The term 'Internet access service' means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers. Such term does not include telecommunications services.
If your service enables users to access content over the internet, then you are an IAS. That service can be part of a package that includes a dial-up/broadband internet connection, but if your only service is a "telecommunications service" then you are not an IAS.
The reasonable interpretation of this is that you have to provide something more than a mere connection to the internet. If you provide email, newsgroups, your own web portal... or any other of your own content, then you are an IAS.
This likely includes all the baby bells, all the cable companies, AOL, MSN, Yahoo, etc... It probably also includes anyone running a mail server, website or usenet server if they allow other people to use that service.
Note that it only says "package of services offered to consumers." It says nothing about charging a fee or being a publicly traded megacompany.
I am not a federal judge. What I say is only what a reasonable human being would think the statute means. As we know, the law is not always interpreted by reasonable human beings... look at that 10 Commandments guy in Alabama for instance... D'oh! He's not a judge anymore though is he?
Re:P2P = ISP?
on
Who Is An ISP?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Can I sue the RIAA for spamming the Kazaa network?
Someone mod this up. If RIAA is spamming Kazaa, AND you are deemed an internet access provider by virtue of your allowing others to access your files, then it sounds like you could do that.
Of course, there are many reasons you might not want to do that. For instance, if you are sharing copyrighted music, they may file a counterclaim against you.
Consider what an injuction against Google during litigation might do. If they can't use their servers, they're out of business.
To get a preliminary injunction there are four requirements:
* "clean hands" (because a preliminary injunction is an equitable remedy, and you cannot come to equity if you yourself have not acted fairly in the situation)
* Show that you are reasonably likely to win the case
* Show that you are bound to suffer irreparable harm, which outweighs the harm inflicted upon the defendant by an injunction
* Show that an injunction is in the public interest.
The clean hands issue probably shouldn't be asked on Slashdot... though it would probably go in SCO's favor, because SCO and Google have had no prior relationship that I know of. However, one might argue that SCO has unclean hands because it is violating the copyrights of Linux developers (by claiming proprietary interest in GPLed software).
But SCO cannot show that it is likely to win unless it can show that Google is using a version of Linux that contains SCO code.
Unlike Napster (the old version), Google isn't causing widespread copyright infringement. Even if SCO is right that Google is in violation of SCO copyrights, allowing Google to continue operating until SCO has proved its case would not damage SCO. On the other hand, it would cause severe damage to Google if SCO were to get an injunction.
The public interest question is obvious. I would guess that 90% of judges have used Google before. It is the only worthwhile search engine on the net today.
SCO ain't gettin' no preliminary injunction.
Regarding the barratry question, I don't believe there is any rule that once you threaten suit you must follow through. If you have no intention to sue when you make the threat, and you do it in order to induce a settlement, you could be guilty of fraud.
Rule 11 (the Federal rule that prohibits filings made to harass) only applies when something is actually filed with a court. It wouldn't have any sway on statements made out of court.
...America was to be different from communists such as yourself... ...those with smaller brains would rather blame it on big business... (dada21) Your Friendly Lake County, IL Libertarian
Libertarians start out with admirable idealism. It's a pity when they devolve into name-calling right-wing wackos.
You speak of the roots of our country, enumerated rights, and individual liberties. Point me to the place in the Constitution where it says anything about the rights of corporations.
You won't find it, because corporations as we know them did not even exist at that time. You also don't seem to realize that communism didn't exist at that time either.
It is strange, that you call yourself "Friendly" and yet you promptly insult the other person.
how absurd all this political correctness is, think of how it must feel to all the surviving former slaves who must be reminded of their previous condition of servitude everytime they reinstall a hard drive.
The rollout of the long-planned project, known as EVD, or enhanced versatile disc, was timed to coincide with the beginning of what China calls the "golden sales" period - known elsewhere as the Christmas shopping season
Ahhh yes, the golden sales period... when carolers go from house to house singing the praises of Chairman Mao.
'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
Obviously they didn't ask anyone who has switched from Internet Explorer to Mozilla.
* Tabbed Browsing
* Popup Blocking
* Free Ad-blocking plugin
* Email/Newsgroups included
* IRC included
* Free Calendar and Task List Addon available
* Available not only on Windows, but also on Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OSX, Solaris, BeOS, OS/2, and probably more
Mozilla is vastly superior to IE no matter how you compare it.
