Slashdot Mirror

The primary goal of copyright law is to incentivize artists to release their work for the public good.

Any extent to which this translates into making artists rich is purely a secondary effect of the law.

And nowhere does copyright law say its intent is to prevent illegal distribution - on the contrary, it's goal is to *encourage* distribution. The idea that copyright is primarily an inhibitor is something that has been pounded into the public conscious by our friends at the RIAA and MPAA.

No doubt many of you will find this surprising and inplausible. May I direct you to:

Sony vs. Universal:

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution provides:

"The Congress shall have Power . . . To Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

[p.429] The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.

"The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress, 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius." United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948).

Bad form to reply to my own post, but according to the EFF, the FCC isn't regulating broadcast flag for cable/satellite applications, but evidently the MPAA has convinced the cable industry to roll over on its own. I suppose that wouldn't necessarily stop a "rogue" manufacturer from releasing a nonconforming product which accepts cable cards and does the QAM decryption but which doesn't force restrictions based on a broadcast flag.

I'm sure they'd love to be able to do that and keep these dumb lawsuits from appearing.

On a panel a few weeks ago, I asked the head lawyer for Apple's iTunes Music Store whether Apple would, if it could, drop the FairPlay DRM from tracks purchased at the Music Store. He said "no." I was puzzled, because I assumed that the DRM obligation was imposed by the major labels on a grudging Apple.

On a panel a few weeks ago, I asked the head lawyer for Apple's iTunes Music Store whether Apple would, if it could, drop the FairPlay DRM from tracks purchased at the Music Store. He said "no." I was puzzled, because I assumed that the DRM obligation was imposed by the major labels on a grudging Apple.

The reality is that Apple has placed copy protection on the songs sold through the iTMS as the mandate of the record industry just as Napster and Microsoft has with their music formats.

On a panel a few weeks ago, I asked the head lawyer for Apple's iTunes Music Store whether Apple would, if it could, drop the FairPlay DRM from tracks purchased at the Music Store. He said "no." I was puzzled, because I assumed that the DRM obligation was imposed by the major labels on a grudging Apple.

probably the same number of idiots that dont use Tor for such purposes

This is what happens when you fight instead of caving into a bully. Mattel tries the same sort of thing, and they have been made to pay over $1M. The RIAA tried that with Professor Felton, they caved, and their defense to the declaratory judgment is that 'we didn't mean it, when we threatended'.

"Right up there with "Most Ethical Lawyer."

That would be these ones

I thought the crime was the 'uploading' of music, rather than 'downloading' of it? That seems to be who the RIAA are going after in the courts.

hosting .torrent files is in no way illegal and therefor neither is lokitorrent

• Direct Infringement: There has been a direct infringement by someone. Clearly, there are many people using lokitorrent to make unauthorized copies of lots of things, so this is a CHECK.
  
• Knowledge: The accused contributory infringer knew of the underlying direct infringement. This element can be satisfied by showing either that the contributory infringer actually knew about the infringing activity, or that he reasonably should have known given all the facts and circumstances. At a minimum, however, the contributory infringer must have some specific information about infringing activity--the mere fact that the system is capable of being used for infringement, by itself, is not enough. Lowkee cannot possibly argue that he is unaware that people are using his tracker to commit unauthorized infringement. Let's look at the top 5 torrents, generated by his own page: Half Life 2 PC WwW DivX-Es CoM, The Grudge kvcd, White Chicks, Blade 3, Exorcist The Beginning TS Xvid (POT)-DreamCD. These are all direct infringements. CHECK.
  
• Material Contribution: The accused contributory infringer induced, caused, or materially contributed to the underlying direct infringement. Merely providing the "site and facilities" that make the direct infringement possible can be enough. He is most definitely providing the site and facilities, as that's how bittorrent trackers work. CHECK
  

Video games makers figured out long ago that it was not worth all the elaborate anti-piracy mechanisms- they just factored in expected piracy by individuals into the price of their goods. Obviously, they're still gonna go after the egregious cases...

