Slashdot Mirror

Do you have a URL to back that up? Because it sounds like pure bullshit to me, due to a few tiny rules:

• US Constitution, Article 3 -- "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury"
• Bill of Rights, Amendment 6 -- "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury"

Given that the ACLU is not screaming bloody murder about this, I simply don't believe you without a reputable news article.

Seeing as how I don't live in europe, I was wondering: do any of the europeans out there know if this treaty considers drug related websites a crime? I'm sure slashdoters out there remember some of the recently failed bills in america that tried to make the distribution of drug related information (and even linking to information) on the internet illegal, not to mention sites that sell drug related paraphernalia. Often these clauses are tacked on to unrelated bills (like bankruptcy law reform). For those that don't know, check out this bill.

So my question is, basically, what is the situation like across the pond? Here, even buying hydroponic equipment for legit reasons gets you put on a list to be watched. Is this treaty going to make it even harder to get the facts people need to make informed decisions?

I would in half a heartbeat be happy to not allow porn sites on my system unless they ended in .porn/.xxx.

This is the real problem I have with .xxx. It would quickly become a quasi-legal standard, like the atrocious movie ratings system here in the United States, or those "voluntary" Parental Advisory labels that Tipper Gore made so incredibly important in in the sale and distribution of records here.

Unfortunately, I don't think most people who would like to filter porn have ever spent any time trying to figure out what pornography really is. I certainly have no idea what is "pornographic." Just about everyone would agree that a site like www.whitehouse.com definitely falls under the common definition of pornography. But what about the disgusting site rotten.com? Certainly, it contains a great deal of disgusting stuff that certainly isn't pornography, and some stuff that might be. Where it go?

Or, for a more difficult distinction, what about a site like photo.net? Certainly, there are plenty of photos of naked people there (or, at least, there were the last time I looked, about 5 years ago). Is it pornography? What about a document describing all sorts of disgusting perversions, like The Starr Report? Is that porn? Do we have to protect kids from that?

On an even more omininous tone, how about a totally serious political activism site, that just happens to be a political activism site for disgusting sexual perverts, like The North American Man-Boy Love Association? Where on earth do we put constitutionally protected political speech when that speech is considered the worse form of pornography available by many people?

Filtering already opens a big enough can of worms, even when the criteria for the filtering is (nominally) in the hands of the reciever of the information -- each person browsing theoretically has some chance to decide for themselves what criteria to use for "bad" sites. But to pre-apply the "pornography" criteria to a huge number of sites, and to apply it based on the discretion of people who are neither the content providers or the content consumers, is asking for a system rife with abuses and problems.

And if you believe your narrow definition of pornography is going to be the definition used by all sides when it comes time to start segregating the sites, you should spend some time really listening to what people are saying. No-one is going to be happy with the definition of porn, escpecially in a world where movies like Eyes Wide Cut can be defined as "Adult Only Pornography" by the American standards.

This article is filled with misinformation.

It's best to go right to the sources at the Copyright Office, ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, etc. The restaurant info, the who-owns-the-copyright info, etc., are wrong in implication if not in detail.

And if the legalese is too much, then go here or (when it's back up) here.

Dennis

This is probably too late in the discussion to get moderated at all, but Hear, hear!

I'm so glad to hear someone finally point out the idoicy of Nader's "We're not throwing the election" line. All exit polls of Nader voters show clearly that at least 2/3 of Nader voters would have voted for Gore -- and Nader has to know this: if he means what he's spewing to the media today he's either -- at the very least -- being hopelessly naive or disingenuous. He handed the Presidency to a group that will -- whatever he says -- be markedly worse for everything he stands for. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying to you or to themselves.

And your other point is dead on, as well. American politics is not about falling on your sword: it's about compromise. It's the genius of the National political scene and it's something that Nader seems to believe, in his self-righteous tizzy, is below him.

Don't believe me? See the Federalist papers -- the system was set up for compromise. The Founders had no time for ideologues like Nader. They were (are) destructive and the system is designed to moderate their views. (Feel free to check the source code on this is you don't believe me: try Federalist Paper #47, by Madison, available here.)

You think the Republicans and Democrats were the same party? Tear your eyes away from votenader.com and read some policy statements. Start at the top with abortion, scan through environmental policy, and keep reading through urban issues. Still think it doesn't matter which one is sending legislation to the Hill?

