"Mountain View-based Intuit plans to publish the letter as an advertisement in Thursday's editions of USA Today and The Wall Street Journal. The letter also will be posted on several Web sites."
I wonder if slashdot is one of those websites they were planning on posting the letter on as an advertisement?;)
Mirroring may help in the case of hard drive failure, but it isn't going to do much in the case of a virus, or a user pulling a stupid, or countless other things that could go wrong.
No technological problem is going to be able to solve the problem of user education, no matter how hard we try.
This may have been moderated "Funny", but it has a point. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by estabishing copyrights and similar intellectual property. Abuse of copyright for personal greed doesn't promote the arts, in some cases it retards the progress of the arts.
SCO owns all of their own product, so they can claim standing when you they sue. The copyright to the Linux kernel, AFAIK, is owned by a large number of people. While Linus may have written the core of it, there have been a large number of contributors. In order to sue someone, you must prove that YOU were wronged by that person (there are rare exceptions, like parents suing on behalf of their children). Without knowing with piece of code was copied, there is no way to prove you have standing.
Does anyone out there know any ways around this? I would love to be corrected, because as things stand, this just looks like another case of the big guy using the legal system to screw over the little guy =(
Are these 80 continuious lines of code? Or are they 80 lines of code scattered about the thousands (millions?) of lines of code in the Linux kernel? If it's the first, I would say that SCO might actually have something resembling a case. If it's the second... *laugh*
Forbidding someone from writing about their own life, when what they're writing is the truth, is crazy. Wanting not to have detailed pictures of your house (and the land connected to it) posted on the internet seems pretty reasonable to me.
Yes, it may seem like it goes against freedom of speech, but there are also privacy concerns. Is it freedom of speech if a corperation violates your privacy and sells your personal information (say, medical records, financial records, or data on your recreational habits)? Is it freedom of speech for spammers to send out the millions of messages that they send? I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as you'd make it sound.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(Emphasis mine)
Even though this amendment was designed to protect your privacy against the invasion of the government, there is still precedent for protection of privacy.
Why oh why do so many commenters encourage us to karma whore by complaining about an issue like this that has been discussed to death several times already?
IANAL, but AFAIK, Injunctions and the like can be made without both sides present when it is likely that irrevokable harm will occur if the injunction is not issued immediately. I guess the Judge believed that such harm would occur if Mr. Max was allowed to continue to operate his website.
This part actually seems reasonable to me. The fact that the judge prohibited someone from writing about the truth seems absolutely insane.
They're both about First Amendment rights being limited in the name of privacy. Unfortunately, one seems to be reasonable, while the other is completely ridiculous.
Yeha, but you're still going to want a lawyer interperting the contract, and the relevant law for the city/state where you live. I'm sorry, but going to Slashdot for legal advice seems about as ridiculous as asking people off the street for advice on how to build a space shuttle. Sure, you might find someone who actually has the proper background, but you're just as likely to find people who don't know and guess. And I would imagine that Slashdot, you're even more likely to find people who will give you wrong answers on purpose.
Individual posters on slashdot may be lawyers, but are you really willing to trust your future to what some random person online says, when they could be a lawyer, but could also be some 14 year old kid who thinks it's amusing to screw with people?
Repeat after me:
I will seek proper legal advice.
Seriously, this comes up time and time again. If you're in a situation where you need actual concrete legal advice, SLASHDOT IS NOT THE PLACE TO GO. Sending in an Ask Slashdot is fine for theoretical questions, but when your ass is at stake if a lawsuit comes around, do you really want to trust your future to the legal advice given to you by Anonymous Cowards and karma whores?
If you're going to make a blanket statement, why don't you at least bother to back it up with some facts or at least something resembling an arguement? Your statement is no more valid than Microsoft FUD. I can think of several sitations in which free flow of information might not be beneficial to society as a whole. Overall, Free flow of information is desirable, but this might very well be one of those situations in which it is not. Unless you're just a script kiddie who is looking out for his own personal interest.
I've started to question the authenticity of some slashdot stories recently, especially after things like this. If the editors don't read stories posted in our own language...
Anyone out there want to verify this?
In short, laws should be written in the equivalent of "street language"
The problem with this is that "street language" is often understood differently by different people. It's also often vague. You're saying you want to avoid vagueness, but what you're proposing could only add to the problem. I agree that something has to be done, but I don't think that's the way to do it.
Yes, this COULD "re-define that relationship for modern times", but people could also stop commiting illegal and immoral copyright violation, companies could also stop abusing legislation to punish people who do believe in fair use.
Face it, this is a technological solution to a moral, social, and legal problem, and I don't think it's going to do much to fix the problem. The problems are that individuals don't consider intellectual property to be actual property, that corperations are willing to do anything to protect their profits (including acting first and thinking later, and encroaching upon the rights of innocent consumers), and that legislaters are largely in the pockets of big business.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, what a misleading headline. For a moment, I had this amusing mental image of fully armed British special forces storming Microsoft headquarters.
Curse you, slashdot!
we observe a company taking a completely intuitive idea, adding "...with a computer" to the end of it, and sending it off to the patent office!
"Mountain View-based Intuit plans to publish the letter as an advertisement in Thursday's editions of USA Today and The Wall Street Journal. The letter also will be posted on several Web sites."
;)
I wonder if slashdot is one of those websites they were planning on posting the letter on as an advertisement?
