It was a discovery deposition. So correct, no judge. A discovery dep is part of the investigation that either side may perform before trial so that they can present an organized case at trial.
I'd not heard the word used before this, but it seemed quite obvious what "inculpated" meant just from the context in which it was used.
First off, the guy isn't an English major. Look around/. for an hour to see the "rediculous" geek usage pattern. More importantly though, you can be 100% certain that before the dep, the RIAA lawyer gave the doc the usual spiel about testimony. Always answer the question as asked. Never make assumptions regarding what the questioner means. The only correct answer to a question that is not 100% clear is "I don't understand the question".
Re:A Trap for Idiots
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I am not even going to bother reading anything else in the article. The first part of the article tells me everything that I need to know. 768MB of RAM / P4 2GHz... WTF did he expect?
I run Ubuntu on my desktop at home -- it's an Athlon XP 2200+ or thereabouts, 512mb ram, 128mb nvidia card. It's really old and I keep thinking I ought to upgrade it, but the fact is, it runs just fine. Even Beryl and all the eye candy is silky smooth. The hardware mentioned in the article to me, sounds like a decent machine. The only real issue is that MS couldn't write their software efficiently enough so it needs a really beefy machine.
Watch the video again. The cords are hanging loosely and jiggle when it moves. If they were supporting him, they would obviously be taut, like an actor hanging from a wire or a kid on a swing. It makes plenty of sense for the cords to be there to provide power and transmit/receive data. Without the added weight of a battery and computer, they can work on getting the mechanism to work first, then work on getting it to work untethered under heavier weight loads later.
The way this is answered is to ask whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have 1) protected the computer from being "malware-0wned" in the first place, 2) whether that person would have monitored the computer to ensure that if it is p0wned, it is removed from the net, 3) whether a reasonable person would have known the library offered free wifi, 4) whether it is reasonable to allow a computer to access open networks willy nilly.
Note, whether files were illicitly copied from an shared folder is sort of outside the question I was raising -- specifically, can you be liable for damage to another's property by virtue of computer negligence. Obviously, media content is "property" of the copyright holder yadda yadda yadda. I was thinking more about clogging up the "tubes", DDOS attacks, distribution point for infecting other computers -- stuff like that. As for copyright violation, can you have accidental piracy? I don't really know the copyright law enough to answer that.
I think if a "computer negligence" case was brought right now, the defense would have a lot of wiggle room because the definition of a "reasonable person" is difficult to pin down. I certainly don't think it would be a slam dunk case for the plaintiff, but by the same token, all media attention relating to exploits and how to protect your self may be raising the bar on what is reasonable behavior with a computer. Ten years from now, it may well be that the average level of awareness has gotten to the point that a person would not be acting like a "reasonable person" if he/she failed to maintain at least an anti-virus and firewall solution.
I know someone who has a computer that she 100% for certain, positively, definitely knows is p0wned and yet she doesn't disconnect it from the internet. Is that negligent behavior? Is there a foreseeable harm to others in that situation? Maybe. Eventually though, someone is going to get sued. I wonder if a home-owner's policy would cover the costs?
If you leave your car parked on a hill in neutral without the emergency brake on, and it rolls down the hill and damages another car, are you liable? "Yes" because you negligently maintained your property.
If you leave a computer unprotected on the internet, and never take steps to protect it, are you acting negligently and thus liable for the damage it causes? I'm not particularly advocating liability, but by the same token, it is hardly a strange concept to hold people responsible for negligently using their property in a manner that damages another's.
I would note that liability for negligence is different from criminal prosecution (the AZ child-porn case comes to mind), or at least it ought to be in the sense that intent to commit the crime should play a vital role at least in this instance. Of course, bankrupting someone through damages might be just as bad as jail time. Anyway, I wouldn't be shocked if someday someone is held liable for the damage they enabled by negligently maintaining a computer.
As further reason for niche support, I have personally been responsible for 5 different people getting mac laptops in the last couple years (2 powerbooks, 3 ibooks). I would have liked to suggest a linux laptop, but that's just too sketchy for people who have no great love toward technology but want/need a computer anyway. I'm sure that many people here have been the very reason their friends or family got whatever computer they did. In other words, if you win the geek's heart, you'll get the geek's business, plus family, friends, and associates. It's easily five or more sales by convincing one geek.
I see you have craftily avoided answering any points related to how you make a choice when moral beliefs collide -- when following one requires violating another.
That's pretty amazing stuff you write. Perhaps you are trolling me. Anyone who cannot see that things can become foggy in the right circumstances is foolish. Yes, label than ad hominem attack if you like, but before that, consider this example:
let's assume you believe this to be true: "it is always immoral to lie".
Now consider this fact pattern: You are at home with your family. You are watching TV with your wife and son. You're daughter is upstairs in her room. A crazy person breaks in, shoots your wife and son dead, then asks you if anyone else is in the house. In this situation, is it wrong to lie? You would say yes, I would say no.
For you, the only way to misdirect the murder from your daughter would be to believe that is never wrong to lie. So what if an ambulance driver asks you for directions on the way to a serious accident where time is of the essence? If you believe it is never wrong to lie, then you would feel it is perfectly OK to lie even though that would contribute to someone's death.
Let's presume you believe it is never wrong to cause death. You then end up in a situation of conflicting values in the first or second instance depending on your rigid belief about lies, unless you believe it is never wrong to lie, and never wrong to cause death. In which case, I would say your morals are so screwed up it just doesn't matter what you think about copyright.
This is so crazy, I'm almost certain I was trolled. Congrats.
It's called being pragmatic. Secondly, it bears no resemblance to organized crime. We're talking about widespread distributed human desire and behavior. You aren't going to have a signifigant impact on human behavior without resorting to police state tactics (an absurd notion with something as insignifigant as entertainment anyway). You can choose to fight a pyrrhic battle, you can choose to whine and moan, or you can choose to profit. The future of the entertainment industry probably belongs to the latter. Live with it.
This ignores the fact, whether illegal or not, that people will get the material when they want it. Laws and lawsuits notwithstanding, the media companies have a choice -- make some money and provide the content in a form people desire, or make little to no money and watch the people receive the content in a form they desire through unauthorized means.
Sorry, I'm just not that rigid. We don't live in a black and white, good and bad, evil vs holy world. Some things are sometimes good, sometimes bad. If you can't comprehend that, I feel sorry for you and hope you avoid all positions of power. One need only look to the middle-east to see where rigid thought takes you.
Just because they haven't released it YET doesn't mean there's no potential harm.
And I recognize that fact in my original post. However, there are questions in my mind about whether it is wrong to illegally download shows when they are 17 months behind (note I make a distinction between wrong/illegal). I believe that illegal downloads have the potential to cut into profits. However, when a content producer makes a choice to not sell their product within a reasonable time, it seems somewhat unreasonable for them to complain about potential lost profit at some unspecified date when they may or may not decide the time is right to sell. That's I want to know whether all shows become available legally in AU eventually. If there is a chance a show will never ever be released, why wait? The content producer obviously doesn't think the market is worth much because they make no effort to sell.
On the other hand, if it is just that the AU media companies won't pay the price (as was pointed out to me elsewhere), then the content producer could simply go straight to the viewer. The fact is, if the show is not available in AU, there is no way the media company will be making money. If it might become available, then I might think it is wrong to illegally download if one can be _certain_ it will be released in a _reasonable_ amount of time.
People like directly getting commercial free content. I'm happy enough with netflix and iTunes. Problem for people in AU is that they don't have this option. The media companies can piss and moan about piracy, or set up a way for people to legally obtain their products. For that matter, right/wrong and legal/illegal are beside the point. People are gonna get content -- the question is whether the media companies want to profit or not off that desire.
Except they can make money by directly selling it to the people and cut out the networks altogether. I suspect that since the media companies are really married to the advertising model however, they don't consider the potential for direct sales. Now, I don't condone piracy when the piracy might interfere with the content producer's ability to earn money, but by the same token, I've become quite accustomed to having commercial free entertainment on DVD or through iTunes. I'm in the US so it is easy for me to get things by legal means and so I do. If I was AU, I wouldn't feel guilty about downloading because nobody wants to sell it to me anyway. Right or wrong, this is the future market media companies have to deal with and what they ought to do, is figure out how to deal with it profitably.
Chances are these people aren't stupid, but have looked at the numbers and concluded that people aren't willing to pay enough for them to make a profit.
How does that make sense? If they intend to never sell in AU, they've made the show with the presumption it will make a profit in other markets. If it turns out they can also sell in AU, then that's all pure bonus money. And how much exactly would it cost for them to get the show on iTunes? Doesn't apple actually provide the bandwidth for their pay stuff? There's just no downside.
I disagree with you here. Note, I've been modded flamebait and troll a lot for saying stuff against the partyline on copyright. The problem with piracy is that has the potential to harm producers because some people who would have paid won't (it's impossible that all copyright infringers absolutely never would have paid for the content). Thus, the producer is harmed by illegal downloading and it should not be condoned.
This situation different. If the material is not released in any pay format, the content producer cannot possibly suffer any negative consequences by banned groups' piracy.
The question is different when there is delay as in this case and there are more questions to be answered. For example, do all shows make it to Australia or just a few? Why exactly are the content producers delaying so long? Is it actually the AU media that is standing in the way of distribution?
Answers to these kinds of questions could sway my thinking (remember, it is based on the potential for lost sales, not any "moral" argument posed by either side). If it is simply a choice by the content producers not to sell to AU, then I don't really have a problem because they would never have made a dime of Australia. I would think the answer though is more complicated. Politics? Protectionism?
Eliminating ebay and its fraudulent lousy customer service "I wanna make a million selling junk" L@@KIE HERE idiots would probably be more of a service than a detriment.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a discovery deposition. So correct, no judge. A discovery dep is part of the investigation that either side may perform before trial so that they can present an organized case at trial.
Sounds like you sell stuff on ebay.
Awesome. Love the crater.
Not just a DS9 movie, but one set in the alternative universe.
Watch the video again. The cords are hanging loosely and jiggle when it moves. If they were supporting him, they would obviously be taut, like an actor hanging from a wire or a kid on a swing. It makes plenty of sense for the cords to be there to provide power and transmit/receive data. Without the added weight of a battery and computer, they can work on getting the mechanism to work first, then work on getting it to work untethered under heavier weight loads later.
The way this is answered is to ask whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have 1) protected the computer from being "malware-0wned" in the first place, 2) whether that person would have monitored the computer to ensure that if it is p0wned, it is removed from the net, 3) whether a reasonable person would have known the library offered free wifi, 4) whether it is reasonable to allow a computer to access open networks willy nilly.
Note, whether files were illicitly copied from an shared folder is sort of outside the question I was raising -- specifically, can you be liable for damage to another's property by virtue of computer negligence. Obviously, media content is "property" of the copyright holder yadda yadda yadda. I was thinking more about clogging up the "tubes", DDOS attacks, distribution point for infecting other computers -- stuff like that. As for copyright violation, can you have accidental piracy? I don't really know the copyright law enough to answer that.
I think if a "computer negligence" case was brought right now, the defense would have a lot of wiggle room because the definition of a "reasonable person" is difficult to pin down. I certainly don't think it would be a slam dunk case for the plaintiff, but by the same token, all media attention relating to exploits and how to protect your self may be raising the bar on what is reasonable behavior with a computer. Ten years from now, it may well be that the average level of awareness has gotten to the point that a person would not be acting like a "reasonable person" if he/she failed to maintain at least an anti-virus and firewall solution.
I know someone who has a computer that she 100% for certain, positively, definitely knows is p0wned and yet she doesn't disconnect it from the internet. Is that negligent behavior? Is there a foreseeable harm to others in that situation? Maybe. Eventually though, someone is going to get sued. I wonder if a home-owner's policy would cover the costs?
In the tradition of slashdot car analogies:
If you leave your car parked on a hill in neutral without the emergency brake on, and it rolls down the hill and damages another car, are you liable? "Yes" because you negligently maintained your property.
If you leave a computer unprotected on the internet, and never take steps to protect it, are you acting negligently and thus liable for the damage it causes? I'm not particularly advocating liability, but by the same token, it is hardly a strange concept to hold people responsible for negligently using their property in a manner that damages another's.
I would note that liability for negligence is different from criminal prosecution (the AZ child-porn case comes to mind), or at least it ought to be in the sense that intent to commit the crime should play a vital role at least in this instance. Of course, bankrupting someone through damages might be just as bad as jail time. Anyway, I wouldn't be shocked if someday someone is held liable for the damage they enabled by negligently maintaining a computer.
The razor thin margin is for the online retailer (iTunes) not the content producer (EMI in this case).
As further reason for niche support, I have personally been responsible for 5 different people getting mac laptops in the last couple years (2 powerbooks, 3 ibooks). I would have liked to suggest a linux laptop, but that's just too sketchy for people who have no great love toward technology but want/need a computer anyway. I'm sure that many people here have been the very reason their friends or family got whatever computer they did. In other words, if you win the geek's heart, you'll get the geek's business, plus family, friends, and associates. It's easily five or more sales by convincing one geek.
I see you have craftily avoided answering any points related to how you make a choice when moral beliefs collide -- when following one requires violating another.
oops -- that should be:
Let's presume you believe it is never right to cause death.
Though "moral" would proabably be better than "right".
That's pretty amazing stuff you write. Perhaps you are trolling me. Anyone who cannot see that things can become foggy in the right circumstances is foolish. Yes, label than ad hominem attack if you like, but before that, consider this example:
let's assume you believe this to be true: "it is always immoral to lie".
Now consider this fact pattern: You are at home with your family. You are watching TV with your wife and son. You're daughter is upstairs in her room. A crazy person breaks in, shoots your wife and son dead, then asks you if anyone else is in the house. In this situation, is it wrong to lie? You would say yes, I would say no.
For you, the only way to misdirect the murder from your daughter would be to believe that is never wrong to lie. So what if an ambulance driver asks you for directions on the way to a serious accident where time is of the essence? If you believe it is never wrong to lie, then you would feel it is perfectly OK to lie even though that would contribute to someone's death.
Let's presume you believe it is never wrong to cause death. You then end up in a situation of conflicting values in the first or second instance depending on your rigid belief about lies, unless you believe it is never wrong to lie, and never wrong to cause death. In which case, I would say your morals are so screwed up it just doesn't matter what you think about copyright.
This is so crazy, I'm almost certain I was trolled. Congrats.
It's called being pragmatic. Secondly, it bears no resemblance to organized crime. We're talking about widespread distributed human desire and behavior. You aren't going to have a signifigant impact on human behavior without resorting to police state tactics (an absurd notion with something as insignifigant as entertainment anyway). You can choose to fight a pyrrhic battle, you can choose to whine and moan, or you can choose to profit. The future of the entertainment industry probably belongs to the latter. Live with it.
If you don't know what tor is, and can't RTFG, you don't belong on slashdot.
This ignores the fact, whether illegal or not, that people will get the material when they want it. Laws and lawsuits notwithstanding, the media companies have a choice -- make some money and provide the content in a form people desire, or make little to no money and watch the people receive the content in a form they desire through unauthorized means.
Sorry, I'm just not that rigid. We don't live in a black and white, good and bad, evil vs holy world. Some things are sometimes good, sometimes bad. If you can't comprehend that, I feel sorry for you and hope you avoid all positions of power. One need only look to the middle-east to see where rigid thought takes you.
On the other hand, if it is just that the AU media companies won't pay the price (as was pointed out to me elsewhere), then the content producer could simply go straight to the viewer. The fact is, if the show is not available in AU, there is no way the media company will be making money. If it might become available, then I might think it is wrong to illegally download if one can be _certain_ it will be released in a _reasonable_ amount of time.
People like directly getting commercial free content. I'm happy enough with netflix and iTunes. Problem for people in AU is that they don't have this option. The media companies can piss and moan about piracy, or set up a way for people to legally obtain their products. For that matter, right/wrong and legal/illegal are beside the point. People are gonna get content -- the question is whether the media companies want to profit or not off that desire.
Except they can make money by directly selling it to the people and cut out the networks altogether. I suspect that since the media companies are really married to the advertising model however, they don't consider the potential for direct sales. Now, I don't condone piracy when the piracy might interfere with the content producer's ability to earn money, but by the same token, I've become quite accustomed to having commercial free entertainment on DVD or through iTunes. I'm in the US so it is easy for me to get things by legal means and so I do. If I was AU, I wouldn't feel guilty about downloading because nobody wants to sell it to me anyway. Right or wrong, this is the future market media companies have to deal with and what they ought to do, is figure out how to deal with it profitably.
I disagree with you here. Note, I've been modded flamebait and troll a lot for saying stuff against the partyline on copyright. The problem with piracy is that has the potential to harm producers because some people who would have paid won't (it's impossible that all copyright infringers absolutely never would have paid for the content). Thus, the producer is harmed by illegal downloading and it should not be condoned.
This situation different. If the material is not released in any pay format, the content producer cannot possibly suffer any negative consequences by banned groups' piracy.
The question is different when there is delay as in this case and there are more questions to be answered. For example, do all shows make it to Australia or just a few? Why exactly are the content producers delaying so long? Is it actually the AU media that is standing in the way of distribution?
Answers to these kinds of questions could sway my thinking (remember, it is based on the potential for lost sales, not any "moral" argument posed by either side). If it is simply a choice by the content producers not to sell to AU, then I don't really have a problem because they would never have made a dime of Australia. I would think the answer though is more complicated. Politics? Protectionism?
Eliminating ebay and its fraudulent lousy customer service "I wanna make a million selling junk" L@@KIE HERE idiots would probably be more of a service than a detriment.
mod this: I would read this post again AAAAA+++++
Don't forget the self employment tax, i.e., social security/medicare. That's 15% off the top. Then you get to income tax.