Sklyarov, Bunner (DVD CCA) Hearings Thursday

Seth Schoen writes: "On Thursday, in San Jose, CA, free speech supporters can enjoy a double-header in Federal and State courts. At 9:30 in the morning, Dmitry Sklyarov is expected to be arraigned before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, and there will be a preliminary hearing in U.S. v. Sklyarov. sf.freesklyarov.org has details on the time and location. Thursday afternoon, about a mile away, a California appellate court will hear arguments in DVD Copy Control Assn. v. Andrew Bunner -- Bunner has appealed the trial court's preliminary injunction against him. He's asked the appellate court to overturn the injunction, which forbids him to post DeCSS code pending a trial. (This is the "California trade secret" DVD/DeCSS case, separate from the New York DMCA case.)" Update: 08/21 09:27 PM EDT by michael : According to the EFF, the Sklyarov hearing has been postponed until next week.

"Sklyarov is represented by Joseph Burton; Bunner is represented by the First Amendment Project and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF Sklyarov/Bunner media release has time and location information for this hearing, too. Both hearings will be open to the public; please dress nicely if you attend. You can probably attend both, because the Sklyarov hearing should be over before the Bunner hearing starts. The Federal court (N.Dist.Cal.), for the Sklyarov case, is on the 5th floor, 280 South 1st Street; the State appellate court (6th App. Dist. Ct.), for the DVD CCA case, is at 333 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1060."

Interestingly enough, the Washington Post ran an editorial knocking (if not actually blasting) the DMCA, with Sklyarov the example of what's wrong with the thing. Jerry Pournelle's column in Byte takes a slightly different tack, but raises the same troubling questions. (Thanks to fredistheking and SgtChairebourne for the links.)

Comments

Jailed Under a Bad Law

[GlassUser]

That's the title of the washington post article. Does ANY actual person like the DMCA? I can't ever think of anyone not spouting corporate drivel actually claiming to like the law.

Why was there no reply button on this article?

Re:Jailed Under a Bad Law

[Dreven]

There in a tight spot. They can't go back with out admitting that its bad law, but if they go forward it's bad press. It will be intresting to see what happens, but what ever happens, you can be sure it won't be in the name of justice.

Re:Jailed Under a Bad Law

[squiggleslash]

As someone who seems to get sucked in (yeah right) to US vs UK threads, I can tell you that the DMCA is a godsend. Now, we can answer "Ha! We heard the government took all your guns away" with "Yeah, that's not true anyway, but even if it was, at least we don't risk arrest when playing DVDs on Linux machines!"

(Actually, as I'm in the US at the moment, it's not much of an argument. It's my laptop I'm not allowed to play CSS encrypted DVDs on. Bastards. Still, there's a few outlets like Criterion who put out quite a few region free and CSS free DVDs, but they're few and far between.

*sigh* The DMCA. Designed to protect Hollywood from nasty evil hackers who, but for that wonderful law, would be going into video stores right now and giving Hollywood their money. Stupid gits.

Re:Jailed Under a Bad Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore favored the DMCA.

Re:Jailed Under a Bad Law

[jeffy124]

he may have favored dmca, but remember who he says *really* invented the internet. some say it's because the internet is based on AL-GORE-ithms.

Re:Jailed Under a Bad Law

[Magila]

A law which can be used in a bad way is a bad law.

Re:Jailed Under a Bad Law

[phalse phace]

"Does ANY actual person like the DMCA?"

Yes. Who? MPAA chief Jack Valenti; those in Washington who helped sign it into law; those at the RIAA; Colleen Pouliot, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Adobe; ... etc. The list goes on...

Re:Jailed Under a Bad Law

[grammar fascist]

*sigh* The DMCA. Designed to protect Hollywood from nasty evil hackers who, but for that wonderful law...

No wonder they can't make a decent hacker movie!

Re:Jailed Under a Bad Law

[Skuld-Chan]

Well the people who bought and lobbied congress obviously like it - in fact they've said so repeatedly.

Re:Jailed Under a Bad Law

[kreyg]

It's my laptop I'm not allowed to play CSS encrypted DVDs on.

Hmm... well, technically, you should still be allowed to PLAY them. You simply aren't allowed to GIVE DeCSS to anyone else. Actually obtaining it in the first place is a little bit of a grey area, since you would be one party in the trafficking of a banned item, but I suppose you could claim it just magically appeared on your hard drive. :-) I've never heard much discussion about the legality of obtaining DeCSS, merely about making it available for others.

Bastards.

OK, this part I can agree with.

Let's hope...

[LyNXeD]

that this will begin the demise of the DMCA. :)

(or at lesat they see how wrong it is and fix it.)

Why is this taking so long?

[CptnKirk]

Arent people usually arraigned within 48 hours? Why has this taken weeks to get to this point?

DMCA violator or not, it seems that this guy should not have been in jail anywhere near this long.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[jeffy124]

48 hrs when arrested by a local police dept, but this is the FBI were dealing with. Recall how long it took them to get some paperwork to Tim McVeigh, it is here you will find your answer.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's been out on bail for a while now, dude.

But even that took too long. He should have had bail and arraignment hearings in a timely fashion. The prosecution is doubtless dragging its heels in an effort to "be tough on crime" (and make sure they have a strong case).

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[COAngler]

Arent people usually arraigned within 48 hours? Why has this taken weeks to get to this point?

Not necessarily. Bond has to be set within 72 hours of arrest, weekends and holidays not included. A charge must be filed at that time also. Now, assuming I remember Federal criminal procedure, which I don't promise,'filed' means a grand jury must indict, in the case of felonies. I think a Fed misdemeanor requires only the filing of a complaint with the court.[1]

The other immediate proceeding is the bond hearing, as I said before. In districts without a pre-written bond schedule, the hearing is where the judge determines an appropriate bond in light of the level of risk posed by the defendant, etc. It can also be for a defendant to ask for a lower bond than established by a pre-set bond schedule.

Arraignment is a separate proceeding, AFTER the charging. The arraignment is where the defendant actually enters a plea.

FWIW, "Speedy Trial," at least in most states, means only that the trial itself begins within six months of the charging. Time spent at large, outside of the court's jurisdiction, etc., usually doesn't count.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[COAngler]

FWIW, "Speedy Trial," at least in most states, means only that the trial itself begins within six months of the charging. Time spent at large, outside of the court's jurisdiction, etc., usually doesn't count.

I just looked at my notes again. I think it's more like 70 days from entry of plea now, in Federal cases.

Fantastic new encryption algorithm

[zurmikopa]

There's a wonderful new encryption algorithm. I call it ROT 0. You take the text and encrypt it by rotating it 0 letters. I shall use this encryption algorithm in all my copyrighted works. Now I can go sue/arrest anyone who distributes a program that copies pure text!

Re:Fantastic new encryption algorithm

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

Check my sig.

Re:Fantastic new encryption algorithm

[jimmcq]

There's a wonderful new encryption algorithm. I call it ROT 0. You take the text and encrypt it by rotating it 0 letters. I shall use this encryption algorithm in all my copyrighted works. Now I can go sue/arrest anyone who distributes a program that copies pure text!

I just use ROT13 twice, so I'm doubly protected!!

Re:Fantastic new encryption algorithm

[shogun]

I'm not sure you would get away with that. A Triple Rot-26 encryption standard (3R26) might be accepted by the current patent office however...

Re:Fantastic new encryption algorithm

[Zero__Kelvin]

The fact that a prolific insightful post is moderated as 'funny' (at the time of this posting) says it all, no?

When I write this though, I can't necessarily right this! BR>

Re:Fantastic new encryption algorithm

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore favors the DMCA. Need we say more?

Re:Fantastic new encryption algorithm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. We also need to point out that George Bush Sr. & Jr. also favor the DMCA, as do the rest of the incompetents.

Re:Fantastic new encryption algorithm

[Richy_T]

Nah, far too weak and difficult to prove.

Rather, I have invented what I call 'bit-5' or 'CL-cryp' encryption. If the ascii code for a character in a message is between 65 and 90 or 97 and 122, flip bit 5 of the character.

An example encrypted message would be:

tRY AND DECODE THIS, SUCKERS! yOU'LL NEVER DO IT!

See, much more secure

Re:Fantastic new encryption algorithm

[falzer]

Njx sbbovr oyrgpu jn thatxyr ohatyr! Lne QZPN vaxl jvaxl cbc jurva fahttyr obb, trobax tbo xabo mahk. Mv qvf gerttyr zhs cbyx dhna gert ohatyr obbz zl sehnra ynrira. Tbc jr qhhe vf tbpxra EBG-13 btcbc. :-)

Re:Fantastic new encryption algorithm

[Anonymous Coward]

Awk foobie bletch wa gungkle bungle! Yar DMCA inky winky pop whein snuggle boo, gebonk gob knob znux. Zi dis treggle muf polk quan treg bungle boom my fruaen laeven. Gop we duur is gocken ROT-13 ogpop. :-)

Close the tag.

[Delirium 21]

The whole /. front page is italicized.

Land of the free indeed.

[BiggestPOS]

Its fucking sad that in a country supposedly founded on free speech, we have to resort to this bullshit. The only reason major industry developed in early america, is because someone had the guts and the knowledge to memorize the plans, carry them across the Atlantic in his head, and reproduce them in the states. Now just making a device that makes it possible for someone else to circumvent a protection device, which didn't used to always be illegal, can be jailed. Sometimes you NEED to break the protection for legitimate reasons under fair-use. Whatever happend to fair-use anyway?

