Slashdot Mirror

You sound like a stereotypical caricature of a republican: don't give a fuck, long as it makes a buck. Sad, because some republicans care.

A single childs footprint in a 120x120 piece of real estate... Wow, that's small... No. The ANWR is huge. The result is a big-ass footprint. And unlike a child's shoe tread, this footprint is going to be a stinking, filthy, contaminated cesspool of pollution, disrupting the lives of wildlife all around. So I wouldn't see much human presence. How much would I hear? Or smell? It doesn't take much drilling to be drilling the fuck out of something.

And what makes you think it will stop there? Considering that the amount of drilling there is now zero, I observe an alarming trend. And since the oil industry has done such a great job with the coastal plain, I'm sure they'll do a great job preserving the AWNR.

Not that you'd give a shit, and neither would Neal Boortz. Well, I would. I've been to Alaska. I've been to the refuge. And when I go back, I don't want to see a damn oil drill there. How long till someone finds something valuable in Yellowstone?

I'm sure the locals would love the jobs. If I knew a way to give them jobs without drilling, I would. I don't. Sad. But this isn't just about them. I'm not telling them what is best for them. It isn't, in the short term anyway. But what, you think they are the only ones this decision will affect? I'm not saying what's best for them. What I'm telling everyone who will listen is: "Hey, cut it out, or we're all fucked."

What's the lesson of California? Have you ever been to LA? You ever been a few miles out of LA, and not been able to see the damn city? It's fucking disgusting. Or Gary, Indiana, which you can tell when you are driving past by the smell. And it had to get that bad before they started to open their eyes and say "gee, this is kinda fucked."

The answer isn't to expand "present" energy sources. Those sources will be gone soon, ANWR drilling or not. We need to change our methods, and attitudes, or we will be living like our ancestors. And like or not, you will be too.

Immitating jive is racist?

There are two perfectly good senses in which people use the word "racism". One refers to hatred/descrimination/nepotism/xenophobia etc on an individual and personal level. Another refers to a societal condition which is systemic and has many levels, ranging from internment camps to [ harmless/stupid fucking [take your pick]] caricatures and sterotypes that help *us* label *others*. I would imagine Room101 was using it in the latter sense.
Confusing the two senses in which "racism" is used seems to prematurely end the dialogue.

Here is an anti-bullshit detection kit for the Slashdot community:

Based on the book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark" published by Headline 1996.

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are:
Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

Further resources:

The Critical thinking Community
http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/

CSICOP/Skeptical Inquirer
http://www.csicop.org/

Australian Skeptics
http://www.skeptics.com.au/

Less serious sites:
Journal of Irreproducible Results
http://www.jir.com/index.htm

The Annals of Improbable Research. (with the Ignobel Awards)
http://www.improb.com/

Prepared by Michael Paine
27 January 1998.

Amen. The issues aren't business models, or caricatures of RMS as a raving looney, but devotion to craft, the integrity (both moral and utilitarian) of free software, and belief in our innate capacity to learn {about|from} and employ computers.
--

Ah,I see a great career for you in a sortsof journalism with such skills in ignoring context. The into paragraph is written as a caricature of the simple, innocent all-american folk which existed before they were so rudely awakened by bombs in Hawaii. And besides, do I complain at all the neighbors and centers I have to look at on the net every day?

As an advocate and producer of Independent Media, I feel compelled to reply.

> 1. 'Independent' people dislike 'globalization' and dislike 'free trade'.

True. We dislike the current undemocratic trend of globalization that is continuing to exacerbate poverty around the world while making a few rich, while at the same time leading to a race to the bottom in environmental and labor rights regulation.

> 2. 'Independent' people feel a need to 'reclaim > the streets' on a regular basis.

Because we have learned, just as the corporate media will not create space for our points of view (hence indymedia site in the first place), institutions of power (political and economical) will not create spaces to share power, especially with those who are most disaffected by trends like globalization. Taking the streets is a way to force them to listen -- and it's fun!