At any rate, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to copyright.

I've seen /.'ers suggesting freenet as possible {il,}legal content distribution method. I'd like to disagree with this methodology.

There is already a working way to have anonymous BitTorrent - using Onion Routing protocol. It's great for privacy concerned netizens and if more people set up Tor Servers, Tor would gain critical mass needed to support both tracker AND data connections for BT.

Most of torrent clients supports Tor out-of-the-box, as tor is nothing but socks proxy for your programs. Torifying various applications is really a snap and there is a detailed guide on how to make Azureus BT client work flawlessly with Tor (see section 2.2 Totally Anonymous BitTorrent).

Currently, the only concern for the Tor authors is the fact, that the Tor network may not be able to handle the amounts of traffic, bittorent is able to generate.
However, if each one of you would set up a server with couple of kbps spare bandwidth, the tor network would immediately start scaling up.

Since BT relies on multiple (slow) transmissions occuring at the same time to create the "torrent effect", even if all the transmissions pick different routes trough tor network (taking slight performance hit), the overall performance of BT would remain unchanged.

There is also a very important aspect of tor. It allows you to create hidden services. Basically they are accesible via bogus URLs (like LKbalkbsflKflasbd.onion). The anonymity of the server is assured. More about hidden services at this address.

So, before you let the *oids start reinventing the wheel (and charge an arm and a leg for it), do your bloody homework and use what's already there :)

PS. tor is free software.

I've seen /.'ers suggesting freenet as possible {il,}legal content distribution method. I'd like to disagree with this methodology.

There is already a working way to have anonymous BitTorrent - using Onion Routing protocol. It's great for privacy concerned netizens and if more people set up Tor Servers, Tor would gain critical mass needed to support both tracker AND data connections for BT.

Most of torrent clients supports Tor out-of-the-box, as tor is nothing but socks proxy for your programs. Torifying various applications is really a snap and there is a detailed guide on how to make Azureus BT client work flawlessly with Tor (see section 2.2 Totally Anonymous BitTorrent).

Currently, the only concern for the Tor authors is the fact, that the Tor network may not be able to handle the amounts of traffic, bittorent is able to generate.
However, if each one of you would set up a server with couple of kbps spare bandwidth, the tor network would immediately start scaling up.

Since BT relies on multiple (slow) transmissions occuring at the same time to create the "torrent effect", even if all the transmissions pick different routes trough tor network (taking slight performance hit), the overall performance of BT would remain unchanged.

There is also a very important aspect of tor. It allows you to create hidden services. Basically they are accesible via bogus URLs (like LKbalkbsflKflasbd.onion). The anonymity of the server is assured. More about hidden services at this address.

So, before you let the *oids start reinventing the wheel (and charge an arm and a leg for it), do your bloody homework and use what's already there :)

PS. tor is free software.

Under the "nitpicking" department:

As someone who has been slashdotted a half-dozen times over the past few years (and enjoyed every one of them!), the number is not "one million". Pretty much every one of my stories or stories linking to me generated hits from roughly 7,000-12,000 sites depending on a given day and when it was on the page, and so on.

So going by your silly "we get to bill you for not doing things to our liking" economic model, the story submitter would only have to give $1,200 to the EFF, which I am sure they would appreciate very much.

But really, where does it end when people mistreat your user experience? Is it a quarter for every unshrunk thumbnail, a nickel for bad spelling or grammar, or a dollar for a mis-stated facts? All I know is, the EFF will be friggin' loaded after a few months of this new internet payment regime.

