People who sign NDAs generally make a higher base salary than those who are not required to sign them. I know that I was told it was part of the 'base package' of compensation when I asked. This was at two different employers. The crux of the matter, however, is that if you don't wish to bear the burdens of the job, why on Earth should you get the job?
If you're talking about NDA's in terms of things which would normally be considered a trade secret, you, me, and the law, are already in agreement. What I'm discussing here is companies firing employees for discussing, in their off time, away from work, things which would not be considered a trade secret. If this guy was posting the source for Vista or specifications on a secret project, by all means, they should be able to fire him. (And they would likely go after him civilly and possibly criminally, as well.) However, dissatisfaction with a job is not, to my knowledge, defined as a "trade secret".
I didn't challenge that premise either. For example, they shouldn't be allowed to put a clause in a contract stating that you'll murder your own child if you're late to work. I just don't believe that an NDA falls under your premise. Why should people be not only allowed but compensated for divulging company secrets?
And I didn't challenge your premise. What I am challenging is companies restricting speech made away from work which is not divulging company secrets, but only expressing dissatisfaction. Just because something is potentially embarrassing doesn't mean they should be able to keep it under wraps. I am asserting that companies should be prohibited from regulating speech beyond what trade secret legislation sets forth.
Um. It's the second ammendment. You argued that the first ammendment should apply to private organizations, while I countered with another ammendment in the same document (the next one, even) which blows your argument. No wonder you declined to respond. Perhaps if you delineated precisely which parts of the Constitution you consider important I could keep my arguments to them.
The Second Amendment provides for the carrying of arms in the establishment of a "well-armed militia". Therefore, so long as you are not a felon, you are free to own a gun, and your employer is free to tell you to leave it at home, just as you are free to forbid guns being brought into your own home. However, this does not apply-we are not discussing those who are blogging -while on the job-, and I fully support the right of employers to say "No blogging, personal emailing, playing of games, etc." while you are on a work computer, and to fire those who break that rule. However, in this case, we are discussing someone blogging on their time off, on their own computer. This would be more equivalent to your employer attempting to state that you may not own a gun, period. Would you have a problem with that?
Oh, I see. They thought indentured servitude was A-OK but not an NDA? Come on, that's ridiculous. Besides, the document is MEANT to be read narrowly, it ONLY applies to the Federal Government. The fact that it has been applied otherwise does not mean that it was intended to do so.
Yes, they did think slavery was OK, and it took a great deal of struggle to overcome that mistake. However, they quite clearly stated that a restriction on free speech was unacceptable, and that was, most certainly, not a mistake. But if we let corporations pick up where government leaves off, the restriction is very empty, very meaningless. Corporations hold a great deal of power, and are already in bed with the government. To suggest that the two should be considered as absolutely separate entities is to ignore reality.
No, it means that I may censor anyone I wish within my own private property. You have no right to free speech inside my house. You have no right to free speech inside my business. If I don't like what you say, I can legally kick you out. That pretty much
Actually, I don't believe I am, but let's go into that.
Tell that to the people who carry pagers. You DO get a bonus in comp for doing things like carrying pagers and not divulging company secrets. It's all covered in that contract you're too busy to read before you sign.
True, they have to pay extra for "on-call" status, but I've never seen extra offered for an NDA. That doesn't mean it's never happened, of course, but to my knowledge it's not standard practice. Oh, and personally, I agree that you should ALWAYS read a document in full before signing, and ensure that anything you're not clear on is made clear. That doesn't change my premise, however, that certain types of contracts should be disallowed altogether.
Why should you be able to divulge company business and suffer no consequences for it? Note that this only applies if you have signed an NDA...because you've agreed NOT TO DISCLOSE things. If you could only not disclose them AT WORK, where EVERYONE knows them, it wouldn't make too much fucking sense, now would it? The company isn't saying 'you can't blog on your off time', they are saying 'you can't divulge company secrets in your off time'. Those are totally different statements.
Again, true, but most (if not all) states, as well as the federal government, already prohibit disclosure of trade secrets by law. Other than that, you should be free to discuss what's happened at work-if your employer is screwing you over, you have the right to complain. If they're practicing bad business, the public has a right to know, especially if it's a publically-traded company. From what I read of the blog, he's not disclosing trade secrets. I don't see the source code for Longhorn or some long-term plan to buy out a competitor there. For the most part, he's bringing up information which is already publically available, and supplementing the discussion with his own experience.
Actually, it is! You're not FORCED to sign any contract. There is more than one job in the world.
Again, technically true, but disingenuous as to the way corporations work. If one does this, others will follow suit, and quickly you'll find your choice to be "sign it or don't work at all." While technically they can't -make- you sign, if they can say "sign it or lose your job", they can bring an immense amount of pressure to bear just with that.
Why? I've done it. I didn't like the provision that said when I carried a pager, I couldn't drink alcohol. So I told my prospective employer that I wouldn't sign unless they modified that paragraph. I know it may be hard to believe, but they did it! Imagine! All I did was...wait for it....ask!
I'm glad it worked out for you, and yes, quite often, they will be willing to negotiate on certain things. Again, that doesn't change my premise that they shouldn't be -allowed- to put certain restrictions in a contract, at all.
The Constitution delineates the limits of power of the Federal Government. That means that the Federal Government can't pass a law restricting free speech (although they CAN create an agency to do it with directives instead of laws, see the FCC). The Constitution doesn't say that people can't choose to limit their speech voluntarily for money. Similarly, the right to bear arms does not give you the right to go about armed wherever you want. Sorry. You're just way off base on this one.
The "right to bear arms" bit is offtopic and hasn't been part of this at all, so I am going to decline to respond to that.
You're reading the Constitution pretty narrowly. I would be more inclined to say that it establishes a fundamental right to free speech (as do several human rights treaties that the United States is a signatory to), the only threat to which, at the TIME, was the federal government. It is my guess that if they had foreseen, in 1776, widespread contractual obligations to curtail speech, this would have bee
For many people, loss of a job (the penalty a corporation can inflict) can be as serious and life-altering as being sentenced to jail (the penalty the government can inflict). Free speech rights are meaningless unless you protect them.
On a related note, if a corporation expects you to obey its rules 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it owes you compensation for one hundred and sixty-eight hours, per week, plus overtime of course. Otherwise, when you punch the clock, you're done. Why should your employer have control over what you blog in your off time?
People want the government to protect them from having to do hard work like reading legal documents before signing them.
Actually, I think what is at issue here, is that the contract at issue really isn't a choice. It's very disingenuous for you to say "uh...don't sign it..." if you don't agree with it-if you're independently wealthy enough that you don't care whether or not you lose your job, I am glad for you, but not all of us are so fortunate. Protection is requested, then, for free speech, which is clearly enshrined in the Constitution as a fundamental right. Corporate profits are not. When the two are at odds, then, the Constitution makes it very clear which must give way. Employees should have the same right to seek redress against bad acts on the part of their employer just as citizens should have the right to seek that with the government-and Constitutional rights should absolutely, never, ever, be regarded as something which may be "signed away".
"The Mozilla Foundation" might not be a well-known quantity outside of tech circles, but "Firefox" most certainly is.
As to the rest...it might be anecdotal, but I've certainly not heard -one- person yet complain of MORE infections after installing Firefox, always the opposite. The proof's in use, and in that, Firefox beats IE every time.
So, in other words, even by YOUR logic, things still worked, just a bit more slowly. I submit, then, that you've refuted your own "Wikipedia article" premise.
