The DVD cases are nice, 'tho. Remove the label inserts, and you've got a blank case -- handy if you order software that doesn't come in a hard case itself ("Combat Mission" and "Space Empires IV" being the two for me -- both used simple paper envelopes in the middle o' the manual). Then I can give 'em proper homes, and the publishers/users don't need to pay extra for fancier packaging.
If you propose it, you might want to make an exception for address mungers where the message contains sufficient information (e.g. simple instructions in the signature, or an obvious munging scheme) where a "reasonable person" with minimal effort could identify the correct e-mail address.
And probably a forger should be liable for damages incurred by the holder of the forged addresses and systems (this especially goes for spammers who use the e-mail addresses of people who pissed 'em off, as the "From:" address of their next spam).
Have you considered looking at certain cases of abortion as justifiable homicide? If the life of the mother may be in danger otherwise, and that would suggest self-defense; if the pregnancy was the result of rape, then perhaps it's justifiable as an involuntary burden.
Anything else, *shrug* I'd think it'd get pushed down to the state level via the tenth, but the justices in Roe v. Wade obviously thought otherwise.
The CD would be more likely to be (eventually) scratched and rendered unreadable. On her network-equipped machine, the "music" can be cloned worldwide so that it NEVER dies...
It's even better from the ISP, really. Well, simultaneously better and worse.
The good part is, the ISP is like a mall with a LOT of business. And most of it is legitimate, in general, so it's not like the mall gets a reputation for, say, being a crackhouse.
The bad part is, the stores are anonymous except to the ISP. The ISP is the one who can map IP address to customer name. And that means that people who come a-knockin' with legal threats go to the ISP first, and the ISP needs to make the call as to whether or not to divulge the name, which might be tricky barring court order.
But if the ISP cooperates (e.g. DMCA safe-harbour-ish) in, say, withdrawing infringing material and likely warning the user when IT is notified, then the ISP is likely pretty safe.
I believe that there are, actually, high schools that ban beepers. I'm not sure if this is the excuse, or simply because of their potential to be disruptive (if set on "make noise" instead of "vibrate").
What percentage of Google searches result in copyright infringement? Has Google ever been warned about infringement, and what have they done about it? What would change if there were no Google?
What percentage of Morpheus searches result in copyright infringement? Has Morpheus ever been warned... and what have they done about it? What would change if there were no Morpheus/FastTrack?
The answers are quite different. So, then, is the legal treatment that they deserve.
And it's an absurd argument for Morpheus to make, given that the levels of infringment on Morpheus versus the general traffic on an ISP are likely extremely different.
They should ask themselves: Is the prevailing use of Morpheus legal? If not, they have a VERY big problem, especially if there are alternative file-sharing designs that would produce a different answer to that question.
Ah, but in some cases there may be more than one culpable party. If somebody sells alcohol to a minor, for instance, shouldn't they both be held responsibile -- the minor for drinking it, the dealer for selling it?
If Morpheus and friends have been mostly used for facilitating infringement, a similar argument would suggest nailing both them -- for facilitating being their primary use -- and the users -- for doing the actual infringing. This argument does NOT extend to ISPs, since most ISPs do not have as their prevailing use infringement, nor do they advertise as such.
...which is why Enron is now receiving a government-funded cover-up and bailout. Right. They're collapsing like a house of cards, and it looks like a) their contributions and ties to the Clintons were too early to help, and b) their contributions to the Bushes may have in fact led to their being *denied* help -- as Safire notes, if they HADN'T been contributing, the White House staffers might have been more willing to mention to the Prez. the probable downfall of a major player in the energy market. The contributions meant that even taking a legitimate interest in the possible effects on the US economy (e.g. investor confidence in one of the Big Five accounting firms, and in accounting practices in general) could easily look like a conflict of interest -- oops.
Didn't Stephen King try this with "The Plant"? Not that I read that, so I wouldn't know if it constituted a "good" story, but *shrug* IIRC the contribution rate was fairly low.
