"Finally, proving a negative is not what the US court system is based on, at least from what I've heard about it - innocent until proven guilty"
Have you seen the courts in action lately?
"Hell, I could successfully defend them against this, and IANAL."
Wrong.
If you install the program you are bound by the EULA. I think your resasoning may appear sound on first examination but as you say, you are not a lawyer, and courts often have their own ways of looking at the facts of any given case. When you talk of "extracting the package...." in any other way than an installation, you are looking at probable violation of intellectual property rights, as interpreted and ruled in case after case, by the court systems today. If the code or other properties were examined in any other way than by examing how the product perfomed after an installtion (where the EULA had to be agreed to) that may well leave the defendent wide open to a violation of the DMCA or some other law pertaining to intellectual property. SpyMon is, in all liklihood, proprietary, and you can be sure that RetroCoder would *not* give Sunbelt software permission to dissassemble or in any way modify or examine their code without their express written consent first. I doubt such consent was ever given.
Don't misunderstand me: I think RetroCoder's SpyMon may very well be SpyWare, but just becasue you dont like a law or a company doesnt mean it they don't have a case. What really bothers you , I think, is that EULAs and other Intellectual Proprty Rights Laws are designed to give far too much power to the owners and therefore leaves room for abuse of customers, consumers, or other interested parties. Indeed, this case is a perfect example of that abuse. To that belief I say "RIGHT YOU ARE." The laws with regard to EULAs and Copyright (the DMCA in particular) need to be changed.
In the mean time Sunbelt could very well lose this case, as they well may deserve to, given how the pertinent laws are constructed and interpreted by the courts. Either that, or we can hope that the court finds some way to declare the law(s) on the basis of which the case has been filed as unconstitutional, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for that.
In short, don't point your non-lawyer finger at the bad company or the courts. Point it at the Lawmakers who passed the law and their greedy, shortsighted supporters who lobbied for these highly misguided pieces of legislation in the first place.
Put another way - who is more foolish? The fools who propose a law, the fools who pass a law, the fools who abuse the law, or the fools who watch it all happen, get angry, and then do nothing about it except maybe complain on/. or other foums ? (I now duck my head in anticipation of being modded down as troll or flaimbait)
Have *you* joined the EFF yet or wriiten your congressman?
"What I have a problem with are forced upgrades; if I'm happy with version X of a software, I should not be forced into upgrading to version Y for things like security fixes."
Begin Rant/flaimbait:
I agree with that statement completely. When you move to Sun/AJAX or some other purely Web driven application or OS, you are asking me to surrender control over My Computer (no pun intended). I have no problem with web based enhancements to my software, such as FAQs, supplemental materials, forums, newsgroups, patches, etc. However, my feelings about maintining control over MY software/media/computer are probably what most people would consider to be a bit extreme. That's right, *MY* software (media/computer), I bought it, I *own* it, regardless of what "they" may say in their EULA. As far as I am concerned, the only thing I shouldn't do with their software is sell it to others for a profit or mass distribute it to others for free (e.g BitTorrent). Virtually anything else is fair game. I pay no attention to others who deem to tell me what I may or may not do with my software, as detailed below:
I refuse to surrender any control whatsoever over my computer/media/software -
* You want to make it so I have to watch your stupid ads/piracy warnings on the DVDs I bought/rented/borrowed: I will find the appropriate software, decrypt them and then do as I see fit (including loaning them for free to my friends, just as I would do with my old VHS/audio tapes from television/LPs) * You want to make it so I can't rip the CD I bought or borrowed from my friend or the Library: I will do the same as above * You want me to pay for "per seat" licenses on software I bought from a legally authorized source: I will obtain/acquire the appropriate corporate version and/or crack and install it as I see fit on as many machines as I want at home (I stay completely legit at work for safety/legal reasons). * You want to cripple my motherboard to only work with "trusted applications" (e.g. palladium type applications and "closing the analog hole"): I will look *every* day until I find some group/organization that will (reverse) engineer a patch or other solution at whatever level to workaround/defeat this attempt at controlling my computer/software/media.
You can take control of my computer/media/locally hosted (i.e. C:\) software when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
end rant. God Bless the EFF - are you a member yet?
"...If he was seeding the torrent, whatever -- he deserved it, I'd think that it would be 'scarier' if he was just a user downloading/uploading by using the seeded torrent."
I think that was exactly the point of the lawsuit; they (the media industry) want to give *all* who use bit-torrent for illegal distribution of copyrighted materials pause. Not just the seeder, but all those who consequently share the bandwidth of it as well (i.e., the leechers).
I would imagine that the only difference beween being a seeder or a leecher might possibly be the penalty the prosecutor asked for; unauthorized seeder or leecher - it's illegal just the same.
I'm not saying I like what happened, and I too would like to know if he was the original seeder, but I guess what I'm trying to say is - I don't think the media industry cares too much. I agree that going after leechers has more chilling implications, but that's probably what they're aiming for.
I found that Civ II was the best version of the game, having seen and played CIV I, II, III, and Alpha Centauri.
CIV II had really humerous videos of the advisory council, user customizable maps, continent sizes, climate choices, the ability to modify the landscape within the games via engineers, and if you chose to, beat the pants of the game by cheating inside of the game - not having to resort to hacking the game saves (making every hut a new city, unit, or most powerfully IMO a new discovery was amusing). Furthermore, the CIV II engine was a growth upon, not a near complete rebuilding of the original CIV I engine, like Civ II was to me. This obviously makes some people love or hate Civ III for that very reason (the power of culture in Civ III was a major change).
