Actually, I haven't advocated any of what you indicate. What I am against is thoughtless libertarianism, people who equate their own greed with enlightened self interest, and folks who deny the reality of their senses.
As for a god complex and managing networks - Funny, but the best NAs I've ever worked with did have the God complex. I guess they trained me well. As for your assertion that you are glad I'm not managing your network. First, and foremost, where did you get my CV? Oh, you don't have it, I see, so you're making this statement based not on my skillset, which you obviously know SFA about, but rather on my politics, and quite frankly your post gives me reason to doubt your qualifications to make an accurate assessment of that either. So, if politics is more important than skills and methodology to you when selecting an NA, please don;t even consider me for the job. In point of fact, I no longer am an NA, but when I was none of my employers ever had cause to complain. A god complex is necessarily a bad trait in an NA. After all the stability, useability and health of your network are the first, last and only hallmarks of success in this field. So the traffic we are talking about brings no benefits to any of these indicators, and in point of fact, can substantially reduce all three, why would you allow such traffic needlessly? Why would you allow such traffic without a specific mandate derived from institutional policy?
On the flipside, if the policy comes down, and the need for the traffic is mandated, then for myself, as an NA in that situation, I have fought my battle and lost, so I implement the requirements in such a fashion as to meet the requirements of that mandate while minimizing the potential impact of such mandates on day to day operations.
As for University property, it is, period, end of discussion. The invoice from Sun Microsystems doesn't read The student Body of X University. In no way shape or form can the students establish ownership of these systems or rights to determine how such systems are administered without the tacit permission of the body which owns them, IE: the University. Universities exist not only for the benefit of their students, and given the way some are run, that may not even be high on the list of priorities. Many conduct all kinds of research, many own patents, and conduct business based around those (A friend of the family spent years fighting Kent State University over patent issues). They can and do own property, both intellectual and common chattels. In point of fact, I would say Universities exist to educate students, not benefit them. These are two different things, allthough I despair of someone who hires an NA based on his filesharing views making the distinction. In any case, Universities aren't charitable or not for profit organizations, they pursue profit like any other venture, they are not altruistic organizations which you could argue exist for the benefit of students. Universities do pursue profit, one of the primary sources of profit being the monies of stuudents in return for providing a service (educating them). Having said that, liiberal network policies are nothing more than fluff to attract students, not an obligation of the University. Which will become pretty damn apparent if such liberal network policies begin to impact the day to day functioning or profitability of the University.
Having said all that, I'm surprised that the University in question is in the situation as the original poster described. Very often policies in such organizations are drafted to meet criteria other than soley the practical consequences of such decisions. Truth be told, I would expect Universities to allow such traffic unchecked, if only because Universities have traditionally placed a high value on the unrestricted flow of information (reconciling that with patent ownership is an exercise for the Board of Governors...). Typically I would expect a University to accept greater costs in money, time and complexity to main
Dude, if I was looking for a new ISP, I'd ask who you worked for, I don't want an ISP that doesn't log stuff. Well that, and I don't want an ISP that uses NT.
Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem.
on
RIAA Files 532 Lawsuits
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The big thinng here is, you have to stop worrying about the student and users rights. They have NONE. The only holder of rights in your situation is the University. If the University chose to hand that information over to RIAA, and no binding agfreement prohibited them from doing so, they can.
The University owns that network, not the users. I suspect the users sign an acceptable use policy, no? Does that policy specifically prohibit certain conduct?
Your concern for the rank and file users, while perhaps a bit misplaced is laudable. If you are interested in protecting those users, the pressure you want to apply is to have those activities specifically proscribed in any acceptable use document, not try to convince the University to take actions which are not consistent with the best funcitonning of their property to protect individuals who shouldn't be using the University's equipment in that fashion.
There are good reasons too. Consider, the plan you advocate could expose the University to charges of destroying evidence, or being an accessory. More importantly, you cite the power and time savings of the tools you have. These inherently are "good things." I would be right pissed at the person who deprived me of the tools I need in order to protect an 18 yr old bimbo who doesn't have the common sense not to use the University network for questionable activites.
Bottom line, the Univeristy owns the equipment, they can set any restrictions on it's use they see fit. If you want to protect the students, lobby for meaningful data in the acceptable use policy (IE Your activites will be logged, archived with no expectation of privacy.) Or for an acceptable use policy, if one doesn't exist.
Ultimately, in your shoes, I wouldn't want that traffic in the first place. You aren't a panacea for unethical activity, nor do you need to expose yourselves to some of the related traffic in the filesharing circles (kiddie pron, & malware come immediately to mind...
The company owns the infrastructure, the gateway, etc. etc. They are granting you the right to use it, this doesn't remove their onus of responsibility for your actions with their equipment and services. The WiFi analogy fails at this point, since you specifically delimit that permission was not obtained. A corporation does give permission for you to use their network Et. Al. so the analogy fails in logic and in law.
As for folk not being responsible for the actions of others, I agree, but, you can be held liable for your own actions or inaction if such facilitates the comission of a crime, etc. Commonly referred to as being an accomplice.
The guy in your analogy may not be affected, but I don't think the corporate folk are getting off so easily.
How expensive are contingency suits? Really, is RIAA doing this to recoup revenues, or to plug the hole in the dyke? If they are earnest about trying to stop the leaks they can essentially "give away" the suits on a 100% contingency basis.
What is more important to RIAA is to establish that they have a viable way to extract damages, not so much to extract them right now. Losing the proceeds from 532,000 lawsuits is probably a deal for them, if they get what they are after.
Besides, what lost revenue, if they accomplish their goals they can recoup most of it in the first round of price hikes.
People seem to forget, we are talking about A LOT of smegging money here, that drastically alters the formulas. The potential payoff of this justice system roulette wheel is even higher. Don't expect RIAA to stop trying these solutions either, the pay out is too large.
RIAA, and the worst of the filesharers are both motivated by greed, in and of itself, this is not a good sign, at least not if you want this crap to go away anytime soon. The problem is further exacerbated by a large group of people whose infractions are more in-line with the traditional infractions, that is they are livable, and do not have a signifdicant impact on the situation. They get involved in the issue, for what are on the surface good reasons, but which are beyond the scope of the actual issue. This results in the current mess. The real abusers have been granted a patina of legitimacy be seizing on the concerns of, and hiding within that mass, and RIAA has taken these same comments to mean that the mass is part of the problem.
