I should point out that it appears to me you are mixing RMS into the wrong crowd. Slashdot is decidedly not in the free software crowd, they are in the open source software crowd.
Not sure what you mean by that. Not everyone one/. is a GPL supporter, but pro-GPL comments get modded up a lot more than pro-BSD ones do.
As far as I can tell,/. operates by FUD. Stallman doesn't use fud... he's a wacko, but a committed, idealistic wacko. On the other hand, the free software movement wouldn't be where it is today without the FUD that other people spread, so while Stallman may not use FUD himself, he needs it.
Funny, when I read the post and then read yours, I thought "No, by his logic Apple should be able to make money selling their brand." Then I realized I shouldn't be trying to interpret his logic for you.
I don't really understand your comment. The gist of the post was that you can get people to spend money on software if you sell them fancy packaging and a brand name. Obviously you can't get hardware for free, but if the OP is correct then it should be possible to get people to pay more in order to get fancy packaging and a brand name.
Actually, I know that this works, at least for the computer illiterate. My mother commented today that her neighbour's computer must be a lot better than mine because it has a sleek black case. But to what extent does it work? Judging by Apple's results, nice packaging will only win you a few percent of the market.
P.S. Are you going to comment on all of my old posts?
I was intrigued by your journal entry about how you get friends, and how everyone who replied just seemed to cut & paste lines from your entry.
So he values freedom over money. I personally find that a respectable trait, and one I tend to think that I share with the man.
If that's you're opinion then it's fine. However, let me point out that/. has a great big propaganda machine that is trying to convince governments, media, corporations, etc. all over the world that open source is a viable business model.
Stallman himself likes to point out that he is not opposed to selling software for money. That, to me, is disingenuous. OSS can't be anti-FUD and yet use FUD to promote itself.
-a
I hate to put this in perspective...
on
SCO Nigerian Spam
·
· Score: 1
but if Microsoft was caught using 70 lines of GPL'ed code in Windows, there'd be plenty of people clamoring for $1 billion in damages and for all of Windows to be open sourced.
That is not a copout. Nothing in the FSF philosophy prevents anyone from charging.
You're the one who is copping out by spreading these lame excuses. Whether or not Stallman supports people profiting from selling software, it is clear that he doesn't view this as a priority. By harping on this technicality, you are turning a political/philosophical argument into a semantic one.
Look at it this way: Let's say there is a proposal for the government to install free lemonade fountains in every public building. Without considering any of the implications of this proposal, I would be in favour of it. However, given that this luxury would cost hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars, I would actually be opposed to it.
Do you understand the difference between "in practice" and "in theory"? Come to think of it, this is exactly the kind of Boolean logic that I talk about in my sig. If you added up all the money that has ever been earned selling software in the last 30 years, Stallman would probably be opposed to 99.9% of it. So to say that he is not opposed to selling software may be true in theory, but it is not true in practice.
So, basically you can make money selling something that's available for free by selling your brand... It's all about branding and package, dude. Step into the new millenium.
Right... so by your theory, Apple should be leading the market by selling sexier, more expensive PCs?!?
In (Dollars >> Influence), is the '>>' the 'much greater than' sign or the C++ stream-in operator?
Duh! Any competent programmer can see that it's dollars bitshifted down by influence. Unless your money is exponentially bigger than your influence, you will soon lose all your dollars. (But the changes are only many to a temporary, demonstrating that material worth is fleeting.)
Quebec's goverment ripping of Newfoundland and having lots of natural resources is not the shinning example you think it is.
Well, Newfoundland did agree to a rather dumb 25 year (or was it 50 years) power contract with Quebec. A perfect illustration of how electing an incompetent government (that means you, Dubya) can have very profound long-term consequences.
My electrical cost in BC was more than half the KWh rate it is in Alberta,
"More than half"... I don't follow. Do you mean less than half?
Alberta always had it easy, since they are the energy suppliers (no sales tax, etc). The rate increase in Alberta was extreme, but the price went up in BC as well. I doubt that the price in Alberta could be double, unless perhaps you factor in the climate difference.
Gordon Campbell is just a short-sighted idiot. He is kind of like Dubya lite.
Excellent comment. Like the Buddhists say, there is always a middle way. The main problem with Dubya is that he was elected by only a handful of votes and yet he pursues an extremist agenda.
I dunno, its theoretically possible (though pretty improbable) that there's absolutely nothing to worry about when our polar ice caps melt completely, but I'm of the mind that when the article is more concerned about the new oil drilling prospects and trade routes than climate instability, cancer-causing UV rays, and so on, maybe its time to get a second opinion.
There are always a few naysayers who postulate that either a) global warming doesn't exist, since temperature fluctuation is a natural phenomenon, b) global warming will improve life on Earth, or c) humans will find a technological solution to global warming when the time comes (always have done, always will do).
