I don't dispute that, but asking for a file is NOT the same as asking for a copy of the file. Whether the machine provides a "copy" or the "original" is indistinguishable to the recipient, it's just a stream of bits.
Unless I have the original, I can't make a copy.
Why not? If I take a photo of a painting, I've made a copy, but I don't need to "have" the painting to make the copy.
Yes, you do. I have a painting right here - feel free to support your claim by posting a copy on the web and providing a URI. You need to have direct physical access (photonic, not touch or possession) to the painting to make a copy.
If I email you a file, can you tell me whether it is an original or a copy? How?
that the number of listeners makes a difference is very Zen, but not particularly scientific (except perhaps at the quantum level, which has no practical relevance to this discussion). I see no term in Shannon's equation which accomodates a "type" of channel.
It's simply Capacity = Bandwidth x log2 (1+ Signal/Noise).
Your reference is to a paper dealing with multiple "simultaneous" transmitters sharing bandwidth, and is not relevent to the discussion at hand (interference from BPL to traditional radio technologies, such as AM/FM/CW communications). It might however be suited to a discussion of digital cellular technologies (CDMA/TDMA/OFDM).
No, the machine, unless it is sentient, didn't copy the file. You copied the file using the machine.
No, asking for a file does not necessarily equate to asking for a copy. Unless I have the original, I can't make a copy.
Your logic is equivalent to claiming that browsing the web is a constant copying of copyrighted content.
Broadcasting is not copying. The law is clear on that point. However, broadcasting is public performance, and broadcasting via the internet is public performance by means of a digital audio transmission, both of which are exclusive rights in addition to copying.
I said nothing about public broadcasting. The FCC allows FM transmissions up to a certain level (50 mw?), and it's perfectly legal to use that technology to privately broadcast, say from a CD player so you can listen on a radio in another room, (wireless headphones are another example). Are those illegal? Are you claiming that IP based music streaming, such as the capability offered by Apple iTunes and hardware devices such as an Airport Express or Roku Soundbridge or a Squeezebox constitutes copyright infringement? How about if it's sent over 802.11?
Is it copyright infringement to play music loudly enough that others can hear it (broadcasting via audio vs. RF)? What clearly defined distinction is there between loud music and RF transmission and Internet transmission?
and as Shannon has so clearly told us, the rate at which information may be tranferred is directly related to both bandwidth AND noise. Interference is noise.
The quote given indicates a naive understanding of radio and communications theory, at best. Sure, some receivers work better than some others. But it's also generally true that any specific receiver will work better in the absence of noise (i.e. interference.)
If I download a file, I haven't copied anything, as I've got the one and only file which I've ever had - the original, as far as I am concerned. The machine which sent me the file most likely copied it - reading a file from disk and then sending me bits. It may have also removed those bits from the hard disk when it sent them to me, and hence _not_ copied the file, but I have no way of knowing.
The deeper question is: what's protected? Is it the bits which represent information, or the information itself? If it's the bits, then (except for fair use) simply playing a CD would be copying, since the bits are read from the CD and copied to RAM and then copied again to a DAC. Is it not equivalent "fair use" to let someone else play a CD I own, whether through loan of the CD itself, or by FM broadcast (using FCC legal levels), or by bits sent via network?
If it's the information, then it begs the question - if a CD plays where no one can hear, does it make a sound. i.e. Can the information exist separate from human experience, and if not, can not any number of "bit copies" exist as long as only a single one is producing the copyrighted information (sound) at any time?
RTP uses UTP not TCP, which makes sense, because VoIP payload is time sensitive - by the time TCP would get around to requesting/retransmitting, the payload would have become useless.
Why do you assume that different AP's must reside on different subnets? That is not required, and as long as the client remains on the same subnet, no new DHCP lease is required.
Although everyone is allowed to participate, fundamentally the Internet is just a collection of private networks, based upon commonly agreed-to protocols, which have coordinated interconnections to each other. It is a private construct.
Furthermore, AFAIK, everyone who participates is bound by some contract with upstream providers, right to the backbone. Even "public" terminals, such as might be found in a library have,in theory, responsible supervision, meaning someone is responsible for misuse (ex. sending spam).
It's also not something which can be regulated, because the Internet is a concept, not a thing. There are things, such as routers and links which the Internet uses, but the Internet per se is the actual communications between different private networks. It's ethereal.
abridging the freedom of speech... that includes Apple's freedom to use proprietary speech. You don't want it - don't buy it.
MAPS is evil (not to mention in felony violation..
on
Should You Trust MAPS?
·
· Score: 0
of US law.
1) MAPS is ineffective and inefficient. Spammers simply jump around, especially with the proponderance of spam virii. This breaks any system based on the simplistic view that there is a meaningful correlation between IP addresses and spam.
2) MAPS is demonstrably error prone. They simply don't care that their system produces false positives.