Civ III, while cute, was too different in terms of added complexity to interest me for long. For me, any good simulation game is one where after you understand the core concept well enough, you can, with a little luck and good planning, have a decent chance of winning most scenarios hands down vs the computer AI; PvP is another matter, but the core knowledge of the games dynamics still allows for you to be a very challenging opponent to other players most of the time... I also wish they had brought back the real actors doing Advisory Counil Videos; CIV III could have stood to have been a bit more humerous.
Anyway, I'm sure some may say Civ III's increase in complexity and depth are what made it great and that my dissatisfaction just shows I'm stupid/non adaptive or something like that - maybe so, but I have found that if a game is interesting enough for me I'll spend whatever time it takes to master the game. Few games do that for me any more and Civ II, Diablo II, and Alpha Centari were the last simulation games that really grabbed my attention for months on end (now I'm really showing my age).
I hope Civ IV is just as captivating for me as II was...
"I seriously want to know this, howexactly is Bush conservative? Big spender, lax immigration, "diversity", federalized health care, education, and now emergency management. if he wasn't Christian, the liberals would not have a problem with the guy."
Good question. When you cite his policy on education, lax immigration and diversity, I agree, those are not very conservative policies: many (myself included) find them more mainstream.
However here are just a few conservative, and in some cases neo-conservative, policies that Bush supports:
* Civil Liberties policy (e.g. the Patriot Act, women's rights) * his stance on abortion (more of a religious position, but one more often opposed by republicans than democrats) * Environmental Policy (too many examples to cite: do a google search under "President Bush" or "George Bush" and "Environment") * Judicial Appointment nominees (a brilliant, but very conservative Judge Roberts, and then there's this one woman who has never been a judge... oh wait.. that's not neo-con, that's just unprecedented) * the Bush Doctrine as a cornerstone of foreign policy * Nation Building (Iraq) * Nearly unilateral Nation Invading (Iraq; Afghanistan was the right thing to do, but was and continues to be underfunded/undermanned); the "coalition of the willing" is basically just Britans helping as far as numbers go * Dismantling many federal gov't programs via huge deficits coupled with tax-cut for the rich (take your pick of cut programs, except for the defense dept., the CDC, and education) * Continuing to blur the line of separation of Church and State
In addition to all of this, many (myself included) believe Bush is not the best president we have had in terms of his ability to make sound decisions (outside of foreign policy, which I strongly disagree with, but can see the other side's point on).
"if he wasn't Christian, the liberals would not have a problem with the guy."
OK, that one is just flaimbait. Maybe you meant to say "If he wasn't *overtly* Christian in many of his policies," then I could see something to that argument (maybe). But Preident Bush is a highly polarizing figure; unlike most other presidents, Reagan or Bush Sr. for example, he is either well liked or strongly disliked, for a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with his religious preferences. Many of them I mentioned above.
I think the world would be a much better place if lawyers did practice law with more morals and scruples about the cases they chose, but I also know there are so many lawyers partly becase so many people want to sue...
The answer to that is obvious: as taxpayers you and I do.
A better question would be "why" are these kinds of investigations done
I dont know for sure, but here are a few ideas:
1) These guys broke the law. In fact, they just broke the newly passed one where you can be incarcerated for several years for early movie leaks via the 'net: you can be sure that the MPAA and the rest of the movie industry is just itching to make an example of them. 2) although illegal movie distribution via the 'net isn't going to slow down anytime soon, the movie industry would probably feel the wrong message is being sent by sitting back and doing nothing with more visible movie cases like this. 3) Who do you think lobbies for these kind of laws to be passed anyway? 4) closely related to number 3, who do you think makes major campaign contributions to those who sponsor these kind of bills? 5) Bigger crimes (and yes, this is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a larger copyright crime) and crimes against rich/important/powerful people/companies get more attention from "the authorities." Anyone care to guess at the clout of the movie/music/entertainment industry with lawmakers and/or "the authorities"?
I understand the point you are trying to make and don't really disagree with the premise behind it but, honestly, money talks and the more there is, the louder the voice.
I'm not saying I like it, but its almost always true.
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming....
What you say is very true. However, what other existing section would you have put it in that would have been a better fit? The movie was distributed (illegally) online, so YRO was probably the best available section; the topic was a perfect fit, IMO.
Its not like a better section couldn't be created, but YRO is better than sticking it in "Book Reviews" or "Developers."
I suppose it could have been put in politics, but then agan, so many stories here could be argued under similar premises; to me, it's not really worthwhile.
Hair splitting, I know, but my 2 cents are in the pot, anyway.
I know what you mean! I love the GrandParent Poster's idea, too!
Along with killing the genuine "evil men", we should be really should be sure to kill their families, since they all almost certainly share their ideologies.
The same goes for their neighborhood, and maybe even the whole damn city. Even if the whole city, neighborhood or relatives are not guilty/evil, people really shouldn't complain because it's all for the cause of:
1) Fighting Terrorism 2) Preserving the American Way if Life 3) Making the World Safe for Democracy 4) Stopping Religious Extremism 5) Keeping that oil flowing so we can still drive our SUV's in the face of rising gas prices and global temperatrures (some say this bears a close simililarity to #2, but they're just pinko hippie communists) 6) Deposing those evil/misguided leaders who we either put into power in the first place, or aided, so that they could fight another evil/misguided leader.
