This is the classic Robin Hood defense, and under American law, essentially worthless in court.
As far as I know, Sweden is a member state of the EU and US law doesn't apply there. In European Law (at least the Dutch law that I find easier to read that the Swedish) they make a difference between "infringement as business" and "infringement as private activity". It can make a factor 10 difference in punishment!
For slightly different reasons than you state I would not add a "or later" clause to the copyright notices in my programs. As copyright owner I can allways change the conditions for my open source distribution of my programs. I do trust that the FSF has the well being of Open Source in mind.
I will certainly read the GPL V3 and consider using it on new projects. (Or use an "this project can be distributed under the terms of the GPL V2 or GPL V3" clause.) Only when I find the text acceptable.
I'ld accept DRM when it doesn't interfere with my fair use as indicated in the offer by the content owner. If I license music (or movies,...) for an unlimited duration I demand that it is free of DRM limitations. It should just work without Internet connection, on any computer I own now and in the future; convertible to new data formats, and burned to CD, DVD or any other medium for backup or mobile use. On the other hand, if the offer is "view/listen once" or another limited period offer (All you can listen to for $x/month), I'ld accept reasonable DRM that works on my current computer.
If you've read the connexionbyboeing website a bit better: The plane has an 1 Mbit connection (or better). Unfortunately the data is routed via a satellite, so the link has pretty high latency.
One of my friends has downloaded a Knoppix CD on one of his transatlantic flights.
You can be sued for no reason (see SCO-IBM), but sane people and organisations (and that includes the *AA's) will only start suing when they think they have a case.
In most European countries downloading music and movies for private use is allowed; offering music and movies for download is seen as publication and illegal. "Sharing" is illegal in the US too, I am not sure about downloading. You will run some risks when your neighbour is running a file sharing program over your WAP.
If you can proof that your neighbour was sharing files over your link, that might convince an *AA to try next door. If you can not proof it, I am not sure how a judge will decide; your carelessness might be punished.
When you're talking about admissible evidence for criminal proscecution, the data in RAM certainly is admissible. It is a practical forensic problem to store the data on a non-volatile medium without destroying its value as evidence. People have been convicted on the basis of the contents of their swap partition.
When a computer forencist is involved in a raid, he knows what evidence he has to look for. He has a plan of attack. That could include forcing a crashdump of the RAM on a Unix server to analyse the processes that are running. A lot of incriminating information is found in the space that was taken up by deleted files.
Another way of obtaining incriminating information is from "third party" logfiles, network taps, etc. Doing as much investigation without the suspect knowing it.
I am not a computer forencist, but I applied for the job.
It could be used as defence by anyone downloading for personal use, that the "torrentspy" acted as agent for the copyright owner and implicitly gave permission for distribution of the torrent. Someone who starts a seed doesn't have that permission, so he still can be convicted.
IANAL, your local law may be different from mine. It is likely that copying without permission is an offence in your country too.
Recent distributions install a pretty secure Linux desktop with their standard installation. Activating the firewall is standard, as little network services as possible are activated. (You could consider disabling sshd.) Furthermore, you're encouraged to generate a user account for yourself during the installation procedure. Logging in as root via the GUI login is made difficult.
Most Linux distributions provide automatic updates. SuSE offers the feature to automaticly download and install security updates at a fixed time each day. On other distro's such a thing can be done with cron and a simple shell script. Here there is a big advantage that you don't need a reboot to update your applications. Only a kernel upgrade NEEDS a reboot.
Do you really need a cellphone that takes photos, emails, voice, and now video? Do you really need a MP3 players that play 10,000 songs? do you need to carry a PDA?
I don't need to carry my PDA; but I'ld hate to go back to carrying a dead tree agenda. There are a lot of experimental gadgets coming on the market now. The bad designs will die; some good designs will remain and be improved upon.
I can not predict how our personal electronic tools will look like in 10-20 years. I know that some of the current designs will seem hilarious then.
I don't see electrical engineers develop drugs. Good communication can save lifes too: Imagine that information about the reach of the latest tsunami had to be distributed by pigeons.
If you read the article: Greg Aharonian would like to get permission to store (legally obtained) code in a database to use it in checks for copyright infringement. I can see him getting that permission from the courts, even if the copyright owners don't like it.
