Re:The teachers should...
on
Cheating Made Easy
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I would say yes. And for the record IAAHSET (I am a high school English teacher).
BUT, with 150+ students it is difficult, at best. You don't seem to understand the amount of time it takes just to have that that many students writing papers at the same time, the amount of time it takes just to run a simple Google search on suspicious phrases in papers, the amount of time it takes to document the source(s) of plagiarized papers, nor the amount of time it takes to then conference with parents.
Parents, incidentally, who come in one of three basic varieties when their child is accused of cheating:
1-"Not my son/daughter, I don't care what you found."
2-"Well, son/daughter, you screwed up...just like always."
and the rare, but so prized
3-"I don't see what the big deal is, everyone does it to some degree...can't you reward his/her resourcefulness...or were you just trying to trap my kid? You know, I have a lawyer on speed dial..."
Needless to say, that if I dedicate as much time as I should to trying to catch just the most blatant instances of plagiarism, I would have little time to actually finish reading essays, let alone grade them, write lesson plans, attend special education meetings that take no small amount of time, attend school functions/meetings/professional development (unpaid continuing education required by district, state and increasingly, the NCLB act), prepare students for the multitude of standardized tests (not to mention benchmarks and other assessments) designed indeed to Leave No Child Untested a few days of the year, or spend one of the 10-12 hours each day in some way dedicated to teaching (most often 6 but increasingly 7 days a week during the school year), watch politicians say that I don't do enough with the resources I have while watching my pay, retirement, and benefits dwindle compared to other professionals, let alone spend time with my own family.
Yes, "kids are getting more sly about things," as you so succinctly put it. And keeping up with them is the point behind sites like turnitin.com. However, individual teachers, schools or districts must pay for the service.
Currently in Texas, the State Attorney General is arguing against a case brought by an alliance of school districts which challenges state education funding is inadequate due to a seemingly unending and unfunded bevy of state mandates to increase teacher and district accountability and thereby the current property tax model for funding education constitutes what is essentially a state income tax, which is unconstitutional in Texas. His argument yesterday was that districts don't make good use of the funds that they have, choosing instead to spend them on activities and curricula that are not mandated by the state, things like fine arts programs and sports.
In the current financial climate of education, it is sometimes difficult to have books for every student, pay teachers competitive salaries, or especially to find the $3,000-5,000 to subscribe to a service like turnitin.com. I certainly can't afford to pay for an individual subscription, nor can most public schools or districts.
I would love to "keep up" with all those "sly" students, but I would love it more if parents stopped downloading MP3's and saying it does no harm, it's just music, or sneaking drinks and snacks into theatres, or fibbing on their taxes, or any of a million ways and increasing multitude are teaching poor character to their children.
Getting caught cheating should be, after all, a lesson about morals.
Yet, I see every day students that see their parents and other adults willing to sacrifice every value in efforts to get their presumed "just desserts." Many of my students (high school sophomores and seniors) think that the only bad cheating happens when someone gets caught. The ideals of honor and integrity are becoming, if not rare, then so abstract (as a result of an increasingly diverse number of bad models read Enron, NY Times, "doping" athletes, etc.) as to be
One of the links on the Unicast front page brags "Unicast Works with Microsoft Technology to Enable Full-Screen, Broadcast Video Commercials for Online Advertisers."
No wonder IE is going to support popup blocking...when Micro$oft has already crowned the successor to Doubleclick.
Considering Unicast's claim that the ads will still work even if pop-ups are disabled more clearly reveals the thin edge Microsoft has just skated upon. Obviously, Microsoft has chosen (yet again) to support revenue sources over end-users. Unisoft's claim that,
"Marketers will now have the opportunity to get more communication value from on-line advertising through this type of rich media technology. Unlike traditional TV, the Unicast ad impression is guaranteed based on full exposure to the commercial unit. This is a win for the marketer and if executed properly, the experience should be a win for the on-line user"
clearly boils down to this
"Some people will think these ads are a cute implementation of new technology, until the backlash as users realize it can't be shut off and is a waste of their bandwith (read money), but if we don't overdo it, maybe the lifespan for these ads can be half as long as pop-ups have been around."
And of those the only one that may be considered an "English" word may be gaol and its variations as they are still used in government documents in Britain today and evolved from Middle English spellings. But but alas even Gaol had its roots in French.
The rest all originate in Greek (chaos, elao, nao), Chinese (kaol), or Italian (paolo).
What's Latin for Montgomery Burns? Iter...?
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 1
The French and Japanese have simply slapped a copyright infringment suit on ol' Sol.