So what if killing one evil man, and maybe his wife/family/brother/cousin, causes three or more to take up arms against us! So what if they aren't actually the ones who attacked us in the first place! God and morality are on OUR side! Our religious and government leaders say so!
So you can see there is no room for (intelligent) diplomacy, compromise or alternatives!
DIE! DIE! DIE! YOU EVILDOERS!
(cough cough)
ahem.
We know return to our regularly schduled broadcast of the 700 club.
While in most cases it would be a moral deficit to say downloading copyrighted materials is not morally wrong, there are a good many things that annoy me and other slashdot users about copyright law:
1) Copyright law is way too long in most cases. Why in the world does steamboat willy need to still be protected? Why does singing "Happy Birthday" to my child in a restaurant have to subject me to criminal prosecution (it probably wouldn't happen to me, I know, but it did happen to the Girl Scouts by ASCAP)?
2) In many instances for Copyright violation, the penalty is, IMO, unjust. If you steal a video from the store, you comitted a misdemeanor and will likely get fined and maybe probation unless you are a repeat offender and/or an asshole (then you may also go to jail). If you illegally upload the same single copyrighted movie that costs, say, $14.95, you may have committed a felony and can go to jail for several years. Inequity anyone?
3) **AA seems to have a thing about maintaining complete control over content distribution, even if it means buying a politician to manufacture a new law and not making a good faith effort to find alternative ways to compete. Also, if you look at the history of the RIAA in particular (read the book Hit Men by Fredric Dannen) their complaints about lawbreakers is akin to the pot calling the kettle black.
Now I know none of this can excuse what is the illegal behavior of obtaining copyrighted media that doesn't belong to you, or redistributing it illegaly. Now matter how you pack it, in most cases (like what you complain about in your post) a crime is still a crime. But all crimes are best understood in conext, lest we (you) forget why they happen in the first place.
What my above listed opinions are for is putting some of the/. slant in some perspective
I know your post was meant to be funny, but if you do have your own litte special-olympian-to-be, you'll find your earning potential at work taking more than a modest cut: it'll be devoured by all those special care bills you'll be paying at home (unless you're without insurance, then the little tyke will just get substandard care).
so bring on all the rich, creamy er... nevermind...
---I need to know how the post above can get a "Score:5, Informative" rating? I get the impression the poster doesn't know what he's talking about.---
I think he got moderated to 'Score:5, Informative' because people (myself included) got the impression he does know what he is talking about.
---Morally, I can't tell who's right in this case. Legally, the "idiot cry-baby" is making a valid point. The problem is, where do we draw the line?---
You should know that one's personal morals don't necessarily line up with the law's view of them or a judges interpretation of such.
Where I live, I saw a burger place (it was called Fuddruckers) open up with a zero-interest loan. It was provided to the owner under a state financed program to help minorities start their own businesses. The business didn't last a year and the owner defaulted on the loan, costing taxpayers over $50,000.
I hate seeing taxpayer money get wasted, and I am not a fan of government programs that provide preferencial treatment to anyone, but that didn't make the state program illegal (although people have been fighting affermative action programs for decades with little success), just as the fact that the BBC is subsidized by taxpayers doesn't diminish their ownership of the performance they consigned by an orchestra they own.
So, if you think that, legally, that greedy record-exec does have a valid point, why not stand up for your morals, test your legal knowledge and try to suing the BBC for making available the performance they produced and own the rights to?
While I see this, in principle, as a step in the right direction, it is the details that will make or break just how good of a deal this seems to be for the customer (notice I did not say "consumer").
Specifically, by what specific mechanism is the customer given credit for sharing the bandwidth load? How much credit per KB/MB/GB shared? Can they use these credits on all items, or just certain ones (e.g. loser/junk/sale items)? When do the credits expire? How many members/custmers will be allowed to participate, and is there a fee for being allowed to do so?
I am not an **AA fan, but if they really are intent on working with file sharing technology, then they may be able to avoid becoming dinosaurs. Kudos for the effort, though, if it is a sincere one.
I am not surprised that your comment got moderated down to a "zero."
All forums, including the internet via/., should be places where people are treated with respect, not ad-hominem attacks or presumptions of guilt by association.
I for one, would be reluctant to paint the Republican party as a whole (or you) in negative terms.
It is not just what you mean to say, but what you do choose to say and *how* you say it that counts. Some people call this manners, some call it respect, some call it freindliness or congeniality, but whatever you choose to call it, I believe George H.W. Bush had it right when he said he wanted a "...kinder, gentler Nation." Please try being a part of it.
And to think its mostly liberal judges who think this decidion is OK almost makes me ashamed to be a liberal.
The Grokster ruling, expected as early as this Monday, according to the New York Times, could also be an absolutely huge precedent setter in that if it overturns the appleals courts ruling, it could send a chilling effect throught the internet.
Freedom isn't lost in an avalanche (until the last minute where it is far too late), but chipped away in decisions like this one. This particluar decision is proof positive that Liberals and Conservatives are both willing to sell your Consitutional Freedoms away, depending on the cause, one ruling and law at a time.
I shake my head in sadness over this ruling. Yet, despite how things are turning out, I still stubbornly vote in the hope that the taste for Liberty will previal.
To get there (again) and set up a moon base, before the Chinese do.
The U.S. would never have seriously contemplated (which is all I consider this to be at the curent time, considering our huge deficits - how will we pay for this?) going back to the moon if it wren't for the Chinese working at a real space program and Lunar missions.
