But the fears are there when they weren't before. I don't see how this benefitted Andover/Slashdot, except in the personal wealth sense. Ok, VA hardware. But this new introduced fear does affect your editorial freedom/control whether you admit it or not. Because it affects how readers (like me) percieve what you have to say. You can have contracts out the ass, but if you weaken the perception of your readers then you have lost some of your editorial "control."
I don't think "free speech" is the way to fight this case. I think jurisdiction and intent of the US web site posters is the key. The US has NO jurisdiction over the original author, regardless of his intent. Those posting in the US have done so to allow more users to view DVD's. In 10000 users, I doubt that 100 would view a copy. Rather, they would view a rented, borrowed, or bought DVD. In any case, a side result of the purpose that the code was posted is that the movie industry will sell more DVD's.
Now free speech arguements *could* be used if cryptome.org is ever required to remove its copy of DeCSS (which is there because of more stupidity by movie lawyers) because it is the free sharing of a legal document obtained thru the Freedom of Infomation act. (Not the source code to a program.)
My current start-up is failing. So I'm not sure the advice I will give is any good. I don't have enough money left to try it. But here's what I think I should have done:
1. Learn to be an ass-hole. Nice just doesn't cut it.
2. Throw away your ethics. Doing or not doing something just because it is right or wrong is stupid business.
3. If you can't do 1 and 2, then cut up your credit cards NOW for your own protection and go drive a school bus. Business is NOT for you!
If this is the "real" reason why "This is a good thing!" as you stated above, then it's really sad for Linux. To stoop to play the games instead of touting the superiority of the product is misspent energy. Instead of matching perceptions and meeting expectations, we should change perceptions and expectations. Linux was a superior product *before* this deal. Now it seems it must have been less so. Red Hat used to be good at changing perceptions and expectations. Every Linux advocate *knows* how to change perceptions and expectations.
In the past when people would say "but there's no virus protection software for Linux," we would say "but you don't *need* it with Linux, virii are non-existent because of the design of the system."
Now when people say "but there's no virus protection software for Linux," we can say "yes there is." Sort of loses something, doesn't it?
I'm sorry, but I think this was a bad move for Red Hat and Linux. It gives the impression that either something was wrong with Red Hat and now it's going to be OK. OR something is wrong with other Linuxes (Linuces?) because they don't have it. In either case, to many people who see Linux == Red Hat it says "Linux had a virus problem." I think that's a slap to everyone who has developed Linux over the last few years. I've heard of 1 virus for Linux since 1994 (bliss if I remember correctly and I never saw it). There may have been more but I haven't heard of them. Everything I have read has indicated to me that Linux (UNIX) is designed in such a way as to make virii rare. Is there a need for this? I withdraw if I'm mistaken.
I'm not anti-GUI, except for configuration and monitoring tools. I want to look at the actual files in all their gory details. I want to quickly edit a config file in/etc instead of figuring out what that GUI tool is doing. Besides if I'm doing it remotely, I don't want to have to deal with --display whereiam:0 etc. Its easier to just edit the file. Plus, I know the formatting is like *I* want it. One of the things I *hate* about WinNT is that it's so hard to do things *without* the GUI tools.
So...Win2000 (-10) for difficulty in textual administration tools.
Damn... I jacked with his SLOfuse!! The doorbell is ringing IT'S A SUMMONS!!
Ah, but you didn't copy it down to do it (did you?). See, a lawyer would have to copy it down to present it in court. Then when he "translated" (reversed engineered) it for the judge, he would have violated my intellectual property rights. (The only reason he would do such a thing was if he thought I was advocating something in a secret message.) By the way, anybody got a utility, I'm kinda lazy.
The point is, it is NOT that plain and simple. If it were, people would not be fighting over it in court. If you were a lawyer for the MPAA, you would think it was illegal - plain and simple. But I'm sure your not, so...Hmm....
EBG13 nyy svyranzrf naq nyy nycunorgup punef va gur qrpff fbhepr pbqr, gura fg ber ba lbhe jro-fvgr.
