Merchants who accept your Visa card which is unsigned (or is signed SEE ID) are in violation of Visa policies. Visa has specificially stated that cards signed with SEE ID must not be accepted for a transaction.
From a letter I received from Visa:
"Please be assured that merchants may not refuse to honor a Visa card simply because the cardholder refuses a request for supplementary information. The only exception is when a Visa card is unsigned when presented. In this situation a merchant must obtain authorization, review additional identification, and require the cardholder to sign the card before completing the transaction."
Did you read the law that was signed into law before posting? Of course not, in fine Slashdot tradition. No need to supply your email address if you own the copyright or have the permission of the copyright holder.
" (c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply:
(1) To a person who electronically disseminates a commercial
recording or audiovisual work to his or her immediate family, or
within his or her personal network, defined as a restricted access
network controlled by and accessible to only that person or people in
his or her immediate household.
(2) If the copyright owner, or a person acting under the authority
of the copyright owner, of a commercial recording or audiovisual
work has explicitly given permission for all or substantially all of
that recording or audiovisual work to be freely disseminated
electronically by or to anyone without limitation.
(3) To a person who has been licensed either by the copyright
owner or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner
to disseminate electronically all or substantially all of a
commercial audiovisual work or recording.
(4) To the licensed electronic dissemination of a commercial
audiovisual work or recording by means of a cable television service
offered over a cable system or direct to home satellite service as
defined in Title 47 of the United States Code.
(d) Nothing in this section shall restrict the copyright owner
from disseminating his or her own copyrighted material."
That isn't the actual text of the actual law that Ahnold signed.
The actual text says that, among others, the law does not apply:
"To a person who has been licensed either by the copyright
owner or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner
to disseminate electronically all or substantially all of a
commercial audiovisual work or recording."
Apple is exempted under this exclusion:
"To a person who has been licensed either by the copyright
owner or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner
to disseminate electronically all or substantially all of a
commercial audiovisual work or recording."
New laws need to be enacted that criminalize:
1) Robbing a bank without leaving a copy of your driver's license
2) Burglarizing a home without first obtaining a Burglarly License from the State of California
3) Removing your fingerprints from the scene of a crime
4) Failure to confess
You licensed the song from Apple, if it isn't Apple's job to tell you whether it is permissable for you to sell the song who's job is it?
It is, after all, a simple enough question.
At the very least this muddies the water for those who assert that copyright infringement is somehow "stealing".
Similar to the way people have salted web pages with phony email addresses to poison robots that scrape web pages for email addresses an effective way to poison the DMCA robots is to salt your web site with nonsense files with names the robots will pick up.
There is a procedure for contesting DMCA take down notices.
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~benjamin-chapman/c le/dmca_summary.htm
The "disabling" of their servers isn't thru any malicious act but the simple result of many people having set up their computers to automatically explore the website of any URL's sent to them in an email.
As the article points out, one of the dangers would be the use of this in a malicious denial of service attack engineered by sending out a spam message which includes URLs on the targeted system.
For example, sending out a penis enlargement spam that includes a Microsoft URL.
Actually it's quite clever. The spammers website would quickly have it's bandwidth consumed to the point where most automated accesses to it would timeout without actually consuming more than minimal bandwidth.
It's an automated, legal denial of service attack on not only the spammer but also on the ISP that hosts the spammer.
I like the idea, anything that drives up the cost of sending spam above the value derived from spamming is a good thing.
I'd also like to see some automated poisoning of things like mortgage solicitations. This type of spam is really intended to simply get your name, address and phone number which are then sold to mortgage brokers for further solicitation. The mortgage brokers pay $10-50 for these lists of name, if the lists were filled with automated junk information the value to the mortgage brokers would quickly drop to zero and this type of spam would drop to zero.
Many years ago I used to buy large quantities of dead harddrives from Gateway Computers. I took the logic boards off every one of them and using a known good logic board and a known good drive I'd quickly figure out which logic boards were good and which drives were good. Combine good with good and I'd usually end up with a nice pile of working drives which I resold on Usenet for a nice profit.
The dead drives I would either RMA back to the manufacturer or sell as dead drives.
That was back when a good drive was worth $1/MByte and I was buying dead ones for 10 cents/MByte.
As a side note, all those dead drives used to be someone's good drive and naturally all their files and data were still on the drives.
