Slashdot Mirror
Europe To Adopt Strict Internet Copyright Law
sydb writes: "The EU has adopted what looks like the equivalent of the US DMCA. Details are here. One effect of these laws is to make it illegal to break encryption on copyright material. Depressing news." The EU seems to have discovered not only the Information Society (their caps) but has provided "a detailed exhaustive list of exceptions to the reproduction right and right of communication to the public ... the list is exhaustive which means that no other exception may be applied."
We can always have someone do the actual "breaking" of the encryption somewhere else where nobody cares. Once a utility is written to decrypt it, are you still "breaking" it? If that is the case, your breaking the encryption every time you use said product.
Let's see those MFs enforce that. All it takes is another crack of some digital media format but done by AC this time. Long live th' underground! Makes me want to spread that much more DVD-movies-on-CDs with cracking, ripping, encoding and burning proggies bundled.
The Right to Fair Use is an important balance to the privilege granted by society of allowing creators to charge money for things that don't have a physical presence. It's what allows you to legally tell your friend about the film you saw last night. It allows you to use your VCR to record a TV program to watch at a more convenient time. It allows people to write reviews. It allows me to create back-ups of material I legally own.
The ridiculous thing is that illegal copying ("piracy") is already illegal. Even without the DMCA, if I start duplicating DVDs other than for Fair Use, I'm breaking the law and can be prosecuted. There's nothing stopping the Music Industry et al from telling the police about people copying stuff illegally (whether the police would bother doing anything about it is another matter) or just suing them (they went after Napster rather than the Napster users, but they didn't need the DMCA to do so). What these kind of extra laws say is "The rights of the copyright holders are more important than the rights of the public, so we're going to give the copyright holders the ability to prevent the public exercising their rights so they can make money more easily."
The whole issue of copyrights is about creating a balance. I personally feel that there's not much balance when a creator is able to retain total control over what they create for the rest of their life plus 95 years, and are legally allowed to prevent me incorporating any portion of that work into a review of it.
Simple, to watch a DVD on an unauthorized player. Many of us believe that we should be able to buy a DVD and watch it on Linux. The MPAA's view is we bought the right to view that DVD on a player that they authorized. There copy protection and the DMCA make it legal for them to hold that position. This trend continues into other avenues including software and telivision. With digital TV, they may eliminate the right to record. With software, instead of selling you an overpriced copy of Office, Microsoft will pobably force you to rent it. Our rights as consumers are getting pummeled because of the fear of copyright infringement. Either get informed now or suffer the consequences later.
What we are really talking about in this EU law and the DMCA is the ability to form access cartels by forcing laws regarding copyright and specifically copying into access and (fair) use.
I suppose the same judge that once ruled that a program executed was a form of copyright violation not permitted by fair use because it "loaded" a "copy" of the image from media into memory would also declair the brain illegal for forming copyies of "protected works" that are read/viewed/heard, etc. This reasoning appears to be the base philosophy of these so called recent "copyright" acts.
While we could talk about how copright is not actually a right at all, but a priledged that could OPTIONALLY be granted to encourage production of new works, and hence no such thing or right as "intellectual property" actually exists, at least in the US constitution, but that can be saved for another day. Today I wish to write about access cartels.
The idea of an access cartel is that all works must be secured in some manner against the potential of piracy. To do this, all media and all means of using media must hence be secured. This can be done by issuing certificates for CPRM schemes, or other means that may eventually be MANDATED in law. He who (or they that) control such systems have a cartel on what works of ANY kind may be permitted to be distributed in a given media.
The idea of requiring all executables to be signed with an authorized Microsoft or Microsoft authorized "partner" issued certificate is of course a form of access cartel.
While copyright holders have some concerns over so called piracy, access controls do not benefit them in the long run, except to restrict the number of indipendent works that might be created and otherwise distributed. The fundimental flaw with an enforced access control regime is that some copyright holds may not wish or want these so called "protections" offered by access cartels, much like the grocer does not really wish or require the "protection" offered by the neighborhood thug.
So imagine if you will a future world of access cartels. Oh, you wish to publish a program, well you can get your authorized access certificate to "permit" 10K copies to be legally created and executed, at $X. price. Ah, but you write free software, and permit UNLIMITED copying. Well, that requires the $special$ $unlimited$ cirtificates to permit your program to be used. Well, the idea is clear.
Where are fair use rights in this? Or the idea of public domain? Well public domain works are untrusted works to an access cartel. Being public domain, any "legitimate" publisher could pick up and re-publish a public domain work by registering for access certificates to distribute it. But of course access cartels are the personal friend of copyright cartels and other kinds of monopolists. What does this mean for individuals who own their own works and wish to distribute, or wish to distribute works in the public domain?
Well, note that the access cartel doesn't directly interfere with the notion or right to copy a public domain or private work, or to create a work. It simply interfers with the otherwise obvious right to access a work one ownes, copied, etc, and this is something so obvious that copyright law says nothing about it directly in any historical context I have heard of. The very nature of copyright implies and always had assumed one could access what is copied and personally owned. Consider it the mother of loopholes. I consider it a basic human right.
Do not let those who wish to form the new cartels of the future take away your rights to what you own.
You may wish to try one of the recent builds of Mozilla. Using a recent build, I've posted many comments to Slashdot (including this one) without problem.
Alex Bischoff
---
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
I seriously question whether you are correct. I create quite a lot of stuff really, and what I am seeing is this: the content-control industries are steadily changing the ground rules to over-ride my right to set MY OWN terms on the stuff I create. I'm looking at potential situations where I no longer have the right to authorize people to copy MY OWN stuff, or even where I am effectively blocked from distributing any 'created' stuff of my own to anyone else without going through content control cartels. Understandably, I am _dismayed_, though I don't know much else to do other than to charge ahead trying to create more stuff while I still have any right to do so at all, in hopes I'll be remembered when the hammer falls.
The simple fact (as you put it) is that I really don't trust the law to protect _MY_ interests. I think it is all too likely that the content control cartels will more or less make all 'copying' punishable by death or prison (review the punishments of the DMCA again), and completely fail to consider that there might be anybody in the world who would WANT to give their 'fans' or 'users' such freedoms to proliferate the material without pay to the creator, or profit to the distributor.
Because... the simple fact is, anyone doing this with permission of the content creator is not only operating outside the cartel, they are legitimizing that content creator as COMPETITION. What with the internet and all, such a cartel is potentially threatened, people could choose to buy or download something else. The only option for the cartel is to actually act as a government, and take on (indirectly) the ability and desire to punish, imprison, or kill people who do not obey it. And so we are getting legislation to do just that, and it's not a joke, and your assumption that a market exists (of cartel and non-cartel goods) is _wildly_ speculative. I don't approve of your making this suggestion: it's not your 'air supply' being cut off, it's mine. This is not your fight.
Again, the nasty part here is the way the cartel overrides, not consumer rights, but my rights as a potentially competing content producer. I think it would be tragic if, say, Audio CDs were outlawed and I could no longer legally produce them, but I think that is unlikely. By contrast, with the DMCA as precedent, it is quite likely and possible that legislation could be passed so that copying/mp3ing of the same Audio CDs gets _imprisonment_. In this context, I could attempt to extend permission for fans to copy MY OWN CDs, have them try to do so, and be responsible for seeing my own fans put IN PRISON for violating rules that I do not control and cannot override. And that is quite intolerable...
If I release a DVD with a statement on it that says "I as the copyright holder authorise using DeCSS on this DVD and ripping it and posting it on the internet", and my fan does that, can you guarantee that my fan does not go to prison for ten years? I think you can't make any such promises. I as the copyright holder am not the boss. It is the cartel getting ready to put people in prison, and it would be more than happy to have an excuse to put the fans of its competition in prison for ten years. I _dare_ you to find, in the DMCA or any of this legislation, anything to suggest that noncommercial copying and distribution can be authorised by the copyright holder even if desired...
So, are you going to keep it up or are you gonna follow our bad example? If things go much farther, it'll be you guys fighting to keep the world safe from us... though for the first time I'm aware of, the entities putting people in prison for ten years etc etc. are NOT GOVERNMENTS. So you'd be fighting us, not because America itself is inherently a bad country, but because we have too willingly become the private police force of agencies that seek to seize domination all over the world.
Damn. It really is our turn to wear the brown shirt, isn't it? How far will it go? It makes me ashamed to live where I do.
Actually, there are plenty of criminals that authorities that would "love dead". Yet they still manage to survive. While it might be considerably more difficult to stand up to police or even up to armies when you are a lone idiot or crockpot, the organized criminal organizations are actually still quite successful despite of centuries of attempt by governments to stomp them out.
Usually, cops only win due to the fact that they are facing weak, stupid and a completely an organized foe.
Show just a little discipline and cops start to quickly panic.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Unfortunately (?), Europe does not have your constitution. In Britain, at least, copyright does not exist to encourage artists to create works that will soon enter the public domain. It is there because of a 'moral right' for an artist to control his own work.