Mirroring may help in the case of hard drive failure, but it isn't going to do much in the case of a virus, or a user pulling a stupid, or countless other things that could go wrong.
No technological problem is going to be able to solve the problem of user education, no matter how hard we try.
how much do you think your bandwidth bill is going to be after your webserver is slashdotted? ;)
if the GIA hadn't shut down over a year ago.
That means information about the game is at LEAST a year old, if not more.
Way to go, guys =)
Was that supposed to be a reference to the ST:TNG episode(s) where Picard gets captured by the Cardassians (sp)?
This may have been moderated "Funny", but it has a point. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by estabishing copyrights and similar intellectual property. Abuse of copyright for personal greed doesn't promote the arts, in some cases it retards the progress of the arts.
SCO owns all of their own product, so they can claim standing when you they sue. The copyright to the Linux kernel, AFAIK, is owned by a large number of people. While Linus may have written the core of it, there have been a large number of contributors. In order to sue someone, you must prove that YOU were wronged by that person (there are rare exceptions, like parents suing on behalf of their children). Without knowing with piece of code was copied, there is no way to prove you have standing.
Does anyone out there know any ways around this? I would love to be corrected, because as things stand, this just looks like another case of the big guy using the legal system to screw over the little guy =(
Are these 80 continuious lines of code? Or are they 80 lines of code scattered about the thousands (millions?) of lines of code in the Linux kernel? If it's the first, I would say that SCO might actually have something resembling a case. If it's the second... *laugh*
The page here says that it was a temporary restraining order, which makes me think that it was, in fact, a preliminary injunction.
Forbidding someone from writing about their own life, when what they're writing is the truth, is crazy. Wanting not to have detailed pictures of your house (and the land connected to it) posted on the internet seems pretty reasonable to me.
Yes, it may seem like it goes against freedom of speech, but there are also privacy concerns. Is it freedom of speech if a corperation violates your privacy and sells your personal information (say, medical records, financial records, or data on your recreational habits)? Is it freedom of speech for spammers to send out the millions of messages that they send? I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as you'd make it sound.
You are protected against UNREASONABLE searches. If you're stupid enough to smoke out out your window, then you deserve what you get.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(Emphasis mine)
Even though this amendment was designed to protect your privacy against the invasion of the government, there is still precedent for protection of privacy.
Why oh why do so many commenters encourage us to karma whore by complaining about an issue like this that has been discussed to death several times already?
IANAL, but AFAIK, Injunctions and the like can be made without both sides present when it is likely that irrevokable harm will occur if the injunction is not issued immediately. I guess the Judge believed that such harm would occur if Mr. Max was allowed to continue to operate his website.
This part actually seems reasonable to me. The fact that the judge prohibited someone from writing about the truth seems absolutely insane.
They're both about First Amendment rights being limited in the name of privacy. Unfortunately, one seems to be reasonable, while the other is completely ridiculous.
Don't post that link here! The next thing we know, Miss Vermont will be suing Google and Slashdot!
Yeha, but you're still going to want a lawyer interperting the contract, and the relevant law for the city/state where you live. I'm sorry, but going to Slashdot for legal advice seems about as ridiculous as asking people off the street for advice on how to build a space shuttle. Sure, you might find someone who actually has the proper background, but you're just as likely to find people who don't know and guess. And I would imagine that Slashdot, you're even more likely to find people who will give you wrong answers on purpose.
I am not a lawyer.
Slashdot is not a lawyer.
Slashdot is not a replacement for a lawyer.
Individual posters on slashdot may be lawyers, but are you really willing to trust your future to what some random person online says, when they could be a lawyer, but could also be some 14 year old kid who thinks it's amusing to screw with people?
Repeat after me:
I will seek proper legal advice.
Seriously, this comes up time and time again. If you're in a situation where you need actual concrete legal advice, SLASHDOT IS NOT THE PLACE TO GO. Sending in an Ask Slashdot is fine for theoretical questions, but when your ass is at stake if a lawsuit comes around, do you really want to trust your future to the legal advice given to you by Anonymous Cowards and karma whores?
If you're going to make a blanket statement, why don't you at least bother to back it up with some facts or at least something resembling an arguement? Your statement is no more valid than Microsoft FUD. I can think of several sitations in which free flow of information might not be beneficial to society as a whole. Overall, Free flow of information is desirable, but this might very well be one of those situations in which it is not. Unless you're just a script kiddie who is looking out for his own personal interest.
considering other people have come out and said the story is wrong, how come I'm getting moderated as flamebait? it was a legitimate question.
I've started to question the authenticity of some slashdot stories recently, especially after things like this. If the editors don't read stories posted in our own language... Anyone out there want to verify this?
In short, laws should be written in the equivalent of "street language"
The problem with this is that "street language" is often understood differently by different people. It's also often vague. You're saying you want to avoid vagueness, but what you're proposing could only add to the problem. I agree that something has to be done, but I don't think that's the way to do it.
Yes, this COULD "re-define that relationship for modern times", but people could also stop commiting illegal and immoral copyright violation, companies could also stop abusing legislation to punish people who do believe in fair use.
Face it, this is a technological solution to a moral, social, and legal problem, and I don't think it's going to do much to fix the problem. The problems are that individuals don't consider intellectual property to be actual property, that corperations are willing to do anything to protect their profits (including acting first and thinking later, and encroaching upon the rights of innocent consumers), and that legislaters are largely in the pockets of big business.