80bower writes "Looks like Microsoft is going to allow an MIT student to display security flaws in the XBOX and won't use the DMCA to stop him. Read about it at EFF via Politech." Microsoft deserves kudos for this. But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
No shit, man. I read the line "Microsoft deserves kudos for this" and I think "oh, thank jebus, they're finally growing up" and then I read the last line and my relief was ripped away.
6 months from now they'll post a story like "Bill Gates sacrifices self to save boat full of children and puppies" and the editors will find a way to make us hate him for it. Like his shoes weren't environmentally sound or some shit.
Oh, and the reason they don't care is because no ones purchased an Xbox in 4 months.
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
We don't have to hate _everything_ they do.. I mean, I dislike Windows for asthetic reasons. I dislike their business practices. That doesn't mean I have to hate everything about them, or disapprove of them when they are doing something good.
If we mock and hate them when they do good things, then they will feel that there is no pleasing us, and will thus ignore everything we have to say. I'd rather have a small voice than none at all.
I was going to commit mass murder, taunt cute little kittens with an open tin of tuna buy not let them have any, run around naked in public, and park on double yellow lines.
But I did none of that. So does this make me a saint? I hope not.
Microsoft decided not to use a totally OTT piece of legislation. They do not deserve kudos, but they don't deserve to be mocked (any more than usual).
If anyone deserves kudos it's the EFF for encouraging huge marketing machines like Microsoft to do the moral thing.
-- Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
6 months from now they'll post a story like "Bill Gates sacrifices self to save boat full of children and puppies" and the editors will find a way to make us hate him for it. Like his shoes weren't environmentally sound or some shit.
Yet today's headline is akin to "Bill Gates decides NOT to squeese trigger on gun aimed at puppy's head." A Slashdot editor points out that while this is all good of Bill, the real issue is the gun itself. You decide its further proof that Slashdot editors are out to get Bill.
My comment was just centered around the notion that they couldn't just make their compliment and leave well enough alone. They had every right to sue, and didn't, which was pretty nifty in my book.
I cannot express in words the great feeling I get knowing that I have the maturity, perspective, and humility to know that should the day come that the DMCA gets everything it wants, and my warez collection goes bye-bye and I can no longer burn cd's for any purpose, I'll shrug, think about some people in the world that are starving or getting shot at or watching their parents hauled off to some death camp and think "Well, if I bitch about this and call unfairness, I'll really be nothing but a whiny bitch that thinks his problems mean shit in this world". It's a really awesome feeling, you should try it.
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
My comment was just centered around the notion that they couldn't just make their compliment and leave well enough alone. They had every right to sue, and didn't, which was pretty nifty in my book.
Again - you miss the point. Its all good that Microsoft did The Right Thing but the issue at hand is that they had, as you put it, "every right to sue" in the first place. Its amazing how those with apparent pro-Microsoft leanings feel that this is some kind of dig against Microsoft. Re-read the comment. Its not.
I cannot express in words the great feeling I get knowing that I have the maturity, perspective, and humility to know that should the day come that the DMCA gets everything it wants, and my warez collection goes bye-bye and I can no longer burn cd's for any purpose, I'll shrug, think about some people in the world that are starving or getting shot at or watching their parents hauled off to some death camp and think "Well, if I bitch about this and call unfairness, I'll really be nothing but a whiny bitch that thinks his problems mean shit in this world". It's a really awesome feeling, you should try it.
I'm glad you feel great about it. Throughout history, there are always people who manage to justify the removal of theirs (or other's) rights. They come up with various justifications or label inaction as a kind of moral high ground. You can be rest assured that there has been a long history of your type logic. But don't kid yourself - its not maturity, perspective, NOR humility. It is the role of sycophant, apologist, or... at best... the tragicly passive.
The world's issues of human rights, hunger, and power struggles have little to do with the issues surrounding the DMCA. True. But then, giving up your right to copy a CD will not end world hunger. And the fact that there is civil war somewhere in the world does not detract from the importance of fair use - its still all about money, control, and power. Try to maintain some of that perspective you claim to hold.
Your statement is wrong too. You're ignoring what the current trend is amongst big software companies.
Agreed, we are commending them for inaction, but sometimes inaction is an action in and of itself. MS is indeed setting an good example, as the largest software vendor, that hopefully others will follow.
But if we really want to try to encapsulate this sentiment is some unfitting analogy, the best I can think of right now is if MS were the biggest coolest dude in high school. And all the other cool dudes were picking on some dork, but MS announced to them that he would not pick on the dork. Presumably, the others will follow in his path. The biggest cool dude just did what he was supposed to, but because it was he who did it, when no one else dared (or they surely wouldn't look cool anymore), it was laudible.
-- If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
I run a Sun workstation at work. It is running Solaris 9 on it, which is an implementation of SVR4 UNIX® (really licenced UNIX®).
I recently just loaded up the Sun implementation of GNOME 2.0 Beta 1 (meaning Sun's beta 1 of GNOME 2.0). I started metacity running the Gorilla theme.
Ironically most of the people that walk in my office and look at my screen comment off-handedly (and unsolicited), "hmm, looks like a mac." Of course not meaning that I have aqua running on it, just the look and feel of it is similar to that of a mac.
-- "Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese," Wallace.
You have got to be kidding me. Please, repost, saying that you aren't this fucking stupid. No one who has the capacity to type could possibly associate Bill and Adolf.
Because most people like having murder laws. There's lots of people who don't like the DMCA. If you think about this for a while, you might realize something about the word "democracy".
If Sony had done the same thing, then they would've made the same comment about Sony, because on the one hand, it sounds like they're doing a good thing, but on the other hand, complimenting them for it is like walking up to everyone you see on the street that's bigger than you are and saying, "Thanks for not holding me down and raping me, because I know you could, but you're not!". It's just really, really sad when a situation gets to the point where you have to thank someone and point them out as a good example because they DIDN'T immorally abuse someone when they were given the opportunity to do so.
Please don't speak to me of the moral highground. 99.9% of these self-proclaimed slashdot freedom fighters who love to speak of the evils of the DMCA are so misguided it's sad. They, possibly you, love to ramble on about something boils down to something as pathetic and trivial as the inability or lack of desire to purchase their software and music. People, like me, who can afford to buy pretty much an cd or software package we desire(which isn't a lot, I maybe buy 1 game/software app and 1 cd a week) really don't care about the DMCA. I look at all these warez groups with their extremely clever and impressive tactics and then I see them get out-done by the DMCA they start bitching about unfairness. It's like watching 5 year olds throw dirt clods and then whining about sand in the eye.
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
99.9% of these self-proclaimed slashdot freedom fighters who love to speak of the evils of the DMCA are so misguided it's sad. They, possibly you, love to ramble on about something boils down to something as pathetic and trivial as the inability or lack of desire to purchase their software and music. People, like me, who can afford to buy pretty much an cd or software package we desire(which isn't a lot, I maybe buy 1 game/software app and 1 cd a week) really don't care about the DMCA.
Sorry, you're the one who's misguided here.
The issue is NOT the ability to buy software, music, and other media. If you pay attention to posts (even this mythical 99.9% figure) you'll note that when price is mentioned, its often from someone who states that they are (or were) heavy music comsumers. They CAN afford it. Its whether they think the pricing structure and their fair use rights (which includes converting tracks to MP3 for their computer or burning a CD to keep in the car, etc) are being tampered with (which only begins to cover one's rights the DMCA removes).
I'm glad you can also afford the weekly purchase of these products. Though I find it sad that you don't care about your rights as a consumer. But then again, we've already established your level of apathy.
I look at all these warez groups with their extremely clever and impressive tactics and then I see them get out-done by the DMCA they start bitching about unfairness. It's like watching 5 year olds throw dirt clods and then whining about sand in the eye.
I'm curious as to how you think warez groups are being "out-done" by the DMCA. It reminds me of the old joke "stop crime; the Government hates competition" - is theft of copyrighted material being outdone by theft of personal rights?
The DMCA does little to curb warez group activity. Distributing copyrighted material was illegal well before the DMCA came in to existance. Yet it happened then and continues to happen even with the DMCA. Even after the somewhat recent and rather large-scale "chilling effect" busts in the warez scene... some of the game industry's most anticipated tittles show up as "zero day warez". Meanwhile music continues to be traded - the Eminem album had to be released early to compete with its brisk trade online and street counterfeits.
The tools, speech, and actions being prohibited affect law-abiding citizens, not warez groups and counterfeiters. Take a deeper look at the issue. Educate yourself. And get your facts straight.
Ahh. The infamous "trains running on time" bit. Yes, in extreme circumstances it leads to these situations. But one can hardly equate the DMCA to the ultimate evils of Hitler's administration.
At this point, I'm more or less done with this debate. We'll never see eye-to-eye, and we probably think some relatively negative things about each other. I honestly believe you've chosen this issue because it could possibly affect your ability to partake in illegal activites, and that alarms you. Maybe it doesn't directly affect you, and you've chosen it because it's a safe, trendy, and easy issue to be a part of.
Either way, I think you have nothing to worry about from this law, and should it ever directly affect you, I'm positive you will not have clean hands before the fact.
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
At this point, I'm more or less done with this debate. We'll never see eye-to-eye, and we probably think some relatively negative things about each other.
Perhapse we won't agree. But I don't take this personally and don't attribute any particularly negative things to you for the debate (beyond the belief that you're misguided:). Debate is good - thanks for taking the time.
I honestly believe you've chosen this issue because it could possibly affect your ability to partake in illegal activites, and that alarms you. Maybe it doesn't directly affect you, and you've chosen it because it's a safe, trendy, and easy issue to be a part of.
You're wrong on both accounts.
As I pointed out before, people involved in illegal activity have little to fear in this law. Illegal activity is continuing on undaunted by the DMCA. It is those who wish to remain on the legal path who will be restricted by it.
