The proper checks and balances are in place via a search warant.
To think that criminal communication wouldn't be encrypted, is niave. Given that, why extend law enforcement's powers, other than to allow then to snoop where they clearly don't belong.
If they have a judge's blessing, its simple enough to place a keylogger
So if its reasonable to expect that communication to be encryped, and if there are already tools, to perform surveillance on unenrypted communications.
If you look at this and this perhaps you'll consider changing your viewpoint?
Canadians would appreciate it, as we'll undoubtedly be pressured into the same costly (both in dollars and in freedom) legislation up here.
I'm an American and speak from that perspective...
Okay, I'm a Canadian, and I'll speak from that perspective...
would say that if VoIP were to ever be adopted as a full replacement for POTS then yes wire-tap laws should be updated to encompass that to maintain law enforcement's ability to conduct investigation. I would not extend such a update to include internal or privately held VoIP systems, but if it used like any other public utility it should be regulated in some manner
I personally think the internet has brought about signficant enhancements to free speech in the last decade, and I would respectfully submit that to the extent possible the internet should not be regulated. What do you think couldn't be accomplished with keyloggers and search warrants issued by judges? The only issue, is an issue of convenience for law enforcement, and the only convenience I believe in, is a judge issued search warrant. Frankly, I've had enough stupid US imposed law. We've had many such laws over the years.
I don't launder money or smoke up, but these are prime issues of stupidity, right up there with the war on drugs.
I had OS/2 with voice built into the OS, allowing all the software to operate by voice.
Unfortunately, while it was an interesting feature, it was more of a gimmick. I can type far faster and more accurately than I can talk.
The only real market for this product IMHO is for those who are unable to type, but I'm not at all certain that a large portion of this market - technophobes - can be sold.
I bought my Atari in 1985 (maybe it sucked 15 years ago, but 20 years ago it was great;) solely because they were playing Sundog in the computer store - and dammit - I needed to play that game!
Still remember the FTL logo in Sundog coming up with a "swooshing" sound that scared the shit out of me - thought the computer was going to explode!! Up till that time I had only heard "beeps" out of computers.
A few days late, and I think you miss the point. US companies are able to file a civil claims to protect their copyrights in most countries outside the US.
The issue I was raising however, is whether those governments should invoke DMCA like criminal legislation, where such infringment isn't for profit.
Agreed, but I still don't think that a non-criminal (civil) offense falls under an extradition treaty. Those are generally reserved for criminal matters.
Of course wasn't the China issue was more one of counterfeiting the total product?
"Actually they are suing uploaders ONLY - they have no legal ground to sue downloaders"
Actually I understand that they are suing heavy file sharers, on the pretext that they are in all liklihood "uploaders".
However, any case against "uploaders" would depend on how the courts utlimately define "distribution" under the Copyright Act. If its not distribution to leave your front door unlocked, I'm not sure that leaving a shared drive open would be either.
Being Canadian, my view is somewhat slanted, but....
... but I can't think of any war/insurrection that the US has been involved in, in my lifetime, where the US or its way of life were threatened? Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Chile, Granada, Panama, Gulf War, Iraq, and probably many others I've missed.
The only possible exception was Afghanistan, and I'm not certain even in that case
I'd defend my country in a heartbeat, but that doesn't mean I would go to war elsewhere, and IMHO I don't see how that involves giving anything back to your country
I was pondering why Baystar would make the investment as well. I have two possible scenarios:
1) Microsoft or friends agreed to indeminfy Bayshore for any losses suffered; or
2) Bayshore was provided with Microsoft stock to short (remember they are a hedge fund) so that if SCO won they were ahead with their SCO position, and were hedged against their losing by being short on Microsoft.
Actually the artists on I-rate radio have approved the release of their music. After rating, I've come up with some really great music. Go try it yourself and see!
There is a requirement for full, fair and plain disclosure.
There is a requirement to disclose the substance of the transaction, not just its form.
I won't refer you to specific regs - depends on the facts - but the following, provides much of the relevant case law, etc.
The reason that I believe there was a lack of disclosure has to do with the failure to disclose the "substance" of the transactions, not the "form", and failure to disclose that the business is dependent upon the goodwill of MS etc.
With all due respect, IF this email is true and factual, the disclosure made to date IMHO is not sufficient to allow investors to understand the nature of SCO's business relationship with MS. The disclosure provided just wouldn't cut it.
No, the fact that this was a directed investment by MS, has not been reported. Nor was the fact that SCO is for all purposes reliant on MS for funding, or the facts as to what MS was to obtain in return.
Its nice that they dress it up by moving money through third parties and using service contracts, but the disclosure needs to be of the "substance", not the "form"
With all due respect, there are serious potential implications, and this would not be "typical of large business relationships".
Did the companys MS *referred* get paid by MS? Did they do due diligence? What about their other non-MS investors? Were they "tipped"? IS this a case of secret commissions? Where is the SCO disclosure for SEC filings? Is MS manipulating the market by failing to disclose their significant investment in SCO, whether made directly or indirectly?
Funding to SCO by MS could be made in one of two ways: 1) Through contracts for services; or 2) Capital investment. Either way it appears to me that SCO and perhaps MS would have a problem, if in fact this email is verified
If payment is through services agreements, there is a GAAP (Generally accepted accounting principle) requirement for disclosure that you are reliant on a third party where that third party is supplying a substantive proportion of your revenues. Even if several different parties provided revenues to SCO, if the executives at SCO knew it was solely due to MS and where therefor reliant on MS, disclosure would be required.
If the source of funding was through capital invesment in SCO, there would be a required disclosure in the Company's 10K or 10Q MD&A, since it would appear they are dependant upon this source of funding to carry on with their business. The amount of funding is not insignificant and certainly material.
Furthermore, a hidden MS investment of this signficance, without disclosure, would have manipulated the market price. This would hold MS and SCO open to SEC related lawsuits
If this turns out to be true, lawyers and the SEC are going to have a field day at SCO and MS's expense
Slashdot Mirror
The proper checks and balances are in place via a search warant.
To think that criminal communication wouldn't be encrypted, is niave. Given that, why extend law enforcement's powers, other than to allow then to snoop where they clearly don't belong.
If they have a judge's blessing, its simple enough to place a keylogger So if its reasonable to expect that communication to be encryped, and if there are already tools, to perform surveillance on unenrypted communications.
If you look at this and this perhaps you'll consider changing your viewpoint?
Canadians would appreciate it, as we'll undoubtedly be pressured into the same costly (both in dollars and in freedom) legislation up here.
I'm an American and speak from that perspective...
Okay, I'm a Canadian, and I'll speak from that perspective ...
would say that if VoIP were to ever be adopted as a full replacement for POTS then yes wire-tap laws should be updated to encompass that to maintain law enforcement's ability to conduct investigation. I would not extend such a update to include internal or privately held VoIP systems, but if it used like any other public utility it should be regulated in some manner
I personally think the internet has brought about signficant enhancements to free speech in the last decade, and I would respectfully submit that to the extent possible the internet should not be regulated. What do you think couldn't be accomplished with keyloggers and search warrants issued by judges? The only issue, is an issue of convenience for law enforcement, and the only convenience I believe in, is a judge issued search warrant. Frankly, I've had enough stupid US imposed law. We've had many such laws over the years.
I don't launder money or smoke up, but these are prime issues of stupidity, right up there with the war on drugs.
More to the point I'm all for , where justified.
Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
OK - I'll bite ....
..... how exactly does one hide their IP address when using a p2p network like Kazaa?
I keep seeing this suggested, is this actually possible? Enquiring minds need to know ...
I had OS/2 with voice built into the OS, allowing all the software to operate by voice.
Unfortunately, while it was an interesting feature, it was more of a gimmick. I can type far faster and more accurately than I can talk.
The only real market for this product IMHO is for those who are unable to type, but I'm not at all certain that a large portion of this market - technophobes - can be sold.
As I stumbled down memory lane, I came across an open source project to resurrect Sundog, by its original author.
Woo Hooo!!!
Yes, Dungeon Master was definately a great game!! Definately creepy the first few times through!
Your question made me wonder too ... found this site that you might like as well.
Ahhh ... trip down memory lane!
I loved how fast TOS booted up from Rom :)
I bought my Atari in 1985 (maybe it sucked 15 years ago, but 20 years ago it was great ;) solely because they were playing Sundog in the computer store - and dammit - I needed to play that game!
Still remember the FTL logo in Sundog coming up with a "swooshing" sound that scared the shit out of me - thought the computer was going to explode!! Up till that time I had only heard "beeps" out of computers.
A few days late, and I think you miss the point. US companies are able to file a civil claims to protect their copyrights in most countries outside the US.
The issue I was raising however, is whether those governments should invoke DMCA like criminal legislation, where such infringment isn't for profit.
I think not.
You raise a good point!
I'm thinking in terms of there not being a "profit" motive for the warez groups. Thats why I'm not thinking criminal offense.
"why do so many Slashdotters think there's no such thing as criminal copyright infringement?".
Perhaps because we don't live in the US?
This is what makes it extraordinarily unusual that the matter is subject to extradition.
Agreed, but I still don't think that a non-criminal (civil) offense falls under an extradition treaty. Those are generally reserved for criminal matters.
Of course wasn't the China issue was more one of counterfeiting the total product?
I think the subject, says it all!
Most extradition treaties deal with criminal offenses.
Other than the weird laws of the US (sorry, but thats my opinion), since when has "copyright infringement" been considered a criminal offense?
I guess we can expect the RIAA to extradite for downloading next?
"Actually they are suing uploaders ONLY - they have no legal ground to sue downloaders"
Actually I understand that they are suing heavy file sharers, on the pretext that they are in all liklihood "uploaders".
However, any case against "uploaders" would depend on how the courts utlimately define "distribution" under the Copyright Act. If its not distribution to leave your front door unlocked, I'm not sure that leaving a shared drive open would be either.
Being Canadian, my view is somewhat slanted, but ....
... but I can't think of any war/insurrection that the US has been involved in, in my lifetime, where the US or its way of life were threatened? Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Chile, Granada, Panama, Gulf War, Iraq, and probably many others I've missed.
The only possible exception was Afghanistan, and I'm not certain even in that case
I'd defend my country in a heartbeat, but that doesn't mean I would go to war elsewhere, and IMHO I don't see how that involves giving anything back to your country
As a Canadian, I'd like to thank you for saying what I as a foreigner could not say, to the "nitwitted dumbass"!!
I was pondering why Baystar would make the investment as well. I have two possible scenarios:
1) Microsoft or friends agreed to indeminfy Bayshore for any losses suffered; or
2) Bayshore was provided with Microsoft stock to short (remember they are a hedge fund) so that if SCO won they were ahead with their SCO position, and were hedged against their losing by being short on Microsoft.
Actually the artists on I-rate radio have approved the release of their music. After rating, I've come up with some really great music. Go try it yourself and see!
Dammit Harlan, if you quit SHOUTING at us, we might actually listen!
If there was a question as to whether this is just an SCO fishing expedition, I think the question has now been answered
I'm surprised SCRO don't just take the list of Fortune 100 companys they sent the notificiation to, and using mailmerge.
There is a requirement for full, fair and plain disclosure.
There is a requirement to disclose the substance of the transaction, not just its form.
I won't refer you to specific regs - depends on the facts - but the following, provides much of the relevant case law, etc.
The reason that I believe there was a lack of disclosure has to do with the failure to disclose the "substance" of the transactions, not the "form", and failure to disclose that the business is dependent upon the goodwill of MS etc.
With all due respect, IF this email is true and factual, the disclosure made to date IMHO is not sufficient to allow investors to understand the nature of SCO's business relationship with MS. The disclosure provided just wouldn't cut it.
No, the fact that this was a directed investment by MS, has not been reported. Nor was the fact that SCO is for all purposes reliant on MS for funding, or the facts as to what MS was to obtain in return.
Its nice that they dress it up by moving money through third parties and using service contracts, but the disclosure needs to be of the "substance", not the "form"
With all due respect, there are serious potential implications, and this would not be "typical of large business relationships".
Did the companys MS *referred* get paid by MS? Did they do due diligence? What about their other non-MS investors? Were they "tipped"? IS this a case of secret commissions? Where is the SCO disclosure for SEC filings? Is MS manipulating the market by failing to disclose their significant investment in SCO, whether made directly or indirectly?
Funding to SCO by MS could be made in one of two ways: 1) Through contracts for services; or 2) Capital investment. Either way it appears to me that SCO and perhaps MS would have a problem, if in fact this email is verified
If payment is through services agreements, there is a GAAP (Generally accepted accounting principle) requirement for disclosure that you are reliant on a third party where that third party is supplying a substantive proportion of your revenues. Even if several different parties provided revenues to SCO, if the executives at SCO knew it was solely due to MS and where therefor reliant on MS, disclosure would be required.
If the source of funding was through capital invesment in SCO, there would be a required disclosure in the Company's 10K or 10Q MD&A, since it would appear they are dependant upon this source of funding to carry on with their business. The amount of funding is not insignificant and certainly material.
Furthermore, a hidden MS investment of this signficance, without disclosure, would have manipulated the market price. This would hold MS and SCO open to SEC related lawsuits
If this turns out to be true, lawyers and the SEC are going to have a field day at SCO and MS's expense
When I bought my first computer, a heavy metal Kaypro (those of you who had an Osbourne might remember), it was referred to as a "luggable".
I think this falls into that category.