I know a lot of people think their lives revolve around their work, but personally I think work and private life are pretty much seperate, and that includes work time and free time. It's not that I refuse to help colleagues after work hours or that I don't go reading Slashdot at work but what I do outside of the office outside of office hours, is my own business. I don't think this guy was doing anything to harm his employer and didn't stick the Apple label to it, so what does Apple have to do with his own program? If anything, Apple should buy the program from the guy if they want it.
I can image the employer claiming ownership of work done in their time, but how can you claim anything on what people do in their own time. Unless ofcourse you copy some idea from work and make your own version of it.
that was great.. by the way, both the phone and fax number of this 'security company' looked like mobile phones (starting with a 6 or +31-6). Would have been funny to go to AMS airport at the time you were supposed to arrive and look for the guy:)
The scanner he used is a Canon FS4000US which can actually autofocus onto the subject. Because it's a film scanner that uses film holders (that slide into the scanner itself) and not a flatbed, you could only use thin objects. You need to have a way to keep the object in place so it won't fall out of the holder into the scanner. You are also limited to the size of a 35mm frame (or slightly larger)
That's very similar, only this guy used a Canon FS4000US, also 4000dpi and used unexposed (but developed) film to keep the items from falling into the scanner:)
The effect is called field of view crop, and happens because the sensor is much smaller so only the center of the projected image is sampled. Because of this, small sensors need to have high density so at a big enlargement (from sensor to your monitor) you still get a decent picture.
It's actually much like using a fine-grain film and then scanning the center part at high dpi thus blowing it up on screen.
And they have to list their requests so the judge can agree or disagree with the individual items. E.g. on 1, 2, 3 and 5 you're right, on 4 you're wrong...
There is no such company or organization as 'the open source community'. Sure, there's Debian, Gentoo, RedHat, GNU, etc.. but the open source community is so broad that you can't hold the people and groups in it responsible for the actions of a single person who also happens to be in the community. There probably are many people who released something under an open source license and thus could be said to belong to the open source community, but don't care much about the community as such, they just thought it was the best way to release their work.
To correct myself, I did find something about linking in the Sept 4 verdict and it seems to be illegal to link to illegal stuff if you know it is illegal.
Indeed, reading this again and reading the Sept 4 verdict I believe the court did rule that publishing AND knowingly linking illegal (for copyright reasons) material is in fact illegal. This goes totally against the article's subject but I believe it is the case here (again, IANAL)
I also couldn't find anything about linking so far... earlier on in the case it has been established that the current home page of Karin Spaink does not infringe copyright and the quotes from Scientology's secret documents fall under fair r use. Also, providers are just providers, not publishers. But there's not much groundbreaking as far as I can see because most claims are simply denied since Spaink's site uses legal (as in, OK for the law) quotes.
As far as I can read it, the Sept. 4th appeal does not agree. It's just that Spaink isn't doing anything wrong on her current website and so providers aren't either. The EVRM does not overrule copyright law here.
Right, and the article linked to that is in English, is not the ruling of September 4th 2003. That one is not available in English yet. I couldn't find any definite answers on whether linking can be illegal, though. Just that Scientology has been proven to be bad and that the article by Karin Spaink is justified and the quotes are fair use.
Some comments while reading http://www.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak/frameset.asp?u i_id=51205 (it's in Dutch, the ruling of Sept 4th 2003) combined with the things I read about the whole thing earlier.
Karin Spaink (the woman in question) has posted the Fishman affidavit in response to the Usenet debacle back then but when it became clear that it contained too much copyrighted work to be legal, she removed it and in stead posted a commentary on the whole case, including some quotes from the copyrighted (and supposedly highly secret and worth big bucks to Scientology) works.
Because she was quick enough to remove the entire Fishman affidavit and the court didn't think she would re-post it, the court only focussed on the article with quotes that was left on her site.
Scientology says OT II and III are illegal to publish and Internet providers should remove them immediately, also posting links to such copyrighted works is illegal
The court agreed that linking and publishing copyrighted works was illegal and providers should give out names and addresses of violators.
Spaink & providers claimed copyright was not with Scientology but that was not proven
Quotes are legal if they are from a rightfully published source
Court says some of the works are not rightfully published (i.e. not supposed to be public).
EVRM (European treaty on the rights of humans?) could overrule copyright in cases of great importance
Spaink's article is a serious article on a serious subject (-my words:) and non-commercial
Court thinks Scientology is not afraid to deny democratic values and the secrecy of the works are also meant to exercise power over its members and to prevent discussion. (!!)
