When someone speaks of it being illegal it must be in the context of a country, since laws are different it may or may not be illegal in different areas.
There is an article here ( http://www.mensactivism.org/articles/04/07/09/2262 19.shtml ) that speaks of a man being imprisioned for impersonation but the article did not say what the charges were.
Anyone know exactly what laws (For the United States or Canada) are involved?
"...it's done about 4.5GB of traffic on my site because it's downloading large videos!"
Is there any way to prevent people from using up your bandwidth like this? What if someone continually and purposefully downloads the same file over and over again just to be an idiot?
This seems similar to the hot linking problem, where people link to your images and content from their website so your website gets the bandwidth bill. Has anyone successfully sued over this yet?
Why didn't I have any trouble understanding what was said?
'Intellectual property' belongs to the public. It is only on loan in the form of a monopoly to the creator of the idea for a limited period of time.
This is a great response to moguls who say 'we have to protect our intellectual property'. You say: 'No, it is not your property, it belongs to the public. It is only on loan to you temperorarly'.
Grandparent deserved and got +5 points for this insight.
" Great. Under your scheme, JK Rowling would be in fear of her life from Hollywood hitmen."
Fear of being killed...I dont see how. Rowling has an exclusive deal with who ever distributes her movies. If she dies, and it goes into the public domain, well that deal is worth shit all.
If anything Hollywood Moguls who have a contract with her would be doing everything to ensure she does not die. The benefit from her death would be everyone doing a knockoff, which is so small probably not to warrant doing it.
And if little Johnny wants to look at porn, and looks at porn instead of having sex to satifify him, then why the hell not let him look at it.
No wonder America has double the teenage pregnancy rates in comparison to other industrialized nations: idiot puritanical repressed parents who think sex and nudity will warp little johnny for life.
Why not just pay homeless people $20 to tape it. If they are caught they get to get a free home and food, and if they are not then they get free money.
Paying homeless people to do civil disobedience is win-win.
"No, the US policy that each side pays their own court fees is a very nice one that ensures fewer nuisance cases"
What the hell are you talking about. If I have the bucks (or am a lawyer) I can go around suing willy nilly and I know it will cost *you* since loser does not pay. Am I right, am i wrong, is the case worthy? - It doesnt matter you are still $50,000 in the hole.
With loser pays I better be fucking sure its worth it to sue you or i'm going to be paying my fees and *yours*. Lawsuits go *DOWN* in frequency with loser or suer pays.
"Would you be the one to spend 10, 15 thousand dollars in court and lawyer fees to say "fuck you?"
Thats why we need 'suer' pays clause, in the DMCA i guess, for copyright lawsuits like this. Thus if RIAA loses they pay everyone's bills, but if the alledged downloader loses they only pay their own. That should level the playing field.
"letting everyone take their product for free is though right?"
These companies likely would lose very little money to begin with because A) they would have rented it from the library B) they would have bought it used C) they would have borrowed it from a friend.
People who have time to dick around for hours looking for music online is the type of people who have little money (other wise they would have worked a fraction of that time and bought the music instead).
Do these companies really think people will want to buy disposible DVDs? It is a big hassle, not to mention anyone with one iota of environmentalism won't touch these things since its all going to go into the garbage and pollute.
I recommend people not buy this even if they sell them for a penny.
"clearly state that your PhD will be revoked if it is used for unethical or criminal purposes"
I am very much against the idea of revoking degrees for behaviour after the fact, but if the university had a policy that they can revoke degrees for bad behaviour then it was up to him to either A) to choose not to falsify data or B) choose another university that isn't as draconian about revoking degrees.
If this guy did not falsify the data for his thesis then he should keep his degree (there is debate weather he falsified data for his degree or just at Bell Labs though).
His punishment for falsifying data at Bell Labs should be a censure by his University and his being fired.
One solution would be that the ISP notifies the customer that someone issued a complaint.
Also, if the complainer wants to sue it should be that the complainer pays everyone's legal fees if they lose. That will make it more likely that the complainer is very sure they have a legitment claim.
That is the whole point: sometimes it is not enough to have the freedom to speak if you cannot speak because you have no forum. If you want to define freedom of speech in only terms of negative liberty then that runs the risk of simply ignoring the positive liberty (no forum) aspects when people are by default silenced by having no venue.
