Or, they could be testing the waters of the usefullness of the DMCA. This gave them a good oppurtunity to use it in battle, and they wanted to see how it would work out. After all, practice makes perfect..
The biggest assload of money
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
that the RIAA and these artists could possibly walk into has been dropped at their feet, and they're trying to shut it down. I quote:
"If the courts allow Napster and services like it to continue to facilitate massive copyright infringement, there is a grave risk that the public will begin to perceive and believe that they have a right to obtain copyrighted materials for free," Valenti said.
End quote. I guess this Valenti guy, as well as all these artists, and all the RIAA executives have never heard of the radio before. I don't pay a nickel to anyone but the power company to listen to songs on the radio, but yet, the recording industry and the musicians alike seem to, *gasp*, make money at it. I'll start feeling sorry for Metallica and the RIAA when they can pull their heads out of their asses long enough to see the sh!t stains. The mere fact that they cannot seem to grasp exactly how much money they could make if they applied the same system as all legal radio stations follow to Napster is absolutely vulgar in my opinion.
FerretSoft did an entire suite of software just like this years ago. They have software to do metasearches for webpages, auctions, news groups, irc, email addresses, phone numbers, general information, and files. If you're a windows user, it's incredibly good software. Webferret automatically filters out multiple hits, and the returns are generally very good. Of course, it has a banner ad at the bottom, but that's to be expected. Anyways, my point is that this concept is hardly new, and it's surprising that it's taken this long to come to linux. I'm surprised that Ferretsoft hasn't released it for linux. We should all write to them and suggest it.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section [sic], for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
You'll notice that copying a work verbatim is not listed. IMO, The posting cannot be considered a criticism, comment, news reporting, or for use in teaching since the poster didn't say anything about his post. All he did was post somebody else's material. There's lots of legal precedence against claims of fair use for this as well.
"The result of this is that the University has spent, and is still spending, a vast amount of administrative effort and lawyers' fees over something that has nothing to do with it, and is just a game to you."
Okay, so basically what he's saying is that the student who posted the DeCSS parody should be blamed for the administrative staff not doing their jobs and looking at the site before they pulled it down to actually, *gasp*, see if it was an offending page. I don't see how anyone can have sympathy for them.
I think that it does actually get to the heart of the issue. See, here's the deal. In order for Microsoft to be able to say that their code is a trade secret, they need to be able to prove that they took reasonable means to protect that secret (please see their click-through agreement). If they did not take reasonable means to protect that data, which posting it on a website is not, IMHO, a reasonable effort, then it isn't a trade secret, is it. So, if it isn't a trade secret, then they have made their own click-through agreement self-contradictory, and therefore, clicking on it doesn't legally bind us to anything.
However, it is probably still a matter of copyright infringement, just as I can't copy your website, and put it up on my own without your permission, regardless of whether or not you explicitly state that it is copyrighted.
It's a simple exercise in logic. Slashdot is hosted in the US. The US now has the DMCA. People posted copyrighted material to Slashdot. Slashdot is not an ISP, just as Ebay, Yahoo and Napster are not ISPs. It logically follows that Slashdot is in violation of the DMCA as far as actual text copies of the M$ document go. Those articles should be censored. Links are not the responsibility of Slashdot, and M$ should take that up with the owner of the individual site. If they do not know who that is, there are legal channels for M$ to go through to gain that info. If it comes down to a subpoena to Slashdot to find out who that user is, then that is what it takes.
The plain, sad fact of the matter is that a couple of people thought they'd be smart asses and post the document, blatantly violating the copyright. To them, I say: Have fun in your lawsuit! One person, I apologize for not remembering who it is, said he was a law student, and that it is his belief that once that information hits the public domain, it is no longer a trade secret. To M$, I say: Shouldn't have posted it on the web if you _really_ wanted to keep it a trade secret! There's legal precedent set to back this up.
