Slashdot Mirror

There is a lot of negative talk about XForms, and plenty of people asking what it is good for. I've been following the spec and would like to share why it is useful.

If you have a web application that presents a form, but the server side needs to represent the data in XML, problems abound. Throw in the potential for repeatable elements and a few conditionals in the XML Schema and your simple little form becomes a major pain to develop. I personally wrote a web front end for authoring MODS records and had to do serious JavaScript/DOM acrobatics. The result was good, but compromises were made along the way.

XForms changes this because the form constrains to an XML Schema and sends a populated XML document to the server. This simplifies matters tremendously. It doesn't obviate the need for some serious work to setup XForms, but given my initial experience testing the spec, it is a great step forward.

It is overkill for a basic form, so I hope there are some provisions in XHTML for backward support.

There are some excerpts from it here, including small versions of the cover and some of the illustrations. Another site which had a copy of the cover (which has a picture of Kerry with an upside-down American flag) claims to have received this letter., insisting that they take the picture down or be sued for a DMCA violation by a photographer who claims to have taken the picture.

The photographer, George Butler, is listed as an editor of "The New Soldier". The Library of Congress entry for George Butler shows only his "muscle pictures". George Butler produced and directed "Pumping Iron", wrote a biography of Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1990, and took the photos for several exercise books.

What part of "well regulated" is so hard to understand?

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

What part of "well regulated" is so hard to understand?

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

One possible ramification of this idea is that journals will be less apt to accept papers related to gov't sponsored research. In some industries this would be impossible; other industries, however, do have a healthy amount of non gov't sponsored research.

So -- will some areas soon have journals less likely to accept gov't funded papers as a result of this proposal? If so, will gov't funding become less desirable?

Perhaps Congress should use it's Library as a "mirror" of gov't funded research journal articles instead of engaging in price control?

AgVulpine writes "Take a visit to Amazon.com and search for Doom3. Mixed in with the search results you'll find an interesting sponsored link. "Doom 3 on BitTorrent -- Download Doom 3 using BitTorrent at Suprnova (aff) -- www.suprnova.com" . It's this kind of crap that will give the US Senate Committee the leverage they need to push through the Induce Act (or ICAA), a bill aimed at shutting down all P2P networks. IICA has been covered here on Slashdot with more information available here."

The separation of church and state is a myth.

No, it's not. Yes, Jefferson was the first one to use the words "wall of separation between Church and State," and one can argue strongly for either side of the debate about whether or not that is what the Founding Fathers intended.

But you know what? The power of judicial review--determining if laws are constitutional or not--isn't in the Constitution either. It was a concept invented by the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, during Jefferson's administration. The how's and why's aren't all that important, but that's how it is. Does that mean judicial review is a "myth?" Seems pretty damn real to me from where I sit. Seems to me we have a handful of controversies raging around that very concept right now (is the pledge constitutional? are bans against gay marriage constitutional? is affirmative action constitutional?). It's an adaptation, but it's certainly not a myth. Likewise the wall of separation. Also, in 1878, the Supreme Court used Jefferson's "wall of separation" in Reynolds v. United States, making it a perfectly apt phrase. In was used again in 1948 in McCollum v. Board of Education where they stated, "in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" [Source, incidentally: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html] Even if they were a "myth" prior to these cases, they became constitutional precedent thereafter.

And incidentally, the comment from the grandparent was about secular GOVERNMENT structures. He didn't say the American people were secular, so pointing to an article about how many people think the world is better off without religion proves very little.

the American beside me pouring his coffee proudly proclaimed, "I say kill 'em all, fucking A-Rabs."

Oh please. Not even commenting on how you consider a handful of people in a hotel representative of the majority of the nation, do you honestly believe statements like that are meant to be taken at their word? He just heard about more American boys dead and he's pissed. But let's even assume he completely meant it, literally, and so did everybody else: More than half of the American people do not support the Iraq war, so do you really beleive even half would support "kill[ing] 'em all?" Do you even believe half of the people who DO support the war would support that sort of genocide? I say "half," of course, because anything under that is entirely unfair to attribute to "the Americans." Maybe that guy's bigoted, but if you believe that of Americans at large, you've got your own bigotries to deal with too.

