And to those who are dismissing the article as flamebait and are telling folks to simply ignore it... I find interesting the fact you endorse this kind censorship and in the same breath advocate freedom.
Um, that would not be censorship. Rather, it falls under the definition of having and stating an opinion (i.e. that the article is not worth reading).
It wouldn't be fair to say that you censored them by calling them censors, but it would follow the same logic.
I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats.
So you are a moron. I would state that in a nicer way, but there is no acceptable alternative name for you, if you can't distinguish between a person flying a plane into the World Trade Center, and a person calling you a name on a message board.
If you want to call me a Linux Zealot, fine. Just don't call me a terrorist... moron.
Until my iMac and AOL grandomther can use Linux, it won't be widely implimented.
Call me crazy, but I doubt that the IT infrastructure of Massachusetts relies very much on the iMac. Linux applications are just as good, and just as user friendly as Windows programs.
OTOH, I'm sure all employees will be in mourning when they finally realize that Clippy has left them.
"It looks like you're trying to post a comment on Slashdot. Would you like some help with that?"
You obviously think that selling proprietary software is the only successful business model.
Have you ever heard of Coca-Cola? Home Depot? McDonald's?
If a company sells a product that uses Free Software, it can gain an advantage by patenting the hardware that uses it. The fact remains though, if they want to distribute code that they took from someone else. They have to pay for it in some way or other. It is their choice to use it or not to use it.
They can always choose BSD if it fits their needs.
If instead they choose Linux, then it must be because there is something good about Linux... which just might have something to do with the GPL.
Without the GPL, Microsoft could take a piece of software, tweak it a little, make it a closed standard that only worked with their version, and use their marketing muscle to create a near-monopoly with the code that you wrote even though you never saw a dime from Microsoft.
There is BSD code in Windows. And that's fine. If you sell proprietary software, the BSD license is a boon to you. If you do anything else... and even if you DO sell proprietary software, GPLed code can be a boon to you as long as you follow the license.
There is no way that this can be argued as a boon to business.
It is a boon to business because it provides an option that previously did not exist. This option, unlike proprietary software, may require no additional investment of capital.
Of course it is a boon to business! Anything that businesses can use for free is a boon to business because it lowers costs.
Despite DashingLeech's long, yet vapid, response to the article claiming that Linux is somehow cheaper than BSD and that Lyons didn't conduct a cost/benefit analysis, he misses the essential point.
He doesn't even mention BSD, nor does he even appear to consider it. If Linksys had wanted to use BSD, it could have. But it didn't. It chose Linux.
Linux is Free Software.
Yes, it is.
The Freedom referred to in Free Software is freedom for the software under the GPL. Because of the license, the Software has gained Freedom from being exploited in a commercial sense. It is Free from the possibility of being exploited for personal gain of a company.
This is a lie. Any company can exploit GPLed software for personal gain in either of two ways:
1. By using GPLed software in-house and not distributing it.
2. By distributing GPLed software with the source code.
The real lie about Free software is the lie that says company's cannot profit from it. Company's may profit from it as long as they follow the license... just as companies may profit from Microsoft software, as long as they follow the license... just as companies may profit from BSD software, as long as they follow the license (by not removing reference to the original author).
"... when with intent to defraud [a person] knowingly makes, alters, or possesses any writing in a fictitious name or in such manner that the writing as made or altered purports to have been made by another person, at another time, with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority and utters or delivers such writing."
dont think for a minute that a credit company can't easily outspend you and your entire family in court just for the fun of it.
That's why here in America we have contingency fee payment arrangements.
But you probably won't get a lawyer to do that, because you don't have a potential for high recovery.
If you just want to cause some pain for the person who did this, arrange a meeting with your local prosecutor's office, and/or your local US Attorney. Tell them your story, show them the application with "N/A" on the signature line.
If they aren't overworked, they may be willing to prosecute the person. Assuming that there is a crime that fits this type of activity. And assuming that the culprit can be identified and found.