As for Slashdot censoring articles, no we do not have the explicit capability of removing comments that we post. That's why there's the Preview button. If you have something to say, say it. I do not know if it is true or not that we still own the comment once we post it to Slashdot, but if that's the case, then we have the right to email the maintainers of Slashdot, and request that a comment be removed.
I thought it was legal for me to create an MP3 of music I own, and therefore to also download from somebody else an MP3 of music that I own. Does Metallica have proof that these 300K people do not own the music that they're downloading already?
He'd never do that though. He's still a businessman. He wants to play by the rules. Jeff agrees that the rules are poor in this situation and thus need changed. But if he can't change the rules, altruism is only going to get him smoked by competition later down the road.
The author apparently only knows Open Source as a buzz word. The whole idea behind Open Source is its amazing ability at contacting the end user. You open up the source code, and right there at the top of the source is usually the guy's email address. How often do you see the email address for one of the developers at Microsoft? If the end user does not like the gui, it is his right, under the OS way of thinking, to change it to something everyone will like better.
The answer is relatively simple: The Open Source movement has no feedback loop to end-users, and no imperative to create one.
That is almost but not quite entirely not the reason the UI's in most OS programs suck. The reason is that most of us like that friendly # symbol from which to do our work, and don't put the time and effort into making pretty buttons and psychologically adapt windowing interfaces. 'nuff said.
They could easily put down a plethora of checkboxes and have a make button. You could probably upload all of your makefiles too, which would be easier. Anyone out there used it and could let us other pundits know?:)
What may be more interesting, and have serious ramifications, is the fact that you're storing your data off site on SourceForge's servers. A coordinated DOS attack to keep you from your source? Crackers going in and modifying your files perhaps?
According to the article, it's not that they're afraid of people making fun of the name of their school so much as their dropping admissions.
In addition, the college's market research shows that the school appeals to 30 percent fewer prospective students solely because of the name.
That's a huge percentage. I remember when I was getting literature for schools, that was one of the school's that contacted me, and I blew them off because the name sounded small time and silly. Not having a very good Computer Science department didn't help them either, but my initial reaction was to the name.
It's one thing to be idealistic and say "what's in a name?", but the hard truth of the matter is that people are prejudiced, and base many of their behaviors on first impressions. For a business (that's all a college really is), the name is the first thing that people see, and if it's something that turns them off, well, you can see the results.
This could be easy. Except for maybe the modem, the hardware in the Win98 machine will be the same in the linux machine. You're going to have to go get a PCMCIA modem for the linux machine anyways, so no skin off your back. So, just buy the win98 machine, ask for your $100 back because you don't want Windows pre-installed, then go home and pop on your favorite distro. You know it works already, you just don't want to pay their surcharge for certification and licensing with RedHat.
I feel that everyone is taking the "all computers" to an extreme. Judging by the rest of the sentence, "all computers" would actually suggest that they mean "all personal computers". He isn't very well going to crack the cash register at the Kwik-E-Mart, and I really doubt that the circuitry in his microwave poses any real threat to the rest of the technological world. Everyone simply needs to realize that this judgment was most likely passed down by a less techno-savvy individual than those of us who frequent/., and should therefore be taken with a grain of salt.
According to the article, Ebay is afraid that indexing is going to use up server time and bandwidth on their site. I don't see this as entirely true, however. If people know that they can get multiple auctions worth of data from one source, why would they travel to all of the separate auction websites to look? By being indexed, Ebay is actually losing individual people hitting the site, and gaining the (relatively less) amount of hits of being indexed. Their service then runs faster, people are more pleased with it, and they get even more business!
Suing napster isn't going to do anything. What they should do is sue the operating system manufacturer, that provided an environment for napster to be created in the first place. Or even better, how about the computer manufacturers that allow mp3's to be created and distributed!