> 3. 'Independent' people are really psyched up > for May 1 or "Mayday: a festival of labor, > paganism, anarchist ideas, and action! "

May 1 is historically a day of radical action, so active radicals get excited. What's so suprising or wrong about that?

> 4. 'Independent' people aren't too worried > about sweatshops this year. (That was all the > rage last year)

As someone who is still highly active in the anti-sweatshop movement and watching it grow daily, I must dispute your claim as false.

> The 'Independent Media Center' is little more > than a bunch of spoiled, bored college kids who > are good at complaining, but incapable of > taking any action outside of taking to the > streets. The indymedia people are classic > suburban > activists. The stand against a good many > things, but stand for nothing.

Your caricature does not fit me well, at all. I am not a college student. I am not "suburban." I take action in many ways beyond the streets -- I serve on local committees, support good politicians, organize educational events, social events, rallies, parades, celebrations, letter-writing campaigns, petition campaigns. I produce independent media, covering issues that get short shrift. I live a life that embodies my ideals: cooperative, healthy and active. And, while I stand against the many unjust and destructive forces and institutions that surround our lives, I also stand for a just and fair world, that empowers people to live freely, healthily to their full potential, free of exploitation. And if taking the streets may be a way to reach those goals (and I think it is), then I'll take to the streets, too. And one more thing, if there is one thing that I am not, it is bored.

I agree wholeheartedly that such violent influences should be rgulated out of existence and would like to suggest a few more pertinent examples of violent conditioning....

1. History Classes: The violent, antisocial behavior of revolutionaries is made heroic and teaches that is right, just and noble to attack and kill the soldiers sent by the parent government to police the actions of the law breaking subjects of their realm. Especially in the cases of the American and French Revolutions! Whereas the patriotic efforts of people such as Benedict Arnold are villified by historians because they attempted to uphold the laws of the land. After all, why would anyone want to hurt another just because they felt they were being mistreated?

2. Role playing games: No one should be allowed to pretend to be some fantastic character that they are not in the name of entertainment and intellectual growth...and I don't mean Dungeons & Dragons (copyright TSR), little girls playing dolls and pretending to be the mommy of some twisted urethane caricature of a child is truly sick as are toy soldiers, remote control cars (children might think they could drive Daddy's car)! Where does it end? Painting little lanscapes and portraits of their pets with watercolors is even worse...pretending to be the creator of your own world or piece of the world only leads to Napoleonic behavior and god-complexes!

What is healty:Manifest destiny (the taking of what is not yours with the price being paid by an entire race until they are nearly extinct), Conformity (be an individual like everyone else, shop at the Gap, resistance is futile), Smoke-drink-shoot dope and fuck everything in sight like your favorite actor or singer, Torture your class/workmates with ridiculous taunts and violence knowing that in no way can they retaliate because you are cool and they are not.

In closing (as I am now completely pissed off): To the parents of the attackers in Columbine and everywhere else - Fuck you for not doing your job. And to the parents of the attacked - Fuck you for not teaching your children tolerance and civility. To those seeking to put a price on blame so that they may become rich - Fuck you and your gold-digging and know that if you are Christian and believe in your God's laws regarding salvation that you WILL burn in hell for your vengeful intolerant actions.

Kent Cullers is the blind astronomer at the SETI Institute. Here is a page about "Contact" that describes his caricatured roll:

http://www.seti-inst.edu/phoenix/contact.html

This is an amazing thread.

... by taking many of my old, bright, geeky friends and turning them into crashing bores.

Seriously, pomo has some useful attributes. It gives people a framework in which to question many kinds of assumptions, such as the entanglement of liberty and guns in the American viewpoint. So far so good.

But it does two really bad things to many of its adherents.