As to your original point, saying "X is not as bad as Y" does not mean it is condoned. It's a matter of proportion. Petty theft is not as bad as murder, but it doesn't mean I condone either one. It simply means what it says: One is more serious, and one should be dealt with more seriously.

One idiot doesn't make a government. (It takes a lot of idiots for that.) There are fools in every government, and foolish things said by everybody. The bottom line is that whatever that person may have said (Rumsfeld, was it?), there are still court-martials going on. We can argue forever about whether or not they're deserved (ie, whether or not those soldiers are the ones to blame), whether they go high enough, whether the actions were somehow encouraged by somebody in government--but there is still some sort of accountability going on. It's not as though he said "it's not as bad as what went on under Saddam, so we're calling off the investigation."

Besides, the government will be held accountable for its actions shortly. It's called the presidential election, and I guarantee Iraq and Abu Ghraib are things that will factor into the decisions of the voters.

Unfortunately not. Nor does it seem to use MODS XML for record storage (which, incidentally, will be used by OpenOffive.org's bibliographic and the bibliophile project, which hopes to do cross searching across the open source literature databases.

SRW/U hopes to supplant Z39.50. Not only does it use MODS, but it still uses ZeeRex and CQL .

For more nerdy e-refererence stuff, check out darcusblog

Unfortunately not. Nor does it seem to use MODS XML for record storage (which, incidentally, will be used by OpenOffive.org's bibliographic and the bibliophile project, which hopes to do cross searching across the open source literature databases.

SRW/U hopes to supplant Z39.50. Not only does it use MODS, but it still uses ZeeRex and CQL .

For more nerdy e-refererence stuff, check out darcusblog

The next big question is whether or not it's standards based. While it would be surprising if it used Z39.50, it would be a shame if it didn't use SRW and/or CQL.

Especially as NISO is recommending them in their current 'Metasearch Initiative' -- an industry/academic/government cross sector committee with the major players and interested parties for allowing cross searching of bibliographic databases with other sorts of things.

(ObDisc, member of both SRW Editorial Board and Taskgroup 3 of NMSI)

--Azaroth

First, the full Apple statement, since it's not referenced in the summary:

"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and other laws. We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our iPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods."

- Regarding the DMCA: you can't fault Apple for using a law on the books - passed by Congress (unanimously by the Senate), and signed into law by President Clinton - to protect its own business interests. If you don't like the DMCA, or aspects of copyright law in general, work to change the law(s), but don't fault companies or individuals for conducting themselves within the bounds of those laws while they are in force.

- What Apple says regarding breakage is true. Some might argue that any breakage would be intentional; however, you can certainly also agree that otherwise benign changes to the iPod or its firmware may indeed break Real's reverse engineering. Intentional or no, this would still leave customers who have purchased songs via Real out in the cold, which ultimately, to the average customer, reflects poorly on Apple and the iPod (moreso than on Real). Does Apple, or its customers, really want an environment where any changes to the iPod to add functionality or features can break customers' music that they've ostensibly legitimately purchased?

- The word "hackers" was successfully co-opted long, long, long ago ("a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system"), so don't fault Apple's (currently correct and appropriate) use of the word, and save us the tiresome lectures.

That said, yes, Apple could sublicense Fairplay, as they have done with Motorola. But still, it means both parties must agree, and doesn't excuse Real.

Others remember the continued arrogance and mistakes regarding OS licensing long ago. "Apple could potentially become the Microsoft of online music," they say. But this could only potentially happen by cannibalizing iPod sales. The iPod would be akin to the "PC"; the iTunes Music Store would be "Windows". (Remember: Microsoft never made computers). But for Apple, the iTunes Music Store is a break even proposition: its sole purpose from a business perspective is to drive iPod sales and adoption, and, to a lesser extent, adoption of other Apple products. Apple's iPod and hardware margins are to-die-for in the computer industry, while the iTunes Music Store, even after having sold 100 million songs, only recently made a "small profit". Additionally, Apple maintaining control over the whole process from end to end is one of the things that makes the iTunes/iPod experience so friendly and pleasing. This may no longer be true with other manufacturer's products.

