The most important part of the wiki is towards the end, when Shuttleworth states that the real reason for funding Ubuntu is to solve the "distro collaboration problem" by collaboring with other distros on bugs, translations, technical support, revision control systems. These tools will allow Ubuntu to make its work available easily to Debian, Gentoo, and the rest of the upstream community.
AN ACT to amend 1978 PA 33, entitled "An act to prohibit the dissemination, exhibiting, or displaying of certain sexually explicit matter to minors; to prohibit certain misrepresentations facilitating the dissemination of sexually explicit matter to minors; to provide penalties; to provide for declaratory judgments and injunctive relief in certain instances; to impose certain duties upon prosecuting attorneys and the circuit court; to preempt local units of government from proscribing certain conduct; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts," by amending the title and sections 1, 2, and 4 (MCL 722.671, 722.672, and 722.674), section 1 as amended by 2003 PA 192, and by adding section 12a, part II, and a heading for part I. The People of the State of Michigan enact:
TITLE
An act to prohibit the dissemination, exhibiting, or displaying of certain sexually explicit matter and ultra-violent explicit video games to minors; to prohibit certain misrepresentations facilitating the dissemination of sexually explicit matter and ultra-violent explicit video games to minors; to provide penalties and sanctions; to provide for declaratory judgments and injunctive relief in certain instances; to impose certain duties upon prosecuting attorneys and the circuit court; to preempt local units of government from proscribing certain conduct; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
PART I (snipped off-topic legislation)
PART II
ULTRA-VIOLENT EXPLICIT VIDEO GAMES
Sec. 15. In light of section 51 of article IV of the state constitution of 1963, which directs that "The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared to be matters of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection and promotion of the public health.", and after hearing from expert witnesses and law enforcement officials, considering the testimony of expert witnesses before other legislative bodies, and reviewing dozens of studies and metastudies of hundreds of studies, the legislature finds all of the following:
(a) Published research overwhelmingly finds that ultra-violent explicit video games are harmful to minors because minors who play ultra-violent explicit video games are consistently more likely to exhibit violent, asocial, or aggressive behavior and have feelings of aggression.
(b) Spokespersons for not less than 6 major national health associations have concluded and testified that after reviewing more than 1,000 studies, the studies "point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children", concluding that the effects of media violence on minors "are measurable and long-lasting".
(c) Law enforcement officers testified that recent statewide targeted enforcement efforts reveal that minors are capable of purchasing, and do purchase, ultra-violent explicit video games.
(d) Law enforcement officers testified about cases of minors acting out ultra-violent explicit video game behaviors by victimizing other citizens.
(e) The state has a legitimate and compelling interest in safeguarding both the physical and psychological well-being of minors.
(f) The state has a legitimate and compelling interest in preventing violent, aggressive, and asocial behavior from manifesting itself in minors.
(g) The state has a legitimate and compelling interest in directly and substantially alleviating the real-life harms perpetrated by minors who play ultra-violent explicit video games.
Sec. 16. As used in this part:
(a) "Computer" means any connected, directly interoperable or interactive device, equipment, or facility that uses a computer program or other instructions to perform specific operations including logical, arithmetic, or memory functions with or on computer data or a computer program and that can store, retrieve, alter, or communicate the results of the operations to a person, computer program, computer, computer system, or
>Those stupid little EULA won't protect from claims of negligence.
Hate to break it to you, but a EULA that clearly says that the software is provided AS IS, or that properly disclaims damages, will protect the software writer from negligence and certain types of contract and tort damages. Especially in a business context.
In a consumer context, an improperly written disclaimer won't be effective - e.g. not bolding certain words, not using the right magic legal phrases, and licenses that are hidden from the consumer when they buy the product.
Lots of software licenses fall into this category. Thats why good EULAs make you click through the entire agreement before allowing you to click the "next" key.
>If a software program tells you to go drink acid you better believe you can >sue regardless of what you clicked on.
I am not so sure about this. If you bought a book that taught you how to select edibile wild mushrooms, and the book told you that death angels were ok to eat, then you could sue for negligence. If it disclaimed liability, it would be unlikely that you would win, in a civil court. However, there might be criminal liability for this type of gross negligence.
Remember, in order for you to be negligent, you have to have a duty to be careful. I don't have a duty of care when I write AS IS code for the public to download free. But, if I say that the code is "AS IS" and then promote my product as being the safest, most virus free, and stable program there is...it sounds as if I just made a warrenty. Then, you have a claim for breach of a warrenty. You can't simultaneously make a warrenty and then disclaim it. Thats desceptive and unfair.