As an aside, I'd like to suggest that even law-abiding citizens will soon support those who perform illegal actions (either by paying or patronizing). The time is fast approaching where those who wish to exercise their fair use rights or safeguard their privacy will have to turn to illegal copies of the media they own. And once they begin to go through the trouble to do that... one has to wonder why they would also bother with the legal copies.
So why do I care about this issue?
Because I have been involved in the IT industry for years now. I've seen the raising importance of the digital medium and see the power and money involved in controlling it. And the remarkable change that happens when control is left in public hands and not select corporate or government entities. I also work with information security and am very used to dealing with issues that are largely overlooked by the public and other IT professionals but can lead to major issues down the line.
I also care about individual rights. I dedicated 8 years to, amoung other things, protect the rights of the citizens of my country. During that time period (and possibly still today), I legally gave up some of those same rights. My service also included other personal sacrifices. And during that time, I saw other countries and environments where the same individual rights enjoyed by citizens of my country did not exist.
In the end, I came away from that experience convinced that individual rights are a fundimental part of the positive growth of the United States and any free society. It is an important issue and an issue well worth fighting for. And the DMCA falls squarely in line with the issue of individual rights.
I may or may not be over reacting. But I am certainly not driven by some trivial motivation as petty theft or trendiness.
Actually... I have. And I tend to agree with a lot of it. Granted, sometimes it goes over the line (OK, I admit not paying attention to how often Michael goes over the line). But at the same time, I believe Microsoft deserves the majority of criticism it receives.
I've found a way to properly put my feelings into writing, so maybe the debate will continue.:)
My opinion was originally aimed at the average slashdotter, which you do not seem to be a part of. Their are some people that are educated on the DMCA facts, and I think you're on of them. However, the majority of slashdot readers that like to talk about the DMCA and how it affects them are little more than software pirates looking for a moral soapbox from which to sound their quasi-freedom fighter bullshit ideals. They've somehow got it into their mind that everytime they burn photoshop for their friends they elevate themselves to a modren day Che Guervas[sp?]. This is what I hate, and the people my opinions were directed at. I apologize if the message was lost, or worse yet, never effectively conveyed in the first place. I eagerly await your reply(seriously) and anytime to ever want to discuss this further, unicron@thcnet.net
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
My opinion was originally aimed at the average slashdotter, which you do not seem to be a part of. Their are some people that are educated on the DMCA facts, and I think you're on of them. However, the majority of slashdot readers that like to talk about the DMCA and how it affects them are little more than software pirates looking for a moral soapbox from which to sound their quasi-freedom fighter bullshit ideals.
In any popular debate, there are individuals who take up one side or the other without really understanding or educating themselves on the issue. I would suggest that this is fine as long as both sides have a chance to make their point (whether this happens on Slashdot is a subject for another time). The point of the debate isn't to "win" but rather to put forth ideas and, hopefully, be exposed to ideas and information one wouldn't normally consider on one's own. Debate can be educational.
Yea, I have to agree there is a good amount of ignorance expressed on Slashdot from time to time. It might even be safe to call it a majority of readers if one wants to assume Slashdot exists because people wish to debate and learn. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say a majority harbor alterior motives behind their arguments.
They've somehow got it into their mind that everytime they burn photoshop for their friends they elevate themselves to a modren day Che Guervas[sp?]. This is what I hate, and the people my opinions were directed at.
I can agree on this point too. Call a spade a spade. If you're burning copies of Photoshop because you and your buddies don't wish to pay the (hefty) price and don't mind the legal and moral issues of doing so... admit that's why you're doing it.
If you're looking for a moral high-ground, buy software that does what you need for the price you can afford. Or support Free (beer/speech) software (The GIMP).
The "piracy is moral" bit does remind me of an old BBS text I read years ago by someone calling themselves Bugs Bunny. The overall concept was that hackers were destined to be the future's champions. When future communications medium are tightly controlled, one will see events such as the use of a virus to distribute an unauthorized news story. It will be illegal, but it will be moraly just.
Like I said... one concept I like to ponder over is that to protect our rights in the near future, we may have to turn to those who are used to commiting crimes; the dealers in warez and other illicit data. But that is then. This is now. Warez is most often traded for the thrill of dealing in illicit data itself or to get free stuff.
A spade is a spade.
I eagerly await your reply(seriously) and anytime to ever want to discuss this further, unicron@thcnet.net
Its been interesting. I'll keep your address in mind.
*bzzt* Speeding laws are a highway tax. They remain because they provide income for police departments;).
In any case, you're taking the unfortunate view that "somebody" out there knows what society needs to flow smoothly, and that your (and my) input is not only unneccsary, it's unwelcome, and may, in fact, be detrimental. This is unfortunate, because this is how democracy's transform into... well, almost anything else. People willing give away thier free thought, speech, and ideas to a nameless, formless "authority", who they assume knows what's best for them. It's a very dangerous viewpoint.
Well... I suppose that by not attempting to sue this guy, the DMCA won't get struck down yet for being an unconscienable threat to legitimate study and free speech.
-- It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:What the?
by
uncoveror
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Microsoft gains some good PR, and avoids bringing the test case that could topple the DMCA in the Supreme Court, in case they do want to use the DMCA someday. They aren't stupid, like the RIAA.
They probably have been paying attention to the HP fiasco of a couple weeks ago. That was a marketing disaster for HP, and if Microsoft is anything they are good marketers.
If you want to be cynical about it, then you can guess that Microsoft wants to make some truly egregious use of the DMCA further down the road, and they don't want to risk getting the law overturned on a trivial use.
If you want to be cynical about it, then you can guess that Microsoft wants to make some truly egregious use of the DMCA further down the road, and they don't want to risk getting the law overturned on a trivial use.
Except we all know that the case would never have gone to court, MS would have just bullied until Huang dropped it.
Also, I would assume it would be much easier to win on a "trivial" court case, thereby validating the law, than it would be to win in a larger case down the road--when no other cases support it.
I really do think MS deserves some praise for this. For MS to be one of the few major companies to get it...well, it's quite amazing, really.
an average citizen, the average x-box owner is not. the percentage of x-box owners who would open the case to perform hardware mods is much, much, much greater than the percentage of the average citizenry who would do the same.
This is bad. The only reason i can imagine that microsoft would do this is to solidify their argument for Palladium, or whatever the next incantation of it will be. By showing how the DMCA is ineffective in protecting against reverse-engineering and such, microsoft is trying to sneak their version of copyprotection in the "back door". Those guys (M$) don't do anything unless it will get them money. Never forget that, lest you be become assimilated. Remember....
Resistance is futile
Re:bad juju
by
good-n-nappy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is precedent for that kind of behavior. In the past companies have used the patent system to do it. For example, several printer companies filed design patents on the shape of their ink cartridges so they could have a little monopoly.
When one of these cases came to trial, the court ruled against this kind of use of design patents. Here's a link to the case. The company in the case was Epson.
I think MS would eventually lose in court if they tried to use the DMCA like that (who knows how long it could take though). Plus it would be terrible PR for MS since everyone is already screaming monopoly.
Do you know how much taxes M$ pays a year. I am sure this is a tax write off (even if they are doing it for the right reasons). So in the end they get to keep more of their money. M$ didn't become BorgLike by giving away ALL thier money. Cheers
MS pays very little in taxes due to their heavy use of stock options as compensation. Besides that, Bill Gates (who is NOT synonymous with MS (a publically traded company)) is the man behind the charity giving. I am sure it helps his tax bill a bit.
Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
by
unsinged+int
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Flying pigs! Help! I'm being attacked by flying pigs!
Re:Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
by
_Sprocket_
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Wiggle your mouse. Its just a screensaver.
Re:Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
by
daeley
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That would make a great bumpersticker. Somebody call Think Geek. LOL
-- I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Re:Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
by
_Sprocket_
·
· Score: 2
No. I'm not Signal 11 (is he still around?). Mod away. But hey... I thought it was funny.:P
They must hate lawyers as much as we do
by
WildBeast
·
· Score: 2
I have noticed that MS rarely sues, my guess is that they hate lawyers and don't feel like getting involved in dumb lawsuits.
Hope that'll teach companies like HP, Apple, Adobe, etc. another lesson or two.
Re:They must hate lawyers as much as we do
by
Zen+Mastuh
·
· Score: 2
They don't hate lawyers; they hire lawyers.
Maybe instead of rarely suing they are rarely noticed in courtrooms--all this takes is the bullying of several lawyers and strongly-worded cease & desist letters.
--
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Re:They must hate lawyers as much as we do
by
SN74S181
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Microsoft got sued by Apple Computer in the famous Look and Feel lawsuit.
Microsoft won. In effect, Microsoft set the legal precedent that prevents a company like Apple from suing anybody who makes a desktop theme that looks like an Apple desktop.
It's been said more than once that Microsoft paid the legal bill for everybody else to copy their GUI. Because they don't believe in competing in the courtroom. They're far better at competing in the marketplace. Esp. when they have the kind of control of that market that they presently hold.
It's a mixed bag, but believe me, if Apple had won the suit, you'd be lucky to be allowed to use the Tab Window Manager on your X desktop.
Re:They must hate lawyers as much as we do
by
r_j_prahad
·
· Score: 2
Just in case it may have escaped your attention, Microsoft's legal department has been somewhat busy with other issues for the past year and a half.
Also, communist Russia has fallen and there's now only two Beatles left.
Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Dr.+Awktagon
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
in 1997: freedom of speech was understood by reading the following:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press;
in 2002: freedom of speech is understood by reading the following:
With the help of Boston College law professor Joe Liu, EFF worked with Huang, Abelson, and MIT administrators to analyze the legal issues and draft letters notifying Microsoft of Huang's research findings and intended publication...
Microsoft told Huang and Abelson that while it might prefer that the paper not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper.
"I was afraid to submit my research for peer review until after the EFF's efforts to clear potential legal restraints."
