Here's a tip: all religious people, even if they're not crazy enough to go all jihad on your ass, think it would be really great if everyone who wasn't in their religious had to convert or die.
Actually, this is a feature found primarily in monotheistic religions. Other types (yes, there ARE other types) are typically much more willing to live and let live.
I think the GP's point was that if you took all the people currently living in the suburbs and moved them into the city, you would have to move to a denser system. In other words, say goodbye to your nice house in the city, unless you are willing to pay an order of magnitude more for it.
You'll also note that there's no "except in times of war" clause.
It is also worthwile to note that we are not officially in a time of war. Congress authorized the use of force and is happily signing the checks, but they stopped short of actually declaring war.
Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that they are back to 32 bits now? I haven't heard that fact mentioned by anyone else, and I remember how much they touted the fact that they were the first "64 bit desktop."
The point is, when Moses was taking his tribe around the desert with their new commandments, they were to preserve their own society (which is what the 10 commandments promote), but if they had to kill competing tribes to survive, they could do so because it would be *killing*, not *murder*.
I think you need to read a bit more of your bible. I recommend The Brick Testament. Start with the book of Joshua and move on to Judges. We're not talking about defending your own society, or the semantic differences between "killing" and "murder," we're talking about invading foreign lands, and slaughtering every man, woman and child, complete genocide of entire cultures at God's command.
Are you saying my tax dollars AREN'T being used to establish religous institutions?
It's even worse than you think. Because churches (and other religious properties I beleive) pay absolutely NO property tax, and religious organizations get numerous other tax benefits as well, you are basically subsidizing them with your tax dollars. I know that this pisses the hell out of me.
I am afraid you are confused about what intellectual property law includes.
I think you are the one who is confused. The GP is correct that there is no such thing as "intellectual property" law. If you disagree please point out where in the law the term "intellectual property" is ever mentioned. Hint: you won't find it, because it is not a legal term, therefore discussing laws about a made up term is meaningless. Grouping the disparate laws surrounding trademarks, copyrights and patents (and related topics) leads to much confusion, and is a bad idea all around. This was the GP's whole point.
Perhaps this is my bias towards 100% original operating systems kicking in. That, and the fact that I've been running my machine on nothing but Linux for the past several years and never saw any need to emulate Windoze.
Uh, you do realize that Linux is just a clone of Unix, right? The ReactOS guys are trying to do the exact same thing with Windows, the situation is entirely analogous.
Count me as one of the people who thought the movie sucked pretty hard. It was an action movie full of absolutely terrible clichés and glaring plot holes. Disclaimer: I never watched Firefly, but I saw Serenity because of how great I have heard firefly was (mostly here on Slashdot). So, this opinion is from the perspective of someone who was not familiar with the characters or the story before entering the theatre. Here is a sample of the stupid clichés and plot holes (possible spoilers ahead):
1. During the opening rescue sequence, the heroes come to an open elevator shaft (which is pretty cliché as it is). The bad guys turn on multiple laser meshes in the shaft (what precisely these lasers are supposed to do we are not told, but it is assumed it will stop them from escaping in some way). Now, the bad guys turn the grids on, one at a time, at a rate of about one per second, starting at the bottom of the shaft! Why not turn them on starting at the top, or even better all at once? What a totally cheesy plot device to try to create suspension (it failed BTW). Needless to say, the heroes escape through the top of the shaft just in the nick of time. This was my first clue that the movie was not very well written.
2. After the heroes find the video containing the damning evidence, they talk to Mr. Universe and tell him that they will bring the disc to him to transmit throughout the known universe. The first thing that occurred to me was, why do they need to bring the disc in person? Can't they just transmit the video? They have enough bandwidth to have a real time video conversation with the guy, but for some reason they have to hand carry the digital recording? A really stupid plot device.
3. During the climatic fight between the main hero and main villain, the hero shoots the villain, who then falls down and slumps against the wall. Despite the fact that the villain is obviously not dead (he doesn't even close his eyes) and that it has been established earlier that the villain wears bullet proof body armor, the hero (supposedly a decorated war veteran) not only turns his back to his enemy, he proceeds to start to cross a bottomless pit (yet another cliché) hand over hand, ensuring that he is completely defenseless. To the surprise of no one, the villain gets back up and proceeds to attack the hero.
