The reason the RIAA wants to use the DMCA for subpoenas is that they can pick and choose who they target.
You make it seem as if they're picking out random names and rolling with that. I don't know the cases in particular which have gone to court, but if they had enough evidence, then they had enough evidence.
Since they don't have to file suit to run someone in, they can pick an undesirable person and parade them around publicly as some sort of miscreant who is stealing from the hard working musicians, technicians, and record executives.
So a thief is not a miscreant? Musicians, record execs, and technicians, are they not hardworking? This is rubbish to blame the (what is it) 'greedy' songwriters. Do you know that not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth. The artists are certainly going to want to protect themselves against thieves because after all, any way you cut it, someone is stealing. Sure it is not the same concept of a physical theft, but nevertheless the music is indeed getting stolen.
So let's put this in perspective layman terms now. Some college e-tard decides to place 30 albums online well let me knock this down to 2 albums which by far is low. Each album costs (low crackhead price) $5.99, and he is getting about 1000 connections. Now without factoring in those who will in turn place the song right back up to burn, $5990.00 has now been stolen from the recording industry. Multiply this up to 100 albums per year $599,000.00 but this is only for 1000 connections mind you, Kazaa has what 2million users? Let's be fair and say only 1% did this
you would have 20k users multiplied by the crackhead price of $5.99 per album and you have
$11,980,000.00 in losses. But don't worry we'll turn this into a 'hell no we won't go' situation online simply because the record companies want to be paid for their creations.
The tactic of any defense suit should be to challenge the DMCA on fourth amendment grounds.
Are you nuts? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized How is this an unreasonable search and seizure when someone is stealing? I could see if no warrants were issued, and there was no proof, but the facts remain if someone is stealing they deserve to be charged, and those willing to use the shield of the constitution to hide illegal actions should be slapped with a rotten fish.
Nowhere in the US constitution is the right to subpoena, search, and seize given to corporations or their representatives.
Corporations are shielded read on:
WHAT IS A CORPORATION?
A corporation by definition an "artificial person", a legal fiction, let's call him Ersatz Ernie, created immortal by men (and the government that charters it). The purpose is to reduce tax liability, raise money through stock sales, and to protect the personal assets and otherwise limit the liability of the human founders in the event of civil or criminal wrongdoing.
HOW DO THEY FUNCTION?
For corporations to work, they need to be endowed with the "rights" of property ownership and the ability to engage in contracts. But while we humans evidently claim to have figured out how to create artificial life, we have certainly not figured out how to endow little Artificial Abbott, Ltd., with a soul, or a conscience, or a moral code. Corporations "live" for one purpose: profit. They consume natural resources and human labor in the process. (source)
I have always preferred the idea of targeting individuals who were infringing rather than mass lawsuits against "P2P", which was their tactic until recently. The method for doing this s
The RIAA is demanding that ISPs and universities provide it with the names and addresses of users who distribute copyrighted music online so it can sue these users for copyright infringement.
I know I will end up getting mod'ed the hell down to hell, but it needs to be said. I for one do not support the RIAA in fact I have some fuck the riaa t's however, I don't see nothing wrong with them wanting to be paid for their material. If you were on the receiving end you would too. I could see where they would go to certain uni's being that few e-diots mess a good thing up for whorish purposes, eg drive more traffic to their site or pretend to be doing for the 'cause'. Whichever case it is still illegal, and their is no excuse for someone to be sharing 10,000 songs.
Boston College and MIT challenged the RIAA's subpoenas on narrow technical grounds, arguing that the RIAA had filed its subpoenas in Washington, DC, instead of Massachusetts.
This in itself is a shaky comeback for MIT, and Boston College considering if some law was broken cross state lines, and mind you the DA's will look at the fact downloads occurred all over the world. Law is law anywhere in the US, I don't know when it stopped being so.
However, the music industry is pursuing music piracy with strong arm tactics and subpoena powers that far exceed those available against violent criminals.
Highly doubtful. Because the RIAA is taking steps to fight for what they think is right, gives no one the right to knock them for it. It's the same as if someone started badmouthing *geek*world for spending so much time on this issue. We feel it's right so we protest, the RIAA feels they're right so they do so as well. Kind of hypocritical to make that statement. But to compare the RIAA tactics and those which pertain to violent criminals, there is not one case of a swat team surrounding any student with guns drawn or the FBI or CIA or any other agency going gung ho over this crap.
Has it ever occurred to people that while protesting can at times be used for the better, at times it can also can major negative impacts on the actual thing being protested. Think about it, if I got a little ticked off that some lawyer is comparing this with violent crime, what do you think average joe is going to think.
In today's news, the MA National Guard was called in to remove a student trading MP3's... This guys reference to hardcore crime on this topic is outrageous, and leads me to believe he is simply looking for sympathy for his cause. Pretty lame, and shows his case is weak.
As for the Hispano qualification, it was to ward off your eventual "Oh you arrogant White Anglo American you think that everyone should buy your products" And you just knew I was spanish and would say that? Seems like you have a complex. No it didn't bother me, I think it's sad to see minorities use 'but I'm a minority' as a crutch all the time. It's rather boring and oh so yesterday
See you kicked yourself in the ass with your mode of thinking porque yo tambien so hispano...
If America is allowing this to happen (unfair trade) practices, why would I be upset at Brasil? I would be upset that my country didn't do right to correct the issue. I don't want to get into this too much because your comment: White guilt (and before you get all liberal angered, I'm Hispanic)? was way off. So much so I lost respect after I had thought it would be a good thread.
