Slashdot Mirror

> But the data is encoded in physical matter. If I were arguing on the patent holder's side, I'd argue that the creation of specific physical forms for the data is intrinsic to the usage of a DRM format, therefore the process is "transformative".

That's why I called the law there especially murky. Transformation is supposed to be purely physical (an "article" is purely physical, and it's supposed to become another "state or thing" afterward). So "transforming" bits on a hard drive shouldn't be a transformation at all... except for the exceptions they've made up, which are far less than crystal clear. There's a reason I linked to a description of the test, after all. You can't just apply common sense to the problem. You have to look at the legal precedent and controlling law and read all the words the way lawyers do and pull your hair out when you find out the issues have very little relation to the real world at that point.

So this case could very well set precedent. I don't imagine that it will make anything clearer and I'm sure that the lawyers will argue over this very point. But I'm not going to pretend to pick the winner on this one. It got cut from the final submission (either by myself or the editors, I don't recall), but I'm still hoping they can both lose in all the right ways.

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

On a side note, I wonder if the EFF is going to retract their statement, or issue some sort of apology...

They already have http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/03/apple-adds-still-more-drm-ipod-shuffle

Does your PC manufacturer lock down your system so that the only way you can add functionality is either through a method controlled by them or by a method they claim is illegal?

ACTA raises serious concerns about citizens' civil liberties and privacy rights. The contents and text of ACTA remain secret, but a document leaked to the public last year shows that ACTA could include stronger criminal measures, increased customs border search powers, and requirements for Internet service providers to cooperate with copyright holders. Some public suggestions from content companies have included requiring ISPs to engage in filtering of their customers' Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, mandatory disclosure of personal information about alleged copyright infringers, and adoption of "Three Strikes" policies requiring ISPs to automatically terminate customers' Internet access upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement.

For starters, comparing Apple against Microsoft, Ford, Toyota is not just stupid, but apeshit retarded.

Nice ad-hominem start with your argument. What next?

Microsoft isn't a principally hardware maker, but its hardware IS all encrusted with DRM, from the Xbox to Zune. It also promotes WMA/WMV DRM on files and HD-DVD style end to end video output DRM on PCs, so von Lohmanns' comments are ridiculous.

Yes, because everyone tolerates Microsoft and no one has criticised them for their DRM. Oh wait, they have.

No one is claiming that Microsoft are fine and Apple are bad - that's a straw man. The point is that just as Microsoft are bad for using DRM, so are Apple - but for some reason, even though DRM is hated here, just because it's Apple suddenly it's okay, and we have no end of apologists crawling out of the woodwork to defend them.

But secondly, the guy doesn't even verify the information he's complaining about at full speed.

So is he wrong here? I don't care what he allegedly said earlier (sorry, if he's stupid for trusting what he reads in a blog, then I'm not going to trust this Apple blog either), I want to see the evidence that the claims about Apple here are not true.

DRM apologist! Stop it. Just STOP IT.

Like the EFF say, Apple's abuses would not be tolerated if they came from Microsoft, Ford or Toyota.

Abuses like this are always tolerated by the Apple geeks. No matter what Apple does, there an apologist who is ready to explain why it's necessary and important. It's like listening to early 20th century intellectuals apologising for the Soviet Union. No matter what happened in the USSR, the intellectuals were ready to explain why Stalin was a great guy. They were talking ideologically-inspired bollocks. Similarly, the Apple you believe in, and the Apple that really exists, are very different.

So stop it. Stop this stupid "Apple is good" groupthink, because Apple aren't good. If they ever were, then this incident and the TV out incident should tell you that things have changed. Apple is Microsoft, but in fashionable and more expensive clothes, and it's time we all admitted that.

(Score -1, Insulted Apple)

What in heaven's name are you talking about? The headphones have no DRM built into them

Oh really? The EFF disagrees: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/03/apple-adds-still-more-drm-ipod-shuffle

Maybe consumers will draw the line when Apple requires its users to install DRM-equipped electrodes in their own frontal lobes.

Maybe.

