All that "user friendly" bloat isn't necessary on a server-- every usage of an OS isn't the same, and the requirements aren't either. Why should everyone pay for the inefficiency of those who can't/won't/didn't learn? Seriously-- adding in "user friendliness" is adding in bloat- which hampers performance and storage, so why should everyone pay that tax?
Also let's not forget the phrase "with great power comes great responsibility." Those who won't learn anything are more likely to be compromised- so making things easier to use for those who won't learn doesn't improve the overall environment, it pollutes it- that's an issue that's not often addressed in ease-of-use cases.
Finally, I'll point out the obvious fact that most folks who complain about what Linux isn't are people complaining about what OTHER PEOPLE aren't doing to it-- you want it to be "user friendly," contribute. Oh- wait- it's HARD to contribute and EASY to complain...
> You, my friend, are a shining example of why FLOSS gets a bad wrap. Here are a few hints for you, genius:
It's ironic that you're trying to be ironic with the word genius, but can't use the correct words in your very first sentence. It's "bad rap," genius.
> Not everyone is a developer.
Which is why I mentioned non-development alternatives.
> His question was within the context of TFA. He was asking the Slashdot community whether anyone knew if this was being worked on already.
Give me a break, first you crow that not everyone is a developer, then you claim Slashdot is the venue to ask about the development roadmap of a project? With logic like that, you're not going to get very far in life. The Firefox project makes their bug reporting system available for both search AND submission- that's the canonical reference point for checking on bugs, not Slashdot. The project also makes available a Web forum, newsgroup and IRC channel- all of which are monitored by the folks who will actually FIX the issue if the complaintant doesn't have the inclination and they're convinced fixing it is the Right Thing[tm.] Surely you're not suggesting that the complaintant's Slashdot posting is a better venue, or that they should take the word of a Slashdot poster over that of a member of the project?
> Everyone that uses FLOSS has the responsibility to fix bugs themselves and meticulously file bug reports?
IF you want it to be better, then yes- if you just want to whine and not get anything changed, then Slashdot is the perfect venue. Since you seem to be good at that, I can see where you'd recommend it.
When you grow up enough to stick to reason instead of name calling, let me know.
>> The source is available. If you don't like something, fix it.
> The problem is I can't. So what now? Shall I shut up?
But don't you see the issue here, you're consuming and consuming without contributing, worse-yet you're not even willing to try to do anything. I've given you alternatives, yet you still want to whine and poke instead of trying to do something somewhere that'll actually affect what you want. Here's a hint- the Mozilla devs aren't likey to take feature requests from Slashdot. Take responsibility for what you want, but do it where it makes sense to do it!
>> If you can't fix it, then (a) try to get the project coders to >> fix it or
> That's what I was trying to do first asking on/. if it is being done. If not I could fill a bugreport but I bet there are dozens > of them on this topic.
Oh come on! Slashdot isn't the right place to do this by a major leap. There's a wealth of support and communication venues for Mozilla, Firefox, et. al. Slashdot isn't one of them.
> (b) pay someone to fix it.
> I actually do pay for Mozilla Fundation - I pay for Red Hat etc. they support Mozilla. Anyway this is trash talking - how much I > need to pay and to whom to get this done? And also I would like it to be in mainstream, not in some fork/patch and with next > version it does'nt work.
That's not the same as paying someone for a particular feature, and I'm pretty sure you know it. I haven't heard that the Mozilla or Firefox folks are that bad to deal with to get patches accepted. It's also not very difficult to float a proposal, ask a question, file a feature request...
Honestly, you're not fulfilling your responsibility as an open source user if you're not pursuing things the right way. There are a range of options open to you, none of which you seem to have even explored, all of which are way, way more effective than whining on Slashdot.
Heck, I could see if you'd even tried one or two- but at this point you're not even close to trying, so why should your complaint have any weight if you haven't taken the appropriate steps?
The source is available. If you don't like something, fix it. That's one of the benefits of open source. If you can't fix it, then (a) try to get the project coders to fix it or (b) pay someone to fix it. Third party whining does little to benefit open source projects.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is for criminal law. This is a civil case, so it's "A preponderance of the evidence" that's the yardstick. Also, the precedent for having to pay for suing people without merit has already been set, they're not going to generate new caselaw there. More likely, they're trying to weasel out of having to pay costs, which the judge has rightfully blocked- a nice case of the system working as it should, but really nothing all that groundbreaking.
