And judges this stupid don't help. The ability of judges to weave insane changes in procedure and law out of the whims of only casually related and poorly presented arguments in their own courts, and to leave nonsensical cases proceeding for decades as a result, is only matched by the ability of "intelligent design" advocates to demonstrate the complete lack thereof in their reasoning.
Seriously, far too many judges and legal experts seem to make things up arbitrarily, and then go hunting for an excuse in the body of long and complicated precedent and regulation and case law to support it.
SFTP and SCP do not properly handle symlinks. It only takes one smart-aleck upstream to create a symlink, by any means, and make your SCP or SFTP duplication go _insane_. FTP could at least report these and attempt to handle them properly.
Frankly, I prefer rsync over SSH and even WebDAV over HTTPS: WebDAV over HTTPS is built into Microsoft's 'Network Neightborhood' and allows direct cut&paste operations. It's also the underlying technology of Subversion's HTTP access, so it gets some attention to functionality and regular bugreports.
> The Berne Convention doesn't affect this issue, to the best of my knowledge. It requires that America give British works the same rights as American works.
I believe that this is fundamentally mistaken. This seems to be a commonly shared error among the Slashdot commentators on this thread. It requires us to respect _British_ copyrights as valid. It's part of a treaty: it requires that the US respect UK copyright, and vice versa.
Yes, it's a can of worms. But that can is already open, with the fun and games of DVD copyihg sites in China, and this seems a pretty straightforward extension of that. We absolutely do _not_ want to open up the idea that by simply publishing on the Internet from a country where the material is not copyrighted, once can ignore copyright altogether. While there may be social benefits, serious amounts of international trade would get screwed up. I can't see leaving that can of worms open, instead.
The Bridgeman versus Corel case is fascinating. I'd like to review that in more depth. That's a _much_ more interesting set of issues related to this case than merely whether the Berne Convention applies, which I'm pretty confident it does.
My old ones are, unfortunately, damaged. They're downloadable off of places like the ThePirateBay, which I'm not too concerned about downloading since I have the originals right here and I'm just grabbing replacements, but it won't run on Vista 64-bit.
It's a shame they never did Outcast 2, I was looking forward to that.
Not at all. The only excessive step is making sure it's removed from all other computers that downloaded the images, and as the violator of copyright, that seems a very normal step to demand, and insist that the defendant at least attempt within the available means.
They're being cautious, certainly because reaching overseas through the Berne Convention makes it more expensive and difficult, and because they are, in fact, a non-profit educational organization. They don't want to interfere with Wikimedia: they just want to protect their assets, and they have a legal right to do so.
Seriously, while a toy can help provide familiarity, it's not enough to learn the field well. A more powerful and useful set of tools for an X-Box are at http://www.xbox-linux.org/. Enjoy.
Getting it off all the other computers, entirely, is impossible to assure. But he could at least make a good faith effort: post notices that the material was copyrighted, inform Wikimedia (_not_ Wikipedia, these are subtly distinct) that he overstepped copyright and put them in touch with the museum to obtain low-res copies with his blessing, etc. That should clear up the problem and help get the material, in low-res form and without the copyright problem, over to Wikimedia where having it is great.
It's hardly a strawman. There's very little reason to think that the prejudices and unprinted "management policies" in a high security environment are not as dangerous, if not more so, than those in the less security critical world. If they were automatically superior, we wouldn't have the unfortunately well-founded craziness of discrimination suits against the Army for the lack of female, black, or other minority officers. And there would have been no reason to have the "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards homosexuals in the military.
Just because there is a legitimate reason to want the information, does not mean that it will be misused or that it should, in general, be provided.
That is an _excellent_ question, and the sort that any judge should take into serious account. Making those collections of high quality images via other means lowers the value of prints from them, and of the images at the organization's website, and of art books that might be sold with those high quality images.
