Slashdot Mirror
2600 Appeal Rejected
blankmange writes "Wired is reporting that 2600's appeal has been rejected by a federal appeals court. "The Second Circuit Court of Appeals said in a one-line ruling that it was not going to revisit an earlier decision in which 2600 was found to be unlawfully distributing a DVD-descrambling utility. In January 2000, eight movie studios sued the legendary hacker quarterly for posting the DeCSS.exe utility, which decodes DVDs and allows them to be viewed on a Linux computer." The magazine now has 90 days to file a Supreme Court appeal." The Appeals court did not have to take the case, and they didn't. 2600 can appeal to the Supreme Court, but they don't have to take the case either - it's looking more and more as though Kaplan's ruling will stand.
But the underdogs will always come out trumps..i mean seriously these companies are not making more money but can't someone make that "legit" - i mean take the Windows Operating system...DVD tools galore.
"the DeCSS.exe utility, which decodes DVDs and allows them to be viewed on a Linux computer."
.exe utility which is made for running under _windows_ and then I can view it on a _linux_ computer? .exe
:)
Now what? an
blargh... when you think you're finally done with the windoze thing, they come up with an
From the article
This is hardly the first time that Hollywood and other DMCA proponents have won in court. A federal judge in New Jersey tossed out a case brought by Princeton University computer scientist Ed Felten, who claimed legal threats made by the recording industry unconstitutionally chilled his right to free speech
Is that something that Hollywood would be celebrating - this smells bad - real bad.
I think a large part of the reason it wasn't allowed for appeal was the great number of protests and courtroom hijinx 2600 brought with them. Its like being the class clown, teachers aren't going to give many favors and would rather send you to the principals office than deal with you directly.
This lack of public opinion was also seen in the recent Yahoo action of opting in all if its users to receive spam. The non present outcry showed, to them at least, that this was okay. If 2600 really does wait for public opinion to increase at all, let alone in their favor, it will be far past the 90 days to file a petition seeking a hearing of certiorari.
2600 AppealS rejected. It's starting to get embarassing. Anyway that's a lot of rejected appeals.
For the Supreme Court, I mean?
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
10,000 people? it was less than 3,000.
i'm just trying to figure out how they were estimating 20,000 at first.
and anyway, who says the people in there were good, decent people?
sig - .
Admittedly, it's sad to see such a prestigious (!) publication get the back end of a firebomb....
This sig no verb.
A few more fucks to add to my list of people who should have been in the WTC instead of the 10,000 good, decent people who actually died.
What a barbaric, inhumane thing to say. Of course I don't think I should expect too much from a non-person such as yourself -- you didn't even try to be remotely correct (<3000 died)
Rulers have known for ages. "Keep them entertained, their stomachs full, and control is assured". Move along, nothing to see here....tick...tick...tick.
ThinkGeek will sell you a decss t-shirt, and it's not tiny print either. I don't want to be trollish, but it's high time we got some competent judges, or at least another section of judges for tech cases.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
If the supreme court refuses to hear the case do we formaly rebel or something then?
I mean what ARE the options left after both the legislative and the judicial branch have f*cked you in the ass?
Granted it wouldn't be MUCH of a rebelion (well, one way or the other. Not like Nerds / Geeks can agree on anything, getting us all organized would be hell, everybody would start fighting over minor ass stuff), but if we ever did get organized we would rule the world.
(in about ten seconds, heh.)
Somebody else can comment on the irony of the highest potential power being held by people who are unable to get together to use it. ^_^
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
What am I stealing by watching a DVD on my computer?
I bought the hardware - where traditionally all computer royalties lie - as in modems, video adapters, etc. I bought a DVD player expecting to watch a DVD. I couldn't do so because no software supported it for Linux ( I haven't used windows since 95b, when I had to support it on the Destination..)
So I did what I could and used DeCSS to open up the files on the DVD that I bought on the DVD drive that I owned to watch it on an OS that I have. How you relate this to phone phreaking is beyond me. Maybe you should reread your post, and clarify for all of us the genius post that you just made.
Asshole.
Now there are much more powerful DVD decripting tools out there.
While I believe there are a few more cases pending that seek to gut it, I think we may have to get used to living with the DMCA. It's unfortunate, but this is what happens when you live in a society that is ruled by the media industry. With only a few companies controlling 90% of the TV stations and two or three firms taking control of the radio, it's going to take some serious lobbying to stop these types of bills passing. The Internet is the only thing standing between the media giants and their utter control of free speech. If something isn't done to curb this, we may find ourselves in a society not run by a single 'big-brother' State, but instead run by a few giant media groups. Not that they couldn't - at that point - purchase the State, with all of the media at there disposal, they could do anything. And most people would go along with it, because they saw it on TV. I can just here my parents and grandparents now - "Well, so-and-so on channel 2 said it was a good idea. And then I heard the same on channel 7 - and then the newspaper endorsed the idea. So, it must be the way to go..."
My car is capable of going over a hundred miles an hour. I can also use it to run over hapless pedestrians. Yet I do neither (at least not on purpose)
I own guns. I'm capable of all sorts of mischief. I choose not to.
I own a baseball bat. I don't attack people with it. Sometimes I even hit baseballs with it.
Decss is a nice tool that I can use to store my favorite DVD on my laptop and watch it when I'm on travel without dragging a bunch of extra stuff around. I don't steal movies on DVD... I certainly could, I chose not to.
Just because you can use a tool that has a legitmate purpose to break the law doesn't mean you will do so.
Plus, who has time to download some sucky dvd rip anyway? Life's too short, I'd rather plunk down the $20 or so and have a nice library. It's retarded to spend all that time stealing a movie then pay big bucks for a writable DVD.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
It's a shame it's still illegal for you to pirate DVDs. That sucks, doesn't it?
No wait... the website has been changed...
The ruling has been reversed? Hmmm. I wonder how that could have been done?
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
A friend tried to decript a DVD with DeCSS and failed. Eventually he found better tools on the Internet which not only decript better than DeCSS but also remove the macrovision protection.
Well, yes, civil disobediance is the next step. The problem is that now is not the time. There isn't enough consumer interest in what's going on.
The public is still addicted to the media and buy swallow whatever it feeds them. As long as they get what they think they want it will keep on keepin' on. While it does indeed hurt the public, they haven't felt it yet. Before they allow people to feel the pain of having their rights ripped from their hearts, they have to tie us all down so we can't fight back.
Awareness comes first and unfortunately, we have to wait until something BIG happens. Something big like...oh, say another Columbine-style shooting where the people are apparently driven mad by our freedoms being taken from us. Okay, we will need at least three of those events before people start listening... the first one is "some nut" the next one is a "copy cat" but the third is a "movement."
i'm not sure how many of you /. readers also read wired, but they also showed the small perl script that also decrypted dvd's in the months after the 2600 issue (i cant remember which volume at the moment). shouldn't they also be tried?
Apparently descrambling DVD is encyption As bad as sabotaging airplanes to crash. Gives you a idea just how much of a clue these judges have to what these programs do.(Granted, this was pre-9/11, but still)
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
The next step is to elect a new legislature.
And I really don't see how you get from civil disobedience to Columbine. Did you skip out on civics class for crack hits?
I swear, the shit that comes out of geeks' mouths when they start talking politics is appalling.
He correctly pointed out that disputes over the limits of fair use and copyright lie in Congress's jurisdiction, no the courts. The courts job is to enforce the law and interpret it to a given set of facts. The whole First Amendment argument was incredibly weak anyway. Arguing that DeCSS actually made some sort of statement that was political rather then being a tool used by others too make a political statement was akin to the anarchist arguing that bomb making was protected because his political opinions were. If DMCA tromps on your fair use rights then get your butts out on the campaign circuit, contribute time, money, and sweat to political candidates who will promise to change it. Support those that back your view and fight those that don't. This is an election year kiddies, remember? Every single House member and a third of the senate. Don't give me that blatther about Hollywood ownes them, yada, yada, yada. Individuals vote, in election places, on election day, not dollar, not companies, individuals. So start cranking ou broadsides explaining this issue to the voters, start going door to door, start working campaigns and making contributions and get involved. I've been a political activist for eight years, making connections and getting to know folks, and I tell you that most politicians are desperate for grass roots activists, Go to your local political club, introduce yourself, let the local politician know your computer aware and he may come to you for an opinion on these matters. But don't be percieved as an anarchist. Wash your hair and face, dress nice, dump the rightious indignation and be polite considerate and non dictitorial and give of your own time and money to help them and they will listen. In the end it's the Congress that created this mess and it's in Congress it will need to get fixed. So rant here, but get active in the real world. Or prepare to keep getting run over!