A couple of years ago, there used to be quite a few of them on/. and you could find anti-environmentalist opinions with ease. These days, it seems they are few and far between. Not sure what that means. Perhaps they gave up the fight when even Dubya was forced to admit that global warming exists.
Outlook is just one mail client. So long as HTML mail can be sent, it will be sent, and it will be used for spam--and for other things as well. It doesn't matter if every installation of Outlook suddenly vanishes tomorrow--there will still be HTML/MHTML mail, and there will still be spam
Was HTML mail really Microsoft's idea anyway? It seems to me they were originally going down the path of RTF (which looked nice and had a nice editor), and then they suddenly switched to HTML, which looks bad, and has an absolutely horrible editor.
Both ways!? Show me an ISP who is willing, let alone capable of policing P2P, spammer, and/or hackers on a per user basis, aside from complaints about individuals.
Complaints about individuals is part of it. But in more general terms, we have these things called computers that can be used to automate large tasks.... big tasks such as sending spam, but also big tasks such as detecting spammers. Many universities have more users...don't shift the resposibility to the access provider.
Universities provide students with Internet access to an extent far beyond what is required for their coursework. Students pay a lot of money to go to school and they take this for granted. If universities want to be ISPs, they ought to take some responsibility for policing their networks. "1. Don't provide free services for people, unless you know and trust them."
That's right, sounds about like the internet used to work...back when there were less than 100 people here...
I'm talking about people on *your* network, not people on the Internet. Of course, providing free services to people on the Internet is also vastly overrated. "2. Allow users to share files, but don't let them use anonymous services. Keep some logs so you can comply with a subpoena."
Sounds reasonable. Keep logs, But exactly how does one restrict "anonymous" access from the internet? You can log the ip(s) someone is connecting from, you can get an email address, but how does that help you track down someone who doesn't want to be found?
Again, I was talking about people on *your* network, not the Internet. If you want to allow your users to use P2P for legitimate file sharing, don't allow them to use one of those anonymous services. (A feature that really has no other purpose other than to defeat law enforcement.) You are guilty of using virtually the same analogy; namely that everyone is guilty until proven innocent and that you can personally check everybody at your party (ie. network)
a) I didn't say anything resembling "everyone is guilty until proven innocent" b) I never phrased anything in terms of an analogy.
In general, I won't argue by analogy, since it is a pointless waste of time. I'm assuming you would also have your ISP liable for their customers' actions and limit them as in the above cases?
I didn't say that ISPs should be liable for their customers' actions. They should be responsible for employing reasonable diligence in policing their networks. At the very least, they should make every effort to cooperate with law enforcement. Perhaps they should be liable in cases of gross negligence. For example, let's say you are throwing a party where alcohol is served...a person shows up at the party who is a friend of someone who was invited, or maybe someone who just crashed the party...who really knows or cares, since you have 10,000 people at your little party? Anyway, you card the guy and make sure he's legal...it's all good so far...he proceeds to make an ass of himself at the party and splits, regardless of how drunk he is, or how many people tried to stop him from driving...he accidentally kills 10 people in an accident on the way home. Are you liable for serving him alcohol?
I have no idea. I'm not saying I support this law, but it does exist. What if it was at a bar? Or a concert?
Bars and stadiums do not allow you to bring your own alcohol. You have to buy it there. Of course, that is partly to earn them money, but the law also requires them to do this so that (in theory) a bartender could cut you off if you've had too much.
"If you can't afford to police a network you're responsible for, shut it down." I guess we should shut the whole Internet down - just to be sure.
No, but ISPs should definitely be responsible for policing their networks. And this includes not just P2P, but spammers and hackers as well. You can't have it both ways. What if he wants to let other users to share their legal files? He just don't have a chance to check everyone.
Easy:
1. Don't provide free services for people, unless you know and trust them. 2. Allow users to share files, but don't let them use anonymous services. Keep some logs so you can comply with a subpoena. What if I want to invite to my child's birthday party other classmates with their parents, should I ask them to bring the papers from the police that they are not criminals or should I just shut the whole party down?
You should try to avoid clouding the argument with far-flung analogies. You are wrong. Everyone is responsible only for own actions. If there is a law making me responsible for the other's actions - that law is anti-constitutional and can be defeated.
No, you are wrong. There are plenty of exceptions to this rule. Some examples: companies are responsible for the actions of their employees, parents are responsible for the actions of their children, if you hold a party where you serve alcohol then you may be responsible if your guests drink & drive. BTW, it's exactly what I did right after 9/11. The Canadian winter might be colder, but at least my constitutional rights are protected better. Even if I am not a Canadian (yet).
The main difference is that Canadians don't have a completely distorted view of the rest of the world.