I'm not arguing against for or against licensing here, only pointing out that it's more of a difficult situation than people make it out to be. The iTunes Music Store and the iPod, for Apple, are inextricably connected, at least currently. Allowing the iPod to work with other online music stores can be argued to hurt Apple's iTunes/iPod strategy, while allowing the iTunes Music Store to work with other players definitely hurts iPod sales. Sure, you can make all sorts of contrary arguments, but there are valid arguments just as contrary to those. All that said, Apple

Well, you may have lent a hand, but lets face it- you sat on your fat asses for a couple of years then came along and sat in the UK for a couple more while the Ruskies stopped Hitler, THEN you jumped in too claim victory. Thanks a lot.

Not be using a computer

Arguably invented in the UK, plus you've got the whole Windows debacle to answer for.

Not be driving automobiles

Karl Benz you dumbass. Really, its like shooting fish in a barrel.

Never have known the jaw-dropping awesomeness that was Mr. Benjamin Franklin

The guy who flew kites in the rain?

Never have known the concept of working yourself from poverty to riches (in europe there's always some deus ex machina for rags-to-riches stories)

We created the industrial revolution, capitalism and entrepreneurialism whilst you were all eating turkey with the Indians.

Never have known a place where immigrants from anywhere are valued and respected (okay, not so much anymore, but then at least we had it for a brief moment)

So in what year did your country abolish the slave trade? Get rid of apartheid? Because I can tell you now it was long time after everyone else.

Never have been introduced to rock n' roll, blues, jazz, rap or hip-hop.

For once you're right. But I for one wouldn't be too proud about musical styles created by slaves and subjegated underclasses.

Never have allowed women to equal men in common society

See there you go again with that American habit of assuming that because you salute your flag every morning (what's with that - are you scared you'll forget where you live?) that you invented freedom. Read up on women's sufferage before you make statements like that -although I'll give you a clue. It was 1920 before women could generally vote in the USA - not exactly radical.

Never have allowed the poor to sue the rich

Riiight. The trouble with America is you just can't get that 'new country' chip off your shoulders.

How he has interpreted the feelings of the show's creators/actors does not matter; their feelings and opinions count for nothing if they don't hold the copyrights to the show (which they clearly do not).

Perhaps the FBI did step over the line here, but from reading the Patriot Act (which you can find here) one can see that the FBI is simply using the tools they've been given to bust the bad guys (the ranks of which this gentleman belongs to). If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

No. At least not according to isbn.nu or amazon but strangely enough, ISFDB does show Pournelle as an author. Well, lets check a more authoritative source... Library of Congress and you are definitely correct, Pournelle is also listed. Thanks for the info!

Text of H.R.3162

> What the world wants is a free reference implementation that works and which other
> implemetations if they need to exist at all, can be compared to.

Yes. But to have a reference implementation, you need to have the standard of which it's a reference.
SRW (http://www.loc.gov/srw) has 3 different reference implementations, in Java, C and Python and all OSS. But without the SRW standard, could you tell what was going on? I doubt it.

--Azaroth

He has even gone so far as to introduce a bill (S.J.Res.15) calling to amend the constitution to allow persons who have been American citizens for over 20 years to run for president.

This action is tantamount to treason as the frames of the constitution knew full well that if people born outside this country were allowed to become president that foreign influences could be effected upon the president.

Not only has he sought several times to enact a n anti-flag-burning amendment, which is the biggest fucking slap in the face to all that have died defending this country, he has sought to champion limits to malpractice charges in and outside of the medical profession.

This lowlife scumbag should be taken out, tried , convicted and executed as the treasonous son-of-a-bitch that he is.

Fuck him!

I can tell you that I most certainly will NOT be reelecting Debbie Stabenow this comming election, who is co-sponsoring INDUCE. Take a look at the list of INDUCE's Co-sponsors to see if there's anyone you're going to help vote out this fall in YOUR state.

Hatch introduces these radical bills all the time. This one is Pre-committee [loc.gov]. Nothing to see here folks, move along. Eventually the computer industry will step in and say this is crazy.

