brings them under the purview of the proposed rule, which includes computer networks as "substitute communications systems"
If I read this right, it would seem that if I install two tin cans and a string, they can tax it. If I hire 500 undocumented Mexicans and have them run the stairs with floppy disks, they can tax it. If two women meet at the mall and exchange gosip, they can tax it. Next thing you know, they'll be taking taxes out of our pay before they give us our checks.
aren't big on having coal plants in their back yard but, being a "conservative" myself, I wish that that power plant that was just built in my town was nuclear rather than a polluting gas plant. Nuclear, unlike all types of fossil fuel plants, does not release pollution into the environment when it is run correctly. But it seems that while rich environmentalists will file lawsuit after injunction after restraining order after lawsuit to prevent the construction of relatively clean energy, thew will (in fact they DID) nothing whatsoever to prevent, or significantly delay, the construction or certification of the "new" gas pollution plant. Go figure.
Parent was a political troll and should be modded DOWN! Please stop feeding the trolls people... even if you do share their politics.
That said, Doing Nothing is your safest bet. The vunerability will be discovered by the vendor some weeks or months or years in the future and it will be patched. Nobody will know that you changed something as proof of concept.
If you contact the University, the problem WILL be solved... but you will face punative action... your proof of concept changed something.
Even if you rely on anonymous methods to inform the University, you may still find yourself in trouble. Suddenly aware that they have a problem, they will examine whatever access records they have. Are you sure that you werent logged in to a traceable account when you did your proof of concept? How about your research?
Contacting the vendor is your best bet. They have an interest in quietly fixing the problem. If you stick to anonymous methods, they'll likely just take and use the information and avoid the scandal.
Personally I do not think that that Cringely's idea would work. I just dont think it would be _complete_ disaster.
Nor do I think copyright as a concept is bad... though the current implementation in the US and Euroupe leaves sooo much to be desired.
QuoteWould the RIAA's business model crash and burn due to instant Obsolescence? Certainly! But you yourself said that the RIAA was evil.
The RIAA does not have a right to, nor even the reasonable expectation of, a protected business model. New business models need not protect existing ones. No economy NEEDS a RIAA.
Would I (and much of/.) love to see the most prominent ABUSERS of copyright bankrupted? You bet!
Where you go wrong is in assuming that the RIAA, or even the organizations it represents, are an economic necessity.
You assume perhaps that without effectively eternal copyright protection, music would never be made. False! With shorter copyright terms, music would still be made and in about the same amount. Even if copyright were abolished, music would still be made... though the economics would be different. Different does not mean bad.
You assume that without the the major labels, nobody would pay musicians... you assume that musicians would starve! False! Most musicians today are NOT signed with labels and most of them manage to eat. In fact many of them make decent money selling recordings OTC at shows and whatnot. In general they can make different money if they try. They actually have higher margins than "signed" bands...
You may assume that without the RIAA members, nobody would ever "make it big"! False! The road to the top might look different, but for talented artists there would always be a way. Even if copyright were abolished (God Forbid), there would still be a way.
While it would be a mistake to abolish copyright completely, it is unreasonable to claim that economics REQUIRES that one particular business model be supported. Economics does not require a specific business model. Only the RIAA does.
Sometimes the only way to fix something is to break it completely.
Does no one here understand the basic concepts of economics? If people don't pay for music, there won't be any music -- or, at least, there will be very little. It costs money to produce. The artists need to eat. Sure the RIAA is evil, but two wrongs don't make a right.
If the only reason music existed in the first place was so that you'd have something to do with a stereo system, you'd be right. But, if you'd believe it, music actually existed before the advent of the stereo.
I have paid large sums of money (given my salary... Bill gates would call it pocket change) to see the performances of bands that I appreciate. I also regularly see and support local bands. Music is a performance art. So long as people are willing to pay to see bands perform, the economics will still support musicians and a "music industry".
Would the RIAA's business model crash and burn due to instant Obsolescence? Certainly! But you yourself said that the RIAA was evil.
The RIAA does not have a right to, nor even the reasonable expectation of, a protected business model. New business models need not protect existing ones. No economy NEEDS a RIAA.
MP3.com owned 300,000 CDs, but the usership of MP3.com was not limited to MP3.com. I'm not saying that Cringely's idea would work, only that the MP3.com involves different legal issues.