Forcing providers to remove or make unavailable the articles by Spaink, is 'disproportional'.
Providers are providing the technical means for publishing, they are not publishers themselves (compared to e.g. book publishing companies)
It is not proven that the articles of Karin Spaink violate copyright.
Court does not rule about the whole Fishman affidavit, as Spaink has already stopped publishing it and shows no intent to do it again.
Again, just quick notes and IANAL. It's also worth reading earlier court decisions as this is a follow-up (appeal).
Customers are allowed to hack the XS4ALL system. Te customer who is first to succeed in gaining access equivalent to the systems administrator of XS4ALL gets six months of free use, provided the customer explains how he or she succeeded in hacking the system, has not done damage to the system and to other customers and has respected other customers' privacy. Every customer hereby permits other customers to hack the system by these rules.
> If both ripped the mp3 perfectly by using EAC.. > and both used the best mp3 encoder (LAME 3.92 > -aps) and both used a retagger (grabbing the id3 > tags from CDDB or freeDB) then wouldn't the MD5 > tags be the same?
guess so... but audio cd rips are hardly ever perfect.
> I wonder how many of my 2,000 albums I ripped back > in 1998 are circulating out there?
I'm not sure what you mean, but they don't track mp3s by generations, they just look at the mp3 hash and compare it to the known hashes of files they found on the internet, so they 'know' you didn't rip the mp3 yourself.
Changing something to the file after download (edit the id or alter the sound) should indeed change the checksum. Just use a tool that updates the id tags in batches..
Could be possible, but I think there will be a big chance of there being a difference in rips made by two different people. Audio rippers aren't always perfect AFAIK.
I can't be bothered doing something illegal just for some IM program. I went back to ICQ for now, maybe Jabber too, although I don't have any friends on Jabber yet. People can always mail, call or sms me if they need to...
Slashdot Mirror
I know a lot of people think their lives revolve around their work, but personally I think work and private life are pretty much seperate, and that includes work time and free time. It's not that I refuse to help colleagues after work hours or that I don't go reading Slashdot at work but what I do outside of the office outside of office hours, is my own business. I don't think this guy was doing anything to harm his employer and didn't stick the Apple label to it, so what does Apple have to do with his own program? If anything, Apple should buy the program from the guy if they want it.
I can image the employer claiming ownership of
work done in their time, but how can you claim
anything on what people do in their own time. Unless ofcourse you copy some idea from work and make your own version of it.
that was great.. by the way, both the phone and fax number of this 'security company' looked like mobile phones (starting with a 6 or +31-6). Would have been funny to go to AMS airport at the time you were supposed to arrive and look for the guy :)
A570 is a CD-ROM, A590 is a hard disk (incl. controller, etc.)
The scanner he used is a Canon FS4000US which can actually autofocus onto the subject. Because it's a film scanner that uses film holders (that slide into the scanner itself) and not a flatbed, you could only use thin objects. You need to have a way to keep the object in place so it won't fall out of the holder into the scanner. You are also limited to the size of a 35mm frame (or slightly larger)
That's very similar, only this guy used a Canon FS4000US, also 4000dpi and used unexposed (but developed) film to keep the items from falling into the scanner :)
The effect is called field of view crop, and happens because the sensor is much smaller so only the center of the projected image is sampled. Because of this, small sensors need to have high density so at a big enlargement (from sensor to your monitor) you still get a decent picture.
It's actually much like using a fine-grain film and then scanning the center part at high dpi thus blowing it up on screen.
"You have also taken Mr. Peren's statements completely and egregiously out of context."
Shouldn't that be Mr. Perens' ?
Otherwise looks good to me.
I don't think that has anything to do with copyright, but IANAL. It would perhaps be libel, though.
And they have to list their requests so the judge can agree or disagree with the individual items. E.g. on 1, 2, 3 and 5 you're right, on 4 you're wrong...
There is no such company or organization as 'the open source community'. Sure, there's Debian, Gentoo, RedHat, GNU, etc.. but the open source community is so broad that you can't hold the people and groups in it responsible for the actions of a single person who also happens to be in the community. There probably are many people who released something under an open source license and thus could be said to belong to the open source community, but don't care much about the community as such, they just thought it was the best way to release their work.
And very useful for GeoCaching.
To correct myself, I did find something about linking in the Sept 4 verdict and it seems to be illegal to link to illegal stuff if you know it is illegal.
Indeed, reading this again and reading the Sept 4 verdict I believe the court did rule that publishing AND knowingly linking illegal (for copyright reasons) material is in fact illegal. This goes totally against the article's subject but I believe it is the case here (again, IANAL)
I also couldn't find anything about linking so far... earlier on in the case it has been established that the current home page of Karin Spaink does not infringe copyright and the quotes from Scientology's secret documents fall under fair r use. Also, providers are just providers, not publishers. But there's not much groundbreaking as far as I can see because most claims are simply denied since Spaink's site uses legal (as in, OK for the law) quotes.
As far as I can read it, the Sept. 4th appeal does not agree. It's just that Spaink isn't doing anything wrong on her current website and so providers aren't either. The EVRM does not overrule copyright law here.
IANAL, comments welcome ofcourse.
Right, and the article linked to that is in English, is not the ruling of September 4th 2003. That one is not available in English yet. I couldn't find any definite answers on whether linking can be illegal, though. Just that Scientology has been proven to be bad and that the article by Karin Spaink is justified and the quotes are fair use.
Some comments while reading http://www.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak/frameset.asp?u i_id=51205 (it's in Dutch, the ruling of Sept 4th 2003) combined with the things I read about the whole thing earlier.
:) and non-commercial
Karin Spaink (the woman in question) has posted the Fishman affidavit in response to the Usenet debacle back then but when it became clear that it contained too much copyrighted work to be legal, she removed it and in stead posted a commentary on the whole case, including some quotes from the copyrighted (and supposedly highly secret and worth big bucks to Scientology) works.
Because she was quick enough to remove the entire Fishman affidavit and the court didn't think she would re-post it, the court only focussed on the article with quotes that was left on her site.
Scientology says OT II and III are illegal to publish and Internet providers should remove them immediately, also posting links to such copyrighted works is illegal
The court agreed that linking and publishing copyrighted works was illegal and providers should give out names and addresses of violators.
Spaink & providers claimed copyright was not with Scientology but that was not proven
Quotes are legal if they are from a rightfully published source
Court says some of the works are not rightfully published (i.e. not supposed to be public).
EVRM (European treaty on the rights of humans?) could overrule copyright in cases of great importance
Spaink's article is a serious article on a serious subject (-my words
Court thinks Scientology is not afraid to deny democratic values and the secrecy of the works are also meant to exercise power over its members and to prevent discussion. (!!)
Forcing providers to remove or make unavailable the articles by Spaink, is 'disproportional'.
Providers are providing the technical means for publishing, they are not publishers themselves (compared to e.g. book publishing companies)
It is not proven that the articles of Karin Spaink violate copyright.
Court does not rule about the whole Fishman affidavit, as Spaink has already stopped publishing it and shows no intent to do it again.
Again, just quick notes and IANAL. It's also worth reading earlier court decisions as this is a follow-up (appeal).
Which translates as:
Customers are allowed to hack the XS4ALL system. Te customer who is first to succeed in gaining access equivalent to the systems administrator of XS4ALL gets six months of free use, provided the customer explains how he or she succeeded in hacking the system, has not done damage to the system and to other customers and has respected other customers' privacy. Every customer hereby permits other customers to hack the system by these rules.
Yes looks like a Commodore 1702 to me
> If both ripped the mp3 perfectly by using EAC..
;-)
> and both used the best mp3 encoder (LAME 3.92
> -aps) and both used a retagger (grabbing the id3
> tags from CDDB or freeDB) then wouldn't the MD5
> tags be the same?
guess so... but audio cd rips are hardly ever perfect.
> I wonder how many of my 2,000 albums I ripped back
> in 1998 are circulating out there?
Call the RIAA
I'm not sure what you mean, but they don't track mp3s by generations, they just look at the mp3 hash and compare it to the known hashes of files they found on the internet, so they 'know' you didn't rip the mp3 yourself.
Changing something to the file after download (edit the id or alter the sound) should indeed change the checksum. Just use a tool that updates the id tags in batches..
Could be possible, but I think there will be a big chance of there being a difference in rips made by two different people. Audio rippers aren't always perfect AFAIK.
I can't be bothered doing something illegal just for some IM program. I went back to ICQ for now, maybe Jabber too, although I don't have any friends on Jabber yet. People can always mail, call or sms me if they need to...