If you're putting them on a PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE machine at home, no you're NOT in the clear. Find a saner way that involves access control so you're the only one who can access those files.
*sigh* Read the bill. If you've authorization to redistribute the files -- and for your own content, you would unless you've signed that away -- you wouldn't be affected.
Regarding prohibition, Amendment XVIII only prohibited manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation. Technically, consumption was NOT illegal. Unless you can find a similar loophole in copyright law... it's going to be mostly an issue of pragmatism (scaring off the sharers is both easier and more efficient than scaring off the downloaders).
Pretty much. After all, (a) any "secret" recipe for downloading that becomes available to the masses will become available to the RIAA, and (b) anything else that would interfere with the RIAA's finding valid files would also interfere with regular users.
Use software that can whitelist. It's that simple.
I filter mail with a rather brutal sieve script, for instance, but the script is written to let mail with "blessed" headers (certain subjects or senders) through even if it'd normally trigger the rest of the filters.
Think about it some more -- you're deliberately making such copies available to the whole world, most of which cannot claim any right to download it. That's public performance.
It's probably at least partly for technical reasons. Those offering files can be found by any client -- including the RIAA's own -- via searches, but who tracks who's downloading other than the servers involved? Unless the RIAA maintained *lots* of servers and managed to lure downloaders to use them, it'd be hard for them to track.
Money won't make a difference to the defence, since from a legal perspective it's very clear: unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted material is illegal. If memory serves, the US Code was even updated to explicitly state that making creative works available online to the public at large constituted public performance.
Tolstoy, as least as far as I can remember from "Anna Karenina" (it's been a while since I read "War and Peace"), has a habit of throwing multiple names per character at you.
Full name (first, patronomic (sp?), last) Patronomic form (first, patronomic only; informal) Diminiuative forms of the first name (again informal) Nicknames/aliases
If we want to wax philosophical but still keep the reading accessible to the casual -- unlike, say, Spinoza's "Ethics" -- there's material such as Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia". Fiction-wise, there's plenty of philosophical fiction, especially in the woe-is-the-world apocalyptic genre typified by, say, John Brunner's "Stand on Zanzibar" or other dark material such as most anything by Philip K. Dick or Franz Kafka. History can get one thinking, as well... and readers shouldn't confine themselves to their own histories, either. Need to learn about evil? Pick up something on, say, Stalin's gulag system.
Or grab a well-written satire. Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" fits; it's well-written, damn funny, and absolutely brutal regarding the nonsensical bits of '30s life in the Soviet Union.
Hell, my collection meanders between history, hard-boiled detective novels, science fiction, oft-depressing literature (e.g. Camus, Kafka...), a couple of books on photography, epic novels (RoTK), the occasional thoughtful satire, Le Carre-ish suspense/espionage... I see no reason for anybody to pigeon-hole himself to the point where he specifically wants just "geek books". I'm a human being, not a dedicated organism whose sole purpose is geekdom.
Of course, it also costs me enough that Jeff Bezos probably/loves/ customers like me...
Agreed. Neverwhere had more characterization and more detail, really, and in that particular work Gaiman apparently didn't feel compelled to insert gratuitious text about a taxi driver fellating an efreet.
The writing's often better, as well, in genres where you need something more than a lurid cover or a connection to a televison/movie franchise to be a hit.
Perhaps if Jordan actually knew how to develop characters beyond, say, all the cliches shackling his whiny feminist teenage Aes Sedai or whatever the hell he called them, he might have been worth mentioning.
I'm not terribly fond of that other geek fantasy perennial, Pratchett, either; the first few books in the Discworld series struck me as fluffy to the point of content-free.
Tolkien's LOTR series -- less the Silmarillion -- is pretty readable, if you skip over his tendency to go overboard with the music and poetry. I have to respect that series for the sheer amount of world-building, as well. George R. R. Martin's not-yet-completed series beginning with "A Game of Thrones" is quite good; the characters not only prove interesting and capable of development, but they also move in a coherent and complex plot within a well-imagined world instead of stumbling from cliche to cliche or a mess of nonsensical jokes.
Somebody whose computer does a disproportionate amount of network traffic will likely already have gained the attention of network admins. It'd then be simple for said admins to try a few of the popular "file sharing" programs to see if the machine in question is acting as a server for anything it shouldn't be; and if it is serving unauthorized copies, there's likely something in the terms of service about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the bill. It doesn't make enabling software illegal, so yes, you're wrong.
Read the bill again. It's not illegal, it's just that the provider must inform the user prior to download.
If you're putting them on a PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE machine at home, no you're NOT in the clear. Find a saner way that involves access control so you're the only one who can access those files.
The enabling software needs to have a prior-to-download warning. That's all.
*sigh* Read the bill. If you've authorization to redistribute the files -- and for your own content, you would unless you've signed that away -- you wouldn't be affected.
