So standing in the rear of a ciname and watching a movie you haven't paid for isn't theft?
It does seem to me that it wouldn't be theft because you aren't depriving anyone of anything. Not sure what it would be; a sibling post suggests criminal conversion. The wikipedia entry is all I know about it, but it sounds reasonable to me. The bottom line is that the mere fact that you possess something (or enjoy the benefits of something) illegally doesn't mean you committed theft. That doesn't mean that you're in the right, however.
Ah, but the "services" thing isn't so simple to dismiss. It nukes the idea that theft has to be theft of a material item. It nukes the idea that someone must be "deprived" of something for it to be theft.
No - using a service deprives someone else of that service. In another post I suggested using someone's broadband without their permission as an example. Their bandwidth is cut by my usage. Doesn't have to be a material thing of which you are deprived - but you have to be deprived.
Theft of services is also "only" the loss of potential income - c.f. theft of a train journey. The loss becomes real at the moment the train journey is taken, or the MP3 is played. You used it without paying. That's not a "potential" loss, that's a real, quantifiable loss, because a law-abiding citizen would have paid first.
In your train journey example, the extra mass on the train expends fuel[1]. The "stowaway" may also use a seat that means a paying customer has to stand. The mp3 is not used in any exclusive way by being listened to. I can listen to it again. You can still listen to the original CD. I've not stolen anything physical from you, and I've not deprived you of your ability to enjoy your CD. Hence, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
I'm afraid your arguments hold no water at all.
That's because they're not a physical thing, so can't deprive the water of it's ability to flow away. Seriously, copyright violation is (to my mind) a Bad Thing. It's just not the same Bad Thing as theft, and attempting to equate the two is wrong.
I
[1] How that costs twenty quid for forty miles is anybody's guess.
1) This arguement does not stand because once the person downloads the song, the copyright holder is deprived of the income the downloader would have paid for the song.
Not quite. Your argument generalises to this: if someone has one thousand downloaded tracks, then that person would have spent about £800 on music if illegal downloading were impossible. It's simply not true. The Spanish equivalent of Pop Idol was called Operacion Triumfo. All sixteen artists released an album at the end of the series. All sixteen year olds in the country went out and bought one album, and copied the other fifteen albums off their friends. If copying had been impossible, do you really think they'd have stumped up about two hundred euros each? No - they'd have bought the one album they could afford. Maybe the industry lost out a little (perhaps some would have bought two albums) but they did not lose the price of fifteen albums - they never would have got that money because the kids didn't have it to spend.
2)Income is a thing. Theft also incompasses services. If you wish to play with strict interpretation: The original poster wished to know when he became a thief. A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property.
You're stretching that so hard it's squeaking. Income is not a service; it's either your money, in which case I'm stealing from you, or your employer's, in which case I'm stealing from him. Or it's my money, and I'm not stealing because I decided I didn't like your music and I'm not buying it. I can commit theft of service by connecting to your wifi hub and using your broadband, but copying a CD is not the same. Your available bandwidth is cut by my usage, but copying the CD doesn't degrade your use of it.
That is the difference between theft and copyright infringement. Simply put, I can copy your CD (although doing so would be copyright violation) and we can both listen to the music, but if I steal your CD, you can't listen any more. It is a critical difference, because theft hurts you directly while copyright infringement doesn't. It can only affect the copyright holder.
I'm not saying copyright violation is fine. However, equating it to theft is a mistake. People take precautions against theft (even thieves do...) because it hurts them directly - it is in their interest to prevent it. People do not take precautions against copyright violation (except the right holders...) because they have no interest in spending energy stopping something that doesn't hurt them. It's the RIAA's attempt to ignore this difference that leads people to disregard their whole message[1].
I
[1] Well, that and the various stories about unfair contracts, price fixing, and studies that suggest that downloaders buy more music.
I think of RTF as a "open" format for word processing, why did they need to invent another format? have you tried saving your word document in RTF and open it in OpenOffice? what is wrong with that? well, there are some features in MS Word that are not available in the RTF, and that will happen to the OpenDocument even if MS gives the option to save in ".odw" or whatever.
