>> 'First suspect' does not imply guilt.
You never been there, don't you? Unless _you_ (not police) shows that your car/gun had been stolen, you're guilty.
You're living in a dream world of some kind of "ultimate justice". Real world is nothing of this kind.
Re: Re: So, according to Techdirt what is "acceptable evidence"?
>> Your fundamental flawed assumption is that it somehow has to be possible
You're funny man. So, no crime committed over internet can be prosecuted? Just because you think that IP address is not an evidence? Are you for real?
Every technological or political change begin with wishful thinking.
Re: Re: So, according to Techdirt what is "acceptable evidence"?
I omitted reference to ISP allocation log for sake of simplicity in discussion.
Such log can be assumed as present, otherwise where do you think defendant name came from?
Actually, you're correct. If someone steal your car, runs over somebody (with deadly result) - it's up to you to prove that your car was stolen. And yes, this makes perfect sense.
Same, btw, with guns. If somebody got killed with your gun - you're first suspect.
Welcome to reality.
So, according to Techdirt what is "acceptable evidence"?
OK, let's assume that IP address is not enough. What kind of another evidence can be presented? Since this is civil suit, BPI (or whoever else) can't search people's home and seize computers. All can be seen from outside is "IP address X distributing file Y via protocol Z".
I'm all for due process, but let's not make ridiculous and technically incorrect claims.
>> Of course, in America, and in many other parts of the world, it is our God-given, or human, right to express our views
No, it is not. Where the did you've got such silly idea? In _some_ parts of the world (and not, I don't live in UK) it's perfectly reasonable to shoot authors of such videos. How about that as "God given right"?
And no, not all speech is equal. Not in all countries and not to all people. When someone put "Death to XYZ" video he should expect that XYZ will take a gun as a result.
Now, does fascist propaganda legal in US? What about KKK? Where's your "freedom of speech" now?
>> In other words, speech you don't like is still free speech.
Uhh - no. Not only I "don't like" those people's speech, I would like to wage war with them.
It is about propaganda. Why do you think those videos were put on YouTube on a first place? Because propaganda works.
And any sane person don't want enemy propaganda to spread. That's why Soviet Union jammed "Voice of America" broadcasts in that days. And for very same reason UK government don't want Islamic propaganda to spread unhindered.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean "say what you want" without consequences.
Start put "Join Jihad" videos and expect to be put under surveillance. Recruit some guys under such banner - and you may go to jail. Instruct one of your guys to explode and expect to be shot in a head on some nice day.
>> What's the solution? Keeping bombs off aircraft is the solution. Not banning WiFi.
No. Killing terrorists is a solution. And wiping out terror-supporting countries. Can't do this? You're out of luck, terrorists (freedom fighter) will win(*)
* Check your history books for further info
>> If you use their SDK, you can't release the software anywhere other than the App Store
Where did you've got this idea? SDK Agreement clearly stays that FOSS software is allowed. Given that compiler is freely available you can release your software any way you see fit.
>> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein
Since sources are available, recipients can "copy, distribute or modify the Program" any way they choose. No restrictions (in GPLv2 sense of word) are introduced here, that's why GPLv3 was needed to explicitly spell this out.
Binary file may have inherent restrictions - like ARM binary doesn't work on Intel CPU, or Windows program doesn't work on Linux or .... unsigned binary doesn't run on iPhone. As mentioned already - in GPLv3 last one is prohibited; but VLC is v2, so it is OK.
Please stop this FUD. GPLv3 may be, but not GPLv2.
>> Apple failed to comply with that condition
Apple is platform provider, developer can comply or not. How about putting a blame on right party?
>> Therefore, the VLC guys took a stand here
And who put VLC into Apple's store in a first place? Apple? Aliens? Terrorists? Or maybe VLC guys themselves?
>> Of course, you will say "But its Apple's store, if you don't like it bug off
Isn't it actually true? Apple don't come and take your software without permission, you know.
>> But that only shows
It shows nothing of this sort. Read Apple's developer agreement, look for "FOSS". They're explicitly asking developer to comply both with FOSS license and Agreement. Can't handle it - your problem.
And distribution on Rapidshare is under ... Rapidshare's control. Don't see a difference here.
...and content of Google's index is under Google's control.
That's a point of "safe harbor" - it's not server owner (or admin) responsible, but user who put content there.
According to GPLv2 developer can distribute the program any way he see fit as long as source code is available. And source code for VLC is definitely available.
