---Remember that the system is only as good as the person operating it.
For a system that you have absolute control over, that is too true.
However, we talk about MSWindows. You only have the control they allow you to have. One cannot fix the bugs, one cannot reprogram the GUI, nor can one break intentionally disabled controls. Admin isn't even "Admin"... System is, and you cant be system.
1. Proprietary formats: Mow much effort is lost in "Resend that as a *** file?" Or "How do I open that file?" We have some decent standards like Post Script, Latex, HTML, and OOXML. But everybody is intent on using that newfangled version of MSOffice, in which each version is intentionally incompatible with the previous.
2. Proprietary network protocols: We still talk about MS again. This time in terms of SMB filesharing and Kerberos munging. These tactics are purely to sell more copies of MS software, and have no real good interest for us users and admins. Even beter yet, we dont know what actually is being transferred as many a times it uses some sort of "hidden encryption".
3. Licensing struggles and legal harassment: As we se with the BSA attacks, proprietary software brings in a segment of liability that GPL (and alike) software does not have. It is impossible to violate the terms of the GPL if you only USE the software. Try saying that about any of the big box companies. One simply cannot.
4. High speed bandwidth deployment: At least in the USA, we have the telcos and our government to blame. Our country could have a much richer infrastructure and allow IT people remote everything. Instead, many of us haven't the bandwidth to stream an MP3.
Then what say you about forced arbitration clauses?
Forced arbitration is attending a private court, with corporate rules, on the corporate side. Some would say "dont buy products with these handicaps".. But all the car manufacturers have these kinds of 'contracts', as do many other essential products.
Perhaps there ought to be a law restricting what rights American Citizens can 'give up' or sign away.
The point is they shouldn't have had 1 case of "dead" or "no computer".
Instead they should have had stone hard evidence that those PEOPLE, not computers, or IP addresses were trading songs. Instead, they rely on easy to lie data.
A receipt? The physical media? A purchase at the DRM-hut? Buying from a used store/pawn shop?
How can we be guaranteed that we are getting an authorized copy?
Many places print receipts. Is that good enough? Physical Media: is it legit or a fake press from a dupe factory? Does fair-use allow us to convert a DRM-hut media to mp3? I thought it does, but DMCA says there can be no disseminating tools.:-( Used/Pawn shop? First sale doctrine covers us here. Hopefully.
Now the tough part. I buy iTunes CD at Starbucks. I download the songs and then burn them to a CD. I sell that CD and delete my digital files. Is that covered under first sale doctrine? Are digital files sellable under first sale, even if technological matters make it hard to do so?
Next case: I buy CD long ago (some nineties CD). I converted it to MP3 recently and it was later smashed accidentally. Are my MP3's legal?
Is the disembodiment of copy-right and the copy possible? Title 17 Chapter 2 Section 202 indicates it would be possible, as rights do not travel with the physical medium. Can I bequeath my listening rights on another person whilst possessing the medium? How then would a court determine if I was a legitimate copy holder?
Copyright law needs some serious cleaning up to do.
Now that I think of it, that is an interesting point of view..
Justice Brennan said in the case Furman v. Georgia (1972) about "Cruel and Unusual Punishment":
* The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,"
* "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
* "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
* "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
One could argue that the punishment is completely arbitrary. Case in point here. Record exec's son given a pass on infringement. Handing down these punishments seem indicative as a detractor due to falling quarterly earnings. They also intentionally go after poor and sick people as they are more likely to 'pony up' more than well to do people. I guess cancer-ridden English-illiterate Mexican immigrants are a prime target...
And I wonder if the 750$ MINIMUM per song could be shown to be "clearly and totally rejected throughout society" could be proved? Perhaps a Zogby poll could be arranged, but phrasing the questions for fairness are extremely hard. The big question: How many people support these large mandatory amounts?
Does a private university have in loco parentis on students who enroll there?
The Kentucky State Supreme Court says according to the case Gott v. Berea College that they do have that right. They successfully claimed their right was derived from the contract between the student and the College.
I'm wondering if this is how they wish to play that... if it so, good luck.. not it'll do you any good.
---Just because there's a statue that says X, doesn't mean said statue is legal.
Too true. But getting The Judges to even accept the case will be tough. Better hope it gets past their clerks and 3 of them 'like' the case enough.
