But surely we're talking about p2p technologies whereby downloading comes hand-in-hand with uploading?
Not all p2p technologies work like BitTorrent. Gnutella (LimeWire, Bearshare, etc) has no inherent "to download you must upload" requirement. Having a large amount of shared material may improve you connectivity (some Gnutella "ultras" will disconnect those with little or no shared stuff as they near capacity), but it's easy enough to load up a shared directory with stuff you won't get sued over, but download infringing content.
Assuming they're talking about something like MD5 hashing here-- The article references the Gnutella network, so I'm assuming that they're talking about the standard SHA1 hashes that are used to identify a particular file on Gnutella.
Mr. Jackson said that Ms. Duplaga did not wish to be interviewed. On Friday, no one answered the door at the beige colonial-style house on Ridgeview Avenue where she rents an apartment diagonally opposite a church. The neighborhood is on the edge of the city's downtown; in recent years, many of the prewar homes have been renovated. Gee, anybody in White Plains want to have a go at tracking her down? Thanks to this superfluous info, you now know:
a) She lives on Ridgeview Avenue. b) She's at the edge of the city's downtown. c) Many of the homes in the area have been renovated recently. d) She lives in a colonial-style house. e) The house is diagonally opposite a church.
If that's not enough info:
One of the laptops was a Macintosh belonging to Kait Duplaga, who works at the Apple store in the Westchester mall and thus knows how to use all its bells and whistles. Just tail her from where she works.
The only info in this that's actually relevant is the fact that she works at an Apple store, and that's she did not wish to be interviewed. The rest is either a reporter padding an article with irrelevant information, or attempting to indirectly violate her right to privacy.
It would be interesting to see how they'll square that with the Constitution's language regarding ex post facto laws. IANAL, but as I understand it, the restrictions on ex post facto legislation have been limited by the courts to criminal laws, but is generally not considered to apply to civil law.
As far as I can tell, that "proof" doesn't exist. Ray's summary appears to be exaggerating quite a bit.
But not to fear - this *is* still quite useful. The challenge clearly shows that a. MediaSentry *did* conduct investigations in Massachusetts. b. The police, upon becoming aware of this, sent them a C&D letter.
So, as of Jan 2008, as far as the police could tell MediaSentry was not licensed to investigate in the state of Massachusetts. Which means that it is very probable that any evidence gathered in May of 2007 was not gathered by a licensed private investigator, and as such qualifies as illegally gathered. Which may or may not be enough to get this case tossed.
Now what will *really* be interesting is if the RIAA file any cases in Mass. that has "evidence" dated *after* Jan 2008. But given the long delay lag between detection and case filing, it'll be a while before that's likely to happen.
"has all but disappeared" has the same meaning as "has almost disappeared". That particular construct is seldom used in everyday speech, but still shows up regularly in writing or speeches where dramatic effect is desired.
IANAL, but I believe that the license is required if two criteria are met:
1. You are being paid to perform the investigation. 2. The evidence produced by the investigation will be presented in a court of law.
AFAIK, if you are performing an investigation on your own behalf, you are not required to obtain a license of any sort, regardless of what investigative methods you are using (though you are, of course, still liable if you use methods that are inherently illegal).
Maybe officially, but it definitely made some bombing runs over Iraq in Operation Desert Fox and Operation Desert Storm I don't think so - the first combat-ready B2 wasn't delivered to the Air Force until late 1993, long after Desert Storm (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=82).
I suspect you're thinking of the F117, which *was* heavily involved in Desert Storm.
Wow, do I look stupid. I had completely forgotten that Gonzales was no longer AG until I spotted a comment about it later in the topic (I guess my mind insists on associating the surveillance program with him, for some reason).
Not that it actually changes anything, mind you. Same agenda, different face.
The real question for me is, why not get FISA warrants? By all accounts, they are a rubber stamp that will grant most any warrant. The FISA court was set up for exactly the type of activities that they say they are doing. So by circumventing that process, I can only conclude that the real program is much more broad, and illegal, than they are letting on. Even more than a rubber stamp, since the spook agencies are allowed to begin surveillance, *then* apply for the warrant (up to 72 hours later).
