So what you mean to say is that if I hook a wireless router up and someone drives by my house and uses my network - which is now legal in some states - they are within the law, but I am breaking it since they are using my router to connect a 3rd computer to my isp? (my isp allows 2 by default).
Laws will get messy.
Or how about I connect my check my email from my palm pilot through my computer....is it now a network?
With the Total Cost of Ownership up for debate I think a main point is being missed.
If I own a foriegn car, I expect the mechanic I use to charge a bit more (or a lot more). Plain and simple supply and demand. And I can't hire my friendly neighbourhood backyard mechanic neither because most backyard mechanics don't touch my brand.
Linux, as the purveyor of a much smaller portion of the computing environment suffers the same fate these days. 8 out 10 users use something else. If and when that reaches a more equal ratio there should be more people available to maintain these systems. And less time spent helping out with small issues.
Imagine an office full of staff who have been weaned on Windows. Toss them linux and half the maintainance costs wouldn't be on maintainance, but on solving issues the users create. Familiarity is a big part of the big picture.
As Michael Robertson noted yesterday - Lindows users insist on Anti-Virus protection. Yet when a virus comes out in linux there is usually a fix as fast as there is detection for the virus. As linux becomes more mainstream small issues such as this will go away.
If Bush actually said that, Bush is a moron.
Especially considering that the word entrepreneur is a freakin' french word.
Actually, on further review, Bush may just be a moron regardless.
This brings out a better question. A week or so ago when Madonna offered her "What the F*** do you think you are doing" mp3 I would assume that that were copyrighted material as well. Unless of course she went to the trouble of releasing it gpl it's pretty much copyrighted by default as I understand the laws.
So if the RIAA and Madonna released this song with the expectation that users would share it were they not intentionaly contributing to break the same laws, effectively conspiring to have 1000's of users intentionaly share it?
Logic would dictate that unless Madonna were expecting this file to NOT be shared that she would be in some ways complicit.
We don't trust the government from abusing there powers to trace our identities.
We don't trust the RIAA from trying to find out who we are.
Yet we are proposing offering bounties so that Joe's kid who lives down the street can use whatever he can to find out who some spammer is? The spammer spoofs my email address and the government is going to encourage a posse of wanna be's to hassle me, by offering them a bounty if they happen to be right?
I don't like this idea.
Think of the DMCA as a gun. Not necessarily what you want to use to uphold your rights. Normally only bad people or those with high authority (police, soldiers - in theory) use guns to get what you feel is fair.
A store owner who pulls a gun to stop a robbery is different than the robber who pulls the gun.
In many ways you are the store owner being robbed.....pulling the gun (the DMCA) may not be nice and it may not be what you want to do, but it can't be considered out of line to use more "force" than that which some may feel is necessary....add to that the law is on your side. Right or wrong I assume that in day to day life you abide by those laws which affect you, whether or not you agree with them. This is a two way street.
"c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider."
So any government or tech office gets written permission. Written permission = "express authoritiy or actual consent". They are therefore within the law.
Simple.
The home user, on the other hand, gets "express authority or actual consent" when they pay extra to use their NAT router
Re:The sad thing is...
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
YOu say "I really hope this wasn't our Government's doing."
you may have hit the nail on the head.
Consider the long term and it's effect on training. Retraining staff is definitly a short term expensive but over the course of, say, 10 years I think it would be a wise investment.
I hear many people argue over the costs of running linux systems compared to running windows systems, and with 90% of computer users (and techies) familar with one and not the other it is easy to argue that Microsoft maintenance costs may be less. But imagine if Linux continues to pick up users (and techies).....the software cost won't be rising and the training costs can only decrease.
Is a private letter not copyrighted as soon as it's written? And would a letter sent to a select few still not be copyrighted.
A quick search on google for "copyright law" "private letters" (http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22copyright+law%22 +%22private+letters%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btn G=Google+Search&meta=) would indicate that this is so.
I open a store and sell a million of "whatever" I get paid for a million of them, hence larger profits. A busy restaurant makes more money. I sell more books I make more money. I sell more software, or maybe if I am an accountant, my services are in demand.....the more people who want what I have to offer the more I make. The more I am rewarded.
But apparently if I sell a million records it's okay if I make squat while you pay diddly for something I created that you want.
It's funny how when a British company tried to sell some "linux source code" that they had used in a product of theirs that the community here cried out that they were breaking the Open Source copyright agreement. Yet when the topic of mp3's comes up the consensus seems to be that breaking the copyright laws are fine.
Than I say that your are a CompuSmart manager with his head up his butt or one who willingly does not follow the laws of Canda. See http://cb-cda.gc.ca/news/interimcopy-e.html .
Quotes such as
"
The Private Copying Tariff, 2001-2002 expired on December 31, 2002. On December 19, 2002, the Copyright Board set an interim tariff, which took effect on January 1, 2003. For a copy of the Interim Private Copying Tariff, 2003, please click here.
