Suppose source code IS protected like speech. That still does not mean that you can legally code (and certainly not run) a program to do illegal stuff.
Freedom of speech is not absolute, it comes with some restrictions (or rather some responsabilities) This is is how a libel suit works, that is how copyright infringement works.
Writing code for virii should not be illegal. (free "speech") Telling someone how to make virii (best explained with source) should not be illegal (albeit irresponsible) Launching a virus attack on a network IS illegal. That has nothing to do with free speech.
If I know company trade secrets, but am bound by a NDA, I cannot tell you about those secrets and claim "Free speech". English, Swedish, pictures, mathematical algorithms or C++ source - They are all languages that I may use to communicate my ideas. Sometimes an application of those ideas is illegal, sometimes the communication itself is hurting someone else so bad that there is an exception from the "Free speech" default, but the point is: Free speech is not (should not be) a question of which language I choose.
Agreed. However, the law is one thing and the *text* of it is another. Just like a programs function and the souce code are two different things.
Lawyers and judges are experts in translating the desired *function* of a law into law text and vice versa. Computer geeks are experts in translating the desired function of a computer program into source code (and again vv)
The subject before the law as well as the user of a program must always have the right to know the full *function* of the law/program. Unfortunately it often takes an expert to figure this out.
In juridics as well as in computer science, an amateur savant might prefer to express his opinions about the desired function in code/formal law speek since it is easier. However, only a proffessional (or a fool) claims responsibility for his work.
I doubt you can find *any* reliable statistics about gun rate/crime rate, since every study seems to be made by someone prejudiced one way ro the other.
One thing is just too obvious in your reasoning though: You say that kids who are tought proper gun-handling are less likely to use them. Dont you think that a parent who teaches proper gun-handling also is more likely to teach their kids a thing or two about general responsible behaviour too? Don't you think such parents would raise decent kids in a no-gun society too?
Robbery statistics are also quite irelevant here. You can't gun down your classmates without a gun!
I personally don't want a society where my safety depends on my own shooting skill. You might prefer that, I don't.
Of course You do have a point. A gun can be used to scare the victim, thus making violence unnessesary. You forget, however, what happens when two gun owners confront each other (or when a gun owner gets nervous).
I do not believe in a society based on a terror balance between the good guys and the bad guys. Apparently you do. Let's leave it there insead of quoting biased statistics from either side.
(Oh did I forget to mention that I used to do some sports shooting. It is great fun and I would never vote for a 100% gun ban.)
If I buy a commercial software, or a music CD. I may not distribute any copies of it. I may, however, make copies for my *personal* use.
The copy that I use in my car stereo is legal. The backup copy of my software is legal. The review (including small quotes) I publish about the book I read is legal. The warning I publish about documented unwanted side effects of a product is legal. (if my claims are true) Teaching others what I have learned at a course is legal (as long as I do not copy any material)
Your mileage may vary depending on jurisdiction, but these are examples of *legal* copies. aka fair use.
"They" want the legal means to restrict our rights, so that we can only do what we are explicitly allowed by "them". Not what we want to do, not what the law otherwise allows, not what we migt need to do in the future (after the company holding my keys has gone under).
You are absolutely right. The numbers are too much in favour of the cracker/script kiddie. Since scanning for (temporary or more permanent) security holes can be automated, one vulnerable machine per thousand scanned (or even ten thousand) will provide soil enough for a DDoS atttack. And one admin in ten thousand, will be behind on the latest hazards, or have a valid reason to relax security (temporally) or will simply make a mistake.
...does it take to post a story about the screwing of a lightbulb?
A: Only one... per section A2: Six One to report the news "Lightbulb broken", One to post "Ask Slashdot: best way to screw a lightbulb", One to discuss patents about lightbulbs, One to report about the "Open Source Lightbulb Exchange Project" and finally JonKatz to write a meg about how the lightbulb soon will be obsolete in the digital age. Six? yeah they count like they spell...
What they have done is providing an *approved* Linux DVD player. Wether an unapproved player is also illegal is for the courts to decide. If you use an unapproved player, you assume either that it will not be deemed illegal, or that it doesn't matter.
A fully OS:ed approved DVD player is not going to happen. Not for Linux, not for Windows, not for anyone. Not as long as the DVD consortium believes in security (and profit) through obscurity.
