Unqualified? All H1B programmers I worked with were more qualified than "made in USA" ones. And it's a myth that H1B programmer costs less. H1B was a fresh brain stream to reanimate the dying IT undustry in US.
I doubt that you grand-father was same useful for then American land when he originally migrated from Europe.
I understand your frustration though: you have lost your job to better ones. Sad. Have you ever tried to improve your skills? Specifically after you've lost your job to H1B?
What the difference between your grandfather and people from India? That time your grand-father was no more uniq than American Indian living on that land for centures. They let him in. Why you don't want let India-Indian in your country now?
The only thing most of these foreign workers have to offer is that they'll work for less.
Sounds a reasonable argument to me to let them in.
Oh, by the way, what was the reason American Indians let your grandfather in the country a century or two ago? No, seriously, anything special besides the different skills in using weapons?
Well, I agree with your argument about re-distribution. However, I still think that RIAA must leave DOWNLOADERS alone or face countersuits in the court.
Then you should never use internet again. Your browser has just downloaded several images from this/. page and neither of them has any copyright disclaimer. Again, 99% of the content on the web is legally published but it has no copyright disclaimer whatsoever. Seems to me you advise that the whole web must shutdown or at least collapse to few close-content sites.
Personally I am downloading only jazz and classic and only from web and only using google. I am pretty comfortable that many of them are not copyrighted at all as they are downloaded from home sites of school orchestras and small club bands. But formally I have no idea if it's public domain or not. There was no legal explanation on any of them. Some fo them may belong to RIAA as they might be ripped off from some CD, some of them not. I have no idea if any specific record is public domain or ripped illegally from some CD (or vinil or tape). Any advise how should I know?
OK, let's put it this way: you downloaded free software that had a clip illegally copied from some movies. At the moment of downloading you did not know about it. Are you nfringing on the copyright? You may do it on a daily basis as your hobby is testing freely available software.
What you are saying is wrong. And a court decision saying that PASSIVE downloading of unknownly copyrighted content will be treating the constititutional right of using Internet as 99% of freely availble content on Internet is free from copyrights or legal for being downloaded.
The judge who doesn't know what Internet is is not bothering me. People like you, passively slaving RIAA, that what is annoying me too much.
At the moment of downloading of the contenet I have no phisical way to learn what is the content and what is its copyrightness. But even after I still have no such way. Therefore the decision to treat me as a proactive downloader is forcing me to abandon the use of Internet, except few (very few, perhaps just 1% of a whole internet) sites where the publisher explicitly inform about the copyrights of the content, such decision is treatening my constitutional right of freedom to use 99% of internet. Therefore such decision is unconstitutional.
Shoplifting is ALWAYS illegal: in EVERY store, EVERY item. Oppositely, 90% of the internet content you can find using Google is LEGALLY free. Try again.
I never said that I, as a downloader, ignore the law. I said that the law must not be applicable to my actions in circumstances I mentioned previously and bellow.
It's like arresting me for possessing the money I found on the street, which was left by rubbers there when they were running away from cops. The court may insist I return money, but they cannot arrest me for the fact I picked them up.
Distributing copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright owner, whether you know you are doing it or not, is certainly copyright infringement (civil)
The content I found on the web has not been marked as copyrighted. Therefore i am not the person who broke the law. Whoever ORIGINALLY published the copyrighted materials is the one who broke the law.
If the court (or even RIAA) will notify me that I poses LEAKED copyrighted materials then of course I agree to remove such materials. But I did not do anything that should be punished.
Another practical point that is yet highlighted is that if RIAA wants me aware about copyrighteness of any content I download from Internet they have to make publicly and freely available some mechanism where I can check the content for legitimateness of being copied.
It can be a web site where I can upload the whole file (well, the bandwidth is not free anyway) or it's checksum.
Without such mechanism RIAA has no way to prove that I downloaded a copyrighted material knowing that it is copyrighted. And it THEIR job to prove it, not mine. Otherwise the whole constitution is just screwed up.