There is no fundamental right that the public should eventually benefit from it. That is an invention of the US's founding fathers, who objected to the British copyright laws.
Well, it's now a week later, but anyway I'd just like to point out that I don't agree with the British justification for copyright; I merely point out that arguing against proposed EU laws by discussing the motives of the USA's founding fathers is, frankly, idiotic.
The EU commissioners are turning ever more into a bunch of corporate lackies. I'd like to say dinosaurs, but unfortunately there is no meteorite in sight yet.
Perhaps one of these insane laws they regularly bring in will tip the balance into revolt by member states, because the people never get to vote on any of this nonsense and one day it's going to be more than they can stand. We're quite good at removing the heads of leaders overawed by their own self-importance, if you look back in history. Unfortunately, in the UK we don't have a Constitution so it's difficult to fight anything on any basis, but perhaps the other EU states will not have that problem.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Another interesting fallout will be what sort of CSS-bypassing facilities the MPAA is going to ship over here to the colleges and libraries.
All of these are legal (in terms of copyright) and ethical. All of these are important freedoms and rights. All are effectively prohibited due to anti-circumvention laws.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
surely the solution is to encrypt or use other naming foolery at either end ... someone postulated elswehere on /. that if fair portion of the net's traffic were to suddenly become encrypted, then it would become next too impossible to monitor effectively.
Rmember that we are still doing the equivalent of sending stuff around without an envelope.... crazy, really..
This has got to be a troll, but I'll bite.
How about fair use? We're legally allowed to utilize copyrighted material freely in a variety of ways, including excerpts, educational use, etc. None of that is stealing, and all of it is protected by law.
The DMCA, and now the EU regulation, is effectively eliminating provisions for fair use, which should be protected. I suspect that this will eventually end up in the Supreme Court, and I predict that they'll strike it down for that very reason.
Note, that I don't agree that they should outlaw encryption - there's no law saying it has to be easy to get your excerpts. But outlawing any attempt to exercise your fair use rights is deplorable.
Except that P&LI isn't on Hack.
But they could listen to "Mirrorshades" all they wanted then.
There's the rub. If you can get a lot of people on your side, then you don't even need the guns. That's the real battleground - the minds of others.
umm... no. DeCSS is presented as an access control mechanism, whose circumvention is prohibited.
This only applies to copying. You may use DeCSS and any other descrambling technology (under this law, at least) as long as you do not make non-technical copies.
~mindlace
"The EU seems to have discovered not only the Information Society (their caps)[...]"
Wow! I have also discovered the Information Society!
"I wanna know!"
"What you're thinking!"
"Tell me what's on your mind!"
"(Pure Energy!)"
A ruling that said some bananas couldn't be sold because they were too straight and a ruling that certain apples (Granny Smith's, a popular English variety) couldn't legally be called apples because they were too small.
Something tells me these people have WAY too much time on their hands.
Still, once people catch on that you can't lend something out anymore, you'll see the end of 'group buys' from people on a low budget making a purchase where one couldn't on their own, no peer copying and learning, then purchasing when someone gets used to a product.
Many products have only BEEN so successful because it was possible to copy them, thus allowing them to saturate the market. And eventually, a good quantity of these people end up making a purchase they otherwise would never have considered.
This law, like the DMCA will eventually stomp all the newer, heavily protected stuff, because people simply don't get the 'preview' of it in action.
No confidence and familiarity==no reason to by speculatively (except in a lot fewer cases of people wanting the newest).
In the end, methinks the older tech will end up being used far past what the manufacturers wish, to keep their turnover going, just to avoid these rules.
So, either they back down, or they go out of business.
Cheers,
Malk
I'm serious; I have no more patience for technoretards who legislate about technology without clue one about what they're doing. We need to put our votes and our dollars behind people who know more about technology than how to play solitaire.
After the CDA passed, I had a chance to thank Paul Simon (D-IL) for his vote against CDA. He didn't have a clue what I was talking about. He voted against the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 because he thought it would stiffle competition. He had no idea that title V of that Act contained broad, odious and (it turns out) unconstitutional censorship provisions. And this guy was one of the most respected legislators in the US Senate.
These are the people who are making up the rules we have to play by. Enough is enough; we have to punish legislators for their cluelessness by supporting their opponents and voting them out of office. Maybe then some of them will at least hire a compitent staffer to advise them on technology matters.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
You could be a nut like me and work towards making a data haven. Get enough people to join your collective and you will have some clout. Even if you don't have enough people to influence the law you can all move into the same physical space so you are hard to just arrest. Get enough of the worlds data on networks inside your haven and they are unlikely to just cut your access off.
:)
:)
We're the techie wizards. Force some suits to try to keep up with the tech themselves and it won't take long before they start to listen to what we say.
Hehe or maybe I've just read to many books.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Take 75% of the websites in the US and put it in a data haven (not to hard to manage actually.. cheap service with high security has a lot to offer average business and web sites) and it's unlikely the US would cut the connection to that haven. You just have to make the haven respectable enough that anyone who cut itself off would be doing more harm to themselves than the have.
:)
Maybe with so many geeks suddenly finding the job market less friendly they'll be more likely to be stubborn and start their own companies and such rather than kiss ass to take a lower paying job. Surely some geeks out there must have some nerve. What else does playing Quake or Half Life for 36 hours a day train us for?
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
"The media is not a trust this must be destinctly understood. No one group of people meet in a smoke filled room and decide your fate. It just dosn't work that way at all."
Well, actually in a way it is. You see, these days media doesn't actually investigate anything. They use official statements!
In other words, the PR machine of our Government is the best anti-media medicine ever. People are inherently LAZY and will take a decent PR spokeman or article over an interview 90% of the time. (I know, I was in the industry for a few years.).
Besides that, the composition of our journalist is extremly one-sided. Typical liberal attitudes are played well by the PR spokeman. Not only that, but journalist are increasingly more worried about getting "their point of view" and criticism out than reporting the news, and most importantly they never ask how it affects YOU.
And to be final, American people work alot of hours... when their not working, their vegitables. When people worked agriculture, there was ALOT of time to sit, read, and analyze politics. No time for that now!
And to compound that, governemt is getting bigger and producing tons and tons more information. Try keeping up on a daily basis with an in-depy coverage of the house floor. (Just a hint, the last house passed more legislation than any session before).
And if you did do all of this, well you would be considered a freak.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Full Text Of The Directive
A few of the more heinous provisions:
Section 26: (paraphrased, full text below)
Making analog backup copies for personal use is fine. Making digi tal backup copies for personal use is not.
Section 27: (paraphrased, full text below)
Even if the media holder has a legal right to access the content, that media holder may not circumvent cryptographic protections in the medium to access the content.
IE: You must use a *licensed* player for DVDs.
IE: The use of DeCSS is illegal, even if the action for which it is used is legal.
Section 28: (paraphrased, full text below)
Lending libraries are a good thing, and should continue to exist; however, they must move their books around in meatspace.
On the upside:
Section 38: (paraphrased, full text below)
In 2 years we should sift through the wreckage.
26.
Whereas Member States should be allowed to provide for an exception to the reproduction right for certain types of reproduction of audio, visual and audio-visual material for private use, accompanied by fair compensation in certain cases; whereas this may include the introduction or continuation of remuneration schemes to compensate for the prejudice to rightholders; whereas, although differences between those remuneration schemes affect the functioning of the Internal Market, those differences, with respect to analogue private reproduction, should not have a significant impact on the development of the Information Society; whereas digital private copying is likely to be more widespread and have a greater economic impact; whereas a distinction should therefore be made between digital private copying and analogue private copying and whereas the conditions of application should in both cases be harmonised to a certain extent; whereas it is of particular importance, in the case of digital private copying, that all rightholders receive fair compensation ";
27.
Whereas, when applying the exception on private copying, Member States should take due account of technological and economic developments, in particular with respect to digital private copying and remuneration schemes, when effective technological protection measures are available; whereas such exceptions should not inhibit the use of technological measures or their enforcement against circumvention;
28.
Whereas Member States may provide for an exception for the benefit of establishments accessible to the public, such as non-profit-making libraries and equivalent institutions; whereas, however, this should be limited to certain special cases covered by the reproduction right; whereas such an exception should not cover uses made in the context of on-line delivery of protected works or other subject matter; whereas this Directive should be without prejudice to Member States' option to derogate from the exclusive public lending right in accordance with Article 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, as amended by Directive 93/98/EEC; whereas, therefore, specific contracts or licences should be promoted which, without creating imbalances, favour such establishments and the disseminative purposes they serve;
38.
