Fuji is certainly within their rights to exercise their legal options, but they could have come up with a freindlier means of protecting their intellectual property, such as providing "authorized" material to webmasters or showcasing prominent fan sites on their own page. Good word-of-mouth is the best and cheapest marketing one can hope for, and this kind of move will only serve to wipe out that net-based buzz.
This has nothing to do with interstate commerce. If somebody in one state commits a crime that effects someone in another state, both could have jurisdiction. Spamming can be presented as a business activity, malicious virus-writing is being defined (in this new law) as a crime.
As for "This type of problem isn't really covered in the constitution, since you really didn't have to worry about stuff being triggered in one state from another," have you ever heard of mail fraud or wire fraud? This issue of cross-territorial jurisdiction pre-dates the internet by a long ways...
This could possibly work out as a good early step towards defining workable laws relating to malicious hacks. The legal definition of a virus, the mechanism for determining recoverable damages, etc., are all pieces which, over time, will require further definition and refinement, but the basic premise seems sound.
Good luck on enforcing the law, though! I'd like to see what happens the first time someone creates a virus somewhere else, say Montana, and it damages a computer in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania could argue for jurisdiction, but would Montana extradite someone all the way to Pennsylvania for prosecution?
That's a fine idea - the Slashdot forum could provide an excellent "independent's primary" for the ICANN election. Of course no single ICANN member could be forced to abide by the results, but the advantage to be gained from collective action is a good incentive that could help make this work.
The point is that Napster is a search-based tool, and an unknown artist is going to remain pretty much unknown. Nobody is going to search for "Billy Bob and the Meat Beaters" unless they've actually heard of them before - thus established acts like Metallica, et al, dominate the network traffic. While the Internet offers interesting possibilities for independent bands to bypass record labels, Napster doesn't do anything in particular to assist in that process.
As to your first question, Colorado - they play the purest and most skilled style of hockey among the final four.
To your second (favorite team among geeks), a good candidate might be Washington. The owner there (a former AOL guy, I think) gave all the players lap tops, and everybody involved with the team participates in forums via their website. Their coach, Ron Wilson, is an admitted internet junkie.
My personal fave, of course, is the Red Wings. Been a fan since the early 80's, so it's been a great ride.
Just wondering if there's any word as to whether the Voodoo5 will work with AMD boxes any better than the Voodoo3. I (and apparently many, many others) had to go through a number of tricks to get the dang thing just to work...
1) You've horribly misquoted me - I've never said that private business decisions do (or should) lack any moral component. I'm not going to follow that twisted line of reasoning any further, as the analogy is entirely misplaced.
2) The opening of the economic system in China is what will allow the political landscape to change - even though the process will probably take decades. Far better, I presume, to isolate them, and leave the Old Guard in undisputed control?
Basically, what is the credible alternative to open engagement? Isolation, brow-beating, and righteous indignation haven't gotton anywhere (look at North Korea or Cuba). There is a very real crisis brewing within China, and by extension, all of Southeast Asia. The PRC needs continued economic expansion to meet the needs of its populace as the old government-owned enterprises crumble. We can either be part of the solution, and build a working relationship with the world's most populous country (especially its growing entreprenurial class), or agitate them to the point where more drastics actions are considered, such as military annexation.
1) The whole issue of compensating victims of the Holocaust has nothing to do with trade policy. Those firms are accused of tortious acts (using slave labor, etc.) and the victims (and their descendants) are using the legal mechanisms available to seek redress.
2) What is going to do more for human rights in China? Restrictive trade policy combined with moralizing from American politicians and interest groups, or an opening of the economic system and expanded interaction with the international community? Picture China 30 years from now under either circumstance, and the choice is clear. If we want China to become more like us, it's easier to accomplish through working together rather than barking across a trade barrier.
When they talk about splitting Microsoft up like that, the different companies would have arrangements clearly spelled out that specify the limits on working arrangements. They certainly wouldn't share office buildings, and standards would be in place whereby outside software developers (say Netscape) would have the same access to OS information as the IE company.
