RIAA? FUCK YOU TOO. Take your cookie-cutter bubblegum rockers and your homoerotic punk metal clown possies and shove them up your ass. Take your idiotic teenie-bopper horror slasher flicks and put them where the sun don't shine.
This lie is repeated over and over -- that the RIAA labels only push cheesy pop tunes. This assertion is completely false. If anything, it's the napster thugs who listen to one-hit-wonders all the time (hence the complaint that they only like "one song" on the CD... )
I listen to Jazz music, some of it by fairly obscure artists, and most of the top jazz labels are RIAA.
If you want to have an intelligent discussion, consider the cost of copying data/art (almost zero, and easily distributable) and the cost of creating new data/art. (highly variable, but always inevitable that more will be created as long as our species lives)
The real problem is trying to find a fair and effective way to distribute payment for creative works, because it costs no matter what. The napster mob would have the artists absorb the full costs, or almost the full costs -- they pay in time and effort. Copyrights OTOH provide an effective and fair distributed payment system.
No, it's not non-destructive. In particular, it lowers the value of the labor that was used to make the creative work. In other words, it's a way to cheat creative authors out of their compensation.
What you call 'freeloading' was standard practice for thousands of years.
No, it wasn't. There were major technical barriers to doing so, such as a lack of recording equipment.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding my use of the term. In case you're wondering, I don't think that playing your own interpretation of another artists work is "freeloading". But that's not what the napsterite commie thugs are doing.
I think it is the people who wish to take the fruits of thousands of years of civilisation, and then claim that they now 'own' them.
Huh ? No one is claiming to "own" any such thing. The main issue in the Napster case is about musicians having exclusive rights to their own performances of their own works. It's not like the Napsterites are performing cover songs or something like that (as if that bunch of low life thugs would ever do anything moderately creative... ) they are wholesale copying.
The concept of 'intellectual property' is the freeloading, and is doomed.
The one thing that certainly is doomed are short sighted attempts to benefit (in the short term) by dispossesing others.
I don't think your idealistic and stupid at all. I read an article in the NY Times about big companies setting up tech training programs in homeless shelters (!)
BTW, I didn't have any skilled instructors in my school and I did OK. As long as computers are cheap (and cheap they are -- if you don't require the latest and greatest.) they will be accesible to those who want them.
Problem with the Napster trials is that there is no right and wrong.
I don't see why this should pose a problem for courts. It is not for the court to rule on "right and wrong", the court only rules on what's "legal" and what isn't.
A courtroom is not really the place to decide these issues, and, in the end, probably wont be the place they are decided.
The courtroom is most certainly the place to decide whether or not a particular action is or is not legal. It's not the courts place to decide whether or not freeloading is ethical (it almost never is), it's their job to decide whether a particular act of freeloading is legal.
As for who decides what should become law, this is something the politicians decide with the appropriate guidance of philosophers who contemplate ethics, and society who elect them. This is where the "political/social/philosophical" side of the picture comes into play. Writing laws that are clear and fair is the hard part. Trying to work out whether or not someone broke a law is a somewhat simpler (though still nontrivial) matter.
b) they're comprised of people too stupid to avoid jury detail. So if anything the average intelligence of a jury is somewhat lower than the mean.
Not everyone is dying to avoid their duties. And if there's any self-selection going on here, the process tends to choose those who care enough to do what they're supposed to do. However, it's worth adding that the jury is not entirely self-selected anyway, as both sides screen jurors.
On the other hand, people in more cognitive fields are used to analysing a situation rationally and logically. Just look at the cut and thrust of debate here on/. It's very similar to how a courtroom should be,
Not at all, and this raises exactly the problem -- allowing a particular group to dominate the proceedings is simply not a recipe for fairness.
Could we expect a group of slashdotters to be impartial in a Napster trial, or a copyright infringement case, for example ?
I think what we need is to ensure that for tech cases that the judge is technically qualified,
But it's more important that they are legally qualified. It's an almost unrealistic goal that they be technical experts.
But perhaps we need to take it further and ensure that in all cases juries are at least familiar with technical issues.
that's what "expert witnesses" are there for.
I think we need to ensure that people serving in the jury have a minimum of education to ensure that they can weight the evidence in a rational manner.
If we do this, why bother having a jury at all ? I mean, what purpose do the jury serve ?
Is it supposed to be a way for the aristocracy to give their input into society ? Why stop at merely making the threshold a bachelors degree, and letting those who don't understand law serve, why not require law degrees ? Assuming that a system of "trial by the elite" is desirable, trial by jury is not an effective way to implement such a thing.
It's no wonder Australia is in such a mess, when people have such contradictory beliefs; tax-funded welfare is good, but opposition to economic globalism is bad,
Wrong: One nation go several steps beyond merely opposing economic globalism. Like several other hard line isolationist movements, they're bigots, and this is why they are despised.
people are too irresponsible to own guns, but they're responsible enough to view what they want on the web, etc, etc.
The difference is that it's easier to hurt someone with a gun than it is by looking at webpages.
And while sending people to jail for refusing to vote doesn't neccesarily make you Nazis,
People are not sent to jail for refusing to vote.
it certainly goes to show that Australia is no democracy.
Tell me something -- if less than 50% of the people vote, do you have a democracy ? And can anyone speak of having a "mandate" when the system itself cannot win a majority of voters ?
If you can't chose not to vote, you have no democratic freedom.
You can choose not to vote -- just write "voting should not be compulsory" on your ballot paper.
All the laws say is that you should drag your sorry ass to the polling booth. It doesn't say that you need to fill out your ballot correctly.
The result is that the elections are administered with the expectation that a lot of people will vote. We don't need to wait 3 hours in line to vote, we don't have large scale disenfranchisement of the voters.
Perfect, no. No system is perfect (not even the US system!)
But I'd say the system is pretty good. The US system is also quite good, but you'd be a fool to fail to see that it also is not without flaws.
..and they lost most of their gun rights too a couple years ago...Amazing how those tend to come one right after the other.
Wrong. Two different governments (SA is a state govt). The other states don't have these kind of censorship laws.
Oddly enough, it's the states where those right wing dolts get in (like South Australia and Western Australia) that tend to have draconian censorship laws. Censorship in Australia has nothing to do with gun laws -- in fact censorship tends to be championed by the same right wing dolts who are pro-gun.
REsidential colleges are basically run by students -- there's administration, and there are "tutors" (usually graduate students) and there are undergraduate students. A committee of undergrad students participates in decision making with the amdinistration.
It comes as no surprise that students are running the computing systems, because they are by and large running everything else.
This is a very different setup to a University in that the university tends to have a much heavier admin sector and the place is most certainly not run by students in any reasonable sense.
I worked for quite a few years at a major state university. And a IT department that is completly student run wouldn't fly. The article talks about a college of 130 students. Not the tens of thousands most universities here are.
"Residential College" is Australian for "dorm", it's actually a dorm for University of Melbourne.
The dorms in Australia are different to those in the US, try to imagine a cross between a co-op, a fratenernity and a dorm.
How would you decrypt the names ? If you couldn't do this, it would be useless. The problem is, how could you allow joe bloggs to do it without allowing Napster inc. to do the same ?
I think the point is to steer the more law abiding folks in the right direction. It's pretty hard to stop the hardened criminals. (and indeed, the ends would not justify the means)
I won't even go near your nick... as for the rest, you must've misread what I was saying. I'm not against being payed, I'm against folks being payed more than once for the same work.
I'm sure most musicians would be happy to live on a programmers salary as opposed to royalties.
Perhaps a scheme could be arranged whereby musicians are payed salaries instead of croyalties, and you could fund the difference out of your pocket !!!
Of course, if you're a programmer who can write any software worth selling (like a professional musician can write music worth selling) then you could also live on royalties.
Maybe your comments about the reasons for failure have some merit. It's possible that several factors contributed. IMO it's just an example of a poor system collapsing under its own wait, but your opinion may vary (-;
However, an important point still stands -- SPP has not been shown to be a viable business model, and while a lot of people would like others to implement it (meaning that it's good for the freeloaders), no one is rushing to implement it. Which makes it smell awfully like a win-lose scheme
no, you don't have to do it all yourself. They don't make their own guitars, now do they?
No, they don't A musician is someone who makes music. If they made guitars, they'd be guitar makers, wouldn't they ?
But if you wish to become a professional, you'd best find a way to make money. Selling stuff works great, especially CDs.
The musicians job is to create the CD, not to sell it. Someone who sells CDs is called a "vendor", not a musician. A professional musician is someone who can create music that people are prepared to pay to hear, without incurring too many costs.
Musicians can create their own mini-retail business, but this is a seperate business to creating the music.
Now, they can do most of it on their own, and use those nifty world wide distribtution networks to get the word out, marketing wise, about their music.