The naysayers to this idea forget that the _critical_ component of this plan is that it must IMMEDIATELY go public. It also must limit downloads to owners (shareholders) ONLY. While the cost of going public may be significant, there is not necessarily a need to bring in investment bankers and join the NASDAQ or NYSE... The press would likely provide the marketing for free on the nightly news (due to the sheer audacity of the idea), and the employees of the business could probably sell the shares via telephone. "limit one share per customer"! (or something).
The real problem here is that by sharing the backup or shifted assets of the company among the owners in this way, IF a court later decides the idea is illegal, they (the RIAA) might then seek to recover directly from the owners... Usually by being a corporate entity, this kind of thing is avoided, but since the corporation is distributing it's assets directly to the owners, who can say.
Concerns that users may share their downloads with their non-owner friends are baseless. TODAY, even without this company, people MAY record things from TV and share it with their friends... and TV and radio are legal last I checked.
One final note. In the end, the legality of this plan would not matter. Unless stopped quickly by injunction, Current RIAA distribution methods would become obsolete technically (ok, ok, they are already technically obsolete), and practically. If this became widespread, digital distribution would be the only comercially viable alternative. The distributors would have to change or declare bankruptcy in short order. This company would need to be able to drag out any court proceedings... basically, they'd need to take a page out of Micro$oft'$ playbook. A delay of two to three years is all that is needed...
There will always be a small market for physical distribution, but the days of monopoly-via-artificial-scarsity-of-media would end. And wouldn't that be nice?
I agree. For those unclear about this, here is some clarification.
RIAA claiming Penn State University Emeritus Professor Peter Usher's lecture on radio-selected quasars was, in fact, an mp3 from the musician Usher
1) The RIAA was authorized to act on behalf of the music group Usher (or their publisher). However, since the work was not in fact by the music group, since it was in fact not a musical composition at all, this is not relevant.
2) The RIAA was not ever authorized to act on behalf of Professor Usher.
3) The content of the file clearly bore no resemblance to any work by an author or publisher that the RIAA was authorized to represent.
4) The RIAA represented to know the content of the work when they claimed that it was an example of copyright infringement.
5) Because of (4), the RIAA cannot claim (3) was an honest mistake. In order to make the claim of infringement, it can be said [legaleese] that they either knew or should kave known [/legaleese].
If neither IBM nor Microsoft (both of whom have droves of lawyers specializing in IP) think SCO can pul it off, don't you think you're worrying for nothing?
Last I checked, Microsoft just paid SCO a small fortune. Conspiracy theorists suggest that M$ was simply paying $CO to spread FUD.
I conclude that M$ sees Linux as a threat... and is doing something about it.
IBM is following your good advice and will win their court battle. Remember, IBM is not irrevocably tied to linux. If linux dies due to FUD, they'll move on to service xBSD, or whatever other OS rises to replace it... even Windows if need be.
I can't really fault your logic... except for it being wrong of course.:)
If the only thing at issue were the outcome of the case (IBMvSCO) you would be right about the need to delay action until the last possible moment, and then be brutal. Unfortunately, the outcome of the case is not a concern here.
let's concentrate instead on winning the minds and hearts of the people who make technology-related decisions
Indeed.
Those are the people who will abandon linux in droves, or who will immediately pay $50 per seat (or whatever), when a bill arrives along with a legal notice demanding payment. It is in the interest if the linux community, that is to say the developers, coders, and servicers of linux, to prevent those letters from being sent.
There is already a significant amount of FUD in the linux USER community, and especially in the COMMERCIAL user community. If we want that community to continue to remain healthy, then something must be done to curb this before it is too late.
I hate to be alarmist, but if linux is to be anything other than a home-user/enthusiast OS, action will need to be taken. Soon.
If they're truly that confident of their position, they should be rushing through the court case, and then asking people to license Unixware, with a suitable judgement behind them to back it up.
I don't suppose anyone out there has thought of filing an injunction against SCO?
This IS the great test of the GPL that everyone has been waiting for. Caldera/SCO linux was distributed under the GPL... was distributed with the now disputed code... was distributed by SCO themselves even after they decided to dispute the origins of the code.
