The only problem with this logic and this going after more will require demonstrating real damages.
And I certainly not trying to troll here, but as someone who has dealt with the courts before theoretical losses don't have much bearing. To sue for damages you normally need to provide receipts or a paper trail.
The problem with this and torrents would be: 1). showing the torrents that you had issues downloading (I'm guessing many won't be appearing in court with lists of pirated files 2). claiming that waiting for 12 hours instead of 2 for that file to come in had a measurable cost
The $16 per customer will act as a deterrent far more than passing up the offer in hopes.......
On a few different levels, this reminds me of the the recent arguments towards 3 strikes and loss of internet access for pirating files.
Anyone who thinks someone should lose their balls for pedophilia would most likely also agree that loss of internet for file sharing is as just.
And any judge who thinks that loss of internet is too harsh of a punishment for pedophilia must also agree that loss of internet for filing sharing is too harsh.
Unless the judge thinks that file sharing is worse then pedophilia that is.
I have read most of the comments below I am replying to you.
You have pretty much hit the nail on the head alluding to Mr Shuttleworth's "open source is not a democracy" comment. When something as simple as whether 1000 or 1024 should be used causes such dissension. In effect, this is meaningless. Pick one and life goes on. It becomes the norm. Simple. Done. Over. And everything works fine.
But no. In such a technically meaningless semantic discussion there is still dissension how many years later? "Shit, or get off the pot" as the old saying goes. You can argue about something for how many years before you just have to do it. Dictate and get it done sometimes needs to be the answer.
1) knows of this attack 2) lives, or is close enough by to access his wireless 3) would rather hack this device then look for another non - secured connection 4) and that the user cares
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1520430 shows that ANY car with a keypad entry can be "hacked" in 20 minutes or less. Because it works in theory doesn't mean you are at risk to be stung by it. It's probably easier to break into the OP"s house and steal his wallet then to hack into his network.
Firebird would have been rejected by Microsoft had Microsoft followed Apple's policies.
It has nothing to do with being against 'chlorine' in swimming pools. It has to do with being told you have to wear an Apple approved swimsuit or you can't swim there.
A $3 cheque will cost you $4 in time and gas to cash. There is a bit of sarcasm in that comment, but there is some truth too.
When google adsense first started, they made small payouts in some situations (year end or something, i can't quite remember). I was sent a cheque for $6.48. That cheque is tucked in a photo album somewhere. It was kind of cool getting that first cheque from google and, although I highly doubt the value will ever be greater then sentiment, who knows.
Not to mention, to ask Steve Jobs a question via his direct email address and then get a reply means either:
1) someone is hacking Steve Jobs incoming email and read the question and replied 2) someone guessed that Steve Jobs was asked this questions and then coincidentally spoofed an answer to person they correctly guessed asked it 3) Steve Jobs replied.
number 1 is big news - Steve Jobs email is not secure!!!! number 2 is conspiracy theory material number 3 confirms what Steve Jobs said in a pcmag article 2 days ago and seems the logically obvious choice.
and his point is that he, like me, hasn't had a problem with Real Player crashing my machine in years.
Because I won't install Real Player on my machine after past issues.
There are many browser options, as this article is about. The OP does not owe Opera the opportunity to be installed on his machine when such quality choices exist.
"For some time now I have lamented the fact that major issues are overlooked while many Unnecessary bills come to me for consideration. Water reform, prison reform, and health Care are major issues my Administration has brought to the table, but the Legislature just Kicks the can down the alley.
Yet another legislative year has come and gone without the major reforms Californians Overwhelmingly deserve. In light of this, and after careful consideration, I believe it is Unnecessary to sign this measure at this time."
Unlimited means that a few heavy traffic websites who try to utilize "unlimited" will cause your site to load like molasses. You ARE going to be on a shared box.
Buying into a host that offers unlimited is only setting yourself up for dealing with that. Unless you expect your provider to deal with it by limiting those heave traffic users (and if they do while trying to maintain high profits, well there goes unlimited).
Violating copyright for my own use is much different then violating copyright to sell for a profit.
I have no idea who is right or wrong here, not having RTA but I am pretty sure there aren't any laws preventing me from typing out the text of that book I bought. There are laws against me typing it out and selling it though.
