very similar to other fourth amendment workarounds--perform broad, illegal searches (e.g. infrared through walls, which is inadmissible in the U.S. without a warrant) to target homes for additional surveillance. From the results of that illegal search, "happen to" notice something "on routine patrol," then get a warrant, and voila`--untainted evidence usable in court.
Go for something with regional accredidation, as opposed to the Distance Education and Training Council (who accredits ACCIS). The DETC, while technically a "U.S. Department of Education recognized" accreditor, doesn't command the respect of either real colleges or employers who know the difference. It's a better (if slower) and less expensive path to attend a community college and transfer to a four year college or university. Bonus points for planning your transfer work while working at the CC.
Also, search Usenet for AICS (ACCIS' former name)--IIRC, that institution had been using bogus accredidation from the "World Association of Universities and Colleges" (WAUC) before the name change. That alone is enough for me to steer far clear.
I don't care a whit about old railroad pictures, but if I did, I would download them all, knowing that their "agreement" wouldn't hold a drop of water, and that they were trying to misappropriate the public domain.
There is NO AGREEMENT that supercedes the reality that anything interesting posted to the internet will be mirrored, copied, cached, archived, and distributed. In this case, the site operator is afflicted by myopia regarding that and severe delusion regarding legal remedies available to those distributing public domain data.
By going to the site, no one agrees to anything in any legally enforcable way.
They don't charge admission at the Smithsonian, yet you still can't take the exhibits home with you.
The Smithsonian doesn't threaten to sue me or charge me five million dollars for taking a photograph of an exhibit, either. If you'll check out the Smithsonian's website and read it's terms, you'll find they're actually reasonable--and the Smithsonian might even have a legitimate copyright claim, having done more than merely copy some pictures and post them on the web.
I question the legality of considering those scans an "original work." It seems to me that having your work (if you can call it that) copied is a hazard of selling or otherwise providing public domain material.
The folks at the Gutenberg projedt don't have any obligation to to provide access to public domain books. They incur bandwidth costs distributing them. And they have done scads of work copying them into electronic form. But they, as this railroad museum, gain NO rights to restrict the further copying and distribution of that PUBLIC DOMAIN material, misguided and disingenuous legalese aside. The "sweat of the brow" does not create a new work in either of these cases.
Graciousness begets graciousness. And that TOS doesn't contain any. In reality, anyone with a brain knows that anything posted online can and will be copied and stored. If that's not what they want, they should place their public domain content they want no one to copy in a physical museum and charge for admission.
But I see what they're trying to achieve; they want to be able to show digital images online without granting anyone the right to download them or print them out. Which is a reasonable goal to achieve.
Why is it a "reasonable goal" to display public domain images without giving anyone the right to download them or print them out (or, more specifically, to try to take away the right that everyone already has to do what they wish with them, since they're in the public domain)?
There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.
That's the same thing I was going to say about Stephan Evans' propensity to rape sheep and little boys at Michael Jackson's Neverland. I could be wrong, but since I said there's no proof, that's OK.
But to run any non-Linux OS under Xen requires porting it. And that's a non-starter for the 99.9999999% of the world without access to the Windows source code.
I agree. This whole thing could be one elaborate policy troll, designed to draw attention away from a less ambitious project, or to lay the groundwork for a "compromise" that contains less data.
I like your ideas, but as the RIAA has demonstrated here in the states, it doesn't take perfect enforcement of a monitoring regime to have a chilling effect. And in China, the stakes are a bit higher than a settlement of a few thousand dollars. It's morally better for U.S. corporations (had they any morals) to avoid doing business with China until their human rights abuses cease. Trade is a big carrot, but should be being used as big hammer. Regrettable, the monied interests of the corporate bourgeoise (what irony) in the U.S. are allowing the Chinese government to present an image palatable to westerners, while still stifling rights and murdering its citizens.
California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah
for a total of 12. We now know that California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina had pulled out before Utah. The 13th state appears to be Connecticut, which must have signed on after 6/03.
1) That's Cisco's spin. I doubt their contention that they simply sold the PRC generic routers and didn't provide technical assistance or custom programming to facilitate censorship.