Slashdot Mirror
Merchants who accept your Visa card which is unsigned (or is signed SEE ID) are in violation of Visa policies. Visa has specificially stated that cards signed with SEE ID must not be accepted for a transaction.
From a letter I received from Visa:
"Please be assured that merchants may not refuse to honor a Visa card simply because the cardholder refuses a request for supplementary information. The only exception is when a Visa card is unsigned when presented. In this situation a merchant must obtain authorization, review additional identification, and require the cardholder to sign the card before completing the transaction."
Did you read the law that was signed into law before posting? Of course not, in fine Slashdot tradition. No need to supply your email address if you own the copyright or have the permission of the copyright holder. " (c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply: (1) To a person who electronically disseminates a commercial recording or audiovisual work to his or her immediate family, or within his or her personal network, defined as a restricted access network controlled by and accessible to only that person or people in his or her immediate household. (2) If the copyright owner, or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner, of a commercial recording or audiovisual work has explicitly given permission for all or substantially all of that recording or audiovisual work to be freely disseminated electronically by or to anyone without limitation. (3) To a person who has been licensed either by the copyright owner or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner to disseminate electronically all or substantially all of a commercial audiovisual work or recording. (4) To the licensed electronic dissemination of a commercial audiovisual work or recording by means of a cable television service offered over a cable system or direct to home satellite service as defined in Title 47 of the United States Code. (d) Nothing in this section shall restrict the copyright owner from disseminating his or her own copyrighted material."
That isn't the actual text of the actual law that Ahnold signed. The actual text says that, among others, the law does not apply: "To a person who has been licensed either by the copyright owner or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner to disseminate electronically all or substantially all of a commercial audiovisual work or recording."
Apple is exempted under this exclusion: "To a person who has been licensed either by the copyright owner or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner to disseminate electronically all or substantially all of a commercial audiovisual work or recording."
Try reading the law that was actually enacted
New laws need to be enacted that criminalize: 1) Robbing a bank without leaving a copy of your driver's license 2) Burglarizing a home without first obtaining a Burglarly License from the State of California 3) Removing your fingerprints from the scene of a crime 4) Failure to confess
The power connector can be seen right next to the IDE connector. It's not a standard ATX power connector.
You licensed the song from Apple, if it isn't Apple's job to tell you whether it is permissable for you to sell the song who's job is it? It is, after all, a simple enough question. At the very least this muddies the water for those who assert that copyright infringement is somehow "stealing".
With a wireless 802.11g card and the ability to play back a ripped DVD it would make a great video jukebox.
Similar to the way people have salted web pages with phony email addresses to poison robots that scrape web pages for email addresses an effective way to poison the DMCA robots is to salt your web site with nonsense files with names the robots will pick up. There is a procedure for contesting DMCA take down notices. http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~benjamin-chapman/c le/dmca_summary.htm
The "disabling" of their servers isn't thru any malicious act but the simple result of many people having set up their computers to automatically explore the website of any URL's sent to them in an email. As the article points out, one of the dangers would be the use of this in a malicious denial of service attack engineered by sending out a spam message which includes URLs on the targeted system. For example, sending out a penis enlargement spam that includes a Microsoft URL.
Actually it's quite clever. The spammers website would quickly have it's bandwidth consumed to the point where most automated accesses to it would timeout without actually consuming more than minimal bandwidth. It's an automated, legal denial of service attack on not only the spammer but also on the ISP that hosts the spammer.
I like the idea, anything that drives up the cost of sending spam above the value derived from spamming is a good thing. I'd also like to see some automated poisoning of things like mortgage solicitations. This type of spam is really intended to simply get your name, address and phone number which are then sold to mortgage brokers for further solicitation. The mortgage brokers pay $10-50 for these lists of name, if the lists were filled with automated junk information the value to the mortgage brokers would quickly drop to zero and this type of spam would drop to zero.
Many years ago I used to buy large quantities of dead harddrives from Gateway Computers. I took the logic boards off every one of them and using a known good logic board and a known good drive I'd quickly figure out which logic boards were good and which drives were good. Combine good with good and I'd usually end up with a nice pile of working drives which I resold on Usenet for a nice profit. The dead drives I would either RMA back to the manufacturer or sell as dead drives. That was back when a good drive was worth $1/MByte and I was buying dead ones for 10 cents/MByte. As a side note, all those dead drives used to be someone's good drive and naturally all their files and data were still on the drives.