Hard to say it's not stealing or not illegal when the author of the book himself says:
"WARNING: The practice of modifying a cable modem violates service agreements, and hackers risk being banned by service providers for life. This book is not intended to be used for stealing Internet service or any other illegal activity."
Easiest way to find the book is to simply google the quote above.
"stealing internet service" and "illegal activity" in the disclaimer certainly go towards whether or not your analogy fails. I do think he has many defenses, but yours likely won't be one of them.
Per the slashdot post - ""Our new car insurance company offered us discounts for our teenage driver if we agree to install a 'drive-cam'"
Per the link provided in it.
"Will teens or parents participating in Teen Safe Driver get a discount on insurance?
A. No. While there are many financial and non-financial benefits from participating in Teen Safe Driver, American Family does not have enough information at this point to provide an insurance discount to participants. "
You can record in HD with this device. And you can connect it to a computer (that has a TV input card) and record and keep whatever you want.
Firewire has never been supported. That is the original poster's only complaint.
Remember how 6 months ago you could watch analog TV in the US? Now you can't. No one specifically went out to ensure your grandma's TV didn't work. Technologies change. That an unsupported connection type doesn't work when changes take place is hardly a conspiracy.
I did not misunderstand. I was replying to a specific post. If you read my parent you will see "He's willing to pay for a PVR that can record HD shows in HD quality - the company just isn't willing to provide one." which as both you and I know, is not true.
Secondly, when he bought the device the manual (http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/CustomerCare/TelevisionSupport/UserGuides/) clearly advises "Note: Copying to external sources, i.e., DVDR and PC are not supported. They may work if HDCP compliant. See manufacturerâ€(TM)s instructions."
HDCP compliant is, by definition "High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection".
Does his firewire port provide this? Not according to Motorola, the company who likely made his device (http://broadband.motorola.com/dvr/news_faq.asp#PIP) "Playback recordings in real-time connected to a VCR over the analog ports or a computer/D-VCR over IEEE-1394 (Firewire). Note: The IEEE-1394 option assumes content is not copy protected."
So, when his bought his device, firewire was not supported, the manual advised that they may work if HDCP compliant and to see the manufacturers website regarding this, and the manufacturers website advises the firewire is not HDCP compliant.
Now if he wanted to record to a computer using a TV card on his computer he'd be fine. Same as I am fine. His only arguement is that he wants to do it using unsupported firewire (by both the manufacturer and Shaw).
They have sold PVR's capable of recording in HD for quiet some time.
And from the original poster "Hereâ€(TM)s why this is an issue for Industry Canada (as previously outlined below): in order to use a PVR other than Shawâ€(TM)s to record programs (and, specifically, HD programs), the IEEE1394 output is required."
He is not willing to pay for a box that Shaw provides.
The real question is this: When a provider uses technology that breaks 3rd party equipment, is it the responsibility of the provider, or the 3rd party to provide a fix. This has happened with Microsoft and Apple many times - and often old hardware does not work until the vendor provides a fix. Shaw does not support firewire connections on their own set top boxes and openly advise this. Why should they be providing support for 3rd party set top boxes WHO CHOOSE to use firewire?
And while at Custom's, have the border guard try to log in to your computer. Have him "access" the second account, delete all the data and then discover that you find yourself in some foreign court charged with destroying whatever it is they claim you destroy.
I do believe there have been cases in the US where people have been compelled by the courts to produce encryption keys for data on laptops they have tried to carry past customs. The poster does want to do this for protection while traveling "overseas". I wouldn't suggest entering some countries and claiming you just had a script delete everything on your harddrive - when their customs tried to log - but "you have nothing to hide - honest".
"They have no idea how many copies Ms. Thomas assisted in making."
So it could have been zero?
So I am with my cousin Bob, whom I haven't seen in almost a year. He requests a drive to the store, since he's had several beer and I've only had one. I give him one. Seems he's a bit of a low life and he robs the store, killing the clerk. He comes out and we leave. The clerk had time to hit the silent alarm before dieing and we are stopped a few blocks away.
I'm charged with murder and threatened with a death sentence. Yet I didn't know anything was going to happen - and didn't even realize anything until we stopped. Do I take the 40 - 50 year plea just because someone deems it fair? Reasonable chance the jury won't believe that I "knew nothing" and that I may end up prison, or worse. But sometime in life you have to take a stand. You can only applaud someone brave enough too.