But the issue, I think, is the paperwork. For instance, each application must be personally approved by the Attorney General (can you imagine poor Mr. Gonzales having to review and sign hundreds or thousands of such applications at a time?).
The surveillance carried out in support of the "war on terror" is orders of magnitude greater than was contemplated when the FISA court was created. So Bush & Co. simply decided to ignore the problem and proceed without bothering to get warrants from the FISA court.
Jack Thompson sues court for defaming him! RTFA - he has *already* stated that he's going to challenge this in the federal courts, and "deconstruct The Florida Bar".
Well, I'm a lawyer who specializes in US copyright, and you're wrong. Copyright deals with distribution, but it also deals with several other rights, including reproduction, which is what a downloader does. There's really no argument that downloaders are not infringers. But they're smaller fish and harder to find than uploaders are (who are in turn smaller than certain developers, e.g. Napster, Grokster, or service providers), which means that since RIAA, MPAA et al like to get the most bang for their buck and have limited resources, they prefer to target uploaders over downloaders. They could sue downloaders, it's just inefficient, so they don't.
If you'd like to read the relevant part of the US law, it is at 17 USC 106. I'd like to point out a significant technical/legal quibble. AFAIK, there are only two ways that they *could* prove "unlawful downloading". First, if the file in question was downloaded from a server under their control. Second, if they control a machine along the route between you and the server, and are sniffing packets.
The first possibility opens a serious can of worms for them. As I understand it, the rights holder can *not* sue you if you're downloading the file from an authorized agent of the rights holder. If Safenet (or whoever is doing the dirty work) *is* deemed an authorized agent, then you get a free pass. And if not, then I think "unclean hands" would come into play (it would be as close to "entrapment" as is possible in a civil case).
The second possibility is pretty nasty as well, since they'd be unlawfully tapping into the communications stream in order to sniff the packets (AFAIK, only law enforcement can obtain a wiretap warrant), which would also bring up the "unclean hands" issue.
So, yes, they *do* have the right to sue the downloaders, but it isn't just "inefficient" to do so - there are some substantial substantial issues that makes it impossible (under current law) for them to *prove* such infringement without running head on into "unclean hands".
(IANAL, but you are, so please correct me if my layman's understanding of the law is incorrect...)
What do they know that we don't know? Are they trying to shift the ban from % of local ownership to national ownership? Are they trying to get this move knocked down in the legal system to set precedent for something else?
No way George W. Bush's FCC is having a change of heart about big business ownership. So what's the scoop on this and other recent anti-cable proposals? And why are they trying to rush a vote on it? Have you considered that this may actually be a big-business vs big-business battle, with the FCC being one of the weapons? The telecom industry appears to have some serious ties to the Bush administration, and I'm sure they'd love to "regulate" the cable companies until the cable companies can no longer compete against the telecoms in the phone/internet markets.
It's also possible that this is simply a result of some bureaucrats attempting to "expand their empire". Since the WSJ article mentions that the White House has *opposed* some of these proposals, this appears to be a more likely scenario.
Um, using a cannabis-derived compound isn't an alternative to chemotherapy, it is chemotherapy, which literally means "treatment with chemicals." Just because a bunch of people have screwed up the meaning of the word like they did with 'hacker' vs. 'cracker', that doesn't make it right. Um, perhaps you should actually read the Wiki article, specifically the part about modern day usage meaning treatments using cytotoxic substances.
By your definition, ANY drug-based treatment is "chemotherapy", while the general usage (including usage by the medical profession) refers to this specific class of drug treatments.
The hacker/cracker screwup was a result of outsiders misinterpreting geek jargon. The meaning change of chemotherapy originated from the professionals *within* the medical field. Two entirely different issues.
Perhaps your thinking of yeoman Rand?