The "X" in XML (OpenDocument is an XML format) stands for eXtensible, and there is a single standards body writing the standard. This means that if there's a feature that's needed, you know who to go to to ask, and you know that the format of the new tag will be like <blink> if it's accepted. That means that older readers will be able to recognise the bits of the newer document they can't read (recognise as a tag, don't recognise the tag) and fail gracefully (show you the rest of the doc?). I don't know if RTF is extensible in this way; I suspect not.
" The Massachusetts policy would instead direct contracts to just a few technology providers, while many would be locked out."
An interesting sentence that exemplifies the hypocrisy ripe within his arguments... we all know Open source is open and anyone can choose to support it as a 'technology provider'. Whereas Microsoft hand picks those companies it approves to have access to the information needed to be a good provider of it's technology.
I think they're trying to make us look bad if we argue with them. Saying "Actually, Microsoft are describing themselves" has to be done carefully, leading with evidence, or you come off sounding like a five year old ("I don't smell, you smell!"). Might work, especially as PR flacks are probably by definition better debaters than your average geek.
Fair point. However, if you're trying to define a general framework for security comparison (which was what I thought you were getting at) you need to include some measure of severity.
Severity of the flaw is also a factor not in your list. I'd also argue that percentage of users that apply the patch is not a factor affecting browser security per se. It affects the security of each individual install of the program, but says nothing about the security process at Mozilla. Clueless users aren't their fault, and should be assumed to afflict everyone equally.
I would do, but they seem to have a problem with their ordering system. Obviously lots of interested UK Slashdotters...
The Fuel Lobby - a protest group - are currently picketing refineries in Britain, protesting recent rises in fuel prices. It doesn't seem to have amounted to anything this time (yet), but last time they protested it got to the stage of panic-buying in the supermarkets because their lorries had no fuel (or the drivers were part of the strike) to bring in supplies. Believe me, people will be interested in alternatives today...
I'm not saying that "revised" eyewitness testimony is accurate. Media portrayals of events will almost certainly affect their recollections. What I am saying is that their initial statements are not reliable either. The BBC has a bit more on the subject, including some reference to relevant British cases dating back to 1969. Wikipedia's page on eyewitnesses has some more references. Their page on de Menezes himself also mentions contradictions between eyewitness testimony (jumping the barrier) and the police description of the event to his family. Eyewitness descriptions of thick coats are also contradicted by the photo of his body.
Again, I'm not saying that the IPCC report that was leaked is correct, merely that eyewitness testimony is not reliable.
It has nothing to do with me being "a bit behind the news" and everything to do with what eyewitnesses -- people who actually saw the incident -- said they saw *immediately* after it occured. I'm aware that several of these folks have revised their statements but the power of suggestion can be incredible, especially after weeks of massive 24/7 media coverage of the event and a rabid anti-Blair faction clammoring to blame him for just about everything. Do you really think that some of them weren't eventually pressured into saying whatever the press wanted them to say?
I'd just note that eye witnesses are known to be unreliable. Nothing to do with lying or pressure, merely that our memories aren't half as good as we think they are. FindLaw reference.
Anecdotal evidence: I was eating in a glass-walled restaurant a couple of weeks ago. There was a fight in the street outside. All of the restaurant staff and about half the patrons had a pretty much unobstructed view. Afterwards, we couldn't agree whether or not the two guys who piled out of the pub opposite were trying to break up the fight or just joining in. Nor did anybody remember which direction two of the four had left in by the time the cops showed up.
My guess is there not that serious, why wait until 2007? Why not Jan 1st 2006? Why not every new PC purchased from this day forward?
Page 18 of the PDF:
Agencies will need to develop phased migration plans with a target implementation date of January 1, 2007. In the interim, agencies may continue to use the office applications they have currently licensed.
Any acquisition of new office applications must support the OpenDocument standard.[Emphasis added]
...so Jan 2007 is when existing apps must be replaced. Newly bought stuff will have to be compliant from now (more or less), as you suggest. A year and a quarter for the complete migration of a state government bureacracy isn't unreasonable...
Given the choice, I'd rather deal with 'soulless leeches' and 'viral marketing' than whatever it is they've got planned for the future...
You won't have the choice, of course. In my experience, people see advertising as noise and filter it out. There are two solutions to this for the advertisers - make adverts more intrusive, or disguise them as "signal". Product placement and viral marketing are examples of the latter; your "follow you around" adverts are an example of the former.
