Had software existed back then, I am sure they
would have included a clause denying copyright
to secret work
Actually, even though there was no software back then, they did just that.
Used to be in order to get a copyright you had to deposit a copy of the work in question with the library of congress. To make sure it would still be available after your 14 year copyright period (renewable once, by the original author if still alive only) expired.
A german guy reported that they forgot to make him sign the NDA and did a pretty thorough report. If you search back aways you should be able to find it.
He said they showed very small clips, the linux code was from mailing list archives, they just showed a few lines from each that matched without the context. Not enough to do much with.
There are plenty of opportunities given what's known about the code to come up with small clips like that. There's some BSD code. There are POSIX implementations (with cut and pasted comments from POSIX specs, of course.) There are some implementations where it would be more shocking if there were differences than not.
SCOs making big claims but what little evidence they show, even under NDA, is hardly wourthy of mention.
If they stick with what was said in this article rather than changing their story yet again, it sounds like they don't have a case at all against anyone but IBM, and they'll almost certainly lose that one as well, because of the contract amendments that took effect in 2001.
Of course, my favorite actual spam message of all time was the guy asking for a supplier of Acme flux capacitors and the mind warper. I haven't got a frigging clue how this spam ever made any money for anyone!
I got one like that. I forget the details, but it was a mix of hi-tech and star trek tech jargon, sounded like the components for a time machine maybe, if that stuff existed.
I figure they send out a few million of those, get one or two people stupid and greedy enough to contact them, and then scam them for their lifes savings.
No. Unless you've actually notified spammers that you don't want unsolicited bulk email, you're fair game, all else being equal.
Nonsense. That's the status quo of the system. Email was not devised for the transmission and reception of unsolicited bulk messages, and using it so is a violation of the TOS of nearly every service on the net, including some of those that knowingly take spammers money anyway!
You've got the obligation backwards - there is no obligation to inform everyone in the world that might ever want to spam you that you don't want it. There is an obligation, rather, for users to refrain from sending bulk email to anyone that hasn't explicitly requested it. That's been the understood rule as long as I've been on the net, and that's since before Mosaic was conceived. The opposite rule that you seem to be endorsing is absolutely senseless and unworkable. Do you have any idea how many email messages you would receive if just one business in 10 decided to put you on a list to get one email message a year from them?
And the fact is, more often than not, if you try to email these people back to tell them you don't want to receive their spam, there isn't any way to do it because they never use their own email address. Click on the 'remove' link and you just confirmed that your address is 'good' and you get sold to a few hundred more spammers.
You obviously don't have the slightest experience with these people or I wouldn't have to tell you this.
I'm not defending spammers that hack, or spammers that lie, or spammers that disregard notice to never spam a particular address or to leave and never spam it again.
Then you aren't defending spammers, because those are exactly the things they do, day in and day out.
But I see nothing to be done about law-abiding spammers that are truthful and obey requests to go the hell away.
I see nothing wrong with them either, as they're a fantasy. They don't exist.
10. Once they knew it was there, how quickly did they react ?
Well they were still distributing the linux source from their ftp server about a week ago. Seem to have finally removed it, but not after serving up plenty of copies, GPL included, long after filing suit.
If your filter wouldn't catch that message then you have a very broken filter. Doh!
The ones that get through your filter are the ones I'm talking about, and they do require a little more time. 'Did you get my pic' for instance - that could be an acquaintance, someone you're doing business with or might be doing business with in the future, or a spammer. It's usually a spammer. But you still have to check it.
You also have to waste time looking through the stuff your filter did catch to see if it made any mistakes, of course. It all adds up.
Whoa, let's be careful here.. If that's how things end up, I'd be tempted to create a business model of starting flame wars on message boards and then suing anyone who e-mailed me.
If they are adding you to bulk email lists without your permission then you would be right.
Like the other respondents here, you don't seem to understand what spam is. It's email which is both unsolicited and bulk. If you ask to be on a list, then it's not spam. If any Tom Dick or Harry just up and decides to email you, that's not spam either.