These are just a few examples of the horrible writing and bad action movie clichés, there are plenty more. However, probably the biggest problem was that I didn't really care about any of the characters. When several of the main characters died, I really didn't care either way, except I thought it was rather pointless. I'm sure that this would have been much different had I been a fan of the series and was already familiar with the characters, however as a stand alone entity the film did not do this for me. Perhaps part of the problem was that my expectations for the film were higher than normal due to how great I had heard that the film was, and the preceding TV series. However, I found nothing particularily special or smart about this film at all, in the end it was just a below average sci-fi action movie.
I just verify that it looks alright before I send it out if I really care what it will look like, like a resume.
For something like this where you really care about presentation, you should be using pdf, not doc. Especially if it is something like a resume where you don't want the recipient to be able to easily edit the file. Of course, OO has a pdf export button right there.
It seems that an investigation should be done - this is not the same as saying "NASA/JPL are a bunch of idiots who screwed up". It is simply appropriate engineering process to learn from errors and prevent them from recurring. To NOT correct the process that results in the error may just mean that later there will be a "big problem" that could have been avoided.
I was not advocating that the problem should be ignored. I was mostly trying to respond to the parents chicken little implication that mistakenly swapping the calibration files for two identical sensors will lead to catestrophic loss of mission in the future. This issue is being blown out of all sense of proportion (such as comparing this to TMI as the parent did).
While your logic works well for software development projects where noone can be killed if it fails, high-risk or high-value technologies cannot follow the same procedure, especially when they are of an integrated design (where many items can affect the operations of remote items).
When did I say this primarily applies to software developement? I don't even work in software developement. Your point was that every problem, large or small, needs to be addressed with the same diligence. This is ridiculous and impossible. Problems must be categorized and prioritized. This applies to everything, including software, hardware, as well as high-risk high-value technologies. Actually more so in this case since the system is more complex. If you do not evaluate and prioritize nothing will get done.
By your definition this isn't a problem because a reactor meltdown didn't occur.
Nice strawman, when did I ever say anything like that? My exact words were "Both of these should have been recognized as big problems and not ignored." That seems to be the exact opposite of claiming that there wasn't a problem. My point was not that there was no problem (obviously there was), my point was that the problem was not what you said it was (a small problem being ignored leading to an almost catastrophe).
I work as a reactor operator.
And I assume you spend your days tracking down and solving every problem, no matter how trivial? If someone forgets to change the water in the coffee pot you track it down and fix it, because any small problem could lead to catastrophe, right?
Wrong attitude.
Sorry, that's reality, where things do not always go according to plan, no matter how carefully you plan or test.
When you build something, you build it to specification, and you write procedures for it.... And then you test your product to verify that it meets the standards.
Of course you do, however sometimes you don't foresee everything when you write the spec or procedures, or sometimes you have a new assembler or mechanic come on board and something is not done quite correctly and the tests don't catch it, or any of a hundred other things. I am a mechanical engineer working in aerospace and I can tell you that SHIT HAPPENS, no matter how much we wish it didn't, and no matter how many tests you plan or steps you take in order to make sure it doesn't. Engineers are not supermen, and the people who actually put it together and test it are human too.
If it ever deviates, you carefully analyze the problem and fix it. If something breaks, you determine why it broke, because you might have a bigger problem.
Of course you do, I never said you just ignore the problem. However, my point was that this is a prototype, some problems are expected. What if your tests don't catch the problem and it isn't discovered until it is out in the field? In my field we fix the part and sometimes retrofit the fix back to units in the field, however NASA only has one shot at this. If NASA manufactured hundreds of these rovers you can bet that they would become super reliable and all of these issues would be caught and fixed. However, it is simply impossible to catch all of the potential issues in the lab, and a one off prototype is going to has a few mistakes.
You never say that "shit happens". "Shit happens" is just a codeword for "I'm too lazy to determine the real cause".
I'm getting pretty sick of your strawman arguments and misrepresentation of my position. Once again, I never said the problem should be ignored, I just said that this is properly classified as a small problem. It does not impact the mission success, and in fact it can be corrected 100%. Obviously NASA should still investigate the cause and take steps to prevent it in the future, however to expect an experimental prototype to be perfect is ridiculous, and taking NASA to task for this error is equally ridiculous.
Small problems lead to medium sized problems which lead to big problems.