-a
Re:Give Peace a Chance
on
The Diamond Age
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm so pleased. Really really pleased. Aside from furthuring the hopes and dreams of everyone's favorite science fiction writer, this has a real potential for curbing South African violence. Call me liberatarian, but much like the pending legalization of all controlled substances (I can dream can't I?), a potential for cheap diamonds could destroy any black market demand for our little carbon friends.
Sure it would be nice if synthetic diamonds lead to world peace, but all I really care about is that this technology gets deployed before I need to get married. "Sorry honey, but I read on the Internet that diamonds are overpriced" probably isn't going to cut it.
Small distinction?? Hell, graffitti and murder are both handled by the same (criminal) courts. The legal distinction between civil and criminal law is so fundamental that we need an entirely separate court systems for civil issues!
I think you're proving my point for me. If graffitti and murder can be handled by the same court system, it doesn't seem implausible that copyright violation could be in there as well. The two seperate court systems have entirely different foundations and operate in entirely different manners for different purposes. The feilds are so different that lawyers almost exclucively handle one or the other.
The difference is in how the case is decided and what the penalty will be, but not necessarily which matters can be heard before which court. No, copyright infringment has always been a civil matter. You don't have to give a justification for not-changing a perfectly good system. It is a radical change of that system that requires a justification.
Personally, I don't believe that; it sounds like dogmatic thinking. All systems need to be justified in perpetuity. The justification for changing a system need not be a radical shift in philosophy. It could be a preponderance of many factors. Slander is not a criminal matter. Libel is not a criminal matter. Violating a contract is not a criminal matter. Violating copyright is not a criminal matter. Violating a patent is not a criminal matter.
Free speech is a criminal act when it is treason. Contract violation is a criminal act when it is fraud. Lots of acts can be criminal under extenuating circumstances. Why on earth would you take ONE civil issue criminalize it? Do you think Slander, libel, contract isues, and patent infringement should be criminalized too? If someone infringes a patent throw them in prison. If someone insults you, throw them in prison. If someone violates a video cassette rental contract by failing to rewind then throw them in prison.
Nope... don't believe that. Fortunately, I am capable of thinking in non-black and white terms. Someone makes a VCR without Macrovision has done nothing wrong. What right do you claim to have to use force to infringe their rights?
Using force to infringe their rights? Now there's a loaded question. I think people who manufacture technologies that may facilitate illegal acts should be required by law to take every reasonable action to discourage these uses. Riiight, fair use doesn't exist. And circumventing DRM equals infringement too. Being able to do perfectly legal, legitimate, and non-infringing things is criminal if it means you might also be able to commit infringment.
Fair use was invented under different circumstances, and it is not an absolute right. I think you should have the ability to excerpt samples for academic purposes, but you don't necessarily have the right to perfect replicas. Circumventing DRM shouldn't be needed. It doesn't matter how or why books/software are written. Less than 10% of software is written for sale.
Source? There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone giving away their source code for free if they feel like it. It doesn't mean you should do that if you don't want to, but you have no right to complain if someone else does.
I think there is something wrong if that software facilitates an illegal act. I have used closed source software in ways that the authors specificly tried to prevent. No one can control how a product is used once that product is turned over to someone else's control.
Just because you don't have *absolute* control over what people do with your software doesn't mean you don't have any control. This is not a matter of Boolean logic. "Criminal facilitation is a crime." Only if it is done with the willful intent achieving that crime.
Does "looking the other way" or "not taking due care"
So you think interpersonal communication is an addiction rather than a basic human need? I somehow doubt that.
I was out of work for a few months. I still went out to lunch with my former co-workers every now and again, or saw my friends on weekends, but for most of the day I was alone. Believe it or not, I started to lose the ability to talk. (Which really sucks during job interviews.)
Then after a few months I got a job where I just sat in a cube and coded all day. I was extremely productive but I counted the minutes of every day. Soon after that, I was promoted to manager. I am no longer anywhere near as productive, but the work isn't quite as depressing.
Those are both CRIMES. Misdemeanor and felony are two grades of the same thing. There is no problem with "shades of grey" within either system, but it's not "grey" to jump from one system to the other.
I don't agree. I still think you're making a big deal out of a small distinction. One big difference between a civil case and a criminal case is the standard of proof. In many cases, copyright infringement is not cut and dry. But if you can prove evidence of a crime and of intent beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't see why copyright infringement shouldn't be a criminal matter. You haven't given any justification for criminalizing a civil matter.
And you haven't given any justification for civilizing a criminal matter.:-) Look, there's no single right answer to this matter. It's a matter of opinion, and not something that can be objectively proven. Manufactuers (of VCR's or software) have absolutely no place playing "police". Knife manufactures are not responsible for stabbings and car manufacturers are not responsible for hit&runs. Xerox is not responsible for copyright infringement.