>I think your question is really about burden of proof in a copyright case.
I think the question is also about a legal concept called "Standing". Obviously, your brother or a random organisation could not sue for copyright infringement if he doesn't have some sort of relationship to the copyright holder.
To have standing to sue, plaintiff must be the "legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright." However, the U.S. statute does not expressly exclude anyone from bringing a copyright suit. The law is fairly murky about this, unfortunately.
An industry group, such as the RIAA, could have standing to sue, since they could legitimately claim to represent the interests of recording artists. Sorta like Greenpeace being able to sue the government for allowing whale hunts.
....when you elect fascist republicans to office who don't believe in a right to privacy...or in any of your rights at all. We are all criminals in their minds. Mod me as flamebate...I dare you...but its true. And inciteful;-)
There are three basic elements that a defendent must prove the defense of entrapment:
(1) The idea for the crime originated in the mind of the police officer (2) The accused did not intend to commit the crime (3) The accused was lured or induced into committing a crime he had no intention of committing.
Giving the defendant the opportunity to commit the crime does not constitute inducement...coercive or persuasive tactics must be shown.
So, your example of the cop saying, "Hey man, you wanna buy some cocaine?" and the hapless fool saying "sure" and handing him money, is, by itself, not entrapment.
Affording a person the opportunity or the facility for committing an offense is not entrapment.
However, this example is usually considered entrapment because the person usually claims that he felt intimidated by the police officer and felt that he had no choice but to say "yes" to him. Or, the cop uses his persuasive skills to trick an innocent person into buying the drugs. "hey man, want something that will make you feel good? come on man...i know you want it...u want it bad...its not gonna hurt you..." Thats entrapment.
Lets imagine that we are trying to create a huge database of every book published. We know that we can legally publish old books on the web that are no longer protected by copyright law.
But, what about books that are still protected by copyright? We could send out hundreds of thousands of letters to authors across the entire world asking them to opt in to our program...but that would take years and lots of manpower to sort out.
Or, we could just scan in all of the copyright protected books and let individual authors sue us to take them out. We'll never have to go to court, since we'll settle out of court with any author, by removing the book from the database. Since all of the other authors are on notice that copyright infringment has occurred, they only have 3 years to sue us, since the statute of limitations will run out! And lots of these authors will not bother to sue. Now we can Profit!
Most states have some sort of statute that prohibits and/or criminalizes unauthorized access of a computer. More fundamentally, an action for trespass could be brought against a spyware company, potentially, for installing software on your computer without permission.
The real question becomes "what is an authorizated installation of software?". Is a small print disclosure enough? Should the disclosure be BOLDED?
Another issue, of course, is slander and liable. If you say a company's product is Spyware, you may have defamed that person's business. So the issue becomes, "is it true that this product is spyware?". Then, a legal definition of spyware becomes important.
I think its time for an anti-spyware statute to be passed!
The poster states that "eDonkey, LimeWire, and Kazaa are all on the RIAA's hit list, along with 2Hub, BitTorrent, WinMX and Free Peers, maker of file-swapping software BearShare."
If the poster RTFA, he would have learned that 2Hub, BitTorrent, WinMX and Free Peers were NOT sent the letter. BearShare, WinMX and LimeWire were identified in a Wall Street Journal story as recipients of the letters.
One of the Top Ten Dumbest Things in Network Security is completely forgetting about how employees need to use their computers!
Security needs to be balanced with Business and keeping employees happy.
At one non-tech job, we needed to use software completely written in ActiveX. It took a week and lots of cash outlay in wasted time before the IT people finally realized that the firewall/proxy setup was to blame for all of the computer related problems. Instead of adjusting the firewall, they took it down completely. What a bunch of complete fuck-ups.
Employees also want reasonable access to the internet. Neither managment nor employees wants the ability to see porn. But I might want to go onto the NRA or NOW website, without it being blocked!
I sent an email using the webform suggested by the blogger and got this response back:
We have received an email from you regarding the proposed rulemaking on electronic-only preregistration. The comments you submitted cannot be considered because they were in the form of email.
What a joke. Send your comments by mail (an original and five copies)to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Don't send it using anything other than US mail. These guys are a bunch of fuck-tards.