Also, get to work... put your name on the Federal Do Not Call List. Start filtering spam. Contact the Direct Marketing Association (to reduce junk mail). Make sure that your wife agrees to every single term in the credit card agreement, or else cancel it.
Still, the ill-will the industry is generating (and the resources it is expending on being the bigger bully) do expand the opportunity of independent publishers to band together and take the high road. Let's hope we get some Ford-scale contenders in the mix soon.
That is exactly what the RIAA is fighting. They aren't so much afraid of missing out on a couple of bucks because you downloaded a copyrighted song... they are simply trying to lengthen the life of their obsolete distribution model.
They have an oligopoly on the old distribution model. The more they can delay public acceptance of the new--more efficient and more open--distribution model, the longer they can maintain their oligopoly.
Regardless of whether the artists are getting paid under the new model, the big labels would definitely get paid LESS.
It was my understanding that the phone companies had to open their lines up because their infrastructure was in part funded by the government. And a lot of the initial capitol to build a reliable phone system was provided by the taxpayers.
Even where this is the case, the fact remains that cable companies have a physical monopoly. They are not like UPS, which competes with FedEx and Airborne Express, using the same medium.
Cable companies compete with noone in the same medium because they have government granted rights of way to lay and maintain the lines that make up their medium.
Cable companies are more like your electric, gas or water company, which are highly regulated because of their status as government granted monopolies.
Unfortunately, running as root (or Administrator) is common in the Windows world. In fact, Microsoft is still engaging in this risky behavior... The reasons for this decision boggle the mind.
Not really, the less complicated it is to use Windows, the more software MS sells. If occasionally, millions of dollars are lost because of inattention to security... they spin it as the consumer's fault for not installing their patch as soon as it came out.
Hollywood is one of the main sources of support for the Democrats. The Democrats raise tons of money out there, and movie stars and other prominent Hollywood types are almost all Democratic.
Movie stars do not equal the MPAA or the RIAA. Those two organizations represent the studios and the record companies. Those businesses are not owned by "the movie stars" but by people who want to make money by selling other people's art.
If I had to generalize as you are doing, I would say that people who make money off of the creativity of others tend to be Republican.
Basically, anyone on the Gnutella network can frame other users by making it look like someone is hosting RIAA music, even though they're not. Therefore, the RIAA's "evidence" against file sharers is theoretically unreliable and wouldn't stand as good a chance of holding up in court.
Any form of evidence can be fabricated. In determining whether a piece of evidence is admissible, a judge looks for a proper foundation. One of the necessary elements is a finding that a reasonable jury could find that the evidence is what its proponent says it is. This is referred to as "authenticating" the evidence.
A proper authentication might only require some testimony from an investigator showing how they got the ip address, and how they connected the ip address to the user. If they got it by monitoring Gnutella file requests, you could argue that that carries the same risks as hearsay. It is unreliable because it is not a message coming directly from the accused's computer. But it still would probably go to the jury.
You would have to hope that a jury would not find for the evil RIAA... but they will NOT be told what the penalty is, because that isn't relevant to determining the facts. The liability for copyright violation is specifically defined by statute, so the jury doesn't need to know that to determine whether a copyright violation occurred.
If product placement does result in a dishonest or fraudulent portrayal of a product under the guise of "drama" it should be governed by the same rules that govern obvious advertising.
When a commercial comes on, you know it's a commercial. Product placement is potentially more insidious because you cannot always know that it is being done deliberately.
Whether or not that might be legal grounds for firing said employee is another issue.
Yes, a completely different issue.
There is no claim of trademark infringement against him here, because as you pointed out, he actually did hold the position he claimed to hold.
He does not have a claim for being illegally discharged.
He's not being fired because of his race, because he started a union, or because he ratted out the company for violating the law...
He's been fired for saying something that could potentially damage his employer's relationship with a major business partner, and that's proper in any state.
California has a right of free speech enforceable against private owners of property given to public use (e.g. shopping malls), but even California's legislature and courts would be hard pressed to justify an absolute right of free speech against an employer.