You're just stating opinions, not backing them up. I think where technology exists that can prevent illegal use of software/VCRs, manufacturers would be remiss not to include it. I don't hold the knife manufacturers responsible for making cooking knives or pen knives, but switchblades are rightfully banned. I don't believe car manufacturers should be liable for hit&runs. As I understand it, copier manufacturers are forced to include a feature that prevents you from making accurate photocopies of money. If there was a technology that could prevent illegal photocopies (e.g. a special watermark that photocopiers would recognize), I wouldn't be opposed to that.
It all depends on the specific circumstances: whether there are potential criminal uses, whether technology could feasibly prevent them, whether there are substantial non-criminal uses. That's like saying books should only be written for profit. And if someone writes a book and sells it for profit then fine, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with making the book free or even public domain.
I think books should be written for profit too. However, I can't see how a book fits into the above equation. Someone who makes software cannot control how others use it any more than someone who makes a knife can control how others use it.
Someone who writes open source software can't control how others use it, but someone who writes closed source software can. If someone uses a knife or software to violate civil law then sue them. If someone uses a knife or software to commit a crime then imprison them.
Criminal facilitation is a crime. You can go to jail for selling stolen property if you didn't take due care to ensure that the item wasn't stolen. I feel very little sympathy for people who get sued for running P2P networks or writing hacker tools. And if they were sent to jail, it wouldn't bother me. Google has no responsibility or control over the files other people put on the web. Many of those files are copyright infringments. It is generally impossible for Google to know/identify which of them are infringing and which are not.
Google will remove links to copyrighted material if you ask them (at least if you have a court judgement in your favour). They are a for profit corporation, and complying with the law is part of the cost of doing business.
I don't buy the argument that it is noble to run services for free and that anyone who runs a free service should be immune from all regulation, simply because they cannot afford to comply with the law. That will only lead to anarchy. If they get sued, then serves them right for getting in over their head.
It's idealism to state that there is a difference between civil law and criminal law??
It's an idealistic tendency to frame situations in black and white terms without accounting for grey areas. I don't see why it's unreasonable for severe infractions to merit criminal charges. Look at petty theft vs. grand larceny. One is a misdemeanor, the other a felony, and yet they are still the same basic crime. What does that have to do with any crossover between civil and criminal law?
It is perfectly possible someone to be both civilly and criminally liable for the same act. Paying damages is a form of punishment. Going to jail is a more severe form of punishment. The US supreme court says copyright infringement is far too different from theft to try to equate them. Intellectual property is an oxymoron. Copyright infringment is illegal, but it isn't property and it's not theft. It is different.
Fine. Which is why it is perfectly logical for the government to pass more specific laws, rather than relying on an antiquated law that was passed under different circumstances. Americans are already slaves to an outdated constitution. Do we now hold a 30 year old document to be sacred? It is perfectly appropriate for the government to pass civil laws defining what happens in a copyright infringment lawsuit. You don't pass criminal laws setting punishments for slander. It is not appropriate to pass criminal laws in civil matters.
Begging the question. Should VCR manufacturers be responsible for disuading illegal uses and policing their VCRs?
Actually, I think they should be. They already have to put Macrovision technology in their products. For Tivos, I think the standard should be higher. The capacity for infringement is higher, and the technology (both to infringe and to stop infringement) has advanced. RPI. I went to college there, but it was well before all of this.
Whatever. PRI looked wrong, but I was just copying your earlier typo. He wrote a search engine. He knew it would be used to search all available files on the campus network. There's nothing wrong with that. But apparently you think he should be put in prison and register for life as a pedophile for any kiddyporn it happened to index.
Personally, I'm not a big supporter of the DYI free software movement. I believe that software should be written for profit and that the makers of said software should be forced to comply with legal requirements that determine how the software is used (e.g. operators of search engines should make a "reasonable" effort to not index illegal material). I don't think the fact that you are providing a free service should absolve you from any and all legal responsibilities.
You are looking at the issue of whether something should be prohibited at all or not. Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether something falls under civil law or criminal law.
Spoken like a true idealist. Society does not behave like a bunch of individuals; there are fads and trends. And the biggest abusers, who cause the trend to happen, deserve to be punished more severely. While I generally believe that making more laws to address things that are already illegal is generally a bad idea
Look at music piracy./. readers say it's not theft because it's not depriving someone of property. Media companies say it is theft because it deprives them of profits. Traditionally, theft is a criminal act and copyright infringement is not. It is perfectly appropriate for the government to pass a law which makes it clear exactly what the punishment for pirating music is.
Going back to one of your earlier points, I am not opposed to the concept of file sharing networks. However, I do believe that technologies which provide a means of criminal facilitation should be responsible for disuading illegal uses and policing their networks. File sharing companies were clearly unwilling to do so, and some of the networks even go out of their way to inhibit the actions of law enforcement. In the PRI case, the author may not have had control over which files were illegal, but I guarantee he knew exactly what his service would be used for.