And yes, while the two-party system isn't law, and while they do have a virtual monopoly on decision making, it's been this way since the 1805 or so. Parties change, they evolve -- they do complete reversals on some issues (e.g. the Republicans in the 60s) -- but by compromise within themselves and with each other, they can get something done. Nader, by trying to take his toys and go home, went against the system and managed to worsen the condition of everything he professes to care about. Or did you folks vote for him because to the mystical matching funds? Oh, sorry about that, too.

It has nothing to do with the idea of "protecting" voters from themselves (despite what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe). Alexander Hamilton would disagree with you quite vigourously. Have you read Federalist No 9? The man was instramental in forming the American Republic and make no mistakethe ideas shaping the writing of the constituion dweled heavilyon protecting the masses from their own "furious storms". When Alexander Hamilton speaks of "domestic faction" he is speaking of all those rabble rousing farmers and other trouble makers that make it difficult to herd the masses. ...it was considered unacceptable by the founding fathers that a president be elected without a significant minority of states voting for them... This is precisely the problem that people complain about. Many people do not want a President elected by proxy. It's one thing to cheer on the Republic as the greatest thing since sliced bread; it is another to discount and ignore that fact that once we had a much less powerful goverment but some thought it was simply too much freedom for those of us among the poor, uneducated masses.

If you get all your info from the 11 o'clock news or slashdot I can understand but there are real and substantitive issues that are big enough that there is a real chance to deal with them at the polls. Try to look at the The News Hour with Jim Lehrer a bit and tell me that that's what people are deciding on. In fact do a little research on thomas and tell me that the democratic and republican parties are all the same. Some people really have to have some extreme wackos calling for all sorts of thigs to think that they have a choice when the differences are like the difference between fine wines.

Ok.. I just checked the acutal law and there is nothing in it mentioning pariodies, but there have been several Suprime Court cases. Go to http://www.publaw.com/parody.html for a good discussion on the topic of parodies. Also check out Copyright Law of the United States of America

-After you read, then post

As I wrote in August in the last abandonware thread:
Section 108 of the copyright law says that, among other things, libraries and other publicaly available archives may (under section e of the law) make a complete copy of a work that they have determined is otherwise unavailable at a fair price and give it to a library/archive user, provided a) they do not do so for commercial advantage and b) they display a particular notice as specified by the Copyright Office in 37 CFR 201.14 (PDF, scroll down to about page 20). The full text of the section e) reads:

(e) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to the entire work, or to a substantial part of it, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, if the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price, if-

(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and

(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

Important: other parts of the section and of the law influence the legal interpretation of the above (so consult a lawyer), but the important point is, "abandonware" sites CAN be legal!

As I wrote in August in the last abandonware thread:
Section 108 of the copyright law says that, among other things, libraries and other publicaly available archives may (under section e of the law) make a complete copy of a work that they have determined is otherwise unavailable at a fair price and give it to a library/archive user, provided a) they do not do so for commercial advantage and b) they display a particular notice as specified by the Copyright Office in 37 CFR 201.14 (PDF, scroll down to about page 20). The full text of the section e) reads:

(e) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to the entire work, or to a substantial part of it, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, if the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price, if-

(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and

(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

Important: other parts of the section and of the law influence the legal interpretation of the above (so consult a lawyer), but the important point is, "abandonware" sites CAN be legal!

That's like saying that since there's no part of the US Code which states I can breath, I'm not permitted to breath

IANAL, but I think you're examining that section of the US code out of context. Overall, copyright law in the United States prohibits unauthorized redistribution of a copyrighted work. The passage that IDSA quotes is a clarification that the law does not prohibit copying a piece of software that you own for purposes of running it or for archival purposes.

IDSA is pointing out that this exception does not cover posting games for downloads, and therefore, posting games for download is illegal under the law as a whole.

--

1) The Electoral College is a throwback to a form of representative democracy born in an era when direct democracy was not technologically feasible. The notion that a person whom the majority of Americans hate could still become President because he won in three states should be quite troubling.

Perhaps you should read some of the comments from other posters as well as this: Electorial College Homepage. If what you suppose were really true then one of these guys that the other /.ers like so much might have a chance at winning. Yes, there have been instances where a less popular candidate won, please look into those circumstances on your own.

For one thing, the States determine the way their votes are cast, not the feds (feds only determine the number of votes per State). Every State could have a proportional system like Nebraska or Maine. If you don't live in those 2 states then I suggest you lobby your own State Legeslature and leave the Constitution alone please. It is your State government that is broken, not our Constitution.

