Whta the RIAA tries to confuse is the fact that there are two kinds of "piracy". One of them is companies that print bootleg copies of records, which are hard to distinguish from legitimate records. This is, usually, done in industries in Asia, using mass production methods.
The second kind of "piracy" is done at home, by consumers who make copies of cassettes and CDs for their personal use, or, sometimes, for friends.
I think there is little doubt that industrial-size piracy does hurt the legitimate recording business and the artists. Those illegal records may be sold to totally unsuspecting stores and consumers.
However, the home-copying thing is much more fuzzy. I may make a copy of a CD to listen in my car, while my wife listens to the same CD at home. But this does not mean I have cheated the industry of selling another CD. I may feel that forking out $15 for a second copy of that CD is too much. In that case, my "illegal" copy brings a benefit to me, while hurting no one, since not making that copy wouldn't make me buy a second copy of the CD.
And all of the "copy prevention" methods being used and proposed are meant only against making copies at home. Industrial-grade pirates have more resources and can circumvent copy protection quite easily. If the RIAA would divert all that effort against industrial espionage and piracy, they would get considerably more return for their investment, while preserving their public image.
I completely agree about the large-scale pirates, but they are continuously going after them. Everyone points to these pirates as if that makes a difference, but the record companies have been going after them for years and years.
You second kind of piracy is fairly innocent. I think most people would agree that it doesn't hurt the record companies that much. It is very small and innocent. What you leave out is the piracy they are really going after, and that is internet MP3 trading. This goes far beyond making a cd or 2 for a friend. It involves putting a cd (or songs, or whatever) on the net for anyone (potentially millions of people) to download. This is a much larger problem than making a cd for a friend.
There is no evidence pointing to the fact that Napster/Morpheus/etc have hurt or helped CD sales. It's impossible to tell, since there is no control group to compare it to. Some people say they bought more CDs since file-sharing became big (just ask around/., most people will say that). But the average user (IMHO) does just the opposite. They use file-sharing to avoid buying CDs. The evidence is just a quick look at what is available. For the most part, it is the commercially successful songs. These are songs people don't need to "test out" to see if they like an artist, these are songs almost everyone has heard. The majority of people like the concept of something for nothing. And this is what the record companies are going after. Unfortunately, when they go after the "something for nothing" crowd, they have to go after the "preview" crowd as well, since there is no way to distinguish between them.
What gets you fired gets you hired
on
Morals and Layoffs
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What everyone seems to be missing in all the layoff paranoia is the same thing that makes it easy for a company to hire you, makes it easy for them to fire you. America has a very dynamic work force. They transition jobs very quickly. What this means is that jobs are almost continually being created and destroyed. A company can feel free to hire a bunch of people in hopes the demand will be there, because they know if the demand isn't there, they can fire them. Compare this with Europe, where layoffs are extremely discourged by the governments. You have less jobs created, because they know that once they hire people it is extremely hard to fire them. This is what causes the American economy to creat more jobs than most other economies. That is why the American unemployment is typically lower than other countries. So as we lament the ability of companies to lay off American employees, let's not forget that that same ability is what got a large portion of those employees hired in the first place.
1. Compuserve, works pretty well for this and is fairly inexpensive, very much international
2. A little higher scale is UUNET Pal,(its on the Compuserve network actually), again very much international
3. Ok, this one will probably get me Trolled, but YES AOL is a potential Option for you they will let you pick up mail from other SMTP servers. and there is international access.
4. AT&T Worldnet should also be considered, I do not know the full extent of the network however.
5. Agian I'll get trolled, but you could also consider MSN
Well, here's what we found out since I submitted this.
MSN is out. Even though their tech support told us they support connecting to other SMTP servers, once we made an account we found out they didn't. And the funny part is they suggested instead of cancelling we send mail through MSN messenger.
AT&T WorldNet looks very nice. They do allow connection to outside SMTP servers, but only after the account is active for a month (to filter out spammers).
Didn't check out Compuserve, but certainly will.
AOL does allow this stuff, but they have changed their policy so that if a second user logs in the first one is booted. This is not a viable option, because then you get into users who keep booting each other continuously (at least with our users you would).
UUNet is one I like a lot, but they are EXPENSIVE. 100 bucks a month for an account. And my boss is cheap.
It looks like we may have found a resolution with Prodigy finally, but that doesn't mean we aren't going to switch after it taking over a week and three email to even get someone to listen to our problem.
Where exactly is the problem? PR firms call the people and asks if they agree with MS's stance. If they do, they send them a form letter that they can then sign and mail to their congressman. IF they change their mind, they can throw the letter away. They can tell the PR guy they don't agree and nothing will be done. It's been done by many groups for years and years. Unless I'm missing something, it's just a case of MS and their PR firm making it easier for people to mail their representatives.
Recently someone suggested altering the licensing on a lot of Free/free/open software to preclude the MPAA, RIAA, MS et al from using the software for any reason. Perhaps this is the stick we need to beat the DVD rap with
It would never work. All they need is for someone to report that it is illegal, and they have eveyr right to investigate and see if it is violating their patent/copyright/patent/whatever. Hell, if that worked, no BBSes would have been busted in the 80's, because they all had the "YOu may not use this BBS if you are a law enforcement officer" crap.