No, small problems lead to no serious consequences. That's why they're called small problems. If they can lead to serious consequences then by definition they are not small problems. The magnitude of the problem is determined by the worst case scenario (Murphy's Law being what it is and all). Let's look at your example:
In the early 70's plant managers at a nuclear power plant in Alabamba, Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, received reports that their insulation connecting to a cable room was not in accordance with fire specifications (small problem).
What is the worst case scenario if there should be a fire and the cables fail? If this is the cabling to the coffee pot, not much (small problem). If this is the cabling to the non-redundant control features of the nuclear reactor then this is a BIG problem and should have been treated as such.
Later workers testing the air-tightness of the room failed to follow the correct procedures by using candles to check the air tightness
What is the worst case of using this alternate procedure? In this case, there is an increased likelihood of fire. Even if the cabling was not faulty ANY fire is bad, so this should have been flagged as a BIG problem as well.
Both of these should have been recognized as big problems and not ignored. The fault is not that small problems were ignored, it was that they were not properly classified and prioritized. It sounds like there may have been many other problems as well, but they are not related to your main point.
The lesson to learn here: if small problems exist, dig at them to see how far you can get and then fix *all* of the problems that you uncover.
This sounds very profound but it is a fallacy. The lesson to learn from your example is to properly classify and prioritize potential problems. It is a major waste of time and effort to address every single tiny problem which creeps up, especially in highly complex systems it is close to impossible. There are only a limited amount of resources available. You must prioritize the truly important vs the trivial or you will never accomplish anything. BTW, way to pull out the nuclear bogeyman to help make your case.
Of course, this really has nothing to do with the NASA screw up since it really is a small problem. I doubt that the sensors were really that far off to begin with, and now that the problem has been discovered it can be 100% fixed with no loss of data. No harm no foul. Problems like this will continue to happen because everything NASA builds is a prototype! These are not mass produced items. When you build something (or write code) for the first time, is it perfect? I am also suspect of your conclusion that this problem indicates that "there are problems at JPL that are not being looked at." There may very well be problems in the bureaucracy, however this problem is indicative of nothing more than "shit happens." Of course, don't let this get in the way of a good NASA/JPL bashing.
Downloading necessarily involves reproduction, which is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, at 106(1).
When you download, you direct your computer to write information into one memory or another (e.g. RAM, HD, etc.). Due to the definition of a copy in section 101, these are material objects, and the downloading process results in fixing a work into them. Thus, they become new copies. And fixing works into tangible media so that they become new copies is reproduction and it's prohibited.
Ah yes, you are correct in this. I was only considering the final fixed copy, not all the intermediate steps. One of the hazards of using computers is that a computer must make a copy of a file in order to access it. For this reason I believe that there are specific exceptions in the law to allow for computers to make copies if it is necessary to run the program, 117 I believe. Two questions that occur to me here are, 1) are digital files considered to be "computer programs," and 2) do these exceptions apply if the source of the file was not authorized to distribute in the first place? Judging by the cases you cited, the answers appear to be "no" and "no," although a court may have to decide on a case by case basis (which AFAIK is the same thing that needs to be done to determine if Fair Use applies in a given situation, the law only gives guidelines).
I'm not really sure where you're getting the uploader part, though.
My point was that from the perspective of who makes the copy when a file is downloaded, the uploader must make the copy and then he distributes it down the wire. The downloader does not copy the file, he just receives the copy down the wire from the uploader. However, I acknowledge that you are correct that the downloader must make several transitory copies during the process of downloading, and he is also the one who fixes the copy to a tangible media. This could very well be determined by a court to be infringing, and probably is. I was wrong and I cede the point to you. Thanks for replying and making your case further.
You're exaggerating how much power these companies have
Not really. An entity with its own lawyers on staff and billions in the bank vs an ordinary person with maybe a few thousand saved up? Many of the accused have had to take out loans to pay the multithousand dollar fines.
If it were that easy, any big company could just go through the phone book and start suing people on any pretext they wanted. Since it would be cheaper for the end users to pay the protection money than fight, the big companies could make money at will.
Well of course it's not that easy and I never said it was. While perhaps possible, most companies would experience severe customer backlash if they tried something like this, however the RIAA is largely insulated from this because they are middlemen. Actually it's worse then that, they are just an industry group of the middlemen, and so are removed from the actual customers even further. As far as customer perception is concerned, customers do not buy from the RIAA or even the labels. Fans buy songs from Nickelback and Godsmack (or even Britney Spears). How many people could even tell you what label their favorite band belongs to? If the labels (or their industry group) does something evil, will people boycott their favorite artists who probably had nothing to do with it? In addition, the labels have been seen as evil and exploitive for years, the internet and P2P did not start this. For this reason they aren't really damaging their reputation much by their antics.
They're suing file sharers, and those of us who have a firm grasp on reality know that almost everyone they sue is guilty of breaking the law.
Good strawman. Several points:
1. I never said that everyone being sued was innocent. My point was that, innocent or guilty, the accused cannot afford to have their day in court. In addition, due to the differences in resources between the two parties many feel that justice would not be served in any case.
2. At least in America we have the polite legal fiction of "innocent until proven guilty." Since none of these cases has gone anywhere near a courtroom it is properly correct to assume that the accused are innocent.
3. You yourself just said that "almost" everyone is guilty, meaning that there are at least a few who are not. I even gave a few examples where it has been proven that the RIAA accused innocent people! Is it right to trample the rights of the innocent, regardless of how many others are guilty? For that matter, is it right to trample on the rights of the guilty?
4. The cases are about more than just the simple concepts of guilt and innocence. For example, one may be guilty of sharing files, but are each of these files correctly priced by the RIAA at tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per infringement? In an jury trial the accused could be found guilty of the charges, yet only be found liable for a few thousand. These and other issues could be addressed if a case actually went to trial, however this will not happen.
Don't try to con yourself into believing that this is a case of big evil companies using their power to railroad innocents. It's obvious to anyone who uses these networks that that's not what is happening here. You're just fooling yourself if you try to pretend that's what is going on.
Another strawman since I never claimed that all accused are innocent. My point is all of the accused, innocent and guilty deserve their day in court. However, you are correct that I consider the form of legalized extortion that the RIAA is using to be "evil."
Downloading copyrighted works without authorization or an applicable exception is illegal in the US per 17 USC 501 and 106(1).
Care to show where? For your convenience, here's links to 106 and 501.
You do realize that from a technical perspective the downloader is not copying or distributing anything, they are only receiving the file which was copied and distributed by the uploader. I'm not saying that it is definitely legal (IANAL), however from a casual reading of the referenced pages I don't see how it is illegal.
sane people and organisations (and that includes the *AA's) will only start suing when they think they have a case.
Actually, since none of the cases have gotten anywhere near a courtroom the stregth of the *AA's cases has not been determined. In several cases it has been shown that the case is actually pretty laughable (suing Mac-using grandmothers, suing the dead, etc.). Truth is that the *AA's can sue with impunity because of the vast difference in resources between the *AA's and a private individual. In all cases it is cheaper to pay the "protection money" than fight it in court, even if you are in the right. It is unfortunate that this form of extortion is 100% legal
For the most part, everyone has to agree that the story line for the first two prequels outside of a few annoying pieces is actuallly pretty good.
This is Slashdot, where anyone will disagree with you about anything! That being said, many people (myself included) think the story line of the first two were great big piles of steaming crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this is a feature found primarily in monotheistic religions. Other types (yes, there ARE other types) are typically much more willing to live and let live.
I think the GP's point was that if you took all the people currently living in the suburbs and moved them into the city, you would have to move to a denser system. In other words, say goodbye to your nice house in the city, unless you are willing to pay an order of magnitude more for it.
I think you mean "heatsource."
It is also worthwile to note that we are not officially in a time of war. Congress authorized the use of force and is happily signing the checks, but they stopped short of actually declaring war.
Have you seen Cinelerra? (Or try the community fork here, Manual TWiki here). I found it to be pretty good, much better then Kino, but then I'm not a professional video editor.
Where? I haven't used Google Video very much and I can't seem to find that option.
Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that they are back to 32 bits now? I haven't heard that fact mentioned by anyone else, and I remember how much they touted the fact that they were the first "64 bit desktop."
I think you need to read a bit more of your bible. I recommend The Brick Testament. Start with the book of Joshua and move on to Judges. We're not talking about defending your own society, or the semantic differences between "killing" and "murder," we're talking about invading foreign lands, and slaughtering every man, woman and child, complete genocide of entire cultures at God's command.
