"Out of idle curiosity, what happens if I lie, and do so very blatantly?"
Well, you can be charged with obstruction of justice or for making a false statement to a peace officer.
If you refuse to identify yourself, that's something else entirely. You can insist that the officer identify YOU, but when you do this, you are agreeing to let them hold you for a period of time (between 24 and 72 hours), while they do this.
It's probably better to just give your name. Choose your fights. You won't win this one.
"We have plenty of perspective, like, oh, history from Germany ~1935."
Unfortunately, there are many who believe the authoritarianism of that government was a great thing, and while they disagree with the mass murder and warfaring parts of the system, they hold a deep appreciation for the authoritarian parts.
They may see problems with the systematic killing of millions of people, and they may even be puzzled by the very idea of racism that leads to it, but they don't think the authoritarian state is in itself a problem.
To them, it's as though the Nazis destroyed a good thing with the whole killing Jews and invading Europe business, but was a great idea otherwise.
"Yes, tell the judge your reasons for the law... but the plaintiff and his attorneys aren't allowed to hear it. Baffling!"
The judge should refuse to hear any such argument, and he should dismiss the case at the mere suggestion that testimony against a defendant be withheld from the defendant and his counsel.
No matter how strong the argument may be, that the ID requirement is an excessive imposition, the compelling state interest will always win over any such argument as long as people believe that they are in danger of an air terrorism incident. In other words, don't hold your breath.
The media cost never dropped below about $10 a disk. If IOMega wanted to dominate the removable media marketplace they had a chance: Get $1 and $2 media into every retail store. Their window of opportunity for this passed rapidly, but they had it at one point. Fools didn't budge on the pricing of the media, and did not allow anyone to sell Zip disks for less than their price point. They needed to make it as cheap as floppies.
I've also wondered why Sony missed the boat with MiniDisc. I really like MD for audio, but I never understood why the format wasn't delivered for file storage use on PC's. One thing Sony did get right, the MD discs are *cheap* and they are available *everywhere*, even though it seems nobody is buying the recorders.
Other things that killed IOMega and the Zip drive:
1. They almost never fulfilled the rebate. Countless people complained about this, and I was one of them. It appears that they simply decided not to make good on the rebate.
2. The drives failed. Many users experienced the "click of death", and although my drive never failed (nor did the drives I acquired much later as part of swaps), persistent reports of failure made me stop using the format. This might have been a bit different, but the price of the media is so high, a failed Zip disk is not the same as a failed floppy. And if a device is known to fail and take the media with it, that makes it unacceptable for storing anything important.
"Being silent in this case is not necessarily equal to to a demonstration of guilt."
In a civil case, your silence can be used as evidence against you. This is different from a criminal case, where you are not required to speak for yourself.
"IANAL, but doesn't that effectively make it a statement under oath already?"
Not at all.
It becomes perjury when the letter is admitted as evidence, or else the plaintiff makes the identical claim under oath or in an affadavit. If they choose not to persue the cases in the article, the question of perjury never comes under consideration.
If someone is foolish enough to take a document with false claims, particularly claims for relief under a specific law that stipulates the false claim to be perjury, and he introduces that document into evidence or acknowledges it, he certainly can be subject to perjury charges.
People seem to have some idea that if you lie in court, and are called on it, that you are automatically shackled and taken away and locked in the tower, but in reality, very few cases of perjury are actually persued.
These cases would be thrown out in the first part of the process.
Here is a warning, though: If you comply with the order, or are silent and do not respond while not complying, these can be used against you as evidence of guilt. Remember the difference between Civil and Criminal court!
IANAL too, btw, but I have no irrational fear of the system.
"Seems to me since they don't have that authority, they've committed perjury."
You don't understand the meaning of that clause in the letter.
If, and only if, that letter is introduced as evidence in a court, will the question of the validity of the claim be raised.
It would be perjury also if the letter were an affadavit. But it isn't. It would not happen, and if you respond to a letter like this appropriately, you will get the silent treatment. As it should be. Believe me, they aren't going to press these particular cases in court. Heaven help you if you get the letter and you really do have X-Files seasons 1-7 available for download, though.
"I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that dress does not make your ass look fat."
It won't *actually* be perjury unless you can get me to swear to it under oath.
"How would you like to be a multi-millionaire witnessing the destruction of the business-model that made you rich?"
I am evil-minded enough that, once becoming sufficiently wealthy, I would have personally destroyed whatever means I used to become so rich, just so that nobody else could ever take advantage of it.
"Well, let's see, possible slander (or libel; I forget which one is print and which is spoken)"
Slander and libel are both enormously difficult to prosecute, and almost never yield satisfying results.
But you're right about the other damages, and you certainly should tack the defamation claims on.
The real problem is that the party that will comply with a c&d letter, is usually a broadband provider or an educational institution, with the same kind of pinheads in charge as those who send the letters.
It's rarely the EFF member, slashdotter, open source author himself who gets the letter and gets to decide whether to comply or respond.
I don't think Cox Cable is going to do a thing for me if they get one of these letters.
It might indeed. But before we really talk about suing anyone, let's talk about defense.
In these cases mentioned today, it will take the price of a certified letter. In fact, I would suggest the recipient of the takedown letter is compelled to respond, pointing out the error, in accordance with section 512(c)(3)(A)(vi).
I don't buy the argument that being involved in a lawsuit will necessarily be expensive. This case wouldn't get past the first hearing.
Your response seems to indicate that you think the recipient of these letters has standing to sue the sender, but you are wrong, and so your argument is taken in the wrong direction.
Respond as I have said, pointing out plainly that they are in error according to section vi. It's a whole different story if you actually did have X-Files DIVX's on your side or whatever because the dynamics change if your are guilty whether or not the laws are wrong.
But in these cases, you are somewhat obligated to go through the motions, responding as I have said, pointing out that they have not given accurate information and/or that they lack authority to act on the behalf of the owner.
That will end the story, or at least, make your side equal with theirs in terms of preponderance of the evidence if they choose to sue -- which they won't.
So I agree, the countersuit might be a bit of a problem to make happen. But the defense is simple.
I think that the people in the article should have sent back a notice according to secion vi though, instead of going to the press with their stories.
"Covers are cool as long as Harry Fox, et all, get their share."
Covers are cool as long as Harry Fox, et al, are afraid to come within 100 feet of the place where you play because they don't want to get their asses kicked by a bunch of punks.
I keep hoping that a time will come when "Binary only" isn't a problem, that is, when tools and techniques for dealing with binary code become so simple that it just does not matter.
Add three peons to the list. This is particularly satisfying, because three different people, including myself, were seriously considering XM, until now.
Maybe you don't care about a few people not buying your service. So it's no loss on anyone's part.
I have very recently purchased car stereos, two of them, one for each car. Nice systems, MP3 players, with XM option.
I was considering the XM deal. Until I read this article. Now it will *never* happen.
The only reason I needed to buy into XM was that it was available. But now, the XM broadcast people have given me a strong negative that will not be easy for them to undo! I was in a position to refrain from doing business with them, and now I will refrain. Probably forever.
Until the case is adjudicated, he can claim that he reasonobly believes these statements to be true. The allegations that SCO has made in court are still open questions. Of course many people think SCO's position is a crock. But until the Judge says so, it is not improper for a spokesperson to assert the facts as they are claimed in the court case.
It isn't libel (or slander) unless it is untrue. But if the question of truth is still an open question of law, pending a judicial decision, then it is impossible to say whether O'Shaughnessy's statements are false, and therefore impossible to allege that he knew them to be false.
You know, business people these days are scared to do anything at all controversial, because the belief is that "being sued" equals certain bankruptcy.
I wonder why school bullies think their actions will bring anything except violent death?
>So if a product doesn't work under Linux, it's >'defective'?
I wasn't clear -- If the vendor represents to me that the product I am buying will work with linux, (to be fair, with a given configuration), and it fails to do so, then yes, it is defective.
The problem is getting that assurance from any given vendor. Hardware compatability is *WAY* overdue.
Slashdot Mirror
"Out of idle curiosity, what happens if I lie, and do so very blatantly?"
Well, you can be charged with obstruction of justice or for making a false statement to a peace officer.
If you refuse to identify yourself, that's something else entirely. You can insist that the officer identify YOU, but when you do this, you are agreeing to let them hold you for a period of time (between 24 and 72 hours), while they do this.
It's probably better to just give your name. Choose your fights. You won't win this one.
"I think the EFF ought to argue this is unconstitutional."
EFF? I think the Attorney General should say it!
"We have plenty of perspective, like, oh, history from Germany ~1935."
Unfortunately, there are many who believe the authoritarianism of that government was a great thing, and while they disagree with the mass murder and warfaring parts of the system, they hold a deep appreciation for the authoritarian parts.
They may see problems with the systematic killing of millions of people, and they may even be puzzled by the very idea of racism that leads to it, but they don't think the authoritarian state is in itself a problem.
To them, it's as though the Nazis destroyed a good thing with the whole killing Jews and invading Europe business, but was a great idea otherwise.
"I wonder how many people have to misuse a word for it to generate a new definition for it."
It happened to "presently" and to "gay".
"Yes, tell the judge your reasons for the law... but the plaintiff and his attorneys aren't allowed to hear it. Baffling!"
The judge should refuse to hear any such argument, and he should dismiss the case at the mere suggestion that testimony against a defendant be withheld from the defendant and his counsel.
No matter how strong the argument may be, that the ID requirement is an excessive imposition, the compelling state interest will always win over any such argument as long as people believe that they are in danger of an air terrorism incident. In other words, don't hold your breath.
> Whatever happened to Zip Drives?
The media cost never dropped below about $10 a disk.
If IOMega wanted to dominate the removable media marketplace they had a chance: Get $1 and $2 media into every retail store. Their window of opportunity for this passed rapidly, but they had it at one point. Fools didn't budge on the pricing of the media, and did not allow anyone to sell Zip disks for less than their price point. They needed to make it as cheap as floppies.
I've also wondered why Sony missed the boat with MiniDisc. I really like MD for audio, but I never understood why the format wasn't delivered for file storage use on PC's. One thing Sony did get right, the MD discs are *cheap* and they are available *everywhere*, even though it seems nobody is buying the recorders.
Other things that killed IOMega and the Zip drive:
1. They almost never fulfilled the rebate. Countless people complained about this, and I was one of them. It appears that they simply decided not to make good on the rebate.
2. The drives failed. Many users experienced the "click of death", and although my drive never failed (nor did the drives I acquired much later as part of swaps), persistent reports of failure made me stop using the format. This might have been a bit different, but the price of the media is so high, a failed Zip disk is not the same as a failed floppy. And if a device is known to fail and take the media with it, that makes it unacceptable for storing anything important.
"Being silent in this case is not necessarily equal to to a demonstration of guilt."
In a civil case, your silence can be used as evidence against you. This is different from a criminal case, where you are not required to speak for yourself.
>They recommend Windows native CD burning
Which works pretty well (although not a packet writing host, agreed).
I haven't figured out how to tell Windows the volume size though.
"IANAL, but doesn't that effectively make it a statement under oath already?"
Not at all.
It becomes perjury when the letter is admitted as evidence, or else the plaintiff makes the identical claim under oath or in an affadavit. If they choose not to persue the cases in the article, the question of perjury never comes under consideration.
If someone is foolish enough to take a document with false claims, particularly claims for relief under a specific law that stipulates the false claim to be perjury, and he introduces that document into evidence or acknowledges it, he certainly can be subject to perjury charges.
People seem to have some idea that if you lie in court, and are called on it, that you are automatically shackled and taken away and locked in the tower, but in reality, very few cases of perjury are actually persued.
These cases would be thrown out in the first part of the process.
Here is a warning, though: If you comply with the order, or are silent and do not respond while not complying, these can be used against you as evidence of guilt. Remember the difference between Civil and Criminal court!
IANAL too, btw, but I have no irrational fear of the system.
"Seems to me since they don't have that authority, they've committed perjury."
You don't understand the meaning of that clause in the letter.
If, and only if, that letter is introduced as evidence in a court, will the question of the validity of the claim be raised.
It would be perjury also if the letter were an affadavit. But it isn't. It would not happen, and if you respond to a letter like this appropriately, you will get the silent treatment. As it should be. Believe me, they aren't going to press these particular cases in court. Heaven help you if you get the letter and you really do have X-Files seasons 1-7 available for download, though.
"I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that dress does not make your ass look fat."
It won't *actually* be perjury unless you can get me to swear to it under oath.
"How would you like to be a multi-millionaire witnessing the destruction of the business-model that made you rich?"
I am evil-minded enough that, once becoming sufficiently wealthy, I would have personally destroyed whatever means I used to become so rich, just so that nobody else could ever take advantage of it.
"Well, let's see, possible slander (or libel; I forget which one is print and which is spoken)"
Slander and libel are both enormously difficult to prosecute, and almost never yield satisfying results.
But you're right about the other damages, and you certainly should tack the defamation claims on.
The real problem is that the party that will comply with a c&d letter, is usually a broadband provider or an educational institution, with the same kind of pinheads in charge as those who send the letters.
It's rarely the EFF member, slashdotter, open source author himself who gets the letter and gets to decide whether to comply or respond.
I don't think Cox Cable is going to do a thing for me if they get one of these letters.
"This seems like a pretty open-and-shut perjury case to me"
It does not become perjury until the document is entered as evidence, and the plaintiff affirms its content under oath.
"Standing up to them will take money"
It might indeed. But before we really talk about suing anyone, let's talk about defense.
In these cases mentioned today, it will take the price of a certified letter. In fact, I would suggest the recipient of the takedown letter is compelled to respond, pointing out the error, in accordance with section 512(c)(3)(A)(vi).
I don't buy the argument that being involved in a lawsuit will necessarily be expensive. This case wouldn't get past the first hearing.
Your response seems to indicate that you think the recipient of these letters has standing to sue the sender, but you are wrong, and so your argument is taken in the wrong direction.
Respond as I have said, pointing out plainly that they are in error according to section vi. It's a whole different story if you actually did have X-Files DIVX's on your side or whatever because the dynamics change if your are guilty whether or not the laws are wrong.
But in these cases, you are somewhat obligated to go through the motions, responding as I have said, pointing out that they have not given accurate information and/or that they lack authority to act on the behalf of the owner.
That will end the story, or at least, make your side equal with theirs in terms of preponderance of the evidence if they choose to sue -- which they won't.
So I agree, the countersuit might be a bit of a problem to make happen. But the defense is simple.
I think that the people in the article should have sent back a notice according to secion vi though, instead of going to the press with their stories.
"Covers are cool as long as Harry Fox, et all, get their share."
Covers are cool as long as Harry Fox, et al, are afraid to come within 100 feet of the place where you play because they don't want to get their asses kicked by a bunch of punks.
"Is ANYONE that's gotten one of these ever going to call them on this bullshit and have them sent to jail for perjury?"
The problem with that strategy is that there will be no perjury, because the whole claim will be dismissed at the first hearing.
They will, after the first time they lose a counterclaim over defamation and damages.
Is it their fault nobody chooses to stand up to them?
In the USA, people get really tired of hearing what a great Utopia of individual liberty the UK is.
>Binary only drivers for linux should be avoided
I keep hoping that a time will come when "Binary only" isn't a problem, that is, when tools and techniques for dealing with binary code become so simple that it just does not matter.
Add three peons to the list. This is particularly satisfying, because three different people, including myself, were seriously considering XM, until now.
Maybe you don't care about a few people not buying your service. So it's no loss on anyone's part.
I have very recently purchased car stereos, two of them, one for each car. Nice systems, MP3 players, with XM option.
I was considering the XM deal. Until I read this article. Now it will *never* happen.
The only reason I needed to buy into XM was that it was available. But now, the XM broadcast people have given me a strong negative that will not be easy for them to undo! I was in a position to refrain from doing business with them, and now I will refrain. Probably forever.
"This sounds an awful lot like slander or libel."
Until the case is adjudicated, he can claim that he reasonobly believes these statements to be true. The allegations that SCO has made in court are still open questions. Of course many people think SCO's position is a crock. But until the Judge says so, it is not improper for a spokesperson to assert the facts as they are claimed in the court case.
It isn't libel (or slander) unless it is untrue. But if the question of truth is still an open question of law, pending a judicial decision, then it is impossible to say whether O'Shaughnessy's statements are false, and therefore impossible to allege that he knew them to be false.
You know, business people these days are scared to do anything at all controversial, because the belief is that "being sued" equals certain bankruptcy.
I wonder why school bullies think their actions will bring anything except violent death?
>So if a product doesn't work under Linux, it's
>'defective'?
I wasn't clear --
If the vendor represents to me that the product I am buying will work with linux, (to be fair, with a given configuration), and it fails to do so, then yes, it is defective.
The problem is getting that assurance from any given vendor. Hardware compatability is *WAY* overdue.