If that existed, you could have Apple executives running around on tv saying "Mac's suck" and Jobs wouldn't be able to fire them legally. (though he would have to do it anyway)
for a lot of people SuSE is Linux, they think they are running Linux 8.2 Professional. Finding an up-to-date Red Hat box can require some searching, sometimes you'll see Mandrake, but everything else is completly geek-only.
Do you mean to imply that non-geeks are using SuSE, Red Hat and Mandrake in Germany?
I wish I could say the same for us here in America.
Even if they did think they were using Linux 8.2 Professional... at least they would be using Linux.
There's always the potential for getting around the ISPs' filters by using proxies and other tricks.
If they really want to control what their people see, the way to do it would be at the user level. For example, they could make it much harder to use Freenet in China. They could also make it communicate with a gov't computer if the user tries to do something bad.
OTOH, something tells me there are more important purposes for this, eg having an operating system that works especially well with Asian languages.
I don't think S. Korea and Japan would be all that interested if the only purpose were to increase China's totalitarian abilities.
I wonder if they have decided to hell with backwards compatibility (partly) because they want to screw the Xbox Linux project.
Xbox Linux gives consumers a reason to buy Xbox without buying a lot of games. If they are selling the console at a loss so they can make money on the games, this would cost them money. And MS doesn't like Linux anyway...
I suppose there are other ways they could patch the holes that allow unmodded Xboxen to run Linux, but removing backwards compatibility allows them to make other more drastic changes.
I had some free time, so I wrote Mr. Hunter a letter regarding this matter.
The subject I used was "Re: Notice of Claimed Infringement"
I designed it to look like a legitimate response to one of these notices. If they receive enough of these protest letters, Mr. Hunter and others at ESA will get a taste of their own medicine
The text follows:
Dear Mr. Hunter,
I have read your notice of claimed infringement.
In your letter, you state "ESA hereby requests AT&T Worldnet Service to immediately remove or disable access to the Infringing Material at the URL address identified above."
The negligence of others is a foreseeable consequence in tort law. Should AT&T have granted your request, you might have been liable for any damages caused by that immediate removal of what you claim to be infringing material.
The file named "INFMapPacks123FULL-MAN.zip" obviously has nothing to do with Pac Man.
You would do well to review the threatening letters that you send out, rather than cavalierly trampling on the rights of others.
Even if you don't have the terrorists themselves placing bets. You will have the net analysis of people who have seriously thought about it and put their money down "at pain of loss".
Unfortunately, it was a public relations disaster and has already been scrapped.
Funny though, their website says no government agency would have access to the identities of those who bet... Well, say someone puts several million dollars on the empire state building being destroyed the day before it happens. What are the chances that they will get a visit from some well-armed FBI agents?
Slashdot Mirror
Do they have to carry a card with them at all times (which they could easily leave in a desk)... or is it implanted in some hard to reach body cavity?
Um, that would not be censorship. Rather, it falls under the definition of having and stating an opinion (i.e. that the article is not worth reading).
It wouldn't be fair to say that you censored them by calling them censors, but it would follow the same logic.
So you are a moron. I would state that in a nicer way, but there is no acceptable alternative name for you, if you can't distinguish between a person flying a plane into the World Trade Center, and a person calling you a name on a message board.
If you want to call me a Linux Zealot, fine. Just don't call me a terrorist... moron.
Call me crazy, but I doubt that the IT infrastructure of Massachusetts relies very much on the iMac. Linux applications are just as good, and just as user friendly as Windows programs.
OTOH, I'm sure all employees will be in mourning when they finally realize that Clippy has left them. "It looks like you're trying to post a comment on Slashdot. Would you like some help with that?"
Have you ever heard of Coca-Cola? Home Depot? McDonald's?
If a company sells a product that uses Free Software, it can gain an advantage by patenting the hardware that uses it. The fact remains though, if they want to distribute code that they took from someone else. They have to pay for it in some way or other. It is their choice to use it or not to use it.
They can always choose BSD if it fits their needs.
If instead they choose Linux, then it must be because there is something good about Linux... which just might have something to do with the GPL.