So a 40 year old man goes online. He spends a month chatting with an 11 year old girl. He encourages her and says nice things. He flirts with her, etc. The conversations get racy and he eventually talks her into meeting.
The 40 year old man shows up and so do police - who were pretending to be the 11 year old girl.
The man is eventually charged and convicted and goes to jail.
Nothing happened but conversation.
To answer your comment - We have decided that he can be imprisoned based simply on his speech. To do otherwise would be to face the consequences
Basically. If you visit his website you have the expectation of privacy. But only if you don't use the internet to do it, it seems.
*****
Commitment to Protecting Your Privacy
Your privacy is important to your Member of Parliament. Any information you provide is protected under the provisions of the Federal Privacy Act.
The Office of Peter Van Loan, MP will respect your privacy by protecting any personal information provided to the MP or his staff. Great care is taken to keep both confidential and secure all personal information.
'Personal Information' is any information which may be used to identify an individual. It may include information such as a name, address, telephone number and/or other contact information.
This website employs software programs to monitor website traffic and to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information, or otherwise cause damage. This software receives and records the Internet Protocol (IP) address of each computer that has contacted this website, the date and time of the visit, and the pages visited.
Personal information is used to communicate with you, or to facilitate your interaction with Peter Van Loan, MP or his staff. Great care is taken in the way personal information is stored and secure
Slashdot Mirror
Wow.
et al....
Buy the game, buy updates, pay a subscription fee......
Significant price drops?
The only problem with this logic and this going after more will require demonstrating real damages.
And I certainly not trying to troll here, but as someone who has dealt with the courts before theoretical losses don't have much bearing. To sue for damages you normally need to provide receipts or a paper trail.
The problem with this and torrents would be:
1). showing the torrents that you had issues downloading (I'm guessing many won't be appearing in court with lists of pirated files
2). claiming that waiting for 12 hours instead of 2 for that file to come in had a measurable cost
The $16 per customer will act as a deterrent far more than passing up the offer in hopes.......
Which is why there is such law and order is Somalia?
There is such law and order in the US because taxes pay for it.
Or so goes the argument of the grandparent. And I can't say that I disagree....
He was not a molester actually.
There was no child. He jerked off on webcam for a 50 year old male cop pretending to be a 13 year old girl.
Perhaps you should read the article before asking that others waste taxpayer dollars investigating it.
I'm not here to defend this guy or what he did, but the judges do seem to have made a just decision.
On a few different levels, this reminds me of the the recent arguments towards 3 strikes and loss of internet access for pirating files.
Anyone who thinks someone should lose their balls for pedophilia would most likely also agree that loss of internet for file sharing is as just.
And any judge who thinks that loss of internet is too harsh of a punishment for pedophilia must also agree that loss of internet for filing sharing is too harsh.
Unless the judge thinks that file sharing is worse then pedophilia that is.
I have read most of the comments below I am replying to you.
You have pretty much hit the nail on the head alluding to Mr Shuttleworth's "open source is not a democracy" comment. When something as simple as whether 1000 or 1024 should be used causes such dissension. In effect, this is meaningless. Pick one and life goes on. It becomes the norm. Simple. Done. Over. And everything works fine.
But no. In such a technically meaningless semantic discussion there is still dissension how many years later? "Shit, or get off the pot" as the old saying goes. You can argue about something for how many years before you just have to do it. Dictate and get it done sometimes needs to be the answer.
This assumes that someone who's smart enough:
1) knows of this attack
2) lives, or is close enough by to access his wireless
3) would rather hack this device then look for another non - secured connection
4) and that the user cares
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1520430 shows that ANY car with a keypad entry can be "hacked" in 20 minutes or less. Because it works in theory doesn't mean you are at risk to be stung by it. It's probably easier to break into the OP"s house and steal his wallet then to hack into his network.
Firebird would have been rejected by Microsoft had Microsoft followed Apple's policies.
It has nothing to do with being against 'chlorine' in swimming pools. It has to do with being told you have to wear an Apple approved swimsuit or you can't swim there.