Fines are mouting following Sol's blatant disregard of the C&D order. And the newly implemented blocking filters just aren't 100% effective, yet.
Rest easy, this should all be resolved as soon as designs for the fusion reactor, Iter (pronounced, unless my Latin is rusty, as "eater"), are accepted as prior art and all sunlight users pay appropriate licensening fees.
Watching the DaVinci Code the other night, I was supprised to hear the name "Merovingian.'
Evidently, as supposed direct descendents of Jesus Christ, the Merovingians are the focus of a lot of lore.
However, googling around, I found this site that may shed some light on the whole Matrix mythology, for anyone bothering to take the time to read it and to dismiss the evangelical tone. Hint: think messiahs, controlling races, and battles between kingdoms for world dominance.
The magic of The Matrix was truely that it made us contemplate; the magic of the sequels may end up being realized as their forcing us to associate and interpolate seemingly disparate ideas.
Whether poor CGI dependant successors to the original film or not, the sequels have all (and perhaps a more diverse collection) of the allegorical links to philosophy, religion and ethics of the original. I think most complaints about the loss of the philosophical undertones can be answered by saying, more is dependant upon the knowledge you bring with you. The philosophy just is not as recognizable or blatant as the Cartesian Dualism (body and mind for the philosophicaly impaired) which practically effervesces from every pair of sunglasses, double-kick, and "Whoa" in the original.
Don't dismiss the movies if you are feeling let down, instead consider the possibility that there has been a metatheatrical aspect to all of the movies, wheter intentional or not, the W's have created in Neo a fictional Christ figure with the potential to reinvigorate philosophical ponderings in the real world.
Perhaps they could have skipped Sexium and went straight to Septium...except that sounds nasal...perhaps XPentium (or is that a Microsoft trademark)???
I think what seperates Verisign from the other registrars here (and makes their accepting wildcards all the more devilish) are the suggested addresses. At least, I can't recall seeing anything other than a "Register this domain" page from the other registrars, but I may just be a decent typist and therefore wrong...
However, I am curious about the liability Verisign might face when some pre-teen mistypes a common kid's website (let's say www.barney.com --> www.baremy.com) and gets a Verisign suggested spelling that links to a porn site (www.bareny.com).
IANAL, but it seems there would be some civil and criminal liability here, if the parents or school district or other computer provider were aware of how the kid was directed to the porn site....
Ah, well, I am just trying to think beyond the "they ate up 1 gazillion hours of network admin time" box here...
I would hate to be THE guy who said "Do it," to this idea.
The key difference is that Ameritech/SBC could have used that information to deny service. As a utility there are numerous federal laws prohibiting this practice. Since the RIAA is asking you to volunteer the so called racial information, I don't think the same laws would apply. In other words, the RIAA has no service that you could be denied on the basis of race.
Instead, I think in this case the RIAA could be considered to be conducting a survey in which racial information might be collected (if anyone at the RIAA was clever enough to realize they had access to this infomation). At any rate the laws, which employers, businesses, and educational institutions are subject to regarding racial information, simply don't apply. That is unless you want to argue that the RIAA will somehow limit your ability to purchase CD's based on your race, which is of course ludicrous.
"...the RIAA would have to give away some MP3's to those who "borrow" but never return files."
I should have said...
"...the RIAA would have to give away some MP3's to those who "borrow" but never return files yet can not be sued for copyright infringement since the original file was physicaly transferred to the recipient, not just copied."
To me it seems that the real issue here is physical - saved to some physical media - copies of the files. What if a P2P program operated differently - more like a lending library - where files behave more like physical copies. Downloaders not only "check-out" files but first are responsible for making the file available for lending and returning the file. What the downloader does with the file while in their possession is their choice and responsibility - they could use it and return it or make a copy of it and return it or never return it. This change in P2P paradigm could alter legal liabilities for downloading copyrighted material from the source of file to the recipient of the file.
Of course IANAL, and may be missing important parts of the law. In the following long winded explanation, I think I might have stumbled onto something, but will leave it to other readers to tell me where I am wrong and where I am, well, less wrong.
First, a question which I have not seen answered in all the discussion here, namely are the RIAA subpoenas being issued against users who shared files or from whom a file was actually downloaded by the RIAA? Either way, they do seem to have legal ground for filing suit against those who have illegally distributed, or made available for distribution through file sharing, copyrighted material.
I am neither taking a stance on the legality of file sharing, nor trying to find a way to justify the behavior. Instead, I am simply attempting to view the entire approach to P2P sharing a little differently.
Let me begin with a question.
What if a user has shared some or many files within a P2P program, but used a firewall or has set up their P2P program to prevent anyone from actually downlaoding their files?