It is legal to purchase equipment that ignores the Broadcast Flag until 1 July 2005, after which point ALL such equipment may still be used and even resold. Now, yes, NEW equipment sold after that date to consumers must respect the Broadcast Flag...but what constitutes "consumer" equipment? Price? Usability? Purpose? Function? That is another question...but the point is, Broadcast Flag-free equipment can be purchased now, legally, and will remain legal indefinitely.

http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/

We have until July 1, 2005, to buy, build, and sell fully-capable, non-flag-compliant HDTV receivers. Any receivers built now will "remain functional under a flag regime, allowing consumers to continue their use without the need for new or additional equipment." Any devices made this year can be re-sold in the future.

It is legal to purchase equipment that ignores the Broadcast Flag until 1 July 2005, after which point ALL such equipment may still be used and even resold. Now, yes, NEW equipment sold after that date to consumers must respect the Broadcast Flag...but what constitutes "consumer" equipment? Price? Usability? Purpose? Function? That is another question...but the point is, Broadcast Flag-free equipment can be purchased now, legally, and will remain legal indefinitely.

http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/

We have until July 1, 2005, to buy, build, and sell fully-capable, non-flag-compliant HDTV receivers. Any receivers built now will "remain functional under a flag regime, allowing consumers to continue their use without the need for new or additional equipment." Any devices made this year can be re-sold in the future.

Those with legitimate needs

Legitimate in whose opinion? Yours? My "need" for a general-coverage receiver was "legitimate" enough before 1987, but evidently not after that.

"What, in your obviously-informed opinion, is going to stop a similar consortium of HDTV broadcasters from buying legislation to outlaw unprotected high-bandwidth conversion hardware?"

Encryption technology, and dual use of high-speed conversion technology.

Yeah, because licensed commercial encryption keys never leak to the public, resulting in all kinds of crazy court rulings that prevent me from even being able to link to an example without legal consequences.

Yeah, I guess I'm just paranoid. You're right. Carry on! </adjust_tinfoil>

you could use this hardware to pull in terrestrial HDTV.

You could, but you would be better off using the pcHDTV HD-3000 card which is designed to work well with terrestial, aka Over The Air (OTA), HDTV, "legacy" NTSC, and can legally ignore the FCC Broadcast Flag until June 2005.

To clarify, GNU Radio is a Free Software software defined radio implementation, and the USRP (Universal Software Radio Peripheral) is the semi-official reference hardware platform designed by Matt Ettus. The USRP is real-life useless without additional modules for basicRX (receiver) and/or basicTX (transmitter). Depending on the usage, you might require a up/down converter aka a transverter.

There are others working on similar hardware (e.g. SSRP for a bit simpler and lower cost, or the amateur radio oriented Flex-Radio) as well, and I expect that the USRP hardware will be copied, cloned, and improved upon in a short time.

The question, though, is how you define ISP (or "Service Provider," which is the phrase used in much of this legislation). I'm very interested in the question of whether free hotspots, intentionally open or even unknowingly open home or work networks do and/or should enjoy the statutory protections of commercial service providers. It's something I'm working on now, and I hope to have conclusions shortly. Meanwhile, you may want to check out what EFF says about online service provider best practices. {Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor, Touro Institute for Business, Law and Technology}

Actually, the Supreme Court may well rule against this, and I hope they do. The Court has ruled, over and over again, that "prior restraint" (being prevented from saying something before even saying it) is generally not acceptable, except in the most extreme cases.

Excerpted from the decision cited above:

"Although the Sixth Circuit in Procter & Gamble has held that a defendant's improper conduct in obtaining confidential information does not justify a prior restraint, the legal system may yet provide redress through criminal prosecution, if such is found to be warranted by the underlying facts."

What does this say? Even though the speech above may be CRIMINAL in nature (extortionist, read the page to find more detail), and even though it overwhelmingly appears that the information he is publishing are trade secrets which Ford can successfully sue him for, he CANNOT be prohibited from publishing them by injunction.

Of course, this does not mean that he may not be sued and/or prosecuted if and when he DOES, if what he is publishing violates the law. But the Court's precedents are clear: Prior restraint is unconstitutional except in the most extreme cases, e.g. someone is about to publish a planned movement of troops in the paper or on a website. This case, as with the Lane case, only establishes that monetary/commercial losses may result. The Court has ruled very clearly that this is not even a valid reason for a court or Congress to issue prior restraint. Do we wish to give a corporation powers that we would not even grant to our judges and legislators?

