First, some disclaimers: IANAL, IANAA, IANAAL (I am not a lawyer, an Australian, or even an Australian Lawyer)
As I am not an Australian, I cannot speak for your people, your government or your political parties. However, in any republican government, and Australia and the US would seem to qualify, governing will always boil down to special interest politics. Governing is a complex task, and one of the benefits of having small, vocal minorities is that they do the enormous amount of highly specialized research on the issues for the representatives. In a way, its one of the few things that keeps the process of governing from becoming overloaded.
What you have to realize is that on the issues like DMCA-style legislation, the world breaks down into three categories- a special interest that really wants strong 'IP' laws (media conglomerates, monopolistic software titans, etc) , a special interest that really doesnt want them (slashdot geeks, libertarians, eff members) and the largest group out there: the completely apathetic/ignorant. Now, given that the vast majority of the represented dont care one way or the other which way their representatives go on this issue, which would you chose? The small special interest that posts stories on a web page all day or the small special interest offering you, not just campaign contributions, but a trade agreement that could bring both $ and jobs to your community.
That doesnt make it right, but until "we the people" wake up and actually start to care in the US, the place to fight this is the courts. I'd assume that to be a good place in Australia, Canada and the UK as well.
Van Allen comments that 'the only surviving motivation for continuing human spaceflight is the ideology of adventure.'
What about the ideology of escape. When the not-so gentle beings of Cerisia Minor decide that human gonads are a delicacy, I intend to be very far from here, thank you very much.
I agree with you that now is not the time to sell SCOX short. Back when this sad lawsuit propelled their stock to a new multi-52 week high would have been great.
Dont be too quick to rule out short sells. Remember that the price of a stock falls, as a general rule, three times faster than it rises (fear trumps greed;) ), so short selling a stock can be a quick way to make a profit off of the crowd-following masses.
That said, you do have to be careful with selling short- when you buy, the worst case is that you lose your principal. In a short sell, the worst case is the stock price rises instead of falling, and your broker hits you with a margin call. You now either have to put more $$$ in your account, or your broker will buy you out at a loss. In short, you lose twice as much- your principal and your margin. Repeat after me: always set stops to minimize losses, and only adjust them when the market moves in your favor.
Short selling is a tool- just because it drives nails instead of sanding wood doesnt mean it cant prove useful. Just watch your thumbs.
I cant get your numbers to tie out, and I think I know why. The 24.6m shares are those being offered in the IPO, not the total number of outstanding shares.
Doing the P/E calculation using the market cap over earnings yields a P/E over 100. (36.25B / 350M = 103.6 Estimated)
Disclaimer: I work for Morgan Stanley, but am not involved in any way shape or form with the IPO.(I'm a programmer, not an analyst, whos hobby happens to be finance) Don't trade based on my opinion unless you like losing money.
"We are also introducing a new ticketing scheme designed to allow us to 'red flag' potential terrorists." Stone went on to detail the program, which, in addition to the 'economy', 'business' and 'first-class' tickets we have come to expect, would introduce a new 'terrorist' class ticket. "The terrorist class seating is closest to the cockpit, and is comprised of fold-down seats, since for most of the flight they'll be on their feet brandishing ak47s and boxcutters." said Stone. "Naturally, we will watch anyone purchasing a 'terrorist class' ticket very carefully."
I for one applaud Director Stone's new program- this should be at least as, if not even more, effective than asking for birthdates and addresses!
Nah, the scientists had it spayed and neutered after it started "marking" all their computers. Nothing mixes so well as solid state electronics and robocat urine.
A good point- all of their plans are very windows-centric. Linux et al may be the last hold outs, 'til it becomes illegal to use a 'non-trusted' computing device.
I dont for one second believe that they will allow free and unincumbered copying and I have proof- I was just down stairs, and I checked the temperature in hell- there was no freeze.
Seriously though- the issue for the *AA is not the copies or even the volume of copies distributed- its the idea that copying and distributing is quickly becoming something you dont need a recording/producing company to do for you, for mega-middleman-bucks. Its all about the control, stupid.
Nor do I believe the MPAA is more ethical simply because it hasnt taken the hardline approach of its sister organization, the RIAA. The only reason for this is that the threat posed to their cartel by information systems is much smaller. Consider the bandwidth requirements of transferring a movie vs an mp3. If we ever get fiber to the home, we'll see how they feel about copying for fair use rights.
Rember kids, what these people would love to set up is legislation whereby every time you hit "control-c", it hits your checking account for $XY.99. In doing so, they garner virtual veto power over the entire information systems industry. Oh I am so sorry little internet startup, you can't market your product, because it might help someone make an illicit copy! What part of "This will destroy the US economy" don't they get?
I dont know what you people find so funny about all this. This is a truely great development. Many a time have I been out someplace, when I got a hankerin' for some Mexican Attorney General, only to have to go without because I could find any. Problem solved.
While the comment you post in regard to is clearly meant to amuse more than inform, I dont think it can be qualified as unfair.
Saying IE does stuff well compares its feature set with its security. Just as a browser with no feature set but an extremely secure setup will not do well in the marketplace, a browser that has a good feature set but no reasonable degree of security should fail as well. That it doesnt is a product of 3 things: bundling, ignorance, and OS incorporation.
By ignorance, I don't mean that the average user of IE is too stupid to install Mozilla, etc. I mean that the average user of IE doesnt follow computer trends, and even when these stories hit the mainstream media, remains unaware of the problem, because its not their focus, and they dont understand the implications. Until the problem actually manifests itself on their box, they dont understand how it affects them specifically.
By bundling, I mean that IE is installed by default on any new windows install. This in part preys upon the end user's ignorance- ignorance of the risk, its implications, and alternatives to IE coupled with the fact that IE is there, already, 0 effort required by default make for a dangerous situation where the end user fails to take pre-emptive action. If IE wasnt there, if the user had to consciously go out and select a browser, you might see a higher degree of end users doing even a brief amount of homework to make the best choice they can.
By incorporation, I mean that IE is now part of the OS. That was a design choice by MS. You cannot claim that the "browser is ok" but the bundling is broken. This design choice has led to a feature-rich browser capable of doing massive amounts of damage to your systems and information, with no easy fixes possible without a major re-write. And its vendor assumes no responsibility- something unheard of in any other industry known to mankind (with the possible exception of the 19th century snake-oil sales industry).
Bundling and incorporation allowed MS to destroy any semblence of competition in the browser market for nearly three years. The browser war is back, driven largely by the very security flaws brought about by the design choices that led to IE being the dominant browser.
Let me give you an example: I'm gonna sell you a car. Heck I'll even give it to you for free if you buy this house I am selling. Its got a folding steel hard top, 350 horse engine that runs on non-polluting fuel, can go 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, seats four, has the best warranty in the country, and has been continuely rated a "best buy". Oh, but there's one thing, sometimes when its in your garage, malicious people can make it explode remotely, taking your whole house down. But lets be fair- there are things that it does really well!
You might check out paintball guns called "Real Action Markers"- theres only a few models, and one company making them, but basically its a clip-fed paintball gun that looks like an M4 carbine or glock 17. I dont own one- realistics like these are illegal in the NYC area, probably having something to do with how cops might respond to a 911 call reporting a warehouse full of kids armed with machine guns.
The little welt left by a 6mm bb can be hidden, but its a bit harder to cover up the splat made by a.40 or.43 paintball.
I didnt notice it taking alot of bandwidth from my site, probably because we dont have alot of videos for it to download.
I did notice the forum activity though. It comes in just as often as the regulars. It wasnt a problem til it got involved in an anti-MS flame-war though. Jeez- talk about malware- some of the things it said were just plain mean.
A complete change in Congress is extremely hard to do, by design. Congressional elections happen every two years, but with only 1/3 the members involved in each election. Couple that with incumbancy re-election rates of over 95%.... you get the picture.
One huge, huge, HUGE fact is that who ever is president in the next four years will undoubtedly be nominating one, possibly two supreme court justices. Who would you rather give that pleasure to, GW Bush, or J Kerry? I think laws like the USAPATRIOT Act and the DMCA stand a much better chance of being shot down by the court than by modification in Congress. Vote accordingly slashdotters.
Failed business models? If someone is stealing from your store, you don't have a failed business model... I love you way you guys try to justify stealing...
First, its not stealing- stealing is a legally defined term, and violating copyrights doesnt fit that definition. It is however "copyright violation," which is a completely different crime.