Neither strategy will work in the long term, because we'll just improve our various filter mechanisms. They'll invent something more intrusive then. Aren't you looking forward to that?
The grandparent didn't explain this problem clearly. I offer you two choices. One, I give you $100, but you must bet $25 on a single toss of a fair coin. Two, we toss a fair coin and I give you $75 if you lose or $125 if you win. I ask you which one you'd choose, and why. If you look at the maths, you find that you end up with either $75 or $125 with 50% probability in either case - there's nothing to choose.
What's interesting is not the stats. What's interesting is that if I try this on a group of "men in the street", the answers to "why" will not reflect the maths. Some people express a preference for option 1 because there's a chance they'll gain $25 extra over the $100. Some people express a preference for option 2 because you can't lose $25 that way, you only gain money. It's a failure (on their part) to frame the problem correctly, but that's half the battle with stats.
Another curiosity (reaching further into my memory) is that behaviours differ with value. Fewer people are willing to "take a risk" (option 1) with a $7.50/$12.50 game than with $.75/$1.25, and even fewer will "risk it" with $75/$125, although the statistics do not change.
Conclusion: most people's risk assessment skills suck. I fell for this one when it was first told to me...
I suspect that some lawmakers think "double the penalty means double the risk, so half the crime rate". I think the problem is that criminals (people in general?) have a binary perception of risk - ie, "likely to get caught if I murder someone" and "will never get caught if I only steal car radios". In the latter case, increasing penalties have no effect whatsoever on the crime rate - you'll have to do something about your detection and resolution rate, or something about prevention. But that's hard, and passing a law is easy...
The other thing is that as the penalty for a given crime rises, it makes more and more sense to resist arrest. If the penalty for something is death, why not try to shoot my way out of a corner? What're they going to do, kill me twice?
Well theorectically EVERY FUCKING THING could be reduced to a set of logical and mathematical operations, like the FUCKING STEAM ENGINE. That should not prevent it from being patentable.
I suspect that the train company in my area uses your steam engine constructed from mathematical operations, but most people prefer a physical thing to pull their train. Although you can use maths to describe the operation of a steam engine, it is not itself made of maths and logic. A computer program is pure maths and logic, and any "computer implemented invention" must be reduceable to that, otherwise it can't be implemented on a computer. You can implement a mathematical model of a steam engine on a computer, sure, but it isn't going to pull a train or pump water for you.
I understand what you're getting at, but I think you're wrong. Let's take your drag-and-drop example. You're arguing that it should be possible to patent "using an input device to move an icon from one place to another to initiate an action" (given no prior art). You say you don't have to explain the implementation, but you'd at least have to specify a sequence of events (press button and "pick up" icon, move, release). But then we're back to specifying a system that can be expressed using logic (if numbers representing pointer location are within bounds of icon AND button is pressed, pick up icon, etc.). Logic can't be patented for the same reason maths can't.
This argument generalises to all software, because anything you can write as software can be reduced to a set of logical and mathematical operations. On the other hand, a mouse could be patented (absent prior art, again) because you can't just reduce it to logic in the machine.
What we really need is a directive to *ban* software patents on the EU level...
Right. Let's get down to it. Groklaw was looking into sensible wording for such a directive. Is there any reason why we (by "we", I probably mean the FFII) can't propose a new directive? Back it up with solid argument why software patents are bad (Bill Gates' letter explaining why patents would have killed MS is probably a good start), and hammer on MEPs to vote the right way?
So basically you can justify copying ANY piece of software by simply stating that you wouldn't have paid for it anyway??
No. However, the software company shouldn't say they've lost money by the copying unless you would have paid for it if you had no choice. Photoshop, for example, is widely obtained illegally (look around the comments here for evidence...). Some fraction of the illegal copies are only used to stick "All your base" speech bubbles on GWB's mouth. Would you pay $499 for the ability to do that? No (well, I wouldn't). So if Adobe could stop you getting an illegal copy, they wouldn't make $499 out of you. You'd just stop modding images, or learn to use the GIMP.
None of this is justifying illegal copying[1]. It's just saying that the BSA's numbers on the losses due to illegal copying are vastly inflated.
I
[1] Although one of the responses to your post makes the argument that software houses would not be hurt by allowing unrestricted non-comemrcial copying.