Whereas, after a period of two years following the date of implementation of this Directive, the Commission should report on its application; whereas this report should examine in particular whether the conditions set out in the Directive have resulted in ensuring a proper functioning of the Internal Market, and should propose action if necessary,
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
You're assuming that their goals are anything similar to yours. I don't think that the evidence bears this out. In so far as I have been able to determine, the purpose of the DMCA, and allied pieces of legislature, e.g., UCITA, are to foster the creation of a centralized authority. To this end, they are so designed that a small business will not be able to use them to protect itself. They will be too expensive. This is based on the US version, but I presume that provisions of similar effect will be in place in the European version.
Consider this a prediction for testing, after the fashion of an experimental test. If it is wrong, then the theory behind it is wrong.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The "art" of politics goes against everything it is supposed to be about. Rather than truly representing the people, it is a game of compromising values. The biggest players are not even in office. They are the media. It was a trip to hear clips taken during the Clinton scandel. Hearing them back to back over a matter of minutes showed just how much a change had taken place and the change was accomplished through the media. The first clips were of democrats stating that if there was any truth to the sex scandel then Clinton should be immediately removed from office, then there is the slow slide to the point of "everyone does it."Locally, we recently had elections where the incumbant lost. The incumbant lost because people were fed up with the spend and tax mentality of the city commission (yes, the actually spend the money before they even have a source for it). But to read the local paper you would think the election was about ecology and anti-republican whiplash from the presidential race. Check out the editorial page and you find in the small paragraphs a different picture than the front page stories. Everyone is complaining about the way things are being railroaded over the community without any real representation from our own elected officials. Still the media machine pounds forward with its lies. After a while people will start to accept the newspaper view and the people will adjust just like they did for Clinton.The media speaks loudest and thus we are silenced and demonized (no offence BSD).
In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than this, look for me there...
I do not believe there should be laws against harming yourself, that's your choice and you should have to also bear the consequences of the actions rather than have a governmental body tell you what you must do (seatbelt laws come to mind here along with motorcycle helmets.)
I'm all for that too, but I'd like it to work in reverse.
If you get into an accident, are injured or killed in a manner that wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet would've prevented those injuries, and no third party is involved/negligent, you forfeit your right to sue.
In other words, if you slam into a tree and get paralyzed, and your paralysis was preventable by wearing a seatbelt, you would be unable to sue the landowners for, say, the tree being too close to the road or something similar.
I'll completely for the right of somebody to choose to wear a helmet or seatbelt, but I'm also for that person to have to bear the responsibilities those rights confer. What angers me is that so many people want it both ways: they want the right to be able to wear a seatbelt, but they also want the "right" to escape responsibility by suing anyone and everyone in sight for their own actions.
--
Therefore he is justified in making whatever choice he feels the safest.
/now/ is a lot of people who want to act carelessly, and then expect the rest of us to "reward" their behaviour in the form of footing their entire medical bills.
I can (almost) unequivocably state that wearing a seatbelt, or helmet, is safer than not wearing one. Yes, there have been cases where seatbelts have caused death, but the overwhelming statistical evidence is that seatbelts, helmets, and other safety devices not only lessen the injuries a person receives, but in some cases prevents injuries entirely. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that not wearing a helmet or seatbelt is relatively reckless behaviour, with only a handful of mitigating factors (for instance, some people are just too physically large to wear seatbelts; a 350 lb. man probably isn't going to be able to wear one, even if he wanted to).
As a result, there is usually a disparity between injuries that you could suffer with a safety device versus injuries that you could suffer without. A person wearing a helmet might get a concussion; a person not wearing a helmet might be permanently paralyzed from the neck down. Similarly, a person wearing a seatbelt might suffer whiplash; a person not wearing one might sail through the windshield at 70mph.
Therefore, I think it's worthwhile to analyze each individual case to see whether the presence of a safety device would have made a difference in the injuries suffered by the person had s/he been wearing one. This can be done by any trained medical professional, as the results of most common accidents are rather understood these days - between a coroner and/or doctor, and police officer, a pretty good idea of what might have happened to the victim, had s/he been wearing said device, can be created.
When the medical expenses are paid for, or the court judgement entered in (should the victim sue and successfully win for the "reimbursement" of those medical expenses and/or damages), that analysis of what-happened vs. what-was-likely-to-happen should be taken into full account, and the damages modified accordingly. If Joe Average, wearing nothing, suffered paralysis and will require $3,000,000 USD in medical expenses for the rest of his life, but would've only required $500,000 had s/he been wearing his seatbelt/helmet/whatever, then s/he should only get $500,000. Depending on the likelihood of injuries, this sum could be modified; if it was only marginally likely that the person could've suffered lesser injuries, perhaps he would get $2,500,000. If it was a virtual certainty he would have suffered lesser injuries, then the $500,000 sum would be more appropriate. (As you say, there's no way to "prove" what his injuries might have been, hence the comparisons to other accidents, talking to knowledgeable professionals, etc.)
If it was proven that the individual's injuries would have been greater by wearing a device than without, then he gets the full amount, unfettered. (Same goes for if he was simply lucky, and suffered much lighter injuries than would be expected.)
In this way, s/he is allowed to accept the responsibility for their decision to not wear a safety device. This has no effect on punitive damages; if somebody put tire spikes in the road to cause an accident or other malady, and that person was brought to court, found guilty, and forced to pay our victim $40,000,000, then regardless of whether that victim was wearing a helmet/seatbelt or not, s/he would get the full $40,000,000. But the victim should be held accountable for his or her actions (or lack thereof) when considering medical expenses.
In other words, the victim cannot (or should not) have his/her cake and eat it too. They should not be able to act in a reckless manner and still expect society to reward his recklessness. If you choose to act in a reckless manner, then you should be forced to accept the responsibilities of that choice. What I see
--
Ahhh, but the only way to get in is to become one of them. And to do that you have to sell your soul to the 'vested interests'.
:\
Yep. or you'll be bullied by other corrupt congressman into doing what they want, anyway.
BilldaCat
writing comments on Slashdot complaining about it is definetly the right way to go to try and fix things.
I've written letters to my congressman (and yes, I realize this article is discussing Europe, but we have the DMCA to deal with here), but as expected all I got back was the standard blow off form letter.
Face it, we're screwed. If you don't like it.. get into politics and try and change it. Change isn't going to happen from the outside, because too many people are ignorant/don't care about the issue.
BilldaCat
Yes, because the point is, they didn't discover it on theri own; you gave them an explicit instruction & tool to violate the control mechanism. Your intent was clear.
Not really.
According to the DMCA, anyway... it's not enough that the thing *could* be used to circumvent protection.. it's when it's primary purpose is to do so.
So if I make a device, like a video stabilizer for removing macrovision protection.... if I'm selling a video stabilizer, I might be okay. It *does* have legitimate uses.
If I advertise 'remove macrovision! copy macrovision protected movies with our device!'...then it's fair to say that the purpose for this device existing is to circumvent copy protection, making it illegal.
I maintain that if DeCSS had made an actual DVD player instead of just something that removes the CSS encoding, they would have been okay, as obviously the main purpose is to play video...
To skip the commercials at the start of many DVDs.
Or, do you like being forced to watch commercials on media that you payed for?
But all 'compliant' DVD players (which they have to be to get decryption codes) disable the navigation controls during the forced advertisements.
If you use DeCSS you can view the movie with a non-compliant player.
Copyrights are intended to be a *limited term* monopoly. Certain uses are also intended to be allowed with those works, quoting, etc.
By making copyrights essentially unlimited in term (longer than the average human lives) and still increasing them, as well as trying to remove the rights of people to quote and copy for non-infringing purposes, that limited monopoly gets a lot less limited.
That monopoly was granted with the idea that the public (government) would protect the work to encourage production in trade for the public's small use (quotes, etc) and eventual full use of the work.
That trade is no longer in place, you'll never have access to a work released during your life, and you don't have any ability to use the works in a legal manner.
So why are you paying taxes for the police forces that protect those right?
It not like a property crime, where the law exists to ensure that nothing is taken from the original creator. Information can be copied, so the creator still has the work. But they also have a nearly unlimited government monopoly preventing anyone else from having it as well.
In any contract I've heard of, both parties have to uphold their end of the bargain or it's void. The content publishers aren't living up to their end of the bargain... (And no, bribing politicians doesn't form a new agreement.)
I will support any technological measures necessary to remove any access control measures from media. By preventing a consumers legal access to media they purchased, these companies are defaulting on their copyright contract. If the politicians won't do anything about it, the people will.
Fair use includes things like reviews, criticism, satire, etc. What IP owner would willingly allow fair use if it may make them look bad?
To write my own viewer
To allow me to view a work as I choose
All very essential requirements for the blind. Converting to braille, text-to-speech, or very large print are routinely done today for convential media of all sorts, and these should continue for the future.
Ok, so what is really the definition of "analog"? I mean, everything is kind of "analog" at the lowest level, right (set aside things on the quantum level)?
Problem solved! :)
Secondly, the Directive provides that rightholders either voluntarily or by way of agreements with other parties have to provide those who would benefit from a particular exception e.g. schools, libraries in the case of teaching, with the means to do so.
:)
Which means that the MPAA has to give schools and libraries access to a DeCSS program of some sort. This could lead to interesting thing
What does xor-encrytion-as-trade-secrets have to do with copyright protection and circumvention mechanisms?
--
Your parents say not to take them because you are fat. There are many things parents may do to their children that it would be illegal for an adult to do to another adult.
Throwing insults around doesn't make you right, either. It simply shows one's maturity.
--------
Genius dies of the same blow that destroys liberty.
So how does having guns help you avoid it?
- Yes
No. Maybe.Remember that this is not legislation, only a dirtective, and it depends on how this is framed into law.
The dvd consortium attacked decss by claiming that it violated a trade secret. Cue cat hired a lot of lawyers, and fired off a lot of threatening letters, but at the end of the day didn't have a leg to stand on. Even their lawyers weren't mad enough to enter a courtroom and argue that a one byte xor was a trade secret.
It really is far to soon to judge whether a tool to crack such a simple obfuscation could be attacked under the legislation that may well not become law for another year and a half.
G.
- Technical copies on the net
So caching web proxies are exempt - now this is a only an EU directive, not a piece of legislation, so we will have to wait and see how this is drafted into law in individual countries, but there might be a nice big loophole for freenet hereThe Directive provides an obligatory exception for service providers, telecommunications operators and certain others in limited circumstances for particular acts of reproduction which are considered technical copies. A satisfactory balance has been found for what has been an extremely controversial issue. There are many conditions to be fulfilled before the exemption applies. In particular, those acts of reproduction have to form an essential part of a technological process and take place in the context of a transmission in a network. The Directive ensures therefore that there will be effective operation of the World Wide Web for those who place copyrighted material on the net and those who transmit or carry such material.
G.
1984, were a few years behind. ------ you cant rape the willing
Um... yeah...
CueCat Scanners.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
This is like buying a box with a lock on it, and the seller says you're not allowed to open it.
This raises the following questions:
1. Why ru buying this stupid locked box then?
2. Why is the seller selling you the box if it's so important to them that it's not opened ever?
3. What if they forgot to lock the box?
4. If you called the locksmith, would you or the locksmith be liable?
---
Actually, in the US they already have people lobbying that libraries should have to pay per copy for electronic books etc. If that goes thru, the exceptions in the EU may come down too..
---
(Usual IANAL disclaimer apply)
Well, actually, they do: the EU (or is it the Council of Europe?) has created a Human Rights Court, which is open to any European citizen.
If you (assuming "you" is a European citizen) believes your human rights have been violated by your (European) government, you have the right to appeal to the European Court of Justice -- but only after all legal recourse have exhausted in your country, which means quite a few years of legal fight.
Since "Free Speech" is a part of the Human Rights, I do believe a local European hacker would have a right to appeal to this court, especially since the study of, say, a copy-protection scheme would probably be within the limits of free speech, right to teach, (computer) research, etc...
So, yes, there is free speech protection within the EU -- it's just that racist remarks and neo-nazi propaganda are not accepted like they are in the US.
Please note that this is not necessarily easy: one has to go through a national legal fight before being able to appeal to the European Court of Justice. On the other hand, it has proven quite "liberal" (read: reasonable and leaning in the direction of individual freedom) in the past, so there is good hope, as far as I am concerned, that this recommendation will be overturned by a future decision.
You can find more information on the European Human Rights Court on its website.
On the other hand, I may be wildly optimistic... =)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
However, I can't help but wonder if:
I might add that there is always the possibility of EU legislation, passed in the European Parliament, overturning this recommendation.
There is also the intriguing possibility that EU-wide protest will make the Commission change its mind pronto, a little bit like the recent protests in France against the proposed media tax...
Interesting times ahead. Can I still read Slashdot, Mr Commissioner? Pretty please? =)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
If I were an author, and I wrote a book and encrypted and allowed people to download it off a website, but sold people the program to decrypt. And if the encryption was only single byte XOR, and somebody cracked it, and released a program that would decrypt XOR encrypted files, and would allow you to enter whatever key you wanted. If they gave out my key along with this program could sue them for what they did? Even if my encryption is incredibly weak is it still legally protected?
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
I'm glad that someone knows the meaning of the term 'voluntarily'.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
No.
You are not breaking the law, also not the new intended.
As long as you do not further distribute it!
Also you are not allowed to destroy the original "copy" and to distribute your home made decrypted copy.
However you could make a bitwise copy, destroy the original and give away the copy.
Thats all what it is about.
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
well, that should get moderated off topic.
All your arguements are in fact off topic.
None of them is in conflict with the (intended) new law.
The point is: for what reason do you decrypt(brak the code)?
For distribution of decrypted copies? Or for your own personal purpose?
Your own personal purpose is fair use. period.
If you are afraid that devices get so hard encrypted that this is no longer possibel to trust them, you should work on establishing peer reviews BEFORE it is shipped into the shops, not after it is.
For making a copy od the device to compete in a free market: what is that about competition if you do not compete? Try to build it your own, thats competition!
If you have a test in your class you expect that no one is looking over your shoulders and is writing (with better words?) what you write.
READING it after the test, thats competition and fair use. Not during the test.
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Oh yes, how intelligent. The provision for fair use will be granted voluntarily by the copyright holders. I.e. it is no
different from not having a fair use provision at all.
Where in the document is the speach about "voluntary"?
They are legaly FORCED: either to make agreements with universities and schools etc. or to prepare a way to grand tehm fair use which does not interfere with the standard distribution way.
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
BTW: as far as I know true fair use does not exist in the U.S. it does in Europe.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There is one big difference to DMCA. A directive by the EU is not a law. It has to be adopted (implemented) in local law to become "real".
So no law yet...
The commissionars were almost fired a few years ago because of corruption, but the EU Parliment chickened out in the end.
The Commission is a giant quango (an unelected government body) appointed by individual EU governments. Such an important role should be directly elected by the public or else the powers should be handed over to the EU parliment.
This news on copyright law is disgusting. I thought this had recently been ruled out for the EU?
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
Come to think of it,
;-)
This proposal just may have even worse implications than I initially thought...
If you study it, wouldn't this make "attempting to repair any electronics device" illegal, WHEN you're not using the schematic ?
Because, that is reverse-engineering, too.
Imagine you cannot legally repair your TV by 'reverse-engineering' all the wiring connections.
I don't think that is so different.
Where would one draw the line ?
At age 3, I personally reverse-engineered a flashlight to find that if either the switch, battery or bulb is absent, it won't function.
There are two arms to the anti-circumvention provision. One prohibits actual circumvention, the other prohibits distribution of technology designed to enable circumvention to take place.
The second "thrust" is much looser than the first. For example DeCSS may not be caught by the second arm because its primary purpose is to enable DVDs to be played on Linux, and not circumvention.
This argument would be made stronger if DeCSS was incorporated into a Linux DVD player, in such a way that the decryption technology was not exposed to the user. As software developers we try to build systems that are as flexible as possible. In this case we need to build an inflexible system. Distribute the source by all means, but make the system a Linux DVD player and nothing else. Lawyers like this sort of thing...
The first "thrust" prohibits actual circumvention but without exceptions. This is because you might buy something which is, for example, a Linux DVD player and a DVD decryptor. When you come to use it, you will choose which function you are going to employ. If you choose the latter you are breaking the law.
Now, this does not really change the current situation very much. It is illegal to import foreign releases of films into the EU until there has been a domestic release too. Now it will be illegal to play them as well but so what. You were already breaking the law if you chose to do this.
Once there has been an EU release, you are no longer circumventing anything by playing the DVD on Linux.
Of course this is not final, because much depends on how national governments implement the directive. I also don't know how much the courts will buy into this argument. Until there have been a few cases it is difficult to say how a statute will be interpreted. Wait and see...
...how this story is not actually, "EU make attempting to steal something illegal"?
I must be being stupid here - because apart from taking stuff that you haven't paid for, I can't think of any reason why you would want to break the encryption on copyrighted materials.
Can anyone tell me otherwise?
Amen to that. Sure, some soldiers are just going to be gov't drones, doing whatever they're told. But I am confident that many retain a conscience and a free will and wouldn't bear arms against their own countrymen.
Of course, that raises the issue that there are too many gov't agencies empowered to wield weapons against the populace already, yet the liberals want to put further restrictions on law-abiding gun-owning citizens. Why is that? Do they really want to live in a police state?
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
I hate it when people comment on a sig instead of the subject at hand. And I really wonder why I'm feeding this troll.
Arguing for prejudice? That's a new one. I'm sure you'll go really far in life with that philosophy. Especially when you exclude a specific kind of choice people make (sexual preference) different than every other kind of choice. Yes, your behavior and actions are choices. There may be any number of social and biological pressures that everyone experiences every day, but don't abrogate the responsibility of your own will.