Let's say you worked for a company that made a product that you exported. How happy would you be when that country decided to make their own?
No one would be happy, but the tone sounds as if you would like to have something of a monopoly on a product. Let's change this to cars for a second. We all like cars and some of us depend on it for livelihood. You see car A that does everything you want, has been loyal to you for years, etc. You stick with it. Even if car B suddenly comes out touting the same trustworthiness would you be quick to dump car A for car B? I would hope not. Now supposing car B is better, it's cheaper, more efficient, would you keep throwing your money away? I would hope not.
Would you jump up and down in sheer happiness for them before that trip to the umnemployment office? Or would the grim reality of just losing a customer set in? Then how would you feel when Brazil starting importing THEIR products here?
Before I answer this let me just snip this out of your comments: products are just that, products. Capitalism is the selling of products for financial gain. Financial gain is what pays employees You've managed to answer your own thread without even realizing it did you know that. Capitalism sometimes keeps companies on their toes, and searching for the next big thing. Would you rather have innovations spawned or the same old boring deck of cards? Refer to my car example since I think it's as plain as black and white. Now if you want my thoughts on another subject oh say... Buy American? I'll take the bait on that too. It is my money and I will spend it on what works for me. Whether or not people agree with this statement it is my hard earned money, so jumping into the car theme again, if a Japanese car works better than an American one, then I'm all for it.
Why would Sun want to make Solaris freely available? Why would Brasil want to buy more proprietary hardware from the US?
If Sol made Solaris free, eventually somewhere down the line hardware will hav to be purchased as you can only upgrade for so long. Sun could benefit by offering low cost hardware to accomodate some of the fundamentals of Brazil like their gov. for their infrastructure, and their Univ. which in turn as many have seen could possibly produce those willing to give back to Sun via way of programming.
You`ve missed the whole point of what Brasil is trying to do here: native support, native distro, native jobs and IT industry.
Uh no I caught on to this, but they're going to have to start with a foundation somewhere along the line. They aren't going to just pop software and hardware out of the woodwork. Helping Sun or FSF in general (what I should have stated) is good for both Brasil, and for Sun/FSF doesn't necessarily mean Sun and I should have thought about that before I posted it, however I am at home on a Sun which is what made me think of it.
Even open source leaders like Red Hat
Pardon me for not agreeing with you on RH being a leader, I see them as capitalizing on the Linux movement of the late 90's and turning something neat into a future horror similar to MS. I'm not ready to go into an OS war with anyone, but the more I look at RH, the more I see the original MS corp. I see them as trying to muscle too fast. Just my opinion though. Yes I use Linux at home too I have a Slack box, and a BSD (Free) machine, and a Win laptop here too so please don't take anything as OS trolling. Simply stating my opinion.
I would imagine that Brasil is more than willing to go `low-tech` on some of their infrastructure as long as it is free or homegrown: they don`t need Lotus notes, email will do; they don`t need Oracle 9i, PostGreSQL will do, etc.
Problem with homegrown is they are going to need the foundation as stated above, unless they are going to start entirely from scratch which I doubt. Choosing something like Linux or BSD is a good thing, and choosing Sol for say 64bit machines is also good unless they intend on staying in a 32 bit world forever. Sol does have its pluses against Linux, and BSD so don't be so quick to toss it aside.
Here is how I think it may stimulate the economy a bit. Brazil's population was 155.82 million in 1995 according to their Embassy's stats, so for argument's sake let's say it still is 155 million. Let's take one percent and say that they buy software. This would be 1,550,000 buying say MS at a very low price of 50.00 (US). That would equal $77,500,000.00
Now what if instead of spending that money on MS bs, they took that money and opened up research labs to develop products of their own. Wouldn't you say somewhere down the line, they would be better off if they could make revenue by saving on software as opposed to throwing it out the window. So how does it stimulate the economy? Well money could be shifted elsewhere that's how, it doesn't necessarily have to be using some notion that free software itself is going to generate revenue now. It sure does however make sense to make the switch. Maybe your sense of perception isn't on a business level who knows.
1) House of Representatives will NOT renew MS-Office licenses, but is looking at free software alternatives, 2) The free software parliamentary front was announced in congress,
So German government stated they were making the switch in 2001, China is making a switch, who's next. Could spell big trouble for MS' revenue considering China, and Brazil are just HUGE. This could be a break for Sun Microsystems though if they would do something with Solaris under x86 ala Linux or BSD. (freely downloadable I meant to say).
3) The e-mail system of the house of representatives is being replaced by a free software one,
Damnit, with the mention of another hole found in Sendmail I hope it wasn't that.
4) The federal government is looking at concrete measures to stimulate free software as means of saving money and stimulating the national software industry.
rants page): Let's say that OS #1 costs a small company $499.99 for about 10 licenses, we'll call this company Foobar Incorporated. Foobar incorporated is now getting pounded with about 20 virii per year, and it takes their administrators about 20 minutes per machine to update the operating system every time something new causes chaos on the network.
Either way you decide to do the math, it is going to be costly. Place 2 administrators in Foobar Inc., and have them patch up the system at a total cost of 100 minutes per person for the update. 20 minutes per machine multiplied by 10 machines divided by two administrators, we'll now give these administrators $10.00 per hour and the cost for this one instance is $33.33 for this one instance. $666.66 per year, for this one company. So how many small companies are there? Should we be generous and say 10 million? $6,666,660,000.00 in lost revenue.
These figures are only on viruses, not program crashes, not system downtime, strictly salary. Sure I know some geek wizard is going to scrutinize this be my guest... There are pros and cons to free software being you won't necessarily receive great tech support for it as opposed to some (note I said some*) companies tech support.
Now before someone unloads the holy grail of follow ups, I said *some* tech support. We all know that certain unnamed companies blow when it comes to tech support, but remember not everyone is going to browse through sites like kernel.org, nor jump on IRC for support. Many endusers still prefer pretty to geek.
SDF: Well, when Internet was borne, viruses already existed, I remember I got a Pong virus on my AT computer. By that time people were already talking about producing anti-virus software. Today Pong, is not anymore a threat as all ?trained computers? (read: with an anti-virus installed) are immune from it. In this view, the only way to make a complicate system strong, is to train it with a constant flow of threats. It might seem a paradox but this is how it is.
This is definitely an outrageous statement coming from a professional. Consider that viruses that humans get as opposed to computer viruses, are not created. Now we all know that some have been created, but not to the extent of computer viruses. How responsible would it be for the Center for Disease Control to create viruses unleash them with the monicker "Hey we did it for your immune system. Is this guy insane. Remember that people rely on electricity, so stop to think about all of the emergency rooms that had no power. Stop to think about surgeons in the middle of surgery who had power zapped on them due to a virus.
ZH: So you are saying that virus writers have their own role in the Internet system.
SDF: Absolutely.
This leads me to believe that some of these scientist create viruses and unleash them to the general public. Anytime I see this guy's name mentioned anywhere near the word government I would hope he is not under contract with them in any shape fashion or form for his lack of ethics.
To think virus writers have a purpose is the most ludicrous statement I've heard to date. Does this moron have a clue as to how much money companies spend in downtime due to some e-diots writing shit nobody wants on their systems. Does this e-diot have any idea how much time admins have to spend fixing machines, not to mention software developers working double time for a fix. What the hell is the net coming to?
A few years back I did an interview with a virus writing group called shadowvx
While all the rage is on viruses and backdoors, would you care to explanation as to what
exactly it is your members do? One not too familiar with the scene would think most virus
coders are evil pricks out to rm -Rf/* the world. Whats your guys description of the
virii field?
Well, many virus coders do not agree to destructive payloads now. The idea of a virus is
to spread. What is the use of a virus that infects a computer and formats it's hdd? In
effect it is killing itself... not the best idea if it wants to spread no?
With regards to what ShadowvX members do, we code viruses that incorporate new or
existing virus techniques. We try to code viruses with things like ICQ spreading or
virus networks. Only a few of our codes have made it into the wild, but they had to be
released. Ya know, new techniques, lets see how far up the AV "Dangerous" list we can
get:] We make it a policy though that no code gets released unless all members agree
it should. And we ain't no evil pricks either... we are like you guys, doing what we do
to prove that computers are too relied upon these days...
Back Orifice, Netbus, Melissa, Tuxissa, ILOVEYOU, were plain and simply maliciously coded
virii, we know some virii coders assist companies like Symantec, AVP, etc, whats your
outlook on the creators of these program like Melissa, etc.?
Well, with Melissa it certainly showed MS a few things. Most of the code that gets
released are to show or exploit vulnerabilities in software or hardware.. it just seems to
only happen with MS software.
My view on these types of coders is no different from how I view other virus coders. They
want to create something and show that humans rely too much on computers now a days. rest of interview
Anyway, my thoughts for one are, wouldn't someone who works for an antivirus company have a biased opinion being that the more people create a virus, the more money his company would make? Give me a break. Viruses are nothing more than annoyances which serve no purpose whatsoever, no matter how you want to look at it. Developers of software should take more precautions when releasing code to ensure these viruses dont become epidemics like SobigF was, knocking off the electric grid. For anyone to claim that a virus is good coming from a corporation, he deserves to be canned. The statement he made about being infected to be cured is irresponsible. Should someone die because some medical equipment malfunctioned due to some power outtage that was cause by a virus for the sake of find an antidote? I think not.
As long as we are imagining things, how about this: You labor very hard (and independently!) on a graphical app only to find that a large corporation has a patent on "a method for conveying the intention for an action to occur on a graphical display" (ie. clicking your mouse). Who's fucked now?
Spare me. This protest isn't someone personal protesting it's a group, and they're making it seem as if little boy blue is being targeted for assimilation. There's an old saying 'the early bird gets the worm' and I hold firm to that saying. As for the protest, take a look yourself and see who is organizing it, if they'd get on track instead of letting big businesses jump in before they did, they wouldn't have that problem now would they. So you honestly believe removing the patents for software will make things better? Are you kidding imagine the field day companies would have stealing each others' codes.
Again, how would you like it if someone stole something from you, something you ALREADY developed, not something you had in mind, which someone may have beaten you to the punch with. It's a boring conversation, because there are no facts only opinions either way you cut the cake. In my opinion which means nothing to anyone but myself, I feel it's a bad move in the long run, and eventually will just lead to large scale theft. Sure you have instances where things get fucked up, that there is called life (don't tell anyone I told you the big secret now it's between you and me).
Remember that corporations can trivially afford to patent anything which does not have prior art whereas your small inventor cannot.
Why can't a small inventor, is there someone holding a gun to his head while he walks into the patent office? Oh wait you're going to shoot back with a 'he has no money' or so comment. Well let me put it like this, if I believed in it, I would borrow the money for it, work overtime to get money, I would get it done by all means. So please oh please come back with that argument.
In short: Read the fucking protest page and think. Please.
As an additional (or alternative) action, people are encouraged to participate in an online demonstration that day, replacing the main page of their website with a text explaining the dangers of introducing unlimited patentability in Europe
Whoever wrote this should think twice before they word something. I took this as a call to hackers to replace their (meaning the people they're protesting against) webpage.
Oh well now onto my oh so eloquent commentary which is worth nothing... Why would anyone want to do something as moronic as protest the patent laws? Suppose you labor extremely hard to create something, it took so much of your time, might have cost you a marriage, every single penny in your account, and someone comes and swipes it from under your feet what would you do? Without patenting there wouldn't be much you could do now could you.
Look laws are sometimes unfair, in fact take a look at some historical quotes:
"Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but lets wasps and hornets break through" Swift 'A treatise essay upon the faculties of the mind'
"Wherever law ends tyranny begins." Locke 'Civil Government'
No one ever said the laws were perfect but trying to remove them is plain dangerous. Maybe tweaking them for kinks is a better idea, and in certain cases a judge should have the discretion to make decisions based on experience and ethics, instead of allowing miscarriages of justice to happen.
Having some country throw patent ideas out is rather lame, and in the long run is only going to hurt those who innovate more than anyone else.
As for this:
As an additional (or alternative) action, people are encouraged to participate in an online demonstration that day, replacing the main page of their website with a text explaining the dangers of introducing unlimited patentability in Europe
Doesn't make much sense. A body of people asking to close their websites to protest. As if people should lose money over something that sounds rather interesting on the outside, but in-depth makes no sense? I would rather pass on it. What will be protested after? Bandwidth usage that connects to the site which offended someone. Sure let's block Amazon's whole CIDR why not.
seriously though why even bother jumping out there with news like that considering we haven't even tasted 10ghz chips. I wonder how much of this is just coprorate hypeage (nice bushism there). Think about it for a second, is this going to be future google cache, this technology? Ever notice when something here is touted as the next *in* thing, it ends up as nothing more than storage space on google's cache servers. Instead of talking about it, release the thing. Besides I need to compile quicker than the eye can handle. In fact no only do I want to be able to compile and run things faster, I want me machine jacked into my brain to do the work for me.
I've run heavy sites with postfix when I worked at a service access provider once. We had about 5k domains (notice I typed domains... users = ? don't have an idea) on each server (back then was a VAR501) running on postfix without a problem. QMail is alright but I notice the load gets heavy a bit so it's not good for like legacy systems at least in my opinion.
Sendmail.. ugh. Remember that old comment, if you've got nothing nice to say? At least they gave out free sendmail swiss army knives once!
uh let's go over your concept. Sure bandwidth costs money but is your ISP charging you more to receive spam? I highly doubt this, and if they are, and you are paying more than you're the fool. Now coming from the level of working at an ISP, that's what access lists are for on routers and it would take less than 5 minutes to block address that send this as opposed to rambling on about it. Wanna throw in spoofing? Sure I'll even answer this. While spammers may spoof source addresses, I've yet to see any spoof IP addressing, and for those who can spoof IP addresses, those too can be blocked, and you as an ISP admin should take the necessary precautions to ensure no one is spoofing outside of your network, since it proves administrative incompetence.
regardless it's the same concept how much did it cost you to hit the d in mutt or.. how much would it cost you to filter this. Same way some states have issued a registration to go to, to register for no calls from telemarketing agencies, you would have to take the initiative. What do you think a telemarketing agency wont call you up. What if, as on the internet, there were 20million telemarketing companies do you expect not to get so many calls?
I hear this same argument time and time again, and let me restate I hate spammers, yet I don't see what the big deal is, it didn't hurt me, annoying sure it is, so are the billboards all over the place that I didn't ask to see. So what I'm not gonna protest it, gather 1million people and whine to a judge knowing damn well I could do something about it. That's moronic, and asking for government to step in because you cannot handle your affairs. Yet many want to bitch when governments want to step in and regulate other shit. Oh please.
Now wouldnt you stop sending out spam if people were threatening to kill you or just making threats. Look I hate spam just as much as the next guy, but I know how to install spam filters and on a wc -l of procmail i get a count of +1000. Now... People should also understand that spam like anything else is a business, there is no difference in someone leaving a menu in front of your door, yet you don't see millions protesting against it.
Before anyone flames or trolls this down, be realistic for a minute here, and I in no way am trying to justify anyone's actions, just stating facts. Does anyone protest when the menu guys flood your doorstep? No... What about when Target or some other megaconglomerate sends bs in the mail that you didn't ask for? doubtable. Spam is no different. Want to give me cost ratios go ahead and I'll do a breakdown in sanitation costs if you think mail and menus cost nothing. Not to mention a possible fine you could get for having litter you didnt leave in front of your house.
So ask yourself, if you were in a business and were told how to run it which was against the way you were running it, wouldn't you leave, what if someone was threatening you because it does happen wouldn't you quit while you were ahead too?
Ahh jello biafra and H2K. I don't remember any tea but I do remember Mary Jane... Good old Mary Jane and my friend Joker aka Dutchmaster aka Philly aka Bambu. Ahh those memories!!!
Congress will smile in your face while sticking it to you. What makes you think that if someone was willing to coyly place a couple of hundred thousand in the pocket of some congress*person*, that congress*person* (male/female) is not going to either take it, or seriously contemplate taking it. This is not to say that every last one of those in congress are schemers, but you have to understand, there is no guarantee that anyone will be in office the next term, so many times this feeds into the minds of those who take it.
Besides what do you think is really going to happen to them? Jail... Rarely. Look at the case of Torricelli Jersey, walked away scott-free, iisshhtt happens whether people like it or not, and making it illegal will only make *contributors* find other methods of getting people money. Offshore accounts, business trips, et. al. Congress*people* are human (I think) and as animals, humans do what they can to survive. Some methods might be more shallow than others.
Doesn't matter if a deity told the Bells to play fairly and open up their lines, all that will end up happening is, the Bells will start a snowball effect of price hikes to companies who lease their services (re-sellers) in which they'll end up rather expensive.
I ranted on about SoBig being on steroids with a down and dirty analysis on what having Windows is costing someone along with concepts of SoBig disconnecting a backbone along with a program to test that concept
It may have been said here or not, sometimes I don't feel like sorting through the FP's and other trollings.
Wouldn't this be a case of double dipping by the telco's being that they're charging you for bandwidth usage, along with an added cost to using VoIP?
Another thing I would like to point out, is telco's have deep ass pockets, as most of us know. Don't be fooled by their rants on not having enough money for yadda yadda, or being monopolized because it's political propaganda. Telco's who need laws passed often spend enormous amounts of money lobbying politicians to get them to pass these measures. It's definitely about time people got together and lobbied against this type of bs. Is everyone going to wait until the last second until everything is being regulated under some 3rd world like rules that make no sense.
I posted this yesterday I don't know what's going on maybe I have to GPL my posts and demand compensation for it or so. Don't worry michael my lawyer will contact j00
Slashdot Mirror
You make it seem as if they're picking out random names and rolling with that. I don't know the cases in particular which have gone to court, but if they had enough evidence, then they had enough evidence.
Since they don't have to file suit to run someone in, they can pick an undesirable person and parade them around publicly as some sort of miscreant who is stealing from the hard working musicians, technicians, and record executives.
So a thief is not a miscreant? Musicians, record execs, and technicians, are they not hardworking? This is rubbish to blame the (what is it) 'greedy' songwriters. Do you know that not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth. The artists are certainly going to want to protect themselves against thieves because after all, any way you cut it, someone is stealing. Sure it is not the same concept of a physical theft, but nevertheless the music is indeed getting stolen.
So let's put this in perspective layman terms now. Some college e-tard decides to place 30 albums online well let me knock this down to 2 albums which by far is low. Each album costs (low crackhead price) $5.99, and he is getting about 1000 connections. Now without factoring in those who will in turn place the song right back up to burn, $5990.00 has now been stolen from the recording industry. Multiply this up to 100 albums per year $599,000.00 but this is only for 1000 connections mind you, Kazaa has what 2million users? Let's be fair and say only 1% did this you would have 20k users multiplied by the crackhead price of $5.99 per album and you have $11,980,000.00 in losses. But don't worry we'll turn this into a 'hell no we won't go' situation online simply because the record companies want to be paid for their creations.
The tactic of any defense suit should be to challenge the DMCA on fourth amendment grounds.
Are you nuts? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized How is this an unreasonable search and seizure when someone is stealing? I could see if no warrants were issued, and there was no proof, but the facts remain if someone is stealing they deserve to be charged, and those willing to use the shield of the constitution to hide illegal actions should be slapped with a rotten fish.
Nowhere in the US constitution is the right to subpoena, search, and seize given to corporations or their representatives.
Corporations are shielded read on:
I have always preferred the idea of targeting individuals who were infringing rather than mass lawsuits against "P2P", which was their tactic until recently. The method for doing this s
I know I will end up getting mod'ed the hell down to hell, but it needs to be said. I for one do not support the RIAA in fact I have some fuck the riaa t's however, I don't see nothing wrong with them wanting to be paid for their material. If you were on the receiving end you would too. I could see where they would go to certain uni's being that few e-diots mess a good thing up for whorish purposes, eg drive more traffic to their site or pretend to be doing for the 'cause'. Whichever case it is still illegal, and their is no excuse for someone to be sharing 10,000 songs.
Boston College and MIT challenged the RIAA's subpoenas on narrow technical grounds, arguing that the RIAA had filed its subpoenas in Washington, DC, instead of Massachusetts.
This in itself is a shaky comeback for MIT, and Boston College considering if some law was broken cross state lines, and mind you the DA's will look at the fact downloads occurred all over the world. Law is law anywhere in the US, I don't know when it stopped being so.
However, the music industry is pursuing music piracy with strong arm tactics and subpoena powers that far exceed those available against violent criminals.
Highly doubtful. Because the RIAA is taking steps to fight for what they think is right, gives no one the right to knock them for it. It's the same as if someone started badmouthing *geek*world for spending so much time on this issue. We feel it's right so we protest, the RIAA feels they're right so they do so as well. Kind of hypocritical to make that statement. But to compare the RIAA tactics and those which pertain to violent criminals, there is not one case of a swat team surrounding any student with guns drawn or the FBI or CIA or any other agency going gung ho over this crap.
Has it ever occurred to people that while protesting can at times be used for the better, at times it can also can major negative impacts on the actual thing being protested. Think about it, if I got a little ticked off that some lawyer is comparing this with violent crime, what do you think average joe is going to think.
In today's news, the MA National Guard was called in to remove a student trading MP3's... This guys reference to hardcore crime on this topic is outrageous, and leads me to believe he is simply looking for sympathy for his cause. Pretty lame, and shows his case is weak.
As for the Hispano qualification, it was to ward off your eventual "Oh you arrogant White Anglo American you think that everyone should buy your products" And you just knew I was spanish and would say that? Seems like you have a complex. No it didn't bother me, I think it's sad to see minorities use 'but I'm a minority' as a crutch all the time. It's rather boring and oh so yesterday
If America is allowing this to happen (unfair trade) practices, why would I be upset at Brasil? I would be upset that my country didn't do right to correct the issue. I don't want to get into this too much because your comment: White guilt (and before you get all liberal angered, I'm Hispanic)? was way off. So much so I lost respect after I had thought it would be a good thread.
No one would be happy, but the tone sounds as if you would like to have something of a monopoly on a product. Let's change this to cars for a second. We all like cars and some of us depend on it for livelihood. You see car A that does everything you want, has been loyal to you for years, etc. You stick with it. Even if car B suddenly comes out touting the same trustworthiness would you be quick to dump car A for car B? I would hope not. Now supposing car B is better, it's cheaper, more efficient, would you keep throwing your money away? I would hope not.
Would you jump up and down in sheer happiness for them before that trip to the umnemployment office? Or would the grim reality of just losing a customer set in? Then how would you feel when Brazil starting importing THEIR products here?
Before I answer this let me just snip this out of your comments: products are just that, products. Capitalism is the selling of products for financial gain. Financial gain is what pays employees You've managed to answer your own thread without even realizing it did you know that. Capitalism sometimes keeps companies on their toes, and searching for the next big thing. Would you rather have innovations spawned or the same old boring deck of cards? Refer to my car example since I think it's as plain as black and white. Now if you want my thoughts on another subject oh say... Buy American? I'll take the bait on that too. It is my money and I will spend it on what works for me. Whether or not people agree with this statement it is my hard earned money, so jumping into the car theme again, if a Japanese car works better than an American one, then I'm all for it.
If Sol made Solaris free, eventually somewhere down the line hardware will hav to be purchased as you can only upgrade for so long. Sun could benefit by offering low cost hardware to accomodate some of the fundamentals of Brazil like their gov. for their infrastructure, and their Univ. which in turn as many have seen could possibly produce those willing to give back to Sun via way of programming.
You`ve missed the whole point of what Brasil is trying to do here: native support, native distro, native jobs and IT industry.
Uh no I caught on to this, but they're going to have to start with a foundation somewhere along the line. They aren't going to just pop software and hardware out of the woodwork. Helping Sun or FSF in general (what I should have stated) is good for both Brasil, and for Sun/FSF doesn't necessarily mean Sun and I should have thought about that before I posted it, however I am at home on a Sun which is what made me think of it.
Even open source leaders like Red Hat
Pardon me for not agreeing with you on RH being a leader, I see them as capitalizing on the Linux movement of the late 90's and turning something neat into a future horror similar to MS. I'm not ready to go into an OS war with anyone, but the more I look at RH, the more I see the original MS corp. I see them as trying to muscle too fast. Just my opinion though. Yes I use Linux at home too I have a Slack box, and a BSD (Free) machine, and a Win laptop here too so please don't take anything as OS trolling. Simply stating my opinion. I would imagine that Brasil is more than willing to go `low-tech` on some of their infrastructure as long as it is free or homegrown: they don`t need Lotus notes, email will do; they don`t need Oracle 9i, PostGreSQL will do, etc.
Problem with homegrown is they are going to need the foundation as stated above, unless they are going to start entirely from scratch which I doubt. Choosing something like Linux or BSD is a good thing, and choosing Sol for say 64bit machines is also good unless they intend on staying in a 32 bit world forever. Sol does have its pluses against Linux, and BSD so don't be so quick to toss it aside.
Here is how I think it may stimulate the economy a bit. Brazil's population was 155.82 million in 1995 according to their Embassy's stats, so for argument's sake let's say it still is 155 million. Let's take one percent and say that they buy software. This would be 1,550,000 buying say MS at a very low price of 50.00 (US). That would equal $77,500,000.00
Now what if instead of spending that money on MS bs, they took that money and opened up research labs to develop products of their own. Wouldn't you say somewhere down the line, they would be better off if they could make revenue by saving on software as opposed to throwing it out the window. So how does it stimulate the economy? Well money could be shifted elsewhere that's how, it doesn't necessarily have to be using some notion that free software itself is going to generate revenue now. It sure does however make sense to make the switch. Maybe your sense of perception isn't on a business level who knows.
So German government stated they were making the switch in 2001, China is making a switch, who's next. Could spell big trouble for MS' revenue considering China, and Brazil are just HUGE. This could be a break for Sun Microsystems though if they would do something with Solaris under x86 ala Linux or BSD. (freely downloadable I meant to say).
3) The e-mail system of the house of representatives is being replaced by a free software one,
Damnit, with the mention of another hole found in Sendmail I hope it wasn't that.
4) The federal government is looking at concrete measures to stimulate free software as means of saving money and stimulating the national software industry.
rants page): Let's say that OS #1 costs a small company $499.99 for about 10 licenses, we'll call this company Foobar Incorporated. Foobar incorporated is now getting pounded with about 20 virii per year, and it takes their administrators about 20 minutes per machine to update the operating system every time something new causes chaos on the network.
Either way you decide to do the math, it is going to be costly. Place 2 administrators in Foobar Inc., and have them patch up the system at a total cost of 100 minutes per person for the update. 20 minutes per machine multiplied by 10 machines divided by two administrators, we'll now give these administrators $10.00 per hour and the cost for this one instance is $33.33 for this one instance. $666.66 per year, for this one company. So how many small companies are there? Should we be generous and say 10 million? $6,666,660,000.00 in lost revenue.
These figures are only on viruses, not program crashes, not system downtime, strictly salary. Sure I know some geek wizard is going to scrutinize this be my guest... There are pros and cons to free software being you won't necessarily receive great tech support for it as opposed to some (note I said some*) companies tech support.
Now before someone unloads the holy grail of follow ups, I said *some* tech support. We all know that certain unnamed companies blow when it comes to tech support, but remember not everyone is going to browse through sites like kernel.org, nor jump on IRC for support. Many endusers still prefer pretty to geek.
</rant>
This is definitely an outrageous statement coming from a professional. Consider that viruses that humans get as opposed to computer viruses, are not created. Now we all know that some have been created, but not to the extent of computer viruses. How responsible would it be for the Center for Disease Control to create viruses unleash them with the monicker "Hey we did it for your immune system. Is this guy insane. Remember that people rely on electricity, so stop to think about all of the emergency rooms that had no power. Stop to think about surgeons in the middle of surgery who had power zapped on them due to a virus.
ZH: So you are saying that virus writers have their own role in the Internet system.
SDF: Absolutely.
This leads me to believe that some of these scientist create viruses and unleash them to the general public. Anytime I see this guy's name mentioned anywhere near the word government I would hope he is not under contract with them in any shape fashion or form for his lack of ethics.
To think virus writers have a purpose is the most ludicrous statement I've heard to date. Does this moron have a clue as to how much money companies spend in downtime due to some e-diots writing shit nobody wants on their systems. Does this e-diot have any idea how much time admins have to spend fixing machines, not to mention software developers working double time for a fix. What the hell is the net coming to?
A few years back I did an interview with a virus writing group called shadowvx
While all the rage is on viruses and backdoors, would you care to explanation as to what exactly it is your members do? One not too familiar with the scene would think most virus coders are evil pricks out to rm -Rf /* the world. Whats your guys description of the
virii field?
Well, many virus coders do not agree to destructive payloads now. The idea of a virus is to spread. What is the use of a virus that infects a computer and formats it's hdd? In effect it is killing itself... not the best idea if it wants to spread no?
With regards to what ShadowvX members do, we code viruses that incorporate new or existing virus techniques. We try to code viruses with things like ICQ spreading or virus networks. Only a few of our codes have made it into the wild, but they had to be released. Ya know, new techniques, lets see how far up the AV "Dangerous" list we can get :] We make it a policy though that no code gets released unless all members agree
it should. And we ain't no evil pricks either... we are like you guys, doing what we do
to prove that computers are too relied upon these days...
Back Orifice, Netbus, Melissa, Tuxissa, ILOVEYOU, were plain and simply maliciously coded virii, we know some virii coders assist companies like Symantec, AVP, etc, whats your outlook on the creators of these program like Melissa, etc.?
Well, with Melissa it certainly showed MS a few things. Most of the code that gets released are to show or exploit vulnerabilities in software or hardware.. it just seems to only happen with MS software.
My view on these types of coders is no different from how I view other virus coders. They want to create something and show that humans rely too much on computers now a days.
rest of interview
Anyway, my thoughts for one are, wouldn't someone who works for an antivirus company have a biased opinion being that the more people create a virus, the more money his company would make? Give me a break. Viruses are nothing more than annoyances which serve no purpose whatsoever, no matter how you want to look at it. Developers of software should take more precautions when releasing code to ensure these viruses dont become epidemics like SobigF was, knocking off the electric grid. For anyone to claim that a virus is good coming from a corporation, he deserves to be canned. The statement he made about being infected to be cured is irresponsible. Should someone die because some medical equipment malfunctioned due to some power outtage that was cause by a virus for the sake of find an antidote? I think not.
Spare me. This protest isn't someone personal protesting it's a group, and they're making it seem as if little boy blue is being targeted for assimilation. There's an old saying 'the early bird gets the worm' and I hold firm to that saying. As for the protest, take a look yourself and see who is organizing it, if they'd get on track instead of letting big businesses jump in before they did, they wouldn't have that problem now would they. So you honestly believe removing the patents for software will make things better? Are you kidding imagine the field day companies would have stealing each others' codes.
Again, how would you like it if someone stole something from you, something you ALREADY developed, not something you had in mind, which someone may have beaten you to the punch with. It's a boring conversation, because there are no facts only opinions either way you cut the cake. In my opinion which means nothing to anyone but myself, I feel it's a bad move in the long run, and eventually will just lead to large scale theft. Sure you have instances where things get fucked up, that there is called life (don't tell anyone I told you the big secret now it's between you and me).
Remember that corporations can trivially afford to patent anything which does not have prior art whereas your small inventor cannot.
Why can't a small inventor, is there someone holding a gun to his head while he walks into the patent office? Oh wait you're going to shoot back with a 'he has no money' or so comment. Well let me put it like this, if I believed in it, I would borrow the money for it, work overtime to get money, I would get it done by all means. So please oh please come back with that argument.
In short: Read the fucking protest page and think. Please.
In short: It's a waste of my fucking time.
As an additional (or alternative) action, people are encouraged to participate in an online demonstration that day, replacing the main page of their website with a text explaining the dangers of introducing unlimited patentability in Europe
Whoever wrote this should think twice before they word something. I took this as a call to hackers to replace their (meaning the people they're protesting against) webpage.
Oh well now onto my oh so eloquent commentary which is worth nothing... Why would anyone want to do something as moronic as protest the patent laws? Suppose you labor extremely hard to create something, it took so much of your time, might have cost you a marriage, every single penny in your account, and someone comes and swipes it from under your feet what would you do? Without patenting there wouldn't be much you could do now could you.
Look laws are sometimes unfair, in fact take a look at some historical quotes:
"Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but lets wasps and hornets break through" Swift 'A treatise essay upon the faculties of the mind'
"Wherever law ends tyranny begins." Locke 'Civil Government'
No one ever said the laws were perfect but trying to remove them is plain dangerous. Maybe tweaking them for kinks is a better idea, and in certain cases a judge should have the discretion to make decisions based on experience and ethics, instead of allowing miscarriages of justice to happen.
Having some country throw patent ideas out is rather lame, and in the long run is only going to hurt those who innovate more than anyone else.
As for this:
Doesn't make much sense. A body of people asking to close their websites to protest. As if people should lose money over something that sounds rather interesting on the outside, but in-depth makes no sense? I would rather pass on it. What will be protested after? Bandwidth usage that connects to the site which offended someone. Sure let's block Amazon's whole CIDR why not.I once overclocked my yu-gi-oh to that speed
seriously though why even bother jumping out there with news like that considering we haven't even tasted 10ghz chips. I wonder how much of this is just coprorate hypeage (nice bushism there). Think about it for a second, is this going to be future google cache, this technology? Ever notice when something here is touted as the next *in* thing, it ends up as nothing more than storage space on google's cache servers. Instead of talking about it, release the thing. Besides I need to compile quicker than the eye can handle. In fact no only do I want to be able to compile and run things faster, I want me machine jacked into my brain to do the work for me.
Sendmail.. ugh. Remember that old comment, if you've got nothing nice to say? At least they gave out free sendmail swiss army knives once!
uh let's go over your concept. Sure bandwidth costs money but is your ISP charging you more to receive spam? I highly doubt this, and if they are, and you are paying more than you're the fool. Now coming from the level of working at an ISP, that's what access lists are for on routers and it would take less than 5 minutes to block address that send this as opposed to rambling on about it. Wanna throw in spoofing? Sure I'll even answer this. While spammers may spoof source addresses, I've yet to see any spoof IP addressing, and for those who can spoof IP addresses, those too can be blocked, and you as an ISP admin should take the necessary precautions to ensure no one is spoofing outside of your network, since it proves administrative incompetence.
I hear this same argument time and time again, and let me restate I hate spammers, yet I don't see what the big deal is, it didn't hurt me, annoying sure it is, so are the billboards all over the place that I didn't ask to see. So what I'm not gonna protest it, gather 1million people and whine to a judge knowing damn well I could do something about it. That's moronic, and asking for government to step in because you cannot handle your affairs. Yet many want to bitch when governments want to step in and regulate other shit. Oh please.
Before anyone flames or trolls this down, be realistic for a minute here, and I in no way am trying to justify anyone's actions, just stating facts. Does anyone protest when the menu guys flood your doorstep? No... What about when Target or some other megaconglomerate sends bs in the mail that you didn't ask for? doubtable. Spam is no different. Want to give me cost ratios go ahead and I'll do a breakdown in sanitation costs if you think mail and menus cost nothing. Not to mention a possible fine you could get for having litter you didnt leave in front of your house.
So ask yourself, if you were in a business and were told how to run it which was against the way you were running it, wouldn't you leave, what if someone was threatening you because it does happen wouldn't you quit while you were ahead too?
Ahh jello biafra and H2K. I don't remember any tea but I do remember Mary Jane... Good old Mary Jane and my friend Joker aka Dutchmaster aka Philly aka Bambu. Ahh those memories!!!
Now back to my evil coding
I was starting up an MS program today and came across the following error:
SoBigF is not your default worm
would you like to make this your
default worm?
click yes cancel
Congress will smile in your face while sticking it to you. What makes you think that if someone was willing to coyly place a couple of hundred thousand in the pocket of some congress*person*, that congress*person* (male/female) is not going to either take it, or seriously contemplate taking it. This is not to say that every last one of those in congress are schemers, but you have to understand, there is no guarantee that anyone will be in office the next term, so many times this feeds into the minds of those who take it.
Besides what do you think is really going to happen to them? Jail... Rarely. Look at the case of Torricelli Jersey, walked away scott-free, iisshhtt happens whether people like it or not, and making it illegal will only make *contributors* find other methods of getting people money. Offshore accounts, business trips, et. al. Congress*people* are human (I think) and as animals, humans do what they can to survive. Some methods might be more shallow than others.
Doesn't matter if a deity told the Bells to play fairly and open up their lines, all that will end up happening is, the Bells will start a snowball effect of price hikes to companies who lease their services (re-sellers) in which they'll end up rather expensive.
I ranted on about SoBig being on steroids with a down and dirty analysis on what having Windows is costing someone along with concepts of SoBig disconnecting a backbone along with a program to test that concept
It may have been said here or not, sometimes I don't feel like sorting through the FP's and other trollings.
Wouldn't this be a case of double dipping by the telco's being that they're charging you for bandwidth usage, along with an added cost to using VoIP?
Another thing I would like to point out, is telco's have deep ass pockets, as most of us know. Don't be fooled by their rants on not having enough money for yadda yadda, or being monopolized because it's political propaganda. Telco's who need laws passed often spend enormous amounts of money lobbying politicians to get them to pass these measures. It's definitely about time people got together and lobbied against this type of bs. Is everyone going to wait until the last second until everything is being regulated under some 3rd world like rules that make no sense.
damnit I borked the link... here was the post... Now about that compensation michael, cmdrtaco... I want all my patented html stripped
I posted this yesterday I don't know what's going on maybe I have to GPL my posts and demand compensation for it or so. Don't worry michael my lawyer will contact j00