So, why don't you rent the SUV/Minivan for the once a year vacation instead of wasting gas for the entire year? Oh, you have to carpool 7 kids around? Buy two cars...and you and your wife can split the morning car routine.
Assuming that your not driving a *real* truck, like a Ford F150, your whole SUV argument is bunk, in my book. And if you really do need a heavy-duty truck to tow your boat around...you've got more $$$ than I got.
I find it interesting that interest in hybrid vehicles has only increased since gas has gotten to be $2.50 a gallon...just wait till its $4 or $5...thanks G.W.B.!
I agree with the author that Floppy Disks should disappear - they are antiquated.
However, they come in handy quite often...usually when your computer crashes or has some sort of virus problem or if you need to install hardware. It is the only way that I know of to transfer files from my old Gateway PII to my new PC.
Just the other day, I was estatic that I had installed a $7 floppy drive because I had unearthed some 12 year old floppy disks from my college days. I was able to recover old papers and resumes and pictures. It was a nice experience.
My complaint about the floppy is that it isn't reliable. Data gets corrupted very easily. Disks can't be read.
Bootable flash drives are the new floppy!
"Unproductive hours on the job may have something to do with workdays growing longer."
What complete bull shit. American workers are the hardest and most productive workers in the world. The reason why Americans work long hours is because employees can't say no. There is no protection for American workers. It is my experience that the same amount of work gets done in 40 hours as gets done in 60 hours. Any gains...are marginal at best...and at worst...productivity goes down. But companies live for marginal gains...oh well.
This is a typical motion granted by judges in litigation. The order simply states that the company preserve its documents. The company under the order has to implement certain policies to preserve documents for litigation. That would include not shredding files or deleting electronic files.
Keep in mind that questioning the bejeezus out of company executives about how documents are handled is a very effective litigation technique since most large companies, if they are smart, have detailed document retention policies. And most employees don't follow them to the letter. Which looks very bad.
Slashdot Mirror
The most important part of the wiki is towards the end, when Shuttleworth states that the real reason for funding Ubuntu is to solve the "distro collaboration problem" by collaboring with other distros on bugs, translations, technical support, revision control systems. These tools will allow Ubuntu to make its work available easily to Debian, Gentoo, and the rest of the upstream community.
ENROLLED SENATE BILL No. 416
AN ACT to amend 1978 PA 33, entitled "An act to prohibit the dissemination, exhibiting, or displaying of certain sexually explicit matter to minors; to prohibit certain misrepresentations facilitating the dissemination of sexually explicit matter to minors; to provide penalties; to provide for declaratory judgments and injunctive relief in certain instances; to impose certain duties upon prosecuting attorneys and the circuit court; to preempt local units of government from proscribing certain conduct; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts," by amending the title and sections 1, 2, and 4 (MCL 722.671, 722.672, and 722.674), section 1 as amended by 2003 PA 192, and by adding section 12a, part II, and a heading for part I.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
TITLE
An act to prohibit the dissemination, exhibiting, or displaying of certain sexually explicit matter and ultra-violent explicit video games to minors; to prohibit certain misrepresentations facilitating the dissemination of sexually explicit matter and ultra-violent explicit video games to minors; to provide penalties and sanctions; to provide for declaratory judgments and injunctive relief in certain instances; to impose certain duties upon prosecuting attorneys and the circuit court; to preempt local units of government from proscribing certain conduct; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
PART I (snipped off-topic legislation)
PART II
ULTRA-VIOLENT EXPLICIT VIDEO GAMES
Sec. 15. In light of section 51 of article IV of the state constitution of 1963, which directs that "The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared to be matters of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection and promotion of the public health.", and after hearing from expert witnesses and law enforcement officials, considering the testimony of expert witnesses before other legislative bodies, and reviewing dozens of studies and metastudies of hundreds of studies, the legislature finds all of the following:
(a) Published research overwhelmingly finds that ultra-violent explicit video games are harmful to minors because minors who play ultra-violent explicit video games are consistently more likely to exhibit violent, asocial, or aggressive behavior and have feelings of aggression.
(b) Spokespersons for not less than 6 major national health associations have concluded and testified that after reviewing more than 1,000 studies, the studies "point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children", concluding that the effects of media violence on minors "are measurable and long-lasting".
(c) Law enforcement officers testified that recent statewide targeted enforcement efforts reveal that minors are capable of purchasing, and do purchase, ultra-violent explicit video games.
(d) Law enforcement officers testified about cases of minors acting out ultra-violent explicit video game behaviors by victimizing other citizens.