The **AA's should have the same standard as anyone else. If you feel that some published speech "damages" you, you have two options. The first option, and probably the best, especially if you feel that they might've accidentally violated the law, is to send a cease-and-desist letter to the PERSON running the website. As to the "But the ISP's won't give us the identity of their customers to send letters to!" I say "GOOD!" That doesn't mean you can't contact them. Most websites have an email link to the site admin, and if not, I would think it acceptable to put a provision in the law that ISP's must forward legal correspondence regarding a website they host to that site's owner. This policy would have two positive effects: The copyright holders would be served by being immediately able to contact suspected infringers, and the consumer would benefit from greater anonymity and the taking of excessive power from the **AA's.

Of course, the second option is to take the webmaster directly to court. If the court finds the site to be infringing, they will issue an injunction ordering the webmaster to take down all infringing material, as well as possibly awarding damages. However, this should not happen until AFTER a trial has been held, or a settlement reached.

The rights of users to send and receive email must not be compromised for quick and dirty ways to limit unsolicited bulk email.

I read their position on spam, and it seems very sensible to me. They're basically saying that false positives are bad.

I'd like to read a counter-analysis, if you can provide one.

The fact that sites are being shutdown is nothing major. The system that the **AA is using is antiquated. They're dead, but they don't know it. Donate to the EFF
and Down Hill Battle
Let the **AA know how outdated they are.

I guess this would also be a good time to remind people that the US also managed to shut down 22 IndyMedia sites, administered by groups around the world and physically located in the UK. More from the EFF here.

While the current network doesn't seem to be going out of it's way to attract the usual p2p (read copyright avoiding) crowd it would seem to be pretty easy to use this for bittorrent distribution.

Setting up a "Hidden service" ( see: http://tor.eff.org/cvs/tor/doc/tor-doc.html#hidden -service ) as a website listing torrents and (assuming bittorent itself is easy to get working with this) even running connections to trackers over it seems to be straightforward.

The amount of bandwidth consumed by trackers is fairly small and should easily be able to be handled by the system.

As a bogus using the current backbone will both provide more servers for existing traffic to use and also insure the network as a whole isn't just a file trading network.

This was cool, but now it's getting slooow. They need to add a simpler way to become a server (or force you to become one, like with Bittorrent), so that the network doesn't get crunched by too many clients. Right now the server doesn't work through NAT without some fancy footwork. This seems like perfect candidate code for eXeem (or whatever those Suprnova guys were working on was called).

I'm not sure about the EFF, they obviously do some good work but I feel some of what they do is misguided.

Look the documentation

2. Decide what exit policy you want. By default your server allows access to many popular services, but we restrict some (such as port 25) due to abuse potential. You might want an exit policy that is either less restrictive or more restrictive; edit your torrc appropriately. If you choose a particularly open exit policy, you might want to make sure your upstream or ISP is ok with that choice.

6.1. Can exit nodes eavesdrop on communications? Isn't that bad? Yes, the guy running the exit node can read the bytes that come out there. Our first answer is "then use end-to-end encryption such as SSL", which is great but not always practical. (The corollary to this answer is that if you are worried about somebody intercepting your traffic and you're *not* using end-to-end encryption at the application layer, then something has already gone wrong and you shouldn't be thinking that Tor is the problem.) Our second answer is that in a future release, we plan to have Tor clients recognize when the destination is co-located with a Tor server, and exit from that Tor server. So for example, people using Tor to get to the EFF website would automatically exit from the EFF Tor server (assuming it's nearby in network geography), thus getting *better* encryption and authentication properties than just browsing there the normal way. But this has a variety of technical problems we need to overcome first (the main one being "how does the Tor client learn which servers are associated with which websites in a decentralized yet non-gamable way?"). Stay tuned.