I am not in favor of DeCSS, or in favor of the way the MPAA has hounded people for using it. I am very much in the middle on this subject, thinking neither side is truely right, but neither is truly wrong. One thing I have noticed is that the pro-DeCSS side continually focuses on the "pirates" duplicating and sell DVD movies for profit, but completely ignores the people trading DVD movies on the internet. If you check any of the major file-sharing services (Morpheus, Gnutella and any of it's "front ends", etc) you will see hundereds of movies being traded every day. This piracy is completely different than the "pirates" selling copied DVDs as the real thing, and is also what the MPAA is focusing on. By ignoring these pirated copies (which do benefit substantially from DeCSS) you are fighting the wrong war. While the MPAA points this out, the pro-DeCSS forces point to other pirates and say "Well, we aren't as bad as them! Go after them instead!". This is a sure way to lose the war. This subject needs to be addressed in one way or another, and not just ignored. DeCSS can (and is) used for piracy, and just ignoring that fact will guarantee a lose in court. This si a subject that needs to be discussed, and either an explanation, or reason, or way to avoid it has to be found if you want any chance of coming out on top. Just pointing out that their are worse forms of piracy going on won't make any think that your's is okay.
Blatantly false statements like "Further; Pavlovich knew that his Web site allowed the illegal publishing and distribution of DVDs." do nothing to make me think the Court even understands what is alleged to have occurred.
Whether or not you agree ro disagree with what is going on, statements like this are ridiculous. Of course he knew that DeCSS could be used to pirate DVDs. That has been the arguement from the very begining, and to claim he had no idea that DeCSS could be used for something like that just makes you (and him) look foolish. If you want to argue that he was not posting DeCSS for that primary purpose, that is a legitimate arguement. But to claim he had no idea you could use DeCSS that way is just plain stupid.
This is probably a small victory in the direction of workspace liberties, but is it a correct one?
I work for a consulting firm that does a great deal of work for the government. If I'm surfing porn or whatever during their time, then that's not a legitimate use.
Mass downloading on the other hand is something else entirely. As I type, I have slackware 8.0 downloading and I regularly listen to streaming radio feeds while I'm doing my work. Those are the uses that I think are the most important. IMHO, It's no different from having the radio on or listening to a cd.
Except you are using some of their finite amount of resources to do this. Listening to the radio takes no resources (except for the tiny amount of electricity, which they give you permission to use by saying you can listen to the radio). Downloading Slackware and listening to streaming audio uses a piece of their bandwidth.
I work at a company that only has a partial T-1 (768 kb/s). If we had people downloading Slackware and listening to streaming audio, it could potentially impact our bandwidth for legitimate work related activity. Should we be able to monitor and make sure people aren't using our (limited) resources for things they shouldn't and thereby negatively affecting the productivity of others? Of course we should, so how is this any different? If you are continually on the phoen making personal calls, you can be disiplined (they can't monitor the content of your calls, but they can monitor how much you use the phone). That is because it is a limited resources (there are only so many lines) and if you are using then for non-business related activities, you could impact people trying to use then for business.
... for pointing something that should get hyped in every dealing that anyone sympathetic to Sklyarov's plight has with anyone else: that this was legal under Russian law.
Seriously, the fact that he's a Russian (read "commie") coder (read "hacker") can, and may, get played against him in the press to no end, so it's nice just to see those little words, "legal in Russia," that should humble the cretins who pushed this misguided law.
Yes, what he did is legal in Russia. But he marketted and sold the product to US citizens, and it is certainly illegal in the US (whether it should be or not is a different issue). He had a US company handling US sales of his product, so it's not like he didn't know it was being sold in the US.
Think of it this way, if it was legal to make and sell nuclear weapons in Russia, would it be legal for them to sell them to US citizens? It may be an extreme example, but the principals of law apply to extreme and mundane cases alike. Something that is legal in Russia, is legal between Russian citizens. If it begins to involve citizens of other countries (especially when it is done in that other country, as the sales were) it becomes the jurisdiction of that country.
Hmmm... the DMCA states, "...`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls...".
So, that means that anything that's purpose is not circumvention, but use, should be legal. IANAL, but I speak English, and that is what those words mean.
If that's the case, then why are we losing the DeCSS case? DeCSS is only a part of what was supposed to be used for playing DVDs, so why is it illegal?
Because DeCSS is a "circumvention device". It has to circumvent the protection before it can read and play the DVD. It's whole purpose is to get around the protection and access the contents of the DVD (without the copyholder's aproval).
That's not quite what it is saying rather you have only highlighted part of it. It also says...
not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, Which doesn't necessarily mean you are distributing it with free software but that you used free software as a "tool" in its development. This would in fact cover many things as was mentioned in the original/. post.
Look at the capital S's. You cannot use "viral" Software to develop other software that INCLUDES the (viral) Software. So you can use emacs to develop something. But you can't use it to develop something that alos includes emacs (because then the GPL would kick in). Basically, they are saying you can't roll something the is GPLed into something you are writing with their SDK, which seems perfectly fine.
So why should I have to go out and edit every web page that I have out there to prevent MS from adding links that I did not intend. They are modifying MY content without MY permission! And do you think that every news site is going to go back and add the META tags to old news stories? I doubt it...
But they aren't modifying your content. Smart tags are completely different than regular links. The 2 cannot be confused. They are no more modifying your content than running it through Babblefish is. The content is exactly the same, the presentation may be slightly different, but that doesn't change the content.
Plus, the fact that they MIGHT do bad things doesn't mean a damn thing. Everyone is arguing against something they haven't even seen yet. Maybe Linux will link to Linux.org. Or maybe it won't link to anywhere. If it does link to MS, then yes, there is every reason to complain, but until something actually happens, all this complaining is premature.