My understanding, from reading Groklaw, is that this is a list of documents that SCO claim they cannot be compelled to reveal for one reason and another (attorney-client priviledge, for example). IBM will have submitted a similar list. The list was initially submitted without court oversight by agreement of both IBM and SCO. However, the list has been re-submitted because (IIRC) SCO are challenging some items on IBM's list. SCO's list is a LOT shorter, this time around.
Why is it shorter? Could be a genuine mistake by SCO. One suggestion, again from a Groklaw poster, is that it's a tactical ploy by IBM. They agree to an initial unsupervised submission, knowing that SCO will declare (nearly) every paper they possess to be priviledged. They also know that SCO are going to challenge something on IBM's list. As soon as they do so, IBM and SCO have to re-submit their lists, with justifications for each document this time. IBM can do this easily. SCO can't because they don't have justification for much of it. IBM can then stand up and say "look at the lying little bastards, Judge" (however you say that in legalese). Just a theory (I think), but an entertaining one.
I understand that you can keep hitting him as long as you believe he's a threat. You can't take it into punishment. This means that you can (probably) get away with killing a burglar with a baseball bat to the head. If you don't kill him with the first blow, but then you do an Al Capone on him while he's down, you'll be banged up for assault. However, exactly where the line between defence and revenge lies must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
The reasoning behind this is simple. It is unreasonable that you are not allowed to defend your home and property, so you are allowed to fight. Fortunes of war apply. However, you have no right to dispense justice (not even "justice"), so you can't beat him to punish him. You can hit him when he's running away if he's carrying your TV - but then he's still a threat to your property.
I am not a lawyer. I am a homeowner. Make sure it isn't your wife before you attack, call the police, attack from cover, and don't keep hitting him once he's down.
That's true, it's our work to reach other people. Richard is out there to remind us what Free Software is all about, our task, is to understand it, and help develop and spread it.
There is only one GNU and Stallman is his Prophet?
And do it the way it should be done, which is, by showing the real ethical reasons to use this system, and not just technical advantages.
Mm. I agree with you - but my experience has been that people (in general) don't make ethical decisions about their computers. They see an apples-and-oranges comparison - they can have MS pretty icons and It Just Works, or they can have Free Software. And explaining that supporting an abusive monopoly is going to end in tears doesn't seem to carry as much weight as "but I won't understand this Linux thing". Any ideas how to break it to people that they don't understand Windows either, Linux doesn't bite, they (or I) have a chance of fixing it if it breaks, and that they're supporting a community resource, not lining Bills' pockets?
But that would be madness. That basically means that the UK government could take *any* file on your PC and demand that you decrypt it (even if it is already in cleartext), requiring you prove that it isn't just some fancy encryption algorithm that made the ciphertext look like a Word document, or a system library!
Yup. Probably wouldn't fly in open court, but if memory serves you aren't allowed to tell anyone that the government have requested the key, or else you get to spend twenty years in the clink. I left my tinfoil hat at home today, so I won't comment that this gives "Them" a nice mechanism to lock you up on an unfalsifiable pretext.
Then when the government asks you for the key, you can provide k2, and provide them with only the 'y' part of the conversation? This could be any old document. It is up to the government to prove that k1 even exists?
I have no idea if this is possible, but it's irrelevant, sadly. If I understand the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act correctly, then no, it's encumbent on you to prove that k1 does not exist and (even if it did) that you don't have it.
I always thought it should be easy to get the RIP Act changed - find out who wouldn't vote it down, plant some encrypted child porn on their computers and arrest them for not giving up the key when the police come knocking. Unfortunately it would require someone with the will to change the RIP act in power to order the cops, but I like the poetic justice of the thought.
Slashdot Mirror
It does seem to me that it wouldn't be theft because you aren't depriving anyone of anything. Not sure what it would be; a sibling post suggests criminal conversion. The wikipedia entry is all I know about it, but it sounds reasonable to me. The bottom line is that the mere fact that you possess something (or enjoy the benefits of something) illegally doesn't mean you committed theft. That doesn't mean that you're in the right, however.
I
No - using a service deprives someone else of that service. In another post I suggested using someone's broadband without their permission as an example. Their bandwidth is cut by my usage. Doesn't have to be a material thing of which you are deprived - but you have to be deprived.