(Computer geeks take heed... play this story for a girl you fancy and see if it softens her heart.)

Heart? Soften? I guess you're right... Date a geek and you too may die of heart arrythmia.

Based in part on our restrictive default exit policy (we reject SMTP requests) and our low profile, we have had no abuse issues since the network was deployed in October 2003. Our slow growth rate gives us time to add features, resolve bugs, and get a feel for what users actually want from an anonymity system. Even though having more users would bolster our anonymity sets, we are not eager to attract the Kazaa or warez communities-we feel that we must build a reputation for privacy, human rights, research, and other socially laudable activities.

Well, so much for that. *badaboom*

The EFF is a light in a dark wilderness. How amazing that a group of people so talented, experienced, and dedicated to digital liberty can come together and accomplish so much. Episode #74 of This American Life features EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow's touching account of a romance that blossomed between him and a wonderful woman he met at a convention. (Computer geeks take heed... play this story for a girl you fancy and see if it softens her heart.)

Asking people to stop buying DRMed media is just not realistic. Unless "we" spend millions of dollars on education campaigns explaining to "ordinary" people that DRM is bad, the majority would still buy the copy-restricted content. So let's just drop that idea altogether.

But we can (and I believe will) win. There are two ways - one is to cleverly win legal battles. It's hard, but at least it is possible. Support the EFF, help them support the file-sharers, the P2P companies, etc. This is not all that expensive and you can help. The second way is to ensure that there is always an alternative distribution mechanism - the piracy scene and the P2P. Use P2P for all your media needs, share files, upload, support the development of clients, support link sites (even though they tend to be raided by police after buying shiny new servers), support piracy groups (you can donate good hardware, cash or high-bandwidth sites). An average person can easily "consume" 500-1000$ worth of music and movies each year. Consider giving at least 10% of that to support the "alternative distribution". You can always get this money back by getting something for free from P2P. Don't be stingy, donate and help. Our future free access to art and other media depends on it.

Jack, Is that you?

"Fair use," in and of itself, is nowhere clearly defined in the copyright law

I can assure you that several of the examples you cite are most certainly not Fair Use

Sorry, you're wrong.

"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Sounds pretty clear to me. Here are some more thoughts from the EFF.

How many court cases have there been to seek damages from someone who didn't uphold the EULA?

Forgot about this one?

Yeah, it's under appeal, but the bnetd guys lost big on this one, because the EULA was violated in the creation of a competing product. The lower court ruled that the EULA was absolutely enforceable, and that the bnetd guys were absolutely bound by it.

Ahh yes, because we all know that big companies only file valid lawsuits.

• Americans United for the separation of church and state
• ACLU
• EFF Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility

• The ACLU Foundation is the arm of the American Civil Liberties Union that conducts its litigation and communication efforts. ACLU Foundation is tax-deductible, but the ACLU is NOT tax-deductible.
  
  
• The American Red Cross offers domestic disaster relief; community services that help the needy; support and comfort for military members and their families; the collection, processing and distribution of lifesaving blood and blood products; educational programs that promote health and safety; and international relief and development programs.
  
  
• The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) provides effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals through national programs in humane education, public awareness, government advocacy, shelter support, and animal medical services and placement.
  
  
• Amnesty International undertakes research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination.
  
  
• The Cato Institute seeks to broaden public policy debate to include the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace.
  
  
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation works to protect fundamental rights regardless of technology; to educate the press, policymakers and the general public about civil liberties issues related to technology; and to act as a defender of those liberties.
  
  
• The Nature Conservancy preserves the plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive through land acquisition and conservation easements.
  
  
• The Rainforest Action Network campaigns for the forests, their inhabitants, and the natural systems that sustain life by transforming the global marketplace through grassroots organizing, education, and non-violent direct action.
  
  
• Trickle Up helps the lowest income people worldwide take the first step up out of poverty, by providing conditional seed capital and business training essential to the launch of a microenterprise.
  

"Your point would have merit, if it weren't completely one-sided and conveniently ignoring vast amounts of the big picture that happen to disagree with your argument."

And you are ignoring the *vast* amounts of people who file share, about 60 million people or more. If you have better numbers, cite them.

"Ignoring the underlying principle of copyright, or just removing the law entirely without thought for the consequences, will damage these people a lot more than it will damage the RIAA/MPAA."

The damage being done is the place is turning into a police state, with laws being pushed for so the government can sue individuals to make sure they pay for information or remain ignorant. The damage of a fully DRM society is more damage than copyright holders could ever hope to do, (if you call the free flow of information damage that is).

"Basically, you are one of those people who think everything should be free, because."

It nice that you seem to know me, however you are incorrect. I'm the type of person who doesn't want a DRM police state only to protect idea monopolists' profit models. In this digital age copying can take place quite quickly, and any aspiring musician or author who is thinking of going into this business only to make money may not succeed.

"You give...You buy...You presumably...You place no value..."

As nice as it is to have the focus on me, but I'd much rather talk about copyright. I'll save the speech about addressing the person, instead of the arguement, as being a logical fallacy.

"his seen his (small, privately owned, good-to-its-staff) employer hurt as a result of gratuitous copyright infringement"

That is unfortunate for you, however what is your solution, to take away everyone's computer away and impose government mandated DRM to protect copyright holders' right to profit? That is not a bargan i'm willing to do, and it is best if you and others learn that in the digital age, information will flow and a tune your profit models accordingly or go out of business.

One other article worth viewing is an article by the EFF.

I have folks that scream at me about receiving spam, and I have other folks that demand (under legal action) that I cease and desist all spam-filtering efforts because I am harming their business by blocking emails that lead potentially lead to revenue. Hell, I even have people that don't want virus scanning performed on their emails!

I run several email servers (free/paid/public/private) and i've come to the conclusion that the best thing to do, whatever the approach, is to use the same philosophy/position as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which essentially boils down to "Do no harm!".

I haven't found in the FAQs or anywhere on the site what that EGS period is

From the FAQ: In this program, individuals may purchase a 50-year global personal i-name What isn't in the FAQ is that you are only reserving the name for 50 years and getting 2 years of free "managment services". After that management fees are around $10 a year.

Now that I have answered your question and justified leeching off of the first high rated post (chuckle) I have an important message:

IT IS A FRONT FOR TRUSTED COMPUTING AND DRM!!
IT IS A FRONT FOR TRUSTED COMPUTING AND DRM!!
IT IS A FRONT FOR TRUSTED COMPUTING AND DRM!!

The organisations involved, OASIS (oasis-open.org), XDI.ORG and the others, they are all TRUSTED COMPUTING groups creating "open standards" for ENFORCING DRIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGAMENT systems.

One of OASIS's primary projects is:
Extensible Rights Markup Language (XrML): 'The Digital Rights Language for Trusted Content and Services'.

XDI.org's FAQ
What does XDI.ORG do ...vision of an accountable, trustworthy layer on the Internet

This "Identity Commons" wants you to sign up and created a "Trusted Identity" (which is conviently tied to the CREDIT CARD you used to register!), and in the future DRM files will be locked to that identity, and software installations will be locked to that identity, and access to websites will be locked to that identity (single sign-on oh joy) and on and on. And they are offering you an opportunity to sign up and reserve your name before the system is fully deployed, gee thanks.

The system will not be fully operational unless you are running Microsoft's Palladium operating system, or if you are running a Palladiumized version of Linux or other operating system. Palladiumized TrustedLinux is already under construction. And these new operating systems will only work on the new TrustedHardware. IBM and HP and others are already shipping PCs with this new Trust chip. Intel has already embedded a version of the Trust chip inside the Intell Prescott, although it is in an inactive form. The expectation is that the Trust chip will soon be standard on all motherboards, and then move into the CPU itself. Intel, AMD, ARM, Transmeta, and the rest, all of the CPU makers are on board.