Seems that the issue has already been decided.

http://www.eff.org/cases/chamberlain-group-inc-v-skylink-technologies-inc

If this is applied to the Kindle, Amazon loses.

• Tor: Onion-based routing that acts as a proxy layer between the client computer and the Tor network. http://tor.eff.org/
• I2P: Also known as the Invisible Internet Project. The network is regarded as a message based system. http://www.i2p.net/
• FreeNet: is a distributed information and storage retrieval system designed to address the concerns of privacy. Freenet is designed to be anonymous and totally peer to peer. http://freenetproject.org/
• GNUnet: is a P2P network that can support many different forms of peer-to-peer applications. http://gnunet.org/
• Open VPN: is where one can use software that encrypts your traffic on a server created in another country instead of the one you are in. http://openvpn.net/

There are other programs and if you do not want others knowing what "traffic" you carry then you would be wise to use them.

> You had to read 13 paragraphs of an article titled "Microsoft Skull-fucks Iceland's Economy, Contracts Syphilis" to decide it's not impartial?

Well, it sounded pretty NPOV to me until I learned that it was written by David Gerard ;-)

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

"It's so secret even we don't know what the hell it is." You know what? There is a beautiful explanation about security over at EFF's Surveillance Self-Defense site. It begins, "Security isn't having the strongest lock or the best anti-virus software â" security is about making trade-offs to manage risk..." Ironic that in answer to this story, I'd link to that particular site. You see, individual human beings and companies, which are groups of individual human beings working together, have to do things in a reasonable and moderate way. Nothing is perfect, but you cannot expect an imperfect being to do something that is more perfect than himself. There has to be a balance between acceptable risk and convenience, and between acceptable security and cost. But when it comes to the government, the government does not know how to do anything in a moderate way. For the government, if they decided that some piece of paper is a secret, it needs to be so well guarded that even God couldn't get to it. For the government, there is no such thing as a reasonable cost, like there is for anybody else. The government will buy it at any cost, and if there isn't enough money for it, they'll simply proclaim that they deserve a larger chunk of your (and everyone else's) income, and that you (I love this word) owe them more than before. How did it come to pass that you owe them when you aren't the one who made the decision? Simple. It's as if you bought a computer and the EULA for the operating system said, "By us having written this licensing agreement, you have agreed to be bound by its terms." Well, that sort of extremism, when it comes to security, when it comes to any government service (or disservice) is not beneficial, neither to the government nor to the people whom it represents.

So, I wonder what the odds are that potential claimants will be pushed into the delightful catch-22 of "Oh, sure, if you were on the secret list you would be entitled to redress; but secret list is secret, so how are you going to prove that?"

It happens.

Since when does he have the right to pick and choose which laws he enforces?

Are you kidding me? He is just following the example set by the rest of the law enforcement agencies in the US.

The US (especially over the last 8 years) loves to make things illegal that a huge % of the population does and then they use selective enforcement to exercise their prejudiced, corrupt agendas.

Need some examples:

Picking on LGBTs
Selective enforcement of marijuana laws (over other drugs)
Selective enforcement of drug laws in black/latino communities
The DMCA

Avoid Microsoft products where possible. Computers using the Microsoft Windows platform are especially vulnerable as of this writing (although no operating system is immune to all potential attacks). Consider using a non-Microsoft operating system if possible. However, if you have to use Microsoft Windows and you are connecting to the Internet, your best bet is to minimize the number of Microsoft Internet applications you use â" for example, use Firefox as a browser or Thunderbird as a mail client. Microsoftâ(TM)s Internet Explorer and its email programs Outlook and Outlook Express are very difficult for even professionals to secure. Furthermore, adversaries tend to attack more popular platforms and applications.

Keep your software updated. Use the latest stable version of your operating system. As of this writing, Windows 95, 98, and ME are utterly obsolete. You should be using at least Windows Server 2003 for servers and Windows XP for clients, with all patches and service packs applied. For Macintosh computers, use OS X 10.4 or greater, with all patches applied. For Linux and Unix, get whatever version is the most recent stable release, and follow all updates. It is especially important not to let server software versions lag behind, since servers are always on and always connected.