The business model of distributing digital information on a physical media is dead as, to use the classic slashdot example, the buggy whip manufacturing industry. When little Susie downloads Britney's latest "hit", shes paying exactly fair market value for it- that is a whopping $0.00. The value of a perfect digital copy in the modern computer age is approximately zero. The only reason copyright holders (note I dont say artists) still charge $12.99 and up for a CD full of perfect digital copies, is because the use of copyright law artificially limits supply.
Does this mean artists wont have incentive to create? No. Artists will still make a living the way they have for centuries before and during the age of recordings- by sponsorship and charging for live performances. In the modern computer era, it really sucks to be in the business of distributing digital media- because copies are so easy to make as to be almost worthless. That, unfortunately for Sony, Time-Warner, et al, is just the way the cookie crumbles.
What is it about filesharing that is so immoral it demands to be illegalized? Nothing- other than a bunch of really wealthy companies used to make a lot of money by artifically regulating the supply.
In an age when a senator's loyalty can be bought for around $50k in campaign contributions, its not enough to simply cry "Its Illegal!" and damn all the millions of people who actively engage in filesharing daily. The sheer numbers of people involved demands that we examine why this is still illegal.
I am afraid that you hit the nail right on the head with that comment.
The bill doesn't set up new criminal or civil penalties for those who "induce" copyright violations, but it creates a new class of people who can be sued or prosecuted for copyright infringement -- those who a "reasonable person" would believe "intentionally aids, abets, induces or procures" copyright violations. The "reasonable person" standard is a broadening of the standard that usually applies to contributory or vicarious copyright infringement...
Name any internet application that sends data between points A and B that doesnt "aid, abet, induce or procures" (NOTE the OR) copyright violation. Essentially, this bill would expose any computer technology firm, any programmer, any hobbyist, to vinidictive lawsuits from an intrenched media industry. Essentially, this gives the *AA "veto" power over new communications technology development in this country.
Since all internet/communications development will be at risk inside the US, all of this development will be moved outside of the US. In case you have been asleep for the last 15 years, this industry is the cornerstone of the explosive economic growth enjoyed by the US. Senator Hatch et al would like that all to end, just so the *AA and their extremely wealthy member corporations can salvage their failed business model.
For this reason, not necessarily alone, is this bill extremely bad for all Americans. Write these jerkwads, especially if you live in their states, and express your displeasure with their attempts to destroy your nation's currently very fragile economy.
Sorry for not including citations of cases, but I believe the courts have held that email users have no expectation of privacy when sending mail over others systems (I think most pertained to University systems, but dont quote me). In fact, this makes sense- SMTP is inherently insecure, from a privacy perspective. If you want to compare it to snail mail, imagine mailing private letters with no envelope. Anyone between point A and B can read it. You cant complain if you later learn the postman read it when he was bored.
That said, you must take the case in context- all that was ruled here was that a (technologically speaking) ancient wire tapping law didnt apply to this specific case of email, because the message was stored in RAM, not actually in transport. If the company had been snooping on packets coming from *your* mail server, I suspect the result might have been different. Further, no other law was tested here- the case was solely over this wiretap law.
In a perfect world, no one would do this, and we'd all be sending encrypted mails anyway. What should be required is a privacy policy clearly stating the administrator's policy on email reading (ala Gmail), so that the educated consumer may choose the provider most suitable for his/her needs. If a company wants to read your mail in exchange for a free gig of mail space, I whole heartedly believe that to be within their rights, providing they are upfront about it. That this provider gave no warning of it was a non-issue as far as the case was concerned- only the wire tap law was ever used.
Given the context of the case in regards to the wire tap laws, and the history of expectation of privacy in email, this ruling shouldnt suprise anyone. What we should be doing is pushing for European-style privacy acts and some sort of required disclosure for service providers pertaining to email snooping.
I also dont see this as a danger to the common carrier status of ISP's-if indeed they ever had this status with regard to email. This ruling is very specific, and does not mandate that ISPs *must* read their users mail, only that if they do, they arent in violation of a specific wire-tap law. I believe what we have here is a judge who just refused to legislate from the bench.
Just as with any crime, the crime of spamming would have to be investigated and tried. I am not saying the system cannot be gamed, but doing so involves gaming the legal system as well.
