I was kinda thinking along those lines myself. If I was Lucas, I KNOW I wouldn't be able to resist the chance to fuck with the heads of a bunch of Star Wars geeks:) For all we know he could be laughing his ass off right now.
Jebus people! If you create something for your own personal use it DOES NOT constitute copyright infringement. Nor would it constitute patent infringement. Those 2 areas of law are designed to prevent COMPETITION. If you are not distributing the creation, it is not competition.
They prosecuted an employee of a company that sells a program that undermines the security (not sure you can even call it that) of their product, even though that company had ceased selling it in the US. Since then Adobe has backed down from their charges, yet he still does not go free.
You just aren't allowed to circumvent it for the purposes of violating copyright. If you circumvent it for fair use, then you haven't broken copyright, so the DMCA doesn't apply.
I don't think you can say that. The DMCA is worded quite vaguely. There is no way to be certain what you can or cannot do legally under this law. Until the courts decide what it really means, free speech and fair use will be severely curtailed. Programs like DeCSS offer the ONLY method for most people to exercise their fair use rights with regard to DVDs. Without the ability to distribute such programs, we cannot exercise our rights. The same will happen with CD copy protection and protection for other forms of media.
We've seen 2600 get sued (twice) for distributing a piece of code that could be used to create a program that could decrypt a DVD. This program would allow people to exercise their fair use rights with regard to the DVDs they own. But the MPAA and DVDCCA seem to think that such a program is illegal under the DMCA.
We've seen Professor Edward Felton threatened with a lawsuit under the DMCA for giving a presentation on SDMI's watermarking techniques. We've seen Dmitry Sklyarov arrested for writing a program, as an employee of a Russian company, to covert Adobe's e-book format into their pdf format. Even though he was not directly responsible for the program's distribution in the US and even though such distribution had ceased, and even though Adobe backed down from their charges against him, he was still arrested and is still being held without even a bail hearing.
Any of these programs and/or information provide what is usually the only way to exercise your fair use rights with regard to such encrypted copyrighted works. However, under the DMCA, such programs are illegal to distribute. Therefore, only those who know how to program and write their own software to allow them to access such works are able to exercise their fair use rights. This constitutes only a tiny portion of the population of this country. The rest of us have lost our rights thanks to the DMCA.
The government wants to see a hasty end to this whole mess and M$ would probably get off with a slap on the wrist. The courts, however, see it differently and want to pursue the illegalities surrounding M$'s business practices.
After Microsoft bent the government over after the last settlement (read: slap on the wrist) and violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the agreement, the DOJ looked like a pack of morons. They didn't like looking like morons and were out for blood this time around. If it were up to the DOJ, Microsoft would be at least 2 separate corporations by now. The only reason Microsoft hasn't been broken up yet is because the courts haven't allowed it.
If the CDs are designed to produce this sort of distortion, and it can lead to the destruction of pc or stereo components, then a consumer would probably have a pretty good case. Copying is a normal use of a CD. If they designed their product in a way that it would damage your equipment as a consequence of normal use, you should be able to sue them for damages.
Thanks to the DMCA, we are effectively prevented from exercising our fair use rights even if we are able to. If there is anything that could be construed as a protection of the copyrighted work, we are not allowed to circumvent it in order to make fair use of the content. Thanks Congresscritters!
As you may have noted, most of us agree with the need for copyright. However, many people (myself included) believe that Congress has overstepped its bounds in extending copyright in both term length and scope. Seems to me that the "limited times" clause has been thrown out the window. What good is it to have a term length longer than a normal human life? Those works will not fall into the public domain and be freely available to all within the lifetime of anyone who was around when they were created. That seems to defy the purpose of limited the length of a copyright term in the first place.
Furthermore, I thought it had been plainly obvious to people that the right to reverse engineer was essential to progress and innovation. Now that right is under serious threat from the DMCA.
One of the most onerous effects of the DMCA is to allow copyright holders to dictate terms of how some bit of information may be used via contracts and enforced by the anti-circumvention clause. Whatever fair use rights we had left are basically history now when we want to use some information that is only sold in encrypted format, even if that encryption is of the most rudimentary and laughable sort. The owner must only declare that it is meant to protect the work, and it then becomes illegal to circumvent it.
While the French may have screwed up by abolishing all copyrights, we may be heading for a simlar catastrophe by giving nearly absolute rights for an effectively unlimited time to copyright holders. I hope we come to our senses and realize that copyright is nothing more than a bargain between the creators and the public, and the public has been getting the shaft for a long time now. When was the last time any copyrighted work became public domain? We need to restore balance to the bargain. Unfortunately we're up against people with A LOT of money, and they don't plan on giving up ANY of their newly bought control.