I've seen a bumper sticker that said "Scotty, beam down a six-pack and yeoman Rand" FWIW Nurse Chapel was played by the same actress who married Rodenberry (Star Treks creator) and played Llwaxanna Troi in ST:TNG. As well as doing the voice for the computer in ST:TNG.
Though I suspect most here knew all that already (and probably would've had a better time with the spelling which I probably mangled). Oh gee - you missed the part about her being the first officer (and a brunette) in the original pilot, which was later reworked into an episode in the series (the one with "Captain Pike"). Apparently, they couldn't sell idea of a female in a position of authority, so the poor lady was demoted to being a nurse (and a blonde). And, IIRC, she also did the voice of the computer in the orginal series as well as TNG.
IMHO, fixing that would go a long way towards fixing the patent situation. If the patent holder had to pay back all licensing and attorney fees for a patent ruled invalid, the patent holders themselves would be far more careful in asserting rights for "inventions" that are not likely to stand up to scrutiny. Sorry, that one is simply too easy to dodge. Just set up a separate corporation for each patent, and if your patent is found invalid, then fold that particular corporation.
The only way this would work is if the licensing fees were held in escrow for the entire lifetime of the patent. Which would effectively kill most licensing of patents (why bother if you have to wait up to 17 years before you can actually touch the money?).
Also note that the licensee can potentially negotiate a "repayment of fees if voided" clause in the licensing contract.
I think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist...
So suddenly the rights of the many can be used to do away with the rights of the few? You do know that most artists don't want their stuff pirated, right? A few vocal artists want their music shared, but they're already big enough that they can make a pretty good living from concerts. They're the exception, not the rule. Most artists are struggling, and that's why you don't hear any artists complaining about this outcome. The purpose of copyright law is to protect the creators. Just because you feel entitled to something that runs counter to the law doesn't make that law corrupt. The penalty is sometimes used to make an example of someone, and that is what the court has done here. I hate to rain on your tirade (bad pun intended, don't shoot), but those "rights of the few" were granted to the few, by the many, with the expectation that such a grant would produce positive benefits for society. And if, at any time, the many decide that the few aren't living up to their side of the bargain, then those "rights" can and should be revoked.
The purpose of Copyright is not to protect creators. The purpose of Copyright is to benefit society. The "rights" given to creators are simply the mechanism chosen to obtain the desired result. Copyright is not, and has never been, a "natural right", comparable to life and liberty. It is an artificial construct created by the will of the many. And what the will of the many can create, it can also destroy.
And why are you so worried about the "creators" - they mostly aren't even in this fight. This entire case is nothing but legalized terrorism being used to attempt to maintain the control that a distribution cartel has had over the music business for many decades. A cartel that has historically screwed the artists even worse than it has screwed the consumers.
There is no nighttime in space, nor any clouds, nor any seasons, nor any atmosphere. Solar panels in orbit deliver full power 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year with no need for fuel or maintenance. And they don't have to be, and probably shouldn't be, in orbit. Inject them into an orbit between Venus and Mercury, or closer still. Solar radiation falls off with the square of the distance. The closer we get them to the sun, the more power they will generate, by orders of magnitude. First off, putting them somewhere other than Earth orbit is silly - yes, you can get more energy from the Sun, but how do you transmit it to Earth? The microwave (or whatever) beam will also fall of with the square of the distance.
And how exactly do you keep the power beam locked onto the target, when the target is on a sphere rotating once per day?
Putting them in equatorial geostationary orbits is *much* simpler. You'll lose a small amount of generating time each day (while the station is in Earth's shadow), but if you schedule as much of your maintenance as possible during this time, the effect is minimal.
And maintenance *will* be required, for the foreseeable future. Someday we may be able to build solar cells that don't need to be periodically replaced, but not today.
Furthermore, it's been noted that Earth orbit is "halfway to anywhere in the solar system" (attributed to Heinlein). So we'll need serious orbital capability to build these things, regardless of where we put them.
Be sure you don't use a freezer that hasn't been thoroughly cleaned before it had food stored in it. It makes a big difference, trust me, I made that mistake. My old Meatloaf albums haven't been the same since. I kind of like the effect that those Red Hot Chilli Peppers had on my old Meatloaf albums. It seem to have spiced things up a bit.