The courts have already ruled that a "downloader" is actually a first party to the generation of any electronic copy.
The court was wrong if it was applied to the person who did not know that the file is copyrighted. The court decision was unconstitutional and must be defended.
Not to mention the fact that going after downloaders in general is illegal and even unconstitutional.
If I found the content (music files) on the web (p2p), and I decided to download it, and the only way to do so was to press the button saying that I agree with the legal disclaimer of terms of THAT particular content, and I pressed that button and downloaded the content, and I shared it on the web (which was against the disclaimer I've been agree) - THEN AND ONLY THEN they (RIAA) can go after me for the fact related to DOWNLOADING.
If I found the content and downloaded it and used as it says in that disclaimer - I did nothing wrong and RIAA should not treaten me.
If I found the content that was available without forcing me to read and agree with any disclaimer - I did nothing wrong that I've downloaded it and I've did nothing wrong that I've shared it on the web or P2P. I don't know if that content is copyrighted or if it is a free sample or just a free public domain content. And I don't have to do any investigation by myself. Instead, I have to be informed about any legal nature of the content at the moment I've tried to download the content.
Of course if I have bought the CD and it says it's copyrighted and I have ripped it off and shared on the web - than I've broke the law and must be punished.
That's why the whole compain of RIAA going after DOWNLOADERS is wrong, illegal and anti-constitutional.
I confirm: sawfish and gconf (as in gnome-2) were always incompatible on my computer whenever I've tried them to work togenther. I wonder, what's happened to gnome? I remember sawfish worked flawlessly in gnome-1 !
I used before WebMail (which has temporary maintanance problems) and PloneWebMail (which is actively developed and has very promising architectural features).
If you love scripting and programming with the way your mail is displayed and organized you will love to read your IMAP mail in Zope and especially in Plone.
Thank you Dun Malg, you are the very first person who understand my logical argumets correctly. I admit that my English skills are not enough and of course IANAL. But someby help me to explain it to other people: unless you sign something (or pressed the button agree) AND break that agreement - you did not break law by downloading any content from internet. And if someone is trying to bring special law like DMCA or whatever for another way around (breaking the concept of presumse of innocence) - then it's unconstitutional and must be defended in a higher court.
I think there is a serious misconception of treating downloading vs sharing. I thought that RIAA is supposed to go after people who copy their bought CDs and share them publicly. In general RIAA must leave downloaders alone unless there is a solid evidence of the fact of downloading the illegally shared music knowing that it is illegal.
There is nothing wrong if I found the file on the web, downloaded it and kept on my disk if there is no any legal disclaimer attached to the file, so how should I know that this file is not for downloading? Maybe it was a free sample. Or even a piece of a free music, I don't know. Again, unless the only way to download it was to press "Agree" button on a "Terms" page. But if I found a direct link to MP3 than there is no way I am informed that it is illigal to download this particular file - there are tons of legally free music on internet, how should I know which one is legal for downloading and which one is not?
The internet is designed in a way that if I don't break someones password (or hack in another way) then I don't break any law when i download a content from the web. Of course if the content has some legal warning and I am forced to agree as the only way to get the content and I break the agreement - than I did something illegal. Otherwise - EVERYTHING I download is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL.
IMHO, I am not supposed to do any legal research for EVERY file I download. Instead, the content provider should make sure that their content is legal for downloading and have (if required) any legal warnings that I have to agree in order to get the content. If the content provider failed to do so - RIAA should go after him/her. Not after me. Of course, the content provider is the person published the content, not the author of web-site software and not a hosting company.
Hmm, on the other side, if I have found occasionally the music file WITHOUT any legal warning, downloaded it and re-published on my site, then how have I violated any law if I did not know any legal nature of the file from the first place? Thus, the only person should be charged for illegal publishing and sharing and downloading must be the person who's leased the content (from RIAA) by signing EULA, viloated that EULA by ripping off the content and publishing it at first time WITHOUT providing a proper legal disclaimer in a way that I cannot get the content without reading AND agreeing that disclaimer.