To use your example, the case of a disgruntled spammer plying his trade with the express intention to get a business in trouble, there wouldnt be the necessary paper and money trail a conviction would require. In this case, it would be the spammer himself who is guilty, though hes guilty of alot more (fraud, trademark violations, etc). Nor am I saying not to go after the spammer- but in this case it would be as a conspirator. The person who hires a contract killer is just as guilty of murder as the person who pulls the trigger- and both are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
Clearly the standard of proof cannot be "We got alot of complaints." Does this make spamming harder to prove? Yes- but no more so than other white collar crimes. You have to follow the paper- the people who use spammers are doing it in a for profit enterprise that has a vested interest in staying on the side of the law- its really hard to make a good profit from prison. Paper and money change hands, and that creates even more paper in the hands of third parties.
The international ramifications are more troubling, but again no more troubling than with other white collar crimes. A french company need not adhere to US laws, unless it wants to sell and ship its products to the US. Unless treaties are in place to handle this, you would have a tough time getting french authorities to investigate spamming for the US government. Barring their products from the country would certainly be a huge incentive for nations to get together and figure out how to handle such claims in advance. I dont pretend to be a lawyer, but I bet similar agreements are in place, possibly through the WTO, for other more traditional white collar crimes.
"Unfortunately, that's closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten out."
I happen to agree with you, but apart from the goverment employing psychics floating together in a giant bathtub dreaming about spammers sending mails in the future, theres really no means to proactively regulate against spamming. Various technical measures have been proposed, and invariably, are shot down right here on/.
I think a better solution, and I am not the first to propose this, is to target the business using the spammer to advertize. If advertising by mass intrusive emailing was illegal- punishable by a stiff fine, or even imprisonment for serious repeat offenders, spam from US companies would no longer be profitable. Dealing with foreign businesses is not as simple, but the government can effectively bar access to the marketplace for a business that doesnt adhere to our advertising laws. Want your stuff to clear customs? Better not spam. Get enough credit card refunds for deliveries that never get off the boat, and their income source will dry up faster than you can say "H3RB4L V14GR@!!!1!!!"
Any legal action taken must be taken after the spam is sent, recieved, complained about, and investigated. We should leave the barn door open by default, but not hestate to slam it shut if the horse proves he cant be trusted with this freedom.
"Implementing such a request risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating," wrote Thomas J. McIntyre, chief in the Justice Department's office for information requests.
Translation, for any non-techies visiting today:
"Implementing such a request risks a scandal in the President's Administration that cannot be spun and could result in a major loss of a national election, which would be devastating."
Seriously folks, I firmly believe that another four years under this administration threatens our physical security, as well as our civil liberties. I'm not one to usualy cry "Special Interests!", but this is exactly the kind of data that must be made public for a democratic republic to work. December is just too late to allow voters to make an informed decision, but I suspect thats the point.
I am afraid that you seriously over estimate the interest level and attention span of Mr. Joe Six-pack, and his wife Mrs. Mandy Wine-spritzer. The fact of the matter is that the bulk of the American populace will never understand that the ability to copy a program from DTV or other DRM'ed media is trivial- trivial were it not for unnecessary and often ineffective encryption and draconian laws making their circumvention, even for generally recongnized "fair use rights", a felony.
The Media conglomerates are not going to point out to Joe and Mandy that many of the "fair-use" rights they have enjoyed (the ability to make personal use copies, to time-shift, etc) will be dropped like a pair of panties at a frat party. Oh no- we will get to hear about all the "features" and improvements in the quality of picture, etc. Couple this with the fact that there will be *NO LEGAL ALTERNATIVE*, and Joe and Mandy will be in Best Buy selling their souls just to be able to see who gets voted off the island this week.
Don't believe me? Try this- buy a new DVD player, and plug it into your VCR, and then try an watch a DVD. Guess what- you get intentionally crappy picture quality. This is by design, and Joe and Mandy havent been slamming Senator Robert Six-pack (R, Iowa) with letters expressing their concern.
Joe and Mandy are willing to trade their rights, not even for a little security (as far as I can tell they get *NOTHING*), simply because they have no idea the right was ever theirs.
