>There's a thing in US business law where a company must do everything to benefit its shareholders.
If there is such a law, it would only apply to public companies, and I believe Bungie was privately held at the time, so the law wouldn't apply.
I can't believe there is such a law specifically though, even for public corporations. I think it falls more under the corporation enticing investors saying "we will make lots of profit", and when it doesn't happen they get sued for fraud or some such.
>that claim that owning a firearm is simply for defense and not for killing anyone are either ignorant or lying.
Perhaps his intention is to only use it for defense? He never said that anyone owning a firearm is for defense... just referring to himself
>If I end up purchasing a gun, it will be because I might be forced to kill someone before they can kill me,
Which would be defense. Killing your attacker just happens to be one type of defense. I, and most people, make a clear distinction between defensive killing and other killing. When people speak of killing in general, they usually refer to non-defensive killing. (Was the comandment, "thou shalt not kill", or "thou shalt not murder"? big difference)
>not so I can magically block the attacks of other people against me like I'm in some video game.
One of the scariest things for a burglar to hear is the sound of shotgun being cocked. That sound alone (maybe along with the sight of the shotgun) has repelled many a ne'er-do-well. Yes, it 's mutually assured destruction, survival of the fittest sort of thing... but when you boil it down, that's what you're left wth when someond else decides to flout the conventions of society in that sort of way.
Our founding fathers were terrorists, at least by our definitions, and we consider them heroes. (rightlfully so)
"Terrorist" is one of those overloaded terms that means many things in many circumstances... you just can't confer one meaning upon the other. If you want talk about "terrorists", you have to do so in context, and that context has to be pretty clear or else you end up arguing against many things we wouldn't want to argue against.
>They need to band together and start filing lawsuits, spreading the (admittedly high) costs around
Do you have any idea how hard it is to find the right someone to actually sue? And even then how hard it is to prove they are the ones who actually spammed?
The largest of the ISPs have banded together, and we've only heard about a small amout of success stories.
I dunno about that. I have to get a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate before I could by my first gun, and had to do the whole background check/waiting period.
Maybe it's not called the same thing AC said... but similar idea./in California//Arguably in the USA
>If the court system was changed to decide two factors (generally speaking) in each case - merit of claim and disposition of claim
Actually, the system already does. The only problem is the ba for determining that something is meritless is extremely high. Judges want to give every chance to the "little guy", and that lets alot of crap get through.
>Instead they go ahead and get the order first, and then ask the ISP to give notice of an order that's already been granted, and with no information about the basis for the order, the basis for the suit, the Court's rules, etc., so that once the victim gets the 'notice' he doesn't know what to do with it, because there's just about nothing he can do with it.
But all this is doing is getting your identity to the RIAA so they can go ahead and sue you. I don't like it, but it just doesn't seem that wrong within that context.
To compare... Assume I'm caught on camera allegedly committing a crime or a tort at a store, but the store doesn't know who I am. The person who committed the crime already suspects me, and forces the store to hand over the tape so I can be visually identified. The store has no obligation to notify me that I'm being handed over.
(Should ISPs be required to protect our identity? (I lean towards yes, but worry about the ability of individuals to actually start an ISP). to the point of having to spend money defending these sorts of things before the end user has to... just short of indemnification, since discovery seems to lean towards giving info up front and getting it disqualified later.)
>See How the RIAA Litigation Process Works [riaalawsuits.us].
Ohio election 2004?
>You've taken another big leap when you say that the person whose name and address is turned over by the ISP has 'harmed' the record labels in some way.
Nah, I was just assuming they believed they had been harmed.
>They have no clue about that. They just go ahead and sue.
Well, they have a clue actually... they have an IP that is the apparent source of infringement. They believe they've been harmed. They seem to believe they have information that can be used to identify the person behind the alleged harm... so they go after that person.
>Sure that person would be a good person with which to start an investigaton into whether there's someone out there infringing the RIAA sound recording copyrights. But there's no justification for just going ahead and suing that person.
Moral or legal? From attorney advice while having been sued in the past, anyone can sue just about anyone else with just a slight hint of reason and there will be no legal problem.