I have never seen anything supporting the notion that the electorial college system was created because votes could not be counted fast enough or that the Founding Fathers actually wanted anything besides a Republic. If there is some actual discourse amoung the founding fathers about this then please let the rest of us know. Until then, please let this myth die along with that myth that Ammendment II has anything at all to do with hunting.


2) The Bill of Rights is in serious need of revision. Does anybody even pay any attention to the ninth and tenth amendments?

That would be these? IX and X

Another poster mentioned the Supreme Court knocks down the legeslative and executive branch with those 2 Ammendments whenever it can. It would be nice if this happened much more often, but it does happen.

I did not miss your comment on Ammendment III, but if you do not see the importance of that already then you never will.

Visit DC2600

I will not try to convince you of this here, but there has been widespread abuse by cops in their zealous enforcement of the Drug War. Please investigate this further on you own, as I am sure you will find that there have been many, many more questionable "raids" by cops than is commonly realized. I, too, felt the way that you did at one point, but have come to the conclusion that the combination of SWAT-like tactics and asset forfeiture has lead to a dangerous combination. In fact, Congress has hearings just one or two years ago about this very issue. Check Thomas for archives of the hearing.

See this document from the Copyright Office for furthur information: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/c irc s/circ1.html#wwp.

With the meth bill, which might or might not get killed, drugs seem to be an ideal visualization of the stupidity going on when it comes to censorship issues on the net. Mind you, I believe methamphetamine is about as bad is it gets. Does such a three-monkeys approach make meth go away? Hardly

I am just saying that for me, drugs were HARMFUL, that I got very dependent on them and got into a vicious circle, losing all perspective and chasing 'soma' until my life was shit, frankly.

Well, the key here is that you make it you talk from your perspective. You make it cristal clear that it fucked you up. You very much emphasize this. Quite the contrary it appears that the idea of not being able to communicate your experience, respectively communicating it in an environment that only allows your perspective, seems to piss you off royally. I have very much respect for your position.

Now, here is the problem. I feel I have a right to have any search on 'drugs' return the stuff I just typed, just as much as you've a right for such an inquiry to return _your_ viewpoint. I know good and well that the kids in the schoolyard and on the back streets are going to be taking _your_ viewpoint for the most part- they haven't had time to see a downside to it, and they probably don't trust the hysteria of teachers and authority figures.

I would never preach to anybody that drugs are good, or that recreational drug use is harmless. What I'm advocating is access to factual information. Just choking out talking about the subject doesn't make drugs go away.

In some European countries information went very far indeed. Ravers could have their XTC pills analyzed at raves on the spot. A mobile lab was scratching of a small sample of a pill and could instantly tell what it really is. Now some people might argue that this is bad and this is illegal and that this advocates use of illicit drugs. My perspective is such reasoning is bullshit, because those pills are swallowed. Actually it's quite the oposite. The idea is harm reduction. Also, those labs hand out factual information about E-abuse. Informing the kids that it's not really quite harmless what they're doing, about possible side effects, about unknown variables (neurotoxologie) in the use of this drug. So, in a nutshell: I don't condone the use of MDMA, but I very much support the idea of informing those people that going to take it, factually, truthfully and in a non hostile environment.

But as soon as the issue is censored for 'childrens' safety', it's be silenced or side with the brainwashers- because the context of having an independent opinion (namely, "Drugs were bad for me, I quit doing them because they did me harm") is _gone_.

You're very right here. Having been in the really dark rotten hole and still furiosly defending this opinion actually puts you in a very strong position and gives your perspective a lot of credibility. One of the strongest quotes in my book is

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (Voltaire)

and your post totally lives up to that.

OK, now I got carried away, actually I just wanted to let you know that I really enjoyed your response.

Great that you made it. I would have hated not to read about it because you could be shoved into jail for expressing your thoughts.

It looks like the act has been introduced several times into different bills, and each time it's faltered. The three requirements you gave appear in bill hr4600 which was introduced on June 8, but didn't go anywhere.

