And why should MS care? They get to collect.NET subscription fees from everyone.
That alone sounds like a damn good reason to forget about this thing. I'll stick with Java for now. Don't like feeding the MS beast any more than necessary.
Where would you be if they'd decided the British had guns, and they might make things unpleasant if independence was declared?
Yeah... let's compare apples and beagles here. First of all, the whole CueCat issue is relatively insignificant and has little if any effect on most people's lives. Yes, there is principle involved, but nobody's life is at stake at the moment, nor are our homes being invaded without our permission, nor are we being ruled without any say in who does the ruling (well.. that may be debateable, but you get the point). You can't go off declaring a revolution every time someone pisses you off with some stupid stunt. You pick your battles based on what's important to you, and whether or not you believe your actions will make a difference. The quote you reference is often used in the gun-control debate, where I think it is quite a bit more appropriate seeing as how lives are at stake (i.e. those who are saved by having a gun and those are killed by guns). It seems a bit out of place in this discussion though.
I can stick it on a CD-ROM and give it to friends without reading it or even opening the tarball.
Which is perfectly legal if you've agreed to the GPL. Otherwise, it's a violation of copyright law, not the GPL. That's why the GPL should hold up as long as copyright law holds up.
Actually, I'm not entirely clear on whether I have to agree to the GPL to make a copy of RedHat 7 for a friend, or if I only have to agree to it to distribute a modified version. Either way, the above still applies. It just might be less strict than I thought.
It's really all about the fact that bar code readers are a good way to get from real world to digital world, and now someone's ponied up the dollars to make one that can connect to the Internet (and then distribute tons of them).
The CueCat does NOT "connect to the Internet." It's just a plain old cheap-ass bar-code reader that uses a "C++ for Dummies" encryption routine. The software, which is hardly unique, simply allows you to read barcodes and transmits the encrypted (*snicker*) results to DC's website where it is decoded (*chuckle*) and used to lookup a product. That's it. It's really not much different than entering an ISBN number at Amazon to lookup a book except that the reader reads in the number instead of you typing it in. Whoopee....
Ok... that was pretty smug and sarcastic, so I know I'll get flamed all to hell and back if I messed up anything there. That's how I understand the system to work though. Feel free to correct me... with or without your flamethrowers...
(and we promise not to miss even the most trivial of GPL violations. Hypocrites? No! _Our_ licenses are inviolable. CueCat wanted to be free.)
I think this issue has been argued to death already, and we'll never know for certain whether we're right or not until it goes to court (which it may never do). DC sent CueCats out by mail all over the place, unsolicited apparently. According to the law, the people who received them own them now and can do as they please with them as long as they aren't breaking some other law. Since most people chucked the software out unopened, they didn't agree to any EULA. Therefore they aren't breaking any laws. That's why everyone is pissed at DC for attempting to strongarm software authors with C&D letters. We understand that being right doesn't always mean that you'll come out on top. The way our legal system works, you can be destroyed by someone with more money, even if you manage to win the case (which you'd be hard-pressed to do if you can't afford an attorney to represent you for the full length of the case). DC can afford lots of lawyers. I'm pretty sure the various software authors that are being harrassed can't. Given that the field is already pretty unbalanced, can you blame them for not wanting to risk the loss of everything they have?
From what you say, we're doing the right thing by letting them go ahead and implement SDMI. It's almost certainly not uncrackable. It will provide some protection for those who want it. It will probably be just enough of an annoyance that Joe Average will just go for a subscription music service or somesuch rather than try to make an alternative work.
NPR did a show this morning on the RIAA/Napster debate. I think that one of the best lines that came out of it was that there needs to be a public discussion about how far we really want copyright laws to go, and whether or not they've already gone too far. I think they have, and I've been saying that for a long time. I believe that if they would fix the copyright laws so that the public once again sees some return for their support of "limited" monopolies on information, then many of these problems that the entertainment and other industries are seeing would be greatly reduced. But, of course, they'll fight tooth-and-nail to prevent the public from getting copyright law changed to their perceived detriment. But, if they want a war, it looks like they'll get it.