I've never confused the two (I actually used to do a lot of due diligence for tech sector acquisitions,) that was a quote from the article and it's still interesting, as it starts to speak of the market capitalization of Apple (which passed Dell last year.)
When you factor in the fact that Microsoft is also becoming a hardware company (Xbox, Zune...) The ubiquity of Microsoft's software means that with the disproportionate software market size it's more interesting, and is perhaps indicative of the OEM strategy being a poor one for Microsoft at its current volume price points. Let's face it, if you have Microsoft's share of the desktop and server market and you're running a traditional software business with 85%~90% gross margins you should be soundly trouncing a company making its money off of music players and a share of the remaining few percent of the desktop space. Given the growing Apple home market, and what Nintendo is doing to the gaming side of the business a strong PS3 push coupled with a Vista flop could be pretty damaging for Microsoft.
Given Apple's growing cap, this means they can start to compete harder for portions of the market they've typically not done so in. If the iPod isn't going to shoot them down the tubes once sales flatten out it's going to be a very interesting market. It also begs the question "if they took another 15% of the home market by untying OSX from their hardware what would that do to their long-term profitability?"
I was assuming the fourth quarter was a slant, but hadn't looked deeply- so I mentioned it because it was a possible red flag. I'm not all that sure the story is THAT different. MS represents itself as a software company, where you generally get 90% margins. Now Xbox and Zune make that no longer true, but given the ubiquity of Office, XP and 2003, I'm not certain that only having ~6.4x the profit of the much smaller Apple isn't pretty significant. I was certainly surprised by it, but then I don't generally invest in these two companies. Mentally, I'd expect MS to have a much higher delta because so much of Apple's revenue is tied up in hardware where margins aren't nearly as attractive.
==== In the final quarter of 2007, Apple earned $7.1 billion in revenue, compared to Microsoft's $12.5 billion in total revenue. Yes, that's right, Apple brought in more than half as much money as Microsoft, despite Windows owning 98% of the PC market.
Even stripping Apple of its iPod revenues, which PC pundits love to do, the company still earned $4.4 billion on its Macintosh business, over a third as much Microsoft brought in from its entire Windows, Office, and server operations combined. Apple's 2% of the PC market doesn't seem so small anymore.
Of course, Microsoft actually lost a lot of money on all of its consumer electronics products, so looking at profits, Apple earned $1 billion compared to Microsoft's total $3.4 billion in profit. ====
Now, I don't know why he chose only the fourth quarter, but it's going to make me go back and look at the numbers for 2004-2006, because if that's a trend it's a very interesting one.
Timeshifting a TV broadcast is legal *for the original recipient*. That's likely not done under the fair use doctrine- but feel free to cite some examples.
17 USC 92 Chapter 1, 170 says:
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and"
Not a fair use. Entire publications of the Church of Scientology were posted on the Internet by several individuals without Church permission. Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569 (E.D. Va. 1996).)
Fair use. The Washington Post used three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts posted on the Internet (see previous case). Important factors: Only a small portion of the work was excerpted and the purpose was for news commentary. ( Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina, 908 F. Supp 1353 (E.D. Va. 1995).)
4. Music Cases
Fair use. A person running for political office used 15 seconds of his opponent's campaign song in a political ad. Important factors: A small portion of the song was used and the purpose was for purposes of political debate. (Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm., 457 F. Supp. 957 (D. N.H. 1978).)
Fair use. A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song "Dove sta Zaza." The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event and did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. ( Italian Book Corp, v. American Broadcasting Co., 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 1978).)
===
So, at least for the Eastern District of Virginia, District of New Hampshire and Southern District of New York, fair use doctrine definitely takes into account- I suspect their rulings aren't all that radical and you'd see the same in other Federal courts. Also, your riff example is wrong there's far more applied to fair use doctrine than just the use of a small portion of another song-
===
5. Summaries of Parody Cases
Fair use. The rap group 2 Live Crew borrowed the opening musical tag and the words (but not the melody) from the first line of the song "Pretty Woman" ("Oh, pretty woman, walking down the street "). The rest of the lyrics and the music were different. Important factors: The group's use was transformative and borrowed only a small portion of the "Pretty Woman" song. The 2 Live Crew version was essentially a different piece of music and the only similarity was a brief musical opening part and the opening line. (Note: The rap group had initially sought to pay for the right to use portions of the song but were rebuffed by the publisher who did not want "Pretty Woman" used in a rap song.) (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994).)