Welcome to America kids! If you're lucky, you'll get permission to publish your paper too!
Perhaps if you wear a colorful, fanciful hat, decorated with bells and chimes, and prance about most amusingly, the King will pity you and grant your wish.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
ehiris
·
· Score: 2
"if you wear a colorful, fanciful hat, decorated with bells and chimes, and prance about most amusingly"
Or more likely because MIT has better lawyers then Microsoft can dream of. I believe the word inappropriate meant illegal.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Planesdragon
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Welcome to America kids! If you're lucky, you'll get permission to publish your paper too!
Go back and read the first amendment. Note the subject.
CONGRESS--and by extension, the government--cannot abridge your freedom of speech, aside from military or criminal reasons. And for a lot of things, not even then.
PRIVATE PARTIES, like MIT and Microsoft, can do whatever the hell they please, up to the point where they're a goverment.
If Microsoft owns a town, they can't made a law abridging speech there. They can only let employees live there, and make the employees know that they're fired if they belittle MS (and deal with the PR backlash that does), but they can't make a law.
Think this is bad now? Try living under a real king, who can kill you just on a whim. Corporate politics are a light cold compared to the absolute void that we might find if the government wasn't restrained as it.
Private people--heck, if we make it so no one could tell anyone else to shut up, life would be like an early AOL chatroom that you could never log out of.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Wolfier
·
· Score: 2
>Try living under a real king, who can kill you >just on a whim. Corporate politics are a light >cold compared to the absolute void that we might >find if the government wasn't restrained as it.
With soft money contributions still legal, I cannot see any difference, can you? I honestly belive if the RIAA wanted to make it a death penalty for breaking the DMCA they would have succeeded.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
dR.fuZZo
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
CONGRESS--and by extension, the government--cannot abridge your freedom of speech, aside from military or criminal reasons.
Uhm, well, something is considered criminal if the Congress passes a law saying it's against the law. So, in other words, what you're saying is: Congress can't abridge your freedom of speech, except for when they abridge your freedom of speech.
I wanted to mock your post, but, unfortunately, it seems to be dead on.
-- -- dR.fuZZo
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
HiThere
·
· Score: 2
The DMCA was passed by congress, therefore it is a law passed by congress that abridges freedom of speech. The fact that suits are initiated by private parties is irrelevant.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
possible
·
· Score: 2
I suggest YOU go read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The founders of the United States held that certain rights are God given or "natural", i.e. they cannot be abridged by anyone or anything -- unless you voluntarily enter into an agreement.
Since security researchers by and large have not entered into agreements with Microsoft (the EULA, a non-binding and probably invalid "contract" not withstanding), they can exercise their NATURAL rights to speak freely.
This is why the founding fathers were a bit more radical than they are given credit for. They would not have agreed with the statement "If Congress passes a law, then it stands as the law of the land no matter what." If the law attempts to abridge your God given rights, then your rights simply trump the law and you can and probably SHOULD actively disregard/disobey it.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
ajs
·
· Score: 2
You don't sue under the DMCA. You press charges. Different.
This is why Adobe could back out of the Skylorov (sp?) case, but the FBI still went ahead with it. Adobe was just the one that told the authorities.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Elwood+P+Dowd
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As two other respondents have noted, you are exactly wrong.
You are correct: private parties are not bound by the declaration of independence. You are incorrect: Microsoft really can't restrict your freedom of speech.
The reason for this apparent contradiction is that Microsoft cannot make laws. How would Microsoft limit your freedom of speech? By arresting you? All they could do would be to sue you if you damaged them, or make business arrangements to mess with your life. That's what AOL does. They kick you out of the chat room. They can't stop you from swearing on someone else's dime.
In this particular case, Microsoft is not the party accused of restricting freedom of speech. Since this student isn't using MS resources to make his speech, they would have no grounds at all. The DMCA is a law passed by the federal government. The federal government is restricting freedom of speech. Just like copyright. The constitution makes allowance for both the DMCA and regular copyright, however.
Article 1, section 8, clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
So I think it's pretty clear that the DMCA has grounds in the US Constitution. But it's not because MS can limit your freedom of speech. They can't. Of course, I don't think the DMCA has good enough grounds in the Constitution, given the absurd ramifications. Some day, we may see what the Supreme Court thinks.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
WNight
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Wouldn't be hard to do actually. Treason and likely other similar crimes have the death penalty.
Now, all they'd need to do was say that anyone who committed terrorism against his home nation is committing treason. And of course terrorism would be extended to disabling (or telling someone how to) a security system vital for the "education the nation's youth in the field of eye-hand coordination", or whatever.
There, hacking the XBox or a DVD player (both are protected and to break them would potentially hurt the nation's economy in a serious way) is now terrorism; a supposed attempt to bring the nation to economic ruin, after all MS and the MPAA collective both are a large part of the markets. This terrorism, if committed by a citizen or resident of the US would then be treason, and there's the theoretical death-penalty for it.
And you can see that these half-way laws are both fairly realistic (have they already passed them?) in today's post 9-11 world.
Would anyone actually get put to death? No. But they don't really care as long as you cooperate. Few people actually get charged for DMCA violation now, normally it's enough to threaten. Who would risk it?
I honestly believe that it'd be possible for them to pass laws making DVD hacking technically punishable by the death penatly (even if such that it would never be actually used) inside of a year, with the right campaign contributions.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
MulluskO
·
· Score: 2
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
I think the biggest problem is that there isn't really a limited Time on the DMCA. My understanding is that should the games or DVDs you are buying today ever reach the public domain, if the DMCA is still in force nobody will be able to legally distribute or modify the work, as it will still be illegal to produce devices capable of removing the decryption. Additionally it will be illegal to publish research on such topics that might lead to fair use of the works whose copyrights have expired.
That is why the DMCA is unconstitutional.
--
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2
Go back and read the first amendment. Note the subject.
What it actually says is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
CONGRESS--and by extension, the government--cannot abridge your freedom of speech, aside from military or criminal reasons. And for a lot of things, not even then.
Congress cannot pass a law which abridges freedom of speach. Which is a subtle, but very important, distinction. PRIVATE PARTIES, like MIT and Microsoft, can do whatever the hell they please, up to the point where they're a goverment.
Except that a private party cannot use any law passed through the US Congress in order to enforce this.
If Microsoft owns a town, they can't made a law abridging speech there.
Up until fairly recently any level of government other than federal, in the US, could make such a law.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2
The DMCA was passed by congress, therefore it is a law passed by congress that abridges freedom of speech. The fact that suits are initiated by private parties is irrelevant.
Is there a specific term for a lawsuit which involves bogus application of a law?
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2
This is why the founding fathers were a bit more radical than they are given credit for.
"A bit more" should probably read "a lot more". Were these people around today they would probably be called "communists", "anarchists" and even "terrorists".
They would not have agreed with the statement "If Congress passes a law, then it stands as the law of the land no matter what."
But might wonder exactly what was going on in both houses of Congress....
If the law attempts to abridge your God given rights,
Not all of these people were Christian, so they'd probably say "inate" rather than "God given".
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2
My understanding is that should the games or DVDs you are buying today ever reach the public domain,
The only way these are likely to have much chance of getting into the public domain is if someone had broken the DMCA at some point or other. Since the lifespan of the media is less than the current length of copyright. Also AFAIK there is no "copyright library" or obligation on the publisher to keep an archive copy when it comes to games and DVDs.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2
I've never read the full text of the DMCA (It's convoluted legalese and it's boring),
Apparenly the people who passed never actually read it all either.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
ProfKyne
·
· Score: 2
Think this is bad now? Try living under a real king, who can kill you just on a whim. Corporate politics are a light cold compared to the absolute void that we might find if the government wasn't restrained as it.
That's the whole point of all of this. If people fail to assert their rights and ensure that the government does its job of protecting them, things could go back to situations resembling what you have just described.
-- "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Rogerborg
·
· Score: 2
CONGRESS--and by extension, the government--cannot abridge your freedom of speech, aside from military or criminal reasons. And for a lot of things, not even then.
Shall we actually read the 1st Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What part of this says "Congress shall make no law allowing the government to abridg the freedom of speech"?
Could Congress make a law that allows me (me, not them) to beat the tar out of you because you're a Christian?
Then why is it acceptable for them to pass a law that lets Microsoft exercise prior restraint on someone pointing out how dumb they are?
This is quite apart from the issue that the DMCA contains criminal penalties. Ask Dmitri Sklyarov about the significance of that, if you're in any doubt.
Care to take another swing at it?
-- If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Zordak
·
· Score: 2
I honestly believe that it'd be possible for them to pass laws making DVD hacking technically punishable by the death penatly (even if such that it would never be actually used) inside of a year, with the right campaign contributions.
This is a major stretch. You forget that the reason politicians like campaign contributions is because it buys them exposure: Air time, posters, ads, etc. Ultimately, politicians are still accountable to the voters. The reason money is so important is that it gets your smiling face in front of enough voters that you have a shot at winning. Introducing a law that would introduce the death penalty for hacking DVDs would be political suicide (even in Texas, where we like the death penalty) for the congress person who introduces it, and voting for that law would be political suicide for every congress person who voted for it. While it's true that those with money can have a lot of influence over the political process, the laws have to be introduced in benign sounding ways. You can't rock the boat too much all at once, or the voters don't like it and you get voted out.
--
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Elwood+P+Dowd
·
· Score: 2
I thought the DMCA only made it illegal to circumvent encryption for the purpose of defeating copyright. In which case, once copyright is over, you'd have free reign on encryption circumvention.
Of course, at that point, if that type of encryption were still in use in copyrighted works, they might be able to argue that research into decryption of the public domain work would also be research into copyright circumvention.
*That* would make it unconstitutional.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
evilpenguin
·
· Score: 2
You are talking about the principle of state action. Well, we are not talking about lawsuits here. We are talking about violation of a criminal statute, the DMCA. The DMCA is state action.