To me it seems that this person is committing no copyright infringement - while the file may be available it is not accessible. Consider the analogy of my placing a sign on my car reading "Use this car for FREE! Just drive it away!" but I have taken out the motor, removed the tires and built a 12 foot fence around it, and made it impossible for anyone to actually drive it away, I haven't really given it away.
At least not until someone drives it off, right?
So if the RIAA finds a username with thousands of files shared but is then unable to download the file, there has been no distribution and it may be hard to argue that there was intent to allow distribution of those files if other steps were taken to disallow downloads. Incidentaly, this may be an insight in the answer to my first question - wheter or not the RIAA is pursuing those who just share or are actually making files available for download.
So what if a P2P program did not immediately share but simply listed files you have on your machine? No crime in that, right? In other words, you were simply proclaiming "look what I have," but that did not allow anyone to download the file.
It seems that the inherent flaw in P2P programs (well at least when it comes to the legality of sharing) is that files are automatically available for download.
Let's imagine instead that when someone wants those files from you, the downloader has to "release" (or publish or share or copy or whatever) the file. In other words the downloader had to click OK to a message that says something like "Do you want to make a copy of this file by making it available for distribution (download) to your computer?"
Legally, it would seem that it is neccessary for the downloader to have options beyond simply saving the file to disk. There also needs to be an option to open the file without saving it. This would let the downloader view/play/open a file without being able to save it. In other words, simply borrowing the file because while it is being borrowed the file can't be borrowed or copied or used in anyway by anyone else the original "owner" included (because the copyright infringement comes from duplication and distribution). Let's say that the
IANAL, but I think you will find that due process is primarily a concern in CRIMINAL cases. The RIAA are filing for subpoenas in CIVIL cases where the burden of proof and the contraints of due process are significantly lower.
It seems truly unlikely that the RIAA would attempt to have file sharers prosecuted in a criminal court (persecuted?) for several connected reasons. The courts would likely throw a significant number of these cases out. The burden of these cases would draw lots of complaints and press about clogging the courts with somewhat trivial cases while murderers, rapists and the like wander around on bail for months thanks to the IP theft cases (think in terms of Willie Horton and Michael Dukakis). This resulting bad press might very well wake up a few politicians to the failings of the DMCA and the current laws which criminalize a daily activity of millions of Americans. As a result of trying to have file swappers prosecuted in criminal court, the very laws which enable filing thousands of civil cases might very well be changed.
And don't you just have a feeling that this is why the lobbyists and politicians have strenghtened copyright holders ability to file civil cases while the RIAA have largely ignored potential criminal proceedings (even as lawmakers bandy about increased criminal sentences for IP theft)?
And for those of you who still think that the RIAA will flinch from bad press, I have the following question and comment. Where exactly are you seeing this bad press? Surely not in the mass media controlled by conglomerate corporations that own or are owned by some of the RIAA member companies. Many of the posters here fail to grasp the extent of collusion between media, politicians and ***AA organizations. They ARE holding all the cards.
And last I would like to repeat a comment I read in another thread, the RIAA exists to take the bad press by representing members who don't want to sue file traders. Imagine the irony of being sued by Sony for trading files on your VAIO.
When I worked in a warehouse several years back we stumbled upon a low cost method for tracking boxed inventory. Though the individual steps were complex the basic outline of the procedure was simple. Granted scalability could be an issue, but I can see how this could be adapted to shelved merchandise easily.
1. If box has been externaly labeled by manufactuer skip to step 6.
2. Using a counterclockwise motion, remove cap from Sharpie brand permanent marker.
3. Hold marker at aprox 75 degree angle (a slight tilt is optional).
4. Utilize conventional english notation to denote attributes of contents; number, brand name, product.
5. Secure Sharpie brand marker cap with a "palm slap" or "thigh bump".
6. Refer to exterior notations when uptight auditors question poorly paid employees about inventory control.
7. Implement agressive "15, 10, 5, uh - zero?" backwards counting test during job interviews to insure inventory is tracked accurately.
Now, thanks to improved technology, you can even use Sharpie fineline markers to create even smaller tags thus allowing the $5.25/hr, "...just for a little extra Christmas money..." grandmothers to keep their (annoying as they might be) jobs checking reciepts at the Wal-mart check outs.
Obviously, RFID could have negative economic impacts. In all the "invasion of privacy" clamor, I think insightfulness is suffering. Any guesses about other economic impacts beside a decreased need for inventory control and auditing staff?
Come on, let's get out of the clearly labelled "invasion of privacy" box here...
This is great news. For those of you (an increasing number I am sure) who have had credit card numbers stolen, the amount of inconvenience this brings is horrendous.
