IF Johnson & Johnson has a valid case (and I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer on that one) it means that a. the Red Cross' lawyers failed to do their due diligence in determining their rights under the law and b. those competitors' attorneys also screwed up.
If one manager dared to not comply with the laws, he would sooner or later be found, fired and handed over to a Law Enforcement agency.
If that were true, explain Enron to me. Worldcom. Adelphia. Global Crossing. Yes, the eventually got found out, but only after the damage was done!
You clearly don't know anything about big corporations. I can assure you that sooner or later that "one manager" will fail to comply with the law, either out of ignorance or for personal gain. That's the way it is: people aren't perfect and they often do wrong, and frankly I don't want my privacy subject to other people's witlessness or ethical lapses. Doesn't even take a manager either... it just takes one low-level employee willing to take a bribe, or trying to make a buck by selling what doesn't belong to him. Lest you think I'm making this up, here's one example. It happens all the time, and when there's money to be made laws will be broken with impunity. To think otherwise is just fooling yourself.
The law has deterrent effect, sure... but it's not infinite and people will take risks in spite of that. Remember when Toshiba sold military milling machines to the Russians (in violation of both Japanese law and ours) which allowed them to make silent submarine propellers? No? Well, apparently the Russians have turned around and sold that technology to China. The same thing happens with valuable information. People don't willing throw away assets, and once a secret is out it tends to spread.
Once you've opened a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a larger can. When it comes to information, the entire world is the can.
You certainly sound like a paid troll. You'd have to be a well-paid troll to make such completely uninformed remarks in this venue.
The industry was well-paid long before Napster came along, is still well-paid (way past the point of obscenity) and will continue to be well-paid for the foreseeable future. Cash flow, as such, is not the problem here so far as the music studios are concerned, in spite of their tired old "{this or that technology} will destroy the industry!" mantra. God, I am so sick of these self-serving bastards and their extreme view of their own importance to society.
They're irritated that they've lost some control of distribution, and are upset because sales growth isn't what it once was. The music business is still strong: there are many factors that have influenced their overall profitability, of which downloading is only one, and by no means the most significant. Depending upon which study you believe, their current financial condition may very well have been bolstered by illegal downloading. Way to go team!
Furthermore, your presumption that artists aren't making any money due to people downloading songs from P2P is a. wrong and b. forgetful of the simple fact that they've never been paid properly. The studios have been ripping off their artists since, well... forever. From my perspective, our entire nation has been greatly wronged by the manipulations of Congress and copyright law made at the behest of the entertainment industry. Consequently, any losses they may sustain via illegal copying and downloading still have a long way to go before they can even begin to redress our grievances. At some point they (and their Congressional accomplices) must to be called to account. Treason is not too strong a word for what they've done.
As for the Feds monitoring every connection in the United States... that's just so far out there I have no idea how to respond. Perhaps someone else here can properly bitchslap you over that one. If I'm going to subject myself to commentary such as yours I will need another beer.
It's been astutely observed that the RIAA's "ex parte" campaign against "John Doe" college students seems to have run into much stormier waters than its campaign against regular folks.
Your naivete is almost endearing, but doesn't change the fact that information is bought and sold on the open market. Take Choicepoint for example (matter of fact, it's their security policies that ought to be up for questioning here, not their privacy policy.) It really does not matter whether the company that originally collected your data automatically deletes it after some set interval. Once that information has been transferred to a third (or fourth, or fifth) party it isn't yours anymore. Worse yet, if your data is simply stolen then privacy policies are irrelevant.
With DHT even the need for a central tracker is less important: eventually the concept of a tracker will disappear entirely. I don't know if I'd agree that uTorrent is the most popular client (perhaps Netcraft could survey this for us?) Azureus, for one, is definitely up there in numbers, even if it is a pig. Most people I know that used it dropped it the instant the deal with BitTorrent.com became public.
Yeah... sounds like the Bit Torrent folks just shot themselves squarely in the foot. I doubt the Azureus developers, for example, have any need whatsoever for an SDK, official or otherwise. It's just a protocol people, nothing more, and it's far too late to close it up.
