This also proves just how flawed the copyright law is when it comes to proving that it's yours. When anyone can claim ownership, and demand removal it is just screwed up. Also makes you wonder if many others were con into removing files online by a person without copyright ownership. For that fact even con to remove files from your computer. A person could have a field day party sending those emails out to unsuspecting individuals.
Same kind of crap they have been getting away with for years. Only the story has changed, not the people responsible. Lets see if anyone can break the camels back this time. I doubt it. All involved will walk away squeaky clean.
If they manage to pass this bull chit. Someone really needs to come out with a Open Source Code of Conduct for bloggers.
Then we can all sit back and watch all the bloggers use the open source version. lol
"But if an ISP were to "offer this service" of bot detection, it would give the expectation that ISPs are responsible for network security. ISPs do not want to be responsible for network security. They don't even want to be perceived as being responsible for network security. There is no money in it for them. Even though every ISP has a AUP (acceptable use policy), there is little incentive for them to spend any money or effort (same thing) to enforce it."
Actually a few times ISP's did take charge, and shut them down. With the help of a third party that got involved, and sent proof etc to the ISP. If you also check your ISP's AUP you will notice a change in what reasons they give for shutting a user down for violating the AUP. They did not word it in some of these to sound like they are shutting down botnets, instead most shut them down because of excessive bandwidth usage, or spam, plus they include the "infected pc, etc.
In most of the AUP's I have read this evening they all have this clause in them...
From Earthlinks AUP "Network disruptions and unfriendly activity. Using the Services for any activity which adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use EarthLink Services or the Internet. This includes "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user. Interference with or disruption of other network users, network services or network equipment is prohibited. It is the Member's responsibility to ensure that their network is configured in a secure manner. A Member may not, through action or inaction, allow others to use their network for illegal or inappropriate actions. A Member may not permit their network, through action or inaction, to be configured in such a way that gives a third party the capability to use their network in an illegal or inappropriate manner."
The AUP's are not the same word for word, but they do have this in most of the ones I have read. The action or inaction I believe is key in some of the AUP's. BellSouth / AT&T is similar to the Earthlink AUP however BellSouth comes right to the point.
Bellsouth...
Through action or inaction allowing the transmission of files that contain a virus or corrupted data.
In order to protect our subscribers and our network, BellSouth may suspend and/or cancel a subscriber's account if we believe that it is transmitting a virus to other Internet users or our network."
Comcast is a little different... "restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to use or enjoy the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a worm, virus, or other harmful feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information;"
I believe you are forgetting one thing... and that is ISP's are just as sick and tired of all the crap online, as the users are. They get their share of tech support calls, and have to deal with crapware bringing blocks of IPs to a crawl. I believe they get involved if their is a need for them to get involved, and yes I have heard of people being shut down, and I know of one couple personally that was shutdown. Their computer was nothing more than a spam box, and Earthlink shut their service off. The major argument going back and forth was the ISP said they was infected, and to clean up their computer. They said there was nothing wrong with their computer, it was just slow. They just didn't want to believe their computer was infected. It took their ISP shutting them down to open their eyes. This was sad, because this couple was only online like 4 to 6 months. Hardly enough time to learn what to expect online. But a lesson learned quickly in the
Let the RIAA & MPAA get passed the new pretexting law, and I bet you that 99% of the States pass their own laws to enforce the Federal pretexting law, and the RIAA & MPAA wont be exempt from it. There is no way that the States will allow any loopholes in this new law. Actually if there are loopholes then the States may have a obligation to their residents to close those loopholes. The States do favor this new law. Reasoning is because most know this is actually a good law to pass in the first place.
1. The consumer wants cheap computers.
2. Microsoft releases a multi version called Vista, which includes a cheap version.
3. Vendors scramble to make cheap computers so consumers will purchase them. They make hardly any high end models. Because the consumer is cheap.
The point here is that the consumer has been use to seeing those 500 dollar and below specials that the vendors have been spitting at them for years.