This is classic Sun strategy. Sun has always attempted to wow and amaze the audience into thinking that they should be/are top dog in the arena. The truth of the matter is that they are the Microsoft of the Unix world. By releasing their source code, they have taken one step towards beating MS, and at the same time are going to "wow and amaze" enough open sourcers to be slave labor for them. What good is their license if we can't do anything with the source code? If I'm going to work for Sun, then I expect a paycheck at the end of the month..:)
Slashdot Mirror
Or, they could be testing the waters of the usefullness of the DMCA. This gave them a good oppurtunity to use it in battle, and they wanted to see how it would work out. After all, practice makes perfect..
End quote. I guess this Valenti guy, as well as all these artists, and all the RIAA executives have never heard of the radio before. I don't pay a nickel to anyone but the power company to listen to songs on the radio, but yet, the recording industry and the musicians alike seem to, *gasp*, make money at it. I'll start feeling sorry for Metallica and the RIAA when they can pull their heads out of their asses long enough to see the sh!t stains. The mere fact that they cannot seem to grasp exactly how much money they could make if they applied the same system as all legal radio stations follow to Napster is absolutely vulgar in my opinion.
FerretSoft did an entire suite of software just like this years ago. They have software to do metasearches for webpages, auctions, news groups, irc, email addresses, phone numbers, general information, and files. If you're a windows user, it's incredibly good software. Webferret automatically filters out multiple hits, and the returns are generally very good. Of course, it has a banner ad at the bottom, but that's to be expected. Anyways, my point is that this concept is hardly new, and it's surprising that it's taken this long to come to linux. I'm surprised that Ferretsoft hasn't released it for linux. We should all write to them and suggest it.
You'll notice that copying a work verbatim is not listed. IMO, The posting cannot be considered a criticism, comment, news reporting, or for use in teaching since the poster didn't say anything about his post. All he did was post somebody else's material. There's lots of legal precedence against claims of fair use for this as well.
Okay, so basically what he's saying is that the student who posted the DeCSS parody should be blamed for the administrative staff not doing their jobs and looking at the site before they pulled it down to actually, *gasp*, see if it was an offending page. I don't see how anyone can have sympathy for them.
I think that it does actually get to the heart of the issue. See, here's the deal. In order for Microsoft to be able to say that their code is a trade secret, they need to be able to prove that they took reasonable means to protect that secret (please see their click-through agreement). If they did not take reasonable means to protect that data, which posting it on a website is not, IMHO, a reasonable effort, then it isn't a trade secret, is it. So, if it isn't a trade secret, then they have made their own click-through agreement self-contradictory, and therefore, clicking on it doesn't legally bind us to anything.
However, it is probably still a matter of copyright infringement, just as I can't copy your website, and put it up on my own without your permission, regardless of whether or not you explicitly state that it is copyrighted.
It's a simple exercise in logic. Slashdot is hosted in the US. The US now has the DMCA. People posted copyrighted material to Slashdot. Slashdot is not an ISP, just as Ebay, Yahoo and Napster are not ISPs. It logically follows that Slashdot is in violation of the DMCA as far as actual text copies of the M$ document go. Those articles should be censored. Links are not the responsibility of Slashdot, and M$ should take that up with the owner of the individual site. If they do not know who that is, there are legal channels for M$ to go through to gain that info. If it comes down to a subpoena to Slashdot to find out who that user is, then that is what it takes.
The plain, sad fact of the matter is that a couple of people thought they'd be smart asses and post the document, blatantly violating the copyright. To them, I say: Have fun in your lawsuit! One person, I apologize for not remembering who it is, said he was a law student, and that it is his belief that once that information hits the public domain, it is no longer a trade secret. To M$, I say: Shouldn't have posted it on the web if you _really_ wanted to keep it a trade secret! There's legal precedent set to back this up.
As for Slashdot censoring articles, no we do not have the explicit capability of removing comments that we post. That's why there's the Preview button. If you have something to say, say it. I do not know if it is true or not that we still own the comment once we post it to Slashdot, but if that's the case, then we have the right to email the maintainers of Slashdot, and request that a comment be removed.