Even more catastrophic is the theft of check-card numbers because unlike credit cards, funds are often debited IMMEDIATELY from your account. If you use a check-card, take heed. Although check-cards proudly stamp VISA and MASTERCARD and promote the flexibility this grants, these cards ARE NOT subject to the same fraud protections as traditional credit cards.
When my checkcard number (never used online and always protected and in my possession) took a ~$8,000 tour of Phillipines furniture stores (while I was still happily at home just days after payday) the shock of having a $20 transaction denied and a $0.37 balance was incredible.
I raced into the bank and was casually told that their system had been "compromised" and yet the smiling bank functionary offered to give me a new check card on the spot and to report the incident (have me fill out a form) to their fraud department. I was frustrated, to say the least, by the almost complete lack of concern.
Not only was the intial reaction of the bank frustrating, but because the institution views check-cards much the same as traditional checks, their policies for handling fraud were the same as for investigating check fraud - time consuming and unprotective and inconsiderate.
While reclaiming my money (the meager sum of my $8,000 life savings) would take weeks, require me to take several days off from work to report continuing transactions, close accounts, cancel direct deposits, fax depositions, contact credit agencies, protest fees for late payments and returned checks, cancel plans for a short vacation, and borrow money for groceries and gas, I found that the bank was not willing to share any information concerning the theft of my check-card number, saying only that the number WAS stolen from their system during a MASSIVE theft of numbers. There was no effort to inform customers. The bank's official policy as quoted to me, was to "wait and see whose numbers were used and then fix it." The bank officer who told me this then said that was why she "was thinking about getting rid of her check card too."
While there were processes in place to fix the finacial situation, no one could do anything to salve the emotional and mental stress. And never did the bank exhibit any sense of working quickly since it was their fault the number was stolen.
Although I did EVENTUALLY get my money restored to a new account, the consequences will last for a long time. Some creditors simply refused to remove late payment status from my credit reports and account histories.
So hurrah for California! As more and more people suffer similar tiring consequences, we should hope that a few more of our lawmakers recognize the seriousness and force banks and merchants to take responsibility for notifing customers following a hack attack.
I urge anyone using a check card to contact your banking institution about the protections they offer. I imagine that you will find few protections and that the institutions have NO plan to either inform customers or to assist customers whose numbers are stolen from the institution itself. So take heed, and consider dropping the check-card in favor of a conventional credit card.
For the rest of the nation we are left to the whims of our banks and merchants to deal with identity theft. Quite simply there needs to be national identity theft legislation.
I keep expecting Michael Moore to make a movie about the recording and radio industries. Perhaps...
Hilary Rosen and Me
or
Bowling for Cartels
I can hear his ironicaly booed Academy speech already...
"Shame on you music thieves and samplers! Shame on you consumers! Shame on you America for thinking that the end of radio station diversity, the exposure of price fixing schemes, the innovations of well intentioned computer programers, the closed door campaign contribution lobbist politics, the antiquated concepts of "fair use" and culture minded ideals of a public domain, the post 9/11 isolationism and protectionism, the misinterpreted doctrines of privacy, competition marketplace economics, and a culture more and more dominated by greed of every kind, shame on you for thinking these things gave you the right to listen to mass marketed music! Shame on you!"
The recording industry has never been intersted in musical diversity but with profit. The "golden years" of radio were only golden because no one knew how easy it was to homogenize markets. Take a look at the horrible tactics other industries use to target teenagers.
(Check the Frontline program Merchants of Coolfor a fantastic look behind the increasing generational marketeering - sorry, I'm not sure if I made the link work)
I would suggest that the recording industry / radio conglomerates are by far the best at this.
I know that as I grow older, it seems clear that that I am less and less a part of a targeted demographic for the recording industry. Why should they bother when their catelogs are already full of music that I still like and is still produced on relatively volitile media? Marketing (and not just for the recording industry) is a moveable feast; they go where the disposable income is.
That means the incomes and allowances of those most likely to spend it. While I might have grown cynical and hesitant to spend $20 on a CD that may or may not be crap, my teenagers have not.
What the recording industry is really doing here is a little cultural engineering. They don't want millions of technologically minded teens downloading music for free instead of paying for it. It seems very logical to assume that a majority of any legal cases arising from this new tactic will be levied at the unsuspecting parents of teens who spent their allowance on cool anime mouse pads instead of CD's. The lesson being reinforced here is of course for those middle class mom's and dad's to raise law abiding citizens.