Here's the way a bill is normally passed. This one is about at step 2 1/2.
1. A senator and a member of the house get togather and write a bill.
2. They drop it in their respective drop boxes, and GPO prints it up.
3. The rules committee send it to committees for review.
4. Subcommitees tell their committees whether they want a hearing on it.
5. Hearings are held, and each bill is modified.
6. Assuming the bill doesn't die in Committee, and most of them do, it goes to the rules committee for the Senate and the House. A lot of them die this way, too.
7. The rules committee schedules a vote. If they don't, time passes, Congress adjourns, bill dies.
8. Both the House and Senate vote. If one doesn't support the bill, bill dies. These are timed votes, and if you can't get a majority within about 15 minutes (usually) that's it.
9. Assuming all of the above has occured, you get a conference committee of Representitives and Senators who will hammer out a comprimise between the House and Senate versions. If they can't agree, it dies.
10. Then the President can sign or veto. If he vetos, or refuses to act in 10 days (Pocket Veto), the bill dies UNLESS 2/3 of the House and Senate vote to override it. This rarely (in less than 1/10th of vetoes) occurs. If they don't, the bill dies.

All of this has to occur in about 5 1/2 months. I don't think this one will get the fasttrack, and I certainly don't think the House will ever pass it.

I personally believe it is far more likely and logical that this is a point for Creationism. After all look at the God that designed the monkey with the ability to adapt in such a manner to this illness. Evolution could only be given a point if this trait was passed down to offspring in such a manner that it improved their survivability and ability to breed themselves. Plague responsiveness on a small subset would typically lead to inbreeding if it was a genetic trait and we have all seen what happens when you inbreed monkeys

edit :: my mistake I meant to add a closing quote on the first link so as to say Orrin Hatch and his croneys AND Kerry / Edwards were inbred monkeys I could have sworn I was clicking on the preview button .. oh well editing ones own posts sure would be nice ....

Hatch introduces these radical bills all the time. This one is Pre- committee. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

You realize both those bills don't have a single Republican sponsor and will never get out of committee, right? Check for yourself. Both bills have sat in committee since January/Feruary of 2003; they're not going anywhere.

'INVENTING INVENTED THE INTERNET! No one said Boo about Gore's remark. Then,
the RNC spin-points arrived:'
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml

The Web is not the Internet,
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2002/ Web_vs_Internet.asp

'Al Gore and the Internet', By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
http://www.spectacle.org/1100/gore.html

Here's text of some of Gore's legislation...
'High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 '
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:s.002 72:

'Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992'
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:s.029 37:

For example, Gore's '91 Act funded Marc Andreesen's group... they developed the NCSA Mosaic browser.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/andreesen.html
http://www.totic.org/nscp/demodoc/demo.html

'INVENTING INVENTED THE INTERNET! No one said Boo about Gore's remark. Then,
the RNC spin-points arrived:'
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml

The Web is not the Internet,
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2002/ Web_vs_Internet.asp

'Al Gore and the Internet', By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
http://www.spectacle.org/1100/gore.html

Here's text of some of Gore's legislation...
'High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 '
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:s.002 72:

'Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992'
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:s.029 37:

For example, Gore's '91 Act funded Marc Andreesen's group... they developed the NCSA Mosaic browser.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/andreesen.html
http://www.totic.org/nscp/demodoc/demo.html

Your local library. Unless you're really in the middle of nowhere and your library has no budget at all, go to the library. Heck, you might not even have to go to the library, many libraries now do chat reference, ask-a-librarian, and all libraries have a phone.

There's more, MUCH more, to doing research than using google. Paid databases have it all over google for finding current and historical news information.

If you can't find something local, try the Library Of Congress, they do online chat reference.

A friend of mine had her car stolen not too long ago, and she had thankfully made MP3s out of her entire CD collection that had been left in her car. (Yeah, she should have had copies, but she's wiser to that now.) Without being able to make those backups, she'd have to spend several hundred dollars re-buying the use rights for music she'd already bought.

Thank goodness the INDUCE Act is floundering, and HR 107 got introduced.

In terms of the libraries, I would modify my original example. Instead of local public libraries, please consider the Library of Congress, which is a federally-managed library.

There having been no objection to your request to revise and extend your remarks.... :-p

Any child may walk into the Library of Congress and examine a copy of Playboy.