In view of that, no ISP could ever have taken action against a spammer, which we know has happened, perhaps it would be resonable to assume that the ISP keeps logs of who get what lease when. Evidently RIAA has reason to believe this, given this tack.
In point of fact, I know most do. I know several people who work in support or engineering for several ISPs and keeping such logs is not unusual. The existence of a given set of logs can almost be taken for granted, what you can't take for granted is how long such logs might be kept.
That's why most companies have an acceptable use agreement in place.
Hell the company owns the equipment and the gateway, they are responsible for ensuring that the use of such is in keeping with the law and their own policies.
I won't have any sympathy for a company that failed to take the appropriate actions with their hardware and network. They have no excuse, the tools exist to prohibit most nad audit the rest of such traffic.
Really, the way these clowns are litigating, the only product I can see them releasing in the near future is SCOSuit. Imagine the documentation:
Once SCOSuit installation has completed, you will be taken to IP registry page. At this page enter all the Intellectual Property which you believe your company has ownership of. Each entry will ask for corroborating information in order to establish verify each claim, but you will notice none of this data is required to register any IP with SCOSuit.
After entering all your Intellectual Property, click the DONE button on the bottom of the window, and you should be taken to a form where you can enter the information for up to 1023 legal firms. SCOSuit also has the ability to link specific IP folios for prosecution by specific legal firms. If you have no legal firm at this time, SCOSuit will default to Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.
Once SCOSuit is configured, you can simply select any piece of IP in the registry database, right click, select Launch Suit, and fill in the details for the organziation you wish to sue. In case you don't have a specific target, SCOSuit comes with a list of likely targets (Novell, IBM, RedHat) for you to use. Or, you can use the built-in webcrawling capabilities of SCOSuit to go over websites and autmatically launch suits against any company meeting SCOSuits configurable crawler criteria.
As an added incentive, SCO premium partners can activate the SlashTrash feature. This feature watches/. for posts regarding your suits, and automatically replies to posts which match criteria specified in the SlashTrash configurator. Once configured with a valid/. ID slashtrash will automatically rebut to such posts with such classic content as: "I know you are but what am I?", "your mamma", and the ever popular "please remit license fee immediately."
Lastly, SCOSuit can automagically email press releases to sympathetic organziations who will peddle your tripe for you. SCOSuit comes preconfigured with the Yankee Group, but will only activate if you have a valid M$ Bootlicker license.
Two words about the DMCA, is it good legislation, I don't necessarily think so. It is a reaction to the perceived abuse by people of their rights to digital media. Hey my point is 2 wrongs != 1 right. Same applies to DMCA, it is fundamentally flawed because of this.
But, the DMCA is evidence of what my central thrust when the topic drifts to RIAA. You may not like RIAA for whatever reason. Fine, but if your method of protesting to RIAA is by unlawfully copying and distributing their property, than you are part and parcel of the existence of the DMCA.
If you want to get pissed off at RIAA, let's get pissed off for the rigth reasons. DMCA and their part in it is deplorable yes, but so was the unlawful ditribution that was going on, and one more step back has us all finding the "central" problems of the issue (or at least central rationalizations) which generally work out to cost, limited selection, or what-have-you.
The base problem exists and needs to be addressed. No argument, but if it is addressed by unlawfully distributing RIAA member property, it does not result in a change in RIAA policy for the better, rather a response in kind. DMCA no more combats the problem than unlawful distribution did.
Even if you buy your music legitimately, and don't make unlawful copies and distribute them, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. If you deplore the DMCA, which apparently you do, why are you tacitly supporting it with yuour dollars, way to go! You further add to the problem by clouding the issue with your post.
If you have such a problem with DMCA, perhaps you might start by recognizing what DMCA was, a reaction, and what was it reacting to......very good. None of which is here or there, the problem, all of us agree (albeit for very different reasons) is RIAA. My thesis all along has been that if you want to strike back at RIAA, you do it with your wallet. You don't buy music what supports RIAA, period, end of discussion, nothing else sends a clear message.
So, let me state this unequivocally, one last time.
The problem is RIAA. But, almost none of us are helping to make the problem better. If you buy your music from RIAA members you are tacitly supporting them with your money, and you are part and parcel of the problem. If you then take that material and unlawfully copy and distribute it, regardless of your reason, you are part and parcel of the problem.
So, you may not like all my content, but friend, I haven't bought music in the last 7 years where a single cent went to RIAA. I don't support artists who sign with RIAA memeber orgnaizations. I very clearly do not support RIAA. When I ask all of you to question your actions, and opinions about this shite, I do so fromt he position of one who in no way or shape supports RIAA. But I don't confuse my antipathy to RIAA with a relaxation of my standards of conduct regarding their property, I confine my displays of antipathy to those which do not cloud the issue. Too even obtain an unlawful copy of RIAA material, I feel would compromise my position. It would send the statement to RIAA that I do value their property, and therfore justify their position and excesses. By not doing so, I send a clear message, one that I would hope more of you would consider sending.
You yourself, what message are you sending to RIAA? Your text tells RIAA two things, without even reading my posts: 1) You bought music legally, probably through one of their member orgs, thus financially supporting their position. 2) That you object to provisions of the DMCA, and that perhaps this is a reaction to someone defending RIAA or the DMCA. Which do you think matters to RIAA? By common consensus, the money you donated to their cause.
I on the other hand do not support RIAA financially, even my posts which folk seem to think "support" RIAA are really a plea for everyone who wants RIAA dead and gone to reconsider their actions. Who should RIAA fear more, you who supports them financially, thus
If you buy scissors you don't have the right to remove my eyes with them. Just buying an item is not carte blanche. (allthough perhaps you would like to...)
Reasonable use rights cease to be a right when they infringe on others rights. Which is exactly what happens when you unlawfully copy and distribute copyrighted materials. Your reasonable use right is being used an excuse to trample the rights of the copyright holder to their creations.
Put it another way, your defintion of reasonable use means that if I paid for a GPL program means I can do whatever I want with it, include modify and sell it again without abiding by the restrictions of the GPL on such activity.
Okay, if that's what you want to happen to the code you create....
Both are property, you can't support a devlopers rights to his property while obviating the rights of labels, composers and lyricists to theirs.
Record labels don't seem to have a problem with doing it
And two wrongs don't make a right either...