No. The consumer did NOT pay for the work; he assumed none of the risk of development, of initial funding, of marketing research... nada. The non-creating, non-publishing consumer just waits for somebody else to do the work for him.
And you didn't grant the monopoly, since it wasn't your right to sell. The developer did by legally transferring copyright or otherwise granting exclusive distribution rights; that, after all, is ALL the developer has to offer.
Not true. Your typical home user who sells legitimate, licensed software on E-bay likely is selling his copy, not a duplicate. Online distribution tends to increase the number of copies in circulation...
Hrm. What vest would stop a modern rifle round? I was under the impression that most can stop a.38 or 9mm pistol round, but the remaining energy can still crack your ribs... and a rifle cartridge usually has a LOT more power.
Well, if the courts decide that a) the RIAA a monopoly in terms of music distribution; and b) it leverages that power anti-competitively, in this case branching into online music distribution, and killing off potential competitors by a combination of denying licensing at reasonable terms plus suing those who proceed anyway...
...then the RIAA might have a problem. Weren't some Congresscritters talking about compulsory licensing during the hearings?
Consumers buying music might disagree -- with their wallets.
Folks like Spears and what they produce may be of little value to either you or me, but there are enough people who decide to plunk down, what, $15-$20 (?) for CDs, and Pepsi sees enough advertising potential, so that her income is rather non-trivial.
Vote with your dollars. Some folks value CDs, some value porcelain mice, some value obscure books, and so forth. It's not unreasonable to claim that if large numbers people are willing to buy something for the next 85 years, then in fact it is quite valuable indeed, as the mass appeal of mediocrities probably will not last quite that long.
Yeah. The way things are right now, E-bay doesn't have to take responsibility for diddly-squat -- at least that's their claim -- and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that's the way they like it.
If you look at the European Green parties, their issues tend to go WELL beyond environmentalism -- for instance, they tend to be pretty extreme about wealth distribution and relative salary caps, they lean towards pacifism and unilateral disarmament, and so forth. So there's a little bit o' truth to the statement, over there. It's less so in the States, AFAICT.
Which one of them probably has tenure, and thus a nigh-guaranteed gravy chain if they continue to please the grant-masters? Which of them is instead at the mercy of consumers and ruthless competition? Which is subject to objective reality, such as having to produce things that ARE readily verifiable, DO perform -- or flop, and otherwise more subject to challenge?
The usual tactic, as far as I've gleaned from other news stories:
- Probable pedophile contacts victim. - Victim notifies police. - Police officer pretends to be a juvie, and
takes the bait. - Victim asks to meet somewhere in the real world, for sex. - Police officer accepts. - The meeting occurs at the specified time and place, and the perp is arrested.
In that sort of takedown, it's usually pretty clear, since random people don't respond to rendezvous that have no other connection than forged e-mails.
States' rights don't include the right to arbitrarily mis-apply their own laws, thus denying equal protection. To wit, Florida has one law describing the voting standard required for the entire state. One standard -- a clear indication of the intent of the voter. It is a 14th-amendment violation to misapply the Florida statute by permitting multiple voting standards, by allowing one county to count dangling chads, another to toss them out, and so forth.
Believe it or not, you can use the 14th to send a traffic ticket dispute to SCOTUS -- if you can show that in your case, all lower-level authorities were denying you equal protection and instead were deliberately persecuting you. The same logic justifies the FBI coming in and nailing local officials who just happened to be Klan members conspiring to commit murder, if the local/state authorities won't clean up their own mess. And no strict constructionist should tell you otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
The DVD cases are nice, 'tho. Remove the label inserts, and you've got a blank case -- handy if you order software that doesn't come in a hard case itself ("Combat Mission" and "Space Empires IV" being the two for me -- both used simple paper envelopes in the middle o' the manual). Then I can give 'em proper homes, and the publishers/users don't need to pay extra for fancier packaging.