I thought it was legal for me to create an MP3 of music I own, and therefore to also download from somebody else an MP3 of music that I own. Does Metallica have proof that these 300K people do not own the music that they're downloading already?
He'd never do that though. He's still a businessman. He wants to play by the rules. Jeff agrees that the rules are poor in this situation and thus need changed. But if he can't change the rules, altruism is only going to get him smoked by competition later down the road.
The author apparently only knows Open Source as a buzz word. The whole idea behind Open Source is its amazing ability at contacting the end user. You open up the source code, and right there at the top of the source is usually the guy's email address. How often do you see the email address for one of the developers at Microsoft? If the end user does not like the gui, it is his right, under the OS way of thinking, to change it to something everyone will like better.
The answer is relatively simple: The Open Source movement has no feedback loop to end-users, and no imperative to create one.
That is almost but not quite entirely not the reason the UI's in most OS programs suck. The reason is that most of us like that friendly # symbol from which to do our work, and don't put the time and effort into making pretty buttons and psychologically adapt windowing interfaces. 'nuff said.
They could easily put down a plethora of checkboxes and have a make button. You could probably upload all of your makefiles too, which would be easier. Anyone out there used it and could let us other pundits know? :)
What may be more interesting, and have serious ramifications, is the fact that you're storing your data off site on SourceForge's servers. A coordinated DOS attack to keep you from your source? Crackers going in and modifying your files perhaps?
According to the article, it's not that they're afraid of people making fun of the name of their school so much as their dropping admissions.
In addition, the college's market research shows that the school appeals to 30 percent fewer prospective students solely because of the name.
That's a huge percentage. I remember when I was getting literature for schools, that was one of the school's that contacted me, and I blew them off because the name sounded small time and silly. Not having a very good Computer Science department didn't help them either, but my initial reaction was to the name.
It's one thing to be idealistic and say "what's in a name?", but the hard truth of the matter is that people are prejudiced, and base many of their behaviors on first impressions. For a business (that's all a college really is), the name is the first thing that people see, and if it's something that turns them off, well, you can see the results.
Besides the fact that BO was written for a Win95 base. NT had Netbus..
This could be easy. Except for maybe the modem, the hardware in the Win98 machine will be the same in the linux machine. You're going to have to go get a PCMCIA modem for the linux machine anyways, so no skin off your back. So, just buy the win98 machine, ask for your $100 back because you don't want Windows pre-installed, then go home and pop on your favorite distro. You know it works already, you just don't want to pay their surcharge for certification and licensing with RedHat.
I feel that everyone is taking the "all computers" to an extreme. Judging by the rest of the sentence, "all computers" would actually suggest that they mean "all personal computers". He isn't very well going to crack the cash register at the Kwik-E-Mart, and I really doubt that the circuitry in his microwave poses any real threat to the rest of the technological world. Everyone simply needs to realize that this judgment was most likely passed down by a less techno-savvy individual than those of us who frequent /., and should therefore be taken with a grain of salt.
According to the article, Ebay is afraid that indexing is going to use up server time and bandwidth on their site. I don't see this as entirely true, however. If people know that they can get multiple auctions worth of data from one source, why would they travel to all of the separate auction websites to look? By being indexed, Ebay is actually losing individual people hitting the site, and gaining the (relatively less) amount of hits of being indexed. Their service then runs faster, people are more pleased with it, and they get even more business!
Suing napster isn't going to do anything. What they should do is sue the operating system manufacturer, that provided an environment for napster to be created in the first place. Or even better, how about the computer manufacturers that allow mp3's to be created and distributed!
This is classic Sun strategy. Sun has always attempted to wow and amaze the audience into thinking that they should be/are top dog in the arena. The truth of the matter is that they are the Microsoft of the Unix world. By releasing their source code, they have taken one step towards beating MS, and at the same time are going to "wow and amaze" enough open sourcers to be slave labor for them. What good is their license if we can't do anything with the source code? If I'm going to work for Sun, then I expect a paycheck at the end of the month.. :)