Affect them? Hardly at all. Let's face it, other teams have grabbed the ball and are running with it. The official Bit Torrent folks are going to have to work to stay at all relevant, "premier reference implementations" aside.
Which pretty much makes whatever point it was that I was trying to make. The reality is that once information has been recorded somewhere, if it's valuable then someone, somewhere, will try to keep it. That's because personal information is valuable... if it weren't, this entire discussion would be pointless.
Son, you need to gain a sense of humor. It will make your time spent on Slashdot much more pleasant, because I could call you all sorts of names and make you feel really bad about yourself. You're obviously new here (and honestly a bit of a boor) so I'll let you off easy this time.
Which kinda gets back to that DRM thing... they see their financial security in owning distribution of media (movies, music, whatever), and in their minds that means telling us what we can do with our purchases.
Saying "it's just a theory" is just another way of saying "there's not enough proof to compel belief."
Colloquially-speaking, yes... to the scientific mind, no. Just as words and phrases used by those of the legal persuasion don't always mean what you might expect if you're not trained in their use, the same is true in science. Creationists don't get to redefine our vocabulary any time they please just because it suits them.
In any event, I'm afraid that you have it exactly backwards. As the GP correctly stated, the word "theory" has a specific meaning in science: it means that a particular hypothesis has sufficient experimental evidence behind it that it can be considered "true" to quantifiable degree of accuracy. I might add that many scientific theories are so well backed by available evidence that they can essentially be considered fact. To deny that is to deny reality. Do so at your own peril.
The phrase "scientific theory" has been corrupted by antiscience, antitechnology thugs with destructive agendas. This isn't the first time in recent memory that a group has tried to hijack our language to their own ends. The media took the term "hacker" and gave it criminal connotations: likewise, the ID crowd is trying to co-opt the language used to describe the very core of science! The original hacker community isn't particularly thrilled about what happened to them, considering what "hacking" actually means (hint: it has nothing to do with anything illegal.) Trust me, scientists are not pleased with the Creationists' efforts, and more of them are starting to realize that the rest of us just may be too stupid to see through the ID scam without help.
This abuse of the language has nothing whatsoever to do with taking those arrogant scientists down a notch. This has to do with deceit and control, under the guise of pseudo-science, and is no different that the RIAA's continual mischaracterization of "piracy". It's lies, all lies, and it makes me ill.
The battle against this particular brand of evil must be fought until the very last Creationist has had his cerebral cortex replaced with one having reasoning ability. Until then, they are a dangerous group of people that are capable of causing great harm to the fabric of our society and our knowledge of how the Universe works. Only science can tell us that to a useful degree of certainty: fundamentalist belief systems only "explain" the nature of things if you ignore most of what is.
The great tragedy of life on this miserable planet is that after millions of years climbing out of the muck, finally becoming able to reason, understand the world around it, and unlock true power on a meaningful scale... there are still tiny minds rooted in ignorance who want to take all that away from us.
Microsoft's NTFS has a similar timestamping feature that can be disabled with a (huge surprise) registry entry. It does seem to make a difference on slower systems.
Unfortunately, if the RIAA decides to go after you it doesn't really matter if you have a good defense, or are even completely innocent. Unless you have the means to fight them off, or the funds to buy them off, win or lose you're gonna get hurt.
It's not as if they are really interested in redress of grievance, or even anything resembling "justice". What they're after is money, lots of it, and whatever deterrent effect they think they're buying.
The problem seems to be growing the awareness of these basic facts among the judiciary: cases like this can only help in that regard, I'd think. Those of the legal mind are fond of informing laymen that the law is complex and ever-changing and that only one who is properly trained could possibly comprehend its intricacies. I personally believe that the law is often more complex than it needs to be (and that is certainly no accident) but, okay, I'll buy that argument. As an engineer I cheerfully admit that the law is an arcane mystery, and I would certainly never set foot in court without proper representation.