A friend of mine claims to have found the ideal ingredients to prepare his cables for playing a Find Young Cannibals album. A couple of other friends have gone over to listen, but for some reason I haven't heard back from them.
I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws? Yes. A judge cannot, on his own initiative, declare a law unconstitutional. There first must be a legitimate challenge to the law made by someone. And people can't simply file a suit to challenge *any* law - they must be able to show that they "have standing", which basically means they can show that the law in question has negatively affected them in some fashion.
You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway? It was simply 9/11 madness. If enough people can be sufficiently frightened, then just about *any* law can be ramrodded through Congress. It's one of the great weaknesses in the whole democratic concept, and one of the major reasons that the Founding Fathers put all those checks-and-balances into the Constitution.
In fact, the only stupid risk he took was not wearing a helmet. What sort of a dick rides a bike without a helmet? (Hint: 'a freedom loving dick' is not an acceptable answer.) I take offense at your usage of the word "dick". To me, a "dick" is a person who, through malice, indifference, or stupidity, adversely affects someone else.
So someone who permits a 10 year old to ride with him without a helmet is being a "dick". Someone who decides for himself not to wear one is at worst a "fool".
I think that people are putting the laser on the ship. I surmise from previous personal research that an array of lasers would be in orbit around the Earth. Perhaps a polar orbit to be in full view of the ship at all times. Yes, they would be nuclear fission powered. First off, from reading TFA, I'm *assuming* (yes, I know the risks in that) that this technology is intended to be placed about the ship. Unless they're actually talking about using a laser to drive a light-sail type vessel.
Secondly - if the laser is in Earth orbit, why mess with the fission reactor? In that scenario, solar power *is* a viable solution. And we might get some Solar Power Satellites out of the deal as a bonus (or cheap space propulsion as a bonus from the SPS project - depends on how you look at it).
I'm pretty sure we managed nuclear technology at some point. Actually, we came pretty close to having a working nuclear rocket engine more than 30 years ago (google for "NERVA" and ignore the Roman emperor links).
The reason we *don't* have such technology today is a result of combining short-sighted congresscritters with techno-illiterate anti-nuclear groups.
To be fair, there *were* some reasonable concerns about the radioactivity of the exhaust (at least while it was near Earth, and there was something in the vicinity to pollute). Using a nuclear reactor to power these new thrusters would alleviate this.
But regardless of this, I suspect that the exact same forces would kill any new attempt at creating a nuclear powered spacecraft. The anti-nuke groups would still be going "Oh Noes - it's nucular, so it's bad". And the congresscritters would still insist on pork from the project for their districts, or else.
So combining these thrusters with a nuclear power source might be *technically* possible, I expect it to remain a political impossibility for the foreseeable future.
Slashdot Mirror
But surely we're talking about p2p technologies whereby downloading comes hand-in-hand with uploading?
Not all p2p technologies work like BitTorrent. Gnutella (LimeWire, Bearshare, etc) has no inherent "to download you must upload" requirement. Having a large amount of shared material may improve you connectivity (some Gnutella "ultras" will disconnect those with little or no shared stuff as they near capacity), but it's easy enough to load up a shared directory with stuff you won't get sued over, but download infringing content.
a) She lives on Ridgeview Avenue.
b) She's at the edge of the city's downtown.
c) Many of the homes in the area have been renovated recently.
d) She lives in a colonial-style house.
e) The house is diagonally opposite a church.
If that's not enough info: One of the laptops was a Macintosh belonging to Kait Duplaga, who works at the Apple store in the Westchester mall and thus knows how to use all its bells and whistles. Just tail her from where she works.
The only info in this that's actually relevant is the fact that she works at an Apple store, and that's she did not wish to be interviewed. The rest is either a reporter padding an article with irrelevant information, or attempting to indirectly violate her right to privacy.
Either way, very poor journalism.