It seems people really need a lesson in correlation and causation. Just because two things are correlated (ie they have some link, whether casual or otherwise) doesn't imply causation (that one caused the other). CD sales went up and people used Napster. These things may be related, or they may not be. People who use Napster buy more CDs than other people. This could be caused by them using Napster. It could also be that people who buy more CDs are more likely to use Napster. There are many factors that can affect something like this, and just saying "CD sales went up and a lot of people used Napster, so therefore Napster caused CD sales to go up" doesn't hold any more water than saying "CD sales went up less than they have, and lots of people used Napster, so it must be Napster that is impeeding the growth". There is no proof that the relationship is causal in either direction, because there is no control group that never has seen Napster. There is no way to say with any kind of certainty that Napster has hurt or helped CD sales (not that that will stop either side from trying).
I'm sure htis will be marked as a troll by some people, but where exactly does our right to "fair use" come from? I know all about time-shifting (and support it), but I have never seen anything that says they must make it so you are able to make a backup copy, only things that say they can't stop something from being produced because it can make a backup copy. I know it's a weird thing, but those really are 2 different things. It's like saying if I can, I have the right to make a copy, but they are not required to make sure I can make a copy.
"Fair use" is very important, but I can completely understand where they would not have to take into account whether or not you are able to copy it. Imagine if sometime in the future there is a technology that is great, except it cannot be copied (not through encryption, but because of some flaw in the technology or whatever), what happens then? Do we throw out a good technology (that many people may want) because the companies can't ensure that people can copy it? Or do we let them use it, as the only thing "fair use" ensures is that they can't outlaw things that let you exercise you're "fair use" privilege? So, is the "right to fair use" actually ensured by some law or court ruling or something similar, or is it only that they can't stop things that would enable people to use their "fair use rights"?
I don't care what the kid did or did not do or if it was illegal. What I care about is the fact that that schools administration did not handle this properly. It is their responsibility that if he even remotely acted suicidal that he should have been restrained and brought up to speed of the reality of the situation. The ADULTS are responsible for his death. Death of a human is the issue. Not his deeds. He died cause he knew he messed up and didn't want to be sent to jail. Way I see it a threat by an Adult on a kid took his life. I think the adult should be held accountable for that.
Did you even read the article? The administrators say he wasn't acting all that upset. His parents took him home afterward and they apparently didn't think he was acting very suicidal, because they left him at home by himself. This was handled the way it should have been handled, he was punished, told if he was an adult he would have probably been prosecuted and sent to jail, and then sent home (with his parents) to start serving his punishment. Everytime they punish someone, should they put in in the psych ward for 24 hour for monitoring? He probably acted upset, just like any other kid who is suspended. Hell, if you're going to say anyone is at fault, shouldn't it be his parents? They were the last to see him alive and left him alone by himself. No one is to blame for the kid killing himself except for the kid himself.
Look at how jail is portrayed on TV, its a harsh brutal place where people get raped and beaten up daily. The principal threatened the child with the threat of being sent to jail. I've been talked to by my teachers, basically because i'm doing stuff they just don't understand. Why punish kids because they have a goddamn curiosity? Thats medieval thinking, and this is what happens when you try and confine people to your simple minded ideals. I doubt the kid did anything like changing grades, or malicious. People are naturally curious, but people are trying to curb this by outrageous things like the DMCA, an understanding of computers shouldn't be considered a crime. A kid gets his home busted into and his computer consficated because he wrote a program that circumvents stupid technology. A good kid, with a bright future is cut short because he was interested in how things worked. We look back on people like Galileo with awe, at how he wouldn't be silenced by the simpleminded religous zealots. He died for what he believed for, this kid died because he feared for his life.
People seem to be defending this kid because he was just "curious", but they seem to be forgetting what damage just looking around the school's computer system can cause. He could have possibly seen teacher's salaries, other student's grade, disiplinary files, teacher's home addresses, school budgets, future tests, and any number of other confidential materials. The kid did something that was obviously wrong, and could have caused a HUGE amount of problems (whether he changed anything or not). And he deserved to be punished for it, and I think the punishment may have been a tiny bit to harsh, but was in no way completely inappropriate.
When everyone defends this kid, just imagine he was caught "being curious" in the school filing cabinets. Would everyone jump to his defense because he was "just curious" to see if he could break into the filing cabinets and wanted to see what kind of security was on them? Not a chance, we never would have even heard about it, because no one would try and argue that the kid was right. Now, what difference does it make whether the info is in hard copy, or kept electronically?
MS is smart. Since all new Office can read old Office documents, but not vice versa, and you have to a pretty advanced user to 'export' to an old version. The upgrade demand is like a virus. My customers upgrade, and send me unreadable documents, I am likely to upgrade to be able to handle this, without upsetting them, and so on. One could speculate that MS could continue this 'enforcement' of revenue without adding any features whatsoever. Although I have heard that they are moving to XML representations now, this won't work anymore. You could then easily set up a Document Translation service on the network, even handled easily by the mail servers... Have you ever used Word?? To save as an older format, you choose "save as" and choose the format from the list at the bottom. No brain surgery is required. It's about as easy as is can possibly be. As for all the people talking about how Office already has too many features, and they aren't being used, it's obvious you don't use these products very often. In our office, we have a writing team making 500 page documents, using nearly every feature Word has. We have people making databases that use all of Accesses features (and will gladly use XP's Access for the enhanced interopability with MS SQL Server). The average user won't use all the features for writing a letter to mom, but they are far from useless and bloatware.