However, the truth is that the global network and the technologies behind it are pretty goddamn complex as well, and change more often than the average trial lawyer changes his boxers. Gross oversimplifications and prevarifications regarding network technology, such as those pulled out of thin air by the RIAA's so-called "expert witness", have so far resulted in several severe miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately, while it is a necessity to have legal representation in a technical case, there seems to be no corresponding requirement that the legal beagles involved have a clue about technological underpinnings of said case. Given how successful the RIAA has been with the testimony of Mr. Linares, it's apparent that expert witnesses are of no help when the people making the legal decisions don't have the mental knowledge base to tell the wheat from the chaff.
I'm not focusing on race and if you want to have a reasonable discussion on this subject, don't try to make this a racist issue. It's not and I'm not. What I am focusing on is nationality. That's a big difference, believe it or not. I believe in putting the citizens of my own country before the citizens of other countries. The ethnic background of my fellow Americans is irrelevant, but their nationality is not.
And yes, you're right, America has always drawn upon those people from other nations that have useful skills and talents... if they are valuable and are willing to become good citizens of this country, we put them through the immigration wringer. If they come out the other side, great. If they don't, then we don't want them and they're welcome to return home. That attitude is hardly limited to the United States, in fact as nations go we're more generous when it comes to immigration than many others. But we do have to right to decide who comes to live and work here, and compete with us for what work is available. All peoples have that right.
The point is, immigration was never intended to foster the wholesale destruction of our domestic workforce, which in certain crucial areas is exactly what is happening.
Slashdot Mirror
IF Johnson & Johnson has a valid case (and I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer on that one) it means that a. the Red Cross' lawyers failed to do their due diligence in determining their rights under the law and b. those competitors' attorneys also screwed up.
If one manager dared to not comply with the laws, he would sooner or later be found, fired and handed over to a Law Enforcement agency.
... it just takes one low-level employee willing to take a bribe, or trying to make a buck by selling what doesn't belong to him. Lest you think I'm making this up, here's one example. It happens all the time, and when there's money to be made laws will be broken with impunity. To think otherwise is just fooling yourself.
... but it's not infinite and people will take risks in spite of that. Remember when Toshiba sold military milling machines to the Russians (in violation of both Japanese law and ours) which allowed them to make silent submarine propellers? No? Well, apparently the Russians have turned around and sold that technology to China. The same thing happens with valuable information. People don't willing throw away assets, and once a secret is out it tends to spread.
If that were true, explain Enron to me. Worldcom. Adelphia. Global Crossing. Yes, the eventually got found out, but only after the damage was done!
You clearly don't know anything about big corporations. I can assure you that sooner or later that "one manager" will fail to comply with the law, either out of ignorance or for personal gain. That's the way it is: people aren't perfect and they often do wrong, and frankly I don't want my privacy subject to other people's witlessness or ethical lapses. Doesn't even take a manager either
The law has deterrent effect, sure
Once you've opened a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a larger can. When it comes to information, the entire world is the can.
... Larry Page and an under-age midget!
Yeah, but she looked a lot older.
You certainly sound like a paid troll. You'd have to be a well-paid troll to make such completely uninformed remarks in this venue.
... forever. From my perspective, our entire nation has been greatly wronged by the manipulations of Congress and copyright law made at the behest of the entertainment industry. Consequently, any losses they may sustain via illegal copying and downloading still have a long way to go before they can even begin to redress our grievances. At some point they (and their Congressional accomplices) must to be called to account. Treason is not too strong a word for what they've done.
... that's just so far out there I have no idea how to respond. Perhaps someone else here can properly bitchslap you over that one. If I'm going to subject myself to commentary such as yours I will need another beer.
The industry was well-paid long before Napster came along, is still well-paid (way past the point of obscenity) and will continue to be well-paid for the foreseeable future. Cash flow, as such, is not the problem here so far as the music studios are concerned, in spite of their tired old "{this or that technology} will destroy the industry!" mantra. God, I am so sick of these self-serving bastards and their extreme view of their own importance to society.
