Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Finally, A Solution To The DMCA

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the hehe dept.

morcego writes: "Well, finally someone came up with a solution to the DMCA problem. You can read it on the archive of the Humorix list." Well, combine this with my ULC Reverendship, and we're well underway *grin*.

9 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. Freedom of Religion? by Kenyaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Freedom of Religion? How 'bout Freedom of Speech? We've already eroded freedom of religion to the point that kids have to fight hard to convince their school administrations to allow Bible clubs, even though such groups are explicitly legal. Oh well. :)

    1. Re:Freedom of Religion? by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The arguments aren't whether kids are allowed to form Bible clubs, but whether allowing the clubs to use school property constitutes state support of religion. My own view is that it does not, but reasonable people may differ on this point.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Freedom of Religion? by bnenning · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Because according to your interpretation there is no guarentee that you'll have any privacy what so ever. It isn't in the constitution, so why would you expect it?


      Because the Constitution does not grant rights. Instead, it enumerates the specific powers of the government. In theory, the government can exercise only those powers specifically named in the Constitution; all others are delegated to the states or the people. Of course this has not been the case for some time now.


      Don't be so strict, you'll really lose a lot of your freedoms.


      I'd argue that the "living document" view of the Constitution is responsible for far more damage to our freedoms. Look at how many laws and regulations have been passed using a bogus interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. Or consider the war on drugs; alcohol Prohibition correctly required a Constitutional amendment, yet somehow the federal government just asserted that it can throw people in prison for smoking pot.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    3. Re:Freedom of Religion? by Mercuria · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In theory, the government can exercise only those powers specifically named in the Constitution; all others are delegated to the states or the people. Of course this has not been the case for some time now.

      Would you like to know exactly how long that's been? Since the end of the Civil War. As soon as the North won, suddenly "The United States of America" went from being a plural to a singular. Today we just think of it as the name of the country we live in, but once upon a time, people actually meant every individual word of that -- they spoke of a collection of almost independant entities, but Lincoln, by uniting a country divided on that very issue of state's rights (and don't let them tell you it was about slavery, that was a side effect) and winning it for Federalism, redefined the nation. Now it has a single currency, and more uniform laws. Yes, the federal government has done some pretty bogus things, like the war on drugs, but don't blame that on a loss of state's rights.

      As for the interpretation of the right to privacy, a supreme court decision discovered that nugget was in there, after the government had tried to push that particular envelope. Yes, the constitution states that it grants specific rights to the federal government and all others belong to the people. If that's true, why bother having the first amendment at all? or the forteenth? Heck, most of the bill of rights isn't granting the government powers the way the 18th did, it's limiting the extent of it. Those are the parts of the constitution that the Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the "penumbra" of.

  2. Religion for geeks, nerds, whatever by mrgoat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, I have been having some pretty serious discussions about this with friends of mine, most of whom are grads from divinity and transpersonal psych backgrounds, as well as with my tech friends (the two happen to coincide quite often as well).

    Truth is, freedom of religion pretty much trumps just about every other right in the US. There are exceptions, but in general, even those who have lost on gambles such as polygamy and controlled substances still have a pretty wide berth on just about anything else.

    As such, many of my friends thought that creating a religion that covers code as an expressive form of religion has come up very often. If you think about it, people who have a deep understanding (deep by the average citizens' point of view, shallow in the tech world) of computers and technology are pretty much regarded as witches by most folks out in the world. The best way, my friends and I thought, to fight this kind of mindset is simply to adopt a shroud of religion.

    Hey Joe, you got a problem with the fact that I know things you don't? Well, I know this because God says ITS OK TO KNOW IT. Join my religion, and you can know it too. Just follow the rules. All of the sudden, most of the arguements over whether it should be legal to even KNOW about system security or info sec goes out the window by most peoples' standards if a christian church says its ok, then maybe it isnt the work of the devil, or witches, or evil haxors. Its ok, because god says it can exist.

    Yeah, I know that there is some moral reckoning in how the above is presented that wouldn't wash with some knowledgeable and highly ethical people. I don't care. I care about not being picked out of a crowd because I know something other people don't. I care about having something besides the EFF to back my ass up when someone decides to sue me or press charges over something nobody really understands, but hey, THATS OK to press charges, HE knows TECH. He's GOT TO be a witch/evil haxor/apostate.

    Fact is, I really do think whatever force that holds it all together talks through us and what we do. I don't think that it would be too unusual to start a church or temple or whatever to back that up, and to spread more knowledge around. Yeah, there are the baptists down the street, they are having a bake sale; the Catholics are having roulette night...oh, look over there, that new church, they are having free computer lessons!

    Anyways, we never got around to getting that IDEA off the ground. It was a nice one. However, that may happen in the future. Essentially, at the time, nobody wanted to do the research to write the canon and background literature. Everybody was busy working. Well, now that the bubble has burst, we've got that time. Maybe it will happen, maybe not.

    But really think about it...not many organizations can pull off the kind of stunts that folks need when shit hits the fan. Maybe a religion might not be a bad idea, jokes aside.

    --

    'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
  3. Re:cause I can not remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It has more to do with legal standards on what is acceptable. For instance many indian tribes are allowed to use payote. But it also has to do with a community standard on what should be allowed to be done.

    My understanding is also that the church would have to have a precident to it. So a church that was created right after the DMCA was written specifically to override the DMCA wouldn't work at all. However, the catholics have a long established tradition of the sacrament. If memory serves many people in the 60s tried to argue that they couldn't be drafted because of a freedom of religion (they started a religion to avoid the draft). The courts held that one couldn't merely start a relegion to avoid a law.

    By the way, the mormon church gave up pologomy of their own accord before even joining the union. It's not a matter of the law telling them not to.

  4. Re:the name of the Great Programmer... by Rimbo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "of course, that would explain why humans are so insecure and unstable...."

    Speak for yourself -- that's just for those of you who are made by Microsoft. We open-source humans, although lacking a user-friendly interface, are much more secure and stable, and when instabilities are encountered, patch our problems up in much less time!

    And our interfaces are improving rapidly, too...

  5. It's a valid question... by Danse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even if he did make it somewhat inflammatory. I'd like to know as well. What makes a religion "legitimate" in the eyes of the government?

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:It's a valid question... by Ondo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What makes a religion "legitimate" in the eyes of the government?

      Going totally from memory, it requires "sincere belief". There was some case of a prisoner claiming his religion required some sort of better treatment than he was getting, I think he wanted certain foods, or some such that way. It was pretty clearly a case (like this) of making up a religion for a specific purpose.

      I don't recall it real clearly, but it was something like that. Hopefully this is enough someone interested can find more info about it.