Itunes is different, Apple meets your obligations for you, and you pay for Apple to do so, and get you music in a convenient format. This isn't the same as you doing it for yourself, without permission.
Why is your friend downloading them? That opens him up to liability and culpability. Viewing them (for example over straming video) leaves the culpability completely with the "broiadcaster"
With the indie films, if you can contact the company you can arragne to obtain a copy legally. In any case the copyright holder will be a matter of public record, and they can be aprroached directly.
They can even be approached over the internet if you have to get your entertaiunment that way. There simply is no good reason to deprive these people of what they are due. In some cases, some of this material if asked for would probably come gratis, since any exposure is good exposure, but when you obviate the rights of the owner to make such a decision for themselves, then the equation for both parties changes.
I would suggest that a lot more things are black and white than they initially appear, so long as you exercise a little due diligence before decinding it's all just shades of grey.
I agree with almost everything you point out. I still don't agree with the method most have chosen to protest.
And if this is the item everyone truly has a problem with, then making the MPAA and RIAA the targets of the protest is even more irrational. They are only the benficiaries of a poor law. Well attacking those benficiaries is not going to change the law, except maybe for the worse.
I have to apologize, rereading, I see how you could perceive (mostly from my careless use of pronouns) that I was directing this at you specifically, not so. I am however pointing the finger at those who do abuse the system. Again I apologize, since the cant of my post was easily misconstrued.
For what it is worth, I do believe you when you tell me that you don't engage in these practices, and do pay for your entertainment media. I not only believe that, I laud you for it.
But, I think there are some misconceptions here. The article plainly states that the "screeners" were preceeded by an agreement, or contract, if you will, which specified the conditions under which the screener would be provided, it further stipulated psecific and possible penalties for contravening that contract. While I agree that contract law does not supercede other forms of law, nothing specified as being in contract contravenes any established body of law, meaning the contract is valid and enforceable, correct? After all, AFAIK there is no law preventing a Movie company from providing a free copy of a product, provided the recipient abided by the terms under which such a copy would be made available. Those terms specifically prevented the disposal of the product in the fashion it was disposed, such a requirement is not unlawful, nor is it even inconsistent with accepted practice in contract law. In point of fact, it is less onerous in it's requirements than the GPL in many ways. But no-one (except SCO) pretends that the GPL is in any way unenforceable or invalid.
As for radio, tv stations, etc. etc. etc. broadcasting those materials, that is hardly the same thing. True, those broadcast are also made under the aegis of contracts, and those contracts also spell out acceptable use of the materials, and penalties for not abiding by the terms of the contract. The specifics are very different, however. The contracts entered into by Radio and TV stations specifically grant them the rights to broadcast such materials, in return for significantly higher costs, and more onerous auditing procedures. Still contracts, still the copyright holder granting permission for specific use, under specific conditions, the use and conditions are different, the validity of the contract is not.
I wouldn;t necessarily say that the practice of sending these screeners out is unethical. In fact, if anything it is a levelling mechnism whereby the smaller companies can get their product fair attention fromt he body of judges, something they might not get otherwise. This was why the MPAA allowed the screeners to go out after initially banning them (mostly due to the (correct) apprehension that these could be a source for pirated materials on the 'net.)
Again, I apologize for what must have seemed like a personal attack on you. The atack was personal, but aimed at the real offenders.
As a side ha-ha, I think it's absolutely hilarious that my orignal post gets modded up, while the follow up post, aknowledging the original as a troll, gets modded down as flamebait...
Consider, this is the law of unintended consequnces, right? Well if this issue is the unintended consequence, what was the intended consequence, oh yeah, to try and curb internet piracy, which consequence was desirable because......riiight.
You are precisely right, that is what they will say, and they will continue their campaign for legislation, and maybe one day they will get it.
Like I've repeatedly said, RIAA views this (not entirely incorrectly) as a piracy issue. They will prosecute it as such until things change. This is a natural response to protect their revenue streams from disruption. No-one can deny that a unlawful copying and distribution occur. All we are seeing is some of the fallout of RIAA attempts to plug the dyke. This isn't even a problem for RIAA, they'll just pass the cost along. So how exactly did the protest by unlawful copying and distribution lobby help thi situation to come about. Are they doing anything to help change RIAAs perception of the problem? I suggest not. Rather programs like MUTE are adding gas to the fire. Those developers are expressing a shocking disregard for the rights of other people to their own created works. Really, are they bound to provide a program which let's a user otherwise incapable of carrying on such activites anonymously the ability to? Especially in the knowledge of the potential abuses? None of these people would make a program (I hope) which facilitated the stealing of code from FOSS projects. So because you write software you are entitled to help idiots obviate the rights of music writers?
Bottom line, don't expect RIAA to stop reacting until the stimulus is removed. Not even then, y'all have jammed that hat pin in pretty deep, and continuing to poke and prod with projects like MUTE isn't helping to resolve this issue.
Canadians could mail order appropriate media, but I suspect it would be held at the border until all applicable duties and taxes were paid... That may or may not include the levy...
The problem with your rationale is this. How does RIAA know what songs you put on those media. How does the royalty get distributed to the correct party? Secondly, the levy is probably based on reasonable volume under CD-format, not a filesystem full of MP3s, so the levy actually under-represents the number of royalties lost. That I wouldn;t worry about, but remember, those songs you downloaded, you like those artists, right? So where in the train of events that you followed did they get their just reward?
If everyone wants to believe the worst about RIAA, I'd start with that levy, and how it is spent. Your reasoning might even be acceptable to RIAA, depending on how unscrupulously they are using the levy revenues...
In the end, there is no better way to end RIAA abuses than to boycott RIAA member products, this boycott would have to be global, not just boycotting the buying of RIAA member material, boycotting the onwership as well. That is a message, if you simply boycott the buying, you confus the message, in that you give RIAA proof that their property is valuable, valuable enough for you to risk legal prosecution. So the message is that the material is valuable to the public, and that is as much as RIAA analyzes it. If anything obtaining unlawful copies encourages RIAA to further raise prices, and not commit to improving the product brought to the table, since you are showing them what they have is so valuable you'll risk prosecution to get it.
First off, they aren't paying for anything, people who buy music are, they aren't going to eat that cost, just pass it along. After all, the money they've spent has been in reaction to a perceived threat to their revenue stream, this is not a cost I would expect anyone to happily defray.
