While I agree with the sentiment - I do not agree with your logic. If I kill an American or steal from him in my country, it is only punishable under the laws of my country. The US courts have no jurisdiction here. Why should this be any different for the crime being committed by (presumably) Canadian subjects in Canada? What should happen is the information is passed to the Canadian law enforcement agencies and they take action if a crime has been committed under local laws.
I think that we both agree that what is being done is an offence, but I do not believe that the US courts can do anything about it, or at least shouldn't be trying to do so. It is the Canadian justice system that is responsible for awarding an appropriate punishment for the crime in this instance. By assuming responsibility because they host the DNS servers is exactly what many others feared about the US and why many advocate that an international organisation should assume responsibility for control of the servers. Of course, that will start another thread criticising the UN, NATO, the EU or whoever some think might think would be the appropriate body, so I will not suggest it..... Damn, too late!
It had nothing to do with anonymity - they looked up the wrong IP and fingered the wrong guy as a result. I believe that Google did the right thing by complying with the law in the country in which they are operating, but I do disagree with your 'so what?' attitude when an innocent person gets treated this way.
I can only agree with your interpretation of why it might appear to be stupid to Americans:-)
And I accept that your second paragraph was humorous but my simple counter would be that the French losses during WW2 were, as a percentage of their population, far greater than those of the US. So who made the greater contribution to the final outcome? Its a rhetorical question - I certainly do not wish to get into a flame war regarding WW2!
No, you are wrong. It is a sensible law which has been based upon sound principles to ensure fair trading in France. You may not like it - but that doesn't make it stupid. (However, whether you like it or not is irrelevant, unless you live in France. The French like this law, or at least the majority do, and it is up to them which laws they have in their own country.) The law is intended to prevent tie-ins to any specific manufacturer which are not in the public interest. Your 'earlier explanation' can be easily countered. Those who are content to be tied to Microsoft's offering are free to buy the computer with the OS pre-installed. But those who do not agree to this have legal recourse to have the OS removed and fair costs refunded. This point has been argued for many times here on/. and I am surprised that when it is actually applied then someone thinks it is 'stupid'. What is stupid about giving users a choice, or people having the freedom to spend their money how they wish?
Your claim about the EULA is also wrong. Of course the purchaser might expect to be presented with a EULA but the EULA that you are supporting is not readable until it has been opened which in itself constitutes acceptance of it. That is not legal in France - or the rest of Europe for that matter. Secondly, the wrapping states quite clearly that, if you do not wish to accept the conditions of the EULA then you may return it unopened for a full refund. The customer was doing exactly this but was having unreasonable barriers placed before him to prevent him from benefiting from the refund. The judge viewed that as unfair and ordered ASUS to refund fair costs. Both Microsoft and ASUS are well aware of the statement on the EULA wrapping but both, in their own way, were attempting to make it uneconomical for the purchaser to exercise his rights.
Can you back this up with a link? I'm not saying that you are wrong but your statement runs counter to other information that I have read. Without some corroboration, your 'ultra-corrupt' statement suggests that you have a bias.
Slightly off-topic but I couldn't let it pass unchallenged....
a "bash America" strategy.
The complaint regarding free shipping was levelled at Amazon.fr. This company is trading in France and France has the right to make sure that all companies that operate within its borders comply with the relevant laws to ensure a level playing field for all businesses. Now, how do you make that US bashing?
Re:fine should be equal to CD MRP or download cost
on
RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship
·
· Score: 1
It's the court that imposes the fine, not any other organisation. True the RIAA or MAFIAA might 'claim' that their loss is $xxxx but it is the court's fault for accepting the claim as a fact and then imposing a fine to match.
In which case I humbly apologise. I obviously misconstrued the following:
Some of the best friends I have are people I met as spirited adversaries in contentious, lengthy, hard fought, litigations. If you think I have anything against Mr. Gabriel because he was "upholding the rule of law" or advancing "a legitimate gripe" or because he was on the "wrong" side of legal issues.... you don't know me at all.
I am wrong and I apologise, and I also appear to have missed your earlier comment when looking at/. from a different computer. All my fault, and no other excuses to offer.
Facebook has reached an agreement with the attorneys general of 49 states and the District of Columbia to develop and enhance controls to protect minors from inappropriate content.
Where in TFA does it say "that parents have shifted the legal liability on website owners and internet users"? They haven't as far as I can tell. They might want to blame someone else for their own short-comings but I expect that any reasonable court would tell the parents the truth and pull no punches while doing so.