2) Start with trade sanctions, revoking MFN. Work up from there.
Slashdot Mirror
Worse. These are the kind of people that get worked up over Justice's right tit!
I hadn't considered that they still might have something to gain by scaring ERP customers way until your post, though.
Maybe you should consider surfing Slashdot on your own bandwidth and on your own time.
This is all just speculation, naturally, but such a scenario would be very similar to other fourth amendment workarounds--perform broad, illegal searches (e.g. infrared through walls, which is inadmissible in the U.S. without a warrant) to target homes for additional surveillance. From the results of that illegal search, "happen to" notice something "on routine patrol," then get a warrant, and voila`--untainted evidence usable in court.
Also, search Usenet for AICS (ACCIS' former name)--IIRC, that institution had been using bogus accredidation from the "World Association of Universities and Colleges" (WAUC) before the name change. That alone is enough for me to steer far clear.
In any case, good luck!
Do you have something contsructive to add, or do you just have to have the last word?
Nice ad hominem. Glad to see you've run out of arguments and conceded.
There is NO AGREEMENT that supercedes the reality that anything interesting posted to the internet will be mirrored, copied, cached, archived, and distributed. In this case, the site operator is afflicted by myopia regarding that and severe delusion regarding legal remedies available to those distributing public domain data.
By going to the site, no one agrees to anything in any legally enforcable way.
The Smithsonian doesn't threaten to sue me or charge me five million dollars for taking a photograph of an exhibit, either. If you'll check out the Smithsonian's website and read it's terms, you'll find they're actually reasonable--and the Smithsonian might even have a legitimate copyright claim, having done more than merely copy some pictures and post them on the web.
You're right. It'd be better in the USER_AGENT string.
Good thing the vast majority of the images there aren't subject to copyright, being public domain. What jerks.
I doubt a judge and jury would buy that making a verbatim copy or scan is a derivative work.
The folks at the Gutenberg projedt don't have any obligation to to provide access to public domain books. They incur bandwidth costs distributing them. And they have done scads of work copying them into electronic form. But they, as this railroad museum, gain NO rights to restrict the further copying and distribution of that PUBLIC DOMAIN material, misguided and disingenuous legalese aside. The "sweat of the brow" does not create a new work in either of these cases.
Graciousness begets graciousness. And that TOS doesn't contain any. In reality, anyone with a brain knows that anything posted online can and will be copied and stored. If that's not what they want, they should place their public domain content they want no one to copy in a physical museum and charge for admission.
Why is it a "reasonable goal" to display public domain images without giving anyone the right to download them or print them out (or, more specifically, to try to take away the right that everyone already has to do what they wish with them, since they're in the public domain)?
Thanks for the heads-up!
That's the same thing I was going to say about Stephan Evans' propensity to rape sheep and little boys at Michael Jackson's Neverland. I could be wrong, but since I said there's no proof, that's OK.
And a nation that ejected Britain, the most powerful empire in the world at the time from itself. I wouldn't sell them too short.
But to run any non-Linux OS under Xen requires porting it. And that's a non-starter for the 99.9999999% of the world without access to the Windows source code.
That's per iTMS account, which isn't necessarily the same as per person. (Maybe the terms say that, but it'd be difficult to enforce.)
I agree. This whole thing could be one elaborate policy troll, designed to draw attention away from a less ambitious project, or to lay the groundwork for a "compromise" that contains less data.
I like your ideas, but as the RIAA has demonstrated here in the states, it doesn't take perfect enforcement of a monitoring regime to have a chilling effect. And in China, the stakes are a bit higher than a settlement of a few thousand dollars. It's morally better for U.S. corporations (had they any morals) to avoid doing business with China until their human rights abuses cease. Trade is a big carrot, but should be being used as big hammer. Regrettable, the monied interests of the corporate bourgeoise (what irony) in the U.S. are allowing the Chinese government to present an image palatable to westerners, while still stifling rights and murdering its citizens.
Only eight states shown here. Appropriate that they're colored red.
2) Start with trade sanctions, revoking MFN. Work up from there.