In your train journey example, the extra mass on the train expends fuel[1]. The "stowaway" may also use a seat that means a paying customer has to stand. The mp3 is not used in any exclusive way by being listened to. I can listen to it again. You can still listen to the original CD. I've not stolen anything physical from you, and I've not deprived you of your ability to enjoy your CD. Hence, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
That's because they're not a physical thing, so can't deprive the water of it's ability to flow away. Seriously, copyright violation is (to my mind) a Bad Thing. It's just not the same Bad Thing as theft, and attempting to equate the two is wrong.
I
[1] How that costs twenty quid for forty miles is anybody's guess.
Not quite. Your argument generalises to this: if someone has one thousand downloaded tracks, then that person would have spent about £800 on music if illegal downloading were impossible. It's simply not true. The Spanish equivalent of Pop Idol was called Operacion Triumfo. All sixteen artists released an album at the end of the series. All sixteen year olds in the country went out and bought one album, and copied the other fifteen albums off their friends. If copying had been impossible, do you really think they'd have stumped up about two hundred euros each? No - they'd have bought the one album they could afford. Maybe the industry lost out a little (perhaps some would have bought two albums) but they did not lose the price of fifteen albums - they never would have got that money because the kids didn't have it to spend.
You're stretching that so hard it's squeaking. Income is not a service; it's either your money, in which case I'm stealing from you, or your employer's, in which case I'm stealing from him. Or it's my money, and I'm not stealing because I decided I didn't like your music and I'm not buying it. I can commit theft of service by connecting to your wifi hub and using your broadband, but copying a CD is not the same. Your available bandwidth is cut by my usage, but copying the CD doesn't degrade your use of it.
That is the difference between theft and copyright infringement. Simply put, I can copy your CD (although doing so would be copyright violation) and we can both listen to the music, but if I steal your CD, you can't listen any more. It is a critical difference, because theft hurts you directly while copyright infringement doesn't. It can only affect the copyright holder.
I'm not saying copyright violation is fine. However, equating it to theft is a mistake. People take precautions against theft (even thieves do...) because it hurts them directly - it is in their interest to prevent it. People do not take precautions against copyright violation (except the right holders...) because they have no interest in spending energy stopping something that doesn't hurt them. It's the RIAA's attempt to ignore this difference that leads people to disregard their whole message[1].
I
[1] Well, that and the various stories about unfair contracts, price fixing, and studies that suggest that downloaders buy more music.
The "X" in XML (OpenDocument is an XML format) stands for eXtensible, and there is a single standards body writing the standard. This means that if there's a feature that's needed, you know who to go to to ask, and you know that the format of the new tag will be like <blink> if it's accepted. That means that older readers will be able to recognise the bits of the newer document they can't read (recognise as a tag, don't recognise the tag) and fail gracefully (show you the rest of the doc?). I don't know if RTF is extensible in this way; I suspect not.
I
I think they're trying to make us look bad if we argue with them. Saying "Actually, Microsoft are describing themselves" has to be done carefully, leading with evidence, or you come off sounding like a five year old ("I don't smell, you smell!"). Might work, especially as PR flacks are probably by definition better debaters than your average geek.
I
Fair point. However, if you're trying to define a general framework for security comparison (which was what I thought you were getting at) you need to include some measure of severity.
I
Severity of the flaw is also a factor not in your list. I'd also argue that percentage of users that apply the patch is not a factor affecting browser security per se. It affects the security of each individual install of the program, but says nothing about the security process at Mozilla. Clueless users aren't their fault, and should be assumed to afflict everyone equally.
I
The Fuel Lobby - a protest group - are currently picketing refineries in Britain, protesting recent rises in fuel prices. It doesn't seem to have amounted to anything this time (yet), but last time they protested it got to the stage of panic-buying in the supermarkets because their lorries had no fuel (or the drivers were part of the strike) to bring in supplies. Believe me, people will be interested in alternatives today...
I
I'm not saying that "revised" eyewitness testimony is accurate. Media portrayals of events will almost certainly affect their recollections. What I am saying is that their initial statements are not reliable either. The BBC has a bit more on the subject, including some reference to relevant British cases dating back to 1969. Wikipedia's page on eyewitnesses has some more references. Their page on de Menezes himself also mentions contradictions between eyewitness testimony (jumping the barrier) and the police description of the event to his family. Eyewitness descriptions of thick coats are also contradicted by the photo of his body.