What is now require is for one of the kernel contributers... ANY kernel contributer, to file for injunctive relief in US federal court. SCO is requiring that users pay THEM money to use YOUR code. (They say they are only charging for their own code, but they've already given that away.)
What we need is a kernel contributer with sufficient testicular fortitude (and bankroll) to do the right thing.
I'd just like to point out that at this time, the sponsors of this bill all appear to be DEMOCRATS.
Ok, mod me as troll or flamebait if you like, but it is the truth.
The really sad part is that Republicans aren't much better on this issue. As far as I can see, the American Consumer can not look to either of the major parties to protect their fair use rights. Writers on/. are often quick to point out how Republicans are protecting the Record labels and softare monopolies... but it seems to me that both parties have a hand in this.
It seems like most U.S. companies forget that there exists a civilized world beyond its borders.
Please define civilization good sir! It seems from other posts, some from actual merchants that there is a high FRAUD rate in many international shipments. But I won't dwell on this as it has already been mentioned. Repeatedly.
The US has laws prohibiting the export of many high-tech items. These laws are largely cold-war relics, but they are kept alive by China and by the terrorist threat. Whether these threats are real, or whether these measures have any impact is another issue entirely.
"Civilized" nations like France and Germany exploited the Iraqi/UN Food for Oil and the corrupt(?) rulers cleared 1 billion USD.
But back to the original/. post...
US companies sell to US residents first because they they represent the most lucrative market. The reason why the various EU nations are sacrificing their sovreignty is that they hope to build a similarly lucratice market.
One final note. There are 50 states in the US. Each has its own laws which, while fairly similar, can cause no end of headaches for businesses. In the US, small companies deal with this by working only with the laws that apply in the state(s) in which they are located. FOR EXAMPLE, a single location company based (and located duh) in New Hampshire (tiny little state in the Northeastern US) can sell and ship anything to anyplace in the USA, and does not need to charge any Sales Tax. They also are generally subject to New Hampshire state laws if sued or whatnot. If that same company wanted to ship to the EU, they'd have to worry about local consumer laws, VAT, not to mention tariffs etc... For each international shipping destination, any company has an additional set of laws to account for. This can add up to huge costs... even for large compaies.
[Because] maybe the internet needs more of the first sort of people and less of the second
And which type would you be?
There was a famous European guy in the 1930s and early 1940s that thought the world needed more of one kind of people and less of another kind. I can't seem to remember the details, and I am too busy to research right now... but well, you get the idea.
Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it... or something like that.
So why the fsck should this be different on the net then in the printed press?
Guess it depends on where you are from. In some jurisdictions (like the USA), the press can't be made to do anything. If the libel you, you can sue, but unless it is c clear-cut case, you will lose.
The thing that makes the internet great is that anyone at all can easily post their thoughts and ideas. If an appropriate forum for those ideas does not exist, it is simplicity itself to create one.
Because anyone can post their ideas with relative ease, internet content censorship is difficult. Ideas are not easily supressed at rhe whim of corporate or government agencies.
In the case of print media, the readers and advertisers pay the printing and distribution costs. Because these are usually (hopefuly?) profitable ventures, presumably they can afford at least some limited response. However, even in print media, right of response could be abused... with a 10,000 page response to a newspaper article.
The difference between web and print is that for non-commercial sites (no adverts or sales), readers actually cost the poster money for bandwidth and whatnot. The more that is on a site, the greater these costs. If I criticise the Republican Party (or the Democrats, or whatever), I would be compelled to PAY to spread their message under this rule (if it was passed in my jurisdiction). Is this reasonable?
It's nothing more than is required for other editorialised publications
Editorialized publications are not required to publish responses, at least not in the USA, though most do some of that via letters to the editor and the like. Many only publish excerpts of such responses. In the USA, requiring that the press publish anything is constitutionally difficult.
But whereas editorialized publications typically have a staff to manage such things, my blog only has me. I don't have time to read all of my hate mail, and I lack the inclination to post it for the world to see. If I blog about spammers in general, I certainly wouldn't appreciate having to post every piece of spam I recieve afterward.
More to the point, since I don't advertise, I have to pay for the bandwidth out of pocket.
Why should I have to pay to post your ill considered opinions in addition to my own?
What this law does is raise the financial threshold (both in terms of time and money required, where time = money) a person must reach to be able to freely put their thoughts, experiences, etc., on the internet.