Also high quality images are difficult to make, and can actively damage the art: high intensity light and exposure to room air and dirt and moisture can be very hard on subtle pigments, which are reasons that good art galleries are lit so carefully, so such images are not easy to reproduce from the art itself. Capturing texture, details, and color for both esthetic effect and for scholarly study of the art is a painstaking photograph process with huge investments in quality equipment and in training for a skilled photographer.
I have no idea how _much_ money they're losing because the images are on Wikimedia, but I think it's reasonable to assume there's a noticeable loss.
What possibly makes you think this lawsuit "won't go anywhere"? The violation is very clear, they're not asking for outrageous damages, and the law seems clearly in their favor. And the UK is very copyright friendly: people have been deliberately "shopping" to file their copyright lawsuits there for years now. They have a very reasonable chance of winning their lawsuit.
And it's hardly waste: the material existing at Wikimedia cuts directly into their own website traffic, and related revenues.
That's right: they want to know everything about you to "minimize the chance of blackmail". Don't you mean "to create the opportunity for blackmail" by their own management and HR staff? Or better yet, to screen you as a potential employee by any arbitrary political standard they wish, and disguise it as "not suited ot the role"? Do you really want to put all that personal information in their hands? I may be a poly-amorous gay rights activist in my spare time: do you think I should have to tell that to my supervisor for a job as a Catholic school janitor?
For examples of how an employer can constructively discriminate against people, examine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU. That's the www.cohenlaw.com presentation on how to avoid hiring expensive American employees for potential H1B jobs.
I've read the complaint. (OK, I admit it, I'm a Slashdot user who Reads The Fine Article.) They've being completely reasonable: they explain the law, they ask for (almost entirely) reasonable steps to avoid the lawsuit, and they offer to cooperate in providing _low resolution_ images for the use of Wikimedia.
If I ever get sued, I want to be sued by these people. They're working with the law and with their client's needs, and not violating the public's needs for information.
From recent experience, 10 out 10 times the "big vision" idiots at the VP level also force all communications to go up to and back down from them, and skew it wildly away from what anyone actually wants or can do. I've been through dozens of instances of this over the course of my career, it's fascinating to watch happen and try to short-circuit by finding a way to speak directly with the customer.
Reading and storing your knowledge where you can share it and build a civilization most certainly does: the ability to focus on small, close tasks is critical to a society that relies on manufacture and literature. Myopia, specifically, seems an acceptable common genetic trait, accompanying the civilized requirement for reading and handling tools.
Oh, my, Earthworm Jim. You've just given me the best idea of what to get a small child for their birthday: thank you very much for reminding me of that show.
Well, yes, we do take some profound risks if we start playing with our DNA directly. Errors are likely. But in fact, we've already made profound genetic errors and continue to do so with plenty of other species. Look at what we've done to bananas, by creating such a large monoculture and making them vulnerable to a single blight. _Twice_: the first monoculture was already wiped out, and the bananas we eat today are profoundly different from those of our grandparent's groceries.
Genetic modification does make the treatment hard to reverse if it proves dangerous: but make no mistake that we are not already profoundly affecting the human genome by secondary means, by letting diabetics and the profoundly nearsighted or those with dangerous allergies survive, and by rewarding different traits (such as the ability to read and to live in cities).
This was not ordinary work. It was extraordinary work, with some of the most brilliant minds of the time and with amazing mathematical and scientific developments worth of Nobel Prizes.
A lack of recognition might have also helped so many of them work quietly in the "BBC World Service" for decades after the war.
"Not recognizing", goodness. Try literally castrating: go look up what happened to Alan Turing. It's important to remember of that era that the Nazis weren't the only ones locking up people for being different: the British treatment of homosexualy and the American treatment of Japanese-Americans of that time simply reflect other nation's willingness to harass and destroy those minority groups they pick as feared scapegoats.
And 20, 30, even 50 years later, the people who helped win WWII for the allies in such profound ways deserve recognition. Those secrets are expired, or should be.
Yes, and I can find millions of hits on "astrology", too. The number of hits doesn't make it real. The reality is that Sun's advertising lies about actual software numbers. "Java 6" is a serious upgrade of Java, but the actual source code says, and I quote from Sun's own "java -version" command, from the installed 'JDK 6u14" off of Sun's own download site:
#/usr/java/default/bin/java -version java version "1.6.0_14" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_14-b08) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 14.0-b16, mixed mode)
Sun has been playing strange marketing names with version numbers for _years_. They did it with Solaris "2.4", which was actually "SunOS 5.4" according to their own software ID numbers. And they're still doing it.
Go ahead, download the current "JDK" and all the other stupidly named versions of JDK's and JRE's. Look carefully inside the package: when you pluck apart their "jdk-6u14-linux-i586-rpm.bin", you'll see that what it acutally has hidden inside it and misnamed as 'jdk-6u14-linux-amd64.rpm' is actually 'jdk-1.6.0_14-fcs.x86_64.rpm'. This is, in fact, extremely nasty, because once you've installed their atual RPM it doesn't have that 'jdk-6u14" name anywhere in the RPM listings, and you cannot delete that name.
Because your DNS tells you what the real IP address is, and in many locations, that is not what this "redirect" DNS service will lead you to. That may be a much nearer, but more bandwidth expensive location than Comcast wants you to use, or may not go through their monitoring and proxies and load balancers and most importantly, their _streaming video choking_ services. Comcast has established their willingness to interfere with bandwidth intensive services such as Bittorrent via SYN packats and other abuses: there's no reason to expect that they will provide this service for their customer's advantage, but rather for their own to guide traffic to their desired services.
Slashdot Mirror
And judges this stupid don't help. The ability of judges to weave insane changes in procedure and law out of the whims of only casually related and poorly presented arguments in their own courts, and to leave nonsensical cases proceeding for decades as a result, is only matched by the ability of "intelligent design" advocates to demonstrate the complete lack thereof in their reasoning.
Seriously, far too many judges and legal experts seem to make things up arbitrarily, and then go hunting for an excuse in the body of long and complicated precedent and regulation and case law to support it.
Oh, dear. I _recognize_ those vaginas.
SFTP and SCP do not properly handle symlinks. It only takes one smart-aleck upstream to create a symlink, by any means, and make your SCP or SFTP duplication go _insane_. FTP could at least report these and attempt to handle them properly. Frankly, I prefer rsync over SSH and even WebDAV over HTTPS: WebDAV over HTTPS is built into Microsoft's 'Network Neightborhood' and allows direct cut&paste operations. It's also the underlying technology of Subversion's HTTP access, so it gets some attention to functionality and regular bugreports.
Simetrical wrote:
> The Berne Convention doesn't affect this issue, to the best of my knowledge. It requires that America give British works the same rights as American works.
I believe that this is fundamentally mistaken. This seems to be a commonly shared error among the Slashdot commentators on this thread. It requires us to respect _British_ copyrights as valid. It's part of a treaty: it requires that the US respect UK copyright, and vice versa.
Yes, it's a can of worms. But that can is already open, with the fun and games of DVD copyihg sites in China, and this seems a pretty straightforward extension of that. We absolutely do _not_ want to open up the idea that by simply publishing on the Internet from a country where the material is not copyrighted, once can ignore copyright altogether. While there may be social benefits, serious amounts of international trade would get screwed up. I can't see leaving that can of worms open, instead.
The Bridgeman versus Corel case is fascinating. I'd like to review that in more depth. That's a _much_ more interesting set of issues related to this case than merely whether the Berne Convention applies, which I'm pretty confident it does.
My old ones are, unfortunately, damaged. They're downloadable off of places like the ThePirateBay, which I'm not too concerned about downloading since I have the originals right here and I'm just grabbing replacements, but it won't run on Vista 64-bit.
It's a shame they never did Outcast 2, I was looking forward to that.
Not at all. The only excessive step is making sure it's removed from all other computers that downloaded the images, and as the violator of copyright, that seems a very normal step to demand, and insist that the defendant at least attempt within the available means.
They're being cautious, certainly because reaching overseas through the Berne Convention makes it more expensive and difficult, and because they are, in fact, a non-profit educational organization. They don't want to interfere with Wikimedia: they just want to protect their assets, and they have a legal right to do so.
Seriously, while a toy can help provide familiarity, it's not enough to learn the field well. A more powerful and useful set of tools for an X-Box are at http://www.xbox-linux.org/. Enjoy.
Getting it off all the other computers, entirely, is impossible to assure. But he could at least make a good faith effort: post notices that the material was copyrighted, inform Wikimedia (_not_ Wikipedia, these are subtly distinct) that he overstepped copyright and put them in touch with the museum to obtain low-res copies with his blessing, etc. That should clear up the problem and help get the material, in low-res form and without the copyright problem, over to Wikimedia where having it is great.
It's hardly a strawman. There's very little reason to think that the prejudices and unprinted "management policies" in a high security environment are not as dangerous, if not more so, than those in the less security critical world. If they were automatically superior, we wouldn't have the unfortunately well-founded craziness of discrimination suits against the Army for the lack of female, black, or other minority officers. And there would have been no reason to have the "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards homosexuals in the military.
Just because there is a legitimate reason to want the information, does not mean that it will be misused or that it should, in general, be provided.
That is an _excellent_ question, and the sort that any judge should take into serious account. Making those collections of high quality images via other means lowers the value of prints from them, and of the images at the organization's website, and of art books that might be sold with those high quality images.
Also high quality images are difficult to make, and can actively damage the art: high intensity light and exposure to room air and dirt and moisture can be very hard on subtle pigments, which are reasons that good art galleries are lit so carefully, so such images are not easy to reproduce from the art itself. Capturing texture, details, and color for both esthetic effect and for scholarly study of the art is a painstaking photograph process with huge investments in quality equipment and in training for a skilled photographer.
I have no idea how _much_ money they're losing because the images are on Wikimedia, but I think it's reasonable to assume there's a noticeable loss.
Well, yes. The average maried couple has sex 98 times a year, and 48% of women admit to faking orgasms.
What possibly makes you think this lawsuit "won't go anywhere"? The violation is very clear, they're not asking for outrageous damages, and the law seems clearly in their favor. And the UK is very copyright friendly: people have been deliberately "shopping" to file their copyright lawsuits there for years now. They have a very reasonable chance of winning their lawsuit.
And it's hardly waste: the material existing at Wikimedia cuts directly into their own website traffic, and related revenues.
That's right: they want to know everything about you to "minimize the chance of blackmail". Don't you mean "to create the opportunity for blackmail" by their own management and HR staff? Or better yet, to screen you as a potential employee by any arbitrary political standard they wish, and disguise it as "not suited ot the role"? Do you really want to put all that personal information in their hands? I may be a poly-amorous gay rights activist in my spare time: do you think I should have to tell that to my supervisor for a job as a Catholic school janitor?
For examples of how an employer can constructively discriminate against people, examine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU. That's the www.cohenlaw.com presentation on how to avoid hiring expensive American employees for potential H1B jobs.
I've read the complaint. (OK, I admit it, I'm a Slashdot user who Reads The Fine Article.) They've being completely reasonable: they explain the law, they ask for (almost entirely) reasonable steps to avoid the lawsuit, and they offer to cooperate in providing _low resolution_ images for the use of Wikimedia.
If I ever get sued, I want to be sued by these people. They're working with the law and with their client's needs, and not violating the public's needs for information.
From recent experience, 10 out 10 times the "big vision" idiots at the VP level also force all communications to go up to and back down from them, and skew it wildly away from what anyone actually wants or can do. I've been through dozens of instances of this over the course of my career, it's fascinating to watch happen and try to short-circuit by finding a way to speak directly with the customer.