Ok, what the hell just happened? After posting the previous message, I went back to check out the story about Trent Lott killing a vote in committee today. But the posting was GONE. I then went 'Back' and refreshed, adn it was there? But the URL is http://yro.slashdot.org/
Am I just getting paranoid or is Slashdot being censored? Please, someone explain.
This case is being lost because the movement headed by the EFF simply does not have the incentive to win it. The American judicial system did not become conservative just yesterday, it has always been so. Just in fairly recent American history the African Americans after centuries of reverses in the legal system were able to persuade the Supreme Court to grant relief. In this case the African Americans simply were interested in winning above all. So they did everything they could to put forward good upstanding representatives such as Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to represent the face of the movement.
In contrast let's face it, neither 2600 nor EFF are threatened with nonexistence should they lose this case. In fact they are benefitting. Every time the EFF loses a case the movement argues that the solution is to give them more money, this despite a rather suspicious history of the EFF actually being on the wrong side such as the first head of ICAAN being former head of the EFF Esther Dyson. I doubt that 2600 is hurting either from having their name prominently displayed on the Internet news outlets every few weeks.
In this era of dotcom meltdown and competition is it so unlikely that without this controversy 2600 would be threatened with going out of business? What information exactly does 2600 have that's exclusive to them or is even that interesting anymore?
In contrast to the naysayers I think it's pretty clear that the Supreme Court takes seriously the First Amendment, and that is the ONLY reason 2600 even has a chance of getting them to review the case. The Supreme Court has for example repeatedly struck down the attempts by the Federal Government to regulate obscenity on the Internet. The Supreme Court is serious about its duties, too bad 2600 is not.
How is it barbaric or inhumane? The poster actually implies he wish those people didn't die, and that corrupt public officials would... what is wrong with that? That he was wrong about the death toll is secondary, and rather "nitpicky" imo.
This hardly just ties into the DMCA, and the music and movies industry. It ties into a far larger picture, that of the decaying public trust in the gov't, and worse yet, the courts.
As Americans, we've liked to think of the courts as a neutral element in our politics, one that cannot be so easily swayed by money grubbers and the bands of lawyers and lobbyists they employ. I still remember how commentators noted that perhaps the most serious damage done in the Bush/Gore election was that a large segment of the population quietly lost faith in the judiciary's ability to stay apolitical--that they too can, and will, play political football.
Here, in light of the DMCA, we have seen how campaign contributions have been used to push a bill thru Congress, ultimately affecting a ruling in court, with the aid of their own high-priced lawyers.
So why should you give a damn? Because perfectly legitimate actions are being illegalized! When this happens, people simple don't give a shit about the law. And when people start with that attitude, the law loses authority, and the government's claim to righteousness is eroded.
In the end, everyday hackers like you and me will simply not shit about what's "right." Because we feel that we've been wronged, everything is now fair game. And believe me, vigilante rule, all of this every-man-for-himself mentality that might spew forth--it scares the shit out of me, cuz we might not win.
I'm bored, lets go break something.
I swear, the shit that comes out of geeks' mouths when they start talking politics is appalling.
:)
What the hell did you expect on slashdot, x-stian conservatives?
(well aside from the trolls that is, they do a pretty darn good x-stian conservative routine. ^_^ )
The next step is to elect a new legislature.
Got that done in Washington State, Maria Cantwell is senator here, unfortunately it is a bit hard to find self made millionaires who are on top of both technological and environmental issues and who are willing to go completely broke just to keep their campaign clean.
If you DO find a large willing pool of such candidates though, by all means convince them to run for office.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Funny, I didn't realize that you're allowed to imagine some hypothetical sale, then search for someone that makes such imaginary sales unlikely and call it "stealing".
The Appeals Court doesn't "think". It simpls follows the instructions that were recieved with the bribe money.
efdtt.c Author: Charles M. Hannum <root@ihack.net>
= 2048);write(1,si n t i=m(1)17^256+m(0)8,k=m(2)0,j=m(4)17^m(3)9^k% 8^8,a=0,c=26;for(s[y]-=16;--c;j*=2)a=a*2^i&am p;1,i=i/2^j&1<<24;for(j=127;++j<nf w6v;*k+>/n . [k>>4]*2^k*257/8,s[j]=k^(k&k*2&34)
Thanks to Phil Carmody <fatphil@asdf.org> for additional tweaks.
Length: 434 bytes (excluding unnecessary newlines)
Usage is: cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt >clear.vob
#define m(i)(x[i]^s[i+84])<<
unsigned char x[5],y,s[2048];main(n){for(read(0,x,5);read(0,s,n
,n))if(s[y=s[13]%8+20]/16%4==1){
*2-k
;c= c>y)c+=y=i^i/8^i>>4^i>>12,i=i>&g t;8^y<<17,a^=a>>14,y=a^a*8^a<<6, a=a>>8^y<<9,k=s
[j],k="7Wo~'G_\216"[k&7]+2^"cr3s
*6^c+~y;}}
hahah.... Wired even posted the utility IN THEIR NEWS ARTICLE! Way to go!
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
Hey, spammers haven't gone away despite perhaps greater and more prolonged efforts... now that they're on our side, we can't lose, right?
Who amongst us can be surprised by this shit? I don't care what anyone says, 2600 hardly has a good reputation, and the courts have not been kind of them.
SupCo will shit upon them, and perhaps that's all just as well.
Regarding the business of the Million Geek march -- can we come up with something a little fucking original? Why does everyone have to copy the Million Man march? Worthless sods.
Don't you people think that stealing from the DVD playback machine makers' is also illegal?
Excuse me? Where the hell do you get this? Using DeCSS to play a DVD on Linux isn't stealing from anyone. If I have a computer with a DVD drive and I want to play a DVD under Linux it doesn't harm anyone.
3000 people that we know of. So I overstated things.
So, according to you, its inhuman to wish that -- if someone had to die, as is the case when the World Trade Center gets blown up during working hours -- the people that died were sick evil fucks as opposed to honest good citizens? Corrupt politicians, corrupt judges, rapists, murderers, child-molesters, and other criminals, as opposed to honest law-abiding citizens? The slime of the earth like these fucks at PETA, CC (Christian Coalition), NAMBLA, RIAA, and the MPAA, as opposed to honest law-abiding citizens?
If you say no to this, then you're saying you'd rather have the honest law-abiding citizens be dead.
Of course, your position is you wouldn't wish anything cruel on anyone. Bleeding-heart crap in my opinion, but if that's what you think.
You obviously don't put values on lives; I do. Do you really think that the life of sick fuck's like these pedophile priests, are better than the lives of people like say Colin Powell, an honorable man who fought for his country, and then later for children?
I'm not going to get nitty-gritty about it, but I'll say this much: I'd rather sick evil fucks die than ordinary people. Btw, I hate to use the word evil, b/c I associate it with Christian crap, but "sick evil fuck" is something George Carlin said, so that cleanses it of any religious crap.
Of course, in regards to the WTC, not all 3000 people who died were necessarily law-abiding citizens. But on average, the group was filled with good people.
If the terrorists had targetted a prison where they keep the worst offenders instead of the WTC, I would've been celebrating.
Call me whatever you will. But the fact is, 3000 people were going to die. It's only a matter of who died. The living victims of 9/11 probably wish it wasn't their family members who died -- in other words, wish it was someone else. Do you think they're inhumane too?
The fact is, we all put value on life, whether we want to admit it or not. Everyone values their family first, then friends. Most people value normal citizens over crooks.
Another nice side effect, were it a prison that were bombed instead of the WTC, is that there might not have been a war. GW Bush probably would've been secretly pleased, as would every other politician, had the terrorists somehow lost control of the plane and crashed into a prison (at a time when the gaurds/workers are gone, of course).