Actually, the more likely scenario is that MS is getting the names of corps making large purchases of machines without OSes, stating they have a site license, and then comparing those names with the names of the people with site licenses. If they find that company X just purchased 1000 PCs with no OS and stated it was because they have an MS site license, and MS looks and their site license is only for 500 licenses, then obviously they will look into it because there is a problem. If they bought 1000 PCs and they have a 2000 seat site license, they they ignore it.
Whats to say they can't have a mixed environment of both Linux and Windows machines? Sounds to me that M$ will be more worried about pilot programs using Linux instead of Windows in a company or the company jumping ship on M$ altogether. If I'm a company who is buying 500 "naked" PC's, M$ site license or not, it is NONE OF THEIR GOD DAMN BUISINESS that I bought the PC's without an OS. The seller has absolutely no right (well they shouldn't if they actually do) to go handing off my private information to Microsoft. Now if there is real evidence that I am using unlicensed versions, I can see them pushing for a license audit, but I feel they need more than just that fact that I purchased it to do that. If I go out and buy a hunting rifle, does that mean that the gun shop should give my info to anti-gun protestors so they can raid my house and dig into my background to see if might be connected with some unsolved murder? No it does not, this kind of thing should be illegal and if it is not, then we the people need to stand up to this lest we lose even more rights to the corporate pigs who seem to be running this country.
The point being that if you claim you are buying the PCs without an OS because you have an MS site license that implies you are going to be putting an MS OS on them. If you are buying them to put Linux on, why would you claim you are buying them without an OS because you have an MS site license? You would buy them without an OS because you are going to put Linux on them. Even if you claim you have an MS site license and then put Linux on them, you could still very well be defrauding the computer company, because they may only sell without an OS if you plan to use a site license for the OS. In general, they are going after people who are lying about either what OS they plan to use on it or what type of OS licensing they plan on using. If you told the truth, there's nothing to worry about.
I know this is a troll, but I feel like being argumentative
What do you mean it doesn't cost anything other than a few seconds?!?!?
How bout it probably costs a dollar or so of the price you pay for net access??!?! You think servers and bandwidth just grow on trees and don't cost an ISP time and money to maintain?
What about lost revenues when some spammer piece of shit floods a server and crashes it? What then, genius?!?! What about the time and effort that I could have spent jerking off to goatse.cx when, instead, I'm stuck sorting through spam that makes it through my filters??!?!
If I wanna by your crappy products, I'll let *you* know - don't tell me about them yourself. If I buy your dick-pump, that doesn't mean I want my info sold to a Dutch bestiality website!
I'll let the bunny-huggers bitch and moan about wasting paper...
Man, talk about trolling...But, since I'm here.
What you say is true about spammers, but that isn't really what this is about. If you are talking about being able to opt-out of receiving the mail, it certainly isn't the type of spammers you are talking about. This is about a company who wants to send you email after you sign up on their page. And for these things, I think opt-out is fine. You are signing up to receive something from them (whatever it may be) and it should be your responsibility to tell them if you want them to do something different with your data. I equate it to going to McDonalds. You have to ask them to not put pickles on your burger, because it's not what they normally do. If you want the company to do something different (like not send you mail) then you have to tell them. Of course I fully support being able to tell them not to send you anything also.
Fry suggested multiple applications for mobile video monitoring: Restaurant patrons could dial into their favorite eateries to check who's there and how busy the joint is; transportation agencies could use it to analyze traffic bottlenecks; paramedics could use it in ambulances to beam images of trauma victims to physicians for guidance. This is an outright violation of privacy by any means. Suppose if I wanted to have a romantic kiss with my wife, should I be subjected to someone watching me? Its my own right to kiss her, and not against the law, and although I wouldn't go public with strong displays of affection, I should retain the right to my privacy. The main street has a direct view to my yard, suppose I had a pool party, should my guests be subjected to the views of a camera misplaced, or placed without my consent for anyone to view the privacy of my own yard?
While I'm not for the cameras, in these cases you don't have any right to expect privacy. If you do something on the street, it is to be assumed someone is watching you. There is no reason someone would not. And yes, this includes cameras. The right to privacy does not include the right to not have people view you in public. And if you can see your pool from the street, then yes, once again, you have no right to expect privacy there. I could stand in the street and personally film you in your pool if I wanted, as long as I did not trespass on your property. To say I couldn't do that would deny me the right to stand on the public ground. The right to privacy only extends to private places. The street is not a private place.
Anyone notice how any right whatsoever can be taken away in the name of "the children"... what children, I don't know because I don't have any, and I resent my liberties being infringed because idiot parents are too stupid to raise good kids without installing V-Chips, censoring "explicit" material, banning weapons, alcohol, etc. I even have to pay taxes to send your damn kids to school in my town, because dad wouldn't wear a condom when he raped mom... OK I'm thoroughly drunk as you can tell, but I mean what I'm saying here.
I'm not sure what "right" is being taken away by this law. You still have the right to free speech. You can put up anything you want on the net still, and you can access anything you want from home. The library still has the "right" to not take the federal money and install internet access using some other funds, so no "right" being violated there. You still have the "right" to access the net from someplace else where filters aren't installed (not that accessing the net is a right in the first place). So what "right" is being taken away? You can still do any of these things from someplace other than the library (and from the library if they don't tkae the federal funds). All to often people confuse privleges with rights...