Reading and storing your knowledge where you can share it and build a civilization most certainly does: the ability to focus on small, close tasks is critical to a society that relies on manufacture and literature. Myopia, specifically, seems an acceptable common genetic trait, accompanying the civilized requirement for reading and handling tools.
An don't forget Outcast, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcast_(video_game). The outtakes alone were some of the funniest video game I ever saw, all available over at Youtube.
Oh, my, Earthworm Jim. You've just given me the best idea of what to get a small child for their birthday: thank you very much for reminding me of that show.
Well, yes, we do take some profound risks if we start playing with our DNA directly. Errors are likely. But in fact, we've already made profound genetic errors and continue to do so with plenty of other species. Look at what we've done to bananas, by creating such a large monoculture and making them vulnerable to a single blight. _Twice_: the first monoculture was already wiped out, and the bananas we eat today are profoundly different from those of our grandparent's groceries.
Genetic modification does make the treatment hard to reverse if it proves dangerous: but make no mistake that we are not already profoundly affecting the human genome by secondary means, by letting diabetics and the profoundly nearsighted or those with dangerous allergies survive, and by rewarding different traits (such as the ability to read and to live in cities).
This was not ordinary work. It was extraordinary work, with some of the most brilliant minds of the time and with amazing mathematical and scientific developments worth of Nobel Prizes.
A lack of recognition might have also helped so many of them work quietly in the "BBC World Service" for decades after the war.
"Not recognizing", goodness. Try literally castrating: go look up what happened to Alan Turing. It's important to remember of that era that the Nazis weren't the only ones locking up people for being different: the British treatment of homosexualy and the American treatment of Japanese-Americans of that time simply reflect other nation's willingness to harass and destroy those minority groups they pick as feared scapegoats.
And 20, 30, even 50 years later, the people who helped win WWII for the allies in such profound ways deserve recognition. Those secrets are expired, or should be.
Right. And 'curing' people of bad eyesight is bad for the species need to be able to see prey.
We're in a whole new range of ecological niches, and modifying both our environment and our bodies to match it is evolution in its most obvious form.
Sounds like Richard Stallman to me. (http://www.straferight.com/photopost/data/500/richard-stallman.jpg)
Yes, and I can find millions of hits on "astrology", too. The number of hits doesn't make it real. The reality is that Sun's advertising lies about actual software numbers. "Java 6" is a serious upgrade of Java, but the actual source code says, and I quote from Sun's own "java -version" command, from the installed 'JDK 6u14" off of Sun's own download site:
# /usr/java/default/bin/java -version
java version "1.6.0_14"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_14-b08)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 14.0-b16, mixed mode)
Sun has been playing strange marketing names with version numbers for _years_. They did it with Solaris "2.4", which was actually "SunOS 5.4" according to their own software ID numbers. And they're still doing it.
Go ahead, download the current "JDK" and all the other stupidly named versions of JDK's and JRE's. Look carefully inside the package: when you pluck apart their "jdk-6u14-linux-i586-rpm.bin", you'll see that what it acutally has hidden inside it and misnamed as 'jdk-6u14-linux-amd64.rpm' is actually 'jdk-1.6.0_14-fcs.x86_64.rpm'. This is, in fact, extremely nasty, because once you've installed their atual RPM it doesn't have that 'jdk-6u14" name anywhere in the RPM listings, and you cannot delete that name.
You are blatnatly mistaken, sir.
Because your DNS tells you what the real IP address is, and in many locations, that is not what this "redirect" DNS service will lead you to. That may be a much nearer, but more bandwidth expensive location than Comcast wants you to use, or may not go through their monitoring and proxies and load balancers and most importantly, their _streaming video choking_ services. Comcast has established their willingness to interfere with bandwidth intensive services such as Bittorrent via SYN packats and other abuses: there's no reason to expect that they will provide this service for their customer's advantage, but rather for their own to guide traffic to their desired services.