Many organizations, from the EFF to the ACLU are working on striking down the DMCA. It is (IMHO) bad law.
Consider supporting the EFF and/or the ACLU. Whatever your politics, we need to support the people pushing back against these laws. For good or for ill, the Supreme Court has sent mized messages about the role of money in politics -- explicitly allowing limits on contributions, wile explicitly disallowing limits on party contributions (IANAL, IIRC, and other apprpriate disclaimers) in diecisions like Nixon v. Missouri PAC, Buckley v. Valeo, and Colorado v. Fed. Election Comission.
The political deck is stacked for corporate interests and against individual interests. I'm not anti-corporate: the fault is ours (individuals), not the corporations'. The EFF and the ACLU (and if you are inclined, the FSF) are a place where an individual can use the same tools the corporate interests use to push back the other way.
The days when technologists could innovate without paying any attention to politics and law are over.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Planesdragon
·
· Score: 2
The founders of the United States held that certain rights are God given or "natural", i.e. they cannot be abridged by anyone or anything -- unless you voluntarily enter into an agreement.
Are you referring to the following?:
We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inaliable rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
It's from the declaration of indipendance, which is nothing more than a nastygram sent to the King of England explaining why we were going to war. It is *NOT* a legal document, and aside from being an example of the proper mindset, it's hardly binding.
The rights included in the First Amendment are NOT aboslute, even in the absence of a contract. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. You cannot sacrafice another human beign no matter what your religion says. If you print slander, you can be held liable in civil court. If you print child pornography, you can be taken to criminal court. In some places, if you discuss how to get past security guards or open someone's car, you can be arrested.
The DMCA is many things, but a clear-cut violation of the first amendment it is not.
This is why the founding fathers were a bit more radical than they are given credit for. They would not have agreed with the statement "If Congress passes a law, then it stands as the law of the land no matter what." If the law attempts to abridge your God given rights, then your rights simply trump the law and you can and probably SHOULD actively disregard/disobey it.
That depends on the law. If people are really harmed, as they were with slavery, then you should stand agaisnt them. If people are merely inconvenienced, as during Prohibition or an unlawful incarceration in a time of war, you should work with the system to change the system, not discard it.
If you're going to try and get the law changed, then you're going to need to be accountable. Stand up, be proud for what you do, and don't hide behind "privacy."
"Those that value personal privacy over general liberty deserve neither."
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
WNight
·
· Score: 2
Well, there are ways to get to keep your campaign money. Creative accounting and buying services from yourself. The benefit isn't just in getting elected, even politicians looking to leave can get rich from donations.
And yes, I know it'd be suicide to pass a law saying that if you crack CSS you get killed. But they're almost there now because they only need to declare terrorism to potentially have the death penalty (who would argue, it's TERRORISM!!) and to make cracking DRM terrorism when it stands to hurt a major corporation to the turn of (misrepresented accounting) billions of dollars.
Nobody would see it as a law punished hackers by death, and it'd be too dangerous for anyone to argue against because they'd be supporting terrorists. Just like McCarthy and his communism scare. (That man was evil incarnate and I'm sorry he didn't get shot for it by someone whose life was ruined by his lies.)
Don't forget that Bush has the highest popularity rating in history, people are idiots and only see that he's doing something, they don't care what as long as it involves bombing someone. Nobody scrutinizes what government does, at least nobody who would be listened to by the public.
Just like old times...
by
Loki_1929
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
In 800A.D., Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, which showed that the pope had the power to put Charlemagne in charge. Microsoft is simply saying, "you are able to publish this information only because we, the generous and wonderful empire of Microsoft allow it." For them to come out and openly state that they will allow it to be published serves only to make them appear ever more powerful to the general public, in that they make the subtle claim of having power over free speech.
Perhaps they would have won in court and silenced this person, but the flaws he speaks of would have still made it to the net pretty quickly. If they had lost the court battle, the flaws would have been released to the public in about the same amount of time. Either way, Microsoft comes off looking like free speech-killers (Read, bad PR) and the flaws are published. By not challenging release of the information, (and doing so about as publicly as possible), they appear powerful, yet merciful. (Read, good PR).
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft did something right here; at least something that's right for them - doesn't make a difference for us.
-- --
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Re:Just like old times...
by
Osty
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You said:
For them to come out and openly state that they will allow it to be published serves only to make them appear ever more powerful to the general public, in that they make the subtle claim of having power over free speech.
The article said:
Microsoft told Huang and Abelson that while it might prefer that the paper not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper.
It seems to me that "it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper" is quite a bit different than "we'll allow you to publish the paper". Microsoft did the Right Thing (tm), in that they recognized that Huang's paper can and should be published without restraint due to the principles of Free Speech. Is it so hard to give kudos where kudos are deserved, even when it's a company that you "hate" ("hate" is rather strong, don't you think? but oh well...)? Why must you try to make Microsoft look bad even when they've done good? If Redhat (for example. Or Sun, or any other Slashdot-favorite company) had done the same thing, you'd be lauding them for doing the Right Thing (tm) by saying it's "inappropriate" to block this, even though they could legally block the paper (hey, it's not just Microsoft that has that kind of power). Then again, if Redhat/Sun/Oracle/IBM/whoever had actually said, "We'll allow you to publish this, even though we could block it legally," I bet you'd still be crazy nuts happy about it without trying to say that they're doing so only to make themselves look stronger.
Re:Just like old times...
by
wfrp01
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If they had lost the court battle, the flaws would have been released to the public in about the same amount of time.
If they had lost the court battle, it may be because a court finds the DMCA unconstitutional. That would be much more harmful to MS than letting some insignificant techno-trifle out of the bag. When people openly defy the DMCA, they are challenging the law. Someone is picking a fight with an 800 pound gorilla, and the gorilla is sitting this one out. Microsoft's lawyers have decided to avert risk. That alone speaks volumes about the precariousness of the DMCA's standing.
Re:Just like old times...
by
Loki_1929
·
· Score: 2
You've got to be kidding...
"it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper."
If they were doing the right thing, they'd simply say, "we don't feel it's appropriate" or "we do not believe we would be within our rights to.."
The language used assumes that Microsoft is the sole arbitor of what is or is not appropriate. Read between the lines; it's not supposed to jump out at you. This isn't something we usually don't see from Microsoft, in that it's subtle (unlike their new licensing).
-- --
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Re:Just like old times...
by
Loki_1929
·
· Score: 2
Another good point, and well stated. To more simply put things into perspective, Microsoft has nothing to gain and everything to lose by using the DMCA in this case. And they have nothing to lose, and a small bit to gain by publicly stating that they will in fact not use the DMCA in this case. Hey, if nothing else, it got them into a story on the front page of a website where a quarter of a million IT pro's read every day.
-- --
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Re:Just like old times...
by
fferreres
·
· Score: 2
Is it so hard to give kudos where kudos are deserved?
Not at all. But you need to deserve it first. What if this paper had been released by a russian hacker? Does it make any difference that MIT is involved? It seems so!
They don't want to fuck with the top univerities of the US, that's right. But i'll send my kudos to them when I hear:
"Microsoft told Vladimir Whatever that while it might prefer that the information not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask anyone to withhold any information.
-- unfinished: (adj.)
Re:Just like old times...
by
fferreres
·
· Score: 2
Who mentioned Adobe? "Vladimir" could be any individual. The point is it looks like the important fact here was MIT involvement, not the guy.
-- unfinished: (adj.)
Anything to do with the Australian MOD Chip case?
by
djbentle
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Just a shot in the dark, but could this have anything to do with the decision in Australia that mod chip makers don't violate the Australian equivalent of the DMCA? IIRC the court decided (among other things) that because the protections in the ps2 aren't meant to stop copying, only make it so you can't play copied/imported media, it didn't fall under protection of the law.
Could it be that Microsft just doesn't want to fight it in court, and lose. Thus setting the precedent that such hardware protections are not protected under the DMCA?
Is it for real that M$ is really putting some serious efforts in softening its image in public.
For e.g. they dont totally favor the "chip-in-all-hardware-to-prevent-copying" strategy. They are in favor to an extent, but they have carefully removed themselves from going all out in support of this approach.
Then this. They know that this doesnt amount to all that much, but coming from them, it would clearly garner a lot of public attention.
I for one would like M$ to wisen up a bit and learn to co-exist with the rest of the world.
Remember the explosion of the psx popularity after all the mods and hacks came out? Perhaps they are hoping for something like that to happen with the xbox. When I saw how easy it was to install the mods it made me wonder if they made it this easy on purpose.
Microsoft is conducting a campaign to actively reach out to the Linux-using geek crowd. This may be designed to make us take a second look at them in a more positive light.
The real test will be whether they use DMCA to clamp down on vulnerability research on their.NET and XP technologies. If they don't, then it's good evidence that they're dedicated to becoming good citizens.
"Microsoft is conducting a campaign to actively reach out to the Linux-using geek crowd. This may be designed to make us take a second look at them in a more positive light. "
doubtfull for 2 reasons. where still small, and since they are using legislation to implement there millenium plan, we don't matter. we will have to accept them, or not use any computers.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
Especially things that they can't legally do anyway. The DMCA does not outlaw displaying security holes.
If it's sad to give kudos, why put someone who gives them on the front page? I guess it passes the "grep Microsoft story.txt" test.
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
jpmorgan
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The DMCA outlaws the circumenvtion of copyright protection mechanisms, which is what the MIT hacker did. So the DMCA outlaws exactly that.
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The DMCA outlaws the circumenvtion of copyright protection mechanisms, which is what the MIT hacker did. So the DMCA outlaws exactly that.
There is an exception for research, and besides there is no evidence that the hacker circumvented copyright protection mechanisms. In any case, Microsoft has only agreed to let the hacker present his paper, which is not a violation of the DMCA. They haven't agreed to not sue him for circumventing the copyright protection mechanisms in the first place.