If you want to restrict your view narrowly that is fine, but back it up with arguements why the positive liberty arguements don't matter instead of harping on narrow definitions. My previous point still stands unless you have a counter arguement:
You must see, do you not, that if a company owned all the media then people are defacto silenced even though they have a theoretical 'freedom of speech' that cannot be exercised since they have no forum. The question becomes at what point of media concentration does the effects of censorship start to occur, and how much force, if any at all, can be legitmately used to force a party to give a forum to another.
Those links do not change the fact that de facto if you cannot speak then you do not have any forum to talk: i.e. it is not enough that no one is stopping you from speaking, but in some cases in order to speak a party (i.e. BT) maybe forced to assist another to do so.
You must see, do you not, that if a company owned all the media then people are defacto silenced even though they have a theoretical 'freedom of speech' that cannot be exercised since they have no forum. The question becomes at what point of media concentration does the effects of censorship start to occur, and how much force, if any at all, can be legitmately used to force a party to give a forum to another.
My other point, which your links also do not address, is that censorship will come in the guise corporate abuse as corporations' power surpasses government's own (one scenario being government simply is bought out by corporate interests). If corporations that own all media decide to filter out content they do not want the public knowning, is that not censorship, it looks and smells like it, and for all purposes it appears behave in same fashon as government censorship.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a protocol? Do you need any special software?
I noticed it has its own source forge page, it is open specifications and open source software?
A P2P protocol would be a good thing, something similar is I2P is an anonymous P2P protocol.
When someone speaks of it being illegal it must be in the context of a country, since laws are different it may or may not be illegal in different areas.
2 19.shtml ) that speaks of a man being imprisioned for impersonation but the article did not say what the charges were.
There is an article here ( http://www.mensactivism.org/articles/04/07/09/226
Anyone know exactly what laws (For the United States or Canada) are involved?
There is one alternative called Mute, which solves one key problem with Freenet or Entropy which is that it is searchable.
"...it's done about 4.5GB of traffic on my site because it's downloading large videos!"
Is there any way to prevent people from using up your bandwidth like this? What if someone continually and purposefully downloads the same file over and over again just to be an idiot?
This seems similar to the hot linking problem, where people link to your images and content from their website so your website gets the bandwidth bill. Has anyone successfully sued over this yet?
Why didn't I have any trouble understanding what was said?
'Intellectual property' belongs to the public. It is only on loan in the form of a monopoly to the creator of the idea for a limited period of time.
This is a great response to moguls who say 'we have to protect our intellectual property'. You say: 'No, it is not your property, it belongs to the public. It is only on loan to you temperorarly'.
Grandparent deserved and got +5 points for this insight.
" Great. Under your scheme, JK Rowling would be in fear of her life from Hollywood hitmen."
Fear of being killed...I dont see how. Rowling has an exclusive deal with who ever distributes her movies. If she dies, and it goes into the public domain, well that deal is worth shit all.
If anything Hollywood Moguls who have a contract with her would be doing everything to ensure she does not die. The benefit from her death would be everyone doing a knockoff, which is so small probably not to warrant doing it.
Very insightful.
And if little Johnny wants to look at porn, and looks at porn instead of having sex to satifify him, then why the hell not let him look at it.
No wonder America has double the teenage pregnancy rates in comparison to other industrialized nations: idiot puritanical repressed parents who think sex and nudity will warp little johnny for life.
Why not just pay homeless people $20 to tape it. If they are caught they get to get a free home and food, and if they are not then they get free money.
Paying homeless people to do civil disobedience is win-win.
"this is not the place to discuss it"
The film is classified as a documentary. Who sees documentaries, kids? No. Nerds do.
"No, the US policy that each side pays their own court fees is a very nice one that ensures fewer nuisance cases"
What the hell are you talking about. If I have the bucks (or am a lawyer) I can go around suing willy nilly and I know it will cost *you* since loser does not pay. Am I right, am i wrong, is the case worthy? - It doesnt matter you are still $50,000 in the hole.
With loser pays I better be fucking sure its worth it to sue you or i'm going to be paying my fees and *yours*. Lawsuits go *DOWN* in frequency with loser or suer pays.