Now, let's clarify. I have no problem with a pharmmaceutical company who looks at an idea from a university and develops a drug based on it being allowed to patent (and thus profit from) -that specific drug-. However, they should not be able to patent (and nor should publicly funded universities be able to patent) general knowledge, pure research knowledge, parts of genetic sequence, manipulated gene sequences, or similar. SPECIFIC drug formulas only, and only if the discovery of that formula is totally privately funded (aside from looking at the general idea from a university), please. This would not remove the profit motive, simply restrict it to the proper degree-while ensuring that basic scientific knowledge remains available to all, rather than locked away behind a patent, as is also the proper way to do things.
I don't see it as "everything is patentable" or "nothing is patentable"-a specific drug formula is patentable (although MUCH stricter laws on required availability and price-fixing need to be in place if this is to continue), but a general knowledge principle (gene sequence x behaves differently then modified gene sequence y, modification is performed by procedure z) is not.
If your premise is correct, why were new drugs and treatments coming out before 1980? If your premise is correct that we'd be reduced to "a Wikipedia page" without this rampant patenting of everything, shouldn't that have been the state of things before it?
But I think you're missing something-if that idea was developed using public money, mine and yours, isn't that idea publically owned, mine and yours? It'd be ridiculous for government funds to be used to build a road, and then the contractor who already received the money be allowed to set up toll booths to collect more from the taxpayers who drive on it. Can you explain to me how this is somehow different (tax money funding the initial product, then the private entity who -already- benefited from the tax money being able to charge more money for the product)? The organization doing the developing of the final product is still, directly or indirectly, receiving the tax money or the fruits thereof.
Your post makes it sound like that's a requirement, and it is indeed in the Constitution. However, its enumeration is in the "Congress may" section, not "Congress must".
In context, it reads:
The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
It's not recognized as a fundamental right, like property, free speech, and freedom of religion-only as a power granted to Congress to exercise, and only GIVEN THAT the exercise of that power does indeed promote the progress of science and useful art. That point can (and will) be debated here, but I felt compelled to point out that the ability to exclusive control of an idea is not considered a right-it is enumerated as a fully revocable privilege which Congress -may- grant.
Firstly, I don't believe alcohol and tobacco are appropriate comparisons. These items do well-documented, scientifically provable, physical harm. They are provably physically addictive. They do not qualify for Constitutional free-speech protection. None of these things are true of video games, so I don't think it follows from "It's legitimate to age-restrict alcohol and tobacco" to "It's legitimate to age-restrict video games."
Scientific studies on video games are conflicting at best, and tend to find that the harm is slight (mildly elevated aggressive tendency for an hour or two), nonexistent (no noticeable change in behavior), or even an actual benefit (Johnny takes his aggression out on the virtual bad guy that might've otherwise gotten taken out on his real classmate/sibling/etc.)
What I'm most concerned about, though, as that with this issue (and so many others!) it seems the focus is on taking care of peripheral, relatively unimportant issues, rather than the central ones. The central issue here is that many kids have bad, or uncaring parents, or parents who are simply clueless on the right way to raise a kid. What can we do to solve this? I propose that a few things can be done-freely available birth control, to ensure that those who don't want children don't have them, easily accessible and comprehensive education for new parents as to the basics of child development, etc., a stop to the "not my business, not my problem" attitude, and the corresponding "I won't take any advice from anyone" mentality, a universal living wage to ensure that parents will not both have to work long hours just to stay afloat...
Obviously, these are harder things to do. They require challenges to people's comfort zone. They require money. They require planning and cooperation. They require careful thought and community involvement. It's easier to point another finger, slap another fine on something peripheral, and then run "stings" every so often to net a fine or two and get a pat on the back. But we have so often forgotten to ask the fundamental question about any solution to any problem, and that is:
Is what we are doing, WORKING? Is the problem decreasing in severity and frequency? To the current methods being used to combat bad parenting (scattershot "education" which generally consists of a couple hour-long sessions on how to burp a baby and change a diaper, underfunded social services divisions which take away kids who were with good parents and then quite often leave genuine abuse/neglect cases behind, age restrictions on a few things) I would say the answer is no.
When the current solutions and methods have been tried for quite some time, and the problem is only getting worse, it is not time to "strengthen" the existing, non-working structure-it's time to tear it down, rethink, and rebuild. Unfortunately, that takes guts, brains, planning, and money-and in terms of doing anything really worthwhile, all of those seem to be in very short supply currently.
WHERE do my mod points go every timme I need them...thank you for pointing out that the purpose is more important then the method, which you would think would be obvious. Libraries weren't requiring people to return books because they wanted to be nice to the poor (or not so poor) media companies, they were doing it because they can't afford to straight-up give away 50000 copies of a popular book. So, you have to bring it back.
Now we have an end to that scarcity. The only limit is bandwidth, and with Bittorrent, they can even take a lot of that strain off their own back. Why are we continuing to place artificial scarcity where natural scarcity no longer exists? If we could infinitely replicate food, water, or other vital supplies, would we forbid such replication so that those who supply those things can still make a BUCK?
Sadly, it seems the answer to that just might be a yes. And that yes says a lot, and NONE of it is good.
Security is not DIRECTLY antithecal to freedom, even by the libertarian philosophy. Am I -genuinely- more free when:
A: Any person has the right to murder me. One of those people comes around with guns, takes whatever they want away from me, rapes my wife, kidnaps my children, and leaves me with nothing. They might kill me, they might not.
B: Such actions by that type of person are suppressed. If that person comes around and commits that action, police officers, and if necessary, people armed with heavy weapons, will come to take them away to jail and/or kill them.
Personally, I'd rather live under option B then A. You're free to advocate whatever you like (that is, of course, an essential part of a free society), but I imagine you'll find, presented those two scenarios, that most will tell you that under certain circumstances, security ENHANCES freedom. My right to make this post is enhanced by the fact that if you threaten to (or do) kill me for it, you'll be put in jail, helping to ensure I -am- free to make it.
The ideal is a -balance- of security, not a total lack of it. I certainly do not want videocameras and 24-hour monitoring in my living room to ensure that no one ever commits a crime there. But I also don't want it to be so that anyone who feels like doing so is welcome to do it with impunity.
Now that I have made my debate with you on your flawed equation and reasoning, however, I do agree that most of these new security measures go too far.
How is it Yahoo's business to decide the morality of crimes which have been committed? It's nothing to do with them.
I guess on that we simply disagree. I believe, as I already stated above, that there is indeed a moral obligation to oppose with whatever means you possess a law which you find morally wrong. I believe also, that if you know that someone will be punished in a reprehensible manner, including torture, summary execution, or subjection to a sham trial, you have the duty not to turn them over to the authorities who will commit such atrocities if this is known to you at the time you do so. If Yahoo does indeed believe that suppression of dissent through torture and violence is acceptable, that's their belief, but I certainly do not wish to do business with them. If they do not, they should not further it.
If the police come to you with the legal authority to search your records, you cannot deny them that.
If you're using the example that I myself live in the United States, no, I cannot, because the Constitution provides certain protections, in keeping with human rights. If the police in question have a search warrant, they have followed appropriate procedure. I can still, however, challenge that warrant later. On the other hand, if the police were given the power to search private property at whim, I would absolutely oppose that. I do, in fact, oppose the "National Security Letters" and other such provisions of the unPATRIOTic Act that give such authority to conduct searches outside of proper procedure (probable cause, judicial approval, ability to challenge).
If you don't like it, live somewhere else.
I'm not quite clear on how you meant that. If you intend to indicate that the Chinese dissenter in question should've simply "lived somewhere else", you're implying that he would have had that option. I can easily prove that this is not so. If you're implying that you are required simply to move, rather than to oppose government actions you disagree with, I strongly disagree-free countries are founded specifically on the ability to challenge such acts.