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
gsfprez
·
· Score: 2
uh... I'm think that after Ed Felten, to believe that one SHOULDN'T check with a lawyer before putting something like this out there woud make one a ignorant fool.
-- guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
gilroy
·
· Score: 2
Blockquoth the poster:
Excepting serious research; a student from MIT is about a serious as they come.
Oh, yes, the sort of students who would do this or this is the very paragon of seriousness...
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 2
uh... I'm think that after Ed Felten, to believe that one SHOULDN'T check with a lawyer before putting something like this out there woud make one a ignorant fool.
Really? The Felton case is exactly an example of how presenting a paper is not covered by the DMCA.
Check a lawyer if you want, but I certainly wouldn't call someone an ignorant fool for not doing so.
Don't cheer yet...
by
KenCrandall
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I wouldn't quite start cheering yet. I'd be awfully wary of what comes out of this. MS gets a FREE security check of XBOX, and look what they can do with all this:
They can see where all the holes that hackers/modders are exploiting in the console are.
They can "slipstream" secutity updates into future games and break the above.
They get some PR karma for not going after an academic/researcher who is doing benefit for the "public good" (i.e. fixing security holes that could "JEAPORDIZE NATIONAL SECURITY"
They know what works and what doesn't for security in future products.
On the plus side, since they are chosing NOT to invoke the DMCA, they prove that the law is subject to the whim of the very corporations who claimed to be harmed and sponsored the bill in congress (proxied by our loyal Senators, of course!) This kind of ruins the legitimacy of the law, as it transforms the DMCA from "reverse-engineering decryption schemes is always harmful (and hence, illegal) and is a copyright and security threat" to "reverse-engineering decryption schemes is only harmful (and hence illegal) when I SAY it is a copyright and security threat". This is a subtle, but quite big difference. Hopefully, the EFF and ALCU (or other socially-responsible organizations) will pick up on that fact...
With this in mind, I like the fact that MS is doing this. However, I'd hate it to kill the mod-chip business. I'm fully in-favor of us being able to do ANYTHING with ANYTHING we buy (and dammit, if I pay $300 for the XBOX, I own it!) -- Imagine if you couldn't hop-up your car if you wanted to? The DMCA just sucks, in-general, and it sucks even more if companies can just CHOOSE when things are illegal and when they are not.
Cheers,
Ken
Re:Don't cheer yet...
by
Vulture_
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They can see where all the holes that hackers/modders are exploiting in the console are.
What's wrong with that? That's a lot like how Open Source security works -- people find bugs in your code, they publish the bugs, you get to fix them.
They can "slipstream" secutity updates into future games and break the above.
Fine. Let them. After enough iterations they'll figure out that it's futile. Anyway, isn't it their right to do so?
They get some PR karma for not going after an academic/researcher who is doing benefit for the "public good" (i.e. fixing security holes that could "JEAPORDIZE NATIONAL SECURITY"
That PR karma seems deserved to me.
They know what works and what doesn't for security in future products.
Yeah -- nothing and everything, respectively.
--
The only way the typical/.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
Thanks, EFF
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Ok, that's it. I just donated 25 bucks to the EFF (took about 1 minute). Maybe that's a drop in the bucket, but I wanted to say "thanks" to the folks who actually DO something that everyone else is just talking about.
How about a non-borg icon today?
by
MongooseCN
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Perhaps MS deserves a non-bill-the-borg icon for this story today?
Re:How about a non-borg icon today?
by
Stephen+VanDahm
·
· Score: 2
"Perhaps MS deserves a non-bill-the-borg icon for this story today?"
Perhaps, but an image of Bill Gates on the bridge of a Romulan Warbird is too large for a Slashdot icon.
Felten Shockwave
by
limekiller4
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence.
Suppose someone dies and you know where they stashed $1,000 in cash. You might take that money, but later return it. Why? Did you return it because stealing it was wrong, and you came to this realization? Did you return it because you were afraid of being caught? Maybe you returned it out of guilt. The point is that honor and "good behavior" comes in many flavors which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell. Do I think they did the "smart thing?" You bet. I think they took one look at the Felten debacle and knew to not play with the academics. I think they know the power of public relations, especially this year.
-- My.02,
Limekiller
Hey, didn't you get your training manual?
by
protein+folder
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Re:Hey, didn't you get your training manual?
by
kubrick
·
· Score: 2
But what about Sony? Don't they own members of the RIAA *and* MPAA? And they make a cool games console, that runs Linux... but then they sue modchippers? Oh, I'm so confused!?!:)
Besides, the new Apple mice aren't bad. Damn sight better than the iMac hockey pucks.
So a researcher fears that a law might restrain him from making a speech, he contacts Microsoft who says that they'd prefer he doesn't make the speech but can't stop him, and somehow this means the law is unconstitutional?
Re:WTF kind of logic is that?
by
Arandir
·
· Score: 2
It makes perfect sense if you look at it from the Slashdot perspective: everything Microsoft does is Evil, and free speech means anything I want it to mean.
-- A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:WTF kind of logic is that?
by
FauxPasIII
·
· Score: 2
>> Microsoft who says that they'd prefer he doesn't make the speech but can't stop him
That's just it. Microsoft perfectly well can stop him, using the DMCA. They just choose not to in this instance, for whatever reason. The law that gives them the ability to make that choice (Let's see, do I or do I not feel like abridging the freedom of speech today...) is obviously unconstitutional.
Microsoft perfectly well can stop him, using the DMCA.
No they can't.
They just choose not to in this instance, for whatever reason.
"Microsoft told Huang and Abelson that while it might prefer that the paper not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper." "Inappropriate" is Microsoft's way of saying "we're not allowed by law". Otherwise why wouldn't they stop Huang and Abelson, since they clearly want to.
The law that gives them the ability to make that choice (Let's see, do I or do I not feel like abridging the freedom of speech today...) is obviously unconstitutional.
Agreed. But the DMCA is not such a law.
Re:WTF kind of logic is that?
by
FauxPasIII
·
· Score: 2
>> Agreed. But the DMCA is not such a law.
In the strictest sense, I see the point you're trying to make, and in the strictest sense you're right. However, I don't think that that will come as much comfort to Jon Johansen, SnoSoft, the BnetD developers, or Prof. Felten.
The DMCA doesn't technically grant corporations the right to abridge free speech. However, it does give them means to drag just about anyone into court and keep them there long enough to rack up a couple hundred million dollars in legal fees if needs be to make them comply, so the effect is much the same.
The DMCA doesn't technically grant corporations the right to abridge free speech. However, it does give them means to drag just about anyone into court and keep them there long enough to rack up a couple hundred million dollars in legal fees if needs be to make them comply, so the effect is much the same.
Hmm, let's see... In the Felton case Felton was the one who initiated the lawsuit. The Johansen case was not over the DMCA, it was over Norwegian Criminal Code 145(2). Further, Johansen was distributing code, not making a speech. AFAIK the bnetd lawsuit is over copyright infringement, not DMCA violations. Further, they were distributing code, not making a speech.
A rose by any other name... the new "anti-counterfeiting" bill provides another avenue for the same sort of legal attacks. The DMCA is one of many holes to be closed, pending a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that this kind of bullshit is to be stopped once and for all.
>> Further, they were distributing code, not making a speech
If you don't accept that code is protected speech, then I can see why your opinion differs. I respectfully disagree... censorship is censorship, speech is speech, regardless of the language.
Re:WTF kind of logic is that?
by
FauxPasIII
·
· Score: 2
>> HP didn't sue, probably because snosoft wasn't breaking the DMCA.
Sure they didn't sue, but that's not the point. They could have sued if they'd felt like it, and that puts SnoSoft (and everyone else in the security community) in a tenuous position. It doesn't really matter whether Snosoft was breaking the law or not, either, not until this country moves to a loser-pays system of civil litigation anyway.
My point is, if HP had half a mind to, they could employ the DMCA (or any number of similar laws, some of which you pointed out above) to bury SnoSoft or anybody else who can't match them lawyer for lawyer. They don't have to be right to win.
And anyway, companies like HP, Vivendi, RIAA and Microsoft don't even have to prosecute (successfully or un) supposed DMCA offenders to scare the beejesus out of anybody who might try to publish any presentations, code, etc that said corporations don't like. It's called a "chilling effect", yo.
If you don't accept that code is protected speech, then I can see why your opinion differs.
Even if code is protected, it's not protected without limitation. If it were then all copyright law would be unconstitutional, because all copyright law restricts speech. I don't really feel like getting into the nitty gritty details, the arguments for both sides were already addressed in the DeCSS case. So I'll assume you feel that regulation of code deserves strict scrutiny, or that the DMCA does not pass intermediate scrutiny.
In any case, my point here is that pointing out flaws is not distributing code. It doesn't fall under the DMCA at all.
Re:WTF kind of logic is that?
by
FauxPasIII
·
· Score: 2
>> It doesn't fall under the DMCA at all
Agreed. You, however, seem to believe that that matters, that that simple fact could keep Microsoft from invoking the DMCA to crush the presentation, and that's dangerously naive. The Bnetd case was about reimplementing a network protocol by reverse engineering, for compatibility purposes. It doesn't fall under the DMCA at all either. That didn't stop vivendi from wielding the DMCA to force their compliance from somebody they didn't like.
The simple fact is, no matter how right you are on the matter that none of this is within the legal scope of the DMCA (and you ARE right), it just doesn't make a lick of difference. Being right doesn't mean you win. Being rich does.
They could have sued if they'd felt like it, and that puts SnoSoft (and everyone else in the security community) in a tenuous position. It doesn't really matter whether Snosoft was breaking the law or not, either, not until this country moves to a loser-pays system of civil litigation anyway.