This all stems from a misinterpretation of "fair use rights". I don't have the right to make a copy of that CD as a back up- I have the right to be protected from litigation if I do so. There is NOTHING illegal about a CD manufacturer designing the product in such a way that its reproduction is impossible. All my fair use rights guarantee me is that if some how I can make a copy, I can't be sued for it. (Of course if I break an encryption scheme to do so, I have violated the DMCA, and will burn in eternal damnation for having transgressed the laws of Mickey)
Slashdot Mirror
First, some disclaimers: IANAL, IANAA, IANAAL (I am not a lawyer, an Australian, or even an Australian Lawyer)
As I am not an Australian, I cannot speak for your people, your government or your political parties. However, in any republican government, and Australia and the US would seem to qualify, governing will always boil down to special interest politics. Governing is a complex task, and one of the benefits of having small, vocal minorities is that they do the enormous amount of highly specialized research on the issues for the representatives. In a way, its one of the few things that keeps the process of governing from becoming overloaded.
What you have to realize is that on the issues like DMCA-style legislation, the world breaks down into three categories- a special interest that really wants strong 'IP' laws (media conglomerates, monopolistic software titans, etc) , a special interest that really doesnt want them (slashdot geeks, libertarians, eff members) and the largest group out there: the completely apathetic/ignorant. Now, given that the vast majority of the represented dont care one way or the other which way their representatives go on this issue, which would you chose? The small special interest that posts stories on a web page all day or the small special interest offering you, not just campaign contributions, but a trade agreement that could bring both $ and jobs to your community.
That doesnt make it right, but until "we the people" wake up and actually start to care in the US, the place to fight this is the courts. I'd assume that to be a good place in Australia, Canada and the UK as well.
From the FA:
What about the ideology of escape. When the not-so gentle beings of Cerisia Minor decide that human gonads are a delicacy, I intend to be very far from here, thank you very much.
I agree with you that now is not the time to sell SCOX short. Back when this sad lawsuit propelled their stock to a new multi-52 week high would have been great.
Dont be too quick to rule out short sells. Remember that the price of a stock falls, as a general rule, three times faster than it rises (fear trumps greed ;) ), so short selling a stock can be a quick way to make a profit off of the crowd-following masses.
That said, you do have to be careful with selling short- when you buy, the worst case is that you lose your principal. In a short sell, the worst case is the stock price rises instead of falling, and your broker hits you with a margin call. You now either have to put more $$$ in your account, or your broker will buy you out at a loss. In short, you lose twice as much- your principal and your margin. Repeat after me: always set stops to minimize losses, and only adjust them when the market moves in your favor.
Short selling is a tool- just because it drives nails instead of sanding wood doesnt mean it cant prove useful. Just watch your thumbs.
I cant get your numbers to tie out, and I think I know why. The 24.6m shares are those being offered in the IPO, not the total number of outstanding shares.
Doing the P/E calculation using the market cap over earnings yields a P/E over 100. (36.25B / 350M = 103.6 Estimated)
Disclaimer: I work for Morgan Stanley, but am not involved in any way shape or form with the IPO.(I'm a programmer, not an analyst, whos hobby happens to be finance) Don't trade based on my opinion unless you like losing money.
Also from the article:
I for one applaud Director Stone's new program- this should be at least as, if not even more, effective than asking for birthdates and addresses!
Nah, the scientists had it spayed and neutered after it started "marking" all their computers. Nothing mixes so well as solid state electronics and robocat urine.
A good point- all of their plans are very windows-centric. Linux et al may be the last hold outs, 'til it becomes illegal to use a 'non-trusted' computing device.
I dont for one second believe that they will allow free and unincumbered copying and I have proof- I was just down stairs, and I checked the temperature in hell- there was no freeze.
Seriously though- the issue for the *AA is not the copies or even the volume of copies distributed- its the idea that copying and distributing is quickly becoming something you dont need a recording/producing company to do for you, for mega-middleman-bucks. Its all about the control, stupid.
Nor do I believe the MPAA is more ethical simply because it hasnt taken the hardline approach of its sister organization, the RIAA. The only reason for this is that the threat posed to their cartel by information systems is much smaller. Consider the bandwidth requirements of transferring a movie vs an mp3. If we ever get fiber to the home, we'll see how they feel about copying for fair use rights.