Maintain your firewalls. Firewalls are software or hardware components that protect your computer or network from the Internet, blocking traffic based on network-related parameters like IP addresses and port numbers. Firewalls can protect against those who want to access your computer without permission. Configuring network firewalls is pretty tough for the layperson and beyond the scope of this guide, but you should learn how to use the personal firewall software thatâ(TM)s included in most recent operating systems.

For more detailed information about malware, check out the Malware article in the Defensive Technology section.

Avoid Microsoft products where possible. Computers using the Microsoft Windows platform are especially vulnerable as of this writing (although no operating system is immune to all potential attacks). Consider using a non-Microsoft operating system if possible. However, if you have to use Microsoft Windows and you are connecting to the Internet, your best bet is to minimize the number of Microsoft Internet applications you use â" for example, use Firefox as a browser or Thunderbird as a mail client. Microsoftâ(TM)s Internet Explorer and its email programs Outlook and Outlook Express are very difficult for even professionals to secure. Furthermore, adversaries tend to attack more popular platforms and applications.

Keep your software updated. Use the latest stable version of your operating system. As of this writing, Windows 95, 98, and ME are utterly obsolete. You should be using at least Windows Server 2003 for servers and Windows XP for clients, with all patches and service packs applied. For Macintosh computers, use OS X 10.4 or greater, with all patches applied. For Linux and Unix, get whatever version is the most recent stable release, and follow all updates. It is especially important not to let server software versions lag behind, since servers are always on and always connected.

Maintain your firewalls. Firewalls are software or hardware components that protect your computer or network from the Internet, blocking traffic based on network-related parameters like IP addresses and port numbers. Firewalls can protect against those who want to access your computer without permission. Configuring network firewalls is pretty tough for the layperson and beyond the scope of this guide, but you should learn how to use the personal firewall software thatâ(TM)s included in most recent operating systems.

For more detailed information about malware, check out the Malware article in the Defensive Technology section.

>> So why in the hell would you spend money to meddle in foreign politics that don't affect you in any way?

> Because people outside Australia may very well end up being affected by it. Western governments have a habit of citing other governments' policies as a way to make those policies more palatable to their own citizens. The British have CCTV cameras at every street corner, let's also put them on our streets. Software patents are allowed in the U.S., let's harmonize the legislation. Australia thinks of the children and censors the Net, we should do the same!

> For instance, even though I'm not in the U.S., I donate to the EFF. It's a global world. We're running out of places where we can hide from these things.

This is exactly right, and why EFF tries to work internationally too: for instance, last week we wrote about how the interpretation of New Zealand's Section 92A law could affect other countries and smuggle three strikes rules through. New Zealand's language originally came from the US (via Australia), but the interpretations of the law have been very different. If New Zealand took one pro-three strikes stance, it would be quickly used as an argument for doing the same thing in other states.

Other countries can also be an inspiration. I know that the French have been inspired by New Zealand activists successful campaign to fight off Section 92A; the Australian battle against Net censorship will be noted by politicians elsewhere who might otherwise think that blocking sites would be a kneejerk vote-winner.

They're creating a network to run Prime95 and win the EFF awards for finding prime numbers.

Sorry about that link. It's EFF.org

"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
- John Gilmore, Co-Founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/

Thank you, I just signed up.

Senator John Cornyn, in TFA: "While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children,"

If your goal is to keep "innocent children" safe, don't let them go down to the playground where the axe murderers, pederasts, and drug addicts hang out.

Innocence imposes isolation. You want the kids to be educated, they lose their innocence.

Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse... or is this the end of the first amendment?

I meant this Scientology case, not realizing there was another one. Oopsie.

I think you were actually thinking about Section 230 protections, not common carrier.

I'm not so sure that requests 1. and 4. are unreasonable. After all, Canon's logo is a registered trademark. Besides, if you're going to parody the company and its employees, it's not a huge leap to parody the company logo as well.

Look at it as an opportunity to further lampoon Canon by coming up with a hilarious reworking of their logo.