This at least gives you the choise btw (free and unapproved) and (closed and approved)
You are certainly right about overregulation being evil(tm) However: If McDonalds added a substance that made their burgers taste better, but made another brand burger taste worse if eaten after a McD burger, that would call for regulation n'est ce pas?
A McDonalds-only customer would benefit, since he would get a tastier burger. Still his freedom of choice would be seriously narrowed. Other chains would have a hard time getting customers to try their product, since McD had introduced a penalty for those who strayed from The Right Way (tm)
Wrapped in too many words, there is a really scary story here. Someone is trying to change "Innocent until proven guilty" to "Suspect, even if proven innocent"
The real point comes late in the article: If you have *real* concern about a classmate, there are cops, teachers and parents to inform. If you do not find it necessary to inform any of those directly, simply shut up.
Ah, but remember that you cannot create a cat/bread combo without attracting a few NT-particles. Once the NT-rate reaches a critical level (after a few microseconds as observed) anything goes down.
Replacing the cat with a penguin would work if it wasnt for the sad fact that penguins don't fly. (as they suffer from the extra weight of FUDium)
An alternate explanation is that the cat (being subject to such an experiment) was also toast.
OK Here is my personal stand: Downloading pirated music, with or without napster, is wrong. Perhaps it can be justified in some cases, like "I buy the CD or erase the file afterwards" or "The record is out of sale ". Perhaps you simply want to throw a handful of dirt into the RIAA machinery. Anyhow, someone probably made a deal with a record company to release that song on CD. When that deal was made napster distribution was probably not a part of the equation. Therefore you screw the weaker party (usually the artist) in that contract by changing the equation.
That said, the old system of limitited distribution is rigged to create a few megastars and a few very rich record companies. A lot of quality music is made by people who never make anything past gig fees. The death of the old system will not kill the music, not kill the artists. It will merely make it less commersially intresting to be a megastar.
The record industry has never been able to stop people from trading among friends. The net has made the term "friend" very wide. The business model based on high entrance cost, low marginal cost and high price is doomed. I can't tell what will come instead, but protecting a doomed model with law is not a very good idea.
Nice idea. Some comments: I don't think a law would do it. The software business is far too international. I'd prefer a volontary certificate for companies who promise to live up to the criterias. Then lobby for official agencies (as well as your employer) to only use certified suppliers.
1.Consumers have a right to know what exactly their software is doing Absolutely! But rather (for reasons stated above) "We provide full documentation for our software's functionality and interaction with it's environment"
2.Consumers have a right to know what information their software is collecting about them, and also the right to restrict such collection in arbitrary ways, and to do so without jeopardizing their status as registered/supported users. Again an absolute yes, rephrase as above
3.Consumers have a right to perform, publish, and view benchmarks and other quality assessments of any software on the market. Now *that* should be law. Not just for software, but for all products.
4.Consumers have a right to know all licensing terms before they make a purchase. Again a general law. However for a certificate: "We promise that our licencing terms are in no way stricter than the [XX] standard licence"
5.Consumers have a right to a refund and/or appropriate damages if their software does not perform as advertised by the vendor. Damages are too dangerous, I'm afraid. How about: "Should we fail to fix a bug ourselves in [NN]-days after it is reported, we promise to provide appropriate documentation (including source code) to anyone willing to fix it. The author of a bug fix under these premises, will recieve fair compensation for the work involved. If a bug makes the software unfit for the purpose it was intended for, the buyer is entitled to a full refund."
6.Consumers have a right to software that uses open protocols and media formats, and a right to perform, publish, or use reverse-engineered materials whenever vendors deviate from such standards. Or to put it in a way SW companies could accept: "Our product does not use any undocumented protocols or media formats. Where proprietary formats are used, registred users of our product are granted full rights to use that format in any other application wihc they have the right to use. Be it purchased, self developed or public domain."
Linux users are supposedly less clueless than MS/Mac users
Ergo: Less bad things happen to Linux users
Security is almost always a trade-off: Some people sacrifice some (or most) of it for every day convenience. (Yes it IS convenient to use the same system as the majority. It IS convenient to run as root. It IS convenient to simply run a binary) More security aware people don't.
If more "average users" would turn to Linux, we would see more security holes provided for comfort, more binary-only programs, more handy macro script options and inevitably more viruses.