"I was born/raised this way, I can't help it," is such a cop-out. Irish people don't have to drink and fight alot just because they were born there. Arkansans don't have to act like trailer trash just because they were raised there. Males don't have to be rapists just because they were born with testosterone. Everyone has free will and is responsible for their actions.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
Nobody said it's wrong to have an opinion. Maybe you should go back and read it again.
Prejudice is (emphasis mine):
Let's look at what he said again, shall we?
Hello!?!? This guy is saying that it's OK to make irrational, uninformed decisions (by definition of prejudice) about other people! OK, he's not basing it on race, but on people's choices. In effect he's advocating saying, "I don't know a thing about Christianity, and I haven't met my new coworker yet, but since I hear he's a Christian I guess he must be an idiot."
Prejudice is, by definition, wrong. Unless you encourage irrationality and making decisions without enough information. And if you advocate that, I'm done talking with you, because I won't waste my time talking with irrational people.
Even if you do have a rational and informed opinion about a philosophy or lifestyle choice (such as "Christianity is stupid" to use your example) this is no reason at all for form an opinion about persons that hold that philosophy. I had a good relationship with a former coworker whose religious philosophies were almost completely the opposite of mine. Why? Because I didn't base my value of him as a person solely on the one aspect I disagreed with. To do that would be prejudice and bigotry, and as a Christian, I won't do that. Jesus had strong opinions about right and wrong, but He still loved everybody. That's what I try to do.
Keep an open mind. But not so open your brains fall out.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
The only way to defeat the commercial pirates is to make it commercially impossible for them to make a profit - but that would mean actually competing in the market place and that would be a shock to many media companies :-)
Well, so long as it was a legally purchaced copy of Hack, they can listen to "Peace and Love Incorporated" all they want
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
"Firstly, rightholders have complete control over the manufacture, distribution etc. of devices designed to circumvent anti-copying devices. A more flexible solution in this regard would have carried a greater risk of abuse and piracy.
Secondly, the Directive provides that rightholders either voluntarily or by way of agreements with other parties have to provide those who would benefit from a particular exception e.g. schools, libraries in the case of teaching, with the means to do so. It will be up to Member States to ensure that such means exist."
(My empasis)
So, rightholders have legal protection for their encryptions schemes, but they must provide a bypass for "fair use" copies.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Whenever someone does something with a piece of GPL'ed code that the authors might not like, such as wrapping it with CORBA or COM and then making proprietary software talk to that CORBA or COM object, people say that even though they might *legally* be able to do this, it is *wrong*, because they are not respecting the author's wishes.
OK, I can buy that. Why doesn't the same argument apply to books and movies and music? I don't see why I should be concerned that it might be illegal for me to crack a protection scheme, because it would already be immoral for me to do so, since that is going against the wishes of the author, or the of the people the author sold the rights to.
Note that I'm talking about cracking protection schemes in order to make and use copies, not to reverse engineer for compatibility. That's a separate issue. Start another thread if you want to talk about that issue.
Besides you're assuming serveral premises that aren't true.
First you're making unsubstantiated assumptions. It may be the case that if the seatbelt WAS worn it could have resulted in more serious injury. There is no way to prove one way or the other that the seatbelt would have helped or hindered. Even with a strong inductive argument ABOUT THAT ONE PARTICULAR CASE. A driver has no foreknowledge that a seatbelt would help or not. Therefore he is justified in making whatever choice he feels the safest.
I certainly don't condone rampant law suits, especially when they are definitley aren't warranted. But your argument makes no sense.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
The DMCA didn't address any of these things (so they're still up to court interpretation, which is good), and allowed exemptions for interoperability (something the EU directive explicitly does not -- "rightholders have complete control over the manufacture, distribution etc. of devices designed to circumvent anti-copying devices").
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
The arguments they present are frankly fucking stupid. Here is an excerpt:
And here is their argument why there has been a balanced compromise:Oh yes, how intelligent. The provision for fair use will be granted voluntarily by the copyright holders. I.e. it is no different from not having a fair use provision at all.
I can see why they have produced these law changes though. From the beginning of the document:
This goal does not justify removing fair use though, and it certainly does not justify lying about some non-existent compromise. I think they are afraid of being left behind by the US, and have overreacted. Hopefully all this will be revoked as soon as people realize the impact it will have on society (which will probably take 10 years or so, bleh). If anyone knows of any strong opposing forces inside the commision or something similar, please post some links to give us some hope...
But do you seriously believe that copyright holders who choose to encrypt their content are going to hand out 'circumvention devices' to everyone who has a fair use right to copy? i.e. everyone?
How about including a registration card which you return in exchange for your 'fair use key' or decryption device.
It'd also give the company a chance to collect info on who's buying their stuff, but the EU data protection act will limit what they can actually do with that data somewhat.
"Arguing for prejudice? "
Now whos the idiot/troll?
What does prejudice mean? To prejudge. Hes not prejudging, hes looked at what it is to choose to be a christian, decided its stupid and it sucks, and hes slagging it off. Wheres the prejudice? Wheres the problem? Its not wrong to dislike things! Thats not prejudice! Thats having an opinion. I think thats the real PC crime. But perhaps this is the wrong forum for dissing groupthink...
(For the record, I dont hate Christians! `Some of my best friends` and all that.)
The only definition of yours which i dont agree with (from memory, i dont have a dictionary to hand) is #3, as all the others mention preconceived,beforehand etc.
You could argue, that to disagree with a group of people who believe, for example, that someone could feed thousands of people with a handful of food, or who (in some cases) believe that dinosaur bones were planted to test the faith of humans so that God would know who to chill out with, and who to burn in hell for all eternity, doesnt betray any form of irrationality at all.
But on the whole I agree with you. Its easy to make fun of Christians. Very easy.
Not sure if I have it in me to love ol' Dubya though.
If you would have done a bit more investigating (on the 'net namely) you would have found: Direct Client to Client Protocol.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
It doesn't matter where their headquarters are based. The corporate world loves their copyrights and that's all there is to it. They're not going to give in. Ever! Because frankly, there is without doubt less money *for them* if they adopt different models of production and distribution. (ie. Open Source, street performer protocol, etc.). It's simply how the capitalist system works when applied to non-physical goods. You can all yell and whine and complain all you want, but it's not going to change a darn thing. You can write all the encryption cracking software you can dream up and distribute masses of copyrighted material on Freenet, but it's not going to change a darn thing. And no perfectly worded, highly moderated /. post proclaiming a utopian world where big business, geeks, and IP all get along is going to change a darn thing either.
If you want to change the culture of information, you have but ONE option. Produce that culture yourself and set it free. Write music. Write code. Write literature. Find your art and express it to the world. Remove the market from the equation legitimately and you'll have what you want.
Resistance is futile. You must not comply.
We're screwed. When will we realize that Copyright Law is an abomination of human thought. As Hemos said at WEBNIGHT, (paraphrasing) "The idea that 'I said it first! You can't use it' is an enforcable law is ridiculous." This is playground mentality at it's worst.
One of the saner provisions of this is that you can make limited numbers of personal copies of mateerial. So the police will not be breaking down my front door to seize my mp3 collection.
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.
The vast majority of Europeans are quite happy with our gun laws and the related lack of widespread gun violence in our societies.
I fail to see the link between Mad Cow Disease and firearms. BSE is a symptom of intensive agriculture policies, questionable vet advice and a government (UK) cock up rather than anything else.
The anti-nazi laws again are driven by the public. We have good reason accross Europe to implement laws that prohibit incitement to hatered.
And to top it all besides European countries are much more relaxed about drugs, sex and religion than the US. And that is reflected in our laws too.
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.
Sure we have. We are all ignoring it.
That's why bad laws are so bad for society:
They result in widespread flagrant disregard
for the law. The result: Lawlessness.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
I'm a firm believer that US laws were intentionally started only to bring punishment to those who unnecessarily harm another person. Active, not 'state of being' law origins. Decrypting messages is not, in and of itself, harmful to others, what you do with the decrypted information is another ballgame alltogether. Decompiling software is not harmful either, but if you use that information only to copy the code and sell 'your own' version, again, that's a different story.
I do not believe there should be laws against harming yourself, that's your choice and you should have to also bear the consequences of the actions rather than have a governmental body tell you what you must do (seatbelt laws come to mind here along with motorcycle helmets.)
It is interesting that the most closed societies are starting to open and the most open ones are closing down, China excepted. I wonder if our grandchildren will recognize the societies as they stand now.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
> Where the French supposed to protect those
> Greenpeace activists they killed?
Oh, what a well-informed man. Greenpeace activists? With an s? Greenpeace? Activist? A photographer (with no s), without affiliation with Greenpeace, in the (supposedly empty) Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed.
Sure, enough for France to be pretty ashamed of herself, but that's not a reason to misinform the way you do.