Again, I'm not saying that the IPCC report that was leaked is correct, merely that eyewitness testimony is not reliable.
I
I'd just note that eye witnesses are known to be unreliable. Nothing to do with lying or pressure, merely that our memories aren't half as good as we think they are. FindLaw reference.
Anecdotal evidence: I was eating in a glass-walled restaurant a couple of weeks ago. There was a fight in the street outside. All of the restaurant staff and about half the patrons had a pretty much unobstructed view. Afterwards, we couldn't agree whether or not the two guys who piled out of the pub opposite were trying to break up the fight or just joining in. Nor did anybody remember which direction two of the four had left in by the time the cops showed up.
Ibix
Page 18 of the PDF:
...so Jan 2007 is when existing apps must be replaced. Newly bought stuff will have to be compliant from now (more or less), as you suggest. A year and a quarter for the complete migration of a state government bureacracy isn't unreasonable...
I
You won't have the choice, of course. In my experience, people see advertising as noise and filter it out. There are two solutions to this for the advertisers - make adverts more intrusive, or disguise them as "signal". Product placement and viral marketing are examples of the latter; your "follow you around" adverts are an example of the former.
Neither strategy will work in the long term, because we'll just improve our various filter mechanisms. They'll invent something more intrusive then. Aren't you looking forward to that?
I
The grandparent didn't explain this problem clearly. I offer you two choices. One, I give you $100, but you must bet $25 on a single toss of a fair coin. Two, we toss a fair coin and I give you $75 if you lose or $125 if you win. I ask you which one you'd choose, and why. If you look at the maths, you find that you end up with either $75 or $125 with 50% probability in either case - there's nothing to choose.
What's interesting is not the stats. What's interesting is that if I try this on a group of "men in the street", the answers to "why" will not reflect the maths. Some people express a preference for option 1 because there's a chance they'll gain $25 extra over the $100. Some people express a preference for option 2 because you can't lose $25 that way, you only gain money. It's a failure (on their part) to frame the problem correctly, but that's half the battle with stats.
Another curiosity (reaching further into my memory) is that behaviours differ with value. Fewer people are willing to "take a risk" (option 1) with a $7.50/$12.50 game than with $.75/$1.25, and even fewer will "risk it" with $75/$125, although the statistics do not change.
Conclusion: most people's risk assessment skills suck. I fell for this one when it was first told to me...
I
I suspect that some lawmakers think "double the penalty means double the risk, so half the crime rate". I think the problem is that criminals (people in general?) have a binary perception of risk - ie, "likely to get caught if I murder someone" and "will never get caught if I only steal car radios". In the latter case, increasing penalties have no effect whatsoever on the crime rate - you'll have to do something about your detection and resolution rate, or something about prevention. But that's hard, and passing a law is easy...
The other thing is that as the penalty for a given crime rises, it makes more and more sense to resist arrest. If the penalty for something is death, why not try to shoot my way out of a corner? What're they going to do, kill me twice?
Just a couple of thoughts.
I
I suspect that the train company in my area uses your steam engine constructed from mathematical operations, but most people prefer a physical thing to pull their train. Although you can use maths to describe the operation of a steam engine, it is not itself made of maths and logic. A computer program is pure maths and logic, and any "computer implemented invention" must be reduceable to that, otherwise it can't be implemented on a computer. You can implement a mathematical model of a steam engine on a computer, sure, but it isn't going to pull a train or pump water for you.
I
I understand what you're getting at, but I think you're wrong. Let's take your drag-and-drop example. You're arguing that it should be possible to patent "using an input device to move an icon from one place to another to initiate an action" (given no prior art). You say you don't have to explain the implementation, but you'd at least have to specify a sequence of events (press button and "pick up" icon, move, release). But then we're back to specifying a system that can be expressed using logic (if numbers representing pointer location are within bounds of icon AND button is pressed, pick up icon, etc.). Logic can't be patented for the same reason maths can't.
This argument generalises to all software, because anything you can write as software can be reduced to a set of logical and mathematical operations. On the other hand, a mouse could be patented (absent prior art, again) because you can't just reduce it to logic in the machine.
That's how I understand it, anyway.