Also, the ownership stakes would be looked at - by seperating the ownership interests, corporate interests will be seperated as well. The Office group, for example, would be spun off, netting zillions for the current Microsoft ownership, but at least pushing the Office group off in their own direction.
You're right on about Cuba - we need to remove the personal animosity towards Castro from the equation and help the island restructure its economy. In the long run, it could prove to be a great asset to all of Central and South America in educational and medical terms, but if the economy crumbles to pieces any further, that infrastructure could be put at risk.
As regards the year-to-year renewal process being a motivation factor for China's continued liberalization, there are stronger forces at work there. The Communist Party does understand that private enterprise needs to flourish as the government-owned enterprises collapse or are restructured, since jobs are desperately needed for the millions of urban workers who are being displaced. (I wrote a term paper on this transitional process for a Developmental Economics class once, so I've done some research)
Locking in permanent MFN status for China has been a prerequisite for China's entry into the WTO, which will prove to be more of a liberalizing force than any gaggle of pontificating US Senators could ever hope to be. China's move towards private enterprise over the last 15-20 years has resulted in the single greatest economic achievement in terms of sheer numbers of people lifted out of abject poverty in memory, and a further herculean effort will be needed to avoid social chaos as structural reforms continue. We can either jump on board and help transform the lives of 20% of the people on this planet, or we can create another Cold War. The choice is ours.
Individuals, of course, can (and should) take those considerations to heart when going about their daily lives. If you don't care to buy goods from country X, that's your prerogative. Governments taking those decisions on the part of the entire nation is another thing altogether.
That whole Nazi Germany reference is a bit odd - what has that got to do with trade policy?
China has been moving towards a more capitalistic society since the 1980's. Privately owned businesses have become the most dynamic element in the PRC's economy, and it is the government's greatest hope that these firms can grow quickly enough to soak up the millions of workers that need to be downsized from government-owned industrial concerns that desperately need reform in the years ahead. That's the great challenge for the Communist Party in China - fostering private enterprise in the commercial arena, while still maintaining control in the political one.
The embargo on Cuba is a Cold-War holdover that no longer makes any sense. It should have been lifted long ago.
As to the larger issue of restricting trade with countries which don't adhere to the same cultural values as our own, I don't see what good that does anybody. International cooperation through trade is one of the best agents for peace that's come along in the last fifty years.
And lest anyone get the wrong idea, I got my start as a night operator. After moving on to programmer-hood, my position was back-filled with two people who somehow managed over time to provide worse service but agitated for (and got) much higher salaries.
Analysts - Cripple the system (not on purpose - that would take too much skill) and make the System Pukes look good. See "Data Warehouse".
Project Leaders - more akin to Klingons than pirates, as in "will enthusiastically backstab those around/above/below them in the quest for corporate prestige."
Operations Staff - compensate for their lack of status by shrouding their work in techno-babble, creating the impression that they do the work of 10 on a shoestring budget.
CIO/IT Director - tall guy with nice hair and a strong arsenal of acronyms with which to deflect any attempt to get a meaningful statement from him. About as bright as your average doorstop.
Picking one goal among the zillions of possible choices can be difficult - one that interests me at this particular time is applying technology in a work environment to maximize performance. Designing and implementing a distribution system that can peform at a world-class level for users who might not even have a high-school education is a challenge that goes way beyond byte-crunching. Hacking code is great, and of course can be highly rewarding in personal and professional terms, but actually applying technology to real-world problems can be even more worthwhile.
Gee, companies are starting to give out computers and net access since it helps attract/retain employees and helps build their skill set for the business world. This could be a really neat-o development.
Now the whole issue will get so bogged down in bureaucratic gridlock that it will be years before the government passes a law attempting to restrict technology that, by that time, people will have moved well beyond.
How's about.grave for websites that have gone under - an image of a site can be preserved as yadayada.grave so it can be visited and (perhaps) mourned.
Is it because people are willing to pay, or is it because of the oligopoly of record labels and distributional channels of CDs?
It's a two-part formula, supply and demand. The record labels may be messing around with the supply side (like the recent issue about their restrictions on sale-price CD advertising), but the demand part is a reflection of consumer tastes. I doubt seriously that Napster has had any effect on the commercial music market - the industry might beg to differ, but that's only to inflate their claims that Napster threatens their very existence and must be stopped.
It may be total nonsense, but it's the truth - CD sales keep climbing and climbing, despite price increases and bellyaching from some circles. Obviously enough of an audience is willing to pay what the record companies are asking. Whether you consider them mindless rubes accepting whatever is given to them is up to you.
The point here is not to fight the legal matter to the death - but rather make Microsoft say, as explicitly as possible, how and why they can take an open protocol and make it their own. I can't wait for thier response!
If I understand correctly, they are accusing the Napster users of commiting a tort - they are planning a civil action, not a criminal one. If Metallica actually went to the trouble of suing individual users (a waste of time) and lost horribly, there could be provisions for the defendants to recover court costs and maybe punitive damages, but I believe that depends on the local/state legal environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuji is certainly within their rights to exercise their legal options, but they could have come up with a freindlier means of protecting their intellectual property, such as providing "authorized" material to webmasters or showcasing prominent fan sites on their own page. Good word-of-mouth is the best and cheapest marketing one can hope for, and this kind of move will only serve to wipe out that net-based buzz.
As for "This type of problem isn't really covered in the constitution, since you really didn't have to worry about stuff being triggered in one state from another," have you ever heard of mail fraud or wire fraud? This issue of cross-territorial jurisdiction pre-dates the internet by a long ways...
Good luck on enforcing the law, though! I'd like to see what happens the first time someone creates a virus somewhere else, say Montana, and it damages a computer in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania could argue for jurisdiction, but would Montana extradite someone all the way to Pennsylvania for prosecution?
Nominees, anyone???
The point is that Napster is a search-based tool, and an unknown artist is going to remain pretty much unknown. Nobody is going to search for "Billy Bob and the Meat Beaters" unless they've actually heard of them before - thus established acts like Metallica, et al, dominate the network traffic. While the Internet offers interesting possibilities for independent bands to bypass record labels, Napster doesn't do anything in particular to assist in that process.
To your second (favorite team among geeks), a good candidate might be Washington. The owner there (a former AOL guy, I think) gave all the players lap tops, and everybody involved with the team participates in forums via their website. Their coach, Ron Wilson, is an admitted internet junkie.
My personal fave, of course, is the Red Wings. Been a fan since the early 80's, so it's been a great ride.
Just wondering if there's any word as to whether the Voodoo5 will work with AMD boxes any better than the Voodoo3. I (and apparently many, many others) had to go through a number of tricks to get the dang thing just to work...
2) The opening of the economic system in China is what will allow the political landscape to change - even though the process will probably take decades. Far better, I presume, to isolate them, and leave the Old Guard in undisputed control?
Basically, what is the credible alternative to open engagement? Isolation, brow-beating, and righteous indignation haven't gotton anywhere (look at North Korea or Cuba). There is a very real crisis brewing within China, and by extension, all of Southeast Asia. The PRC needs continued economic expansion to meet the needs of its populace as the old government-owned enterprises crumble. We can either be part of the solution, and build a working relationship with the world's most populous country (especially its growing entreprenurial class), or agitate them to the point where more drastics actions are considered, such as military annexation.
2) What is going to do more for human rights in China? Restrictive trade policy combined with moralizing from American politicians and interest groups, or an opening of the economic system and expanded interaction with the international community? Picture China 30 years from now under either circumstance, and the choice is clear. If we want China to become more like us, it's easier to accomplish through working together rather than barking across a trade barrier.
Also, the ownership stakes would be looked at - by seperating the ownership interests, corporate interests will be seperated as well. The Office group, for example, would be spun off, netting zillions for the current Microsoft ownership, but at least pushing the Office group off in their own direction.
As regards the year-to-year renewal process being a motivation factor for China's continued liberalization, there are stronger forces at work there. The Communist Party does understand that private enterprise needs to flourish as the government-owned enterprises collapse or are restructured, since jobs are desperately needed for the millions of urban workers who are being displaced. (I wrote a term paper on this transitional process for a Developmental Economics class once, so I've done some research)
Locking in permanent MFN status for China has been a prerequisite for China's entry into the WTO, which will prove to be more of a liberalizing force than any gaggle of pontificating US Senators could ever hope to be. China's move towards private enterprise over the last 15-20 years has resulted in the single greatest economic achievement in terms of sheer numbers of people lifted out of abject poverty in memory, and a further herculean effort will be needed to avoid social chaos as structural reforms continue. We can either jump on board and help transform the lives of 20% of the people on this planet, or we can create another Cold War. The choice is ours.
That whole Nazi Germany reference is a bit odd - what has that got to do with trade policy?
China has been moving towards a more capitalistic society since the 1980's. Privately owned businesses have become the most dynamic element in the PRC's economy, and it is the government's greatest hope that these firms can grow quickly enough to soak up the millions of workers that need to be downsized from government-owned industrial concerns that desperately need reform in the years ahead. That's the great challenge for the Communist Party in China - fostering private enterprise in the commercial arena, while still maintaining control in the political one.
As to the larger issue of restricting trade with countries which don't adhere to the same cultural values as our own, I don't see what good that does anybody. International cooperation through trade is one of the best agents for peace that's come along in the last fifty years.
And lest anyone get the wrong idea, I got my start as a night operator. After moving on to programmer-hood, my position was back-filled with two people who somehow managed over time to provide worse service but agitated for (and got) much higher salaries.
Project Leaders - more akin to Klingons than pirates, as in "will enthusiastically backstab those around/above/below them in the quest for corporate prestige."
Operations Staff - compensate for their lack of status by shrouding their work in techno-babble, creating the impression that they do the work of 10 on a shoestring budget.
CIO/IT Director - tall guy with nice hair and a strong arsenal of acronyms with which to deflect any attempt to get a meaningful statement from him. About as bright as your average doorstop.
Picking one goal among the zillions of possible choices can be difficult - one that interests me at this particular time is applying technology in a work environment to maximize performance. Designing and implementing a distribution system that can peform at a world-class level for users who might not even have a high-school education is a challenge that goes way beyond byte-crunching. Hacking code is great, and of course can be highly rewarding in personal and professional terms, but actually applying technology to real-world problems can be even more worthwhile.
Wow, what biting insight!
Now the whole issue will get so bogged down in bureaucratic gridlock that it will be years before the government passes a law attempting to restrict technology that, by that time, people will have moved well beyond.
Examples: boo.grave, fordsucks.grave, etc.
It's a two-part formula, supply and demand. The record labels may be messing around with the supply side (like the recent issue about their restrictions on sale-price CD advertising), but the demand part is a reflection of consumer tastes. I doubt seriously that Napster has had any effect on the commercial music market - the industry might beg to differ, but that's only to inflate their claims that Napster threatens their very existence and must be stopped.
It may be total nonsense, but it's the truth - CD sales keep climbing and climbing, despite price increases and bellyaching from some circles. Obviously enough of an audience is willing to pay what the record companies are asking. Whether you consider them mindless rubes accepting whatever is given to them is up to you.
The point here is not to fight the legal matter to the death - but rather make Microsoft say, as explicitly as possible, how and why they can take an open protocol and make it their own. I can't wait for thier response!
Something like "I fart in your general direction, you silly, proprietary kniggits!"
If I understand correctly, they are accusing the Napster users of commiting a tort - they are planning a civil action, not a criminal one. If Metallica actually went to the trouble of suing individual users (a waste of time) and lost horribly, there could be provisions for the defendants to recover court costs and maybe punitive damages, but I believe that depends on the local/state legal environment.