Not bloody likely. If they're poor and not working, then yeah... they may have time. But they probably won't have any inclination to learn anything. If they're of the working poor class, then they probably have the inclination to learn, but they don't have the time or money since all their time is wrapped up in trying to make enough money to stay afloat. My family was somewhat like this.. except we were more of a lower-middle class, paycheck-to-paycheck living family. Still are really. It's very hard to get out of it once you're there. Any unforseen problem can start you on a downward spiral too, which makes you spend your time trying to get back to where you were before. Families that are worse off than mine was certainly aren't likely to have the time to devote to learning computers when they are spending their time trying to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. I got lucky when the company my mom worked for threw out some old computers and we got one of them (286/12mhz(IIRC), 1 meg of ram, CGA monitor, 10MB HD). It was the summer before my senior year in HS. If it weren't for that, I might not be typing this right now.
I like the idea, but such an organization would certainly need funding, as it would be a full-time job for many people to try to track down the prior art and/or experts in various fields to challenge these patents, and I'm not sure how you go about challenging a patent without going to court, which will cost even more money. Who would likely be interested in funding such an organization? Who would it benefit most?
You seem to have missed the point. The point is that it's stupid to have a law that allows you to reverse engineer for compatibility reasons as long as the original product doesn't encrypt its content (even with trivial encryption), but not allow reverse engineering of those who do, even for fair use purposes. That's why the law makes no sense.
Maybe Kaplan's ruling will help clear things up. Since he's basically saying that fair use is overridden by the DMCA clause prohibiting the circumvention of "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." This will either wake people up to what's going on, and it will get fixed by Congress, or big corporations will rally behind the ruling and Congress will go cower in the corner, allowing the ruling to become permanent law.
Actually, what you're saying makes it even more clear that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly. The fact that people are getting screwed, know that they're getting screwed, and still decide to buy the computer anyway tells me that they know they don't have any real choice. The problem is that all the major vendors do this. There is no alternative if you want to buy your computer from a major vendor (because you trust their hardware).
If you didn't want the software, you didn't have to purchase the hardware.
In anti-trust terms, that's called "tying," and it's illegal.
Why don't any of the vendor's offer their customers a choice? Because they can't afford to. Why can't they afford to? Because if they offer a choice, Microsoft will ream them on the cost of Windows, thus making them unable to compete with the other vendors on system prices. Does this sound like a healthy market to anybody? I doubt it. That's why something needs to be done about Microsoft.
What you probably mean is that this defies common sense and in some way it does. Logically, however, it holds.
That's exactly what I meant. If I have the right to receive such streams of music, then why should MP3.com not have the right to send them to me? It makes no sense. While the interpretation of the law may be logical, the law itself is not.
Damn Kaa... I'm not sure if you were trolling the poor guy or what. That was a pretty pathetic performance though. You still didn't explain why the law is logical. You just reiterated it and said that it sounds logical to you. If I purchase an album, that currently gives me the right to listen to the album and any copies of the album that I make. What the law doesn't do is explain why it's legal for me to upload the bits to my own server and listen to them from wherever I like, but it's not legal for me to prove to MP3.com that I have paid for the right to listen to the album and then listen to the identical bits coming from their server. If I have purchased the right to listen to the album, what difference does it make whether the bits come from my CD, a copy of my CD, my server, their server, or anyplace else, as long as I have proven to that source that I have paid for the right to listen to that album? You have done nothing to explain this, and that is why you frustrated zencode so badly. At least he was polite and patient.
Regardless of who was actually responsible for creating the "feature", the fact remains that it is a Microsoft product, and Bill Gates is the Chairman of Microsoft. Therefore, the ultimate responsibility resides with him. I too doubt that he actually knew of the feature himself, and I doubt that he would have given a damn about it even if he did know. It doesn't really matter though. If he had any real convictions about such things, then his managers would know it and this wouldn't have happened. Apparently there wasn't much review done, or the feature was intentionally allowed to remain. The only reason anything is being done now is because it pissed off a lot of people. The potential damage outweighs the potential gains. Therefore it is more profitable to change the feature. It's also better to bullshit people about why it was changed to make it look like it was unintentional in the first place so that the average moron using the software will bear no ill will towards Chairman Bill.
Unfortunately, corporations exist for the sole purpose of allowing those in control to make decisions without being held responsible for the consequences of those decisions. Sure, sometimes corporations are punished, but that usually doesn't do much harm to those who were running the show. It usually just hurts those who depended on the corp for their livelihood. The little guys get screwed and the big guys usually have their golden parachutes that let them laugh all the way to the bank.
The longer the delay, the less effect the reparations will be and the more damage MS's actions will be allowed to continue to cause.
