17 USC 512 indicates that a "service provider" is not liable for copyright violations conducted over their network as long as they meet certain conditions (generally, being uninvolved in any way other than routing traffic). A LAN operator in this setup might be regarded as a service provider:
17 USC 512(k) Definitions -
(1) Service provider. - (A) As used in subsection (a), the term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
(B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term "service provider" means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A).
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
Since a conversion to mp3 format (ripping a CD, etc) doesn't involve a creative modification to the work, I doubt that it's considered a derivative work. If there's legal precedent that disagrees with that statement, I'd be interested in reading about it.
Too bad you posted AC, because I probably won't hear back from you.:p
There were already signs of market saturation last quarter, when Apple sold a million fewer iPods than was expected by analysts. With a month left in this quarter to reduce inventories, Apple probably wants to get their numbers down so their stock doesn't drop another 20% on bad numbers the next time they report.
oh, btw, i have no idea who the hell was 3rd us president. guess which country you come from;)
My apologies. Hopefully, you'll forgive my U.S.-centric post by realizing that I was ridiculing my country's teenagers (and adults, too) for not knowing jack crap about U.S. history.;)
BTW - in case you care, it was Thomas Jefferson. If you've ever seen a U.S. nickel, that's his picture on the front.
A bunch of people here are saying you don't have rights to redistribute, but I want to take the other side on this issue for a moment and argue that "distribution" is an insufficient term to describe that particular right held by copyright holder.
17 USC 106 delineates the rights granted by copyright:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
It has already been documented that creating a copy of a work for archival purposes is not infringement. Both the uploader and the downloader are allowed to have an archival copy of a work.
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Obviously not applicable.
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
File sharing does not constitute sale, transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending, when both participants already are legally entitled to have a copy of a work.
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
I would argue that file sharing does not constitute a public performance.
That's it. That's the rights conferred by copyright, and the buzzword "distribution" is not, without qualifications, among them.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I also have no desire to personally test my interpretation in court. It's still something to think about.
There's a money trail in normal, non-Internet organized crime, too, but even crime families in the U.S. have often taken years of inside work by informants and FBI agents to crack. Now we're talking about crime rings in Eastern Europe and Russia, where law enforcement is even less efficient at bringing down this sort of organization.
Who needs a phone? With the experiment they used, all they had to do was shout the message across the room. That technology is hundreds of millions of years old, and predates the human race.
But anyway, the experiment was designed to entertain and maybe (hopefully!) to educate. Every teenage whippersnapper is out there sending text messages to their friends, but just like they are ignorant of things like who the third U.S. president was or when World War II happened, they are also ignorant about the history of modern communications even though they have made themselves practically dependent upon it.
That's odd - I listen to iTMS-purchased songs on my computer and on my car's CD player all the time. If I wanted to, I could easily rip the CDs I've burned back to mp3 format. Heck, I don't even have an iPod. Go me!
The GPL and FSF aren't code, though. (One could argue that the GPL is code, in the sense that a cookbook contains code, but I mean actual computer programs here, not theoretical constructs.)
Did Stallman ever write code in an attempt to change the world? Or did he write code to fill a need, saving the whole "changing the world" thing for his work on the free software movement?
There are lots of non-Christian Republicans out there, just like there are lots of Christian Democrats. In other words, that was a pretty stupid joke that revealed the unenlightened and bigoted attitude of the writer.
Rather than increasing "performance" (probably by precaching), what we would actually see from a new round of browser wars is tons of features nobody really needs - features that integrate the browser with various non-sandboxed activities that are potentially exploitable, features that are enabled by default and that have cryptic (to the neophyte) names so the average user won't know what to disable in order to browse the web safely.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
What kind of scienceless bullshit is this?
Oh, wait - it's the kind that ambulance-chasing money-grubbing personal injury lawyers use.
Temperature of the material coming into contact with the skin is not the real determinant of the level of burns that occur, but rather the amount of heat transferred from a material to your skin. You spill a cup of 180degF coffee on your lap. The instant it touches anything (including the air, by the way), it begins to cool as the heat transfers from it to whatever it touches. Is it going to be hot? Yes. Is it going to hurt? Yes. But a cup of coffee to the crotch isn't going to put somebody in the hospital like this ridiculous "McFact" claims, because there just isn't enough heat transferred from coffee to skin.
All this really means is that eventually phishers and scammers will get smarter and run TrustedBSD, OpenBSD, SELinux, or some other hardened variant using mainly static pages and highly developed systems. It's really a never ending battle.
According to a recent article, many phishing websites are run on already insecure systems that are hacked by the phishers. This is a "good" idea from their perspective, as it makes them harder to trace. However, in such cases, the only element of choice given to the phisher is whether or not to use that particular system. The only thing they can really do to counteract vigilantism is to patch the systems they hack into while leaving their own backdoors in place.
You're definitely right, though, that if this vigilante trend picks up, the phishers will change methods in order to rip people off.
Fry: "Married?! Jenny can't get married." Leela: "Why not? It's clever, it's unexpected..." Fry: "But that's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared."
Slashdot Mirror
Amy: I could swear I was really playing Virtual Skeeball!
17 USC 512 indicates that a "service provider" is not liable for copyright violations conducted over their network as long as they meet certain conditions (generally, being uninvolved in any way other than routing traffic). A LAN operator in this setup might be regarded as a service provider:
17 USC 512(k) Definitions -
(1) Service provider. -
(A) As used in subsection (a), the term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
(B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term "service provider" means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A).