At least I have the courage to say what we all think and believe. You're just saying politically correct crap to up your "karma" or whatever.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
In a sense, I'm not sure that if I were the EFF that I'd want this to be the case in front of the Supreme Court. Don't get me wrong, I've met Emmanuel Goldstein a couple of times and he's a great guy, but to the non-geek straight world he's a Bad Criminal Hacker, not a journalist. You generally would like to have a case with a more sympathetic client before taking it up to the Supreme Court, which is why the Princeton prof or the Russian programmer writing software for the blind would have been better for us. It's too bad for 2600 if it loses, but it's worse if it loses at the highest possible level and screws up a better chance down the road for the Supreme Court to see just how terrible this law can be. Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court doesn't reverse themselves all that often (and the most famous time they did-- Plessy v. Ferguson being overturned by Brown v. Board of Ed of Topeka, took 58 years).
(IAAL, but this is just a prediction. YMMV.)
If I remember correctly, Cantwell is an ex-exec of RealNetworks. That would put her in the same corner as the record companies and DMCA lovers. Real has enough clout to get the rights to produce DVD software.
I understand what you're talking about. However, if the record/media companies own all of the networks, etc. what gives you the idea that they will ALLOW anti-DMCA types to play campaign ads on their stations? It's free speech, remember - they can put any voice forward that they wish - and that voice will slowly become more and more an echo of their corporate line.
"If I have a computer with a DVD drive and I want to play a DVD under Linux it doesn't harm anyone."
Not true... you could be hurting yourself and others around you, if that DVD happens to be Tomb Raider or Glitter.
Under the DMCA, the Librarian of Congress has the power to declare whether there are substantial non-infringing uses of a decryption technology. Should we be lobbying that person on the side?
The first rule of Operation Total Chaos is that we do not talk about Operation Total Chaos.
SO SHUT UP!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
You're talking about Michael here. He cares about your "Rights Online" more than Joselyn Elders cares about the "cheeeldren".
In all probability your laptop already came with some version of Windows which could play the DVDs. It was your choice to wipe it off and replace it with an OS that was incapable of using the hardware. Would it have killed you to have kept Windows in a dual-boot system when you already paid for it in the Windows tax? I read Linux zealots using this logic all the time against FreeBSD exhilarating that the GPL is keeping some driver support from FreeBSD.
I just don't get the sheer obstinancy of some people who seem to think that using computers should be equivalent to Homer Simpson's repeatedly hitting his head against a brick wall. If using Microsoft's products kills you so much why didn't you buy a Mac, a machine that can play DVDs just fine AND whose OS is derived from Unix.
Oh, don't worry about all this. It's all going the same way as MP3 anyway. Soon, Spiderman 5 will be easily gotten on Mapster, the online movie sharing source and we'll go through this entire process all over again. It's a battle the DMCA can't win. It won't be long before the damn thing is struck down anyway. It's way too open to interpretation.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I understand what you're talking about. However, if the record/media companies own all of the networks, etc. what gives you the idea that they will ALLOW anti-DMCA types to play campaign ads on their stations? It's free speech, remember - they can put any voice forward that they wish - and that voice will slowly become more and more an echo of their corporate line.
:)
It is highly unlikely that a candidate will get elected on any sort of anti-DMCA issues, and it is doubtful that a candidate would even air their opinions on the DMCA in public at all.
It is more of one of those things that you kind of have to guesstimate about a candidate.
Well that and Maria Cantwell has also fought against other tech-censorship laws in the past and has a pretty darn good track record as being pro-dothings.
She actually made a formal statement today commenting on how dog assed slow one department or another here in Washington State was moving in just making an official plan of action, hehe. I loved that, it is a major gripe of mine that most government bureaucracies take soooo long to even think up of a solution for a problem that by the time that they DO think up of even possible course of action to take in SEEKING a possible course of action, hell, the problem has long since gotten far worse. ^_^
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
They make a good point, but I don't agree with the article. It seems like they expected too much.
The court rules on the law. It interprets the law. It doesn't change the law unless the law violates the constitution. It can clarify a law, but in this case, the court decided that DVD decrypting software was illegal. I don't think that anyone will disagree that that software is in violation of the DMCA and they have also decided that the DMCA isn't unconstitutional.
If you're still angry about this decision, your next step is to contact your local senator and tell him or her your feelings on the DMCA and what you think they-- as your elected representative, should do. It is an election year afterall. Findout their stance on the issue and vote for someone who accurately represents your wishes!
adam
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/NY/trial/op . tml
This is part of Harvard's Openlaw site, which has an excellent OpenDVD section
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
I don't see any mass uprising against the DMCA or against anything for that matter, so it means that the people approve it, at least by default. Joe Average doesn't care about such basic things as universal health care, a decent public education or a clean taxation system. Joe Average doesn't bother to understand those problems or to vote when all it takes is 2 hours driving to and from the polling station once every 2 years. Joe Average just grunmbles against Washington and "all those corrupt bastards" and doesn't give a shit.
So, why should you care ? When one considers the apathy of our citizens on a whole slew of issues far more important than DMCA and far easier to understand, there's simply no point fighting against DMCA. DMCA is just perfect for those sheeps. Let them eat pre-processed corporate mush. That's all they deserve.
America, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
SNS Not Sig
It is highly unlikely that a candidate will get elected on any sort of anti-DMCA issues, and it is doubtful that a candidate would even air their opinions on the DMCA in public at all.
That's true - at least currently. However, if we are talking about an issue that will put people in the streets in protest (hence the 'Civil Disobediance'), then at that point the DMCA would become a major subject of political debate and would be a campaign topic. Remember, during the Civil Rights protests in the 60s, most major (Northern) newspapers and TV channels were in favor of the demonstrator's views. They published clashes with police and major marches on Washington, etc. This helped change the minds of many Americans who wouldn't really be directly affected by the outcome - at least in the near term. Americans love a good rebellion (Star Wars). What happens if they never hear about it though? What happens if public debate becomes non-existent? It's already headed that way. Scandal is all that pulls the local news channels away from their 'style' and 'sports' and 'weather' segments. Shit - it's the same as in China (from what I understand, most there don't even know about Tiannamen (spelling) square and the only real anti-government rallies have been the Falun Gong and anti-corruption oriented, which were bother scandals in the PRESS).
I loved that, it is a major gripe of mine that most government bureaucracies take soooo long to even think up of a solution for a problem that by the time that they DO think up of even possible course of action to take in SEEKING a possible course of action, hell, the problem has long since gotten far worse.
Well, I don't really believe that governments are supposed to act fast or SHOULD act fast. Except in the case of war. Think about it. If they acted fast, a governor or president or whoever could call up the 'Bureau of Screwing Citizens' and say they wanted something done. Before we know it, something very unpopular could be done and without the proper public discourse. I agree that much of the government needs streamlined and to be made more transparent - but not FAST.
Cheers...
It is a really good thing that the court has protected the movie studios by stopping people from linking to DeCSS!. I mean what kind of chaos could ensue if people could link to and find a copy of this evil program? I mean even companies like Disney would go out of business if people kept distributing this program! I am so glad that linking to DeCSS is a crime! I feel much safer now.
of course it will make a difference. The stench will linger for days.
Tomb Raider and glitter are just as dangerous under windows, dammit!
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Well, I don't really believe that governments are supposed to act fast or SHOULD act fast. Except in the case of war. Think about it. If they acted fast, a governor or president or whoever could call up the 'Bureau of Screwing Citizens' and say they wanted something done. Before we know it, something very unpopular could be done and without the proper public discourse. I agree that much of the government needs streamlined and to be made more transparent - but not FAST.
.) and be done with it.
Issue was dealing with what to do with a stranded whale.
Discussions have been ongoing for 2 months.
People are getting worried that the Whale will die before anybody decides what to do.
In another example;
Ten years 'planning' so far for a (insert current hip modern mass transit system of choice here).
They are SLOOWLY getting there, but each time they revise their plan it gets less and less useful.
Entire NATIONS have built mass transit systems faster then this one section of a State can even AGREE on something to do.
Not that voters have not passed "Get it the hell done" resolutions.
Which they have indeed done;
more then once.
But the planners keep on planning, trying to please everybody.
Hell I say shove it down the middle of the most busy streets, put stops where most people go to work at and in all of the major commercial centers (those big ass things called SHOPPING MALLS for instance. . .