No; it simply appears that you didn't read the bill. Try doing so next time.
If you leave your CD, you no longer have it. The same isn't true for P2P.
Regarding prohibition, Amendment XVIII only prohibited manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation. Technically, consumption was NOT illegal. Unless you can find a similar loophole in copyright law... it's going to be mostly an issue of pragmatism (scaring off the sharers is both easier and more efficient than scaring off the downloaders).
Pretty much. After all, (a) any "secret" recipe for downloading that becomes available to the masses will become available to the RIAA, and (b) anything else that would interfere with the RIAA's finding valid files would also interfere with regular users.
No. You can't claim DMCA violation unless you're the bona-fide copyright holder, if memory serves.
Insightful?
Funny, perhaps, as a reflection of the priorities of at least some elements of the Slashdot community.
Use software that can whitelist. It's that simple.
I filter mail with a rather brutal sieve script, for instance, but the script is written to let mail with "blessed" headers (certain subjects or senders) through even if it'd normally trigger the rest of the filters.
...and perhaps a better support contract. Support => geek time => extremely expensive.
Think about it some more -- you're deliberately making such copies available to the whole world, most of which cannot claim any right to download it. That's public performance.
It's probably at least partly for technical reasons. Those offering files can be found by any client -- including the RIAA's own -- via searches, but who tracks who's downloading other than the servers involved? Unless the RIAA maintained *lots* of servers and managed to lure downloaders to use them, it'd be hard for them to track.
DMCA is irrelevant to this. Plain old copyright law suffices to nail the so-called "sharers".
Money won't make a difference to the defence, since from a legal perspective it's very clear: unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted material is illegal. If memory serves, the US Code was even updated to explicitly state that making creative works available online to the public at large constituted public performance.
Nope; unauthorized redistribution is illegal. As for safe harbor, it applies to hosting services and not individuals.
Tolstoy, as least as far as I can remember from "Anna Karenina" (it's been a while since I read "War and Peace"), has a habit of throwing multiple names per character at you.
Full name (first, patronomic (sp?), last)
Patronomic form (first, patronomic only; informal)
Diminiuative forms of the first name (again informal)
Nicknames/aliases
No kidding.
/loves/ customers like me...
If we want to wax philosophical but still keep the reading accessible to the casual -- unlike, say, Spinoza's "Ethics" -- there's material such as Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia". Fiction-wise, there's plenty of philosophical fiction, especially in the woe-is-the-world apocalyptic genre typified by, say, John Brunner's "Stand on Zanzibar" or other dark material such as most anything by Philip K. Dick or Franz Kafka. History can get one thinking, as well... and readers shouldn't confine themselves to their own histories, either. Need to learn about evil? Pick up something on, say, Stalin's gulag system.
Or grab a well-written satire. Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" fits; it's well-written, damn funny, and absolutely brutal regarding the nonsensical bits of '30s life in the Soviet Union.
Hell, my collection meanders between history, hard-boiled detective novels, science fiction, oft-depressing literature (e.g. Camus, Kafka...), a couple of books on photography, epic novels (RoTK), the occasional thoughtful satire, Le Carre-ish suspense/espionage... I see no reason for anybody to pigeon-hole himself to the point where he specifically wants just "geek books". I'm a human being, not a dedicated organism whose sole purpose is geekdom.
Of course, it also costs me enough that Jeff Bezos probably
Plus... one of the characters dies before much of the action takes place, and meanwhile shows up in the modern era as well. Hmmmm.
Agreed. Neverwhere had more characterization and more detail, really, and in that particular work Gaiman apparently didn't feel compelled to insert gratuitious text about a taxi driver fellating an efreet.
No kidding.
The writing's often better, as well, in genres where you need something more than a lurid cover or a connection to a televison/movie franchise to be a hit.
Perhaps if Jordan actually knew how to develop characters beyond, say, all the cliches shackling his whiny feminist teenage Aes Sedai or whatever the hell he called them, he might have been worth mentioning.
I'm not terribly fond of that other geek fantasy perennial, Pratchett, either; the first few books in the Discworld series struck me as fluffy to the point of content-free.
Tolkien's LOTR series -- less the Silmarillion -- is pretty readable, if you skip over his tendency to go overboard with the music and poetry. I have to respect that series for the sheer amount of world-building, as well. George R. R. Martin's not-yet-completed series beginning with "A Game of Thrones" is quite good; the characters not only prove interesting and capable of development, but they also move in a coherent and complex plot within a well-imagined world instead of stumbling from cliche to cliche or a mess of nonsensical jokes.
Somebody whose computer does a disproportionate amount of network traffic will likely already have gained the attention of network admins. It'd then be simple for said admins to try a few of the popular "file sharing" programs to see if the machine in question is acting as a server for anything it shouldn't be; and if it is serving unauthorized copies, there's likely something in the terms of service about that.