In those "Ask A [XYZ]" series (e.g., Ask a Conspiracy Theorist, Ask a Chatroom, Ask a Gut-Shot Policeman, Ask a High School Student Who Didn't Do the Required Reading). It's a fake advice column where the answers given have absolutely nothing to do with the question.
You are 100% correct in saying that precise language is important. News outlets have implied that because SCO have sued AutoZone (gasp! a Linux shop) and DaimlerChrysler (yikes! another Linux shop) that somehow running Linux puts one at risk. When in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Exactly ALL of the lawsuits today show that instead, being an SCO customer puts one at risk.
Agreed that being subpoenaed is no day in the park, but people and companies are subpoenaed for various reasons all the time all day every day regardless of whether they are right, wrong, or merely loosely associated with whatever legal proceeding is at hand.
My problem is with furthering Darl's FUD meme that running Linux is risky. It's so far from credible. OK, let's speculate that contributing to Linux is questionable. Let's further speculate that *distributing* those contributions is questionable. How on God's green Earth is RUNNING a piece of software you acquired in good faith a risky action? Where are examples of any other lawsuits against end users for running software from a reputable vendor, regardless of whether that vendor happened to be embroiled in legal trouble? I don't recall being sued for having.GIFs on my local machine when Unysis started their patent crusade, nor do I recall being called to testify as to whether Windows 3.1 had the same "look and feel" as Mac OS during that memorable lawsuit.
The chicken little act is what Darl WANTS. Aren't we all smarter than that? What sane, intelligent person honestly thinks they'll be sued for *using* Linux?
...they didn't promise to stop suing non-customers...
Please provide at least one instance of SCO having sued a non customer.
SCO has only ever sued customers (or partners or former customers/partners, or entities that have had a contractual agreement of some sort with SCO specifically). Such as IBM (project Monterrey partner), Autozone (former customer), DaimlerChrysler (former customer), and almost Bank of America (customer).
Since they have never sued a non customer, they can't stop suing non customers (akin to the old "when did you stop beating your wife" question). You should realize that making such misleading statements propogate the FUD that make PHBs shiver. And despite their occasional stupidity, the battle won't be won until those at the bottom "get it."
So far, SCO hasn't sued anybody that wasn't contractually tied to them in some way. DaimlerChrysler is a former SCO customer. AutoZone is a former SCO customer. They were getting ready to sue former customer Bank of America. IBM was a former "strategic partner" in the Sequent project.
Doesn't anybody get it? Every single lawsuit bar none (correct me if I'm wrong) that SCO has initiated over Linux was against former clients/partners. If you've never had anything to do with SCO, you're safe. Use Linux all day every day. Darl's threat to sue end users has been nothing but bluster. I can't believe a journalist would fail to put 2 + 2 together like that and foster more ignorance that big companies like Lockheed somehow have something to fear.
I agree that it seems like a pointless "crime" to prosecute. However, if you commit an act in violation of the law, your crime doesn't go away just because the law does. For instance, if they suddenly made marijuana legal in the US, that doesn't mean that all of the people in jail for selling / possession would go free. It was still a crime when they sold / possessed it.
It can sometimes be the case that when an unpopular law is repealed, some authority figure will pardon those currently being punished for that law. But it doesn't always happen.
Similarly, you can't punish people for previous acts that violate a new law (at least according to Section 9 Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution... though if some had their way...). So if they outlawed playing arcade games tomorrow, you couldn't be punished for all those quarters you dumped into them during the 80s.
Bottom line: if it was illegal where/when you did it, it's a crime, no matter what the law is now. If it wasn't illegal where/when you did it, it's not a crime, no matter what the law is now.
I completely agree with you re: money. Part of the tongue-in-cheek troll was the idea that you still have all the rights you can pay for.
What has happened in this country (or maybe it was always this way and we look at the past through rose-colored glasses) is that the government has decided not to come right out and outlaw your rights, but to make it so prohibitively expensive to exercise them that they might as well just not exist in the first place. In that way, they can still say, of course you have free speech! Of course you are protected from unlawful search and seizure! But it will cost you an arm and a leg to defend those rights, which will constantly be challenged.