(Insert standard IANAL disclaimer here)
In 17 USC 101:
:p
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
Since a conversion to mp3 format (ripping a CD, etc) doesn't involve a creative modification to the work, I doubt that it's considered a derivative work. If there's legal precedent that disagrees with that statement, I'd be interested in reading about it.
Too bad you posted AC, because I probably won't hear back from you.
Who needs palettes when you have one of these?
So beautiful... yet so neutral.
There were already signs of market saturation last quarter, when Apple sold a million fewer iPods than was expected by analysts. With a month left in this quarter to reduce inventories, Apple probably wants to get their numbers down so their stock doesn't drop another 20% on bad numbers the next time they report.
oh, btw, i have no idea who the hell was 3rd us president. guess which country you come from ;)
;)
My apologies. Hopefully, you'll forgive my U.S.-centric post by realizing that I was ridiculing my country's teenagers (and adults, too) for not knowing jack crap about U.S. history.
BTW - in case you care, it was Thomas Jefferson. If you've ever seen a U.S. nickel, that's his picture on the front.
A bunch of people here are saying you don't have rights to redistribute, but I want to take the other side on this issue for a moment and argue that "distribution" is an insufficient term to describe that particular right held by copyright holder.
17 USC 106 delineates the rights granted by copyright:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
It has already been documented that creating a copy of a work for archival purposes is not infringement. Both the uploader and the downloader are allowed to have an archival copy of a work.
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Obviously not applicable.
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
File sharing does not constitute sale, transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending, when both participants already are legally entitled to have a copy of a work.
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
I would argue that file sharing does not constitute a public performance.
That's it. That's the rights conferred by copyright, and the buzzword "distribution" is not, without qualifications, among them.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I also have no desire to personally test my interpretation in court. It's still something to think about.
There's a money trail in normal, non-Internet organized crime, too, but even crime families in the U.S. have often taken years of inside work by informants and FBI agents to crack. Now we're talking about crime rings in Eastern Europe and Russia, where law enforcement is even less efficient at bringing down this sort of organization.
I suppose it would be, if I knew where to mail it.
Who needs a phone? With the experiment they used, all they had to do was shout the message across the room. That technology is hundreds of millions of years old, and predates the human race.
But anyway, the experiment was designed to entertain and maybe (hopefully!) to educate. Every teenage whippersnapper is out there sending text messages to their friends, but just like they are ignorant of things like who the third U.S. president was or when World War II happened, they are also ignorant about the history of modern communications even though they have made themselves practically dependent upon it.
That's odd - I listen to iTMS-purchased songs on my computer and on my car's CD player all the time. If I wanted to, I could easily rip the CDs I've burned back to mp3 format. Heck, I don't even have an iPod. Go me!
You probably need to go back and read this post, which will put my comment in context.
The GPL and FSF aren't code, though. (One could argue that the GPL is code, in the sense that a cookbook contains code, but I mean actual computer programs here, not theoretical constructs.)
You don't have to speak theoretically. There is already a standard to prevent "secure" media from being transmitted to "insecure" devices.
The EFF didn't make that claim. They were quoting an online magazine called "Communications Daily".
Did Stallman ever write code in an attempt to change the world? Or did he write code to fill a need, saving the whole "changing the world" thing for his work on the free software movement?
Another quote (er... adage), apt for this particular story:
"You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube."
There are lots of non-Christian Republicans out there, just like there are lots of Christian Democrats. In other words, that was a pretty stupid joke that revealed the unenlightened and bigoted attitude of the writer.
Rather than increasing "performance" (probably by precaching), what we would actually see from a new round of browser wars is tons of features nobody really needs - features that integrate the browser with various non-sandboxed activities that are potentially exploitable, features that are enabled by default and that have cryptic (to the neophyte) names so the average user won't know what to disable in order to browse the web safely.
You know, just like IE is now, except more.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
What kind of scienceless bullshit is this?
Oh, wait - it's the kind that ambulance-chasing money-grubbing personal injury lawyers use.
Temperature of the material coming into contact with the skin is not the real determinant of the level of burns that occur, but rather the amount of heat transferred from a material to your skin. You spill a cup of 180degF coffee on your lap. The instant it touches anything (including the air, by the way), it begins to cool as the heat transfers from it to whatever it touches. Is it going to be hot? Yes. Is it going to hurt? Yes. But a cup of coffee to the crotch isn't going to put somebody in the hospital like this ridiculous "McFact" claims, because there just isn't enough heat transferred from coffee to skin.
Besides the fact that self justice generally is a bad idea, ...
If you really want to do something against those scammers you need to follow the money trail.
Following the money trail and actually getting to the phishers themselves seems far more dangerous than just backhacking their owned boxen.
All this really means is that eventually phishers and scammers will get smarter and run TrustedBSD, OpenBSD, SELinux, or some other hardened variant using mainly static pages and highly developed systems. It's really a never ending battle.
According to a recent article, many phishing websites are run on already insecure systems that are hacked by the phishers. This is a "good" idea from their perspective, as it makes them harder to trace. However, in such cases, the only element of choice given to the phisher is whether or not to use that particular system. The only thing they can really do to counteract vigilantism is to patch the systems they hack into while leaving their own backdoors in place.
You're definitely right, though, that if this vigilante trend picks up, the phishers will change methods in order to rip people off.
Perhaps so, but they get -1 for not including a flamebait comment about Fox News and/or the Bush administration.
Fry: "Married?! Jenny can't get married."
Leela: "Why not? It's clever, it's unexpected..."
Fry: "But that's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared."