"I guess I look at it thusly: If an entity X is doing something and the people P directly affected by it willingly participate, then when other people Q complain that X is not being nice to P, I get confused."
Look at it this way...
entity X takes advantage of a situation that people P can't change (work here for a pittance or starve). People Q are fighting against entity X to raise the living standards for people P. Especially when entity X is making obscene profits off of people P's work and can well afford it.
Just because they can get away with it doesn't mean they should.
That is the correct response to give when faced by anyone asking for personal info from an ISP. If they don't have a warrent or subpoena, then the one asking for the info is wrong. The "flagging" you are talking about is proper too since at some point legal will be involved if it is a valid warrent / subpoena. I don't see a problem with that.
You got it right with the exception that it is highly advisable to get a lawyer to handle this stuff. Doing it yourself can save money but can also cost you more in the long run when you screw it up.
Yet you would be the first one screaming if Verizon did just hand over the info to an unverified accuser (BTW; IIRC, Verizon was cleared of the allegation you are thinking of AT&T who is still under the gun). That is the whole point of doing "John Doe" suits by the **AA first. This guy should contact a lawyer to handle this correctly. That is what they get paid for. As for the police, that can be handled by filing a complaint then letting your lawyer handle that situation.
This case aside, jurisdiction is tough to set in computer related crimes because of locations involved. Usually it is the FBI who handles them because they have jurisdiction across state lines.
The money has little to do with the discussion at hand. The point is the exploitation of economic conditions the people being exploited can't control. In the case of the immigrant it is the fact that they can't report the wrong. In the case of the Chinese they can't just up and strike. Just because the value of the dollar is stronger than the value of the Yen doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of.
I'm confused. Guy wants to work more and make more money, when he's currently dirt poor. Apple is (you allege) circumventing a tyrannical system that doesn't let the guy do it... but it's Apple that's being exploitative?"
The only difference between sweatshops and hiring illegal immigrants at much lower wages than the law allows is location. They both are exploiting a situation the employee has no control over and meant to "maximize" the already obscene profits these companies have. Asking an entity whose sole existence is making a profit on other's labor to do it morally is not too big a thing to ask IMO.
"- mandatory copyright registration. No-reg was efficient when outlets were few. Now that billions are publishing on the web, it's impossible (read: costly) to track down rightholders and licenses. *Very* inefficient. But registering and searching can now be done very cheaply, thanks to th web."
Copyright registration requirements wasn't cut out due to few outlets but to comply with the Berne Convention requirements.
See "1886: Berne Convention" and "1976: Revision of the U.S. Copyright Act "
In short, it is a result of the fighting over copyright terms between Europe and the US that is continuing today in the form of WIPO.
"- exponential renewal costs. If the heirs of Elvis, or Disney, want to keep something copyright protected for 100 years, fine with me, as long as they pay for to compensate for the impairment it causes to artists who are creating *now* and consumers who are paying 100* cost for a CD."
This one just went right over my head...The term extensions were enacted to comply with treaties agreed upon by nations around the globe. It is part of what I like to refer to as the Copyright Cold War. It works like this:
Europe sees the US doing something that is making them gobs of money and hinders them from making the same gobs. We can't have that so we propose a treaty to make things "uniform". Now Europe is making the same gobs of money and the US can't have that. Software patents in Europe is the latest thing the US is pushing for...Wash, rinse, and repeat.
The weapon in all this is trade sanctions. Any nation that doesn't enforce those treaties is immediately demonized and trade sanctions are used to force compliance. It is happening today to China. The US is proposing trade sanctions against China unless it tightens up its "intellectual property" laws.
See my post above about derivative works. Copyright law does prohibit derivative works. So Card can (and it appears from the post above will) sue those violating the derivative works clause of copyright.
"Just out of curiosity, how would you feel if a product you produced was being used to kill others?"
It could be far worse...
Imagine it was your country being attacked and software you wrote had a big hand in that attack. Free Software is developed around the globe so this quandary is valid.
Personally, I think it is a silly idea and one that is unenforcible as far as the GPL is concerned. When they tacked this onto the license it ceased being GPL. SCO would have a field day if the FSF allowed them to get away with adding conditions to GPL licenses. So call it what you want, but GPL it is not if this clause remains.