One thing Harlan fails to acknowledge is that we're not all thieves, and we're not all boycotting artists. I use Napster, not because I'm not perfectly willing (and able) to pay for music, but because a distribution monopoly is forcing me to pay unreasonable prices for music and is restricting access to alternate, more economical distribution channels.
Do I steal music? Yes. Do I do it to get something for nothing? No. Do I do it to screw artists? No. Do I pay for any and all reasonably-priced software, games, music, and literature? You betcha. But I am boycotting the music / literature / entertainment monopolies that are charging me a fortune just to keep their stock prices high. If an artist falls by the wayside then I feel justified in knowing that I did it to offer freedom to 10x more artists in the future.
This is a moral stand, not a financial one.
But what you're doing isn't boycotting. A boycott is when you don't use a product for moral reasons. You are still using their product. You're not taking a real stand, you're trying to take a stand, while making sure you still get what you want. In the Montgomery Bus Boycott, they didn't boycott by trying to get on the buses for free. They avoided the buses. You can't have it both ways. Either your boycotting the music industry for moral reasons (and not using their product at all) or your just avoiding paying for the product because in your opinion it's too expensive.
This is all getting very hypothetical, but why should it be easy for the RIAA or any one else to scan the contents what someone chooses share via Napster? Perhaps you'd also be in favour of writing all your correspondance on postcards, banning encryption and reverse phonebooks to make it easier for people with automated processing tools? After all, what have you got to hide?
Um, it should be easy for them to see what you're sharing, BECAUSE YOU'RE SHARING IT. If you don't want other people to see it, don't share it on something like Napster where you know anyone else can get to it.
And people shouldn't feel sorry for the poor old record companies. They make billions every year, of which only a tiny percentage goes to the artist. They'd just rather use lawsuits to protect their cartel rather than riding the wave themselves. If they sold songs online for 50 cents a download from a reliable server then no one would even bother with the likes of Napster.
Why am I the only one to see what would happen if this were the case. You buy a CD and what is the first thing you do? You rip it and share it on Napster. Why would it be different if you downloaded it for 50 cents? You are going to put it with all your other MP3s, in the big folder that is shared by Napster. Then everyone else goes and gets it from Napster and saves 50 cents.
If you do a search in the MS knowledge base, look for access, thread, multi, and a few other things, you'll dig up the MS KB articles that say "Don't use Access! It's unstable!"
It amuses me how the same people/companies that wouldn't use Word for creating a thousand page catalog, and wouldn't use Excel to write a corporate accounting system would, in fact, use Access to create an 'enterprise' database.
Except that isn't what is being proposed. Access is just being used as the front end. IT will work fine for that (as I can attect as we have numerous dbs running with an Access front end and a MSSQL backend. Access is definitely not good for multiusers dbs, unless you have a backend to it.
Slashdot Mirror
The second kind of "piracy" is done at home, by consumers who make copies of cassettes and CDs for their personal use, or, sometimes, for friends.
I think there is little doubt that industrial-size piracy does hurt the legitimate recording business and the artists. Those illegal records may be sold to totally unsuspecting stores and consumers.
However, the home-copying thing is much more fuzzy. I may make a copy of a CD to listen in my car, while my wife listens to the same CD at home. But this does not mean I have cheated the industry of selling another CD. I may feel that forking out $15 for a second copy of that CD is too much. In that case, my "illegal" copy brings a benefit to me, while hurting no one, since not making that copy wouldn't make me buy a second copy of the CD.
And all of the "copy prevention" methods being used and proposed are meant only against making copies at home. Industrial-grade pirates have more resources and can circumvent copy protection quite easily. If the RIAA would divert all that effort against industrial espionage and piracy, they would get considerably more return for their investment, while preserving their public image.
I completely agree about the large-scale pirates, but they are continuously going after them. Everyone points to these pirates as if that makes a difference, but the record companies have been going after them for years and years.
You second kind of piracy is fairly innocent. I think most people would agree that it doesn't hurt the record companies that much. It is very small and innocent. What you leave out is the piracy they are really going after, and that is internet MP3 trading. This goes far beyond making a cd or 2 for a friend. It involves putting a cd (or songs, or whatever) on the net for anyone (potentially millions of people) to download. This is a much larger problem than making a cd for a friend.
There is no evidence pointing to the fact that Napster/Morpheus/etc have hurt or helped CD sales. It's impossible to tell, since there is no control group to compare it to. Some people say they bought more CDs since file-sharing became big (just ask around
What everyone seems to be missing in all the layoff paranoia is the same thing that makes it easy for a company to hire you, makes it easy for them to fire you. America has a very dynamic work force. They transition jobs very quickly. What this means is that jobs are almost continually being created and destroyed. A company can feel free to hire a bunch of people in hopes the demand will be there, because they know if the demand isn't there, they can fire them. Compare this with Europe, where layoffs are extremely discourged by the governments. You have less jobs created, because they know that once they hire people it is extremely hard to fire them. This is what causes the American economy to creat more jobs than most other economies. That is why the American unemployment is typically lower than other countries. So as we lament the ability of companies to lay off American employees, let's not forget that that same ability is what got a large portion of those employees hired in the first place.
2. A little higher scale is UUNET Pal,(its on the Compuserve network actually), again very much international
3. Ok, this one will probably get me Trolled, but YES AOL is a potential Option for you they will let you pick up mail from other SMTP servers. and there is international access.