If you propose it, you might want to make an exception for address mungers where the message contains sufficient information (e.g. simple instructions in the signature, or an obvious munging scheme) where a "reasonable person" with minimal effort could identify the correct e-mail address.
And probably a forger should be liable for damages incurred by the holder of the forged addresses and systems (this especially goes for spammers who use the e-mail addresses of people who pissed 'em off, as the "From:" address of their next spam).
Have you considered looking at certain cases of abortion as justifiable homicide? If the life of the mother may be in danger otherwise, and that would suggest self-defense; if the pregnancy was the result of rape, then perhaps it's justifiable as an involuntary burden.
Anything else, *shrug* I'd think it'd get pushed down to the state level via the tenth, but the justices in Roe v. Wade obviously thought otherwise.
shudder
The CD would be more likely to be (eventually) scratched and rendered unreadable. On her network-equipped machine, the "music" can be cloned worldwide so that it NEVER dies...
It's even better from the ISP, really. Well, simultaneously better and worse.
The good part is, the ISP is like a mall with a LOT of business. And most of it is legitimate, in general, so it's not like the mall gets a reputation for, say, being a crackhouse.
The bad part is, the stores are anonymous except to the ISP. The ISP is the one who can map IP address to customer name. And that means that people who come a-knockin' with legal threats go to the ISP first, and the ISP needs to make the call as to whether or not to divulge the name, which might be tricky barring court order.
But if the ISP cooperates (e.g. DMCA safe-harbour-ish) in, say, withdrawing infringing material and likely warning the user when IT is notified, then the ISP is likely pretty safe.
I believe that there are, actually, high schools that ban beepers. I'm not sure if this is the excuse, or simply because of their potential to be disruptive (if set on "make noise" instead of "vibrate").
What percentage of Google searches result in copyright infringement? Has Google ever been warned about infringement, and what have they done about it? What would change if there were no Google?
What percentage of Morpheus searches result in copyright infringement? Has Morpheus ever been warned... and what have they done about it? What would change if there were no Morpheus/FastTrack?
The answers are quite different. So, then, is the legal treatment that they deserve.
And it's an absurd argument for Morpheus to make, given that the levels of infringment on Morpheus versus the general traffic on an ISP are likely extremely different.
They should ask themselves: Is the prevailing use of Morpheus legal? If not, they have a VERY big problem, especially if there are alternative file-sharing designs that would produce a different answer to that question.
Isn't "go forth and multiply" a sufficiently explicit authorization to, ah... ? ;)
Ah, but in some cases there may be more than one culpable party. If somebody sells alcohol to a minor, for instance, shouldn't they both be held responsibile -- the minor for drinking it, the dealer for selling it?
If Morpheus and friends have been mostly used for facilitating infringement, a similar argument would suggest nailing both them -- for facilitating being their primary use -- and the users -- for doing the actual infringing. This argument does NOT extend to ISPs, since most ISPs do not have as their prevailing use infringement, nor do they advertise as such.
...which is why Enron is now receiving a government-funded cover-up and bailout. Right. They're collapsing like a house of cards, and it looks like a) their contributions and ties to the Clintons were too early to help, and b) their contributions to the Bushes may have in fact led to their being *denied* help -- as Safire notes, if they HADN'T been contributing, the White House staffers might have been more willing to mention to the Prez. the probable downfall of a major player in the energy market. The contributions meant that even taking a legitimate interest in the possible effects on the US economy (e.g. investor confidence in one of the Big Five accounting firms, and in accounting practices in general) could easily look like a conflict of interest -- oops.
Suicide by political contributions, perhaps.
*frown*
Didn't Stephen King try this with "The Plant"? Not that I read that, so I wouldn't know if it constituted a "good" story, but *shrug* IIRC the contribution rate was fairly low.