My summary: A total removal of copyright protection is not asked (and will NEVER be granted by the courts; that's something for Congres.) Best case is that the courts declare some license conditions and DMCA clauses "non-binding", they put bounds on the rights software owners claim to have. (All the data on your computer is ours...) Most likely result: effectively nothing changes.
... a UNIFIED, distro, toolkit, and desktop environment independent hardware control panel.
If that should run on my server it MUST be a text-mode application...
Let's do it the Unix way and use command line driven configuration tools...
Don't we have that allready?
I suggest you seek advice from a lawyer before distribution material that you suspect might infringe a patent.
Patents are only valid in a single country and the details of patent law vary between countries. One of the differences is the validity of pure software patents. A German federal court ruled that "pure software patents" are unenforcible, while an UK appelate court ruled them enforcible. (That's why there is such a discussion in EU politics about software patents.)
You could emigrate to a country that does not allow software patents, write any code you like, GPL it and distribute it via a local ftp- or webserver. If people set up mirrirs for your software in other countries, they can get sued for patent infringement... So wicked is the current patent situation.
Courts move slowly. The court system tries to give everyone a fair chance in pleading his case. Unfortunately the latest court hearing http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200409151 9471739 didn't work out too good for SCO. It looks like IBM will get a positive decision on the first issue (Linux illegaly contains Unix code) in the case because SCO couldn't show any proof for it.
IBM has asked the court to decide on more claims and it looks like they will get those decisions too. So SCO has to think of something "NEW" to stay in the press in a "positive" way. The last thing SCO wants is losing quickly in Utah Federal Court.
That raises an interesting possibility for Novell. I wonder if they've thought about integrating their Unix copyrights into their Linux distribution and later suing other makers (and, heck, users) of Linux distributions for copyright infringement.
The moment Novell releases Unix code as part of Linux the Unix code will be distributable under the GPL. The Unix code has become part of Linux and the only way to distribute the whole is under the GPL. As copyright owner Novell will still be able to dual licence the same code to Sun, MS, etc.
Citing the GPL:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Expect OLED's to be very efficient. A few Watts of OLED should be enough to light your living room. They will use less power than the backlight of an LCD screen, An LCD without backlight will be more efficient though.
Interest[ing] move - sounds like Novell are interested in dodging the case without having the issue of copyrights decided.
Don't forget that SCO still acts as "licencing agent" for Novell with respect to the SystemV code. Novell has ongoing business relations with SCO. (And there are some issues on how to split Sun and MS licencing fees)
For years there had been idle speculation about how much stolen code (GPL or otherwise) was in Windows. Yet when the portions of Windows 2000 source code were leaked, MS was found to be squeaky clean.
Are there any official reports that confirm that?
How would anyone know that some code was copied from other closed source stuff?
Last but not least: Who would dare to admit in public that he illegally copied the Windows source code?
Fermion, I fully agree with your analysis. In my opinion (IANAP) there is only one logical explanation for spending the money: Collective paranoia in the MPAA.
But you need money to make quality TV. So if you would pool the money from two channels, there will be enough to make the "decent shows" that you are talking about. Otherwise people will have to run to the internet for DVD rips and cammed movies if they want to see something decent at a fair price. (Renting videotapes or DVDs is another commonly used option.)
See it as "voting with your feet" against the "broadcast crap"
that nobody has right to decide have I right to read something or not!
The copyright owner does.
The copyright owner has only limited rights on his creation. The moment he publishes the work he can not control further trade in the copies that he made. (And who gets to read/see/enjoy the work.)
why don't we see more reasonable personal computers (or blades servers) based upon this architecture.
I was an Acorn Archimedes user for more than 10 years (the workstation that the ARM was originally designed for) and they were great systems. Affordable, decent speed and good operating system.
Alas, they were not "PC-compatible" and at a certain time the Intel/AMD clones with Linux became much more attractive.
Somthing along the profile of the Psion Netbook or old (or new depending upon your perspective) Apple Newton (also ARM) would be very cool and useful.
Are you talking Sharp Zaurus? I'm eyeing one (If I could order them in the Netherlands...)
Slashdot Mirror
I will certainly read the GPL V3 and consider using it on new projects. (Or use an "this project can be distributed under the terms of the GPL V2 or GPL V3" clause.) Only when I find the text acceptable.
I'ld accept DRM when it doesn't interfere with my fair use as indicated in the offer by the content owner. ...) for an unlimited duration I demand that it is free of DRM limitations. It should just work without Internet connection, on any computer I own now and in the future; convertible to new data formats, and burned to CD, DVD or any other medium for backup or mobile use.
If I license music (or movies,
On the other hand, if the offer is "view/listen once" or another limited period offer (All you can listen to for $x/month), I'ld accept reasonable DRM that works on my current computer.
One of my friends has downloaded a Knoppix CD on one of his transatlantic flights.
In most European countries downloading music and movies for private use is allowed; offering music and movies for download is seen as publication and illegal. "Sharing" is illegal in the US too, I am not sure about downloading. You will run some risks when your neighbour is running a file sharing program over your WAP.
If you can proof that your neighbour was sharing files over your link, that might convince an *AA to try next door. If you can not proof it, I am not sure how a judge will decide; your carelessness might be punished.
I am pretty sure that the US Navy is attempting to plot a course to the Austrian coast for one if its battleships in an intimidation attempt. ;-)
When a computer forencist is involved in a raid, he knows what evidence he has to look for. He has a plan of attack. That could include forcing a crashdump of the RAM on a Unix server to analyse the processes that are running. A lot of incriminating information is found in the space that was taken up by deleted files.
Another way of obtaining incriminating information is from "third party" logfiles, network taps, etc. Doing as much investigation without the suspect knowing it.
I am not a computer forencist, but I applied for the job.
You forgot the most important aspect: It is a NINE WAY chip.
Nine processors on a single chip running at over 4GHz at introduction... *WOW*
IANAL, your local law may be different from mine. It is likely that copying without permission is an offence in your country too.
Most Linux distributions provide automatic updates. SuSE offers the feature to automaticly download and install security updates at a fixed time each day. On other distro's such a thing can be done with cron and a simple shell script. Here there is a big advantage that you don't need a reboot to update your applications. Only a kernel upgrade NEEDS a reboot.
My summary: A total removal of copyright protection is not asked (and will NEVER be granted by the courts; that's something for Congres.) Best case is that the courts declare some license conditions and DMCA clauses "non-binding", they put bounds on the rights software owners claim to have. (All the data on your computer is ours...) Most likely result: effectively nothing changes.
Not all members of an organisation are board members. I do guess that OSDL and Red Hat are just as surprised about the details of the deal as you are.
Let's do it the Unix way and use command line driven configuration tools...
Don't we have that allready?
Patents are only valid in a single country and the details of patent law vary between countries. One of the differences is the validity of pure software patents. A German federal court ruled that "pure software patents" are unenforcible, while an UK appelate court ruled them enforcible. (That's why there is such a discussion in EU politics about software patents.)
You could emigrate to a country that does not allow software patents, write any code you like, GPL it and distribute it via a local ftp- or webserver. If people set up mirrirs for your software in other countries, they can get sued for patent infringement... So wicked is the current patent situation.
IBM has asked the court to decide on more claims and it looks like they will get those decisions too. So SCO has to think of something "NEW" to stay in the press in a "positive" way. The last thing SCO wants is losing quickly in Utah Federal Court.
Citing the GPL:
Clear enough?Expect OLED's to be very efficient. A few Watts of OLED should be enough to light your living room. They will use less power than the backlight of an LCD screen, An LCD without backlight will be more efficient though.
And "encryption" is useless if you can not trust the supplier of your encryption software. (Or evaluate the weaknesses of his implementation.)
How would anyone know that some code was copied from other closed source stuff?
Last but not least: Who would dare to admit in public that he illegally copied the Windows source code?
Fermion, I fully agree with your analysis. In my opinion (IANAP) there is only one logical explanation for spending the money: Collective paranoia in the MPAA.
But you need money to make quality TV. So if you would pool the money from two channels, there will be enough to make the "decent shows" that you are talking about. Otherwise people will have to run to the internet for DVD rips and cammed movies if they want to see something decent at a fair price. (Renting videotapes or DVDs is another commonly used option.)
See it as "voting with your feet" against the "broadcast crap"
The copyright owner does.
The copyright owner has only limited rights on his creation. The moment he publishes the work he can not control further trade in the copies that he made. (And who gets to read/see/enjoy the work.)
Alas, they were not "PC-compatible" and at a certain time the Intel/AMD clones with Linux became much more attractive.
Are you talking Sharp Zaurus? I'm eyeing one (If I could order them in the Netherlands...)