4. AT&T Worldnet should also be considered, I do not know the full extent of the network however.
5. Agian I'll get trolled, but you could also consider MSN
Well, here's what we found out since I submitted this.
MSN is out. Even though their tech support told us they support connecting to other SMTP servers, once we made an account we found out they didn't. And the funny part is they suggested instead of cancelling we send mail through MSN messenger.
AT&T WorldNet looks very nice. They do allow connection to outside SMTP servers, but only after the account is active for a month (to filter out spammers).
Didn't check out Compuserve, but certainly will.
AOL does allow this stuff, but they have changed their policy so that if a second user logs in the first one is booted. This is not a viable option, because then you get into users who keep booting each other continuously (at least with our users you would).
UUNet is one I like a lot, but they are EXPENSIVE. 100 bucks a month for an account. And my boss is cheap.
It looks like we may have found a resolution with Prodigy finally, but that doesn't mean we aren't going to switch after it taking over a week and three email to even get someone to listen to our problem.
Where exactly is the problem? PR firms call the people and asks if they agree with MS's stance. If they do, they send them a form letter that they can then sign and mail to their congressman. IF they change their mind, they can throw the letter away. They can tell the PR guy they don't agree and nothing will be done. It's been done by many groups for years and years. Unless I'm missing something, it's just a case of MS and their PR firm making it easier for people to mail their representatives.
It would never work. All they need is for someone to report that it is illegal, and they have eveyr right to investigate and see if it is violating their patent/copyright/patent/whatever. Hell, if that worked, no BBSes would have been busted in the 80's, because they all had the "YOu may not use this BBS if you are a law enforcement officer" crap.
I am not in favor of DeCSS, or in favor of the way the MPAA has hounded people for using it. I am very much in the middle on this subject, thinking neither side is truely right, but neither is truly wrong. One thing I have noticed is that the pro-DeCSS side continually focuses on the "pirates" duplicating and sell DVD movies for profit, but completely ignores the people trading DVD movies on the internet. If you check any of the major file-sharing services (Morpheus, Gnutella and any of it's "front ends", etc) you will see hundereds of movies being traded every day. This piracy is completely different than the "pirates" selling copied DVDs as the real thing, and is also what the MPAA is focusing on. By ignoring these pirated copies (which do benefit substantially from DeCSS) you are fighting the wrong war. While the MPAA points this out, the pro-DeCSS forces point to other pirates and say "Well, we aren't as bad as them! Go after them instead!". This is a sure way to lose the war. This subject needs to be addressed in one way or another, and not just ignored. DeCSS can (and is) used for piracy, and just ignoring that fact will guarantee a lose in court. This si a subject that needs to be discussed, and either an explanation, or reason, or way to avoid it has to be found if you want any chance of coming out on top. Just pointing out that their are worse forms of piracy going on won't make any think that your's is okay.
Whether or not you agree ro disagree with what is going on, statements like this are ridiculous. Of course he knew that DeCSS could be used to pirate DVDs. That has been the arguement from the very begining, and to claim he had no idea that DeCSS could be used for something like that just makes you (and him) look foolish. If you want to argue that he was not posting DeCSS for that primary purpose, that is a legitimate arguement. But to claim he had no idea you could use DeCSS that way is just plain stupid.
I work for a consulting firm that does a great deal of work for the government. If I'm surfing porn or whatever during their time, then that's not a legitimate use.
Mass downloading on the other hand is something else entirely. As I type, I have slackware 8.0 downloading and I regularly listen to streaming radio feeds while I'm doing my work. Those are the uses that I think are the most important. IMHO, It's no different from having the radio on or listening to a cd.
Except you are using some of their finite amount of resources to do this. Listening to the radio takes no resources (except for the tiny amount of electricity, which they give you permission to use by saying you can listen to the radio). Downloading Slackware and listening to streaming audio uses a piece of their bandwidth.
I work at a company that only has a partial T-1 (768 kb/s). If we had people downloading Slackware and listening to streaming audio, it could potentially impact our bandwidth for legitimate work related activity. Should we be able to monitor and make sure people aren't using our (limited) resources for things they shouldn't and thereby negatively affecting the productivity of others? Of course we should, so how is this any different? If you are continually on the phoen making personal calls, you can be disiplined (they can't monitor the content of your calls, but they can monitor how much you use the phone). That is because it is a limited resources (there are only so many lines) and if you are using then for non-business related activities, you could impact people trying to use then for business.
Seriously, the fact that he's a Russian (read "commie") coder (read "hacker") can, and may, get played against him in the press to no end, so it's nice just to see those little words, "legal in Russia," that should humble the cretins who pushed this misguided law.
Yes, what he did is legal in Russia. But he marketted and sold the product to US citizens, and it is certainly illegal in the US (whether it should be or not is a different issue). He had a US company handling US sales of his product, so it's not like he didn't know it was being sold in the US.
Think of it this way, if it was legal to make and sell nuclear weapons in Russia, would it be legal for them to sell them to US citizens? It may be an extreme example, but the principals of law apply to extreme and mundane cases alike. Something that is legal in Russia, is legal between Russian citizens. If it begins to involve citizens of other countries (especially when it is done in that other country, as the sales were) it becomes the jurisdiction of that country.
So, that means that anything that's purpose is not circumvention, but use, should be legal. IANAL, but I speak English, and that is what those words mean.