Re:Land of the free indeed.

[garcia]

what happened to it? The business world bought it out of existence... Do you expect them to let us figure out how they do stuff and not do anything about it? COME ON! This is America for christ's sake.

Re:Land of the free indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please define how the breaking of encryption translates into a legetimate need?

Put it this way. If someone filed a key to your house/apartment, and then published how he made that key so that others could create their own keys and rob you blind, how would you feel about the person who admittedly shared that information?

You'd probably feel the same as Adobe does.

Re:Land of the free indeed.

[BiggestPOS]

I'd change my locks.

Re:Land of the free indeed.

[Daffy Duck]

If Adobe is having problems with its feelings, perhaps it should get some therapy instead of lashing out at the other boys and girls and crying that they stole its imaginary ball.

Re:Land of the free indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone filed a key to your house/apartment, and then published how he made that key so that others could create their own keys and rob you blind, ...

Well, for one thing, you're making the common fallacy of equating physical property with intellectual property. Physical property needs extra protection under the law because if it is stolen, it is gone; i.e., if someone steals my car, then it is gone, I no longer have the use of it. Intellectual property doesn't receive the same protection under the Constitution because, for example, if someone copies my CD, I still have my CD and I can still use it.

Re:Land of the free indeed.

[Gonarat]

Please define how the breaking of encryption translates into a legetimate need?

Put it this way. If someone filed a key to your house/apartment, and then published how he made that key so that others could create their own keys and rob you blind, how would you feel about the person who admittedly shared that information?

Actually a better comparison would be I lock my keys in my car. I whip out my AAA card and call -- they send a locksmith out. He pulls out a slim jim and pops my door open for me. Should the locksmith be arrested? After all, he defeated an access device built by GM to keep people out of my car. Of course the answer is no. The software that defeats adobe encryption is the same thing. It cost $99 and would only work with your e-book.

As far as how I feel -- I'm happy to be back in my car without having to break a window, and GM does not care that a locksmith opened my car.

Re:Land of the free indeed.

[Eric Cox]

Please define how the breaking of encryption translates into a legetimate need?

Blind people. In order for EBooks to be read by a verbal reader, the encryption needs to be cracked, or Adobe needs to market their own verbal reader.

IMHO, the DMCA should be struck down because it nullifies fair-use laws. In other words, if I use Sklyarov's software to crack the encryption on an EBook, only to transfer it's contents to a form factor or device that doesn't support EBook format, I have not commited a crime. However, if I then transfer the contents to a friend, I have breached the copyright on the product, and should be sued.

I'm guaranteed, under fair use laws, the ability to transcribe copyrighted materials into another form for my own use.

Also, if Sklyarov is found guilty, doesn't that mean that authors of CD rippers can also be arrested? CD rippers do essentially the same thing: they transfer the copyrighted materials into a more portable format.

Re:Land of the free indeed.

[Rogerborg]

• in a country supposedly founded on free speech

What have you been smoking? First Amendment? Afterthought, not foundation.

Re:Land of the free indeed.

[nanoakron]

I belive that this post has raised a fundamental point concerning e-book technology.

Whilst transferring your e-novel to a friend should be allowed, and maybe even encouraged, it should only be legal to do so if the copy on your e-reader is destroyed - in other words, e-books, like paper books, can only be transferred between users and not copied between them.

Imagine a situation where all you had to do to make a copy of a paperback was to press a button on the front cover. I'm quite sure you'd see the same rapid drafting of bad laws to prevent/limit this from happening.

However, as it stands, it's a very long and tedious and imprecise process to physically copy a paperback - so everyone just goes out and buys them instead, or hands them around between 'users'.

If we want to get rid of laws like the DMCA and the ones that are sure to follow it, we should make a mode of digital data transfer that ensures only one copy can remain in existence at any one time. This would then make the electronic situation (where copying HUGE amounts of data is easy, rapid and precise) analogous to the physical situation where books can be transferred but not copied between readers.

This is what I believe to be where all the problems stem from and the plughole that publishers (of software/books/whatever form of digital content) are trying to close, and failing badly.

-Nano.

Re:Land of the free indeed.

[mikethegeek]

"As far as how I feel -- I'm happy to be back in my car without having to break a window, and GM does not care that a locksmith opened my car.
"

Using the "logic" of the DMCA, your parents are guilty of creating a "circumvention device" because you have fists which can break that window and thus, by-pass the lock.

A ridiculous example, but we need to hypothesize extreme uses of such types of law so as to illustrate the absurdity. The DMCA, if let stand will NOT be the last such law.

Re:Land of the free indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright law makes exceptions to many of it's provisions to accomodate for blind people.

Re:Land of the free indeed.

[Sir Tristam]

First Amendment? Afterthought, not foundation.

Actually, the Constitutional Convention operated with the thought that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution would be barred to it, and the base Constitution does not give the government the power to regulate speech. Therefore, the drafters considered it safe. The state ratifying committees, however, wanted explicit protections, leading to twelve Amendments being proposed as a condition of committees' ratifications.

An additional argument can be made that the founding of the country goes back to July 4, 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. Under this argument, freedom of speech would be part of the inalienable right of liberty.

<Off Topic>Personally, I think that the state Constitution ratifying committees would have been wise to demand a stricter wording of the commerce clause, also.</Off Topic>

Chris Beckenbach

America

[Anonymous Coward]

land of the brave & the free

Good links re DCMA, but ...

[WillSeattle]

Where's the link to the RealVideo feed of the court depositions?

What? You mean there's no newsfeed? How come?

Re:Good links re DCMA, but ...

[sdo1]

Use RealVideo? Now that would be ironic. Let's not forget what those fsckers at Real Networks pulled against Streambox.

They're right up there with Adobe, the MPAA, and the RIAA.

-S

We must not forget

[friday2k]

and /. and even the Washington Post are helping. There is too much at stake for the whole community, science and simply the people that this must be taken the whole way through. Protection of digital content is understandable and needs also our support. If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games. We all know that. But if people pointing out flaws in standards are punished it will be much worse. Science will suffer. Innovation will suffer. The industry must understand that this case is not about piracy. It is about fair use. And the work of people like Niels Ferguson or Dmitry Sklyarov might actually help the industry to find a standard that protects the owner's rights and does not restrict fair use of copyrighted material that I and everybody else out there purchased!

Re:We must not forget

[gnovos]

If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games.

Do you really think that? Are you saying that there are no artists who enjoy playing music just for fun? Are there no writers who write stories becuase they love making worlds come to life? No game designers who just want to create some fun and/or bragging right for thier friends?

Honestly, I think the absolute best possble thing for the creative fields would be if the corporate element just vanished. Sure you wouldn't see nationally-known artists making millions in front of 50,000 seat auditoriums, but is that how you want to appreciate music?

I would seriously prefer local groups, making realistic money (money like a school teacher would make), playing good, interesting, original music to the current sludge that comes out of the entertainment machine.

Fame and money is not a right. It is a strange abboration that somehow grew out of the machine-like corperate quest for money. Just look around at the real world. You don't see world-renound lecturers shouting out scathing political commentaries to hords of screaming fans who paid $139 for a seat. You don't see scientists mobbed by teenagers when they step out of thier stretched limos.

It would not be a terrible thing is the score was evened out a little.

Re:We must not forget

[Anonymous Coward]

It would not be a terrible thing is the score was evened out a little.

The typical rhetoric that the lazy have-not's spew at the hard-working have's.

We all know there are artists, writers, musicians, etc. that do their work out of their love of it. However there are also people who love their work AND have to pay bills and keep food on the table.

You can't expect people to forsake their livelihood in favor of an unrealistic utopian ideal.

Re:We must not forget

[Rimbo]

If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games. We all know that. But if people pointing out flaws in standards are punished it will be much worse.

You seem to be suggesting that the abolition of all uses of copyright circumvention measures is like the abolition of alcohol. Alcohol is only dangerous when abused, not when used in moderation. By the same token, if I use Elcomsoft's package to regain access to something I legally purchased, that's a far different thing from using it to make copies for everyone and rip off the guy who made it.

So that's a good analogy. Making it illegal doesn't stop people from using it -- it just causes the very minor problems to become major ones.

Re:We must not forget

[gnovos]

You can't expect people to forsake their livelihood in favor of an unrealistic utopian ideal.

No, you misunderstand... Right now there is really no viable way to make a living as a musician or and artists. There are the lucky few, of course, but for the vast majority, you can't raise a family on an artists salary. Why do you think that is? It's becuase no one is willing to buy YOUR work (except you most die-hard fans and friends), instead they are busy handing over that money that you should be making to the corperations. Do you actually believe for a second that the DMCA protects you, the small-time artists? You are sadly mistaken. It protects only the big players.

Re:We must not forget

[prizog]

He didn't say anything about artists starving. He suggested that pay for artists be more equitable - less for the superstars, and more for most artists. RTFP.

Re:We must not forget

[AvatarADV]

Not every art form can be reproduced by four guys in a garage!