If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that Yahoo should find somewhere else to do business, I fully agree. If they do not (or cannot) do business in China in a means consistent with human rights, or are required by doing business there to comply with unconscionable laws, they indeed should get out. If they do not, no "just following the law" justification should save them from responsibility. If there is any person under US jurisdiction who is responsible for this decision, that person should be prosecuted for their human rights violations. However, absent that they will likely be held legally responsible for their complicity in crime, I do hold the company responsible and will refrain from using their site or products. I will also be letting them know why. I encourage anyone else who feels that their action was in the wrong to do the same. This type of action is only possible so far as YOU tolerate it-if you purchase from a company who engages in this type of behavior, and you know that they do, YOU are condoning it as well.
It depends on what type of "state secret" you're talking about. If the "state secrets" you're giving away are secret military plans that put thousands of lives at risk, you're right. If, on the other hand, said "state secret" is a dirty little secret of the government who is engaged in conduct they don't want exposed, you are a hero, not a criminal.
Besides that, it is not a secret whatsoever that China issues the death penalty for nonviolent crimes, gathers and sells organs from executed prisoners without their or their families' consent, and utilizes torture. All of these are explicitly, universally, and without exception, forbidden as violations of human rights. Assisting -even- a good law's enforcement is unacceptable and immoral if you know that the accused will not be provided due process, and punished if convicted in accordance with human rights regulations.
You seem to have missed my meaning-there is no double standard here. Microsoft is condemned (rightly) for breaking a good, justifiable law, while Yahoo is condemned (rightly) for helping to enforce a bad, immoral law, and turning a man over to what they full well know will be torture, a "sham" trial if they even bother with that, and execution for a nonviolent crime.
Yeah, because, you know, if FEMA's IT department wasn't reading email, they'd be out there pulling people out of those flooded streets. What was I thinking?
Oh, yeah-I was thinking there's probably more then one person there at FEMA (although no one knows how long that will last), and that one would HOPE (although it's far from certain) that if there truly was a choice between fixing the website and putting people on the ground, they'd be able to prioritize appropriately.
Now, please join the other trolls, back under the bridge.
Yeah. It couldn't maybe be because we're talking about different laws here. Breaking an antitrust law is an entirely different animal then supporting state-sponsored censorship and murder because "it's the law over there", despite the fact that these "laws" are in clear contravention of several human rights treaties to which the US is a signatory.
It is also shameful that the US government allows these governments, in the name of an almighty buck or million, allows these corporations to continue this practice, instead of putting in place clear policies that corporations complicit in human rights violations overseas will be held accountable for them if they operate here.
Of course this is the same site which preaches that you can ignore laws you don't agree with, so I don't konw what the hell anyone here actually thinks.
I submit that if you believe a law is thouroughly, absolutely wrong to the core, you more than have the right to oppose it-you have the duty. If civil disobedience will be an effective tactic toward this end (and it isn't always) you absolutely have the duty to engage in that behavior and, if necessary, suffer the consequences. Standing by and doing nothing or actively assisting evil acts under color that "the law says I have to" smacks way too much of "We were only following orders."
Teddy Roosevelt said it the best I've found: "No man is justified in doing evil on the grounds of expediency."
Here is the email I sent to FEMA, feel free to use it, abuse it, or copy and paste it (remember at least to change "your name here" at the end!)
To whom it may concern,
While it may seem a small matter to you, roughly 10% of Internet users use a browser other than Internet Explorer. It is also the case that Internet Explorer will run only on Windows, making your disaster-relief site unavailable entirely to users of Macintosh, Linux, or any other operating systems aside from Windows.
It is entirely possible to design interactive websites to be compatible with all browsers. It is in fact done every day. This is widely accepted as the only proper way to design a website.
I believe that it is FEMA's primary responsibility to ensure that in a disaster, as many people are reached with as little in the way as possible. Instead, it appears that our tax money is being spent on the promotion of a commercial product, to the detriment of many who may need aid. I do not consider advertising for Microsoft an appropriate use of my taxes. Please design your website properly.
How many FTP clients do you know of which are advertisement delivery platforms which are designed to lure people to the advertisements by providing them with an easy way to find and download copyrighted works?
I've never searched for an ad-supported FTP client, but I imagine there's at least one out there which does indeed install adware. I would also change that to reflect the facts: an easy way to find filenames of the user's choice, many of which will be copyrighted works.
You need to read better. I said that this case is not about the protocols. The protocols are not what the case is about. Certainly they get mentioned during the case, to complete the picture, but it is the way the businesses are being run and the way the KDM works that the case is about.
Don't kid yourself. If they succeed only in eliminating the bloated, ad-filled Kazaa client and converting more people to alternatives like Kazaa Lite (or, for that matter, switching them to an alternative method entirely) the RIAA has gained nothing. They're out to sue developers here, I would bet you the RIAA's profits last year. They want P2P GONE, as in "illegal even to use or develop for", not just "filtered"-that's trivial to trick.
You need to read better. I said that this case is not about the protocols. The protocols are not what the case is about. Certainly they get mentioned during the case, to complete the picture, but it is the way the businesses are being run and the way the KDM works that the case is about.
Exactly. Which is why I compared a program (FTP client) to a program (Kazaa client).
You think that their web site has not changed over the course of 3 years? You think that mirrors of the web site were not periodically captured as evidence over the course of that 3 years?
I really don't know, I guess I neglected to read the Kazaa site every few days for the past few years. I can't, however, find a reference to that in the case documentation. Can you show me what I missed or provide other evidence, or is this just your speculation?
There was TONS of evidence, experts and lawyers working on this for THREE YEARS. It does not just come down to one thing.
It looked to me like it came down to just one thing, just as Grokster did. Direct infringement's out, so all you've got left is this nebulous "inducement" thing. And the judge -never- cited in his decision that Kazaa -directly- advocated violation of the law-only CHANGE of the law, and/or change of the RIAA's business practices, with their "join the revolution" bit, while (even by his admission!) condemning violations of that law while it's in effect. Now, of course that's not what's really in their heads, but the day we start legislating what's in someone's head is the day I run for it. And no, it wasn't effective, but nor have the RIAA's warnings been-and they're trying in dead earnest. I think a case could be made under those circumstances that there isn't a known way right now for a copyright warning to be effective, and Kazaa certainly shouldn't be expected to do what someone with a vested interest in succeeding can't manage.
BTW, you said "Kazaa is a data transfer protocol-a crappy one, granted, but that's all it is ", which is absolutely not correct. That is not "all it is". Maybe lots of people have pulled you up on this because it's WRONG? Kazaa is NOT just a protocol and the protocols involved are not what the case is about. The case was about business practices and their client software.
You're correct, I worded that poorly. Please replace with "Kazaa is a crappy data transfer protocol, coupled with a crappy, adware-laden client program. However, the protocol can (and does) function for clients other than the "official" one, and may be considered separate from it."
Comparing Kazaa to FTP is completely and utterly ridiculous.
Alright, is it really that hard to read? I've been told 3 times now that I'm comparing a program to a protocol. In my post, I specifically stated the developers of an FTP -CLIENT-. This is (say it with me) a PROGRAM which uses PROTOCOLS, which certainly could make money for someone, and which most certainly could be used to infringe copyrights.
Also, Kazaa -is- part protocol-other programs (Kazaa Lite, and so on) also access their network, so apparently, there IS a network or protocol which exists separately from the program, and can be accessed independently. So, we've got the same thing-a program (the Kazaa desktop, Kazaa Lite, whatever) accessing a protocol (the Kazaa network). You may not want to -think- I'm right, but you've illustrated, so far, no differences aside from marketing practices.
