Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - AMD Files Antitrust Suit Against Intel

   (Jun 28, 2005 - 1:33 PM)

   In this effort I wish AMD the best. Monopolists do not serve the technology industry well. Open standards and diversity and consumer choice is what we should strive for.

2. Comment - U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against P2P

   (Jun 27, 2005 - 11:37 PM)

   You say, "...the second you provide them the key to the door, or help lift them through the second floor window, you too are liable for those actions."
   
   No, the Court has specifically said (by invoking the Sony case) that the mere existence or invention of P2P technology is not subject to prohibition. Distributing file sharing clients is not ipso facto illegal either. In other words, handing people the key is not the issue.
   
   Instead it is only certain uses that the Court objects to -- though of course these uses (of the unauthorized download and upload of copyrighted works) are already prohibited by the Copyright Act and the DCMA -- with certain caveats, such as the Doctrine of Fair Use and exceptions for Libraries.
   
   So why the need for any additional ruling? Well, now the Court is going a step further to prohibit the "promotion" of these tools for a specific purpose. "Promotion" is speech -- pure and simple. If the tools themselves are legal, and if it's legal to develop and distribute them, but it's illegal to TALK about them in a certain way, this is an unconstitutional violation of our First Amendment rights.

3. Comment - U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against P2P

   (Jun 27, 2005 - 9:04 PM)

   Some here make the case that it's not P2P technology itself which the Supreme Court finds illegal or problematic but rather only the promotion of it for the purpose of copyright infringement. But suppose I simply write an article in which I encourage copyright infringement and in which I make the case that all such laws unconstitutional. I may well be wrong in my position, but do I not have freedom of speech to make this case nonetheless? (Don't answer just yet...)
   
   As I say above, we have already established that merely to manufacture P2P software is not itself ipso facto illegal. Instead, what is illegal is the promotion of the use of these tools for copyright infringement. But this separation is very alarming, because it would appear to prohibit speech rather than product development. It prohibits the taking of a certain position.
   
   In the United States I am not legally free to smoke marijuana, but I am legally free to advocate the legalization of marijuana and I'm free even to advocate that people smoke marijuana at the present time. In other words, it is the practice which is prohibited and not any position of advocacy thereto. And since the Court presumes not to criminalize P2P technology itself but rather only a political position regarding the USE of that technology, it seems to me this is unconstitutional on grounds of violation of the First Amendment.

4. Comment - Switching to Mac Easier Than You Think

   (Jun 27, 2005 - 9:02 PM)

   The company which develops this software disagrees with you -- did you not check the link I provided? Here it is again:
   
   http://www.ulead.com/msp/sysreq.htm
   
   The only way this can run on a Mac is through Windows emulation, which means you are still running the software under the Windows OS -- only at a much slower speed yet. It does not run natively on the Mac platform -- and I get this straight from the manufacturer of this product.

5. Comment - U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against P2P

   (Jun 27, 2005 - 3:54 PM)

   I'm afraid your logic is faulty. If I steal a car, then I'm depriving an organization of materials, labor, etc., and they definitely suffer a loss -- irrespective of whether my act does or does not replace a purchase that otherwise would have been made. In contrast, with P2P, I would be taking only a copy of a file -- and no party suffers the loss of raw materials at all or indeed a loss of ANY kind unless I would otherwise have made a purchase or unless I use that file for commercial purposes.
   
   The doctrine of fair use allows the noncommercial use of copyrighted materials under certain limits. Otherwise, all libraries would be in violation.