Yeesh.
What ever happened to the government requisitioning land in the name of progress?
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
It was submitted above that the judge thought poorly of the case prior to it being brought to the court. It certainly did not help to try and replace him, when several lawyers I discussed this with said it was suicidal.
Then the whole image problem came about. I wasn't there, but someone said that one of 2600 lawyers had an earring. I'm all for self expression, but that's just not professional imho. You will not beat them if you bring your rules along.
Could we have gotten a bunch of business men to attend the trial? It's all about the $$$ my friends.
We'll get them next time
-- taking over the world, we are.
Do not click the link above! It goes to a new Goat Sex page! If you click the link you will get a gaping wide asshole staring you in the face!
Remember:
Goatse.es.org == bad !!!
(Mod me down.. but, mod the parent into oblivion!)
That's the kind of argument DOJ was trying to make and the MPAA ate up: "DeCSS is a digital crowbar."
In that case, I propose that we apply the exact same restrictions to DeCSS that we apply to crowbars.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Too bad we don't live in the old 1950s, when the government could convert your entire block into 8 lanes of concrete and a radioactive landfill with barely a letter in the mail. The beginning of Hitchhiker's Guide wasn't just a funny setup.
The net result of that was a system that was rigged so that basically anyone who bothers to get off their democratic ass can stop a project. Net result is lots of 'planning' (legal and political CYA for the inevtiable lawsuits).
Ya know, those nicely dressed folks that come knocking on your door tomorrow --won't be the Mormans. ; )
I think it is safe to say we are all a little pissed. I don't believe, however, that you'd wish death upon many of the worst weasles that cross our path. (Even Mr. Valenti & friends!)
I humbly suggest that a useful way to channel that anger is to design and code. True, RIAA members are powerful and can manipulate the legal system to their own ends. But they are not simply fighting legal battles here, they are fighting technology and that is where we have a huge advantage.
So the next time the RIAA/MPAA members and friends crack open the champagne (and it will happen again), crack open your favourite caffinated beverage and help write something to thwart them, because this is how they will be defeated.
The DMCA is being replicated in Europe and world wide via WIPO. There is no fighting it in the courts when the perceived economic consequences of not upholding it are in the $billions. (just as the economic consequences of the collapse of the horse & buggy industry to the upstart automobile were high too -- but there were not so many lawyers back then.)
In short, one must choose the correct battles to win the war, and the courts are not the best place to fight.
(Dammit! Now the FBI will be knocking on *MY* door too! ; ) )
Cheers,
-b
Cantwell is an ex-exec of RealNetworks. That would put her in the same corner as the record companies and DMCA lovers.
Please don't forget that Real Networks was once Progressive Networks, a progressive (politically) company. They used their streaming technology to broadcase Pacifica Radio, Jim Hightower's show, etc. Even when they switched names, NPR was a default channel. Progressive Networks was a truly great company.
t'nera semordnilap
"an honorable man who fought for his country"
does this not mean killing??? killing is not only bad when it happens in the usa
The media giants just want to keep DECSS underground. Given the intent of the ruling, it has failed. Anyone can find DECSS and the tools to play a DVD they just have to look. Thats the catch. Having to look means that no entity can make commercial use of it. This means that our average joe will not be using Linux to play any serious media.
Funny, I remember during the court proceedings commercial legal DVD players being announced and brought forward as evidence. Ever try to buy one of those? Know anyone that has?
Linux is not something centrally controlled, or closed for that matter. Lots of big players don't like the fact that there is really no way to buy or leverage their technology to gain control. Control is the pillar for most of their business models.
So rather than co-opt the system and compete for dollars, they would rather just not play.
The DMCA has shown its effects, and this ruling is a shining example of legal control where they have no other realistic means.
All of us slashdotters can and will be able to do what we want, but thats really it. If you think about it a little, that suits them perfectly. Most of the money is elsewhere.
Blogging because I can...
Better yet if cmd taco or Hemo's is reading this, please delete it and now mod down! The reason why I am so harsh here is that this would make slashdot a circumvention device that the MPAA could then sue or shutdown within 24 hours! I know this sounds ludicrus but how is this post different then what 2600 did? I do not want slashdot sued or shutdown but free speech is quite illegal under the DMCA and me must follow it until the EFF finally gets enough funding to repeal it. Please don't link illegal code. Thanks
http://saveie6.com/
Once highly skilled and educated people start flowing out of the country, it'll make powers-that-be really nervous about future.
Who cares, it's POS for a nation anyway...
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
These days selling computer games is like dealing drugs. First you get people addicted, then you protected your business by any means necessary.
The good thing is that people should rather get addicted to games than chems. If gamers just played more Nethack, there wouldn't be Blizzards bitching around.
-j
Outlawing DeCSS today, would be like outlawing the photocopier in the 1970's, or outlawing home movie projectors at the turn of the 19th/20th century.
I am very disappointed that the court never addressed whether or not congress had the power to enact the anti-device provision in the first place. Forty-six law professors who specialize in intellectual property, claim that the anti-device provision is exactly the sort of thing that the constitution sought to avoid. The appeals court
I am further disturbed by the court's ban on electronic footnotes. I still have the right to put a URL in a print publication, but if I put it on a web site, I can be thrown in jail. What's so special about the internet that my free speech rights don't apply?
Finally, the appeals court's prophecy that the internet will result in the viral spreading of movies and destruction of the movie industry is without merit. These predictions have been made with every single advancement in media technology, and with every single advancement they have been proven wrong. Even at the height of Napster, with a slumping economy, the record companies were making more money than the did before Napster started.
With this court ruling, it is illegal to make an open source DVD player. And it is impracticle for ordinary citizens to make their own improvements to a closed source DVD player. Why can't churches distribute a script that only plays an edited version of rated R movies? Answer: because I can't make a DVD player that supports this feature. This clearly does the exact opposite of promoting usefulness in the arts and sciences.
I live in a country where I have a constitutional right to publish directions on building a nuclear bomb, or publish a book on how to kill someone and get away with it. But I can be thrown in jail for telling someone how to make a tool that helps blind people read electronic books.
k appeal, everyone there was respectful of the court, save the time the lawyer for the government, when pressed admitted that DeCSS posed not actual harm, but "well, threat of actual harm."
The entire courtroom laughed, judges included.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
the people that died were sick evil fucks as opposed to honest good citizens? Corrupt politicians, corrupt judges, rapists, murderers, child-molesters, and other criminals, as opposed to honest law-abiding citizens? The slime of the earth like these fucks at PETA, CC (Christian Coalition), NAMBLA, RIAA, and the MPAA, as opposed to honest law-abiding citizens?
What laws has PETA broken? Or, do they deserve to die slowly, simply because you disagree with them personally? That is inhumane. As much as most people here dislike the RIAA and MPAA's not letting us download music and watch DVD's the way we like, I don't think that merits burning to death either. The fact you equate an animal rights group, the music industry, the christian coalition with child molesters and rapists makes you just as bad as the groups you despise.
What's your problem with the Christian Coalition? Is it that they have a set agenda, and spread hatred against all groups and individuals who disagree with them? Good job. I'll bet if the CC distributed pamphlets about how gays, jews and pro-choice advocates are the "scum of the earth" and deserve to burn to death, you'd have a few tasty words for them. You're not saying what we all think and believe...you're just a typical ass, spouting off the same crap we've all heard Archie Bunker say before.
Even IF you sat down and talked to your average American citizen and told them ALL the facts and didn't bias it toward your view, they would still side on the side of the MPAA and RIAA. I think most people here have never read what the real meaning of "time shifting" is. In the Beta Max case, the judeges agreed that time shifting should be protected, but they didn't even want to touch "warehousing". While it would be nice if warehousing was protected under "fair use", it is not. Should it be? I don't know, I guess it really shouldn't if you belive in capitalism and the "American Way" because that is taking away from their "right" to make money. I think "fair use" is another thing most people here get wrong. No matter how crappy CSS is, you are not suppose to circumvent or distribute it. It is a protected and is a trade secret. If CSS was just DWORD+1, you should not circumvent it. Think of it this way, if you have no locks on your door is it ok for anyone to walk in? If you have duct-tape across your front door, is it ok for someone to rip the door open, thereby breaking the tape? The answer is no. There same should apply to CSS. The only people that care how good or bad CSS is, is the members of the DVD Forum.
