I managed to figure out it was there, if only after using sophisticated statistical techniques! LOL
Actually this is the first time that I remember seeing an attempted joke which was actually a "whoosh"... Or maybe my post is a "whoosh"? Was the AC trying to make a joke about how bad his steganograpy is?
My understanding of the consequences of the US accepting the Berne convention is that any work which had already entered the public domain in the US was not affected (in the US). I suspect that the MPAA claimed that the movie was a derivative work of an earlier book or music which wasn't in the public domain and used this to justify that the Berne convention rules applied.
But anyway, the fact that we're arguing about it kind of supports my point that network administrators aren't going to be able to figure out which content transfers violate IP law and which don't. I'm practically certain his "algorithm" is: "if it sounds like professionally recorded music, it's in violation" --- which for sure would be wrong for a lot of indie music under CC licenses.
But even if he actually did due diligence on each and every transfer investigation, his real priorities are actually "if it uses a lot of bandwidth and my bosses don't care about it, it's bad" which automatically makes him a far from disinterested judge.
> I'm not an idiot, I can tell when content is infringing copyright or not, and I'll deal with it.
That's a good one! Look at the movie "Charade", for example. It was hosted for quite a while on archive.org because it was originally screened without a copyright notice. The MPAA found some loophole and got it taken down....
The students could still run a website where people would advertise what content they had, and how to contact them to gain "access" to it, face-to-face. The university would be compliant, since this website, AFAICS, would not violate the DMCA itself. It might be in violation of "encouraging copyright infringement", but that's different, I think.
If the students are clever, and advertise the site as something which helps you meet other students with similar tastes in music, I think it might be hard to get any kind of ruling against it.
I think some of that has to do with juries awarding ridiculous damages to idiots via sympathy. A lot of those warnings are CYA (and required by the liability insurers). I have a suspicion that the average total damages awarded per year is less, possibly a lot less, in countries without jury trials.
Before [emphasis mine] the Criminal Code amendment, the Crown had to prove a suspect was intending to distribute an illegally recorded film before action could be taken under copyright laws.
The summary says the same thing. It is now a crime to record regardless if there is any intent to redistribute, and that is new.
The article goes on to state:
Defence lawyer Steven Jenuth, who sought a fine in unspecified hundreds of dollars, told the judge it appears to be a one-time event for his client, with no evidence of any other offences and no evidence of any sales or recordings.
which means that the judge's analogy, implying that the defendent intended to sell the recording, does not seem to be based on any evidence.
My guess is that RIAA is carefully choosing the states in which it litigates so as to minimize the probability that it will get stuck with an unfavorable precedent. It might also have to do with the states' rules for licensing the contractors which do RIAA's investigations (not that they've been that careful in the past).
Considering that actually measuring the real use of Linux on the desktop would be an expensive proposition requiring real data collection (as opposed to sales figures), I would guess that if someone has the commercial incentive to pay for such data collection, they already believe that the results will be useful to them commercially. In other words, Linux will already have made a serious penetration.
Kind of like relationships, sometimes: you already know it's over before you get the message explicitly...
The judge, if Lessig is to be relied on, does specify what is the public good involved --- the ability to travel by air.
> common sense should revolt at the idea that I can't walk from my own back yard through > to the shops via my neighbours' back yards
You miss the point totally. There would be no reason for any judge to even review the concept of trespassing since it was invented by democratic legislation. That is the way laws evolve in democracies. The judge in the case in question was called on to decide how to smooth out the contradiction between the law of Congress that the airways are public and ancient precendent which, when adopted, had no ramifications whatsoever. The judge decided that this "precendent" was stupid.
A better analogy would be if the present Congress were to pass a law making it illegal to marry extraterrestrial aliens, and 1000 years from now they actually arrive on Earth. It seems to me to be "common sense" that only a judge in the future with knowledge and experience of extraterrestrial aliens could decide if the law was constitutional and/or benificial or detrimental to society.
If Asimov were still around to read your comment, he'd probably knock off a story as to how new versions of OO.o aren't actually developed the way we think; instead, they're reverse engineered from compiled binaries found on pre-release laptops!
As the name GIMP is not a trademark, it is perfectly allowable to use it as a verb, noun, adjective, and in all the other ways Adobe won't let you use the name Photoshop. Just expect to get a lot of strange looks if you do!
(Disclaimer: this post does not detract from any or all other ways GIMP might be, objectively or subjectively, superior to Adobe Photoshop. Your mileage may vary. Offer void where prohibited. Posting and reading Slashdot may shorten your real life. This is not legal or medical advice, consult trained professionals if necessary.)
Duh, all software use has risks. This whole sub-thread is a discussion about the relative benefits, including risks of future vulnerabilities, of various PDF display programs.
Adobe Reader, in terms of the number of known vulnerabilities, doesn't give a very good impression. The last 3 versions, versions 7-9, have had a total of 34 vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, it is practically impossible to quantitatively compare this with the 1 vulnerability found in Evince, since:
The severity of the vulnerabilities is not taken into consideration.
The periods of time involved may be different.
There is more incentive for blackhats to find vulnerabilities in Adobe Reader, since it has a much greater market share and is used under Windows.
> How could it possibly be easier for artists without the choice of being with a > big label? I simply don't see the logic there, unless you assume that artists > can't make decisions for themselves.
You are assuming that there is no competition between the big labels and independent artists. This is obviously untrue, assuming a limited market for music. In fact, the big labels, in order to maintain their business model, have a virtual monopoly on getting radio play for their artists. If this were not true, it would be easier for indies to get played on the radio, and they would have a greater chance at reaching broader audiences, making more sales, and being "the next hot act".
There are no unpatched Secunia advisories affecting this product, when all vendor patches are applied..
Adobe Reader v.8, OTOH, still has an unpatched vulnerablity --- but v.9 is clean, as far as Secunia is concerned. The statistics for total vulnerabilities:
You must be new here. That's what mod points are usually used for. Note the fact that you were modded insightful rather than modding the GP back to something else.
Er, you didn't notice, I suppose, that modding someone Insightful isn't usually considered "censure"?
My guess as to why binarylarry's post doesn't get modded back up is that he's proposing using mod points for censure, so his not being modded up might indicate that the moderators which have seen his post (since the first "Troll" mod) also don't believe in using mod points for censure. Face it, the decision on whether to mod him down or up is like deciding the truth or falsity of "This statement is false".
Face it, you and probably the majority of Slashdotters are not "the average American voter". Would you think it smart of Obama to adopt your stance and lose the election because his web site turns off the majority of voters who visit it? Frankly, I can't believe anyone who would be that inflexible would be a good President.
Slashdot Mirror
How can you profit from licensing a FOSS movie to a cinema when the FOSS license presumably already allows it to screen the movie for free?
Are we talking about the same "FOSS"?
I managed to figure out it was there, if only after using sophisticated statistical techniques! LOL
Actually this is the first time that I remember seeing an attempted joke which was actually a "whoosh"... Or maybe my post is a "whoosh"? Was the AC trying to make a joke about how bad his steganograpy is?
My understanding of the consequences of the US accepting the Berne convention is that any work which had already entered the public domain in the US was not affected (in the US). I suspect that the MPAA claimed that the movie was a derivative work of an earlier book or music which wasn't in the public domain and used this to justify that the Berne convention rules applied.
But anyway, the fact that we're arguing about it kind of supports my point that network administrators aren't going to be able to figure out which content transfers violate IP law and which don't. I'm practically certain his "algorithm" is: "if it sounds like professionally recorded music, it's in violation" --- which for sure would be wrong for a lot of indie music under CC licenses.
But even if he actually did due diligence on each and every transfer investigation, his real priorities are actually "if it uses a lot of bandwidth and my bosses don't care about it, it's bad" which automatically makes him a far from disinterested judge.
> I'm not an idiot, I can tell when content is infringing copyright or not, and I'll deal with it.
That's a good one! Look at the movie "Charade", for example. It was hosted for quite a while on archive.org because it was originally screened without a copyright notice. The MPAA found some loophole and got it taken down....
The students could still run a website where people would advertise what content they had, and how to contact them to gain "access" to it, face-to-face. The university would be compliant, since this website, AFAICS, would not violate the DMCA itself. It might be in violation of "encouraging copyright infringement", but that's different, I think.
If the students are clever, and advertise the site as something which helps you meet other students with similar tastes in music, I think it might be hard to get any kind of ruling against it.
And what does AC posting on Slashdot replace?
That's "Plan 9 from the NSA", of course...
I think some of that has to do with juries awarding ridiculous damages to idiots via sympathy. A lot of those warnings are CYA (and required by the liability insurers). I have a suspicion that the average total damages awarded per year is less, possibly a lot less, in countries without jury trials.
> It is rarely good when it is used to shove an unpopular law through your country's backdoor.
"Backdoor"? Is that what they're calling it now on Slashdot???
From the article:
The summary says the same thing. It is now a crime to record regardless if there is any intent to redistribute, and that is new.
The article goes on to state:
which means that the judge's analogy, implying that the defendent intended to sell the recording, does not seem to be based on any evidence.
My guess is that RIAA is carefully choosing the states in which it litigates so as to minimize the probability that it will get stuck with an unfavorable precedent. It might also have to do with the states' rules for licensing the contractors which do RIAA's investigations (not that they've been that careful in the past).
BTW, thanks for the interesting data.
Considering that actually measuring the real use of Linux on the desktop would be an expensive proposition requiring real data collection (as opposed to sales figures), I would guess that if someone has the commercial incentive to pay for such data collection, they already believe that the results will be useful to them commercially. In other words, Linux will already have made a serious penetration.
Kind of like relationships, sometimes: you already know it's over before you get the message explicitly...
From the previous recall of 10M batteries, not this one.
> unspecified public good
The judge, if Lessig is to be relied on, does specify what is the public good involved --- the ability to travel by air.
> common sense should revolt at the idea that I can't walk from my own back yard through
> to the shops via my neighbours' back yards
You miss the point totally. There would be no reason for any judge to even review the concept of trespassing since it was invented by democratic legislation. That is the way laws evolve in democracies. The judge in the case in question was called on to decide how to smooth out the contradiction between the law of Congress that the airways are public and ancient precendent which, when adopted, had no ramifications whatsoever. The judge decided that this "precendent" was stupid.
A better analogy would be if the present Congress were to pass a law making it illegal to marry extraterrestrial aliens, and 1000 years from now they actually arrive on Earth. It seems to me to be "common sense" that only a judge in the future with knowledge and experience of extraterrestrial aliens could decide if the law was constitutional and/or benificial or detrimental to society.
The one that RIAA is suing is pretty young.
If Asimov were still around to read your comment, he'd probably knock off a story as to how new versions of OO.o aren't actually developed the way we think; instead, they're reverse engineered from compiled binaries found on pre-release laptops!
But I couldn't help laughing at the "Donate online" link being close to the "Bribe Payers Index Survey 2008" link on their policy & research page...
Let me guess, it was the Beijing Evening News, right?
As the name GIMP is not a trademark, it is perfectly allowable to use it as a verb, noun, adjective, and in all the other ways Adobe won't let you use the name Photoshop. Just expect to get a lot of strange looks if you do!
(Disclaimer: this post does not detract from any or all other ways GIMP might be, objectively or subjectively, superior to Adobe Photoshop. Your mileage may vary. Offer void where prohibited. Posting and reading Slashdot may shorten your real life. This is not legal or medical advice, consult trained professionals if necessary.)
Duh, all software use has risks. This whole sub-thread is a discussion about the relative benefits, including risks of future vulnerabilities, of various PDF display programs.
Adobe Reader, in terms of the number of known vulnerabilities, doesn't give a very good impression. The last 3 versions, versions 7-9, have had a total of 34 vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, it is practically impossible to quantitatively compare this with the 1 vulnerability found in Evince, since:
> How could it possibly be easier for artists without the choice of being with a
> big label? I simply don't see the logic there, unless you assume that artists
> can't make decisions for themselves.
You are assuming that there is no competition between the big labels and independent artists. This is obviously untrue, assuming a limited market for music. In fact, the big labels, in order to maintain their business model, have a virtual monopoly on getting radio play for their artists. If this were not true, it would be easier for indies to get played on the radio, and they would have a greater chance at reaching broader audiences, making more sales, and being "the next hot act".
From the link:
Adobe Reader v.8, OTOH, still has an unpatched vulnerablity --- but v.9 is clean, as far as Secunia is concerned. The statistics for total vulnerabilities:
Adobe Reader v.7 = 22 vulnerabilities (all patched)
Adobe Reader v.8 = 12 vulnerabilities (all patched but 1)
Adobe Reader v.9 = 0 vulnerabilities
Evince = 1 vulnerability (patched)
Foxit = 3 vulnerabilities (all patched)
Note that Secunia does not recommend blindly comparing statistics in this way, and they're right.
From the link you reference:
That vulnerability is from 2006, it was patched long ago.
You must be new here. That's what mod points are usually used for. Note the fact that you were modded insightful rather than modding the GP back to something else.
Er, you didn't notice, I suppose, that modding someone Insightful isn't usually considered "censure"?
My guess as to why binarylarry's post doesn't get modded back up is that he's proposing using mod points for censure, so his not being modded up might indicate that the moderators which have seen his post (since the first "Troll" mod) also don't believe in using mod points for censure. Face it, the decision on whether to mod him down or up is like deciding the truth or falsity of "This statement is false".
Face it, you and probably the majority of Slashdotters are not "the average American voter". Would you think it smart of Obama to adopt your stance and lose the election because his web site turns off the majority of voters who visit it? Frankly, I can't believe anyone who would be that inflexible would be a good President.