It's even worse than you think. Because churches (and other religious properties I beleive) pay absolutely NO property tax, and religious organizations get numerous other tax benefits as well, you are basically subsidizing them with your tax dollars. I know that this pisses the hell out of me.
See my reply to the related post here.
I think you are the one who is confused. The GP is correct that there is no such thing as "intellectual property" law. If you disagree please point out where in the law the term "intellectual property" is ever mentioned. Hint: you won't find it, because it is not a legal term, therefore discussing laws about a made up term is meaningless. Grouping the disparate laws surrounding trademarks, copyrights and patents (and related topics) leads to much confusion, and is a bad idea all around. This was the GP's whole point.
Uh, you do realize that Linux is just a clone of Unix, right? The ReactOS guys are trying to do the exact same thing with Windows, the situation is entirely analogous.
FYI, it is "copyrighted" not "copywritten," as in the right to make copies. This is an important distinction, and is not so pedantic as it may appear.
Enjoy!
1. During the opening rescue sequence, the heroes come to an open elevator shaft (which is pretty cliché as it is). The bad guys turn on multiple laser meshes in the shaft (what precisely these lasers are supposed to do we are not told, but it is assumed it will stop them from escaping in some way). Now, the bad guys turn the grids on, one at a time, at a rate of about one per second, starting at the bottom of the shaft! Why not turn them on starting at the top, or even better all at once? What a totally cheesy plot device to try to create suspension (it failed BTW). Needless to say, the heroes escape through the top of the shaft just in the nick of time. This was my first clue that the movie was not very well written.
2. After the heroes find the video containing the damning evidence, they talk to Mr. Universe and tell him that they will bring the disc to him to transmit throughout the known universe. The first thing that occurred to me was, why do they need to bring the disc in person? Can't they just transmit the video? They have enough bandwidth to have a real time video conversation with the guy, but for some reason they have to hand carry the digital recording? A really stupid plot device.
3. During the climatic fight between the main hero and main villain, the hero shoots the villain, who then falls down and slumps against the wall. Despite the fact that the villain is obviously not dead (he doesn't even close his eyes) and that it has been established earlier that the villain wears bullet proof body armor, the hero (supposedly a decorated war veteran) not only turns his back to his enemy, he proceeds to start to cross a bottomless pit (yet another cliché) hand over hand, ensuring that he is completely defenseless. To the surprise of no one, the villain gets back up and proceeds to attack the hero.
These are just a few examples of the horrible writing and bad action movie clichés, there are plenty more. However, probably the biggest problem was that I didn't really care about any of the characters. When several of the main characters died, I really didn't care either way, except I thought it was rather pointless. I'm sure that this would have been much different had I been a fan of the series and was already familiar with the characters, however as a stand alone entity the film did not do this for me. Perhaps part of the problem was that my expectations for the film were higher than normal due to how great I had heard that the film was, and the preceding TV series. However, I found nothing particularily special or smart about this film at all, in the end it was just a below average sci-fi action movie.
For something like this where you really care about presentation, you should be using pdf, not doc. Especially if it is something like a resume where you don't want the recipient to be able to easily edit the file. Of course, OO has a pdf export button right there.
I was not advocating that the problem should be ignored. I was mostly trying to respond to the parents chicken little implication that mistakenly swapping the calibration files for two identical sensors will lead to catestrophic loss of mission in the future. This issue is being blown out of all sense of proportion (such as comparing this to TMI as the parent did).
When did I say this primarily applies to software developement? I don't even work in software developement. Your point was that every problem, large or small, needs to be addressed with the same diligence. This is ridiculous and impossible. Problems must be categorized and prioritized. This applies to everything, including software, hardware, as well as high-risk high-value technologies. Actually more so in this case since the system is more complex. If you do not evaluate and prioritize nothing will get done.
By your definition this isn't a problem because a reactor meltdown didn't occur.
Nice strawman, when did I ever say anything like that? My exact words were "Both of these should have been recognized as big problems and not ignored." That seems to be the exact opposite of claiming that there wasn't a problem. My point was not that there was no problem (obviously there was), my point was that the problem was not what you said it was (a small problem being ignored leading to an almost catastrophe).
I work as a reactor operator.
And I assume you spend your days tracking down and solving every problem, no matter how trivial? If someone forgets to change the water in the coffee pot you track it down and fix it, because any small problem could lead to catastrophe, right?