Then there's bill hr4577 (Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001), title VI, which seems to be the bill that was discussed in the earlier slashdot article and has the most/latest activity.

hr4577 has only the two criteria that I listed, which only calls for blocking things that are already illegal. (along with anything additional the library chooses to block, which I previously surmised was for the purpose of covering their butts)

I couldn't find your third requirement hidden within any currently active large appropriations bills.
--

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

The only law on the books requiring a certain method in state elections for federal office is the 1965 Voting Rights Act that requires single member districts be used to elect the US House. Numerous attempts to change this federal law have failed, most recently H.R. 1173

Slashdot keeps mangling my html. Specifically the closing "/a" tags. Let's try again.

Slashdot didn't "rip" that story. It published a link to that story. You're making the same indistinction that the MPAA and the Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan is guilty of.

And by no means does New Scientist own a copyright on the UNC researchers' results ...

And by no means does New Scientist own a copyright on the UNC researchers' results ...

High Performance Computing Act of 1991

there are others, but those are the two biggies... if you want more info, go to THOMAS and search under legislation/major legislation/previous and enter gore +computing... you'll find dozens of examples of mr. gore's legislative efforts for the computing industry

hope this helps

High Performance Computing Act of 1991

there are others, but those are the two biggies... if you want more info, go to THOMAS and search under legislation/major legislation/previous and enter gore +computing... you'll find dozens of examples of mr. gore's legislative efforts for the computing industry

hope this helps

High Performance Computing Act of 1991

there are others, but those are the two biggies... if you want more info, go to THOMAS and search under legislation/major legislation/previous and enter gore +computing... you'll find dozens of examples of mr. gore's legislative efforts for the computing industry

hope this helps

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Print)

The entire bill is here ;.

The rider in question is Title VI - Children's Internet Protection.

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Print)

The entire bill is here ;.

The rider in question is Title VI - Children's Internet Protection.

Though its always a good idea to contact your congresperson and tell them your stand on issues, its not like this is in immediate danger of being passed as is. If you go to thomas.loc.gov and read the versions of the bill, you'll find the senate version has many rider type emmendments, like a patient's bill of rights, that probably won't be included in the final version. Obviously this is anther example of how government does lots of backhanded, under the table manuvering, and another reason why you should vote for real candidates in elections instead of the dominant party stiffs, but I think people are a bit needlessly worried.

-brian

The House bill is number HR4577.
I think the Senate bill is S5588.
The admendment I could find is SA3635.
Here is its text and the senators' discussion of it from June Read it! Once again, everyone is over-reacting.

be sure to include the bill information:

H.R.4577 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 -- Title VI - Children's Internet Protection.

The text of Title VI is here

lukas

As such, gettting rid of it isn't something the President can really do. The only remedy that I can see is that the Supreme Court reject it as unconstitutional, which seems unlikely. If they do, then we have a conflict between the government and an NGO. I have no idea what would happen at that point.

Rummaging through "Thomas" (The US Legislative website), I found a couple of instances of bills to eliminate the electoral collage, but it looks like they never even got out of committee. No doubt the representatives from lopsided states didn't want to encourage any other parties to get out the vote.

The other problem with the electoral college is the speed at which information travels today. The eastern polls close long before the western polls, and it is possible that voters watching the tube in the western states won't vote once they see the results from the east. The electoral college seems to have been designed around the pony express. Now that we get information instantly from coast to coast, its time to go to a popular vote.

Rummaging through "Thomas" (The US Legislative website), I found a couple of instances of bills to eliminate the electoral collage, but it looks like they never even got out of committee. No doubt the representatives from lopsided states didn't want to encourage any other parties to get out the vote.

The other problem with the electoral college is the speed at which information travels today. The eastern polls close long before the western polls, and it is possible that voters watching the tube in the western states won't vote once they see the results from the east. The electoral college seems to have been designed around the pony express. Now that we get information instantly from coast to coast, its time to go to a popular vote.

English common law is based on the right to property, basically that you can do what you want with your own stuff. The Constitution says, Art I, Section 8, clause 8:

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

In other words, certain rights stay with the producer, these rights are marked in the Copyright Act. This is list of rights given to the copyright holder. The International version is the Berne Convention. The US version specifies exceptions for fair use and the Berne simply states that individual states have the option of allowing exceptions. Thus I have to agree with you that there is no Right to Fair Use.

The problem is that you then assert that Fair Use is a Legal Defense to the crime of copyright violation. This sounds similar to saying that Insanity is a Legal Defense to the crime of murder. The two situations are not the same. Since the Copyright Act states specifically what rights copyright has, and that this doesn't include the right to restrict fair use, copying under fair use is not a crime.