Secondly, what is this fair use rights? I strongly suspect in the end it boils down to your assertion that you should get something for nothing. That is an incorrect assertion. If you are talking about the try then buy "right" then I would suggest you explore how much that relationship is based on trust, and what little reason the other side has to trust the average consumer in view of the rampant exhcange of illegally copied/distributed material.
Back in the tape to tape or CD to tape days these concepts had meaning. It wasn't easy to perform large scale unlawful copying. The music industry turned a bit of a blind eye to the whole affair because it was not perceived as a negative. Throw in the internet and peoples (mistaken) impression that it is nothing more than unlimited freedom with no responsibility, and that equation changes drastically, and rapidly. Factor in that people seem to now expect the music industry to accept that people can defraud them of their due revenues by unlawful copying and distribution is not only narcisistic and short-sighted, it is unrealistic and plainly not going to happen.
I would suggest you consider what you think is fair use, is it really fair? If it is fair, is it predicated on trust that has been abused and broken? Would it be fair from the other side of the equation? Is it fair to the artists who ultimately produce the work in question? Is greed a sufficient justification to deprive these folks of what they are due from their creations? Hey even if you know that they are getting ripped off by the label worse than the consumer, please explain to me how it is depriving them of what revenues they can generate demonstrates aawareness of or support for their plight?
Bottom line, there are consequences, this is just another one, a slightly humorous one, but just another consequence. Go ahead, keep on pulling the Kitty's tail, that will make it better...
Every Candian Band that has received a SOCAN grant since the CD-R tax started is living proof of the fallacy of that statement.
No, you are correct, the monies are not paid directly to the artists, but rather to SOCAN, which then uses those monies for grants, etc. etc. A little of what you recorded now going to the artists of tomorrow, but the money does go to the artists. I also believe that some of that money is distributed to SOCAN members as royalty payments as well, but I'm not 100% on that one.
RTFA, obatining the screeners meant signing an agreement, in effect a license agreement (like the GPL).
Now if you wrote some GPL software and someone went and modified it, then distributed it, but did not adhere to the specific requirements of the GPL guaranteeing your rights as the author, don't you think you would have a right to be pissed off? Do you think that might color your opinions of the people who ended up buying the software?
This individual violated a binding agreement, no less so than the GPL. Just because the MPAA is the wronged party doesn't make the wrong right.
More, if the demand for the fruits of such unlawful activity wasn't disproportionately high, the temptation would have been far less, and the whole issue likely wouldn't have occured.
And please don't try to ascribe people's unethical behaviour to some sort of protest over movie quality. If a movie is bad, you don't go see it, period. That is not license to obtain an unlawful copy. That kind of reasoning is childish, narcisistic, and anti-social. If all movies suck, you don't go to any, and you certainly do not obtain unlawful copies. If you want to send a message, fine, send the message. But when you obtain an unlawful copy of a movie the signal you are sending is not that the movie sucks, you are signalling your desire to watch/own the movie, while engaging in a childish reaction to the cost.
There is no moral reason to obtain unlawful copies of music, movies, software, what have you. The motive is greed pure and simple.
And the oft quoted argument of try and buy, is worse than useless. That kind of arrangement requires trust. Why should the MPAA or RIAA or anyone else trust you? If they could trust you the problem wouldn't be as pandemic as it is.
Having said all that, there are responsible people who could live within a reasonable try before buy setup, and who would honor their obligations, this post is not directed at you. This post is wasted effort, since it directed at the large group of internet toddlers who can't prosecute an argument, and use the internet primarily as a means to slake their insatiable greed.
The operative agreement is the GPL. The GPL in no way limits anyones ability to sell the original code, or derivative works so long as certain (and traditionally viewed as onerous) conditions were met.
I'm suggesting that Novell has an opportunity to create a viable business plan centered around FOSS products and the Novell brand name. Those formerly onerous conditions aren't so much anymore.
Really, the formula is kind of unique for Novell. They allready have Enterprise class software offering for the data centre, and some peripheral operations as well. What they have never had, and have allways had to rely (typically on M$) on other for, was the desktop OS. This has allways been the weakest link, ask Novell. Now however, the components of a desktop OS are right in their hands. All they have to do is make some selections, do a little integration work, brand it and go.
Sure it will take some cash, Novell has it, and you gotta spend it to make it...
Apparently I don't think you understand, perhaps I should have spelled it out. First of all, no-one was naive enough to intimate that FOSS developers are going to kow-tow to Novell. If Novell wants changes to software in order to create the corporate desktop of the future, then Novell will have to do like every other FOSS developer, write the code and submit it to the maintainer.
Novell has a chance here to fundamentally break the typical distro paradigm. If they insist on continuing the typical distro tactic of selecting defaults and including everything else than they will be missing a unique opportunity not available to other distro maintainers.
Namely, to capitalize off Novell's good name. If Novell just intends to push another distro, let it be an unchanged SuSe. If however they want to make inroads on the corporate desktop, first the product should market under the Novell name. Second that product should be break the traditional distro paradigm of overwhelming choice. Overwhelming choice is not a selling point if you are pitching the corporate desktop. Far far better to narrow the range of applications available when going after this market. Not only is the support load easier for yourself and your clients, it is satisfying the market's (albeit wrong) perception that there is an unnecesary amount of choice in Linux distros.
Fighting this resistance with the oft repeated mantra that choice is good has not led to a sweeping corporate dekstop penguination, I suggest perhaps it is time to give consideration to an alternate paradigm. Remove the choice. Hell, even if I don't agree with package x over package y, I don't need to make those selections, nor do I need to worry about custom install scripts, etc. etc. When was the last time Windows was left out of consideration for a desktop OS because of the lack of choices, or even the lack of intelligent defaults?
This notional distro needs to throw out most of the preconceptions distro maintainers have to live with. First, you aren't building a distro for generic_linux_zealot. You're building a distro for generic_company_desktop. The assumptions should be different. GLZ wants his favorite #EDITOR, but since $EDITOR is potentially different for each and every GLZ, you include every editor. Not so for GCD, for this user the text editor isn't nearly as critical, they'll rarely use it. So, the criteria is mutated, rather than trying to meet a given users preference, which led to the proliferation of editor packages in a standard distro, you select a single text editor. I would further suggest that the editor you select be very easy to learn (for the average corporate user, remember, so emacs is out.) and for bonus points, you hack it to honor all the standard windoze keyboard shortcuts, as a tool to ease experienced windoze users into the transition. In point of fact, your biggest detractors among your user base in a windoze shop are the 3% of people who know how to use the keyboard shortcuts within windoze. The rest of the complaints, by and large are fluff. But this compaint isn't, it drastically affects the productivity of users who make use of such "power user" techniques. LISTEN TO THEM, they make a valid point.