The above sentence is copyright 2000, SLOfuse. If you copy it by electronic or other physical means you agree not to reverse-engineer it. It means nothing as it is stated and any representation of the above sentence in court other than exactly as stated will indicate a violation of my intellectual property rights and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
At least you understood what I was talking about, unlike the a** who moderated me off-topic.
I've been using and advocating Linux for 5 years. I just hate being looked at as a "late-comer" just because I started my business last year. And I really do agree with you and Linus. It's just no fun thinking I have to defend myself.
I look at Corel as setting the example for software vendors who are thinking about porting their software to Linux. I assume that Wordperfect was not that difficult to port, since you already had UNIX versions. If I'm not mistaken, other software that you are porting is relying heavily on Wine libraries. What is it about Linux that makes you pursue this method of porting as opposed to producing "native" Linux code? I think the Wine effort is great to allow users to use software that they have already purchased under Linux, but it would be nice to see large companies such as yours porting natively. Is that too much to hope for?
I have been having trouble getting thru to valinux and sorceforge websites for last week or so. (server not responding...) Anybody else had this problem?
Maybe you can filter it out at the library. Maybe you take if off TV. Resourceful kids who want to see pictures of naked human bodies are going to find pictures of naked human bodies. I was shoplifting "dirty magazines" when I was a young teenager. I *could* have gotten in a lot of trouble.
Why did I do this? Because my parents were of this "american family values" slant that says the naked human body is a nasty sinful thing. Well, I don't think so. The *real* problem is that parents don't know how to share with their kids any healthy attitudes about sex and nature. This "unnatural" attitude about the human body and sex is what makes kids curious in the first place. If nudity and discussion of sex were more a part of normal everyday life, porn would loose much of it's appeal.
Come on now. I know what you have under those clothes your wearing. Why is it such a "nasty" mystery? We accept other things that are much less natural *so* easily. An Example: Shortly after my first son was born, my sister invited us over to her place for dinner. While we were waiting in the living room for dinner to get done, my wife started breast-feeding my son. My sister went balistic. She started shooing her 3 sons out of the room and made my wife very uncomfortable and embarrassed. However that same evening, one of my sisters son was playing with a toy rifle and pointing it at my wife and son and pretending to shoot them. No fuss was made at all. Man! Talk about twisted values!!! I'll take my kids playing with porn over playing with guns anyday!
I was not intending to suppress their right to freely communicate with etoy and express there desire. They even have the right to sue. I have the "right" to sue you for remarks that I "think" you may have directed against me whether or not you did. I would lose, but that is my legal right.
Etoys is not just communicating and asking. They are not just saying "will you make your home page age appropriate". They have something in the other hand. They have NO MORAL RIGHT to be "thus" concerned with what etoy does. I am NOT the one suppressing free speech. I believe etoys is.
IF eToys argument is "hey, do what you like, but can you keep the stuff that's age-inappropriate off the public pages", then I don't see the problem. Anyone capable of setting up a web page is more than capable of setting up an.htaccess file, and anyone capable of thought is capable of deciding if something is "age-inappropriate".
The "problem" is that etoys has NO RIGHT to ask such a thing just because they are offended (or think one of their costomers might be.) If they were *really* concerned about this, they would have researched the domain name they chose and would have seen the potential problem and PICKED A DIFFERENT domain name. But they don't really care. Some one thought "E-Toys - what a neat name. We'll make a killing off of that name and all the money it brings in from all those families with the little brats." And you thought they were in this for the benifit of the kids???
OK, suppose US courts do have jurisdiction over NSI. Does NSI have an AUP that controls the content of websites with.com,.net,.org TLD's? I don't think so. There are an awful lot of porn.com sites out there that are not being shut down. EVEN if etoy WAS a porn site (which it is not), it should not have been suspended. Etoys the toy company, effectively had it "shut down" and wants it to change or stay shut down FOR THAT REASON. (Of course that is they're "stated" reason.) Point is, they should not have that right because NO ONE ELSE has that right! (Regardless of ones opinions on porn.) [and the trademark thing is just plain stupid-there's no confusion of products.]