Look, I know that MS Windows is the Best OS and that MS Office is the best productivity application. Bill Gates says so he's rich and bought me a new car... so I belive him.
BUT if we can't see and analyze the source of the program how could we possibly know if it is the best tool for any particular job?
We know that it has been widely adopted, but most common does not mean best. We know that it is widely supported by other applications, but since those are mainly closed-source also, we can't analyze to determine if they are best. We have testimonals, but we have testimonials about snake oil too.
How would anyone be able to determine the true quality of closed (or otherwise hidden) items.
Perhaps I am just demonstrating my ignorance here, but don't we encounter some "slippery slope" type problems if we apply too many of the "physical world" (or RL) rules to virtual property?
Six months ago on Battle.net I was "killed". Should someone be charged with murder? Should Blizzard, or the PK that killed me be forced to pay for the time (at my consulting rate of $200/hr) to regain lost experience and gold?
I was tricked into dropping a SOJ. Is that fraud?
I posted my password for my Everquest account on my website. Somebody took over my account. Theft? Identity Theft? (US) Federal Felony?
If Ultima Online's servers suffer an outage, or a disk crashes, or "they" wipe a server and all accounts on it, do I have rights? Must I be compensated?
You may think that I am joking, but there is a legitimate market for virtual items and accounts. People will pay real money for virtual stuff....like domain names. If governments ignore the contracts and TOS of these providers and apply physical world laws to virtual items, an astronomical burden will be placed on these providers. Do we want to do this? Really?
We need to tread very carefully before assigning "real property" rights to virtual items and actions.
If I crash my Cesna into the Sears Tower in MSFS2002, am I a terrorist?
You can bet if I quit in those sort of circumstances, I'd be suing
Spoken like a true American!
Seriously though, you can't expect management to be telepathic... to sense your displeasure and its causes. If you quit without first communicating your concerns to management, I'd say your lawsuit would be a waste of time.
Sure management should already know what the problem is, but that is because youshould have already told them.
Don't expect much sympathy from the legal system if you are part of the problem.
Instead, decide where your breaking point would be, and discuss it reasonably ("if this happens, I'd really have to leave, and neither of us wants that to happen"). You are NOT making threats. Make this clear. Explain that you will keep your manager informed as the situation evolves, and that you will not leave without warning.
If you do draw the line for management and they step over it, you pretty much have to do what you said you would. This is a life lesson of sorts... if people believe that you won't make good on your promises, they will come to assume that you are full of s**t and should be treated as such.
If you tell your employer "if I have to work more than 50 hours in a week I am not going to answer the pager/cell/phone if you put me on call this weekend", then make damn sure you do what you said you would.
Worse case you get fired and collect unemployment... but no matter the outcome, you'll be taken seriously.
Hmmm, how about starting with PAYING YOUR EMPLOYEES FOR THE WORK THEY DO.
Well, that would be interesting I'd agree. But just how much is that?
Everybody, from Bill Gates to your local trash collector thinks that they deserve more money than they currently make. Or at least they should. If they don't then they either are overpaid to begin with or else they have a serious self-esteem problem.
Quitting and failing to tell management or HR why simply perpetuates the original problem for those that stay behind.
Look, I dont much care for unions, but if enough of you feel the way you do, you should form/join one. Of course doing so will probably be the last nail in the coffin for your company, but if you do form a union, at least you'll have certain legal rights.
If you just walk out, the company will just replace you. Sure, they'll be hurtin' in some areas for about a month, but then they'll hire some unemployed slashdotters for peanuts and get back to business. You'll make your point better if the s**t you throw at them is legally protected.
Whatever you do, make sure you can live with the consequences.
Notwithstanding the comments above, unions suck. Union dues, misuse of said dues for politics, being TOLD that you have to go on strike... blah!
5. Don't just play high end games, not everyone has that kind of CPU. Get some good strategy game tourneys going, like Alpha Centarui, or Civ 2 & 3, or even have a Quake 2 tournament.
Slashdot Mirror
Google Cache
* The socialist antiwar movement.
* Why Bush opponents hope for US casualties in Itaq.