Again, most people here support capitalism and "The American Way" of life, but don't really like any of it.
time shifting - recording a show because it is not convenient at the time it is on, for you to watch it. After you watch the recording, you are suppose to delete it.
warehousing - what most people think time-shifting is. This is basically storing numerous copies of shows that you have already watch. It should be fairly obvious what this is too.
I'll be the first to admit that the it isn't the colored fault for being black. Because you just have to look out for #1. I mean, Nixon should have hired Japs not Krouts. Cause when the Japs get caught, the do the right think and kill themselves.
Forget DVD. Stop buying, collecting, selling, and cracking them.
/TimeWarner's and the Stench From The Bench That Makes Me Wanna Clench!
What we need is NEW TECHNOLOGY. like VD (video disks) not to be confused with sexual organs disease.
How about a TWO SIDED CD ? hmm?
How about a SMALLER disk! How about making these technologies OPEN SOURCE. and saying "FUCK YOU!" to the AOL
How about Moore's Law, Has it not been 3 months since DVD was invented?
How about, stop renting movies, and stop buying cd's and dvd's and shit from CoSTCO until this shit ends? hmm?
MPEG-4 found to cause cancer in laboratory animals. Animal rights agencies were barred from the laboratory during this test.
A solution to the problem with music today
How is this NOT surprising? We all have heard the arguments. They're baseless, still knowing idiot judges, did you EXPECT ELSEWISE? If you were, then you're a fool.
Still, the damage has been done. No fucking judge will pull every copy of deCss deritiave program from every computer at the time of judgement. All they are is just a talking head when it comes to the internet. If it's code, we have nearly perfected it by the time it goes to trial. If it's open-sourced, then speed that process up by 10 speed.
All they can do is bitch and moan in part of thier corporate interests. We're waaaaay ahead of them.
And to whet your appetite, here is the introduction:
Duct tape? Right.
If I could memorize how to circumvent duct tape then explain to someone how to circumvent duct tape, am I breaking the law? Remember this is information we're talking about. 2600 is fighting for free speach. At least, that's the defence they've chosen. The fact that a business model has been based on is is not the issue.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
One irony in all this is that everybody seems to think that 2600 - the magazine, the publisher, and the culture / community created around it - need the US justice system to survive.
Well...
2600 may be first published in the States, but now the culture and those who believe in the freedom to hack - not only on 'puters but hacking ANY system and device - is all over the world.
So what if the US supreme court decides to deny 2600 a right of hearing ?
The publisher may close down the 2600 mag in the States, but heck, the world is NOT YET under the control of US justice system. We can continue to do whatever we do in China, France, as well as Argentine or Uganda.
To hell with the US justice system. 2600 _will_ live on, no matter what those idiots on the bench think.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
2600 was represented by the EFF. The EFF has spent over $2 million on this case. I don't have a link but I read it in one of their documents. I believe it was at the district court level. The costs will have increased by now.
Anyway, even if they lose, 2600 will not have to pay the plantiff's legal fees. This is a test case, so both parties have to pay their own fees.
In all likelihood, 2600 is making money off this case. Surely the increased publicity has boosted their subscriber base.
Have you ever used DeCSS? I haven't, but I read Kaplan's ruling. In the ruling, he indicates that it took the plantiffs a half day to prep a DVD to be potentially pirated on the internet. If you use DeCSS to watch movies on your laptop, you may be spending more time preping the movie than you do watching it. The only practicle use of DeCSS is to communicate the decryption algorithm, so someone can incorporate it into a DVD player or other DVD processing tool.
The fact that Kaplan took the case shows that he was more interested in helping his friends and getting back at his enimies than in a fair trial.
The whole thing was a pantomime from beginning to end, but stupidity (or the law) had nothing to do with it.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
about the firebomb thing, it's illegal to incite violence.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Notice that this paragraph says nothing about encryption, but talks about the law. Movies that were distributed on VHS were just as much protected by the law as DVDs are today. That is why the next sentence does not make sense:
The advent of "new technology" i.e. DeCSS, did not change the law anymore than the "new technology" that allowed the movie makers to encrypt the DVDs in the first place.
In other words the *law* is about stopping people from unlawfully distributing copies. Decryption is about viewing content.
Imagine going up to someone in the street who new a bit about computers but hasn't heard about this case. If you said to them "I want to watch DVDs on my computer, but it doesn't have windows so I have to make my own DVD player to watch them. Is that fair use of the DVD?" What would their answer be? How could they possibly say no?
I know what someone will say - yes you can use DeCSS for fair use, but you can also use it for illegal use. What are they really saying? They mean "it is easier to stop people producing DeCSS than it is to stop people distributing copies". In other words "we're inadequate to enforce the law as it is, so we're going to make it more restrictive."
Just my 2 pence...
Julian
Some people see the fight against the DMCA as a fight to let us copy video and audio in ways that we want. In some respects that's true, but for some it's a lot more.
The DMCA is offensive because of the submersed way it was passed. Recall the stories about the method applied. The voting was held in a dubious way at a dubious time if I recall correctly. This is law that never had due process. While there was a little bit of mention about it prior to it being passed into law, the DMCA was passed very quickly and very quietly. There are enough people pissed off about that to disallow that tactic from being used again for a while. We should be fighting against that tactic but you have to get legislators prepared to fight that for you... there is no other way.
The DMCA was law written in the interest of one group only. The public's interest wasn't even a little-bit considered. It was already illegal to copy copyrighted works. We didn't need new law to make it 'more' illegal. It was written so that it could be a weapon against due process against the people who are less capable of affording good legal defense. In effect, it gave the entertainment interests "first strike nuclear capability" against anyone they want without good due process involved. The DMCA isn't about making anything 'more' illegal, it's a weapon. Since when should law be a weapon?
Finally, since this is a weapon in the interests of the entertainment media, getting the public's attention will be pretty much impossible without major events. Most people still don't know what Macrovision is and just think there's something wrong with their VCR. (Admittedly, I didn't know what it was either until I bought my first DVD player. Since I have an inexpensive TV and an inexpensive VCR, the only obvious way to hook my DVD player up was through my VCR's inputs... but for some mysterious reason it was all scrambled... most people usually stop there, but I'm a geek -- it's still a rare breed -- which is where my story kinda begins.)
The DMCA and future 'technology law' seek to restrict knowledge and the ability to tweak, tinker and research. This takes such knowledge out of the hands of the hobbyist almost entirely. The ability for me to hack on things on my kitchen table... to learn about the world on any level of my choosing is a very fundamental restriction. The restriction of information and knowledge... just the thought of it frightens me. Speech is just the way knowledge is conveyed. There are things that 'they don't want you to know or even know about!' That's a big problem.
I find it disturbing when there is software installed on my machine doing something I don't want it to do and didn't know was there. That's usually called a virus or a trojan. Now it's also called "spyware" and "ad engines." I'm not alone in that. I find it disturbing when law is passed without public notice, attention or heed... our legislators just looked the other way allowing the first of many up-an-coming measures to begin. Again, disturbing.
And finally, again as the DMCA and similar laws being attemptd are in the interest of the parties controlling the media, it's not likely that any small events will get public attention. If you need a visual, imagine a cute little cartoon boa contrictor surrounding us. It's cute, funny, interesting, colorful... but that's always the approach of this predator. And when we can't get out, they constrict until we can't breathe.
Changes in the way our government runs is no accident. It was predicted and it is happening now. Public opinion is that we do not own our country -- our government does -- and anything happening that we don't like; there's nothing we can do about it.
I resent being called a 'troll.' The point I'm making is that the public's attention isn't being raised and that's no accident. The 9-11 event was not just a 'terrorist act.' It was a very significant "PR" move to get attention. There is a problem with what's going on over there in those distant lands. People never really knew about it before then. Sometimes, that's just what it takes to get their attention. People still don't know why it happened but more people know now than did before. Likewise, people still don't know the value of what's going on here. Right now, the DMCA is only bothering a 'few' individuals and we have 'Larry Flynt' [2600] fighting our battles for us. In the same way people had a difficult time getting behind 'porn' people are having some problem getting behind 'hackers.'