Never actually been to the LoC, so I didn't know this. Thanks for the info!

Perhaps this is what R. Dreyfuss hopes will happen.

Oh, I'm sure it is. It isn't a fast process, though (and I'll bet Dreyfuss knows this, so I'm not revealing anything earth-shattering). The courts, esp. the Supreme Court, are real resistant to change in this regard. (And I think this is a good thing. They are VERY aware of the repercussions that their decisions have and try to make sure that they don't make a ruling that might be regretted later. Even so, they sometimes end up doing just that.)

sent to "internal" exile (a la freezing starvation Soviet Gulag or Chinese Communist Laogai )

tortured a la Saddam's Iraq vice "abused"

deprived of their civil rights a la Manzanar

sent to "internal" exile (a la freezing starvation Soviet Gulag or Chinese Communist Laogai )

tortured a la Saddam's Iraq vice "abused"

deprived of their civil rights a la Manzanar

NEGATIVE NATIONALISM
(i) ANGLOPHOBIA. Within the
[pseudo?]intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain
[United States?] is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in
many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the
[pseudo?]intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the
Axis [Islamo-fascist?] powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly
pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and
there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein
[Iraq? Afghanistan?], or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of
Britain. English [Liberal Western Democracy?] left-wing
[pseudo?]intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese
[Islamo-fascist groups/countries?] to win the war, but many of them could not
help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and
wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia [UN?
'world-community'], or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics
many [pseudo?]intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by
Britain [United States?] must be in the wrong. As a result, [pseudo?]
'enlightened' opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy.
Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle,
the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.

sent to "internal" exile (a la freezing starvation Soviet Gulag or Chinese Communist Laogai )

tortured a la Saddam's Iraq vice "abused"

deprived of their civil rights a la Manzanar

Okay, I found it!

The bill was sponsored by Rep Bernard Sanders, Bernard [VT] and I see no reference to a Rep Otter.

Ammendment information is here

Vote results are here

Maybe someone can tell me what I'm missing here...

From the article:

[the "effort"] lost by 210-210
...
Rep. C.L. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, a sponsor of the defeated provision
...
The bill is H.R. 4754

Well, I looked up HR4754

From that page:
H.R.4754
Title: Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] (introduced 7/1/2004) Cosponsors (None)
...
Latest Major Action: 7/8/2004 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 397 - 18 (Roll no. 346).
...
7/8/2004 1:47pm:
H.AMDT.654 Amendment (A023) offered by Mr. Otter. (consideration: CR H5358-5360; text: CR H5358-5359)
An amendment numbered 4 printed in the Congressional Record to limit "sneak and peek" search warrants by narrowing the circumstances under which notice of the execution of the warrant is delayed to circumstances where the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the warrant "will endanger the life or physical safety of an individual, result in flight from prosecution, or result in the destruction fo or tampering with the evidence sought under the warrant.".
7/8/2004 1:54pm:
H.AMDT.654 By unanimous consent, the Otter amendment was withdrawn.

No other occurances of "Otter" occur on that page. This ammendement does look related to the Patiot act, but it does not relate to monitoring reading habbits and it was withdrawn by unanimous consent 7 minutes after being proposed. No ammendments (accepted or rejected) to the bill had cosponsors.

I'm not an expert. Can someone explain this to me? All I was really trying to do is figure out who voted for and against it and I couldn't even find evidence of the vote at all.

Hold your congresmen accountable.
Roll Call Results
Bill Text

The actual text of this bill really isn't that long. For the link impared, this is the formal text of the bill:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. INTENTIONAL INDUCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(g)(1) In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.

(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer.

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.

*******************

With all the knee jerk anti-Republican anti-anything sentiment on /., I am really surprised that nobody actually posted the contents of the bill itself.

The problem with this bill is that it is overly broad and can mean quite a bit to many people, and is so broad that it actually forces judges into interpreting this in whatever manner they really want to. This is especially surprising when Mr. Hatch's own website is railing on the fact that judges are ruling in areas he feels should be regulated by congress. A clue to Senator Hatch: If you don't want judges making arbitrary rulings, don't give them bills like this that allow this sort of broad judgement that makes them to have to create new laws for every arbitrary and silly concept that comes up.

