CFAA may be broken but what Aaron did was still wrong
What Aaron did was not wrong (in a moral sense). What Aaron might have done could have been wrong, but no one knows what his intent was in downloading all those papers. Was he going to publish them all? Was he going to just run some analysis on them?
What is clearly wrong is the level of punishment that he could have been subject to for doing something that had hurt no one and caused no significant losses to anyone.
You are condemning him based on assumptions about his future actions.
Sharing the finite bandwidth amongst customers is fine. Giving a lower share because that customer is on an unlimited contract is where the problem lies.
What happened was that HP got into the PC business. The PC business is completely different to most other businesses that HP was in: cutthroat margins, little technical innovation. PCs drove a change in mindset amongst HP's management and board.
The oteher part of the definition issu is that the relationship between Amazon and publishers is somewhat unusual. Perhaps unique.
In the case of books, while Amazon may have market power as the single buyer, to some extent, the publishers also have power as the single seller. If Amazon wants to sell (for example) Stephen King's latest novel, there is only one publisher that is selling it. Amazon cannot go elsewhere, just as (perhaps) the publisher cannot go elsewhere to sell the eBook rights.
If your definition of monopsony is the simple "one buyer", then perhaps, but if your definition is the one that I was using, where the buyer has market power, the evidence is that Amazon did not have this at the time. Perhaps it has now. As with monopolies, having a monopsony is not illegal, it's how you take advantage of it that matters -- as I see that you do note.
So, I will apologise for the attack, partly.
Amazon has a responsibility to not abuse their monopsony, yet they have failed to do so at every turn. Anyone who Googles around for about 5 minutes can turn up a dozen examples of Amazon abusing their dominant position to force the publisher's hands.
As people often point out, anecdotes are not the singular of data. Yes, there are cases of Amazon's behaviour that give cause for concern and probably an investigation is due. But do you honestly think that the publishers are not waging a PR war on Amazon right now?
I think that you are either a knowing astroturfer or a useful idiot.
Amazon has a responsibility to not abuse their monopsony, yet they have failed to do so at every turn.
In the past few months, the Apple fanboys have been promoting the "Amazon has a monopsony" line, which I assume was started by Apple employees in some Apple-related forums.
Perhaps Amazon has a monopsony now, but to suggest that it had one when Apple was organizing its illegal price-fixing is simply counter-factual. The publishers went to Amazon and demanded that Amazon either put up prices or Amazon would not be able to sell eBooks from that publisher any more. Amazon caved, which is a clear indication that Amazon had no monopsony.
Perhaps if Apple had focused on competing using legal means, there would be a more level playing field now.
We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state
There has clearly been success in creating a one-party state. The party just happens to have two faces, but inside, there is no significant difference.
Comcast has two mantras. Increase sales and cut costs.
Comcast is cr*p at doing the latter. Why did it take a callout to my house in order to get my cablecard working? The online system and their attempt to authorize the cablecard when I called in both failed, but why? All that happened during the callout was that the technician called his buddy to send the signal to authorize the cablecard. Then he changed a few connectors in the wiring -- probably to justify the callout.
Like many medical advances, this will likely take years before it is approved for use in the USA. Apart from the FDA being very slow, this would cut into revenues from colonoscopies.
Even things like better and safe sunscreen are available in other developed countries but not in the USA. Improved treatments for tooth decay took years before approval in the USA.
Looks like Ozzy politicians are even more short-sighted and dumber than the sorry bunch of venal no-hopers currently running Westminster.
I wouldn't be too sure of that:
Tory MP says astrology is good for the health "David Tredinnick, a member of Commons committees on health and science, says Britain should look to the stars to improve the nation's health"
Meanwhile, the really important issues, such as the NSA spying on everyone are being ignored.
This is just a sop, aimed at geeks to get them to forget about Snowdon and many other important issues for a while, perhaps to make people think that the politicians actually care about what people think.
Sometimes it simply breaks the incoming missile or rocket into segments or destroys its ability to follow its planned ballistic path. According to Lloyd and Postol, if the warhead isnâ(TM)t destroyed the interceptor failed.
That assumes that a certain degree of accuracy is needed by the incoming missile. If the target is "somewhere within a 10 mile radius" and the missile is knocked off course by a couple of miles, then the missile is likely successful.