I work in the anime industry; good example. Anime -is- a corporate art form. Large companies employ vast numbers of artists in a collective endeavor to produce a single finished product, adhering more-or-less to a very limited number of creative visions. This isn't like music, where a garage band can sound better than a touring rock group, or like software, where an agglomeration of independent workers can evolve a working code base. It -would not exist- if it wasn't somebody's job to make it.

Even on the micro scale... I know my job can be reproduced by somebody working with a home computer, especially because I use more or less the same tools they would. But I also know that the hobbyists out there don't -do- as good of a job as I do, simply because I'm paid to sit here and put the time in, and they aren't. Even the most dedicated otaku start to glaze over after the fifth subtitling pass.

I'm not saying that the DMCA is a good law. Heck, we don't even -use- CSS if the licensors let us get away without it. But not everybody producing good art is looking for fame; some of us just want a paycheck, so we can spend our time making art and not flipping burgers. They have to get paid too!

Re:We must not forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should it be more equitable? Until your favorite artists start selling as much merchandise as the superstars do, why the Hell should they be getting close to the same amount of money?

Re:We must not forget

[grammar fascist]

...No game designers who just want to create some fun and/or bragging right for thier friends?

No kidding. It makes me wonder if the poster of the parent of your comment has ever taken a look at the Quake III mod scene. There are even plenty of map makers, modelers, etc., etc...

I know of a few people who write music and distribute it for free, just for the love of doing it.

I myself spend many an hour writing the Alternate Fire mod, just because I like to see people have fun.

Yes, without money, people have no motivation to do anything at all.

Re:We must not forget

[Anonymous Coward]

The typical rhetoric that the lazy have-not's spew at the hard-working have's.

Sure, hard working copying the CDs and forcing everyone to pay for a copy. Busy little bees ;)

We all know there are artists, writers, musicians, etc. that do their work out of their love of it. However there are also people who love their work AND have to pay bills and keep food on the table.

If musicians play a good music and give a few live concerts that would be enough to pay their bills.

If a person has something to say, let him write. No more virtually empty books spewed out by "professional" writers, who said everything they could.

Science has to be funded by state. Commercially funded science is less likely to lead to a major breakthrough but rather to incremental improvements. This is because a corporations have tendency to minimize risks.

You can't expect people to forsake their livelihood in favor of an unrealistic utopian ideal.

It is impossible to force unenforceable. Copying digital information is so straightforward and easy that it is necessary to police everyone to prevent it to allow a few chosen "professionals" to profit from copying.

K.L.M.

Re:We must not forget

[Velex]

Remember, though, who is responsible for all that garbage. What drives the "artists" to produce the junk you hear over the radio? What could motivate them to keep up what they probably know is immoral and wrong. What could prossibly turn a business into a government? The only force powerful enough to do that is stupid people in large numbers.

Are you kidding? The public loves that trash! Eating it by the repititive record is pure bliss for the public! The "artists" have listened to their audience well, and the uncreative shouting they call music is what they want. It's simple supply and demand: the public wants trash and the artists give them trash.

Keep in mind that a national market means national competition. Garage bands that actually put creatitivity and pasion into their music just don't have that same formula that the "artists" do. They get trampled. Their fight is hopeless -- the public's made up its mind.

The problem with things like complex science and politics is that they just are as entertaining as hearing someone shout "fuck you" for five minutes times fifteen songs on a CD. If people were interested in scientific development, there would be demand and therefor money in science. If people cared about politics, there would be demand for good politicians there too. If people were interested in education as personally as they are interested in their music, teachers would be making easially over one hundred thousand dollars per year. But, there's no demand, so there's no money.

To even out the score, you either have to raise the intelligence level of the public, or use communism. Good luck with the former, and the latter has yet to be implemented correctly among humans because of the former.

Re:We must not forget

[einhverfr]

If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games.

Hmmm. Somebody needs a history lesson... Some of the most vibrant forms of music have survived entirely in the public domain (traditional folk music, f. ex.) and even art music (what most people mistakenly call "Classical") has survived for quite a long time without copyright protection. The majority of the money in music has always been performances, and even with the modern feature of recordings, these are as much important for advertizing purposes for the artist as they are a money maker.

Video is more of a problem and so are games, but movies make most of their money on the big screen, and this similar to the music industry.

So what about the game industry? Piracy is most damaging here because it makes the costs of the games higher for everyone. So here is the only example you have provided that may be true. However, online pay-to-play gaming is becoming more popular and it is unclear how this changes things. I personally would prefer to use games that run on my own system-- and for this I gladly pay-- once.

Re:We must not forget

[prizog]

Because record companies, having no way to gain a hold on their artists, will go away. So, a wider variety of artists will get radio play (no more payola). And since Napster will come back, more people will learn about new music that way too. With everyone getting wider exposure to all types of music, and music costing much less (no record companies), there will be far less incentive not to buy CDs, and artists (except for Brittany Spears types) will make more money.

Re:We must not forget

[Trekologer]

We must also not forget what copyright is: a temporary monopoly over the reproduction of a work. After the copyright expired, the work becomes part of the public domain. Nothing more. When "digital rights" systems are thrown in, that temporary monopoly becomes perpetual. And when you make it illegal to break those systems, perpetual becomes perminant.

Let's say a DVD's copyright expires (assuming Congress doesn't extend it again). You STILL can't use DeCSS on that DVD because there are other DVD's whose copyright has not expired yet. This is the consumer threat to digital rights management. Its a great benefit for the publishers though... keep releasing works "protected" by the same system and EVERYTHING becomes perpertually locked away. And keep claiming that these "circumvention devices" be forbidden because they can break the protection of works that are still under copyright.

Re:We must not forget

[The_Sock]

Hobby or not, you would be surprised at how anal people will get over detail when something is their baby, their pride and joy.

The people who do it because they love to are the type of people I'd rather have making the music I listen to, writting the books I read, the programs I use, building the house I live in (yes, believe it or not, some people (myself included) love physical 'labour'), fixing my car, or doing anything for me.

Note the number of books titled 'The Joy of _____' and the severe lack of books titled 'How to Make Money doing ______'. (On a side note, notice the number of spam letters that are about 'How to Make Money doing...' and the lack of 'The Joy of doing...' spams)

People who view it as work are the ones I'll avoid. A good hobbyist/employee does his work for the love and joy of doing it. A good creator loves to create, so he/she creates. They do not create because they feel the need for money. They will put more into a creation then anyone who views their job as work.

These people view the job as the benificial part, and the money as a nice bonus.

This is not to say if you get paid, you will not do a good job. If you can find a job you love, and don't view as work, then more power to you. You're in the right field for yourself.

And this does not break down around what you may consider menial jobs, such as a janitor. I've met janitors who love their jobs. In high school there was a janitor who loved being around the kids (And he wasn't a pedophile, what's this world coming to?!). He didn't want to teach, he just loved the atmosphere, the people, and loved doing the job. I used to think this was very strange, until I grew up. I got a job I love doing and though some may think someone programming their routers or ensuring the server they keep their work on keeps their work as a lower life form (I don't know, you may not think of people like that, some do, not accusing you of anything), I quite enjoy it (Especially seeing the people who do think of me as a lower life form begin to weep when all their hard work is gone, because some strange bug (triggered by something he did of course) wiped out his home directory. (Miraculously every other users home directory was left unscathed. I'm a spiteful bastard.)) I enjoy my job. I fix computers for free for some people. It's not so they owe me something, it's not to show off my 'k-rad skillz', sometimes it's because she's hot but... I just love to solve the problem and make it work once again. These people pay me back however or not, doesn't matter to me.

In short, if you love doing something, you'll do it very well. If you do it very well, you will be well compensated for it, both monetarily, and more importantly, spiritually.

Re:We must not forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the mod scene sure is thriving. I wonder why there aren't any good, high quality, free gaming engines like Quake III's engine though. I mean, if there are mods for it, it must have been just as easy to make the engine, right? John Carmack is obviously trying to swindle us by charging for his product. It should have been free from the start, because he loves his job.

Food? He doesn't need food. He could hold down a second job if he really wanted food. Just gimme my free Quake III, unlimited music, free movies, and game on!

Re:We must not forget

[Rogerborg]

• If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games. We all know that

Oh no! No more Britney Spears albums! No more movies packed with "stars" who get paid $20 million dollars to flash their silicon pumped tits, or to hoot and holler and pound their chests in lieu of actual acting! No more Daikatanas!

Quality content comes from rewarding dedicated artists, not from paying whores to make it loud and sleazy. The old rules of economics were: make it good, and they will want to pay. The new rules are: just make it, because they must pay. Big step forward, huh?

Re:We must not forget

[gorilla]

Right now there is really no viable way to make a living as a musician or and artists

An important questions is "is there really any viable way for artists to make a living". Historically, there has not. Van Gogh only sold 1 painting in his entire life. Mozart lived on the charity of his patrons.

Re:We must not forget

[invenustus]

You don't see world-renound lecturers shouting out scathing political commentaries to hords of screaming fans who paid $139 for a seat.

I pay several thousand dollars a year to see world-reknowned lecturers talk about a wide variety of topics. It's called college.

You don't see scientists mobbed by teenagers when they step out of thier stretched limos.

Actually, the best professors at my University, in subject areas from philosophy to physics, have to deal with a crowd of enthusiastic students who want questions answered or ideas critiqued every time they walk out of an office or into a classroom.