---It appears that they are claiming it's a 5th and 14th amendment violation, specifically the due process parts. My guess is the argument is based along the lines of the fact that the fines are excessive in relation to the damage. While it is not uncommon for fines to exceed damages, there is generally a somewhat reasonable limit to it. 1000 times, which is what it being claimed (the claim the songs are worth basically $0.70 to the record companies) is well, stupid. Imagine if you took something from a store, maybe you didn't even mean to you just weren't thinking. So they press charges for shoplifting. You then find out that there's a $3000 fine for that $3 pack of gum. A bit excessive maybe? Or how about you are in an accident that's your fault. You cause about $1000 worth of damage to the other guy's car. However you are informed the fine for doing that is $1,000,000.
I can explain till I'm blue in the face. Statutory is statutory. However, reasoning behind those numbers will probably come out in the courtroom.
The copyright sections Title 17 Chapter 5 Section 504 basis is from the year 1976, in which the only real copyright infringement cases carried out were against commercial infringers. Since the legitimate copyright holders had no way to tell how many infringing copies were sold, they petitioned Congress to create "fair" statutory penalties. The reason for these massive penalties were solely to shut down any business that violates them, and fast. Remember, these were the people who had shell companies to mass-produce copyrighted works for a nice profit.
I think it'd be fair to say that individuals were not harassed for infringement when they traded 8-tracks and cassettes.
Fast-forward to today.... The stated laws do not enclose for- or non-profit, but they do differentiate willful and unknowing. Since these laws are on the books, they are being used in ways unintended when they were first passed through Congress. It's up to people like Ray Beckerman to get through to the Supremes and fight for due process and possibly 'cruel and unusual punishment', although I doubt that would go anywhere (it must not be both, one or the other is A-OK).
---So their argument is, and I think quite reasonably, that the fines are just unconstitutional. Remember: Laws have to be legal too. Plenty of times in this country idiot legislators pass laws that are in contradiction to higher laws. Just because there is a statue setting damages at a minimum of $750 per song, doesn't make it right.
But it's been around since '76. Inflation and all says that the cost of infringement now is cheaper than before. I'd imagine that a court would look at the long term stability of that law and perhaps have an issue on doubting its constitutionality now, but I could be very wrong.
About these lawsuits: Their settlements do NOT waive their right to still sue you. They'll just claim it was for those 5 songs.. they are worth750$ per song, dontchaknow.
Yes, they do. They claim whatever they can get away with. And considering if you have a site license with MS, you agree in part of the license terms to be searched AT your cost.
And if you legally fight them, they have Congress on their side: you pay THEIR lawyer bills.
According to the copyright office, damages go from 750$ to 30,000$. Unknown infringement is no less than 200$. Known, willful infringement is no greater than 150,000$. These all are statutory damages.
I guess the next question is to actually ask if these statutory damages are constitutional or not, which is being asked now. Really, what else is there?
Why didnt you file charges against them for blackmail, harassment using the RICO laws to back you up?
How is this different than what the Mafia does (the real Italian Mafia)?
"You'se looks like you have a business in a real bad part of town. You know, broken windows, theft, arson. Wouldnt wanna have that happen to a bunch of buds like you. Course, he haves an insurance service round here..."
---Religion by itself is not a curse, nor a tainting mark. I do science and I am religious. Is there something wrong in that?
Absolutely not.
Well.. I have grown away from religion (Catholicism) because of linguists, historians, and anthropologists... scientists.
When I hear the reports of an archaeology dig about how the Bible wasn't quite true, I lose some faith. When I see the reports and academic writings indicating how a different peoples history doesn't coincide with the Bible, I lose faith. When I witness the manuscripts and books which Dark Ages priests added their own stories to the Gospels, I lose even more faith.
What do you believe when at least 25% of your faith is proved false by science and alternate histories and anthropological studies?
If you were as wise as you indirectly claim, then you would realise that there are so many more questions about everything than answers.
Not so amazingly, science cannot explain many things. For example, look at the Fermi Paradox. For another, investigate why quantum mechanics does what it does. Whatever we dig into, we open more questions and unexplainable phenomena.
The wisest I know are agnostic and are open to interesting interpretation. And they certainly don't religion-bash.
Nope. It was the year 2050 something, and the space travel to Mars was yet delayed again to 2069. Barely a colony has arisen on the moon, and that was only a joint venture.
They had Hubble-like scopes with 10000* the resolution, along with ground grids of radio telemetry. The very act of deeply viewing into the sky was collapsing.. no, killing these very lifeforms.