(1) Questioning the nature of reality corrupts their reasoning process like a badly written self modifying program. Specifically, it is one thing to accept the truth that much of what we take for reality is socially constructed and to question assumptions that you would otherwise take for granted. It is another thing when you take this to mean you can believe whatever you want if enough of the right people agree with you. It is a bad thing for the intellectual fashions of a small clique become the touchstone for an idea's value. The striking thing to me is how ironically parochial many of the more enthusiastic adherents of pomo become. The people who fall into this pitfall radiate the ecstatic and impenetrable certainty of the religious fanatic. Pomo seems to open a some minds and close others.

(2) Pomo adherents are often unnecessarily incoherent. The linguistic trappings of pomo are as ugly as sin. Pomo writing is turgid, dense with overwrought, pseudotechnical terminology that obscures the meaning and inflates simple ideas beyond recognition.

The example in the kuro5hin org is a perfect example of what is good and bad about pomo.

He raises a good but rather self evident point -- given corporate control of media and advertising, we should seek alternative sources of information, particularly we should talk to other people.

He then dresses this idea up so it is unrecognizable, and supports it with hypothetical examples citing unchecked and incorrect facts. And he misses the opportunity to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various ways of putting his program into action. For example, he doesn't mention you should seek out and learn from people who are not like you -- a communist should seek to understand the viewpoint of a capitalist rather than to caricature them, and vice versa. Missing the importance of this point is typical pomo. Diversity may be valued only in its superficial forms (color and ethnicity), but not in ways of thinking.

-----

(If this looks familiar, it's because I already posted this on ArsTechnica last night)

What a fucking great film. Usually the high point of any movie-going experiance is to sit through the uber-cool previews, hoping in vain that the feature will live up to the excitement and emotional rush of the 2 minute ads.

That was not the case here.

I expected to get a Tomb Raider trailer, but was sorely disspointed. I did get to see a Pearl Harbor preview, but my initial excitement had an undercurrent of remorse, as I remembered not only all the men who died that day, but the fact Pearl Harbor is a love story...and it stars Ben Affleck.

So, onto the movie....

Blow begins as most great drug epics do, near the end, with a few choice words from the final chapter in the story...the much wiser...and older (damnit...Depp is one creepy fuck as a 60-something guy...the real George Jung looks like Terry Gilliam...Johnny is what I imagine Joan Rivers would look like after a nuclear war)

This movie screams Major Fucking Drug Epic from the very beginning. No question about it. You know it's going to be one sweet ride, and you are itching for it to begin like the...oh never mind.

The next 1.8 hours or so are spent following the rise and fall of Mr. George Jung and his magnificent empire in white. And green....lots of green.

"We're going to need a bigger boat."

Different hues, mind you, different hues.

The eventual fall and collapse of Jung's business and life rather than a simple footnote, we see the whole fucking thing from beginning to end. No three minute montage for us this time. The final scenes in the prision are memorable as they are heartbreaking.

Speaking of heartbreaking, I don't know what it was, but I found myself on the verge of tears during all the scenes with his daughter. This is what happens when you write real characters, not annoying or hopelessly "cute" caricatures that drag down the plot and the movie. Kudos to the man behind the keyboard...

The cast was perfect and carried the movied perfectly. Franka Pontente was a surprise...you see her in the credits but forget she exists until you realize who she is in the film. Rachel Griffiths appears, amazingly in a mother role...7 years ago she was a 20-something in Muriel's Wedding now, a 50-60 year-old mother of Johnny Depp, sporting a Massachusetts accent. That's what I call range.

Ray Liotta was brilliant...and if you thought he was only capable of being a mean, hardass character, then just wait and see this fucking movie.

Paul Rubens as a gay hairdresser? Why not?

A far cry from Pee-Wee Herman and "The Spleen". Yeah, he's pushing 50, but don't think for a minute he isn't one hell of an actor with one hell of a screen presence.

Bobcat Golthwait! Bobcat! Where the fuck have you been?!!!! Good to see you! Thanks for not bringing Pauly Shore!

To the point here...see this movie...if you have...see it again.