Here's a link on the subject (it's actually an argument against ex post facto civil law): http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-4.html
As far as I can tell, that "proof" doesn't exist. Ray's summary appears to be exaggerating quite a bit.
But not to fear - this *is* still quite useful. The challenge clearly shows that
a. MediaSentry *did* conduct investigations in Massachusetts.
b. The police, upon becoming aware of this, sent them a C&D letter.
So, as of Jan 2008, as far as the police could tell MediaSentry was not licensed to investigate in the state of Massachusetts. Which means that it is very probable that any evidence gathered in May of 2007 was not gathered by a licensed private investigator, and as such qualifies as illegally gathered. Which may or may not be enough to get this case tossed.
Now what will *really* be interesting is if the RIAA file any cases in Mass. that has "evidence" dated *after* Jan 2008. But given the long delay lag between detection and case filing, it'll be a while before that's likely to happen.
"has all but disappeared" has the same meaning as "has almost disappeared". That particular construct is seldom used in everyday speech, but still shows up regularly in writing or speeches where dramatic effect is desired.
IANAL, but I believe that the license is required if two criteria are met:
1. You are being paid to perform the investigation.
2. The evidence produced by the investigation will be presented in a court of law.
AFAIK, if you are performing an investigation on your own behalf, you are not required to obtain a license of any sort, regardless of what investigative methods you are using (though you are, of course, still liable if you use methods that are inherently illegal).
I'm still not sure that Firefox spellcheck is a net gain I beg to differ. You've just accidentally defined the proper unit of measure for propaganda:
"Why don't people accept our beliefs? You'd think that the 2.5 megahollers a year we put out should be having *some* effect".
I suspect you're thinking of the F117, which *was* heavily involved in Desert Storm.
Wow, do I look stupid. I had completely forgotten that Gonzales was no longer AG until I spotted a comment about it later in the topic (I guess my mind insists on associating the surveillance program with him, for some reason).
Not that it actually changes anything, mind you. Same agenda, different face.
But the issue, I think, is the paperwork. For instance, each application must be personally approved by the Attorney General (can you imagine poor Mr. Gonzales having to review and sign hundreds or thousands of such applications at a time?).
The surveillance carried out in support of the "war on terror" is orders of magnitude greater than was contemplated when the FISA court was created. So Bush & Co. simply decided to ignore the problem and proceed without bothering to get warrants from the FISA court.
If you'd like to read the relevant part of the US law, it is at 17 USC 106. I'd like to point out a significant technical/legal quibble. AFAIK, there are only two ways that they *could* prove "unlawful downloading". First, if the file in question was downloaded from a server under their control. Second, if they control a machine along the route between you and the server, and are sniffing packets.
The first possibility opens a serious can of worms for them. As I understand it, the rights holder can *not* sue you if you're downloading the file from an authorized agent of the rights holder. If Safenet (or whoever is doing the dirty work) *is* deemed an authorized agent, then you get a free pass. And if not, then I think "unclean hands" would come into play (it would be as close to "entrapment" as is possible in a civil case).
The second possibility is pretty nasty as well, since they'd be unlawfully tapping into the communications stream in order to sniff the packets (AFAIK, only law enforcement can obtain a wiretap warrant), which would also bring up the "unclean hands" issue.
So, yes, they *do* have the right to sue the downloaders, but it isn't just "inefficient" to do so - there are some substantial substantial issues that makes it impossible (under current law) for them to *prove* such infringement without running head on into "unclean hands".
(IANAL, but you are, so please correct me if my layman's understanding of the law is incorrect...)
No way George W. Bush's FCC is having a change of heart about big business ownership. So what's the scoop on this and other recent anti-cable proposals? And why are they trying to rush a vote on it? Have you considered that this may actually be a big-business vs big-business battle, with the FCC being one of the weapons? The telecom industry appears to have some serious ties to the Bush administration, and I'm sure they'd love to "regulate" the cable companies until the cable companies can no longer compete against the telecoms in the phone/internet markets.