Win-lose situation -- the audience get something for nothing, but that's largely because the musicians are working for free. What happens when the musicians want to start paying bills ? How is the free distribution network going to make money ? Does a lot of listeners mean a lot of revenue ? I still remember Corel boasting about the number of downloads WP had, apparently ignorant of the fact that downloads do not bring in revenue and that courting potential customers who don't want to pay for things is a lousy business model.
Anyone who thinks Napster was free, even in a monetary sense, is fooling themselves. Computers cost money, bandwidth costs money, ripping music takes time, time usually costs money. All of these things are taken care of by "freeloaders" who spend at least $20 mo (I spend $100) for bandwidth, and $1000s for their individual nodes. It is a very expensive network, but one where 99% of resources come from the users.
The users play absolutely NO role in the creation of the product, merely its distribution. And it's the napsterites who have consistently argued that distribution is dirt cheap.
As for the resources, it often does not cost for the user. If they already have the bandwidth anyway, then the marginal cost of using napster is $0-. If they are using somebody else's bandwidth, it costs them $0-. If you already use a computer for other purposes, the marginal cost of computer power for napster is also $0. A lot of the slashdot herd seem to think that the fact that they have a fast computer and a fast connection means that they are somehow entitled to get everything for free. Well they are not.
If the people do indeed have the money for that kind of bandwidth, it makes it all the more despicable IMO -- they aren't doing it because they can't afford it, they are doing it out of sheer greed.
Building a business on the backs of these people in an ingenious business plan.
It's only ingenious if you can do it without screwing the artists.
It just that currently its legality is in question.
Not to mention the ethics. I think a major part of the problem is that to the freeloaders, the whole point of the scheme is to be able to circumvent copyrights, and they will never support a scheme that discourages freeloading.
Start with an insult. It's a great way of telling me that you have nothing to say.
saying that all MP3 users
No, I was only talking about copyright infringers, it may not have occured to you that not all MP3 users are freeloading leeches.
I bet it'd go over real well with the IT industry to start throwing large numbers of their future employees in the slammer for downloading 'naughty files'
So are you saying that the fact that these are rich kids or at least potentially rich sort of places them above the law ?
You are suggesting that this number could go up by factor of 20 or so, and as a bonus put a significant portion of it's technical elite behind bars,
No, it wouldn't go up by a factor of 20, because not all of them would be jailed (just as not all drug users would be jailed -- if they were, about 1/3 of the population would be in jail)
It would be amusing to watch the government try to deal with a few hundered thousand new inmates who also happen to be from a value producing segment of society.
I have a hard time seeing how freeloaders count as a value producing segment of anything.
BTW, if you don't believe that the government would be prepared to throw enormous numbers of people in jail for "crimes" that most people commit, take a look at the war on drugs.
When the napster jerks are all rotting in jail with their 15 year mandatory minimum sentences (this is what they do for drug possesion in some states), well I invite you to laugh then. I will.
If they're doing this, they're no longer musicians,
they're professional merchandisers who have music as a hobby. These suggestions completely
fail to address questions about how musicians can earn a living.
BTW, I think pandering to freeloaders is a remarkably stupid business plan -- and most of the people who propose alternatives to copyright are freeloaders.
No, it didn't work for Stephen King, because of the classic freeloader problem. The problem is that there simply isn't money to be made pandering to the demands of the freeloaders, because freeloaders don't pay their dues (I mean, that's why we call them freeloaders)
The SPP is not a viable business model,
and the number of people who talk about how good it it would be if someone else used SPP greatly outweighs the number of people who think they could benefit from using SPP. I think that speaks for itself. You might want others to use SPP, but would you be willing to accept
such a scheme as a means of income ? I mean, what, people (customers, boss, clients) just pay you
when they feel like it, out of good will ?
There is a big exception to trademark laws. If your trademark falls into common use as a generic term for something, it basically loses its protection.
Depends on whether you own the trademark before the term is in common use. There are several cases where products that become popular become common language because of their popularity.
Let me give you an example. In my home state, there were a couple of water parks, Magic Waters, and Rageing Waters. Both had Trademarked names. Rageing Waters came first, but had no right to tell Magic Waters to change their name because the use of Waters might make it difficult for people to differentiate them.
Neither name is a proper subset of the other, and that makes a big difference.
Correct me if I am wrong, but telnet used that Look and Feel LONG before SSH ever came into the picture. So getting this jokers "approval" was not an issue. Further, this was completely off the topic of the letter. It should never have been brought up. If his beef was to get the OpenSSH guys to change their L&F, then he should have SAID that.
You didn't understand the letter. Let me try and explain -- he is NOT complaining about similarity in look and feel. The point however is that there exists a possibility for confusion between the two products, and it is when such a possibility arises that one enforces trademarks. If someone made a car called "ssh" they would not easily be able to take action -- in fact the car manufacturer would possibly be able to acquire a trademark. The fact that the products in question are very similar is a key part of the dispute, and it is completely relevant to the complaint.
Example: Windows, and the Open Windows projects. I don't see M$ flipping out over that one.
IIRC, Microsoft don't have a trademark on "Windows".
It is time for companies to stop stomping on the little guys and INNOVATE instead. Instead of jumping on the litigous bandwagon, make your product BETTER than the competition.
What ????? May I remind you that the complainant wrote the original ssh and the other guys basically ripped it off ? The innovator here is the complainant, the OpenSSH guys are the copycats here.
I simply cannot believe that the FBI has subpoenaed this site.
Because a lot of people have reported it and it looks like they may be breaking the law ? The real problem is not that the FBI is actually enforcing the law, it is that the law is dumb (in this case). Bans on depiction of cruelty to animals IMO should only apply to material where animals are (illegaly) harmed in the production. One of the problems with a blanket ban on "depiction of cruelty to animals" is that AFAICT, it would rule out depictions of instances of cruelty to animals that are protected by law (battery farms, vivisection, etc)
Slashdot Mirror
This lie is repeated over and over -- that the RIAA labels only push cheesy pop tunes. This assertion is completely false. If anything, it's the napster thugs who listen to one-hit-wonders all the time (hence the complaint that they only like "one song" on the CD... ) I listen to Jazz music, some of it by fairly obscure artists, and most of the top jazz labels are RIAA.
The real problem is trying to find a fair and effective way to distribute payment for creative works, because it costs no matter what. The napster mob would have the artists absorb the full costs, or almost the full costs -- they pay in time and effort. Copyrights OTOH provide an effective and fair distributed payment system.
No, it wasn't. There were major technical barriers to doing so, such as a lack of recording equipment. Perhaps you are misunderstanding my use of the term. In case you're wondering, I don't think that playing your own interpretation of another artists work is "freeloading". But that's not what the napsterite commie thugs are doing.
I think it is the people who wish to take the fruits of thousands of years of civilisation, and then claim that they now 'own' them.
Huh ? No one is claiming to "own" any such thing. The main issue in the Napster case is about musicians having exclusive rights to their own performances of their own works. It's not like the Napsterites are performing cover songs or something like that (as if that bunch of low life thugs would ever do anything moderately creative ... ) they are wholesale copying.
The concept of 'intellectual property' is the freeloading, and is doomed.
The one thing that certainly is doomed are short sighted attempts to benefit (in the short term) by dispossesing others.
BTW, I didn't have any skilled instructors in my school and I did OK. As long as computers are cheap (and cheap they are -- if you don't require the latest and greatest.) they will be accesible to those who want them.
I don't see why this should pose a problem for courts. It is not for the court to rule on "right and wrong", the court only rules on what's "legal" and what isn't.
A courtroom is not really the place to decide these issues, and, in the end, probably wont be the place they are decided.
The courtroom is most certainly the place to decide whether or not a particular action is or is not legal. It's not the courts place to decide whether or not freeloading is ethical (it almost never is), it's their job to decide whether a particular act of freeloading is legal.
As for who decides what should become law, this is something the politicians decide with the appropriate guidance of philosophers who contemplate ethics, and society who elect them. This is where the "political/social/philosophical" side of the picture comes into play. Writing laws that are clear and fair is the hard part. Trying to work out whether or not someone broke a law is a somewhat simpler (though still nontrivial) matter.
Not everyone is dying to avoid their duties. And if there's any self-selection going on here, the process tends to choose those who care enough to do what they're supposed to do. However, it's worth adding that the jury is not entirely self-selected anyway, as both sides screen jurors.
On the other hand, people in more cognitive fields are used to analysing a situation rationally and logically. Just look at the cut and thrust of debate here on /. It's very similar to how a courtroom should be,
Not at all, and this raises exactly the problem -- allowing a particular group to dominate the proceedings is simply not a recipe for fairness. Could we expect a group of slashdotters to be impartial in a Napster trial, or a copyright infringement case, for example ?
But it's more important that they are legally qualified. It's an almost unrealistic goal that they be technical experts.
But perhaps we need to take it further and ensure that in all cases juries are at least familiar with technical issues.
that's what "expert witnesses" are there for.
I think we need to ensure that people serving in the jury have a minimum of education to ensure that they can weight the evidence in a rational manner.If we do this, why bother having a jury at all ? I mean, what purpose do the jury serve ? Is it supposed to be a way for the aristocracy to give their input into society ? Why stop at merely making the threshold a bachelors degree, and letting those who don't understand law serve, why not require law degrees ? Assuming that a system of "trial by the elite" is desirable, trial by jury is not an effective way to implement such a thing.
Wrong: One nation go several steps beyond merely opposing economic globalism. Like several other hard line isolationist movements, they're bigots, and this is why they are despised.
people are too irresponsible to own guns, but they're responsible enough to view what they want on the web, etc, etc.
The difference is that it's easier to hurt someone with a gun than it is by looking at webpages.
And while sending people to jail for refusing to vote doesn't neccesarily make you Nazis,
People are not sent to jail for refusing to vote.
it certainly goes to show that Australia is no democracy.
Tell me something -- if less than 50% of the people vote, do you have a democracy ? And can anyone speak of having a "mandate" when the system itself cannot win a majority of voters ?
If you can't chose not to vote, you have no democratic freedom.
You can choose not to vote -- just write "voting should not be compulsory" on your ballot paper. All the laws say is that you should drag your sorry ass to the polling booth. It doesn't say that you need to fill out your ballot correctly.
The result is that the elections are administered with the expectation that a lot of people will vote. We don't need to wait 3 hours in line to vote, we don't have large scale disenfranchisement of the voters.
Perfect, no. No system is perfect (not even the US system!) But I'd say the system is pretty good. The US system is also quite good, but you'd be a fool to fail to see that it also is not without flaws.
Wrong. Two different governments (SA is a state govt). The other states don't have these kind of censorship laws.
Oddly enough, it's the states where those right wing dolts get in (like South Australia and Western Australia) that tend to have draconian censorship laws. Censorship in Australia has nothing to do with gun laws -- in fact censorship tends to be championed by the same right wing dolts who are pro-gun.
It's "Ruxton". Is he still head of the RSL ?
This is a very different setup to a University in that the university tends to have a much heavier admin sector and the place is most certainly not run by students in any reasonable sense.
"Residential College" is Australian for "dorm", it's actually a dorm for University of Melbourne. The dorms in Australia are different to those in the US, try to imagine a cross between a co-op, a fratenernity and a dorm.
How would you decrypt the names ? If you couldn't do this, it would be useless. The problem is, how could you allow joe bloggs to do it without allowing Napster inc. to do the same ?
I think the point is to steer the more law abiding folks in the right direction. It's pretty hard to stop the hardened criminals. (and indeed, the ends would not justify the means)
I'm sure most musicians would be happy to live on a programmers salary as opposed to royalties. Perhaps a scheme could be arranged whereby musicians are payed salaries instead of croyalties, and you could fund the difference out of your pocket !!! Of course, if you're a programmer who can write any software worth selling (like a professional musician can write music worth selling) then you could also live on royalties.
However, an important point still stands -- SPP has not been shown to be a viable business model, and while a lot of people would like others to implement it (meaning that it's good for the freeloaders), no one is rushing to implement it. Which makes it smell awfully like a win-lose scheme
No, they don't A musician is someone who makes music. If they made guitars, they'd be guitar makers, wouldn't they ?
But if you wish to become a professional, you'd best find a way to make money. Selling stuff works great, especially CDs.
The musicians job is to create the CD, not to sell it. Someone who sells CDs is called a "vendor", not a musician. A professional musician is someone who can create music that people are prepared to pay to hear, without incurring too many costs. Musicians can create their own mini-retail business, but this is a seperate business to creating the music.
Now, they can do most of it on their own, and use those nifty world wide distribtution networks to get the word out, marketing wise, about their music.
Win-lose situation -- the audience get something for nothing, but that's largely because the musicians are working for free. What happens when the musicians want to start paying bills ? How is the free distribution network going to make money ? Does a lot of listeners mean a lot of revenue ? I still remember Corel boasting about the number of downloads WP had, apparently ignorant of the fact that downloads do not bring in revenue and that courting potential customers who don't want to pay for things is a lousy business model.
Anyone who thinks Napster was free, even in a monetary sense, is fooling themselves. Computers cost money, bandwidth costs money, ripping music takes time, time usually costs money. All of these things are taken care of by "freeloaders" who spend at least $20 mo (I spend $100) for bandwidth, and $1000s for their individual nodes. It is a very expensive network, but one where 99% of resources come from the users.
The users play absolutely NO role in the creation of the product, merely its distribution. And it's the napsterites who have consistently argued that distribution is dirt cheap.
As for the resources, it often does not cost for the user. If they already have the bandwidth anyway, then the marginal cost of using napster is $0-. If they are using somebody else's bandwidth, it costs them $0-. If you already use a computer for other purposes, the marginal cost of computer power for napster is also $0. A lot of the slashdot herd seem to think that the fact that they have a fast computer and a fast connection means that they are somehow entitled to get everything for free. Well they are not.
If the people do indeed have the money for that kind of bandwidth, it makes it all the more despicable IMO -- they aren't doing it because they can't afford it, they are doing it out of sheer greed.
Building a business on the backs of these people in an ingenious business plan.
It's only ingenious if you can do it without screwing the artists.
It just that currently its legality is in question.
Not to mention the ethics. I think a major part of the problem is that to the freeloaders, the whole point of the scheme is to be able to circumvent copyrights, and they will never support a scheme that discourages freeloading.
Start with an insult. It's a great way of telling me that you have nothing to say.
saying that all MP3 users
No, I was only talking about copyright infringers, it may not have occured to you that not all MP3 users are freeloading leeches.
I bet it'd go over real well with the IT industry to start throwing large numbers of their future employees in the slammer for downloading 'naughty files'
So are you saying that the fact that these are rich kids or at least potentially rich sort of places them above the law ?
You are suggesting that this number could go up by factor of 20 or so, and as a bonus put a significant portion of it's technical elite behind bars,
No, it wouldn't go up by a factor of 20, because not all of them would be jailed (just as not all drug users would be jailed -- if they were, about 1/3 of the population would be in jail)
I think not.well, there's something I could agree with.
I have a hard time seeing how freeloaders count as a value producing segment of anything.
BTW, if you don't believe that the government would be prepared to throw enormous numbers of people in jail for "crimes" that most people commit, take a look at the war on drugs.
When the napster jerks are all rotting in jail with their 15 year mandatory minimum sentences (this is what they do for drug possesion in some states), well I invite you to laugh then. I will.
BTW, I think pandering to freeloaders is a remarkably stupid business plan -- and most of the people who propose alternatives to copyright are freeloaders.
Depends on whether you own the trademark before the term is in common use. There are several cases where products that become popular become common language because of their popularity.
Neither name is a proper subset of the other, and that makes a big difference.
Correct me if I am wrong, but telnet used that Look and Feel LONG before SSH ever came into the picture. So getting this jokers "approval" was not an issue. Further, this was completely off the topic of the letter. It should never have been brought up. If his beef was to get the OpenSSH guys to change their L&F, then he should have SAID that.
You didn't understand the letter. Let me try and explain -- he is NOT complaining about similarity in look and feel. The point however is that there exists a possibility for confusion between the two products, and it is when such a possibility arises that one enforces trademarks. If someone made a car called "ssh" they would not easily be able to take action -- in fact the car manufacturer would possibly be able to acquire a trademark. The fact that the products in question are very similar is a key part of the dispute, and it is completely relevant to the complaint.
Example: Windows, and the Open Windows projects. I don't see M$ flipping out over that one.
IIRC, Microsoft don't have a trademark on "Windows".
It is time for companies to stop stomping on the little guys and INNOVATE instead. Instead of jumping on the litigous bandwagon, make your product BETTER than the competition.
What ????? May I remind you that the complainant wrote the original ssh and the other guys basically ripped it off ? The innovator here is the complainant, the OpenSSH guys are the copycats here.
Because a lot of people have reported it and it looks like they may be breaking the law ? The real problem is not that the FBI is actually enforcing the law, it is that the law is dumb (in this case). Bans on depiction of cruelty to animals IMO should only apply to material where animals are (illegaly) harmed in the production. One of the problems with a blanket ban on "depiction of cruelty to animals" is that AFAICT, it would rule out depictions of instances of cruelty to animals that are protected by law (battery farms, vivisection, etc)