The types of media currently subject to private copying royalties and associated rates are:
Audio cassettes of 40 minutes or more in length 29
CD-R and CD-RW 21
CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc 77
This site features a separate section that outlines manufacturers' and importers' obligations. Please note, the information on this site is provided for general information purposes only. For specific information, please refer to the text of the actual decisions and the approved tariffs."
Make me wonder how reputable CompuSmart is.
I suppose you could go to http://www.cpcc.ca/ - the website for the Canadain Private Copying Collective to see exactly which laws you claim to be breaking.
Wouldn't it be nice if Red Hat or Mandrake or Suse sued the governments (in those countries such as Canada and the U.S.) where funds are given to "musicians" for every cd purchased. I don't file share yet must pay a fee for each cd I purchase... 59 cents each. At 3 cds each for my Mandrake and RedHat distributions (which I can download for free but must pay a "musician" to burn) that would muliply quite rapidly when you consider the number of North American open source user.
It is quite ironic that an Operating System is offered to me free of use but I must pay a "Musician" for the right to copy it. Mandrake goes bankrupt. These may not be large number of dollars but the fact is that they are being "pirated" by the music industry from the Open Source community.
I wonder where this leaves recyclables. In Portland, does this not give ANYONE the right to go from home to home and pick up the recycled newspaper to sell? There is precedence up here in Canada on this. The recyclables are owned by the homeowner or the intended recipient. They are not free for anyone to take.
Apparently there is an opportunity for a private entrepeneur in Portland by taking all those free recyclables being set out on the side of the road for anyone to take.
There is some case law up here in Canada on this. Recyclables left by the roadside are the property of the owner or the 'intended' recipient.....ie, anyone can't drive around picking up those bottles or newspapers to sell. They are not 'free' to anyone.
Trash = discarded....?
I'm laughing thinking how publicly accessable that makes the trash bin on your computer. Hey, you didn't want it anymore. It's public.
Is this safe?
If I pick up a gun in my house to 'defend' myself will it shoot?
Start with the police. Let the police in that state use these guns. This will do two things. Show that this works and instill public confidence, and protect the officer from his gun being stolen and used against him/her.
Slashdot Mirror
If
"someone had obtained a patent on drilling a hole"
I wouldn't be here today.
Oh, wait....what's that?
"in brass"
Oh...brass.......not that kind of drilling and not that kind of hole?
My mistake.
So what you mean to say is that if I hook a wireless router up and someone drives by my house and uses my network - which is now legal in some states - they are within the law, but I am breaking it since they are using my router to connect a 3rd computer to my isp? (my isp allows 2 by default).
Laws will get messy.
Or how about I connect my check my email from my palm pilot through my computer....is it now a network?
Messy.
Messy.
Messy.
With the Total Cost of Ownership up for debate I think a main point is being missed.
If I own a foriegn car, I expect the mechanic I use to charge a bit more (or a lot more). Plain and simple supply and demand. And I can't hire my friendly neighbourhood backyard mechanic neither because most backyard mechanics don't touch my brand.
Linux, as the purveyor of a much smaller portion of the computing environment suffers the same fate these days. 8 out 10 users use something else. If and when that reaches a more equal ratio there should be more people available to maintain these systems. And less time spent helping out with small issues.
Imagine an office full of staff who have been weaned on Windows. Toss them linux and half the maintainance costs wouldn't be on maintainance, but on solving issues the users create. Familiarity is a big part of the big picture.
As Michael Robertson noted yesterday - Lindows users insist on Anti-Virus protection. Yet when a virus comes out in linux there is usually a fix as fast as there is detection for the virus. As linux becomes more mainstream small issues such as this will go away.
If Bush actually said that, Bush is a moron. Especially considering that the word entrepreneur is a freakin' french word. Actually, on further review, Bush may just be a moron regardless.
Maybe they are just trying the Bush Strategy on Iraq.
Declare that they have done it. And if they didn't, well, they did something else.
Then look for it and when you "hopefully" find it, declare whatever you find as "what you were looking for".
Basically a shoot and call whatever you hit the target. The only way to 100% accuracy.
This brings out a better question. A week or so ago when Madonna offered her "What the F*** do you think you are doing" mp3 I would assume that that were copyrighted material as well. Unless of course she went to the trouble of releasing it gpl it's pretty much copyrighted by default as I understand the laws. So if the RIAA and Madonna released this song with the expectation that users would share it were they not intentionaly contributing to break the same laws, effectively conspiring to have 1000's of users intentionaly share it? Logic would dictate that unless Madonna were expecting this file to NOT be shared that she would be in some ways complicit.
We don't trust the government from abusing there powers to trace our identities. We don't trust the RIAA from trying to find out who we are. Yet we are proposing offering bounties so that Joe's kid who lives down the street can use whatever he can to find out who some spammer is? The spammer spoofs my email address and the government is going to encourage a posse of wanna be's to hassle me, by offering them a bounty if they happen to be right? I don't like this idea.