Conclusion: RIAA must go ONLY after original person who ripped off the CD and shared it's content without any legal warning. The rest of the world must defend themselves in the court and if such defence is failed - change the constitution which would be failed to protect us from RIAA abuse.
Those goals are not absolutely incompatible. But trying to achive all three at the same time, without a real business plan, without a solid initial investor and without the eager-to-buy customer is... a high risk?
So, are you saying that the vehicle already abuses it automatically, or an american company must ask explicitly WIPO to screw everyone else in the world up? If the former one than it will be the first time I would think that the globalization is a bad-bad process.
I guess in the rest of the world outside of USA (is Canada included?) we can be live just fine, keeping our development of similar web applications without paying any fee to the company, which has just abused even further unfamous American IP laws.
Apparently his grandchildren were coming over to his house and downloading music.
Downloading or sharing? I thought that RIAA is going after people who copy their bought CDs and share them publicly.
Also I thought there is nothing wrong if I found the file on the web, downloaded it and kept on my disk - there is no any legal disclaimer attached to the file, so how should I know that this file is not for downloading? Maybe it was a free sample or even a piece of a free music, I don't know.
The internet is designed in a way that if I don't break someones password (or hack in another way) then I don't break any law when i download a content from the web. Of course if the content doesn't have any legal warning.
IMHO, I should not do any legal research for EVERY file I download. Instead, the content provider should make sure that their content is legal for downloading and have (if required) any legal warnings. If the content provider failed to do so - RIAA should go after him/her. Not after me.
Hmm, on the other side, if I have found occasionally the music file WITHOUT any legal warning, downloaded it and re-published on my site, then how have I violated any law if did not know any legal nature of the file?
Conclusion: RIAA must go ONLY after original person who ripped off the CD and shared it's content without any legal warning. The rest of the world must defend themselves in the court and if failed change the constitution which would be failed to protect them.
Slashdot Mirror
Transaction problems on a single database? That explains a lot. I bet you used MySQL. Sounds pretty typical for it.
Ever tried PostgreSQL?
I doubt that you grand-father was same useful for then American land when he originally migrated from Europe.
I understand your frustration though: you have lost your job to better ones. Sad. Have you ever tried to improve your skills? Specifically after you've lost your job to H1B?
What the difference between your grandfather and people from India? That time your grand-father was no more uniq than American Indian living on that land for centures. They let him in. Why you don't want let India-Indian in your country now?
Sounds a reasonable argument to me to let them in.
Oh, by the way, what was the reason American Indians let your grandfather in the country a century or two ago? No, seriously, anything special besides the different skills in using weapons?
75% of H1Bers I know personally (about 300 of them) successfully apply and get their Green Cards.
Well, I agree with your argument about re-distribution. However, I still think that RIAA must leave DOWNLOADERS alone or face countersuits in the court.
OK, then we comes to the conclusion that RIAA can go after people who share files, but it MUST LEAVE DOWNLOADERS ALONE.
Then you should never use internet again. Your browser has just downloaded several images from this /. page and neither of them has any copyright disclaimer. Again, 99% of the content on the web is legally published but it has no copyright disclaimer whatsoever. Seems to me you advise that the whole web must shutdown or at least collapse to few close-content sites.
Microsoft's security patch to thwart MSBlaster leaves some versions of Windows still vulnerable to infection by similar web worms.
Here is the list systems still vonarable:
- Windows NT Workstation 4.0
- Windows NT Server 4.0
- Windows NT Server 4.0 (Terminal Server Edition)
- Windows 2000
- Windows XP
- Windows Server 2003
So, be ready for new spectacular dramas.Personally I am downloading only jazz and classic and only from web and only using google. I am pretty comfortable that many of them are not copyrighted at all as they are downloaded from home sites of school orchestras and small club bands. But formally I have no idea if it's public domain or not. There was no legal explanation on any of them. Some fo them may belong to RIAA as they might be ripped off from some CD, some of them not. I have no idea if any specific record is public domain or ripped illegally from some CD (or vinil or tape). Any advise how should I know?