End Transmission

Interesting in the study of much BSDemonology, unlike Linukism, we find no root demon such as Vilhelm von Gatus, a caricatured figure "from Red Mound of the Northwest" embodying an all-encompassing, swallowing evil. Whether or not astute /. readers will be able to elaborate more on BSDemonology remains to be seen.

--

How, in a world such as ours, could wanting to play games involving pink and blue animals and caricatures of hopping Italian-Americans on a dinky little screen ever qualify as "socially depraved"?

Moronic, maybe, but depraved? Please; it is society with its violence and dehumanization that is depraved, not the proto-nerd with his GBA. :)

> - All bad guys are one-dimensional caricatures...

Most are, but not all. "Romulan Commander" in TOS, Darmok in TNG ("bad guy" presumed at first), Q (after several episodes), Lore, Moriarity (deliberately 1-dimensional at first), Ok, well, I'm starting to run out of examples, and these were spread over, what, someone said 29 seasons?

You've made a lot of good points. Ultimately, however, you fail to realize your points apply to network television, not just Star Trek. Actors have contracts. All shows of all non-present eras make references to the present. All shows exist in a universe with "zero consequences". Some more of your points:

The Trek writers cannot develop characters that are remotely believable. Only mindless, one dimensional cliche's.

Trek characters, IMO, are deeper than most sitcom or hour drama characters. we'll have to agree to disagree.

They cannot handle character development. They tried on DS9, but it was always herky-jerky and forced. People didn't develop over time, they developed in one of their two or three designated character development episodes. Even then they couldn't convince anybody with an IQ above 74 that it was remotely natural and believable. At the end of TNG, everybody was almost exactly the same as they were Season 1. Let's not even mention Voyager.

Again, I disagree. Trek characters are considerably more developed - Take a look at Picard season one compared to Picard seasons six and seven. Hell, look at all the characters. Your point isn't specific to Star Trek, you could replace the title with any show that's ever been on television.

They cannot handle long-term story arcs. The Trek way is to start a war in one ep and forget about it for oh......8 episodes or so, with a few infrequent cut and paste mentions here and there. Even then, you can forsee the outcome 3 seasons in advance. Their "surprises" are incredibly weak and convoluted. God forbid they start a conflict in an ep that isn't the season finale!

The DS9 Dominion War was too long and got silly...but it's silly to say they "forgot" about it. it was always in the background.

No character ever dies unless the actor playing them asks for more money or quits in frustration when the writers can't think of anything to do with them. Everybody has their nice 6 year contract.

Trek actors, as far as I know, don't have set contract lengths at the beginning of the runs of each series. We saw various characters (most notably Tasha, Judiza and Kes) all leave, and they all left for different reasons. Once again, your points are NOT specific to Trek, but to television in general.

The writers cannot come up with a new and exciting story, most of it is recycled from other Trek shows, and even if they can write a script you could consider "passable" everything is neatly wrapped up by the end of the hour.

That's one of the oldest jokes about television - from the Leave it to Beaver days to now - the drama gets wrapped up before the show's over. This is NOT something just Trek deals with, and says nothing of the Trek writing.

The surroundings are always sterile and unrealistic. Unless you count the one, single "plot-device-personal-possesion" each major character has.

As stated by other posters, when Trek goes dark, fans don't like it. Once more, most shows are "sterile and unrealistic" - it's fiction, remember? And if you'd like, I'll supply you with a huge list of personal possessions each character has and appears in episodes.

The solution to any problem is a particle-of-the week/technical thing we have never heard of before. While the "realistic" and "logical" soltion is impossible because of veteron radiation or something.

This is called a "plot device". Maybe you've heard of it. Non-sci-fi shows have a non-sci-fi version - drama is interesting because the "easy" way is often impossible. Star Trek didn't come up with it.

The Federation believes itself to be infallible.

The Fonz believes himself to be cool. So?

All bad guys are one-dimensional caricatures who either die or come around to the infallible Federation way of doing things. Not to mention the fact they look like 50 other aliens we have seen.