Lastly, narrowing the application selection allows tighter integration of the selected applications. This provides another value add to your application selections. Further, it makes feasible development of a comprehensive in-line help program (available through F1, natch) which would give the central help access to all the standard applications on the machine through one unified interface.
The biggest part of the problem is that to the typical linux zealot the requirements are anethma. No, actually the biggest part of the problem is that linux zealots lack an appreciation for the other viewpoint. Your average Linux zealot will tell you (and I'm sure someone will reply to this) that eliminating choices is wrong. Well, if you tell that to the corporate world, all you are doing is telling them that Linux isn't going to work for them. If, however we give them what they think they want, and make sure it operates as we know it should, isn't everyone a winner?
There is a smug superiority in the Linux world about these issues. I'm not saying that those attitudes aren't necessarily correct, once all is said and done. I am saying that those attitudes will keep us from
Linux itself is vulnerable. How do you figure it is not?
Let's take your position, so now the Linux companies are either out of business or out of Linux. This is an improvement how? This advances any of the goals that various sectrors of the Linux community embrace how?
Okay, maybe it won't eradicate Linux from the face of the Earth, but it will effectively reduce it to a hobbyist OS again.
The enemy here has allready proven that they are better at manipulating the media machine. The ODSL for example is funded princicpally by a bunch of tech companies. If the legal environment and risk mangement perception of Linux fuyndamnetally change as a result of this mess, what will guarantee that such support will continue? So Linus goes back to Transmeta, but are they going to be as understanding as they previously were? In such an environment? Not likely.
Simple survival is not sufficient, not after the gains we have made. This kafuffle has the ability to undo all that. Is that really a satisfactory result, that Linux is effectively reduced to the point it was at in 1993?
Slashdot Mirror
As for a god complex and managing networks - Funny, but the best NAs I've ever worked with did have the God complex. I guess they trained me well. As for your assertion that you are glad I'm not managing your network. First, and foremost, where did you get my CV? Oh, you don't have it, I see, so you're making this statement based not on my skillset, which you obviously know SFA about, but rather on my politics, and quite frankly your post gives me reason to doubt your qualifications to make an accurate assessment of that either. So, if politics is more important than skills and methodology to you when selecting an NA, please don;t even consider me for the job. In point of fact, I no longer am an NA, but when I was none of my employers ever had cause to complain. A god complex is necessarily a bad trait in an NA. After all the stability, useability and health of your network are the first, last and only hallmarks of success in this field. So the traffic we are talking about brings no benefits to any of these indicators, and in point of fact, can substantially reduce all three, why would you allow such traffic needlessly? Why would you allow such traffic without a specific mandate derived from institutional policy?
On the flipside, if the policy comes down, and the need for the traffic is mandated, then for myself, as an NA in that situation, I have fought my battle and lost, so I implement the requirements in such a fashion as to meet the requirements of that mandate while minimizing the potential impact of such mandates on day to day operations.
As for University property, it is, period, end of discussion. The invoice from Sun Microsystems doesn't read The student Body of X University. In no way shape or form can the students establish ownership of these systems or rights to determine how such systems are administered without the tacit permission of the body which owns them, IE: the University. Universities exist not only for the benefit of their students, and given the way some are run, that may not even be high on the list of priorities. Many conduct all kinds of research, many own patents, and conduct business based around those (A friend of the family spent years fighting Kent State University over patent issues). They can and do own property, both intellectual and common chattels. In point of fact, I would say Universities exist to educate students, not benefit them. These are two different things, allthough I despair of someone who hires an NA based on his filesharing views making the distinction. In any case, Universities aren't charitable or not for profit organizations, they pursue profit like any other venture, they are not altruistic organizations which you could argue exist for the benefit of students. Universities do pursue profit, one of the primary sources of profit being the monies of stuudents in return for providing a service (educating them). Having said that, liiberal network policies are nothing more than fluff to attract students, not an obligation of the University. Which will become pretty damn apparent if such liberal network policies begin to impact the day to day functioning or profitability of the University.
Having said all that, I'm surprised that the University in question is in the situation as the original poster described. Very often policies in such organizations are drafted to meet criteria other than soley the practical consequences of such decisions. Truth be told, I would expect Universities to allow such traffic unchecked, if only because Universities have traditionally placed a high value on the unrestricted flow of information (reconciling that with patent ownership is an exercise for the Board of Governors...). Typically I would expect a University to accept greater costs in money, time and complexity to main
Dude, if I was looking for a new ISP, I'd ask who you worked for, I don't want an ISP that doesn't log stuff. Well that, and I don't want an ISP that uses NT.
The University owns that network, not the users. I suspect the users sign an acceptable use policy, no? Does that policy specifically prohibit certain conduct?
Your concern for the rank and file users, while perhaps a bit misplaced is laudable. If you are interested in protecting those users, the pressure you want to apply is to have those activities specifically proscribed in any acceptable use document, not try to convince the University to take actions which are not consistent with the best funcitonning of their property to protect individuals who shouldn't be using the University's equipment in that fashion.
There are good reasons too. Consider, the plan you advocate could expose the University to charges of destroying evidence, or being an accessory. More importantly, you cite the power and time savings of the tools you have. These inherently are "good things." I would be right pissed at the person who deprived me of the tools I need in order to protect an 18 yr old bimbo who doesn't have the common sense not to use the University network for questionable activites.
Bottom line, the Univeristy owns the equipment, they can set any restrictions on it's use they see fit. If you want to protect the students, lobby for meaningful data in the acceptable use policy (IE Your activites will be logged, archived with no expectation of privacy.) Or for an acceptable use policy, if one doesn't exist.
Ultimately, in your shoes, I wouldn't want that traffic in the first place. You aren't a panacea for unethical activity, nor do you need to expose yourselves to some of the related traffic in the filesharing circles (kiddie pron, & malware come immediately to mind...