I was in the same situation once. Laid off by Northern Telecom in the late '80s, I started work as a contractor at their head office three weeks later for double what I'd been paid as an employee.:)
I was once part of a site closure, which resulted in some employees (unfortunately, not me) getting both early retirement (pension payments) and re-hired as contractors at significantly higher rates than their salaries had been.
My wife and I decided, the next day that, short of an emergency situation, we were done flying commercial. If we couldn't drive to get there, we didn't need to go. It's not because we were afraid of terrorists, but we saw what a hassle and invasion of privacy it would became.
Some of us have families the other sides of oceans. It's not so easy to give up flying.
The UK Parliament can pass a law that directly contradicts a treaty. A judge faced with a law that also gives clear direction that the intention was to override European law should have no choice but to interpret it so, rather than assume as now that the intention is to remain in accord with Europe given the prior acts Parliament have passed that speak to exactly that.
And yes you're right, how could anyone not love a massive command-based supranational state with poor democratic issues, endemic corruption, and a legal code largely directed at controlling behaviour rather than respecting individual rights. Worked out really fucking well last time.
The EU has its problems. But for the UK, pulling out would be worse. In order to trade with EU members, the UK would still have to follow many EU requirements, but without any influence over the setting of those requirements. Those car factories in the UK? Likely closed, like so many other businesses as exporting to EU countries becomes difficult.
Parliament is the supreme law-making body: its Acts are the highest source of English law.
Unlike in other countries such as the US, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law, or an act of parliament being "illegal" if properly passed, because there is no constitution in the UK, and an act of the parliament duly passed is supreme.
No. It isn't. UK law must be in accordance with EU treaty requirements.
I am beginning to suspect that they whole anti-EU campaign is not really an astroturfing (and use of the useful idiots) by the 1%ers to get rid of those pesky EU laws that are preventing unrestrained wealth acquisition by the rich at the expense of the poor.
With the exception of the smashwords issue, all of those articles relate to Amazon fighting with publishers. Not one of those articles alleges (apart from the smashwords issue) that Amazon is forcing up the prices at other retailers.What does Wallmart do every day: negotiate with suppliers to get the best deal for itself. What is Amazon doing here?
Yes, there is a risk that Amazon may be so dominant that it can push up prices, but that is mostly a theoretical risk (smashwords excepted).
So, perhaps an investigation is warranted, but, in no way does that mean the Apple should not be fined for its actions.
Yeah, much better to let Amazon to run all the book publishers out of business.:rolleyes:
Yes, the DOJ should totally prosecute the theoretical future anti-trust actions by Amazon, while ignoring the actual increase in prices brought about by market manipulation of Apple.:rolleyes.
Slashdot Mirror
What Aaron did was not wrong (in a moral sense). What Aaron might have done could have been wrong, but no one knows what his intent was in downloading all those papers. Was he going to publish them all? Was he going to just run some analysis on them?
What is clearly wrong is the level of punishment that he could have been subject to for doing something that had hurt no one and caused no significant losses to anyone.
You are condemning him based on assumptions about his future actions.
Sharing the finite bandwidth amongst customers is fine. Giving a lower share because that customer is on an unlimited contract is where the problem lies.
That business was spun off, it's now called Agilent Technologies.
What happened was that HP got into the PC business. The PC business is completely different to most other businesses that HP was in: cutthroat margins, little technical innovation. PCs drove a change in mindset amongst HP's management and board.
The oteher part of the definition issu is that the relationship between Amazon and publishers is somewhat unusual. Perhaps unique.
In the case of books, while Amazon may have market power as the single buyer, to some extent, the publishers also have power as the single seller. If Amazon wants to sell (for example) Stephen King's latest novel, there is only one publisher that is selling it. Amazon cannot go elsewhere, just as (perhaps) the publisher cannot go elsewhere to sell the eBook rights.
Definition s are wonderful things. For every one, one can find a different definition. So how about this:
If your definition of monopsony is the simple "one buyer", then perhaps, but if your definition is the one that I was using, where the buyer has market power, the evidence is that Amazon did not have this at the time. Perhaps it has now. As with monopolies, having a monopsony is not illegal, it's how you take advantage of it that matters -- as I see that you do note.