The idea was for an automatic cat flap that opened when the trained cat pressed on a pad. Apparently the patent office clerk either saw a similar design on his son's comic (The Beano or The Dandy, U.K. comics for the under ten) or spoke of it and the son brought the comic to his attention.
Damn... so much for my idea of patenting a Rube Goldberg device.
Slashdot Mirror
I should point out that it appears to me you are mixing RMS into the wrong crowd. Slashdot is decidedly not in the free software crowd, they are in the open source software crowd.
Not sure what you mean by that. Not everyone one
As far as I can tell,
-a
Funny, when I read the post and then read yours, I thought "No, by his logic Apple should be able to make money selling their brand." Then I realized I shouldn't be trying to interpret his logic for you.
I don't really understand your comment. The gist of the post was that you can get people to spend money on software if you sell them fancy packaging and a brand name. Obviously you can't get hardware for free, but if the OP is correct then it should be possible to get people to pay more in order to get fancy packaging and a brand name.
Actually, I know that this works, at least for the computer illiterate. My mother commented today that her neighbour's computer must be a lot better than mine because it has a sleek black case. But to what extent does it work? Judging by Apple's results, nice packaging will only win you a few percent of the market.
P.S. Are you going to comment on all of my old posts?
I was intrigued by your journal entry about how you get friends, and how everyone who replied just seemed to cut & paste lines from your entry.
-a
So he values freedom over money. I personally find that a respectable trait, and one I tend to think that I share with the man.
If that's you're opinion then it's fine. However, let me point out that
Stallman himself likes to point out that he is not opposed to selling software for money. That, to me, is disingenuous. OSS can't be anti-FUD and yet use FUD to promote itself.
-a
but if Microsoft was caught using 70 lines of GPL'ed code in Windows, there'd be plenty of people clamoring for $1 billion in damages and for all of Windows to be open sourced.
-a
That is not a copout. Nothing in the FSF philosophy prevents anyone from charging.
You're the one who is copping out by spreading these lame excuses. Whether or not Stallman supports people profiting from selling software, it is clear that he doesn't view this as a priority. By harping on this technicality, you are turning a political/philosophical argument into a semantic one.
Look at it this way: Let's say there is a proposal for the government to install free lemonade fountains in every public building. Without considering any of the implications of this proposal, I would be in favour of it. However, given that this luxury would cost hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars, I would actually be opposed to it.
Do you understand the difference between "in practice" and "in theory"? Come to think of it, this is exactly the kind of Boolean logic that I talk about in my sig. If you added up all the money that has ever been earned selling software in the last 30 years, Stallman would probably be opposed to 99.9% of it. So to say that he is not opposed to selling software may be true in theory, but it is not true in practice.
-a
So, basically you can make money selling something that's available for free by selling your brand...
It's all about branding and package, dude. Step into the new millenium.
Right... so by your theory, Apple should be leading the market by selling sexier, more expensive PCs?!?
-a
What's the chance that the terrorists will be able to figure out where you go to school?
-a
In (Dollars >> Influence), is the '>>' the 'much greater than' sign or the C++ stream-in operator?
Duh! Any competent programmer can see that it's dollars bitshifted down by influence. Unless your money is exponentially bigger than your influence, you will soon lose all your dollars. (But the changes are only many to a temporary, demonstrating that material worth is fleeting.)
P.S. That would be the C++ stream-out operator.
Andrew
Quebec's goverment ripping of Newfoundland and having lots of natural resources is not the shinning example you think it is.
Well, Newfoundland did agree to a rather dumb 25 year (or was it 50 years) power contract with Quebec. A perfect illustration of how electing an incompetent government (that means you, Dubya) can have very profound long-term consequences.
-a
My electrical cost in BC was more than half the KWh rate it is in Alberta,
"More than half"... I don't follow. Do you mean less than half?
Alberta always had it easy, since they are the energy suppliers (no sales tax, etc). The rate increase in Alberta was extreme, but the price went up in BC as well. I doubt that the price in Alberta could be double, unless perhaps you factor in the climate difference.
Gordon Campbell is just a short-sighted idiot. He is kind of like Dubya lite.
-a
Excellent comment. Like the Buddhists say, there is always a middle way. The main problem with Dubya is that he was elected by only a handful of votes and yet he pursues an extremist agenda.
-a
I dunno, its theoretically possible (though pretty improbable) that there's absolutely nothing to worry about when our polar ice caps melt completely, but I'm of the mind that when the article is more concerned about the new oil drilling prospects and trade routes than climate instability, cancer-causing UV rays, and so on, maybe its time to get a second opinion.
There are always a few naysayers who postulate that either a) global warming doesn't exist, since temperature fluctuation is a natural phenomenon, b) global warming will improve life on Earth, or c) humans will find a technological solution to global warming when the time comes (always have done, always will do).
