Slashdot Mirror
Blogger Threatened For Publishing JS Hack
An anonymous reader writes "Internet radio station Atlanta Blue Skye LLC has warned a Romania-based technology enthusiast that his blog has been 'copied' and turned over to its lawyers. The issue stems from his posting of a widely known workaround for bypassing JavaScript functions that try to disable a mouse's right-click context menu functionality, and the radio stream information gathered from the Properties function of Windows Media Player."
the Atlanta Blue Skye LLC company are irreparably harmed financially when they are hit with the clue stick. There is NO way to suppress information on the Internet globally, and those who try to are more ignorant of the facts than should be believable.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Maybe they should turn this over to their intrepid band of lawyers.
They copied his blog? That's copyright infringement - and that's against the law. It's no different to walking into a store and stealing a CD.
But the DMCA has other ideas:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/
Karma: Non-Heinous
My electricity, my computer, my browser, my choice. If I don't want my browser to disable the context menu then that's my decision. And some company disabling the browser's context menu without Law to back them up really pisses me off. In the IP gold rush the US initiated, people are trying to own every little facet of information that we used to just take for granted being free. Locking everything up may or may-not benefit the economy but it sure-as-hell prunes cultural-enjoyment (ie. a more limited musical taste due to finite resources to acquire content) and development (ie. remixes and interpretations) in the long-term.
Shh.
I don't know if there's anything more annoying then some shitty website that tries to block secondary mouse button clicks (maybe those shitty websites that use the word-highlighting advertising that pops up some fucking shit when your roll over the words). For all the cool stuff that JavaScript can enable, sometimes I think it might be worth it to get rid of it if we could wipe stupid fucking shit like this off the face of the planet.
Mr Radu-Cristian Fotescu appears to have licensed his work under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license which would allow the radio station to copy his work.
However, it does not allow for commercial exploitation of his work so we enter a grey-area. Is the use of his work to prosecute a lawsuit for monetary damages a commercial exploitation of his work?
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
The user is in control of web content or any code a website decides to run on the client, clueless bullshit like this isn't even funny.
In other news, the recent js dependent google.com facelift is less useful to me because I have javascript disabled. It seems that most sites expect users have javascript enabled these days, sad that google deliberately broke their site. If I don't know if I can even be bothered hacking a functional interface when there are other search engines that work perfectly.
The user is in control of their machine, not the web site!
I have a method for bypassing advertisements on all forms of television currently in existence:
When the commercials start: go to the bathroom, get a snack/drink, perform small errands, talk to other people in the room.
Be careful, not scrupulously watching every single advertisement makes you a criminal pirate thief.
"Romania-based technology enthusiast"
;)
Is that what we're calling them now?
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
What year is this, 1998? Trying to block right clicking as a means of 'protection'? That puts you on par with Geocities members pre-2000, and about one minor step above using js to spoof the status bar or hide the address bar. I suppose next they'll be petitioning the ISPs for surveillance to see who's been viewing their page source, claiming it as violation of 'trade secrets'.
Your laws do not apply outside your borders.
The original email message is posted here. The message headers are as follows:
The Text of the message:
This doesn't look like a legitimate email to me in the least - from the earthlink origination to the cheesy wording of the message. Sounds like Slashdot has either been blog-spammed, or this guy is another chicken little.
Rude assholes deserve protection of the law as much as anyone else.
Repeat after me: Romania is not part of the USA. Defamation, jury and other shit like that doesn't apply.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Kinda like Idaho, but with lettuce instead of potatoes.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
What's this "right mouse button" you speak of?
Sincerely,
Mac user
Actually, it doesn't.
"Open source" means you have the right to redistrubute the original work, or make derivitive works from the the original and redistribute those. "Free software" is open source software with the additional restriction that you must distribute the source code of any derivitive work made from similarly licensed work.
However, merely possessing, the source code, does not make it open source. It never has, and it never will.
I can make (and actually have made) proprietary Perl scripts. I simply tag them "Copyright 2007 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." In order to run this code, you must have the source code. (Yeah I could obfuscate it, but let's say I didn't.) While you may have the source code, you are not allowed to redistrbute it, you are not allowed to make derivative works from it (i.e. hack it), and you can not copy portions of it into your own work (another kind of derivative work). Practically speaking, you could, but legally you are not allowed to. And if I found out that you did, I could bring a whole world of legal hurt down upon you.
Since the beginning of UNIX, source code was the prefered distribution method of all software, open and closed. The reason was that each environment was so different, it was simply impossible to distribute binaries for every permutation, so you just sent the source code and compiled it. Open source was just removing the artifical barriers to what many were already doing.
Anyway copyright is on the software itself, not the specific form it takes, source or binary. It's just a like a book. The story is what is copyrighted, not the fact that it's the story packaged in 6" x 7" pages filled with 10 point Times.
When the commercials start: go to the bathroom, get a snack/drink, perform small errands, talk to other people in the room.
You're violating your contract, don'cha know?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Isn't this kinda equivilent to the guy who received a DMCA notice for holding down the shift key while inserting a CD in order to not load the DRM installed on it?
Your laws do not apply outside your borders.
You'll change your mind when our fully operational Death Star is orbiting over your crapass country. Lord Cheney will deal with you personally with his Light Shotgun.
It's as if thousands of people cried out all at once...but since they don't speak English we didn't understand a word they said. They're fereners anyway. It's the price of Democracy.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Sure. Nice try. Next time don't be so gullible.
--frank[at]unternet.org