The prosecutor dropped half of the charges because he had misunderstood the behaviour of the BitTorrent. ... Swedish prosecutor has been really careful with this case and probably doesn't want to risk the case with false charges.
I don't see how you can make that conclusion based on your premise. After all, didn't the prosecutor just spend an entire year getting ready for this case? How could he have such a fundamental misunderstanding if he was "really careful?"
That's a pretty weak-ass "linux test" - first off, unless you are using something I don't know about, the search engine at the pirate bay just returns results in LIFO order, nothing about "top 10" So all you've done is show that the most recent 10 items with the word "linux" somewhere in the description box are probably copyright violations. You would have done much better to actually find all the legitimate linux torrents on the site and then make a traffic comparison to torrents of copy-forbidden works.
No, they don't, because unimmunized kids are a health risk for the entire community.
Not if your kids have been immunised. Stop worrying about everyone else, and sort yourself out.
Right - IF your kids have been immunised. The problem is that children are not immunised at birth. In the case of MMR the first dose is routinely given over a year after birth and the follow-up dose is done between 4 and 6 years of age.
Thus you've got a bunch of children who are not yet fully vaccinated running around and who are susceptible if some un-vaccinated 13 year old goes on vacation, picks up an infection on an airplane and then brings it back to their community,
It wouldn't cover the "man with an antenna" attack, the first one describe in the article. The femtocell location is also probably easy to determine.
Keep the power on both low enough that the "man with an antenna" has to get real close or use a directional antenna, but if he has to use a directional antenna, he already knows where the prez is in order to point it at him.
Seems like using a portable femtocell and a private relay to some central government location would be enough to mitigate the problem. And besides, don't the secret service carry cell phones?/ If you can't track the prez, just track the people around him.
Immigration. The "right wing" position would be isolationism. The "left wing" position would be unfettered open borders.
You are so sure of that?
I say you have that exactly backwards. The "left wing" would be isolationist because that protects the jobs of the working classes and the "right wing" would be open borders because that embodies the most free market for labor.
if I can't buy it with cash (or debit card as I am a small guy and carrying cash makes me paranoid), then I don't need it now and can do without for a while.
Debit cards are WORSE than cash. The only people who should ever use a debit card are those who are unable to use a credit card - either they can't get one or they can't control themselves enough to pay the balance every month. If you are a victim of fraud - with a debit card all you have is the bank's promise not to screw you, with a credit card you have federal law limiting your damage to $50. Even if the bank does keep their promise (something they are under no legal obligation to do, putting you at the mercy of some mercurial customer service rep) - they still don't promise to protect you against secondary effects - like bounced check fees and other fines from creditors because your account happened to be fraudulently drained when they deposited a check.
With a credit card the only money at risk is other people's money, with a debit card it is the entire balance of your checking account.
I'm sure people out there will hit it. But I have no idea what they are doing that would qualify as "residential Internet use" that would have them smack a 250 GB/month limit.
Here is the problem with that attitude - just because few if anyone might have a "residential" use that fits this profile today does not mean things won't change. If these kinds of caps become common place, there is essentially zero chance that any new application that does require much larger amounts of bandwidth will ever achieve critical mass. At least not in this country. These caps effectively freeze out any new high-bandwidth innovative uses of the internet. We will be frozen at 2009 levels for the foreseeable future.
That's what monopolies do, they kill long term progress in order to maximize their own short term profits.
So wait, you want me to prove the absence of something? You have a fundamental misunderstanding of logic. Furthermore, just because there were successful merchants and conglomerations - almost all of whom were in the business of foreign trade - does not mean any of them were maliciously usurping ideas from underdogs as you stated and quoted. And while you are at it, prices for basics and salaries for peons doesn't really prove the presence of "powerful" anythings.
Intellectual property rights go back the Roman Era. And they're historically designed to protect small inventors from the powerful companies. You're a victim of FUD.
You are going to have to back that one up. Historically there were no powerful companies in the roman era. All I have ever seen is that until very recently, the only reason for "intellectual property rights" was a pretense for the government to restrict the flow of information -- you couldn't use that printing press unless you had a (paid-up) license from the king and if you printed something he didn't like, you lost that license.
Wow, the writers of the U.S. Constitution were so brilliant that they knew that 200 years after their time, companies would be releasing compiled computer programs without including the source code?
Gee, what part of "reduce the freedoms of the end user" requires prescience?