Fair use. The composers of the song, "When Sunny Gets Blue," claimed that their song was infringed by "When Sonny Sniffs Glue, " a 29second parody that altered the original lyric line and borrowed six bars of the song. A court determined this parody was excused as a fair use. Important factors: Only 29 seconds of music were borrowed (not the complete song ). (Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1986).) (Note: As a general rule, parodying more than a few lines of a song lyric is unlikely to be excused as a fair use. Performers such as Weird Al Yankovic, who earn a living by humorously modifying hit songs, seek permission of the songwriters before recording their parodies.)
"Way past fair use" is a matter for the courts to decide- however the since it's an archive, their defense is likely argued under the "Reproduction rights of libraries and archives" provisions of 17USC108, in whcih case fair use doctrine really doesn't come in to play. Since fair use is for subsections of copyrighted content and not the entire content I think that's not where this is headed. Caches may argue under fair use, since the excerpt is per-page not per-site (though it gets tricky if the site has one page.)
Here's the relevant text:
"Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if -- "
Section (b) generally refers to an unpublished work- making your site available to the public on the Internet likely kills that clause. Section (c) deals with replacing damaged copies or works which also doesn't seem to apply.
As far as I can see, only the copyright owner's right to control distribution applies, and since archive.org removed the content at the copyright owner's request, I can't see any damage suffered and I doubt a court will either.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on the 'Net.
If you act responsibly, then you have nothing to fear. If you don't, why are you so worried about people finding out who the "real" you is? The real problem is people not taking responsibility for their actions.
If there was an "easier way to remove this information" it'd become the most massive denial of service vector available on the Internet. Unscroupulous individuals would use it to remove information about their competitors or negative information about themselves. Can you imagine the consumer rating sites which actually help people avoid scanners being deluged by rip-off artists wanting to remove their negative ratings?
...isn't Word/Excel/Powerpoint- NeoOffice works fine for those, it's Entourage- in an Exchange business environment, that's a key item and mail.app doesn't cut it.
One of the problems this will encourage is that these days parents *expect* their kids to be in AP classes even if they're not qualified to be there. I recently judged a high school science fair, and it was pretty plain that most students didn't even do the minimum, a few just checked off the boxes, and very, very few really tried to do the work required for science.
The first thing that needs to happen is that AP classes need to not be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator because of political reasons, and everyone shouldn't get a pony- we have to get back to having kids *lose* if they don't make the cut.
LTC. North was not ever accused of skimming money. He was found guilty of taking a security fence which was provided by Gen. Seacord without cost- and that was after several attempts to get the U.S. Government to provide security after Abu Nidal threatened him.
Sure it can- I'd have to do real work to figure out the numbers, but my gut tells me that you'd get at least 500 software-only switchers for each current "go buy Apple haredware" switchers- Apple's current market share just removes people from the software-only potential pool- that doesn't mean Apple wouldn't sell 500 copies of OSX-x86 for each Mac they sell otherwise.
They absolutely coulld charge what they do now, or more and probably come out pretty well on pure numbers.
Microsoft doesn't spend billions a year supporting hardware, that's pure fabrication. First of all, Microsoft has a lot of vendors who pay for certification- If Apple didn't want to charge for support, then you'd just round the margins down ~20% and re-do the math.
Software margins are generally in the 90%+ range, the higher the volume of sales, the lower you can sell for and still keep your revenues growing up to the point where you saturate the market. Apple could grow for quite some time, and would gain significant volume- more than enough to make up the difference. The poster who broke it all down was working with 1:1 sales numbers, but the software-only numbers will be hundreds to one, if not thousands to one over the hardware numbers, making it very attractive from a purely financial perspective.
It's pretty obvious that this isn't a purely financial thing with Apple, or they'd have announced OSX on Intel, and set out to sell a couple hundred million copies.
The books aren't that dated in the theoretical aspects, and it doesn't take years to read them unless you don't have the underlying theory. I read all the ones I had to deal with in about 2 weeks way back when I had to deal with that sort of thing. TNI and the TCSEC are the biggest two, and the ones that take the most time, but if you're not dealing with operational issues embedded in them, you can skim large portions without worrying about having to stamp output "Working Papers," or stuff like that.
SELinux, TrustedBSD, RSBAC, TrustedDarwin, et al., still work mostly on the principles of formal computer security embodied in the '70s and '80s.
The courts have upheld the constitutional ammendment which protects you from impropper search and siezure to be a right to privacy. There are other statutes which provide varying pieces of the privacy/publicity debate, such as the Lanham Act, COPA, GLB, the Privacy Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, etc.
To except from LII:
"Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information."
While it'd have been better to have had it set in stone under a single constitutional ammendment, the interpretations over the years have been pretty much taken as a right to privacy.
What you can do is apply peer pressure, set an example and provide no safe haven for folks who commit crime. Computer crime is a social problem, and it needs a social solution- that means everyone has to affect the current sociology if we're to make much progress.
No, you're wrong. It doesn't imply that things would be safe, it implies that if people didn't do bad stuff, then that subset of bad stuff wouldn't happen. The fact is that we're dealing with social issues, which don't have technical solutions. Social solutions fix social problems, and part of the solution is to make criminal activity socially unacceptable.
The fact is that people have been kidding themselves that they have some level of security for a long time, and if there was no security at all, then the base problem would have likely had a lot more attention paid to it, especially the transitive trust part that Marcus talks about. But because people think "We have a firewall, so we're safe!" the real base problem doesn't get addressed.
It's a job most of us would rather not have to have. We'd all be perfectly happy to do more interesting and fruitful work. Thing is, we're kinda stuck with the responsibility because of all the bad stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
All that "user friendly" bloat isn't necessary on a server-- every usage of an OS isn't the same, and the requirements aren't either. Why should everyone pay for the inefficiency of those who can't/won't/didn't learn? Seriously-- adding in "user friendliness" is adding in bloat- which hampers performance and storage, so why should everyone pay that tax?
Also let's not forget the phrase "with great power comes great responsibility." Those who won't learn anything are more likely to be compromised- so making things easier to use for those who won't learn doesn't improve the overall environment, it pollutes it- that's an issue that's not often addressed in ease-of-use cases.
Finally, I'll point out the obvious fact that most folks who complain about what Linux isn't are people complaining about what OTHER PEOPLE aren't doing to it-- you want it to be "user friendly," contribute. Oh- wait- it's HARD to contribute and EASY to complain...
> You, my friend, are a shining example of why FLOSS gets a bad wrap. Here are a few hints for you, genius:
It's ironic that you're trying to be ironic with the word genius, but can't use the correct words in your very first sentence. It's "bad rap," genius.
> Not everyone is a developer.
Which is why I mentioned non-development alternatives.
> His question was within the context of TFA. He was asking the Slashdot community whether anyone knew if this was being worked on already.
Give me a break, first you crow that not everyone is a developer, then you claim Slashdot is the venue to ask about the development roadmap of a project? With logic like that, you're not going to get very far in life. The Firefox project makes their bug reporting system available for both search AND submission- that's the canonical reference point for checking on bugs, not Slashdot. The project also makes available a Web forum, newsgroup and IRC channel- all of which are monitored by the folks who will actually FIX the issue if the complaintant doesn't have the inclination and they're convinced fixing it is the Right Thing[tm.] Surely you're not suggesting that the complaintant's Slashdot posting is a better venue, or that they should take the word of a Slashdot poster over that of a member of the project?
> Everyone that uses FLOSS has the responsibility to fix bugs themselves and meticulously file bug reports?
IF you want it to be better, then yes- if you just want to whine and not get anything changed, then Slashdot is the perfect venue. Since you seem to be good at that, I can see where you'd recommend it.
When you grow up enough to stick to reason instead of name calling, let me know.
Paul
>> The source is available. If you don't like something, fix it.
/. if it is being done. If not I could fill a bugreport but I bet there are dozens
> The problem is I can't. So what now? Shall I shut up?
But don't you see the issue here, you're consuming and consuming without contributing, worse-yet you're not even willing to try to do anything. I've given you alternatives, yet you still want to whine and poke instead of trying to do something somewhere that'll actually affect what you want. Here's a hint- the Mozilla devs aren't likey to take feature requests from Slashdot. Take responsibility for what you want, but do it where it makes sense to do it!
>> If you can't fix it, then (a) try to get the project coders to
>> fix it or
> That's what I was trying to do first asking on
> of them on this topic.
Oh come on! Slashdot isn't the right place to do this by a major leap. There's a wealth of support and communication venues for Mozilla, Firefox, et. al. Slashdot isn't one of them.
> (b) pay someone to fix it.
> I actually do pay for Mozilla Fundation - I pay for Red Hat etc. they support Mozilla. Anyway this is trash talking - how much I
> need to pay and to whom to get this done? And also I would like it to be in mainstream, not in some fork/patch and with next
> version it does'nt work.
That's not the same as paying someone for a particular feature, and I'm pretty sure you know it. I haven't heard that the Mozilla or Firefox folks are that bad to deal with to get patches accepted. It's also not very difficult to float a proposal, ask a question, file a feature request...
Honestly, you're not fulfilling your responsibility as an open source user if you're not pursuing things the right way. There are a range of options open to you, none of which you seem to have even explored, all of which are way, way more effective than whining on Slashdot.
Heck, I could see if you'd even tried one or two- but at this point you're not even close to trying, so why should your complaint have any weight if you haven't taken the appropriate steps?
Paul
The source is available. If you don't like something, fix it. That's one of the benefits of open source. If you can't fix it, then (a) try to get the project coders to fix it or (b) pay someone to fix it. Third party whining does little to benefit open source projects.
Use the Source Luke.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is for criminal law. This is a civil case, so it's "A preponderance of the evidence" that's the yardstick. Also, the precedent for having to pay for suing people without merit has already been set, they're not going to generate new caselaw there. More likely, they're trying to weasel out of having to pay costs, which the judge has rightfully blocked- a nice case of the system working as it should, but really nothing all that groundbreaking.
Paul
I've never confused the two (I actually used to do a lot of due diligence for tech sector acquisitions,) that was a quote from the article and it's still interesting, as it starts to speak of the market capitalization of Apple (which passed Dell last year.)
When you factor in the fact that Microsoft is also becoming a hardware company (Xbox, Zune...) The ubiquity of Microsoft's software means that with the disproportionate software market size it's more interesting, and is perhaps indicative of the OEM strategy being a poor one for Microsoft at its current volume price points. Let's face it, if you have Microsoft's share of the desktop and server market and you're running a traditional software business with 85%~90% gross margins you should be soundly trouncing a company making its money off of music players and a share of the remaining few percent of the desktop space. Given the growing Apple home market, and what Nintendo is doing to the gaming side of the business a strong PS3 push coupled with a Vista flop could be pretty damaging for Microsoft.
Given Apple's growing cap, this means they can start to compete harder for portions of the market they've typically not done so in. If the iPod isn't going to shoot them down the tubes once sales flatten out it's going to be a very interesting market. It also begs the question "if they took another 15% of the home market by untying OSX from their hardware what would that do to their long-term profitability?"
I still find it interesting.
Paul
It's not even really apples to oranges...it's apples to rocks.
Nah, it's Apples to Microsofts.
Paul
I was assuming the fourth quarter was a slant, but hadn't looked deeply- so I mentioned it because it was a possible red flag. I'm not all that sure the story is THAT different. MS represents itself as a software company, where you generally get 90% margins. Now Xbox and Zune make that no longer true, but given the ubiquity of Office, XP and 2003, I'm not certain that only having ~6.4x the profit of the much smaller Apple isn't pretty significant. I was certainly surprised by it, but then I don't generally invest in these two companies. Mentally, I'd expect MS to have a much higher delta because so much of Apple's revenue is tied up in hardware where margins aren't nearly as attractive.
Paul
The most interesting part of both articles was:
====
In the final quarter of 2007, Apple earned $7.1 billion in revenue, compared to Microsoft's $12.5 billion in total revenue. Yes, that's right, Apple brought in more than half as much money as Microsoft, despite Windows owning 98% of the PC market.
Even stripping Apple of its iPod revenues, which PC pundits love to do, the company still earned $4.4 billion on its Macintosh business, over a third as much Microsoft brought in from its entire Windows, Office, and server operations combined. Apple's 2% of the PC market doesn't seem so small anymore.
Of course, Microsoft actually lost a lot of money on all of its consumer electronics products, so looking at profits, Apple earned $1 billion compared to Microsoft's total $3.4 billion in profit.
====
Now, I don't know why he chose only the fourth quarter, but it's going to make me go back and look at the numbers for 2004-2006, because if that's a trend it's a very interesting one.
Paul
Timeshifting a TV broadcast is legal *for the original recipient*. That's likely not done under the fair use doctrine- but feel free to cite some examples.
e _Overview/chapter9/9-c.html#3
17 USC 92 Chapter 1, 170 says:
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and"
From:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Us
===
3. Internet Cases
Not a fair use. Entire publications of the Church of Scientology were posted on the Internet by several individuals without Church permission. Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569 (E.D. Va. 1996).)
Fair use. The Washington Post used three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts posted on the Internet (see previous case). Important factors: Only a small portion of the work was excerpted and the purpose was for news commentary. ( Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina, 908 F. Supp 1353 (E.D. Va. 1995).)
4. Music Cases
Fair use. A person running for political office used 15 seconds of his opponent's campaign song in a political ad. Important factors: A small portion of the song was used and the purpose was for purposes of political debate. (Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm., 457 F. Supp. 957 (D. N.H. 1978).)
Fair use. A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song "Dove sta Zaza." The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event and did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. ( Italian Book Corp, v. American Broadcasting Co., 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 1978).)
===
So, at least for the Eastern District of Virginia, District of New Hampshire and Southern District of New York, fair use doctrine definitely takes into account- I suspect their rulings aren't all that radical and you'd see the same in other Federal courts. Also, your riff example is wrong there's far more applied to fair use doctrine than just the use of a small portion of another song-
===
5. Summaries of Parody Cases
Fair use. The rap group 2 Live Crew borrowed the opening musical tag and the words (but not the melody) from the first line of the song "Pretty Woman" ("Oh, pretty woman, walking down the street "). The rest of the lyrics and the music were different. Important factors: The group's use was transformative and borrowed only a small portion of the "Pretty Woman" song. The 2 Live Crew version was essentially a different piece of music and the only similarity was a brief musical opening part and the opening line. (Note: The rap group had initially sought to pay for the right to use portions of the song but were rebuffed by the publisher who did not want "Pretty Woman" used in a rap song.) (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994).)
Fair use. The composers of the song, "When Sunny Gets Blue," claimed that their song was infringed by "When Sonny Sniffs Glue, " a 29second parody that altered the original lyric line and borrowed six bars of the song. A court determined this parody was excused as a fair use. Important factors: Only 29 seconds of music were borrowed (not the complete song ). (Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1986).) (Note: As a general rule, parodying more than a few lines of a song lyric is unlikely to be excused as a fair use. Performers such as Weird Al Yankovic, who earn a living by humorously modifying hit songs, seek permission of the songwriters before recording their parodies.)
===
"Way past fair use" is a matter for the courts to decide- however the since it's an archive, their defense is likely argued under the "Reproduction rights of libraries and archives" provisions of 17USC108, in whcih case fair use doctrine really doesn't come in to play. Since fair use is for subsections of copyrighted content and not the entire content I think that's not where this is headed. Caches may argue under fair use, since the excerpt is per-page not per-site (though it gets tricky if the site has one page.)
Here's the relevant text:
"Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if -- "
Section (b) generally refers to an unpublished work- making your site available to the public on the Internet likely kills that clause. Section (c) deals with replacing damaged copies or works which also doesn't seem to apply.
As far as I can see, only the copyright owner's right to control distribution applies, and since archive.org removed the content at the copyright owner's request, I can't see any damage suffered and I doubt a court will either.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on the 'Net.
If you act responsibly, then you have nothing to fear. If you don't, why are you so worried about people finding out who the "real" you is? The real problem is people not taking responsibility for their actions.
If there was an "easier way to remove this information" it'd become the most massive denial of service vector available on the Internet. Unscroupulous individuals would use it to remove information about their competitors or negative information about themselves. Can you imagine the consumer rating sites which actually help people avoid scanners being deluged by rip-off artists wanting to remove their negative ratings?