And that is only one example of how free software can kick MS's ass.
Why does everybody ignore Wine? Yes it is still in development, but it is improving at a rapid pace. I am personally running Quicken 2002 Deluxe and Photoshop 7.0 under Wine, and am very happy with the results. It actually seems faster than Windows, and there is no bugginess in the areas that I care about.
Of course, the problem with Wine is usability. It takes a good deal of learning to do it yourself. Linux PC sellers just need to provide a gui-based way to install pre-tested versions of Windows programs (ala Crossover Office). List the program versions that have been tested on the box. For programs that don't yet run under Wine, list superior alternatives that run natively.
I suspect the average person thinks that if they switch to Linux they will have trouble finding software for it. This is only true for a few applications. And that gap can be filled with Wine.
The only difference between a virus and a trojan is that with a trojan you know you have SOMETHING on your computer. In many instances, such as with an Outlook attachment, the distinction is unclear.
The important part is that both viruses and trojans cause your computer to do things without your permission.
When you run a program that's supposed to help you paint pretty pictures, and instead it pops up "YOU'RE HOSED!" and wipes out your partition table, it doesn't matter that you knew you were running a program. The point is that you didn't know it would wipe out your hard drive.
If all it does is pop up a window saying "Hi Mom!" then the distinction between a virus and a trojan makes more sense.
While there may be specific laws against writing viruses and/or trojans... there are other laws that can apply too. Criminal Trespass/Damage to Property comes to mind.
Why is it on Slashdot everybody has to point out the devil's advocate side of things, when nobody has pointed out the obvious?
A quick search for the word "monopoly" reveals that noone has used it yet under this article.
Is it such a given that Microsoft will take advantage of its monopoly that we no longer complain, but rather look forward to it?
Microsoft will incorporate the "Sparkle" player into the operating system, especially Internet Explorer. They will then sell the Sparkle-creating app at a nice fat premium.
Hell, they'll probably also stop including Flash as a default plugin in Internet Explorer.
Goodbye Flash!
I hope they don't succeed... especially since there's no way they will make a Linux version of the player. I don't always want to see Flash... but sometimes I do, and it's nice that I don't have to reboot under Windows just to watch a little animation.
With the combined experience of Ximian and SUSE, Novell could create a very cool desktop.
But even if they dump the desktop offerings (as you suggest they might do) there would still be a bright side. With SUSE and Red Hat finally out of the desktop niche, Mandrake would have an opportunity to fill their shoes.
Of course, the parent misses the point. The story is only indirectly related to Second Amendment issues. It's a story about the First Amendment. ACLU's position on the Second Amendment is really not relevant, as it has always been very very clear about its position on the First Amendment.
This is why American protestors really have no idea how good they have it. The "state" doesn't come and kill you if you voice your opinion on something.
Quite the contrary. American protesters DO know how good they have it. That's why they try to preserve it by exercising their rights.
This attitude that people should just be grateful for what they have, is exactly the same attitude they use in China to keep the populace in line.
It's a very "conservative" point of view... yet it has nothing to do with conserving our liberty.
Standing back with mouth agape, wondering how they could be so dumb is not a recipe for success. We would better serve ourselves by determining what SCO's strategy really is when it does things like this.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it their position that they now own all software that has ever derived from UNIX (pursuant to the original UNIX license)? They have at times implied that even the BSDs are not immune.
AT&T made this "derivative software license" claim with BSD a long time ago, but they lost because they had violated the BSD license themselves (by stripping the copyright notices of BSD contributors). SCO has said that BSD might not have complied with that court order. Sounds like FUD to me, but it does reveal their hand a bit.
Of course, their argument regarding Linux (which seems doomed to fail) will be that because Linux at some point in time had some of their code in it, they own it under their license as a derivative work, free of the GPL. It's the same argument that AT&T made 20 years ago.
The SCO code that existed in Linux (which at least SGI has admitted to inserting) was a copyright violation only until SCO distributed that same code under the GPL. As soon as SCO distributed that same code under the GPL, it gave everyone the right to use that code under the GPL.
