"I think you are mixing two entirely different issues (in legal sense): sharing and downloading. In Finnish law it is prohibited to publish (=share) copyrighted material without copyright holder's permission, but it is perfectly legal to download as much such material as you wish."
This is so whack, I'm finding it hard to believe. You're telling me that it's illegal for the owner of the machine where the file is stored. But it's legal for the person who copies that very same file from that machine?
Or are you telling me that it depends on the TCP port number?!
How do you prove that the "sharer" was intentionally sharing? What if he merely forgot to protect his FTP or telnet or rcp port?
yes, you're absolutely right and I was wrong: I was genuinely unaware that the UNC story had been covered before, and hadn't checked because the place where I did see the story gave me the impression that it was new news. mea media culpa
Am I mistaken in understanding that there are already more restrictive conditions in progress in the EU parliament? And wouldn't the result likely be stricter enforcement mandated to be uniform across all EU members?
Is the situation not considerably more restrictive in Netherlands?
Do you both (Finland & Sweden) sincerely believe that your current freedom-to-download, or to use p2p networks, isn't threatened?
Educate me, please.
Perhaps we're using different meanings of the word "legal"? Are there no lawsuits or prosecutions conducted for file-sharing in the EU? Is there no divulgement of customer records forced upon ISPs?
Is the situation not considerably more restrictive in Netherlands?
Am I mistaken in understanding that there are already more restrictive conditions in progress in the EU parliament? And wouldn't the result likely be stricter enforcement mandated to be uniform across all EU members?
Do you both (Finland & Sweden) sincerely believe that your current freedom-to-download, or to use p2p networks, isn't threatened?
Are we using different meanings of the word "legal"? Are there no lawsuits or prosecutions conducted for file-sharing in the EU? Is there no divulgement of customer records forced upon ISPs?
what i meant... --it's a dupl in he sense that a story on this subject (of evidence for the effects of file-sharing) was submitted a week ago (and strangely rejected although more credible) --The UNC/Harvard study is about as close as you can get, considering that it IS independent, which is NOT "a dime a dozen".
As the story said, "This is the first empirical study based on actual file-sharing behavior."
"At least where I live (Norway), downloading music and movies is perfectly legal."
Just wait until you join the EU -- a move which unfortunately is supported by the majority of your misinformed countrymen. This is not a troll or flame. I can't begin to tell you how much I wish it weren't true.
"[story submitted to slashdot editors 2004-07-23 12:25 UTC]
The Guardian reports on a study of file-sharing performed by two professors at UNC and Harvard Business School. The effect of file-sharing is 'statistically indistinguishable from zero' -- and in some cases may actually help sales..."
I agree with what erroneus(253617) implied, even if it wasn't serious. I think that the Green's intent was precisely to stimulate the reconsideration of the patent issue, in the hope of weakening or reversing the patent decision.
"you sound paranoid. There is no reason why you should not visit the U.S. right now. You're probably much safer here today than you would have been 30 years ago (c.f. crime)."
Wcrowe, I don't think that craig was necessarily speaking of crime (although you & I need to make a conscious effort to understand the feelings of people from countries without handguns).
And I don't necessarily think that he's talking about fear of political or police persecution -- although I wouldn't blame him, in view of our recent jailing & expulsion of **accredited** **establishment** Commonwealth journalists whose only transgression was to enter with a normal tourist visa instead of a special journalist visa.
If you re-read craig's original post, I think you'll see that he was expressing discomfort, not about *their* paranoia but about *ours*, as evidenced by our treatment of non-USers.
And I'm quite aware of his concerns about "bad laws", and I can tell you that he's NOT referring to guns (btw, I'm as much of a 2nd-Amendment supporter as you, although probably for different reasons). Craig IS talking about things like the way that other countries are being coerced to conform to OUR GOVERNMENT'S desires regarding things like -- DRM/RIAA/MPAA prosecutions -- having their own citizens' privacy legislation violated, against their citizenries' wishes, in giving Ashcroft unlimited access to ALL of their travel records, EVEN WHEN NOT GOING TO OR FROM THE U.S. -- being pressured to repeal their food-labeling laws, so that their citizens can no longer make an informed choice about genetically-modified foods.
Admit it, wouldn't we be howling if the UN or EU were making these kinds of demands on *us*?
"The U.S. is not a police state, and is not becoming a police state."
I'm not particularly liberal -- in fact, I originally welcomed Bush -- and I can tell you that there are many conservatives who are concerned about the Constitution being weakened. I'm surprised that you express absolutely no concern about things like secret Patriot Act searches of library records, WITHOUT warrants or court oversight.
Just how far would it have to go before you felt differently about "not becoming a police state"? In fact, let's make the question easier: how far must it go before you merely start to become uncomfortable about the trend?
"you simply hate the U.S. You're just using the VISIT program as an excuse"
are you serious? Even if you're really that xenophobic, how then do you account for the US-ers who feel the same? (And please, omit the "love it or leave it" and "tin-foil hat" glib responses.)
As i already said, 'The issue isn't "is it an infraction?".' Read on from there.
Allow me to apply it more personally. You wrote: "Finished. Over. Done. Nicked."
Do you want to live in a world where some a**ho*e CONSTANTLY, DOGGEDLY follows you around, nagging you about each time you pen a one-word grammatically incomplete sentence?
Or try this. Let's say that you're a recovering smoker married to a militant non-smoker. Even knowing that you're making a good-faith best-effort, I'll appoint myself to stalk you and report each transient stumble of discipline to her.
And please skip the reply of, "Well, THOSE aren't LAWS", which would be disingenuously oblivious to my point.
Yes, I agree, which is why I said *less* spectacular. I think that, even 50 years ago, it would have been regarded as less so and less gee-whiz-futuristic than things like *ubiquitous* personal aircraft. After all, the Chunnel is primarily an achievement of engineering and dogged determination, in the same sense as the Egyptian pyramids. In fact, there was a chunnel attempted in the 19th century -- by the same family (Brunel) who did the Brooklyn Bridge, I believe.
In that family of predictions, one stalwart is the vision of "hands-off" driving. Although the schedule has always been wildly unrealistic, this particular vision keeps popping back up -- unlike a lot of the gee-whiz ideas which are rarely discussed today (such as ubiquitous personal aircraft).
Also, bullet-trains and the Chunnel might be considered to be fulfilled predictions, albeit much less spectacular than others.
"delegates are unwilling to physically go to the USA"
no matter. You did originally say that your father ruled out the US because of his experiences there. The letters would still be truthful & useful. Hell, even if the US were never originally considered, it would still be truthful to say that privacy ruled it out.
"[in the EU] you're not likely to be treated like a criminal just because you're from another country" "it would be impractical to hold it anywhere else"
I wasn't suggesting other wise. I'm suggesting other locations in Europe (e.g. Norway), or at least prioritization of EU locales based on which are the most privacy/liberty-friendly (thus ruling out UK, Netherlands, Spain...).
"Here we go again... Why is surveillance cameras that spot suspicious behavior bad?"
Jesus, I'm continually amazed (and depressed) by the number of exceptionally bright people on slashdot who JUST DON'T GET IT.
Here's why it's bad.
1. WHO defines "suspicious"?
2. WHAT are they allowed to do about it? (remember "Vanilla Sky")
3. WHAT are they allowed to do with the INFO? Keep it forever? For what purpose?
4. WHAT other consequences eventually flow, as a result of people becoming de-sensitized to these kinds of practices?
Christ, for US readers, I've gotta ask: were you truant, out sick, or brain-dead, during that week in elementary school when they taught you about the American War Of Independence, about the Bill Of Rights, and about the reasons they came about? What part of the Fourth Amendment don't you understand?
So many times, in these threads about civil liberties, I see people who say, in so many words, "You're privacy & rights are already gone, get over it," -- or WORSE, "As long as you're doing nothing wrong, why do you care about being constantly watched?" It's hard to decide how even to begin to reason with someone who's that oblivious.
"tough shit. If any part of your car touches the yellow lines, you are in breech. These are NOT hazy lines. Doesn't matter how long it was for, or how much of an infringement there was of the regulations. I look upon speeding similarly. THERE IS NO GREY AREA HERE PEOPLE."
The issue isn't "is it an infraction?". The issue is, do you want to live in a world of such pervasive monitoring?
If you don't mind that, then perhaps you'd be happiEST living in Singapore, where it's the NORM to be charged for chewing gum in public (because someone MIGHT not dispose of it properly).
"My father was planning a conference in the US. They are now seeking a European venue." WRONG. He won't get the suspicious treatment, but his privacy is still raped. The EU is now handing *THEIR* travel records to the US.
Your father has a golden opportunity to do something about this: -- investigate, and pick a venue wherein travel data is guaranteed not to be shared with the US. -- compute the total financial benefit to the venue community -- write a letter to that city's Chamber Of Commerce and that country's National Tourism board, explaining why they were selected and how much they benefited -- write the reverse letter to Chambers and Tourism boards which were rejected, INCLUDING his home country -- copy one of each type of letter to the "Letters" editor of every professional association in which he (your father) partakes -- likewise copy the attendees of the conference -- and if he's an academic, copy likewise to the corresponding academic department of every university where he has associates, and ask them to post it publicly
PLEASE -- we in the US need all the help we can get in fighting this trend!
"My father was planning a conference in the US. They are now seeking a European venue." WRONG. The EU is now handing *THEIR* travel records to the US. He won't get the suspicious treatment, but his privacy is still raped.
Your father has a golden opportunity to do something about this: -- investigate, and pick a venue wherein travel data is guaranteed not to be shared with the US. -- compute the total financial benefit to the venue community -- write a letter to that city's Chamber Of Commerce and that country's National Tourism board, explaining why they were selected and how much they benefited -- write the reverse letter to Chambers and Tourism boards which were rejected, INCLUDING his home country -- copy one of each type of letter to the "Letters" editor of every professional association in which he (your father) partakes -- and if he's an academic, copy likewise to the corresponding academic department of every university where he has associates, and ask them to post it publicly -- likewise copy the attendees of the conference
PLEASE -- we in the US need all the help we can get in fighting this trend!
"-qqqqqqqq site:slashdot.org Placing something impossible (like 8 Qs) in the "without the words" field will get you a listing of ALL of the pages on that website!"
Slashdot Mirror
"I think you are mixing two entirely different issues (in legal sense): sharing and downloading. In Finnish law it is prohibited to publish (=share) copyrighted material without copyright holder's permission, but it is perfectly legal to download as much such material as you wish."
This is so whack, I'm finding it hard to believe.
You're telling me that it's illegal for the owner of the machine where the file is stored.
But it's legal for the person who copies that very same file from that machine?
Or are you telling me that it depends on the TCP port number?!
How do you prove that the "sharer" was intentionally sharing?
What if he merely forgot to protect his FTP or telnet or rcp port?
yes, you're absolutely right and I was wrong: I was genuinely unaware that the UNC story had been covered before, and hadn't checked because the place where I did see the story gave me the impression that it was new news.
mea media culpa
"It's legal here in Sweden too."
Am I mistaken in understanding that there are already more restrictive conditions in progress in the EU parliament?
And wouldn't the result likely be stricter enforcement mandated to be uniform across all EU members?
Is the situation not considerably more restrictive in Netherlands?
Do you both (Finland & Sweden) sincerely believe that your current freedom-to-download, or to use p2p networks, isn't threatened?
Educate me, please.
Perhaps we're using different meanings of the word "legal"? Are there no lawsuits or prosecutions conducted for file-sharing in the EU? Is there no divulgement of customer records forced upon ISPs?
"EU hasn't (yet?) changed this."
Is the situation not considerably more restrictive in Netherlands?
Am I mistaken in understanding that there are already more restrictive conditions in progress in the EU parliament?
And wouldn't the result likely be stricter enforcement mandated to be uniform across all EU members?
Do you both (Finland & Sweden) sincerely believe that your current freedom-to-download, or to use p2p networks, isn't threatened?
Are we using different meanings of the word "legal"? Are there no lawsuits or prosecutions conducted for file-sharing in the EU? Is there no divulgement of customer records forced upon ISPs?
Educate me, please.
what i meant...
--it's a dupl in he sense that a story on this subject (of evidence for the effects of file-sharing) was submitted a week ago (and strangely rejected although more credible)
--The UNC/Harvard study is about as close as you can get, considering that it IS independent, which is NOT "a dime a dozen".
As the story said, "This is the first empirical study based on actual file-sharing behavior."
"At least where I live (Norway), downloading music and movies is perfectly legal."
Just wait until you join the EU -- a move which unfortunately is supported by the majority of your misinformed countrymen.
This is not a troll or flame.
I can't begin to tell you how much I wish it weren't true.
"[story submitted to slashdot editors 2004-07-23 12:25 UTC]
..."
The Guardian reports on a study of file-sharing performed by two professors at UNC and Harvard Business School. The effect of file-sharing is 'statistically indistinguishable from zero' -- and in some cases may actually help sales
I agree with what erroneus(253617) implied, even if it wasn't serious.
I think that the Green's intent was precisely to stimulate the reconsideration of the patent issue, in the hope of weakening or reversing the patent decision.
"you sound paranoid. There is no reason why you should not visit the U.S. right now. You're probably much safer here today than you would have been 30 years ago (c.f. crime)."
Wcrowe, I don't think that craig was necessarily speaking of crime (although you & I need to make a conscious effort to understand the feelings of people from countries without handguns).
And I don't necessarily think that he's talking about fear of political or police persecution -- although I wouldn't blame him, in view of our recent jailing & expulsion of **accredited** **establishment** Commonwealth journalists whose only transgression was to enter with a normal tourist visa instead of a special journalist visa.
If you re-read craig's original post, I think you'll see that he was expressing discomfort, not about *their* paranoia but about *ours*, as evidenced by our treatment of non-USers.
And I'm quite aware of his concerns about "bad laws", and I can tell you that he's NOT referring to guns (btw, I'm as much of a 2nd-Amendment supporter as you, although probably for different reasons).
Craig IS talking about things like the way that other countries are being coerced to conform to OUR GOVERNMENT'S desires regarding things like
-- DRM/RIAA/MPAA prosecutions
-- having their own citizens' privacy legislation violated, against their citizenries' wishes, in giving Ashcroft unlimited access to ALL of their travel records, EVEN WHEN NOT GOING TO OR FROM THE U.S.
-- being pressured to repeal their food-labeling laws, so that their citizens can no longer make an informed choice about genetically-modified foods.
Admit it, wouldn't we be howling if the UN or EU were making these kinds of demands on *us*?
"The U.S. is not a police state, and is not becoming a police state."
I'm not particularly liberal -- in fact, I originally welcomed Bush -- and I can tell you that there are many conservatives who are concerned about the Constitution being weakened.
I'm surprised that you express absolutely no concern about things like secret Patriot Act searches of library records, WITHOUT warrants or court oversight.
Just how far would it have to go before you felt differently about "not becoming a police state"?
In fact, let's make the question easier:
how far must it go before you merely start to become uncomfortable about the trend?
"you simply hate the U.S. You're just using the VISIT program as an excuse"
are you serious? Even if you're really that xenophobic, how then do you account for the US-ers who feel the same?
(And please, omit the "love it or leave it" and "tin-foil hat" glib responses.)
As i already said, 'The issue isn't "is it an infraction?".'
Read on from there.
Allow me to apply it more personally.
You wrote:
"Finished. Over. Done. Nicked."
Do you want to live in a world where some a**ho*e CONSTANTLY, DOGGEDLY follows you around, nagging you about each time you pen a one-word grammatically incomplete sentence?
Or try this. Let's say that you're a recovering smoker married to a militant non-smoker. Even knowing that you're making a good-faith best-effort, I'll appoint myself to stalk you and report each transient stumble of discipline to her.
And please skip the reply of, "Well, THOSE aren't LAWS", which would be disingenuously oblivious to my point.
[grin]
as a matter of fact, yes, although not as you facetiously meant it.
btw, i'm emailing you about your project, & FS kit.
Yes, I agree, which is why I said *less* spectacular.
I think that, even 50 years ago, it would have been regarded as less so and less gee-whiz-futuristic than things like *ubiquitous* personal aircraft.
After all, the Chunnel is primarily an achievement of engineering and dogged determination, in the same sense as the Egyptian pyramids.
In fact, there was a chunnel attempted in the 19th century -- by the same family (Brunel) who did the Brooklyn Bridge, I believe.
well, strictly speaking **prima facie**, they subtly distinguished between a *past* "prototype" in Cardiff, and a *future* "pilot" in SWE.
"so am I really seeing slashdot, or is someone trying to spoof me, while at the same time ironically warning me about said Firefox spoofs?"
the slashdot which removes uncertainty is not The True Slashdot.
In that family of predictions, one stalwart is the vision of "hands-off" driving. Although the schedule has always been wildly unrealistic, this particular vision keeps popping back up -- unlike a lot of the gee-whiz ideas which are rarely discussed today (such as ubiquitous personal aircraft).
Also, bullet-trains and the Chunnel might be considered to be fulfilled predictions, albeit much less spectacular than others.
as always . . .
YES!!!! THANK YOU!
I remember the episode, with the slightly dim-witted, pudgy, cone-headed guys.
"delegates are unwilling to physically go to the USA"
...).
no matter. You did originally say that your father ruled out the US because of his experiences there. The letters would still be truthful & useful. Hell, even if the US were never originally considered, it would still be truthful to say that privacy ruled it out.
"[in the EU] you're not likely to be treated like a criminal just because you're from another country"
"it would be impractical to hold it anywhere else"
I wasn't suggesting other wise. I'm suggesting other locations in Europe (e.g. Norway), or at least prioritization of EU locales based on which are the most privacy/liberty-friendly (thus ruling out UK, Netherlands, Spain
[correction, that obviously should have said "YOUR privacy & rights", not "You're". I was het up.]
"Here we go again ... Why is surveillance cameras that spot suspicious behavior bad?"
Jesus, I'm continually amazed (and depressed) by the number of exceptionally bright people on slashdot who JUST DON'T GET IT.
Here's why it's bad.
1. WHO defines "suspicious"?
2. WHAT are they allowed to do about it? (remember "Vanilla Sky")
3. WHAT are they allowed to do with the INFO? Keep it forever? For what purpose?
4. WHAT other consequences eventually flow, as a result of people becoming de-sensitized to these kinds of practices?
Christ, for US readers, I've gotta ask:
were you truant, out sick, or brain-dead, during that week in elementary school when they taught you about the American War Of Independence, about the Bill Of Rights, and about the reasons they came about?
What part of the Fourth Amendment don't you understand?
So many times, in these threads about civil liberties, I see people who say, in so many words, "You're privacy & rights are already gone, get over it,"
-- or WORSE, "As long as you're doing nothing wrong, why do you care about being constantly watched?"
It's hard to decide how even to begin to reason with someone who's that oblivious.
"tough shit. If any part of your car touches the yellow lines, you are in breech. These are NOT hazy lines. Doesn't matter how long it was for, or how much of an infringement there was of the regulations. I look upon speeding similarly. THERE IS NO GREY AREA HERE PEOPLE."
The issue isn't "is it an infraction?".
The issue is, do you want to live in a world of such pervasive monitoring?
If you don't mind that, then perhaps you'd be happiEST living in Singapore, where it's the NORM to be charged for chewing gum in public (because someone MIGHT not dispose of it properly).
"My father was planning a conference in the US. They are now seeking a European venue."
WRONG.
He won't get the suspicious treatment, but his privacy is still raped.
The EU is now handing *THEIR* travel records to the US.
Your father has a golden opportunity to do something about this:
-- investigate, and pick a venue wherein travel data is guaranteed not to be shared with the US.
-- compute the total financial benefit to the venue community
-- write a letter to that city's Chamber Of Commerce and that country's National Tourism board, explaining why they were selected and how much they benefited
-- write the reverse letter to Chambers and Tourism boards which were rejected, INCLUDING his home country
-- copy one of each type of letter to the "Letters" editor of every professional association in which he (your father) partakes
-- likewise copy the attendees of the conference
-- and if he's an academic, copy likewise to the corresponding academic department of every university where he has associates, and ask them to post it publicly
PLEASE -- we in the US need all the help we can get in fighting this trend!
"My father was planning a conference in the US. They are now seeking a European venue."
WRONG.
The EU is now handing *THEIR* travel records to the US.
He won't get the suspicious treatment, but his privacy is still raped.
Your father has a golden opportunity to do something about this:
-- investigate, and pick a venue wherein travel data is guaranteed not to be shared with the US.
-- compute the total financial benefit to the venue community
-- write a letter to that city's Chamber Of Commerce and that country's National Tourism board, explaining why they were selected and how much they benefited
-- write the reverse letter to Chambers and Tourism boards which were rejected, INCLUDING his home country
-- copy one of each type of letter to the "Letters" editor of every professional association in which he (your father) partakes
-- and if he's an academic, copy likewise to the corresponding academic department of every university where he has associates, and ask them to post it publicly
-- likewise copy the attendees of the conference
PLEASE -- we in the US need all the help we can get in fighting this trend!
"-qqqqqqqq site:slashdot.org
Placing something impossible (like 8 Qs) in the "without the words" field will get you a listing of ALL of the pages on that website!"
do this instead:
site:slashdot.org inurl:org