I wish you luck in your bid for office but you missed the entire point of my post. The political system is rigged in the US on so many fronts it is impossible to disentangle them. You will never have true election reform until these basics are addressed:
1.) Redistricting has been allowed to favor incumbents. Not enough republicans (democrats) in your district? Redraw the district lines until there are.
2.) Media coverage of politics favors the duopoly we have in this nation. It also rarely focuses on true issues facing the people but instead goes on personal attacks. Add to that the 30 second sound bites used for news these days and it is highly unlikely that the people actually know who they are voting for much less what they represent.
3.) The funding of politicians campaigns is a holy mess. It has led to questionable if not downright illegal practices.
4.) Voter apathy is growing. So much so that a minority of the populace are the ones setting things up for the majority.
5.) Elections are often fraught with fraud or at least claims of fraud.
6.) Political lobbying is running out of control both in the bribes they offer politicians but in the fact that they are the ones actually writing the laws the politicians aren't reading.
7.) Politicians are so busy trying to fund their next campaign that they don't have time to actually do the job they were elected to do. That is why they rarely even read the laws they vote on daily.
Those are just the main ones I can come up with at the moment. I know there are more. The problem is that you will never get them fixed if you were elected because it isn't in your intrest to fix them. Fixing them means you may lose your seat and lord knows we can't have that.
"Much as I enjoy watching gcc messages fly past, that is not a credible solution in an enterprise environment."
Ok, I'm going to call you on this...
Just exactly how do you define "enterprise environment"? If by "enterprise environment" you are talking server farms, gentoo is already on quite a few. If you are talking desktops, again, it is on quite a few and can be installed (if that is a measure) in under 20 minutes (GRP).
I installed Gentoo in 2000. That was the first time as well as the last time I installed the OS. Yet I can assure you that everything is up to date and some of it is bleeding edge. Do you consider having to reinstall the OS every time the distro revs a "credible solution for the enterprise environment"? I sure don't especially when it is so easy to stay on top of updates as they are released instead of as they are packaged.
"The problem you highlight, is a problem with all Linux distros that I've tried. No distro seems to provide proper patch level dependency checking or provides incremental patch files."
Then you haven't done Gentoo. Even big programs like Xorg, KDE, KOffice, etc. are done now in meta form allowing an update to one part without doing it all. I eventually see programs like Ooo going that route in Gentoo as well. Any other dependancy change is handled by revdep-rebuild. All-in-all, Gentoo is a fine distro for this feature alone...
Although you both are correct, the President has a huge say in the laws that are passed as well as introduced. More so if Congress is of the same party as is the case today. That is the reason that President Bush has only needed to use his veto powers once in his entire time as President.
The point I was trying to make is it really takes all three branches of government to make laws that stand the test of time. A law is enacted by Congress, approved (either actively or passively) by the President, and upheld by the Courts or it isn't a law. It is that simple.
"1) "Bush" can't "pass laws". If you don't understand how the US government works, don't jabber about it, k?"
Actually, it isn't a law until the President (Bush or otherwise) signs it so yes, the President does pass laws especially if Congress can't get the votes for an override. The President also sets the national agenda for what legislation gets introduced as well as proposes a budget for his input on what gets funded.
I notice you're not running and why is that? Could it be that running for office these days sets you and your family up for microscopic examination of your entire life by the press? Or could it be that the pay is not worth the constant headaches of dealing with a populace that is only in it for their own personal gain? Could it be that no matter what you do it will be wrong to someone? Could it be the constant bitching about services the public wants but doesn't want to pay for?
There are plenty of good reasons people don't run for political office and very little incentive to entice them when there are far less stressful and rewarding private sector positions available. What you are left with are the masochists that enjoy that kind of public exposure. It gets worse the higher up the political food chain you go. Yet through all that, I have yet to see any seat go unfilled. They may run unapposed but there has never been, to my knowledge, any time nobody ran.
The magnitude doesn't matter for today's terrorism laws. That act committed today would be called terrorism solely because it was an act of violence for political reasons. You are saying that a death has to occur before it is terrorism? That blows the whole cyber-terrorism concept out of the water.