Well, that's a completely separate issue then. Because I can sue anyone I want for violating any civil law I choose. That doesn't mean the law I sue them over is bad. It means the legal system is bad. Loser pays won't exactly solve the problem, though, it'll just up the stakes. And personally I really am not all that concerned about civil lawsuits. Yes, you have a lot more money than I do, but that means you're taking a lot bigger risk. The lowest we can go is zero here in the US. I'd be willing to defend myself in a civil lawsuit. For a criminal one I wouldn't, but the DMCA isn't criminal law unless you're breaking it for profit.
And anyway, companies like HP, Vivendi, RIAA and Microsoft don't even have to prosecute (successfully or un) supposed DMCA offenders to scare the beejesus out of anybody who might try to publish any presentations, code, etc that said corporations don't like. It's called a "chilling effect", yo.
Yeah, and it's called "ignore and/or counter-sue". Yes, in the United States you're responsible for knowing the law or hiring a lawyer to advise you on it. And yes, that's arguably a bad thing. But it has nothing to do with the DMCA.
We're pretty much completely off topic at this point, but I just wanted to add that it's really important that people living in the US know the law. It's absolutely amazing the number of people who get busted for stupid things like drug possession just because they voluntarily let the police in their house or dorm room without a search warrant (which the police generally don't enough evidence to obtain in the first place). Know the law, and that means not only what is illegal, but what is legal.
Agreed. You, however, seem to believe that that matters, that that simple fact could keep Microsoft from invoking the DMCA to crush the presentation, and that's dangerously naive.
I can only speak for myself, and personally, I would go and give the presentation anyway, and I'd hope that Microsoft had the balls to sue me. Civil laws don't scare me one bit.
The Bnetd case was about reimplementing a network protocol by reverse engineering, for compatibility purposes. It doesn't fall under the DMCA at all either. That didn't stop vivendi from wielding the DMCA to force their compliance from somebody they didn't like.
A DMCA shutdown letter is notice that you are infringing copyright law, not the DMCA. That part of the DMCA only protects ISPs from lawsuits.
The simple fact is, no matter how right you are on the matter that none of this is within the legal scope of the DMCA (and you ARE right), it just doesn't make a lick of difference. Being right doesn't mean you win. Being rich does.
Being poor does too. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. Give me an example of something which I agree doesn't violate the DMCA, and which is not for commercial purposes, and I'll do it, just to prove to you that I won't lose any lawsuits. Preferably something which I can do with my measely website, otherwise you're going to have to pay for any of the costs I have in performing this act of defiance.
Re:WTF kind of logic is that?
by
arkanes
·
· Score: 2
Pointing out flaws in sufficent detail often DOES fall under the DMCA - although not in this case, granted.
Picked the wrong court
by
craw
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Maybe Microsoft did try to use the DMCA to stop this via the DMCA, but they picked the wrong venue.
"All rise! The US District Court is now in session. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson presiding!"
MS: "Oh shit!"
Give credit where credit is due
by
jpmorgan
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So, Microsoft does something half-decent - they don't try to exert any legal force to prevent the disclosure of information they don't want to see public, and pretty much every/. post is digging to find some sort of evil ulterior motive.
Why should this surprise me? This is the only place where the population can try to portray someone as being evil for donating a few billion dollars to charity....
Come on, people. Give credit where credit is due. If you can't do it to be fair, then do it because it ruins your credibility for when something bad does happen.
Re:Give credit where credit is due
by
FuzzyDaddy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I agree that they this was a decent thing to do. I also agree that, as business villians go, MS is not the worst of the bunch. (Just see "The Insider" for a look at real corporate evil.)
But as the article said, despite Microsoft's restraint, the effect of the DMCA on this research was still chilling. Credit to Microsoft for not going after this, but the net score is still negative . I mean, look at the basic absurdity. This guy was worried about getting in trouble for figuring out a flaw in a game console. It's not as if he was publishing a way to launch nuclear missiles.
-- It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Re:Give credit where credit is due
by
jpmorgan
·
· Score: 2
This guy was worried about getting in trouble for figuring out a flaw in a game console. It's not as if he was publishing a way to launch nuclear missiles.
If the same thing came out about Sun or Apple, they'd be praised, and there would be no "but" line at the end.
Baloney. I don't follow Sun religiously in these forums but I do read the Apple section daily. I can tell you for a fact that Apple does not by any means get a free (or even fair!) ride in these forums. Far from it. They take more than a fair share of abuse and FUD and just plain ridiculousness. Microsoft isn't the only company that gets dragged through the dirt here, even if (IMO) they do deserve it more than most.
Microsoft didn't support the DMCA, so stop trying to villify them
Maybe not, but aren't they the one's "cooperating" with major content providers to develop and stuff down everyone's throats all that great DRM technology?
-- You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
"Those damn hack3rs just don't stop. Now they've focused their attention on our XBox. What should we do?"
"Hmmm... let's see... To hack XBox they have to buy it from us, and then they'll be busy on it playing video games instead of hacking our products... is that correct?"
"That's correct sir."
"Okie dokie then... give 'em the greenlight so I can take that vacation I've been wanting to take for the longest time..."
--
eTrade SUCKS
HP's name is forever tainted
by
David+Gerard
·
· Score: 2
Notice how the EFF press release names HP as a company that issued threats under the DMCA.
Having retracted it after the shitstorm doesn't change the fact that HP will be on the list of DMCA-wielding thugs from now until the end of time.
Was nVidia losing money, or just not gaining money as fast as before?
For such a powerful company, it would take a LOT to make them drop into the red. Half of all modern computers and about 1/3 to 1/4 of older ones have an nVidia chip in them...the other half have an ATI chip.
With that much of a market and user base, they've got no danger of financial difficulty.
Looks like Mad Dog McCree is going to allow an MIT student to announce the fact that he's impotence and won't use the GUN to stop him. " Mad Dog deserves kudos for this. But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT shooting people.
Maybe the horse paid off 20-to-1, and now you want to "Give Back To The Community"...
-- Terry
Any correlation with recent Microsoft Ads?
by
danpbrowning
·
· Score: 2
Does the fact that Slashdot is now running MS Ads (for Visual Dev Studio) bear any significance on the timing of an editor's "kudos to MS" remark? A thought to ponder.
-- Daniel
this doesn't really affect microsoft
by
rogueuk
·
· Score: 2
according to this, microsoft has already changed the security keys so this is really a nonissue. The details of it would most likely have leaked regardless of whether the paper was published, so microsoft saves some face and decides to stay out of it whilst fixing the problem so it can't work in the future. i don't see what the big deal of microsoft not using some law is anyway.
Hey Perens, how can you stand to work for a fascist company like HP when even MICROSOFT has taken a higher ground than them when it comes to information publication?
It really just shows that if you have a flock of MIT and BU and EFF lawyers on your side, Microsoft might back off. Otherwise, well, how much money do you have to spend on defense?
Also, it might be worth pointing out that MIT has a long history of defending the right to publish. They've gone up against various parts of the US government on various occasions, and they have a record of winning. Microsoft probably understands that MIT *will* fight it in the courts, with the explicit aim of getting the DMCA and other such laws thrown out.
The way to win DMCA fights is to pick on people who don't have the wherewithall to fight it in court. It's not so much a legal tool as it is an intimidation tool. If your opponent can't be intimidated, you stand a very real chance of losing not just the court case but your intimidation tool.
-- Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Where you been, son? Mac OS X was released over a year ago!
Yes, but Mac® OS X is not a UNIX® brand system. FreeBSD's not UNIX. NetBSD's not UNIX. GNU's not UNIX. (This trademark confusion almost makes me want to put together a distribution of GNU/Linux software and call it KLEENIX.)
OK, now what UNIX® system has a GUI as pretty as Mac OS X's?
So if MS files a complaint against someone else in the future, can *that* person use this decision in a defense, since MS would then be applying their policies in a biased manner?
--
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Re:Anything to do with the Australian MOD Chip cas
by
Doctor-T
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Down here in Australia, our consumer protection board are investigating region-encoding to determine whether its legal. If they decide its not, all Aust. DVD players will have to be region-free.
I am big M$ basher, however quite possibly the only thing worse than M$ is boneheaded legislation passed by dumbass congressmen whose only motivation is who is paying them off. (like that uberass Senator Orrin Hatch).
There's always a chance that market forces, when they get tired of M$ and their bad products, will send people to Linux.
DMCA is the one area where OSS folks and Redmond disciples can both agree. Cut M$ some slack on this one. They are choosing not be jerks about it. They aren't THAT evil (pretty close though)
We should be a little thankful sometimes
by
eyeball
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft should get more props for not going after 'the little guy' as much as *ahem* some other companies. I've never seen Microsoft go after anyone for creating a windows look-and-feel unix theme. Not to mention all the patents they hold in different OS technologies that they've never threatened other (i.e.: open sourced) OS's with.
--
_______ 2B1ASK1
MSFT doesn't care because they have a fix.
by
AJWM
·
· Score: 2
Didn't we read in these pages (or linked to these pages) about nVidia taking a write-off on a bunch of inventory they had to scrap because Microsoft changed some requirement in response to the MIT hack?
Seems to me MSFT has figured a hardware/firmware workaround so the disclosure is no longer a big deal, and dropping the DMCA thing saves them a little negative publicity. (And, depending on the specifics of the case, if they thought they'd lose it avoids putting the DMCA to a test that might weaken it.)
Microsoft isn't as stupid as Sony/Sega/Nintendo, realising that if they sell an import title in another country, that despite a mod chip, it still equals more $$$ in Microsoft's wallet licensing wise... That's what's always struck me as moronic in the gamin industry, that they're afraid of some guy who, paying $65 for a game from another country, that, the importer paid $30-40 USD and another $10 in taxes in...
Neither Sega, Sony, or Nintendo made ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY by putting in region blocking, since allegedly they charge the same development licensing fees for every company writing software for their systems... So what's the big deal?
-- Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right.
Shoes for industry!
Aaaww for pity's sake...
by
sevenatis
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Bill Gates could walk across the water of the Pacific Ocean from Seattle to frailin' Tokyo and the SlashDot head line would read: "Bill Gates can't Swim"
-- ++ Jesus loves you as you are; ++ Cuthulhu thinks you need barbeque sauce!
Re:Why are you so anti Microsoft?
by
Chris+Johnson
·
· Score: 2
It isn't possible to intelligently hate Microsoft in your world?
The trouble with what you propose is this: in the event that Microsoft is genuinely worthy of hatred and resistance, you are tuning out everyone who understands the truth, and refusing to listen to them simply because they are not taking a moderate position.
Truth includes extreme positions. Microsoft excels at creating extreme positions. The only historically justifiable approach to dealing with Microsoft IS an extreme position, and this is why you are seeing so many people taking an extreme position on Microsoft.
You do them a grave disservice by lumping them all into the category of 'blindly hate Microsoft', because you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that these people know better than you, and have reason to hate Microsoft.
-- The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Microsoft CANNOT Use the DMCA
by
dbretton
·
· Score: 2
MS cannot use the DMCA, because the DMCA has explicit clauses which preclude persecution of individuals who are circumventing copyright protection schemes in the name of academia.
Re:Microsoft CANNOT Use the DMCA
by
SuiteSisterMary
·
· Score: 2
Incorrect.
Microsoft probably could not WIN using the DMCA, on the merits of the case, were the entire thing to play out in court.
What Microsoft COULD do would be to launch the lawsuit anyway, and bankrupt the poor fellow in legal fees and the like.
-- Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:Microsoft CANNOT Use the DMCA
by
dbretton
·
· Score: 2
I'm afraid you are the one who is incorrect.
Microsoft could TRY to USE the DMCA, but it would not apply. Microsoft would most likely bring forth several charges, such as violation of the DMCA, IP theft, patent infringement, etc. etc.
However, the DMCA charge would be dismissed at pre-trial, as it does not apply research performed in the name of academia.
Therefore, Microsoft CANNOT use the DMCA, as stated prior.
Re:I don't see the problem here...
by
PDHoss
·
· Score: 2
Except that there is little money to be made on the hardware. If you are buying the Xbox and not the games, MS isn't making much money.
PDHoss
-- ======================================
Writers get in shape by pumping irony.
On the plus side, since they are chosing NOT to invoke the DMCA, they prove that the law is subject to the whim of the very corporations who claimed to be harmed
If someone robs my apartment or beats me up in a bar, and I choose not to press charges for any reason, then they won't be charged. It's not the government's job to chase down every last criminal in the country if the affected party doesn't especially want them to. This is normal, and will have no effect on the DMCA's enforcability whatsoever.
Re:Have you not seen the pictures
by
ichimunki
·
· Score: 2
Yes, thanks to Mr. Gates you've been charged way too much for your software for the last 25 years so that he can donate to charity for you and then he's the hero, while you're just a whiner. BTW, get it straight. He did not donate $24 billion to anything. $24 billion is the total endowment of the Foundation. That's money the Foundation keeps in investments, using the interest to pay directors, staff, pay for programs and make grants/donations. Furthermore, Bill's net worth is only around $30 billion, so I doubt he just gave away 80% of his net worth.
According to this Guardian article Gates is also on record investing large portions of that money into multinational pharmaceutical corporations... and Gates supports there so-called "intellectual property" rights to the medicines they develop (and which "rights" are the drivers behind their double-digit profits, and the primary reason vaccinations aren't already more widely available in places like Africa).
So i tell you what, I'll set up a similar endowment for charity (split 50/50 between Free Software and medical/social causes) using my own money-- and I'll do it in proportion to what Gates has contributed (personally, money funneled from MS into the Foundation doesn't count). I expect I'll have to keep the endowment in a private account though (since I hardly want to spend the entire endowment principal on lawyers fees setting up the endowment), which erases the enormous tax/legal benefits that someone like Gates gets from these activities.
So for those of you still paying attention. If I set up a private endowment of $1000 (assumes 5% return on either EE Bonds or bank CDS, since equity or bond investment accounts would have fees and transaction costs that would wipe out gains), I can probably donate $50 a year to charity. But I've done much, much better than that already this year without an endowment.
Please get back to me with Bill Gates average annual income (net, after tax) for the last five years, his donations history over that same period, and I'll detail the results of my own charitable program on my web site, proving that us little guys giving small amounts are actually doing more than rich leeches like Bill Gates.
Slashdot Mirror
...are we pissed at MS today or not?
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Ok, what does microsoft have to gain from this? Surely not the sympathy of the slashdot crowd... that's impossible!
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
This is bad. The only reason i can imagine that microsoft would do this is to solidify their argument for Palladium, or whatever the next incantation of it will be. By showing how the DMCA is ineffective in protecting against reverse-engineering and such, microsoft is trying to sneak their version of copyprotection in the "back door". Those guys (M$) don't do anything unless it will get them money. Never forget that, lest you be become assimilated. Remember....
Resistance is futile
Flying pigs! Help! I'm being attacked by flying pigs!
I have noticed that MS rarely sues, my guess is that they hate lawyers and don't feel like getting involved in dumb lawsuits.
Hope that'll teach companies like HP, Apple, Adobe, etc. another lesson or two.
in 1997: freedom of speech was understood by reading the following:
in 2002: freedom of speech is understood by reading the following:
Welcome to America kids! If you're lucky, you'll get permission to publish your paper too!
Perhaps if you wear a colorful, fanciful hat, decorated with bells and chimes, and prance about most amusingly, the King will pity you and grant your wish.
In 800A.D., Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, which showed that the pope had the power to put Charlemagne in charge. Microsoft is simply saying, "you are able to publish this information only because we, the generous and wonderful empire of Microsoft allow it." For them to come out and openly state that they will allow it to be published serves only to make them appear ever more powerful to the general public, in that they make the subtle claim of having power over free speech.
Perhaps they would have won in court and silenced this person, but the flaws he speaks of would have still made it to the net pretty quickly. If they had lost the court battle, the flaws would have been released to the public in about the same amount of time. Either way, Microsoft comes off looking like free speech-killers (Read, bad PR) and the flaws are published. By not challenging release of the information, (and doing so about as publicly as possible), they appear powerful, yet merciful. (Read, good PR).
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft did something right here; at least something that's right for them - doesn't make a difference for us.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Just a shot in the dark, but could this have anything to do with the decision in Australia that mod chip makers don't violate the Australian equivalent of the DMCA? IIRC the court decided (among other things) that because the protections in the ps2 aren't meant to stop copying, only make it so you can't play copied/imported media, it didn't fall under protection of the law.
Could it be that Microsft just doesn't want to fight it in court, and lose. Thus setting the precedent that such hardware protections are not protected under the DMCA?
David
Is it for real that M$ is really putting some serious efforts in softening its image in public.
For e.g. they dont totally favor the "chip-in-all-hardware-to-prevent-copying" strategy. They are in favor to an extent, but they have carefully removed themselves from going all out in support of this approach.
Then this. They know that this doesnt amount to all that much, but coming from them, it would clearly garner a lot of public attention.
I for one would like M$ to wisen up a bit and learn to co-exist with the rest of the world.
Rapid Nirvana
Remember the explosion of the psx popularity after all the mods and hacks came out? Perhaps they are hoping for something like that to happen with the xbox. When I saw how easy it was to install the mods it made me wonder if they made it this easy on purpose.
The real test will be whether they use DMCA to clamp down on vulnerability research on their .NET and XP technologies. If they don't, then it's good evidence that they're dedicated to becoming good citizens.
Finding God in a Dog
But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
Especially things that they can't legally do anyway. The DMCA does not outlaw displaying security holes.
If it's sad to give kudos, why put someone who gives them on the front page? I guess it passes the "grep Microsoft story.txt" test.
- They can see where all the holes that hackers/modders are exploiting in the console are.
- They can "slipstream" secutity updates into future games and break the above.
- They get some PR karma for not going after an academic/researcher who is doing benefit for the "public good" (i.e. fixing security holes that could "JEAPORDIZE NATIONAL SECURITY"
- They know what works and what doesn't for security in future products.
On the plus side, since they are chosing NOT to invoke the DMCA, they prove that the law is subject to the whim of the very corporations who claimed to be harmed and sponsored the bill in congress (proxied by our loyal Senators, of course!) This kind of ruins the legitimacy of the law, as it transforms the DMCA from "reverse-engineering decryption schemes is always harmful (and hence, illegal) and is a copyright and security threat" to "reverse-engineering decryption schemes is only harmful (and hence illegal) when I SAY it is a copyright and security threat". This is a subtle, but quite big difference. Hopefully, the EFF and ALCU (or other socially-responsible organizations) will pick up on that fact...With this in mind, I like the fact that MS is doing this. However, I'd hate it to kill the mod-chip business. I'm fully in-favor of us being able to do ANYTHING with ANYTHING we buy (and dammit, if I pay $300 for the XBOX, I own it!) -- Imagine if you couldn't hop-up your car if you wanted to? The DMCA just sucks, in-general, and it sucks even more if companies can just CHOOSE when things are illegal and when they are not.
Cheers,
Ken
Ok, that's it. I just donated 25 bucks to the EFF (took about 1 minute). Maybe that's a drop in the bucket, but I wanted to say "thanks" to the folks who actually DO something that everyone else is just talking about.
Perhaps MS deserves a non-bill-the-borg icon for this story today?
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence.
Suppose someone dies and you know where they stashed $1,000 in cash. You might take that money, but later return it. Why? Did you return it because stealing it was wrong, and you came to this realization? Did you return it because you were afraid of being caught? Maybe you returned it out of guilt. The point is that honor and "good behavior" comes in many flavors which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell. Do I think they did the "smart thing?" You bet. I think they took one look at the Felten debacle and knew to not play with the academics. I think they know the power of public relations, especially this year.