Facebook et al might agree to many things to make life safer for those who are not yet adults, but assuming responsibility for those minors is something that they haven't said they will do, nor will they ever do so if I'm not mistaken.
I'm not an American, so please accept my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.
I don't agree that the RIAA are tainted. Their tactics certainly are and they should be prevented from repeating them. But they have a job to do. There is illegal sharing of copyrighted material taking place and it is their job to protect their interests. Those who simply advocate the sharing should be made legal have, in my view, placed their heads up their arses.
Now I don't expect my point of view to receive wide acclaim here on/., but take a look at NYCL's post earlier on. He doesn't 'hate' Gabriel for what he has done, in fact if I read it correctly he respects him as a fellow professional. But he does question Gabriel's understanding of his own job. That's fine and is a reasonable attitude to take. Others have explained why Gabriel might have been duty bound to accept the cases in the first place but I, for one, am glad that the legal profession has many such individuals. Otherwise, who would defend the person accused of murder, who would look after the interests of the poor and homeless, and who would defend those accused of illegal file sharing? They all need lawyers.
The object of your displeasure ought to be the legal system that allows the RIAA to use the tactics that they do (although I think we all sense that this is changing for the better), but not the lawyer who uses the system within the current rules to win his case. I would want any lawyer that I employed to try his hardest to win on my behalf - providing that he did not do something illegal by doing so. If your response is that people cannot afford to fight the big money then that, again, is the system that needs changing, not the fact that some people have more money than others. Change the system so that the poorest can get access to the best legal minds. Make sure that all evidence is collected legally, presented accurately, and judged fairly. That is what NYCL seems to be so good at doing.
Of course we all feel dismayed when the system is gamed, and the RIAA do seem to have had some success at gaming it over recent years. But change the system - or find a better way of preventing illegal file sharing so that there is no need for the RIAA to have to go to court to try to protect their interests.
Why do I have the feeling that some will misunderstand what I have written and they are bashing at their keyboards seconds after I have pressed the 'Submit' button.....?
What makes you think that US data is applicable to UK crimes?
Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras.
Murder is much less common in the UK than in the US, so much so that every murder is national news. Counting the murders that occur within 250 feet of a camera would probably result in a 0 count. [http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp]. The total for 2005/2006 is 765 which includes the results of the terrorist attacks in London. Even in a small country like the UK it would be a rare event indeed for a murder to be carried out near to a camera.
The statistics used also refer to homicide, a term which includes a significant number of deaths that are not murder. For example, illegal immigrants who suffocated in the back of a lorry while travelling to the UK or who died while working illegally in the UK. e.g. the Morecambe Bay disaster in 2004.
Why seek a technological solution for a problem that is simply a lack of parental control? If a person is under the age of majority then their parents are still responsible in part for their child's actions. It is a failure of parents to accept this responsibility that is the root cause of the problem, not some technological failure of the internet. When individuals become adults, at whatever age that might be locally, then they are fully responsible for their actions. Until that age, and whether they like it or not, their parents have responsibilities for them and individuals must accept this.
Thats why you amend the constitution and add an age of consent to it.
The age of consent that you are referring to will only be applicable to US citizens and US websites. US laws have absolutely no relevance, nor are they wanted, in other countries where people are quite capable of producing and enforcing their own laws. Now, how do you propose to ensure that US underage citizens do not access those areas of the internet that we, in the rest of the world, deem perfectly acceptable to our citizens or where we are able to prevent our children accessing by providing the appropriate parental controls? Perhaps you are suggesting the 'Great Firewall of America'? How, then, will you differ from those countries that are to criticised for doing precisely the same e.g. China?
What you are suggesting will not work - but feel free as a US citizen to change your constitution and see what happens. All I ask is that you don't expect the rest of us to have to put up with such nonsense. Having children is a personal responsibility which many of us, including many US citizens I am sure, take seriously and can cope with without too many problems. I don't need any government - neither yours nor mine - telling me what I am permitted to do when raising my children, or trying to apply laws to cater for a small minority of parents whom apparently shouldn't be allowed to have children anyway.
I might take you up on your offer - or at least part of it. I would very much like to meet the stripper but I'm not sure that the mayor holds the same attraction. How old is the mayor, and can you provide of photo or her.....?
The issue is not existing licenses, but new licenses
Exactly! Until new hardware is being purchased it isn't a problem. And at that point, new software will have to be purchased/obtained - and if Microsoft is still not meeting the EU standards for bidding contractors then it doesn't have to be Microsoft's version. Further, I'll bet that Powerpoint will continue to work on the old hardware even if that hardware is not the latest and greatest that is available. That would give any department or organisation (even the EU!) enough time to implement the required changes and all that that entails.