Frankly, this is a poorly written bill, and should be killed for that reason alone.

What, from my reading of the above text can tell, this allows any system that allows bits to be copied in any manner, including chip manufacturers that incorporate the "MOV" opcode in their CPUs, to be potential targets of this legislation. By creating the "MOV" opcode in their CPU designs, they are intentionally creating a device that "intentionally aids, abets, induces, and procures and creates acts a reasonable person would find to induce copyright infringement". We are not talking P2P networks, but going much lower than that here.

Computers are information storage and retrevial devices. They work because they copy data and information all over the place. You can litterally sneeze, press the wrong key, and send a "copy" of any data that is on your computer to anybody in the world that is connected to your PC.

How this would more than likely be read by judges is that stuff like DeCSS would be illegal, because its purpose is to defeat copyright protection. I even think that was the intention of Sen. Hatch in this case. That is also why P2P networks of most sorts would also be declared illegal, although that is starting to get into more grey areas.

Where I wish that legslation would have gone, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is to go after hardcore(??) software pirates. I.E. people who make it their livelyhood to produce copies of copyrighted works without payment to the original authors/companies that make the copyrighted material. I could name many cases that I know of personally where for-profit companies, in some cases even with a business license and chartered corporations, in the USA (not some far-off country that has more liberal copyright laws), have copied computer software with impunity and only bought a single copy when they've sold hundreds of copies out of their store or business.

The key is the act of copyright

I'm surprised nobody replied about Rick Boucher's bill, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act. It requires producers to clearly label their products as incorporating copy protection devices.

'intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.

Assuming that copyrights are first reduced to "limited times" as spelled out by the Constitution, an inducement law might be appropriate -- to prosecute (rather than reward with millions of dollars) people like Shawn Fanning of Napster who actively solicit infringement of specific copyrighted titles. But this bill is not that because it is overly broad.

Of course, Bush is planning the Second Korean War as we speak as his "October Surprise", so all this may become irrelevant - except to prove Moore was right.

Of course, Bush is planning the Second Korean War as we speak as his "October Surprise", so all this may become irrelevant - except to prove Moore was right.

SEC. 1404. LICENSING REQUIREMENT FOR EXPORT OF MILITARILY CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES.

(a) LICENSING REQUIREMENT- The President shall require a license under the Export Administration Regulations of the Department of Commerce (15 C.F.R. part 730 et seq.) or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 C.F.R. part 120 et seq.), as the case may be, for the export of goods or technologies included on the Militarily Critical Technologies List.

(b) DEFINITION- In this section, the term `Militarily Critical Technologies List' means the list required to be developed by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 5(d)(2) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404(d)(2)), as such list was effect on January 20, 2004, and includes any goods or technologies that have been added to the list after that date.

S.2145 In comitte, hearings held. S.2131 Status: Referred to Senate committe. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committe on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. H.R.4255 The Computer Software Privacy and Control Act. Status: Referred to the Subcommitte on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. S.563 The Computer Owner's Bill of Rights These bills, if passed, would make such programs illegal. YAY!

S.2145 In comitte, hearings held. S.2131 Status: Referred to Senate committe. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committe on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. H.R.4255 The Computer Software Privacy and Control Act. Status: Referred to the Subcommitte on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. S.563 The Computer Owner's Bill of Rights These bills, if passed, would make such programs illegal. YAY!

S.2145 In comitte, hearings held. S.2131 Status: Referred to Senate committe. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committe on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. H.R.4255 The Computer Software Privacy and Control Act. Status: Referred to the Subcommitte on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. S.563 The Computer Owner's Bill of Rights These bills, if passed, would make such programs illegal. YAY!

S.2145 In comitte, hearings held. S.2131 Status: Referred to Senate committe. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committe on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. H.R.4255 The Computer Software Privacy and Control Act. Status: Referred to the Subcommitte on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. S.563 The Computer Owner's Bill of Rights These bills, if passed, would make such programs illegal. YAY!

For those who want to write to their Representatives to ask them to vote against the bill, the bill passed by the Senate is S.1932, the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004 (or ART Act for short). It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

Yes, the PIRATE Act has passed Senate "by Unanimous Consent". From here is has to go to the house, so it is not law yet.