Heck, it took the threat of a Russian rival space program, with nightmares of orbital stations dropping nukes on us, to inspire any real interest the first time around.
And please don't say it was all Kennedy (some of it was); without the Russians to galvanize against in the cold war little, if anything, would have come of it.
Our pride and security was at stake and apparently it is again. Kind of, sort of. Which is why I'm still skeptical.
"That was the prime motive for Soviet Union's amazing drive towards Berlin."
Maybe that was the official line that was used an excuse to rush in and ultimately occupy East Germany, but Stalin's spies stole the plans for The Bomb in time for him to give Truman an amused "Oh?" when Stail was told by him that the U.S. had The Bomb as a veiled threat to elicit cooperation.
Why bother inventing something yourself when you can just steal it later? It's just so much more cost effective.
"It's interesting to know that there are people who even justify dropping an atomic bomb."
Considering what we knew at the time during world war II, I would say there are probably some would justify dropping the bomb back then (and not just one, but two). I am not sure if I would "justify" it, but I certainly would not unequivically condemn it either, considering what we knew about "The Bomb" back then and the circumstances of the War at the time.
If you tool the time to talk to some Veterans (those who are still alive now, anyway) who served in the Pacific Ocean nearing the end of World War II, you would know the following:
* Emperor Hirohito had no real command or influence over the the Japanese Army, the Generals were fully in charge and answerable to no one but each other * Japan was the last major holdout to victory for the United States in WWII. Hitler's Army (or what was left of it) had already capitulated, but the Japanese were still "recruiting" boys who could barely see over the cockpit to die for their country in Kamakazi flights that had become less and less effective as the US Navy learned to adapt to it during the War. * Despite increasing losses, Japan showed little sign of surrendering (to save it's Honor). As the US military came closer to mainland Japanese soil, island by island, the Japanese Army fought tooth and nail to make the US pay for each step it took. * In considering wether or not to drop "The Bomb," President Truman, with the advice and assistance of the Army, took a good hard look at how many American (and to some extent Japanese) lives would be lost if the US had to press all the way to the mainland and deep into the Heart of Japan to force a surrender. Seeing the numbers, he ultimately gave the go-ahead. * Even after Hiroshima was completely destroyed, it took the Destruction of Nagasaki days later to force what then became a U.S. Demand for an unconditional surrender.
So all in all, if you asked the average American citizen what they thought of the matter, many might - like you imply, say it was the single greatest mistake the United States ever made.
But if you ask a WWII Vet who served in the pacific, you might get some different feelings.
Anyway, I would suggest you do some more research at the following site, for example, before you make such statements in the future without backup: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/1945.html.
If you can't get what you want by first having a government agency do your (illegal) dirty work for you then politely ask the public to stab themselves in the back with the knfe you provide. To assist in the process tell them that being stabbed is actually *good* for them - then wait and see how many sheep, er, consumers follow along.
Redefining the debate by trying to change the terms via brainwashing seems to be the misguided corporate way. Throughout history, Governments, Businesses and other Institutions have tried and failed to stop technology and ideas from changing things (read as a loss of power and control), from the printing press to the automobile to the internet.
Get over it. Adapt. Grow. Change. or Just Die and someone else will take your place (Actually, I think this is already underway!).
I think it's pretty damn clear that the grandparent post understands that it is, in principle, copyright (copywrong?) infringement in the context he mentioned. What I beleive he was getting at, and what you appear to be missing, is that what has remained in the realm of fair use in the past may soon become illegal, especially if you are not on the "approved" list of big business content providers:
Have some examples while your'e at it: * making copies of a few sentences out of a book and using them in an article/on-line, with proper citation. say goodbye if the laws are tightened unless you have the blessing of the publishing industry (i.e. small-time help sites and student blogs better start watching themselves very carefully). * listening to part of a song/movie on-line to see if you want to buy it. under more restrictive laws you could be at risk here. say goodbye unless you have the blessing of the **AA (i.e. small business in this arena can kiss their ass goodbye, and iTunes can be "pursuaded" to "adjust" their prices) * you're a bookstore at a public university and you have an on-line system for purchasing books and a text review of them before you buy. under more restrictive copyright law, this could become illegal. OOPS! I'm sorry, this is already a problem in California under existing copyright law!
As you can see, the tighter the screws are tunred, the greater the potential (and actuality) for stifling of innovation, competition , and fair-use/freedom. The fight over Bit-torrent isn't just about copyright infringemt as you clearly point out above, but Content Distribution in almost every conceivebale aspect and the possible abuse of existing and future law.
Please remeber this the next time a Girl Scout Troop get's sued for singing "copyrighted" songs (like "happy birthday") around the campfire by ASCAP - and loses. Remember it the next time you use iTunes, too.
Maybe we all should buy more Girl Scout cookies and get more of our content from Project Guetenberg and our Public Libraries.
1) **AA will squirm for a while 2) **AA will work harder than before to moniyor and restrict user rights on the internet, via congressional purchasesing, er, I mean lobbying.
I think #2 will ultimately be futile in that it will not slow their loss of control over media content distribution (and copyright violation) but it will make life unpleasant for many...
Slashdot Mirror
"Finally, proving a negative is not what the US court system is based on, at least from what I've heard about it - innocent until proven guilty"
/. or other foums ? (I now duck my head in anticipation of being modded down as troll or flaimbait)
Have you seen the courts in action lately?
"Hell, I could successfully defend them against this, and IANAL."
Wrong.
If you install the program you are bound by the EULA. I think your resasoning may appear sound on first examination but as you say, you are not a lawyer, and courts often have their own ways of looking at the facts of any given case. When you talk of "extracting the package...." in any other way than an installation, you are looking at probable violation of intellectual property rights, as interpreted and ruled in case after case, by the court systems today. If the code or other properties were examined in any other way than by examing how the product perfomed after an installtion (where the EULA had to be agreed to) that may well leave the defendent wide open to a violation of the DMCA or some other law pertaining to intellectual property. SpyMon is, in all liklihood, proprietary, and you can be sure that RetroCoder would *not* give Sunbelt software permission to dissassemble or in any way modify or examine their code without their express written consent first. I doubt such consent was ever given.
Don't misunderstand me: I think RetroCoder's SpyMon may very well be SpyWare, but just becasue you dont like a law or a company doesnt mean it they don't have a case. What really bothers you , I think, is that EULAs and other Intellectual Proprty Rights Laws are designed to give far too much power to the owners and therefore leaves room for abuse of customers, consumers, or other interested parties. Indeed, this case is a perfect example of that abuse. To that belief I say "RIGHT YOU ARE." The laws with regard to EULAs and Copyright (the DMCA in particular) need to be changed.
In the mean time Sunbelt could very well lose this case, as they well may deserve to, given how the pertinent laws are constructed and interpreted by the courts. Either that, or we can hope that the court finds some way to declare the law(s) on the basis of which the case has been filed as unconstitutional, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for that.
In short, don't point your non-lawyer finger at the bad company or the courts. Point it at the Lawmakers who passed the law and their greedy, shortsighted supporters who lobbied for these highly misguided pieces of legislation in the first place.
Put another way - who is more foolish? The fools who propose a law, the fools who pass a law, the fools who abuse the law, or the fools who watch it all happen, get angry, and then do nothing about it except maybe complain on
Have *you* joined the EFF yet or wriiten your congressman?
Wow! That was very good! Much better than my knee jerk rant/reaction (posted somewhere here).
Your comment was a very well thought out, clear, reasonable, cogent, summary response to the issue at hand.
My (virtual) hat (not tinfoil) is off to you, sir.
"What I have a problem with are forced upgrades; if I'm happy with version X of a software, I should not be forced into upgrading to version Y for things like security fixes."
Begin Rant/flaimbait:
I agree with that statement completely. When you move to Sun/AJAX or some other purely Web driven application or OS, you are asking me to surrender control over My Computer (no pun intended). I have no problem with web based enhancements to my software, such as FAQs, supplemental materials, forums, newsgroups, patches, etc.
However, my feelings about maintining control over MY software/media/computer are probably what most people would consider to be a bit extreme. That's right, *MY* software (media/computer), I bought it, I *own* it, regardless of what "they" may say in their EULA. As far as I am concerned, the only thing I shouldn't do with their software is sell it to others for a profit or mass distribute it to others for free (e.g BitTorrent). Virtually anything else is fair game. I pay no attention to others who deem to tell me what I may or may not do with my software, as detailed below:
I refuse to surrender any control whatsoever over my computer/media/software -
* You want to make it so I have to watch your stupid ads/piracy warnings on the DVDs I bought/rented/borrowed: I will find the appropriate software, decrypt them and then do as I see fit (including loaning them for free to my friends, just as I would do with my old VHS/audio tapes from television/LPs)
* You want to make it so I can't rip the CD I bought or borrowed from my friend or the Library: I will do the same as above
* You want me to pay for "per seat" licenses on software I bought from a legally authorized source: I will obtain/acquire the appropriate corporate version and/or crack and install it as I see fit on as many machines as I want at home (I stay completely legit at work for safety/legal reasons).
* You want to cripple my motherboard to only work with "trusted applications" (e.g. palladium type applications and "closing the analog hole"): I will look *every* day until I find some group/organization that will (reverse) engineer a patch or other solution at whatever level to workaround/defeat this attempt at controlling my computer/software/media.
You can take control of my computer/media/locally hosted (i.e. C:\) software when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
end rant. God Bless the EFF - are you a member yet?
"...If he was seeding the torrent, whatever -- he deserved it, I'd think that it would be 'scarier' if he was just a user downloading/uploading by using the seeded torrent."
I think that was exactly the point of the lawsuit; they (the media industry) want to give *all* who use bit-torrent for illegal distribution of copyrighted materials pause. Not just the seeder, but all those who consequently share the bandwidth of it as well (i.e., the leechers).
I would imagine that the only difference beween being a seeder or a leecher might possibly be the penalty the prosecutor asked for; unauthorized seeder or leecher - it's illegal just the same.
I'm not saying I like what happened, and I too would like to know if he was the original seeder, but I guess what I'm trying to say is - I don't think the media industry cares too much. I agree that going after leechers has more chilling implications, but that's probably what they're aiming for.
I found that Civ II was the best version of the game, having seen and played CIV I, II, III, and Alpha Centauri.
CIV II had really humerous videos of the advisory council, user customizable maps, continent sizes, climate choices, the ability to modify the landscape within the games via engineers, and if you chose to, beat the pants of the game by cheating inside of the game - not having to resort to hacking the game saves (making every hut a new city, unit, or most powerfully IMO a new discovery was amusing). Furthermore, the CIV II engine was a growth upon, not a near complete rebuilding of the original CIV I engine, like Civ II was to me. This obviously makes some people love or hate Civ III for that very reason (the power of culture in Civ III was a major change).
Civ III, while cute, was too different in terms of added complexity to interest me for long. For me, any good simulation game is one where after you understand the core concept well enough, you can, with a little luck and good planning, have a decent chance of winning most scenarios hands down vs the computer AI; PvP is another matter, but the core knowledge of the games dynamics still allows for you to be a very challenging opponent to other players most of the time... I also wish they had brought back the real actors doing Advisory Counil Videos; CIV III could have stood to have been a bit more humerous.
Anyway, I'm sure some may say Civ III's increase in complexity and depth are what made it great and that my dissatisfaction just shows I'm stupid/non adaptive or something like that - maybe so, but I have found that if a game is interesting enough for me I'll spend whatever time it takes to master the game. Few games do that for me any more and Civ II, Diablo II, and Alpha Centari were the last simulation games that really grabbed my attention for months on end (now I'm really showing my age).
I hope Civ IV is just as captivating for me as II was...
"I seriously want to know this, howexactly is Bush conservative? Big spender, lax immigration, "diversity", federalized health care, education, and now emergency management. if he wasn't Christian, the liberals would not have a problem with the guy."
Good question. When you cite his policy on education, lax immigration and diversity, I agree, those are not very conservative policies: many (myself included) find them more mainstream.
However here are just a few conservative, and in some cases neo-conservative, policies that Bush supports:
* Civil Liberties policy (e.g. the Patriot Act, women's rights)
* his stance on abortion (more of a religious position, but one more often opposed by republicans than democrats)
* Environmental Policy (too many examples to cite: do a google search under "President Bush" or "George Bush" and "Environment")
* Judicial Appointment nominees (a brilliant, but very conservative Judge Roberts, and then there's this one woman who has never been a judge... oh wait.. that's not neo-con, that's just unprecedented)
* the Bush Doctrine as a cornerstone of foreign policy
* Nation Building (Iraq)
* Nearly unilateral Nation Invading (Iraq; Afghanistan was the right thing to do, but was and continues to be underfunded/undermanned); the "coalition of the willing" is basically just Britans helping as far as numbers go
* Dismantling many federal gov't programs via huge deficits coupled with tax-cut for the rich (take your pick of cut programs, except for the defense dept., the CDC, and education)
* Continuing to blur the line of separation of Church and State
In addition to all of this, many (myself included) believe Bush is not the best president we have had in terms of his ability to make sound decisions (outside of foreign policy, which I strongly disagree with, but can see the other side's point on).
"if he wasn't Christian, the liberals would not have a problem with the guy."
OK, that one is just flaimbait. Maybe you meant to say "If he wasn't *overtly* Christian in many of his policies," then I could see something to that argument (maybe). But Preident Bush is a highly polarizing figure; unlike most other presidents, Reagan or Bush Sr. for example, he is either well liked or strongly disliked, for a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with his religious preferences. Many of them I mentioned above.
I think the world would be a much better place if lawyers did practice law with more morals and scruples about the cases they chose, but I also know there are so many lawyers partly becase so many people want to sue...
"If file swappers are so profficient at all this theft and cheating, music execs must be pretty worried about their job-security."
n quiry.asp?userid=CX0abEHCEV&isbn=0679730613&itm=1
You know, that could be true...
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/BookSearch/isbnI
The answer to that is obvious: as taxpayers you and I do.
A better question would be "why" are these kinds of investigations done
I dont know for sure, but here are a few ideas:
1) These guys broke the law. In fact, they just broke the newly passed one where you can be incarcerated for several years for early movie leaks via the 'net: you can be sure that the MPAA and the rest of the movie industry is just itching to make an example of them.
2) although illegal movie distribution via the 'net isn't going to slow down anytime soon, the movie industry would probably feel the wrong message is being sent by sitting back and doing nothing with more visible movie cases like this.
3) Who do you think lobbies for these kind of laws to be passed anyway?
4) closely related to number 3, who do you think makes major campaign contributions to those who sponsor these kind of bills?
5) Bigger crimes (and yes, this is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a larger copyright crime) and crimes against rich/important/powerful people/companies get more attention from "the authorities." Anyone care to guess at the clout of the movie/music/entertainment industry with lawmakers and/or "the authorities"?
I understand the point you are trying to make and don't really disagree with the premise behind it but, honestly, money talks and the more there is, the louder the voice.
I'm not saying I like it, but its almost always true.
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming....
What you say is very true. However, what other existing section would you have put it in that would have been a better fit? The movie was distributed (illegally) online, so YRO was probably the best available section; the topic was a perfect fit, IMO.
Its not like a better section couldn't be created, but YRO is better than sticking it in "Book Reviews" or "Developers."
I suppose it could have been put in politics, but then agan, so many stories here could be argued under similar premises; to me, it's not really worthwhile.
Hair splitting, I know, but my 2 cents are in the pot, anyway.
and I thank you for that
I know what you mean! I love the GrandParent Poster's idea, too!
Along with killing the genuine "evil men", we should be really should be sure to kill their families, since they all almost certainly share their ideologies.
The same goes for their neighborhood, and maybe even the whole damn city. Even if the whole city, neighborhood or relatives are not guilty/evil, people really shouldn't complain because it's all for the cause of:
1) Fighting Terrorism
2) Preserving the American Way if Life
3) Making the World Safe for Democracy
4) Stopping Religious Extremism
5) Keeping that oil flowing so we can still drive our SUV's in the face of rising gas prices and global temperatrures (some say this bears a close simililarity to #2, but they're just pinko hippie communists)
6) Deposing those evil/misguided leaders who we either put into power in the first place, or aided, so that they could fight another evil/misguided leader.
So what if killing one evil man, and maybe his wife/family/brother/cousin, causes three or more to take up arms against us! So what if they aren't actually the ones who attacked us in the first place! God and morality are on OUR side! Our religious and government leaders say so!
So you can see there is no room for (intelligent) diplomacy, compromise or alternatives!
DIE! DIE! DIE! YOU EVILDOERS!
(cough cough)
ahem.
We know return to our regularly schduled broadcast of the 700 club.
While in most cases it would be a moral deficit to say downloading copyrighted materials is not morally wrong, there are a good many things that annoy me and other slashdot users about copyright law:
/. slant in some perspective
1) Copyright law is way too long in most cases. Why in the world does steamboat willy need to still be protected? Why does singing "Happy Birthday" to my child in a restaurant have to subject me to criminal prosecution (it probably wouldn't happen to me, I know, but it did happen to the Girl Scouts by ASCAP)?
2) In many instances for Copyright violation, the penalty is, IMO, unjust. If you steal a video from the store, you comitted a misdemeanor and will likely get fined and maybe probation unless you are a repeat offender and/or an asshole (then you may also go to jail). If you illegally upload the same single copyrighted movie that costs, say, $14.95, you may have committed a felony and can go to jail for several years. Inequity anyone?
3) **AA seems to have a thing about maintaining complete control over content distribution, even if it means buying a politician to manufacture a new law and not making a good faith effort to find alternative ways to compete. Also, if you look at the history of the RIAA in particular (read the book Hit Men by Fredric Dannen) their complaints about lawbreakers is akin to the pot calling the kettle black.
Now I know none of this can excuse what is the illegal behavior of obtaining copyrighted media that doesn't belong to you, or redistributing it illegaly. Now matter how you pack it, in most cases (like what you complain about in your post) a crime is still a crime. But all crimes are best understood in conext, lest we (you) forget why they happen in the first place.
What my above listed opinions are for is putting some of the
that's one of the most insightful posts I've seen in a long time (and I'm saying that as a male :P)
I know your post was meant to be funny, but if you do have your own litte special-olympian-to-be, you'll find your earning potential at work taking more than a modest cut: it'll be devoured by all those special care bills you'll be paying at home (unless you're without insurance, then the little tyke will just get substandard care).
so bring on all the rich, creamy er... nevermind...
---I need to know how the post above can get a "Score:5, Informative" rating? I get the impression the poster doesn't know what he's talking about.---
I think he got moderated to 'Score:5, Informative' because people (myself included) got the impression he does know what he is talking about.
---Morally, I can't tell who's right in this case. Legally, the "idiot cry-baby" is making a valid point. The problem is, where do we draw the line?---
You should know that one's personal morals don't necessarily line up with the law's view of them or a judges interpretation of such.
Where I live, I saw a burger place (it was called Fuddruckers) open up with a zero-interest loan. It was provided to the owner under a state financed program to help minorities start their own businesses. The business didn't last a year and the owner defaulted on the loan, costing taxpayers over $50,000.
I hate seeing taxpayer money get wasted, and I am not a fan of government programs that provide preferencial treatment to anyone, but that didn't make the state program illegal (although people have been fighting affermative action programs for decades with little success), just as the fact that the BBC is subsidized by taxpayers doesn't diminish their ownership of the performance they consigned by an orchestra they own.
So, if you think that, legally, that greedy record-exec does have a valid point, why not stand up for your morals, test your legal knowledge and try to suing the BBC for making available the performance they produced and own the rights to?
.
Previewing multiple times and still missing errors....
Yeah, i do that a lot.
While I see this, in principle, as a step in the right direction, it is the details that will make or break just how good of a deal this seems to be for the customer (notice I did not say "consumer").
Specifically, by what specific mechanism is the customer given credit for sharing the bandwidth load? How much credit per KB/MB/GB shared? Can they use these credits on all items, or just certain ones (e.g. loser/junk/sale items)? When do the credits expire? How many members/custmers will be allowed to participate, and is there a fee for being allowed to do so?
I am not an **AA fan, but if they really are intent on working with file sharing technology, then they may be able to avoid becoming dinosaurs. Kudos for the effort, though, if it is a sincere one.
I am not surprised that your comment got moderated down to a "zero."
/., should be places where people are treated with respect, not ad-hominem attacks or presumptions of guilt by association.
All forums, including the internet via
I for one, would be reluctant to paint the Republican party as a whole (or you) in negative terms.
It is not just what you mean to say, but what you do choose to say and *how* you say it that counts. Some people call this manners, some call it respect, some call it freindliness or congeniality, but whatever you choose to call it, I believe George H.W. Bush had it right when he said he wanted a "...kinder, gentler Nation." Please try being a part of it.
.
And to think its mostly liberal judges who think this decidion is OK almost makes me ashamed to be a liberal.
The Grokster ruling, expected as early as this Monday, according to the New York Times, could also be an absolutely huge precedent setter in that if it overturns the appleals courts ruling, it could send a chilling effect throught the internet.
Freedom isn't lost in an avalanche (until the last minute where it is far too late), but chipped away in decisions like this one. This particluar decision is proof positive that Liberals and Conservatives are both willing to sell your Consitutional Freedoms away, depending on the cause, one ruling and law at a time.
I shake my head in sadness over this ruling. Yet, despite how things are turning out, I still stubbornly vote in the hope that the taste for Liberty will previal.
.
To get there (again) and set up a moon base, before the Chinese do.
The U.S. would never have seriously contemplated (which is all I consider this to be at the curent time, considering our huge deficits - how will we pay for this?) going back to the moon if it wren't for the Chinese working at a real space program and Lunar missions.
Heck, it took the threat of a Russian rival space program, with nightmares of orbital stations dropping nukes on us, to inspire any real interest the first time around.
And please don't say it was all Kennedy (some of it was); without the Russians to galvanize against in the cold war little, if anything, would have come of it.
Our pride and security was at stake and apparently it is again. Kind of, sort of. Which is why I'm still skeptical.
A moon base would be great, though.
"That was the prime motive for Soviet Union's amazing drive towards Berlin."
Maybe that was the official line that was used an excuse to rush in and ultimately occupy East Germany, but Stalin's spies stole the plans for The Bomb in time for him to give Truman an amused "Oh?" when Stail was told by him that the U.S. had The Bomb as a veiled threat to elicit cooperation.
Why bother inventing something yourself when you can just steal it later? It's just so much more cost effective.
"It's interesting to know that there are people who even justify dropping an atomic bomb."
Considering what we knew at the time during world war II, I would say there are probably some would justify dropping the bomb back then (and not just one, but two). I am not sure if I would "justify" it, but I certainly would not unequivically condemn it either, considering what we knew about "The Bomb" back then and the circumstances of the War at the time.
If you tool the time to talk to some Veterans (those who are still alive now, anyway) who served in the Pacific Ocean nearing the end of World War II, you would know the following:
* Emperor Hirohito had no real command or influence over the the Japanese Army, the Generals were fully in charge and answerable to no one but each other
* Japan was the last major holdout to victory for the United States in WWII. Hitler's Army (or what was left of it) had already capitulated, but the Japanese were still "recruiting" boys who could barely see over the cockpit to die for their country in Kamakazi flights that had become less and less effective as the US Navy learned to adapt to it during the War.
* Despite increasing losses, Japan showed little sign of surrendering (to save it's Honor). As the US military came closer to mainland Japanese soil, island by island, the Japanese Army fought tooth and nail to make the US pay for each step it took.
* In considering wether or not to drop "The Bomb," President Truman, with the advice and assistance of the Army, took a good hard look at how many American (and to some extent Japanese) lives would be lost if the US had to press all the way to the mainland and deep into the Heart of Japan to force a surrender. Seeing the numbers, he ultimately gave the go-ahead.
* Even after Hiroshima was completely destroyed, it took the Destruction of Nagasaki days later to force what then became a U.S. Demand for an unconditional surrender.
So all in all, if you asked the average American citizen what they thought of the matter, many might - like you imply, say it was the single greatest mistake the United States ever made.
But if you ask a WWII Vet who served in the pacific, you might get some different feelings.
Anyway, I would suggest you do some more research at the following site, for example, before you make such statements in the future without backup: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/1945.html.
If you can't get what you want by first having a government agency do your (illegal) dirty work for you then politely ask the public to stab themselves in the back with the knfe you provide. To assist in the process tell them that being stabbed is actually *good* for them - then wait and see how many sheep, er, consumers follow along.
Redefining the debate by trying to change the terms via brainwashing seems to be the misguided corporate way. Throughout history, Governments, Businesses and other Institutions have tried and failed to stop technology and ideas from changing things (read as a loss of power and control), from the printing press to the automobile to the internet.
Get over it.
Adapt.
Grow.
Change.
or Just Die and someone else will take your place
(Actually, I think this is already underway!).
I think it's pretty damn clear that the grandparent post understands that it is, in principle, copyright (copywrong?) infringement in the context he mentioned. What I beleive he was getting at, and what you appear to be missing, is that what has remained in the realm of fair use in the past may soon become illegal, especially if you are not on the "approved" list of big business content providers:
Have some examples while your'e at it:
* making copies of a few sentences out of a book and using them in an article/on-line, with proper citation. say goodbye if the laws are tightened unless you have the blessing of the publishing industry (i.e. small-time help sites and student blogs better start watching themselves very carefully).
* listening to part of a song/movie on-line to see if you want to buy it. under more restrictive laws you could be at risk here. say goodbye unless you have the blessing of the **AA (i.e. small business in this arena can kiss their ass goodbye, and iTunes can be "pursuaded" to "adjust" their prices)
* you're a bookstore at a public university and you have an on-line system for purchasing books and a text review of them before you buy. under more restrictive copyright law, this could become illegal. OOPS! I'm sorry, this is already a problem in California under existing copyright law!
As you can see, the tighter the screws are tunred, the greater the potential (and actuality) for stifling of innovation, competition , and fair-use/freedom. The fight over Bit-torrent isn't just about copyright infringemt as you clearly point out above, but Content Distribution in almost every conceivebale aspect and the possible abuse of existing and future law.
Please remeber this the next time a Girl Scout Troop get's sued for singing "copyrighted" songs (like "happy birthday") around the campfire by ASCAP - and loses. Remember it the next time you use iTunes, too.
Maybe we all should buy more Girl Scout cookies and get more of our content from Project Guetenberg and our Public Libraries.
I think we'll see two things:
1) **AA will squirm for a while
2) **AA will work harder than before to moniyor and restrict user rights on the internet, via congressional purchasesing, er, I mean lobbying.
I think #2 will ultimately be futile in that it will not slow their loss of control over media content distribution (and copyright violation) but it will make life unpleasant for many...