You have already assumed there *IS* evidence of a crime on those tapes. That has yet to be shown. The shield laws were designed to protect those that come forward to the press that would not do so otherwise. It is a required part of our system of government. An informed electorate requires a truly free and protected press. That can't be possible when those in power use that power to intimidate. And what if the tape is only an excuse for a fishing expedition on the part of the police / prosecution and has no evidence of your supposed crime but instead is used as a launching point to intimidate others?
"I'll agree that (and I am not an american here) the damage to federal property argument does seem tenuous at best. But that seems rather beside the point."
That is EXACTLY the point, and I do live in the US. It is a State's rights issue that has been fought since the establishment of the union. The federal government gets its rights from the States. Changes to the Constitution, for example, must be ratified by the states before they become valid.
The ones who should be upset by tenuous funding connections to yank jurisdictions should be the States.
I would be interested to know when this filming occurred. If it was pre-9/11/2001 then there was no "anti-terrorism" federal funding going to cities. That was one of those "unfunded mandates" before 9/11.
"Why did you pirate a game and play it, if you didn't intend to buy it in the first place?"
That isn't what was meant in the GP post. I have indulged in copyright violation (I refuse to use the incorrect term for it) solely to see if it was what I expected and to see if it worked with my setup. If it doesn't, then in the bit-bucket it goes and I'm not out $$$$. OTOH, if it does what I want and works fine, then I buy it simply for the support and extras you often get.
I'll tell you why I did this. Ever try to return opened software these days? It doesn't matter if it doesn't work, you can't. The most they will do is exchange it for another copy that won't work either. That is why I try before I buy. I consider that fair since they have taken away the return mechanism when it doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
"I guess I look at it thusly: If an entity X is doing something and the people P directly affected by it willingly participate, then when other people Q complain that X is not being nice to P, I get confused."
Look at it this way...
entity X takes advantage of a situation that people P can't change (work here for a pittance or starve). People Q are fighting against entity X to raise the living standards for people P. Especially when entity X is making obscene profits off of people P's work and can well afford it.
Just because they can get away with it doesn't mean they should.
B.
"Sorry, you must get with our legal dept"
That is the correct response to give when faced by anyone asking for personal info from an ISP. If they don't have a warrent or subpoena, then the one asking for the info is wrong. The "flagging" you are talking about is proper too since at some point legal will be involved if it is a valid warrent / subpoena. I don't see a problem with that.
B.
You got it right with the exception that it is highly advisable to get a lawyer to handle this stuff. Doing it yourself can save money but can also cost you more in the long run when you screw it up.
B.
Yet you would be the first one screaming if Verizon did just hand over the info to an unverified accuser (BTW; IIRC, Verizon was cleared of the allegation you are thinking of AT&T who is still under the gun). That is the whole point of doing "John Doe" suits by the **AA first. This guy should contact a lawyer to handle this correctly. That is what they get paid for. As for the police, that can be handled by filing a complaint then letting your lawyer handle that situation.
This case aside, jurisdiction is tough to set in computer related crimes because of locations involved. Usually it is the FBI who handles them because they have jurisdiction across state lines.
B.
The money has little to do with the discussion at hand. The point is the exploitation of economic conditions the people being exploited can't control. In the case of the immigrant it is the fact that they can't report the wrong. In the case of the Chinese they can't just up and strike. Just because the value of the dollar is stronger than the value of the Yen doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of.
B.
I'm confused. Guy wants to work more and make more money, when he's currently dirt poor. Apple is (you allege) circumventing a tyrannical system that doesn't let the guy do it... but it's Apple that's being exploitative?"
The only difference between sweatshops and hiring illegal immigrants at much lower wages than the law allows is location. They both are exploiting a situation the employee has no control over and meant to "maximize" the already obscene profits these companies have. Asking an entity whose sole existence is making a profit on other's labor to do it morally is not too big a thing to ask IMO.
B.
"- mandatory copyright registration. No-reg was efficient when outlets were few. Now that billions are publishing on the web, it's impossible (read: costly) to track down rightholders and licenses. *Very* inefficient. But registering and searching can now be done very cheaply, thanks to th web."
...Wash, rinse, and repeat.
Copyright registration requirements wasn't cut out due to few outlets but to comply with the Berne Convention requirements.