3) MAPS DUL is illegal, at least in the US. It's in violation of "18 U.S.C. 1030 -Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers", because it
knowingly transmits information which impairs the availability of systems to protected computers.
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/m aps-dul-is-wrong.html
they are willing to use dirty tactics to supress the first amendment.
Uh, no. Have you read the First Amendment? It imposes limitation on Congress, not private parties.
Apple can, as a condition of employment, require potential employees to sign a contract which limits their rights to publish or disclose information. They can and do. The First Amendment doesn't apply.
Additionally, if someone induces that employee to break that contract, that party may be subject to suit based on tortuous interference. "Press" or not.
Ever since these "automobiles" have come about, there are no hitching posts in front of the local bars anymore.
Seriously, I hardly expected a Luddite article to be of interest on/.
movie so much easier.
And open up new doors, just imaging a feature length "Pinky and the Brain," with real actors! ("Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?" "I think so, Brain, but on/. no one knows you're a mouse.")
The backbone ISP's need to cut peering/links to ISP's supporting spammers. That will never happen, because money talks, and spammers have money. AUP/TOS are for little guys, not spammers.
it's a wannabe who stole the name from Infoworld. "Robert X Cringley" is a pseudonymous byline which was/is used for a gossip column in Infoworld. The column has over time been written by several different people. The person calling himself "Robert X. Cringley" on PBS is just one of those people, and not even the first. He no longer works for Infoworld, and no longer has any legitimate rights to the pseudonym. What he's done is the ethical equivalent of stealing the copy machine when you lose your job.
"traditional" VoIP implementations, especially H.323 are overly complex. H.323, for instance, was originally intended for videoconferencing, and was a in international "design by committee." "Traditional" VoIP carries a heavy resource cost, making it expensive to implement on light weight devices (think PDA, cell phone, other personal/portable stuff).
SIP can be implemented with a much lower resource requirement.
If you're familiar with IP and OSI protocols, think CMIP (H.323) vs. SNMP (SIP).
Picking and choosing between multiple sources, stringing together a weak argument (really, Wikipedia as authoritative?).
Yes, semantics. Look it up. If my refutation of your claim hinges on semantics, and you dismiss "semantics," you've already admitted you're wrong, as you're simply stating your original post had no meaning.
Failing to perform to the terms of a contract is called a "breach," it is not "illegal."
Since you can't provide a legal cite, I'll offer you the opportunity to point to any authoritative lay source which refers to contract breach as "illegal."
Slashdot Mirror
With MIMO, it is the transmitter which changes, not the channel.
I don't dispute that, but asking for a file is NOT the same as asking for a copy of the file. Whether the machine provides a "copy" or the "original" is indistinguishable to the recipient, it's just a stream of bits.
Unless I have the original, I can't make a copy.
Why not? If I take a photo of a painting, I've made a copy, but I don't need to "have" the painting to make the copy.
Yes, you do. I have a painting right here - feel free to support your claim by posting a copy on the web and providing a URI. You need to have direct physical access (photonic, not touch or possession) to the painting to make a copy.
If I email you a file, can you tell me whether it is an original or a copy? How?
It's simply Capacity = Bandwidth x log2 (1+ Signal/Noise).
Your reference is to a paper dealing with multiple "simultaneous" transmitters sharing bandwidth, and is not relevent to the discussion at hand (interference from BPL to traditional radio technologies, such as AM/FM/CW communications). It might however be suited to a discussion of digital cellular technologies (CDMA/TDMA/OFDM).
No, asking for a file does not necessarily equate to asking for a copy. Unless I have the original, I can't make a copy.
Your logic is equivalent to claiming that browsing the web is a constant copying of copyrighted content.
Broadcasting is not copying. The law is clear on that point. However, broadcasting is public performance, and broadcasting via the internet is public performance by means of a digital audio transmission, both of which are exclusive rights in addition to copying.
I said nothing about public broadcasting. The FCC allows FM transmissions up to a certain level (50 mw?), and it's perfectly legal to use that technology to privately broadcast, say from a CD player so you can listen on a radio in another room, (wireless headphones are another example). Are those illegal? Are you claiming that IP based music streaming, such as the capability offered by Apple iTunes and hardware devices such as an Airport Express or Roku Soundbridge or a Squeezebox constitutes copyright infringement? How about if it's sent over 802.11?
Is it copyright infringement to play music loudly enough that others can hear it (broadcasting via audio vs. RF)? What clearly defined distinction is there between loud music and RF transmission and Internet transmission?
and as Shannon has so clearly told us, the rate at which information may be tranferred is directly related to both bandwidth AND noise. Interference is noise.
The quote given indicates a naive understanding of radio and communications theory, at best. Sure, some receivers work better than some others. But it's also generally true that any specific receiver will work better in the absence of noise (i.e. interference.)