Re:We must not forget

[Kreuzberg36]

> You don't see scientists mobbed by teenagers when they step out of thier stretched limos.

Well, actually:

Stephen Jay Gould Speaks Out Against Science Paparazzi

:)

Re:We must not forget

[flatrock]

Are you saying that there are no artists who enjoy playing music just for fun? Are there no writers who write stories becuase they love making worlds come to life? No game designers who just want to create some fun and/or bragging right for thier friends?

Sure there's people like that, but they are only a small part of the whole. There are a lot of art forms that just can't be created by a couple of people working on it part time. It takes a lot of money to produce a movie. I even takes a lot of money to record, produce and market an album. The world will miss out on a lot of creative works if the artists are forced to work full time jobs to feed themselves while they create. These people are providing a product that people want. It has real value to others. Why shouldn't they be able to make mony to support themselves from it.

I would seriously prefer local groups, making realistic money (money like a school teacher would make), playing good, interesting, original music to the current sludge that comes out of the entertainment machine.

That's great for you. You have every right to that opinion. Just don't force that opinion on me. I may also like that local band that you're listening to, however I'll never hear them if you have your way. Why? Because they'll never be able to afford to market their music. Putting music on a service like napster isn't much of a marketing plan. I'm not going to spend days listening to crap to find a song or two that I like. Of course there can be review web pages, that showcase music that I might like, but how do those web pages pay the bills? If you haven't noticed, banner adds aren't bringing in much revenue these days.
If you make it so people can't make money off of their creative works, then creativity becomes a luxury for those who can afford it. Not everyone want's to work in services or manufacturing industries and work on their art on the side, and they shouldn't have to.

Fame and money is not a right.

No. Fame and money are something consumers can provide in return for something they feel has value.

You don't see world-renound lecturers shouting out scathing political commentaries to hords of screaming fans who paid $139 for a seat.

Political "fundraisers" often charge considerably more than $139 a seat. Clinton makes a lot of money lecturing. Politics has been very profitable for many journalists, comentators, and politicians.

You don't see scientists mobbed by teenagers when they step out of thier stretched limos.

That's because teenagers aren't very interested in science. I hope you don't judge all creative works on what teenagers think of them. People pay a lot of money to go to seminars where scientists speak. My company has paid for me to go to several training classes where an expert in his/her field has taught about how they go about doing something. This is also a creative work.

It would not be a terrible thing is the score was evened out a little.

What score are you evening out by stealing copyrighted works? What did the creators do to you? How have you been wronged? Who else did they wrong? And how does it justify you getting something for free and the person who created it getting nothing?

I don't like the DCMA either. I buy CDs. I then make a copy for my car. I rip MP3s to play on my portable player, or at work. I also like to make CDs which have the songs I like on them rather than carying around an CD with only a couple of songs on it I like. This is something the RIAA is preventing with the way they are attacking piracy. I don't know if it's intentional on their part, or if it's just a side effect of their attempts to fight piracy.

I have a friend who owns a really small record label. He represents small local groups like the ones you seem to prefer. He's seriously concerned that online piracy may put him out of business, and he may not be wrong. Neither those bands or their producer makes much money when the paly at those small bars. They make a little more money off the CD sales at the shows. Most of their advertising is word of mouth and some fliers in the bars. If they lose a significant protion of their CD sales to pirating, they aren't going to be able to afford the equiment to put on the shows, and more importantly to record the music. These aren't rich people. They don't live in a big house, I'd be surprised if it were worth more than $200k. They do have one nice car, but the other is a beat-up old truck they cart the equipment around in. How is stealing from them evening out some score?

Re:We must not forget

[waynem77]

An important questions is "is there really any viable way for artists to make a living". Historically, there has not. Van Gogh only sold 1 painting in his entire life. Mozart lived on the charity of his patrons.

You don't consider "living on the charity of patrons" a viable way to make a living? Sounds pretty viable to me.

Re:We must not forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Another anonymous coward wrote:

I wonder why there aren't any good, high quality, free gaming engines like Quake III's engine though.

Crystal Space is coming along pretty nicely. There are some other free 3D engines out there as well. On the java front there's Opale.Soya. Neither of those is Quake III, but they're not bad and getting better.

Hey, EFF: spelling counts

[jimhill]

That's a well-written and clear brief in the Bunner case -- but the EFF's repeated references to "Proctor & Gamble _v_ Bankers Trust" would be a lot more compelling if they'd bothered to make themselves aware that the company is "Procter & Gamble". One hopes that the appellate panel is less critical than I or Mr. Bunner will certainly lose -- not loose! -- his appeal.

Adobe's lawyers are quite busy!

[sdo1]

This link from sf.freesklyarov.org shows that Adobe is a pretty busy company when it comes to swinging the lawyers about.

I see two other Adobe Systems, Inc. cases on there plus the Skylarov case (which Adobe isn't officially involved in, but it was their actions that brought about the arrest.

-S

Re:Adobe's lawyers are quite busy!

[sharkey]

--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

All the words starting with "n", apparently.

This is what happened with Felton

[www.sorehands.com]

When Felton sued, the RIAA found that they just walked into a PR nightmare. They could not classify him as an evil hacker. Now, the issue of fair use, academic freedom, is now at the front of the argument -- they can't muddy the waters with hacker accusations and claims of millions of $$ of pirated materials.

Who's the author?

[AKAImBatman]

I just went to the Washington Post story. While I agree on the points they make, I have one little question. Who's the author? There does not appear to be any credit whatsoever. Anyone?

Re:Who's the author?

[jedwards]

The editorial stories are decided on by committee and are deliberately unsigned.
See http://washpost.com/news_ed/editorial/ for their description.

Re:Who's the author?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think harder. It's an editorial :-).

Re:Who's the author?

[phalse phace]

Maybe I'm wrong, but i always thought that Editorials were done by the Editors. If that's the case, then the current Editor of the Washington Post is Fred Hiatt. Therefore, he wrote the piece in question.

Am I wrong?

Re:Who's the author?

[lawyamike]

A committee of semi-literate chimps. Their editorials are written by a committee, and one can usually identify the primary author by the voice of a piece.

Don't bother patting The Washington Post on the back just yet. They are notoriously uninformed, and their editorials appear to regurgitate conventional wisdom rather than taking a leadership role. In other words, as soon as somebody at a D.C. cocktail party figures out that he or she may benefit somehow, someway, under the DMCA, the Post will turn tail, without explanation or apology.

1334 bytes in body

[Jozxyqk]

Aw cmon, you couldn't have added 3 spaces?

Re:1334 bytes in body

[Anonymous Coward]

silly question from the uninitiated, what does the 1337 represent? I know what 5c41p7 k1dd13 (or whatever that should be) mean, but not 1337

Re:1334 bytes in body

[Anonymous Coward]

You expect us to just tell you?

Re:1334 bytes in body

[Anonymous Coward]

You are sooooooo not 1337.

Re:1334 bytes in body

[antientropic]

Aw cmon, you couldn't have added 3 spaces?

Or perhaps timothy should have let JonKatz pad it out to 31337 bytes.

This would be good news (worth reading)

[Zero__Kelvin]

This would be good news .... if it wasn't pedaled to those who already know!

Is the Govt the only side going slow?

[CptnKirk]

It's my understanding that under the 6th amendment one has the right to a speedy trial. And that this was further defined by the Speedy Trial Act 18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1) to be within 70 days.

Under these guidelines Sklyarov should be having his trial any day now, rather than an arraignment. Unless he waived his right to a speedy trial. Was this the case? Does his "side" need additional time to prepare or should this be something that is pushed through sooner rather than later to get this guy home?

INAL but as far as I can see there is a lot of talk about getting Sklyarov home ASAP and what seems to be very little getting done.

Re:Is the Govt the only side going slow?

[Inigima]

Technically, doesn't that right to a speedy trial only apply to US citizens?

Besides, they might be hoping that if they wait long enough, all the fuss will die down and they can do what they please.

inigima

Re:Is the Govt the only side going slow?

[lawyamike]

You're only selectively quoting the statute, which reads:

"In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs."

18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1). Barring waiver or special circumstances, the seventy-day clock does not begin to run until Mr. Sklyarov's arraignment.

Re:Is the Govt the only side going slow?

[CptnKirk]

I realize I my be wrong about the law, most of my info was paraphrased from web sites who got it from somewhere else. Thanks for the clarification.

What is the time period for an indictment then? It doesn't seem like this should be allowed to go on indefinatly either. For instance would it be possible to hold Mr. Sklyarov on bail in the US for 10 years before his indictment? This of course is an exaduration, but the theory is the same. In the end, bail for this guy isn't the same as for someone who lives and has his family in the US.

Re:Close the tag.

[Anonymous Coward]

So is work

What Dimitry can do in the meantime...

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone please put Dimitry in touch with Adobe about their Job ID 01-0011213?

"As a senior computer scientist at Adobe, you will help define and implement PKI-based security features for Acrobat in the areas of digital signatures and encryption."

Looks like they got rid of the last idiot who implemented the stupid XOR algorithm. Personally, I think anyone other than Dmitry who fills this job has got the rest of the high-tech community laughing behind his or her back. :)

Credit for finding this amusing listing goes to Rick Moen on the free-sklyarov mailing list archive.