"Would you be the one to spend 10, 15 thousand dollars in court and lawyer fees to say "fuck you?"
Thats why we need 'suer' pays clause, in the DMCA i guess, for copyright lawsuits like this. Thus if RIAA loses they pay everyone's bills, but if the alledged downloader loses they only pay their own. That should level the playing field.
Anonymous P2P will likely 'solve' these lawsuits, the technology is coming along nicely.
I think that I2P and Mute need some developers though if you are interested.
"letting everyone take their product for free is though right?"
These companies likely would lose very little money to begin with because A) they would have rented it from the library B) they would have bought it used C) they would have borrowed it from a friend.
People who have time to dick around for hours looking for music online is the type of people who have little money (other wise they would have worked a fraction of that time and bought the music instead).
I am not a fanatic when it comes to processors (i.e. not a die hard fan of AMD) but Intel is a rip off with respect to price compared to AMD.
Last few computers I bought were AMDs, I was very satisified with the cost and the preformance.
The solution to racism isn't to ban racist speech but to argue and discuss why it is wrong to begin with.
As well, in general I don't like the government, or anyone, being the thought police for what I can read.
Do these companies really think people will want to buy disposible DVDs? It is a big hassle, not to mention anyone with one iota of environmentalism won't touch these things since its all going to go into the garbage and pollute.
I recommend people not buy this even if they sell them for a penny.
He gave us a translation, then me gets karma points.
Don't cry because you are too lazy to do it yourself.
321 Studios should release the code via the GPL so everyone can have their own copy, and modify it.
There is no DMCA in some countries so they could host the source there. Anyone work for 321 studios? Ask them to release the code.
"clearly state that your PhD will be revoked if it is used for unethical or criminal purposes"
I am very much against the idea of revoking degrees for behaviour after the fact, but if the university had a policy that they can revoke degrees for bad behaviour then it was up to him to either A) to choose not to falsify data or B) choose another university that isn't as draconian about revoking degrees.
I agree with parent 100%.
If this guy did not falsify the data for his thesis then he should keep his degree (there is debate weather he falsified data for his degree or just at Bell Labs though).
His punishment for falsifying data at Bell Labs should be a censure by his University and his being fired.
One solution would be that the ISP notifies the customer that someone issued a complaint.
Also, if the complainer wants to sue it should be that the complainer pays everyone's legal fees if they lose. That will make it more likely that the complainer is very sure they have a legitment claim.
That is only gratis software, so you really don't know how well it works, if at all.
A better choice is Eraser, it is GPLed.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/eraser/
You can also make a nuke boot disk with this program that automatically starts erasing everything upon start up. Don't forget to clearly label it ;).
"My second link defined free speech..."
That is the whole point: sometimes it is not enough to have the freedom to speak if you cannot speak because you have no forum. If you want to define freedom of speech in only terms of negative liberty then that runs the risk of simply ignoring the positive liberty (no forum) aspects when people are by default silenced by having no venue.
If you want to restrict your view narrowly that is fine, but back it up with arguements why the positive liberty arguements don't matter instead of harping on narrow definitions. My previous point still stands unless you have a counter arguement:
You must see, do you not, that if a company owned all the media then people are defacto silenced even though they have a theoretical 'freedom of speech' that cannot be exercised since they have no forum. The question becomes at what point of media concentration does the effects of censorship start to occur, and how much force, if any at all, can be legitmately used to force a party to give a forum to another.
Those links do not change the fact that de facto if you cannot speak then you do not have any forum to talk: i.e. it is not enough that no one is stopping you from speaking, but in some cases in order to speak a party (i.e. BT) maybe forced to assist another to do so.
You must see, do you not, that if a company owned all the media then people are defacto silenced even though they have a theoretical 'freedom of speech' that cannot be exercised since they have no forum. The question becomes at what point of media concentration does the effects of censorship start to occur, and how much force, if any at all, can be legitmately used to force a party to give a forum to another.
My other point, which your links also do not address, is that censorship will come in the guise corporate abuse as corporations' power surpasses government's own (one scenario being government simply is bought out by corporate interests). If corporations that own all media decide to filter out content they do not want the public knowning, is that not censorship, it looks and smells like it, and for all purposes it appears behave in same fashon as government censorship.