All this "tivoization" crap has been added in GPLv3 and does not apply to application in question (and makes not sense anyway).
I actually read GPL and it doesn't take law degree to understand requirements. There's no limitations on hardware design in GPL text; and if my hardware require signed binaries, that's my business.
Anyway - isn't Apple serve as service provider in this case? And not liable for actions of users (developers)? Why don't I see reminder about "safe harbor" provisions that Mike love so match? Hypocrisy maybe?
Twitter pushed wwwwhat? Real-time? Where?! Are you for real? There's (almost) nothing "real-time" in internet, push mail is not real-time either.
You can't have guaranteed latency between 2 endpoints connected with IP stack.
No matter how valuable you think the Twitter is, there's nothing of engineering complexity there. NOTHING. Bunch of scripts+webserver. Repeat after me: valuable != complex.
Re: Re: It's OK to "hold off what technology allows"
>> Mr. Doctorow is fighting against those who would install >> engine governors to prevent 100mph speeds, even if those >> governors would prohibit legitimate uses, such as driving >> on the German autobahn.
Never new there's a road from US to Germany. Nevertheless, such devices present in trains, for example.
>> Mr. Doctorow is fighting against those who would ban the sale of copper to prevent ...
Some chemicals are actually forbidden for sale or export to "dangerous" countries.
>> Mr. Doctorow is fighting against those who would install cameras in every basement ...
In facilities that actually deal with above mentioned chemicals there are logbooks, cameras, and ton of another security measures to make sure that only permitted people have access.
But - why ruin your idealistic dreamworld where Cory Doctorow is living too. I read his books - it's hard to get more clueless about technology. This is recent example. He have no idea about how technology is controlled today or how it had been controlled centuries ago.
On the post: Challenging BPI's Claims That IP Addresses Alone Are Accepted By Courts As Proof Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: an analogy
You never been there, don't you? Unless _you_ (not police) shows that your car/gun had been stolen, you're guilty.
You're living in a dream world of some kind of "ultimate justice". Real world is nothing of this kind.
On the post: Challenging BPI's Claims That IP Addresses Alone Are Accepted By Courts As Proof Of Infringement
Re: Re: So, according to Techdirt what is "acceptable evidence"?
You're funny man. So, no crime committed over internet can be prosecuted? Just because you think that IP address is not an evidence? Are you for real?
Every technological or political change begin with wishful thinking.
On the post: Challenging BPI's Claims That IP Addresses Alone Are Accepted By Courts As Proof Of Infringement
Re: Re: So, according to Techdirt what is "acceptable evidence"?
Such log can be assumed as present, otherwise where do you think defendant name came from?
On the post: Challenging BPI's Claims That IP Addresses Alone Are Accepted By Courts As Proof Of Infringement
Re: Re: So, according to Techdirt what is "acceptable evidence"?
On the post: Challenging BPI's Claims That IP Addresses Alone Are Accepted By Courts As Proof Of Infringement
Re: an analogy
Same, btw, with guns. If somebody got killed with your gun - you're first suspect.
Welcome to reality.
On the post: Challenging BPI's Claims That IP Addresses Alone Are Accepted By Courts As Proof Of Infringement
So, according to Techdirt what is "acceptable evidence"?
I'm all for due process, but let's not make ridiculous and technically incorrect claims.
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Re: How low can you go !!!..
No, it is not. Where the did you've got such silly idea? In _some_ parts of the world (and not, I don't live in UK) it's perfectly reasonable to shoot authors of such videos. How about that as "God given right"?
And no, not all speech is equal. Not in all countries and not to all people. When someone put "Death to XYZ" video he should expect that XYZ will take a gun as a result.
Now, does fascist propaganda legal in US? What about KKK? Where's your "freedom of speech" now?
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Re: It's not about safety
Uhh - no. Not only I "don't like" those people's speech, I would like to wage war with them.
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
It's not about safety
And any sane person don't want enemy propaganda to spread. That's why Soviet Union jammed "Voice of America" broadcasts in that days. And for very same reason UK government don't want Islamic propaganda to spread unhindered.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean "say what you want" without consequences.
Start put "Join Jihad" videos and expect to be put under surveillance. Recruit some guys under such banner - and you may go to jail. Instruct one of your guys to explode and expect to be shot in a head on some nice day.
On the post: Security Consultants Claim New Terrorist Bombs May Mean No More In-Flight WiFi
Solution?
No. Killing terrorists is a solution. And wiping out terror-supporting countries. Can't do this? You're out of luck, terrorists (freedom fighter) will win(*)
* Check your history books for further info
On the post: Apple Prefers To Keep GPL'd Software Out Of App Store So It Can Keep DRM On All Apps
Re: Re: VLC is not the bad guy
Where did you've got this idea? SDK Agreement clearly stays that FOSS software is allowed. Given that compiler is freely available you can release your software any way you see fit.
On the post: Apple Prefers To Keep GPL'd Software Out Of App Store So It Can Keep DRM On All Apps
Re: Re: Did they not read the Apple Developer docs?
VLC have owners?
On the post: Apple Prefers To Keep GPL'd Software Out Of App Store So It Can Keep DRM On All Apps
Re: Re: Load of FUD from FSF, nothing more
Since sources are available, recipients can "copy, distribute or modify the Program" any way they choose. No restrictions (in GPLv2 sense of word) are introduced here, that's why GPLv3 was needed to explicitly spell this out.
Binary file may have inherent restrictions - like ARM binary doesn't work on Intel CPU, or Windows program doesn't work on Linux or .... unsigned binary doesn't run on iPhone. As mentioned already - in GPLv3 last one is prohibited; but VLC is v2, so it is OK.
On the post: Apple Prefers To Keep GPL'd Software Out Of App Store So It Can Keep DRM On All Apps
Re:
Please stop this FUD. GPLv3 may be, but not GPLv2.
>> Apple failed to comply with that condition
Apple is platform provider, developer can comply or not. How about putting a blame on right party?
>> Therefore, the VLC guys took a stand here
And who put VLC into Apple's store in a first place? Apple? Aliens? Terrorists? Or maybe VLC guys themselves?
>> Of course, you will say "But its Apple's store, if you don't like it bug off
Isn't it actually true? Apple don't come and take your software without permission, you know.
>> But that only shows
It shows nothing of this sort. Read Apple's developer agreement, look for "FOSS". They're explicitly asking developer to comply both with FOSS license and Agreement. Can't handle it - your problem.
On the post: Apple Prefers To Keep GPL'd Software Out Of App Store So It Can Keep DRM On All Apps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's denying whom here?
...and content of Google's index is under Google's control.
That's a point of "safe harbor" - it's not server owner (or admin) responsible, but user who put content there.
On the post: Apple Prefers To Keep GPL'd Software Out Of App Store So It Can Keep DRM On All Apps
Re: Re: Who's denying whom here?
On the post: Apple Prefers To Keep GPL'd Software Out Of App Store So It Can Keep DRM On All Apps
Re: Who's denying whom here?
Why the fuck FSF complained to Apple anyway? Developer can remove app any time he choose, so what's a problem here again?
On the post: Apple Prefers To Keep GPL'd Software Out Of App Store So It Can Keep DRM On All Apps
Load of FUD from FSF, nothing more
All this "tivoization" crap has been added in GPLv3 and does not apply to application in question (and makes not sense anyway).
I actually read GPL and it doesn't take law degree to understand requirements. There's no limitations on hardware design in GPL text; and if my hardware require signed binaries, that's my business.
Anyway - isn't Apple serve as service provider in this case? And not liable for actions of users (developers)? Why don't I see reminder about "safe harbor" provisions that Mike love so match? Hypocrisy maybe?
On the post: Is Twitter's Patent Strategy To Not Get Any Patents?
Re: Re: Twitter inventions?
You can't have guaranteed latency between 2 endpoints connected with IP stack.
No matter how valuable you think the Twitter is, there's nothing of engineering complexity there. NOTHING. Bunch of scripts+webserver. Repeat after me: valuable != complex.
On the post: Cory Doctorow Explains Why 'Free' Isn't His Concern; But Restrictions On Individual Rights Are
Re: Re: It's OK to "hold off what technology allows"
Never new there's a road from US to Germany. Nevertheless, such devices present in trains, for example.
>> Mr. Doctorow is fighting against those who would ban the sale of copper to prevent ...
Some chemicals are actually forbidden for sale or export to "dangerous" countries.
>> Mr. Doctorow is fighting against those who would install cameras in every basement ...
In facilities that actually deal with above mentioned chemicals there are logbooks, cameras, and ton of another security measures to make sure that only permitted people have access.
But - why ruin your idealistic dreamworld where Cory Doctorow is living too. I read his books - it's hard to get more clueless about technology. This is recent example. He have no idea about how technology is controlled today or how it had been controlled centuries ago.
Next >>