I'm also a bit concerned about that-the judge found that Kazaa was "authorizing infringement" simply by criticizing the record companies' policies. Nowhere that I can find on their website does it EVER say "Alright, go ahead and do it anyway." And in fact, their terms of use say the exact opposite. Now, do they really mind? I really doubt it. But I sure don't like seeing the free speech implications of that for Australians-simple criticism of someone's actions amounts to encouragement of a third-party's unlawful act? Companies are now responsible for unlawful acts on the part of their customers if they say the wrong thing? Plenty of people have found good cause to criticize the record and movie industries, surely someone with a stake in the situation is even more likely to do so, and has a great free speech interest in being able to do so.
Please reread, get rid of the straw men, and comment again.
1. FTP is a generic file transfer protocol. KaZaa is an application that allows searching for music (and movies? I'm not really familiar with it) and subsequently downloading it. So we can say KaZaa specializes in providing access to music (and movies?), whereas FTP doesn't specialize in any sort of file in particular.
While I've not used the thing myself (I doubt it'd even run on Linux), everything I've found so far indicates that it operates much like any P2P filesharing application. It returns matches in filenames to a search string. Therefore, searching for "Madonna" will match equally well songs from the artist by that name, or a photo of a sculpture of the Madonna entitled "madonna.jpg". While I would certainly imagine you'd be much more LIKELY to find the tunes, the content is decided by the users. The search feature returns anything matching, and simply returns more results the more popular the item is-isn't that how search is -supposed- to work?
As to the bit with FTP-both, in the end, are protocols designed to allow two computers to transfer files directly from one to another. Sharman also make a program with a search engine, designed to crawl this network, but you're confusing the -program- with the -protocol-. In this case, I cited developers of an FTP client-a program, not FTP itself-a protocol. Now, of course, in this case, Sharman is the creator of both, but what they're being held liable on appears to be the PROGRAM.
All types of programs can be and are used to infringe copyright. Web browsers, Bittorrent clients, FTP clients and servers, Limewire, Emule, Freenet, IRC clients, I could go on for quite some time. it's been known for a long time that -massive- amounts of file trading go on over IRC, but no one's trying to sue mIRC for making money off their IRC client. They're just providing the tool, the USER decides what to do with it! What I still fail to see is how that doesn't apply here.
2. KaZaa was programmed in a time when the connection between peer-to-peer and copyright infringement was well-established. It is very unlikely that the authors weren't aware of that fact. Thus, the authors of KaZaa probably knew that their software would be used for copyright infringement.
This is the most dangerous argument of all. In no other area do we see accepted the argument that you know something will be misused as an argument for outlawing it entirely. Certainly it is possible to gravely misuse a gun, knife, baseball bat, or even a car. Yet we do not hold the manufacturers of these things responsible when they are misused, even though it can certainly be said that they are aware such misuse will occur. (Do you think Ford's not aware of the drunk driving problem?)
While Betamax would certainly not apply to an Australian case, it certainly set a wise precedent-you're not responsible for the actions of the users of a given product, so long as there EXIST potential legal and legitimate uses for it. Kazaa's licensing of the "gold files" certainly counts as a legitimate use, as do the countless indie artists and the like who gladly invite their fans to share their music on that network and similar ones.
3. The files accessed through KaZaa come from other users of the system. There are many of those. Files accessed through FTP come from a few servers. FTP server admins have been known to take down offending material when made aware of its existance. The hopes of something similar happening to offending material shared by KaZaa users is futile. The only way to prevent rampant copyright infringement would be through the software.
And many don't, or don't ever have the stuff get caught, or live somewhere they can't be made to do it. Again, no other manufacturer, of anything, is prevented from making a product with both legal and illegal uses, even if they KNOW that the illegal use will be done!
Your assertion that so many users are committing copyright infringement speaks volumes, as well. Generally, widespread civil
The "ability" you seem to be talking about here is "never develop it". Kazaa, like all P2P programs now, is a decentralized network relying on direct connection between users. If Sharman shut down all operations today, the Kazaa network will continue to operate as well (poorly?) as it ever did. There is no "plug to pull", as there was with Napster.
...but what exactly is the point of the "appeal" process....
Does anyone know the legal/moral/constitutional requirement for the right to apeal? Why is the appeal Judge / Jury's virdict considered any more or less valid than the original?
The last I checked, judges and juries are comprised by human beings, known to make the occasional error, and are vested with a huge degree of power and authority. The best defense we've found so far against human error is review by many. Even newspaper articles are reviewed by an editor before publication. Should we not apply the same mechanism to judicial verdicts, that often possess the power to bankrupt or imprison someone?
I'm not personally familiar with Australian law, I hope someone who is will be able to give us a bit of insight. But until then, I really can't understand how the judge made this ruling. Kazaa is a data transfer protocol-a crappy one, granted, but that's all it is. Their software simply -allows- users to transfer files via that protocol. Are the makers of FTP clients now liable if an FTP user downloads copyrighted material?
Great! So the whole peer-to-peer thing is solved that easy, according to you?
After all, if I download a (song/movie/game) for my ppersonal use, all you can argue is that I saved money, but you can't prove that I would've otherwise spent it on the copyrighted product or service.
That's how it SHOULD be interpreted-but it's not how it IS interpreted. That's the whole problem here.
I don't often mod negatively, but I wish I had some points now, along with a -1 "Racist, Clueless, and Uninformed" option. As I do not, I'm just going to point out that you are clearly wrong. I'm not sure if you are trolling or just utterly clueless, but either way, please consider putting a bit of thought behind what you decide to post next time. The crap you've posted is so trivially proved wrong with the most basic effort at fact checking. Try it sometime.
Don't have a "So Fresh" under that name, but there's plenty of compilation CD's done like that. I don't generally listen to top 40 type stuff in any case so it's not something I follow real closely.
As to the younger "fans" (or lack thereof), I certainly can't speak to how it is in Australia, so will take your word for it. It's certainly true that younger fans here (at least many) do tend to gravitate toward the "top 40"/boyband-girlband/etc. type stuff, but those are DEFINITELY doing mommy-please-buy on the T-shirts, concert tickets, etc. Certainly the latest boy/girl band will never fail to sell out a show, and afterwards they want the T-shirt, and the poster, and whatever else some marketer can come up with.
Also (again, speaking for the US, I'm not familiar with the system in Australia so what you said could be absolutely correct there), purchase of a CD here from a major-label band does NOT support the artist. If they -ever- see money out of CD sales (many don't, it goes toward repaying "loans" that were effectively forcibly granted to them), it's a few pennies per copy. Artists here are forced to give up their copyrights in order to join a major label. The situation in the indie world tends to be much better, but due to payola radio, an indie act doesn't have near the chance of "making it big". Of course, not all want that. But I follow quite a few indie artists, and know a few, and without exception they -encourage- you to put their stuff on the P2P network. A couple have even said thank you for it. And in this case, I happily buy the CD, because most of the money's going into the pocket it belongs in-the guys in the band.
To the lack of true music fans-got to agree with you there, no one appreciates a really great, innovative act anymore. But then, none of the major labels -put out- great, innovative acts anymore. That's why I'm not a big downloader of major label stuff-I'm not scared of getting sued, but 99% of the stuff isn't any more worth using bandwidth rather then money to grab and HD space rather then shelf space to keep. I still, however, don't believe that it's immoral or criminal to do not-for-profit sharing, and every artist I've had the chance to ask that -directly- benefits from CD sales agrees-it's great advertising and exposure.
If copyright were reformed to have, say, a 5-10 year duration, no corporate ownership of copyrights unless the corporation itself is genuinely the creator (for example, a group of developers doing work at a software house, NOT a band who is later forced to lie by stating that their work was "work for hire" when it wasn't), mandatory registration, mandatory leave for fair use (and no copy protection that prevents it), and a strict prohibition on using "licenses" (ala EULA's) to extend what's impermissible, I'd fully support it. Until then, it's a bad law that fails to serve its explicit purpose (to promote the progress of science and the useful arts), and I encourage its rejection.
Slashdot Mirror
People who sign NDAs generally make a higher base salary than those who are not required to sign them. I know that I was told it was part of the 'base package' of compensation when I asked. This was at two different employers. The crux of the matter, however, is that if you don't wish to bear the burdens of the job, why on Earth should you get the job?
If you're talking about NDA's in terms of things which would normally be considered a trade secret, you, me, and the law, are already in agreement. What I'm discussing here is companies firing employees for discussing, in their off time, away from work, things which would not be considered a trade secret. If this guy was posting the source for Vista or specifications on a secret project, by all means, they should be able to fire him. (And they would likely go after him civilly and possibly criminally, as well.) However, dissatisfaction with a job is not, to my knowledge, defined as a "trade secret".
I didn't challenge that premise either. For example, they shouldn't be allowed to put a clause in a contract stating that you'll murder your own child if you're late to work. I just don't believe that an NDA falls under your premise. Why should people be not only allowed but compensated for divulging company secrets?
And I didn't challenge your premise. What I am challenging is companies restricting speech made away from work which is not divulging company secrets, but only expressing dissatisfaction. Just because something is potentially embarrassing doesn't mean they should be able to keep it under wraps. I am asserting that companies should be prohibited from regulating speech beyond what trade secret legislation sets forth.
Um. It's the second ammendment. You argued that the first ammendment should apply to private organizations, while I countered with another ammendment in the same document (the next one, even) which blows your argument. No wonder you declined to respond. Perhaps if you delineated precisely which parts of the Constitution you consider important I could keep my arguments to them.
The Second Amendment provides for the carrying of arms in the establishment of a "well-armed militia". Therefore, so long as you are not a felon, you are free to own a gun, and your employer is free to tell you to leave it at home, just as you are free to forbid guns being brought into your own home. However, this does not apply-we are not discussing those who are blogging -while on the job-, and I fully support the right of employers to say "No blogging, personal emailing, playing of games, etc." while you are on a work computer, and to fire those who break that rule. However, in this case, we are discussing someone blogging on their time off, on their own computer. This would be more equivalent to your employer attempting to state that you may not own a gun, period. Would you have a problem with that?
Oh, I see. They thought indentured servitude was A-OK but not an NDA? Come on, that's ridiculous. Besides, the document is MEANT to be read narrowly, it ONLY applies to the Federal Government. The fact that it has been applied otherwise does not mean that it was intended to do so.
Yes, they did think slavery was OK, and it took a great deal of struggle to overcome that mistake. However, they quite clearly stated that a restriction on free speech was unacceptable, and that was, most certainly, not a mistake. But if we let corporations pick up where government leaves off, the restriction is very empty, very meaningless. Corporations hold a great deal of power, and are already in bed with the government. To suggest that the two should be considered as absolutely separate entities is to ignore reality.
No, it means that I may censor anyone I wish within my own private property. You have no right to free speech inside my house. You have no right to free speech inside my business. If I don't like what you say, I can legally kick you out. That pretty much
Sorry. You're just way off base on this one.
Actually, I don't believe I am, but let's go into that.
Tell that to the people who carry pagers. You DO get a bonus in comp for doing things like carrying pagers and not divulging company secrets. It's all covered in that contract you're too busy to read before you sign.
True, they have to pay extra for "on-call" status, but I've never seen extra offered for an NDA. That doesn't mean it's never happened, of course, but to my knowledge it's not standard practice. Oh, and personally, I agree that you should ALWAYS read a document in full before signing, and ensure that anything you're not clear on is made clear. That doesn't change my premise, however, that certain types of contracts should be disallowed altogether.
Why should you be able to divulge company business and suffer no consequences for it? Note that this only applies if you have signed an NDA...because you've agreed NOT TO DISCLOSE things. If you could only not disclose them AT WORK, where EVERYONE knows them, it wouldn't make too much fucking sense, now would it? The company isn't saying 'you can't blog on your off time', they are saying 'you can't divulge company secrets in your off time'. Those are totally different statements.
Again, true, but most (if not all) states, as well as the federal government, already prohibit disclosure of trade secrets by law. Other than that, you should be free to discuss what's happened at work-if your employer is screwing you over, you have the right to complain. If they're practicing bad business, the public has a right to know, especially if it's a publically-traded company. From what I read of the blog, he's not disclosing trade secrets. I don't see the source code for Longhorn or some long-term plan to buy out a competitor there. For the most part, he's bringing up information which is already publically available, and supplementing the discussion with his own experience.
Actually, it is! You're not FORCED to sign any contract. There is more than one job in the world.
Again, technically true, but disingenuous as to the way corporations work. If one does this, others will follow suit, and quickly you'll find your choice to be "sign it or don't work at all." While technically they can't -make- you sign, if they can say "sign it or lose your job", they can bring an immense amount of pressure to bear just with that.
Why? I've done it. I didn't like the provision that said when I carried a pager, I couldn't drink alcohol. So I told my prospective employer that I wouldn't sign unless they modified that paragraph. I know it may be hard to believe, but they did it! Imagine! All I did was...wait for it....ask!
I'm glad it worked out for you, and yes, quite often, they will be willing to negotiate on certain things. Again, that doesn't change my premise that they shouldn't be -allowed- to put certain restrictions in a contract, at all.
The Constitution delineates the limits of power of the Federal Government. That means that the Federal Government can't pass a law restricting free speech (although they CAN create an agency to do it with directives instead of laws, see the FCC). The Constitution doesn't say that people can't choose to limit their speech voluntarily for money. Similarly, the right to bear arms does not give you the right to go about armed wherever you want. Sorry. You're just way off base on this one.
The "right to bear arms" bit is offtopic and hasn't been part of this at all, so I am going to decline to respond to that.
You're reading the Constitution pretty narrowly. I would be more inclined to say that it establishes a fundamental right to free speech (as do several human rights treaties that the United States is a signatory to), the only threat to which, at the TIME, was the federal government. It is my guess that if they had foreseen, in 1776, widespread contractual obligations to curtail speech, this would have bee
For many people, loss of a job (the penalty a corporation can inflict) can be as serious and life-altering as being sentenced to jail (the penalty the government can inflict). Free speech rights are meaningless unless you protect them.
On a related note, if a corporation expects you to obey its rules 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it owes you compensation for one hundred and sixty-eight hours, per week, plus overtime of course. Otherwise, when you punch the clock, you're done. Why should your employer have control over what you blog in your off time?
People want the government to protect them from having to do hard work like reading legal documents before signing them.
Actually, I think what is at issue here, is that the contract at issue really isn't a choice. It's very disingenuous for you to say "uh...don't sign it..." if you don't agree with it-if you're independently wealthy enough that you don't care whether or not you lose your job, I am glad for you, but not all of us are so fortunate. Protection is requested, then, for free speech, which is clearly enshrined in the Constitution as a fundamental right. Corporate profits are not. When the two are at odds, then, the Constitution makes it very clear which must give way. Employees should have the same right to seek redress against bad acts on the part of their employer just as citizens should have the right to seek that with the government-and Constitutional rights should absolutely, never, ever, be regarded as something which may be "signed away".
"The Mozilla Foundation" might not be a well-known quantity outside of tech circles, but "Firefox" most certainly is.
As to the rest...it might be anecdotal, but I've certainly not heard -one- person yet complain of MORE infections after installing Firefox, always the opposite. The proof's in use, and in that, Firefox beats IE every time.
So, in other words, even by YOUR logic, things still worked, just a bit more slowly. I submit, then, that you've refuted your own "Wikipedia article" premise.