As for requests 2. and 3., there's no need or justification for bringing Mr. Westfall's wife and daughter into the fray and certainly no call for references to violent acts against Mr. Westfall and his fellow employees.

Furthermore, Wordpress.com's TOS (which hosts the 'Fake Chuck Westfall' blog) clearly states:

Responsibility of Contributors. If you operate a blog, comment on a blog, post material to the Website, post links on the Website, or otherwise make (or allow any third party to make) material available by means of the Website (any such material, âoeContentâ), You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content. That is the case regardless of whether the Content in question constitutes text, graphics, an audio file, or computer software. By making Content available, you represent and warrant that:

• the downloading, copying and use of the Content will not infringe the proprietary rights, including but not limited to the copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret rights, of any third party;
• the Content is not libelous or defamatory (more info on what that means), does not contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party;

It seems to be a fairly open-and-shut case to me.

Fred von Lohmann of the EFF, author of the piece pointed to in this /. thread, also wrote a concise and thorough exposé of the FUD behind another recent Apple dud claim: Apple tried to use the DMCA to shut down the IpodHash project's bluwiki where posters discussed how to let people sync media to the latest versions of the iPhone and iPod Touch. /. talked about this case at the time, but links to von Lohmann's article and /. discussion aren't in the /. headline summary, so I thought I'd bring them to your attention here. von Lohmann's article is critical reading if you want a better understanding of how this proprietor and the DMCA actually work.

Fred von Lohmann of the EFF, author of the piece pointed to in this /. thread, also wrote a concise and thorough exposé of the FUD behind another recent Apple dud claim: Apple tried to use the DMCA to shut down the IpodHash project's bluwiki where posters discussed how to let people sync media to the latest versions of the iPhone and iPod Touch. /. talked about this case at the time, but links to von Lohmann's article and /. discussion aren't in the /. headline summary, so I thought I'd bring them to your attention here. von Lohmann's article is critical reading if you want a better understanding of how this proprietor and the DMCA actually work.

That's true of any book. You just have to go through a little more decoding to get to the audio.

In any case, Amazon can distribute this particular "encoded form of an audiobook," since that particular encoded form is the text, and they have licensed the right to distribute the text.

The EFF has a great analysis on this: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/does-authors-guild-want-sue-you-reading-aloud-your

Citation necessary. Copies necessary for use of a digital medium are given an explicit exemption from copyright protection. And there is a requirement that the copy be stored for longer than the period necessary to view it. Which means that you're definitely off the hook for RAM or even HDD buffers necessary for streamed video.

Citation provided:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/more-bad-law-wow-glider-case

Unfortunately, we often confuse what is technically correct, with what is legally correct.

Think about a "paint by numbers" canvas. It is a copyrighted work. The purchaser can paint on it and create an aggregate "new" work. The painter is free to sell the painting. While the painter can not make copies of the paint by numbers canvas without violating copyright, they can, however, buy new canvases from the copyright owner and create new paintings each time. This is what Psystar is doing.

Your example is not fitting. What Apple is arguing is that someone took their blank canvas and paint all over it. What they're arguing is someone took their copyrighted painted canvas changed a line or two, changed the color in one section, and then resold it as OS X. It wouldn't matter if they named is Psystar OS, the fact is their product contains a significant amount of OS X code and they did not get permission from Apple before distributing it.

You are confusing the "work" with the "copy." No one has the right to modify schindlers list and sell copies of it except the copyright owner. However, if I buy a VHS tape of Schindler's List, and snip out the parts I don't like, I am free to sell it as long as I make it perfectly clear that it has been modified.