They're irritated that they've lost some control of distribution, and are upset because sales growth isn't what it once was. The music business is still strong: there are many factors that have influenced their overall profitability, of which downloading is only one, and by no means the most significant. Depending upon which study you believe, their current financial condition may very well have been bolstered by illegal downloading. Way to go team!
Furthermore, your presumption that artists aren't making any money due to people downloading songs from P2P is a. wrong and b. forgetful of the simple fact that they've never been paid properly. The studios have been ripping off their artists since, well
As for the Feds monitoring every connection in the United States
It's been astutely observed that the RIAA's "ex parte" campaign against "John Doe" college students seems to have run into much stormier waters than its campaign against regular folks.
"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant."
Your naivete is almost endearing, but doesn't change the fact that information is bought and sold on the open market. Take Choicepoint for example (matter of fact, it's their security policies that ought to be up for questioning here, not their privacy policy.) It really does not matter whether the company that originally collected your data automatically deletes it after some set interval. Once that information has been transferred to a third (or fourth, or fifth) party it isn't yours anymore. Worse yet, if your data is simply stolen then privacy policies are irrelevant.
The stuff shouldn't be stored. Period.
With DHT even the need for a central tracker is less important: eventually the concept of a tracker will disappear entirely. I don't know if I'd agree that uTorrent is the most popular client (perhaps Netcraft could survey this for us?) Azureus, for one, is definitely up there in numbers, even if it is a pig. Most people I know that used it dropped it the instant the deal with BitTorrent.com became public.
Yeah ... sounds like the Bit Torrent folks just shot themselves squarely in the foot. I doubt the Azureus developers, for example, have any need whatsoever for an SDK, official or otherwise. It's just a protocol people, nothing more, and it's far too late to close it up.
Affect them? Hardly at all. Let's face it, other teams have grabbed the ball and are running with it. The official Bit Torrent folks are going to have to work to stay at all relevant, "premier reference implementations" aside.
In order to minimise the Window of Exposure, it is best to have it not blow up in media AND have it fixed as soon as possible.
Absolutely, but in practice that usually means reducing the Exposure of Windows.
Probably a broke dude who asked the government for help and now has a bad taste in his mouth.
... that was funny, and definitely in the spirit of things. Had to laugh when I read it.
Now, see
... and sold it off to another company by then ...
... if it weren't, this entire discussion would be pointless.
Which pretty much makes whatever point it was that I was trying to make. The reality is that once information has been recorded somewhere, if it's valuable then someone, somewhere, will try to keep it. That's because personal information is valuable
Son, you need to gain a sense of humor. It will make your time spent on Slashdot much more pleasant, because I could call you all sorts of names and make you feel really bad about yourself. You're obviously new here (and honestly a bit of a boor) so I'll let you off easy this time.
Maybe things have improved in Vista, but the user separation on Windows XP seems to be designed to drive you insane.
Naturally, because if you're insane you won't see any problem buying the next version of Windows.
Which kinda gets back to that DRM thing ... they see their financial security in owning distribution of media (movies, music, whatever), and in their minds that means telling us what we can do with our purchases.
4. Your check is in the mail.
3. I won't come in your mouth
2. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
1. We'll delete your personal information.
Saying "it's just a theory" is just another way of saying "there's not enough proof to compel belief."
... to the scientific mind, no. Just as words and phrases used by those of the legal persuasion don't always mean what you might expect if you're not trained in their use, the same is true in science. Creationists don't get to redefine our vocabulary any time they please just because it suits them.
... there are still tiny minds rooted in ignorance who want to take all that away from us.
Colloquially-speaking, yes
In any event, I'm afraid that you have it exactly backwards. As the GP correctly stated, the word "theory" has a specific meaning in science: it means that a particular hypothesis has sufficient experimental evidence behind it that it can be considered "true" to quantifiable degree of accuracy. I might add that many scientific theories are so well backed by available evidence that they can essentially be considered fact. To deny that is to deny reality. Do so at your own peril.
