Disconnecting your customers (or suing them or otherwise alienating them) is business suicide.
SCO et al. found this out the hard way. AT&T does not seem to be picking up on this either.
All it will take is a few choice lawsuits from individuals using a P2P to distribute their own work -- especially if it is tied to one's business and customers find themselves suddenly getting dumped by their ISPs -- and this idea will fade faster than you can say "punitive damages."
Maybe it's a coincidence but didn't china not to long ago demonstrate they could shoot don satellites...
No, no.....they demonstrated that they could shoot Don Francisco.
Alas, I can't think of anything catty to say about "not to long ago." (But at least he used "it's" properly.) The missing capital in "China" also makes it look like dinner plates are shooting at satellites.
And his user name is "cybrchld" ("cyber child"), so maybe I should cut some slack here.
(Sorry, it's been a long day, and my tolerance for second-grade level grammar and spelling on Internet forums is rapidly eroding. Then again, even in 2nd grade I could spell "down" and knew enough to capitalize "China...")
go after terrorist organizations, child pornographers, etc.
if you are hosting such things, you deserve to be hunted down
but with your jibe at "libertarian" one assumes you are the usual privacy absolutist who simply doesn't understand the government has no interest in you. it inflates your ego to think anyone in society or the government actually feels threatened by you
it is of course evil for governments to oppress people just for speaking their minds
luckily for you, unless you are in iran or china, no one is going to do that
people actually do evil things in this world, and governments actually go after them for that. and that's a good thing
Right on!! I am all in favor of the government doing everything they can to hunt down and kill terrorists, child molesters, and people who type in all lower-case and consider periods optional.
In another 70 years (or is it 95 now? Or 120? I can't keep track anymore...), the letter will fall into the public domain, and you can post it online then. (Maybe then it will even start turning up in those bargain bins at the dollar store...)
In machine counted precincts, Clinton beat Obama by almost 5%. In hand counted precincts, Obama beat Clinton by over 4%, which closely matches the scientific polls that were conducted leading up to the election.
I don't know how hand-vs-machine breaks down in NH, but my gut assumption would be that hand-counted precincts are probably in smaller towns (which would skew older demographically, and have too small a budget to afford the machines) while the machine precincts are probably more in the larger cities and college towns (where most of the younger people -- Obama's base, if you will -- reside). So, I would normally expect those numbers to be reversed, with Obama winning in the machine precincts and Hillary elsewhere. Seems a trifle odd.....
So, when a driverless car runs a red light, who gets the ticket? The owner? The manufacturer? The software company? Hell, they have automated machines that issue red light tickets now, so will one pile of metal and software issue the ticket to the other? Will the machines develop their own monetary system, will driverless cars figure out hacks to avoid the tickets, and will the robot machines have their own jails and prisons? Capital punishment = execution by power surge or by fatal software virus? This smacks too much of a bad Twilight Zone episode.
Since public employees are paid using my tax dollars, then I and every other tax-paying citizen have an absolute right to know what they are up to. Period. End of discussion.
A lot of police departments are starting to tape all formal interrogations to cover their asses, but what we don't get to see or hear are the "pre-interrogation interrogations" -- you know, those "he's not a suspect, he's not under arrest, we're just trying to get some information" interrogations?
.....he also placed them in a shared folder on Kazaa, thus "making available." Yes, the RIAA believes that ripping to a computer or other device is illegal, but if you don't make them publicly available, how would anyone know? As evil as they are, the RIAA is probably not going to start searching millions of computers looking for ripped mp3s. That would either involve planting snooping software through a virus or hack (for which they have already received a good amount of flak) or getting law enforcement to do the job. I'm sure searching people's computers for music tracks would have about as much priority of manpower on the local level as busting people for littering or jaywalking.
What I see happening here is the RIAA is still targeting file sharers, but trying to set a solid precedent for a separate offense of ripping the songs to a computer in the first place -- could allow them to intensify the suits and increase the extortion money.....er.....damages they seek. It's kind of like how, in many jurisdictions, cops don't go around actively looking for drivers who are not wearing their seat belts, but if they pull you over for another reason and your belt is not fastened, they'll hit you with another ticket.
And, as others have pointed out, ripping software is ubiquitous, even in Microsoft's own Media Player, in RealPlayer, etc. There's probably not a PC or laptop sold in this country that doesn't come with an audio program that includes some form of CD ripping software already installed, and there are literally hundreds of shareware and freeware programs that do the job as well. Unless the RIAA is now going to go after all the suppliers of that software for facilitating the "illegal" act of ripping, I don't expect that this is going to be much of a priority for them.
What frustrates me is that its clear there are a decent number of people like on Slashdot who feel the way "sex offenders" are treated is immoral, silly and plain offensive but I don't know of any organization who fights for the rights of these people. Does anyone know of any particular organization like this?
I'm probably safe in assuming you mean someone other than NAMBLA.....
What makes sexual offenders so much worse than violent nonsexual offenders?
Very simple -- that horrible little word "sex." Since the first pilgrims landed on our shores, the Puritan spirit has never been totally eradicated in the U.S. While on one hand we probably consume more porn per capita than anywhere else, at the same time there are scads of folks who still find sex of any kind icky and shameful.
Take the opening monologue to "Law and Order: Special Victim's Unit." (Don't misunderstand, BTW -- I like the show.) "Sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous." Really? Why? If a guy kidnaps and tortures a young girl, then bashes in her skull and dismembers her body, that's not "heinous" enough? But, if somewhere in the midst of all that horror he also rapes her, now it becomes something truly heinous?
Make no mistake -- many people still have a very visceral negative reaction to anything sexual. If a man stabs a woman, or breaks her bones, or burns her, or physically assaults her in any way, and he is tried and convicted and eventually serves out his sentence and gets out on parole, no one tells him "you can't live in these areas" or "you can't use the Internet." But once the woman's vagina has been breached, all of a sudden he goes from merely evil to something of unspeakable horror that must be marginalized and driven out of town at any cost. Yes, rape is a terrible and inexcusable crime, but why is it so much worse than any other physical assault on someone's person? Because it involves SEX -- that horrible little word.
Sex offenders have no rights -- didn't you know that? "Paying one's debt to society" has no meaning here -- once you're branded a sex offender, you're a pariah for life. We will make you leave your home if it's too close to a school, a playground, or a school bus stop (that probably didn't even exist before they found out you lived there). We will make it almost impossible for you to hold a steady, decent job. We will make sure that your name and photo are splashed all over the Internet and signs and posters so everyone will know to avoid you. We'll make you homeless, jobless, and an utter outcast. And, somehow, this is supposed to make us all safer.
So it runs XP, which with the release of Vista is now supposed to be really not that bad...
Kinda OT, but...did you ever stop to think that maybe the whole Vista mess was a calculated debacle to make XP look better? I mean, people used to fuss and cuss at XP all the time, and now when Vista comes stumbling along, XP suddenly seems (comparatively) wonderful. (Kinda like how Americans have become so obese, that even I with my 30-40 extra pounds feel like an anorexic model when I look at the other hogs at the buffet trough.) Maybe this whole Vista thing was a decoy to actually sell more copies of XP and make us more complacent and satisfied with it? Vista = New Coke and XP = Classic Coke? Or am I attributing too much wisdom and business savvy to the MS overlords?
I don't know about you, but there are few things more hellish and foul than a 30-second clip of a song encoded at 64kbps playing through a mobile phone speaker.
Maybe the loud, obnoxious, personal conversation that follows?
How prominently do they notify people? Is it just buried in the fine print, or is there some sort of big warning on the form about it? Would you happen to have a copy of the text handy?
Don't have a copy handy (the machine's out of warranty, so now I do things myself, or call a "shadetree technician" friend when I need to), but as I recall that clause was in bold print and a slightly larger font -- clearly they meant to call your attention to it even if you glossed over the rest of the whereases and heretofores. I believe it was even near the bottom, close to where one would sign, so it was positioned to catch your attention.
Anyone stupid enough to drop a computer harboring child porn into the hands of any 3rd party should get everything coming to him. Why not copy the illegal shit to a portable hard drive, securely wipe the original files on the PC, and THEN drop it off? Answer: because, fortunately for all of us, a lot of criminals aren't really very bright.
I don't know about the mega-chains (I wouldn't take anything there to be messed with anyway), but the small local chain where I have my stuff serviced has a written, specific clause about this in the repair agreement that you have to sign. Basically, it advises that in the course of servicing, files or folders on the computer may be accessed for diagnostic or testing purposes, and that if kiddie porn or the like happens to be found, they will notify the authorities. I would think Circuit City would (or should) have a similar disclaimer -- if they do, then the guy is screwed because he signed the thing (probably without reading it, as 98% of people do).
No, it's just that people are THAT stupid. If you're stupid enough to follow these phishing deals, then you get what you deserve.
Amen to that. You know, I get phishing e-mails every day at my main account, and tons more to my hotmail and yahoo accounts (where their filters catch most of them, but it's fun sometimes just to look them over before they get shit-canned). I would say that at LEAST 2/3 of them are so obviously fake (misspellings, fractured syntax, totally unprofessional looking, etc.) that you would have to be deaf and blind to be fooled by them. Most of the rest look pretty legit, but can easily be distinguished by mousing over the links, or noting the information in the e-mail (I frequently get "eBay" e-mails about items I never sold or bought, or sent to an address that isn't registered with eBay). I don't think over the course of a year I see more than half a dozen phishing attempts that are SO realistic looking that even an educated person might be fooled on a bad day, or when distracted or in a hurry.
One day we'll be able to grow a complete body artificially, including the brain, and only by careful testing will you be able to tell the artificial from the natural born.
Only one way to know -- the artificial ones will have DRM to prevent unauthorized copying.
They probably thought it was better to drop one case than to risk a precedent-setting decision that would have invalidated hundreds of other similar "investigations" and perhaps result in some sort of class-action suit.
I think the analogy to a key (physical object) is faulty. It is more akin to being compelled to divulge the combination to a safe that may contain physical evidence. The difference is that the cops can almost always crack a safe, whereas trying to nail down an encryption password may be near impossible, or at least very difficult, depending on the level of cryptography and the number of possible passwords.
What you have are three possible scenarios:
(1)A non-physical "key" (like a password) that opens a non-physical item (like a computer file or folder),
(2)A non-physical "key" (like a combination) that opens a physical item (like a safe), or
(3)A physical key that opens a physical object (safe, lockbox, closet, etc.)
What we are suggesting here is that (1) should be protected by the 5th Amendment, while (3) is not. But, what about (2)? Is not the divulging of a memorized combination equally "testimony" that could be self-incriminating? Does it make a difference whether the object to be opened utilizing the memorized information is physical or not?
If you read the second link..."the television broadcasts we have so rashly been transmitting to the stars for the last 50 years"...Stopping people from deliberately sending signals is not going to make us invisible. We've been sending signals for decades.
All of which have probably had the same effect as putting up a big sign that says, "WACKO PLANET -- STAY THE HELL AWAY!"
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if this ruling will have any effect on other cases in other countries.
Not in the U.S., that's for sure. We don't care what them damn heathen furriners do in all them other countries...
Disconnecting your customers (or suing them or otherwise alienating them) is business suicide. SCO et al. found this out the hard way. AT&T does not seem to be picking up on this either.
All it will take is a few choice lawsuits from individuals using a P2P to distribute their own work -- especially if it is tied to one's business and customers find themselves suddenly getting dumped by their ISPs -- and this idea will fade faster than you can say "punitive damages."
Maybe it's a coincidence but didn't china not to long ago demonstrate they could shoot don satellites...
No, no.....they demonstrated that they could shoot Don Francisco.
Alas, I can't think of anything catty to say about "not to long ago." (But at least he used "it's" properly.) The missing capital in "China" also makes it look like dinner plates are shooting at satellites.
And his user name is "cybrchld" ("cyber child"), so maybe I should cut some slack here.
(Sorry, it's been a long day, and my tolerance for second-grade level grammar and spelling on Internet forums is rapidly eroding. Then again, even in 2nd grade I could spell "down" and knew enough to capitalize "China...")
go after terrorist organizations, child pornographers, etc.
if you are hosting such things, you deserve to be hunted down
but with your jibe at "libertarian" one assumes you are the usual privacy absolutist who simply doesn't understand the government has no interest in you. it inflates your ego to think anyone in society or the government actually feels threatened by you
it is of course evil for governments to oppress people just for speaking their minds
luckily for you, unless you are in iran or china, no one is going to do that
people actually do evil things in this world, and governments actually go after them for that. and that's a good thing
Right on!! I am all in favor of the government doing everything they can to hunt down and kill terrorists, child molesters, and people who type in all lower-case and consider periods optional.
In another 70 years (or is it 95 now? Or 120? I can't keep track anymore...), the letter will fall into the public domain, and you can post it online then. (Maybe then it will even start turning up in those bargain bins at the dollar store...)
In machine counted precincts, Clinton beat Obama by almost 5%. In hand counted precincts, Obama beat Clinton by over 4%, which closely matches the scientific polls that were conducted leading up to the election.
I don't know how hand-vs-machine breaks down in NH, but my gut assumption would be that hand-counted precincts are probably in smaller towns (which would skew older demographically, and have too small a budget to afford the machines) while the machine precincts are probably more in the larger cities and college towns (where most of the younger people -- Obama's base, if you will -- reside). So, I would normally expect those numbers to be reversed, with Obama winning in the machine precincts and Hillary elsewhere. Seems a trifle odd.....
So, when a driverless car runs a red light, who gets the ticket? The owner? The manufacturer? The software company? Hell, they have automated machines that issue red light tickets now, so will one pile of metal and software issue the ticket to the other? Will the machines develop their own monetary system, will driverless cars figure out hacks to avoid the tickets, and will the robot machines have their own jails and prisons? Capital punishment = execution by power surge or by fatal software virus? This smacks too much of a bad Twilight Zone episode.
Since public employees are paid using my tax dollars, then I and every other tax-paying citizen have an absolute right to know what they are up to. Period. End of discussion.
A lot of police departments are starting to tape all formal interrogations to cover their asses, but what we don't get to see or hear are the "pre-interrogation interrogations" -- you know, those "he's not a suspect, he's not under arrest, we're just trying to get some information" interrogations?
.....he also placed them in a shared folder on Kazaa, thus "making available." Yes, the RIAA believes that ripping to a computer or other device is illegal, but if you don't make them publicly available, how would anyone know? As evil as they are, the RIAA is probably not going to start searching millions of computers looking for ripped mp3s. That would either involve planting snooping software through a virus or hack (for which they have already received a good amount of flak) or getting law enforcement to do the job. I'm sure searching people's computers for music tracks would have about as much priority of manpower on the local level as busting people for littering or jaywalking.
What I see happening here is the RIAA is still targeting file sharers, but trying to set a solid precedent for a separate offense of ripping the songs to a computer in the first place -- could allow them to intensify the suits and increase the extortion money.....er.....damages they seek. It's kind of like how, in many jurisdictions, cops don't go around actively looking for drivers who are not wearing their seat belts, but if they pull you over for another reason and your belt is not fastened, they'll hit you with another ticket.
And, as others have pointed out, ripping software is ubiquitous, even in Microsoft's own Media Player, in RealPlayer, etc. There's probably not a PC or laptop sold in this country that doesn't come with an audio program that includes some form of CD ripping software already installed, and there are literally hundreds of shareware and freeware programs that do the job as well. Unless the RIAA is now going to go after all the suppliers of that software for facilitating the "illegal" act of ripping, I don't expect that this is going to be much of a priority for them.
What frustrates me is that its clear there are a decent number of people like on Slashdot who feel the way "sex offenders" are treated is immoral, silly and plain offensive but I don't know of any organization who fights for the rights of these people. Does anyone know of any particular organization like this?
I'm probably safe in assuming you mean someone other than NAMBLA.....
What makes sexual offenders so much worse than violent nonsexual offenders?
Very simple -- that horrible little word "sex." Since the first pilgrims landed on our shores, the Puritan spirit has never been totally eradicated in the U.S. While on one hand we probably consume more porn per capita than anywhere else, at the same time there are scads of folks who still find sex of any kind icky and shameful.
Take the opening monologue to "Law and Order: Special Victim's Unit." (Don't misunderstand, BTW -- I like the show.) "Sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous." Really? Why? If a guy kidnaps and tortures a young girl, then bashes in her skull and dismembers her body, that's not "heinous" enough? But, if somewhere in the midst of all that horror he also rapes her, now it becomes something truly heinous?
Make no mistake -- many people still have a very visceral negative reaction to anything sexual. If a man stabs a woman, or breaks her bones, or burns her, or physically assaults her in any way, and he is tried and convicted and eventually serves out his sentence and gets out on parole, no one tells him "you can't live in these areas" or "you can't use the Internet." But once the woman's vagina has been breached, all of a sudden he goes from merely evil to something of unspeakable horror that must be marginalized and driven out of town at any cost. Yes, rape is a terrible and inexcusable crime, but why is it so much worse than any other physical assault on someone's person? Because it involves SEX -- that horrible little word.
Sex offenders have no rights -- didn't you know that? "Paying one's debt to society" has no meaning here -- once you're branded a sex offender, you're a pariah for life. We will make you leave your home if it's too close to a school, a playground, or a school bus stop (that probably didn't even exist before they found out you lived there). We will make it almost impossible for you to hold a steady, decent job. We will make sure that your name and photo are splashed all over the Internet and signs and posters so everyone will know to avoid you. We'll make you homeless, jobless, and an utter outcast. And, somehow, this is supposed to make us all safer.
So it runs XP, which with the release of Vista is now supposed to be really not that bad...
Kinda OT, but...did you ever stop to think that maybe the whole Vista mess was a calculated debacle to make XP look better? I mean, people used to fuss and cuss at XP all the time, and now when Vista comes stumbling along, XP suddenly seems (comparatively) wonderful. (Kinda like how Americans have become so obese, that even I with my 30-40 extra pounds feel like an anorexic model when I look at the other hogs at the buffet trough.) Maybe this whole Vista thing was a decoy to actually sell more copies of XP and make us more complacent and satisfied with it? Vista = New Coke and XP = Classic Coke? Or am I attributing too much wisdom and business savvy to the MS overlords?
If British drivers don't want to be seen by the cameras, why can't they just engage their cloaking devices?
Signed,
Every Sci-Fi Geek in the World
I don't know about you, but there are few things more hellish and foul than a 30-second clip of a song encoded at 64kbps playing through a mobile phone speaker.
Maybe the loud, obnoxious, personal conversation that follows?How prominently do they notify people? Is it just buried in the fine print, or is there some sort of big warning on the form about it? Would you happen to have a copy of the text handy?
Don't have a copy handy (the machine's out of warranty, so now I do things myself, or call a "shadetree technician" friend when I need to), but as I recall that clause was in bold print and a slightly larger font -- clearly they meant to call your attention to it even if you glossed over the rest of the whereases and heretofores. I believe it was even near the bottom, close to where one would sign, so it was positioned to catch your attention.
Anyone stupid enough to drop a computer harboring child porn into the hands of any 3rd party should get everything coming to him. Why not copy the illegal shit to a portable hard drive, securely wipe the original files on the PC, and THEN drop it off? Answer: because, fortunately for all of us, a lot of criminals aren't really very bright.
I don't know about the mega-chains (I wouldn't take anything there to be messed with anyway), but the small local chain where I have my stuff serviced has a written, specific clause about this in the repair agreement that you have to sign. Basically, it advises that in the course of servicing, files or folders on the computer may be accessed for diagnostic or testing purposes, and that if kiddie porn or the like happens to be found, they will notify the authorities. I would think Circuit City would (or should) have a similar disclaimer -- if they do, then the guy is screwed because he signed the thing (probably without reading it, as 98% of people do).
No, it's just that people are THAT stupid. If you're stupid enough to follow these phishing deals, then you get what you deserve.
Amen to that. You know, I get phishing e-mails every day at my main account, and tons more to my hotmail and yahoo accounts (where their filters catch most of them, but it's fun sometimes just to look them over before they get shit-canned). I would say that at LEAST 2/3 of them are so obviously fake (misspellings, fractured syntax, totally unprofessional looking, etc.) that you would have to be deaf and blind to be fooled by them. Most of the rest look pretty legit, but can easily be distinguished by mousing over the links, or noting the information in the e-mail (I frequently get "eBay" e-mails about items I never sold or bought, or sent to an address that isn't registered with eBay). I don't think over the course of a year I see more than half a dozen phishing attempts that are SO realistic looking that even an educated person might be fooled on a bad day, or when distracted or in a hurry.One day we'll be able to grow a complete body artificially, including the brain, and only by careful testing will you be able to tell the artificial from the natural born.
Only one way to know -- the artificial ones will have DRM to prevent unauthorized copying.
They probably thought it was better to drop one case than to risk a precedent-setting decision that would have invalidated hundreds of other similar "investigations" and perhaps result in some sort of class-action suit.
I know now what I want for Christmas.....
I usually don't fawn over things like this but, damn, that is one friggin' awesome thing of beauty.
I think the analogy to a key (physical object) is faulty. It is more akin to being compelled to divulge the combination to a safe that may contain physical evidence. The difference is that the cops can almost always crack a safe, whereas trying to nail down an encryption password may be near impossible, or at least very difficult, depending on the level of cryptography and the number of possible passwords.
What you have are three possible scenarios:
(1)A non-physical "key" (like a password) that opens a non-physical item (like a computer file or folder),
(2)A non-physical "key" (like a combination) that opens a physical item (like a safe), or
(3)A physical key that opens a physical object (safe, lockbox, closet, etc.)
What we are suggesting here is that (1) should be protected by the 5th Amendment, while (3) is not. But, what about (2)? Is not the divulging of a memorized combination equally "testimony" that could be self-incriminating? Does it make a difference whether the object to be opened utilizing the memorized information is physical or not?
If you read the second link..."the television broadcasts we have so rashly been transmitting to the stars for the last 50 years"...Stopping people from deliberately sending signals is not going to make us invisible. We've been sending signals for decades.
All of which have probably had the same effect as putting up a big sign that says, "WACKO PLANET -- STAY THE HELL AWAY!"
There is not one iota of evidence that there exists one other intelligent form of life in the universe.
"Other?"
I believe the constitution is quite clear on the whole 'freedom of the press' type thing.
The Constitution? Is that thing still around?