Make-up departments don't have the biggest budgets. Besides - humans play the characters. Get over it.

Here's the bottom line: Star Trek is a popular franchise with a core group of fans and many fringe fans. Trek's fans are probably more dedicated than any other besides possibly soap opera fans, and Trek fans tend to use the internet a little more, so you hear about it a little more. Trek still makes money, and there will always been a new series on the horizon as long as money keeps coming in. The most important point you should remember, however, is that Star Trek is a television show. If you don't like it, don't watch it. It contains human actors wearing make up. It's written by human beings with a much tougher job than most television writers, because of the history they need to know with every episode. But it's just TV. Just fiction. Don't get so worked up.

The Good Reverend
I'm different, just like everybody else.

Damnit! Let it die already!

The people in charge have proven they cannot write themselves out of a wet paper bag....well actually they can, but it requires a new particle of the week and 40 minutes of pure Celine Dion-grade melodrama. And no matter how bad or potentially life-changing the whole experiance is, no one will remember it ever again. There will be no mention of it, and all it's effects will be purely short term.

This pisses me off like nothing else.

- The Trek writers cannot develop characters that are remotely believeable. Only mindless, one dimensional cliche's.

- They cannot handle character development. They tried on DS9, but it was always herky-jerky and forced. People didn't develop over time, they developed in one of their two or three designated character development episodes. Even then they couldn't convince anybody with an IQ above 74 that it was remotely natural and believeable. At the end of TNG, everybody was almost exactly the same as they were Season 1. Let's not even mention Voyager.

- They cannot handle long-term story arcs. The Trek way is to start a war in one ep and forget about it for oh......8 episodes or so, with a few infrequent cut and paste mentions here and there. Even then, you can forsee the outcome 3 seasons in advance. Their "surprises" are incredibly weak and convoluted. God forbid they start a conflict in an ep that isn't the season finale!

- No character ever dies unless the actor playing them asks for more money or quits in frustration when the writers can't think of anything to do with them. Everybody has their nice 6 year contract.

- The writers cannot come up with a new and exciting story, most of it is recycled from other Trek shows, and even if they can write a script you could consider "passable" everything is neatly wrapped up by the end of the hour.

- Did I mention the Trek universe has zero consequences?

- The surroundings are always sterile and unrealistic. Unless you count the one, single "plot-device-personal-possesion" each major character has.

- Everyone is obsessed with the 20th century and makes references almost exclusively to this time period.

- The solution to any problem is a particle-of-the week/technical thing we have never heard of before. While the "realistic" and "logical" soltion is impossible because of veteron radiation or something.

- The Federation believes itself to be infallible.

- All bad guys are one-dimensional caricatures who either die or come around to the infallible Federation way of doing things. Not to mention the fact they look like 50 other aliens we have seen.

I could go on for hours.....is it any wonder why a lot of people who watch B5 for long enough get so disgusted with Trek?

It's depressing to think the brain-trust behind the past decade of incresingly mediocre Trek has been handed the reigns once again.

Oh well, let's hope "Crusade" comes back.

Any Trek refugees are welcome in the land of Babylon 5, right now Season 5 is winding up on SciFi. Season 1 should begin again on March 9th.

The DMCA was not meant to be used to enforce customer segmentation either, but that's what the CSS does. The CSS does *not* copy-protect.

I don't disagree with you that this system can't stand up for long - my argument is that it makes an excellent point about the DMCA and the way in which it has been interpreted.

Interesting, yes. Intellegent? I'm not sure. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Aimster, from a certain standpoint, is breaking the spirit of the law. I'm simply not convinced that this legal "hack" would stand up in court.

Precisely - the spirit of the law was that the DMCA should protect certain types of intellectual property rights in the light of new technology, but by applying the letter of the law and a few obfuscation techniques, it has been used to enforce a system of market segmentation the sole purpose of which is to drive greater profits by staggering cinematic and home-view media releases across the globe, and to limit the group of companies that can manufacture DVDs to those that receive licenses to use the technology, therefore controlling not only the media but also the manufacture and distribution of the delivery device.

