...high school boys often have problems dealing with arousal during math lessions.
Is that supposed to be lessons or lesions. The former is disturbing, I enjoy math but not that much. The latter could be an interesting hypothesis of why some people just suck at math.
Of course, you just did exactly what I'm talking about, flow the dialog into the same old anti-RIAA thing.
What are you talking about? I pointed out factual errors that you made. I directly quoted you and pointed out, with a reference, that it is not true. And yet you state it again:
But the EFF has come to adapt a pro file-sharing-even-when-it's-copyrighted schtick, and that's when they got off track.
Please provide references for this. I've seen the EFF argue about changing copyright laws, but I've never seen them arguing that people should be allowed to violate copyright laws. You seem to be mixing the two concepts.
P.S. You should actually read the articles you reference. In the article the EFF clarifies the misquote you seem to have adopted yourself. They never said the RIAA should sue end-users, they said the RIAA arguments only make sense if they sue end-users. AFAIK, the EFF has never liked the idea of suing end-users, but realizes it is the law. It just shouldn't be.
To be fair, you can only say that it might be better.
No, it is clearly a better distribution system in terms of efficiency, cost, and convenience. (For example, see Eban Moglen's discussion of the topic.)
If the market is willing to pay what the seller's asking, then that's the price.
1. Have you never heard of a monopoly?
2. If a company (or group of companies) jacks up the price because people will pay it, that is by definitionover-inflated.
3. The price would be a lot cheaper if they fixed the business model and using modern technology. Right now, the recording industry benefits most by overspending. It makes money on both ends: performing recording services, and selling the recordings. Because of their monopoly on the sales, they benefit most by being inefficient in the recording services.
Unfortunately, gropus like the EFF want you to keep thinking about this as no more than a struggle with an Evil Oligopoly
Not true at all. Depending on who you talk to, the problem with the RIAA/MPAA isn't that they are trying to protect copyrights. The problems include:
They are trying to hang on to an archaic business model and distribution system.
They are trying to outlaw a better distribution system and technological progress.
They are trying to maintain overinflated prices.
They are using unethical tactics.
Money they "win" does not go to the artists.
Copyright law has been modified from its original intention to support maximizing corporate profits at the expense of public rights, progress, and costs.
If you actually read the EFF position on these sorts of things, you'd see that they have sound arguments against the RIAA and MPAA.
Limitations on free speech should not exist, unless the spoken words border on treason or racism.
I'm not sure how to take your comments. On the one hand, you say limitations on free speech should not exist, and then immediately give examples that are more restrictive than we currently have. It is perfectly legal to be racist and speak racist remarks. It's not clear what you mean by "border on treason" since some people considering complaining about your own country as treason, which is certainly legal.
So do you think the current limitations are reasonable or not? IMHO, these limitations generally make sense. Limiting speech that will likely create physical harm, or the fear of physical harm (such as uttering threats), seems to make sense. Can we really call ourselves civilized if we allow people to incite violence on individual and groups, create fear (e.g, talking about bombs in an airplane), or negligently cause harm to people (e.g. causing panic and stampeding by yelling "fire!".
In general, rights should extend only so far as to the point they cause (unreasonable) harm to others.
Basically, you can say whatever you want until someone considers it "hate speech"
That's not true. There are many examples of limitations of free speech, in both Canada and the U.S. Hate speech is only one of them. For example, it's illegal to joke about bombs in an airport, and you'd be charged for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Limitations on free speech must be shown to be reasonable and be an absolute necessity to protect individuals or groups from harm.
"Hate speech" only refers to speech that is intended to incite violence against individuals or groups. You can certainly claim that the Holocaust didn't happen (even if you'd be wrong). What you can't do is follow up with statements that Jews should be harmed for creating this "lie".
Many laws have been passed since then that undermine the Charter Of Rights.
Um, the Charter of Rights is Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982. It trumps any laws that have been passed since then. If they do undermine the Charter, they are, by definition, unconstitutional and hence void.