This is why the DMCA is here in the first place, because there was little thoughtful debate on why it shouldn't be enacted into law, just a bunch of warez puppies screaming "information wants to be free".
Actually there was little to no public debate whatsoever on the DMCA. It was created very quietly. Then our cowardly congresscritters passed it with a voice vote rather than voting on the record. I think they should ALL be held responsible for it.
I don't want the guy to suffer, but since he was SELLING the product, I don't feel as sorry that he may be the one to have to test the DMCA
HE wasn't selling anything! The company he works for was selling the product. We don't go out and round up the workers at a corporation when it breaks the law. Why should he have been arrested in the first place? If they were going to arrest someone, why not the CEO of the company who was with him and more directly responsible for the sale of the program in the US than Dmitri was?
He's not an American. He shouldn't have to suffer to change some moronic law that we made, which he didn't even break himself. We need to clean up our own mess, not make him do it. The guy should be released so he can get home to his family and tell everyone over there about the fucked up "IP" laws America has.
What he's saying is that the damage is done. Adobe pulling out at this point is meaningless. Therefore they should still be held responsible and the protests should continue.
Well, I know the DMCA passed with a voice vote. I don't think that means it was necessarily unanimous, does it? Either way, we can't know since they didn't record votes, a practice which should not be allowed as far as I'm concerned. I don't like the fact that we can't hold them accountable for their vote. But you're right that if he doesn't actually do something about it, then he isn't really helping.
Boucher has been against the DMCA for quite a while now. I understand he's against UCITA as well. He's one of the few people in Congress willing to speak out against it.
Don't send a Russian to do an American's job. If anyone has to stand trial to help us rid ourselves of this onerous law, it should be an American citizen. As far as I'm concerned, we should do whatever is necessary to get Dimitri out of jail and back home to his family as soon as possible.
"He" didn't sell the software anywhere. The company he works for did. Why was he arrested? Even if they had reason to arrest someone, why was he the only one arrested? Why not the company CEO who was also there?
Slashdot Mirror
You won't find time-shifting or space-shifting in USC17 either, but we do have those rights. Thanks to the courts anyway.
I was kinda thinking along those lines myself. If I was Lucas, I KNOW I wouldn't be able to resist the chance to fuck with the heads of a bunch of Star Wars geeks :) For all we know he could be laughing his ass off right now.
If you DISTRIBUTE a DBZ skin you can be sued for copyright infringement.
Jebus people! If you create something for your own personal use it DOES NOT constitute copyright infringement. Nor would it constitute patent infringement. Those 2 areas of law are designed to prevent COMPETITION. If you are not distributing the creation, it is not competition.
He wrote the program in Russia. That's perfectly legal. Elcomsoft is the one that was selling the program, not Sklyarov.
They prosecuted an employee of a company that sells a program that undermines the security (not sure you can even call it that) of their product, even though that company had ceased selling it in the US. Since then Adobe has backed down from their charges, yet he still does not go free.
You just aren't allowed to circumvent it for the purposes of violating copyright. If you circumvent it for fair use, then you haven't broken copyright, so the DMCA doesn't apply.
I don't think you can say that. The DMCA is worded quite vaguely. There is no way to be certain what you can or cannot do legally under this law. Until the courts decide what it really means, free speech and fair use will be severely curtailed. Programs like DeCSS offer the ONLY method for most people to exercise their fair use rights with regard to DVDs. Without the ability to distribute such programs, we cannot exercise our rights. The same will happen with CD copy protection and protection for other forms of media.
We've seen 2600 get sued (twice) for distributing a piece of code that could be used to create a program that could decrypt a DVD. This program would allow people to exercise their fair use rights with regard to the DVDs they own. But the MPAA and DVDCCA seem to think that such a program is illegal under the DMCA.
We've seen Professor Edward Felton threatened with a lawsuit under the DMCA for giving a presentation on SDMI's watermarking techniques. We've seen Dmitry Sklyarov arrested for writing a program, as an employee of a Russian company, to covert Adobe's e-book format into their pdf format. Even though he was not directly responsible for the program's distribution in the US and even though such distribution had ceased, and even though Adobe backed down from their charges against him, he was still arrested and is still being held without even a bail hearing.
Any of these programs and/or information provide what is usually the only way to exercise your fair use rights with regard to such encrypted copyrighted works. However, under the DMCA, such programs are illegal to distribute. Therefore, only those who know how to program and write their own software to allow them to access such works are able to exercise their fair use rights. This constitutes only a tiny portion of the population of this country. The rest of us have lost our rights thanks to the DMCA.
The government wants to see a hasty end to this whole mess and M$ would probably get off with a slap on the wrist. The courts, however, see it differently and want to pursue the illegalities surrounding M$'s business practices.
