I'll say. I used a handheld, AC-powered electromagnet to bulk-erase tapes back in 1963. It created a pulsating magnetic field that would literally rattle a steel garbage can if you were dumb enough to try it. (I was.) When I finally got to erasing my reel of audio tape, it did such a good job the tape would never record again.
The RIAA are not bringing criminal prosecutions. They are threatening to make you broke with legal fees defending a civil suit if you don't pay their demand. Essentially, this is exploiting the so-called "nuisance value" of the lawsuit (which is the value it has to you if it goes away, and does not at all concern the merits of the claim). The trouble is that Grokster has already established you must pay $750. per unauthorized song in damages, so if they catch you with ten songs on your box there's no way, even if you stand up for yourself all the way through court, your fine will be less than $7,500 (unless the Court finds the downloading was not "willful"). (Which may be the case if your teenager did it.)
The bottom line on the current state of the law is that if they can show you had "X" number of songs on a shared drive, a settlement of ($750X / 2) might be in your interest-- at least if you did the downloading and knew they were there. (And yes, I must admit, I Am A Lawyer.)
The brutality the RIAA visits on the public under the current laws is sickening. The solution is Federal legislation (courts can't overturn the minimum $750 fine in the federal statute). Let's put pressure on our congresspersons this coming election year.
At the risk of being modded down for a political rant, I have to say that one of the major flaws of capitalism is that capital (the big bucks the **AAs have got) accumulates WAY too much power, to say nothing of sweetheart laws and legislation.
A large majority of people *are* above average at what they do for a living, or else they'd likely be doing something else. The same people are probably way *below* average at what they're worst at.
So in a sense everyone (poetic license allowed) *is* above average.
To answer your first question, yes. To answer your second question, yes, too.
It may very well be legally OK to do by a universally-applied algorithm what it would not be legally OK to do by a special rule cooked up for a particular party. Interestingly, I think Google might have a defense if they could show the rule they invented for a party became a standard part of their ranking algorithm. That would take the wind out of the Plaintiff's claim they had been singled out for unequal treatment, because the appearance would be simply that Google had simply refined its methods.
I think maybe lawyers don't think like technical people. Not to say either is better or worse. But knowing a lot of lawyers I think most would make the intended leap of imagination and see the part of the assertion that is true (the point sought to be made) rather than a non-sequitur. (I'm really not sure whether you might be missing it or ignoring it.) It sometimes helps to read a statement you take to be nonsense and ask yourself how the author meant it to be true or understood. I'll leave this gentle cap on my comments rather than begin a debate (bad karma, I think, to bicker).
I can tell you from my own personal experience that the way one thinks changes profoundly in law school. Maybe this is why the profession is out of touch sometimes with other professions. (It's either a very good, or a very bad thing that we understand ourselves, depending on who you are, I suppose.)
Well remember, in the case of the electric and water companies, "customer" is synonymous with "member of the public". Napoleon nationalized the Perrier springs "for the good of France". We don't nationalize, but we do regulate when it is in the public interest. If a small group of companies controls something that powerfully affects the public's fortunes, shouldn't there be some oversight, or regulation ensuring fairness, or at least absence of bad faith? Might we even say "member of the public" and "customer" tend towards equivalence the more universally people need something controlled by a very few, or in fact principally by one major corporate entity? No one is saying Google should pay damages to Plaintiffs like Kinderstart. But when everyone is listed or not by Google to Google's benefit (couldn't be #1 without using our names), and when anyone harmed by Google's actions must go to court to even find out if the harm has been unfair or in bad faith, might it be better overall to have a regulatory system and some transparency?
What is the difference between a government-CREATED and a government-TOLERATED monopoly? Isn't the latter what Microsoft is?
So states require drivers to carry insurance. Doesn't society likewise require you to work and earn? What if someone, in bad faith, harms your reputation or ability to earn? Libel, slander, de-ranking? (The key, of course, is "in bad faith"-- for example, if it could be shown Google de-listed a journalist's wife's business because the journalist revealed details about the CEO he preferred be unknown.)
OK, so Google may be right in de-ranking Kinderstart. The Plaintiff is an idiot, perhaps, but the principle is far from idiotic. Do we have the right to know sometimes why Google acts as it does? If someone is hurt and it's not apparent why, that someone will surely think so. And so will anyone fair-minded.
How about electric companies and water utilities? Or do you see a distinction there too? If such a utility failed to serve a customer, should there not be legal redress?
I suspect you'd tell the legislature and courts to "go to hell" until some corporate behemoth started goring YOUR ox. Then I'm guessing you'd have something to say about what they should be "let" to do.
You do sound like a libertarian, but that's OK. Some of my friends are even Republicans.
Is no one concerned that a few dozen powerful corporations can essentially make their own law? Kinderstart deserves its de-ranking, but is it OK for Google to ask us to wonder why it does what it does, when sometimes, it may not be obvious? Some corporations rival government in their power. (Some corporations have actually swayed government, as when the Japanese zaibatsu pressured Hirohito into starting World War II.) If we ask government to be transparent and accountable to the people, why not coporations? If we are a conscientious and fair society at heart (subside, cynics), do we not deserve to see that those is power are treating us fairly? Should someone decide whether Google's "punishment" of a rule-breaking site is excessive when businesses and lives and families, including businesses not playing the "smart-aleck" like Kinderstart, are ruined for secret reasons? This may not be an easy question to resolve but we have to debate it and resolve it.
I agree with you... but the question should really be how much regulation Google should accept-- maybe a sort of Public Cyberutilities Commission with power to review citizen complaints and provide an objective solution binding on Google? An elected panel might do better than vested management interests in making a quasi-public utility serve the electorate, or public.
As a lawyer, I have a different take on this suit. It's not "bullshit" at all. Google has taken such a central role in our economy (to its enormous profit) that many principles of law impose on it the duty to behave evenhandedly and in good faith. (One of the oldest principles in the English common law, on which our legal system is based, is assumpsit, which holds that if one undertakes to do (or assume) a thing, he is charged with the duty to do it properly according to its importance and chance of harm to others. Google has become like a public utility.... when Ma Bell was in that category, it was not permitted to deny service to customers with poor payment histories. The Public Utilities Commission (or equivalent) put regulations or tariffs in place saying all they could do was ask for a reasonable deposit not to exceed a small multiple of the expected monthly bill. Auto insurance companies can't refuse to insure even awful drivers: states force companies, at random, to accept "assigned risks" by insuring bad drivers assigned to them through a state program.
The point is that if you are one of a few major players profiting from a business that has become essential to the public, we'll let you enjoy your quasi-monopoly, but you'd better be available equally and evenhandedly to all. (That's easier than nationalizing such entities.) The day is coming when Google, and Microsoft too, will be regulated like public utilities. It is completely inevitable.
"I refuse to divulge my PGP private key & passphrase."
Doing that is a guaranteed jail sentence for contempt of court, if the court orders you to disclose them. Forgot them? See if the court believes that. Hello, prison.
There is a principle in US law that says you may not do indirectly what you cannot do directly. There is also a Federal conspiracy statute that says you may not conspire to commit an unlawful act. Bottom line is, if they find out you're doing it, and they want to get you, they've got you. Of course, the law will probably be aimed not at individuals but at the financial institutions that enable circumvention; and in real terms, it would be almost impossible for the feds to catch you (but you'd have to lie on your tax returns about having signature authority over any foreign banking account).
MS can afford to try everything to see if one thing works. Kind of like GM in the old days competing with Ford. Not an efficient strategy but again one MS can afford and which works for them.
I am a lawyer. I have actually read parts of the Grokster and Gonzalez opinions. Although I did not read the opinions with the same care I would have if for professional purposes, Gonzalez certainly seemed to quote Grokster as supporting the proposition that merely having files in a shared folder was sufficiently part of a scheme to distribute to be the equivalent of actual distribution. In other words, it would not be a defense in a suit by the **AA that no one downloaded a complete copy of the file from you, or indeed, that the total bytes of the file uploaded were less than the total bytes in one copy of the file. Five shared songs may equal five times $750. (min.) in damages even if no one downloaded a byte. I'm quite concerned this will be how Grokster is interpreted in the future. I do think we need legislative relief for the tens of thousands of little guys victimized by the double-A's.
We do have one. Or actually, fifty or so. Each state (and probably D.C.) has an Attorney General with powers to sue to stop public scams or nuisances. Usually there is a consumer protection division. People have to start bugging their A.G. It takes a lot of complaints about any particular abuse to get things moving, so go ahead.. and spread the word. CC your letter to your state and federal congresspersons. Larger volume of mail equals better chance you'll be heard.
..between plagiarism and acceptable synthesis. I don't condone plagiarism, but when so many college term papers that merely paraphrase primary sources without attribution are accepted, why are we surprised when similar phenomena crop up in the professional world?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll say. I used a handheld, AC-powered electromagnet to bulk-erase tapes back in 1963. It created a pulsating magnetic field that would literally rattle a steel garbage can if you were dumb enough to try it. (I was.) When I finally got to erasing my reel of audio tape, it did such a good job the tape would never record again.
Um, the math is fairly straightforward.
It's not a multitasking vs. single-tasking issue. It's whether or not you're physically fit.
The bottom line on the current state of the law is that if they can show you had "X" number of songs on a shared drive, a settlement of ($750X / 2) might be in your interest-- at least if you did the downloading and knew they were there. (And yes, I must admit, I Am A Lawyer.)
The brutality the RIAA visits on the public under the current laws is sickening. The solution is Federal legislation (courts can't overturn the minimum $750 fine in the federal statute). Let's put pressure on our congresspersons this coming election year.
At the risk of being modded down for a political rant, I have to say that one of the major flaws of capitalism is that capital (the big bucks the **AAs have got) accumulates WAY too much power, to say nothing of sweetheart laws and legislation.
So in a sense everyone (poetic license allowed) *is* above average.
It may very well be legally OK to do by a universally-applied algorithm what it would not be legally OK to do by a special rule cooked up for a particular party. Interestingly, I think Google might have a defense if they could show the rule they invented for a party became a standard part of their ranking algorithm. That would take the wind out of the Plaintiff's claim they had been singled out for unequal treatment, because the appearance would be simply that Google had simply refined its methods.
Any hospital providing free care to the poor.
I can tell you from my own personal experience that the way one thinks changes profoundly in law school. Maybe this is why the profession is out of touch sometimes with other professions. (It's either a very good, or a very bad thing that we understand ourselves, depending on who you are, I suppose.)
Well remember, in the case of the electric and water companies, "customer" is synonymous with "member of the public". Napoleon nationalized the Perrier springs "for the good of France". We don't nationalize, but we do regulate when it is in the public interest. If a small group of companies controls something that powerfully affects the public's fortunes, shouldn't there be some oversight, or regulation ensuring fairness, or at least absence of bad faith? Might we even say "member of the public" and "customer" tend towards equivalence the more universally people need something controlled by a very few, or in fact principally by one major corporate entity? No one is saying Google should pay damages to Plaintiffs like Kinderstart. But when everyone is listed or not by Google to Google's benefit (couldn't be #1 without using our names), and when anyone harmed by Google's actions must go to court to even find out if the harm has been unfair or in bad faith, might it be better overall to have a regulatory system and some transparency?
So states require drivers to carry insurance. Doesn't society likewise require you to work and earn? What if someone, in bad faith, harms your reputation or ability to earn? Libel, slander, de-ranking? (The key, of course, is "in bad faith"-- for example, if it could be shown Google de-listed a journalist's wife's business because the journalist revealed details about the CEO he preferred be unknown.)
OK, so Google may be right in de-ranking Kinderstart. The Plaintiff is an idiot, perhaps, but the principle is far from idiotic. Do we have the right to know sometimes why Google acts as it does? If someone is hurt and it's not apparent why, that someone will surely think so. And so will anyone fair-minded.
I suspect you'd tell the legislature and courts to "go to hell" until some corporate behemoth started goring YOUR ox. Then I'm guessing you'd have something to say about what they should be "let" to do. You do sound like a libertarian, but that's OK. Some of my friends are even Republicans.
Is no one concerned that a few dozen powerful corporations can essentially make their own law? Kinderstart deserves its de-ranking, but is it OK for Google to ask us to wonder why it does what it does, when sometimes, it may not be obvious? Some corporations rival government in their power. (Some corporations have actually swayed government, as when the Japanese zaibatsu pressured Hirohito into starting World War II.) If we ask government to be transparent and accountable to the people, why not coporations? If we are a conscientious and fair society at heart (subside, cynics), do we not deserve to see that those is power are treating us fairly? Should someone decide whether Google's "punishment" of a rule-breaking site is excessive when businesses and lives and families, including businesses not playing the "smart-aleck" like Kinderstart, are ruined for secret reasons? This may not be an easy question to resolve but we have to debate it and resolve it.
I agree with you... but the question should really be how much regulation Google should accept-- maybe a sort of Public Cyberutilities Commission with power to review citizen complaints and provide an objective solution binding on Google? An elected panel might do better than vested management interests in making a quasi-public utility serve the electorate, or public.
The point is that if you are one of a few major players profiting from a business that has become essential to the public, we'll let you enjoy your quasi-monopoly, but you'd better be available equally and evenhandedly to all. (That's easier than nationalizing such entities.) The day is coming when Google, and Microsoft too, will be regulated like public utilities. It is completely inevitable.
"I refuse to divulge my PGP private key & passphrase."
Doing that is a guaranteed jail sentence for contempt of court, if the court orders you to disclose them. Forgot them? See if the court believes that. Hello, prison.
There is a principle in US law that says you may not do indirectly what you cannot do directly. There is also a Federal conspiracy statute that says you may not conspire to commit an unlawful act. Bottom line is, if they find out you're doing it, and they want to get you, they've got you. Of course, the law will probably be aimed not at individuals but at the financial institutions that enable circumvention; and in real terms, it would be almost impossible for the feds to catch you (but you'd have to lie on your tax returns about having signature authority over any foreign banking account).
Either this, or government agencies will have an easy means to extract the key from the TPM.
Who needs a back door with the kind of puny encryption BitLocker will offer? The NSA computers probably won't even hiccup in cracking it.
MS can afford to try everything to see if one thing works. Kind of like GM in the old days competing with Ford. Not an efficient strategy but again one MS can afford and which works for them.
Too right. Look what happened to Thermos and Jell-O. Took some fancy wrangling to preserve these names as protected.
Do not exceed recommended dosage. Psychotomimetic symptoms less than 8% of populations in controlled trials.
Most Courts have many too many cases and would like many less.
I am a lawyer. I have actually read parts of the Grokster and Gonzalez opinions. Although I did not read the opinions with the same care I would have if for professional purposes, Gonzalez certainly seemed to quote Grokster as supporting the proposition that merely having files in a shared folder was sufficiently part of a scheme to distribute to be the equivalent of actual distribution. In other words, it would not be a defense in a suit by the **AA that no one downloaded a complete copy of the file from you, or indeed, that the total bytes of the file uploaded were less than the total bytes in one copy of the file. Five shared songs may equal five times $750. (min.) in damages even if no one downloaded a byte. I'm quite concerned this will be how Grokster is interpreted in the future.
I do think we need legislative relief for the tens of thousands of little guys victimized by the double-A's.
We do have one. Or actually, fifty or so. Each state (and probably D.C.) has an Attorney General with powers to sue to stop public scams or nuisances. Usually there is a consumer protection division. People have to start bugging their A.G. It takes a lot of complaints about any particular abuse to get things moving, so go ahead.. and spread the word. CC your letter to your state and federal congresspersons. Larger volume of mail equals better chance you'll be heard.
..between plagiarism and acceptable synthesis. I don't condone plagiarism, but when so many college term papers that merely paraphrase primary sources without attribution are accepted, why are we surprised when similar phenomena crop up in the professional world?