Even if etoy.com was a hard core porn site, etoys should have no moral or legal rights to do what they did. etoy.com is not bound by US laws. At most, US authorities might someday take it upon themselves selectively ban "incoming" material thru filtering techniques etc (which in itself would be a horrendous state of affairs), but there is no justification for suspending registration of the etoy.com domain. THEY HAVE NO FUCKING JURISDICTION. (Now slashdot will have to shut down for offensive language.)
The story you link to is from November. I heard this short little piece at about 7am Eastern today. It was just a brief piece like those given during the first 5 minutes of each hour. But, they probably heard about the "lawsuit" and then dug up the info from this old story. I can't find the piece on their site because they change that particular link each hour. It just really disturbed me because it just emphasised the "DVD copying program" that was put up on the internet...
Slashdot Mirror
OK I'm done with this user id. Does anyone know how to change a slasdot user id? Or how to remove your own account? Any help appreciated.
I just can't get this taste out of my mouth...
They know how to get free advertising on slashdot.
Ha! That's the refrigerator calling the toaster white.
Now free speech arguements *could* be used if cryptome.org is ever required to remove its copy of DeCSS (which is there because of more stupidity by movie lawyers) because it is the free sharing of a legal document obtained thru the Freedom of Infomation act. (Not the source code to a program.)
1. Learn to be an ass-hole. Nice just doesn't cut it.
2. Throw away your ethics. Doing or not doing something just because it is right or wrong is stupid business.
3. If you can't do 1 and 2, then cut up your credit cards NOW for your own protection and go drive a school bus. Business is NOT for you!
If this is the "real" reason why "This is a good thing!" as you stated above, then it's really sad for Linux. To stoop to play the games instead of touting the superiority of the product is misspent energy. Instead of matching perceptions and meeting expectations, we should change perceptions and expectations. Linux was a superior product *before* this deal. Now it seems it must have been less so. Red Hat used to be good at changing perceptions and expectations. Every Linux advocate *knows* how to change perceptions and expectations.
In the past when people would say "but there's no virus protection software for Linux," we would say "but you don't *need* it with Linux, virii are non-existent because of the design of the system."
Now when people say "but there's no virus protection software for Linux," we can say "yes there is." Sort of loses something, doesn't it?
I'm sorry, but I think this was a bad move for Red Hat and Linux. It gives the impression that either something was wrong with Red Hat and now it's going to be OK. OR something is wrong with other Linuxes (Linuces?) because they don't have it. In either case, to many people who see Linux == Red Hat it says "Linux had a virus problem." I think that's a slap to everyone who has developed Linux over the last few years. I've heard of 1 virus for Linux since 1994 (bliss if I remember correctly and I never saw it). There may have been more but I haven't heard of them. Everything I have read has indicated to me that Linux (UNIX) is designed in such a way as to make virii rare. Is there a need for this? I withdraw if I'm mistaken.
I'm not anti-GUI, except for configuration and monitoring tools. I want to look at the actual files in all their gory details. I want to quickly edit a config file in /etc instead of figuring out what that GUI tool is doing. Besides if I'm doing it remotely, I don't want to have to deal with --display whereiam:0 etc. Its easier to just edit the file. Plus, I know the formatting is like *I* want it. One of the things I *hate* about WinNT is that it's so hard to do things *without* the GUI tools.
So...Win2000 (-10) for difficulty in textual administration tools.
Ah, but you didn't copy it down to do it (did you?). See, a lawyer would have to copy it down to present it in court. Then when he "translated" (reversed engineered) it for the judge, he would have violated my intellectual property rights. (The only reason he would do such a thing was if he thought I was advocating something in a secret message.) By the way, anybody got a utility, I'm kinda lazy.
The point is, it is NOT that plain and simple. If it were, people would not be fighting over it in court. If you were a lawyer for the MPAA, you would think it was illegal - plain and simple. But I'm sure your not, so...Hmm....
The above sentence is copyright 2000, SLOfuse. If you copy it by electronic or other physical means you agree not to reverse-engineer it. It means nothing as it is stated and any representation of the above sentence in court other than exactly as stated will indicate a violation of my intellectual property rights and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Hey idiot moderator!. The sig is that thing at the bottom. Now THIS is offtopic. You may justifiably moderate it so.
I've been using and advocating Linux for 5 years. I just hate being looked at as a "late-comer" just because I started my business last year. And I really do agree with you and Linus. It's just no fun thinking I have to defend myself.
This used to be more fun. What happened?
Can it run Linux?
I look at Corel as setting the example for software vendors who are thinking about porting their software to Linux. I assume that Wordperfect was not that difficult to port, since you already had UNIX versions. If I'm not mistaken, other software that you are porting is relying heavily on Wine libraries. What is it about Linux that makes you pursue this method of porting as opposed to producing "native" Linux code? I think the Wine effort is great to allow users to use software that they have already purchased under Linux, but it would be nice to see large companies such as yours porting natively. Is that too much to hope for?
I have been trouble getting thru to valinux and sorceforge websites for last week or so. (server not responding...) Anybody else had this problem?
I have been having trouble getting thru to valinux and sorceforge websites for last week or so. (server not responding...) Anybody else had this problem?
Why did I do this? Because my parents were of this "american family values" slant that says the naked human body is a nasty sinful thing. Well, I don't think so. The *real* problem is that parents don't know how to share with their kids any healthy attitudes about sex and nature. This "unnatural" attitude about the human body and sex is what makes kids curious in the first place. If nudity and discussion of sex were more a part of normal everyday life, porn would loose much of it's appeal.
Come on now. I know what you have under those clothes your wearing. Why is it such a "nasty" mystery? We accept other things that are much less natural *so* easily. An Example: Shortly after my first son was born, my sister invited us over to her place for dinner. While we were waiting in the living room for dinner to get done, my wife started breast-feeding my son. My sister went balistic. She started shooing her 3 sons out of the room and made my wife very uncomfortable and embarrassed. However that same evening, one of my sisters son was playing with a toy rifle and pointing it at my wife and son and pretending to shoot them. No fuss was made at all. Man! Talk about twisted values!!! I'll take my kids playing with porn over playing with guns anyday!
Etoys is not just communicating and asking. They are not just saying "will you make your home page age appropriate". They have something in the other hand. They have NO MORAL RIGHT to be "thus" concerned with what etoy does. I am NOT the one suppressing free speech. I believe etoys is.
IF eToys argument is "hey, do what you like, but can you keep the stuff that's age-inappropriate off the .htaccess file, and anyone capable of thought is capable of deciding if something is
public pages", then I don't see the problem. Anyone capable of setting up a web page is more than capable
of setting up an
"age-inappropriate".
The "problem" is that etoys has NO RIGHT to ask such a thing just because they are offended (or think one of their costomers might be.) If they were *really* concerned about this, they would have researched the domain name they chose and would have seen the potential problem and PICKED A DIFFERENT domain name. But they don't really care. Some one thought "E-Toys - what a neat name. We'll make a killing off of that name and all the money it brings in from all those families with the little brats." And you thought they were in this for the benifit of the kids???
OK, suppose US courts do have jurisdiction over NSI. Does NSI have an AUP that controls the content of websites with .com, .net, .org TLD's? I don't think so. There are an awful lot of porn .com sites out there that are not being shut down.
EVEN if etoy WAS a porn site (which it is not), it should not have been suspended. Etoys the toy company, effectively had it "shut down" and wants it to change or stay shut down FOR THAT REASON.
(Of course that is they're "stated" reason.) Point is, they should not have that right because NO ONE ELSE has that right! (Regardless of ones opinions on porn.) [and the trademark thing is just plain stupid-there's no confusion of products.]
Even if etoy.com was a hard core porn site, etoys should have no moral or legal rights to do what they did. etoy.com is not bound by US laws. At most, US authorities might someday take it upon themselves selectively ban "incoming" material thru filtering techniques etc (which in itself would be a horrendous state of affairs), but there is no justification for suspending registration of the etoy.com domain. THEY HAVE NO FUCKING JURISDICTION. (Now slashdot will have to shut down for offensive language.)
The story you link to is from November. I heard this short little piece at about 7am Eastern today. It was just a brief piece like those given during the first 5 minutes of each hour. But, they probably heard about the "lawsuit" and then dug up the info from this old story. I can't find the piece on their site because they change that particular link each hour. It just really disturbed me because it just emphasised the "DVD copying program" that was put up on the internet...