See "1886: Berne Convention" and "1976: Revision of the U.S. Copyright Act "
on
http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html
In short, it is a result of the fighting over copyright terms between Europe and the US that is continuing today in the form of WIPO.
"- exponential renewal costs. If the heirs of Elvis, or Disney, want to keep something copyright protected for 100 years, fine with me, as long as they pay for to compensate for the impairment it causes to artists who are creating *now* and consumers who are paying 100* cost for a CD."
This one just went right over my head...The term extensions were enacted to comply with treaties agreed upon by nations around the globe. It is part of what I like to refer to as the Copyright Cold War. It works like this:
Europe sees the US doing something that is making them gobs of money and hinders them from making the same gobs. We can't have that so we propose a treaty to make things "uniform". Now Europe is making the same gobs of money and the US can't have that. Software patents in Europe is the latest thing the US is pushing for
The weapon in all this is trade sanctions. Any nation that doesn't enforce those treaties is immediately demonized and trade sanctions are used to force compliance. It is happening today to China. The US is proposing trade sanctions against China unless it tightens up its "intellectual property" laws.
B.
See my post above about derivative works. Copyright law does prohibit derivative works. So Card can (and it appears from the post above will) sue those violating the derivative works clause of copyright.
B.
"The whole idea of copyright is based on 3 ideas:
- creativity is scarce;
- creating requires time people don't have;
- distribution is expensive."
You need to add one just after the second:
- creativity has expenses;
The cost of raw goods to create whatever it is you are making shouldn't be ignored.
B.
"Of course there's nothing to stop those 13 year olds from acting in terrible harry potter fan made films either"
Except copyright law itself. The derivative works part of copyright keeps that from happening.
So yes, those 13 year olds can be sued for just such a performance especially if they released it.
B.
"Just out of curiosity, how would you feel if a product you produced was being used to kill others?"
It could be far worse...
Imagine it was your country being attacked and software you wrote had a big hand in that attack. Free Software is developed around the globe so this quandary is valid.
Personally, I think it is a silly idea and one that is unenforcible as far as the GPL is concerned. When they tacked this onto the license it ceased being GPL. SCO would have a field day if the FSF allowed them to get away with adding conditions to GPL licenses. So call it what you want, but GPL it is not if this clause remains.
B.
I wish you luck in your bid for office but you missed the entire point of my post. The political system is rigged in the US on so many fronts it is impossible to disentangle them. You will never have true election reform until these basics are addressed:
1.) Redistricting has been allowed to favor incumbents. Not enough republicans (democrats) in your district? Redraw the district lines until there are.
2.) Media coverage of politics favors the duopoly we have in this nation. It also rarely focuses on true issues facing the people but instead goes on personal attacks. Add to that the 30 second sound bites used for news these days and it is highly unlikely that the people actually know who they are voting for much less what they represent.
3.) The funding of politicians campaigns is a holy mess. It has led to questionable if not downright illegal practices.
4.) Voter apathy is growing. So much so that a minority of the populace are the ones setting things up for the majority.
5.) Elections are often fraught with fraud or at least claims of fraud.
6.) Political lobbying is running out of control both in the bribes they offer politicians but in the fact that they are the ones actually writing the laws the politicians aren't reading.
7.) Politicians are so busy trying to fund their next campaign that they don't have time to actually do the job they were elected to do. That is why they rarely even read the laws they vote on daily.
Those are just the main ones I can come up with at the moment. I know there are more. The problem is that you will never get them fixed if you were elected because it isn't in your intrest to fix them. Fixing them means you may lose your seat and lord knows we can't have that.
B.
"Much as I enjoy watching gcc messages fly past, that is not a credible solution in an enterprise environment."
Ok, I'm going to call you on this...
Just exactly how do you define "enterprise environment"? If by "enterprise environment" you are talking server farms, gentoo is already on quite a few. If you are talking desktops, again, it is on quite a few and can be installed (if that is a measure) in under 20 minutes (GRP).
I installed Gentoo in 2000. That was the first time as well as the last time I installed the OS. Yet I can assure you that everything is up to date and some of it is bleeding edge. Do you consider having to reinstall the OS every time the distro revs a "credible solution for the enterprise environment"? I sure don't especially when it is so easy to stay on top of updates as they are released instead of as they are packaged.