SHORT TITLE(S) AS REPORTED TO SENATE:
Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004

6/25/2004:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN022 37:@@@L&summ2=m&

The accompanying bill called...

SHORT TITLE(S) AS REPORTED TO SENATE:
Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004 ... the camcorder bill which is what this /. story is referring to also passed Senate:

6/25/2004:
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN019 32:@@@L&summ2=m&

Yes, the PIRATE Act has passed Senate "by Unanimous Consent". From here is has to go to the house, so it is not law yet.

SHORT TITLE(S) AS REPORTED TO SENATE:
Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004

6/25/2004:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN022 37:@@@L&summ2=m&

The accompanying bill called...

SHORT TITLE(S) AS REPORTED TO SENATE:
Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004 ... the camcorder bill which is what this /. story is referring to also passed Senate:

6/25/2004:
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN019 32:@@@L&summ2=m&

(b) FAIR USE RESTORATION- Section 1201(c) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the end the following: `and it is not a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with access to, or the use of, a work if such circumvention does not result in an infringement of the copyright in the work'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(5) It shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute, or make noninfringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work.'.

According to the link above for H.R. 2929, it "Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit the transmission of a spyware program to a covered computer (one used by a financial institution or the Federal Government)"

Unless the Federal Government is "using" my computer to track what I'm doing, it looks like my system isn't covered.

Full body of the bill in question (H.R. 2929), researched here:

HR 2929 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 2929 To protect users of the Internet from unknowing transmission of their personally identifiable information through spyware programs, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 25, 2003
Mrs. BONO (for herself and Mr. TOWNS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL
To protect users of the Internet from unknowing transmission of their personally identifiable information through spyware programs, and for other purposes.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `Safeguard Against Privacy Invasions Act'.

SEC. 2. FTC AUTHORITY TO REGULATE TRANSMISSION OF SPYWARE PROGRAMS.

• (a) PROHIBITION OF TRANSMISSION WITHOUT CONSENT- The Federal Trade Commission shall, by regulation, prohibit the transmission of a spyware program to a covered computer by means of the Internet, unless the user of the covered computer expressly consents to such transmission in response to a clear and conspicuous request for such consent or through an affirmative request for such transmission.

• (b) TRANSMISSION PURSUANT TO LICENSE AGREEMENTS- The Federal Trade Commission shall, by regulation, establish requirements for the transmission of a spyware program to a covered computer, by means of the Internet, in any case in which the transmission of the spyware program, or any information, program, or communication together or in connection with which the spyware program is transmitted, requires any affirmative action on the part of the user of the covered computer to agree to a license, contract, or other agreement which is made available on the World Wide Web, as follows:

• • (1) LOCATION OF LICENSE AGREEMENT- The terms of such license, contract, or agreement shall be set forth on a World Wide Web page and the mechanism by which the user of the covered computer agrees to such license, contract, or agreement shall be included on the same page.

• • (2) NOTICE- The terms of the license, contract, or other agreement shall--

• • (A) include provisions, that are clearly stated and prominently displayed, which specify that agreement to such license, contract, or other agreement constitutes consent to transmission of the spyware for purposes of subsection (a); and

• • (B) clearly explain the purpose of including the spyware.

• • (3) IDENTIFICATION- The name of the person or entity transmitting the spyware, a valid physical street address of such person or entity, and a functioning return electronic mail address for such person or entity shall be included on the World Wide Web page referred to in paragraph (1).

• (c) NOTICE OF COLLECTION OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION- The Federal Trade Commission shall, by regulation, prohibit the use of any spyware program that is transmitted to a covered computer by means of the Internet for collecting any personally identifiable information from the covered computer, unless notice that the program will be used for such collection is provided--

• • (1) in any license, contract, or other agreement covering the spyware program or the information, program, or communication together with which, or in connection with which, the spyware program is transmitted; and

• • (2) in another prominent location, as the Commission shall provide.

SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT.

• (a) ENFORCEMENT THROUGH FTC AC

H.R. 2929 Safeguard Against Privacy Invasions Act sponsored by Mary Bono.