Our Reality is our perception and since the media is our perception, they control our reality.
Can't we do a class-action against the branches of the Federal Government for passing these laws enabling these associations to prop up monopolies? That can't be any better than Microsoft being Microsoft. Arn't tarrifs "engaging in anti-competetive business practices," too, just like the Microsoft Tax?
Well, actually, it's seventy (70! ) years beyond the life of the author. Life expectancy is about 75 in the US. So, if on her deathbed, an author bequeathed her copyrights to the grandson born at that very moment, said grandson could live off the proceeds for essentially his entire life, having contributed (by construction) nothing toward the creation of the original work... Sure, that really encourages creativity.
Why should anyone benefit from copyright once the author has died? The heirs can benefit from the proceeds realized by the author, since those are actual property and logically persist. But why continue to draw benefit from the creation when the creator is gone?
Don't even get me started on corporations having nearly a century to derive benefit...
(And I don't buy the "Well, it encourages one to create so as to pass something on to one's heirs" line. By that argument, infinite copyright would be even more valuable and therefore encourage even more creativity -- why limit it all? Indeed, why not pass it on to the heirs forever? Maybe we can include something to indicate the ownership; maybe an inheritable title. Yeah, that's the ticket.)
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Funny, in one court case the defendant repeatedly played games with the court, pissed the judge off, submitted faked evidence, and when the judge expressed his opinion, he was removed from the case and a new judge assigned.
In another court case, the defendand repeatedly played games with the court, pissed the judge off, and didn't submit faked evidence, and when the judge expressed his opinion, he was upheld on appeal.
Funny, that.
www.eFax.com are spammers
...I just don't want to be told that I can't play them on a Linux only laptop, etc. And don't tell me about using a portable or home player either- if I'm on the road, does that mean I need to buy another $500+ player or keep a Windows partition that I don't want (that eats up my disk space, normally not being used) in addition to my $1000 laptop?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
So this court of appeals decided that it didn't want to hear yet another appeal from 2600. This could mean either one of two very different things:
1.) The appeals court sees no problem with either the district court ruling or the first appeals court ruling. As far as they're concerned, the case is done.
2.) The appeals court sees that there is a few very important issues in the case and feels it would be best to defer the case to the Supreme Court ASAP in order to set a new nation-wide precedent. If this is what happened, then they're very interested in the case in question.
So... which is it? The news articles talk of a one-line ruling. What did the one-line ruling say?
When the federal courts get together to shut you up and rape you of your basic liberties, then maybe it's time you packed your bags and moved somewhere else.
:)
I'm glad to be living in Canada right now. I know this kind of bullshit will probably arrive in a few years since we're USA's sock puppet, but at least we'll have had those years to learn from others' mistakes and know what to avoid. Or we'll just all get drunk and beat the shit out of anyone in a suit
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I recommend you take a look at transcode and dvd::rip With these tools, it is possible to make a backup copy of your DVD's onto one or two CD-R's in DivX format. The ripping process takes about 15 minutes, and the encoding can take a mere 2 hours on a newer processor, depending on your settings. A high-quality, two-pass encoding session takes less than 8 hours on a 1-GHz machine. The resulting video is virtually indistinguishable from the original MPEG-2 video.
You may not want to download a 7-gigabyte file and pay for two DVD-R's to burn it on, but downloading a 1.4-megabyte file and burning it on two 25-cent CD-R's is not nearly as extreme.
What you fail to realize why the MPAA freaked out about DeCSS. They knew that DVD's were going to be around for a long time. They knew that while it was infeasible for technology at the time to make copying DVD's impractacle for the average consumer, it would get there in the next 5 years! They knew that video codecs and video encoding software would become more efficient and easier to use. They predicted that the .mp3 equivalent for movies would emerge, and bandwidth for the average end user would continue to increase. They didn't want to see another Napster in the movie realm.
And that's why they are fighting this tooth and nail. If they can get the courts to pass the laws that would keep people from copying their films, then they can reduce the number of movies that people obtain copies of movies without paying for them. They count on the fact that if something is illegal, fewer people will engage in that activity than if something is legal.
But to point out a flaw in your argument: people make a moral distinction between physically harming other people and copying a DVD or a CD. They are much more likely to use DeCSS to copy a movie that they didn't pay for than they are to bash in a stranger's head with a baseball bat.
3000 people that we know of. So I overstated things.
Yes, you overstated things. People do that all the time to garner more support for their cause. I'm just not letting it go unnoticed.
If you say no to this, then you're saying you'd rather have the honest law-abiding citizens be dead.
You don't get to make the rules. I'm saying that substituting lives for lives isn't humane.
You obviously don't put values on lives; I do.
How can you say you put values on lives when you're so willing to kill a bunch of other people? How do you know that some of the people killed in the WTC weren't members fo the various organizations you disagree with? Oh that's right. They were all innocent people and are heroes and martyrs because you say they are. You make some mention of this later in your post but the point stands: What is sick and evil to you is normal to others. I'm quite certain that CC members have children and have fought in wars. I'm certain that while I also find NAMBLA disgusting, they are in some way also positiviely contributing to society. Your broad generalizations and conclusion-jumping belongs nowhere in any power hierarchy.
I'm not going to get nitty-gritty about it, but I'll say this much: I'd rather sick evil fucks die than ordinary people.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. You must be absolutely careful with whom you let decide are the "sick evil fucks" -- I'm sure that someone thinks that of you in some way and if so, tha tmeans your head is on the block.
The fact is, we all put value on life, whether we want to admit it or not. Everyone values their family first, then friends. Most people value normal citizens over crooks.
Wait a minute, I thought you just said it was obvious that I didn't put value on lives. Now everyone does?
At least I have the courage to say what we all think and believe. You're just saying politically correct crap to up your "karma" or whatever.
My karma's already at the cap and has been there since the cap was initiated. Saying what's on your mind is fine; I have no problem with that. Don't expect it to go unchallenged though.
Everyone who knows about this are pretty much in agreement that DMCA might seem like a reasonable law to regular people (it just means no piracy, right?). The problem is that it leads to ridiculous things like you can't watch your own DVDs that you bought at Best Buy using anything else than an approved DVD player.
:-).
There hasn't been much in the mainstream media about this, and when there is I haven't seen the reporters take the side that DMCA needs to be changed. If you're really serious about this issue and you're not afraid of Bubba, consider using the law against itself to get some major press.
Just set up your computer in your living room and hook it up to your TV or a monitor. Insert a legal DVD and start watching it using MPlayer, Xine or Ogle. Then call the cops and turn yourself in. Be prepared to cite the appropiate sections of the DMCA and recent rulings because they will probably have a hard time believing that they should care about you watching DVDs (what do you mean, you're watching Shrek on your TV, exactly how is that illegal???). I'd like to see the court trying to impose any kind of fine or jail time on people for doing this (except on me maybe
With enough people doing this (it might take only one that gets a lot of press), it'll be much harder for people/press/politicans to say that the DMCA is OK.
Freevo - Linux Multimedia Jukebox
No, the next step is BOYCOTT STAR WARS!!! Those people who go out and see these movies and rent or buy DVDs or tapes and buy CDs or tapes are the ones paying to take 2600 to court. If you don't like what they're doing, STOP BUYING THEIR STUFF AND INSTEAD GIVE THE MONEY TO GROUPS THAT OPPOSE THEM!!!
If you're on this page bitching about the MPAA AND you saw Star Wars or you're planning to see it, then you just don't get it.
The next step is not get a new legislature, and it's not civil disobedience or breaking the law, and it's not to go to the media whining about how mean the media companies are being and expecting the media companies to care. (I hope you can see the irony in that last statement.)
The next step is:
STOP BUYING STUFF FROM COMPANIES THAT TREAT YOU LIKE SHIT!
Get that through your heads. Until you're willing to forego seeing/hearing $BrightShinyThing every time a new interesting thing gets made by the media companies, you're still helping them. All they care about is money. The only way to stop them is to take away their money, and the only way to do that is to decide for yourself that you will no longer give them any money. If your freedom is important, you should be willing to suffer a little by not helping the people who want to take away the freedom. You can do it. It sucks, but you can go through life without seeing movies in the theater and without buying CDs.
