HP Backs Off DMCA Threat

Bruce Perens wrote with this interesting reversal: "News.com reports HP has backed off of its DMCA threat." Which makes SNOsoft's official response thankfully beside the point now. Update: 08/02 05:37 GMT by T : Declan McCullagh points out this CNET story, which includes words from HP, Snosoft, and Bruce Perens. Writes Declan: "HP blames the snafu on... their lawyers!"

Comments

Is there really much to say about this?

[ergo98]

Uh....Good?

Really though, what sort of conversation could possibly come of this? Maybe we can debate whether cable is better than DSL. Cable r00lz beyotchis!

Re:Is there really much to say about this?

[ergo98]

So very true. A good example I alluded to is cable modems/DSL: In any of the countless stories about some cable or DSL provider or another, the same tired, predictable, and largely factless debates about cable versus DSL breaks out. The sad thing is that it's largely a verbatim recreation of the same argument that's played out about 2^16 times on here.

In any case, I just wish that they would have broken the GPL so that we could have tested it in court! Of course, the GPL prohibits competitive forces and thus diminishes the freedoms that all of us desire.

What do you supposed motivated them?

[erroneus]

Okay, so "conspiracy theory" isn't only a sign of paranoia, it's also a fun "home game!"

But it seems to me that every time the DMCA has been used as a threat against 'research/hacktivism' there is an eventual back-down. Okay, I say "every time" as if this has happened a lot. I can think of only two times and it hardly defines a pattern.

But I wonder what the motivation was to back down from their position? Was it unfavorable press such as in the case of Adobe? Was it various lawyers and corporate organizations fearing that a loss would impair the effectiveness of the DMCA or even get it repealed? I have to wonder about that... ...anyone with any ideas along those lines? I would, for once, like to see the DMCA put into a situation where it's clearly and publically shown for what it is so it can finally be repealed... (and then replaced with something else.)

So, on my list of laws and things that should change:

1. Child support - Child support should only be applicable in the case where the child was concieved within a legal marriage. Any other situation leaves enough doubt that the man was not a willing participant unless he's willing to admit to it or assume responsibility on his own. Repealing child support law as it is would result in a great decrease in single-parent children.

2. Software patents - Gotta go! It's bad enough that Copyrights are an issue with software, but PATENTS too? That impairs the right to make compatible and competing products. Patents gotta go.

3. Copyright law - It has its place, but the way it's being extended to infinity is ludicrous. It doesn't serve public interests well enough and tips the balance too much in favor of the rights holders or controllers.

4. Fair Use law - It should be formalized as a guarantee to the American people. We have spent so much time trying to prevent and repeal bad law that we forget that we can write up and recommend good law to counter the bad in many cases. Is there anyone out there drafting "Fair Use" law and submitting it to their congressman or senator? Why not?

Re:What do you supposed motivated them?

[geekoid]

"1. Child support - Child support should only be applicable in the case where the child was concieved within a legal marriage. Any other situation leaves enough doubt that the man was not a willing participant unless he's willing to admit to it or assume responsibility on his own. Repealing child support law as it is would result in a great decrease in single-parent children."

So, men are free to screw who ever they want and not bear any responsibility?
There where a great many of single born children way before there where laws to hold the malr responsible for his action.
Genetic verification should really be enough.
OTOH no man should be forced into pay child support if it is proven the child is not his by birth or adoption.

after reading this, I can only reply with a quote from monty python: "you ARE a looney."

Re:What do you supposed motivated them?

[erroneus]

Off topic as hell... gotta love it.

First off, the argument that "it takes two" is a load of baloney. The act of sex and conceiving, carrying and birthing a child are not one in the same. You're all romanticizing the notion.

The fact is that nature dealt women a role and men a role. There is no such thing as "equality" as in sameness as much as we'd like to hope otherwise. Laws, regulations, rules, customs can be made and broken but nothing changes nature.

Further, there have been countless situations where men have been duped into becoming the father of a child. A woman cannot "accidentally" have a child. A man can, however, unintentionally father a child... sex is mostly a mindless act driven by desire of physical pleasure. The decision not to have a baby is controlled 99.999% by women. Men have only one method of birth control and it's not convenient, nor romantic and very often, women find ways to get around it anyway.

To answer the assumptions of the commentators:

I have been married. I have two sons and I keep them, not the ex-.

It sickens me to no end how people assume biology is enough to be a father. It's not and never has been. If it were somehow possible that a woman who acquired semen from a sperm bank and then somehow found the donor, can she then get child support for it? Clearly, biology isn't enough. It's intent. If the man didn't intend to have a child and the woman goes through with it, then it should be her responsibility alone as it was her intention and not his. Women have loads of methods of birth control...men have one.

Further, even when biology isn't involved in being identified as the father and a man is assigned child support only to find that he wasn't the father at a later time, the courts very often refuse to reverse the order citing that the child is the innocent victim here and shouldn't be penalized simply because the father isn't the biological father. Further, a woman can collect back child support for more than a decade if she happens to run into the accused father... if he later discovers he wasn't the father, he can't get his money back -- he is simply cheated of his money. A man can have no claim of fraudulently paid support returned to him. Again, women have all the advantages and none of the responsibilities.

Note that no penalty of fraud is ever levelled against a woman. No perjury charges ever filed. Women can and do bad things to men when it comes to this matter. And if it weren't so easy for them to pull it off, they'd be a lot more careful about who they sleep with.

Yes, single-moms have existed prior to current law, but now the problem is worse than ever and getting worse still. Many women make a career out of it collecting AFDC and child support and welfare and social security. I've witnessed it too many times.

There is no justification for forcing a man into being an unwilling parent. There is no justification for the imbalanced application of law where a woman is not responsible for accounting for where the child support money goes so that the payer knows that what he is paying for. (Ironic that just like contributing semen, it's only important that he contributes, and has no control over what is done with it.)

There is no balance or fairness in law in this area. It fuels the ramant problem of women creating a career out of childbirth that literally encourages women to pump out babies from as many different men as possible so as to maximize their income. Make no assumptions that these same women are spending this money properly or appropriately. I think anyone with open eyes knows that this is a system that is abused more than it's used.

And finally, the whole "single-moms" problem damages the children... so let's not forget about them. These are women who are intentionally giving birth to children knowing they cannot give them a proper father. Believing they can do it all by themselves isn't enough. And simply because there is one success in ten that a mother can raise a child that isn't a crime or social statistic isn't justification for the commonality of the problem.

If women knew they were faced with being totally alone in raising a child, they definitely wouldn't do it as often as they do. If there is no career in it, most would simply not do it and get a job or something.

Consider the results of removing current child support law... consider what it would do to our existing and growing welfare state. If women were held accountable for their own actions (they aren't children after all and not mentally challenged either right? so they must be doing this intentionally) women would behave very differently.

(BTW, here's a little trivia... I have my sons with me. The ex- tried to file for child support against me in another state and WON!!! When it got to Texas, I had to prove to the system here that I had them with me. It wasn't enough to produce school records -- I had to produce the children in person! There is definitely something very slanted about child support law as it's applied today when a woman can claim child support without evidence and I have to produce more than abundant evidence to the contrary and still deal with legal proceedings to prevent my wages from being hit.)