By your definition, going to a friend's house is a crime of trespassing with a Legal Defense of "I Had Permission". Instead, it is a case of no crime being committed.

To summarize, Fair Use is NOT a right, but it is NOT a crime. Thus, everybody is wrong.

This is troubling, though. Since the DMCA gives the copyright holder the right to encrypt, that does effectively remove Fair Use for personal use. Fair Use copying is still not a crime, but is impossible to do without committing another crime. The DMCA is basically implementing the WIPO treaties, so we may be stuck. Even if the Supreme Court rules that the DMCA violates the Constitution (remember the limited Times part), the WIPO requires it and the US did sign.

And by pulling the "license", not "purchase" trick, any remedy under consumer law has been rendered irrelevant. IANAL, but I think under current law Fair Use is screwed.

So, apology for the troll remark, you were rather condescending so I thought you were just looking for trouble, but you did have a good point and caused at least one person to check facts.

The government is going to be voting on a bill today that may give them the right to search records without a warrant, in secret. This bill has already passed the Senate! HELP!!!

The full story is at http://www.defendyourprivacy.com/

I have some other urls as well to go along with this:

Section 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Or perhaps ; ;SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) in which "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use".

If Digital Convergence has any "intellectual property" claim, it is most probably patent -- and without seeing specifics, I'd be dubious about even that. (Query how a process for Web information retrieval triggered by the scanning of a bar code is any innovation over a library's retreival of remote database records when it scans a book at checkout.)

Well, even though the time for submitting comments has passed, you can read the comments at www.loc.gov/copyright/1201.comments& lt;/A> This is redundant information of course, but, worth mentioning.

What's NOT redundant is this - these comments are awsome. I mean, these aren't /. quality, half baked, spur of the moment replies. Everyone (on both sides) produced some really interesting and well thought out responses. Check out the Computer & Comminications Industry Association for a good loud voice who is looking at trying to make the concept of reverse engineering for the sake of allowing a user to use purchased materials on any platform - even if it means writing your own driver. (CCIA represents AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Fujitsu, and a couple others.)

Point blank - if you want to see the right way to debate an issue like this in an informed manner, most of these comments got it right. A good read, even if everything is in .PDF format.

Initial written comments in this rulemaking were due February 17, 2000. The Office received 235 comments. All 235 comments are now available below for viewing and downloading. Copies of comments are also now available for inspection and copying at the Copyright Office

Okay, even if you COULD get these punch cards read in, I'd expect you'd still have some language Issues:

1. Human language: German. If you can't read German, it's not going to be of much use, will it? Sure, you could use BabelFish but it will certainly lose something in the translation.
2. Programng language and environment. I would expect the punch cards most likely would contain both application(s) and data. Do you have access to a machine that could RUN these? Imagine the application(s) were designed to be run on a Commodore 64 - could you even find an environment where you could run these applications?
3. Character Set. Punch cards, IIRC, were generally encoded in EBCDIC. (At least they were when I used them in college.) Do you have access to a system that can even use this character set?

I'm not trying to disuade you from continuing to investigate this resource, but to point out there's more here than may be apparent at first glance.

This is indicative of the general class of problems that I've often run into when trying to locate information. When I've hit a rat hole, back up and THINK! Could someone else have run into this same problem, or am I the very first person who has run into this? That simple idea has helped me to stop what I had been doing, back up, and try another approach while making use of what I've learned so far.

1. I noticed others had posted here with some links that indicated these works have ISBN numbers. Search on those.
2. Hmmm ISBN? There's a good-sized library in Washington, DC. A search on google for : "Library of Congress" took me to a web site where I could search their collection in many different ways. Not only that, I found other works in the same subject area (Sobjects:):
   • Virgil--Versification.
   • Latin language--Metrics and rhythmics.

In short, when I hit a brick wall when searching for information, and I've got a headache from banging my head against that wall, it's a sign to me that maybe it's time to step back and try another approach. Hope this helps!

Yes, 602P is a fake - but that doesn't stop our good samaritans on Capitol Hill from fighting against it just the same. Our stalwart guardians of justice, as reported in the Washington Post back in May, have introduced a bill to prohibit the FCC from even possibly imposing Internet access charges, even though the FCC has said repeatedly that would never happen in the first place. According to sponsor Fred Upton (R-MI), though, his bill, the Internet Access Charge Prohibition Act, "soothes the fears" of those thousands of people who have written him and other representatives because, frankly, they got bamboozled by the hoax. Upton's bill (HR1291) is still pending committee review before the House.