They responded in kind by creating a event horizon around the solar system (as Copenhagen goes, it can exist if at least one branch it is possible).
The story revolves around a brain-dead girl who was found missing two times. She can barely eat or even open a door.
What is found out is that she can smear her states and become more like the aliens that bubbled the solar system. Her brain is incapable of the collapse, so she can do all sorts of things, however improbable.
The argument is far from "dumb", as you so eloquently put it.
The crux of this issue is what causes the collapse: observation, or something more important?
Does a ruler observe? Does a computer with proper inputs observe? Does a bacteria observe? Do beings with certain brain structures consist of an observation?
If the brain structures cause observation, can we remove them to make "smeared" people? Or perhaps, if that is possible, maybe they can manipulate the eigenstates...
1. Evolution in the multiverse allowed living beings to exists in a superposition of states. 2. Something happened to life on Earth that forced us to exist in one state. Hence, our evolution forced us to collapse the wave. 3. Collapsing the wave on these other beings kill them. 4. These beings create a "bubble", something akin to a singularity stretched around 2 diameters of Pluto. This "protects" them from being collapsed.
Much of these ideas are based on that Consciousness causes the collapse. However, this theory is considered unwieldy, but cannot be proven to be false (as it has no easy way to be falsifiable).
Slashdot Mirror
Id rather OOXML a standard than MS version any day.
:-D
The evul reply/parent is a joke I set up April fools day. Havent bothered changing it due to extreme criticism.
---Remember that the system is only as good as the person operating it.
For a system that you have absolute control over, that is too true.
However, we talk about MSWindows. You only have the control they allow you to have. One cannot fix the bugs, one cannot reprogram the GUI, nor can one break intentionally disabled controls. Admin isn't even "Admin"... System is, and you cant be system.
You cant even delete opened files on MS Windows.
So there MUST be 10, no more, no less.
Problems with IT development:
1. Proprietary formats: Mow much effort is lost in "Resend that as a *** file?" Or "How do I open that file?" We have some decent standards like Post Script, Latex, HTML, and OOXML. But everybody is intent on using that newfangled version of MSOffice, in which each version is intentionally incompatible with the previous.
2. Proprietary network protocols: We still talk about MS again. This time in terms of SMB filesharing and Kerberos munging. These tactics are purely to sell more copies of MS software, and have no real good interest for us users and admins. Even beter yet, we dont know what actually is being transferred as many a times it uses some sort of "hidden encryption".
3. Licensing struggles and legal harassment: As we se with the BSA attacks, proprietary software brings in a segment of liability that GPL (and alike) software does not have. It is impossible to violate the terms of the GPL if you only USE the software. Try saying that about any of the big box companies. One simply cannot.
4. High speed bandwidth deployment: At least in the USA, we have the telcos and our government to blame. Our country could have a much richer infrastructure and allow IT people remote everything. Instead, many of us haven't the bandwidth to stream an MP3.
Then what say you about forced arbitration clauses?
Forced arbitration is attending a private court, with corporate rules, on the corporate side. Some would say "dont buy products with these handicaps".. But all the car manufacturers have these kinds of 'contracts', as do many other essential products.
Perhaps there ought to be a law restricting what rights American Citizens can 'give up' or sign away.
Do you have full receipts with your name at the top for each piece of software you own?
Yes, even the net-installers for plugins of poser...
If you dont have the documentation the BSA demand, you are in "pirating". And they, of course, choose what documentation to accept.
So, how much money do you make a year?
The point is they shouldn't have had 1 case of "dead" or "no computer".
Instead they should have had stone hard evidence that those PEOPLE, not computers, or IP addresses were trading songs. Instead, they rely on easy to lie data.
Better yet, what constitutes a "Legal Copy"?
:-(
A receipt? The physical media? A purchase at the DRM-hut? Buying from a used store/pawn shop?
How can we be guaranteed that we are getting an authorized copy?
Many places print receipts. Is that good enough?
Physical Media: is it legit or a fake press from a dupe factory?
Does fair-use allow us to convert a DRM-hut media to mp3? I thought it does, but DMCA says there can be no disseminating tools.
Used/Pawn shop? First sale doctrine covers us here. Hopefully.
Now the tough part. I buy iTunes CD at Starbucks. I download the songs and then burn them to a CD. I sell that CD and delete my digital files. Is that covered under first sale doctrine? Are digital files sellable under first sale, even if technological matters make it hard to do so?