Now that Microsoft has made different versions, the vendors want their piece of the pie, and Microsoft wants the product to sell. meanwhile, the consumer is still thinking cheap. On a personal note, it is not Microsoft's fault if the consumer is to too stupid to first, find out the hardware requirements for Vista, and second, make sure the computer meets or succeeds those requirements. In other words... " You lazy good for nothing! You get what you paid for!"
Fricklas asserts that the DMCA's 'safe harbor' provisions don't apply because YouTube is knowledgeable to infringement and furthermore derives financial benefit from it. Ads? They have ads? They don't make money from me! I use Firefox with adblock. I don't even see silly ads,
Maybe it's time for individuals and corporations to be held libel for what their computers spew. It wont work, they will deny, act ignorant, or blame it on Technology for not making it more secure.
I wonder where Dateline is during all of this? I mean Dateline likes going after predators, and the RIAA is one due to their actions. You would think Dateline would be all over a story like this one.
I agree with you totally. Todays CDs are crap. They put a bunch of cute wanna be's in seductive clothes, with no talent, can't sing a note without help from tech gadgets, and call them stars. I want real talent. I have not seen any real talent for a long time except for one group. The only ones I can say that has real talent is Il Divo. They are pure talent. Watch videos of them here: regresa ami-il divo and I Believe in you-Celine Dion & Il divo A little about them...
In the United Kingdom, the Il Divo album topped Robbie Williams as number 1 in the UK charts (allegedly Williams said to them during the Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason film premiere, "Oi, you're the bastards that knocked me off!")[citation needed]. This multiplatinum-selling CD became number one in the charts in a total of 13 countries around the world, and achieved top 5 placing in 25 countries. You can read the rest about them here: Il Divo
You don't see talent like them anymore. Or anyone like them. How sad that the RIAA can blame the public when it is their fault because they want to spit out wanna be stars all the time. Get rid of the wanna be's it's time to find the real talent.
I'll go one better. Cut the fucking thing off the net until the user fixes the problem.
That's not really fair.
It is fair.
It is fair because, it is not fair for "that" computer to spread the crapware on the Internet. It is not fair for that botnet to be laying in wait to strike on a whim. The compromised computers have to be stopped somehow. We don't have laws to stop them. If we are led to assume that the user of the compromised computer has no clue their computer has been compromised, then we owe it to everyone online, a next best fix. It may not be fool proof. But it sure beats the hell out of letting the crapware take over the Internet. Having ISP's stop them is next best thing. I think it is time for a responsible user policy. But I don't think it will happen any time soon, because there are just too many crapware in the wild, that can take over computers without the users knowledge. Maybe a different solution? Mass emailing goes out on one port, for which the user has to enable, and the ISP has to ok. Regular emailing on another. I only use this as a suggestion because if a user has no clue about how to fix their compromised computer, then they have no reason to be connected to a port set up for mass mailing.
I checked out the website in question. Which is located here: http://www.profane-justice.org/ the rules for that website just seem too harsh for a website that is trying to be a Family Advocacy Center. I don't know too many family's, or children that have five grand laying around before they even print out a few pages on that website. Doesn't look like it to me that they really want to help the public, if they are demanding so much money like they are. For such a website it just seems to me the rules need to be more flexible. Their Foster child page is geared towards a child. But what if they needed a print out of that page to give to their lawyer? I realize they waiver the fee for family's. But the way they have the page setup, and the mere sound of the words is a turn off for most seeking good help online. A child will not read through the full copyright page to see they are excluded from paying the fee. They will just see the parts on the pages on the bottom that say pay us $5,000.00 or else be sued.
I don't like the layout either. Looks like crap. In the copyright notice it states that the website is only to be viewed on a computer. I wonder if she has heard of the term of Fair Use? Plus the website itself is on a.org domain. This is usually reserved for nonprofits. You want a real eye opener read the part about the credit card charge back in the copyright notice at the bottom.
I don't think the woman has a case either. There are ways to protect pages, and one of them is the robots text. But what person in their right mind would put a full block on a website that advocates Family Advocacy?