No. The consumer did NOT pay for the work; he assumed none of the risk of development, of initial funding, of marketing research... nada. The non-creating, non-publishing consumer just waits for somebody else to do the work for him.
And you didn't grant the monopoly, since it wasn't your right to sell. The developer did by legally transferring copyright or otherwise granting exclusive distribution rights; that, after all, is ALL the developer has to offer.
Not true. Your typical home user who sells legitimate, licensed software on E-bay likely is selling his copy, not a duplicate. Online distribution tends to increase the number of copies in circulation...
As far as I know, id Software only opened up (license-wise) the game engines, not the data files.
As for source, it wouldn't surprise me that much if a lot of source code for old games no longer exists in any organized form. *shrug*
Hrm. What vest would stop a modern rifle round? I was under the impression that most can stop a .38 or 9mm pistol round, but the remaining energy can still crack your ribs... and a rifle cartridge usually has a LOT more power.
Well, if the courts decide that a) the RIAA a monopoly in terms of music distribution; and b) it leverages that power anti-competitively, in this case branching into online music distribution, and killing off potential competitors by a combination of denying licensing at reasonable terms plus suing those who proceed anyway...
...then the RIAA might have a problem. Weren't some Congresscritters talking about compulsory licensing during the hearings?
Consumers buying music might disagree -- with their wallets.
Folks like Spears and what they produce may be of little value to either you or me, but there are enough people who decide to plunk down, what, $15-$20 (?) for CDs, and Pepsi sees enough advertising potential, so that her income is rather non-trivial.
Vote with your dollars. Some folks value CDs, some value porcelain mice, some value obscure books, and so forth. It's not unreasonable to claim that if large numbers people are willing to buy something for the next 85 years, then in fact it is quite valuable indeed, as the mass appeal of mediocrities probably will not last quite that long.
Yeah. The way things are right now, E-bay doesn't have to take responsibility for diddly-squat -- at least that's their claim -- and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that's the way they like it.
If you look at the European Green parties, their issues tend to go WELL beyond environmentalism -- for instance, they tend to be pretty extreme about wealth distribution and relative salary caps, they lean towards pacifism and unilateral disarmament, and so forth. So there's a little bit o' truth to the statement, over there. It's less so in the States, AFAICT.
Which one of them probably has tenure, and thus a nigh-guaranteed gravy chain if they continue to please the grant-masters? Which of them is instead at the mercy of consumers and ruthless competition? Which is subject to objective reality, such as having to produce things that ARE readily verifiable, DO perform -- or flop, and otherwise more subject to challenge?
And it is indisputable that you MIGHT murder somebody twenty years from now if you aren't terminated. Try again.
Given that Pres. Hussein tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, I doubt that he cares THAT much about the consequences.
And if we go after him in the name of regime change, he might care even less.
The usual tactic, as far as I've gleaned from other news stories:
- Probable pedophile contacts victim.
- Victim notifies police.
- Police officer pretends to be a juvie, and
takes the bait.
- Victim asks to meet somewhere in the real world, for sex.
- Police officer accepts.
- The meeting occurs at the specified time and place, and the perp is arrested.
In that sort of takedown, it's usually pretty clear, since random people don't respond to rendezvous that have no other connection than forged e-mails.
States' rights don't include the right to arbitrarily mis-apply their own laws, thus denying equal protection. To wit, Florida has one law describing the voting standard required for the entire state. One standard -- a clear indication of the intent of the voter. It is a 14th-amendment violation to misapply the Florida statute by permitting multiple voting standards, by allowing one county to count dangling chads, another to toss them out, and so forth.
Believe it or not, you can use the 14th to send a traffic ticket dispute to SCOTUS -- if you can show that in your case, all lower-level authorities were denying you equal protection and instead were deliberately persecuting you. The same logic justifies the FBI coming in and nailing local officials who just happened to be Klan members conspiring to commit murder, if the local/state authorities won't clean up their own mess. And no strict constructionist should tell you otherwise.