A $3 cheque will cost you $4 in time and gas to cash. There is a bit of sarcasm in that comment, but there is some truth too.
When google adsense first started, they made small payouts in some situations (year end or something, i can't quite remember). I was sent a cheque for $6.48.
That cheque is tucked in a photo album somewhere. It was kind of cool getting that first cheque from google and, although I highly doubt the value will ever be greater then sentiment, who knows.
Regardless. It's not a $6 that I will ever miss.
Not to mention, to ask Steve Jobs a question via his direct email address and then get a reply means either:
1) someone is hacking Steve Jobs incoming email and read the question and replied
2) someone guessed that Steve Jobs was asked this questions and then coincidentally spoofed an answer to person they correctly guessed asked it
3) Steve Jobs replied.
number 1 is big news - Steve Jobs email is not secure!!!!
number 2 is conspiracy theory material
number 3 confirms what Steve Jobs said in a pcmag article 2 days ago and seems the logically obvious choice.
and his point is that he, like me, hasn't had a problem with Real Player crashing my machine in years.
Because I won't install Real Player on my machine after past issues.
There are many browser options, as this article is about. The OP does not owe Opera the opportunity to be installed on his machine when such quality choices exist.
California? As in:
"For some time now I have lamented the fact that major issues are overlooked while many
Unnecessary bills come to me for consideration. Water reform, prison reform, and health
Care are major issues my Administration has brought to the table, but the Legislature just
Kicks the can down the alley.
Yet another legislative year has come and gone without the major reforms Californians
Overwhelmingly deserve. In light of this, and after careful consideration, I believe it is
Unnecessary to sign this measure at this time."
Unlimited means that a few heavy traffic websites who try to utilize "unlimited" will cause your site to load like molasses. You ARE going to be on a shared box.
Buying into a host that offers unlimited is only setting yourself up for dealing with that. Unless you expect your provider to deal with it by limiting those heave traffic users (and if they do while trying to maintain high profits, well there goes unlimited).
And jailed.
If even a single 14 year was viewed naked in the privacy of their own home by a covert camera laws will have been broken.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/28/webcam_coersion_suspect/
A life sentence is what this guy faced.........
Be interesting to see how much of this is hype and how much really happened.
Violating copyright for my own use is much different then violating copyright to sell for a profit.
I have no idea who is right or wrong here, not having RTA but I am pretty sure there aren't any laws preventing me from typing out the text of that book I bought. There are laws against me typing it out and selling it though.
Hard to say it's not stealing or not illegal when the author of the book himself says:
"WARNING: The practice of modifying a cable modem violates service agreements, and hackers risk being banned by service providers for life. This book is not intended to be used for stealing Internet service or any other illegal activity."
Easiest way to find the book is to simply google the quote above.
"stealing internet service" and "illegal activity" in the disclaimer certainly go towards whether or not your analogy fails. I do think he has many defenses, but yours likely won't be one of them.
Especially when it contradicts itself....
Per the slashdot post - ""Our new car insurance company offered us discounts for our teenage driver if we agree to install a 'drive-cam'"
Per the link provided in it.
"Will teens or parents participating in Teen Safe Driver get a discount on insurance?
A. No. While there are many financial and non-financial benefits from participating in Teen Safe Driver, American Family does not have enough information at this point to provide an insurance discount to participants. "
You can record in HD with this device. And you can connect it to a computer (that has a TV input card) and record and keep whatever you want.
Firewire has never been supported. That is the original poster's only complaint.
Remember how 6 months ago you could watch analog TV in the US? Now you can't. No one specifically went out to ensure your grandma's TV didn't work. Technologies change. That an unsupported connection type doesn't work when changes take place is hardly a conspiracy.
I did not misunderstand. I was replying to a specific post. If you read my parent you will see "He's willing to pay for a PVR that can record HD shows in HD quality - the company just isn't willing to provide one." which as both you and I know, is not true.
Secondly, when he bought the device the manual (http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/CustomerCare/TelevisionSupport/UserGuides/) clearly advises "Note: Copying to external sources, i.e., DVDR and PC are not supported. They may work if HDCP compliant. See manufacturerâ€(TM)s instructions."
HDCP compliant is, by definition "High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection".