All of the other things, from political actions to media campaigns (snicker) to lawsuits won't matter if you keep buying their stuff. Stop giving them money. Tell everyone you know to stop giving them money.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Civil Disobedience.
You have a moral obligation to ignore any laws that you do not agree with-- especially laws that are designed to protect the interests of a select few at the expense of society proper.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/
"What laws has PETA broken? Or, do they deserve to die slowly, simply because you disagree with them personally? That is inhumane...The fact you equate an animal rights group, the music industry, the christian coalition with child molesters and rapists makes you just as bad as the groups you despise."
Actually, anyone who supports the death penalty supports executing people they disagree with personally. Rapists and murderers, for example, can be executed in Texas. They happen to have this view that rape and murder is OK; so we execute them. Ok, not exactly so -- they happen to have this view that rape and murder is OK, and they act on it; so we execute them.
Yes, I do group PETA, CC, MPAA, RIAA, and most politicians with rapists, murderers, and child-molesters. Because they all violate our rights.
PETA (~Al kaida). These are the people that think that animals are more important than humans, and who'd have farmers denied much needed water, to protect some freaking sucker fish. They also blow up buildings which are the sites of scientific research, where animals were being used. Terrorists.
CC (~NAMBLA). I believe the CC already has supported the murder of pro-choice advocates. They may have condemned the Neuremburg files site publicly, but they certainly had a hand in it. Also, there's the Christian-affiliated site which showed a homosexual boy burning, and said he died as punishment for being gay. But that's not directly affiliated w/ the CC. What the CC advocates is forcing women to give birth. In my book, that's as bad as what's done in China -- forcing women to have abortions. Forcing a woman to give birth, or to have an abortion, is an act analagous to rape. This puts the CC on par with NAMBLA (NAMBLA supports raping little children, CC supports raping women by forcing them to give birth).
The music/movie industry. I'm not talking about the entire music/movie industry here, only the people who don't make music or movies (i.e., the Valentini's or Rosen's). Perhaps no single act of theirs is equitable to rape, murder, or child molestment. But over the period of their careers, they screw us out of constitutional rights, which is the same thing rapists/murderers do. The right to life really isn't too great without the right to free speech and privacy, and other "higher rights".
Politicians. Same story as RIAA/MPAA above. Over their careers they violate many rights, and make decisions that unjustifiably cause people's deaths (refer to Janet Reno and Waco).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
We live in a capitalist democracy. Vote with your wallet. The parent post is so on point that it is scary. There is nothing else worth saying on this issue, really. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Some people are apathetic, and say "well, hollywood movies make billions of dollars a year, what does my $7.50 matter". If everyone who shared the view that the DMCA was a front put on by evil corporations boycotted said corps, they would notice.
On top of all that, have some self respect. Are you going to pay the price of a movie ticket every time the next "blockbuster" comes out? Do you really want to pay for recycled canned music? Of course you don't. But how many people do?
Want to see a real sham: www.starwarstwo.com
Troll Like a Champion Today
All properily licensed DVD players are required to impliment anti-consumer features as navigation lock-outs (you can not press chapter-skip during the FBI warning or other areas which use the same lock-out code). But they have not been required to impliment the full DVD standard! So the licensing ensures parts of the DVD spec that do not help you are implimented but says nothing about your ability to play back the movie correctly. This is an obmission to licensing the standard that stung me and several of my friends.
I had gotten my DVD player in the winter of 1999 from Circuit City. It was $200 for the player, another $75 or so for the extended warrenty and eventually I went back to add another $60 for a component video. Approx. $350 have gone towards the DVD player. I was fairly confident that this was a sound investment. First of all I had the extended warrenty. Secondly, the Matrix DVD, which had been released as using *several* of the DVD spec features, played fine on the DVD player I bought. Little did I know, if I had tried Stargate: Special Edition which was also released around the same time then I would have run into another DVD spec feature called Seamless Branching that did not work with my DVD player.
Well, other movies are now being released with Seamlss Branching such as The Abyss: Special Edition and Terminator 2: Special Edition. When I attempt to play them the movie "skips" and Circuit City or Best Buy will exchange them as defective for another copy of the *same DVD* which still contains the seamless branching skipping problem! Each company sites problems of being used as a "free DVD rental" location if they allow exchanges for different DVD titles but each company is also aware of the seamless branching problem in player *they sold*! In responce to that, Circuit City employees state that DVD players which support seamless branching are now less than $100. But to switch to one of these players would be like throwing out the money I spent on the extended warrenty and the component video cables since the cables are supported on players less than $100. And since the Seamless Branching problem was pre-existing it is not covered by the extended warrenty!
So, the DVD (and like-for-like exchanges) that Circuit City will not work on the extended warrenty DVD player the Circuit City sold me and I can't get the DVD player fixed or exchange the DVD for a different title that will work since they have cheapy DVD players that don't take my full existing investment into account! I have heard of similar horror stories with Best Buy. Anyone sense a conflict of interest?!
But then comes an alternative! DeCSS! With a little effort, the unreturnable Terminator 2: Special Edition *CAN* be played back. My DVD player supports VCD, SVCD and some XSVCD formats. The Seamless Branching problem is removed when the movie is transfered to SVCD format. The only problem is it requires DeCSS which is "illegal" despite the fact that I legally own the movie and it is the only way I can use my existing DVD player for my TV to make fair-use of the DVD I am not permitted to return! I was assured by Circuit City sales that during the time covered by the extended warrenty I should "expierence *no problems* playing back any DVDs or simply take it back for repair." Circuit City has *NOT* lived up to their words, why can't I at least be able to take the steps needed to satify the situation for fair-use playback and do it legally?!
Now what? an .exe utility which is made for running under _windows_ and then I can view it on a _linux_ computer?
I think you mean execute.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Movie studios have large amounts of money they could easily bribe a judge. According to Judge Kaplan's logic all of the money of the movie studios should be taken away in case they try to do something bad with it.
... really, it would be unfair to insinuate otherwise) it is the case that Judge Kaplan is old, out of it, and extremely *stupid*.
DeCSS can potentially be used for copying and redistributing digital content (this is often falsely and misleadingly called "piracy" - piracy is actually a form of murder and robbery). So can many other tools (like video cameras for example - we should note as well that cars are often used to murder and steal property). The judge chose to focus on DeCSS and its potential for illegal use.
Since I would never question Judge Kaplan's ethics (it's virtually a certainty that he was not bribed by the movie industry
who wants to send some copyleft tshirts to the supreme court!
"What's so special about the internet that my free speech rights don't apply?"
Good one mate!
Warehousing is and should remain, perfectly legal for many intents and purposes. Specifically, the most important thing that comes to mind is the content industry and its products. One is to purchase a game for roughly $50 and quite often, one has to use the CD which comes with the game for various purposes. Sometimes one loads sounds and animations off of the disc, however many times the CD is required to `verify' the installation of the game.
If I am to use the original CD, I need to have the assurance that I can take the CD to the retailer and get a new one if I break it. This service must be available in such a fashion that I can without sustaining additional expense or unreasonable inconvenience (I want the replacement at the time I want to play the game) or it isn't viable. Sending in a broken CD to get it replaced, results in loss of time and extra expense. One is not only compelled to pay for postage both ways, but also some dubious fee for the actual replacement disc. After all, I didn't pay for the actual disc, but the right to use the contents.
Think about it... About three or four years ago, one always received a thick manual with the game. I will take MS Flight Simulator 98 as an example. Then came MSFS 2000. The manual was subsequently much smaller, yet contained some info. Of course, in order to make any sense, one had to purchase an extra book, or `strategy guide' with the game. With the advent of MSFS 2002, the manual is rendered into a pamphlet and with many other titles, one isn't distributed at all.
The boxes these days are also much smaller, not a bad thing per say, but indicative of how content industries are trying to save money by selling for the same amount or more, yet condense the contents.
As it is, I am licensing the right to use the contents of the disc. Read just about any EULA and it will tell you this. The DMCA forbids me to circumvent a copy protective mechanism. But if I make an identical (1:1) copy of the disc with the contents that I've paid for, why should that be illegal? I may want to create 100 copies of the same disc. As long as I do not dissiminate these copies to anybody else, why should that be illegal? After all, it's my money and I'm paying for the blank discs.