My
Limekiller
if( (day_of_week == monday || day_of_week == wednesday) ||
(day_of_week == friday || day_of_week == saturday) ){
RIAA.setEmotion(hate);
MPAA.setEmotion(love);
telcos.setEmotion(hate);
MicroSoft.setEmotion(hate);
for(int i=0; i<666; i++){
attemptSpoof("www.microsoft.com",
"www.goatse.cx");
}
} else {
RIAA.setEmotion(love);
MPAA.setEmotion(hate);
telcos.setEmotion(love);
MicroSoft.setEmotion(hate);
if(MicroSoft.getTopic() == "input_devices"){
cout << "Oh, yeah, but those are good";
Apple.mice->setEmotion(hate);
}
}
Your mind is squeezed by a blast of pain!
So a researcher fears that a law might restrain him from making a speech, he contacts Microsoft who says that they'd prefer he doesn't make the speech but can't stop him, and somehow this means the law is unconstitutional?
Maybe Microsoft did try to use the DMCA to stop this via the DMCA, but they picked the wrong venue.
"All rise! The US District Court is now in session. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson presiding!"
MS: "Oh shit!"
So, Microsoft does something half-decent - they don't try to exert any legal force to prevent the disclosure of information they don't want to see public, and pretty much every /. post is digging to find some sort of evil ulterior motive.
Why should this surprise me? This is the only place where the population can try to portray someone as being evil for donating a few billion dollars to charity....
Come on, people. Give credit where credit is due. If you can't do it to be fair, then do it because it ruins your credibility for when something bad does happen.
If the same thing came out about Sun or Apple, they'd be praised, and there would be no "but" line at the end.
Baloney. I don't follow Sun religiously in these forums but I do read the Apple section daily. I can tell you for a fact that Apple does not by any means get a free (or even fair!) ride in these forums. Far from it. They take more than a fair share of abuse and FUD and just plain ridiculousness. Microsoft isn't the only company that gets dragged through the dirt here, even if (IMO) they do deserve it more than most.
Microsoft didn't support the DMCA, so stop trying to villify them
Maybe not, but aren't they the one's "cooperating" with major content providers to develop and stuff down everyone's throats all that great DRM technology?
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
"Those damn hack3rs just don't stop. Now they've focused their attention on our XBox. What should we do?"
"Hmmm... let's see... To hack XBox they have to buy it from us, and then they'll be busy on it playing video games instead of hacking our products... is that correct?"
"That's correct sir."
"Okie dokie then... give 'em the greenlight so I can take that vacation I've been wanting to take for the longest time..."
eTrade SUCKS
Having retracted it after the shitstorm doesn't change the fact that HP will be on the list of DMCA-wielding thugs from now until the end of time.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Was nVidia losing money, or just not gaining money as fast as before?
For such a powerful company, it would take a LOT to make them drop into the red. Half of all modern computers and about 1/3 to 1/4 of older ones have an nVidia chip in them...the other half have an ATI chip.
With that much of a market and user base, they've got no danger of financial difficulty.
Looks like Mad Dog McCree is going to allow an MIT student to announce the fact that he's impotence and won't use the GUN to stop him. " Mad Dog deserves kudos for this. But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT shooting people.
Maybe the horse paid off 20-to-1, and now you want to "Give Back To The Community"...
-- Terry
Does the fact that Slashdot is now running MS Ads (for Visual Dev Studio) bear any significance on the timing of an editor's "kudos to MS" remark? A thought to ponder.
Daniel
according to this, microsoft has already changed the security keys so this is really a nonissue. The details of it would most likely have leaked regardless of whether the paper was published, so microsoft saves some face and decides to stay out of it whilst fixing the problem so it can't work in the future. i don't see what the big deal of microsoft not using some law is anyway.
Yeah that's what I thought tubby!
It really just shows that if you have a flock of MIT and BU and EFF lawyers on your side, Microsoft might back off. Otherwise, well, how much money do you have to spend on defense?
Also, it might be worth pointing out that MIT has a long history of defending the right to publish. They've gone up against various parts of the US government on various occasions, and they have a record of winning. Microsoft probably understands that MIT *will* fight it in the courts, with the explicit aim of getting the DMCA and other such laws thrown out.
The way to win DMCA fights is to pick on people who don't have the wherewithall to fight it in court. It's not so much a legal tool as it is an intimidation tool. If your opponent can't be intimidated, you stand a very real chance of losing not just the court case but your intimidation tool.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Where you been, son? Mac OS X was released over a year ago!
Yes, but Mac® OS X is not a UNIX® brand system. FreeBSD's not UNIX. NetBSD's not UNIX. GNU's not UNIX. (This trademark confusion almost makes me want to put together a distribution of GNU/Linux software and call it KLEENIX.)
OK, now what UNIX® system has a GUI as pretty as Mac OS X's?
Will I retire or break 10K?
So if MS files a complaint against someone else in the future, can *that* person use this decision in a defense, since MS would then be applying their policies in a biased manner?
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Down here in Australia, our consumer protection board are investigating region-encoding to determine whether its legal. If they decide its not, all Aust. DVD players will have to be region-free.
I am big M$ basher, however quite possibly the only thing worse than M$ is boneheaded legislation passed by dumbass congressmen whose only motivation is who is paying them off. (like that uberass Senator Orrin Hatch).
There's always a chance that market forces, when they get tired of M$ and their bad products, will send people to Linux.
DMCA is the one area where OSS folks and Redmond disciples can both agree. Cut M$ some slack on this one. They are choosing not be jerks about it. They aren't THAT evil (pretty close though)
Microsoft should get more props for not going after 'the little guy' as much as *ahem* some other companies. I've never seen Microsoft go after anyone for creating a windows look-and-feel unix theme. Not to mention all the patents they hold in different OS technologies that they've never threatened other (i.e.: open sourced) OS's with.
_______
2B1ASK1
Didn't we read in these pages (or linked to these pages) about nVidia taking a write-off on a bunch of inventory they had to scrap because Microsoft changed some requirement in response to the MIT hack?
Seems to me MSFT has figured a hardware/firmware workaround so the disclosure is no longer a big deal, and dropping the DMCA thing saves them a little negative publicity. (And, depending on the specifics of the case, if they thought they'd lose it avoids putting the DMCA to a test that might weaken it.)
-- Alastair
Microsoft isn't as stupid as Sony/Sega/Nintendo, realising that if they sell an import title in another country, that despite a mod chip, it still equals more $$$ in Microsoft's wallet licensing wise... That's what's always struck me as moronic in the gamin industry, that they're afraid of some guy who, paying $65 for a game from another country, that, the importer paid $30-40 USD and another $10 in taxes in...
Neither Sega, Sony, or Nintendo made ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY by putting in region blocking, since allegedly they charge the same development licensing fees for every company writing software for their systems... So what's the big deal?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Bill Gates could walk across the water of the Pacific Ocean from Seattle to frailin' Tokyo and the SlashDot head line would read:
"Bill Gates can't Swim"
++ Jesus loves you as you are;
++ Cuthulhu thinks you need barbeque sauce!
The trouble with what you propose is this: in the event that Microsoft is genuinely worthy of hatred and resistance, you are tuning out everyone who understands the truth, and refusing to listen to them simply because they are not taking a moderate position.
Truth includes extreme positions. Microsoft excels at creating extreme positions. The only historically justifiable approach to dealing with Microsoft IS an extreme position, and this is why you are seeing so many people taking an extreme position on Microsoft.
You do them a grave disservice by lumping them all into the category of 'blindly hate Microsoft', because you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that these people know better than you, and have reason to hate Microsoft.
A few billion is a bit more. What'd you give charitably last year? More or less than a piddly squat? Put down the stone, go back to your glass house.
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
The Diskcopy-Made-Criminal-Act. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
MS cannot use the DMCA, because the DMCA has explicit clauses which preclude persecution of individuals who are circumventing copyright protection schemes in the name of academia.
Except that there is little money to be made on the hardware. If you are buying the Xbox and not the games, MS isn't making much money.
PDHoss
======================================
Writers get in shape by pumping irony.
On the plus side, since they are chosing NOT to invoke the DMCA, they prove that the law is subject to the whim of the very corporations who claimed to be harmed
If someone robs my apartment or beats me up in a bar, and I choose not to press charges for any reason, then they won't be charged. It's not the government's job to chase down every last criminal in the country if the affected party doesn't especially want them to. This is normal, and will have no effect on the DMCA's enforcability whatsoever.
According to this Guardian article Gates is also on record investing large portions of that money into multinational pharmaceutical corporations... and Gates supports there so-called "intellectual property" rights to the medicines they develop (and which "rights" are the drivers behind their double-digit profits, and the primary reason vaccinations aren't already more widely available in places like Africa).
So i tell you what, I'll set up a similar endowment for charity (split 50/50 between Free Software and medical/social causes) using my own money-- and I'll do it in proportion to what Gates has contributed (personally, money funneled from MS into the Foundation doesn't count). I expect I'll have to keep the endowment in a private account though (since I hardly want to spend the entire endowment principal on lawyers fees setting up the endowment), which erases the enormous tax/legal benefits that someone like Gates gets from these activities.
So for those of you still paying attention. If I set up a private endowment of $1000 (assumes 5% return on either EE Bonds or bank CDS, since equity or bond investment accounts would have fees and transaction costs that would wipe out gains), I can probably donate $50 a year to charity. But I've done much, much better than that already this year without an endowment.
Please get back to me with Bill Gates average annual income (net, after tax) for the last five years, his donations history over that same period, and I'll detail the results of my own charitable program on my web site, proving that us little guys giving small amounts are actually doing more than rich leeches like Bill Gates.
I do not have a signature