Think about it, we drink the milk of a cow, which is for cows not humans.
We also eat honey, which is for bees, not humans. And meat, which is for tigers, not humans. And fish, which is for bears, not humans. And plants, which are for cows, not humans.
It's kind of silly to worry about whether the food you're eating is "for" something other than you. All that matters is what it's made of, and cow's milk contains essentially the same stuff as human milk, but in different proportions.
BTW, what are "traces of gm"? General Motors? General Mills? General MacArthur? Surely you realize that genetic modification is not something that can be passed from one organism to another through eating.
That's wrong. They only need to be writable by the user running httpd.
The distinction is only important if your sysadmin is kind enough to chown or chgrp the files for you. Otherwise, since httpd is probably running as nobody/nogroup and you're probably not in nogroup, your only choice is to make them o+w.
And even if you can make them writable only by the user running httpd, that still means anyone else who shares the web server can overwrite your files, because their scripts run with the same permissions as yours.
This is even worse. I don't want any root suid httpd process in my system, do you?.
httpd itself wouldn't have to be suid root; only the per-user process it spawns would.
I didn't forget. Perhaps you forgot to read down to the bottom of my comment - notice the paragraph starting "If you were referring to the illegally copied games"?
The fact remains that the game company's bottom line (which was what the post I replied to was talking about) would be affected just as much whether he sold those illegally copied games, or gave them away for free, or whether they never existed at all. All that matters, as far as their profits are concerned, is the number of people who buy legal copies - if you get an illegal copy, it doesn't matter where you get it or how much you pay.
This Perchild MPM? "This module is not functional. Development of this module is not complete and is not currently active. Do not use perchild unless you are a programmer willing to help fix it." Doesn't seem like something I could use for a production web site.;)
"you need to have your files set to chmod 777 for this to work" is another pearler.
This is necessary because mod_php runs scripts as the same user who started httpd, usually "nobody", so any files you want your PHP scripts to write to has to be world-writable. The problem would go away if mod_php could just run PHP scripts as their owners, instead of as the user running httpd!
You can already install suphp to do this, but you pay a performance penalty, since it has to start a new process for each invocation.
mod_php's advantage is that it runs scripts in the httpd process, so of course they have the same permissions as the user running httpd. But it could be changed: spawn a new process for each unique user who owns a PHP script (setuid to that user), and have the main httpd process communicate to the appropriate user's child process via a local socket whenever it's time to run one of their scripts. Then you only have to spawn one process for each user, and once that's done, the scripts could run just as fast as they do now.
Look, there's a lot of activities you're allowed to do legally as long as it is for personal use.
In this case, you aren't allowed to do it for personal use either. UK courts have found mod chips illegal in general - read the submission.
If you try to make a profit off of it, you're hurting the bottom line of some company and you are going to get slammed for it. How simple is that?
I call BS. Consider these three situations:
1. I buy an Xbox for myself and mod it. 2. My friend buys an Xbox and pays me to install a mod chip. 3. My friend pays me to buy an Xbox, install a mod chip, and give it to him.
Microsoft's bottom line is exactly the same in all three situations, because the only way to get an Xbox is to buy it from Microsoft.
If you were referring to the illegally copied games, you're still wrong: the game company's bottom line is the same whether you download a copy of their game for free, or buy it from some guy on the street corner, or even if you choose not to buy the game at all and buy a DVD instead. Either you're paying the game company or you aren't.
Regardless of the fact that this guy deserved to be punished, I can't see how chipping for a legitimate use (ie, to use it as a media centre etc) can possibly be illegal.
Did you miss this link in the submission? The fact that mod chips disable a copy protection mechanism makes them illegal, according to the court, whether or not they're actually used to play illegally copied games. The court makes case law. It's now up to UK legislators to change the situation.
I would hope that if I bought the hardware I'd be entitled to do whatever I liked to it, provided I didn't actually break the law by putting pirated games on it.
I would hope so too, but unfortunately, the DMCA and the EUCD were passed into law. Now, manufacturers can legally prevent you from doing what you want with the equipment you buy from them, by forcing you to disable access controls (thus breaking the law) in order to do it.
Sure, publishers need to change their business model, but they haven't just yet. Respect the artist. If you think he sucks so much, why do you want to read his work anyway?
It is possible to respect someone and his work without obliging his every wish about how it should be enjoyed and distributed. For example, Kafka wanted his writings to be destroyed upon his death... but we're all better off today because someone decided he was wrong.