The future of the RIAA and the music industry is not as rocky as many would like or love to believe. They DO know what they are doing. They don't need the $12,000 life savings of college kids who shared a few thousand files. What they do need is quite simple. The recording industry needs the perpetualy new members of a marketing demographic to see and believe that the music which marks their generation was chosen by that generation, not marketers. Teens who have free access to thousands of artists and millions of songs or just a little musical maturity are not buying into the Brittney Spears / Justin Timberlake marketing. The assimilation and homogenization is incomplete.
Thus the timely rise of conglomerates in radio, with the earnest support of the recording industry. The fight against P2P is about limiting choice. Please remember that while the RIAA members represent about 90% of all recorded music in this country, that other 10% is nonetheless very valuable. And menwhile, decreasing the number of alternatives in that 90% increases profit just as well.
What needs to happen is that all those adults who use file sharing to pinch the occassional Flock of Seagulls' or Bryan Adams' song, need to explain to our children and one another how we have all been duped by the recording industry into paying for something we all have the power to CREATE for free.
Slashdot Mirror
BUT, with 150+ students it is difficult, at best. You don't seem to understand the amount of time it takes just to have that that many students writing papers at the same time, the amount of time it takes just to run a simple Google search on suspicious phrases in papers, the amount of time it takes to document the source(s) of plagiarized papers, nor the amount of time it takes to then conference with parents.
Parents, incidentally, who come in one of three basic varieties when their child is accused of cheating:
1-"Not my son/daughter, I don't care what you found."
2-"Well, son/daughter, you screwed up...just like always."
and the rare, but so prized
3-"I don't see what the big deal is, everyone does it to some degree...can't you reward his/her resourcefulness...or were you just trying to trap my kid? You know, I have a lawyer on speed dial..."
Needless to say, that if I dedicate as much time as I should to trying to catch just the most blatant instances of plagiarism, I would have little time to actually finish reading essays, let alone grade them, write lesson plans, attend special education meetings that take no small amount of time, attend school functions/meetings/professional development (unpaid continuing education required by district, state and increasingly, the NCLB act), prepare students for the multitude of standardized tests (not to mention benchmarks and other assessments) designed indeed to Leave No Child Untested a few days of the year, or spend one of the 10-12 hours each day in some way dedicated to teaching (most often 6 but increasingly 7 days a week during the school year), watch politicians say that I don't do enough with the resources I have while watching my pay, retirement, and benefits dwindle compared to other professionals, let alone spend time with my own family.
Yes, "kids are getting more sly about things," as you so succinctly put it. And keeping up with them is the point behind sites like turnitin.com. However, individual teachers, schools or districts must pay for the service.
Currently in Texas, the State Attorney General is arguing against a case brought by an alliance of school districts which challenges state education funding is inadequate due to a seemingly unending and unfunded bevy of state mandates to increase teacher and district accountability and thereby the current property tax model for funding education constitutes what is essentially a state income tax, which is unconstitutional in Texas. His argument yesterday was that districts don't make good use of the funds that they have, choosing instead to spend them on activities and curricula that are not mandated by the state, things like fine arts programs and sports.
In the current financial climate of education, it is sometimes difficult to have books for every student, pay teachers competitive salaries, or especially to find the $3,000-5,000 to subscribe to a service like turnitin.com. I certainly can't afford to pay for an individual subscription, nor can most public schools or districts.
I would love to "keep up" with all those "sly" students, but I would love it more if parents stopped downloading MP3's and saying it does no harm, it's just music, or sneaking drinks and snacks into theatres, or fibbing on their taxes, or any of a million ways and increasing multitude are teaching poor character to their children.
Getting caught cheating should be, after all, a lesson about morals.
Yet, I see every day students that see their parents and other adults willing to sacrifice every value in efforts to get their presumed "just desserts." Many of my students (high school sophomores and seniors) think that the only bad cheating happens when someone gets caught. The ideals of honor and integrity are becoming, if not rare, then so abstract (as a result of an increasingly diverse number of bad models read Enron, NY Times, "doping" athletes, etc.) as to be
err...no I didn't...stupid session saving in Firefox...wrong site...
and it was rejected...today it is news though...
No wonder IE is going to support popup blocking...when Micro$oft has already crowned the successor to Doubleclick.
Considering Unicast's claim that the ads will still work even if pop-ups are disabled more clearly reveals the thin edge Microsoft has just skated upon. Obviously, Microsoft has chosen (yet again) to support revenue sources over end-users. Unisoft's claim that,
clearly boils down to this Hooray, IE pop-up blocking...Firebird anyone?Umm, no. Unless you don't count:
aroma-olent
caoline
chaologist
chaology
diaolibanum
disgaol
elaolite
engaol
gaol (gaoler)
gaoling
haole
ingaol
gaoleress
gaolering
gaolership
gaol-fever
jaole, jaoler
kaoliang
kaolinic
kaolinite
kaolinitic
kaolinization
kaolinize
meta-oleic
naological
naology
paolo
under-gaoler
And of those the only one that may be considered an "English" word may be gaol and its variations as they are still used in government documents in Britain today and evolved from Middle English spellings. But but alas even Gaol had its roots in French.
The rest all originate in Greek (chaos, elao, nao), Chinese (kaol), or Italian (paolo).
Fines are mouting following Sol's blatant disregard of the C&D order. And the newly implemented blocking filters just aren't 100% effective, yet.
Rest easy, this should all be resolved as soon as designs for the fusion reactor, Iter (pronounced, unless my Latin is rusty, as "eater"), are accepted as prior art and all sunlight users pay appropriate licensening fees.
Iter
Evidently, as supposed direct descendents of Jesus Christ, the Merovingians are the focus of a lot of lore.
However, googling around, I found this site that may shed some light on the whole Matrix mythology, for anyone bothering to take the time to read it and to dismiss the evangelical tone. Hint: think messiahs, controlling races, and battles between kingdoms for world dominance.
The magic of The Matrix was truely that it made us contemplate; the magic of the sequels may end up being realized as their forcing us to associate and interpolate seemingly disparate ideas.
Whether poor CGI dependant successors to the original film or not, the sequels have all (and perhaps a more diverse collection) of the allegorical links to philosophy, religion and ethics of the original. I think most complaints about the loss of the philosophical undertones can be answered by saying, more is dependant upon the knowledge you bring with you. The philosophy just is not as recognizable or blatant as the Cartesian Dualism (body and mind for the philosophicaly impaired) which practically effervesces from every pair of sunglasses, double-kick, and "Whoa" in the original.
Don't dismiss the movies if you are feeling let down, instead consider the possibility that there has been a metatheatrical aspect to all of the movies, wheter intentional or not, the W's have created in Neo a fictional Christ figure with the potential to reinvigorate philosophical ponderings in the real world.
Now that surely is a success.
Jack: Because it allows for certain opportunities
Tyler: Like inserting single frames of pornography into family films.
Perhaps they could have skipped Sexium and went straight to Septium...except that sounds nasal...perhaps XPentium (or is that a Microsoft trademark)???
nacturation - 0
darc - 2
However, I am curious about the liability Verisign might face when some pre-teen mistypes a common kid's website (let's say www.barney.com --> www.baremy.com) and gets a Verisign suggested spelling that links to a porn site (www.bareny.com).
IANAL, but it seems there would be some civil and criminal liability here, if the parents or school district or other computer provider were aware of how the kid was directed to the porn site....
Ah, well, I am just trying to think beyond the "they ate up 1 gazillion hours of network admin time" box here...
I would hate to be THE guy who said "Do it," to this idea.
Instead, I think in this case the RIAA could be considered to be conducting a survey in which racial information might be collected (if anyone at the RIAA was clever enough to realize they had access to this infomation). At any rate the laws, which employers, businesses, and educational institutions are subject to regarding racial information, simply don't apply. That is unless you want to argue that the RIAA will somehow limit your ability to purchase CD's based on your race, which is of course ludicrous.
"...the RIAA would have to give away some MP3's to those who "borrow" but never return files."
I should have said...
"...the RIAA would have to give away some MP3's to those who "borrow" but never return files yet can not be sued for copyright infringement since the original file was physicaly transferred to the recipient, not just copied."
Of course IANAL, and may be missing important parts of the law. In the following long winded explanation, I think I might have stumbled onto something, but will leave it to other readers to tell me where I am wrong and where I am, well, less wrong.
First, a question which I have not seen answered in all the discussion here, namely are the RIAA subpoenas being issued against users who shared files or from whom a file was actually downloaded by the RIAA? Either way, they do seem to have legal ground for filing suit against those who have illegally distributed, or made available for distribution through file sharing, copyrighted material.
I am neither taking a stance on the legality of file sharing, nor trying to find a way to justify the behavior. Instead, I am simply attempting to view the entire approach to P2P sharing a little differently.
Let me begin with a question.
What if a user has shared some or many files within a P2P program, but used a firewall or has set up their P2P program to prevent anyone from actually downlaoding their files?
To me it seems that this person is committing no copyright infringement - while the file may be available it is not accessible. Consider the analogy of my placing a sign on my car reading "Use this car for FREE! Just drive it away!" but I have taken out the motor, removed the tires and built a 12 foot fence around it, and made it impossible for anyone to actually drive it away, I haven't really given it away.
At least not until someone drives it off, right?
So if the RIAA finds a username with thousands of files shared but is then unable to download the file, there has been no distribution and it may be hard to argue that there was intent to allow distribution of those files if other steps were taken to disallow downloads. Incidentaly, this may be an insight in the answer to my first question - wheter or not the RIAA is pursuing those who just share or are actually making files available for download.
So what if a P2P program did not immediately share but simply listed files you have on your machine? No crime in that, right? In other words, you were simply proclaiming "look what I have," but that did not allow anyone to download the file.
It seems that the inherent flaw in P2P programs (well at least when it comes to the legality of sharing) is that files are automatically available for download.
Let's imagine instead that when someone wants those files from you, the downloader has to "release" (or publish or share or copy or whatever) the file. In other words the downloader had to click OK to a message that says something like "Do you want to make a copy of this file by making it available for distribution (download) to your computer?"
Legally, it would seem that it is neccessary for the downloader to have options beyond simply saving the file to disk. There also needs to be an option to open the file without saving it. This would let the downloader view/play/open a file without being able to save it. In other words, simply borrowing the file because while it is being borrowed the file can't be borrowed or copied or used in anyway by anyone else the original "owner" included (because the copyright infringement comes from duplication and distribution). Let's say that the
It seems truly unlikely that the RIAA would attempt to have file sharers prosecuted in a criminal court (persecuted?) for several connected reasons. The courts would likely throw a significant number of these cases out. The burden of these cases would draw lots of complaints and press about clogging the courts with somewhat trivial cases while murderers, rapists and the like wander around on bail for months thanks to the IP theft cases (think in terms of Willie Horton and Michael Dukakis). This resulting bad press might very well wake up a few politicians to the failings of the DMCA and the current laws which criminalize a daily activity of millions of Americans. As a result of trying to have file swappers prosecuted in criminal court, the very laws which enable filing thousands of civil cases might very well be changed.
And don't you just have a feeling that this is why the lobbyists and politicians have strenghtened copyright holders ability to file civil cases while the RIAA have largely ignored potential criminal proceedings (even as lawmakers bandy about increased criminal sentences for IP theft)?
And for those of you who still think that the RIAA will flinch from bad press, I have the following question and comment. Where exactly are you seeing this bad press? Surely not in the mass media controlled by conglomerate corporations that own or are owned by some of the RIAA member companies. Many of the posters here fail to grasp the extent of collusion between media, politicians and ***AA organizations. They ARE holding all the cards.
And last I would like to repeat a comment I read in another thread, the RIAA exists to take the bad press by representing members who don't want to sue file traders. Imagine the irony of being sued by Sony for trading files on your VAIO.
1. If box has been externaly labeled by manufactuer skip to step 6.
2. Using a counterclockwise motion, remove cap from Sharpie brand permanent marker.
3. Hold marker at aprox 75 degree angle (a slight tilt is optional).
4. Utilize conventional english notation to denote attributes of contents; number, brand name, product.
5. Secure Sharpie brand marker cap with a "palm slap" or "thigh bump".
6. Refer to exterior notations when uptight auditors question poorly paid employees about inventory control.
7. Implement agressive "15, 10, 5, uh - zero?" backwards counting test during job interviews to insure inventory is tracked accurately.
Now, thanks to improved technology, you can even use Sharpie fineline markers to create even smaller tags thus allowing the $5.25/hr, "...just for a little extra Christmas money..." grandmothers to keep their (annoying as they might be) jobs checking reciepts at the Wal-mart check outs.
Obviously, RFID could have negative economic impacts. In all the "invasion of privacy" clamor, I think insightfulness is suffering. Any guesses about other economic impacts beside a decreased need for inventory control and auditing staff?
Come on, let's get out of the clearly labelled "invasion of privacy" box here...
Even more catastrophic is the theft of check-card numbers because unlike credit cards, funds are often debited IMMEDIATELY from your account. If you use a check-card, take heed. Although check-cards proudly stamp VISA and MASTERCARD and promote the flexibility this grants, these cards ARE NOT subject to the same fraud protections as traditional credit cards.
When my checkcard number (never used online and always protected and in my possession) took a ~$8,000 tour of Phillipines furniture stores (while I was still happily at home just days after payday) the shock of having a $20 transaction denied and a $0.37 balance was incredible.
I raced into the bank and was casually told that their system had been "compromised" and yet the smiling bank functionary offered to give me a new check card on the spot and to report the incident (have me fill out a form) to their fraud department. I was frustrated, to say the least, by the almost complete lack of concern.