It's also possible that this is simply a result of some bureaucrats attempting to "expand their empire". Since the WSJ article mentions that the White House has *opposed* some of these proposals, this appears to be a more likely scenario.
By your definition, ANY drug-based treatment is "chemotherapy", while the general usage (including usage by the medical profession) refers to this specific class of drug treatments.
The hacker/cracker screwup was a result of outsiders misinterpreting geek jargon. The meaning change of chemotherapy originated from the professionals *within* the medical field. Two entirely different issues.
I've seen a bumper sticker that said "Scotty, beam down a six-pack and yeoman Rand"
FWIW Nurse Chapel was played by the same actress who married Rodenberry (Star Treks creator) and played Llwaxanna Troi in ST:TNG. As well as doing the voice for the computer in ST:TNG.
Though I suspect most here knew all that already (and probably would've had a better time with the spelling which I probably mangled). Oh gee - you missed the part about her being the first officer (and a brunette) in the original pilot, which was later reworked into an episode in the series (the one with "Captain Pike"). Apparently, they couldn't sell idea of a female in a position of authority, so the poor lady was demoted to being a nurse (and a blonde). And, IIRC, she also did the voice of the computer in the orginal series as well as TNG.
The only way this would work is if the licensing fees were held in escrow for the entire lifetime of the patent. Which would effectively kill most licensing of patents (why bother if you have to wait up to 17 years before you can actually touch the money?).
Also note that the licensee can potentially negotiate a "repayment of fees if voided" clause in the licensing contract.
I think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist...
The purpose of Copyright is not to protect creators. The purpose of Copyright is to benefit society. The "rights" given to creators are simply the mechanism chosen to obtain the desired result. Copyright is not, and has never been, a "natural right", comparable to life and liberty. It is an artificial construct created by the will of the many. And what the will of the many can create, it can also destroy.
And why are you so worried about the "creators" - they mostly aren't even in this fight. This entire case is nothing but legalized terrorism being used to attempt to maintain the control that a distribution cartel has had over the music business for many decades. A cartel that has historically screwed the artists even worse than it has screwed the consumers.
And how exactly do you keep the power beam locked onto the target, when the target is on a sphere rotating once per day?
Putting them in equatorial geostationary orbits is *much* simpler. You'll lose a small amount of generating time each day (while the station is in Earth's shadow), but if you schedule as much of your maintenance as possible during this time, the effect is minimal.
And maintenance *will* be required, for the foreseeable future. Someday we may be able to build solar cells that don't need to be periodically replaced, but not today.
Furthermore, it's been noted that Earth orbit is "halfway to anywhere in the solar system" (attributed to Heinlein). So we'll need serious orbital capability to build these things, regardless of where we put them.
s/Find/Fine/
Of course I never spot those during a preview....
A friend of mine claims to have found the ideal ingredients to prepare his cables for playing a Find Young Cannibals album. A couple of other friends have gone over to listen, but for some reason I haven't heard back from them.
So someone who permits a 10 year old to ride with him without a helmet is being a "dick". Someone who decides for himself not to wear one is at worst a "fool".
Secondly - if the laser is in Earth orbit, why mess with the fission reactor? In that scenario, solar power *is* a viable solution. And we might get some Solar Power Satellites out of the deal as a bonus (or cheap space propulsion as a bonus from the SPS project - depends on how you look at it).
The reason we *don't* have such technology today is a result of combining short-sighted congresscritters with techno-illiterate anti-nuclear groups.
To be fair, there *were* some reasonable concerns about the radioactivity of the exhaust (at least while it was near Earth, and there was something in the vicinity to pollute). Using a nuclear reactor to power these new thrusters would alleviate this.
But regardless of this, I suspect that the exact same forces would kill any new attempt at creating a nuclear powered spacecraft. The anti-nuke groups would still be going "Oh Noes - it's nucular, so it's bad". And the congresscritters would still insist on pork from the project for their districts, or else.
So combining these thrusters with a nuclear power source might be *technically* possible, I expect it to remain a political impossibility for the foreseeable future.