If that's the case, then why are we losing the DeCSS case? DeCSS is only a part of what was supposed to be used for playing DVDs, so why is it illegal?
Because DeCSS is a "circumvention device". It has to circumvent the protection before it can read and play the DVD. It's whole purpose is to get around the protection and access the contents of the DVD (without the copyholder's aproval).
not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software,
Which doesn't necessarily mean you are distributing it with free software but that you used free software as a "tool" in its development. This would in fact cover many things as was mentioned in the original
Look at the capital S's. You cannot use "viral" Software to develop other software that INCLUDES the (viral) Software. So you can use emacs to develop something. But you can't use it to develop something that alos includes emacs (because then the GPL would kick in). Basically, they are saying you can't roll something the is GPLed into something you are writing with their SDK, which seems perfectly fine.
But they aren't modifying your content. Smart tags are completely different than regular links. The 2 cannot be confused. They are no more modifying your content than running it through Babblefish is. The content is exactly the same, the presentation may be slightly different, but that doesn't change the content.
Plus, the fact that they MIGHT do bad things doesn't mean a damn thing. Everyone is arguing against something they haven't even seen yet. Maybe Linux will link to Linux.org. Or maybe it won't link to anywhere. If it does link to MS, then yes, there is every reason to complain, but until something actually happens, all this complaining is premature.
It seems people really need a lesson in correlation and causation. Just because two things are correlated (ie they have some link, whether casual or otherwise) doesn't imply causation (that one caused the other). CD sales went up and people used Napster. These things may be related, or they may not be. People who use Napster buy more CDs than other people. This could be caused by them using Napster. It could also be that people who buy more CDs are more likely to use Napster. There are many factors that can affect something like this, and just saying "CD sales went up and a lot of people used Napster, so therefore Napster caused CD sales to go up" doesn't hold any more water than saying "CD sales went up less than they have, and lots of people used Napster, so it must be Napster that is impeeding the growth". There is no proof that the relationship is causal in either direction, because there is no control group that never has seen Napster. There is no way to say with any kind of certainty that Napster has hurt or helped CD sales (not that that will stop either side from trying).
"Fair use" is very important, but I can completely understand where they would not have to take into account whether or not you are able to copy it. Imagine if sometime in the future there is a technology that is great, except it cannot be copied (not through encryption, but because of some flaw in the technology or whatever), what happens then? Do we throw out a good technology (that many people may want) because the companies can't ensure that people can copy it? Or do we let them use it, as the only thing "fair use" ensures is that they can't outlaw things that let you exercise you're "fair use" privilege? So, is the "right to fair use" actually ensured by some law or court ruling or something similar, or is it only that they can't stop things that would enable people to use their "fair use rights"?
Did you even read the article? The administrators say he wasn't acting all that upset. His parents took him home afterward and they apparently didn't think he was acting very suicidal, because they left him at home by himself. This was handled the way it should have been handled, he was punished, told if he was an adult he would have probably been prosecuted and sent to jail, and then sent home (with his parents) to start serving his punishment. Everytime they punish someone, should they put in in the psych ward for 24 hour for monitoring? He probably acted upset, just like any other kid who is suspended. Hell, if you're going to say anyone is at fault, shouldn't it be his parents? They were the last to see him alive and left him alone by himself. No one is to blame for the kid killing himself except for the kid himself.
People seem to be defending this kid because he was just "curious", but they seem to be forgetting what damage just looking around the school's computer system can cause. He could have possibly seen teacher's salaries, other student's grade, disiplinary files, teacher's home addresses, school budgets, future tests, and any number of other confidential materials. The kid did something that was obviously wrong, and could have caused a HUGE amount of problems (whether he changed anything or not). And he deserved to be punished for it, and I think the punishment may have been a tiny bit to harsh, but was in no way completely inappropriate.
When everyone defends this kid, just imagine he was caught "being curious" in the school filing cabinets. Would everyone jump to his defense because he was "just curious" to see if he could break into the filing cabinets and wanted to see what kind of security was on them? Not a chance, we never would have even heard about it, because no one would try and argue that the kid was right. Now, what difference does it make whether the info is in hard copy, or kept electronically?
MS is smart. Since all new Office can read old Office documents, but not vice versa, and you have to a pretty advanced user to 'export' to an old version. The upgrade demand is like a virus. My customers upgrade, and send me unreadable documents, I am likely to upgrade to be able to handle this, without upsetting them, and so on. One could speculate that MS could continue this 'enforcement' of revenue without adding any features whatsoever. Although I have heard that they are moving to XML representations now, this won't work anymore. You could then easily set up a Document Translation service on the network, even handled easily by the mail servers...
Have you ever used Word?? To save as an older format, you choose "save as" and choose the format from the list at the bottom. No brain surgery is required. It's about as easy as is can possibly be. As for all the people talking about how Office already has too many features, and they aren't being used, it's obvious you don't use these products very often. In our office, we have a writing team making 500 page documents, using nearly every feature Word has. We have people making databases that use all of Accesses features (and will gladly use XP's Access for the enhanced interopability with MS SQL Server). The average user won't use all the features for writing a letter to mom, but they are far from useless and bloatware.
Actually, the more likely scenario is that MS is getting the names of corps making large purchases of machines without OSes, stating they have a site license, and then comparing those names with the names of the people with site licenses. If they find that company X just purchased 1000 PCs with no OS and stated it was because they have an MS site license, and MS looks and their site license is only for 500 licenses, then obviously they will look into it because there is a problem. If they bought 1000 PCs and they have a 2000 seat site license, they they ignore it.