Not only was the intial reaction of the bank frustrating, but because the institution views check-cards much the same as traditional checks, their policies for handling fraud were the same as for investigating check fraud - time consuming and unprotective and inconsiderate.
While reclaiming my money (the meager sum of my $8,000 life savings) would take weeks, require me to take several days off from work to report continuing transactions, close accounts, cancel direct deposits, fax depositions, contact credit agencies, protest fees for late payments and returned checks, cancel plans for a short vacation, and borrow money for groceries and gas, I found that the bank was not willing to share any information concerning the theft of my check-card number, saying only that the number WAS stolen from their system during a MASSIVE theft of numbers. There was no effort to inform customers. The bank's official policy as quoted to me, was to "wait and see whose numbers were used and then fix it." The bank officer who told me this then said that was why she "was thinking about getting rid of her check card too."
While there were processes in place to fix the finacial situation, no one could do anything to salve the emotional and mental stress. And never did the bank exhibit any sense of working quickly since it was their fault the number was stolen.
Although I did EVENTUALLY get my money restored to a new account, the consequences will last for a long time. Some creditors simply refused to remove late payment status from my credit reports and account histories.
So hurrah for California! As more and more people suffer similar tiring consequences, we should hope that a few more of our lawmakers recognize the seriousness and force banks and merchants to take responsibility for notifing customers following a hack attack.
I urge anyone using a check card to contact your banking institution about the protections they offer. I imagine that you will find few protections and that the institutions have NO plan to either inform customers or to assist customers whose numbers are stolen from the institution itself. So take heed, and consider dropping the check-card in favor of a conventional credit card.
For the rest of the nation we are left to the whims of our banks and merchants to deal with identity theft. Quite simply there needs to be national identity theft legislation.
Hilary Rosen and Me
or
Bowling for Cartels
I can hear his ironicaly booed Academy speech already... "Shame on you music thieves and samplers! Shame on you consumers! Shame on you America for thinking that the end of radio station diversity, the exposure of price fixing schemes, the innovations of well intentioned computer programers, the closed door campaign contribution lobbist politics, the antiquated concepts of "fair use" and culture minded ideals of a public domain, the post 9/11 isolationism and protectionism, the misinterpreted doctrines of privacy, competition marketplace economics, and a culture more and more dominated by greed of every kind, shame on you for thinking these things gave you the right to listen to mass marketed music! Shame on you!"
The recording industry has never been intersted in musical diversity but with profit. The "golden years" of radio were only golden because no one knew how easy it was to homogenize markets. Take a look at the horrible tactics other industries use to target teenagers.
(Check the Frontline program Merchants of Coolfor a fantastic look behind the increasing generational marketeering - sorry, I'm not sure if I made the link work)
I would suggest that the recording industry / radio conglomerates are by far the best at this.
I know that as I grow older, it seems clear that that I am less and less a part of a targeted demographic for the recording industry. Why should they bother when their catelogs are already full of music that I still like and is still produced on relatively volitile media? Marketing (and not just for the recording industry) is a moveable feast; they go where the disposable income is.
That means the incomes and allowances of those most likely to spend it. While I might have grown cynical and hesitant to spend $20 on a CD that may or may not be crap, my teenagers have not.
What the recording industry is really doing here is a little cultural engineering. They don't want millions of technologically minded teens downloading music for free instead of paying for it. It seems very logical to assume that a majority of any legal cases arising from this new tactic will be levied at the unsuspecting parents of teens who spent their allowance on cool anime mouse pads instead of CD's. The lesson being reinforced here is of course for those middle class mom's and dad's to raise law abiding citizens.
The future of the RIAA and the music industry is not as rocky as many would like or love to believe. They DO know what they are doing. They don't need the $12,000 life savings of college kids who shared a few thousand files. What they do need is quite simple. The recording industry needs the perpetualy new members of a marketing demographic to see and believe that the music which marks their generation was chosen by that generation, not marketers. Teens who have free access to thousands of artists and millions of songs or just a little musical maturity are not buying into the Brittney Spears / Justin Timberlake marketing. The assimilation and homogenization is incomplete.
Thus the timely rise of conglomerates in radio, with the earnest support of the recording industry. The fight against P2P is about limiting choice. Please remember that while the RIAA members represent about 90% of all recorded music in this country, that other 10% is nonetheless very valuable. And menwhile, decreasing the number of alternatives in that 90% increases profit just as well.
What needs to happen is that all those adults who use file sharing to pinch the occassional Flock of Seagulls' or Bryan Adams' song, need to explain to our children and one another how we have all been duped by the recording industry into paying for something we all have the power to CREATE for free.
Most importantly we need to supp