Exactly. The RIAA wants to maximize profits from the music, not the music itself.
Given the choice of: a) A hundred artists selling a million records each b)A million artists selling a thousand records each. The RIAA would choose a) any day even if b) means ten times more music sold. Hey, they would probably prefer one single group selling ten million records!
Shaping the market by access control is a risky business, and now it is falling apart.
Is there a natural right you should be able to make a living as a programmer?
No. I get paid to code. I get nothing extra if people use my program. Perhaps in the future, radio stations and websites will pay musicians to play music, not giving anything extra for the use of it.
Perhaps you should get a clue. Other than the few that get massive press (Backstreet Crap, Titney Spears), most artists work day jobs so they can do art at night and on weekends.
My point exactly. Being able to make a living on something that others do for free is a privilege, not a right. But as long as it is possible to make a living as a professional *athlete* I expect popular artists to survive on popularity alone.
I'm not questioning the artist's right to their "intellectual property" I *do* question their divine right to make a profit from that property.
Suppose I own some piece of land. Nice old property. It does not give me any income by itself. If I want to make any money I must find a way to make others pay me to use my property.
Lets say I build a scenic route along my property. I make a living by charging people for driving along that road enjoying the view.
Now someone gets the idea of flying a helicopter along the same route. He gets the same view as those who go by car. He might even charge people for flying with him. Am I entitled to a cut of his income? He does profit from *my* work and from *my* property after all.
I could lobby my government for a law stating that the helicopter is trespassing (even if it would have vast implications on the helicopter business, and would only make the pilot switch to high flying planes). I could find a way to get the people in the helicopter to pay me anyway. Or I could realize that my business model is outdated, and that there are no money in the land based scenic tour business anymore.
I still have my property.
I still have the same right to it.
The only change is that I can no longer control access to it.
Maybe the same goes for these artists: They still have their property. They just don't have the same means for making a profit from it by selling exclusive access.
We are back to the situation before the means of recording. Artist were paid for playing and composing, not for selling records.
Just like most hackers are paid for coding, not for selling software.
(I posted something similar on JonKatz article recently)
Record companies provide artists with three services: Studio time, advertising and distribution.
Studio time (and additional musicians) costs the same with or without the web Advertising is supposed to pay for itself Leaving distribution. Charging for distribution becomes more and more obsolete, when bandwith goes up. However, until now Record companies has charged consumers extra for distribution to cover for other costs. That model is just not possible to enforce anymore.
Perhaps it is possible to find a new way for artists to get paid, but what if it is not?
Is there a natural right that you should be able to make a living as an artist? If no one will pay for your music, perhaps you should get a day job?
Why do I buy a CD? Because that gives me access to the music on it. If another medium (radio, napster, friends) gives me the same access, there is no need for me to buy the disc.
Why do musicians release CD's? Because that has been the most convenient way to distribute the music to the consumers. Royalties are a welcome side effect. Most bands simply hope that they will get noticed enough to be paid to play the next time (wether live or studio). If another medium gives the same opportunity there is no need for the disc.
So in the "old world" there is a nice for the record company. Artists are willing to sign bad contracts just to get an album out (hoping to have a better position next time) Consumers are willing to pay extra since the disc gives them instant access to the music. No more waiting for a good song on the radio.
Enter the web. Suddenly the distribution is much easier. The studios used to be paid with a cut for services rendered. Now 90% of those services are obsolete. BUT THEY STILL WANT THE SAME CUT (in absolute figures)
Dear RIAA. You still deserve a cut for studio time and advances to the artist. However, do not expect to be able to get that by charging for distribution.
It is like a gas station. Today I pay for the gas by the litre, no extra charge. If the gas was free, the station would still have costs for the pumps, tanks and transport etc. Then they would have to charge for the service of being there, and not include that cost in the price of their gas.
I do my banking online (a swedish bank). The service is OK and they don't charge me extra for doing their work (like some others).
At one time I needed proof that I had paid a bill some months back. (tax reasons). It was an impossible task for the clerk to produce some sort of proof that the bill was actually paid. Finally, after half an hour of discussion, I got a transcript of my transactions for that period, with irrelevant lines whited out. Hardly anything that would hold in court, but luckily there was no complaint from the tax office.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose a closed court hearing would sort that out faster than a first poster
Suppose source code IS protected like speech. That still does not mean that you can legally code (and certainly not run) a program to do illegal stuff.
