Well, of course you know... if you are "legitimate", then it is all opt-in, right?
Wrong. Whether it is opt-in or not depends on which state's law you apply.
How could you not know what state the person you are sending email to is in?
According to the article, the Virginia statute does not require that you send email to someone in Virginia. It only requires that the email "pass through" a server located in Virginia.
This is something that is completely unpredictable. If this is constitutional, it would give the state power to regulate your communications with someone not in that state, simply because the communication "passes through" that state.
Are you going to do a traceroute each time you send someone an email? Even that wouldn't work, because it is your ISP's server sending the email, not you. So you would have to make sure that your communication follows the laws of all 50 states.
Allowing this would give any state the power to regulate not just your email, but your web-browsing, your ftping, your bittorrenting, your usenet posts... everything, spam or otherwise.
There is no reasonable way for a person to follow the laws of 50 different governments for every single communication they make on the internet. Nevermind the time and effort in researching that law... what if those laws conflict? You then have to do the internet equivalent of changing your mudflaps for every single packet, every time that packet crosses state lines.
This would require a complete change of the structure of the internet so that it could recognize state boundaries.
That kind of inconvenience is the essence of what the dormant commerce clause forbids, unreasonable limitations on interstate commerce.
So, forget for a moment that this particular law will be superseded by Federal law soon... think about the difficulty of complying with the laws of 50 different states every time you click on a URL.
How about if Virginia got all worked up about the dangers of Freenet. Tomorrow they outlaw Freenet and prosecute criminally anyone who sends Freenet packets through a Virginia server. If you used Freenet, how would you handle that?
I am anti-Microsoft and pro-Linux. But I have to say I saw this coming. Lindows is very close in name to Windows. And I have actually heard people call in on the "Clark Howard" radio show (a consumer advocate) complaining that they bought a Lindows computer at WalMart. They actually thought that it was a version of Windows.
This is the ostensible purpose of trademark law, to prevent consumer confusion. Of course, a preliminary injunction here will be highly damaging to Lindows, even though it doesn't apply to the US.
Now, if they did this to XWindows, I would be complaining. But, nobody is selling XWindows as a boxed product and prominently displaying its name to uninformed consumers.
There's no threat of consumer confusion regarding XWindows. There is regarding Lindows.
1. Unconstitutional - Dormant Commerce Clause. If a state can't regulate the type of mudflaps used by 18-wheelers on its own freeways, it doesn't make sense that it could prosecute someone who might not even know they were sending email through the state.
If that's not an interference with interstate commerce, I don't know what is.
2. Mens rea - Knowledge/intent of the crime. Most crimes (other than traffic violations) require at least that the accused knew he was doing the facts that make up the crime (not that it IS a crime, only the underlying facts). Here, the crime requires that the email pass through Virginia. How is he supposed to know whether a particular email he sends is passing through Virginia? Even if he is sending it to AOL, he doesn't necessarily know that AOL is in Virginia.
Yet another conflict between fighting spam and preserving our rights.
OR (if you read the sentence completely) you'd realize my contempt for the use of ad hominem attacks on people expressing a position, so I applied the same rhetorical technique on the offending poster.
Ah, it was the old using rhetorical techniques that you don't like approach.
Of course you excuse your own original post, which was entirely an attack on immigrants... and later liberals. A member of either group will predictably take that personally.
So you engaged in ad hominem attacks unprovoked. Of course, you bit back harder after others were provoked by yourself.
I wouldn't know if you're stupid or not. But it's at least fair to call you ignorant.
Did you get beat up by a mexican when you were a baby or something?
Well, he said "liberal idiot" OR "wetback", so maybe he got beat up by a liberal... or a liberal Mexican... or a liberal who had just gotten out of a pool, like Denise Richards right after that "Wild Things" scene where she's frenching Neve Campbell.
MS gets super-pissed and screws me next time my OEM contract is up.
Perhaps, but there is a less insidious explanation...
If you're going to spend the money marketing something, you want to spend it where (and when) it counts.
eMachines sells computers mostly to home users right? And geeks don't think eMachines computers are good, right?
So why would it make sense for them to spend a lot of money marketing a machine at a point when only geeks can use it, and the most typical home user operating system (upwards of 95% of the market) doesn't exist yet?
Re:Oh Well, there not the first, there not the las
on
Kazaa-lite Shut Down
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
God bless Canada and the blank media tax; I don't mind paying a little bit on every CD-R for a music piracy license!