If the DMCA is used in a way that defeats it's spirit, you can't reinterpret it in a way that does not flow from the language of the act itself just because it's convenient - if it has been misformulated and can therefore be exploited in this way, it has to be reformulated or amended - not even the highest court in the land can choose to interpret it in a way that does not flow from it's language - it can only declare it unconstitutional. "It wasn't intended to be used in this way" is exactly the point I think needs to be made - it's formulation and it's interpretation have gone too far, and in my opinion have infringed on constitutional rights (although the courts disagree with me so far on that one).

Aimster have not only used the DMCA to protect themselves, but they've used the same interpretation of it that was used to protect CSS and to whack 2600. You seem to think I'm saying Aimster is wonderful and I hope it stays open forever - that's not my opinion (as should be clear from the end of my last post) - I think it makes a point - and a valid one. Don't you?

I suggest you look at the recent cover of Fortune magazine.

Just did - interesting, nice to see what happens on the other side of the pond, but as you correctly state, you don't know what country I'm in, and it's not the US.

I said : All we've really done is said: "Look, the DMCA allows us to prevent you from proving that people are breaking the law", and that's a really good point proving that the DMCA goes much too far.
To which you replied : Again, I don't buy this.

Don't buy what? That this is the statement being made? If what you're saying is that Aimster isn't and shouldn't be legal, then you're not disagreeing with me - what I said was that it was making a good point - of course it's a "flim flam job" it's a caricature of legality, but the nature of a caricature is to throw certain aspects of something into a more extreme contrast - in this case, certain aspects of the DMCA interpretation.

They should be spending their money creating a new Doctor Who television series, not wasting it on this crap.

When the BBC stopped Dr. Who, they became just a caricature of their selves.

Oh! Well yes that sounds very innocent indeed. My mistake.

The answer is no, I am not DMan. Thanks for asking, though.

...I admit my response was mighty smartassed..

It was? How so? After all, you just got through convincing me that it was borne out of an honest and well-meaning curiosity to discover whether I was DMan, and nothing more. Given its brevity, then, where exactly in your post is the smartassed-ness contained? You tell me.

Either your post was an honest attempt at discovering the truth, or it was smartassed. Which is it?

It is interesting how you fault me for interpreting it in the latter sense when you have seemingly just admitted to my interpretation being correct.

you have once again shown the absurdity of your thinking

Bummer. Not only was my thinking absurd once, but I have gone and done it again.

But now I am confused. As you have just explained, in your original post you wanted to discover whether I was DMan and nothing more. Because of its "brevity", according to you it cannot possibly have been intended as a rebuke of any kind.

Now you say I have "once again" shown the absurdity of my thinking. Question: when did I do this the first time? You certainly can not have ever made the case that I did, because of course your initial response to my initial post was an honest query and nothing more. Certainly you can understand my distress; my thinking had been absurd once before somehow, and you never even told me about it!

You made a string of assertions...

You take my response to you too literally. (Big surprise.) I was voicing what I thought to be a reasonable interpretation of the intent and strategy of your initial response; namely, to dismiss my post by way of associating me with someone called "DMan", who presumably would have a certain reputation around here. My string of "assertions" was really designed to be nothing more than a caricature of the thought processes which (I had thought, in my foolishness!) your post was designed to induce in the reader.

Of course now I see the error of my ways, because as you have explained to me, your motives were innocent and pure and you just wanted to discover who I was. Mea culpa.

I would say that you overexerted yourself in responding to my post.

On this point there is absolutely no argument between us.

Indeed, I have gone and done it again. Neither of your posts have merited or deserved this much exertion on my part.

So, you win this point. Bravo!

Just like the DMCA, the 'EU-DMCA' is a new copyright law that is required to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty

The latest available draft of the law (which has the short and wonderful name "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society"), from 14 September 2000, is available here.