The point being that if you claim you are buying the PCs without an OS because you have an MS site license that implies you are going to be putting an MS OS on them. If you are buying them to put Linux on, why would you claim you are buying them without an OS because you have an MS site license? You would buy them without an OS because you are going to put Linux on them. Even if you claim you have an MS site license and then put Linux on them, you could still very well be defrauding the computer company, because they may only sell without an OS if you plan to use a site license for the OS. In general, they are going after people who are lying about either what OS they plan to use on it or what type of OS licensing they plan on using. If you told the truth, there's nothing to worry about.
What do you mean it doesn't cost anything other than a few seconds?!?!?
How bout it probably costs a dollar or so of the price you pay for net access??!?! You think servers and bandwidth just grow on trees and don't cost an ISP time and money to maintain?
What about lost revenues when some spammer piece of shit floods a server and crashes it? What then, genius?!?! What about the time and effort that I could have spent jerking off to goatse.cx when, instead, I'm stuck sorting through spam that makes it through my filters??!?!
If I wanna by your crappy products, I'll let *you* know - don't tell me about them yourself. If I buy your dick-pump, that doesn't mean I want my info sold to a Dutch bestiality website!
I'll let the bunny-huggers bitch and moan about wasting paper...
Man, talk about trolling...But, since I'm here.
What you say is true about spammers, but that isn't really what this is about. If you are talking about being able to opt-out of receiving the mail, it certainly isn't the type of spammers you are talking about. This is about a company who wants to send you email after you sign up on their page. And for these things, I think opt-out is fine. You are signing up to receive something from them (whatever it may be) and it should be your responsibility to tell them if you want them to do something different with your data. I equate it to going to McDonalds. You have to ask them to not put pickles on your burger, because it's not what they normally do. If you want the company to do something different (like not send you mail) then you have to tell them. Of course I fully support being able to tell them not to send you anything also.
This is an outright violation of privacy by any means. Suppose if I wanted to have a romantic kiss with my wife, should I be subjected to someone watching me? Its my own right to kiss her, and not against the law, and although I wouldn't go public with strong displays of affection, I should retain the right to my privacy. The main street has a direct view to my yard, suppose I had a pool party, should my guests be subjected to the views of a camera misplaced, or placed without my consent for anyone to view the privacy of my own yard?
While I'm not for the cameras, in these cases you don't have any right to expect privacy. If you do something on the street, it is to be assumed someone is watching you. There is no reason someone would not. And yes, this includes cameras. The right to privacy does not include the right to not have people view you in public. And if you can see your pool from the street, then yes, once again, you have no right to expect privacy there. I could stand in the street and personally film you in your pool if I wanted, as long as I did not trespass on your property. To say I couldn't do that would deny me the right to stand on the public ground. The right to privacy only extends to private places. The street is not a private place.
I'm not sure what "right" is being taken away by this law. You still have the right to free speech. You can put up anything you want on the net still, and you can access anything you want from home. The library still has the "right" to not take the federal money and install internet access using some other funds, so no "right" being violated there. You still have the "right" to access the net from someplace else where filters aren't installed (not that accessing the net is a right in the first place). So what "right" is being taken away? You can still do any of these things from someplace other than the library (and from the library if they don't tkae the federal funds). All to often people confuse privleges with rights...
Do I steal music? Yes. Do I do it to get something for nothing? No. Do I do it to screw artists? No. Do I pay for any and all reasonably-priced software, games, music, and literature? You betcha. But I am boycotting the music / literature / entertainment monopolies that are charging me a fortune just to keep their stock prices high. If an artist falls by the wayside then I feel justified in knowing that I did it to offer freedom to 10x more artists in the future.
This is a moral stand, not a financial one.
But what you're doing isn't boycotting. A boycott is when you don't use a product for moral reasons. You are still using their product. You're not taking a real stand, you're trying to take a stand, while making sure you still get what you want. In the Montgomery Bus Boycott, they didn't boycott by trying to get on the buses for free. They avoided the buses. You can't have it both ways. Either your boycotting the music industry for moral reasons (and not using their product at all) or your just avoiding paying for the product because in your opinion it's too expensive.
Um, it should be easy for them to see what you're sharing, BECAUSE YOU'RE SHARING IT. If you don't want other people to see it, don't share it on something like Napster where you know anyone else can get to it.
And people shouldn't feel sorry for the poor old record companies. They make billions every year, of which only a tiny percentage goes to the artist. They'd just rather use lawsuits to protect their cartel rather than riding the wave themselves. If they sold songs online for 50 cents a download from a reliable server then no one would even bother with the likes of Napster.
Why am I the only one to see what would happen if this were the case. You buy a CD and what is the first thing you do? You rip it and share it on Napster. Why would it be different if you downloaded it for 50 cents? You are going to put it with all your other MP3s, in the big folder that is shared by Napster. Then everyone else goes and gets it from Napster and saves 50 cents.
It amuses me how the same people/companies that wouldn't use Word for creating a thousand page catalog, and wouldn't use Excel to write a corporate accounting system would, in fact, use Access to create an 'enterprise' database.
Except that isn't what is being proposed. Access is just being used as the front end. IT will work fine for that (as I can attect as we have numerous dbs running with an Access front end and a MSSQL backend. Access is definitely not good for multiusers dbs, unless you have a backend to it.