So - you are reducing this to a battle of hired cyber-gunslingers working for and against the belief that a man who creates a thing should have a say in its destiny?
Yup.
Of course, it'd be much simpler for everyone involved if the people who wish to get paid for creating intellectual works would realize that they're performing a service, not creating goods, and simply be content to get paid for their labor, like everyone else who performs a service. But that hasn't happened yet, so game on.
Copying my work without permission has the same effect as tearing down the fence at a concert. It cheapens my work by setting its value at zero. It also suggests what value you place on the fruits of your own labor.
No... see, I get paid for my labor. If I spend twice as much time programming, I get paid twice as much. It doesn't matter at all how many people use the software I create, because my business model doesn't depend on charging for copies. Any trained chimp can make copies of software; only someone with skill can write that software in the first place, so that's the act that should be rewarded.
I am at a loss to understand your easy acceptance that you can take my work without my permission and do whatever you wish, yet you insist on crediting me with its creation.
Simple. Copying isn't wrong, but fraud is. Passing my work off as yours, or your work off as mine, is fraud, just like building a Yugo in my backyard and trying to sell it as a Honda Civic.
You are saying - "this is his work, and although he doesn't want me to, I'm going to copy it and give it away.
Stop right there... a chunk of information is only "your work" in the sense that you created the first copy. You don't own it, and you don't get to dictate how it may be used, because the concept of ownership doesn't apply to information.
Ownership is necessary for tangible items, because they can only be in one place at a time. If I want to drive my car to Los Angeles, you can't drive it to Chicago at the same time. If I want to have a wine and cheese tasting in my living room, you can't have a rave there at the same time. Someone has to decide how it'll be used, and that person is the owner. In contrast, information can be used by a million different people in a million different ways all at once. There is no need for an owner.
So far the real battle has been fought between those who would use the work without respecting the author's wishes and the agents of the authors. If it gets any worse the authors themselves may get involved. They're the creative ones...remember? The ones who think out of the box - the ones with the ideas both magnificent and horrible. You could be in for a rocky ride.
Good! I say bring it on. I'm calling their bluff. People won't stop creating new music, art, and movies, because art has been around since long before copyright existed. They may, however, be forced to choose a better business model, one that involves getting paid for actually using their unique artistic talents instead of for making copies.
If you make enough money, paying a fine because you parked your car in a much more convenient place that happened to be a "no parking" zone is probably no big deal. Send off the money order and you're done. Might have been well worth the price of the ticket, really.
Indeed. There are some places here in town where employees will park illegally and just pay the fine every day they work, because it's cheaper than parking in a garage all day.
Ads for a competitor produced by a 3rd party on any site is more like walking into a Burger King and seeing McDonalds ads plastered all over.
No, because it's happening on your computer, without affecting how the site is viewed by anyone else.
It's more like wearing special glasses that allow you to see McDonald's ads overlaid on top of Burger King ads wherever you go. The court just said it's legal for you to wear those glasses - you have the right to control what you see. The BK manager can't force you to take them off, nor can he sue the manufacturer of the glasses.
Now, the reality of the situation happens to be that those glasses are sometimes forced upon you by malicious advertisers. That sucks, but the court didn't address or condone that behavior.
Those who suggest that 'copying' takes nothing from the author assert they have a right to do what they will with the material. Doesn't the author also have this right, including charging for access and providing the material in a protected format if he wishes?
Yes. Everyone has the (moral) right to do whatever they want with any song, novel, movie, etc., including redistributing it, selling copies, and translating it into whatever format they prefer to use, as long as they give credit where credit is due (i.e. don't pass someone else's work off as their own, and don't pass their own work off as someone else's).
The author's right to charge for access, however, does not extend to preventing other people from charging a lower price, or giving away copies for free. If he wants to charge more than someone else, he'd better provide more value too.
Someone who wishes to run a patch app written in Java, C#, or any other language that compiles to intermediate code.
Stop beating around the bush... are you suggesting no one should ever write a patch application in these languages? It's the year 2005 - nearly every Windows user has the.NET Framework and/or a JRE installed, and a.NET app is more portable than a plain Win32 application, which is what Jon could've released instead. (Not that portability matters if you're patching a Win32 binary!)
The same way companies are able to sell fruit and vegetables today. Growing any plant takes time and effort that many people just aren't willing to put out, and growing it well takes even more.
People are willing to pay extra for convenience. For a close example, look at cigarettes: it's much cheaper to buy a bag of tobacco and some papers and roll your own cigarettes, but most smokers still buy cigarettes by the pack.
The point is that there are reasons (legal and moral) that committing a crime via a thin layer of indirection is still committing a crime.
This does not apply, legally or morally, to breach of contract, because the contract only creates an obligation (legal and moral) for the people who signed it.
To use your NDA example: If I know someone who signed an NDA to protect certain secrets, and I convince him to disclose those secrets to me, I've done nothing wrong. It's his job to protect the secrets, not mine, and if he fails to do it, that's not my problem.
That's an explanation, but it's no excuse. Sellers who charge high shipping prices rarely provide the kind of high-quality shipping service those prices would suggest.
For example: I recently bought an item with a winning bid of about $3.50, and a shipping price of $6.95. For a shipping cost that high on such a small item (a set of cell phone cables), I expect tracking numbers and no longer than 3 business days for it to arrive. Instead, it was sent USPS First Class for about $1.50 - no tracking numbers, and I was told to wait up to 15 business days. It took over three weeks before I received the item.
I'll point out that they're guilty of something analogous to receiving stolen goods. They aren't a party to the contract, but they are a beneficiary of a willful breach of contract.
It's only analagous if we consider theft analagous to breach of contract. Surely you don't think taking an object away from its rightful owner is morally equivalent to reneging on an agreement not to share a piece of software.
Entering a contract with the intent to breach it is fraud.
However, entering a contract intending to stick to it, then changing your mind later, is not fraud.
No-one is forced to be bound by something they didn't sign.
In that case, the person who receives a copy is in the clear, since any breach of the contract is a matter to be settled between the parties to the contract. Glad we agree.
The point is that people shouldn't profiteer from fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
Think about it, we drink the milk of a cow, which is for cows not humans.
We also eat honey, which is for bees, not humans. And meat, which is for tigers, not humans. And fish, which is for bears, not humans. And plants, which are for cows, not humans.
It's kind of silly to worry about whether the food you're eating is "for" something other than you. All that matters is what it's made of, and cow's milk contains essentially the same stuff as human milk, but in different proportions.
BTW, what are "traces of gm"? General Motors? General Mills? General MacArthur? Surely you realize that genetic modification is not something that can be passed from one organism to another through eating.
Actually, someone else on ifMUD came up with it recently while I was griping about suPHP... thanks, though. ;)
That's wrong. They only need to be writable by the user running httpd.
The distinction is only important if your sysadmin is kind enough to chown or chgrp the files for you. Otherwise, since httpd is probably running as nobody/nogroup and you're probably not in nogroup, your only choice is to make them o+w.
And even if you can make them writable only by the user running httpd, that still means anyone else who shares the web server can overwrite your files, because their scripts run with the same permissions as yours.
This is even worse. I don't want any root suid httpd process in my system, do you?.
httpd itself wouldn't have to be suid root; only the per-user process it spawns would.
True. Even a purely informational message would be spam if you sent it to a million people who didn't ask for it.
BTW, suphp is my favorite way to check the overall status of an HP-UX system.
# suphp
Not much, runnin' some processes. 'Sup with you?
I didn't forget. Perhaps you forgot to read down to the bottom of my comment - notice the paragraph starting "If you were referring to the illegally copied games"?
The fact remains that the game company's bottom line (which was what the post I replied to was talking about) would be affected just as much whether he sold those illegally copied games, or gave them away for free, or whether they never existed at all. All that matters, as far as their profits are concerned, is the number of people who buy legal copies - if you get an illegal copy, it doesn't matter where you get it or how much you pay.
This Perchild MPM? "This module is not functional. Development of this module is not complete and is not currently active. Do not use perchild unless you are a programmer willing to help fix it." Doesn't seem like something I could use for a production web site. ;)
"you need to have your files set to chmod 777 for this to work" is another pearler.
This is necessary because mod_php runs scripts as the same user who started httpd, usually "nobody", so any files you want your PHP scripts to write to has to be world-writable. The problem would go away if mod_php could just run PHP scripts as their owners, instead of as the user running httpd!
You can already install suphp to do this, but you pay a performance penalty, since it has to start a new process for each invocation.
mod_php's advantage is that it runs scripts in the httpd process, so of course they have the same permissions as the user running httpd. But it could be changed: spawn a new process for each unique user who owns a PHP script (setuid to that user), and have the main httpd process communicate to the appropriate user's child process via a local socket whenever it's time to run one of their scripts. Then you only have to spawn one process for each user, and once that's done, the scripts could run just as fast as they do now.
Look, there's a lot of activities you're allowed to do legally as long as it is for personal use.
In this case, you aren't allowed to do it for personal use either. UK courts have found mod chips illegal in general - read the submission.
If you try to make a profit off of it, you're hurting the bottom line of some company and you are going to get slammed for it. How simple is that?
I call BS. Consider these three situations:
1. I buy an Xbox for myself and mod it.
2. My friend buys an Xbox and pays me to install a mod chip.
3. My friend pays me to buy an Xbox, install a mod chip, and give it to him.
Microsoft's bottom line is exactly the same in all three situations, because the only way to get an Xbox is to buy it from Microsoft.
If you were referring to the illegally copied games, you're still wrong: the game company's bottom line is the same whether you download a copy of their game for free, or buy it from some guy on the street corner, or even if you choose not to buy the game at all and buy a DVD instead. Either you're paying the game company or you aren't.
Regardless of the fact that this guy deserved to be punished, I can't see how chipping for a legitimate use (ie, to use it as a media centre etc) can possibly be illegal.
Did you miss this link in the submission? The fact that mod chips disable a copy protection mechanism makes them illegal, according to the court, whether or not they're actually used to play illegally copied games. The court makes case law. It's now up to UK legislators to change the situation.
I would hope that if I bought the hardware I'd be entitled to do whatever I liked to it, provided I didn't actually break the law by putting pirated games on it.
I would hope so too, but unfortunately, the DMCA and the EUCD were passed into law. Now, manufacturers can legally prevent you from doing what you want with the equipment you buy from them, by forcing you to disable access controls (thus breaking the law) in order to do it.
Sure, publishers need to change their business model, but they haven't just yet. Respect the artist. If you think he sucks so much, why do you want to read his work anyway?
It is possible to respect someone and his work without obliging his every wish about how it should be enjoyed and distributed. For example, Kafka wanted his writings to be destroyed upon his death... but we're all better off today because someone decided he was wrong.
You take that back! My mother was a saint!
So - you are reducing this to a battle of hired cyber-gunslingers working for and against the belief that a man who creates a thing should have a say in its destiny?
Yup.
Of course, it'd be much simpler for everyone involved if the people who wish to get paid for creating intellectual works would realize that they're performing a service, not creating goods, and simply be content to get paid for their labor, like everyone else who performs a service. But that hasn't happened yet, so game on.
Copying my work without permission has the same effect as tearing down the fence at a concert. It cheapens my work by setting its value at zero. It also suggests what value you place on the fruits of your own labor.
No... see, I get paid for my labor. If I spend twice as much time programming, I get paid twice as much. It doesn't matter at all how many people use the software I create, because my business model doesn't depend on charging for copies. Any trained chimp can make copies of software; only someone with skill can write that software in the first place, so that's the act that should be rewarded.
I am at a loss to understand your easy acceptance that you can take my work without my permission and do whatever you wish, yet you insist on crediting me with its creation.
Simple. Copying isn't wrong, but fraud is. Passing my work off as yours, or your work off as mine, is fraud, just like building a Yugo in my backyard and trying to sell it as a Honda Civic.
You are saying - "this is his work, and although he doesn't want me to, I'm going to copy it and give it away.
Stop right there... a chunk of information is only "your work" in the sense that you created the first copy. You don't own it, and you don't get to dictate how it may be used, because the concept of ownership doesn't apply to information.
Ownership is necessary for tangible items, because they can only be in one place at a time. If I want to drive my car to Los Angeles, you can't drive it to Chicago at the same time. If I want to have a wine and cheese tasting in my living room, you can't have a rave there at the same time. Someone has to decide how it'll be used, and that person is the owner. In contrast, information can be used by a million different people in a million different ways all at once. There is no need for an owner.
So far the real battle has been fought between those who would use the work without respecting the author's wishes and the agents of the authors. If it gets any worse the authors themselves may get involved. They're the creative ones...remember? The ones who think out of the box - the ones with the ideas both magnificent and horrible. You could be in for a rocky ride.
Good! I say bring it on. I'm calling their bluff. People won't stop creating new music, art, and movies, because art has been around since long before copyright existed. They may, however, be forced to choose a better business model, one that involves getting paid for actually using their unique artistic talents instead of for making copies.
If you make enough money, paying a fine because you parked your car in a much more convenient place that happened to be a "no parking" zone is probably no big deal. Send off the money order and you're done. Might have been well worth the price of the ticket, really.
Indeed. There are some places here in town where employees will park illegally and just pay the fine every day they work, because it's cheaper than parking in a garage all day.
Tip: The word "statist" isn't considered negative as widely as you might think.
Ads for a competitor produced by a 3rd party on any site is more like walking into a Burger King and seeing McDonalds ads plastered all over.
No, because it's happening on your computer, without affecting how the site is viewed by anyone else.
It's more like wearing special glasses that allow you to see McDonald's ads overlaid on top of Burger King ads wherever you go. The court just said it's legal for you to wear those glasses - you have the right to control what you see. The BK manager can't force you to take them off, nor can he sue the manufacturer of the glasses.
Now, the reality of the situation happens to be that those glasses are sometimes forced upon you by malicious advertisers. That sucks, but the court didn't address or condone that behavior.
Those who suggest that 'copying' takes nothing from the author assert they have a right to do what they will with the material. Doesn't the author also have this right, including charging for access and providing the material in a protected format if he wishes?
Yes. Everyone has the (moral) right to do whatever they want with any song, novel, movie, etc., including redistributing it, selling copies, and translating it into whatever format they prefer to use, as long as they give credit where credit is due (i.e. don't pass someone else's work off as their own, and don't pass their own work off as someone else's).
The author's right to charge for access, however, does not extend to preventing other people from charging a lower price, or giving away copies for free. If he wants to charge more than someone else, he'd better provide more value too.
I think you mean 2.5 GHz.
Someone who wishes to run a patch app written in Java, C#, or any other language that compiles to intermediate code.
.NET Framework and/or a JRE installed, and a .NET app is more portable than a plain Win32 application, which is what Jon could've released instead. (Not that portability matters if you're patching a Win32 binary!)
Stop beating around the bush... are you suggesting no one should ever write a patch application in these languages? It's the year 2005 - nearly every Windows user has the
In the US, you'd more likely be using one of the CDMA voice codecs instead of GSM, which are usually higher bitrate as well as higher quality.
The same way companies are able to sell fruit and vegetables today. Growing any plant takes time and effort that many people just aren't willing to put out, and growing it well takes even more.
People are willing to pay extra for convenience. For a close example, look at cigarettes: it's much cheaper to buy a bag of tobacco and some papers and roll your own cigarettes, but most smokers still buy cigarettes by the pack.
The point is that there are reasons (legal and moral) that committing a crime via a thin layer of indirection is still committing a crime.
This does not apply, legally or morally, to breach of contract, because the contract only creates an obligation (legal and moral) for the people who signed it.
To use your NDA example: If I know someone who signed an NDA to protect certain secrets, and I convince him to disclose those secrets to me, I've done nothing wrong. It's his job to protect the secrets, not mine, and if he fails to do it, that's not my problem.
That's an explanation, but it's no excuse. Sellers who charge high shipping prices rarely provide the kind of high-quality shipping service those prices would suggest.
For example: I recently bought an item with a winning bid of about $3.50, and a shipping price of $6.95. For a shipping cost that high on such a small item (a set of cell phone cables), I expect tracking numbers and no longer than 3 business days for it to arrive. Instead, it was sent USPS First Class for about $1.50 - no tracking numbers, and I was told to wait up to 15 business days. It took over three weeks before I received the item.
I'll point out that they're guilty of something analogous to receiving stolen goods. They aren't a party to the contract, but they are a beneficiary of a willful breach of contract.
It's only analagous if we consider theft analagous to breach of contract. Surely you don't think taking an object away from its rightful owner is morally equivalent to reneging on an agreement not to share a piece of software.
Entering a contract with the intent to breach it is fraud.
However, entering a contract intending to stick to it, then changing your mind later, is not fraud.
No-one is forced to be bound by something they didn't sign.
In that case, the person who receives a copy is in the clear, since any breach of the contract is a matter to be settled between the parties to the contract. Glad we agree.
The point is that people shouldn't profiteer from fraud.
Fraud is different from breach of contract, BTW.