Freedom of speech is not absolute, it comes with some restrictions (or rather some responsabilities) This is is how a libel suit works, that is how copyright infringement works.
Writing code for virii should not be illegal. (free "speech")
Telling someone how to make virii (best explained with source) should not be illegal (albeit irresponsible)
Launching a virus attack on a network IS illegal. That has nothing to do with free speech.
If I know company trade secrets, but am bound by a NDA, I cannot tell you about those secrets and claim "Free speech". English, Swedish, pictures, mathematical algorithms or C++ source - They are all languages that I may use to communicate my ideas. Sometimes an application of those ideas is illegal, sometimes the communication itself is hurting someone else so bad that there is an exception from the "Free speech" default, but the point is: Free speech is not (should not be) a question of which language I choose.
Soapbox.dismount
However, the law is one thing and the *text* of it is another. Just like a programs function and the souce code are two different things.
Lawyers and judges are experts in translating the desired *function* of a law into law text and vice versa. Computer geeks are experts in translating the desired function of a computer program into source code (and again vv)
The subject before the law as well as the user of a program must always have the right to know the full *function* of the law/program. Unfortunately it often takes an expert to figure this out.
In juridics as well as in computer science, an amateur savant might prefer to express his opinions about the desired function in code/formal law speek since it is easier. However, only a proffessional (or a fool) claims responsibility for his work.
One thing is just too obvious in your reasoning though: You say that kids who are tought proper gun-handling are less likely to use them. Dont you think that a parent who teaches proper gun-handling also is more likely to teach their kids a thing or two about general responsible behaviour too? Don't you think such parents would raise decent kids in a no-gun society too?
Robbery statistics are also quite irelevant here. You can't gun down your classmates without a gun!
I personally don't want a society where my safety depends on my own shooting skill. You might prefer that, I don't.
Of course You do have a point. A gun can be used to scare the victim, thus making violence unnessesary. You forget, however, what happens when two gun owners confront each other (or when a gun owner gets nervous).
I do not believe in a society based on a terror balance between the good guys and the bad guys. Apparently you do. Let's leave it there insead of quoting biased statistics from either side.
(Oh did I forget to mention that I used to do some sports shooting. It is great fun and I would never vote for a 100% gun ban.)
I may, however, make copies for my *personal* use.
The copy that I use in my car stereo is legal.
The backup copy of my software is legal.
The review (including small quotes) I publish about the book I read is legal.
The warning I publish about documented unwanted side effects of a product is legal. (if my claims are true)
Teaching others what I have learned at a course is legal (as long as I do not copy any material)
Your mileage may vary depending on jurisdiction, but these are examples of *legal* copies. aka fair use.
"They" want the legal means to restrict our rights, so that we can only do what we are explicitly allowed by "them". Not what we want to do, not what the law otherwise allows, not what we migt need to do in the future (after the company holding my keys has gone under).
Only what they explicitly allow.
Nothing else.
10? Hey why not "Zelda 2000" or "Zelda Millenium"
;->
You are absolutely right.
The numbers are too much in favour of the cracker/script kiddie. Since scanning for (temporary or more permanent) security holes can be automated, one vulnerable machine per thousand scanned (or even ten thousand) will provide soil enough for a DDoS atttack. And one admin in ten thousand, will be behind on the latest hazards, or have a valid reason to relax security (temporally) or will simply make a mistake.
Perhaps the question should be:
;-) /Guran
How many slashdot readers does it take to screw "First Lightbulb"?
A: Only one... per section
A2: Six
One to report the news "Lightbulb broken", One to post "Ask Slashdot: best way to screw a lightbulb", One to discuss patents about lightbulbs, One to report about the "Open Source Lightbulb Exchange Project" and finally JonKatz to write a meg about how the lightbulb soon will be obsolete in the digital age.
Six? yeah they count like they spell...
Wether an unapproved player is also illegal is for the courts to decide. If you use an unapproved player, you assume either that it will not be deemed illegal, or that it doesn't matter.
A fully OS:ed approved DVD player is not going to happen. Not for Linux, not for Windows, not for anyone. Not as long as the DVD consortium believes in security (and profit) through obscurity.
This at least gives you the choise btw (free and unapproved) and (closed and approved)
Stop whining!
If McDonalds added a substance that made their burgers taste better, but made another brand burger taste worse if eaten after a McD burger, that would call for regulation n'est ce pas?
A McDonalds-only customer would benefit, since he would get a tastier burger. Still his freedom of choice would be seriously narrowed. Other chains would have a hard time getting customers to try their product, since McD had introduced a penalty for those who strayed from The Right Way (tm)
Yes, Katz did not provide any real background here. But this is slashdot...
Would you have been a snitch in high school?
A lot of kids would. If you got a reward for (anonymously) making life miserable for someone you dislike, wouldn't you (or someone else) be tempted?
Most teachers are bright people...
It's not the teachers I'm worried about. It's nervous scool officials, overprotective parents and the fact that there is a list
There is a huge difference between being an oddball and a *registred* oddball.
... anyone who reports their classmates to such a register should be the one to recieve counceling.
Wrapped in too many words, there is a really scary story here. Someone is trying to change "Innocent until proven guilty" to "Suspect, even if proven innocent"
The real point comes late in the article:
If you have *real* concern about a classmate, there are cops, teachers and parents to inform. If you do not find it necessary to inform any of those directly, simply shut up.
Replacing the cat with a penguin would work if it wasnt for the sad fact that penguins don't fly. (as they suffer from the extra weight of FUDium)
An alternate explanation is that the cat (being subject to such an experiment) was also toast.
Downloading pirated music, with or without napster, is wrong. Perhaps it can be justified in some cases, like "I buy the CD or erase the file afterwards" or "The record is out of sale ". Perhaps you simply want to throw a handful of dirt into the RIAA machinery. Anyhow, someone probably made a deal with a record company to release that song on CD. When that deal was made napster distribution was probably not a part of the equation. Therefore you screw the weaker party (usually the artist) in that contract by changing the equation.
That said, the old system of limitited distribution is rigged to create a few megastars and a few very rich record companies. A lot of quality music is made by people who never make anything past gig fees. The death of the old system will not kill the music, not kill the artists. It will merely make it less commersially intresting to be a megastar.
The record industry has never been able to stop people from trading among friends. The net has made the term "friend" very wide. The business model based on high entrance cost, low marginal cost and high price is doomed. I can't tell what will come instead, but protecting a doomed model with law is not a very good idea.
Some comments:
I don't think a law would do it. The software business is far too international. I'd prefer a volontary certificate for companies who promise to live up to the criterias. Then lobby for official agencies (as well as your employer) to only use certified suppliers.
1.Consumers have a right to know what exactly their software is doing
Absolutely! But rather (for reasons stated above) "We provide full documentation for our software's functionality and interaction with it's environment"
2.Consumers have a right to know what information their software is collecting about them, and also the right to restrict such collection in arbitrary ways, and to do so without jeopardizing their status as registered/supported users.
Again an absolute yes, rephrase as above
3.Consumers have a right to perform, publish, and view benchmarks and other quality assessments of any software on the market.
Now *that* should be law. Not just for software, but for all products.
4.Consumers have a right to know all licensing terms before they make a purchase.
Again a general law. However for a certificate: "We promise that our licencing terms are in no way stricter than the [XX] standard licence"
5.Consumers have a right to a refund and/or appropriate damages if their software does not perform as advertised by the vendor.
Damages are too dangerous, I'm afraid. How about:
"Should we fail to fix a bug ourselves in [NN]-days after it is reported, we promise to provide appropriate documentation (including source code) to anyone willing to fix it. The author of a bug fix under these premises, will recieve fair compensation for the work involved. If a bug makes the software unfit for the purpose it was intended for, the buyer is entitled to a full refund."
6.Consumers have a right to software that uses open protocols and media formats, and a right to perform, publish, or use reverse-engineered materials whenever vendors deviate from such standards.
Or to put it in a way SW companies could accept:
"Our product does not use any undocumented protocols or media formats. Where proprietary formats are used, registred users of our product are granted full rights to use that format in any other application wihc they have the right to use. Be it purchased, self developed or public domain."
- Bad things happen more often to the clueless
- Linux users are supposedly less clueless than MS/Mac users
- Ergo: Less bad things happen to Linux users
Security is almost always a trade-off: Some people sacrifice some (or most) of it for every day convenience. (Yes it IS convenient to use the same system as the majority. It IS convenient to run as root. It IS convenient to simply run a binary) More security aware people don't.If more "average users" would turn to Linux, we would see more security holes provided for comfort, more binary-only programs, more handy macro script options and inevitably more viruses.
Commissioning/sponsor money is probably the only solution. Just like for athletes, actors, graphic artists and so on.
The RIAA wants to maximize profits from the music, not the music itself.
Given the choice of:
a) A hundred artists selling a million records each
b)A million artists selling a thousand records each.
The RIAA would choose a) any day even if b) means ten times more music sold.
Hey, they would probably prefer one single group selling ten million records!
Shaping the market by access control is a risky business, and now it is falling apart.
No. I get paid to code. I get nothing extra if people use my program.
Perhaps in the future, radio stations and websites will pay musicians to play music, not giving anything extra for the use of it.
Perhaps you should get a clue. Other than the few that get massive press (Backstreet Crap, Titney Spears), most artists work day jobs so they can do art at night and on weekends.
My point exactly. Being able to make a living on something that others do for free is a privilege, not a right. But as long as it is possible to make a living as a professional *athlete* I expect popular artists to survive on popularity alone.
I *do* question their divine right to make a profit from that property.
Suppose I own some piece of land. Nice old property. It does not give me any income by itself. If I want to make any money I must find a way to make others pay me to use my property.
Lets say I build a scenic route along my property. I make a living by charging people for driving along that road enjoying the view.
Now someone gets the idea of flying a helicopter along the same route. He gets the same view as those who go by car. He might even charge people for flying with him. Am I entitled to a cut of his income? He does profit from *my* work and from *my* property after all.
I could lobby my government for a law stating that the helicopter is trespassing (even if it would have vast implications on the helicopter business, and would only make the pilot switch to high flying planes). I could find a way to get the people in the helicopter to pay me anyway.
Or I could realize that my business model is outdated, and that there are no money in the land based scenic tour business anymore.
I still have my property.
I still have the same right to it.
The only change is that I can no longer control access to it.
Maybe the same goes for these artists:
They still have their property. They just don't have the same means for making a profit from it by selling exclusive access.
We are back to the situation before the means of recording. Artist were paid for playing and composing, not for selling records.
Just like most hackers are paid for coding, not for selling software.
Record companies provide artists with three services: Studio time, advertising and distribution.
Studio time (and additional musicians) costs the same with or without the web
Advertising is supposed to pay for itself
Leaving distribution. Charging for distribution becomes more and more obsolete, when bandwith goes up. However, until now Record companies has charged consumers extra for distribution to cover for other costs. That model is just not possible to enforce anymore.
Perhaps it is possible to find a new way for artists to get paid, but what if it is not?
Is there a natural right that you should be able to make a living as an artist?
If no one will pay for your music, perhaps you should get a day job?
Why do musicians release CD's? Because that has been the most convenient way to distribute the music to the consumers. Royalties are a welcome side effect. Most bands simply hope that they will get noticed enough to be paid to play the next time (wether live or studio). If another medium gives the same opportunity there is no need for the disc.
So in the "old world" there is a nice for the record company. Artists are willing to sign bad contracts just to get an album out (hoping to have a better position next time) Consumers are willing to pay extra since the disc gives them instant access to the music. No more waiting for a good song on the radio.
Enter the web. Suddenly the distribution is much easier. The studios used to be paid with a cut for services rendered. Now 90% of those services are obsolete. BUT THEY STILL WANT THE SAME CUT (in absolute figures)
Dear RIAA. You still deserve a cut for studio time and advances to the artist. However, do not expect to be able to get that by charging for distribution.
It is like a gas station. Today I pay for the gas by the litre, no extra charge. If the gas was free, the station would still have costs for the pumps, tanks and transport etc. Then they would have to charge for the service of being there, and not include that cost in the price of their gas.
I do my banking online (a swedish bank). The service is OK and they don't charge me extra for doing their work (like some others).
At one time I needed proof that I had paid a bill some months back. (tax reasons). It was an impossible task for the clerk to produce some sort of proof that the bill was actually paid. Finally, after half an hour of discussion, I got a transcript of my transactions for that period, with irrelevant lines whited out. Hardly anything that would hold in court, but luckily there was no complaint from the tax office.