Without the GPL, Microsoft could take a piece of software, tweak it a little, make it a closed standard that only worked with their version, and use their marketing muscle to create a near-monopoly with the code that you wrote even though you never saw a dime from Microsoft.
There is BSD code in Windows. And that's fine. If you sell proprietary software, the BSD license is a boon to you. If you do anything else... and even if you DO sell proprietary software, GPLed code can be a boon to you as long as you follow the license.
It is a boon to business because it provides an option that previously did not exist. This option, unlike proprietary software, may require no additional investment of capital.
Of course it is a boon to business! Anything that businesses can use for free is a boon to business because it lowers costs.
He doesn't even mention BSD, nor does he even appear to consider it. If Linksys had wanted to use BSD, it could have. But it didn't. It chose Linux.
Linux is Free Software.
Yes, it is.
The Freedom referred to in Free Software is freedom for the software under the GPL. Because of the license, the Software has gained Freedom from being exploited in a commercial sense. It is Free from the possibility of being exploited for personal gain of a company.
This is a lie. Any company can exploit GPLed software for personal gain in either of two ways:
1. By using GPLed software in-house and not distributing it.
2. By distributing GPLed software with the source code.
The real lie about Free software is the lie that says company's cannot profit from it. Company's may profit from it as long as they follow the license... just as companies may profit from Microsoft software, as long as they follow the license... just as companies may profit from BSD software, as long as they follow the license (by not removing reference to the original author).
"... when with intent to defraud [a person] knowingly makes, alters, or possesses any writing in a fictitious name or in such manner that the writing as made or altered purports to have been made by another person, at another time, with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority and utters or delivers such writing."
That's why here in America we have contingency fee payment arrangements.
But you probably won't get a lawyer to do that, because you don't have a potential for high recovery.
If you just want to cause some pain for the person who did this, arrange a meeting with your local prosecutor's office, and/or your local US Attorney. Tell them your story, show them the application with "N/A" on the signature line.
If they aren't overworked, they may be willing to prosecute the person. Assuming that there is a crime that fits this type of activity. And assuming that the culprit can be identified and found.
Also, get to work... put your name on the Federal Do Not Call List. Start filtering spam. Contact the Direct Marketing Association (to reduce junk mail). Make sure that your wife agrees to every single term in the credit card agreement, or else cancel it.
Or to show the American public how stupid and absurd the DMCA is.
Unless the world is totally and completely fucked up, this will be the beginning of the end of the DMCA.
(note the non-absolute nature of that statement)
That is exactly what the RIAA is fighting. They aren't so much afraid of missing out on a couple of bucks because you downloaded a copyrighted song... they are simply trying to lengthen the life of their obsolete distribution model.
They have an oligopoly on the old distribution model. The more they can delay public acceptance of the new--more efficient and more open--distribution model, the longer they can maintain their oligopoly.
Regardless of whether the artists are getting paid under the new model, the big labels would definitely get paid LESS.
It is competition they fear.
Even where this is the case, the fact remains that cable companies have a physical monopoly. They are not like UPS, which competes with FedEx and Airborne Express, using the same medium.
Cable companies compete with noone in the same medium because they have government granted rights of way to lay and maintain the lines that make up their medium.
Cable companies are more like your electric, gas or water company, which are highly regulated because of their status as government granted monopolies.
Not really, the less complicated it is to use Windows, the more software MS sells. If occasionally, millions of dollars are lost because of inattention to security... they spin it as the consumer's fault for not installing their patch as soon as it came out.
Movie stars do not equal the MPAA or the RIAA. Those two organizations represent the studios and the record companies. Those businesses are not owned by "the movie stars" but by people who want to make money by selling other people's art.
If I had to generalize as you are doing, I would say that people who make money off of the creativity of others tend to be Republican.
Any form of evidence can be fabricated. In determining whether a piece of evidence is admissible, a judge looks for a proper foundation. One of the necessary elements is a finding that a reasonable jury could find that the evidence is what its proponent says it is. This is referred to as "authenticating" the evidence.