I do. We have a similar thing in the US. Every time you buy a blank audio tape, video tape, or DAT tape, Disney and others get a cut of the sale.
Why should the producers of "Martin Luther King Speaks" have to pay Disney for the privilege of producing their own program?
The truth value of that "if" will not be determined until Linux actually makes it on the desktop. Until it actually happens, the claim is just speculation, so the statement of "never" is not false.
It is not speculation to say that something will never happen. It is speculation to say that it might never happen. To say that it will never happen is an unqualified assertion.
An unqualified assertion must be either correct or incorrect. We may not find out until the end of time... but that is only a reflection of our knowledge, and not necessarily the state of the universe.
You might reply with the old koan about whether a tree makes a sound when it falls, if there is noone there to hear it. In other words, if noone has experienced the incorrectness, it isn't incorrect.
That would be a very good point, but I've already made it for you... Ha!
Re:That's how discovery works in litigation
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 1
Say I am a fizzy drinks manufacturer. I want to know what Coca-cola's secret formula is. I start a case against them saying that they've copied my formula, and that they have to give me their formula so I can prove it.
It's funny you use that example, because that is similar to at least one actual case. It should be no surprise that Coca-Cola settled out of court.
Anyway, I think SCO will lose because they released the code under the GPL. Copyright is strict liability. Even if they didn't know there own code was in it, publishing it under the GPL puts it out under the GPL.
I should clarify that what I mean by that is SCO's release of Caldera Linux... Apologies for the confusing wording.
Well, if the programmer had the OK to release this from a higher-up, or if he did so with a reasonable understanding that it was OK, he was acting within the scope of authority.
It could get more complicated than that. IIRC, SCO is claiming that its existing code was taken from another product and put into the Linux kernel. In that case, the "scope of authority" would have to be the authority to relicense that code under the GPL.
But if the programmer only had authority to help write code for the Linux kernel... that doesn't necessarily include the authority to relicense SCO's other code.
Anyway, I think SCO will lose because they released the code under the GPL. Copyright is strict liability. Even if they didn't know there own code was in it, publishing it under the GPL puts it out under the GPL.
The fact that their own employee may have contributed some of this code directly only adds fuel to the fire that will take SCO down.
That depends entirely on the "someone else" and "necessity", apparently.
No. It doesn't.
Here's a recap for you:
* Damaging someone else's property = bad
* Nuclear war = worse... a lot worse
Yknow, the EU did agree to this... so, I suppose you think that your government is just a bunch of sycophantic pussies who are eager to please the US. On the other hand, maybe they thought it would be a good idea.
Time constraints of war and other urgencies make it pretty damned impractical to call someone up and ask them to "kindly" shut down their system.
If the only practical option is to destroy that system at a time when people's lives are at stake, that is what will happen. It is simply a reality you need to be aware of.
The US isn't taking away your right to self-determination and other happy-stuff. You simply have a tough decision to make.
Option 1: If you want to invest billions of dollars and hope that the necessity never arises to destroy it, be our guest.
Option 2: Cooperate with the one ally that has provided you with more military support than any other.
Option 3: If you don't want any risk of it being destroyed, and it really chaps your hide that you didn't elect our president--neither did I, but that's beside the point--a third option is to simply ditch the project.
the whole "what about the terrorists" arguement has become as stale as "what about the children."
Hopefully the people making the decisions will use reason instead of limiting their analysis to the highly advanced method of policy-making known as "What's Hot, What's Not".
The point of this is not so that the US can hinder the European military. It's so the US can do a better job when it does things that Europe wants it to do. US and EU interests usually coincide... and if that changes, Europe can always change its policy.
Isn't it unfair? Doesn't it give the US too much power?
How about this... we finally find bin Laden's hideout in Afghanistan. He's tracked down while traveling in unfamiliar territory (to him). Wouldn't it be nice if we could jam that wonderful "open" GPS system that he's using to find his way somewhere else? Wouldn't it also be in the EU's best interest for someone (the US included) to catch bin Laden?
How about a situation where N. Korea or Iran launches a GPS guided nuclear missile. Wouldn't it be nice if the US could jam the GPS system in time to keep that warhead from reaching its destination?
Can't you think of other situations where this would be helpful?
I'm all for open systems and making technology accessible to the public, but sometimes there are good reasons for controlling that technology.
We've always been told that pirate games push prices up, but doesn't this news suggest that piracy in China has in fact pushed prices down?