THE PARENT POST IS NOT A TROLL. THE POSTER IS FROM THE TIMES OF LONDON.
The short answer is that copyright is not an unlimited right. For example, if I purchase a music CD, then I can legally copy it to tape to listen to in the car. Or I can make a copy for a friend, provided I don't do so commercially. As another example, the US Supreme Court has affirmed that I can record a television broadcast to watch it later.
Of course, large copyright holders would like to destroy such "fair use" rights so that they can double or triple charge for the same material. Since these fair use rights are so well established, their line of attack has been indirect: subvert these established rights by technological means.
A recent example concerns DVD movies. If you purchase a movie on DVD, you have a legal right to play it on your Linux machine. Except the movie studios try to absolutely prevent you from exercising this right by encrypting the movies.
Fair enough. But here's the problem: their encryption is a farce, and few believe that any form of encryption can ever succeed in this context. So they get laws like the DMCA passed that make trafficking in programs that subvert their encryption illegal. So you have the right to watch the movie, there are tools that let you watch the movie, but creating or distributing such a tool is illegal. Go figure.
Furthermore, banning trafficking in such programs has a chilling effect on free speech. For example, I can not post a certain decryption program that is shorter than this paragraph for you here without risking a lawsuit by the motion picture industry. Slashdot is full of people who communicate all day, every day in computer code. Now our essential mode of communication is curtailed so that wealthy execs in the recording and motion picture industry can illicitly rake in more cash. Furthermore, a recent court ruling limits my right even to post a *link* to such a program. We're not talking about pornography or atomic weapons secrets here (both of which I could post), but a little snippet of computer code (which I can not).
I work in the Theory of Computation Group at MIT. A central activity is the creation and cracking of cryptographic protocols as a scientific endeavor. If a protocol is used to protect any copyrighted material, then is our right to publish a crack in a research journal curtailed? This is not a theoretical problem: on advice of counsel, Edward Felton of Princeton University has refrained from publishing his cracks of several Secure Digitial Music Initiative watermarking systems. I personally know several researchers who have worked on watermarking. Since since the SDMI systems employ a whole spectrum of the techniques, must that entire field of academic research be abandoned? I hope not, but the ground is certainly shaky.
Yes, opposition to such laws may benefit people who like to swap free music. But these laws also trample on fundamental rights at the same time. When there's a clash between the rights of all citizens and the rights of the oh-so-seedy recording industry, there is no question which ought to prevail. That is why organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, are fighting to overturn such laws. And that is why Slashdot is so up in arms. Jealously guarding our basic freedoms is the duty of all citizens in a democracy.
Monkey sense
Funny how the IRA and ETA have been able to wage terrorist campaigns for decades, despite not being able to walk into Walmart and buy high explosives.
I do not believe there should be laws against harming yourself, that's your choice and you should have to also bear the consequences of the actions rather than have a governmental body tell you what you must do (seatbelt laws come to mind here along with motorcycle helmets.)
Please don't think that I intend the following comment as some angry response to something I disagree with, but merely as an addition to the discussion. As a hard-nosed farm boy, I would like to agree with you comment that I have taken the liberty in pasting to my reply. This seems to be the view of Socrates in what is known today as the Ethical Rule of Egoism. This states: "An act is right if it creates a positive balance of consequences for the agent, and an act is wrong if it creates a negative balance of consequences for the agent." In your reply, you only mention the agent. The idiot who does not wear the helmet or doesn't wear the seatbelt. You don't mention the Wife/Kids/Driver of the other car/whatever that are not the agent. This seems to coralate with the selfishness I mentioned in my previous reply. I have a tendancy to agree more with (although not completely with) Budda's idea that an act is right if it creates a positive balance of consequences for everyone except the agent, and an act is wrong if it creates a negative balance of consequences for everyone except the agent.
My point is that there is always more to any situation than "me". Does this apply to the Decrypting of messages and such? I don't know. It's not for me to define. I think that governments go too far in many cases; gun control for example.
I wonder if our grandchildren will recognize the societies as they stand now.
Ask your grandparents if this is these are the societies they saw 25-30 years ago. I guess things change. We become more 'civilized/educated' and we think we now have the answers that they didn't have 25-30 years ago and the cycle continues. In my humble opinion, it's not that we are any more civilized or educated, but simply more selfish.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
One of the problems with the EU gov't is they have already decided they know better than 'the people' what is good for them.
I'm not pretending that I know where you are from, but in a comment; I can't see how this differs so much from the society of the U.S. In all actuality, this is the idea of most governing bodies. If you think about it, the only reason for creating laws (which we are so good at here in the U.S.) is to protect "The People" from themselves or from other people.
The only type of government where "The People" would be trusted completely is tre communism which would mean there is no government as well as no private ownership of property (side note). I honestly can say that I don't believe this would work. People are selfish by default and without laws to protect us and each other from the selfishness that exists we would be much worse off than we are today.
Does this mean I think that it isn't going to far? No. Most "politicians" are selfish as well and seek to serve special intrest groups that pump money into their campaign fund. The real problem here in the U.S. is that instead of enforcing the laws that exist, we choose to just make another one. Talk about a catch-22.
Is there an answer? If there is I don't have it. I'm just here to offer my opinion. And as always...
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
They don't have a constitution, so their government will get away with it, too!
Last time I checked, Europe consisted of more than just one country. The tone of this comment, as well as the topic itself of this post, seem to imply that all of Europe is covered by one large government. Wrong.
---
The AOL-Time Warner-Microsoft-Intel-CBS-ABC-NBC-Fox corporation:
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
>I'd suggest the Europeans revolt, but they're a disarmed sheeple, and the
>massacre would be horrible.
Don't need a gun to hurt people. Rioters are quite ingenious at making ad hoc weapons, knives, Molotov cocktails? Rocks? Glass bottles?
The UK has had riots in the past. It tends to topple governments or atleast reflect very badly on them. Political fallout is bad enough if you are a politician. Guns are only necessary with really BAD government. Mostly Europe doesn't have government that bad.
And governments find it politically very difficult to use guns when the population don't have them. Look what happened when China killed a few students.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Or at least, it's very well hidden! Most of the commentaries on these directives allow you to download a PDF of the full text of the directive being discussed. This particular commentary has no link to such. So all the posts on /. about how this directive will affect us and how it compares to the yanks' DMCA is premature.
What good does it do to climb a mountain? Does anyone benefit? Why play games? Ok, these things don't result in doing something illegal and neither should breaking encryption.
Now... If I was to take something from someone's house at the top of the mountain, that would be a crime. If I break the encryption, but do not otherwise do anything illegal with the material, why is that a crime?
Punish the crime. "Don't just make the act criminal, also make it criminal to do the steps that lead to the criminal act." Guess what? Any action can eventually lead to the commission of a crime, so let's just make doing everything illegal.
If I buy a pad-lock and take it apart and learn how it works, that should be illegal too.
Outside of software, are there any real analogies for this type of stuff? If I buy something and tamper with it, is there any other case where I can get into legal trouble?
I'd suggest the Europeans revolt, but they're a disarmed sheeple, and the massacre would be horrible.
oh well, at leat I'm an American.
Yep, good ol' armed americans and their guns sure showed those legislators where to stick the DMCA, didn't they.
Or maybe, as the Euro's are aware, Hollywood-fueled fantasies about how your can use your guns to protect your rights are, well, fantasies...
Those disarmed sheeple maintained their rights longer than the armed americans, if only by circumstance. Lay the gun myth to rest, ok?
Go into business and create and/or distribute digital content and devices to play it back that do *not* have any encryption or copy protection in them.
:)
You underestimate the problem. You can make open devices to your heart's content, but not a single movie will ever play on them, and so not a single box will sell. (Well, maybe one or two
The MPAA will only release movies on formats it approves. VHS is still mostly open due to its age, but is crappy for the same reason, and so will be ignored here. That leaves DVDs. You cannot make a device that plays DVDs unless you either
a) license CSS from the industry, or
b) break the law.
c) reverse engineer CSS
If you choose (b), your company gets shut down. Game Over. If you choose (a) then you either agree to the licensing conditions (ie you build your box to their spec with their cripples) or you don't get a license. Game over either way.
We have yet to see if reverse engineering CSS is a legal way to create an open player. Judging by what we've seen so far, it isn't. So while I'm not sure, I suspect that that is game over also.
IOW, it is illegal to create a DVD player that maintains consumers rights, unless the industry decides to let you, and they won't. End of story.
However, when it comes to HDTV recording, you _might_ be on to something, but I imagine the new format also needs to be licensed - any product based on reverse engineering (better known as that evil hacking thing) will probably be illegal, despite the token clause in the DMCA.
Point taken, but this is the first I knew about this happening©
Where did I find out? Reading about it in the trash free newspaper on the bus on my way to work this morning©
If I'd known, I would have written© I signed the anti-software-patent petition, and would have done the same thing against this had I known©
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Note to self - do not post to Slashdot using Netscape 6.0 for Windows.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Well, I don't teach or illustrate, so I don't think they'll be giving me the means for copying.