Does his firewire port provide this? Not according to Motorola, the company who likely made his device (http://broadband.motorola.com/dvr/news_faq.asp#PIP) "Playback recordings in real-time connected to a VCR over the analog ports or a computer/D-VCR over IEEE-1394 (Firewire). Note: The IEEE-1394 option assumes content is not copy protected."
So, when his bought his device, firewire was not supported, the manual advised that they may work if HDCP compliant and to see the manufacturers website regarding this, and the manufacturers website advises the firewire is not HDCP compliant.
Now if he wanted to record to a computer using a TV card on his computer he'd be fine. Same as I am fine. His only arguement is that he wants to do it using unsupported firewire (by both the manufacturer and Shaw).
http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Television/HDTV/Hardware-HDPVR.htm
They have sold PVR's capable of recording in HD for quiet some time.
And from the original poster "Hereâ€(TM)s why this is an issue for Industry Canada (as previously outlined below): in order to use a PVR other than Shawâ€(TM)s to record programs (and, specifically, HD programs), the IEEE1394 output is required."
He is not willing to pay for a box that Shaw provides.
The real question is this: When a provider uses technology that breaks 3rd party equipment, is it the responsibility of the provider, or the 3rd party to provide a fix. This has happened with Microsoft and Apple many times - and often old hardware does not work until the vendor provides a fix. Shaw does not support firewire connections on their own set top boxes and openly advise this. Why should they be providing support for 3rd party set top boxes WHO CHOOSE to use firewire?
$20 is too much for a CD of sub par music. Now you want me to pay the same people who already rip me off, and get nothing?
You want people to donate $600,000 to the RIAA?
Is this from the Onion?
And while at Custom's, have the border guard try to log in to your computer. Have him "access" the second account, delete all the data and then discover that you find yourself in some foreign court charged with destroying whatever it is they claim you destroy.
I do believe there have been cases in the US where people have been compelled by the courts to produce encryption keys for data on laptops they have tried to carry past customs. The poster does want to do this for protection while traveling "overseas". I wouldn't suggest entering some countries and claiming you just had a script delete everything on your harddrive - when their customs tried to log - but "you have nothing to hide - honest".
"They have no idea how many copies Ms. Thomas assisted in making."
So it could have been zero?
So I am with my cousin Bob, whom I haven't seen in almost a year. He requests a drive to the store, since he's had several beer and I've only had one. I give him one. Seems he's a bit of a low life and he robs the store, killing the clerk. He comes out and we leave. The clerk had time to hit the silent alarm before dieing and we are stopped a few blocks away.
I'm charged with murder and threatened with a death sentence. Yet I didn't know anything was going to happen - and didn't even realize anything until we stopped. Do I take the 40 - 50 year plea just because someone deems it fair? Reasonable chance the jury won't believe that I "knew nothing" and that I may end up prison, or worse. But sometime in life you have to take a stand. You can only applaud someone brave enough too.
So a 40 year old man goes online. He spends a month chatting with an 11 year old girl. He encourages her and says nice things. He flirts with her, etc. The conversations get racy and he eventually talks her into meeting.
The 40 year old man shows up and so do police - who were pretending to be the 11 year old girl.
The man is eventually charged and convicted and goes to jail.
Nothing happened but conversation.
To answer your comment - We have decided that he can be imprisoned based simply on his speech. To do otherwise would be to face the consequences
His website Privacy Policy:
Basically. If you visit his website you have the expectation of privacy. But only if you don't use the internet to do it, it seems.
*****
Commitment to Protecting Your Privacy
Your privacy is important to your Member of Parliament. Any information you provide is protected under the provisions of the Federal Privacy Act.
The Office of Peter Van Loan, MP will respect your privacy by protecting any personal information provided to the MP or his staff. Great care is taken to keep both confidential and secure all personal information.
'Personal Information' is any information which may be used to identify an individual. It may include information such as a name, address, telephone number and/or other contact information.
This website employs software programs to monitor website traffic and to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information, or otherwise cause damage. This software receives and records the Internet Protocol (IP) address of each computer that has contacted this website, the date and time of the visit, and the pages visited.
Personal information is used to communicate with you, or to facilitate your interaction with Peter Van Loan, MP or his staff. Great care is taken in the way personal information is stored and secure