Welcome to CorporateAmerica, your licenses please.

[Sabriel]

Jerry Pournelle's column: ... "His wife and children, offered the chance to come to the U.S. to visit him, declined on the grounds that they did not want to come to such a fearfully unfree place as the United States of America." ...

As many wonderful people and scenery as the USA has (hi Toofolk!), lately their government scares me too.

Hope.

[T300bps]

Hope that this at least alters the DMCA.

I think that we're very lucky that newspapers like the Washington Post are actually taking the time to point out to readers what precisely is happening, and what's wrong with it. We're extremely fortunate that this hasn't turned into another Kevin Mitnick scenario (read: "RUSSIAN HACKER THREATENS DIGITAL COPYRIGHTS: speaks at evil hacker convention and corrupts America's youth!)

As someone else on this thread pointed out, intellectual property/copyright/patent laws have never been this stringent. In traditional copyright law, a certain degree of copying and piracy is expected. I remember that my friends in high school were basically a tiny, living Napster server. Mix tapes for everyone. And let's not forget the fact that sometimes one needs to photocopy newspapers, books, magazines, etc. for school or personal research. . .

The big irony here is that the first DMCA arrest wasn't someone running a massive piracy ring. It was a foreign national who came to speak about the scientific ramnifications of a technology. It was not in the public interest to arrest Sklyarov. I can't think of any way to argue that it is.

In many ways, this reflects the current political culture in the US, and the direction it's developing in. We've been rapidly developing a legal system that shoots first (and doesn't always ask questions later). Knee-jerk reactions and "tough on (X)" legislation is pretty much the rule, and becoming moreso by the day. There's a general atmosphere of political apathy and helplessness among those I know, largely because these things are becoming more and more blindingly obvious (and harder to stop).

Lawmakers have traditionally been pretty conservative regarding print copyright legislation. It wasn't until I was in high school that Kinko's started posting that they weren't responsible for copyright infringement. It's only really been in the last 10 years that the US Govt. has come down so incredibly hard on these sorts of violations, and largely in the name of corporate interests at that.

The next 10 years are going to be interesting. I encourage those of you in the United States to write some letters, make some phone calls, and send some e-mail. If you've got cash to burn, donate to the appropriate causes and/or lobby.

T3/Dev

Re:Hope.

[flatrock]

In general I agree with your comment, but I have to take issue with this statement.

In traditional copyright law, a certain degree of copying and piracy is expected.

The law never found a certain degree of copying and piracy to be acceptable. The law allowed copying ofr fair use. This includes making a copy to listen to in your car, or compiling an album of songs you like from other albums. If also covers free speach issues like using a portion of a copyrighted work in a critique. Fair use is not piracy. Your high school friends making coppies of tapes for everyone was illegal then, and is illegal now. Just because no one caught them and prosecuted them doesn't mean it was legal.

Re:Hope.

[T300bps]

Your high school friends making coppies of tapes for everyone was illegal then, and is illegal now. Just because no one caught them and prosecuted them doesn't mean it was legal.

You're entirely right. On the other hand, it's difficult to argue that prosecuting 10 high school kids for making mix tapes for their friends is in the public interest.

That, in many ways, is one of the fundamental principles of America's body of law that is threatened by the DMCA. The American legal system hasn't traditionally taken such an unhealthy interest in actions that aren't a reasonable threat to other people's rights.

One mix tape out of my CD/Cassete/Radio device isn't sufficient to damage Sony, AOL-Time Warner, etc. Photocopying a chapter from an O'Reily manual that I find in the library isn't sufficiently harmful for it to be in the public interest to prosecute me. Traditional copyright law respects that sort of boundary. I only become a legally viable threat when I start pressing entire CDs en masse, or printing whole copies of that O'Reily book for large groups of people.

T3/Dev
"It's only illegal if someone files suit."
-- Mr. Carson, my former Business Law instructor

Re:Hope.

[evilpaul13]

"As usurpation is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage. When the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion."

That is a little exerpt from John Locke's Second Treatise on Government in the "Tyranny" section which is exactly what you are describing. Let's hope Congress extracts its head from corporate asses before we're forced to the final remedy for the situation. (Kind of hard to follow because of the language, but I'm confident /.ers will be able to handle it.)

You reap what you sow....

[gnovos]

For decades the dominant media-marketriod elite
have been carefully cultivating the western mind. We have been taught that shiny, colorful, noisy things are good. We have slowly developed a powerful, salivating passion for these things. It is more important for us to buy the latest CDs, the trediest clothes, the fastest cars, at an easy 1000%-10000% markup over thier cost to produce than it is to pay the rent, or buy groceries. It is a far graver misfortune to our minds to miss one "very special" episode of Friends than it is to miss out on a national election.

Considering all the coaxing, training, and brainwashing that they have given us, it is any wonder that we feel perfectly justified in getting out hands on that sweet, sweet intellectual property by any means?

Re:You reap what you sow....

[kaxman]

I feel the need to refer everyone to George Carlin's cd "You are all diseased", and listen to the track about the number one industry in America.

-kaxman

Re:You reap what you sow....

[Anonymous Coward]

For decades the dominant media-marketriod elite have been carefully cultivating the western mind. We have been taught that shiny, colorful, noisy things are good. [et cetera righteousorum indignationorum]

Lighten up man. A gram is better than a damn...

Re:You reap what you sow....

[TheNut]

I agree entirely with you said (and can sum it up much more succinctly - 'Society is fucked' :-), but how many times per 'your-rights-online' story is this going to be said?

Re:Send Him Down, m'lud

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't break any Laws, you moron.
Besides, you couldn't do what I do, it requires thinking.

Whatever happend to Jon Johansen?

[Ryu2]

What happened to him, the teenager from Norway who was arrested by the Norwegian police, even before the 2600/MPAA case? Was he let go, or is there a trial pending, or was he acquitted/convicted?

Re:Whatever happend to Jon Johansen?

[h0rus]

He was acquitted, and given a national commendation; Very surprised when I heard that, I'm glad that some people have their heads on right. =)

Re:Whatever happend to Jon Johansen?

[amorsen]

I searched Norwegian news on this. The last I could find was this: Dagbladet 28th of June 2001. A rough translation of title and subtitle goes:

"New [police] interviews of DVD-Jon. One and a half year after the search of DVD-breaker Jon Johansen's home, the police still work on the charges against the 16 year old."

I would certainly enjoy hearing about new developments.

Land of the free vs. the dark ages

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the Sklyarov case is not unique. American Renaissanse has an excellent essay covering dozens of cases in which Americans, Europeans and Canadians have been jailed, by the so-called democratic governments, for exercising their right to free speech.

A must read for any person who cares about censorship.

Return to the dark ages

Ummm... Rob?

[kev-san]

Close your tags, please. It's rather annoying.

We REALLY must not forget

[quartz]

If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games. We all know that.

Gee, I wonder how has mankind been able to survive without copyright for so many centuries. Didn't anyone tell Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Seneca, Diogenes, Epicur and all the other writers and philosophers that there can be no art without copyright? I guess not, since they somehow did manage to live and create without a publishing industry to "manage" and "protect" their precious "rights" for them...

America scares me

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard they have even (don't laugh) given niggers the right to vote!

At least this guy seems to have a brain.

Doesn't Russia want him back?

[Maditude]

How come the Russian government hasn't been making a big stink about this? The complete irony of the situation has to be more than they can bear to keep quiet about.

Tour bus?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a great pre IPO idea.
Tours for fans of stupid legal actions.

Is www.yetanotherfailedredress.icann taken?

My God respect intellectual property

[Hobobo]

I'm pretty sure this will get modded down as Flaimbait or whatever, but I don't care.

It's stupid that people think they can break copyright laws and be set free by the open source fairy. That's not how it works. The law is there and it is there for you to respect. Copyright laws protect people who need to make a living. You have no right to steal their property or circumvent protection of intellectual property so you can get free stuff. No matter what you package it under, 99% of all so-called "free speech" trials against prominent open sources are about people who want free stuff.

Here's an idea: If you want information/whatever to be free go make something and give it away for free. You can put a Public liscence on whatever you make, and give it away however your heart desires. You cannot give away things that are not your own intellectual property. You are damaging people who need to make a living and those of us who pay for the software.

So in conclusion, if you want information to be free, go make some and make it free. Don't steal others'.

Re:My God respect intellectual property

[Anonymous Coward]

The law is there and it is there for you to respect.

No. If you believe that a law is wrong, you have a moral obligation to resist it. Your resistance can take one of many forms, but a bad law does not get respect simply because it is law. Bad law must be fought. Tooth and nail.

Re:My God respect intellectual property

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not about stealing. This is about our fair use rights. Fair use is part of copyright.

If I have a bunch of CDs and want to make a mix CD for the car I should be able to do so. If I have a bunch of DVDs and want to be able to make a mix of video clips on DVD for personal use I should be able to do so. If I have an Adobe e-book and want to read it on my laptop instead of the desktop computer, it's part of fair use.

The DMCA strips us of our fair use rights which is given to us in turn for giving a copyright to the information provider.

Re:My God respect intellectual property

[glebfrank]

I'd say your post is more of an offtopic than flamebait. How is what you're saying related to Dmitry's case? He didn't break any copyrights, he didn't steal any IP. His company wrote a program that can possibly be used to make illegal copies, sure. Well, so can a copy machine, but I don't see the book publishers suing Xerox. I don't give a shit about "information wants to be free" mantra, but I know injustice when I see it.