There have been a few changes to the draft, but I unfortunately don't have a complete list available. Official news about the law should be available here and here.

The draft is in many respects very similar to the DMCA, and has many of the same problems. Legal protection of TPMs that deny fair use, is computer code protected speech or illegal tool, legality of encryption research, etc.


Article 5
Exceptions and limitations

1. Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental, which are an integral and essential part of a technological process whose sole purpose is to enable:
(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary or
(b) a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.

2. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases:
(a) in respect of reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects, with the exception of sheet music, provided that the rightholders receive fair compensation;
(b) in respect of reproductions on any medium made for the private use of a natural person and for non-commercial ends, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject-matter concerned;
(c) in respect of specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage;
(d) in respect of ephemeral recordings of works made by broadcasting organisations by means of their own facilities and for their own broadcasts; the preservation of these recordings in official archives may, on the ground of their exceptional documentary character, be permitted;
(e) in respect of reproductions of broadcasts made by social institutions pursuing non-commercial purposes, such as hospitals or prisons, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation.

3. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2
and 3 in the following cases:
(a) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved;
(b) uses, for the benefit of people with a disability, which are directly related to the disability and of a non-commercial nature, to the extent required by the specific disability;
(c) reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making available of published articles on current economic, political or religious topics or of broadcast works or other subject-matter of the same character, in cases where such use is not expressly reserved, and as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, or use of works or other subject-matter in connection with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as, whenever possible the source, including the author's name, is indicated;
(d) quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose;
(e) use for the purposes of public security or to ensure the proper performance or reporting of administrative, parliamentary or judicial proceedings;
(f) use of political speeches as well as extracts of public lectures or similar works or subject-matter to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and provided that, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated;
(g) use during religious celebrations or official celebrations organised by a public authority;
(h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;
(i) incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material;
(j) use for the purpose of advertising the public exhibition or sale of artistic works, to the extent necessary to promote the event;
(k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche;
(l) use in connection with the demonstration or repair of equipment;
(m) use of an artistic work in the form of a building or a drawing or plan of a building for the purposes of reconstructing the building;
(n) use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections;
(o) use in certain other cases of minor importance where exceptions or limitations already exist under national law, provided that they only concern analogue uses and do not affect the free circulation of goods and services within the Community, without prejudice to the other exceptions and limitations contained in this Article.

4. Where the Member States may provide for an exception or limitation to the right of reproduction pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3, they may provide similarly for an exception or limitation to the right of distribution as referred to in Article 4 to the extent justified by the purpose of the authorised act of reproduction.

5. The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.

Article 6
Obligations as to technological measures

1. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective.

2. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertisement for sale or rental, or possession for commercial purposes of devices, products or components or the provision of services which:
(a) are promoted, advertised or marketed for the purpose of circumvention of, or
(b) have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent, or
(c) are primarily designed, produced, adapted or performed for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of, any effective technological measures.

3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject-matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC. Technological measures shall be deemed "effective" where the use of a protected work or other subject-matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective.

4. Notwithstanding the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1, in the absence of voluntary measures taken by rightholders, including agreements between rightholders and other parties concerned, Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5(2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (3)(a), (3)(b) or (3)(e) the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned.

A Member State may also take such measures in respect of a beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in accordance with Article 5(2)(b), unless reproduction for private use has already been made possible by rightholders to the extent necessary to benefit from the exception or limitation concerned and in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(2)(b) and (5), without preventing rightholders from adopting adequate measures regarding the number of reproductions in accordance with these provisions.

The technological measures applied voluntarily by rightholders, including those applied in implementation of voluntary agreements, and technological measures applied in implementation of the measures taken by Member States, shall enjoy the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1.

The provisions of the first and second subparagraphs shall not apply to works or other subject-matter made available to the public on agreed contractual terms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

When this Article is applied in the context of Directives 92/100/EEC and 96/9/EC, this paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis.