The second branch of the government (you know that pesky branch that is elected by the people), has instructed the courts via legislation, that evidence of illegal downloading is, ipso facto, sufficient evidence and probable cause. Therefore, there is no need for judicial review, and the clerk (who is an official of the court) can simply sign the supboena.)
The question here is "who decides that the evidence is legitimate?" Currently, it's a group with an interest in the case. Judicial oversight is needed to prevent errors and abuse.
Example: Let's say I'm Vice President of Asskissing at the RIAA. My neighbor buys a nice shiny new car, which pisses me off because I should have a better car. So I arrange for my underling to issue a subpeona to the university my neighbor's kid goes to. The kid's dad gets notified by the University and hilarity ensues.
Sound far-fetched? Maybe it is. But it's not entirely unheard of for folks given power to abuse it.
Now, say I want to improve efficiency in the Legal Department. Is it a big stretch to send out form-letter subpeonas to anyone sharing a file that could be infringing before evaluating whether the file is actually in violation? Of course not. I'd stamp out subpeonas by the thousands then decide who to sue.
So, yes, I think it should go through a judge. The ability to obtain personal information about any user based on his or her IP address is too easily abused without oversight.
Here is a guy who claims that cheap pink ladies' disposable razors are the best you can get. I'd love to see some empirical testing. In the meantime, I'll stick with my cheap electric shaver and learn to love stubble.
Let's say, for example, that I draw a comic strip. Let's further posit that I make money from it.
Now, I can sue anyone who's ever bought a photocopier, or a scanner and printer, or just a printer if my comic's on the Web.
This seems to be a precise parallel to the Direct TV suits. A photocopier is sold for the express purpose of making copies of documents which could easily be copyrighted. Clearly, since so much written material is copyrighted, there can be no legitimate use for a photocopier except to steal copyright-protected material, such as my comic. Prepare to pay, all you Xerox customers!
Perhaps a micro-socialist system could be implemented for those who are out of a job? To give them a job within a co-op, where they can create their own jobs, train themselves from the resources made available; a safety net for the unemployed, at almost no cost to the government.
It's called a kibbutz, and they're working quite well in Israel.
Er... a former trademark that's fallen into generic use? I'm not aware of any use of the word as jargon.
I s'pose "Slashdot" was a bad example, though, because of the phrase "to Slashdot a site". Still, you don't hear anyone claiming that "Goodyear" is auto mechanic jargon.
like chopsticks, which were actually invented by immigrant restaurant owners in America's mining communities in the 1800s,
You're closer than most of these lunks give you credit for. Chop _suey_, the legend goes, was tossed together by an anonymous Chinese cook for an anonymous miner in California in the late nineteenth century.
This legend is probably true, given that chop suey is approximately Cantonese for "odds and ends", and it is not a traditional Chinese dish. We also note seeing a news article some time ago claiming that Chop Suey is sold in China as _American_ food. Unfortunately, I can't find a reliable reference for any of this, so take it as you will.
If enough people smoked it where he worked, then you'd be wrong.
If _anybody_ smoked _anything_ where I worked, or most any workplace in America, a Fire Marshal would shout with glee and break out his citation forms.
The laws should be changed. The rights of the minority should be changed to suit the needs of the majority. I mean what good is a system which cannot adapt to the needs of society?
Ahem. That concept of politics has been attempted before. Forgive me if I'm not too keen on that modest proposal.
Copyright violation, particularly this kind of intentional *piracy*, is theft, legally and ethically.
Well, let's address both of these. Legally, it ain't neither so. Try calling the cops and reporting a copyright violation. It's a civil offense, not the same as theft at _all_. Soon, it may get the attention of the FBI, but nothing's there to make it criminal. (Of course, "theft" isn't very meaningful when speaking of the law, since there's all sorts of types, ranging from armed robbery to shoplifting.)
Ethically... well, as you learned back in Philosophy 101, terminology means nothing until agreed upon. That doesn't seem likely in these parts. Y'ask me, it's not exactly theft, but it isn't exactly _not_ theft, and worthy of a special term. Such as, uh, copyright violation.
