Just because it is priced above the point that you are willing to pay does not mean that you therefore have the right to get it some other way in violation of copyright law. That's just a rationalization that pirates use to ease their consciences.
Good grief...If providing service to you costs the ISP more money (by staffing to handle a never ending stream of copyright infringement complaints regarding your account) than they make by having you as a customer, why do you feel it is your God-given right to have an account with them?!?!?
I can't say how AT&T will handle things, but where I used to work, here's how the process went:
1) Yes -- we received a complaint from **AA and acted on it. If you were torrenting Slackware ISOs for example, we didn't care. For that matter, if you were torrenting copyrighted material, we didn't care until we got a complaint about it.
2) Sort of. We'd sometimes suspend accounts until we could talk to you, but I seem to recall having five or six strikes against some accounts but we didn't disconnect them. I can't recall of a case where we ever disconnected someone permanently for copyright infringement.
3) We would always communicate with the customer. First complaint -- we'd e-mail you a copyright infringement form letter. Second complaint -- we'd e-mail you again and call you. Third time or more, we'd suspend your account until we called you (or you called us). I'm curious how identifying users by IP addresses yields false positives, however. It might not identify the *person* who was file sharing, but it certainly identifies the account that was used. Whether you were file sharing, someone was hijacking your WiFi or you have a zombie host that is file sharing, identifying the account is sufficient from the ISP's point of view. For seeking damages in court...no, identifying the account, in my non-expert, non-lawyer opinion FWIW, is not sufficient.
4) Not where I worked. Other ISPs may do things differently. If you need to still pay bills...don't file share copyrighted material. Short story, if you abuse the account, expect to lose it. Can't afford to lose it? Don't abuse the account.
I think the process would be much fairer...
Agreed on the dispute resolution process. As for getting relegated to dial-up speeds, like I said above: if you abuse the account, expect to lose it.
Yeah, I mean in the eight or so years that I've had my DSL account and static IP address, I've had to field sooooooo many RIAA complaints, and I've never done any illegal file sharing.
Oh, wait...no, I haven't ever been accused of copyright infringement. Ever. My bad.
GPP is right -- if you want the music/movies/(closed-source) software, go buy it. Even if the **AA is evil -- and make no mistake, there are some good reasons to think so -- that doesn't give you the right to download their products for free in violation of copyright law.
However, GPP is slightly mistaken, too. The worst thing is not that people legally using torrents will get banned unfairly. I think that is pretty unlikely, based on my previous experience as an ISP sys admin. The worst thing is that ISPs will rate limit torrents -- legal or otherwise -- into oblivion, thus making the technology useless for legitimate uses (like distributing FOSS software).
Wanna bet? When zombie hosts spew their crap on-line, other ISPs begin to blacklist you if you don't care. Once enough users can't e-mail their friends on AOL, you begin to care.
At the ISP where I used to work, we would quarantine the account of anyone sending spam or viruses from their accounts. Quarantine was a sandbox where you could use HTTP/HTTPS, DNS and POP3, but couldn't do much of anything else. This way, you could get on-line to download A/V software, search Google for ways to fix your machine, and read the notice explaining what happened to your account and why that we would e-mail to you. (We'd usually try to call you as well, but that didn't always happen.)
It is impossible for an ISP to prevent an end user from infecting their machine with malware and becoming a zombie computer, but we did everything we could to keep our customers' zombie machines from being a nuisance to everyone else on-line.
Otherwise, it's a 'guilty unless proven innocent' stance which is NOT legal.
At risk of being an armchair lawyer (IANAL, etc., so this does not constitute legal advice), you are mistaking what the government is and is not allowed to do with what a private business is and is not allowed to do. While I'm sure there is some overlap, I'm pretty sure that the laws covering the two entities are not the same.
In other words, when accused of a crime by the government, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. When a private business seeks to terminate a business relationship with you, they don't always have to prove *anything at all*. Ever notice those "We reserve the right to refuse service..." notices in contracts or posted on the walls in many businesses? This is why.
At the ISP I used to work at, we threw away any copyright notices that did not include the offending IP address, the date, the time and the time zone that the offending file was found, the name of the offending file, and what the offending file was supposed to be.
With date, time, time zone and IP address, we could uniquely identify the account that was used to share the file. The file name and description allowed us to verify that the complaint was for a legitimately copyrighted work.
In other words, your "far more likely" scenario is, at least in my experience, almost certainly not what is happening.
You can run cable between buildings in a populated area. You just have to get a permit, first. That might not be trivial, but it's certainly *possible*.
What GPP failed to realize (well, sort of -- he did mention a shared link to the outside world) is that at some point, you have to arrange an Internet feed from an upstream provider. If you abuse that link by filesharing, sending spam/viruses, harrassing others online, etc., the upstream will eventually contact you about it. If the problems persist, they will eventually terminate your connection.
That's the problem with shared networks. When you annoy others on-line, they eventually stop sharing with you.
Well, yeah...but it ran you over because you were laying on the center line of the highway, at night, wearing black clothes, just so you could show how 1337 you are.
I don't think that's what the article is describing. TFA is light on details, but -- at least at the ISP where I used to work -- it works like this: RIAA sends copyright infringement notice, including time, date and IP address, to the ISP. The ISP forwards complaint to customer with a notice to knock it off or the account will be suspended or terminated. Rinse and repeat as required until the customer knocks it off or gets disconnected.
To the best of my knowledge, we never actually disconnected a customer for copyright infringement where I used to work, but we did suspend quite a few people for a few days.
Oops, I haven't checked replies in a while, so I don't mean to resurrect a dead thread. But to answer your question, all airspace is depicted on aeronautical charts and airport facility directories. You can find aeronautical charts on-line at skyvector.com.
Basically, Class A airspace is all airspace over the U.S. between 18,000 and 60,000 feet. Class B airspace surrounds the largest, busiest airports in the country (Seattle/Tacoma, Chicago-O'Hare, DFW, etc.). Class C airspace surrounds selected other air carrier airports that aren't quite busy enough for Class B designation (Anchorage, Alaska is the only one I know off-hand, although there are many, many others -- I just live and fly in Anchorage). Class D airspace is around any airport that has a control tower (and there are far more airports without control towers than with). In Alaska, Class D airspace exists in Anchorage (Merrill Field), Juneau, Kodiak, Iliamna, Fairbanks, Bethel, Kenai...and I can't remember the 8th one.
If the economy of your town was based on shipping out of a salt-water port, you probably would be very worried about the sea freezing.
I don't know if Herr Fahrenheit did his work in such a town and I'm too lazy to look it up, but it is a logical fallacy to think that just because you have no need to be concerned about the point at which salt water freezes, then no one else does, either.
Hmmm...I think you are onto something. I don't know that I would recommend a powered parachute, but how about an autogyro with rotors that rotate around the hub to stow away after landing? A lot of the kitplanes have folding wings -- you pull a pin, and the wing rotates back alongside the fuselage for trailering. If you did something similar with the rotors on a gyroplane, you could get decent cruise speed (faster than a powered parachute, anyway) and still have something that is more roadable than a folding airplane.
The speed limit isn't typically the problem. The FAA limits single-engine airplanes to a minimum controllable airspeed ("stall speed", if you want to get technical) of 65 knots -- that's around 70MPH. There are many, many light airplanes that can take off and land near 50MPH, so it isn't *that* difficult to find a road that you could take off or land on without exceeding the speed limit.
However, many (most?) municipalities frown on taking off of landing on roads in their jurisdiction as a matter of course. And even if you can find a muni that doesn't care -- it used to be legal to fly off of roads in Alaska outside of Anchorage, but I don't know if that's still the case -- there are practical considerations to keep in mind. For example, your wings are often 30+ feet from wingtip to wingtip, but a two lane road is only about 16 feet wide. If there are trees, powerlines or signs along the road, you are probably going to have a clipped-wing airplane in the near future (oops...).
...and does not require an air traffic controller.
Eh???? You can legally fly *any* airplane without talking to air traffic control with a conventional pilot's license, as long as you remain clear of certain types of airspace (Class A, Class B, Class C and Class D airspace, specifically).
Of course, your personal 747 won't do you much good if you remain clear of Class A airspace, and you'd better have a really big back yard to build your private 10,000 foot airstrip on so you don't have to fly in Class D airspace.....
Welcome to the state of the art in light airplane design. This is woefully common.
Back in the early '90s when I had just earned my pilot's license, I flew a Cessna 152 that had been modified with a slightly larger engine and had the extended range fuel tanks (due to the slightly larger engine). Due to the weight of the larger engine and the bigger fuel tanks, I was limited to about 350 miles range (plus FAA required reserves) if I was flying solo, IIRC. I *couldn't* legally fly it with a passenger, unless I had someone tow me aloft:( Still, it was a kick in the pants to fly!
Strictly speaking, what we have here is "an inadequate solution in search of an easier problem".
Agreed.
Star Wars never worked, and still doesn't, because intercepting reasonably modern ICBMs is really difficult. Hitting small, distinctly subsonic, wholly unarmored, non-countermeasure-deploying, organisms that spend most of their time hovering is orders of magnitude easier.
I'm not so sure I agree any more. You're telling me that targetting and hitting large, man-made objects on predictable ballistic trajectories is more difficult than targetting and hitting tiny, randomly moving objects that have adapted to evading hungry predators?
I don't think o.p. is arguing about whether or not malaria is a problem; I think (s)he is arguing that this solution doesn't seem practical for the societies most in need of a solution. I think (s)he's probably right.
Better, but I prefer Mortal/Juggernautz:) If you haven't heard "Fathom" you owe it to yourself to give it a listen.
My biggest problem with CCM is the artists I like (and there are quite a few) are inconsistent. For example, on Jeremy Camp's "Carried Me" there are *two* songs that I actually like; the rest I can do without (and one of the two is a cover, IIRC). Unfortunately, it often seems that Christian musicians put all of the time and effort into the message, and aren't particularly concerned about the musical wrapper, thereby creating music that is often, well, bland.
I *want* to listen to Christian music -- I'd rather fill my head with something positive than "I want to **** you like an animal" (with apologies to Mr. Reznor). But sometimes, I just want to rock out with Rage Against the Machine or chill with some "Dark Side of the Moon" and there just isn't a lot of CCM that can compare right now.
What happens when what you didn't forsee becomes a part of the rest of your life? In my case, I had a kidney transplant at 25. Anti-rejection meds run $800-1000 per month, for the rest of my life. That means I either need insurance just to pay the maintenance on my transplant -- nevermind the things I can't forsee that will continue to crop up from time to time -- or I need a really good paying job so that I can absorb ~$10,000 per year of meds *and* routine doctor visits.
Saying that I should "just live within my means" ignores a couple of pertinent facts. First, long-term medical care can be very, very expensive and you may not be able to just absorb it in your budget. I probably could right now because I am fortunate in my job, but ten years ago, I couldn't have. Second, medical care is not like "eating food and driving cars that you can't afford". That's a really poor analogy that fails on several levels. In your examples, there are alternate choices available like walking/biking, taking the bus/cab/subway, choosing a cheaper car, eating at home, growing some of your produce in a garden, etc., but there *are* no other choices for a transplant recipient -- you either take the meds or reject the transplant and die (dialysis isn't any cheaper than the transplant).
Slashdot Mirror
Nack.
Just because it is priced above the point that you are willing to pay does not mean that you therefore have the right to get it some other way in violation of copyright law. That's just a rationalization that pirates use to ease their consciences.
Good grief...If providing service to you costs the ISP more money (by staffing to handle a never ending stream of copyright infringement complaints regarding your account) than they make by having you as a customer, why do you feel it is your God-given right to have an account with them?!?!?
1) Yes -- we received a complaint from **AA and acted on it. If you were torrenting Slackware ISOs for example, we didn't care. For that matter, if you were torrenting copyrighted material, we didn't care until we got a complaint about it.
2) Sort of. We'd sometimes suspend accounts until we could talk to you, but I seem to recall having five or six strikes against some accounts but we didn't disconnect them. I can't recall of a case where we ever disconnected someone permanently for copyright infringement.
3) We would always communicate with the customer. First complaint -- we'd e-mail you a copyright infringement form letter. Second complaint -- we'd e-mail you again and call you. Third time or more, we'd suspend your account until we called you (or you called us). I'm curious how identifying users by IP addresses yields false positives, however. It might not identify the *person* who was file sharing, but it certainly identifies the account that was used. Whether you were file sharing, someone was hijacking your WiFi or you have a zombie host that is file sharing, identifying the account is sufficient from the ISP's point of view. For seeking damages in court...no, identifying the account, in my non-expert, non-lawyer opinion FWIW, is not sufficient.
4) Not where I worked. Other ISPs may do things differently. If you need to still pay bills...don't file share copyrighted material. Short story, if you abuse the account, expect to lose it. Can't afford to lose it? Don't abuse the account.
I think the process would be much fairer...
Agreed on the dispute resolution process. As for getting relegated to dial-up speeds, like I said above: if you abuse the account, expect to lose it.
Yeah, I mean in the eight or so years that I've had my DSL account and static IP address, I've had to field sooooooo many RIAA complaints, and I've never done any illegal file sharing.
Oh, wait...no, I haven't ever been accused of copyright infringement. Ever. My bad.
GPP is right -- if you want the music/movies/(closed-source) software, go buy it. Even if the **AA is evil -- and make no mistake, there are some good reasons to think so -- that doesn't give you the right to download their products for free in violation of copyright law.
However, GPP is slightly mistaken, too. The worst thing is not that people legally using torrents will get banned unfairly. I think that is pretty unlikely, based on my previous experience as an ISP sys admin. The worst thing is that ISPs will rate limit torrents -- legal or otherwise -- into oblivion, thus making the technology useless for legitimate uses (like distributing FOSS software).
Wanna bet? When zombie hosts spew their crap on-line, other ISPs begin to blacklist you if you don't care. Once enough users can't e-mail their friends on AOL, you begin to care.
At the ISP where I used to work, we would quarantine the account of anyone sending spam or viruses from their accounts. Quarantine was a sandbox where you could use HTTP/HTTPS, DNS and POP3, but couldn't do much of anything else. This way, you could get on-line to download A/V software, search Google for ways to fix your machine, and read the notice explaining what happened to your account and why that we would e-mail to you. (We'd usually try to call you as well, but that didn't always happen.)
It is impossible for an ISP to prevent an end user from infecting their machine with malware and becoming a zombie computer, but we did everything we could to keep our customers' zombie machines from being a nuisance to everyone else on-line.
Otherwise, it's a 'guilty unless proven innocent' stance which is NOT legal.
At risk of being an armchair lawyer (IANAL, etc., so this does not constitute legal advice), you are mistaking what the government is and is not allowed to do with what a private business is and is not allowed to do. While I'm sure there is some overlap, I'm pretty sure that the laws covering the two entities are not the same.
In other words, when accused of a crime by the government, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. When a private business seeks to terminate a business relationship with you, they don't always have to prove *anything at all*. Ever notice those "We reserve the right to refuse service..." notices in contracts or posted on the walls in many businesses? This is why.
At the ISP I used to work at, we threw away any copyright notices that did not include the offending IP address, the date, the time and the time zone that the offending file was found, the name of the offending file, and what the offending file was supposed to be.
With date, time, time zone and IP address, we could uniquely identify the account that was used to share the file. The file name and description allowed us to verify that the complaint was for a legitimately copyrighted work.
In other words, your "far more likely" scenario is, at least in my experience, almost certainly not what is happening.
You can run cable between buildings in a populated area. You just have to get a permit, first. That might not be trivial, but it's certainly *possible*.
What GPP failed to realize (well, sort of -- he did mention a shared link to the outside world) is that at some point, you have to arrange an Internet feed from an upstream provider. If you abuse that link by filesharing, sending spam/viruses, harrassing others online, etc., the upstream will eventually contact you about it. If the problems persist, they will eventually terminate your connection.
That's the problem with shared networks. When you annoy others on-line, they eventually stop sharing with you.
Well, yeah...but it ran you over because you were laying on the center line of the highway, at night, wearing black clothes, just so you could show how 1337 you are.
I don't think that's what the article is describing. TFA is light on details, but -- at least at the ISP where I used to work -- it works like this: RIAA sends copyright infringement notice, including time, date and IP address, to the ISP. The ISP forwards complaint to customer with a notice to knock it off or the account will be suspended or terminated. Rinse and repeat as required until the customer knocks it off or gets disconnected.
To the best of my knowledge, we never actually disconnected a customer for copyright infringement where I used to work, but we did suspend quite a few people for a few days.
Oops, I haven't checked replies in a while, so I don't mean to resurrect a dead thread. But to answer your question, all airspace is depicted on aeronautical charts and airport facility directories. You can find aeronautical charts on-line at skyvector.com.
Basically, Class A airspace is all airspace over the U.S. between 18,000 and 60,000 feet. Class B airspace surrounds the largest, busiest airports in the country (Seattle/Tacoma, Chicago-O'Hare, DFW, etc.). Class C airspace surrounds selected other air carrier airports that aren't quite busy enough for Class B designation (Anchorage, Alaska is the only one I know off-hand, although there are many, many others -- I just live and fly in Anchorage). Class D airspace is around any airport that has a control tower (and there are far more airports without control towers than with). In Alaska, Class D airspace exists in Anchorage (Merrill Field), Juneau, Kodiak, Iliamna, Fairbanks, Bethel, Kenai...and I can't remember the 8th one.
HTH!
YMMV, of course. On the other hand, I have had interviewers ask if I had ever participated in Open Source projects.
If you have no relevant work experience, then having some Open Source experience on your resume is better than nothing.
If the economy of your town was based on shipping out of a salt-water port, you probably would be very worried about the sea freezing.
I don't know if Herr Fahrenheit did his work in such a town and I'm too lazy to look it up, but it is a logical fallacy to think that just because you have no need to be concerned about the point at which salt water freezes, then no one else does, either.
Hmmm...I think you are onto something. I don't know that I would recommend a powered parachute, but how about an autogyro with rotors that rotate around the hub to stow away after landing? A lot of the kitplanes have folding wings -- you pull a pin, and the wing rotates back alongside the fuselage for trailering. If you did something similar with the rotors on a gyroplane, you could get decent cruise speed (faster than a powered parachute, anyway) and still have something that is more roadable than a folding airplane.
The speed limit isn't typically the problem. The FAA limits single-engine airplanes to a minimum controllable airspeed ("stall speed", if you want to get technical) of 65 knots -- that's around 70MPH. There are many, many light airplanes that can take off and land near 50MPH, so it isn't *that* difficult to find a road that you could take off or land on without exceeding the speed limit.
However, many (most?) municipalities frown on taking off of landing on roads in their jurisdiction as a matter of course. And even if you can find a muni that doesn't care -- it used to be legal to fly off of roads in Alaska outside of Anchorage, but I don't know if that's still the case -- there are practical considerations to keep in mind. For example, your wings are often 30+ feet from wingtip to wingtip, but a two lane road is only about 16 feet wide. If there are trees, powerlines or signs along the road, you are probably going to have a clipped-wing airplane in the near future (oops...).
...and does not require an air traffic controller.
Eh???? You can legally fly *any* airplane without talking to air traffic control with a conventional pilot's license, as long as you remain clear of certain types of airspace (Class A, Class B, Class C and Class D airspace, specifically).
Of course, your personal 747 won't do you much good if you remain clear of Class A airspace, and you'd better have a really big back yard to build your private 10,000 foot airstrip on so you don't have to fly in Class D airspace.....
Welcome to the state of the art in light airplane design. This is woefully common.
:( Still, it was a kick in the pants to fly!
Back in the early '90s when I had just earned my pilot's license, I flew a Cessna 152 that had been modified with a slightly larger engine and had the extended range fuel tanks (due to the slightly larger engine). Due to the weight of the larger engine and the bigger fuel tanks, I was limited to about 350 miles range (plus FAA required reserves) if I was flying solo, IIRC. I *couldn't* legally fly it with a passenger, unless I had someone tow me aloft
I don't have to imagine; I'm a flight instructor.
:D
Strictly speaking, what we have here is "an inadequate solution in search of an easier problem".
Agreed.
Star Wars never worked, and still doesn't, because intercepting reasonably modern ICBMs is really difficult. Hitting small, distinctly subsonic, wholly unarmored, non-countermeasure-deploying, organisms that spend most of their time hovering is orders of magnitude easier.
I'm not so sure I agree any more. You're telling me that targetting and hitting large, man-made objects on predictable ballistic trajectories is more difficult than targetting and hitting tiny, randomly moving objects that have adapted to evading hungry predators?
I don't think o.p. is arguing about whether or not malaria is a problem; I think (s)he is arguing that this solution doesn't seem practical for the societies most in need of a solution. I think (s)he's probably right.
I'll second the kudos to Phil Keaggy -- he's an amazing musician, an amazing performer, and (gasp!) refreshingly original.
Better, but I prefer Mortal/Juggernautz :) If you haven't heard "Fathom" you owe it to yourself to give it a listen.
My biggest problem with CCM is the artists I like (and there are quite a few) are inconsistent. For example, on Jeremy Camp's "Carried Me" there are *two* songs that I actually like; the rest I can do without (and one of the two is a cover, IIRC). Unfortunately, it often seems that Christian musicians put all of the time and effort into the message, and aren't particularly concerned about the musical wrapper, thereby creating music that is often, well, bland.
I *want* to listen to Christian music -- I'd rather fill my head with something positive than "I want to **** you like an animal" (with apologies to Mr. Reznor). But sometimes, I just want to rock out with Rage Against the Machine or chill with some "Dark Side of the Moon" and there just isn't a lot of CCM that can compare right now.
I'd encrypt everything simply to protest the big-brother mentality that seems to be taking over here in the U.S. >:]
I think that's being a little overly simplistic.
What happens when what you didn't forsee becomes a part of the rest of your life? In my case, I had a kidney transplant at 25. Anti-rejection meds run $800-1000 per month, for the rest of my life. That means I either need insurance just to pay the maintenance on my transplant -- nevermind the things I can't forsee that will continue to crop up from time to time -- or I need a really good paying job so that I can absorb ~$10,000 per year of meds *and* routine doctor visits.
Saying that I should "just live within my means" ignores a couple of pertinent facts. First, long-term medical care can be very, very expensive and you may not be able to just absorb it in your budget. I probably could right now because I am fortunate in my job, but ten years ago, I couldn't have. Second, medical care is not like "eating food and driving cars that you can't afford". That's a really poor analogy that fails on several levels. In your examples, there are alternate choices available like walking/biking, taking the bus/cab/subway, choosing a cheaper car, eating at home, growing some of your produce in a garden, etc., but there *are* no other choices for a transplant recipient -- you either take the meds or reject the transplant and die (dialysis isn't any cheaper than the transplant).