Think of the DMCA as a gun. Not necessarily what you want to use to uphold your rights. Normally only bad people or those with high authority (police, soldiers - in theory) use guns to get what you feel is fair.
A store owner who pulls a gun to stop a robbery is different than the robber who pulls the gun.
In many ways you are the store owner being robbed.....pulling the gun (the DMCA) may not be nice and it may not be what you want to do, but it can't be considered out of line to use more "force" than that which some may feel is necessary....add to that the law is on your side. Right or wrong I assume that in day to day life you abide by those laws which affect you, whether or not you agree with them. This is a two way street.
"c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider."
So any government or tech office gets written permission. Written permission = "express authoritiy or actual consent". They are therefore within the law.
Simple.
The home user, on the other hand, gets "express authority or actual consent" when they pay extra to use their NAT router
YOu say "I really hope this wasn't our Government's doing." you may have hit the nail on the head.
Would cracking it and posting the results be against the law per the DMC? :)
Consider the long term and it's effect on training. Retraining staff is definitly a short term expensive but over the course of, say, 10 years I think it would be a wise investment. I hear many people argue over the costs of running linux systems compared to running windows systems, and with 90% of computer users (and techies) familar with one and not the other it is easy to argue that Microsoft maintenance costs may be less. But imagine if Linux continues to pick up users (and techies).....the software cost won't be rising and the training costs can only decrease.
Is a private letter not copyrighted as soon as it's written? And would a letter sent to a select few still not be copyrighted. A quick search on google for "copyright law" "private letters" (http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22copyright+law%22 +%22private+letters%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btn G=Google+Search&meta=) would indicate that this is so.
I open a store and sell a million of "whatever" I get paid for a million of them, hence larger profits. A busy restaurant makes more money. I sell more books I make more money. I sell more software, or maybe if I am an accountant, my services are in demand.....the more people who want what I have to offer the more I make. The more I am rewarded.
But apparently if I sell a million records it's okay if I make squat while you pay diddly for something I created that you want.
It's funny how when a British company tried to sell some "linux source code" that they had used in a product of theirs that the community here cried out that they were breaking the Open Source copyright agreement. Yet when the topic of mp3's comes up the consensus seems to be that breaking the copyright laws are fine.
It's quite ironic.
Than I say that your are a CompuSmart manager with his head up his butt or one who willingly does not follow the laws of Canda. See http://cb-cda.gc.ca/news/interimcopy-e.html . Quotes such as " The Private Copying Tariff, 2001-2002 expired on December 31, 2002. On December 19, 2002, the Copyright Board set an interim tariff, which took effect on January 1, 2003. For a copy of the Interim Private Copying Tariff, 2003, please click here. The types of media currently subject to private copying royalties and associated rates are: Audio cassettes of 40 minutes or more in length 29 CD-R and CD-RW 21 CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc 77 This site features a separate section that outlines manufacturers' and importers' obligations. Please note, the information on this site is provided for general information purposes only. For specific information, please refer to the text of the actual decisions and the approved tariffs." Make me wonder how reputable CompuSmart is. I suppose you could go to http://www.cpcc.ca/ - the website for the Canadain Private Copying Collective to see exactly which laws you claim to be breaking.
Wouldn't it be nice if Red Hat or Mandrake or Suse sued the governments (in those countries such as Canada and the U.S.) where funds are given to "musicians" for every cd purchased. I don't file share yet must pay a fee for each cd I purchase ... 59 cents each. At 3 cds each for my Mandrake and RedHat distributions (which I can download for free but must pay a "musician" to burn) that would muliply quite rapidly when you consider the number of North American open source user.
It is quite ironic that an Operating System is offered to me free of use but I must pay a "Musician" for the right to copy it. Mandrake goes bankrupt. These may not be large number of dollars but the fact is that they are being "pirated" by the music industry from the Open Source community.
I wonder where this leaves recyclables. In Portland, does this not give ANYONE the right to go from home to home and pick up the recycled newspaper to sell? There is precedence up here in Canada on this. The recyclables are owned by the homeowner or the intended recipient. They are not free for anyone to take. Apparently there is an opportunity for a private entrepeneur in Portland by taking all those free recyclables being set out on the side of the road for anyone to take.
There is some case law up here in Canada on this. Recyclables left by the roadside are the property of the owner or the 'intended' recipient.....ie, anyone can't drive around picking up those bottles or newspapers to sell. They are not 'free' to anyone.
Trash = discarded....? I'm laughing thinking how publicly accessable that makes the trash bin on your computer. Hey, you didn't want it anymore. It's public.
Is this safe? If I pick up a gun in my house to 'defend' myself will it shoot? Start with the police. Let the police in that state use these guns. This will do two things. Show that this works and instill public confidence, and protect the officer from his gun being stolen and used against him/her.