Re:My God respect intellectual property

[foxxtrot]

I don't completely disagree with you. A person should not be allowed to hide behind Open Source in an attempt to shirk legal responsibility. However, IMO, the DeCSS case (don't know specifics about the other one, so I won't mention it) is one the Movie houses should lose.

Bunner wrote and released the DeCSS code not to promote Movie piracy, but to allow people to use the movies they'd purchased legally to be viewed on Operating Systems other than WindowsTM. True, he did key the encryption keys out of another DVD player, and tnat may not have been right, but Bunner was in no way trying to get free stuff, he was just trying to use something he legally purchased in the mannner in which it was meant to be used.

Remember a gun is not necessarily illegal, but it can be used in such a fashion. Just like Bunner's DeCSS code is not illegal, and his intended use is not, but how can Bunner be held responsible for what other people do? Foxxtrot713 -- Just my Opinion, don't like it, don't bug me

Re:My God respect intellectual property

[madcow_ucsb]

yup. The ironic thing about the copy-protection in DVDs is that you DON'T need to break it to make or use an illegal copy, but you DO need to break it to use the disc you actually paid for.

I know people who have been pirating those things since they came out. Do a byte-by-byte copy and play it in any commercial DVD player...even getting an MPEG out of it can be done without touching the encryption. Takes a bit more work but it's certainly possible.

Re:My God respect intellectual property

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure this will get modded down as Flaimbait or whatever, but I don't care.

No, it will get modded down because it's entirely off-topic.

It's stupid that people think they can break copyright laws and be set free by the open source fairy. That's not how it works.

And apparently it's stupid for people to think they can follow the law which specifically allows for certain exceptions such as interoperability (DeCSS), and it's absolutely stupid for people to follow the law in their home country, then get picked up in another country where they followed the local law while they were there, but something legal they did while in their home country is illegal to do in the other country (Skylarov). You are right on one thing however: Following the law and expecting to not get jailed when you happen to annoy somebody with lots of money appears to not be the way things work.

The law is there and it is there for you to respect.

This one's too easy. Niggers to the back of the bus, the law is there for you to respect. I'm your Lord and I have conjugal rights to your wife, the law is there for you to respect. Your religion is against the law and the punishment is death, the law is there for you to respect. The fact is that some laws do not deserve respect, and these laws should be changed or stricken.

Copyright laws protect people who need to make a living.

No, copyright laws (at least in the U.S.) encourage the production of arts and science by establishing limited monopolies on their reproduction, whereas in a free market there would be less incentive to produce. Some artists and scientists can make a living off this limited monopoly, others cannot, others don't need it, but establishing a source of income is the effect, not the cause, of copyright, and the copyright is not a protection but a grant from the government.

You have no right to steal their property or circumvent protection of intellectual property so you can get free stuff.

True that I have no right to steal intellectual property, but offtopic as stealing IP has nothing to do with watching a DVD that I legally purchased on my FreeBSD-based DVD player, or printing a portion of an E-Book that I legally purchased to read on the bus to work/school. Circumventing protection is still legal in the U.S. as long as one does not tell anyone how to do it, and that is legal almost everywhere else.

No matter what you package it under, 99% of all so-called "free speech" trials against prominent open sources are about people who want free stuff.

First this is an exaggeration, as I don't think there have been enough trials for there to be 99%. Also, few of the computing free speech trials have been against open sourcers, and I can think of none against any open sourcer who was prominent before the trial started (save Randall Schwartz's case, which was less about free speech and more about office politics).

Of the major such cases I can recall at the moment, the Communications Decency Act (later repealed) outlawed all obscenity on the Internet (meaning I wouldn't be able to tell you to fuck off for your stupid post without being fined and/or arrested); the Church of Scientology was suing people who had distributed its copyrighted documents after the Church had publicly and under oath denied certain things about its organization that the documents proved to be true, making the knowledge in the documents a matter of public interest. Whether the public interest outweighed the copyright is a matter of opinion, as courts in Scandinavia decided for the public interest while courts on the Continent decided for copyright; Skala and Janssen produced an essay on the form and quality of Cyber Patrol's product, along with tools that would allow an owner of Cyber Patrol to access the list of websites that are blocked, an index that by judicial precedent is not a copyrightable work. The judge in his decision against the two declared that they were trying to start a second Nazi Holocaust, so no danger of partiality here; Felton, a professor who had to sue to get a paper released without being sued himself; and DeCSS and Sklyarov; And in various ridiculous domain name cases, the undercurrent in the ones that draw outrage is that somebody registers a domain which is either a common word, their name, or a trademark of their company, and they get sued out of it by someone else with deep pockets who usually either already has a domain name and/or risks no confusion by the existance of the other name. Only one (Scientology) case of these involved a genuine infringement of copyright, and in that case the infringers who saw the work as having no value did not want free stuff, but wanted the information contained in the documents to be public knowledge because they saw a danger to the public in not having the knowledge.

Mitnick, Napster and MP3.com don't count because they're not about free speech. Kevin Mitnick was a crook who was the first defendant in the history of the United States to be denied a bail hearing. In addition, the prosecuting attorneys heavily inflated the damages they claimed he had caused to ridiculous levels by claiming the development cost of producing programs he had copied as the cost incurred by his copying them, after others had already copied and distributed the same software. In the Napster case the company contributed to copyright infringement by advertising its service as a place to get free files. During trial, the RIAA alleged and the judge appeared to believe that Napster was itself making copies of the music files, while in reality files are copied from one user to another an Napster only keeps an index of filenames and users. Furthermore, Napster has shown good faith by removing users who illegally provide files that someone else has copyright for whenever they have been asked to do so. MP3.com was distributing copies of music without a license because they were too dumb to understand copyright laws, which is pretty open and shut.

Here's an idea: If you want information/whatever to be free go make something and give it away for free. You can put a Public liscence on whatever you make, and give it away however your heart desires.

Sounds like that open source movement you're deriding in the first paragraph.

You cannot give away things that are not your own intellectual property. You are damaging people who need to make a living and those of us who pay for the software.

Agreed, but offtopic.

So in conclusion, if you want information to be free, go make some and make it free. Don't steal others'.

That's what Johansen, LiViD, and their DeCSS supporters did. That's what Skala and Janssen did. That's what Felton did. Skylarov made his own information, but chose to sell it rather than give it away. All have been sued, threatened with suit, jailed, or threatened with jail time for doing what you recommend. That's why people are concerned for their rights, and that's why you are offtopic.

Re:My God respect intellectual property

[tshak]

It's stupid that people think they can break copyright laws and be set free by the open source fairy. I'm pretty sure this will get modded down as Flaimbait...

... And you should. First off all the software on my machine is LEGIT and PURCHASED because I believe in copyright. Please calm down and rationalize the situation. If I buy a CD, I have every right to put the CD's contents in my Car's MP3 player. I'm not stealing! If the CD's contents are encrypted, I have the right to "circumvent the technological measures" to convert it to MP3 for my car. This is not stealing.

The free speech aspect of this is the "circumvention measure" (downloadable executable, or otherwise) that allows me to listen to my CD in my car's MP3 player. The pirating of the CD itself it NOT free speech, and is not what we are fighting for.

Re:My God respect intellectual property

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the publishers did sue them at one point ;)

Re:My God respect intellectual property

[fyonn]

> The law is there and it is there for you to respect.

well, obeying laws is equivalent to obeying commands from a superior and the european court of human rights decided that you cannot use that as an excuse with respect to laws you feel you should not follow.

this was decided in the nazi war crimes trials where officers where claiming as a defence thatthey were oly following orders. that may have been the case but they should have refused and were therefore punished anyway.

it's only a matter of scale

dave

The Anti-dmca Index

[Anonymous Coward]

The most recent version of this document can be found here:
http://www.anti-dmca.org/dmca-index.html
________________________________________________ __ _________

1. Amount Cornell University Library pays for subscription to "Journal of Applied Polymer Science": $12,495.00

2. Amount charged to University Libraries for subscription to "Journal of Economic Studies": $13.40/page

3. Number of people who find the $13.40 per page ironic: 3 out of 4

4. Number of Project Gutenberg Etexts converted by voluteers: 3,551

5. Current "Cost" per Etext based on 3,481 texts: $2.87 per text

6. Number of Scientists worldwide boycotting Corporate Science Journals beginning September 2001: 26,000

7. Number of college and research institutions "Declaring Independence" by publishing themselves: 200

8. Number of days DMCA arrestee Dmitry Sklyarov spent in jail: 13

9. Number of jails he spent them in: 4

10. Amount charged to taxpayers for those 13 days: $4,000

11. Window of time Microsoft and the American Association of Publishers (AAP) can engage in
their cooperative Internet surveillance program: 24x7x365

12. Number of AAP members who apparently support the Internet surveillance program: 250

13. Number of "companies" which control the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA): 4

14. Number of Executive Directors who appear to control the DVD Copy Control Association: 1

15. Amount one company charges for eBook encryption security: $3,000

16. Number of letters one must rotate the alphabet to decrypt that book: 13 (ROT-13)

17. Amount recovered in recent "software raid" conducted by BSA.org against Minneapolis Company: $260,000

18. Number of disgruntled employees who may report you to the BSA resulting in a "software raid.": 1

19. Number of Irish software companies currently being sued by BSA.org: 7

20. Companies BSA represents in those cases: Adobe, Autodesk, Macromedia, Microsoft and Symantec

21. Number of cities included in July 2001 BSA "Truce" Campaign: 5

22. Number of states which experienced Raids conducted by FBI on July 24 commended by BSA: 9

23. Number of proported jobs lost from software piracy in study conducted by BSA.org: 109,000

24. Amount an eBook customer may be fined for a backup not permited by the Publisher: $250,000

25. Amount of time that customer might spend in jail: 5 years

26. Number of restrictions placed on "Alice in Wonderland" (public domain) eBook: 5

27. Maximum penalty for reading "Alice in Wonderland" aloud (possible DMCA violation): 5 years jail

28. Maximum penalty for having a "pirate" copy of "Planet of the Apes": 10 years jail/$2M fine

29. Average sentence for commiting Rape: 5 years

________________________________________________ __ _______________________________

Information provided by anti-dmca.org
________________________________________________ __ _______________________________

Please feel free to email, post, print, etc. this information.