* How current Iraqi militant unrest is largely the result of US policy to allow Iraqi soldiers to return home without being defeated (slaughtered).
brings them under the purview of the proposed rule, which includes computer networks as "substitute communications systems"
If I read this right, it would seem that if I install two tin cans and a string, they can tax it. If I hire 500 undocumented Mexicans and have them run the stairs with floppy disks, they can tax it. If two women meet at the mall and exchange gosip, they can tax it. Next thing you know, they'll be taking taxes out of our pay before they give us our checks.
. .
aren't big on having coal plants in their back yard but, being a "conservative" myself, I wish that that power plant that was just built in my town was nuclear rather than a polluting gas plant. Nuclear, unlike all types of fossil fuel plants, does not release pollution into the environment when it is run correctly. But it seems that while rich environmentalists will file lawsuit after injunction after restraining order after lawsuit to prevent the construction of relatively clean energy, thew will (in fact they DID) nothing whatsoever to prevent, or significantly delay, the construction or certification of the "new" gas pollution plant. Go figure.
Shouldn't this have been from the stating-the-obvious department?
Parent was a political troll and should be modded DOWN! Please stop feeding the trolls people... even if you do share their politics.
That said, Doing Nothing is your safest bet. The vunerability will be discovered by the vendor some weeks or months or years in the future and it will be patched. Nobody will know that you changed something as proof of concept.
If you contact the University, the problem WILL be solved... but you will face punative action... your proof of concept changed something.
Even if you rely on anonymous methods to inform the University, you may still find yourself in trouble. Suddenly aware that they have a problem, they will examine whatever access records they have. Are you sure that you werent logged in to a traceable account when you did your proof of concept? How about your research?
Contacting the vendor is your best bet. They have an interest in quietly fixing the problem. If you stick to anonymous methods, they'll likely just take and use the information and avoid the scandal.
Good Luck
Wrong.
/.) love to see the most prominent ABUSERS of copyright bankrupted? You bet!
Ahem, wrong about exactly what?
Personally I do not think that that Cringely's idea would work. I just dont think it would be _complete_ disaster.
Nor do I think copyright as a concept is bad... though the current implementation in the US and Euroupe leaves sooo much to be desired.
QuoteWould the RIAA's business model crash and burn due to instant Obsolescence? Certainly! But you yourself said that the RIAA was evil.
The RIAA does not have a right to, nor even the reasonable expectation of, a protected business model. New business models need not protect existing ones. No economy NEEDS a RIAA.
Would I (and much of
Where you go wrong is in assuming that the RIAA, or even the organizations it represents, are an economic necessity.
You assume perhaps that without effectively eternal copyright protection, music would never be made.
False! With shorter copyright terms, music would still be made and in about the same amount. Even if copyright were abolished, music would still be made... though the economics would be different. Different does not mean bad.
You assume that without the the major labels, nobody would pay musicians... you assume that musicians would starve!
False! Most musicians today are NOT signed with labels and most of them manage to eat. In fact many of them make decent money selling recordings OTC at shows and whatnot. In general they can make different money if they try. They actually have higher margins than "signed" bands...
You may assume that without the RIAA members, nobody would ever "make it big"!
False! The road to the top might look different, but for talented artists there would always be a way. Even if copyright were abolished (God Forbid), there would still be a way.
While it would be a mistake to abolish copyright completely, it is unreasonable to claim that economics REQUIRES that one particular business model be supported. Economics does not require a specific business model. Only the RIAA does.
Sometimes the only way to fix something is to break it completely.
Does no one here understand the basic concepts of economics? If people don't pay for music, there won't be any music -- or, at least, there will be very little. It costs money to produce. The artists need to eat. Sure the RIAA is evil, but two wrongs don't make a right.
If the only reason music existed in the first place was so that you'd have something to do with a stereo system, you'd be right. But, if you'd believe it, music actually existed before the advent of the stereo.
I have paid large sums of money (given my salary... Bill gates would call it pocket change) to see the performances of bands that I appreciate. I also regularly see and support local bands. Music is a performance art . So long as people are willing to pay to see bands perform, the economics will still support musicians and a "music industry".
Would the RIAA's business model crash and burn due to instant Obsolescence? Certainly! But you yourself said that the RIAA was evil.
The RIAA does not have a right to, nor even the reasonable expectation of, a protected business model. New business models need not protect existing ones. No economy NEEDS a RIAA.