One factor might be piracy. But another is that Chinese people have less money than people in more westernized countries.
There is pressure on both the supply and demand side: Supply of Chinese money is low. Demand is also low because they can get the product elsewhere for less.
Investigators traced the computer to Krastof when he logged onto his own America Online account at home through one of the stolen computers, White said. That enabled authorities to connect the computer's Internet Protocol address, a number that identifies a computer on the Internet, to Krastof's home address through his AOL account, White said.
Apparently, someone thinks that the IP address is constant. That's probably why the reporter misparaphrased (is that a word?) Sgt. White.
Slashdot Mirror
Happy trolling, fool.
Wrong. Whether it is opt-in or not depends on which state's law you apply.
How could you not know what state the person you are sending email to is in?
According to the article, the Virginia statute does not require that you send email to someone in Virginia. It only requires that the email "pass through" a server located in Virginia.
This is something that is completely unpredictable. If this is constitutional, it would give the state power to regulate your communications with someone not in that state, simply because the communication "passes through" that state.
Are you going to do a traceroute each time you send someone an email? Even that wouldn't work, because it is your ISP's server sending the email, not you. So you would have to make sure that your communication follows the laws of all 50 states.
Allowing this would give any state the power to regulate not just your email, but your web-browsing, your ftping, your bittorrenting, your usenet posts... everything, spam or otherwise.
There is no reasonable way for a person to follow the laws of 50 different governments for every single communication they make on the internet. Nevermind the time and effort in researching that law... what if those laws conflict? You then have to do the internet equivalent of changing your mudflaps for every single packet, every time that packet crosses state lines.
This would require a complete change of the structure of the internet so that it could recognize state boundaries.
That kind of inconvenience is the essence of what the dormant commerce clause forbids, unreasonable limitations on interstate commerce.
So, forget for a moment that this particular law will be superseded by Federal law soon... think about the difficulty of complying with the laws of 50 different states every time you click on a URL.
How about if Virginia got all worked up about the dangers of Freenet. Tomorrow they outlaw Freenet and prosecute criminally anyone who sends Freenet packets through a Virginia server. If you used Freenet, how would you handle that?
This is the ostensible purpose of trademark law, to prevent consumer confusion. Of course, a preliminary injunction here will be highly damaging to Lindows, even though it doesn't apply to the US.
Now, if they did this to XWindows, I would be complaining. But, nobody is selling XWindows as a boxed product and prominently displaying its name to uninformed consumers.
There's no threat of consumer confusion regarding XWindows. There is regarding Lindows.
If that's not an interference with interstate commerce, I don't know what is.
2. Mens rea - Knowledge/intent of the crime. Most crimes (other than traffic violations) require at least that the accused knew he was doing the facts that make up the crime (not that it IS a crime, only the underlying facts). Here, the crime requires that the email pass through Virginia. How is he supposed to know whether a particular email he sends is passing through Virginia? Even if he is sending it to AOL, he doesn't necessarily know that AOL is in Virginia.
Yet another conflict between fighting spam and preserving our rights.
Ah, it was the old using rhetorical techniques that you don't like approach.
Of course you excuse your own original post, which was entirely an attack on immigrants... and later liberals. A member of either group will predictably take that personally.
So you engaged in ad hominem attacks unprovoked. Of course, you bit back harder after others were provoked by yourself.
I wouldn't know if you're stupid or not. But it's at least fair to call you ignorant.
They have fed him and offered to send him home. Apparently they are not getting a lot of credit for that.
Well, he said "liberal idiot" OR "wetback", so maybe he got beat up by a liberal... or a liberal Mexican... or a liberal who had just gotten out of a pool, like Denise Richards right after that "Wild Things" scene where she's frenching Neve Campbell.
I don't know, just a guess.
Perhaps, but there is a less insidious explanation...
If you're going to spend the money marketing something, you want to spend it where (and when) it counts.
eMachines sells computers mostly to home users right? And geeks don't think eMachines computers are good, right?
So why would it make sense for them to spend a lot of money marketing a machine at a point when only geeks can use it, and the most typical home user operating system (upwards of 95% of the market) doesn't exist yet?
I do. We have a similar thing in the US. Every time you buy a blank audio tape, video tape, or DAT tape, Disney and others get a cut of the sale.
Why should the producers of "Martin Luther King Speaks" have to pay Disney for the privilege of producing their own program?
Ah yes, I remember the days of Linux version 9.
Good old version 9.
See, that's your problem. You should have been using something newer, like version 1,213,437,523.02. That version is much more mature.
Or is it patched for margaritas with crushed ice and salt???
Mmmm, open source is good... burp!
It is not speculation to say that something will never happen. It is speculation to say that it might never happen. To say that it will never happen is an unqualified assertion.
An unqualified assertion must be either correct or incorrect. We may not find out until the end of time... but that is only a reflection of our knowledge, and not necessarily the state of the universe.
You might reply with the old koan about whether a tree makes a sound when it falls, if there is noone there to hear it. In other words, if noone has experienced the incorrectness, it isn't incorrect.
That would be a very good point, but I've already made it for you... Ha!
It's funny you use that example, because that is similar to at least one actual case. It should be no surprise that Coca-Cola settled out of court.
I believe this is the case 107 F.R.D. 288.
Um... actually, if Linux is going to make it on the desktop, it is incorrect to say that it will never do so.
I should clarify that what I mean by that is SCO's release of Caldera Linux... Apologies for the confusing wording.
It could get more complicated than that. IIRC, SCO is claiming that its existing code was taken from another product and put into the Linux kernel. In that case, the "scope of authority" would have to be the authority to relicense that code under the GPL.
But if the programmer only had authority to help write code for the Linux kernel... that doesn't necessarily include the authority to relicense SCO's other code.
Anyway, I think SCO will lose because they released the code under the GPL. Copyright is strict liability. Even if they didn't know there own code was in it, publishing it under the GPL puts it out under the GPL.
The fact that their own employee may have contributed some of this code directly only adds fuel to the fire that will take SCO down.
BTW, I'm a law student too.
No. It doesn't.
Here's a recap for you:
* Damaging someone else's property = bad
* Nuclear war = worse... a lot worse
Yknow, the EU did agree to this... so, I suppose you think that your government is just a bunch of sycophantic pussies who are eager to please the US. On the other hand, maybe they thought it would be a good idea.
It's your government. Ask them.
There is a vast difference between murdering millions of innocent people, and damaging someone else's property out of necesitty.
I would expect that an enlightened European such as yourself would not have to have that pointed out to him.
If the only practical option is to destroy that system at a time when people's lives are at stake, that is what will happen. It is simply a reality you need to be aware of.
The US isn't taking away your right to self-determination and other happy-stuff. You simply have a tough decision to make.
Option 1: If you want to invest billions of dollars and hope that the necessity never arises to destroy it, be our guest.
Option 2: Cooperate with the one ally that has provided you with more military support than any other.
Option 3: If you don't want any risk of it being destroyed, and it really chaps your hide that you didn't elect our president--neither did I, but that's beside the point--a third option is to simply ditch the project.
Life is fraught with difficult choices.
Hopefully the people making the decisions will use reason instead of limiting their analysis to the highly advanced method of policy-making known as "What's Hot, What's Not".
Isn't it unfair? Doesn't it give the US too much power?
How about this... we finally find bin Laden's hideout in Afghanistan. He's tracked down while traveling in unfamiliar territory (to him). Wouldn't it be nice if we could jam that wonderful "open" GPS system that he's using to find his way somewhere else? Wouldn't it also be in the EU's best interest for someone (the US included) to catch bin Laden?
How about a situation where N. Korea or Iran launches a GPS guided nuclear missile. Wouldn't it be nice if the US could jam the GPS system in time to keep that warhead from reaching its destination?
Can't you think of other situations where this would be helpful?
I'm all for open systems and making technology accessible to the public, but sometimes there are good reasons for controlling that technology.
Those of us who feel strongly about this should watch the webcast or attend in person. Be sure to submit your comments to the FCC afterwards.
It's your government. If you think regulating VOIP is a bad idea, let it know.
Usually, only the big companies and their lawyers take part in this process, but we all have the right to take part and let our opinions be known.
One factor might be piracy. But another is that Chinese people have less money than people in more westernized countries.
There is pressure on both the supply and demand side: Supply of Chinese money is low. Demand is also low because they can get the product elsewhere for less.
It's a perfect formula for low prices.
Of course. Once they realized he was logged in with the stolen computer, that's how they traced his number and got his home address.
The question you should be asking yourself is, "How would they know that he was using the stolen computer in the first place?"
Apparently, someone thinks that the IP address is constant. That's probably why the reporter misparaphrased (is that a word?) Sgt. White.
Whoever wrote the story just plain bungled it.