An earlier post analysed this quite well. The DMCA is getting all types of criticism from libraries and academic institutions for rendering fair use copying impossible. The EU are including a fair use clause to avoid this criticism. And OK, schools and libraries may very well get such means to copy.
But do you seriously believe that copyright holders who choose to encrypt their content are going to hand out 'circumvention devices' to everyone who has a fair use right to copy? i.e. everyone?
No. I didn't think you did.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
The home page of the Information Society is here
Try to find a link to the actual full legislative text however.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
... It's nice to have a reminder that the US doesn't have a monopoly or corpratocracy.
Firstly, rightholders have complete control over the manufacture, distribution etc. of devices designed to circumvent anti-copying devices. A more flexible solution in this regard would have carried a greater risk of abuse and piracy.
Two feeble attempts at finding loopholes...
1) Does the word "device", and later "manufacture", imply physical devices only? What about a pure software solution? Probably not, but worth a shot.
2) What's with the word "etc." in that?! How vague is that!? If I code up and run a DECSS equivalent myself, have I "manufactured" or "distributed" or "etc."'d anything?
More information about this is on the Heise news ticker, with special information regarding the situation in Germany. As always, Heise posts this in German, so those of you who participate in the English monoculture have to use the Fish or something similar.
The article on Heise specifically points out that in Germany, the situation doesn't change at all with the new law, more or less, and especially that napstering music is not becoming illegal, but that it never was legal for other than private purposes in Germany. Which is where they're right.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
Easy
Beat 'em in the marketplace.
That's right. Beat 'em in the marketplace.
Fuck the lawyers, fuck the legislators. You can't sue em, you can't buy 'em. Beat 'em where you can always beat 'em, and that's in the marketplace. Go into business and create and/or distribute digital content and devices to play it back that do *not* have any encryption or copy protection in them. Stand up for the fair use of the consumer. Proclaim that fact loud and proud.
(Be willing to take a hit from piracy, because it's going to happen. Just because you're good to people doesn't mean that people are going to be good back to you. Do what you have to do -- go after the Napsters and the Gnutella's and the rest of the thieves out there, but don't use the shotgun tactics today's media companies are trying to use, because they won't work.)
And, of course, once your fair-use protecting media and devices take off in the marketplace, be sure to license the technology to the other bastards for some ungodly amount of money.
Ed R.Zahurak
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Australia has some pretty dumb net laws...
They're long gone.
Basically, because it encourages better end products. Using the example of DVD encryption. If you can't break the encryption then well, you're stuck with whatever decrypters you're forced to buy. Good or bad. If people can legally decrypt the code then it means that the way to make money is the make the decrypter/player better than the competition's. Faster, easier to use, nifty features and eye candy, etc.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to load my old MS Word documents under another word processor. What if my new word processor is way better than MS Word.
Same as how I don't really see how reverse engineering is wrong. It means you have to stay one step ahead (feature, speed, size wise) of the competition that are busy reverse engineering your product.
This in my mind is what capitalism is about. Making money because you have the better product, not because you have a strangle hold because no one will support other encryptions and no on is allowed to decrypt your information.
What are your thoughts?
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
The whole directive as drafted can be easily turned against itself (completely legally).
Unfortunately, it would not be cool if I revealed this before the laws get passed. Contact me by email if you want to know.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
This is not at all what it says. What it says is that in case the rightholder has implemented an anti-copying device, rightholder should also provide a means for copying under one of the exceptions (e.g. for illustration or teaching).
(but note though that while breaking copyright protection might not be illegal, subsequent copying of the material still is)
Maybe, just maybe, this whole EU-thing isn't the right thing for our nations. Unity? Yes, it sounds nice, but we lose our power over the people who should be our representatives, we lose our culture and we lose our freedom!
My opinion is that they have gone far enough. Now let's have a bit of openness in here! Let the people speak!
This sig is intentionally left blank
And i thought the EU isnt as stupid as the US are.. ... is just a society for hating foreigners. - Olaf Stapledon
So I was wrong...
--
A nation
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I.
Good idea, but hard to realize. I mean, in small scale this _will_ happen. It already isnt allowed to copy the Windoze-CD for your friend, but everybody does it (supposed you use this OS..) But in big scale.. not easy.. And the industy has much more money for good lawyers.. Depressing news are around me.. really depressing.. what do i live for if im not allowed to do anything? The world gets smaller and smaller with all this fucking legislative...
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I.
Something else I'd like to see is OpenNAP (and client) support for Ogg Vorbis....
-- Soruk
Europe's creators, artists and copyright industries can now look forward with renewed confidence to the challenges posed by electronic commerce. At the same time, the Directive secures the legitimate interests of users, consumers and society at large.
I think that says it all .. creators come first, society comes last. Of course, the framers of the US Constitution had it the other way around and it still doesn't make a difference..
Let's look on the bright side: this law allows us to bypass the Regulation of Investigatory Powers bill(RIP) - we encript our data, and because it is a written piece of material it is automatically afforded copyright protection, therefore if the government (or a police officer) demands your encryption key (which you must provide) they cannot legally decrypt the file, even if they want to because it is protected by this new law!
not the best explanation, but you see where i'm going.
-Nanoakron.
While the EU laws on Net copyright are intriguing, and probably run afoul of the UK privacy laws as well as other long-standing legal background laws, we're paying too much attention to the details (hardware) and not enough to why it happened (software).
Why did it happen? Simple. When everyone met at Davos, all the US company owners and their paid political flacks beat up on their EU counterparts and told them that the EU's more reasonable copyright provisions were causing them trouble in the US and Canada.
So, for the sake of corporate profits, they fixed it.
If you don't believe me, read between the lines in the annual reports of Disney, MSFT, AOL/TW, and other companies that have been talking about how bad loose international copyrights are.
Money talks, so the lackey walks.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
You poor,sad thieves. You won't be able to continue freely stealing copyrighted material in Europe. A thief is a thief. It doesn't matter who you steal from or how you steal it. You are still a thief. When you tell your friends you use Napster they know that you are bragging about being a thief. Everyone understands this. Except the thieves.
Okay now some one flame me for telling the truth. (That Napster users are all thieves.)
All I can say is: Duh!
Yes, against the military, you don't stand a chance. But in turn you make it a little more difficult for the military (ie: you might get a couple shots off). If a lot of people are owning guns in a close proximity, you'd have issues of covering fire and guerrilla war, which isn't exactly the military's idea of a good time.
Basically, look like you're 18, walk into a Walmart, and have money.
Pistols are a little more regulated, but if you live in a state that respects your Constitutional Rights, like Texas, Virginia or California, they're easy enough to come by.
Just in case it gets slashdotted, here is the critical section:
Legal protection of anti-copying devices and exceptions
This has been amongst the most political and controversial topics of the whole debate. The problem has been how to ensure that an exception e.g. an act of reproduction or copying for illustration for teaching can be made use of where a copyrightholder also has in place an anti-copying device e.g. a digital tracker designed to prevent piracy. Failure to address this would have meant that the exceptions could have been meaningless in some cases. Here too there has been a balanced compromise.
Firstly, rightholders have complete control over the manufacture, distribution etc. of devices designed to circumvent anti-copying devices. A more flexible solution in this regard would have carried a greater risk of abuse and piracy.
Secondly, the Directive provides that rightholders either voluntarily or by way of agreements with other parties have to provide those who would benefit from a particular exception e.g. schools, libraries in the case of teaching, with the means to do so. It will be up to Member States to ensure that such means exist. However, as far as private copying is concerned, the quality and quantity of private copying and the growth of electronic commerce all mean that there should be greater protection for rightholders in digital recording media (whereby unlimited numbers of perfect copies may be made rapidly). In certain limited cases, where rightholders have made the means available, private copying may be carried out.
If you get into an accident, are injured or killed in a manner that wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet would've prevented those injuries, and no third party is involved/negligent, you forfeit your right to sue.
And when your insurance runs out, the hospital doesn't arrange for the taxpayers to pick up the bill (medicaid or whatever), it just carries you out to the dumpster. Or maybe the ambulance crew should have checked whether your insurance covers injuries due to your own stupidity before they even picked you up. Sounds OK to me, but then I'm a hard-hearted libertarian nut-case. 8-)
The most astounding victories for democracy during the XXth century came from unarmed people advocating no violence: Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi and even from jailed people that up to a degree advocated no violence like Nelson Mandela. The only arm they needed was the conviction that they were right and the others were wrong (and with the advantageous point we have several decades later, now we know they were correct).
Most of the goverments that came to power by violent means have fallen (USSR, Suharto's Indonesia, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile,etc.,etc) or are in the way down (North Korea, Cuba, VietNam).