Now, let's clarify. I have no problem with a pharmmaceutical company who looks at an idea from a university and develops a drug based on it being allowed to patent (and thus profit from) -that specific drug-. However, they should not be able to patent (and nor should publicly funded universities be able to patent) general knowledge, pure research knowledge, parts of genetic sequence, manipulated gene sequences, or similar. SPECIFIC drug formulas only, and only if the discovery of that formula is totally privately funded (aside from looking at the general idea from a university), please. This would not remove the profit motive, simply restrict it to the proper degree-while ensuring that basic scientific knowledge remains available to all, rather than locked away behind a patent, as is also the proper way to do things.
I don't see it as "everything is patentable" or "nothing is patentable"-a specific drug formula is patentable (although MUCH stricter laws on required availability and price-fixing need to be in place if this is to continue), but a general knowledge principle (gene sequence x behaves differently then modified gene sequence y, modification is performed by procedure z) is not.
If your premise is correct, why were new drugs and treatments coming out before 1980? If your premise is correct that we'd be reduced to "a Wikipedia page" without this rampant patenting of everything, shouldn't that have been the state of things before it?
But I think you're missing something-if that idea was developed using public money, mine and yours, isn't that idea publically owned, mine and yours? It'd be ridiculous for government funds to be used to build a road, and then the contractor who already received the money be allowed to set up toll booths to collect more from the taxpayers who drive on it. Can you explain to me how this is somehow different (tax money funding the initial product, then the private entity who -already- benefited from the tax money being able to charge more money for the product)? The organization doing the developing of the final product is still, directly or indirectly, receiving the tax money or the fruits thereof.
Your post makes it sound like that's a requirement, and it is indeed in the Constitution. However, its enumeration is in the "Congress may" section, not "Congress must".
In context, it reads:
The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
It's not recognized as a fundamental right, like property, free speech, and freedom of religion-only as a power granted to Congress to exercise, and only GIVEN THAT the exercise of that power does indeed promote the progress of science and useful art. That point can (and will) be debated here, but I felt compelled to point out that the ability to exclusive control of an idea is not considered a right-it is enumerated as a fully revocable privilege which Congress -may- grant.
Firstly, I don't believe alcohol and tobacco are appropriate comparisons. These items do well-documented, scientifically provable, physical harm. They are provably physically addictive. They do not qualify for Constitutional free-speech protection. None of these things are true of video games, so I don't think it follows from "It's legitimate to age-restrict alcohol and tobacco" to "It's legitimate to age-restrict video games."
Scientific studies on video games are conflicting at best, and tend to find that the harm is slight (mildly elevated aggressive tendency for an hour or two), nonexistent (no noticeable change in behavior), or even an actual benefit (Johnny takes his aggression out on the virtual bad guy that might've otherwise gotten taken out on his real classmate/sibling/etc.)
What I'm most concerned about, though, as that with this issue (and so many others!) it seems the focus is on taking care of peripheral, relatively unimportant issues, rather than the central ones. The central issue here is that many kids have bad, or uncaring parents, or parents who are simply clueless on the right way to raise a kid. What can we do to solve this? I propose that a few things can be done-freely available birth control, to ensure that those who don't want children don't have them, easily accessible and comprehensive education for new parents as to the basics of child development, etc., a stop to the "not my business, not my problem" attitude, and the corresponding "I won't take any advice from anyone" mentality, a universal living wage to ensure that parents will not both have to work long hours just to stay afloat...
Obviously, these are harder things to do. They require challenges to people's comfort zone. They require money. They require planning and cooperation. They require careful thought and community involvement. It's easier to point another finger, slap another fine on something peripheral, and then run "stings" every so often to net a fine or two and get a pat on the back. But we have so often forgotten to ask the fundamental question about any solution to any problem, and that is:
Is what we are doing, WORKING? Is the problem decreasing in severity and frequency? To the current methods being used to combat bad parenting (scattershot "education" which generally consists of a couple hour-long sessions on how to burp a baby and change a diaper, underfunded social services divisions which take away kids who were with good parents and then quite often leave genuine abuse/neglect cases behind, age restrictions on a few things) I would say the answer is no.
When the current solutions and methods have been tried for quite some time, and the problem is only getting worse, it is not time to "strengthen" the existing, non-working structure-it's time to tear it down, rethink, and rebuild. Unfortunately, that takes guts, brains, planning, and money-and in terms of doing anything really worthwhile, all of those seem to be in very short supply currently.
WHERE do my mod points go every timme I need them...thank you for pointing out that the purpose is more important then the method, which you would think would be obvious. Libraries weren't requiring people to return books because they wanted to be nice to the poor (or not so poor) media companies, they were doing it because they can't afford to straight-up give away 50000 copies of a popular book. So, you have to bring it back.
Now we have an end to that scarcity. The only limit is bandwidth, and with Bittorrent, they can even take a lot of that strain off their own back. Why are we continuing to place artificial scarcity where natural scarcity no longer exists? If we could infinitely replicate food, water, or other vital supplies, would we forbid such replication so that those who supply those things can still make a BUCK?
Sadly, it seems the answer to that just might be a yes. And that yes says a lot, and NONE of it is good.
Security is not DIRECTLY antithecal to freedom, even by the libertarian philosophy. Am I -genuinely- more free when:
A: Any person has the right to murder me. One of those people comes around with guns, takes whatever they want away from me, rapes my wife, kidnaps my children, and leaves me with nothing. They might kill me, they might not.
B: Such actions by that type of person are suppressed. If that person comes around and commits that action, police officers, and if necessary, people armed with heavy weapons, will come to take them away to jail and/or kill them.
Personally, I'd rather live under option B then A. You're free to advocate whatever you like (that is, of course, an essential part of a free society), but I imagine you'll find, presented those two scenarios, that most will tell you that under certain circumstances, security ENHANCES freedom. My right to make this post is enhanced by the fact that if you threaten to (or do) kill me for it, you'll be put in jail, helping to ensure I -am- free to make it.
The ideal is a -balance- of security, not a total lack of it. I certainly do not want videocameras and 24-hour monitoring in my living room to ensure that no one ever commits a crime there. But I also don't want it to be so that anyone who feels like doing so is welcome to do it with impunity.
Now that I have made my debate with you on your flawed equation and reasoning, however, I do agree that most of these new security measures go too far.
How is it Yahoo's business to decide the morality of crimes which have been committed? It's nothing to do with them.
I guess on that we simply disagree. I believe, as I already stated above, that there is indeed a moral obligation to oppose with whatever means you possess a law which you find morally wrong. I believe also, that if you know that someone will be punished in a reprehensible manner, including torture, summary execution, or subjection to a sham trial, you have the duty not to turn them over to the authorities who will commit such atrocities if this is known to you at the time you do so. If Yahoo does indeed believe that suppression of dissent through torture and violence is acceptable, that's their belief, but I certainly do not wish to do business with them. If they do not, they should not further it.
If the police come to you with the legal authority to search your records, you cannot deny them that.
If you're using the example that I myself live in the United States, no, I cannot, because the Constitution provides certain protections, in keeping with human rights. If the police in question have a search warrant, they have followed appropriate procedure. I can still, however, challenge that warrant later. On the other hand, if the police were given the power to search private property at whim, I would absolutely oppose that. I do, in fact, oppose the "National Security Letters" and other such provisions of the unPATRIOTic Act that give such authority to conduct searches outside of proper procedure (probable cause, judicial approval, ability to challenge).
If you don't like it, live somewhere else.
I'm not quite clear on how you meant that. If you intend to indicate that the Chinese dissenter in question should've simply "lived somewhere else", you're implying that he would have had that option. I can easily prove that this is not so. If you're implying that you are required simply to move, rather than to oppose government actions you disagree with, I strongly disagree-free countries are founded specifically on the ability to challenge such acts.