Sarcasm aside, one could argue that you have it completely wrong. The intended purpose of copyright was to protect the author of a work from having the work taken and redistributed without compensating the author, thereby discouraging people from continuing to write, compose, etc.,
They could argue that, but they would be absolutely wrong, for the very simple reason that before copyright law, there was absolutely no expectation that an author would have such protections. You can't protect what doesn't already exist.
Now if we could just get the laws to match the intended purpose.
It will never happen. Better to find a new market altogether, one that is not based on inherently conflicting principles.
A lot of the stuff I produce at work is intangible... just data inside a computer. Does that mean my employer can take my data, and not pay me? LOCKHEED: "Thank you. We downloaded the program off your c: drive using bittorrent last night. No we're not going to pay you for it."
Read your employment contract. That is EXACTLY what it says, as it does for almost every employee in the US and most other countries.
Lockmart pays you for your labor whether you produce anything or nothing, you get paid either way. But in case you do produce something, they own it, lock stock and barrel.
Hmmmm. Interesting worldview these young college teens and 20-somethings have.
Interesting worldview these people who haven't bothered to think very deeply about the issue have.
yeah, those evil copyrights. They stop me from being able to sell GPL code without giving back the source. I hope they abolish copyright soon because it's so evil.
There is always some joker who thinks the GPL is all about copyrights. You are wrong.
The GPL is referred to as the "copyleft" because it is a hack of the intended purpose of copyright - to reduce the freedoms of the end user of software. Stallman's goal is to get the software industry to the point where the automobile industry is today. Nobody would buy a car with engine compartment welded shut, the market would not tolerate it. Similarly, the market for software should get to the point where nobody would buy compiled software without easy access to the code. At that point, the GPL and its twisting of copyright law against itself would be unnecessary.
I don't think that's a small possibility, I think it is a certainty.
Every significant terrorist attack in recent memory has seen the affected people using their cell phones to get aid and give status, whether it was people hiding in hotel rooms in Mumbai, people stuck in the WTC on 9/11 or people in subway cars in bombings in the UK and Madrid.
Turning off cell phone coverage in a emergency is just plain stupid. The bad guys will expect it and have alternate means of communication like FRS radios, so only the good guys will suffer for it.
Wow, that looks awesome... but I'm just not prepared to spend $70 for a flashlight.
Don't need to. Go to target or walmart, they will have lights in the $15-$30 range that do 120 lumens too. The bare emitter is only a buck or two, so even "cheaper" flashlights are starting to use them.
Unfortunately, even the brightest emitters can't do much more than 800 lumens and still cost in the $10-$15 range, so real incandescent replacements for the home are still either underpowered (a 90 watt incadescent can do roughly 1800 lumens) or prohibitively expensive.
Lol yourself, now that you finally caught up to half of the argument. Glad you finally got off the red herring. Unfortunately you missed the first half where all DRM of any significance has and will continue to be circumvented. And even if the librarian of congress never decides to legalize, carte blanche archival, as he is required to consider every 3 years under 17.1201.1, the DMCA only applies to the US not the rest of the world where almost all other countries are free to bypass DRM as they wish, nor is cracking at the digital level required for historical purposes, echo, echo.
Your point (A) is perfectly correct, yet totally unconnected to the efficacy (or lack thereof) of DRM.
Joebob's dillydong. Irrelevant to your claim that, "the signs are that eventually it could become prohibitively expensive to break at the digital level." The people who crack DRM rarely do it for the economic benefit. Furthermore, cracking it at the digital level is irrelevant for historical purposes.
My observation was that distribution of a space-shifted copy, even to one's heirs,
Continuing irrelevancy to the point that the DMCA contains explicit exceptions for educational purposes. Sony v Universal is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, to drag it in was useless.
They may be "vague sweeping populist statements" to you, but if you had been paying attention here over the years, you would see that just about every report of such cases that has made its way to slashdot has played out pretty much exactly as claimed. Try reading up on Bennett Haselton and his efforts to use the law to punish do-not-call violators.
Slashdot Mirror
The prosecutor dropped half of the charges because he had misunderstood the behaviour of the BitTorrent.
...
Swedish prosecutor has been really careful with this case and probably doesn't want to risk the case with false charges.
I don't see how you can make that conclusion based on your premise. After all, didn't the prosecutor just spend an entire year getting ready for this case? How could he have such a fundamental misunderstanding if he was "really careful?"
That's a pretty weak-ass "linux test" - first off, unless you are using something I don't know about, the search engine at the pirate bay just returns results in LIFO order, nothing about "top 10" So all you've done is show that the most recent 10 items with the word "linux" somewhere in the description box are probably copyright violations. You would have done much better to actually find all the legitimate linux torrents on the site and then make a traffic comparison to torrents of copy-forbidden works.
Yeaah. Only if you did not know the meaning of the '?' symbol.
No, they don't, because unimmunized kids are a health risk for the entire community.
Not if your kids have been immunised. Stop worrying about everyone else, and sort yourself out.
Right - IF your kids have been immunised. The problem is that children are not immunised at birth. In the case of MMR the first dose is routinely given over a year after birth and the follow-up dose is done between 4 and 6 years of age.
Thus you've got a bunch of children who are not yet fully vaccinated running around and who are susceptible if some un-vaccinated 13 year old goes on vacation, picks up an infection on an airplane and then brings it back to their community,
It wouldn't cover the "man with an antenna" attack, the first one describe in the article. The femtocell location is also probably easy to determine.
Keep the power on both low enough that the "man with an antenna" has to get real close or use a directional antenna, but if he has to use a directional antenna, he already knows where the prez is in order to point it at him.
Seems like using a portable femtocell and a private relay to some central government location would be enough to mitigate the problem. And besides, don't the secret service carry cell phones?/ If you can't track the prez, just track the people around him.
For those of you who are wondering, my guess is Cee Pee is Child Porn.
Who knew that 3-CP0 was secretly a child pornographer, we need to outlaw shiny metal droids for the safety of the children!
Here is one more:
(4) If you are not in the US, US law does not apply.
Tell that to Gary McKinnon and Hew Raymond Griffiths.
Immigration. The "right wing" position would be isolationism. The "left wing" position would be unfettered open borders.
You are so sure of that?
I say you have that exactly backwards. The "left wing" would be isolationist because that protects the jobs of the working classes and the "right wing" would be open borders because that embodies the most free market for labor.
if I can't buy it with cash (or debit card as I am a small guy and carrying cash makes me paranoid), then I don't need it now and can do without for a while.
Debit cards are WORSE than cash. The only people who should ever use a debit card are those who are unable to use a credit card - either they can't get one or they can't control themselves enough to pay the balance every month. If you are a victim of fraud - with a debit card all you have is the bank's promise not to screw you, with a credit card you have federal law limiting your damage to $50. Even if the bank does keep their promise (something they are under no legal obligation to do, putting you at the mercy of some mercurial customer service rep) - they still don't promise to protect you against secondary effects - like bounced check fees and other fines from creditors because your account happened to be fraudulently drained when they deposited a check.
With a credit card the only money at risk is other people's money, with a debit card it is the entire balance of your checking account.
I'm sure people out there will hit it. But I have no idea what they are doing that would qualify as "residential Internet use" that would have them smack a 250 GB/month limit.
Here is the problem with that attitude - just because few if anyone might have a "residential" use that fits this profile today does not mean things won't change. If these kinds of caps become common place, there is essentially zero chance that any new application that does require much larger amounts of bandwidth will ever achieve critical mass. At least not in this country. These caps effectively freeze out any new high-bandwidth innovative uses of the internet. We will be frozen at 2009 levels for the foreseeable future.
That's what monopolies do, they kill long term progress in order to maximize their own short term profits.
So wait, you want me to prove the absence of something?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of logic.
Furthermore, just because there were successful merchants and conglomerations - almost all of whom were in the business of foreign trade - does not mean any of them were maliciously usurping ideas from underdogs as you stated and quoted. And while you are at it, prices for basics and salaries for peons doesn't really prove the presence of "powerful" anythings.
So, where are the "powerful companies" again? The ones you claimed patents were designed to protect "small inventors" against?
Intellectual property rights go back the Roman Era. And they're historically designed to protect small inventors from the powerful companies. You're a victim of FUD.
You are going to have to back that one up. Historically there were no powerful companies in the roman era. All I have ever seen is that until very recently, the only reason for "intellectual property rights" was a pretense for the government to restrict the flow of information -- you couldn't use that printing press unless you had a (paid-up) license from the king and if you printed something he didn't like, you lost that license.
Wow, the writers of the U.S. Constitution were so brilliant that they knew that 200 years after their time, companies would be releasing compiled computer programs without including the source code?
Gee, what part of "reduce the freedoms of the end user" requires prescience?
Sarcasm aside, one could argue that you have it completely wrong. The intended purpose of copyright was to protect the author of a work from having the work taken and redistributed without compensating the author, thereby discouraging people from continuing to write, compose, etc.,
They could argue that, but they would be absolutely wrong, for the very simple reason that before copyright law, there was absolutely no expectation that an author would have such protections. You can't protect what doesn't already exist.
Now if we could just get the laws to match the intended purpose.
It will never happen. Better to find a new market altogether, one that is not based on inherently conflicting principles.
Everybody thought Rocket Rick was on a mission from microsoft and hp.
Thanks dude, finally someone gets it. MS was hoist by their own petard here, nothing more.
A lot of the stuff I produce at work is intangible... just data inside a computer. Does that mean my employer can take my data, and not pay me? LOCKHEED: "Thank you. We downloaded the program off your c: drive using bittorrent last night. No we're not going to pay you for it."
Read your employment contract. That is EXACTLY what it says, as it does for almost every employee in the US and most other countries.
Lockmart pays you for your labor whether you produce anything or nothing, you get paid either way. But in case you do produce something, they own it, lock stock and barrel.
Hmmmm. Interesting worldview these young college teens and 20-somethings have.
Interesting worldview these people who haven't bothered to think very deeply about the issue have.
yeah, those evil copyrights. They stop me from being able to sell GPL code without giving back the source. I hope they abolish copyright soon because it's so evil.
There is always some joker who thinks the GPL is all about copyrights.
You are wrong.
The GPL is referred to as the "copyleft" because it is a hack of the intended purpose of copyright - to reduce the freedoms of the end user of software. Stallman's goal is to get the software industry to the point where the automobile industry is today. Nobody would buy a car with engine compartment welded shut, the market would not tolerate it. Similarly, the market for software should get to the point where nobody would buy compiled software without easy access to the code. At that point, the GPL and its twisting of copyright law against itself would be unnecessary.
Regarding Windows:
GPL: "Oh noes! They closed the source!"
BSD: "Cool, they're using my stuff! At least they got *that* part right."
Or rather:
GPL: "Oh noes! They closed the source!"
BSD: "Shit, they added bugs to my perfect code and the billions of users can't do a thing to fix it."
I don't think that's a small possibility, I think it is a certainty.
Every significant terrorist attack in recent memory has seen the affected people using their cell phones to get aid and give status, whether it was people hiding in hotel rooms in Mumbai, people stuck in the WTC on 9/11 or people in subway cars in bombings in the UK and Madrid.
Turning off cell phone coverage in a emergency is just plain stupid. The bad guys will expect it and have alternate means of communication like FRS radios, so only the good guys will suffer for it.
Wow, that looks awesome... but I'm just not prepared to spend $70 for a flashlight.
Don't need to. Go to target or walmart, they will have lights in the $15-$30 range that do 120 lumens too.
The bare emitter is only a buck or two, so even "cheaper" flashlights are starting to use them.
Unfortunately, even the brightest emitters can't do much more than 800 lumens and still cost in the $10-$15 range, so real incandescent replacements for the home are still either underpowered (a 90 watt incadescent can do roughly 1800 lumens) or prohibitively expensive.
Lol yourself, now that you finally caught up to half of the argument. Glad you finally got off the red herring.
Unfortunately you missed the first half where all DRM of any significance has and will continue to be circumvented. And even if the librarian of congress never decides to legalize, carte blanche archival, as he is required to consider every 3 years under 17.1201.1, the DMCA only applies to the US not the rest of the world where almost all other countries are free to bypass DRM as they wish, nor is cracking at the digital level required for historical purposes, echo, echo.
Your point (A) is perfectly correct, yet totally unconnected to the efficacy (or lack thereof) of DRM.
Joebob's dillydong. Irrelevant to your claim that, "the signs are that eventually it could become prohibitively expensive to break at the digital level." The people who crack DRM rarely do it for the economic benefit. Furthermore, cracking it at the digital level is irrelevant for historical purposes.
My observation was that distribution of a space-shifted copy, even to one's heirs,
Continuing irrelevancy to the point that the DMCA contains explicit exceptions for educational purposes. Sony v Universal is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, to drag it in was useless.
They may be "vague sweeping populist statements" to you, but if you had been paying attention here over the years, you would see that just about every report of such cases that has made its way to slashdot has played out pretty much exactly as claimed. Try reading up on Bennett Haselton and his efforts to use the law to punish do-not-call violators.