I'll go so far as to say that my belief system finds it to be a Bad Thing. I think it's naughty, and people shouldn't do it. Do I think the Department of Homeland Security (They're in that bill, too) should kick in your door if you share a file? No. The dangers of too-close association between corporate and government interests is well-known (For a good example of AT&T bullying the Secret Service around like henchmen, read through Bruce Sterling's The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier (some of you probably followed the book's events in the news at the time).
I think it's unlikely that evidence of extraterrestrial life will change too many people's minds. I think most folks who are gonna be convinced, have been. As far as fun games like logic and reason go, well, good luck.
This Wired article points out the fact that, even during the middle ages, Christian scholars found that extraterrestrial life would not seriously challenge their faith. You can bet these guys weren't big advocates of evolution, either.
I'll also mention that the Pope is an evolutionist, also noted in the article, although he almost certainly believes in creationism, as well.
I don't see this on this thread, but Lord knows it might be elsewhere. IBM has promised to take it to court here.
Quothz -- Suffering from.sig anxiety.
The Gartner Group thought about that, too, and did a little paper that SCO has on their site. Er, here. It sounds like they may be fishing for a takeover, if they're posting this kinda info. I'm not an MBA, though, so I don't really know the intricities of this sort of thing.
"For the second quarter of fiscal 2003 ended April 30, The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) reported net income of $4.5 million, or $0.33 per diluted share, on revenue of $21.4 million..."
If SCO loses this lawsuit, as the _plaintiff_, mind you, it's not gonna put a dent in 'em.
"The whole GNU project is really one big hack. It's one big act of subversive playful cleverness..." Richard Stallman, as pointed out by SCO. You think these guys even understand the issues here? They don't even understand the _language_.
Slashdot Mirror
The second branch of the government (you know that pesky branch that is elected by the people), has instructed the courts via legislation, that evidence of illegal downloading is, ipso facto, sufficient evidence and probable cause. Therefore, there is no need for judicial review, and the clerk (who is an official of the court) can simply sign the supboena.)
The question here is "who decides that the evidence is legitimate?" Currently, it's a group with an interest in the case. Judicial oversight is needed to prevent errors and abuse.
Example: Let's say I'm Vice President of Asskissing at the RIAA. My neighbor buys a nice shiny new car, which pisses me off because I should have a better car. So I arrange for my underling to issue a subpeona to the university my neighbor's kid goes to. The kid's dad gets notified by the University and hilarity ensues.
Sound far-fetched? Maybe it is. But it's not entirely unheard of for folks given power to abuse it.
Now, say I want to improve efficiency in the Legal Department. Is it a big stretch to send out form-letter subpeonas to anyone sharing a file that could be infringing before evaluating whether the file is actually in violation? Of course not. I'd stamp out subpeonas by the thousands then decide who to sue.
So, yes, I think it should go through a judge. The ability to obtain personal information about any user based on his or her IP address is too easily abused without oversight.
Here is a guy who claims that cheap pink ladies' disposable razors are the best you can get. I'd love to see some empirical testing. In the meantime, I'll stick with my cheap electric shaver and learn to love stubble.
Of course, the googly eyes cost extra.
Let's say, for example, that I draw a comic strip. Let's further posit that I make money from it.
Now, I can sue anyone who's ever bought a photocopier, or a scanner and printer, or just a printer if my comic's on the Web.
This seems to be a precise parallel to the Direct TV suits. A photocopier is sold for the express purpose of making copies of documents which could easily be copyrighted. Clearly, since so much written material is copyrighted, there can be no legitimate use for a photocopier except to steal copyright-protected material, such as my comic. Prepare to pay, all you Xerox customers!
As someone with (almost) a biology degree, I can say that rather authoratatively that zebras do not herd
As someone with an internet connection, I can say rather authoritatively that zebras do in fact herd.
Perhaps a micro-socialist system could be implemented for those who are out of a job? To give them a job within a co-op, where they can create their own jobs, train themselves from the resources made available; a safety net for the unemployed, at almost no cost to the government.
It's called a kibbutz, and they're working quite well in Israel.
so what's Kleenex?