SCO's distribution of its own code under the GPL was not intentional... but it doesn't have to be because copyright law creates strict liability.
Will they argue that they should not be deemed to have relicensed their code under GPL unknowingly... Will they at the same time argue that everyone who used that code is strictly liable and shouldn't be allowed to rely on the fact that SCO had distributed the code under the GPL? That is arguing for a double standard under the same statute: strict liability for them, fault liability for me.
Their argument doesn't hold water, and hopefully the court will see that.
Whether we like to admit it or not, the future of Linux, and the future of SCO now depend on what a judge says. SCO is betting the company on a legal strategy. They were going down the tubes anyway, so why not bet it all on a long shot?
Simply stating something as an opinion does not make you immune from liability for defamation. An opinion implies facts sufficient to reach an opinion.
Luskin will still lose on First Amendment grounds though.
The point of this--which seems to escape most commenters--is that this is being used as a tactic to "out" Atrios.
He is an anonymous blogger on political issues--an especially sticky area considering our First Amendment.
Here is the expected sequence of events: 1. Luskin subpoenas blogspot.com, get's Atrios' real name. 2. Atrios served with complaint. 3. Atrios $$$$$$$$$hires lawyer$$$$$$$$$$$$ 4. Lawyer writes response 5. Lawsuit dismissed because Luskin himself referred to himself as a "stalker" and the supposed slanderous comment is a mere repetition of that phrase with no added detail. There are First Amendment reasons the lawsuit should be dismissed but it's not necessary to detail them all.
Meanwhile, Atrios is no longer anonymous.
Given that the purpose of this lawsuit is not to win, but to uncover a person's identity and chill their right to free speech, Luskin and his lawyer should be subject to sanctions.
As much as everyone here will rant on and on about how this is an intrusion of their rights
There is no better way to get modded up on Slashdot than to give the "contrarian" point of view before the "mainstream" point of view has even been articulated.
Geeks love to be contrarians... unless everyone else is.
Slashdot Mirror
If your service enables users to access content over the internet, then you are an IAS. That service can be part of a package that includes a dial-up/broadband internet connection, but if your only service is a "telecommunications service" then you are not an IAS.
The reasonable interpretation of this is that you have to provide something more than a mere connection to the internet. If you provide email, newsgroups, your own web portal... or any other of your own content, then you are an IAS.
This likely includes all the baby bells, all the cable companies, AOL, MSN, Yahoo, etc... It probably also includes anyone running a mail server, website or usenet server if they allow other people to use that service.
Note that it only says "package of services offered to consumers." It says nothing about charging a fee or being a publicly traded megacompany.
I am not a federal judge. What I say is only what a reasonable human being would think the statute means. As we know, the law is not always interpreted by reasonable human beings... look at that 10 Commandments guy in Alabama for instance... D'oh! He's not a judge anymore though is he?
Someone mod this up. If RIAA is spamming Kazaa, AND you are deemed an internet access provider by virtue of your allowing others to access your files, then it sounds like you could do that.
Of course, there are many reasons you might not want to do that. For instance, if you are sharing copyrighted music, they may file a counterclaim against you.
To get a preliminary injunction there are four requirements:
* "clean hands" (because a preliminary injunction is an equitable remedy, and you cannot come to equity if you yourself have not acted fairly in the situation)
* Show that you are reasonably likely to win the case
* Show that you are bound to suffer irreparable harm, which outweighs the harm inflicted upon the defendant by an injunction
* Show that an injunction is in the public interest.
The clean hands issue probably shouldn't be asked on Slashdot... though it would probably go in SCO's favor, because SCO and Google have had no prior relationship that I know of. However, one might argue that SCO has unclean hands because it is violating the copyrights of Linux developers (by claiming proprietary interest in GPLed software).
But SCO cannot show that it is likely to win unless it can show that Google is using a version of Linux that contains SCO code.
Unlike Napster (the old version), Google isn't causing widespread copyright infringement. Even if SCO is right that Google is in violation of SCO copyrights, allowing Google to continue operating until SCO has proved its case would not damage SCO. On the other hand, it would cause severe damage to Google if SCO were to get an injunction.
The public interest question is obvious. I would guess that 90% of judges have used Google before. It is the only worthwhile search engine on the net today.