A couple of years ago, there used to be quite a few of them on
-a
Outlook is just one mail client. So long as HTML mail can be sent, it will be sent, and it will be used for spam--and for other things as well. It doesn't matter if every installation of Outlook suddenly vanishes tomorrow--there will still be HTML/MHTML mail, and there will still be spam
Was HTML mail really Microsoft's idea anyway? It seems to me they were originally going down the path of RTF (which looked nice and had a nice editor), and then they suddenly switched to HTML, which looks bad, and has an absolutely horrible editor.
-a
Both ways!? Show me an ISP who is willing, let alone capable of policing P2P, spammer, and/or hackers on a per user basis, aside from complaints about individuals.
Complaints about individuals is part of it. But in more general terms, we have these things called computers that can be used to automate large tasks.... big tasks such as sending spam, but also big tasks such as detecting spammers.
Many universities have more users...don't shift the resposibility to the access provider.
Universities provide students with Internet access to an extent far beyond what is required for their coursework. Students pay a lot of money to go to school and they take this for granted. If universities want to be ISPs, they ought to take some responsibility for policing their networks.
"1. Don't provide free services for people, unless you know and trust them."
That's right, sounds about like the internet used to work...back when there were less than 100 people here...
I'm talking about people on *your* network, not people on the Internet. Of course, providing free services to people on the Internet is also vastly overrated.
"2. Allow users to share files, but don't let them use anonymous services. Keep some logs so you can comply with a subpoena."
Sounds reasonable. Keep logs, But exactly how does one restrict "anonymous" access from the internet? You can log the ip(s) someone is connecting from, you can get an email address, but how does that help you track down someone who doesn't want to be found?
Again, I was talking about people on *your* network, not the Internet. If you want to allow your users to use P2P for legitimate file sharing, don't allow them to use one of those anonymous services. (A feature that really has no other purpose other than to defeat law enforcement.)
You are guilty of using virtually the same analogy; namely that everyone is guilty until proven innocent and that you can personally check everybody at your party (ie. network)
a) I didn't say anything resembling "everyone is guilty until proven innocent"
b) I never phrased anything in terms of an analogy.
In general, I won't argue by analogy, since it is a pointless waste of time.
I'm assuming you would also have your ISP liable for their customers' actions and limit them as in the above cases?
I didn't say that ISPs should be liable for their customers' actions. They should be responsible for employing reasonable diligence in policing their networks. At the very least, they should make every effort to cooperate with law enforcement. Perhaps they should be liable in cases of gross negligence.
For example, let's say you are throwing a party where alcohol is served...a person shows up at the party who is a friend of someone who was invited, or maybe someone who just crashed the party...who really knows or cares, since you have 10,000 people at your little party? Anyway, you card the guy and make sure he's legal...it's all good so far...he proceeds to make an ass of himself at the party and splits, regardless of how drunk he is, or how many people tried to stop him from driving...he accidentally kills 10 people in an accident on the way home. Are you liable for serving him alcohol?
I have no idea. I'm not saying I support this law, but it does exist.
What if it was at a bar? Or a concert?
Bars and stadiums do not allow you to bring your own alcohol. You have to buy it there. Of course, that is partly to earn them money, but the law also requires them to do this so that (in theory) a bartender could cut you off if you've had too much.
-a
"If you can't afford to police a network you're responsible for, shut it down."
I guess we should shut the whole Internet down - just to be sure.
No, but ISPs should definitely be responsible for policing their networks. And this includes not just P2P, but spammers and hackers as well. You can't have it both ways.
What if he wants to let other users to share their legal files? He just don't have a chance to check everyone.
Easy:
1. Don't provide free services for people, unless you know and trust them.
2. Allow users to share files, but don't let them use anonymous services. Keep some logs so you can comply with a subpoena.
What if I want to invite to my child's birthday party other classmates with their parents, should I ask them to bring the papers from the police that they are not criminals or should I just shut the whole party down?
You should try to avoid clouding the argument with far-flung analogies.
You are wrong. Everyone is responsible only for own actions. If there is a law making me responsible for the other's actions - that law is anti-constitutional and can be defeated.
No, you are wrong. There are plenty of exceptions to this rule. Some examples: companies are responsible for the actions of their employees, parents are responsible for the actions of their children, if you hold a party where you serve alcohol then you may be responsible if your guests drink & drive.
BTW, it's exactly what I did right after 9/11. The Canadian winter might be colder, but at least my constitutional rights are protected better. Even if I am not a Canadian (yet).
The main difference is that Canadians don't have a completely distorted view of the rest of the world.
-a
I'm so pleased. Really really pleased. Aside from furthuring the hopes and dreams of everyone's favorite science fiction writer, this has a real potential for curbing South African violence. Call me liberatarian, but much like the pending legalization of all controlled substances (I can dream can't I?), a potential for cheap diamonds could destroy any black market demand for our little carbon friends.