What you are saying is wrong. And a court decision saying that PASSIVE downloading of unknownly copyrighted content will be treating the constititutional right of using Internet as 99% of freely availble content on Internet is free from copyrights or legal for being downloaded.
The judge who doesn't know what Internet is is not bothering me. People like you, passively slaving RIAA, that what is annoying me too much.
At the moment of downloading of the contenet I have no phisical way to learn what is the content and what is its copyrightness. But even after I still have no such way. Therefore the decision to treat me as a proactive downloader is forcing me to abandon the use of Internet, except few (very few, perhaps just 1% of a whole internet) sites where the publisher explicitly inform about the copyrights of the content, such decision is treatening my constitutional right of freedom to use 99% of internet. Therefore such decision is unconstitutional.
Shoplifting is ALWAYS illegal: in EVERY store, EVERY item. Oppositely, 90% of the internet content you can find using Google is LEGALLY free. Try again.
I never said that I, as a downloader, ignore the law. I said that the law must not be applicable to my actions in circumstances I mentioned previously and bellow.
It's like arresting me for possessing the money I found on the street, which was left by rubbers there when they were running away from cops. The court may insist I return money, but they cannot arrest me for the fact I picked them up.
Distributing copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright owner, whether you know you are doing it or not, is certainly copyright infringement (civil)
The content I found on the web has not been marked as copyrighted. Therefore i am not the person who broke the law. Whoever ORIGINALLY published the copyrighted materials is the one who broke the law.
If the court (or even RIAA) will notify me that I poses LEAKED copyrighted materials then of course I agree to remove such materials. But I did not do anything that should be punished.
Another practical point that is yet highlighted is that if RIAA wants me aware about copyrighteness of any content I download from Internet they have to make publicly and freely available some mechanism where I can check the content for legitimateness of being copied.
It can be a web site where I can upload the whole file (well, the bandwidth is not free anyway) or it's checksum.
Without such mechanism RIAA has no way to prove that I downloaded a copyrighted material knowing that it is copyrighted. And it THEIR job to prove it, not mine. Otherwise the whole constitution is just screwed up.
The court was wrong if it was applied to the person who did not know that the file is copyrighted. The court decision was unconstitutional and must be defended.
If I found the content (music files) on the web (p2p), and I decided to download it, and the only way to do so was to press the button saying that I agree with the legal disclaimer of terms of THAT particular content, and I pressed that button and downloaded the content, and I shared it on the web (which was against the disclaimer I've been agree) - THEN AND ONLY THEN they (RIAA) can go after me for the fact related to DOWNLOADING.
If I found the content and downloaded it and used as it says in that disclaimer - I did nothing wrong and RIAA should not treaten me.
If I found the content that was available without forcing me to read and agree with any disclaimer - I did nothing wrong that I've downloaded it and I've did nothing wrong that I've shared it on the web or P2P. I don't know if that content is copyrighted or if it is a free sample or just a free public domain content. And I don't have to do any investigation by myself. Instead, I have to be informed about any legal nature of the content at the moment I've tried to download the content.
Of course if I have bought the CD and it says it's copyrighted and I have ripped it off and shared on the web - than I've broke the law and must be punished.
That's why the whole compain of RIAA going after DOWNLOADERS is wrong, illegal and anti-constitutional.
I confirm: sawfish and gconf (as in gnome-2) were always incompatible on my computer whenever I've tried them to work togenther. I wonder, what's happened to gnome? I remember sawfish worked flawlessly in gnome-1 !
If you love scripting and programming with the way your mail is displayed and organized you will love to read your IMAP mail in Zope and especially in Plone.