The company owns the infrastructure, the gateway, etc. etc. They are granting you the right to use it, this doesn't remove their onus of responsibility for your actions with their equipment and services. The WiFi analogy fails at this point, since you specifically delimit that permission was not obtained. A corporation does give permission for you to use their network Et. Al. so the analogy fails in logic and in law.
As for folk not being responsible for the actions of others, I agree, but, you can be held liable for your own actions or inaction if such facilitates the comission of a crime, etc. Commonly referred to as being an accomplice.
The guy in your analogy may not be affected, but I don't think the corporate folk are getting off so easily.
What is more important to RIAA is to establish that they have a viable way to extract damages, not so much to extract them right now. Losing the proceeds from 532,000 lawsuits is probably a deal for them, if they get what they are after.
Besides, what lost revenue, if they accomplish their goals they can recoup most of it in the first round of price hikes.
People seem to forget, we are talking about A LOT of smegging money here, that drastically alters the formulas. The potential payoff of this justice system roulette wheel is even higher. Don't expect RIAA to stop trying these solutions either, the pay out is too large.
RIAA, and the worst of the filesharers are both motivated by greed, in and of itself, this is not a good sign, at least not if you want this crap to go away anytime soon. The problem is further exacerbated by a large group of people whose infractions are more in-line with the traditional infractions, that is they are livable, and do not have a signifdicant impact on the situation. They get involved in the issue, for what are on the surface good reasons, but which are beyond the scope of the actual issue. This results in the current mess. The real abusers have been granted a patina of legitimacy be seizing on the concerns of, and hiding within that mass, and RIAA has taken these same comments to mean that the mass is part of the problem.
In point of fact, I know most do. I know several people who work in support or engineering for several ISPs and keeping such logs is not unusual. The existence of a given set of logs can almost be taken for granted, what you can't take for granted is how long such logs might be kept.
Hell the company owns the equipment and the gateway, they are responsible for ensuring that the use of such is in keeping with the law and their own policies.
I won't have any sympathy for a company that failed to take the appropriate actions with their hardware and network. They have no excuse, the tools exist to prohibit most nad audit the rest of such traffic.
But, the DMCA is evidence of what my central thrust when the topic drifts to RIAA. You may not like RIAA for whatever reason. Fine, but if your method of protesting to RIAA is by unlawfully copying and distributing their property, than you are part and parcel of the existence of the DMCA.
If you want to get pissed off at RIAA, let's get pissed off for the rigth reasons. DMCA and their part in it is deplorable yes, but so was the unlawful ditribution that was going on, and one more step back has us all finding the "central" problems of the issue (or at least central rationalizations) which generally work out to cost, limited selection, or what-have-you.
The base problem exists and needs to be addressed. No argument, but if it is addressed by unlawfully distributing RIAA member property, it does not result in a change in RIAA policy for the better, rather a response in kind. DMCA no more combats the problem than unlawful distribution did.
Even if you buy your music legitimately, and don't make unlawful copies and distribute them, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. If you deplore the DMCA, which apparently you do, why are you tacitly supporting it with yuour dollars, way to go! You further add to the problem by clouding the issue with your post.
If you have such a problem with DMCA, perhaps you might start by recognizing what DMCA was, a reaction, and what was it reacting to... ...very good. None of which is here or there, the problem, all of us agree (albeit for very different reasons) is RIAA. My thesis all along has been that if you want to strike back at RIAA, you do it with your wallet. You don't buy music what supports RIAA, period, end of discussion, nothing else sends a clear message.
So, let me state this unequivocally, one last time.
The problem is RIAA. But, almost none of us are helping to make the problem better. If you buy your music from RIAA members you are tacitly supporting them with your money, and you are part and parcel of the problem. If you then take that material and unlawfully copy and distribute it, regardless of your reason, you are part and parcel of the problem.
So, you may not like all my content, but friend, I haven't bought music in the last 7 years where a single cent went to RIAA. I don't support artists who sign with RIAA memeber orgnaizations. I very clearly do not support RIAA. When I ask all of you to question your actions, and opinions about this shite, I do so fromt he position of one who in no way or shape supports RIAA. But I don't confuse my antipathy to RIAA with a relaxation of my standards of conduct regarding their property, I confine my displays of antipathy to those which do not cloud the issue. Too even obtain an unlawful copy of RIAA material, I feel would compromise my position. It would send the statement to RIAA that I do value their property, and therfore justify their position and excesses. By not doing so, I send a clear message, one that I would hope more of you would consider sending.
You yourself, what message are you sending to RIAA? Your text tells RIAA two things, without even reading my posts: 1) You bought music legally, probably through one of their member orgs, thus financially supporting their position. 2) That you object to provisions of the DMCA, and that perhaps this is a reaction to someone defending RIAA or the DMCA. Which do you think matters to RIAA? By common consensus, the money you donated to their cause.
I on the other hand do not support RIAA financially, even my posts which folk seem to think "support" RIAA are really a plea for everyone who wants RIAA dead and gone to reconsider their actions. Who should RIAA fear more, you who supports them financially, thus
Reasonable use rights cease to be a right when they infringe on others rights. Which is exactly what happens when you unlawfully copy and distribute copyrighted materials. Your reasonable use right is being used an excuse to trample the rights of the copyright holder to their creations.
Put it another way, your defintion of reasonable use means that if I paid for a GPL program means I can do whatever I want with it, include modify and sell it again without abiding by the restrictions of the GPL on such activity.
Okay, if that's what you want to happen to the code you create....
Both are property, you can't support a devlopers rights to his property while obviating the rights of labels, composers and lyricists to theirs.
Itunes is different, Apple meets your obligations for you, and you pay for Apple to do so, and get you music in a convenient format. This isn't the same as you doing it for yourself, without permission.
Why is your friend downloading them? That opens him up to liability and culpability. Viewing them (for example over straming video) leaves the culpability completely with the "broiadcaster"
With the indie films, if you can contact the company you can arragne to obtain a copy legally. In any case the copyright holder will be a matter of public record, and they can be aprroached directly.
They can even be approached over the internet if you have to get your entertaiunment that way. There simply is no good reason to deprive these people of what they are due. In some cases, some of this material if asked for would probably come gratis, since any exposure is good exposure, but when you obviate the rights of the owner to make such a decision for themselves, then the equation for both parties changes.
I would suggest that a lot more things are black and white than they initially appear, so long as you exercise a little due diligence before decinding it's all just shades of grey.