Paul
...isn't Word/Excel/Powerpoint- NeoOffice works fine for those, it's Entourage- in an Exchange business environment, that's a key item and mail.app doesn't cut it.
Paul
One of the problems this will encourage is that these days parents *expect* their kids to be in AP classes even if they're not qualified to be there. I recently judged a high school science fair, and it was pretty plain that most students didn't even do the minimum, a few just checked off the boxes, and very, very few really tried to do the work required for science.
The first thing that needs to happen is that AP classes need to not be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator because of political reasons, and everyone shouldn't get a pony- we have to get back to having kids *lose* if they don't make the cut.
LTC. North was not ever accused of skimming money. He was found guilty of taking a security fence which was provided by Gen. Seacord without cost- and that was after several attempts to get the U.S. Government to provide security after Abu Nidal threatened him.
Paul
Sure it can- I'd have to do real work to figure out the numbers, but my gut tells me that you'd get at least 500 software-only switchers for each current "go buy Apple haredware" switchers- Apple's current market share just removes people from the software-only potential pool- that doesn't mean Apple wouldn't sell 500 copies of OSX-x86 for each Mac they sell otherwise.
They absolutely coulld charge what they do now, or more and probably come out pretty well on pure numbers.
Microsoft doesn't spend billions a year supporting hardware, that's pure fabrication. First of all, Microsoft has a lot of vendors who pay for certification- If Apple didn't want to charge for support, then you'd just round the margins down ~20% and re-do the math.
Paul
...of Darwin, will that be Darwinism, or will we have to wait until Apple killing Open Source kills Apple?
Paul
Software margins are generally in the 90%+ range, the higher the volume of sales, the lower you can sell for and still keep your revenues growing up to the point where you saturate the market. Apple could grow for quite some time, and would gain significant volume- more than enough to make up the difference. The poster who broke it all down was working with 1:1 sales numbers, but the software-only numbers will be hundreds to one, if not thousands to one over the hardware numbers, making it very attractive from a purely financial perspective.
It's pretty obvious that this isn't a purely financial thing with Apple, or they'd have announced OSX on Intel, and set out to sell a couple hundred million copies.
Paul
Actuall, drag and drop burning has been implemented in XP for a while now. I prefer *nix, but your example is a bad one.
Paul
The books aren't that dated in the theoretical aspects, and it doesn't take years to read them unless you don't have the underlying theory. I read all the ones I had to deal with in about 2 weeks way back when I had to deal with that sort of thing. TNI and the TCSEC are the biggest two, and the ones that take the most time, but if you're not dealing with operational issues embedded in them, you can skim large portions without worrying about having to stamp output "Working Papers," or stuff like that.
SELinux, TrustedBSD, RSBAC, TrustedDarwin, et al., still work mostly on the principles of formal computer security embodied in the '70s and '80s.
Paul
The courts have upheld the constitutional ammendment which protects you from impropper search and siezure to be a right to privacy. There are other statutes which provide varying pieces of the privacy/publicity debate, such as the Lanham Act, COPA, GLB, the Privacy Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, etc.
To except from LII:
"Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information."
While it'd have been better to have had it set in stone under a single constitutional ammendment, the interpretations over the years have been pretty much taken as a right to privacy.
Paul
What you can do is apply peer pressure, set an example and provide no safe haven for folks who commit crime. Computer crime is a social problem, and it needs a social solution- that means everyone has to affect the current sociology if we're to make much progress.
Paul
No, you're wrong. It doesn't imply that things would be safe, it implies that if people didn't do bad stuff, then that subset of bad stuff wouldn't happen. The fact is that we're dealing with social issues, which don't have technical solutions. Social solutions fix social problems, and part of the solution is to make criminal activity socially unacceptable.
The fact is that people have been kidding themselves that they have some level of security for a long time, and if there was no security at all, then the base problem would have likely had a lot more attention paid to it, especially the transitive trust part that Marcus talks about. But because people think "We have a firewall, so we're safe!" the real base problem doesn't get addressed.
Paul
It's a job most of us would rather not have to have. We'd all be perfectly happy to do more interesting and fruitful work. Thing is, we're kinda stuck with the responsibility because of all the bad stuff.
Paul
Then again, they had to get enough on the person they rolled to get them to cooperate. Somebody did some work there.
Paul