Thank you Dun Malg, you are the very first person who understand my logical argumets correctly. I admit that my English skills are not enough and of course IANAL. But someby help me to explain it to other people: unless you sign something (or pressed the button agree) AND break that agreement - you did not break law by downloading any content from internet. And if someone is trying to bring special law like DMCA or whatever for another way around (breaking the concept of presumse of innocence) - then it's unconstitutional and must be defended in a higher court.
There is nothing wrong if I found the file on the web, downloaded it and kept on my disk if there is no any legal disclaimer attached to the file, so how should I know that this file is not for downloading? Maybe it was a free sample. Or even a piece of a free music, I don't know. Again, unless the only way to download it was to press "Agree" button on a "Terms" page. But if I found a direct link to MP3 than there is no way I am informed that it is illigal to download this particular file - there are tons of legally free music on internet, how should I know which one is legal for downloading and which one is not?
The internet is designed in a way that if I don't break someones password (or hack in another way) then I don't break any law when i download a content from the web. Of course if the content has some legal warning and I am forced to agree as the only way to get the content and I break the agreement - than I did something illegal. Otherwise - EVERYTHING I download is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL.
IMHO, I am not supposed to do any legal research for EVERY file I download. Instead, the content provider should make sure that their content is legal for downloading and have (if required) any legal warnings that I have to agree in order to get the content. If the content provider failed to do so - RIAA should go after him/her. Not after me. Of course, the content provider is the person published the content, not the author of web-site software and not a hosting company.
Hmm, on the other side, if I have found occasionally the music file WITHOUT any legal warning, downloaded it and re-published on my site, then how have I violated any law if I did not know any legal nature of the file from the first place? Thus, the only person should be charged for illegal publishing and sharing and downloading must be the person who's leased the content (from RIAA) by signing EULA, viloated that EULA by ripping off the content and publishing it at first time WITHOUT providing a proper legal disclaimer in a way that I cannot get the content without reading AND agreeing that disclaimer.
Conclusion: RIAA must go ONLY after original person who ripped off the CD and shared it's content without any legal warning. The rest of the world must defend themselves in the court and if such defence is failed - change the constitution which would be failed to protect us from RIAA abuse.
Those goals are not absolutely incompatible. But trying to achive all three at the same time, without a real business plan, without a solid initial investor and without the eager-to-buy customer is ... a high risk?
Is your goal ge get the job done, or to open source your code, or to get money? Imho they are very different goals.
So, are you saying that the vehicle already abuses it automatically, or an american company must ask explicitly WIPO to screw everyone else in the world up? If the former one than it will be the first time I would think that the globalization is a bad-bad process.
I guess in the rest of the world outside of USA (is Canada included?) we can be live just fine, keeping our development of similar web applications without paying any fee to the company, which has just abused even further unfamous American IP laws.
Downloading or sharing? I thought that RIAA is going after people who copy their bought CDs and share them publicly.
Also I thought there is nothing wrong if I found the file on the web, downloaded it and kept on my disk - there is no any legal disclaimer attached to the file, so how should I know that this file is not for downloading? Maybe it was a free sample or even a piece of a free music, I don't know.
The internet is designed in a way that if I don't break someones password (or hack in another way) then I don't break any law when i download a content from the web. Of course if the content doesn't have any legal warning.
IMHO, I should not do any legal research for EVERY file I download. Instead, the content provider should make sure that their content is legal for downloading and have (if required) any legal warnings. If the content provider failed to do so - RIAA should go after him/her. Not after me.
Hmm, on the other side, if I have found occasionally the music file WITHOUT any legal warning, downloaded it and re-published on my site, then how have I violated any law if did not know any legal nature of the file?
Conclusion: RIAA must go ONLY after original person who ripped off the CD and shared it's content without any legal warning. The rest of the world must defend themselves in the court and if failed change the constitution which would be failed to protect them.