And if this is the item everyone truly has a problem with, then making the MPAA and RIAA the targets of the protest is even more irrational. They are only the benficiaries of a poor law. Well attacking those benficiaries is not going to change the law, except maybe for the worse.
For what it is worth, I do believe you when you tell me that you don't engage in these practices, and do pay for your entertainment media. I not only believe that, I laud you for it.
But, I think there are some misconceptions here. The article plainly states that the "screeners" were preceeded by an agreement, or contract, if you will, which specified the conditions under which the screener would be provided, it further stipulated psecific and possible penalties for contravening that contract. While I agree that contract law does not supercede other forms of law, nothing specified as being in contract contravenes any established body of law, meaning the contract is valid and enforceable, correct? After all, AFAIK there is no law preventing a Movie company from providing a free copy of a product, provided the recipient abided by the terms under which such a copy would be made available. Those terms specifically prevented the disposal of the product in the fashion it was disposed, such a requirement is not unlawful, nor is it even inconsistent with accepted practice in contract law. In point of fact, it is less onerous in it's requirements than the GPL in many ways. But no-one (except SCO) pretends that the GPL is in any way unenforceable or invalid.
As for radio, tv stations, etc. etc. etc. broadcasting those materials, that is hardly the same thing. True, those broadcast are also made under the aegis of contracts, and those contracts also spell out acceptable use of the materials, and penalties for not abiding by the terms of the contract. The specifics are very different, however. The contracts entered into by Radio and TV stations specifically grant them the rights to broadcast such materials, in return for significantly higher costs, and more onerous auditing procedures. Still contracts, still the copyright holder granting permission for specific use, under specific conditions, the use and conditions are different, the validity of the contract is not.
I wouldn;t necessarily say that the practice of sending these screeners out is unethical. In fact, if anything it is a levelling mechnism whereby the smaller companies can get their product fair attention fromt he body of judges, something they might not get otherwise. This was why the MPAA allowed the screeners to go out after initially banning them (mostly due to the (correct) apprehension that these could be a source for pirated materials on the 'net.)
Again, I apologize for what must have seemed like a personal attack on you. The atack was personal, but aimed at the real offenders.
As a side ha-ha, I think it's absolutely hilarious that my orignal post gets modded up, while the follow up post, aknowledging the original as a troll, gets modded down as flamebait...
Consider, this is the law of unintended consequnces, right? Well if this issue is the unintended consequence, what was the intended consequence, oh yeah, to try and curb internet piracy, which consequence was desirable because... ...riiight.
You are precisely right, that is what they will say, and they will continue their campaign for legislation, and maybe one day they will get it.
Like I've repeatedly said, RIAA views this (not entirely incorrectly) as a piracy issue. They will prosecute it as such until things change. This is a natural response to protect their revenue streams from disruption. No-one can deny that a unlawful copying and distribution occur. All we are seeing is some of the fallout of RIAA attempts to plug the dyke. This isn't even a problem for RIAA, they'll just pass the cost along. So how exactly did the protest by unlawful copying and distribution lobby help thi situation to come about. Are they doing anything to help change RIAAs perception of the problem? I suggest not. Rather programs like MUTE are adding gas to the fire. Those developers are expressing a shocking disregard for the rights of other people to their own created works. Really, are they bound to provide a program which let's a user otherwise incapable of carrying on such activites anonymously the ability to? Especially in the knowledge of the potential abuses? None of these people would make a program (I hope) which facilitated the stealing of code from FOSS projects. So because you write software you are entitled to help idiots obviate the rights of music writers?
Bottom line, don't expect RIAA to stop reacting until the stimulus is removed. Not even then, y'all have jammed that hat pin in pretty deep, and continuing to poke and prod with projects like MUTE isn't helping to resolve this issue.
The problem with your rationale is this. How does RIAA know what songs you put on those media. How does the royalty get distributed to the correct party? Secondly, the levy is probably based on reasonable volume under CD-format, not a filesystem full of MP3s, so the levy actually under-represents the number of royalties lost. That I wouldn;t worry about, but remember, those songs you downloaded, you like those artists, right? So where in the train of events that you followed did they get their just reward?
If everyone wants to believe the worst about RIAA, I'd start with that levy, and how it is spent. Your reasoning might even be acceptable to RIAA, depending on how unscrupulously they are using the levy revenues...
In the end, there is no better way to end RIAA abuses than to boycott RIAA member products, this boycott would have to be global, not just boycotting the buying of RIAA member material, boycotting the onwership as well. That is a message, if you simply boycott the buying, you confus the message, in that you give RIAA proof that their property is valuable, valuable enough for you to risk legal prosecution. So the message is that the material is valuable to the public, and that is as much as RIAA analyzes it. If anything obtaining unlawful copies encourages RIAA to further raise prices, and not commit to improving the product brought to the table, since you are showing them what they have is so valuable you'll risk prosecution to get it.
Secondly, what is this fair use rights? I strongly suspect in the end it boils down to your assertion that you should get something for nothing. That is an incorrect assertion. If you are talking about the try then buy "right" then I would suggest you explore how much that relationship is based on trust, and what little reason the other side has to trust the average consumer in view of the rampant exhcange of illegally copied/distributed material.
Back in the tape to tape or CD to tape days these concepts had meaning. It wasn't easy to perform large scale unlawful copying. The music industry turned a bit of a blind eye to the whole affair because it was not perceived as a negative. Throw in the internet and peoples (mistaken) impression that it is nothing more than unlimited freedom with no responsibility, and that equation changes drastically, and rapidly. Factor in that people seem to now expect the music industry to accept that people can defraud them of their due revenues by unlawful copying and distribution is not only narcisistic and short-sighted, it is unrealistic and plainly not going to happen.
I would suggest you consider what you think is fair use, is it really fair? If it is fair, is it predicated on trust that has been abused and broken? Would it be fair from the other side of the equation? Is it fair to the artists who ultimately produce the work in question? Is greed a sufficient justification to deprive these folks of what they are due from their creations? Hey even if you know that they are getting ripped off by the label worse than the consumer, please explain to me how it is depriving them of what revenues they can generate demonstrates aawareness of or support for their plight?
Bottom line, there are consequences, this is just another one, a slightly humorous one, but just another consequence. Go ahead, keep on pulling the Kitty's tail, that will make it better...
No, you are correct, the monies are not paid directly to the artists, but rather to SOCAN, which then uses those monies for grants, etc. etc. A little of what you recorded now going to the artists of tomorrow, but the money does go to the artists. I also believe that some of that money is distributed to SOCAN members as royalty payments as well, but I'm not 100% on that one.
Mod away!
Now if you wrote some GPL software and someone went and modified it, then distributed it, but did not adhere to the specific requirements of the GPL guaranteeing your rights as the author, don't you think you would have a right to be pissed off? Do you think that might color your opinions of the people who ended up buying the software?
This individual violated a binding agreement, no less so than the GPL. Just because the MPAA is the wronged party doesn't make the wrong right.
More, if the demand for the fruits of such unlawful activity wasn't disproportionately high, the temptation would have been far less, and the whole issue likely wouldn't have occured.
And please don't try to ascribe people's unethical behaviour to some sort of protest over movie quality. If a movie is bad, you don't go see it, period. That is not license to obtain an unlawful copy. That kind of reasoning is childish, narcisistic, and anti-social. If all movies suck, you don't go to any, and you certainly do not obtain unlawful copies. If you want to send a message, fine, send the message. But when you obtain an unlawful copy of a movie the signal you are sending is not that the movie sucks, you are signalling your desire to watch/own the movie, while engaging in a childish reaction to the cost.
There is no moral reason to obtain unlawful copies of music, movies, software, what have you. The motive is greed pure and simple.
And the oft quoted argument of try and buy, is worse than useless. That kind of arrangement requires trust. Why should the MPAA or RIAA or anyone else trust you? If they could trust you the problem wouldn't be as pandemic as it is.
Having said all that, there are responsible people who could live within a reasonable try before buy setup, and who would honor their obligations, this post is not directed at you. This post is wasted effort, since it directed at the large group of internet toddlers who can't prosecute an argument, and use the internet primarily as a means to slake their insatiable greed.
I'm suggesting that Novell has an opportunity to create a viable business plan centered around FOSS products and the Novell brand name. Those formerly onerous conditions aren't so much anymore.
Really, the formula is kind of unique for Novell. They allready have Enterprise class software offering for the data centre, and some peripheral operations as well. What they have never had, and have allways had to rely (typically on M$) on other for, was the desktop OS. This has allways been the weakest link, ask Novell. Now however, the components of a desktop OS are right in their hands. All they have to do is make some selections, do a little integration work, brand it and go.
Sure it will take some cash, Novell has it, and you gotta spend it to make it...
Apparently I don't think you understand, perhaps I should have spelled it out. First of all, no-one was naive enough to intimate that FOSS developers are going to kow-tow to Novell. If Novell wants changes to software in order to create the corporate desktop of the future, then Novell will have to do like every other FOSS developer, write the code and submit it to the maintainer.
The developers are losing what exactly?
Namely, to capitalize off Novell's good name. If Novell just intends to push another distro, let it be an unchanged SuSe. If however they want to make inroads on the corporate desktop, first the product should market under the Novell name. Second that product should be break the traditional distro paradigm of overwhelming choice. Overwhelming choice is not a selling point if you are pitching the corporate desktop. Far far better to narrow the range of applications available when going after this market. Not only is the support load easier for yourself and your clients, it is satisfying the market's (albeit wrong) perception that there is an unnecesary amount of choice in Linux distros.
Fighting this resistance with the oft repeated mantra that choice is good has not led to a sweeping corporate dekstop penguination, I suggest perhaps it is time to give consideration to an alternate paradigm. Remove the choice. Hell, even if I don't agree with package x over package y, I don't need to make those selections, nor do I need to worry about custom install scripts, etc. etc. When was the last time Windows was left out of consideration for a desktop OS because of the lack of choices, or even the lack of intelligent defaults?
This notional distro needs to throw out most of the preconceptions distro maintainers have to live with. First, you aren't building a distro for generic_linux_zealot. You're building a distro for generic_company_desktop. The assumptions should be different. GLZ wants his favorite #EDITOR, but since $EDITOR is potentially different for each and every GLZ, you include every editor. Not so for GCD, for this user the text editor isn't nearly as critical, they'll rarely use it. So, the criteria is mutated, rather than trying to meet a given users preference, which led to the proliferation of editor packages in a standard distro, you select a single text editor. I would further suggest that the editor you select be very easy to learn (for the average corporate user, remember, so emacs is out.) and for bonus points, you hack it to honor all the standard windoze keyboard shortcuts, as a tool to ease experienced windoze users into the transition. In point of fact, your biggest detractors among your user base in a windoze shop are the 3% of people who know how to use the keyboard shortcuts within windoze. The rest of the complaints, by and large are fluff. But this compaint isn't, it drastically affects the productivity of users who make use of such "power user" techniques. LISTEN TO THEM, they make a valid point.
Lastly, narrowing the application selection allows tighter integration of the selected applications. This provides another value add to your application selections. Further, it makes feasible development of a comprehensive in-line help program (available through F1, natch) which would give the central help access to all the standard applications on the machine through one unified interface.
The biggest part of the problem is that to the typical linux zealot the requirements are anethma. No, actually the biggest part of the problem is that linux zealots lack an appreciation for the other viewpoint. Your average Linux zealot will tell you (and I'm sure someone will reply to this) that eliminating choices is wrong. Well, if you tell that to the corporate world, all you are doing is telling them that Linux isn't going to work for them. If, however we give them what they think they want, and make sure it operates as we know it should, isn't everyone a winner?
There is a smug superiority in the Linux world about these issues. I'm not saying that those attitudes aren't necessarily correct, once all is said and done. I am saying that those attitudes will keep us from
You've won this round, Lonestar...
Let's take your position, so now the Linux companies are either out of business or out of Linux. This is an improvement how? This advances any of the goals that various sectrors of the Linux community embrace how?
Okay, maybe it won't eradicate Linux from the face of the Earth, but it will effectively reduce it to a hobbyist OS again.
The enemy here has allready proven that they are better at manipulating the media machine. The ODSL for example is funded princicpally by a bunch of tech companies. If the legal environment and risk mangement perception of Linux fuyndamnetally change as a result of this mess, what will guarantee that such support will continue? So Linus goes back to Transmeta, but are they going to be as understanding as they previously were? In such an environment? Not likely.
Simple survival is not sufficient, not after the gains we have made. This kafuffle has the ability to undo all that. Is that really a satisfactory result, that Linux is effectively reduced to the point it was at in 1993?