The movie industry may think you're too small and not worth their time if you sold like one or two but what you were doing would be copyright infringement. Your work does not qualify for any of the listed fair use exceptions. Your edit of a VHS tape is considered a "derivative work". In DGA vs CleanFlicks, the case may have involve the newest in technology but also found that CleanFlicks created "derivative works" that there were not "transformative". If this happened twenty years ago and CleanFlicks did the same editing on VHS, it still would be considered infringement. Remember in DGA vs CleanFlicks the case was so strong, it didn't even go to trial. DGA was granted summary judgment.

warrentless wiretaps of ALL calls, domestic and international.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/12/first-interview-nsa-whistleblower

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=297abdd5-d0dc-4617-a6c9-c482fa316b59

They copied EVERYTHING, INDISCRIMINATELY, FROM EVERYBOSY, and then passed a 'law' giving the telecoms retroactive immunity.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/countdown-12209-fmr-nsa-agent-communications-rights-ignored/2733120647/descr

The EFF has an action alert that help you get started, although calling your representative directly is good too.

Copyright should be based on a fixed duration, such as 25 years, perhaps with a registration or notice requirement for it to take effect, and perhaps with a low-cost renewal option (for perhaps another 25 years).

I agree with your argument from the standpoint of what *should* happen. I'm rather pessimistic though on whether it will happen. The US has, for better or worse, based a lot of the economy on intangible goods. This means that those who produce those intangible goods and make a lot of money from them (media, software, etc) are in a powerful position to influence the laws in ways favorable to them and arguably detrimental to society overall. Call it the cynics version of the golden rule ("he who has the gold makes the rules").

The only ways I can see to break this problem is with a well funded and well executed PR/lobbying campaign that embarrasses our lawmakers into action or some sort of ruling from the Supreme Court that these excessive copyrights terms have become unconstitutional. In the former case most of the parties with the money and an interest in copyright that are those who are FOR longer and more stringent copyright "protections". As far as the Supreme Court goes, they've ruled several times that determining copyright length is the responsibility of Congress. While that doesn't mean they won't change their mind in the future, it is unlikely the Supreme Court will be much help anytime soon.

Even public interest groups like the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation aren't working on shortening copyright as far as I can tell. They're too busy fighting off even more egregious legislation like the DMCA and dealing with DRM issues if indeed they are interested in shorter copyright at all.

Best Approach To Keeping a Virtual World Protocol Free to All?

1. Document it well. Do you have a javadoc style reference for it? What about example or sample code showing how to use it?
2. Promote it. Ninety percent of GPL code I use is recommended to me by coworkers & coleagues.
3. Support it (if possible). Feature f is seriously not working for me, is anyone going to help?
4. Let the community own it. Don't be afraid to let contributors add/request new directions.

... filed a provisional patent application on it March 20 of last year

But I'm guessing you haven't been awarded the patent? I think you've done more than most people would have. If you're worried about someone suing you for using a protocol, why not just upload all the documentation for it to a SourceForge Project or make it available on your site and date it? I'm guessing it's a bit more tricky than software as you need the required documentation to define a protocol but why shouldn't that be releasable under the GPL? If you really wanted to ask for help, you could seek help from the EFF in establishing prior art now.

Also, what kind of document would I need to make official the public-domaining of the app?

If you have the source code, just drop it on SourceForge or make it available for download on your site with a copy of the GPL as a license file. Frankly, I'd be more concerned about it being adopted and supported widely rather than having it be a GPL protocol. I wish you the best of luck--I think something very neat could come of this!

Whether it should be different is really a different question. In the US, software EULAs have been rather consistently enforced.

The recent Blizzard case, http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Blizzard_v_bnetd/20040930BNETDOrder.pdf , is an example. See p. 18.

As the poster of the original article, I'll point out that assuming that "plain text" is "the most protected form of speech going" is a very US-only attitude. Protected speech implies *something* protecting it, in the US' case the First Amendment to the Constitution, plus 200+ years of court opinions interpreting that amendment. There was *nothing* guaranteeing that US courts would define online content, whether plain text or video, as "speech" of any kind, nor that forum hosts would be immune from liability for such content posted by 3rd parties (witness the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy case, which led Congress to adopting the very broad 47 USC 230 to both overturn Stratton Oakmont and help the nascent Internet industry thrive).

This current case, and the others like it, set up a potential countermovement away from allowing user-posted content including that which I'm typing right now, a countermovement that could, if it grows, stifle the value of the Internet as a many-to-many communications medium. {ProfJonathan}

I recall reading about that here a few years ago, but I couldn't find any more information on it when I searched a few months back.