If these DRM terms do NOT lead to lower sales then it reflects the people don't really care about their media being free in the first place. No it just means the ones that don't care, are not as smart as/. 'ers
I believe the climate is due to normal cycle, and due to human intervention. I don't think that it is all due to man because I believe we may of had a mini cycle of global warming, just like we have had mini cycles of so called ice ages in the past.
Climatology is by definition the study of long-term climate trends, and it will indeed be many decades or longer before any type conclusion about the existence of global warming or its causes can be determined to be true or false. If forecasters can't reliably tell us what will happen in two to three months from now, why would anyone trust that they know what will happen with the weather in 5, 50, or 100 years from now?
Mother nature has a mind of her own. I have seen quite a few meteorologists red in the face saying "oops! I didn't see that coming! Sorry!" Yes our Earth has too many people, and too much pollution. Plus we may need to think about better things to power our world. But I don't believe the public is totally at fault for any of this. Politics is at fault. They are the ones that keep big brother oil, and coal company's in business. They are also the ones that turned a blind eye for all of these years while these companies polluted our water and air. They may of fined them, for allowing their waste to leave the stacks at alarming rates, and made them clean the spills, but you want to say that the public did this, the public is to blame? Get real. The public can only use what is available to them.
Before the dim wits have their employees sign a waver stating they wont be sued because of their bosses bad behavior.
Maybe employees need to make it clear to them by making their new bosses sign a waver in regards to how they will handle illegal activities by their bosses?
*weebit cites dimwit for top secret internet files theft, citing article 8467-C of Internet International Law, AND Article -6- of the Ten Commandments: " Thou shalt not STEAL." please sign here: X_________________________ press hard... eight copies.*
YouTube's "proposition that they will only protect copyrighted content if there's a business deal in place I see nothing wrong with this type arrangement. It is not up to the net to protect your work, if you want it protected, then get off your butt and protect it. This is net neutrality at work.
"almost always IT workers who are disgruntled, paranoid, generally show up late, argue with colleagues, and generally perform poorly." Look out, a lot of people are going to be getting pink slips tomorrow!
Since you are a physician, may I ask you something? Do you get paid to push the newer drugs on your patients? I had a Doctor admit to it once. He is no longer my Doctor. Do you know Doctors that push the newer drugs on their patients?
It just seems odd that we have many drugs on the market that are far cheaper, less side effects, and the Doctors don't prescribe them unless they have too. (allergies, etc)
Slashdot Mirror
This also proves just how flawed the copyright law is when it comes to proving that it's yours. When anyone can claim ownership, and demand removal it is just screwed up. Also makes you wonder if many others were con into removing files online by a person without copyright ownership. For that fact even con to remove files from your computer. A person could have a field day party sending those emails out to unsuspecting individuals.
Same kind of crap they have been getting away with for years. Only the story has changed, not the people responsible. Lets see if anyone can break the camels back this time. I doubt it. All involved will walk away squeaky clean.
If they manage to pass this bull chit. Someone really needs to come out with a Open Source Code of Conduct for bloggers. Then we can all sit back and watch all the bloggers use the open source version. lol
"But if an ISP were to "offer this service" of bot detection, it would give the expectation that ISPs are responsible for network security. ISPs do not want to be responsible for network security. They don't even want to be perceived as being responsible for network security. There is no money in it for them. Even though every ISP has a AUP (acceptable use policy), there is little incentive for them to spend any money or effort (same thing) to enforce it."
Actually a few times ISP's did take charge, and shut them down. With the help of a third party that got involved, and sent proof etc to the ISP. If you also check your ISP's AUP you will notice a change in what reasons they give for shutting a user down for violating the AUP. They did not word it in some of these to sound like they are shutting down botnets, instead most shut them down because of excessive bandwidth usage, or spam, plus they include the "infected pc, etc.
In most of the AUP's I have read this evening they all have this clause in them...
From Earthlinks AUP
"Network disruptions and unfriendly activity. Using the Services for any activity which adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use EarthLink Services or the Internet. This includes "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user. Interference with or disruption of other network users, network services or network equipment is prohibited. It is the Member's responsibility to ensure that their network is configured in a secure manner. A Member may not, through action or inaction, allow others to use their network for illegal or inappropriate actions. A Member may not permit their network, through action or inaction, to be configured in such a way that gives a third party the capability to use their network in an illegal or inappropriate manner."
The AUP's are not the same word for word, but they do have this in most of the ones I have read. The action or inaction I believe is key in some of the AUP's. BellSouth / AT&T is similar to the Earthlink AUP however BellSouth comes right to the point.
Bellsouth... Through action or inaction allowing the transmission of files that contain a virus or corrupted data. In order to protect our subscribers and our network, BellSouth may suspend and/or cancel a subscriber's account if we believe that it is transmitting a virus to other Internet users or our network."
Comcast is a little different...
"restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to use or enjoy the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a worm, virus, or other harmful feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information;"
Actually Comcast has a list from hell covering all bad stuff. http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
I believe you are forgetting one thing... and that is ISP's are just as sick and tired of all the crap online, as the users are. They get their share of tech support calls, and have to deal with crapware bringing blocks of IPs to a crawl. I believe they get involved if their is a need for them to get involved, and yes I have heard of people being shut down, and I know of one couple personally that was shutdown. Their computer was nothing more than a spam box, and Earthlink shut their service off. The major argument going back and forth was the ISP said they was infected, and to clean up their computer. They said there was nothing wrong with their computer, it was just slow. They just didn't want to believe their computer was infected. It took their ISP shutting them down to open their eyes. This was sad, because this couple was only online like 4 to 6 months. Hardly enough time to learn what to expect online. But a lesson learned quickly in the
Let the RIAA & MPAA get passed the new pretexting law, and I bet you that 99% of the States pass their own laws to enforce the Federal pretexting law, and the RIAA & MPAA wont be exempt from it. There is no way that the States will allow any loopholes in this new law. Actually if there are loopholes then the States may have a obligation to their residents to close those loopholes. The States do favor this new law. Reasoning is because most know this is actually a good law to pass in the first place.
Weebit slaps RIAA with a rolled up newspaper... bad Dog!!!!!
This includes long distance, ISP, etc Must have your head in a hole somewhere, because this has been going on for years.
2. Microsoft releases a multi version called Vista, which includes a cheap version.
3. Vendors scramble to make cheap computers so consumers will purchase them. They make hardly any high end models. Because the consumer is cheap.
The point here is that the consumer has been use to seeing those 500 dollar and below specials that the vendors have been spitting at them for years.
Now that Microsoft has made different versions, the vendors want their piece of the pie, and Microsoft wants the product to sell. meanwhile, the consumer is still thinking cheap. On a personal note, it is not Microsoft's fault if the consumer is to too stupid to first, find out the hardware requirements for Vista, and second, make sure the computer meets or succeeds those requirements. In other words... " You lazy good for nothing! You get what you paid for!"
SIC EM GOOGLE!
I wonder where Dateline is during all of this? I mean Dateline likes going after predators, and the RIAA is one due to their actions. You would think Dateline would be all over a story like this one.
I agree with you totally. Todays CDs are crap. They put a bunch of cute wanna be's in seductive clothes, with no talent, can't sing a note without help from tech gadgets, and call them stars. I want real talent. I have not seen any real talent for a long time except for one group. The only ones I can say that has real talent is Il Divo. They are pure talent. Watch videos of them here: regresa ami-il divo and I Believe in you-Celine Dion & Il divo A little about them...
In the United Kingdom, the Il Divo album topped Robbie Williams as number 1 in the UK charts (allegedly Williams said to them during the Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason film premiere, "Oi, you're the bastards that knocked me off!")[citation needed]. This multiplatinum-selling CD became number one in the charts in a total of 13 countries around the world, and achieved top 5 placing in 25 countries. You can read the rest about them here: Il Divo
You don't see talent like them anymore. Or anyone like them. How sad that the RIAA can blame the public when it is their fault because they want to spit out wanna be stars all the time. Get rid of the wanna be's it's time to find the real talent.
a few idiots undo all of the mandatory security settings. Then Congress informs the White House they have a problem.
I'll go one better. Cut the fucking thing off the net until the user fixes the problem.
That's not really fair.
It is fair.
It is fair because, it is not fair for "that" computer to spread the crapware on the Internet. It is not fair for that botnet to be laying in wait to strike on a whim. The compromised computers have to be stopped somehow. We don't have laws to stop them. If we are led to assume that the user of the compromised computer has no clue their computer has been compromised, then we owe it to everyone online, a next best fix. It may not be fool proof. But it sure beats the hell out of letting the crapware take over the Internet. Having ISP's stop them is next best thing. I think it is time for a responsible user policy. But I don't think it will happen any time soon, because there are just too many crapware in the wild, that can take over computers without the users knowledge. Maybe a different solution? Mass emailing goes out on one port, for which the user has to enable, and the ISP has to ok. Regular emailing on another. I only use this as a suggestion because if a user has no clue about how to fix their compromised computer, then they have no reason to be connected to a port set up for mass mailing.
I checked out the website in question. Which is located here: http://www.profane-justice.org/ the rules for that website just seem too harsh for a website that is trying to be a Family Advocacy Center. I don't know too many family's, or children that have five grand laying around before they even print out a few pages on that website. Doesn't look like it to me that they really want to help the public, if they are demanding so much money like they are. For such a website it just seems to me the rules need to be more flexible. Their Foster child page is geared towards a child. But what if they needed a print out of that page to give to their lawyer? I realize they waiver the fee for family's. But the way they have the page setup, and the mere sound of the words is a turn off for most seeking good help online. A child will not read through the full copyright page to see they are excluded from paying the fee. They will just see the parts on the pages on the bottom that say pay us $5,000.00 or else be sued.
I don't like the layout either. Looks like crap. In the copyright notice it states that the website is only to be viewed on a computer. I wonder if she has heard of the term of Fair Use? Plus the website itself is on a .org domain. This is usually reserved for nonprofits. You want a real eye opener read the part about the credit card charge back in the copyright notice at the bottom.
I don't think the woman has a case either. There are ways to protect pages, and one of them is the robots text. But what person in their right mind would put a full block on a website that advocates Family Advocacy?
I believe the climate is due to normal cycle, and due to human intervention. I don't think that it is all due to man because I believe we may of had a mini cycle of global warming, just like we have had mini cycles of so called ice ages in the past. Climatology is by definition the study of long-term climate trends, and it will indeed be many decades or longer before any type conclusion about the existence of global warming or its causes can be determined to be true or false. If forecasters can't reliably tell us what will happen in two to three months from now, why would anyone trust that they know what will happen with the weather in 5, 50, or 100 years from now?
Mother nature has a mind of her own. I have seen quite a few meteorologists red in the face saying "oops! I didn't see that coming! Sorry!" Yes our Earth has too many people, and too much pollution. Plus we may need to think about better things to power our world. But I don't believe the public is totally at fault for any of this. Politics is at fault. They are the ones that keep big brother oil, and coal company's in business. They are also the ones that turned a blind eye for all of these years while these companies polluted our water and air. They may of fined them, for allowing their waste to leave the stacks at alarming rates, and made them clean the spills, but you want to say that the public did this, the public is to blame? Get real. The public can only use what is available to them.
Before the dim wits have their employees sign a waver stating they wont be sued because of their bosses bad behavior.
Maybe employees need to make it clear to them by making their new bosses sign a waver in regards to how they will handle illegal activities by their bosses?
*weebit cites dimwit for top secret internet files theft, citing article 8467-C of Internet International Law, AND Article -6- of the Ten Commandments: " Thou shalt not STEAL." please sign here: X_________________________ press hard... eight copies.*
will not suffer the kind of glitches that caused the nation's first robotic garage in nearby NJ to drop and trap cars.
irobot gone on strike! News at 11.
Since you are a physician, may I ask you something? Do you get paid to push the newer drugs on your patients? I had a Doctor admit to it once. He is no longer my Doctor. Do you know Doctors that push the newer drugs on their patients?
It just seems odd that we have many drugs on the market that are far cheaper, less side effects, and the Doctors don't prescribe them unless they have too. (allergies, etc)