The bottom line with the content industry is that they have a commitment to their shareholders to sustain a steady financial growth. Well, with any publically traded company for that matter. So innovation is perhaps not as important in terms of technology, but in ways to reap new profits. If the content industry had it their way, one would be forced to purchase a DVD for each family member or friend who is to watch a movie. Capitalist or not, such a demeanour is unreasonable and I doubt that any American would side with the content industry if matters went to such extents.
Take the game CD once again. What if I would like to allow my son to play a game on his computer? But as with anybody with kids, it may not be perfectly safe to hand over the original disc. If I can give my son a $1 worth of a CD-R with the contents on it, (of which I have not circumvented any copy protective devices, by making a perfect copy) the situation is much more reasonable.
Cracking or reverse engineering is a different issue, so perhaps we should stop comparing apples and oranges.
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
If this is the way these companies want to treat their customers, by denying them their right to watch the movie in a format of their choosing, or simply to to look around and take a peek at whats happening.
In effect the DMCA prevents me from making a DVD player of my own because in order to transmit the video I must break their encryption which they claim is a copy protection device.
Personally, I think if they are going to be like this we should use the resources at our disposal to find other means of media content in a non-encrypted and open environment. Namely USENET's exentsive archive of movies in DIVX and VCD format.
I dont have to go to a movie theatre or to the rental store to get my movies, that is a choice of mine, and if the big labels want my business they should make the movies accessible to me in a format that I can work with. For now, DIVX and VCD are alot more convienent to me then what the big labels are giving me as options to view their movies.
What you've described is perfectly legal. The court ruled that fair use still applies if you have the expertise to exercise it. What's not legal, is distributing the tools to exercise your fair use rights. Or in the case of DeCSS, distributing a tool, which when used in conjunction with other tools, could potentially be used to pirate a DVD.
If you want to challenge the law, try setting up a business that takes rated-R DVDs and converts them to VCDs without nudity, swearing, or violence. Even though you are not distributing any tools, this is sure to get you sued. There are business which do this with VHS tapes, and they have fought off the MPAA.
Please visit censorware.org and consider whether this post ought not to be marked "off-topic." The above post appears to be nothing more than a personal vendetta. "Slashdot editors abusing their privileges" may strike a chord with some, but it is definitely not the case here. Notice how concerned he is about "personal smears." Does that have anything to do with this article?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
"...
Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm smarter than most of the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me...
Damn underachiever. They're all alike.
I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers explain for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it. "No, Ms. Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head..."
Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike.
I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me...
Or feels threatened by me...
Or thinks I'm a smart ass...
Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...
Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike.
And then it happened... a door opened to a world... rushing through the phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is found. "This is it... this is where I belong..."
I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all...
Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike...
You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.
This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals.
We explore... and you call us criminals.
We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals.
We exist without skin color, without nationality, without
religious bias... and you call us criminals.
You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.
Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.
I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike."
~will
sig?
Ahem...ever heard of something called the "Patriot Act"? Its time of passage (late September 2001) was as dubious as any law enacted by the U.S. in at least 50 years and has the potential to erode Americans' rights at a rate the DMCA could not in the latter law's wildest dreams.
Right now there are a lot of people urging their legislators to fight against this crap, but most in Congress, especially the more junior members, are scared shitless to break from their party line. Why? Because if they do, they'll be embarassed (if anyone spoke out against a bill called the "Patriot Act", he or she would at best become a laughing stock; at worst be branded as a terrorist) and possibly have their political balls chopped off. Right now, the power in Congress is concentrated into the hands of a very small group of senior members. This power imbalance is especially evident in the Senate, where unless 60 colleagues can stop him or her, a determined Senator can block any bill from being acted upon by means of filibuster. Piss off one of these elite members, and forget about ever getting your pet legislation up for a vote.
In the mid 1990's, Mass. Governor Weld was nominated by President Clinton for the Mexican ambassadorship. Weld and Clinton both knew that getting Weld confirmed would be a tough battle with the Senate; Weld in fact resigned as governor to pursue this federal position. Little did they know that the Senate would never get the chance to confirm or reject him. Jesse Helms, the chair of the Foreign Affairs committee in the Senate, prevented the nomination from ever getting to a vote because of a personal problem he had with Weld. Apparently, he pulled a parliamentary maneuver that could not be overruled by the rest of the Sentate, unlike a filibuster. WTF? I thought the Constitution allowed the President to appoint people to executive branch positions with the "advice and consent of the Senate", not with the "advice and consent of the Senate, provided that no prominent members of the Senate object to giving to or witholding from the President said consent." I'm sorry, I think that in all such situtations, the President is entitled to a "Yes" or "No" response from the whole Senate. Period. A "we're not allowed to decide because Daddy Helms won't let us" response should be unconstitutional.
I gave this nomination example since I'm more familiar with it than most other failed legislative exploits (it was a big story in the Boston media at the time), but I know it happens all the time with Congress members' legislation too. I understand that there are only a finite number of bills that can be considered during a two-year term and that of this number, some of them absolutely must be debated (e.g. the budget), but the way the Speaker of the House, the Senate President, and select heads of committees in each house have control over the legislature's agenda more closely resembles a dictatorship than a democracy. I wonder how many times a rookie Senator from a small state has successfully managed to keep a pork bill sponsored by Senator Hollings, Hatch, Helms, or Kennedy off the agenda in recent years? Not many. There always seems to be enough time to debate and vote on those bills for some reason. But then time mysteriously expires when Sen. Rookie introduces his bill...
Right now, members outside of the elite will get run out of office before they can substantially affect the way things are done in Congress. Unfortunately I don't see a way this will change any time soon. Changing the way Congress works would require the work of 300 to 400 members; that is a substantial majority of each house. Considering that this majority will in all likelihood consist of a relatively equal mix of Republicans and Democrats (and possibly a few of other or no party affiliation), there will be a multitude of reforms proposed and debated. Unfortunately, this divided group will end up implmenting very few if any of these reforms, thus allowing the elite members to retain their stranglehold over the legislature's agenda.
Also, the belief that every voter has the power to change this is oversimplified at best. Over 98% of the U.S. population will have absolutely no say over whether Senator Hollings will get re-elected in South Carolina. 99 percent will not get to voice their opinion of Orin Hatch the next time his term comes up. Considering at most a few dozen lawmakers are in this elite group that sets each term's legislative agenda, I would venture to guess that over 90% of eligible voters will have no direct say over whether the present state of affairs changes on Capitol Hill.
The best most Americans can do is vote for outsiders (i.e. against the incumbents) and hope that a critical mass of fresh blood can get together and begin to buck the oligarchy's hold over the U.S. This will take either a miracle or at least several decades to pull off.
Until then, I really don't see how the special interests (including the media) are going to stop having an inordinate amount of influence over U.S. policy. Changing this situation is something that's going to require at least a nationwide (some international pressure may even be necessary) grassroots effort. In other words, try as we might, don't expect any meaningful results for many years from your campaigns. Hell, it took 90 years and half a million wartime casualties to ostensibly eliminate slavery from this country. Many would argue that de facto slavery continued in the U.S. for nearly a century after the Civil War. If that kind of effort is required to defeat an blatant injustice like slavery, it's going to require a lot more than a "FP? I love CowboyNeal" post on Slashdot to eliminate the threats created by the likes of the DMCA and CBPTDA. I think these laws will be overturned or at least their effects will be mitigated eventually. However, "eventually" is a very open-ended term.
You really are an idiot. Seek mental help - quick.
Maybe those of us who are in the tech lobby should stop worrying about those old bastards who run our world and start thinking about the people who are prompting this insane legislation. Those people head corporations, they don't hold Senate seats.
What if everyone who hated this kind of stuff bought a few shares of Disney stock, and then used that stock to run the company into the ground? (I imagine it could be done if we owned enough of it.)
Robert A. Heinlein wrote in the novel Friday, "How do you fight IBM?" Maybe it is time to take that question seriously.
Making legal war against a corporation in the realm of economics? Is it possible?
I probably just have too much imagination. However, I remember one of the content lobbies talking heads saying something like, "It's like a religion, they won't let us tell them what to put in their computers." Well, it really is my religion, a belief in Progress. I'd like to think I'm not the only one.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)