It may be that there are laws that do violate the Charter of Rights, but that only means their constitutionality hasn't been tested in court yet.
I didn't see anyone making that assumption. They are not mutually exclusive, but they also are not synonymous. Being driven by one will not likely get you the other except by luck or coincidence.
"Some guy in Topeka bought the new Britney Spears CD, so now we have the right to make copies of it." That's just not logical.
Actually, that is exactly the law in Canada right now. The guy in Topeka is not allowed to make a copy and give it to me (distribution), but I can borrow the CD and make a copy, or I can copy a copy of his CD (including MP3s). So it's legal for me download.
In fact, it does make (some) logical sense. This law was made to recognize the common act of making mixed tapes/CDs and sharing among friends. It is a recognition that sharing is not inherently immoral. (In fact, saying that sharing is immoral seems more illogical.) Sharing is something that should be encouraged. On the other hand, music creators need to make a living, so to (supposedly) compensate them, we pay a levy on recordable media.
This isn't a black & white issue. It's definitely a shade of grey.
Just what is a company supposed to do when designing computerized medical equipment? Hire a team of engineers to create everything from the operating system to the GUI front-end?
No, they use an existing OS that is designed for such mission critical applications (medical, cars, space, etc.). I don't like letting M$ (or others) off the hook for quality software, but clearly when people's lives are at risk the equipment designers need to choose the right software for the job, same as hardware.
Having said that, and acknowledging that IANAL, I'm pretty sure a EULA can't indemnify a software company from the law, same as the local bungy jump ride. If damage happened due to their negligence in circumstances where they should have responsibility, I think they can be held accountable. Using things for clearly marked unintended purposes probably is enough to clear them.
But that's the insurance company, not the manufacturer. The manufacturer could make more money if only the person who bought the car was allowed to drive it, meaning everyone else would have to buy their own cars.
Plus most driver insurance allows for lending the car to someone.
You may know what he paid, but you seem to fail miserably in knowing what he paid for
Perhaps that's true, but you failed miserably to understand the parent poster's point.
Whatever he paid, the EULA clearly states that it is the right to use on a single machine.
1. Is that one single machine at a time, or only installed on one machine? If I de-install it on one machine and then install it on another, does that meet the EULA? It seems to be, but it is very inconvenient. There's no operational difference with installing it on both and only using one at a time, except for the lack of the inconvenience. What about swappable HDD?
2. You are assuming EULAs are legally binding. AFAIK, that has not been demonstrated, and there's good reason to believe they aren't.
3. The conditions of the agreement cannot waive fair use rights, if they apply in this case. They might, but AFAIK it has never been tested.
Even if you are not distributing your *perfect copy* of my product to others, by buying one and using two, you have deprived me of an opportunity to sell you a second copy.
But this is not the basis of law, rights, fairness, and ethics. One could say the same thing about many items. Allowing people to play the media in more than one device deprives the creators from an opportunity to sell many more copies. Allowing a car to be driven by more than one person deprives the manufacturers from selling more cars. Maximizing opportunities to sell things should never be the driver for fair use rights or legalities of licenses. It's a lousy argument and not convincing at all.
Actually, it's been quite warm (for winter) here in Ottawa for a couple of weeks, around +8 C the last few days. It's been so warm that I saw condensation on an SCO lawyer's cold heart.
Um, Kazaa islegitimate. I'm not aware of any jursidictions in which it has been ruled illegal, but it certainly has been ruled legal. And common sense would say that just because it can be, or even often is, used illegally doesn't mean it is inherently illegitimate. It does have legitimate legal uses.
Kinda like CD-R manufacturers are making no attempt to curb illegal activities using their products. Or car manufacturers. Or gun manufacturers. Or knife manufacturers. Or chainsaw manufacturers. Or computer manufacturers. Or... oh, I give up. How about all manufacturers of products that can be used for illegal activities, which is just about everything.