Wrong attitude.
Sorry, that's reality, where things do not always go according to plan, no matter how carefully you plan or test.
When you build something, you build it to specification, and you write procedures for it.... And then you test your product to verify that it meets the standards.
Of course you do, however sometimes you don't foresee everything when you write the spec or procedures, or sometimes you have a new assembler or mechanic come on board and something is not done quite correctly and the tests don't catch it, or any of a hundred other things. I am a mechanical engineer working in aerospace and I can tell you that SHIT HAPPENS, no matter how much we wish it didn't, and no matter how many tests you plan or steps you take in order to make sure it doesn't. Engineers are not supermen, and the people who actually put it together and test it are human too.
If it ever deviates, you carefully analyze the problem and fix it. If something breaks, you determine why it broke, because you might have a bigger problem.
Of course you do, I never said you just ignore the problem. However, my point was that this is a prototype, some problems are expected. What if your tests don't catch the problem and it isn't discovered until it is out in the field? In my field we fix the part and sometimes retrofit the fix back to units in the field, however NASA only has one shot at this. If NASA manufactured hundreds of these rovers you can bet that they would become super reliable and all of these issues would be caught and fixed. However, it is simply impossible to catch all of the potential issues in the lab, and a one off prototype is going to has a few mistakes.
You never say that "shit happens". "Shit happens" is just a codeword for "I'm too lazy to determine the real cause".
I'm getting pretty sick of your strawman arguments and misrepresentation of my position. Once again, I never said the problem should be ignored, I just said that this is properly classified as a small problem. It does not impact the mission success, and in fact it can be corrected 100%. Obviously NASA should still investigate the cause and take steps to prevent it in the future, however to expect an experimental prototype to be perfect is ridiculous, and taking NASA to task for this error is equally ridiculous.
No, small problems lead to no serious consequences. That's why they're called small problems. If they can lead to serious consequences then by definition they are not small problems. The magnitude of the problem is determined by the worst case scenario (Murphy's Law being what it is and all). Let's look at your example:
In the early 70's plant managers at a nuclear power plant in Alabamba, Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, received reports that their insulation connecting to a cable room was not in accordance with fire specifications (small problem).
What is the worst case scenario if there should be a fire and the cables fail? If this is the cabling to the coffee pot, not much (small problem). If this is the cabling to the non-redundant control features of the nuclear reactor then this is a BIG problem and should have been treated as such.
Later workers testing the air-tightness of the room failed to follow the correct procedures by using candles to check the air tightness
What is the worst case of using this alternate procedure? In this case, there is an increased likelihood of fire. Even if the cabling was not faulty ANY fire is bad, so this should have been flagged as a BIG problem as well.
Both of these should have been recognized as big problems and not ignored. The fault is not that small problems were ignored, it was that they were not properly classified and prioritized. It sounds like there may have been many other problems as well, but they are not related to your main point.
The lesson to learn here: if small problems exist, dig at them to see how far you can get and then fix *all* of the problems that you uncover.
This sounds very profound but it is a fallacy. The lesson to learn from your example is to properly classify and prioritize potential problems. It is a major waste of time and effort to address every single tiny problem which creeps up, especially in highly complex systems it is close to impossible. There are only a limited amount of resources available. You must prioritize the truly important vs the trivial or you will never accomplish anything. BTW, way to pull out the nuclear bogeyman to help make your case.
Of course, this really has nothing to do with the NASA screw up since it really is a small problem. I doubt that the sensors were really that far off to begin with, and now that the problem has been discovered it can be 100% fixed with no loss of data. No harm no foul. Problems like this will continue to happen because everything NASA builds is a prototype! These are not mass produced items. When you build something (or write code) for the first time, is it perfect? I am also suspect of your conclusion that this problem indicates that "there are problems at JPL that are not being looked at." There may very well be problems in the bureaucracy, however this problem is indicative of nothing more than "shit happens." Of course, don't let this get in the way of a good NASA/JPL bashing.
Ah yes, you are correct in this. I was only considering the final fixed copy, not all the intermediate steps. One of the hazards of using computers is that a computer must make a copy of a file in order to access it. For this reason I believe that there are specific exceptions in the law to allow for computers to make copies if it is necessary to run the program, 117 I believe. Two questions that occur to me here are, 1) are digital files considered to be "computer programs," and 2) do these exceptions apply if the source of the file was not authorized to distribute in the first place? Judging by the cases you cited, the answers appear to be "no" and "no," although a court may have to decide on a case by case basis (which AFAIK is the same thing that needs to be done to determine if Fair Use applies in a given situation, the law only gives guidelines).