(e) The state has a legitimate and compelling interest in safeguarding both the physical and psychological well-being of minors.
(f) The state has a legitimate and compelling interest in preventing violent, aggressive, and asocial behavior from manifesting itself in minors.
(g) The state has a legitimate and compelling interest in directly and substantially alleviating the real-life harms perpetrated by minors who play ultra-violent explicit video games.
Sec. 16. As used in this part:
(a) "Computer" means any connected, directly interoperable or interactive device, equipment, or facility that uses a computer program or other instructions to perform specific operations including logical, arithmetic, or memory functions with or on computer data or a computer program and that can store, retrieve, alter, or communicate the results of the operations to a person, computer program, computer, computer system, or
Did anyone else read this as "We Love Kalamari" -- I thought this might have been a Star Wars game...
>Those stupid little EULA won't protect from claims of negligence.
Hate to break it to you, but a EULA that clearly says that the software is provided AS IS, or that properly disclaims damages, will protect the software writer from negligence and certain types of contract and tort damages. Especially in a business context.
In a consumer context, an improperly written disclaimer won't be effective - e.g. not bolding certain words, not using the right magic legal phrases, and licenses that are hidden from the consumer when they buy the product.
Lots of software licenses fall into this category. Thats why good EULAs make you click through the entire agreement before allowing you to click the "next" key.
>If a software program tells you to go drink acid you better believe you can >sue regardless of what you clicked on.
I am not so sure about this. If you bought a book that taught you how to select edibile wild mushrooms, and the book told you that death angels were ok to eat, then you could sue for negligence. If it disclaimed liability, it would be unlikely that you would win, in a civil court. However, there might be criminal liability for this type of gross negligence.
Remember, in order for you to be negligent, you have to have a duty to be careful. I don't have a duty of care when I write AS IS code for the public to download free. But, if I say that the code is "AS IS" and then promote my product as being the safest, most virus free, and stable program there is...it sounds as if I just made a warrenty. Then, you have a claim for breach of a warrenty. You can't simultaneously make a warrenty and then disclaim it. Thats desceptive and unfair.
'Nuff Said. This is gonna be confusing!
>I think your question is really about burden of proof in a copyright case.
I think the question is also about a legal concept called "Standing". Obviously, your brother or a random organisation could not sue for copyright infringement if he doesn't have some sort of relationship to the copyright holder.
To have standing to sue, plaintiff must be the "legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright." However, the U.S. statute does not expressly exclude anyone from bringing a copyright suit. The law is fairly murky about this, unfortunately.
An industry group, such as the RIAA, could have standing to sue, since they could legitimately claim to represent the interests of recording artists. Sorta like Greenpeace being able to sue the government for allowing whale hunts.
I for one say goodbye to our E-Donkey overlords...and welcome our new congressional overlords into our bedrooms. *sigh* Can't I trade porn in peace?
....when you elect fascist republicans to office who don't believe in a right to privacy...or in any of your rights at all. We are all criminals in their minds. Mod me as flamebate...I dare you...but its true. And inciteful ;-)
There are three basic elements that a defendent must prove the defense of entrapment:
(1) The idea for the crime originated in the mind of the police officer
(2) The accused did not intend to commit the crime
(3) The accused was lured or induced into committing a crime he had no intention of committing.
Giving the defendant the opportunity to commit the crime does not constitute inducement...coercive or persuasive tactics must be shown.
So, your example of the cop saying, "Hey man, you wanna buy some cocaine?" and the hapless fool saying "sure" and handing him money, is, by itself, not entrapment.
Affording a person the opportunity or the facility for committing an offense is not entrapment.
However, this example is usually considered entrapment because the person usually claims that he felt intimidated by the police officer and felt that he had no choice but to say "yes" to him. Or, the cop uses his persuasive skills to trick an innocent person into buying the drugs. "hey man, want something that will make you feel good? come on man...i know you want it...u want it bad...its not gonna hurt you..." Thats entrapment.
...welcome our new Bittorent overlords.
...welcome our SSETI satellite overlords.
Lets imagine that we are trying to create a huge database of every book published. We know that we can legally publish old books on the web that are no longer protected by copyright law.
But, what about books that are still protected by copyright? We could send out hundreds of thousands of letters to authors across the entire world asking them to opt in to our program...but that would take years and lots of manpower to sort out.
Or, we could just scan in all of the copyright protected books and let individual authors sue us to take them out. We'll never have to go to court, since we'll settle out of court with any author, by removing the book from the database. Since all of the other authors are on notice that copyright infringment has occurred, they only have 3 years to sue us, since the statute of limitations will run out! And lots of these authors will not bother to sue. Now we can Profit!
I couldnt agree more.
Most states have some sort of statute that prohibits and/or criminalizes unauthorized access of a computer. More fundamentally, an action for trespass could be brought against a spyware company, potentially, for installing software on your computer without permission. The real question becomes "what is an authorizated installation of software?". Is a small print disclosure enough? Should the disclosure be BOLDED? Another issue, of course, is slander and liable. If you say a company's product is Spyware, you may have defamed that person's business. So the issue becomes, "is it true that this product is spyware?". Then, a legal definition of spyware becomes important. I think its time for an anti-spyware statute to be passed!
The poster states that "eDonkey, LimeWire, and Kazaa are all on the RIAA's hit list, along with 2Hub, BitTorrent, WinMX and Free Peers, maker of file-swapping software BearShare." If the poster RTFA, he would have learned that 2Hub, BitTorrent, WinMX and Free Peers were NOT sent the letter. BearShare, WinMX and LimeWire were identified in a Wall Street Journal story as recipients of the letters.
Is that australian yiddish for Oy Vey?
One of the Top Ten Dumbest Things in Network Security is completely forgetting about how employees need to use their computers!
Security needs to be balanced with Business and keeping employees happy.
At one non-tech job, we needed to use software completely written in ActiveX. It took a week and lots of cash outlay in wasted time before the IT people finally realized that the firewall/proxy setup was to blame for all of the computer related problems. Instead of adjusting the firewall, they took it down completely. What a bunch of complete fuck-ups.
Employees also want reasonable access to the internet. Neither managment nor employees wants the ability to see porn. But I might want to go onto the NRA or NOW website, without it being blocked!
Now, where did I put that encrypted USB key....
I sent an email using the webform suggested by the blogger and got this response back:
We have received an email from you regarding the
proposed rulemaking on electronic-only preregistration.
The comments you submitted cannot be considered because
they were in the form of email.
What a joke. Send your comments by mail (an original and five copies)to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest
Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Don't send it using anything other than US mail. These guys are a bunch of fuck-tards.
So, why don't you rent the SUV/Minivan for the once a year vacation instead of wasting gas for the entire year? Oh, you have to carpool 7 kids around? Buy two cars...and you and your wife can split the morning car routine. Assuming that your not driving a *real* truck, like a Ford F150, your whole SUV argument is bunk, in my book. And if you really do need a heavy-duty truck to tow your boat around...you've got more $$$ than I got. I find it interesting that interest in hybrid vehicles has only increased since gas has gotten to be $2.50 a gallon...just wait till its $4 or $5 ...thanks G.W.B.!
Not completely true. A few U.S. States (such as New York) have common law copyright protection for some works. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc., 372 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004). http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/20 05/2005_02570.htm
And Free laptops for the Homeless! Broadband =! WiFi
I agree with the author that Floppy Disks should disappear - they are antiquated. However, they come in handy quite often...usually when your computer crashes or has some sort of virus problem or if you need to install hardware. It is the only way that I know of to transfer files from my old Gateway PII to my new PC. Just the other day, I was estatic that I had installed a $7 floppy drive because I had unearthed some 12 year old floppy disks from my college days. I was able to recover old papers and resumes and pictures. It was a nice experience. My complaint about the floppy is that it isn't reliable. Data gets corrupted very easily. Disks can't be read. Bootable flash drives are the new floppy!
Ok, you win. Germans are the most efficient workers.
"Unproductive hours on the job may have something to do with workdays growing longer." What complete bull shit. American workers are the hardest and most productive workers in the world. The reason why Americans work long hours is because employees can't say no. There is no protection for American workers. It is my experience that the same amount of work gets done in 40 hours as gets done in 60 hours. Any gains...are marginal at best...and at worst...productivity goes down. But companies live for marginal gains...oh well.
This is a typical motion granted by judges in litigation. The order simply states that the company preserve its documents. The company under the order has to implement certain policies to preserve documents for litigation. That would include not shredding files or deleting electronic files. Keep in mind that questioning the bejeezus out of company executives about how documents are handled is a very effective litigation technique since most large companies, if they are smart, have detailed document retention policies. And most employees don't follow them to the letter. Which looks very bad.