MP3.com owned 300,000 CDs, but the usership of MP3.com was not limited to MP3.com. I'm not saying that Cringely's idea would work, only that the MP3.com involves different legal issues.
The naysayers to this idea forget that the _critical_ component of this plan is that it must IMMEDIATELY go public. It also must limit downloads to owners (shareholders) ONLY. While the cost of going public may be significant, there is not necessarily a need to bring in investment bankers and join the NASDAQ or NYSE... The press would likely provide the marketing for free on the nightly news (due to the sheer audacity of the idea), and the employees of the business could probably sell the shares via telephone. "limit one share per customer"! (or something).
The real problem here is that by sharing the backup or shifted assets of the company among the owners in this way, IF a court later decides the idea is illegal, they (the RIAA) might then seek to recover directly from the owners... Usually by being a corporate entity, this kind of thing is avoided, but since the corporation is distributing it's assets directly to the owners, who can say.
Concerns that users may share their downloads with their non-owner friends are baseless. TODAY, even without this company, people MAY record things from TV and share it with their friends... and TV and radio are legal last I checked.
One final note. In the end, the legality of this plan would not matter. Unless stopped quickly by injunction, Current RIAA distribution methods would become obsolete technically (ok, ok, they are already technically obsolete), and practically. If this became widespread, digital distribution would be the only comercially viable alternative. The distributors would have to change or declare bankruptcy in short order. This company would need to be able to drag out any court proceedings... basically, they'd need to take a page out of Micro$oft'$ playbook. A delay of two to three years is all that is needed...
There will always be a small market for physical distribution, but the days of monopoly-via-artificial-scarsity-of-media would end. And wouldn't that be nice?
I agree. For those unclear about this, here is some clarification.
RIAA claiming Penn State University Emeritus Professor Peter Usher's lecture on radio-selected quasars was, in fact, an mp3 from the musician Usher
1) The RIAA was authorized to act on behalf of the music group Usher (or their publisher). However, since the work was not in fact by the music group, since it was in fact not a musical composition at all, this is not relevant.
2) The RIAA was not ever authorized to act on behalf of Professor Usher.
3) The content of the file clearly bore no resemblance to any work by an author or publisher that the RIAA was authorized to represent.
4) The RIAA represented to know the content of the work when they claimed that it was an example of copyright infringement.
5) Because of (4), the RIAA cannot claim (3) was an honest mistake. In order to make the claim of infringement, it can be said [legaleese] that they either knew or should kave known [/legaleese].
Perhaps there is a case here?
If neither IBM nor Microsoft (both of whom have droves of lawyers specializing in IP) think SCO can pul it off, don't you think you're worrying for nothing?
Last I checked, Microsoft just paid SCO a small fortune. Conspiracy theorists suggest that M$ was simply paying $CO to spread FUD.
I conclude that M$ sees Linux as a threat... and is doing something about it.
IBM is following your good advice and will win their court battle. Remember, IBM is not irrevocably tied to linux. If linux dies due to FUD, they'll move on to service xBSD, or whatever other OS rises to replace it... even Windows if need be.
I can't really fault your logic... except for it being wrong of course. :)
If the only thing at issue were the outcome of the case (IBMvSCO) you would be right about the need to delay action until the last possible moment, and then be brutal. Unfortunately, the outcome of the case is not a concern here.
let's concentrate instead on winning the minds and hearts of the people who make technology-related decisions
Indeed.
Those are the people who will abandon linux in droves, or who will immediately pay $50 per seat (or whatever), when a bill arrives along with a legal notice demanding payment. It is in the interest if the linux community, that is to say the developers, coders, and servicers of linux, to prevent those letters from being sent.
There is already a significant amount of FUD in the linux USER community, and especially in the COMMERCIAL user community. If we want that community to continue to remain healthy, then something must be done to curb this before it is too late.
I hate to be alarmist, but if linux is to be anything other than a home-user/enthusiast OS, action will need to be taken. Soon.
If they're truly that confident of their position, they should be rushing through the court case, and then asking people to license Unixware, with a suitable judgement behind them to back it up.
I don't suppose anyone out there has thought of filing an injunction against SCO?
