A convicted felon cannot vote. A convicted felon cannot own firearms. A convicted felon cannot own real property (read that, land and housing).
This Texan is looking at wiping out a hell of a lot of rights for an industry that admits that they cook their own numbers, at least partially, from speculation. He is actually going to reduce the number of legal voters if this goes through!
It's ok for hundreds of people to log in and download hundreds of megs worth of files, but not for BSA to just do an "ls"?? Come on...let's not push it.
There is abosutely nothing wrong with them performing an ls of your public site. What is 100% percent wrong is that they have made False Accusation and threatened legal action.
Perjury applies to statements sworn under oath, and, as a direct result, is not something you can deal with, but the civil court offense they have committed is Libel (see the following for a definition of Libel) http://www.ldrc.com/LDRC_Info/libelfaqs.html.
You could probably get the BSA cited with Perjury in a court, but you would have to sue for Libel to get them into court.
The obligatory IANAL applies. However, I know this one from experience.
I think that it would be just to request, on their behalf, that all search engines remove the site, and all referneces to it, from their databases. After all, I doubt that there are agreements in place.
Wouldn't this merely be helping them to enforce their policy?
If you live in the Unites States, make your payments through a United States Post Office (USPS) money order. If the seller cashes the money order and does not complete the transaction, you turn the individual in and the USPS takes the issue up as mail fraud, a federal felony.
But I would recommend not getting too attached to the material that is transient. Microsoft releases a new OS every two years.
If you have a limited budget, and most libraries do, stick to OS independent topics, such as "Teach Yourself Networking in 24 Hours". These are good for beginners. My non-geek wife started the Networking book and actually understood some of my babblings for a week or two. Unfortunately for me, she stopped reading it.
I find interesting that the presentation of the interview broadly paints an image that the Internet is lawless
"Another led to guilty pleas from individuals who were selling copyrighted software over the Internet via a Web site called "software-inc.com," and led to what is believed to be the first-ever criminal forfeiture of a Web site in an intellectual-property case."
The above clip could be applied as written to every company that sells software on the 'net. All hail the unbiased press.
The immediate hole in the above supplied logic is the fact that AIM is not provided for the operating system that GAIM exists on.
This opens a question as to whether you can reasonably claim confusion since trademark law specificly has to do with "branding" in a defined area.
By virtue of computer certifications for IT professionals, it can be shown that *nix and Windows are seperate areas of expertise. While this may or may not be a valid argument to a specific judge, it can be argued that, until such time as AIM is available for *nix, there is no basis for confusion since AIM does not operate in the same zone as GAIM.
P.S. Linux Instant Messenger for AOL: LIMA
Why should he have any reason to be aggressive to the police? If he KNOWS he's in the right and free and clear of the law, what problem should he have with answering the police's questions? Once he became aggrevated, the police had every right to remove him from the situation before it turned violent, and he should have known that. Personally, I don't see why he's bitching. He said he was willing to be arrested. He wasn't EVEN arrested and he's still pissed. He got what he deserved.
So, you are advocating that the police have the right to circumvent the law becasue the person in question does not fit into the officer's opinion of propriety?
The fact of the matter that you conveniently ignore is that the police officer had no LEGAL grounds for the questioning in the first place. Just because a law enforcement official asks something does not obligate a response. In fact, it can (and usually is) a way for said official to get around the fact that he does not have a legal right to question in the first place. You freely admit something because you (wrongly) think the police have a legitimate right to know. That is a confession and does not require a warrant and also does not fall under Miranda since you admitted it without being under arrest.
Maybe you don't mind having your rights abused, but to me, it doesn't matter whether I am in the wrong. The police should be above using tactics like that.
I was walking near City Hall with a friend, winding through the vestiges of a small Citibank demonstration. I policeman stepped into my path and thrust a finger at my solar plexus.
"What's in your vest?" I was wearing a camouflage vest over a olive drab polo shirt (that approximately matched my green cargo trousers with a vintage gas mask case strapped to one leg). Officially, the vest buckled to my torso is called a "load bearing harness." It has multiple cylindrical pouches, loops, and clips and distributes weight between the shoulders and belt line. My pouches were stuffed with pens, granola bars, cigarettes and notebooks. In wartime, such pouches hold one grenade each. (snip)
The police were not objecting with his viewpoint. They were objecting to his CONDUCT. Conduct and belief are two different things (hence, do as I say, not as I do). The police were trying to maintain order (their job). Trying to maintain order includes keeping the freaky-freakies off the street during a political convention, when delegates need to be free and unencumbered while doing their social duty. If you want to demonstrate, go right ahead, but blocking main street will get you arrested. This is part of maintaining order.
I do not see anything in the stated conduct that is disruptive. If you go throught entire section that I clipped from, his behaviour only became aggressive AFTER the police began to question him.
If, as has been stated in previous postings here, you consider the entire post as true, the man in the story never stated an intention to incite riot. He stated an intent to get arrested as a demonstrator.
Isn't that the same thing?
No, it is not the same thing. The author was trying to show that the police were being used as a method of suppressing the public's right to disagree with (insert issue here). Knowing that he would be arrested for using his right to free speech points out the fact that it is being suppressed. Getting it done in such a way that it catches the media's collective attention allows other people to see that his rights are being violated.
The suspects own accounts show that he was, in fact, conspiring to incite a riot. Any honest citizen, even one dressed in a load bearing harness, would have almost certainly been spared the paddy wagon just by apologizing to the police and leaving what was clearly a dangerous area. That's why the police were there, they were protecting innocent citizens by keeping them out of harm's way.
I personally wouldn't stand for the government declaring martial law every time that there was a political gathering. Martial law should not be easy to invoke as a protection against abuse. The police in this particular encounter did a marvelous job of balancing their duty to protect the citizenry with their duty to uphold this particular person's rights. The police broke no laws, and violated no one's rights.
If, as has been stated in previous postings here, you consider the entire post as true, the man in the story never stated an intention to incite riot. He stated an intent to get arrested as a demonstrator.
Furthermore, the police grabbing him because of his garments, which are not illegal and can acquired through numerous hunting and military surplus sources, could be easily construed as harassment. The author states that he had no weaponry on himself, thus none could be visible.
Lastly, again assuming that the account is truely represented, falsely telling the media that the potential arrestee was carrying a controlled substance is at least criminal slander and probably something worse should he choose to legally pursue it.
Microsoft and eBay have initiated an aggressive program to stop auction sites that Microsoft believes may be distributing infringing product. Microsoft monitors all auction sites and conducts daily searches to identify auctions suspected of offering counterfeit or infringing software. The company notifies eBay of suspect auctions and asks them to terminate the auctions within 24 hours. The vendors are urged to end their illegal actions, and the bidders are warned and pointed to information on software piracy. Although this program started with eBay, Microsoft has also begun similar programs with several other auction sites.
So, what is really being said here is that Microsoft has become Judge, Jury and Executioner for auctions, based on circumstantial evidence provided by Microsoft. Does this sound stupid to anyone else?
Second, for those too lazy to read it, the act deals with distribution, not personal recordings. If you legally own the media you are recording from and do not give or sell your copies, you are covered, according to this Act.
I generally don't argue over semantics, but CNN did misrepresent the case. Lying by omission is still lying. If they had presented all of the facts (e.g. good journalism), the article would not be causing the flair that it is. CNN appears to intentionally be linking the illegal activities to E-Toy by association.
While I understand that the gist of the CNN article is cyber-terrorism, slandering the reputation of their example is also a form of attack. They will, however, probably get away with it under cover of being a news organization. -------------------------
Vita, the federal firearms official, says school officials need Mosaic and other tools to deal with an ever more complex threat in which relatively good students with access to guns may erupt because they feel victimized by bullies or by the school system.
This goes right back to "Hellmouth" and not correcting the schools so that the provokations do not exist in the school in the first place. -------------------------
There is a LOT in there. They also use pseudo logic extensively. Kind of looks like the few facts there are provided by techs, then the whole thing was written by Marketing. Still, some small part of it is true. There aren't nearly as many certs in the Linux community.
The above the law thing isn't new, and the most obvious example also uses "the Safety of Our Children". Think about your local Child Protective Services. They also have Safe Harbour. They can get your rights overrun w/o resort to proper legal proceedings. These people are just trying to garner more power unto themselves by using time honoured tactics.
The easier solution to this is to contact your politicos. The Senate, House, and, ultimately, the President must endorse this for it to become law. I would think that it will also get an Unconstitutional vote from the Supreme Court.
Slashdot Mirror
Felons become persona no grata in the US.
A convicted felon cannot vote. A convicted felon cannot own firearms. A convicted felon cannot own real property (read that, land and housing).
This Texan is looking at wiping out a hell of a lot of rights for an industry that admits that they cook their own numbers, at least partially, from speculation. He is actually going to reduce the number of legal voters if this goes through!
There is abosutely nothing wrong with them performing an ls of your public site. What is 100% percent wrong is that they have made False Accusation and threatened legal action.
Perjury applies to statements sworn under oath, and, as a direct result, is not something you can deal with, but the civil court offense they have committed is Libel (see the following for a definition of Libel) http://www.ldrc.com/LDRC_Info/libelfaqs.html.
You could probably get the BSA cited with Perjury in a court, but you would have to sue for Libel to get them into court.
The obligatory IANAL applies. However, I know this one from experience.
Since the drive heads make a controlled crash there, it is sort of gambling that the data will not be corrupted.
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business /2002/db0809/FCC-02-231A1.pdf
I strongly suggest reading it beforehand. It outlines acceptable file formats, among other things.
Documents can be sent to:
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html
I think that it would be just to request, on their behalf, that all search engines remove the site, and all referneces to it, from their databases. After all, I doubt that there are agreements in place.
Wouldn't this merely be helping them to enforce their policy?
There you go...
If you have a limited budget, and most libraries do, stick to OS independent topics, such as "Teach Yourself Networking in 24 Hours". These are good for beginners. My non-geek wife started the Networking book and actually understood some of my babblings for a week or two. Unfortunately for me, she stopped reading it.
-------------------------
"Another led to guilty pleas from individuals who were selling copyrighted software over the Internet via a Web site called "software-inc.com," and led to what is believed to be the first-ever criminal forfeiture of a Web site in an intellectual-property case."
The above clip could be applied as written to every company that sells software on the 'net. All hail the unbiased press.
-------------------------
The immediate hole in the above supplied logic is the fact that AIM is not provided for the operating system that GAIM exists on. This opens a question as to whether you can reasonably claim confusion since trademark law specificly has to do with "branding" in a defined area. By virtue of computer certifications for IT professionals, it can be shown that *nix and Windows are seperate areas of expertise. While this may or may not be a valid argument to a specific judge, it can be argued that, until such time as AIM is available for *nix, there is no basis for confusion since AIM does not operate in the same zone as GAIM. P.S. Linux Instant Messenger for AOL: LIMA
-------------------------
So, you are advocating that the police have the right to circumvent the law becasue the person in question does not fit into the officer's opinion of propriety?
The fact of the matter that you conveniently ignore is that the police officer had no LEGAL grounds for the questioning in the first place. Just because a law enforcement official asks something does not obligate a response. In fact, it can (and usually is) a way for said official to get around the fact that he does not have a legal right to question in the first place. You freely admit something because you (wrongly) think the police have a legitimate right to know. That is a confession and does not require a warrant and also does not fall under Miranda since you admitted it without being under arrest.
Maybe you don't mind having your rights abused, but to me, it doesn't matter whether I am in the wrong. The police should be above using tactics like that.
-------------------------
"What's in your vest?" I was wearing a camouflage vest over a olive drab polo shirt (that approximately matched my green cargo trousers with a vintage gas mask case strapped to one leg). Officially, the vest buckled to my torso is called a "load bearing harness." It has multiple cylindrical pouches, loops, and clips and distributes weight between the shoulders and belt line. My pouches were stuffed with pens, granola bars, cigarettes and notebooks. In wartime, such pouches hold one grenade each. (snip)
The police were not objecting with his viewpoint. They were objecting to his CONDUCT. Conduct and belief are two different things (hence, do as I say, not as I do). The police were trying to maintain order (their job). Trying to maintain order includes keeping the freaky-freakies off the street during a political convention, when delegates need to be free and unencumbered while doing their social duty. If you want to demonstrate, go right ahead, but blocking main street will get you arrested. This is part of maintaining order.
I do not see anything in the stated conduct that is disruptive. If you go throught entire section that I clipped from, his behaviour only became aggressive AFTER the police began to question him.
-------------------------
Isn't that the same thing?
No, it is not the same thing. The author was trying to show that the police were being used as a method of suppressing the public's right to disagree with (insert issue here). Knowing that he would be arrested for using his right to free speech points out the fact that it is being suppressed. Getting it done in such a way that it catches the media's collective attention allows other people to see that his rights are being violated.
-------------------------
I personally wouldn't stand for the government declaring martial law every time that there was a political gathering. Martial law should not be easy to invoke as a protection against abuse. The police in this particular encounter did a marvelous job of balancing their duty to protect the citizenry with their duty to uphold this particular person's rights. The police broke no laws, and violated no one's rights.
If, as has been stated in previous postings here, you consider the entire post as true, the man in the story never stated an intention to incite riot. He stated an intent to get arrested as a demonstrator.
Furthermore, the police grabbing him because of his garments, which are not illegal and can acquired through numerous hunting and military surplus sources, could be easily construed as harassment. The author states that he had no weaponry on himself, thus none could be visible.
Lastly, again assuming that the account is truely represented, falsely telling the media that the potential arrestee was carrying a controlled substance is at least criminal slander and probably something worse should he choose to legally pursue it.
-------------------------
So, what is really being said here is that Microsoft has become Judge, Jury and Executioner for auctions, based on circumstantial evidence provided by Microsoft. Does this sound stupid to anyone else?
-------------------------
Second, for those too lazy to read it, the act deals with distribution, not personal recordings. If you legally own the media you are recording from and do not give or sell your copies, you are covered, according to this Act.
-------------------------
While I understand that the gist of the CNN article is cyber-terrorism, slandering the reputation of their example is also a form of attack. They will, however, probably get away with it under cover of being a news organization.
-------------------------
This goes right back to "Hellmouth" and not correcting the schools so that the provokations do not exist in the school in the first place.
-------------------------
There is a LOT in there. They also use pseudo logic extensively. Kind of looks like the few facts there are provided by techs, then the whole thing was written by Marketing. Still, some small part of it is true. There aren't nearly as many certs in the Linux community.
The above the law thing isn't new, and the most obvious example also uses "the Safety of Our Children". Think about your local Child Protective Services. They also have Safe Harbour. They can get your rights overrun w/o resort to proper legal proceedings. These people are just trying to garner more power unto themselves by using time honoured tactics.
The easier solution to this is to contact your politicos. The Senate, House, and, ultimately, the President must endorse this for it to become law. I would think that it will also get an Unconstitutional vote from the Supreme Court.
This url might be pertinent www.ibutton.com