The Trust chip spys on your hardware and what software you are running and reports it to other people (remote attestation), the Trust chip makes it impossible to read your own files except with the approval and under the restrictions imposed by the software you were given (sealed storage), it prevents you from modifying the software on your own machine (code identity and sealed storage), the Trust chip even DEFEATS THE GPL! Having the source code and being able to modify and compile it is USELESS when that recompiled code DOES NOT WORK. The Trust chip forbids the recompiled code from access to the required encryption keys. The recompiled code will "run", but it will not WORK because it cannot read it's encrypted files and it cannot interoperate.

I know this sounds like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, but IBM is already shipping ThinkCenter, ThinkVantage andNetvista desktops, and Thinkpad laptops with this chip embedded. HP/Compaq are already shipping dc7100 and D530 Desktops and nc6000,nc8000,nw8000, nc4010 notebooks with these chips embedded. Acer Veriton 3600GT/7600GT. Toshiba Tecra M2 Series. Fujitsu Lifebook S7010 and E8000 series and the T4000 Tablet PCs. Samsung all X model laptops. And more every day. As I said, the expectation is that is will soon be standard hardware on ALL motherboards.

EFF on Trusted Computing
GNU.org on Trusted Computing
Wikipedia on Trusted Computing

-

Try the DMCA for one, (b) below...

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_1998102 0_pl105-304.html

"Sec. 1202. Integrity of copyright management information

`(a) FALSE COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION- No person shall knowingly and with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement--

`(1) provide copyright management information that is false, or

`(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information that is false.

`(b) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION- No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law--

`(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information,

`(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or

`(3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law,"

So far as I knew, CALEA does -not- currently apply to broadband providers, this link from the EFF would seem to indicate the same.

It would seem rather pointless to be "objecting" to something which has already happened...

As the article summary notes, this isn't a problem for dual-tuner PVRs.

Most PVRs offered by cable and satellite providers, such as Charter's Motorola BMC9012 offering, are just that. And, adding another tuner (or several tuners) to media PCs, such as those running MythTV or the surprisingly good Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005, is a simple task (for a person so inclined to have a media PC in the first place).

So, yes, it's interesting to see this acknowledged, but the tactic does show up in the guides (e.g., ER starting at 8:59PM CT), and for multi-tuner PVRs it is not at all an issue.

What will be far more interesting to me is the networks' and content providers' handling and usage of the Broadcast Flag (more, more, more), which will probably be utilized to prevent digital and/or HD recording, and thus prevent (easy) skipping of ad content, of some "high value" shows altogether, as well as allowing the placement (force feeding?) of new shows to piggyback on existing "popular" shows.

Interesting that while the invention of the VCR has been recently lauded as releasing people from the prison of having to watch "prime time" TV in prime time, the Broadcast Flag may essentially shoot us back 20 years. And most consumers don't understand or know the rights that have already been granted them enough to know the difference.

(And why don't content providers understand that: 1. this won't stop pirates from pirating TV, and that 2. this only makes it harder on ordinary consumers?)

I require them to make a $25 donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They can use the receipt in email as proof.

That way they don't feel like I'm just trying to make a buck off them, and I feel more inspired to actually do a decent job of solving their problem. Plus it help out a good cause.

Mind you- I don't consider some basic stuff as "above and beyond".. Eg: configuring outlook for someones IMAP server &etc. Cleaning off adware / viruses definitely warrants a donation- and a short lesson in "what not do to on the Internet."

The EFF has said that the legality of ripping audio CDs is unclear. Likely, it would be considered "fair use". In 1971, Congress commented on not restraining noncommercial home recording. The Sony Betamax case found that "time-shifting" copyrighted broadcasts for home viewing was fair use. Making personal copies of music with certain devices is allowed under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. For a digital copy to be legitimate under the AHRA, the recording device must prevent multiple-generation copies via copy protection. Also, manufacturers of digital recording devices and/or of blank recording media must pay royalties to the recording industry. Computer equipment is excluded from the AHRA. In the court case RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. it was ruled that a portable MP3 audio player was outside the scope of the AHRA. This was because the player only recorded music from a computer system. In the case, it is said that use of the player is compatible with the main purpose of the AHRA; the main purpose of the AHRA is "facilitation of personal use."

In any case, non-commercial ripping of legitimately-obtained audio CDs is not likely to hurt anyone.

The EFF has said that the legality of ripping audio CDs is unclear. Likely, it would be considered "fair use". In 1971, Congress commented on not restraining noncommercial home recording. The Sony Betamax case found that "time-shifting" copyrighted broadcasts for home viewing was fair use. Making personal copies of music with certain devices is allowed under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. For a digital copy to be legitimate under the AHRA, the recording device must prevent multiple-generation copies via copy protection. Also, manufacturers of digital recording devices and/or of blank recording media must pay royalties to the recording industry. Computer equipment is excluded from the AHRA. In the court case RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. it was ruled that a portable MP3 audio player was outside the scope of the AHRA. This was because the player only recorded music from a computer system. In the case, it is said that use of the player is compatible with the main purpose of the AHRA; the main purpose of the AHRA is "facilitation of personal use."

In any case, non-commercial ripping of legitimately-obtained audio CDs is not likely to hurt anyone.

With that said, I wouldn't know what rights pertain to recordings of TV shows, but I imagine it's much the same as with movies.

The U.S. Supreme Court's "Betamax" decision http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sony_v_universal_de cision.html that permitted home taping of television programming was much more limited in scope than most people realize. The case revolved around "time-shifting," and the practice was legitimized in part because it simply increased the audience for the program, and thus increased the extent of exposure to commercials. (Other criteria concerned the existence of a variety of non-infringing uses for VCRs, and the fact that some copyright holders, like sports leagues and public broadcasters, saw off-air taping as a positive benefit.)

The decision specifically excluded from consideration the taping of commercial-free programming on pay channels like HBO because that question was not raised in the original cases which were on appeal. AFAIK, however, whether off-air taping of a commercial-free movie from pay might be legitimate has never been decided upon in the U.S. courts.

Of course, none of this bears any relevance to the question of whether the unauthorized redistribution of such recorded content is legal. Regardless of whether your taping a program off-air for your personal, noncommercial viewing constitutes "fair use," redistributing that copy to other people almost certainly constitutes infringement.

Gneo*: That sounds like a really good deal. But...I think I've got a better one. How 'bout I give Microsoft the finger, and I start replacing ALL my crappy installations of Microsoft Windows with GNU and free software, FREE...as in freedom... That way we'll all be free of the evil tyrrany.

Agent Smith^WGates:Hmmm, Mr. Anderson, you disappoint me.

Gneo: You can't scare me with this gestapo crap. I know my rights, I want to use my free software.

Agent Smith^WGates:Tell me, Mr. Anderson. What good is your free software if you can't use a computer without our (evil unpronouncable) NGSCB...Next-Generation Secure Computing Base...?

(If you don't get this, read the Trusted Computing FAQ (incidentally by a guy called Mr. Anderson) and google for trusted (aka trecherous) computing. Also, this study on effects on free software in PDF (also by Mr. Anderson). Also, the FSF's summary.)

[* blend of GNU and Neo. Also note that Gnu sounds like new which is English for `neo'...uhhh...I need a life]

Parts of this post are fair-use copies of The Matrix screenplay and/or parent post.

If you just have to play, donate as much as you spend . That's what we're doing at my house...

Does someone have the balls to call a lawyer and get a class action suit going? I think this is the perfect opportunity to test EULA's legality. Would the Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/ have an interest?