So don't be too hard on Clinton and Lazio - at least they only talked about the fake; others are actually wasting real legislative time on it. Sigh... and you wonder why it takes so long to get anything useful done on Capitol Hill.

OT - Also the LOC was a key player during the early years of patents and copyrights.

You are PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT of the AHRA and its application to Napster. Digital copies, not analog copies, are stolen via Napster;

Obviously, you're trolling. Next time, try to restrain yourself from spewing nonsense like "stealing via Napster," and perhaps more people will respond, and help feed your desire for attention.

But I want to clarify one thing. You have the Audio Home Recording Act totally backwards -- the AHRA specifically covers digital copies, not just analog copies. The question of whether or not Napster can claim protection under the AHRA comes about because home computers may not be Digital Audio Recording Devices, as defined (fairly narrowly) by the AHRA.

The rest of your pablum could be refuted by anyone with a sixth grade education. Only the part about the AHRA not covering digital copies takes even the smallest amount of effort to refute.

You are PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT of the AHRA and its application to Napster. Digital copies, not analog copies, are stolen via Napster;

Obviously, you're trolling. Next time, try to restrain yourself from spewing nonsense like "stealing via Napster," and perhaps more people will respond, and help feed your desire for attention.

But I want to clarify one thing. You have the Audio Home Recording Act totally backwards -- the AHRA specifically covers digital copies, not just analog copies. The question of whether or not Napster can claim protection under the AHRA comes about because home computers may not be Digital Audio Recording Devices, as defined (fairly narrowly) by the AHRA.

The rest of your pablum could be refuted by anyone with a sixth grade education. Only the part about the AHRA not covering digital copies takes even the smallest amount of effort to refute.

H ere is the law if you want to take a look at the precise language.

H.R. 5364 has been sent to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Fellow Slashdotters, the time to act is now! This is no joke (please don't mod this post as funny). If you ever wanted to make a change in the world you live in, if you ever felt powerless that greedy corporations were stripping you of your rights, here is a golden opportunity for you to fix things.

Why? Because this bill is very important. It needs to get passed. But it takes people like you and me to pass it. How? Like this:

• First, read the bill. You'll make a fool out of yourself if you don't do this first. Unfortunately, as another posted noticed, it's not currently available on Thomas, so you'll have to find another source or wait.
• Send a letter to Representatives Rick Boucher and Howard Berman. Tell them that you applaud them for submitting the Bill, and that you support it wholeheartedly. Tell them that you're going to write your local Representative (if neither Boucher nor Berman is your Representatives) and Senators, asking them to approve the Bill if it comes before them (or whatever the exact phrase is). It's late at night for me now, so I'll be posting my letter as a reply to this post, once I write it.
• Write your Representative and Senators. You can find their web pages here and here.
• If you want, post your letters as a reply to this post, for other people to use as a guide.
• About 1-2 weeks after writing your Representative and/or Senators, call them. Ask them if they've gotten your letter and heard of the Bill. Make sure you've thoroughly read and understood the Bill yourself before you call!. Ask them what their position is. If you think they don't agree with it, try to change their minds. Tell them that this Bill is so important to you, that it is the first time you've written and/or called a Congressmen (if it's true).
• Spread the word! Ask your geek neighbors to do the same as you have.

If 10% of the people who read Slashdot were to follow this advice, that Bill will become Law.
--

Still, I wonder if there's more to this bill that Wired isn't telling us yet...

From Rep. Boucher's web site:

• Download a PDF version of the bill
• A summary of the same
• Boucher's statement about it.

There doesn't seem to be anything in Thomas, probably because it hasn't been assigned a bill number yet...

The role of governemnt is clearly layed out in The Constitution, and some of its limitations are enumerated in The Bill of Rights. Take a minute to read them, as they are short. At the minimum read the Bill of Rights take a look at Article I and see what the government is and isn't allowed to do.

The role of governemnt is clearly layed out in The Constitution, and some of its limitations are enumerated in The Bill of Rights. Take a minute to read them, as they are short. At the minimum read the Bill of Rights take a look at Article I and see what the government is and isn't allowed to do.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It seems that we have gotten so used to the government breaking the rules that we now expect it.

Having read the law, I'm at a loss to understand your comment. Paragraph (f) titled "reverse engineering" seems to explicitly say the opposite (when done for the purpose of functional interoperability):

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.