I
Right. Let's get down to it. Groklaw was looking into sensible wording for such a directive. Is there any reason why we (by "we", I probably mean the FFII) can't propose a new directive? Back it up with solid argument why software patents are bad (Bill Gates' letter explaining why patents would have killed MS is probably a good start), and hammer on MEPs to vote the right way?
I
...and from the fortune files:
I
No. However, the software company shouldn't say they've lost money by the copying unless you would have paid for it if you had no choice. Photoshop, for example, is widely obtained illegally (look around the comments here for evidence...). Some fraction of the illegal copies are only used to stick "All your base" speech bubbles on GWB's mouth. Would you pay $499 for the ability to do that? No (well, I wouldn't). So if Adobe could stop you getting an illegal copy, they wouldn't make $499 out of you. You'd just stop modding images, or learn to use the GIMP.
None of this is justifying illegal copying[1]. It's just saying that the BSA's numbers on the losses due to illegal copying are vastly inflated.
I
[1] Although one of the responses to your post makes the argument that software houses would not be hurt by allowing unrestricted non-comemrcial copying.
Well - as long as the sensors and code work so they don't crash into each other. The Fall of the Machines. :)
I
My understanding, from reading Groklaw, is that this is a list of documents that SCO claim they cannot be compelled to reveal for one reason and another (attorney-client priviledge, for example). IBM will have submitted a similar list. The list was initially submitted without court oversight by agreement of both IBM and SCO. However, the list has been re-submitted because (IIRC) SCO are challenging some items on IBM's list. SCO's list is a LOT shorter, this time around.
Why is it shorter? Could be a genuine mistake by SCO. One suggestion, again from a Groklaw poster, is that it's a tactical ploy by IBM. They agree to an initial unsupervised submission, knowing that SCO will declare (nearly) every paper they possess to be priviledged. They also know that SCO are going to challenge something on IBM's list. As soon as they do so, IBM and SCO have to re-submit their lists, with justifications for each document this time. IBM can do this easily. SCO can't because they don't have justification for much of it. IBM can then stand up and say "look at the lying little bastards, Judge" (however you say that in legalese). Just a theory (I think), but an entertaining one.
I
I understand that you can keep hitting him as long as you believe he's a threat. You can't take it into punishment. This means that you can (probably) get away with killing a burglar with a baseball bat to the head. If you don't kill him with the first blow, but then you do an Al Capone on him while he's down, you'll be banged up for assault. However, exactly where the line between defence and revenge lies must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
The reasoning behind this is simple. It is unreasonable that you are not allowed to defend your home and property, so you are allowed to fight. Fortunes of war apply. However, you have no right to dispense justice (not even "justice"), so you can't beat him to punish him. You can hit him when he's running away if he's carrying your TV - but then he's still a threat to your property.
I am not a lawyer. I am a homeowner. Make sure it isn't your wife before you attack, call the police, attack from cover, and don't keep hitting him once he's down.
I
There is only one GNU and Stallman is his Prophet?
Mm. I agree with you - but my experience has been that people (in general) don't make ethical decisions about their computers. They see an apples-and-oranges comparison - they can have MS pretty icons and It Just Works, or they can have Free Software. And explaining that supporting an abusive monopoly is going to end in tears doesn't seem to carry as much weight as "but I won't understand this Linux thing". Any ideas how to break it to people that they don't understand Windows either, Linux doesn't bite, they (or I) have a chance of fixing it if it breaks, and that they're supporting a community resource, not lining Bills' pockets?
Ibix - aka Thomas
Yup. Probably wouldn't fly in open court, but if memory serves you aren't allowed to tell anyone that the government have requested the key, or else you get to spend twenty years in the clink. I left my tinfoil hat at home today, so I won't comment that this gives "Them" a nice mechanism to lock you up on an unfalsifiable pretext.
I
I have no idea if this is possible, but it's irrelevant, sadly. If I understand the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act correctly, then no, it's encumbent on you to prove that k1 does not exist and (even if it did) that you don't have it.
I always thought it should be easy to get the RIP Act changed - find out who wouldn't vote it down, plant some encrypted child porn on their computers and arrest them for not giving up the key when the police come knocking. Unfortunately it would require someone with the will to change the RIP act in power to order the cops, but I like the poetic justice of the thought.
I