This IS the great test of the GPL that everyone has been waiting for. Caldera/SCO linux was distributed under the GPL... was distributed with the now disputed code... was distributed by SCO themselves even after they decided to dispute the origins of the code.
What is now require is for one of the kernel contributers... ANY kernel contributer, to file for injunctive relief in US federal court. SCO is requiring that users pay THEM money to use YOUR code. (They say they are only charging for their own code, but they've already given that away.)
What we need is a kernel contributer with sufficient testicular fortitude (and bankroll) to do the right thing.
I'd just like to point out that at this time, the sponsors of this bill all appear to be DEMOCRATS.
/. are often quick to point out how Republicans are protecting the Record labels and softare monopolies... but it seems to me that both parties have a hand in this.
Ok, mod me as troll or flamebait if you like, but it is the truth.
The really sad part is that Republicans aren't much better on this issue. As far as I can see, the American Consumer can not look to either of the major parties to protect their fair use rights. Writers on
Shame...
It seems like most U.S. companies forget that there exists a civilized world beyond its borders.
/. post...
Please define civilization good sir! It seems from other posts, some from actual merchants that there is a high FRAUD rate in many international shipments. But I won't dwell on this as it has already been mentioned. Repeatedly.
The US has laws prohibiting the export of many high-tech items. These laws are largely cold-war relics, but they are kept alive by China and by the terrorist threat. Whether these threats are real, or whether these measures have any impact is another issue entirely.
"Civilized" nations like France and Germany exploited the Iraqi/UN Food for Oil and the corrupt(?) rulers cleared 1 billion USD.
But back to the original
US companies sell to US residents first because they they represent the most lucrative market. The reason why the various EU nations are sacrificing their sovreignty is that they hope to build a similarly lucratice market.
One final note. There are 50 states in the US. Each has its own laws which, while fairly similar, can cause no end of headaches for businesses. In the US, small companies deal with this by working only with the laws that apply in the state(s) in which they are located. FOR EXAMPLE, a single location company based (and located duh) in New Hampshire (tiny little state in the Northeastern US) can sell and ship anything to anyplace in the USA, and does not need to charge any Sales Tax. They also are generally subject to New Hampshire state laws if sued or whatnot. If that same company wanted to ship to the EU, they'd have to worry about local consumer laws, VAT, not to mention tariffs etc... For each international shipping destination, any company has an additional set of laws to account for. This can add up to huge costs... even for large compaies.
FWIW
[Because] maybe the internet needs more of the first sort of people and less of the second
And which type would you be?
There was a famous European guy in the 1930s and early 1940s that thought the world needed more of one kind of people and less of another kind. I can't seem to remember the details, and I am too busy to research right now... but well, you get the idea.
Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it... or something like that.
So why the fsck should this be different on the net then in the printed press?
Guess it depends on where you are from. In some jurisdictions (like the USA), the press can't be made to do anything. If the libel you, you can sue, but unless it is c clear-cut case, you will lose.
The thing that makes the internet great is that anyone at all can easily post their thoughts and ideas. If an appropriate forum for those ideas does not exist, it is simplicity itself to create one.
Because anyone can post their ideas with relative ease, internet content censorship is difficult. Ideas are not easily supressed at rhe whim of corporate or government agencies.
In the case of print media, the readers and advertisers pay the printing and distribution costs. Because these are usually (hopefuly?) profitable ventures, presumably they can afford at least some limited response. However, even in print media, right of response could be abused... with a 10,000 page response to a newspaper article.
The difference between web and print is that for non-commercial sites (no adverts or sales), readers actually cost the poster money for bandwidth and whatnot. The more that is on a site, the greater these costs. If I criticise the Republican Party (or the Democrats, or whatever), I would be compelled to PAY to spread their message under this rule (if it was passed in my jurisdiction). Is this reasonable?
It's nothing more than is required for other editorialised publications
Editorialized publications are not required to publish responses, at least not in the USA, though most do some of that via letters to the editor and the like. Many only publish excerpts of such responses. In the USA, requiring that the press publish anything is constitutionally difficult.
But whereas editorialized publications typically have a staff to manage such things, my blog only has me. I don't have time to read all of my hate mail, and I lack the inclination to post it for the world to see. If I blog about spammers in general, I certainly wouldn't appreciate having to post every piece of spam I recieve afterward.