Rember kids, what these people would love to set up is legislation whereby every time you hit "control-c", it hits your checking account for $XY.99. In doing so, they garner virtual veto power over the entire information systems industry. Oh I am so sorry little internet startup, you can't market your product, because it might help someone make an illicit copy! What part of "This will destroy the US economy" don't they get?
Some other "cat-like" behavior they forgot to mention:
I dont know what you people find so funny about all this. This is a truely great development. Many a time have I been out someplace, when I got a hankerin' for some Mexican Attorney General, only to have to go without because I could find any. Problem solved.
This will finally curb the menace of Japanese school children once an for all!
All that is necessary for Japanese school children to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
While the comment you post in regard to is clearly meant to amuse more than inform, I dont think it can be qualified as unfair.
Saying IE does stuff well compares its feature set with its security. Just as a browser with no feature set but an extremely secure setup will not do well in the marketplace, a browser that has a good feature set but no reasonable degree of security should fail as well. That it doesnt is a product of 3 things: bundling, ignorance, and OS incorporation.
By ignorance, I don't mean that the average user of IE is too stupid to install Mozilla, etc. I mean that the average user of IE doesnt follow computer trends, and even when these stories hit the mainstream media, remains unaware of the problem, because its not their focus, and they dont understand the implications. Until the problem actually manifests itself on their box, they dont understand how it affects them specifically.
By bundling, I mean that IE is installed by default on any new windows install. This in part preys upon the end user's ignorance- ignorance of the risk, its implications, and alternatives to IE coupled with the fact that IE is there, already, 0 effort required by default make for a dangerous situation where the end user fails to take pre-emptive action. If IE wasnt there, if the user had to consciously go out and select a browser, you might see a higher degree of end users doing even a brief amount of homework to make the best choice they can.
By incorporation, I mean that IE is now part of the OS. That was a design choice by MS. You cannot claim that the "browser is ok" but the bundling is broken. This design choice has led to a feature-rich browser capable of doing massive amounts of damage to your systems and information, with no easy fixes possible without a major re-write. And its vendor assumes no responsibility- something unheard of in any other industry known to mankind (with the possible exception of the 19th century snake-oil sales industry).
Bundling and incorporation allowed MS to destroy any semblence of competition in the browser market for nearly three years. The browser war is back, driven largely by the very security flaws brought about by the design choices that led to IE being the dominant browser.
Let me give you an example: I'm gonna sell you a car. Heck I'll even give it to you for free if you buy this house I am selling. Its got a folding steel hard top, 350 horse engine that runs on non-polluting fuel, can go 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, seats four, has the best warranty in the country, and has been continuely rated a "best buy". Oh, but there's one thing, sometimes when its in your garage, malicious people can make it explode remotely, taking your whole house down. But lets be fair- there are things that it does really well!
I dont know how exactly, but I'm sure the coming switch of poles is Bush's fault. It'll probably be in Michael Moore's next movie.
For the literal minded amung us, I'm kidding. I'm still not voting for the moron though.
You might check out paintball guns called "Real Action Markers"- theres only a few models, and one company making them, but basically its a clip-fed paintball gun that looks like an M4 carbine or glock 17. I dont own one- realistics like these are illegal in the NYC area, probably having something to do with how cops might respond to a 911 call reporting a warehouse full of kids armed with machine guns.
The little welt left by a 6mm bb can be hidden, but its a bit harder to cover up the splat made by a .40 or .43 paintball.
I didnt notice it taking alot of bandwidth from my site, probably because we dont have alot of videos for it to download.
I did notice the forum activity though. It comes in just as often as the regulars. It wasnt a problem til it got involved in an anti-MS flame-war though. Jeez- talk about malware- some of the things it said were just plain mean.
A complete change in Congress is extremely hard to do, by design. Congressional elections happen every two years, but with only 1/3 the members involved in each election. Couple that with incumbancy re-election rates of over 95%.... you get the picture.
One huge, huge, HUGE fact is that who ever is president in the next four years will undoubtedly be nominating one, possibly two supreme court justices. Who would you rather give that pleasure to, GW Bush, or J Kerry? I think laws like the USAPATRIOT Act and the DMCA stand a much better chance of being shot down by the court than by modification in Congress. Vote accordingly slashdotters.