B.
"The problem you highlight, is a problem with all Linux distros that I've tried. No distro seems to provide proper patch level dependency checking or provides incremental patch files."
Then you haven't done Gentoo. Even big programs like Xorg, KDE, KOffice, etc. are done now in meta form allowing an update to one part without doing it all. I eventually see programs like Ooo going that route in Gentoo as well. Any other dependancy change is handled by revdep-rebuild. All-in-all, Gentoo is a fine distro for this feature alone...
B.
Although you both are correct, the President has a huge say in the laws that are passed as well as introduced. More so if Congress is of the same party as is the case today. That is the reason that President Bush has only needed to use his veto powers once in his entire time as President.
The point I was trying to make is it really takes all three branches of government to make laws that stand the test of time. A law is enacted by Congress, approved (either actively or passively) by the President, and upheld by the Courts or it isn't a law. It is that simple.
B.
"1) "Bush" can't "pass laws". If you don't understand how the US government works, don't jabber about it, k?"
Actually, it isn't a law until the President (Bush or otherwise) signs it so yes, the President does pass laws especially if Congress can't get the votes for an override. The President also sets the national agenda for what legislation gets introduced as well as proposes a budget for his input on what gets funded.
B.
I notice you're not running and why is that? Could it be that running for office these days sets you and your family up for microscopic examination of your entire life by the press? Or could it be that the pay is not worth the constant headaches of dealing with a populace that is only in it for their own personal gain? Could it be that no matter what you do it will be wrong to someone? Could it be the constant bitching about services the public wants but doesn't want to pay for?
There are plenty of good reasons people don't run for political office and very little incentive to entice them when there are far less stressful and rewarding private sector positions available. What you are left with are the masochists that enjoy that kind of public exposure. It gets worse the higher up the political food chain you go. Yet through all that, I have yet to see any seat go unfilled. They may run unapposed but there has never been, to my knowledge, any time nobody ran.
B.
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp
The magnitude doesn't matter for today's terrorism laws. That act committed today would be called terrorism solely because it was an act of violence for political reasons. You are saying that a death has to occur before it is terrorism? That blows the whole cyber-terrorism concept out of the water.
B.
I thank you for that....I just re-read it for the third time and STILL can't see it but I'll take your word for it....
B.
Then you missed the whole Boston Tea Party thing....
B.
I did RTFA. Pray tell oh wise one where in TFA is says when the tape was made?!?!?
I notice that information is lacking in your post as well.
Next time why don't you STFU before you post such foul drivel.
B.
You have already assumed there *IS* evidence of a crime on those tapes. That has yet to be shown. The shield laws were designed to protect those that come forward to the press that would not do so otherwise. It is a required part of our system of government. An informed electorate requires a truly free and protected press. That can't be possible when those in power use that power to intimidate. And what if the tape is only an excuse for a fishing expedition on the part of the police / prosecution and has no evidence of your supposed crime but instead is used as a launching point to intimidate others?
B.
"I'll agree that (and I am not an american here) the damage to federal property argument does seem tenuous at best. But that seems rather beside the point."
That is EXACTLY the point, and I do live in the US. It is a State's rights issue that has been fought since the establishment of the union. The federal government gets its rights from the States. Changes to the Constitution, for example, must be ratified by the states before they become valid.
The ones who should be upset by tenuous funding connections to yank jurisdictions should be the States.
I would be interested to know when this filming occurred. If it was pre-9/11/2001 then there was no "anti-terrorism" federal funding going to cities. That was one of those "unfunded mandates" before 9/11.
B.
"Why did you pirate a game and play it, if you didn't intend to buy it in the first place?"
That isn't what was meant in the GP post. I have indulged in copyright violation (I refuse to use the incorrect term for it) solely to see if it was what I expected and to see if it worked with my setup. If it doesn't, then in the bit-bucket it goes and I'm not out $$$$. OTOH, if it does what I want and works fine, then I buy it simply for the support and extras you often get.
I'll tell you why I did this. Ever try to return opened software these days? It doesn't matter if it doesn't work, you can't. The most they will do is exchange it for another copy that won't work either. That is why I try before I buy. I consider that fair since they have taken away the return mechanism when it doesn't work.
B.