Next case: I buy CD long ago (some nineties CD). I converted it to MP3 recently and it was later smashed accidentally. Are my MP3's legal?
Is the disembodiment of copy-right and the copy possible? Title 17 Chapter 2 Section 202 indicates it would be possible, as rights do not travel with the physical medium. Can I bequeath my listening rights on another person whilst possessing the medium? How then would a court determine if I was a legitimate copy holder?
Copyright law needs some serious cleaning up to do.
Now that I think of it, that is an interesting point of view..
Justice Brennan said in the case Furman v. Georgia (1972) about "Cruel and Unusual Punishment":
* The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,"
* "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
* "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
* "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
One could argue that the punishment is completely arbitrary. Case in point here. Record exec's son given a pass on infringement. Handing down these punishments seem indicative as a detractor due to falling quarterly earnings. They also intentionally go after poor and sick people as they are more likely to 'pony up' more than well to do people. I guess cancer-ridden English-illiterate Mexican immigrants are a prime target...
And I wonder if the 750$ MINIMUM per song could be shown to be "clearly and totally rejected throughout society" could be proved? Perhaps a Zogby poll could be arranged, but phrasing the questions for fairness are extremely hard. The big question: How many people support these large mandatory amounts?
Here's what I see out of it...
USC is a private university.
California has stringent laws concerning privacy.
Does a private university have in loco parentis on students who enroll there?
The Kentucky State Supreme Court says according to the case Gott v. Berea College that they do have that right. They successfully claimed their right was derived from the contract between the student and the College.
I'm wondering if this is how they wish to play that... if it so, good luck.. not it'll do you any good.
Does it really matter though? Let me explain...
A lawyer charges 400$ an hour. You need 15 hours billable time to fight 12 "songs" or settle and have possibility of suit later.
Or lets fight it out.. You win a unconstitutional punitive damage challenge.
They sue you for 12 more songs.
Sounds like a winner...
Just like the S.L.A.P.P.
---Just because there's a statue that says X, doesn't mean said statue is legal.
Too true. But getting The Judges to even accept the case will be tough. Better hope it gets past their clerks and 3 of them 'like' the case enough.
---It appears that they are claiming it's a 5th and 14th amendment violation, specifically the due process parts. My guess is the argument is based along the lines of the fact that the fines are excessive in relation to the damage. While it is not uncommon for fines to exceed damages, there is generally a somewhat reasonable limit to it. 1000 times, which is what it being claimed (the claim the songs are worth basically $0.70 to the record companies) is well, stupid. Imagine if you took something from a store, maybe you didn't even mean to you just weren't thinking. So they press charges for shoplifting. You then find out that there's a $3000 fine for that $3 pack of gum. A bit excessive maybe? Or how about you are in an accident that's your fault. You cause about $1000 worth of damage to the other guy's car. However you are informed the fine for doing that is $1,000,000.
I can explain till I'm blue in the face. Statutory is statutory. However, reasoning behind those numbers will probably come out in the courtroom.
The copyright sections Title 17 Chapter 5 Section 504 basis is from the year 1976, in which the only real copyright infringement cases carried out were against commercial infringers. Since the legitimate copyright holders had no way to tell how many infringing copies were sold, they petitioned Congress to create "fair" statutory penalties. The reason for these massive penalties were solely to shut down any business that violates them, and fast. Remember, these were the people who had shell companies to mass-produce copyrighted works for a nice profit.
I think it'd be fair to say that individuals were not harassed for infringement when they traded 8-tracks and cassettes.
Fast-forward to today.... The stated laws do not enclose for- or non-profit, but they do differentiate willful and unknowing. Since these laws are on the books, they are being used in ways unintended when they were first passed through Congress. It's up to people like Ray Beckerman to get through to the Supremes and fight for due process and possibly 'cruel and unusual punishment', although I doubt that would go anywhere (it must not be both, one or the other is A-OK).
---So their argument is, and I think quite reasonably, that the fines are just unconstitutional. Remember: Laws have to be legal too. Plenty of times in this country idiot legislators pass laws that are in contradiction to higher laws. Just because there is a statue setting damages at a minimum of $750 per song, doesn't make it right.
But it's been around since '76. Inflation and all says that the cost of infringement now is cheaper than before. I'd imagine that a court would look at the long term stability of that law and perhaps have an issue on doubting its constitutionality now, but I could be very wrong.