I personally believe that this is a good move as it indicates to Microsoft that no-one is beholden to them. If they wish to compete fairly then they may do so, and they have several good products which are worth considering, but no-one should be totally dependent upon a single company and the EU should be free to look elsewhere.
If Microsoft want to jack up their prices to remain competitive then I have to seriously question the sanity of their marketeers! Competition usually brings prices down. If a middleman has to make a cut then that will come from Microsoft's profits not from increased prices to the customer. But for this to be credible the EU must demonstrate that it is willing and able to go elsewhere if necessary, hence my support for this action. By insisting that the EU back down now all that will be achieved is higher costs and further lock-in in the future.
The rest of the world tacked on their infrastructure
If you are now conceding that 'Uh...the US government did build the internet.' is an inaccurate statement, then I agree with you. The US Government only built (and paid) for the bits that are in the US plus, as I stated, some undersea cables. The rest of the world built and paid for the bits that they 'tacked on'. Incidentally, just how do you think the two portions compare in size and/or cost i.e. the US portion versus the Rest of the World portion?
I didn't say that you were American, and I apologise if you took offence because you thought that I did. My argument goes back to you claiming that it was built by the Americans and implying that their portion is by far larger than the RoW portion - which I believe is wrong. I have already acknowledged their contribution via ARPANET. I do not consider the DNS root servers to be a major technical achievement worthy of special recognition. The location of them doesn't contribute to the discussion.
It does seem that we might actually agree with each other....
I don't follow your logic. It says Microsoft might be banned from bidding for future contracts, not that all existing Microsoft software will disappear in a puff of smoke. Licensed versions of Powerpoint will still exist on EU computers and thus can still be used for 'vital work'.
Good answer! But the cheapest telephone dial-up costs in the UK that I can find by searching the internet appear to be 1p/minute. So you are paying about £3.60 for each episode of Dr Who. That's not a great deal but wouldn't it be cheaper to buy the DVD set?
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with the sentiment - I do not agree with your logic. If I kill an American or steal from him in my country, it is only punishable under the laws of my country. The US courts have no jurisdiction here. Why should this be any different for the crime being committed by (presumably) Canadian subjects in Canada? What should happen is the information is passed to the Canadian law enforcement agencies and they take action if a crime has been committed under local laws.
I think that we both agree that what is being done is an offence, but I do not believe that the US courts can do anything about it, or at least shouldn't be trying to do so. It is the Canadian justice system that is responsible for awarding an appropriate punishment for the crime in this instance. By assuming responsibility because they host the DNS servers is exactly what many others feared about the US and why many advocate that an international organisation should assume responsibility for control of the servers. Of course, that will start another thread criticising the UN, NATO, the EU or whoever some think might think would be the appropriate body, so I will not suggest it..... Damn, too late!
It had nothing to do with anonymity - they looked up the wrong IP and fingered the wrong guy as a result. I believe that Google did the right thing by complying with the law in the country in which they are operating, but I do disagree with your 'so what?' attitude when an innocent person gets treated this way.
Other than the fact that he was beaten for no good reason? Don't you think that is bad? What would you say if it had happened to you?
I can only agree with your interpretation of why it might appear to be stupid to Americans :-)
And I accept that your second paragraph was humorous but my simple counter would be that the French losses during WW2 were, as a percentage of their population, far greater than those of the US. So who made the greater contribution to the final outcome? Its a rhetorical question - I certainly do not wish to get into a flame war regarding WW2!
No, you are wrong. It is a sensible law which has been based upon sound principles to ensure fair trading in France. You may not like it - but that doesn't make it stupid. (However, whether you like it or not is irrelevant, unless you live in France. The French like this law, or at least the majority do, and it is up to them which laws they have in their own country.) The law is intended to prevent tie-ins to any specific manufacturer which are not in the public interest. Your 'earlier explanation' can be easily countered. Those who are content to be tied to Microsoft's offering are free to buy the computer with the OS pre-installed. But those who do not agree to this have legal recourse to have the OS removed and fair costs refunded. This point has been argued for many times here on /. and I am surprised that when it is actually applied then someone thinks it is 'stupid'. What is stupid about giving users a choice, or people having the freedom to spend their money how they wish?
Your claim about the EULA is also wrong. Of course the purchaser might expect to be presented with a EULA but the EULA that you are supporting is not readable until it has been opened which in itself constitutes acceptance of it. That is not legal in France - or the rest of Europe for that matter. Secondly, the wrapping states quite clearly that, if you do not wish to accept the conditions of the EULA then you may return it unopened for a full refund. The customer was doing exactly this but was having unreasonable barriers placed before him to prevent him from benefiting from the refund. The judge viewed that as unfair and ordered ASUS to refund fair costs. Both Microsoft and ASUS are well aware of the statement on the EULA wrapping but both, in their own way, were attempting to make it uneconomical for the purchaser to exercise his rights.
Can you back this up with a link? I'm not saying that you are wrong but your statement runs counter to other information that I have read. Without some corroboration, your 'ultra-corrupt' statement suggests that you have a bias.
Slightly off-topic but I couldn't let it pass unchallenged....
a "bash America" strategy.The complaint regarding free shipping was levelled at Amazon.fr. This company is trading in France and France has the right to make sure that all companies that operate within its borders comply with the relevant laws to ensure a level playing field for all businesses. Now, how do you make that US bashing?
It's the court that imposes the fine, not any other organisation. True the RIAA or MAFIAA might 'claim' that their loss is $xxxx but it is the court's fault for accepting the claim as a fact and then imposing a fine to match.
In which case I humbly apologise. I obviously misconstrued the following:
Some of the best friends I have are people I met as spirited adversaries in contentious, lengthy, hard fought, litigations. If you think I have anything against Mr. Gabriel because he was "upholding the rule of law" or advancing "a legitimate gripe" or because he was on the "wrong" side of legal issues.... you don't know me at all.I am wrong and I apologise, and I also appear to have missed your earlier comment when looking at /. from a different computer. All my fault, and no other excuses to offer.
Where in TFA does it say "that parents have shifted the legal liability on website owners and internet users"? They haven't as far as I can tell. They might want to blame someone else for their own short-comings but I expect that any reasonable court would tell the parents the truth and pull no punches while doing so.
Facebook et al might agree to many things to make life safer for those who are not yet adults, but assuming responsibility for those minors is something that they haven't said they will do, nor will they ever do so if I'm not mistaken.
I'm not an American, so please accept my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.
I don't agree that the RIAA are tainted. Their tactics certainly are and they should be prevented from repeating them. But they have a job to do. There is illegal sharing of copyrighted material taking place and it is their job to protect their interests. Those who simply advocate the sharing should be made legal have, in my view, placed their heads up their arses.
Now I don't expect my point of view to receive wide acclaim here on /., but take a look at NYCL's post earlier on. He doesn't 'hate' Gabriel for what he has done, in fact if I read it correctly he respects him as a fellow professional. But he does question Gabriel's understanding of his own job. That's fine and is a reasonable attitude to take. Others have explained why Gabriel might have been duty bound to accept the cases in the first place but I, for one, am glad that the legal profession has many such individuals. Otherwise, who would defend the person accused of murder, who would look after the interests of the poor and homeless, and who would defend those accused of illegal file sharing? They all need lawyers.
The object of your displeasure ought to be the legal system that allows the RIAA to use the tactics that they do (although I think we all sense that this is changing for the better), but not the lawyer who uses the system within the current rules to win his case. I would want any lawyer that I employed to try his hardest to win on my behalf - providing that he did not do something illegal by doing so. If your response is that people cannot afford to fight the big money then that, again, is the system that needs changing, not the fact that some people have more money than others. Change the system so that the poorest can get access to the best legal minds. Make sure that all evidence is collected legally, presented accurately, and judged fairly. That is what NYCL seems to be so good at doing.
Of course we all feel dismayed when the system is gamed, and the RIAA do seem to have had some success at gaming it over recent years. But change the system - or find a better way of preventing illegal file sharing so that there is no need for the RIAA to have to go to court to try to protect their interests.
Why do I have the feeling that some will misunderstand what I have written and they are bashing at their keyboards seconds after I have pressed the 'Submit' button.....?
Troll? How about humour?
NYCL is giving people hope by doing a great job. That is why he is respected here on /.
'perfectly good reputation of lawyers' == sarcasm. I'm surprised at the number of people who don't understand sarcasm.
Can we have moderators who actually understand what they are reading, please?
Murder is much less common in the UK than in the US, so much so that every murder is national news. Counting the murders that occur within 250 feet of a camera would probably result in a 0 count. [http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp]. The total for 2005/2006 is 765 which includes the results of the terrorist attacks in London. Even in a small country like the UK it would be a rare event indeed for a murder to be carried out near to a camera.
The statistics used also refer to homicide, a term which includes a significant number of deaths that are not murder. For example, illegal immigrants who suffocated in the back of a lorry while travelling to the UK or who died while working illegally in the UK. e.g. the Morecambe Bay disaster in 2004.
Why seek a technological solution for a problem that is simply a lack of parental control? If a person is under the age of majority then their parents are still responsible in part for their child's actions. It is a failure of parents to accept this responsibility that is the root cause of the problem, not some technological failure of the internet. When individuals become adults, at whatever age that might be locally, then they are fully responsible for their actions. Until that age, and whether they like it or not, their parents have responsibilities for them and individuals must accept this.
The age of consent that you are referring to will only be applicable to US citizens and US websites. US laws have absolutely no relevance, nor are they wanted, in other countries where people are quite capable of producing and enforcing their own laws. Now, how do you propose to ensure that US underage citizens do not access those areas of the internet that we, in the rest of the world, deem perfectly acceptable to our citizens or where we are able to prevent our children accessing by providing the appropriate parental controls? Perhaps you are suggesting the 'Great Firewall of America'? How, then, will you differ from those countries that are to criticised for doing precisely the same e.g. China?
What you are suggesting will not work - but feel free as a US citizen to change your constitution and see what happens. All I ask is that you don't expect the rest of us to have to put up with such nonsense. Having children is a personal responsibility which many of us, including many US citizens I am sure, take seriously and can cope with without too many problems. I don't need any government - neither yours nor mine - telling me what I am permitted to do when raising my children, or trying to apply laws to cater for a small minority of parents whom apparently shouldn't be allowed to have children anyway.
Fair point, but sometimes they do deserve it....
So if Europeans say it then it has no point, or is critcism now only allowed from 'fellow Americans'?
should have read '... and can you provide a photo of her....?' but I cocked it up. Yes - I confess, I should have used the 'Preview' button....
I might take you up on your offer - or at least part of it. I would very much like to meet the stripper but I'm not sure that the mayor holds the same attraction. How old is the mayor, and can you provide of photo or her.....?
http://www.afcyber.af.mil/
You were being sarcastic, right?
And if the EU simply do not pay? The software will not stop working.
Exactly! Until new hardware is being purchased it isn't a problem. And at that point, new software will have to be purchased/obtained - and if Microsoft is still not meeting the EU standards for bidding contractors then it doesn't have to be Microsoft's version. Further, I'll bet that Powerpoint will continue to work on the old hardware even if that hardware is not the latest and greatest that is available. That would give any department or organisation (even the EU!) enough time to implement the required changes and all that that entails.
I personally believe that this is a good move as it indicates to Microsoft that no-one is beholden to them. If they wish to compete fairly then they may do so, and they have several good products which are worth considering, but no-one should be totally dependent upon a single company and the EU should be free to look elsewhere.
If Microsoft want to jack up their prices to remain competitive then I have to seriously question the sanity of their marketeers! Competition usually brings prices down. If a middleman has to make a cut then that will come from Microsoft's profits not from increased prices to the customer. But for this to be credible the EU must demonstrate that it is willing and able to go elsewhere if necessary, hence my support for this action. By insisting that the EU back down now all that will be achieved is higher costs and further lock-in in the future.
If you are now conceding that 'Uh...the US government did build the internet.' is an inaccurate statement, then I agree with you. The US Government only built (and paid) for the bits that are in the US plus, as I stated, some undersea cables. The rest of the world built and paid for the bits that they 'tacked on'. Incidentally, just how do you think the two portions compare in size and/or cost i.e. the US portion versus the Rest of the World portion?
I didn't say that you were American, and I apologise if you took offence because you thought that I did. My argument goes back to you claiming that it was built by the Americans and implying that their portion is by far larger than the RoW portion - which I believe is wrong. I have already acknowledged their contribution via ARPANET. I do not consider the DNS root servers to be a major technical achievement worthy of special recognition. The location of them doesn't contribute to the discussion.
It does seem that we might actually agree with each other....
I don't follow your logic. It says Microsoft might be banned from bidding for future contracts, not that all existing Microsoft software will disappear in a puff of smoke. Licensed versions of Powerpoint will still exist on EU computers and thus can still be used for 'vital work'.
Good answer! But the cheapest telephone dial-up costs in the UK that I can find by searching the internet appear to be 1p/minute. So you are paying about £3.60 for each episode of Dr Who. That's not a great deal but wouldn't it be cheaper to buy the DVD set?