More to the point, since I don't advertise, I have to pay for the bandwidth out of pocket.
Why should I have to pay to post your ill considered opinions in addition to my own?
What this law does is raise the financial threshold (both in terms of time and money required, where time = money) a person must reach to be able to freely put their thoughts, experiences, etc., on the internet.
Look, I know that MS Windows is the Best OS and that MS Office is the best productivity application. Bill Gates says so he's rich and bought me a new car... so I belive him.
BUT if we can't see and analyze the source of the program how could we possibly know if it is the best tool for any particular job?
We know that it has been widely adopted, but most common does not mean best. We know that it is widely supported by other applications, but since those are mainly closed-source also, we can't analyze to determine if they are best. We have testimonals, but we have testimonials about snake oil too.
How would anyone be able to determine the true quality of closed (or otherwise hidden) items.
Perhaps I am just demonstrating my ignorance here, but don't we encounter some "slippery slope" type problems if we apply too many of the "physical world" (or RL) rules to virtual property?
...like domain names. If governments ignore the contracts and TOS of these providers and apply physical world laws to virtual items, an astronomical burden will be placed on these providers. Do we want to do this? Really?
Six months ago on Battle.net I was "killed". Should someone be charged with murder? Should Blizzard, or the PK that killed me be forced to pay for the time (at my consulting rate of $200/hr) to regain lost experience and gold?
I was tricked into dropping a SOJ. Is that fraud?
I posted my password for my Everquest account on my website. Somebody took over my account. Theft? Identity Theft? (US) Federal Felony?
If Ultima Online's servers suffer an outage, or a disk crashes, or "they" wipe a server and all accounts on it, do I have rights? Must I be compensated?
You may think that I am joking, but there is a legitimate market for virtual items and accounts. People will pay real money for virtual stuff.
We need to tread very carefully before assigning "real property" rights to virtual items and actions.
If I crash my Cesna into the Sears Tower in MSFS2002, am I a terrorist?
You can bet if I quit in those sort of circumstances, I'd be suing
Spoken like a true American!
Seriously though, you can't expect management to be telepathic... to sense your displeasure and its causes. If you quit without first communicating your concerns to management, I'd say your lawsuit would be a waste of time.
Sure management should already know what the problem is, but that is because you should have already told them.
Don't expect much sympathy from the legal system if you are part of the problem.
Instead, decide where your breaking point would be, and discuss it reasonably ("if this happens, I'd really have to leave, and neither of us wants that to happen"). You are NOT making threats. Make this clear. Explain that you will keep your manager informed as the situation evolves, and that you will not leave without warning.
If you do draw the line for management and they step over it, you pretty much have to do what you said you would. This is a life lesson of sorts... if people believe that you won't make good on your promises, they will come to assume that you are full of s**t and should be treated as such.
If you tell your employer "if I have to work more than 50 hours in a week I am not going to answer the pager/cell/phone if you put me on call this weekend", then make damn sure you do what you said you would.
Worse case you get fired and collect unemployment... but no matter the outcome, you'll be taken seriously.
Hmmm, how about starting with PAYING YOUR EMPLOYEES FOR THE WORK THEY DO.
Well, that would be interesting I'd agree. But just how much is that?
Everybody, from Bill Gates to your local trash collector thinks that they deserve more money than they currently make. Or at least they should. If they don't then they either are overpaid to begin with or else they have a serious self-esteem problem.
Quitting and failing to tell management or HR why simply perpetuates the original problem for those that stay behind.
Look, I dont much care for unions, but if enough of you feel the way you do, you should form/join one. Of course doing so will probably be the last nail in the coffin for your company, but if you do form a union, at least you'll have certain legal rights.
If you just walk out, the company will just replace you. Sure, they'll be hurtin' in some areas for about a month, but then they'll hire some unemployed slashdotters for peanuts and get back to business. You'll make your point better if the s**t you throw at them is legally protected.
Whatever you do, make sure you can live with the consequences.
Notwithstanding the comments above, unions suck. Union dues, misuse of said dues for politics, being TOLD that you have to go on strike... blah!
5. Don't just play high end games, not everyone has that kind of CPU. Get some good strategy game tourneys going, like Alpha Centarui, or Civ 2 & 3, or even have a Quake 2 tournament.
STARCRAFT