Sure it would be nice if synthetic diamonds lead to world peace, but all I really care about is that this technology gets deployed before I need to get married. "Sorry honey, but I read on the Internet that diamonds are overpriced" probably isn't going to cut it.
-a
Isn't that called a compiler. I know a friend who has one.
no.
-a
Small distinction?? Hell, graffitti and murder are both handled by the same (criminal) courts. The legal distinction between civil and criminal law is so fundamental that we need an entirely separate court systems for civil issues!
I think you're proving my point for me. If graffitti and murder can be handled by the same court system, it doesn't seem implausible that copyright violation could be in there as well.
The two seperate court systems have entirely different foundations and operate in entirely different manners for different purposes. The feilds are so different that lawyers almost exclucively handle one or the other.
The difference is in how the case is decided and what the penalty will be, but not necessarily which matters can be heard before which court.
No, copyright infringment has always been a civil matter. You don't have to give a justification for not-changing a perfectly good system. It is a radical change of that system that requires a justification.
Personally, I don't believe that; it sounds like dogmatic thinking. All systems need to be justified in perpetuity. The justification for changing a system need not be a radical shift in philosophy. It could be a preponderance of many factors.
Slander is not a criminal matter. Libel is not a criminal matter. Violating a contract is not a criminal matter. Violating copyright is not a criminal matter. Violating a patent is not a criminal matter.
Free speech is a criminal act when it is treason. Contract violation is a criminal act when it is fraud. Lots of acts can be criminal under extenuating circumstances.
Why on earth would you take ONE civil issue criminalize it? Do you think Slander, libel, contract isues, and patent infringement should be criminalized too? If someone infringes a patent throw them in prison. If someone insults you, throw them in prison. If someone violates a video cassette rental contract by failing to rewind then throw them in prison.
Nope... don't believe that. Fortunately, I am capable of thinking in non-black and white terms.
Someone makes a VCR without Macrovision has done nothing wrong. What right do you claim to have to use force to infringe their rights?
Using force to infringe their rights? Now there's a loaded question. I think people who manufacture technologies that may facilitate illegal acts should be required by law to take every reasonable action to discourage these uses.
Riiight, fair use doesn't exist. And circumventing DRM equals infringement too. Being able to do perfectly legal, legitimate, and non-infringing things is criminal if it means you might also be able to commit infringment.
Fair use was invented under different circumstances, and it is not an absolute right. I think you should have the ability to excerpt samples for academic purposes, but you don't necessarily have the right to perfect replicas. Circumventing DRM shouldn't be needed.
It doesn't matter how or why books/software are written. Less than 10% of software is written for sale.
Source?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone giving away their source code for free if they feel like it. It doesn't mean you should do that if you don't want to, but you have no right to complain if someone else does.
I think there is something wrong if that software facilitates an illegal act.
I have used closed source software in ways that the authors specificly tried to prevent. No one can control how a product is used once that product is turned over to someone else's control.
Just because you don't have *absolute* control over what people do with your software doesn't mean you don't have any control. This is not a matter of Boolean logic.
"Criminal facilitation is a crime." Only if it is done with the willful intent achieving that crime.
Does "looking the other way" or "not taking due care"
So you think interpersonal communication is an addiction rather than a basic human need? I somehow doubt that.
I was out of work for a few months. I still went out to lunch with my former co-workers every now and again, or saw my friends on weekends, but for most of the day I was alone. Believe it or not, I started to lose the ability to talk. (Which really sucks during job interviews.)
Then after a few months I got a job where I just sat in a cube and coded all day. I was extremely productive but I counted the minutes of every day. Soon after that, I was promoted to manager. I am no longer anywhere near as productive, but the work isn't quite as depressing.
-a
Alright. Fortunately, my mouse is of the mini-trackball variety and will go down in a single gulp.
-a
Those are both CRIMES. Misdemeanor and felony are two grades of the same thing. There is no problem with "shades of grey" within either system, but it's not "grey" to jump from one system to the other.
I don't agree. I still think you're making a big deal out of a small distinction. One big difference between a civil case and a criminal case is the standard of proof. In many cases, copyright infringement is not cut and dry. But if you can prove evidence of a crime and of intent beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't see why copyright infringement shouldn't be a criminal matter.
You haven't given any justification for criminalizing a civil matter.
And you haven't given any justification for civilizing a criminal matter.
Manufactuers (of VCR's or software) have absolutely no place playing "police". Knife manufactures are not responsible for stabbings and car manufacturers are not responsible for hit&runs. Xerox is not responsible for copyright infringement.
You're just stating opinions, not backing them up. I think where technology exists that can prevent illegal use of software/VCRs, manufacturers would be remiss not to include it. I don't hold the knife manufacturers responsible for making cooking knives or pen knives, but switchblades are rightfully banned. I don't believe car manufacturers should be liable for hit&runs. As I understand it, copier manufacturers are forced to include a feature that prevents you from making accurate photocopies of money. If there was a technology that could prevent illegal photocopies (e.g. a special watermark that photocopiers would recognize), I wouldn't be opposed to that.