Just hope you hire a good lawyer.
About these lawsuits: Their settlements do NOT waive their right to still sue you. They'll just claim it was for those 5 songs.. they are worth750$ per song, dontchaknow.
Yes, they do. They claim whatever they can get away with. And considering if you have a site license with MS, you agree in part of the license terms to be searched AT your cost.
And if you legally fight them, they have Congress on their side: you pay THEIR lawyer bills.
According to the copyright office, damages go from 750$ to 30,000$. Unknown infringement is no less than 200$. Known, willful infringement is no greater than 150,000$. These all are statutory damages.
I guess the next question is to actually ask if these statutory damages are constitutional or not, which is being asked now. Really, what else is there?
You forgot the joke...
"They just _work_."
Your mom?
Your pocketbook?
. . . NOT!!! (like borat)
like an elephant?
So, whats the joke?
If you were to email the tech staff, Im sure they'd give you a dump of lspci or ask them if it works with Linux well...
Well... 2Gig SD flash was on sale for 13$ at wal-mart. At that price, 64GB would be around 413$. Lets compare that to.... Google Products here
Yowsa. 4000$ ? WTF? How does that scale???
Why didnt you file charges against them for blackmail, harassment using the RICO laws to back you up?
How is this different than what the Mafia does (the real Italian Mafia)?
"You'se looks like you have a business in a real bad part of town. You know, broken windows, theft, arson. Wouldnt wanna have that happen to a bunch of buds like you. Course, he haves an insurance service round here..."
And some NDA invalidates the GPL how?
Oh, thats right. It doesnt.
AnalBeachNuns9?
What about 1 through 8? Torrent links?
---Religion by itself is not a curse, nor a tainting mark. I do science and I am religious. Is there something wrong in that?
Absolutely not.
Well.. I have grown away from religion (Catholicism) because of linguists, historians, and anthropologists... scientists.
When I hear the reports of an archaeology dig about how the Bible wasn't quite true, I lose some faith.
When I see the reports and academic writings indicating how a different peoples history doesn't coincide with the Bible, I lose faith.
When I witness the manuscripts and books which Dark Ages priests added their own stories to the Gospels, I lose even more faith.
What do you believe when at least 25% of your faith is proved false by science and alternate histories and anthropological studies?
Then I would call you ignorant.
If you were as wise as you indirectly claim, then you would realise that there are so many more questions about everything than answers.
Not so amazingly, science cannot explain many things. For example, look at the Fermi Paradox. For another, investigate why quantum mechanics does what it does. Whatever we dig into, we open more questions and unexplainable phenomena.
The wisest I know are agnostic and are open to interesting interpretation. And they certainly don't religion-bash.
Nope. It was the year 2050 something, and the space travel to Mars was yet delayed again to 2069. Barely a colony has arisen on the moon, and that was only a joint venture.
They had Hubble-like scopes with 10000* the resolution, along with ground grids of radio telemetry. The very act of deeply viewing into the sky was collapsing.. no, killing these very lifeforms.
They responded in kind by creating a event horizon around the solar system (as Copenhagen goes, it can exist if at least one branch it is possible).
The story revolves around a brain-dead girl who was found missing two times. She can barely eat or even open a door.
What is found out is that she can smear her states and become more like the aliens that bubbled the solar system. Her brain is incapable of the collapse, so she can do all sorts of things, however improbable.
No space-faring here. All on the Earth.
The argument is far from "dumb", as you so eloquently put it.
The crux of this issue is what causes the collapse: observation, or something more important?
Does a ruler observe? Does a computer with proper inputs observe? Does a bacteria observe? Do beings with certain brain structures consist of an observation?
If the brain structures cause observation, can we remove them to make "smeared" people? Or perhaps, if that is possible, maybe they can manipulate the eigenstates...
The author is Greg Egan, one of my favorites.
The premise is the following:
1. Evolution in the multiverse allowed living beings to exists in a superposition of states.
2. Something happened to life on Earth that forced us to exist in one state. Hence, our evolution forced us to collapse the wave.
3. Collapsing the wave on these other beings kill them.
4. These beings create a "bubble", something akin to a singularity stretched around 2 diameters of Pluto. This "protects" them from being collapsed.
Much of these ideas are based on that Consciousness causes the collapse. However, this theory is considered unwieldy, but cannot be proven to be false (as it has no easy way to be falsifiable).
Still, interesting topics indeed.