If I download a file, I haven't copied anything, as I've got the one and only file which I've ever had - the original, as far as I am concerned. The machine which sent me the file most likely copied it - reading a file from disk and then sending me bits. It may have also removed those bits from the hard disk when it sent them to me, and hence _not_ copied the file, but I have no way of knowing.
The deeper question is: what's protected? Is it the bits which represent information, or the information itself? If it's the bits, then (except for fair use) simply playing a CD would be copying, since the bits are read from the CD and copied to RAM and then copied again to a DAC. Is it not equivalent "fair use" to let someone else play a CD I own, whether through loan of the CD itself, or by FM broadcast (using FCC legal levels), or by bits sent via network?
If it's the information, then it begs the question - if a CD plays where no one can hear, does it make a sound. i.e. Can the information exist separate from human experience, and if not, can not any number of "bit copies" exist as long as only a single one is producing the copyrighted information (sound) at any time?
RTP uses UTP not TCP, which makes sense, because VoIP payload is time sensitive - by the time TCP would get around to requesting/retransmitting, the payload would have become useless.
Why do you assume that different AP's must reside on different subnets? That is not required, and as long as the client remains on the same subnet, no new DHCP lease is required.
Although everyone is allowed to participate, fundamentally the Internet is just a collection of private networks, based upon commonly agreed-to protocols, which have coordinated interconnections to each other. It is a private construct. Furthermore, AFAIK, everyone who participates is bound by some contract with upstream providers, right to the backbone. Even "public" terminals, such as might be found in a library have,in theory, responsible supervision, meaning someone is responsible for misuse (ex. sending spam). It's also not something which can be regulated, because the Internet is a concept, not a thing. There are things, such as routers and links which the Internet uses, but the Internet per se is the actual communications between different private networks. It's ethereal.
abridging the freedom of speech...
that includes Apple's freedom to use proprietary speech. You don't want it - don't buy it.
of US law.m aps-dul-is-wrong.html
1) MAPS is ineffective and inefficient. Spammers simply jump around, especially with the proponderance of spam virii. This breaks any system based on the simplistic view that there is a meaningful correlation between IP addresses and spam.
2) MAPS is demonstrably error prone. They simply don't care that their system produces false positives.
3) MAPS DUL is illegal, at least in the US. It's in violation of "18 U.S.C. 1030 -Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers", because it knowingly transmits information which impairs the availability of systems to protected computers. http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/
I doubt the FBI knows about that one.
Uh, no. Have you read the First Amendment? It imposes limitation on Congress, not private parties.
Apple can, as a condition of employment, require potential employees to sign a contract which limits their rights to publish or disclose information. They can and do. The First Amendment doesn't apply.
Additionally, if someone induces that employee to break that contract, that party may be subject to suit based on tortuous interference. "Press" or not.
Cut the off the Internet and let them eat Teletext.
Ever since these "automobiles" have come about, there are no hitching posts in front of the local bars anymore. Seriously, I hardly expected a Luddite article to be of interest on /.
1) Blocks evil cell phone radiation from damaging your brane.
2) Tremendously improves the reception range of your phone.
3) Increases battery life AND
4) Releases pheromones to attract members of the opposite sex.
movie so much easier. And open up new doors, just imaging a feature length "Pinky and the Brain," with real actors! ("Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?" "I think so, Brain, but on /. no one knows you're a mouse.")
The backbone ISP's need to cut peering/links to ISP's supporting spammers. That will never happen, because money talks, and spammers have money. AUP/TOS are for little guys, not spammers.
it's a wannabe who stole the name from Infoworld. "Robert X Cringley" is a pseudonymous byline which was/is used for a gossip column in Infoworld. The column has over time been written by several different people. The person calling himself "Robert X. Cringley" on PBS is just one of those people, and not even the first. He no longer works for Infoworld, and no longer has any legitimate rights to the pseudonym. What he's done is the ethical equivalent of stealing the copy machine when you lose your job.
SIP can be implemented with a much lower resource requirement.
If you're familiar with IP and OSI protocols, think CMIP (H.323) vs. SNMP (SIP).
Powell was a idiot (in relation to his position), and clearly didn't understand how to regulate a shared public medium to achieve public benefit.
for 10K, I want it to send an SNMP trap when my toast is ready.
nt
you need to kill anyone who buys any product or service advertised with spam. Without a market, spammers are out of business.
Picking and choosing between multiple sources, stringing together a weak argument (really, Wikipedia as authoritative?). Yes, semantics. Look it up. If my refutation of your claim hinges on semantics, and you dismiss "semantics," you've already admitted you're wrong, as you're simply stating your original post had no meaning.
Failing to perform to the terms of a contract is called a "breach," it is not "illegal." Since you can't provide a legal cite, I'll offer you the opportunity to point to any authoritative lay source which refers to contract breach as "illegal."