After Microsoft bent the government over after the last settlement (read: slap on the wrist) and violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the agreement, the DOJ looked like a pack of morons. They didn't like looking like morons and were out for blood this time around. If it were up to the DOJ, Microsoft would be at least 2 separate corporations by now. The only reason Microsoft hasn't been broken up yet is because the courts haven't allowed it.
If the CDs are designed to produce this sort of distortion, and it can lead to the destruction of pc or stereo components, then a consumer would probably have a pretty good case. Copying is a normal use of a CD. If they designed their product in a way that it would damage your equipment as a consequence of normal use, you should be able to sue them for damages.
Thanks to the DMCA, we are effectively prevented from exercising our fair use rights even if we are able to. If there is anything that could be construed as a protection of the copyrighted work, we are not allowed to circumvent it in order to make fair use of the content. Thanks Congresscritters!
These still seem like "discoveries", not "inventions." What exactly did they invent?
But dammit, the world owns Mickey Mouse by now
The world will never own Mickey Mouse. Disney has DEEP pockets.
Wonder if your post will even get noticed this far down the thread.
As you may have noted, most of us agree with the need for copyright. However, many people (myself included) believe that Congress has overstepped its bounds in extending copyright in both term length and scope. Seems to me that the "limited times" clause has been thrown out the window. What good is it to have a term length longer than a normal human life? Those works will not fall into the public domain and be freely available to all within the lifetime of anyone who was around when they were created. That seems to defy the purpose of limited the length of a copyright term in the first place.
Furthermore, I thought it had been plainly obvious to people that the right to reverse engineer was essential to progress and innovation. Now that right is under serious threat from the DMCA.
One of the most onerous effects of the DMCA is to allow copyright holders to dictate terms of how some bit of information may be used via contracts and enforced by the anti-circumvention clause. Whatever fair use rights we had left are basically history now when we want to use some information that is only sold in encrypted format, even if that encryption is of the most rudimentary and laughable sort. The owner must only declare that it is meant to protect the work, and it then becomes illegal to circumvent it.
While the French may have screwed up by abolishing all copyrights, we may be heading for a simlar catastrophe by giving nearly absolute rights for an effectively unlimited time to copyright holders. I hope we come to our senses and realize that copyright is nothing more than a bargain between the creators and the public, and the public has been getting the shaft for a long time now. When was the last time any copyrighted work became public domain? We need to restore balance to the bargain. Unfortunately we're up against people with A LOT of money, and they don't plan on giving up ANY of their newly bought control.
He hasn't even gotten a bail hearing. Nobody should have to wait this long for a bail hearing.
It's a good reason for parents to watch what the hell their kids are doing if they don't want them finding such things.
This is why the DMCA is here in the first place, because there was little thoughtful debate on why it shouldn't be enacted into law, just a bunch of warez puppies screaming "information wants to be free".
Actually there was little to no public debate whatsoever on the DMCA. It was created very quietly. Then our cowardly congresscritters passed it with a voice vote rather than voting on the record. I think they should ALL be held responsible for it.
I don't want the guy to suffer, but since he was SELLING the product, I don't feel as sorry that he may be the one to have to test the DMCA
HE wasn't selling anything! The company he works for was selling the product. We don't go out and round up the workers at a corporation when it breaks the law. Why should he have been arrested in the first place? If they were going to arrest someone, why not the CEO of the company who was with him and more directly responsible for the sale of the program in the US than Dmitri was?
He's not an American. He shouldn't have to suffer to change some moronic law that we made, which he didn't even break himself. We need to clean up our own mess, not make him do it. The guy should be released so he can get home to his family and tell everyone over there about the fucked up "IP" laws America has.
I should have noted where my explanation of your post left off and my own opinion began. Sorry bout that.
What he's saying is that the damage is done. Adobe pulling out at this point is meaningless. Therefore they should still be held responsible and the protests should continue.
You're delusionally idealistic.
Well, I know the DMCA passed with a voice vote. I don't think that means it was necessarily unanimous, does it? Either way, we can't know since they didn't record votes, a practice which should not be allowed as far as I'm concerned. I don't like the fact that we can't hold them accountable for their vote. But you're right that if he doesn't actually do something about it, then he isn't really helping.
Boucher has been against the DMCA for quite a while now. I understand he's against UCITA as well. He's one of the few people in Congress willing to speak out against it.
See this earlier /. article for more.
Don't send a Russian to do an American's job. If anyone has to stand trial to help us rid ourselves of this onerous law, it should be an American citizen. As far as I'm concerned, we should do whatever is necessary to get Dimitri out of jail and back home to his family as soon as possible.
"He" didn't sell the software anywhere. The company he works for did. Why was he arrested? Even if they had reason to arrest someone, why was he the only one arrested? Why not the company CEO who was also there?