Basically, if you are low on funds, wave the DMCA in front of someone's face and take them to court.
Actually, it's usually the opposite. If your opponent is low on funds, wave the DMCA in front of them and force them to settle out of court. A lot of these cases are adjudicated fairly if they ever actually get to court, but that's not where the main problem is.
why not just combine the two approaches? Just report the exact flaw to the vendor, and report to the public that you've reported some unspecified flaw and they might want to look into it.
The ONLY people that have an advantage or early disclosure is Security folks, Sys Admins, and other IT people that care.
And hackers, writers of viruses, and other such people. If the information is now public but the populace doesn't know/care, it's that much easier to exploit the security problem.
You don't seem to get it. The store owner can make whatever policies he wants in his store, and you don't have to shop there. They're his clothes and he doesn't have to sell them to you.
What if every store does that? Oh well, them's the breaks. If you want extra features that the store doesn't want to sell you, find someone that will (It may cost more, but at least you're the one paying the price for what you want)
It's not a non-sequitor at all. Your post was about the costs associated with receiving spam, and I was pointing out that jailing spammers would increase that overall cost. If you can't come up with a better line of reasoning than - there are costs, therefore jail - then I can't see approaching this problem from anything other than a case of trying to minimize costs.
There are huge differences between this and the convenience store example. The person who robs a convenience store presumably did it with the threat of violence, and therefore he is a threat to society (thus, a criminal offense). On the other hand, spammers just waste other people's time and money, and thus handling this in the civil courts makes more sense.
Well if we're talking costs, we should be comparing the cost of spam to the cost of keeping someone in jail... I don't have the numbers, but I can guarantee sending someone to jail at least doesn't get you back any money.
It's much better to make this a civil matter, and maybe find some people willing to start bringing up class-action suits.
At a risk of being off-topic, I'll try to respond to this in a helpful matter. Yes, Google is removing some specific websites from its search results. Here's the Complaint from Kazaa and here's Google's page about the DMCA. I think Google is being really helpful, offering specific advice on how to get your situation fixed.
Well the question there is whether they keep any personally identifiable information with that registration, which can now be accessed by whoever stole the logins.
Even for people who use the same username and password everywhere, this shouldn't be a problem since the passwords should be stored in a manner that is encrypted and can't be reverse-engineered. They wouldn't be stupid enough to store the passwords, right?
The real difference between software engineers and other types of engineers is that software engineering is not a profession. There is no general certification to enter software engineering, and there is no required professional organization with a fixed code of ethics.
Of course, does anybody here really think government regulation would make software engineering better?
Re:I can't see any reason to complain about the pr
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
Actually that's not file sharing or pirating. Those terms refer to making illegal copies. What you're referring to is actually both legal and moral.
Re:HDTV and Surround Sound aren't Status Symbols
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
It's not just immersion though. I frequently go between different setups, from a home theatre with a tv that upconverts to 1080i and surround sound, to an lcd projector that can do progressive with a mono speaker, to a standard tv with stereo. Playing Halo II on all those systems, I get a real feel for how audio and visual quality affect the game.
I get really pissed off when I'm trying to snipe at long range in 480i and can barely tell what I'm looking at.
And here's why surround sound is killer: One time, I was playing a really sneaky game of Halo II on Xbox Live. I was trying to snipe someone, when I heard someone cough behind me and to the left. Without looking, I pulled out my sword, spun, and took him down.
No, you don't need it. Until you've had it. Then you really need it.
No Stallman thinks that ideas and thoughts are not property.
But he can't take that position here. In the example he was giving, it had been established that the software is owned by its author. Given that, he went on to say that the people involved should be able to share it, despite that neither is the owner. This example is not, and logically cannot be, an argument against software-as-property; it can only serve as an argument against a right to property.
Do I have to work it out symbolically to show the logical fallacy here?
I can see where you might have received that impression from Stallman's article, from this quote:
My conclusion is that programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, study, and improve the software we write: in other words, to write ``free'' software
However, this is not all that he is arguing. The main question is:
It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide whether this is done? The individuals involved? Or another party, called the ``owner''?
This is an ethical question, and he specifically points out that he is questioning current law based on his interpretation of ethics. To clarify: he is not just encouraging free software; he is arguing that software ownership should not be a legal institution.
My response was about his treatment of the question of whether software should have owners. And I think it is pretty clear that the bulk of his paper (the section I quoted included) was focused on why software should not have owners. This is definitely about copyright; if referring many times to the "owners" of "software" isn't enough of a clue, he refers to the ethicality of copying software in his opening paragraph.
It doesn't matter how easy encryption is to break; once someone tries to break it, that's unauthorized access, and you shouldn't be responsible for what they do.
Of course, it's already been pointed out that this matter is about a civil case and so this argument doesn't really apply to this topic.
Limit each song to only one person accessing it at a time
Actually, that's an interesting idea. NetLibrary already does something like that with books, so it sounds reasonable to do it for other media under copyright.
Of course, someone who wanted to start something like that would have to pay a lot of money to defend himself in court, and would probably opt to shut it down.
No wonder you hate Stallman. You haven't got frickin' clue one.
Actually, I don't hate Stallman. I was just explaining why people think he's a commie. However, I'd like a little more explanation about the "You haven't got...clue one." I think I explained fairly well the reason I think Stallman disagrees with the concept of ownership.
To quote Stallman: Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your neighbor: ``I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so that I can have a copy for myself.''
Since we're assuming in this hypothetical situation that software can be owned by its author(since otherwise there wouldn't be a problem here), he's clearly advocating sharing someone else's property. Yes, he doesn't believe that software should be owned, but that's beside the point in this example. Either he's begging the question or he's changing his assumptions in the middle of the argument, and either way his argument only works if he doesn't understand or doesn't agree with the institution of property. I have enough respect for Stallman to grant that he understands the institution of property, so therefore I must assume that he doesn't agree with the institution of property.
Yeah, you shouldn't be running an unencrypted wireless router; if someone uses it for illegal activities, then you are responsible for providing them the tools. Tapping into a phone line requires trespassing on property belonging to either yourself or the phone company; tapping into a wireless router is more like accepting an open invitation to use it.
Of course, on reflection this defense becomes trickier when you're talking about tapping into a wireless phone receiver, but then that's a lot harder than having your laptop automatically connect to an access point.
Well, I believe you're the first to have called my prose "flowery". Anyway, since you seem unable to understand my sentence (it certainly isn't "nonsense" except perhaps in the original sense of the word) let me clarify:
Person A has a cupcake. Person B wants to share the cupcake with Person C, but the policeman stops him because of property law. Therefore, property law is bad because it stops people from sharing.
Perhaps I could reword the sentence as such for readability: (But I hesitate to, since I don't think it would be as clear)
Stallman thinks that he can share my stuff with other people.
No, the demand isn't standards compliance. MS is selling their product to the end-user, and most of them don't give a damn about how easy it is to code for. The companies that aren't meeting demand are those who insist on "standards compliance" when the customer would prefer IE compliance.
Here's something I've been working on that might shed some light on why people think Stallman's a commie. It's not very rigorous since it's a work in progress, but I hope it's helpful: (excerpt from a paper I'm working on section III)
One possible explanation of why Stallman seems to think that his claims are obvious is that he is heavily influenced by his world-view. Therefore, we should try to determine what his world-view is to determine if he has justification for his observations. Stallman's first psychosocial harm is caused by not being able to share with one's neighbor. However, Stallman is expecting one to be able to share something that one does not own. It seems that Stallman's argument only makes sense in the absence of the institution of property. Thus, his argument seems to beg the question, as the discussion was about whether software should be covered under the institution of property.
I doubt a boycott of this sort would have much impact. Anyone who cares already uses something other than IE. Your average user will just say "Why bother? I've never had a problem." That's what I did.
Mapquest used to offer satellite maps alongside their road maps. Suddenly and without warning a couple of years ago, they dropped this feature and left no information about it on their site. I wasn't able to search for any info, so I figured there was some sort of national security concern or something silly like that, and didn't expect this sort of functionality to come back anytime soon.
No thanks, I'll keep the house I own, sans webcams. And if anybody tries to install some, that would be trespassing, not an invasion of privacy. Which is already illegal without silly privacy concerns.
How is this news? How can this possibly matter?
It's not like someone just invented the mp3 player. Someone made a tiny one. Whoah, stop the presses! Tune in tomorrow when someone makes one.1mm smaller!
I think it's great that someone's working on this technology, and there's no reason to assume that it's going to be used for some nefarious purpose. The horrible thing about "Big Brother" wasn't that he knows what you're doing, it's that he stops you from doing what you want to do.
All this privacy nonsense really has to stop. It really doesn't matter who knows what you're doing, and chances are a lot of people know a lot about you just by looking. I don't think it has any negative impact on my life if people know what I'm doing as long as I can still do whatever I want.
Of course, dishonest people might think otherwise. Of course a criminal would want some privacy, or someone who is lying to his wife. But otherwise I can't think of a good reason for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's usually the opposite. If your opponent is low on funds, wave the DMCA in front of them and force them to settle out of court. A lot of these cases are adjudicated fairly if they ever actually get to court, but that's not where the main problem is.
why not just combine the two approaches? Just report the exact flaw to the vendor, and report to the public that you've reported some unspecified flaw and they might want to look into it.
The ONLY people that have an advantage or early disclosure is Security folks, Sys Admins, and other IT people that care.
And hackers, writers of viruses, and other such people. If the information is now public but the populace doesn't know/care, it's that much easier to exploit the security problem.
You don't seem to get it. The store owner can make whatever policies he wants in his store, and you don't have to shop there. They're his clothes and he doesn't have to sell them to you.
What if every store does that? Oh well, them's the breaks. If you want extra features that the store doesn't want to sell you, find someone that will (It may cost more, but at least you're the one paying the price for what you want)
It's not a non-sequitor at all. Your post was about the costs associated with receiving spam, and I was pointing out that jailing spammers would increase that overall cost. If you can't come up with a better line of reasoning than - there are costs, therefore jail - then I can't see approaching this problem from anything other than a case of trying to minimize costs.
There are huge differences between this and the convenience store example. The person who robs a convenience store presumably did it with the threat of violence, and therefore he is a threat to society (thus, a criminal offense). On the other hand, spammers just waste other people's time and money, and thus handling this in the civil courts makes more sense.
Well if we're talking costs, we should be comparing the cost of spam to the cost of keeping someone in jail... I don't have the numbers, but I can guarantee sending someone to jail at least doesn't get you back any money.
It's much better to make this a civil matter, and maybe find some people willing to start bringing up class-action suits.
At a risk of being off-topic, I'll try to respond to this in a helpful matter. Yes, Google is removing some specific websites from its search results. Here's the Complaint from Kazaa and here's Google's page about the DMCA. I think Google is being really helpful, offering specific advice on how to get your situation fixed.
Well the question there is whether they keep any personally identifiable information with that registration, which can now be accessed by whoever stole the logins.
Even for people who use the same username and password everywhere, this shouldn't be a problem since the passwords should be stored in a manner that is encrypted and can't be reverse-engineered. They wouldn't be stupid enough to store the passwords, right?
The real difference between software engineers and other types of engineers is that software engineering is not a profession. There is no general certification to enter software engineering, and there is no required professional organization with a fixed code of ethics.
Of course, does anybody here really think government regulation would make software engineering better?
Actually that's not file sharing or pirating. Those terms refer to making illegal copies. What you're referring to is actually both legal and moral.
It's not just immersion though. I frequently go between different setups, from a home theatre with a tv that upconverts to 1080i and surround sound, to an lcd projector that can do progressive with a mono speaker, to a standard tv with stereo. Playing Halo II on all those systems, I get a real feel for how audio and visual quality affect the game.
I get really pissed off when I'm trying to snipe at long range in 480i and can barely tell what I'm looking at.
And here's why surround sound is killer: One time, I was playing a really sneaky game of Halo II on Xbox Live. I was trying to snipe someone, when I heard someone cough behind me and to the left. Without looking, I pulled out my sword, spun, and took him down.
No, you don't need it. Until you've had it. Then you really need it.
No Stallman thinks that ideas and thoughts are not property.
But he can't take that position here. In the example he was giving, it had been established that the software is owned by its author. Given that, he went on to say that the people involved should be able to share it, despite that neither is the owner. This example is not, and logically cannot be, an argument against software-as-property; it can only serve as an argument against a right to property.
Do I have to work it out symbolically to show the logical fallacy here?
I can see where you might have received that impression from Stallman's article, from this quote:
My conclusion is that programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, study, and improve the software we write: in other words, to write ``free'' software
However, this is not all that he is arguing. The main question is:
It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide whether this is done? The individuals involved? Or another party, called the ``owner''?
This is an ethical question, and he specifically points out that he is questioning current law based on his interpretation of ethics. To clarify: he is not just encouraging free software; he is arguing that software ownership should not be a legal institution.
My response was about his treatment of the question of whether software should have owners. And I think it is pretty clear that the bulk of his paper (the section I quoted included) was focused on why software should not have owners. This is definitely about copyright; if referring many times to the "owners" of "software" isn't enough of a clue, he refers to the ethicality of copying software in his opening paragraph.
I hope this clears things up.
It doesn't matter how easy encryption is to break; once someone tries to break it, that's unauthorized access, and you shouldn't be responsible for what they do.
Of course, it's already been pointed out that this matter is about a civil case and so this argument doesn't really apply to this topic.
Limit each song to only one person accessing it at a time
Actually, that's an interesting idea. NetLibrary already does something like that with books, so it sounds reasonable to do it for other media under copyright.
Of course, someone who wanted to start something like that would have to pay a lot of money to defend himself in court, and would probably opt to shut it down.
No wonder you hate Stallman. You haven't got frickin' clue one.
Actually, I don't hate Stallman. I was just explaining why people think he's a commie. However, I'd like a little more explanation about the "You haven't got...clue one." I think I explained fairly well the reason I think Stallman disagrees with the concept of ownership.
To quote Stallman:
Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your neighbor: ``I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so that I can have a copy for myself.''
Since we're assuming in this hypothetical situation that software can be owned by its author(since otherwise there wouldn't be a problem here), he's clearly advocating sharing someone else's property. Yes, he doesn't believe that software should be owned, but that's beside the point in this example. Either he's begging the question or he's changing his assumptions in the middle of the argument, and either way his argument only works if he doesn't understand or doesn't agree with the institution of property. I have enough respect for Stallman to grant that he understands the institution of property, so therefore I must assume that he doesn't agree with the institution of property.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
Yeah, you shouldn't be running an unencrypted wireless router; if someone uses it for illegal activities, then you are responsible for providing them the tools. Tapping into a phone line requires trespassing on property belonging to either yourself or the phone company; tapping into a wireless router is more like accepting an open invitation to use it.
Of course, on reflection this defense becomes trickier when you're talking about tapping into a wireless phone receiver, but then that's a lot harder than having your laptop automatically connect to an access point.
Well, I believe you're the first to have called my prose "flowery". Anyway, since you seem unable to understand my sentence (it certainly isn't "nonsense" except perhaps in the original sense of the word) let me clarify:
Person A has a cupcake. Person B wants to share the cupcake with Person C, but the policeman stops him because of property law. Therefore, property law is bad because it stops people from sharing.
Perhaps I could reword the sentence as such for readability: (But I hesitate to, since I don't think it would be as clear)
Stallman thinks that he can share my stuff with other people.
No, the demand isn't standards compliance. MS is selling their product to the end-user, and most of them don't give a damn about how easy it is to code for. The companies that aren't meeting demand are those who insist on "standards compliance" when the customer would prefer IE compliance.
Here's something I've been working on that might shed some light on why people think Stallman's a commie. It's not very rigorous since it's a work in progress, but I hope it's helpful: (excerpt from a paper I'm working on section III)
One possible explanation of why Stallman seems to think that his claims are obvious is that he is heavily influenced by his world-view. Therefore, we should try to determine what his world-view is to determine if he has justification for his observations. Stallman's first psychosocial harm is caused by not being able to share with one's neighbor. However, Stallman is expecting one to be able to share something that one does not own. It seems that Stallman's argument only makes sense in the absence of the institution of property. Thus, his argument seems to beg the question, as the discussion was about whether software should be covered under the institution of property.
I doubt a boycott of this sort would have much impact. Anyone who cares already uses something other than IE. Your average user will just say "Why bother? I've never had a problem." That's what I did.
Mapquest used to offer satellite maps alongside their road maps. Suddenly and without warning a couple of years ago, they dropped this feature and left no information about it on their site. I wasn't able to search for any info, so I figured there was some sort of national security concern or something silly like that, and didn't expect this sort of functionality to come back anytime soon.
No thanks, I'll keep the house I own, sans webcams. And if anybody tries to install some, that would be trespassing, not an invasion of privacy. Which is already illegal without silly privacy concerns.
How is this news? How can this possibly matter? It's not like someone just invented the mp3 player. Someone made a tiny one. Whoah, stop the presses! Tune in tomorrow when someone makes one .1mm smaller!
I think it's great that someone's working on this technology, and there's no reason to assume that it's going to be used for some nefarious purpose. The horrible thing about "Big Brother" wasn't that he knows what you're doing, it's that he stops you from doing what you want to do. All this privacy nonsense really has to stop. It really doesn't matter who knows what you're doing, and chances are a lot of people know a lot about you just by looking. I don't think it has any negative impact on my life if people know what I'm doing as long as I can still do whatever I want. Of course, dishonest people might think otherwise. Of course a criminal would want some privacy, or someone who is lying to his wife. But otherwise I can't think of a good reason for it.