First, its not stealing- stealing is a legally defined term, and violating copyrights doesnt fit that definition. It is however "copyright violation," which is a completely different crime.
The business model of distributing digital information on a physical media is dead as, to use the classic slashdot example, the buggy whip manufacturing industry. When little Susie downloads Britney's latest "hit", shes paying exactly fair market value for it- that is a whopping $0.00. The value of a perfect digital copy in the modern computer age is approximately zero. The only reason copyright holders (note I dont say artists) still charge $12.99 and up for a CD full of perfect digital copies, is because the use of copyright law artificially limits supply.
Does this mean artists wont have incentive to create? No. Artists will still make a living the way they have for centuries before and during the age of recordings- by sponsorship and charging for live performances. In the modern computer era, it really sucks to be in the business of distributing digital media- because copies are so easy to make as to be almost worthless. That, unfortunately for Sony, Time-Warner, et al, is just the way the cookie crumbles.
What is it about filesharing that is so immoral it demands to be illegalized? Nothing- other than a bunch of really wealthy companies used to make a lot of money by artifically regulating the supply.
In an age when a senator's loyalty can be bought for around $50k in campaign contributions, its not enough to simply cry "Its Illegal!" and damn all the millions of people who actively engage in filesharing daily. The sheer numbers of people involved demands that we examine why this is still illegal.
I am afraid that you hit the nail right on the head with that comment.
Name any internet application that sends data between points A and B that doesnt "aid, abet, induce or procures" (NOTE the OR) copyright violation. Essentially, this bill would expose any computer technology firm, any programmer, any hobbyist, to vinidictive lawsuits from an intrenched media industry. Essentially, this gives the *AA "veto" power over new communications technology development in this country.
Since all internet/communications development will be at risk inside the US, all of this development will be moved outside of the US. In case you have been asleep for the last 15 years, this industry is the cornerstone of the explosive economic growth enjoyed by the US. Senator Hatch et al would like that all to end, just so the *AA and their extremely wealthy member corporations can salvage their failed business model.
For this reason, not necessarily alone, is this bill extremely bad for all Americans. Write these jerkwads, especially if you live in their states, and express your displeasure with their attempts to destroy your nation's currently very fragile economy.
It needs a better name. One that characterizes its functionality, and portability.
Let me be the first to suggest "omni-pr0n-sent."
Sorry for not including citations of cases, but I believe the courts have held that email users have no expectation of privacy when sending mail over others systems (I think most pertained to University systems, but dont quote me). In fact, this makes sense- SMTP is inherently insecure, from a privacy perspective. If you want to compare it to snail mail, imagine mailing private letters with no envelope. Anyone between point A and B can read it. You cant complain if you later learn the postman read it when he was bored.
That said, you must take the case in context- all that was ruled here was that a (technologically speaking) ancient wire tapping law didnt apply to this specific case of email, because the message was stored in RAM, not actually in transport. If the company had been snooping on packets coming from *your* mail server, I suspect the result might have been different. Further, no other law was tested here- the case was solely over this wiretap law.
In a perfect world, no one would do this, and we'd all be sending encrypted mails anyway. What should be required is a privacy policy clearly stating the administrator's policy on email reading (ala Gmail), so that the educated consumer may choose the provider most suitable for his/her needs. If a company wants to read your mail in exchange for a free gig of mail space, I whole heartedly believe that to be within their rights, providing they are upfront about it. That this provider gave no warning of it was a non-issue as far as the case was concerned- only the wire tap law was ever used.
Given the context of the case in regards to the wire tap laws, and the history of expectation of privacy in email, this ruling shouldnt suprise anyone. What we should be doing is pushing for European-style privacy acts and some sort of required disclosure for service providers pertaining to email snooping.
I also dont see this as a danger to the common carrier status of ISP's-if indeed they ever had this status with regard to email. This ruling is very specific, and does not mandate that ISPs *must* read their users mail, only that if they do, they arent in violation of a specific wire-tap law. I believe what we have here is a judge who just refused to legislate from the bench.
Just as with any crime, the crime of spamming would have to be investigated and tried. I am not saying the system cannot be gamed, but doing so involves gaming the legal system as well.
To use your example, the case of a disgruntled spammer plying his trade with the express intention to get a business in trouble, there wouldnt be the necessary paper and money trail a conviction would require. In this case, it would be the spammer himself who is guilty, though hes guilty of alot more (fraud, trademark violations, etc). Nor am I saying not to go after the spammer- but in this case it would be as a conspirator. The person who hires a contract killer is just as guilty of murder as the person who pulls the trigger- and both are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
Clearly the standard of proof cannot be "We got alot of complaints." Does this make spamming harder to prove? Yes- but no more so than other white collar crimes. You have to follow the paper- the people who use spammers are doing it in a for profit enterprise that has a vested interest in staying on the side of the law- its really hard to make a good profit from prison. Paper and money change hands, and that creates even more paper in the hands of third parties.
The international ramifications are more troubling, but again no more troubling than with other white collar crimes. A french company need not adhere to US laws, unless it wants to sell and ship its products to the US. Unless treaties are in place to handle this, you would have a tough time getting french authorities to investigate spamming for the US government. Barring their products from the country would certainly be a huge incentive for nations to get together and figure out how to handle such claims in advance. I dont pretend to be a lawyer, but I bet similar agreements are in place, possibly through the WTO, for other more traditional white collar crimes.
- Tom"Unfortunately, that's closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten out."
I happen to agree with you, but apart from the goverment employing psychics floating together in a giant bathtub dreaming about spammers sending mails in the future, theres really no means to proactively regulate against spamming. Various technical measures have been proposed, and invariably, are shot down right here on /.
I think a better solution, and I am not the first to propose this, is to target the business using the spammer to advertize. If advertising by mass intrusive emailing was illegal- punishable by a stiff fine, or even imprisonment for serious repeat offenders, spam from US companies would no longer be profitable. Dealing with foreign businesses is not as simple, but the government can effectively bar access to the marketplace for a business that doesnt adhere to our advertising laws. Want your stuff to clear customs? Better not spam. Get enough credit card refunds for deliveries that never get off the boat, and their income source will dry up faster than you can say "H3RB4L V14GR@!!!1!!!"
Any legal action taken must be taken after the spam is sent, recieved, complained about, and investigated. We should leave the barn door open by default, but not hestate to slam it shut if the horse proves he cant be trusted with this freedom.
Translation, for any non-techies visiting today:
Seriously folks, I firmly believe that another four years under this administration threatens our physical security, as well as our civil liberties. I'm not one to usualy cry "Special Interests!", but this is exactly the kind of data that must be made public for a democratic republic to work. December is just too late to allow voters to make an informed decision, but I suspect thats the point.
I am afraid that you seriously over estimate the interest level and attention span of Mr. Joe Six-pack, and his wife Mrs. Mandy Wine-spritzer. The fact of the matter is that the bulk of the American populace will never understand that the ability to copy a program from DTV or other DRM'ed media is trivial- trivial were it not for unnecessary and often ineffective encryption and draconian laws making their circumvention, even for generally recongnized "fair use rights", a felony. The Media conglomerates are not going to point out to Joe and Mandy that many of the "fair-use" rights they have enjoyed (the ability to make personal use copies, to time-shift, etc) will be dropped like a pair of panties at a frat party. Oh no- we will get to hear about all the "features" and improvements in the quality of picture, etc. Couple this with the fact that there will be *NO LEGAL ALTERNATIVE*, and Joe and Mandy will be in Best Buy selling their souls just to be able to see who gets voted off the island this week. Don't believe me? Try this- buy a new DVD player, and plug it into your VCR, and then try an watch a DVD. Guess what- you get intentionally crappy picture quality. This is by design, and Joe and Mandy havent been slamming Senator Robert Six-pack (R, Iowa) with letters expressing their concern. Joe and Mandy are willing to trade their rights, not even for a little security (as far as I can tell they get *NOTHING*), simply because they have no idea the right was ever theirs. This all stems from a misinterpretation of "fair use rights". I don't have the right to make a copy of that CD as a back up- I have the right to be protected from litigation if I do so. There is NOTHING illegal about a CD manufacturer designing the product in such a way that its reproduction is impossible. All my fair use rights guarantee me is that if some how I can make a copy, I can't be sued for it. (Of course if I break an encryption scheme to do so, I have violated the DMCA, and will burn in eternal damnation for having transgressed the laws of Mickey)