The only cases were armed response was required to uphold freedom was when the freedom crusher used arms in the first place (WW2), but as far as I can tell, the Europen Union is not executing anybody relating to this matter.
So I guess the way towards progress is pretty clear.
So keep your guns safe and to yourself please, we don't need yet another sorry history about people killing each other for no reason. An yes, we knew you were American, you did not need to make it explicit.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And most of these people are the sporting/hunting type, and not the type that say, "I want to guard my diminishing civil rights and protect loved ones and/or property from an oppressive government."
But this has almost become a moot point.
The age of colonialism is not over, the only difference is the type of weapons used. Instead of conventional wars, the western governments have shifted to an information war. And they are making the rules up as they go along.
People tired of the usual media tripe visit the Independent Media Center.
People tired of the usual media tripe visit the
\begin{comment}[sorry,offtopic] The massacre would be horrible indeed, but we are civilized enough to protest without the guns.
Contrary to common American belief, the European people are armed to the teeth. As always in Europe, this varies a lot throughout the region. However, in most Central and East European Countries the people go to the army and learn how to useand store these properly, so their kids won't shoot each other at school.(Not that many Columbine-style massacres in Europe)
The people have guns at their homes, but the kids know that touching them means only trouble with Dad. We Europeans are generally sheepish enough not to shoot at each other.
A few examples:
1. After WWII, there were loads of weapons around. These were generally collected by the civilians and hidden in barns and attics. People were a little upset after Nazi occupation, so they wanted to have something at hand. The veterans coming home had often some war memories, which have generally been kept in good order. Most of the old weapons my older relatives have, are still functional. They have everything from small Mausers to Sniper rifles. The hand grenades were given to police anonymously a few years ago, as they were considered too dangerous to keep. I think my family is not exceptional.
2. In Switzerland, almost everyone who has done his civil service (I guess this accounts for more than 70% of Swiss men) can have an assault rifle at his home. Many have.
3. Finland has a population of about 5 million. The estimated number of registered weapons (mainly shotguns and hunting rifles, they are woodspeople) is above one million. In addition, the police estimates that there are at least one hundred thousand unregistered weapons in the country.
4. In Albania, the army depots were looted a few years ago. (that's your "European sheeple", bare-handed civilians attacking garrisons) In a country of about two million people, the population has now more than 200.000 AK 47:s
\end{comment}
Last time I checked Americans haven't relovted against the DMCA... with or without guns. What's your point
Hey! That's not the point, the point is that US citizens could rise up, any time they wanted.
All it would take would be one incident of their Consitition being stomped on. No, wait... they've let that happen again and again.
But surely if politicians with armed guards told citizens what guns they could have, or made them license them, or just took them away... no, hang on, that's happening right now.
But they wouldn't stand for unidentifiable black clad riot police carrying out brutal political suppression of citizens, using military tactics and chemical weapons that are illegal under international law. Ooh, my mistake.
Well, at least if the gubmint besieged a small religious community while blinding the press by screaming "Child abuse! Child abuse!" then massacred all of the witnesses and burned or "lost" all the evidence, that'd be sure to cause a revolt. No, no, hang on a minute...
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Thats us horrible lot in the UK totally screwed then. As soon as this law comes into play, the UK ISPs will happily monitor their customers, and when we download one mp3 we will get an emailed warning, download a second mp3 and the ISP will kick us off, and then send an e-mail to the Music industry's thugs so that they can come kick down my door and walk off with my computers. And if any Amercians out there think they have it bad, at least you have a right to free speech; unlike us poor Brits who have next to no way to fight this law. We are screwed now. Soon I'll be scared to buy a new PC since it will probably be 'secured' by big business to prevent me playing 'illegal' mp3s, I'm scared to buy a HD since it has probably be 'secured' by big business also to prevent me moving my files around as I choose. It boggles me that the British/European Public are so sheeplike. I'm just glad that I've seen and enjoyed the freedom of the internet from the start - Any teenage reading slashdot now, try to imagine what things are going to be like in 10 to 15 years. :(
All the best to you all.
You need to play some Quake and see why the players go for the bigger weapons . Then notice that in the real world, you don't have the bigger weapons.
Right now the goverments of the world and the special interest that control the goverments have the preceived power over the web. 250+ yeears ago the British goverment help the preceived power over the Americas. A few terrorist (now called the founding fathers) fought a war and showed where the real power was. It may be getting close to time for a REAL technical revolution. I don't mean grandmothers looking at their grandchildren through a web cam. I mean the technical comunity needs to revolt and show the bean counters and buissness men that they reall have no power without our cooperation. If a goverment inacts a law that is wrong in anyone's humble opinion then that person has an obligation to themseves and humanity at large to subvert that law. Civil disobediance is powerful. I'm not suggesting that the technical community riot, but there are more subtle ways we can flex our muscles.
You are ignoring it.. I'm sure the corporations are taking it very seriously indeed.
Good luck!
PS: As you drive home tonight, blissfully doing 160K's an hour on the freeway, don't worry about the cops or other drivers, you are 'ignoring it' so it's ok.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Nothing is stopping you releasing something for free, but if 'artists' including programmers, writers, actors, singers, whatever, want to get paid for what they do more power to them...
I have no problems with [automated systems] verifying that I am not breaking the law, sure, having a person looking over my shoulder would annoy me, but if I want to use the latest version of FantasticProgramX that I have bought, and the people who produce FantasticProgramX make it connect to a server to verify that I am using it legally, good for them. Especially if FantasticProgramX is as good as they say it is.
The whole information should be free thing is 'nice', but it won't buy you a meal in any restaurant in town.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
I will applaud you. [Of course, I will still be going to work daily, buying things like a good consumer and generally enjoying things like getting fresh food shipped into my city daily and a regular pay packet.]
But sure, if you want to destroy your city [remember, a city only holds about 3 or 4 days worth of food at any one time] go for your life.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Hmm... Actually, it's as easy to obtain arms in Britain as in the US. You can pick up a revolver in London for about fifty quid (eighty dollars). It's just about knowing where to look.
In case MI5 are reading this, NO, I am not in possesion of a firearm.
Murray: What's that? There's a BODY on the track! James: Um, I think that's a piece of BODY WORK, from someone's car
Geez people, this is a good thing, but the way you complain. What it means is that if you make something and you give or sell it to someone on the condition they don't copy and distribute it, there is law to enforce this implicit contract. If you buy a CD or game you are agreeing not to copy and distribute it. If you do, you are not only a thieving bastard, but a liar. What these kinds of laws are effectivly enforcing is people telling the truth. This is a good thing. A very good thing. You don't want a society based on lying.
The simple fact is that if you don't like it, don't frigging buy the thing. What people are mostly complaining about here is entertainment. No one is holding a gun to your head to make you buy Jar-Jar Binks. And just because George Lucas who spent hundereds of millions of dollars to make the thing doesn't want to give it away doesn't make him or the law a bad thing. It makes you a bad person for lying to him saying you won't copy and distribute it, and then doing just that. If someone wants to give away something they've spent their time and money on, good for them, but if someone won't give you something they made unless you agree not to copy and give it away and you don't like that condition, don't buy it, and don't distribute it, and don't steal it.
On the other side of the coin, this law may also be giving people a lot of freedom of speech and privacy protection. But go on, bitch more about how big nasty corporations and their government flunkys that give you all this great media and try to stop people from lying and stealing are actually hurting you.
I am also concerned about the fate of Al Gore - Europe seems to be trying to steal his invention!
It's typical to use DCC send. Most clients make it fairly easy to do that; try searching your man pages or help file for 'DCC'. The thing, though, is that you can't both be firewalled (as usual).
I live here... It's at least on the way to be one country. As a resident seeing this kind of shitt I'm increasingly questionning if its such a good thing. (a question wich since years I never asked myself) Of course it lacks a constitution. It lacks even democracy. The situation now is you elect some politician, which then says you "I'ts Europe that wants this" everytime something like this text gets "voted" (notice it's not even voted by the parliament : a true dictature)
One of those Europeans...
Imagine a world where there is no such thing as a free operating system or open source hardware as such cannot be protected from possible copyright infringement.
Imagine a world where the book you are reading ceases to exist when you are done with it.
Imagine a world where no new product can be created our marketed without the certification and consent of the copyright holders whom might be effected.
Imagine a world where every device communicates with its corporation to get the latest copyright keys and to report any possible illegal usage.
Imagine a world where no artist can create a truly free work, as they must pay for a license key for the world's devices to authorize and play it.
Imagine a world where you cannot purchase a device capable of video or audio editing without a license charge for the mandatory inclusion of a copyright chip.
Imagine a world where corporations control all information at first for profit, later for power, then finally for control.
Imagine a world where it is legal for every possible mode communication between people to be monitored to assure no copyright infringement is occurring as anything means that cannot be monitored would be considered a device capable of copyright infringement.
Now imagine a state with this power.
This is why these laws are so very wrong.