Which, I think, was also your point.
Here's a homework exercise for the curious: go read the bill of rights and compare them to the actions of the current administration. I found myself laughing out loud when I re-read some of the verbiage.
OK, so the first amendment of the US Constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now I'm no constitutional lawyer. But as far as I know, Congress hasn't specifically done anything abridging the freedom of speech by allowing the FCC to make these regulations. It's my opinion that the Framers wanted *Congress* to pretty much stay out of it, and let the states (and/or local communities) decide what the rules ought to be. If a state wanted to make a single utterance of the f-bomb an automatic 30 days in jail, so be it (according to what I think the framers intended).
The FCC thing is a little tricky... it's a federal organization, which means that Congress ought to have some oversight into what goes on... but the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law," not "no federal organization shall make any rules" about free speech.
Obviously you could choose to break the rule, get penalized, sue, and hope the court agrees with you; all it takes is money. But isn't that how most of our rights are these days?
You're quoting from a news story. I'm quoting from direct personal experience. Don't get me wrong, I wish to God you were right. But I think it takes a bevy of lawyers, money, and determination to get justice under such circumstances. I was standing there with the police trying to get them to acknowledge the absurdity of the situation, and they could only see me as an irate and thus potentially dangerous (no matter how softly and reasonably I spoke) component in the ordeal. Wanna fight city hall? All it takes is money.
If you called the police (at least here in Texas), they would show up and probably arrest YOU, since you were (in their minds) causing a disturbance at this fine, upstanding establishment. I've personally seen many interactions between police and citizens where, right or wrong, the interests of "public order" are weighed above individual rights.
Classic example. My girlfriend came to pick me up at my apartment complex. She parked in my spot, but had no parking sticker. Within the two minutes it took for us to get to her car, a tow truck (contracted by the apt. management) had swooped in and hitched her car. I explained that he was making a mistake, it was MY spot and I wanted that car in it. Tow truck guy didn't care. I called the police, the police showed up and (I swear to God I am not making this up) said that not only were they not going to stop the tow truck guy from taking my girlfriend's car, but that they were going to hang around and make sure I didn't give the tow truck driver a hard time or else they would arrest me.
Call me crazy, but I was listening to this one song over and over again. I kept switching between 128 mp3, 192 mp3, 320 mp3, and I'd listen to 128 AAC sometimes too.
When Disney was faced with losing its copyrighted Mickey Mouse cash cow to the public domain, they managed (or so it seems) to get the law changed at the 11th hour to extend their control.
What happens when an IBM or GE invents something that doesn't become ubiquitous/profitable until near the end of it's patented life? Can they/have they also bought legislation? Or is entertainment the only industry where that happens?
Yes, I'm wearing a tin foil hat... but recent events ought to convince anybody that the interests of corporations and the public aren't so well balanced these days. I'm just curious what happens when a large corp instead of an individual is in this situation.
The whole article is reminiscent of the war on drugs. In both cases, the problem will never go away as long as people want whatever contraband is being produced. Added to this are wasted tax dollars (the DEA's budget, for instance), the human toll of the thousands behind bars for victimless crimes, clogging the court system, etc., etc.
Especially agrivating is that it seems like these people know it's a lost cause. From the article:
Oosterbaan said the department is employing much the same strategy this time, targeting not only some of the most egregious hard-core porn but also more conventional material, in an effort "to be as effective as possible."
"I can't possibly put it all away," he said. "Results are what we want."
So what results are those? Making porn produced by US companies slightly more expensive or difficult to get ahold of during an election year? Putting more people in jail? What does he think the net effect of his labors will be 5, 10, 50 years down the road? He says it himself, that he's trying the same tactics that have failed in the past, and that he knows they'll fail this time too. Except for those mystery results he's counting on.
It's hard to even get steamed up enough to care about, it's so asinine. If it weren't for the tragic waste...
Everyone from doctors to garbage men have been so brainwashed that all it causes is anger. It's the saddest and (once you look at the evidence) most obvious scam of the century.
have a crappy knife, a crappy magnifying glass, a crappy saw, crappy tweezers... but their business has been going gangbusters for decades. So I'd say you're not necessarily a dying breed, there has always been a market for "do everything, crappily" devices.
HIV exists. AIDS exists. But HIV does not cause AIDS. The misconception is responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths, public hysteria, and of course lots of money for the pharm cos and research behemoths.
Check out virusmyth.org. I won't reprise their literature here. But it's VERY VERY VERY important to distinguish between HIV and AIDS... even if you think there is a cause/effect relationship. HIV is the virus, AIDS is the set of symptoms purportedly (but not) caused by the virus.
...or "rehabilitate" anybody. The intent is to control a kind of power that is greatly feared.
Here's an analogy, which I'm sure has flaws but here goes anyway.
This is like burning witches at the stake. Witches were thought to have control over nature and man via black magic, special knowledge of the occult, etc. We've all heard the saying that advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to those who don't understand it.
When I hear things like the giant brou-hahas made over websites using "cookies" (gasp!), I realize how mysterious computers must seem to ordinary non-tech people. When bad things (virii, DDOS attacks) start happening to computers and web sites, it must be especially scary to these folks because they didn't really understand what was going on in the first place, and now it's all gone to crap for no easily explainable reason.
All of this fear and ignorance eventually bubbles over into rage, and an urge to lash out towards those perceived to be responsible.
Yes, I realize that a cracker is not a perfect analogy to a witch because the cracker is actually performing malicious actions. But there seem to be many examples of white-hats getting snagged in this over-zealous dragnet (the Adrian Lamo case for instance).
The extent to which The Gubment has started prosecuting these crimes smacks of fear and ignorance, just like the Red Scare, and the original witch hunts. The idea that Kevin Mitnick could actually call in a nuke strike from a payphone... idiots!
Slashdot Mirror
In those "Ask A [XYZ]" series (e.g., Ask a Conspiracy Theorist, Ask a Chatroom, Ask a Gut-Shot Policeman, Ask a High School Student Who Didn't Do the Required Reading). It's a fake advice column where the answers given have absolutely nothing to do with the question.
You are 100% correct in saying that precise language is important. News outlets have implied that because SCO have sued AutoZone (gasp! a Linux shop) and DaimlerChrysler (yikes! another Linux shop) that somehow running Linux puts one at risk. When in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Exactly ALL of the lawsuits today show that instead, being an SCO customer puts one at risk.
.GIFs on my local machine when Unysis started their patent crusade, nor do I recall being called to testify as to whether Windows 3.1 had the same "look and feel" as Mac OS during that memorable lawsuit.
Agreed that being subpoenaed is no day in the park, but people and companies are subpoenaed for various reasons all the time all day every day regardless of whether they are right, wrong, or merely loosely associated with whatever legal proceeding is at hand.
My problem is with furthering Darl's FUD meme that running Linux is risky. It's so far from credible. OK, let's speculate that contributing to Linux is questionable. Let's further speculate that *distributing* those contributions is questionable. How on God's green Earth is RUNNING a piece of software you acquired in good faith a risky action? Where are examples of any other lawsuits against end users for running software from a reputable vendor, regardless of whether that vendor happened to be embroiled in legal trouble? I don't recall being sued for having
The chicken little act is what Darl WANTS. Aren't we all smarter than that? What sane, intelligent person honestly thinks they'll be sued for *using* Linux?
...they didn't promise to stop suing non-customers...
Please provide at least one instance of SCO having sued a non customer.
SCO has only ever sued customers (or partners or former customers/partners, or entities that have had a contractual agreement of some sort with SCO specifically). Such as IBM (project Monterrey partner), Autozone (former customer), DaimlerChrysler (former customer), and almost Bank of America (customer).
Since they have never sued a non customer, they can't stop suing non customers (akin to the old "when did you stop beating your wife" question). You should realize that making such misleading statements propogate the FUD that make PHBs shiver. And despite their occasional stupidity, the battle won't be won until those at the bottom "get it."
Get it?
What would you be able to do with a TiVo hacked in this way that you can't do now? Hook it up to a different hard drive and store more shows?
So far, SCO hasn't sued anybody that wasn't contractually tied to them in some way. DaimlerChrysler is a former SCO customer. AutoZone is a former SCO customer. They were getting ready to sue former customer Bank of America. IBM was a former "strategic partner" in the Sequent project.
Doesn't anybody get it? Every single lawsuit bar none (correct me if I'm wrong) that SCO has initiated over Linux was against former clients/partners. If you've never had anything to do with SCO, you're safe. Use Linux all day every day. Darl's threat to sue end users has been nothing but bluster. I can't believe a journalist would fail to put 2 + 2 together like that and foster more ignorance that big companies like Lockheed somehow have something to fear.
What a crock!
Had to be done.
I think this was on Slashdot at some point, but here is the original:
http://www.beigerecords.com/cory/pizza_party/
I agree that it seems like a pointless "crime" to prosecute. However, if you commit an act in violation of the law, your crime doesn't go away just because the law does. For instance, if they suddenly made marijuana legal in the US, that doesn't mean that all of the people in jail for selling / possession would go free. It was still a crime when they sold / possessed it.
It can sometimes be the case that when an unpopular law is repealed, some authority figure will pardon those currently being punished for that law. But it doesn't always happen.
Similarly, you can't punish people for previous acts that violate a new law (at least according to Section 9 Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution... though if some had their way...). So if they outlawed playing arcade games tomorrow, you couldn't be punished for all those quarters you dumped into them during the 80s.
Bottom line: if it was illegal where/when you did it, it's a crime, no matter what the law is now. If it wasn't illegal where/when you did it, it's not a crime, no matter what the law is now.
I completely agree with you re: money. Part of the tongue-in-cheek troll was the idea that you still have all the rights you can pay for.
What has happened in this country (or maybe it was always this way and we look at the past through rose-colored glasses) is that the government has decided not to come right out and outlaw your rights, but to make it so prohibitively expensive to exercise them that they might as well just not exist in the first place. In that way, they can still say, of course you have free speech! Of course you are protected from unlawful search and seizure! But it will cost you an arm and a leg to defend those rights, which will constantly be challenged.
Which, I think, was also your point.
Here's a homework exercise for the curious: go read the bill of rights and compare them to the actions of the current administration. I found myself laughing out loud when I re-read some of the verbiage.
Now I'm no constitutional lawyer. But as far as I know, Congress hasn't specifically done anything abridging the freedom of speech by allowing the FCC to make these regulations. It's my opinion that the Framers wanted *Congress* to pretty much stay out of it, and let the states (and/or local communities) decide what the rules ought to be. If a state wanted to make a single utterance of the f-bomb an automatic 30 days in jail, so be it (according to what I think the framers intended).
The FCC thing is a little tricky... it's a federal organization, which means that Congress ought to have some oversight into what goes on... but the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law," not "no federal organization shall make any rules" about free speech.
Obviously you could choose to break the rule, get penalized, sue, and hope the court agrees with you; all it takes is money. But isn't that how most of our rights are these days?
You're quoting from a news story. I'm quoting from direct personal experience. Don't get me wrong, I wish to God you were right. But I think it takes a bevy of lawyers, money, and determination to get justice under such circumstances. I was standing there with the police trying to get them to acknowledge the absurdity of the situation, and they could only see me as an irate and thus potentially dangerous (no matter how softly and reasonably I spoke) component in the ordeal. Wanna fight city hall? All it takes is money.
If you called the police (at least here in Texas), they would show up and probably arrest YOU, since you were (in their minds) causing a disturbance at this fine, upstanding establishment. I've personally seen many interactions between police and citizens where, right or wrong, the interests of "public order" are weighed above individual rights.
Classic example. My girlfriend came to pick me up at my apartment complex. She parked in my spot, but had no parking sticker. Within the two minutes it took for us to get to her car, a tow truck (contracted by the apt. management) had swooped in and hitched her car. I explained that he was making a mistake, it was MY spot and I wanted that car in it. Tow truck guy didn't care. I called the police, the police showed up and (I swear to God I am not making this up) said that not only were they not going to stop the tow truck guy from taking my girlfriend's car, but that they were going to hang around and make sure I didn't give the tow truck driver a hard time or else they would arrest me.
Call me crazy, but I was listening to this one song over and over again. I kept switching between 128 mp3, 192 mp3, 320 mp3, and I'd listen to 128 AAC sometimes too.
You're crazy. Well, you said!
I hate to sound, er, metrosexual, but that Noia theme is truly fabulous. The gestures extensions are pretty stellar too.
When Disney was faced with losing its copyrighted Mickey Mouse cash cow to the public domain, they managed (or so it seems) to get the law changed at the 11th hour to extend their control.
What happens when an IBM or GE invents something that doesn't become ubiquitous/profitable until near the end of it's patented life? Can they/have they also bought legislation? Or is entertainment the only industry where that happens?
Yes, I'm wearing a tin foil hat... but recent events ought to convince anybody that the interests of corporations and the public aren't so well balanced these days. I'm just curious what happens when a large corp instead of an individual is in this situation.
A slashdotter (CMDRTACO) being slashdotted by slashdot?
Especially agrivating is that it seems like these people know it's a lost cause. From the article: So what results are those? Making porn produced by US companies slightly more expensive or difficult to get ahold of during an election year? Putting more people in jail? What does he think the net effect of his labors will be 5, 10, 50 years down the road? He says it himself, that he's trying the same tactics that have failed in the past, and that he knows they'll fail this time too. Except for those mystery results he's counting on.
It's hard to even get steamed up enough to care about, it's so asinine. If it weren't for the tragic waste...
Only outlaws will streak.
Imagine if people start printing Slashdot logo all over all kind of vibrators...
That is the greatest idea I've ever heard.
He's just "A" Russell Jones, it's not like he's "THE" Russell Jones.
How else would something so evil be explained?
Everyone from doctors to garbage men have been so brainwashed that all it causes is anger. It's the saddest and (once you look at the evidence) most obvious scam of the century.
have a crappy knife, a crappy magnifying glass, a crappy saw, crappy tweezers... but their business has been going gangbusters for decades. So I'd say you're not necessarily a dying breed, there has always been a market for "do everything, crappily" devices.
HIV exists. AIDS exists. But HIV does not cause AIDS. The misconception is responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths, public hysteria, and of course lots of money for the pharm cos and research behemoths.
Check out virusmyth.org. I won't reprise their literature here. But it's VERY VERY VERY important to distinguish between HIV and AIDS... even if you think there is a cause/effect relationship. HIV is the virus, AIDS is the set of symptoms purportedly (but not) caused by the virus.
...or "rehabilitate" anybody. The intent is to control a kind of power that is greatly feared.
Here's an analogy, which I'm sure has flaws but here goes anyway.
This is like burning witches at the stake. Witches were thought to have control over nature and man via black magic, special knowledge of the occult, etc. We've all heard the saying that advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to those who don't understand it.
When I hear things like the giant brou-hahas made over websites using "cookies" (gasp!), I realize how mysterious computers must seem to ordinary non-tech people. When bad things (virii, DDOS attacks) start happening to computers and web sites, it must be especially scary to these folks because they didn't really understand what was going on in the first place, and now it's all gone to crap for no easily explainable reason.
All of this fear and ignorance eventually bubbles over into rage, and an urge to lash out towards those perceived to be responsible.
Yes, I realize that a cracker is not a perfect analogy to a witch because the cracker is actually performing malicious actions. But there seem to be many examples of white-hats getting snagged in this over-zealous dragnet (the Adrian Lamo case for instance).
The extent to which The Gubment has started prosecuting these crimes smacks of fear and ignorance, just like the Red Scare, and the original witch hunts. The idea that Kevin Mitnick could actually call in a nuke strike from a payphone... idiots!