Er... a former trademark that's fallen into generic use? I'm not aware of any use of the word as jargon.
I s'pose "Slashdot" was a bad example, though, because of the phrase "to Slashdot a site". Still, you don't hear anyone claiming that "Goodyear" is auto mechanic jargon.
Since when is "Bluetooth" jargon? That's a registered trademark. Is "Dell" jargon? How 'bout "Slashdot"?
Yes.
Other states' laws are available at the same site.
like chopsticks, which were actually invented by immigrant restaurant owners in America's mining communities in the 1800s,
You're closer than most of these lunks give you credit for. Chop _suey_, the legend goes, was tossed together by an anonymous Chinese cook for an anonymous miner in California in the late nineteenth century.
This legend is probably true, given that chop suey is approximately Cantonese for "odds and ends", and it is not a traditional Chinese dish. We also note seeing a news article some time ago claiming that Chop Suey is sold in China as _American_ food. Unfortunately, I can't find a reliable reference for any of this, so take it as you will.
If enough people smoked it where he worked, then you'd be wrong.
If _anybody_ smoked _anything_ where I worked, or most any workplace in America, a Fire Marshal would shout with glee and break out his citation forms.
Cheers -- Quothz
Ahem. That concept of politics has been attempted before. Forgive me if I'm not too keen on that modest proposal.
No cheers for you -- Quothz
Copyright violation, particularly this kind of intentional *piracy*, is theft, legally and ethically.
Well, let's address both of these. Legally, it ain't neither so. Try calling the cops and reporting a copyright violation. It's a civil offense, not the same as theft at _all_. Soon, it may get the attention of the FBI, but nothing's there to make it criminal. (Of course, "theft" isn't very meaningful when speaking of the law, since there's all sorts of types, ranging from armed robbery to shoplifting.)
Ethically... well, as you learned back in Philosophy 101, terminology means nothing until agreed upon. That doesn't seem likely in these parts. Y'ask me, it's not exactly theft, but it isn't exactly _not_ theft, and worthy of a special term. Such as, uh, copyright violation.
I'll go so far as to say that my belief system finds it to be a Bad Thing. I think it's naughty, and people shouldn't do it. Do I think the Department of Homeland Security (They're in that bill, too) should kick in your door if you share a file? No. The dangers of too-close association between corporate and government interests is well-known (For a good example of AT&T bullying the Secret Service around like henchmen, read through Bruce Sterling's The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier (some of you probably followed the book's events in the news at the time).
Cheers -- Quothz
The last I heard Novell was going to challenge SCO on Unix ownership.
They sure are, according to this article.
Cheers -- Quothz
Just wait'll the drill they sample with sets off a spark. We'll know right away if it's water or not. Hope they bring marshmallows!
Cheers -- Quothz
I think it's unlikely that evidence of extraterrestrial life will change too many people's minds. I think most folks who are gonna be convinced, have been. As far as fun games like logic and reason go, well, good luck.
This Wired article points out the fact that, even during the middle ages, Christian scholars found that extraterrestrial life would not seriously challenge their faith. You can bet these guys weren't big advocates of evolution, either.
I'll also mention that the Pope is an evolutionist, also noted in the article, although he almost certainly believes in creationism, as well.
Cheers -- Quothz
I don't see this on this thread, but Lord knows it might be elsewhere. IBM has promised to take it to court here. Quothz -- Suffering from .sig anxiety.
The Gartner Group thought about that, too, and did a little paper that SCO has on their site. Er, here. It sounds like they may be fishing for a takeover, if they're posting this kinda info. I'm not an MBA, though, so I don't really know the intricities of this sort of thing.
"For the second quarter of fiscal 2003 ended April 30, The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) reported net income of $4.5 million, or $0.33 per diluted share, on revenue of $21.4 million..."
From here.)
If SCO loses this lawsuit, as the _plaintiff_, mind you, it's not gonna put a dent in 'em.
"The whole GNU project is really one big hack. It's one big act of subversive playful cleverness..." Richard Stallman, as pointed out by SCO. You think these guys even understand the issues here? They don't even understand the _language_.