A proper authentication might only require some testimony from an investigator showing how they got the ip address, and how they connected the ip address to the user. If they got it by monitoring Gnutella file requests, you could argue that that carries the same risks as hearsay. It is unreliable because it is not a message coming directly from the accused's computer. But it still would probably go to the jury.
You would have to hope that a jury would not find for the evil RIAA... but they will NOT be told what the penalty is, because that isn't relevant to determining the facts. The liability for copyright violation is specifically defined by statute, so the jury doesn't need to know that to determine whether a copyright violation occurred.
(I am a 3rd year law student)
When a commercial comes on, you know it's a commercial. Product placement is potentially more insidious because you cannot always know that it is being done deliberately.
Yes, a completely different issue.
There is no claim of trademark infringement against him here, because as you pointed out, he actually did hold the position he claimed to hold.
He does not have a claim for being illegally discharged.
He's not being fired because of his race, because he started a union, or because he ratted out the company for violating the law...
He's been fired for saying something that could potentially damage his employer's relationship with a major business partner, and that's proper in any state.
California has a right of free speech enforceable against private owners of property given to public use (e.g. shopping malls), but even California's legislature and courts would be hard pressed to justify an absolute right of free speech against an employer.
If that existed, you could have Apple executives running around on tv saying "Mac's suck" and Jobs wouldn't be able to fire them legally. (though he would have to do it anyway)
---
Any other whore in 2004!
Do you mean to imply that non-geeks are using SuSE, Red Hat and Mandrake in Germany?
I wish I could say the same for us here in America.
Even if they did think they were using Linux 8.2 Professional... at least they would be using Linux.
If they really want to control what their people see, the way to do it would be at the user level. For example, they could make it much harder to use Freenet in China. They could also make it communicate with a gov't computer if the user tries to do something bad.
OTOH, something tells me there are more important purposes for this, eg having an operating system that works especially well with Asian languages.
I don't think S. Korea and Japan would be all that interested if the only purpose were to increase China's totalitarian abilities.
Xbox Linux gives consumers a reason to buy Xbox without buying a lot of games. If they are selling the console at a loss so they can make money on the games, this would cost them money. And MS doesn't like Linux anyway...
I suppose there are other ways they could patch the holes that allow unmodded Xboxen to run Linux, but removing backwards compatibility allows them to make other more drastic changes.
But when Gandalf and the Highlander realize that they can no longer get any updates or support they will switch to Gentoo.
Just because it is free does not necessarily mean it will be usable in 10 years. It has to have some users or there will be no development.
If I were in your position, my home dsl line would be carrying a steady outgoing stream of copies of my resume.
I had some free time, so I wrote Mr. Hunter a letter regarding this matter.
The subject I used was "Re: Notice of Claimed Infringement"
I designed it to look like a legitimate response to one of these notices. If they receive enough of these protest letters, Mr. Hunter and others at ESA will get a taste of their own medicine
The text follows:
Dear Mr. Hunter,
I have read your notice of claimed infringement.
In your letter, you state "ESA hereby requests AT&T Worldnet Service to immediately remove or disable access to the Infringing Material at the URL address identified above."
The negligence of others is a foreseeable consequence in tort law. Should AT&T have granted your request, you might have been liable for any damages caused by that immediate removal of what you claim to be infringing material.
The file named "INFMapPacks123FULL-MAN.zip" obviously has nothing to do with Pac Man.
You would do well to review the threatening letters that you send out, rather than cavalierly trampling on the rights of others.
Regards,
INSERT-NAME-HERE
concerned citizen
Uhm, actually, I think it sends the opposite message.
If you want to survive and avoid the death squads... you keep your mouth shut.
Some may think the reference to death squads is overreaching... believe what you will.
Unfortunately, it was a public relations disaster and has already been scrapped.
Funny though, their website says no government agency would have access to the identities of those who bet... Well, say someone puts several million dollars on the empire state building being destroyed the day before it happens. What are the chances that they will get a visit from some well-armed FBI agents?