So, I will apologise for the attack, partly.
As people often point out, anecdotes are not the singular of data. Yes, there are cases of Amazon's behaviour that give cause for concern and probably an investigation is due. But do you honestly think that the publishers are not waging a PR war on Amazon right now?
In the past few months, the Apple fanboys have been promoting the "Amazon has a monopsony" line, which I assume was started by Apple employees in some Apple-related forums.
Perhaps Amazon has a monopsony now, but to suggest that it had one when Apple was organizing its illegal price-fixing is simply counter-factual. The publishers went to Amazon and demanded that Amazon either put up prices or Amazon would not be able to sell eBooks from that publisher any more. Amazon caved, which is a clear indication that Amazon had no monopsony.
Perhaps if Apple had focused on competing using legal means, there would be a more level playing field now.
Yes, it's not as though Apple consipred to increase the prices that consumers paid when buying elsewhere. Oh wait ... yes Apple did just that!
There has clearly been success in creating a one-party state. The party just happens to have two faces, but inside, there is no significant difference.
Comcast is cr*p at doing the latter. Why did it take a callout to my house in order to get my cablecard working? The online system and their attempt to authorize the cablecard when I called in both failed, but why? All that happened during the callout was that the technician called his buddy to send the signal to authorize the cablecard. Then he changed a few connectors in the wiring -- probably to justify the callout.
Apparently you failed to read the section on elections in the City of London:
So, yes, they are governed by corporations.
Like many medical advances, this will likely take years before it is approved for use in the USA. Apart from the FDA being very slow, this would cut into revenues from colonoscopies.
Even things like better and safe sunscreen are available in other developed countries but not in the USA. Improved treatments for tooth decay took years before approval in the USA.
Limited bandwidth does not justify throttling some customers more than others, depending on the nature of their "unlimited" contract.
I wouldn't be too sure of that: Tory MP says astrology is good for the health "David Tredinnick, a member of Commons committees on health and science, says Britain should look to the stars to improve the nation's health"
Meanwhile, the really important issues, such as the NSA spying on everyone are being ignored.
This is just a sop, aimed at geeks to get them to forget about Snowdon and many other important issues for a while, perhaps to make people think that the politicians actually care about what people think.
What Biden is saying is that there is systematic and widespread abuse of the H1-B visa program.
That assumes that a certain degree of accuracy is needed by the incoming missile. If the target is "somewhere within a 10 mile radius" and the missile is knocked off course by a couple of miles, then the missile is likely successful.
I was once part of a site closure, which resulted in some employees (unfortunately, not me) getting both early retirement (pension payments) and re-hired as contractors at significantly higher rates than their salaries had been.
Some of us have families the other sides of oceans. It's not so easy to give up flying.
Perhaps DRA sent a letter to ICANN concerining renewal of icann.org?
Once again, No
The EU has its problems. But for the UK, pulling out would be worse. In order to trade with EU members, the UK would still have to follow many EU requirements, but without any influence over the setting of those requirements. Those car factories in the UK? Likely closed, like so many other businesses as exporting to EU countries becomes difficult.
ugh... s/is not really/is really/
No. It isn't. UK law must be in accordance with EU treaty requirements.
I am beginning to suspect that they whole anti-EU campaign is not really an astroturfing (and use of the useful idiots) by the 1%ers to get rid of those pesky EU laws that are preventing unrestrained wealth acquisition by the rich at the expense of the poor.
So, it's acceptable to you if you are amongst the innocent people who are executed?
With the exception of the smashwords issue, all of those articles relate to Amazon fighting with publishers. Not one of those articles alleges (apart from the smashwords issue) that Amazon is forcing up the prices at other retailers.What does Wallmart do every day: negotiate with suppliers to get the best deal for itself. What is Amazon doing here?
Yes, there is a risk that Amazon may be so dominant that it can push up prices, but that is mostly a theoretical risk (smashwords excepted).
So, perhaps an investigation is warranted, but, in no way does that mean the Apple should not be fined for its actions.
Yes, the DOJ should totally prosecute the theoretical future anti-trust actions by Amazon, while ignoring the actual increase in prices brought about by market manipulation of Apple. :rolleyes.