I'm not really sure where you're getting the uploader part, though.
My point was that from the perspective of who makes the copy when a file is downloaded, the uploader must make the copy and then he distributes it down the wire. The downloader does not copy the file, he just receives the copy down the wire from the uploader. However, I acknowledge that you are correct that the downloader must make several transitory copies during the process of downloading, and he is also the one who fixes the copy to a tangible media. This could very well be determined by a court to be infringing, and probably is. I was wrong and I cede the point to you. Thanks for replying and making your case further.
Not really. An entity with its own lawyers on staff and billions in the bank vs an ordinary person with maybe a few thousand saved up? Many of the accused have had to take out loans to pay the multithousand dollar fines.
If it were that easy, any big company could just go through the phone book and start suing people on any pretext they wanted. Since it would be cheaper for the end users to pay the protection money than fight, the big companies could make money at will.
Well of course it's not that easy and I never said it was. While perhaps possible, most companies would experience severe customer backlash if they tried something like this, however the RIAA is largely insulated from this because they are middlemen. Actually it's worse then that, they are just an industry group of the middlemen, and so are removed from the actual customers even further. As far as customer perception is concerned, customers do not buy from the RIAA or even the labels. Fans buy songs from Nickelback and Godsmack (or even Britney Spears). How many people could even tell you what label their favorite band belongs to? If the labels (or their industry group) does something evil, will people boycott their favorite artists who probably had nothing to do with it? In addition, the labels have been seen as evil and exploitive for years, the internet and P2P did not start this. For this reason they aren't really damaging their reputation much by their antics.
They're suing file sharers, and those of us who have a firm grasp on reality know that almost everyone they sue is guilty of breaking the law.
Good strawman. Several points:
1. I never said that everyone being sued was innocent. My point was that, innocent or guilty, the accused cannot afford to have their day in court. In addition, due to the differences in resources between the two parties many feel that justice would not be served in any case.
2. At least in America we have the polite legal fiction of "innocent until proven guilty." Since none of these cases has gone anywhere near a courtroom it is properly correct to assume that the accused are innocent.
3. You yourself just said that "almost" everyone is guilty, meaning that there are at least a few who are not. I even gave a few examples where it has been proven that the RIAA accused innocent people! Is it right to trample the rights of the innocent, regardless of how many others are guilty? For that matter, is it right to trample on the rights of the guilty?
4. The cases are about more than just the simple concepts of guilt and innocence. For example, one may be guilty of sharing files, but are each of these files correctly priced by the RIAA at tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per infringement? In an jury trial the accused could be found guilty of the charges, yet only be found liable for a few thousand. These and other issues could be addressed if a case actually went to trial, however this will not happen.
Don't try to con yourself into believing that this is a case of big evil companies using their power to railroad innocents. It's obvious to anyone who uses these networks that that's not what is happening here. You're just fooling yourself if you try to pretend that's what is going on.
Another strawman since I never claimed that all accused are innocent. My point is all of the accused, innocent and guilty deserve their day in court. However, you are correct that I consider the form of legalized extortion that the RIAA is using to be "evil."
Care to show where? For your convenience, here's links to 106 and 501.
You do realize that from a technical perspective the downloader is not copying or distributing anything, they are only receiving the file which was copied and distributed by the uploader. I'm not saying that it is definitely legal (IANAL), however from a casual reading of the referenced pages I don't see how it is illegal.
Actually, since none of the cases have gotten anywhere near a courtroom the stregth of the *AA's cases has not been determined. In several cases it has been shown that the case is actually pretty laughable (suing Mac-using grandmothers, suing the dead, etc.). Truth is that the *AA's can sue with impunity because of the vast difference in resources between the *AA's and a private individual. In all cases it is cheaper to pay the "protection money" than fight it in court, even if you are in the right. It is unfortunate that this form of extortion is 100% legal
About as long as you've had a sense of humor.
(That's a joke son)
This is Slashdot, where anyone will disagree with you about anything! That being said, many people (myself included) think the story line of the first two were great big piles of steaming crap.