If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that Yahoo should find somewhere else to do business, I fully agree. If they do not (or cannot) do business in China in a means consistent with human rights, or are required by doing business there to comply with unconscionable laws, they indeed should get out. If they do not, no "just following the law" justification should save them from responsibility. If there is any person under US jurisdiction who is responsible for this decision, that person should be prosecuted for their human rights violations. However, absent that they will likely be held legally responsible for their complicity in crime, I do hold the company responsible and will refrain from using their site or products. I will also be letting them know why. I encourage anyone else who feels that their action was in the wrong to do the same. This type of action is only possible so far as YOU tolerate it-if you purchase from a company who engages in this type of behavior, and you know that they do, YOU are condoning it as well.
It depends on what type of "state secret" you're talking about. If the "state secrets" you're giving away are secret military plans that put thousands of lives at risk, you're right. If, on the other hand, said "state secret" is a dirty little secret of the government who is engaged in conduct they don't want exposed, you are a hero, not a criminal.
Besides that, it is not a secret whatsoever that China issues the death penalty for nonviolent crimes, gathers and sells organs from executed prisoners without their or their families' consent, and utilizes torture. All of these are explicitly, universally, and without exception, forbidden as violations of human rights. Assisting -even- a good law's enforcement is unacceptable and immoral if you know that the accused will not be provided due process, and punished if convicted in accordance with human rights regulations.
You seem to have missed my meaning-there is no double standard here. Microsoft is condemned (rightly) for breaking a good, justifiable law, while Yahoo is condemned (rightly) for helping to enforce a bad, immoral law, and turning a man over to what they full well know will be torture, a "sham" trial if they even bother with that, and execution for a nonviolent crime.
Yeah, because, you know, if FEMA's IT department wasn't reading email, they'd be out there pulling people out of those flooded streets. What was I thinking?
Oh, yeah-I was thinking there's probably more then one person there at FEMA (although no one knows how long that will last), and that one would HOPE (although it's far from certain) that if there truly was a choice between fixing the website and putting people on the ground, they'd be able to prioritize appropriately.
Now, please join the other trolls, back under the bridge.
Yeah. It couldn't maybe be because we're talking about different laws here. Breaking an antitrust law is an entirely different animal then supporting state-sponsored censorship and murder because "it's the law over there", despite the fact that these "laws" are in clear contravention of several human rights treaties to which the US is a signatory.
It is also shameful that the US government allows these governments, in the name of an almighty buck or million, allows these corporations to continue this practice, instead of putting in place clear policies that corporations complicit in human rights violations overseas will be held accountable for them if they operate here.
Of course this is the same site which preaches that you can ignore laws you don't agree with, so I don't konw what the hell anyone here actually thinks.
I submit that if you believe a law is thouroughly, absolutely wrong to the core, you more than have the right to oppose it-you have the duty. If civil disobedience will be an effective tactic toward this end (and it isn't always) you absolutely have the duty to engage in that behavior and, if necessary, suffer the consequences. Standing by and doing nothing or actively assisting evil acts under color that "the law says I have to" smacks way too much of "We were only following orders."
Teddy Roosevelt said it the best I've found: "No man is justified in doing evil on the grounds of expediency."
Here is the email I sent to FEMA, feel free to use it, abuse it, or copy and paste it (remember at least to change "your name here" at the end!)
To whom it may concern,
While it may seem a small matter to you, roughly 10% of Internet users use a browser other than Internet Explorer. It is also the case that Internet Explorer will run only on Windows, making your disaster-relief site unavailable entirely to users of Macintosh, Linux, or any other operating systems aside from Windows.
It is entirely possible to design interactive websites to be compatible with all browsers. It is in fact done every day. This is widely accepted as the only proper way to design a website.
I believe that it is FEMA's primary responsibility to ensure that in a disaster, as many people are reached with as little in the way as possible. Instead, it appears that our tax money is being spent on the promotion of a commercial product, to the detriment of many who may need aid. I do not consider advertising for Microsoft an appropriate use of my taxes. Please design your website properly.
Thank you,
(your name here)
How many FTP clients do you know of which are advertisement delivery platforms which are designed to lure people to the advertisements by providing them with an easy way to find and download copyrighted works?
I've never searched for an ad-supported FTP client, but I imagine there's at least one out there which does indeed install adware. I would also change that to reflect the facts: an easy way to find filenames of the user's choice, many of which will be copyrighted works.
You need to read better. I said that this case is not about the protocols. The protocols are not what the case is about. Certainly they get mentioned during the case, to complete the picture, but it is the way the businesses are being run and the way the KDM works that the case is about.
Don't kid yourself. If they succeed only in eliminating the bloated, ad-filled Kazaa client and converting more people to alternatives like Kazaa Lite (or, for that matter, switching them to an alternative method entirely) the RIAA has gained nothing. They're out to sue developers here, I would bet you the RIAA's profits last year. They want P2P GONE, as in "illegal even to use or develop for", not just "filtered"-that's trivial to trick.
You need to read better. I said that this case is not about the protocols. The protocols are not what the case is about. Certainly they get mentioned during the case, to complete the picture, but it is the way the businesses are being run and the way the KDM works that the case is about.
Exactly. Which is why I compared a program (FTP client) to a program (Kazaa client).
You think that their web site has not changed over the course of 3 years? You think that mirrors of the web site were not periodically captured as evidence over the course of that 3 years?
I really don't know, I guess I neglected to read the Kazaa site every few days for the past few years. I can't, however, find a reference to that in the case documentation. Can you show me what I missed or provide other evidence, or is this just your speculation?
There was TONS of evidence, experts and lawyers working on this for THREE YEARS. It does not just come down to one thing.
It looked to me like it came down to just one thing, just as Grokster did. Direct infringement's out, so all you've got left is this nebulous "inducement" thing. And the judge -never- cited in his decision that Kazaa -directly- advocated violation of the law-only CHANGE of the law, and/or change of the RIAA's business practices, with their "join the revolution" bit, while (even by his admission!) condemning violations of that law while it's in effect. Now, of course that's not what's really in their heads, but the day we start legislating what's in someone's head is the day I run for it. And no, it wasn't effective, but nor have the RIAA's warnings been-and they're trying in dead earnest. I think a case could be made under those circumstances that there isn't a known way right now for a copyright warning to be effective, and Kazaa certainly shouldn't be expected to do what someone with a vested interest in succeeding can't manage.
BTW, you said "Kazaa is a data transfer protocol-a crappy one, granted, but that's all it is ", which is absolutely not correct. That is not "all it is". Maybe lots of people have pulled you up on this because it's WRONG? Kazaa is NOT just a protocol and the protocols involved are not what the case is about. The case was about business practices and their client software.
You're correct, I worded that poorly. Please replace with "Kazaa is a crappy data transfer protocol, coupled with a crappy, adware-laden client program. However, the protocol can (and does) function for clients other than the "official" one, and may be considered separate from it."
Comparing Kazaa to FTP is completely and utterly ridiculous.
Alright, is it really that hard to read? I've been told 3 times now that I'm comparing a program to a protocol. In my post, I specifically stated the developers of an FTP -CLIENT-. This is (say it with me) a PROGRAM which uses PROTOCOLS, which certainly could make money for someone, and which most certainly could be used to infringe copyrights.
Also, Kazaa -is- part protocol-other programs (Kazaa Lite, and so on) also access their network, so apparently, there IS a network or protocol which exists separately from the program, and can be accessed independently. So, we've got the same thing-a program (the Kazaa desktop, Kazaa Lite, whatever) accessing a protocol (the Kazaa network). You may not want to -think- I'm right, but you've illustrated, so far, no differences aside from marketing practices.