The phrase "scientific theory" has been corrupted by antiscience, antitechnology thugs with destructive agendas. This isn't the first time in recent memory that a group has tried to hijack our language to their own ends. The media took the term "hacker" and gave it criminal connotations: likewise, the ID crowd is trying to co-opt the language used to describe the very core of science! The original hacker community isn't particularly thrilled about what happened to them, considering what "hacking" actually means (hint: it has nothing to do with anything illegal.) Trust me, scientists are not pleased with the Creationists' efforts, and more of them are starting to realize that the rest of us just may be too stupid to see through the ID scam without help.
This abuse of the language has nothing whatsoever to do with taking those arrogant scientists down a notch. This has to do with deceit and control, under the guise of pseudo-science, and is no different that the RIAA's continual mischaracterization of "piracy". It's lies, all lies, and it makes me ill.
The battle against this particular brand of evil must be fought until the very last Creationist has had his cerebral cortex replaced with one having reasoning ability. Until then, they are a dangerous group of people that are capable of causing great harm to the fabric of our society and our knowledge of how the Universe works. Only science can tell us that to a useful degree of certainty: fundamentalist belief systems only "explain" the nature of things if you ignore most of what is.
The great tragedy of life on this miserable planet is that after millions of years climbing out of the muck, finally becoming able to reason, understand the world around it, and unlock true power on a meaningful scale
To Hell with them.
Microsoft's NTFS has a similar timestamping feature that can be disabled with a (huge surprise) registry entry. It does seem to make a difference on slower systems.
... off-topic.
I know, I know
Unfortunately, if the RIAA decides to go after you it doesn't really matter if you have a good defense, or are even completely innocent. Unless you have the means to fight them off, or the funds to buy them off, win or lose you're gonna get hurt.
It's not as if they are really interested in redress of grievance, or even anything resembling "justice". What they're after is money, lots of it, and whatever deterrent effect they think they're buying.
Why aren't people countersuing for malicious prosecution?
One word: money.
Yeah yeah ... like I read the article.
Well, that's the most positive thing I've heard all day. Of course, it's only 6:14 am. Hopefully this represents a trend.
The problem seems to be growing the awareness of these basic facts among the judiciary: cases like this can only help in that regard, I'd think. Those of the legal mind are fond of informing laymen that the law is complex and ever-changing and that only one who is properly trained could possibly comprehend its intricacies. I personally believe that the law is often more complex than it needs to be (and that is certainly no accident) but, okay, I'll buy that argument. As an engineer I cheerfully admit that the law is an arcane mystery, and I would certainly never set foot in court without proper representation.
However, the truth is that the global network and the technologies behind it are pretty goddamn complex as well, and change more often than the average trial lawyer changes his boxers. Gross oversimplifications and prevarifications regarding network technology, such as those pulled out of thin air by the RIAA's so-called "expert witness", have so far resulted in several severe miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately, while it is a necessity to have legal representation in a technical case, there seems to be no corresponding requirement that the legal beagles involved have a clue about technological underpinnings of said case. Given how successful the RIAA has been with the testimony of Mr. Linares, it's apparent that expert witnesses are of no help when the people making the legal decisions don't have the mental knowledge base to tell the wheat from the chaff.
"Oh SHIT ... not this guy again."
I'm not focusing on race and if you want to have a reasonable discussion on this subject, don't try to make this a racist issue. It's not and I'm not. What I am focusing on is nationality. That's a big difference, believe it or not. I believe in putting the citizens of my own country before the citizens of other countries. The ethnic background of my fellow Americans is irrelevant, but their nationality is not.
... if they are valuable and are willing to become good citizens of this country, we put them through the immigration wringer. If they come out the other side, great. If they don't, then we don't want them and they're welcome to return home. That attitude is hardly limited to the United States, in fact as nations go we're more generous when it comes to immigration than many others. But we do have to right to decide who comes to live and work here, and compete with us for what work is available. All peoples have that right.
And yes, you're right, America has always drawn upon those people from other nations that have useful skills and talents
The point is, immigration was never intended to foster the wholesale destruction of our domestic workforce, which in certain crucial areas is exactly what is happening.