This topic reminds me of Bruce Sterling's Bitter Resistance, an entertaining and informative article about bacteria. That sounds like marketing-speak, so here's a topical excerpt:

Bacteria live on and inside human beings. They always have;
bacteria were already living on us long, long before our species became
human. They creep onto us in the first instants in which we are held to
our mother's breast. They live on us, and especially inside us, for as long
as we live. And when we die, then other bacteria do their living best to
recycle us.

        An adult human being carries about a solid pound of commensal
bacteria in his or her body; about a hundred trillion of them. Humans have
a whole garden of specialized human-dwelling bacteria -- tank-car E. coli,
balloon-shaped staphylococcus, streptococcus, corynebacteria,
micrococcus, and so on. Normally, these lurkers do us little harm. On the
contrary, our normal human-dwelling bacteria run a kind of protection
racket, monopolizing the available nutrients and muscling out other rival
bacteria that might want to flourish at our expense in a ruder way.

        But bacteria, even the bacteria that flourish inside us all our lives,
are not our friends. Bacteria are creatures of an order vastly different
from our own, a world far, far older than the world of multicellular
mammals. Bacteria are vast in numbers, and small, and fetid, and
profoundly unsympathetic.

You mean the 6th Circuit Appeals Court Opinion in Lexmark v. Static Control Components? It applies a number of metrics for determining when and how copyright is valid. The particular plugin situation we're discussing is not "locking out competitors", anyway, it's simply asking for a particular rights set in what is most likely a derivative work. But which of these particular metrics do you think locks out an insistence that the plugin provide the rights associated with the GPL?

A plugin uses the host application's API. It is, therefore a derived work.

From Sega V. Accolade:

Computer programs pose unique problems for the application of the "idea/expression distinction" that determines the extent of copyright protection. To the extent that there are many possible ways of accomplishing a given task or fulfilling a particular market demand, the programmer's choice of program structure and design may be highly creative and idiosyncratic. However, computer programs are, in essence, utilitarian articles - articles that accomplish tasks. As such, they contain many logical, structural, and visual display elements that are dictated by the function to be performed, by considerations of efficiency, or by external factors such as compatibility requirements and industry demands. Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1241, 1253-56 (2d Cir. 1992) ("CAI"). In some circumstances, even the exact set of commands used by the programmer is deemed functional rather than creative for purposes of copyright. "[W]hen specific instructions, even though previously copyrighted, are the only and essential means of accomplishing a given task, their later use by another will not amount to infringement."

Even if the header file can't be legally copied verbatim, you can write a new header file that's API-compatible and not be infringing. Good thing, too, or the Wine folks would be in some serious trouble.

If there is a requirement for modules to identify their licensing, as with Linux,

That shit is so illegal and it's dangerous as hell too. The Lexmark case has broadcast loudly what the supremes think of technical measures being used to prevent interoperability like this. The court held that the use of the Toner Loading Program as a "lock-out code", within the sense established in the 9th Circuit's Sega v. Accolade opinion (not previously binding on the Lexmark panel, which is 6th Circuit), rendered it uncopyrightable as a matter of law and therefore fair game for copying without any license whatsoever, for the purpose of interoperating with Lexmark's printers. If the court found similarly for MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") then it could be disastrous. Anything from the module license checking code to the whole kernel could be found uncopyrightable.

This sensationalist oversimplification ignores the fact that there may be other, legitimately-classified reasons for not wanting to expose these documents.

I support Obama, and I don't support his as-yet-revealed views on the warrantless wiretapping issue. But to bold-facedly suggest that a single event, far removed from his personal behavior, invalidates what he stands for; that's just whiny blather.

Consider the counter-example: His immediate action to maximize the application of the Freedom of Information Act.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't support a precedent that allows classified documents to be unveiled without the full application of due process. This is just that process in action, IMO. The key to transparent government is to minimize the unnecessary classification of documents, and that's what he has done.

This doesn't deserve the stink it's getting. Seems the absence of being a Democrat is all that is left to fill the republican idea-void these days.