Additions, contributions and comments are welcome here:
http://www.anti-dmca.org/dmca-index.html

This index actually contains a scrambled (stenanographically hidden) version of
Britney Spear's new single. However, we can't find the key so we're not quite
sure it's there either.

Harper's Interactive Index
http://harpers.org/harpers-index/

________________________________________________ __ ________________________________

Sources

1. http://www.englib.cornell.edu/displays/stickershoc k/car.htm
http://www.math.berkeley.edu/~kirby/journals.html# App1
2. http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/jppage.htm
3. Quick and simple poll
4. http://promo.net/pg/nl/0105.html
5. http://promo.net/pg/nl/0105.html
6. http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/
http://www.genomeweb.com/articles/view-article.asp ?Article=200172219199
7. http://www.arl.org/sparc/DI/
http://www.createchange.org/
8. http://www.fresklyarov.org
9. http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/08/10/12241.htm l
10. Some multiplication
11. http://www.microsoft.com/ebooks/das/antipiracy.asp
12. http://www.microsoft.com/ebooks/das/antipiracy.asp
13. http://www.lemuria.org/decss/hal2001.html
14. http://www.lemuria.org/decss/hal2001.html
15. http://www.download.ru/defcon.ppt
16. http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/rot13/
17. http://www.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases//2001-08 -06.680.phtml
18. http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011 ,2799089,00.html
19. http://www.bsa.org/ireland/press/newsreleases//200 1-08-02.682.phtml
20. http://www.bsa.org/ireland/press/newsreleases//200 1-08-02.682.phtml
21. http://www.bsatruce.com/us/indexjuly2001.phtml
22. http://new.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases//2001-07 -25.678.phtml
23. http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/epub/faqs.asp
24. http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/epub/faqs.asp
25. http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/epub/faqs.asp
26. http://www.pigdogs.org/art/adobe.html
27. http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/dvd-discuss -faq.html#ss2.4.6
28. http://www.politechbot.com/p-02293.html
29. http://www.sharon-herald.com/localnews/recentnews/ 0005/ln050400h.html
________________________________________________ __ ___________________________________

Disclaimer: By reading, viewing or disseminating this information you
agree to hold the creators harmless.

This information is protected by the US Constitution. All other contracts
are null and void.

License: You may do anything you want with this information as long as
it is reproduced in it's entirety.
________________________________________________ __ ___________________________________

Dmitry's Attorney

[idonotexist]

Joseph M. Burton concentrates his practice in complex civil, criminal and appellate litigation. His practice includes trade secret, trademark and patent litigation with an emphasis in cybercrime and cybersecurity matters.

Mr. Burton is a former Assistant United States Attorney and chief of the Silicon Valley Office for the Northern District of California, where he brought several pioneering high technology prosecutions. He is a member of the White Collar Crime and Complex Crimes committees of the Section of Litigation of the American Bar Assocation and former chair of the Computer Crime Subcommittee. Mr. Burton is also a member of the Bar Association of San Francisco's Judiciary Committee, the Federal Bar Association and the Charles Houston Bar Association.

Admitted to practice in California and the District of Columbia, Mr. Burton is a former lawyer delegate to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conferece. He is a 1973 graduate of Northeastern University and a graduate of the University of Dayton.

Well, this attorney sounds like he knows what he is doing. Best of luck to him. I hope he kicks ass.

Copyright Nazis and IP Fascists

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

sigh* The DMCA. Designed to protect Hollywood from nasty evil hackers who, but for that wonderful law, would be going into video stores right now and giving Hollywood their money. Stupid gits.

While this seems fair and equitable to me, you are missing a not so obvious point. (Not that I blame you, it's not the most ethical of points either) While Hollywood and the associated industries can make a moderately nice sum of cash now, they are more than willing to forfeit that for now, in exchange for a future stranglehold on all "IP". From a strategic point of view, this is brilliant, as they stand to more than make up for current lost revenue in the long run. IMO this is more akin to raping and pillaging the enemy, even butchering their babies, just to win the war. Sure it works, but what more can be said? Barring a miracle, which is the majority of citizens waking up and have a clue or two, there isn't much that can be done.

free speech supporters.....?

[goodtim]

On Thursday, in San Jose, CA, free speech supporters can enjoy a double-header in Federal and State courts.

Free Speech Supporters... Well its nice to know a few people belive in the bill of rights. Shoundn't everyone who lives in this country be a free speech supporter? If you dont support free speech, then why the hell are you here? You really should move to China. Anyway... I just feel bad when i see people rights being violated by major corperations, or even the government. I mean people died for free speech. And we sit here talking about it like its a huge political issue. Its a basic human right granted to americans by the constituion. And when it is taken away (by the government or others) its wrong.

News for nerds...

[sulli]

From the findings of fact on Bunner:

Andrew Bunner first became aware of DeCSS on October 26, 1999 through a
discussion on the news website slashdot.org.

So someone learned something from this site!

Re:News for nerds...

[Sheepy]

It was the same /. story from which I heard of DeCSS.

I actually think /. is an excellent distributor of information, even if the headlines are often misleading!

Re:News for nerds...

[WinDoze]

What we really need now is a "Scary" moderation option for this comment...

Re:News for nerds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Up or down? :P

Political audiences

[BarefootClown]

You don't see world-renound lecturers shouting out scathing political commentaries to hords of screaming fans who paid $139 for a seat. You don't see scientists mobbed by teenagers when they step out of thier stretched limos.

No, you don't. Specifically, the fans aren't screaming, and the tickets cost more like $1390 (and up). Political figures often give speeches at which the cost of attendence runs to four, and even five figures (hint: see Clinton, William J.). No, the fans aren't screaming, but that's because they (usually) have (slightly) more class than the average teenage rock fan. And "world-renowed" lecturers (particularly politicians) do get mobbed as hey step out of their strech limousines (again, see Clinton, William J.), even after they are out of the situation which originally thrust them into the limelight.

Fame and money are not rights, I agree; the opportunity to earn them, however, should not be restricted. If a performer wishes to sign a record contract and make big money, why should they be prevented from doing so? Can every slashdotter out there honestly say that he does not like any "popular" artist, and that he has never bought even one CD, or attended one concert, by such a group? I know I can't.

Furthermore, what of people famous in areas other than the performing arts? Has John Carmack earned his fame and money? How about Linus Torvalds--has he earned his name recognition? What about Stallman, Raymond, or even Cmdr Taco? Even Bill Gates earned his fame (or infamy, as the case may be)--his money may be a different story, but his name recognition is certainly deserved. Outside of software, what about famous engineers and technologists: Bill Lear, the father of the business jet, the eight track, and the car stereo, among other things--did he earn his fame and fortune? What of the thousands of inventors who created something, or improved something, that took hold in the market--have those people earned their fame and their money, or should they be ignored.

Fact is, if people can't profit from their works, the progress of science and technology will slow. It would not necessarily cease, as there would always be "backyard builders," but without financial rewards (either cash or other tangible compensation), there would be little incentive to invent; exacerbating this situation would be the fact that "inventor" or "researcher" would necessarily be relegated to hobby status--you have to pay the bills, and if you can't do it with academic work, then that work must, must take a secondary role in your life.

I agree that the system has problems, and that certain no-talent hacks end up being paid millions for screeching out noises that make my dog run for the door, but they have managed to convince people that purchasing recordings of that noise is a worthwhile expenditure of their money; by so doing, they have earned the money. While you and I can think of better uses for it, they have the right to spend it as they wish. If they were to see some of the purchases we might make with the same money (hardware, garage band CD's, hardware, ballet/opera tickets, hardware...), they might say we are nuts. Who is right, and who is wrong? Or are both right--perhaps they really do enjoy listening to the latest from Britney Spears, N*SYNC, and whatever else the industry has told them to like--more power to them. If you remove the incentive for those artists to perform their works, then the people who do enjoy their work, for whatever reason, would miss out on it. While some might think this a good thing, doing so would restrict their freedom, their right to choose for themselves what they listen to/watch/think about/what have you.