You missed the point. You are stating that a judge will not be swayed by "the court of public opinion". That's not the point. The point is that the court of public opinion is at least as important in terms of the future of Linux, not the legal status of it. If the public, particularly business people and politicians, get the misguided opinion that Linux development is unscrupulous (e.g., under copyright or license violations), it will significantly hurt the spread of Linux in business and desktops, and even hurt the reputation of current users/vendors.
Please stop comparing relatively minor problems to the Holocaust.
This is a pet peeve of mine. Somebody makes a valid analogy for one point of comparison and then someone else, who doesn't understand the rules of logical reasoning, interprets it as meaning that all points are similar.
Nobody said that American society has become the same, or even remotely similar to Nazi Germany. Nobody said anything about the Holocaust. What was said was the way that Hitler convinced the Germans that Jews were the enemy is analagous to the way Bush convinced Congress (and the American people) that the PATRIOT Act was a good thing. And that way was "tactics".
While I find the description ("tactics") to be very vague, the analogy is valid. Hitler used "tactics" to convince the German people. Bush used "tactics" to convince the American people. Hell, you could say the same thing about a salesman selling you insurance. Analogies only compare specific points and nothing more.
I would have made the analogy a little more specific though. The "tactic" in both cases was playing on fears. First, you make someone very afraid and then convince them that your "product" will make them safer. It's an old tactic, and it tends to work. The problem is that people get really pissed off when they realize you've actually screwed them over.
You are referring to admissibility in court, and in fact it can be allowed if there is a past pattern of criminal behaviour similar to the current charge. But it does affect whether the cop believes the person, and it can contribute to probable cause for an arrest (if the believability that they committed the crime is the issue).
They don't have you in the jury box in order to decide policy
If that were true it still doesn't invalidate jury nullification. Laws are created for a purpose. But language is imperfect, and legislators don't alway have the foresight to understand all possible situations that may meet the wording of the law. (Just look at some of the DMCA cases.) There are cases where the defendent may have technically violated the wording of the law but not the original intent. People should not be punished because of imperfection in language and lack of foresight.
But even beyond that, juries are there to decide the guilt of a person, not whether they violated a law. Whether a person violated the law is not something that a layperson is very good at. Experts are much better at that. Whether the person deserves to be pushished is what citizen decide.
Honestly, I don't see why people would be too up in arms about this.
I think the general feeling is this is more like annoyance at stupidity (this approach will never work), inconvenience (may slow scanning, use up processing power, and more hard-drive space), and perhaps cost (programming effort must be paid for somehow -- by consumers).
That being said, there may be rights issues here. As far as I know, it is not illegal to scan in money. People might be denied an activity that they are legally allowed perform. Printing may be a different story but there are legal ways of printing pictures of money as well (undersized, oversized, etc.). The point is that this is an end-run around the lawmaking process. Instead of making law via the people's representatives (through legislation), corporations (banks, Adobe, etc.) and government agencies are making de facto laws by eliminating the possibility to perform even legal activities.
...can still do so optically
Um, you do realize that a scanner performs the scanning optically. They are basically cameras designed for close imaging. The only real difference between scanning imagers and cameras are the numbers for the specs. You could, in theory, stick a camera on translation table and make your own (low-quality) scanner.
So saying "windows is less secure than Linux" is bullshit.
No, not at all. It is very true. Yes, Windows can be somewhat secure, but in order to make it so you must be knowledgeable about the system. Even then, it still isn't as secure as Linux. From the other side, Linux is naturally more secure, and to make it less secure you have to be knowledgeable about the system (login as root, changing permissions, etc.). And even then, it'd be pretty hard (if not impossible) to make it as insecure as Windows.
These are opposites. In Windows you have to know more to become secure. In Linux, you have to know more to be insecure, and do so intentionally.
And the biggest point you are missing is that the mere act of "running Linux like Windows" is an intentional change in the default use of Linux to intentionally use it less securely (but running Windows like Windows is not an intentional change). This is equivalent to comparing a house with a cheap lock on the door to a building with a state-of-the-art security monitoring system and saying they are the same, because you can turn off all the security systems and run the state-of-the-art building the same as the house. Or, you can run the house like the secure building by adding a security system. They are not equivalent in terms of security, and it is bad logic to say they are.
Linux is inherently more secure. Mulitple independent analyses have shown it, some referenced in previous posts. I have yet to see any indpendent analysis (not paid for by Microsoft) that shows Windows is equal or better in terms of security. The only argument I've ever heard suggesting Windows is equal or better is because Linux source is openly available, plus your misguided argument. And neither of these hold up to scrutiny.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that supposed to be lessons or lesions. The former is disturbing, I enjoy math but not that much. The latter could be an interesting hypothesis of why some people just suck at math.
What are you talking about? I pointed out factual errors that you made. I directly quoted you and pointed out, with a reference, that it is not true. And yet you state it again:
But the EFF has come to adapt a pro file-sharing-even-when-it's-copyrighted schtick, and that's when they got off track.
Please provide references for this. I've seen the EFF argue about changing copyright laws, but I've never seen them arguing that people should be allowed to violate copyright laws. You seem to be mixing the two concepts.
P.S. You should actually read the articles you reference. In the article the EFF clarifies the misquote you seem to have adopted yourself. They never said the RIAA should sue end-users, they said the RIAA arguments only make sense if they sue end-users. AFAIK, the EFF has never liked the idea of suing end-users, but realizes it is the law. It just shouldn't be.
No, it is clearly a better distribution system in terms of efficiency, cost, and convenience. (For example, see Eban Moglen's discussion of the topic.)
If the market is willing to pay what the seller's asking, then that's the price.
1. Have you never heard of a monopoly?
2. If a company (or group of companies) jacks up the price because people will pay it, that is by definition over-inflated.
3. The price would be a lot cheaper if they fixed the business model and using modern technology. Right now, the recording industry benefits most by overspending. It makes money on both ends: performing recording services, and selling the recordings. Because of their monopoly on the sales, they benefit most by being inefficient in the recording services.
Not true at all. Depending on who you talk to, the problem with the RIAA/MPAA isn't that they are trying to protect copyrights. The problems include:
They are trying to hang on to an archaic business model and distribution system.
They are trying to outlaw a better distribution system and technological progress.
They are trying to maintain overinflated prices.
They are using unethical tactics.
Money they "win" does not go to the artists.
Copyright law has been modified from its original intention to support maximizing corporate profits at the expense of public rights, progress, and costs.
If you actually read the EFF position on these sorts of things, you'd see that they have sound arguments against the RIAA and MPAA.
I'm not sure how to take your comments. On the one hand, you say limitations on free speech should not exist, and then immediately give examples that are more restrictive than we currently have. It is perfectly legal to be racist and speak racist remarks. It's not clear what you mean by "border on treason" since some people considering complaining about your own country as treason, which is certainly legal.
So do you think the current limitations are reasonable or not? IMHO, these limitations generally make sense. Limiting speech that will likely create physical harm, or the fear of physical harm (such as uttering threats), seems to make sense. Can we really call ourselves civilized if we allow people to incite violence on individual and groups, create fear (e.g, talking about bombs in an airplane), or negligently cause harm to people (e.g. causing panic and stampeding by yelling "fire!".
In general, rights should extend only so far as to the point they cause (unreasonable) harm to others.
That's not true. There are many examples of limitations of free speech, in both Canada and the U.S. Hate speech is only one of them. For example, it's illegal to joke about bombs in an airport, and you'd be charged for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Limitations on free speech must be shown to be reasonable and be an absolute necessity to protect individuals or groups from harm.
"Hate speech" only refers to speech that is intended to incite violence against individuals or groups. You can certainly claim that the Holocaust didn't happen (even if you'd be wrong). What you can't do is follow up with statements that Jews should be harmed for creating this "lie".
Um, the Charter of Rights is Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982. It trumps any laws that have been passed since then. If they do undermine the Charter, they are, by definition, unconstitutional and hence void.
It may be that there are laws that do violate the Charter of Rights, but that only means their constitutionality hasn't been tested in court yet.
That doesn't require style sheets, just normal webpages.
I didn't see anyone making that assumption. They are not mutually exclusive, but they also are not synonymous. Being driven by one will not likely get you the other except by luck or coincidence.
Actually, that is exactly the law in Canada right now. The guy in Topeka is not allowed to make a copy and give it to me (distribution), but I can borrow the CD and make a copy, or I can copy a copy of his CD (including MP3s). So it's legal for me download.
In fact, it does make (some) logical sense. This law was made to recognize the common act of making mixed tapes/CDs and sharing among friends. It is a recognition that sharing is not inherently immoral. (In fact, saying that sharing is immoral seems more illogical.) Sharing is something that should be encouraged. On the other hand, music creators need to make a living, so to (supposedly) compensate them, we pay a levy on recordable media.
This isn't a black & white issue. It's definitely a shade of grey.
No, they use an existing OS that is designed for such mission critical applications (medical, cars, space, etc.). I don't like letting M$ (or others) off the hook for quality software, but clearly when people's lives are at risk the equipment designers need to choose the right software for the job, same as hardware.
Having said that, and acknowledging that IANAL, I'm pretty sure a EULA can't indemnify a software company from the law, same as the local bungy jump ride. If damage happened due to their negligence in circumstances where they should have responsibility, I think they can be held accountable. Using things for clearly marked unintended purposes probably is enough to clear them.
Plus most driver insurance allows for lending the car to someone.
Perhaps that's true, but you failed miserably to understand the parent poster's point.
1. Is that one single machine at a time, or only installed on one machine? If I de-install it on one machine and then install it on another, does that meet the EULA? It seems to be, but it is very inconvenient. There's no operational difference with installing it on both and only using one at a time, except for the lack of the inconvenience. What about swappable HDD?
2. You are assuming EULAs are legally binding. AFAIK, that has not been demonstrated, and there's good reason to believe they aren't.
3. The conditions of the agreement cannot waive fair use rights, if they apply in this case. They might, but AFAIK it has never been tested.
But this is not the basis of law, rights, fairness, and ethics. One could say the same thing about many items. Allowing people to play the media in more than one device deprives the creators from an opportunity to sell many more copies. Allowing a car to be driven by more than one person deprives the manufacturers from selling more cars. Maximizing opportunities to sell things should never be the driver for fair use rights or legalities of licenses. It's a lousy argument and not convincing at all.
For that I suggest just getting a standard handbook, like the CRC one. I use it almost daily.
Why choose? The answer is to have the root canal via a rectal exam.
Actually, it's been quite warm (for winter) here in Ottawa for a couple of weeks, around +8 C the last few days. It's been so warm that I saw condensation on an SCO lawyer's cold heart.
Um, Kazaa is legitimate. I'm not aware of any jursidictions in which it has been ruled illegal, but it certainly has been ruled legal. And common sense would say that just because it can be, or even often is, used illegally doesn't mean it is inherently illegitimate. It does have legitimate legal uses.
Kinda like CD-R manufacturers are making no attempt to curb illegal activities using their products. Or car manufacturers. Or gun manufacturers. Or knife manufacturers. Or chainsaw manufacturers. Or computer manufacturers. Or ... oh, I give up. How about all manufacturers of products that can be used for illegal activities, which is just about everything.
You missed the point. You are stating that a judge will not be swayed by "the court of public opinion". That's not the point. The point is that the court of public opinion is at least as important in terms of the future of Linux, not the legal status of it. If the public, particularly business people and politicians, get the misguided opinion that Linux development is unscrupulous (e.g., under copyright or license violations), it will significantly hurt the spread of Linux in business and desktops, and even hurt the reputation of current users/vendors.
But can it be used for channel surfing. That's the ultimate goal.
This is a pet peeve of mine. Somebody makes a valid analogy for one point of comparison and then someone else, who doesn't understand the rules of logical reasoning, interprets it as meaning that all points are similar.
Nobody said that American society has become the same, or even remotely similar to Nazi Germany. Nobody said anything about the Holocaust. What was said was the way that Hitler convinced the Germans that Jews were the enemy is analagous to the way Bush convinced Congress (and the American people) that the PATRIOT Act was a good thing. And that way was "tactics".
While I find the description ("tactics") to be very vague, the analogy is valid. Hitler used "tactics" to convince the German people. Bush used "tactics" to convince the American people. Hell, you could say the same thing about a salesman selling you insurance. Analogies only compare specific points and nothing more.
I would have made the analogy a little more specific though. The "tactic" in both cases was playing on fears. First, you make someone very afraid and then convince them that your "product" will make them safer. It's an old tactic, and it tends to work. The problem is that people get really pissed off when they realize you've actually screwed them over.
You are referring to admissibility in court, and in fact it can be allowed if there is a past pattern of criminal behaviour similar to the current charge. But it does affect whether the cop believes the person, and it can contribute to probable cause for an arrest (if the believability that they committed the crime is the issue).
If that were true it still doesn't invalidate jury nullification. Laws are created for a purpose. But language is imperfect, and legislators don't alway have the foresight to understand all possible situations that may meet the wording of the law. (Just look at some of the DMCA cases.) There are cases where the defendent may have technically violated the wording of the law but not the original intent. People should not be punished because of imperfection in language and lack of foresight.
But even beyond that, juries are there to decide the guilt of a person, not whether they violated a law. Whether a person violated the law is not something that a layperson is very good at. Experts are much better at that. Whether the person deserves to be pushished is what citizen decide.
I think the general feeling is this is more like annoyance at stupidity (this approach will never work), inconvenience (may slow scanning, use up processing power, and more hard-drive space), and perhaps cost (programming effort must be paid for somehow -- by consumers).
That being said, there may be rights issues here. As far as I know, it is not illegal to scan in money. People might be denied an activity that they are legally allowed perform. Printing may be a different story but there are legal ways of printing pictures of money as well (undersized, oversized, etc.). The point is that this is an end-run around the lawmaking process. Instead of making law via the people's representatives (through legislation), corporations (banks, Adobe, etc.) and government agencies are making de facto laws by eliminating the possibility to perform even legal activities.
Um, you do realize that a scanner performs the scanning optically. They are basically cameras designed for close imaging. The only real difference between scanning imagers and cameras are the numbers for the specs. You could, in theory, stick a camera on translation table and make your own (low-quality) scanner.
No, not at all. It is very true. Yes, Windows can be somewhat secure, but in order to make it so you must be knowledgeable about the system. Even then, it still isn't as secure as Linux. From the other side, Linux is naturally more secure, and to make it less secure you have to be knowledgeable about the system (login as root, changing permissions, etc.). And even then, it'd be pretty hard (if not impossible) to make it as insecure as Windows.
These are opposites. In Windows you have to know more to become secure. In Linux, you have to know more to be insecure, and do so intentionally.
And the biggest point you are missing is that the mere act of "running Linux like Windows" is an intentional change in the default use of Linux to intentionally use it less securely (but running Windows like Windows is not an intentional change). This is equivalent to comparing a house with a cheap lock on the door to a building with a state-of-the-art security monitoring system and saying they are the same, because you can turn off all the security systems and run the state-of-the-art building the same as the house. Or, you can run the house like the secure building by adding a security system. They are not equivalent in terms of security, and it is bad logic to say they are.
Linux is inherently more secure. Mulitple independent analyses have shown it, some referenced in previous posts. I have yet to see any indpendent analysis (not paid for by Microsoft) that shows Windows is equal or better in terms of security. The only argument I've ever heard suggesting Windows is equal or better is because Linux source is openly available, plus your misguided argument. And neither of these hold up to scrutiny.