When they put you on a bulk email list without your permission, then it is spam. Whether it's commercial or not.
Oh yes they do. All the way from hijacking dial-up lines under false pretenses, through exploiting relays whose admins aren't smart enough to secure them, through backbones that are used in violation of TOS, all the way to my email account which is NOT for the purpose of receiving unsolicited bulk email, commercial or otherwise.
If your email is set up to accept unsolicited email, why is it spammers' fault that they're sending you such email.
I have no problem with unsolicited email, if it's not bulk. You don't seem to understand the definition of spam. It's not unsolicited email. It's not commercial email. It's not even bulk email. It's mail which is both bulk and unsolicited. That's an abuse of the entire internet infrastructure.
I hate ads -- all ads, everywhere -- but there's not a great deal that can be done about this, just as many people hate neonazis, but have to put up with their continued existence since tolerance is safest for us all.
I won't tolerate neonazis on my own property, and neither should you.
Why don't you read the first amendment sometime buddy? It doesn't have any exceptions. The courts have invented a few, but that doesn't mean we need to encourage them.
It's completely out in left field when we're talking about spam anyway. Spam has nothing to do with free speech. It's theft by conversion.
Has nothing to do with whether it's commercial or not. The first amendment guarantees your right to speak - NOT your right to hijack servers and bandwidth all across the world in order to force people to listen to you.
You can't just hit the delete button. You have to figure out that it's spam first. This involves viewing the message, reading at least part of it. If you're talking about someone that costs the company $60/hr (doesn't mean he takes that home, when you include overhead/ss/unemployment/insurance etc. a lot of people cost more than that to employ) that's $1 per minute, and a 'clever' spam that slips past your filters can take a minute to conclusively identify and delete.
Not to mention all the problems that are created when the filters catch the wrong mail...
It says it handles POP email accounts and comes with OpenOffice to edit MS Word files...
That really implies a Hard Drive, huh? Maybe the HD is an option that allows these "features"?
Not at all. You can run OO off the CD (doh!) and 'save' them by emailing them and/or using network storage and/or using a usb flashdrive.
But it's obvious that gun proliferation is damaging to US society...
That's not obvious at all. When we had more 'proliferation' of weapons, we had far less crime. Those areas where weapons are still prolific still have far less crime.
Take away the violence associated with the 'war on drugs' and the US is still one of the most peaceful places on earth. Weapons are a red herring.
The people on "welfare" are the illegal file sharers who expect the RIAA members property for free at the expense of the RIAA members.
This is the key to your misunderstanding. Copyright is not property. It's a privilege, it is in fact a privilege to prevent others from free use of their property, created by the state, and the sole constitutional justification for it is the promotion of the arts and sciences. A purpose which it is clearly on the wrong side of in it's current implementation.
That's true, but the bigger problem here is that they are hand-made and individually crafted, and must be that way. You could mass produce them, but only by compromising the way he's doing it entirely, by using the bamboo to serve the steel instead of the other way around to paraphrase the guy in the article. In order to do this right you really have to start from the bamboo you have and design the bike around that, instead of the other way around. So as nice as this is in its own way, there's no way it could ever replace regular bike building techniques.
I'm not sure that it would be in the US today, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be. Under US law only a few years ago it certainly would have been, however. And in many other parts of the world it would be today.
I'd be REALLY surprised if as much as 0.05% of the downloads were by people who have a legal right to the files, and it's not the point anyway.
Oh I agree. The point, in this particular case, is simply that they are effectively exercising police powers without being subject to police rules, and without being expected to actually prove their case.
As to how many current downloaders have legal rights to their files, I wouldn't hazard a guess. I agree it's probably low. The RIAA still should have to bear the burden of proof in any individual case, however, something they're managing to evade.
The point is whether it's legitimate to keep the current content distribution channels as they are.
And I disagree. I think a far more free market is called for, and that the regulation that keeps distribution channels that have long since become obsolete alive are a travesty, practiced simply to ensure the rich (the RIAA in this case) will never have to work to get 'their' money out of the rest of the population again. It's corporate welfare, and the RIAA are some of the biggest hoes out there.
and let the market decide.
The market has already decided. The RIAA doesn't like that decision, that's why they're buying congressmen and judges now.
Some people downloading the files have a legal right to them. It's not reasonable or practical for the person sharing them to try to police which is which.
For instance, there's a particular album I've actually bought four times (damn thieves have stolen it three times.) It's no longer in print. My CD of it is in another country in storage at the moment. At least under the laws where I live now (I'm not sure about current US law - is anyone? But this would be legal in the US until recently at least as well) it's not infringement if I download mp3s of that same album to listen to until I can get my CD shipped.
Now if the RIAA notices that I'm downloading the file, they would be reasonable to sue me over it, but I would have an affirmative defense by demonstrating that I had in fact already payed for the material so it would be a hassle but it would eventually be dismissed.
The person sharing those files has no possible way to tell the difference between me and someone else that doesn't have a legal justification for downloading. Other than placing a disclaimer saying 'don't download this if it is illegal for you to do so' what more could s/he be expected to do?
And beyond that, of course, considering that the album is out of print I don't think they should have any rights to bitch. That last is not how the law reads, but certainly how it should read. The purpose of inventing 'copyright' was to encourage creation, not to allow copyright holders to suppress material they aren't willing to provide.
The real question is; will they let you keep your programming job if you are willing to relocate to India? Are you willing to live in Bangalore, Pune or Delhi for $12-14k/yr?
Frankly I'd be very tempted. Then again I'm the adventurous type. But I've always wanted to see India, and... $12-14k/yr is a great deal of money there. That's roughly enough to supply 10 college students with all necessities for a year there.
According to the article, you either have to volunteer the change of address info to Apple, or change the address on your credit card.
I didn't think the blurb could be exactly correct. When i go to iTunes (I'm using a Swedish IP) the message I get says that I won't be able to purchase music unless my billing address is in the United States. So it wouldn't make sense for them to let me buy it with a stateside billing address then delete it when I download it, now would it?
It's damnably stupid to have such Mickey Mouse restrictions in the first place, but you know the record companies must have insisted on language to that effect if they were to do business at all.
Probably not since they would just have to use an IP that is not being blocked - an IP that is allowed thus.
What techfocus, slashdot, and everyone else should really do is put up one of those porno-style front pages where you have a disclaimer that says by entering the site, you are attesting that you are not an employee or associate of the RIAA, and you have to press 'agree' to enter. That might make them a little shy of quoting us out of context...
The customers don't have and have never had any legal liability for a suppliers copyright infringement. MS has promised, actually, to do less than they were legally required to already, since they stuck in a loophole about refunding a portion of the license cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone breaks into your home while you're there and you don't think you're being threatened? Please.
Ok I took a few minutes to do some research for you.
The statement of the NDAless witness in German
An English translation of the above.
What another person that did sign the NDA can say about what he saw.
Actually, even though there was no software back then, they did just that.
Used to be in order to get a copyright you had to deposit a copy of the work in question with the library of congress. To make sure it would still be available after your 14 year copyright period (renewable once, by the original author if still alive only) expired.
A german guy reported that they forgot to make him sign the NDA and did a pretty thorough report. If you search back aways you should be able to find it.
He said they showed very small clips, the linux code was from mailing list archives, they just showed a few lines from each that matched without the context. Not enough to do much with.
There are plenty of opportunities given what's known about the code to come up with small clips like that. There's some BSD code. There are POSIX implementations (with cut and pasted comments from POSIX specs, of course.) There are some implementations where it would be more shocking if there were differences than not.
SCOs making big claims but what little evidence they show, even under NDA, is hardly wourthy of mention.
If they stick with what was said in this article rather than changing their story yet again, it sounds like they don't have a case at all against anyone but IBM, and they'll almost certainly lose that one as well, because of the contract amendments that took effect in 2001.
I got one like that. I forget the details, but it was a mix of hi-tech and star trek tech jargon, sounded like the components for a time machine maybe, if that stuff existed.
I figure they send out a few million of those, get one or two people stupid and greedy enough to contact them, and then scam them for their lifes savings.
Nonsense. That's the status quo of the system. Email was not devised for the transmission and reception of unsolicited bulk messages, and using it so is a violation of the TOS of nearly every service on the net, including some of those that knowingly take spammers money anyway!
You've got the obligation backwards - there is no obligation to inform everyone in the world that might ever want to spam you that you don't want it. There is an obligation, rather, for users to refrain from sending bulk email to anyone that hasn't explicitly requested it. That's been the understood rule as long as I've been on the net, and that's since before Mosaic was conceived. The opposite rule that you seem to be endorsing is absolutely senseless and unworkable. Do you have any idea how many email messages you would receive if just one business in 10 decided to put you on a list to get one email message a year from them?
And the fact is, more often than not, if you try to email these people back to tell them you don't want to receive their spam, there isn't any way to do it because they never use their own email address. Click on the 'remove' link and you just confirmed that your address is 'good' and you get sold to a few hundred more spammers.
You obviously don't have the slightest experience with these people or I wouldn't have to tell you this.
Then you aren't defending spammers, because those are exactly the things they do, day in and day out.
I see nothing wrong with them either, as they're a fantasy. They don't exist.
Well they were still distributing the linux source from their ftp server about a week ago. Seem to have finally removed it, but not after serving up plenty of copies, GPL included, long after filing suit.
If your filter wouldn't catch that message then you have a very broken filter. Doh!
The ones that get through your filter are the ones I'm talking about, and they do require a little more time. 'Did you get my pic' for instance - that could be an acquaintance, someone you're doing business with or might be doing business with in the future, or a spammer. It's usually a spammer. But you still have to check it.
You also have to waste time looking through the stuff your filter did catch to see if it made any mistakes, of course. It all adds up.
If they are adding you to bulk email lists without your permission then you would be right.
Like the other respondents here, you don't seem to understand what spam is. It's email which is both unsolicited and bulk. If you ask to be on a list, then it's not spam. If any Tom Dick or Harry just up and decides to email you, that's not spam either.
When they put you on a bulk email list without your permission, then it is spam. Whether it's commercial or not.
Oh yes they do. All the way from hijacking dial-up lines under false pretenses, through exploiting relays whose admins aren't smart enough to secure them, through backbones that are used in violation of TOS, all the way to my email account which is NOT for the purpose of receiving unsolicited bulk email, commercial or otherwise.
I have no problem with unsolicited email, if it's not bulk. You don't seem to understand the definition of spam. It's not unsolicited email. It's not commercial email. It's not even bulk email. It's mail which is both bulk and unsolicited. That's an abuse of the entire internet infrastructure.
I won't tolerate neonazis on my own property, and neither should you.
Why don't you read the first amendment sometime buddy? It doesn't have any exceptions. The courts have invented a few, but that doesn't mean we need to encourage them.
It's completely out in left field when we're talking about spam anyway. Spam has nothing to do with free speech. It's theft by conversion.
Has nothing to do with whether it's commercial or not. The first amendment guarantees your right to speak - NOT your right to hijack servers and bandwidth all across the world in order to force people to listen to you.
You can't just hit the delete button. You have to figure out that it's spam first. This involves viewing the message, reading at least part of it. If you're talking about someone that costs the company $60/hr (doesn't mean he takes that home, when you include overhead/ss/unemployment/insurance etc. a lot of people cost more than that to employ) that's $1 per minute, and a 'clever' spam that slips past your filters can take a minute to conclusively identify and delete.
Not to mention all the problems that are created when the filters catch the wrong mail...
Not at all. You can run OO off the CD (doh!) and 'save' them by emailing them and/or using network storage and/or using a usb flashdrive.
That's not obvious at all. When we had more 'proliferation' of weapons, we had far less crime. Those areas where weapons are still prolific still have far less crime.
Take away the violence associated with the 'war on drugs' and the US is still one of the most peaceful places on earth. Weapons are a red herring.
This is the key to your misunderstanding. Copyright is not property. It's a privilege, it is in fact a privilege to prevent others from free use of their property, created by the state, and the sole constitutional justification for it is the promotion of the arts and sciences. A purpose which it is clearly on the wrong side of in it's current implementation.
That's true, but the bigger problem here is that they are hand-made and individually crafted, and must be that way. You could mass produce them, but only by compromising the way he's doing it entirely, by using the bamboo to serve the steel instead of the other way around to paraphrase the guy in the article. In order to do this right you really have to start from the bamboo you have and design the bike around that, instead of the other way around. So as nice as this is in its own way, there's no way it could ever replace regular bike building techniques.
I'm not sure that it would be in the US today, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be. Under US law only a few years ago it certainly would have been, however. And in many other parts of the world it would be today.
Oh I agree. The point, in this particular case, is simply that they are effectively exercising police powers without being subject to police rules, and without being expected to actually prove their case.
As to how many current downloaders have legal rights to their files, I wouldn't hazard a guess. I agree it's probably low. The RIAA still should have to bear the burden of proof in any individual case, however, something they're managing to evade.
And I disagree. I think a far more free market is called for, and that the regulation that keeps distribution channels that have long since become obsolete alive are a travesty, practiced simply to ensure the rich (the RIAA in this case) will never have to work to get 'their' money out of the rest of the population again. It's corporate welfare, and the RIAA are some of the biggest hoes out there.
The market has already decided. The RIAA doesn't like that decision, that's why they're buying congressmen and judges now.
I think you're missing his point.
Some people downloading the files have a legal right to them. It's not reasonable or practical for the person sharing them to try to police which is which.
For instance, there's a particular album I've actually bought four times (damn thieves have stolen it three times.) It's no longer in print. My CD of it is in another country in storage at the moment. At least under the laws where I live now (I'm not sure about current US law - is anyone? But this would be legal in the US until recently at least as well) it's not infringement if I download mp3s of that same album to listen to until I can get my CD shipped.
Now if the RIAA notices that I'm downloading the file, they would be reasonable to sue me over it, but I would have an affirmative defense by demonstrating that I had in fact already payed for the material so it would be a hassle but it would eventually be dismissed.
The person sharing those files has no possible way to tell the difference between me and someone else that doesn't have a legal justification for downloading. Other than placing a disclaimer saying 'don't download this if it is illegal for you to do so' what more could s/he be expected to do?
And beyond that, of course, considering that the album is out of print I don't think they should have any rights to bitch. That last is not how the law reads, but certainly how it should read. The purpose of inventing 'copyright' was to encourage creation, not to allow copyright holders to suppress material they aren't willing to provide.
Frankly I'd be very tempted. Then again I'm the adventurous type. But I've always wanted to see India, and... $12-14k/yr is a great deal of money there. That's roughly enough to supply 10 college students with all necessities for a year there.
I didn't think the blurb could be exactly correct. When i go to iTunes (I'm using a Swedish IP) the message I get says that I won't be able to purchase music unless my billing address is in the United States. So it wouldn't make sense for them to let me buy it with a stateside billing address then delete it when I download it, now would it?
It's damnably stupid to have such Mickey Mouse restrictions in the first place, but you know the record companies must have insisted on language to that effect if they were to do business at all.
You're right, but you're wrong.
Fact is, US law actually carves out an exception in this respect for music. You're not allowed to rent it.
Probably not since they would just have to use an IP that is not being blocked - an IP that is allowed thus.
What techfocus, slashdot, and everyone else should really do is put up one of those porno-style front pages where you have a disclaimer that says by entering the site, you are attesting that you are not an employee or associate of the RIAA, and you have to press 'agree' to enter. That might make them a little shy of quoting us out of context...
That statement is meaningless.
The customers don't have and have never had any legal liability for a suppliers copyright infringement. MS has promised, actually, to do less than they were legally required to already, since they stuck in a loophole about refunding a portion of the license cost.