No, fame and money are not rights; the option to choose what you like, and the option to choose what or whom you will support, are. If enough people choose to support a given artist, why should that artist be denied the opportunity to reap the rewards of their work? Denying them that opportunity stifles the market, and ultimately reduces the choices available to all. Remember, every man who reduces the liberty available to another sets a precedent that will eventually reach back to himself, and probably bite him in the ass.

NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF

[Anonymous Coward]

Punk ain't no religous cult
Punk means thinking for yourself
You aren't hardcore cos you spike your hair
When a jock still lives inside your head

Chorus:
Nazi Punks
Nazi Punks
Nazi Punks...FUCK OFF!
Nazi Punks
Nazi Punks
Nazi Punks...FUCK OFF!

If you're gonna fight, get outta here
You ain't no better than the bouncers
We ain't tryin' to be police
When you ape the cops it ain't anarchy

Repeat chorus

Ten guys jump one, what a man
You fight each other, the police state wins
Stab your back when you trash our halls
Trash a bank if you got real balls

You still swastikas look cool
The real nazis run your schools
They're coaches, businessmen and cops
In the real fourth reich you'll be the first to go

Repeat Chorus

You'll be the first to go
You'll be the first to go
You'll be the first to go...unless you think!

-Dead Kennedys

NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF.

[Anonymous Coward]

Punk ain't no religous cult
Punk means thinking for yourself
You aren't hardcore cos you spike your hair
When a jock still lives inside your head

Chorus:
Nazi Punks
Nazi Punks
Nazi Punks...FUCK OFF!
Nazi Punks
Nazi Punks
Nazi Punks...FUCK OFF!

If you're gonna fight, get outta here
You ain't no better than the bouncers
We ain't tryin' to be police
When you ape the cops it ain't anarchy

Repeat chorus

Ten guys jump one, what a man
You fight each other, the police state wins
Stab your back when you trash our halls
Trash a bank if you got real balls

You still swastikas look cool
The real nazis run your schools
They're coaches, businessmen and cops
In the real fourth reich you'll be the first to go

Repeat Chorus

You'll be the first to go
You'll be the first to go
You'll be the first to go...unless you think!

- Dead Kennedys

Re:NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF.

[mamba-mamba]

You won't find a bigger free-speach advocate than Jello Biafra. At least now that Frank Zappa and John Denver are dead. (No, I'm not kidding about John Denver. H really did come to the defense of the Dead Kennedys and Alternative Tentacle Records).

MM
--

Make it so. Vote with your $$$.

[mkcmkc]

I would seriously prefer local groups, making realistic money (money like a school teacher would make), playing good, interesting, original music to the current sludge that comes out of the entertainment machine.

I think this is an excellent idea, and one of the best things about it is that we can do this, legally. (Which is not to say that we shouldn't fight the DMCA.)

How? When you're spending the your money on music, make sure you get it into the hands of real people (via Fairtunes, for example). There's loads of great stuff out there being created by individuals in their garages (or whatever). The kids at Assembly completely blow me away.

If you must listen to Brittany (ugh), tape it off the radio.

--Mike

MOD UP

[Anonymous Pancake]

michael we do not appreciate your cens0ring

Re:This is sickening

[Anonymous Coward]

you are an idiot.

HA

[kaxman]

Who told you that movies make their money off the big screen? Didn't you ever see Spaceballs?

"Merchandising, merchandising! Where the real money from the movie is made!"
--Yogurt

Let's see you copy Spaceballs the lunchbox and distribute it to all your friends over the internet. No wonder Hollywood isn't bitching yet...

Goodnight all,
kaxman

Re:You asked for it, you got it

[Anonymous Coward]

For further info read this

Ok--How do I refuse delivery of copyrighted works?

[mkcmkc]

Copyright laws protect people who need to make a living. You have no right to steal their property or circumvent protection of intellectual property so you can get free stuff. No matter what you package it under, 99% of all so-called "free speech" trials against prominent open sources are about people who want free stuff.

There are a lot of bad assumptions here (e.g., that fair use is stealing), but let's ignore that and suppose we live in the RIAA's fair use-less fantasy world, where copyrights are absolute, and individuals can do only as the RIAA company wishes with its "property".

Now, how do I refuse delivery? That is, how do I avoid being exposed to copyrighted material that I have no wish to buy? Everywhere I go, in restaurants, movie theaters, elevators, on telephone hold, etc., I am constantly being bombarded by such material. I don't want to hear it--how do I make it stop (without moving to a desert island)?

But you say that that material is free (or otherwise paid for) and that I'm free to listen to it or not, as I please. No, it's not free to me--it fills my brain with (mostly inane) material that I can't even hum to myself without becoming a thief.

Music, even bad music (and other art forms, etc.), can be addictive; if you hear something repeatedly, you can easily come to want to hear it whenever you choose. RIAA members impose upon us this way all the time. If an addictive drug like cocaine is illegal, it hardly seems fair to allow dealers to market it to us, does it? This is absurd.

Copyright really is a bargain. The imposition on the public mentioned above is one of the things the RIAA gets in return for reasonable fair use. If they want to take fair use off the table, we ought to get a meaningful choice to not be exposed to their products in return.

--Mike

The DMCA has its good points

[Pseudonym]

The DMCA isn't all bad. Yes, the anti-circumvention provisions are pretty much all bad IMO. However, it also did bring copyright law into the 21st century.

For example, under a strict reading of copyright law, web proxies should have been illegal, as they republish copyrighted information. The DMCA made proxies legal. I think most of us would agree that this is a good thing.

Re:You asked for it, you got it

[mamba-mamba]

Mod this down (off-topic), it is a link to a close-up of a vagina. Yes, I clicked on it. So I am stupid. So what.

--
MM

Mod parent up please.

[nyet]

I'll waste my extra +1 bonus and a bit of karma if only another moderator sees the parent.

TIME magazine reports Skylarov case

[HongPong]

In the latest issue of TIME magazine (cover story is the stem cell guy) Skylarov's jailing got 2 pages of press. There was a big photo of protestors, and the head of the EFF sounded quite reasonable and cogent. It was a decent article IMHO but failed, of course, to point out that TIME's parent company has a vested interest in the continued existence of the DMCA regarding DVDs. It's not online. It basically wasn't bullshit, which is good, but to me it focused more on Skylarov as The Russian than the problems of the DMCA.

choice quote

[Tom]

"Bunner does not dispute that the DVD CCA is mad."

and neither does this other defendant in the case. I'd even phrase it differently, maybe "insane".

also take note of the organizational structure of DVD CCA. we haven't seen the last of Mr. Hoy yet. I'm fairly certain he'll be spending more time in court as his other systems get broken.

Re:This is sickening

[Anonymous Coward]

umm... you are an idiot. You don't even know who the hell Skylarov is. The guy that murdered 6 people including his son is Nikolay Soltys. He is from Ukraine, not Russia. He is a fugitive right now.

Skylarov is just a programmer dude :p

Newsweek also has an article on it

[SobiOne]

The August 20th issue of Newsweek has an article on Skylarov's case titled "Busted by the Copyright Cops" by Steven Levy, (towards the last page). It also mentions the Felton case and the DeCSS case, which I think is good in that it shows more about the problems of the DMCA than just focusing on Dmitry.

protest pics at
http://www.sobi-net.com/freedmitry

You forgot one

[Anonymous Coward]

30. Value of a Slashdot Troll: Priceless.

So What...

[Anonymous Coward]

about poor Brian K? Does that chap deserve our attention too!

Maybe Slashdot doesn't care about hackers but you should!

These days when Superman comes on TV...

[Richy_T]

I'm rooting for Lex Luthor.

The sooner California slides into the sea, the better...

Rich

Re:Ok--How do I refuse delivery of copyrighted wor

[Hobobo]

You, sir, are an idiot. Your argument starts out with "Music is a drug like cocaine." Stupid.

Oh grow up!

[Gorimek]

"It's not my fault I'm stealing it, since they made me want it"

You are responsible for your actions. If you're proud of your them, defend them. If not, don't do them.

Love doesn't pay the rent

[Gorimek]

The problem is that the people who love doing art will have to get regular jobs if the art doesn't pay. And at least my experience is that after putting in the work and dedication needed for a full time job, and whatever passes for a life, there is little energy left to produce masterworks of art, or to practice and develop your art skills.

Would your janitor friend have kept janiting if he didn't get paid?

Post editorial was a little weak

[alispguru]

If the accused had been one of their reporters, the words "chilling effect" and "First Amendment" would have been all over that piece. They clearly don't really understand what's at stake here.

I'm going to write them a letter mentioning that foreign researchers like Alan Cox are already suppressing research due to the DMCA. Maybe if I mention the sainted Katharine Graham, they'll sit up and take notice...

Copyright

[richie2000]

Copyright is an abstract concept, not a technology that one can circumvent with a device any more than you could circumvent time by resetting your wrist watch.

But alas, the power-hungry morons pushing the DMCA to its limits probably overdosed on LSD and Star Trek in the sixties so they wouldn't know this.

The above is a good post

[WillSeattle]

why was above a troll? that was useful info - apparently the Reuters version of the story has some video links of the court hearing. Noone else told us that ...

And since I asked the question that he replied to, who the heck modded him down?

a Plea Bargan for Dmitry?

[davey23sol]

Plea bargan for Dmitry? Maybe according to AP.


AP Article.