It all depends on the specific circumstances: whether there are potential criminal uses, whether technology could feasibly prevent them, whether there are substantial non-criminal uses.
That's like saying books should only be written for profit. And if someone writes a book and sells it for profit then fine, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with making the book free or even public domain.
I think books should be written for profit too. However, I can't see how a book fits into the above equation.
Someone who makes software cannot control how others use it any more than someone who makes a knife can control how others use it.
Someone who writes open source software can't control how others use it, but someone who writes closed source software can.
If someone uses a knife or software to violate civil law then sue them. If someone uses a knife or software to commit a crime then imprison them.
Criminal facilitation is a crime. You can go to jail for selling stolen property if you didn't take due care to ensure that the item wasn't stolen. I feel very little sympathy for people who get sued for running P2P networks or writing hacker tools. And if they were sent to jail, it wouldn't bother me.
Google has no responsibility or control over the files other people put on the web. Many of those files are copyright infringments. It is generally impossible for Google to know/identify which of them are infringing and which are not.
Google will remove links to copyrighted material if you ask them (at least if you have a court judgement in your favour). They are a for profit corporation, and complying with the law is part of the cost of doing business.
I don't buy the argument that it is noble to run services for free and that anyone who runs a free service should be immune from all regulation, simply because they cannot afford to comply with the law. That will only lead to anarchy. If they get sued, then serves them right for getting in over their head.
-a
It's idealism to state that there is a difference between civil law and criminal law??
It's an idealistic tendency to frame situations in black and white terms without accounting for grey areas. I don't see why it's unreasonable for severe infractions to merit criminal charges. Look at petty theft vs. grand larceny. One is a misdemeanor, the other a felony, and yet they are still the same basic crime.
What does that have to do with any crossover between civil and criminal law?
It is perfectly possible someone to be both civilly and criminally liable for the same act. Paying damages is a form of punishment. Going to jail is a more severe form of punishment.
The US supreme court says copyright infringement is far too different from theft to try to equate them. Intellectual property is an oxymoron. Copyright infringment is illegal, but it isn't property and it's not theft. It is different.
Fine. Which is why it is perfectly logical for the government to pass more specific laws, rather than relying on an antiquated law that was passed under different circumstances. Americans are already slaves to an outdated constitution. Do we now hold a 30 year old document to be sacred?
It is perfectly appropriate for the government to pass civil laws defining what happens in a copyright infringment lawsuit. You don't pass criminal laws setting punishments for slander. It is not appropriate to pass criminal laws in civil matters.
Begging the question.
Should VCR manufacturers be responsible for disuading illegal uses and policing their VCRs?
Actually, I think they should be. They already have to put Macrovision technology in their products. For Tivos, I think the standard should be higher. The capacity for infringement is higher, and the technology (both to infringe and to stop infringement) has advanced.
RPI. I went to college there, but it was well before all of this.
Whatever. PRI looked wrong, but I was just copying your earlier typo.
He wrote a search engine. He knew it would be used to search all available files on the campus network. There's nothing wrong with that. But apparently you think he should be put in prison and register for life as a pedophile for any kiddyporn it happened to index.
Personally, I'm not a big supporter of the DYI free software movement. I believe that software should be written for profit and that the makers of said software should be forced to comply with legal requirements that determine how the software is used (e.g. operators of search engines should make a "reasonable" effort to not index illegal material). I don't think the fact that you are providing a free service should absolve you from any and all legal responsibilities.
In short, I am not an anarchist.
-a
You are looking at the issue of whether something should be prohibited at all or not. Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether something falls under civil law or criminal law.
Spoken like a true idealist. Society does not behave like a bunch of individuals; there are fads and trends. And the biggest abusers, who cause the trend to happen, deserve to be punished more severely.
While I generally believe that making more laws to address things that are already illegal is generally a bad idea
Look at music piracy.
Going back to one of your earlier points, I am not opposed to the concept of file sharing networks. However, I do believe that technologies which provide a means of criminal facilitation should be responsible for disuading illegal uses and policing their networks. File sharing companies were clearly unwilling to do so, and some of the networks even go out of their way to inhibit the actions of law enforcement. In the PRI case, the author may not have had control over which files were illegal, but I guarantee he knew exactly what his service would be used for.
-a
If that's not an urban legend, I'll eat my mouse.
-a
The idea was for an automatic cat flap that opened when the trained cat pressed on a pad. Apparently the patent office clerk either saw a similar design on his son's comic (The Beano or The Dandy, U.K. comics for the under ten) or spoke of it and the son brought the comic to his attention.
Damn... so much for my idea of patenting a Rube Goldberg device.
-a