SCO ain't gettin' no preliminary injunction.
Regarding the barratry question, I don't believe there is any rule that once you threaten suit you must follow through. If you have no intention to sue when you make the threat, and you do it in order to induce a settlement, you could be guilty of fraud.
Rule 11 (the Federal rule that prohibits filings made to harass) only applies when something is actually filed with a court. It wouldn't have any sway on statements made out of court.
(dada21) Your Friendly Lake County, IL Libertarian
Libertarians start out with admirable idealism. It's a pity when they devolve into name-calling right-wing wackos.
You speak of the roots of our country, enumerated rights, and individual liberties. Point me to the place in the Constitution where it says anything about the rights of corporations.
You won't find it, because corporations as we know them did not even exist at that time. You also don't seem to realize that communism didn't exist at that time either.
It is strange, that you call yourself "Friendly" and yet you promptly insult the other person.
Microsoft is moving even more slowly than I thought. Only a monopolist could sell an operating system in today's market without support for tcp.
(shakes head in disbelief)
If you weren't living in the matrix, you'd know what I was talking about.
how absurd all this political correctness is, think of how it must feel to all the surviving former slaves who must be reminded of their previous condition of servitude everytime they reinstall a hard drive.
What makes you think he is a liberal? He's speaking in terms of the way markets work... which is a conservative perspective more than a liberal one.
Go listen to your pill-popping talk radio hosts, you instigating insultophile.
I am responding to flamebait.
Ahhh yes, the golden sales period... when carolers go from house to house singing the praises of Chairman Mao.
Makes me feel all nostalgic and sentimental.
Obviously they didn't ask anyone who has switched from Internet Explorer to Mozilla.
* Tabbed Browsing
* Popup Blocking
* Free Ad-blocking plugin
* Email/Newsgroups included
* IRC included
* Free Calendar and Task List Addon available
* Available not only on Windows, but also on Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OSX, Solaris, BeOS, OS/2, and probably more
Mozilla is vastly superior to IE no matter how you compare it.
And that is only one example of how free software can kick MS's ass.
Of course, the problem with Wine is usability. It takes a good deal of learning to do it yourself. Linux PC sellers just need to provide a gui-based way to install pre-tested versions of Windows programs (ala Crossover Office). List the program versions that have been tested on the box. For programs that don't yet run under Wine, list superior alternatives that run natively.
I suspect the average person thinks that if they switch to Linux they will have trouble finding software for it. This is only true for a few applications. And that gap can be filled with Wine.
The only difference between a virus and a trojan is that with a trojan you know you have SOMETHING on your computer. In many instances, such as with an Outlook attachment, the distinction is unclear.
The important part is that both viruses and trojans cause your computer to do things without your permission.
When you run a program that's supposed to help you paint pretty pictures, and instead it pops up "YOU'RE HOSED!" and wipes out your partition table, it doesn't matter that you knew you were running a program. The point is that you didn't know it would wipe out your hard drive.
If all it does is pop up a window saying "Hi Mom!" then the distinction between a virus and a trojan makes more sense.
While there may be specific laws against writing viruses and/or trojans... there are other laws that can apply too. Criminal Trespass/Damage to Property comes to mind.
Holy Shit!
I definitely should have majored in education!
Why is it on Slashdot everybody has to point out the devil's advocate side of things, when nobody has pointed out the obvious?
A quick search for the word "monopoly" reveals that noone has used it yet under this article.
Is it such a given that Microsoft will take advantage of its monopoly that we no longer complain, but rather look forward to it?
Microsoft will incorporate the "Sparkle" player into the operating system, especially Internet Explorer. They will then sell the Sparkle-creating app at a nice fat premium.
Hell, they'll probably also stop including Flash as a default plugin in Internet Explorer.
Goodbye Flash!
I hope they don't succeed... especially since there's no way they will make a Linux version of the player. I don't always want to see Flash... but sometimes I do, and it's nice that I don't have to reboot under Windows just to watch a little animation.
Is this an Ann Coulterism on Slashdot? It seems out of place.
If you told the reporter to go back to Fox News then I would get the joke. ;-)
With the combined experience of Ximian and SUSE, Novell could create a very cool desktop.
But even if they dump the desktop offerings (as you suggest they might do) there would still be a bright side. With SUSE and Red Hat finally out of the desktop niche, Mandrake would have an opportunity to fill their shoes.
Of course, I'm assuming there's money in it.
Well, you would be wrong. Since the ACLU has long been opposed to internet filtering in public libraries.
Of course, the parent misses the point. The story is only indirectly related to Second Amendment issues. It's a story about the First Amendment. ACLU's position on the Second Amendment is really not relevant, as it has always been very very clear about its position on the First Amendment.
Wow! An open source cell phone. Think about all those ringtone options!
Quite the contrary. American protesters DO know how good they have it. That's why they try to preserve it by exercising their rights.
This attitude that people should just be grateful for what they have, is exactly the same attitude they use in China to keep the populace in line.
It's a very "conservative" point of view... yet it has nothing to do with conserving our liberty.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it their position that they now own all software that has ever derived from UNIX (pursuant to the original UNIX license)? They have at times implied that even the BSDs are not immune.
AT&T made this "derivative software license" claim with BSD a long time ago, but they lost because they had violated the BSD license themselves (by stripping the copyright notices of BSD contributors). SCO has said that BSD might not have complied with that court order. Sounds like FUD to me, but it does reveal their hand a bit.
Of course, their argument regarding Linux (which seems doomed to fail) will be that because Linux at some point in time had some of their code in it, they own it under their license as a derivative work, free of the GPL. It's the same argument that AT&T made 20 years ago.
The SCO code that existed in Linux (which at least SGI has admitted to inserting) was a copyright violation only until SCO distributed that same code under the GPL. As soon as SCO distributed that same code under the GPL, it gave everyone the right to use that code under the GPL.
SCO's distribution of its own code under the GPL was not intentional... but it doesn't have to be because copyright law creates strict liability.
Will they argue that they should not be deemed to have relicensed their code under GPL unknowingly... Will they at the same time argue that everyone who used that code is strictly liable and shouldn't be allowed to rely on the fact that SCO had distributed the code under the GPL? That is arguing for a double standard under the same statute: strict liability for them, fault liability for me.
Their argument doesn't hold water, and hopefully the court will see that.
Whether we like to admit it or not, the future of Linux, and the future of SCO now depend on what a judge says. SCO is betting the company on a legal strategy. They were going down the tubes anyway, so why not bet it all on a long shot?
Journalists (and all "media defendants") actually have LESS accountability for defamation liability than the general public.
If a newspaper story calls you a rapist, the newspaper is not liable unless you can show that they actually knew that you were not a rapist.
If a patron in a bar turns to the guy on the next bar stool and says, "I hear RobotRunAmok is a rapist," he could be liable for defamation.
So what is this about holding bloggers to the same degree of accountability? Don't you mean the same degree of non-accountability?
Viet Cong operatives have begun digging underground tunnels toward the Redmond, Washington campus.
Once having eliminated Microsoft, the guerillas will continue digging toward Utah, where they will "annihilate" SCO.
Simply stating something as an opinion does not make you immune from liability for defamation. An opinion implies facts sufficient to reach an opinion.
Luskin will still lose on First Amendment grounds though.
The point of this--which seems to escape most commenters--is that this is being used as a tactic to "out" Atrios.
He is an anonymous blogger on political issues--an especially sticky area considering our First Amendment.
Here is the expected sequence of events:
1. Luskin subpoenas blogspot.com, get's Atrios' real name.
2. Atrios served with complaint.
3. Atrios $$$$$$$$$hires lawyer$$$$$$$$$$$$
4. Lawyer writes response
5. Lawsuit dismissed because Luskin himself referred to himself as a "stalker" and the supposed slanderous comment is a mere repetition of that phrase with no added detail. There are First Amendment reasons the lawsuit should be dismissed but it's not necessary to detail them all.
Meanwhile, Atrios is no longer anonymous.
Given that the purpose of this lawsuit is not to win, but to uncover a person's identity and chill their right to free speech, Luskin and his lawyer should be subject to sanctions.
There is no better way to get modded up on Slashdot than to give the "contrarian" point of view before the "mainstream" point of view has even been articulated.
Geeks love to be contrarians... unless everyone else is.