Apple has figured it out, DRM is a sales loser.

Really? I thought Apple were busy adding more DRM to their products.

I find that it's easier to avoid taking other peoples' idiocy to heart when I can pay various non-profit organizations to deal with it on my behalf. Some recent favorites include:

The ever-present EFF
The Freedom from Religion Foundation
The American Library Association
The Wikimedia Foundation
The Nevada chapter of the ACLU (which is explicitly pro-Second Amendment, unlike the national body)

There are plenty of other worthy causes; those are just the ones on my list this year. Think about it this way: the God-botherers contribute a full 10% of their income, pre-tax, to try to drag civilization back into the Middle Ages. What's the best you can do?

I just wanted to say thanks for bringing my attention to the FFRF. This is my new favorite charity. We need more organizations protecting the constitution.

I find that it's easier to avoid taking other peoples' idiocy to heart when I can pay various non-profit organizations to deal with it on my behalf. Some recent favorites include:

The ever-present EFF
The Freedom from Religion Foundation
The American Library Association
The Wikimedia Foundation
The Nevada chapter of the ACLU (which is explicitly pro-Second Amendment, unlike the national body)

There are plenty of other worthy causes; those are just the ones on my list this year. Think about it this way: the God-botherers contribute a full 10% of their income, pre-tax, to try to drag civilization back into the Middle Ages. What's the best you can do?

Would the Iranian government be smart enough to know that the Secret Service has microprinting turned on by default? Would the Secret Service be smart enough to further tamper with the hardware for.. remote access?

http://www.eff.org/issues/printers

Thankfully, there are the first rumblings that that's one part that is illegal about the NSLs. See also http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/12/second-circuit-rules-against-national-security-let

What the FSF and EFF should do, however, is to prove that another approach could work in the marketplace. If the EFF wants to promote, for example, "voluntary collective licensing" - then - they should get the venture capital, start a business, sign up artists and show the RIAA and record companies that you can have a very successful business when you don't assume that your customers are criminals who are out to file share everything not locked down. The record labels are businesses, they care about profit, not some kind of geek utopia - and they listen to fiscal arguments first, not technical ones.

Somebody told you it was good?

The EFF told everyone it was good. The EFF is our friend, right?

http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-music-file-sharing

Do they not teach critical thinking at UMass anymore?

Critical thinking tells me to put our grudges against the RIAA aside. It all boils down to.. is the music industry finally giving us what we want? Yes, or pretty damn close at least. DRM free, freedom to share on our terms, freedom to listen on our terms while artists and copyright holders get paid fairly. Once you get past "teh music industry is ebil!" part, you will realize this is a pretty good deal.

I am only asking because I'd really like to know what motivates you trying to comply with the RIAA extortion.

Asking to be compensated for their copyrighted work is not extortion. If you do not like copyright law, complain to the law makers -- not the RIAA.

"This is just what the EFF wanted"

You have several posts in this thread repeating the claim that the EFF support this scheme. As others have pointed out the EFF do not support a MANDATORY music tax.

Since they have already broken your good faith by lying to you, do you still "really believe Warner is trying to do good with this system"? Or is lying too strong a word? Perhaps on your next con-call you could leave the rose coloured glasses at home, ask if they are aware that they are "unintentionally" misrepresenting the EFF's stance, sit back and gauge their reaction?

"Please, let us give them a chance to do something right."

They have, and have always had, the option to "do something right". Their legal assult on students is failing, please do not bypass the slow wheels of justice by GIVING them the option to institutionalise "doing something wrong"....And if your not "giving" them anything then what is in this deal for the students and UoM, other than 'protection'?

BTW: I notice you claim to work "at" the UoM. Just for the record - who do you work FOR when working AT the UoM?

Sort of.

There was a white paper put out suggesting a superficially similar scheme. Unsurprisingly, the key word the RIAA have missed from the EFF proposal is "voluntary", which makes their claim that their tax is EFF supported highly misleading.

The EFF have published a clarification titled Collective Licensing Good, ISP Tax Bad in case anyone is still uncertain.