I'm also a bit concerned about that-the judge found that Kazaa was "authorizing infringement" simply by criticizing the record companies' policies. Nowhere that I can find on their website does it EVER say "Alright, go ahead and do it anyway." And in fact, their terms of use say the exact opposite. Now, do they really mind? I really doubt it. But I sure don't like seeing the free speech implications of that for Australians-simple criticism of someone's actions amounts to encouragement of a third-party's unlawful act? Companies are now responsible for unlawful acts on the part of their customers if they say the wrong thing? Plenty of people have found good cause to criticize the record and movie industries, surely someone with a stake in the situation is even more likely to do so, and has a great free speech interest in being able to do so.
Please reread, get rid of the straw men, and comment again.
1. FTP is a generic file transfer protocol. KaZaa is an application that allows searching for music (and movies? I'm not really familiar with it) and subsequently downloading it. So we can say KaZaa specializes in providing access to music (and movies?), whereas FTP doesn't specialize in any sort of file in particular.
While I've not used the thing myself (I doubt it'd even run on Linux), everything I've found so far indicates that it operates much like any P2P filesharing application. It returns matches in filenames to a search string. Therefore, searching for "Madonna" will match equally well songs from the artist by that name, or a photo of a sculpture of the Madonna entitled "madonna.jpg". While I would certainly imagine you'd be much more LIKELY to find the tunes, the content is decided by the users. The search feature returns anything matching, and simply returns more results the more popular the item is-isn't that how search is -supposed- to work?
As to the bit with FTP-both, in the end, are protocols designed to allow two computers to transfer files directly from one to another. Sharman also make a program with a search engine, designed to crawl this network, but you're confusing the -program- with the -protocol-. In this case, I cited developers of an FTP client-a program, not FTP itself-a protocol. Now, of course, in this case, Sharman is the creator of both, but what they're being held liable on appears to be the PROGRAM.
All types of programs can be and are used to infringe copyright. Web browsers, Bittorrent clients, FTP clients and servers, Limewire, Emule, Freenet, IRC clients, I could go on for quite some time. it's been known for a long time that -massive- amounts of file trading go on over IRC, but no one's trying to sue mIRC for making money off their IRC client. They're just providing the tool, the USER decides what to do with it! What I still fail to see is how that doesn't apply here.
2. KaZaa was programmed in a time when the connection between peer-to-peer and copyright infringement was well-established. It is very unlikely that the authors weren't aware of that fact. Thus, the authors of KaZaa probably knew that their software would be used for copyright infringement.
This is the most dangerous argument of all. In no other area do we see accepted the argument that you know something will be misused as an argument for outlawing it entirely. Certainly it is possible to gravely misuse a gun, knife, baseball bat, or even a car. Yet we do not hold the manufacturers of these things responsible when they are misused, even though it can certainly be said that they are aware such misuse will occur. (Do you think Ford's not aware of the drunk driving problem?)
While Betamax would certainly not apply to an Australian case, it certainly set a wise precedent-you're not responsible for the actions of the users of a given product, so long as there EXIST potential legal and legitimate uses for it. Kazaa's licensing of the "gold files" certainly counts as a legitimate use, as do the countless indie artists and the like who gladly invite their fans to share their music on that network and similar ones.
3. The files accessed through KaZaa come from other users of the system. There are many of those. Files accessed through FTP come from a few servers. FTP server admins have been known to take down offending material when made aware of its existance. The hopes of something similar happening to offending material shared by KaZaa users is futile. The only way to prevent rampant copyright infringement would be through the software.
And many don't, or don't ever have the stuff get caught, or live somewhere they can't be made to do it. Again, no other manufacturer, of anything, is prevented from making a product with both legal and illegal uses, even if they KNOW that the illegal use will be done!
Your assertion that so many users are committing copyright infringement speaks volumes, as well. Generally, widespread civil
The "ability" you seem to be talking about here is "never develop it". Kazaa, like all P2P programs now, is a decentralized network relying on direct connection between users. If Sharman shut down all operations today, the Kazaa network will continue to operate as well (poorly?) as it ever did. There is no "plug to pull", as there was with Napster.
The last I checked, judges and juries are comprised by human beings, known to make the occasional error, and are vested with a huge degree of power and authority. The best defense we've found so far against human error is review by many. Even newspaper articles are reviewed by an editor before publication. Should we not apply the same mechanism to judicial verdicts, that often possess the power to bankrupt or imprison someone?
I'm not personally familiar with Australian law, I hope someone who is will be able to give us a bit of insight. But until then, I really can't understand how the judge made this ruling. Kazaa is a data transfer protocol-a crappy one, granted, but that's all it is. Their software simply -allows- users to transfer files via that protocol. Are the makers of FTP clients now liable if an FTP user downloads copyrighted material?
Great! So the whole peer-to-peer thing is solved that easy, according to you?
After all, if I download a (song/movie/game) for my ppersonal use, all you can argue is that I saved money, but you can't prove that I would've otherwise spent it on the copyrighted product or service.
That's how it SHOULD be interpreted-but it's not how it IS interpreted. That's the whole problem here.
I don't often mod negatively, but I wish I had some points now, along with a -1 "Racist, Clueless, and Uninformed" option. As I do not, I'm just going to point out that you are clearly wrong. I'm not sure if you are trolling or just utterly clueless, but either way, please consider putting a bit of thought behind what you decide to post next time. The crap you've posted is so trivially proved wrong with the most basic effort at fact checking. Try it sometime.
Don't have a "So Fresh" under that name, but there's plenty of compilation CD's done like that. I don't generally listen to top 40 type stuff in any case so it's not something I follow real closely.
As to the younger "fans" (or lack thereof), I certainly can't speak to how it is in Australia, so will take your word for it. It's certainly true that younger fans here (at least many) do tend to gravitate toward the "top 40"/boyband-girlband/etc. type stuff, but those are DEFINITELY doing mommy-please-buy on the T-shirts, concert tickets, etc. Certainly the latest boy/girl band will never fail to sell out a show, and afterwards they want the T-shirt, and the poster, and whatever else some marketer can come up with.
Also (again, speaking for the US, I'm not familiar with the system in Australia so what you said could be absolutely correct there), purchase of a CD here from a major-label band does NOT support the artist. If they -ever- see money out of CD sales (many don't, it goes toward repaying "loans" that were effectively forcibly granted to them), it's a few pennies per copy. Artists here are forced to give up their copyrights in order to join a major label. The situation in the indie world tends to be much better, but due to payola radio, an indie act doesn't have near the chance of "making it big". Of course, not all want that. But I follow quite a few indie artists, and know a few, and without exception they -encourage- you to put their stuff on the P2P network. A couple have even said thank you for it. And in this case, I happily buy the CD, because most of the money's going into the pocket it belongs in-the guys in the band.
To the lack of true music fans-got to agree with you there, no one appreciates a really great, innovative act anymore. But then, none of the major labels -put out- great, innovative acts anymore. That's why I'm not a big downloader of major label stuff-I'm not scared of getting sued, but 99% of the stuff isn't any more worth using bandwidth rather then money to grab and HD space rather then shelf space to keep. I still, however, don't believe that it's immoral or criminal to do not-for-profit sharing, and every artist I've had the chance to ask that -directly- benefits from CD sales agrees-it's great advertising and exposure.
If copyright were reformed to have, say, a 5-10 year duration, no corporate ownership of copyrights unless the corporation itself is genuinely the creator (for example, a group of developers doing work at a software house, NOT a band who is later forced to lie by stating that their work was "work for hire" when it wasn't), mandatory registration, mandatory leave for fair use (and no copy protection that prevents it), and a strict prohibition on using "licenses" (ala EULA's) to extend what's impermissible, I'd fully support it. Until then, it's a bad law that fails to serve its explicit purpose (to promote the progress of science and the useful arts), and I encourage its rejection.