In fact, I was out over 50 grand fighting a civil suit that I and my attorney believed was frivolous. About the only reason you could see it was connected to me was that I knew her ex-husband, and he was missing money... so he MUST have been hiding it from her through me. We showed very clearly that there wasn't a problem, but never got any fees or even an admonishment. I'm just out 50 grand because a friend's ex-wife was pissed off.
>See Brief of EFF, ACLU, Public Citizen, AALL, and ACLU-OK [ilrweb.com] and Brief of Communications & Computer Industry Association and US Internet Industry Association [ilrweb.com].
I looked around the site, but didn't find what you're referring to.
>Tell that to the RIAA the next time they file ex parte John Doe suits to force your ISP to reveal your identity without you ever having a chance to contest it
Maybe I'm missing a step here, but if they don't know who you are, how could they notify you to contest anything? At least they aren't pushing to require to all run valid identd processes listening at each publicly available IP address so its owners could be identified easily.
Should they rely on the ISP who has only a casual business relationship with you to reliably notify you of anything?
If you wanted to serve me with papers, can you reasonably argue that giving it to the grocery clerk that I usually see, asking her to pass it along ot me, and consider that reasonable service?
Like I said, maybe I'm missing a step, but I'm just not seeing the unreasonableness of going after the only link to you, as lnog as they have evidince that somehow that connection was used in harming them somehow.
The first ammendment was designed specifically to allow us to plot the overthrow of our government and the current order... something easily considered terrorism.
To say we need to reinterpret the 1st ammendment to avoid terrorism just makes no sense.
Can you give an example of both systems in practice? I just don't understand what it means to have an actual right of way, as opposed to what I have here in the US... CA in specific.
For example: Light turns green, I have the right of way, but cannot legally enter the intersection unless it is safe to do so. So, do I have right of way, or not? If I was in a country that had an iron-clad right of way rule, does that mean I should just enter the intersection assuming there will be no one else there?
Another example from traffic school: A and B approach the stop sign at the same time, but B is on the right, so B has right of way. B waves A through. The instructor said technically B could be arrested for impersonating an officer since they are directing traffic, and A can still be ticketed for not obeying the rules. How would it work otherwise?
>Nice analogy, which has nothing to do with anything.
Sure it does. "Pirating" software: benefitting from something intangible (the bits and their orgnanization) that was originally produced at the expense of someone else (vendor). Bus example: benefitting from something intangible (the transporation service, the management to make sure they arrive, etc...) that was originally produced at the expense of someone else.
You can ignore parallels if you like, but that doesn't mean they're not there.
>Additionally, your analogies in a discussion about theft perhaps indicates that you don't know about other crimes such as trespassing(see hotel example) which also are not theft
The hotel example isn't simply trespassing. Yes, trespassing may also apply and the hotel can press charges for that, but they can also press charges for theft of services.
I didn't get into the other laws that could conceivably be applied to illegal copying of software because they would stray from the point... as the trespassing charge would take away from the point here.
If it's a shaky correlation on the vendor's side, it certainly is on yours as well. You can't prove that no loss is suffered. You can state that you don't believe any is suffered, but for every kind of reason you can come up with, I can come up with another form of loss for them.
So, most people default to a system they understand from the real world... that is, if something has a value to the person you are taking it from, you are depriving them of that value by taking it. (reference my theft of services example: why can't I stay in a hotel room for free if noone else was going to use it anyway...)
Oh stop being so pedantic. You know you know what he meant, and it isn't WAY off topic...
He was talking about getting a product or service without paying for it. (You do realize there is a criminal definition in most jurisdictions that does not involve depriving people of access to a physical asset, right?)
When I do it with just bits, it doesn't fall under the criminal definition of theft you're using as it doesn't deprive the owner of the thing being "stolen". However, what the most people see as theft... that is, getting something without paying for it, which is denying the person who "owns" the thing (in this case, the right to copy it), is exactly what he's talking about.
Arguing the details of the laws really doesn't apply to his argument though, since we all know what he is talking about.
> I was just pointing out the fact of the very nebulous connection between instances of unauthorized duplication and actual financial loss to the software comapany
I think he was doing the same thing. If you can't codify the difference, then what is the difference? How is it possible to pick out the cases in which actual deprivation of profit occurs? Why does it matter, since we can't do it well? The end game is someone else getting something they weren't entitled to (by law) for free.
> Thus, you have no difference in the software company's revenues due to this act of "piracy.".
Well, you know, since I don't have any money, and the buses aren't full in my area, then I should be able to ride them for free, shouldn't I? I'm really not costing them anything additional, and they weren't getting my money in either case.. so no difference. Why can't I just go into an unocupied hotel room when I feel like it? Noone is using it, and I wasn't planning on paying for it... and I'm going to clean up perfectly before I leave.. no harm/no foul?
2. "He broke a law, he should go to jail." The court system should be mandated to tell the jurors in all trials about their right to nullify terrible laws. Jury nullifaction is more than a priviledge, it is a right even greater than serving on a jury.
While I applaud the sentiment in this case, I have a hard time with the idea overall. How many whites in the South were cleared because white juries refused to convict them of crimes against blacks?
>Of course there could be some parts (graphics, yet again) that might generate lots and lots of executable code on-the-fly, but that would again be too processor- and hardware- specific to be of much use.
I dunno... my gut tells me that if that were the case, we wouldn't have as many Linux video drivers currently as we do.
We weren't addressing terrorism. Free speech zones have never had anything to do with what we are calling terrorism.
I agree with you, bring it on. We are too civil, we don't have enough passion in these things, we are too detached. I'm a litle concerned about unruly groups and injuries driving people away from protesting at all, but I can live with that. It will largely regulate itself over time if we allow it. (speaking as someone's who's run internal security for organized protests)
My only point was that the argument I addressed wasn't completely invalid within the context it was made. Make sure you're arguing the right thing.
I wasn't responding to terrorism, I was responding to what the parent poster said about free speech zones. Nothing about terrorists.
You get one guy to yell fire in a crowded theatre, and things get crazy.
You mix pro-lifers in with pro-choicers, you're gonna get a few that mix badly, and with a crowd of any size, it will get out of control. no bullshit.
My whole point was that the rationale wasn't completey without any merit. Argue that way, and you turn folks off.
My opinion? Bring on the riot. Bring on the incivility. We are too civil, we lack passion in our beliefs, we are too careful of the feelings of those we oppose (especially those we don't admit we oppose)
>This entire rationale is so pathetically flimsy it's completely see-through. There is only one reason to herd peaceful protesters into designated (almost always well-hidden) areas but still allow supporters through, and that's because you don't want people to see the protest.
I don't like the idea either, but I disagree here... that's not the only reason. Another reason is that you can't tell which protestors and supporters will remain peaceful during something that was obviously motivating enough to get them off their ass is the first place. Add in a little mob mentality, ala riots when a team wins something... and you're got a recipe for a real mess. One that's been seen before.
Which is fine, and long as you have the disposable income to be able to handle the increase in price.
It's the guys who are/were on the edge that will get destroyed by that logic. (And with the way the system works out here, they can't get additional help until after they are actually homeless AND out of work... nothing to help them stay out of that situation but friends/family)
Can't use GPL code willy-nilly, since it is copyrighted. Can't distribute the copyrighted audio from a CD because it is copyrighted. Can make local copy for backup purposes, or reference via other methods. (like buying a book, and copying down some tables to a notepad for future reference)
Slashdot Mirror
>There's a thing in US business law where a company must do everything to benefit its shareholders.
If there is such a law, it would only apply to public companies, and I believe Bungie was privately held at the time, so the law wouldn't apply.
I can't believe there is such a law specifically though, even for public corporations. I think it falls more under the corporation enticing investors saying "we will make lots of profit", and when it doesn't happen they get sued for fraud or some such.
> Unorganized fails the "well regulated" test
I thought "well regulated" at the time basically meant "operating properly". Like the well regulated operation of machinery.
>that claim that owning a firearm is simply for defense and not for killing anyone are either ignorant or lying.
Perhaps his intention is to only use it for defense? He never said that anyone owning a firearm is for defense... just referring to himself
>If I end up purchasing a gun, it will be because I might be forced to kill someone before they can kill me,
Which would be defense. Killing your attacker just happens to be one type of defense. I, and most people, make a clear distinction between defensive killing and other killing. When people speak of killing in general, they usually refer to non-defensive killing. (Was the comandment, "thou shalt not kill", or "thou shalt not murder"? big difference)
>not so I can magically block the attacks of other people against me like I'm in some video game.
One of the scariest things for a burglar to hear is the sound of shotgun being cocked. That sound alone (maybe along with the sight of the shotgun) has repelled many a ne'er-do-well. Yes, it 's mutually assured destruction, survival of the fittest sort of thing... but when you boil it down, that's what you're left wth when someond else decides to flout the conventions of society in that sort of way.
>yu're going to become a terroris
Our founding fathers were terrorists, at least by our definitions, and we consider them heroes. (rightlfully so)
"Terrorist" is one of those overloaded terms that means many things in many circumstances... you just can't confer one meaning upon the other.
If you want talk about "terrorists", you have to do so in context, and that context has to be pretty clear or else you end up arguing against many things we wouldn't want to argue against.
>They need to band together and start filing lawsuits, spreading the (admittedly high) costs around
Do you have any idea how hard it is to find the right someone to actually sue? And even then how hard it is to prove they are the ones who actually spammed?
The largest of the ISPs have banded together, and we've only heard about a small amout of success stories.
I dunno about that. I have to get a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate before I could by my first gun, and had to do the whole background check/waiting period.
/in California //Arguably in the USA
Maybe it's not called the same thing AC said... but similar idea.
>If the court system was changed to decide two factors (generally speaking) in each case - merit of claim and disposition of claim
Actually, the system already does. The only problem is the ba for determining that something is meritless is extremely high.
Judges want to give every chance to the "little guy", and that lets alot of crap get through.
Actually, it happened to me one year. I got a surprise refund, and they even included interest for the time involved.
>Instead they go ahead and get the order first, and then ask the ISP to give notice of an order that's already been granted, and with no information about the basis for the order, the basis for the suit, the Court's rules, etc., so that once the victim gets the 'notice' he doesn't know what to do with it, because there's just about nothing he can do with it.
But all this is doing is getting your identity to the RIAA so they can go ahead and sue you. I don't like it, but it just doesn't seem that wrong within that context.
To compare... Assume I'm caught on camera allegedly committing a crime or a tort at a store, but the store doesn't know who I am. The person who committed the crime already suspects me, and forces the store to hand over the tape so I can be visually identified. The store has no obligation to notify me that I'm being handed over.
(Should ISPs be required to protect our identity? (I lean towards yes, but worry about the ability of individuals to actually start an ISP). to the point of having to spend money defending these sorts of things before the end user has to... just short of indemnification, since discovery seems to lean towards giving info up front and getting it disqualified later.)
>See How the RIAA Litigation Process Works [riaalawsuits.us].
Ohio election 2004?
>You've taken another big leap when you say that the person whose name and address is turned over by the ISP has 'harmed' the record labels in some way.
Nah, I was just assuming they believed they had been harmed.
>They have no clue about that. They just go ahead and sue.
Well, they have a clue actually... they have an IP that is the apparent source of infringement.
They believe they've been harmed. They seem to believe they have information that can be used to identify the person behind the alleged harm... so they go after that person.
>Sure that person would be a good person with which to start an investigaton into whether there's someone out there infringing the RIAA sound recording copyrights. But there's no justification for just going ahead and suing that person.
Moral or legal? From attorney advice while having been sued in the past, anyone can sue just about anyone else with just a slight hint of reason and there will be no legal problem.
In fact, I was out over 50 grand fighting a civil suit that I and my attorney believed was frivolous. About the only reason you could see it was connected to me was that I knew her ex-husband, and he was missing money... so he MUST have been hiding it from her through me. We showed very clearly that there wasn't a problem, but never got any fees or even an admonishment. I'm just out 50 grand because a friend's ex-wife was pissed off.
>See Brief of EFF, ACLU, Public Citizen, AALL, and ACLU-OK [ilrweb.com] and Brief of Communications & Computer Industry Association and US Internet Industry Association [ilrweb.com].
I looked around the site, but didn't find what you're referring to.
>Tell that to the RIAA the next time they file ex parte John Doe suits to force your ISP to reveal your identity without you ever having a chance to contest it
Maybe I'm missing a step here, but if they don't know who you are, how could they notify you to contest anything? At least they aren't pushing to require to all run valid identd processes listening at each publicly available IP address so its owners could be identified easily.
Should they rely on the ISP who has only a casual business relationship with you to reliably notify you of anything?
If you wanted to serve me with papers, can you reasonably argue that giving it to the grocery clerk that I usually see, asking her to pass it along ot me, and consider that reasonable service?
Like I said, maybe I'm missing a step, but I'm just not seeing the unreasonableness of going after the only link to you, as lnog as they have evidince that somehow that connection was used in harming them somehow.
The first ammendment was designed specifically to allow us to plot the overthrow of our government and the current order... something easily considered terrorism.
To say we need to reinterpret the 1st ammendment to avoid terrorism just makes no sense.
>It's really a dumb system.
Can you give an example of both systems in practice? I just don't understand what it means to have an actual right of way, as opposed to what I have here in the US... CA in specific.
For example: Light turns green, I have the right of way, but cannot legally enter the intersection unless it is safe to do so. So, do I have right of way, or not? If I was in a country that had an iron-clad right of way rule, does that mean I should just enter the intersection assuming there will be no one else there?
Another example from traffic school: A and B approach the stop sign at the same time, but B is on the right, so B has right of way. B waves A through. The instructor said technically B could be arrested for impersonating an officer since they are directing traffic, and A can still be ticketed for not obeying the rules. How would it work otherwise?
> One point: computer geeks and programmers need to get used to the "feces flinging" technique of the lawyers
Seems to me programmers already think like this... cover all possible conditions so your code doesn't end up in an unexpected state.
switch (argument) {
case ARG_ALREADY_SETTLED: get_off_totally(); break;
case ARG_PENALTY_TOO_HIGH: get_off_easier(); break;
case ARG_RIAA_ARE_LYING: get_off_totally(); break;
default: cry_alot(); break;
}
>>"....the buses aren't full in my area..."
>Nice analogy, which has nothing to do with anything.
Sure it does.
"Pirating" software: benefitting from something intangible (the bits and their orgnanization) that was originally produced at the expense of someone else (vendor).
Bus example: benefitting from something intangible (the transporation service, the management to make sure they arrive, etc...) that was originally produced at the expense of someone else.
You can ignore parallels if you like, but that doesn't mean they're not there.
>Additionally, your analogies in a discussion about theft perhaps indicates that you don't know about other crimes such as trespassing(see hotel example) which also are not theft
The hotel example isn't simply trespassing. Yes, trespassing may also apply and the hotel can press charges for that, but they can also press charges for theft of services.
I didn't get into the other laws that could conceivably be applied to illegal copying of software because they would stray from the point... as the trespassing charge would take away from the point here.
> no loss is suffered
If it's a shaky correlation on the vendor's side, it certainly is on yours as well. You can't prove that no loss is suffered. You can state that you don't believe any is suffered, but for every kind of reason you can come up with, I can come up with another form of loss for them.
So, most people default to a system they understand from the real world... that is, if something has a value to the person you are taking it from, you are depriving them of that value by taking it. (reference my theft of services example: why can't I stay in a hotel room for free if noone else was going to use it anyway...)
> Theft is an entirely new subject
Oh stop being so pedantic. You know you know what he meant, and it isn't WAY off topic...
He was talking about getting a product or service without paying for it. (You do realize there is a criminal definition in most jurisdictions that does not involve depriving people of access to a physical asset, right?)
When I do it with just bits, it doesn't fall under the criminal definition of theft you're using as it doesn't deprive the owner of the thing being "stolen". However, what the most people see as theft... that is, getting something without paying for it, which is denying the person who "owns" the thing (in this case, the right to copy it), is exactly what he's talking about.
Arguing the details of the laws really doesn't apply to his argument though, since we all know what he is talking about.
> I was just pointing out the fact of the very nebulous connection between instances of unauthorized duplication and actual financial loss to the software comapany
I think he was doing the same thing. If you can't codify the difference, then what is the difference? How is it possible to pick out the cases in which actual deprivation of profit occurs? Why does it matter, since we can't do it well? The end game is someone else getting something they weren't entitled to (by law) for free.
> Thus, you have no difference in the software company's revenues due to this act of "piracy.".
Well, you know, since I don't have any money, and the buses aren't full in my area, then I should be able to ride them for free, shouldn't I? I'm really not costing them anything additional, and they weren't getting my money in either case.. so no difference. Why can't I just go into an unocupied hotel room when I feel like it? Noone is using it, and I wasn't planning on paying for it... and I'm going to clean up perfectly before I leave.. no harm/no foul?
2. "He broke a law, he should go to jail." The court system should be mandated to tell the jurors in all trials about their right to nullify terrible laws. Jury nullifaction is more than a priviledge, it is a right even greater than serving on a jury.
While I applaud the sentiment in this case, I have a hard time with the idea overall. How many whites in the South were cleared because white juries refused to convict them of crimes against blacks?
> opposed to protecting millions of them
And more importantly... protecting us from the effects of not protecting millions of them =-)
>Of course there could be some parts (graphics, yet again) that might generate lots and lots of executable code on-the-fly, but that would again be too processor- and hardware- specific to be of much use.
I dunno... my gut tells me that if that were the case, we wouldn't have as many Linux video drivers currently as we do.
>Personally I fail to see how content can not be cited like book references.
I don't either... but typically when you reference a book, you use only a small portion of it, not the majority of the book.
> putting Blind Melon's 'No Rain' as the audio overlay.
Using the main portion of the content? sorry, you don't even get to do that with books/magazines/encyclopedia articles currently.
We weren't addressing terrorism. Free speech zones have never had anything to do with what we are calling terrorism.
I agree with you, bring it on. We are too civil, we don't have enough passion in these things, we are too detached.
I'm a litle concerned about unruly groups and injuries driving people away from protesting at all, but I can live with that. It will largely regulate itself over time if we allow it. (speaking as someone's who's run internal security for organized protests)
My only point was that the argument I addressed wasn't completely invalid within the context it was made. Make sure you're arguing the right thing.
I wasn't responding to terrorism, I was responding to what the parent poster said about free speech zones. Nothing about terrorists. You get one guy to yell fire in a crowded theatre, and things get crazy. You mix pro-lifers in with pro-choicers, you're gonna get a few that mix badly, and with a crowd of any size, it will get out of control. no bullshit. My whole point was that the rationale wasn't completey without any merit. Argue that way, and you turn folks off. My opinion? Bring on the riot. Bring on the incivility. We are too civil, we lack passion in our beliefs, we are too careful of the feelings of those we oppose (especially those we don't admit we oppose)
>This entire rationale is so pathetically flimsy it's completely see-through. There is only one reason to herd peaceful protesters into designated (almost always well-hidden) areas but still allow supporters through, and that's because you don't want people to see the protest.
I don't like the idea either, but I disagree here... that's not the only reason.
Another reason is that you can't tell which protestors and supporters will remain peaceful during something that was obviously motivating enough to get them off their ass is the first place.
Add in a little mob mentality, ala riots when a team wins something... and you're got a recipe for a real mess. One that's been seen before.
Which is fine, and long as you have the disposable income to be able to handle the increase in price.
It's the guys who are/were on the edge that will get destroyed by that logic. (And with the way the system works out here, they can't get additional help until after they are actually homeless AND out of work... nothing to help them stay out of that situation but friends/family)
Gotcha. I think we actually agree.
Can't use GPL code willy-nilly, since it is copyrighted.
Can't distribute the copyrighted audio from a CD because it is copyrighted.
Can make local copy for backup purposes, or reference via other methods. (like buying a book, and copying down some tables to a notepad for future reference)
Wait, what was the topic again? =-)