Which is exactly why the law allows the DOJ to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Why the court made this decision, I can't understand. It simply allows Microsoft to continue as usual. They've been in court before and settled with a consent decree which they ignored and nothing changed. The DOJ learned from this and that is why they have refused to settle with Microsoft. Now, instead of bringing this thing to a close, the Supremes are going to allow it to continue for years probably. When it's all over, it won't matter anymore. That's why the DOJ is allowed to appeal directly, and why the Supremes should have heard the case.
The average Joes are victimized by extension through such things as the Microsoft Tax. It may not be direct victimization, but it's there and it's real.
they were ruling on whether or not MS should be allowed to bypass normal legal processes and proceed directly to trial by the Supreme Court.
Actually, the law provides for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court for cases exactly like this one. Basically the Supreme Court just disregarded that law and the reasons why it exists.
In other words, Rehnquist had every right to participate in the decision about whether or not to advance the case; given the reference you cite, he was *required* to participate in that decision.
Wrong. The portion of the USC that was cited says that the judge should have recused himself from making any decisions regarding the Microsoft case. Including whether or not the Supreme Court (note that the decision was whether or not the court should hear the case, not Rehnquist himself) hears it now instead of later. Rehnquist should have recused himself from participating in that decision, as well as recusing himself from hearing the case when it gets before his court.
Kaplan did not personally represent the MPAA at all. Some attornies in the firm he used to work for did represent them though. (Can't remember if it was the MPAA that they represented or the DVDCCA)
I think Rehnquist is on much more shaky ground than Kaplan was. While he denies that his participation in the decision to refuse to hear the Microsoft case will have any significant effect on his son or his son's firm, I think he's crossed the line, bigtime. I think there are very obvious effects. First of all, it will dramatically extend the length of the case. This obviously will allow his son to continue working on it for some time to come. Second, by refusing to hear it, he's sending it to a court that has all but broken out the pom-poms to cheer for the Microsoft team. Think that might help his son out a bit?
Which is stupid considering the law that allows the DOJ to appeal directly to the Supreme Court was created for the purpose of speeding up the judicial path for cases exactly like this one. I think it was incredibly disingenous of Rehnquist to say that it wouldn't have any significant effect on his son or his son's firm. By refusing to hear the case, the SC just sent it to a court known to be much more friendly to Microsoft, thereby giving Microsoft's lawyers a better chance of winning the case than they would likely have if it went straight to the Supreme Court.
Let's see... how is it theft to compile a database (presumably from purchased CDs), and then allow people to stream that music wherever they happen to be, but only after they have proven that they have purchased the right to listen to the music. Sounds to me like something that should be perfectly legal, but that the record industry doesn't like, and they are, once again, trying to control what people do with the music they purchase after the sale. If you and I both buy the same CD, and then we meet and I hand you my copy and you give me your copy, have we broken the law? That's essentially what my.mp3.com was doing. I think the RIAA's argument is ridiculous.
I guess I just don't get your analogy. Why do we keep trying to create analogies between physical property and digital property? Why don't we just accept that they are two different things that need to be dealt with differently? Prohibiting a company from making a database of music in order to allow people (who have legally purchased the right to listen to that music) to listen to the music they have purchased wherever they like, after they have proven that they have purchased that right, is asinine. It's just the record companies throwing their weight around and trying to further limit how we can make use of the music that we purchase, as well as extorting money which they are not due. Yes, it's often good that the law is slow to change, but when we see that it needs to change, we should certainly encourage it. That's why I'm sending a similar letter to my congresscritters.
Slashdot Mirror
And why should MS care? They get to collect .NET subscription fees from everyone.
That alone sounds like a damn good reason to forget about this thing. I'll stick with Java for now. Don't like feeding the MS beast any more than necessary.
Sounds like Java to me.
Where would you be if they'd decided the British had guns, and they might make things unpleasant if independence was declared?
Yeah... let's compare apples and beagles here. First of all, the whole CueCat issue is relatively insignificant and has little if any effect on most people's lives. Yes, there is principle involved, but nobody's life is at stake at the moment, nor are our homes being invaded without our permission, nor are we being ruled without any say in who does the ruling (well.. that may be debateable, but you get the point). You can't go off declaring a revolution every time someone pisses you off with some stupid stunt. You pick your battles based on what's important to you, and whether or not you believe your actions will make a difference. The quote you reference is often used in the gun-control debate, where I think it is quite a bit more appropriate seeing as how lives are at stake (i.e. those who are saved by having a gun and those are killed by guns). It seems a bit out of place in this discussion though.
I can stick it on a CD-ROM and give it to friends without reading it or even opening the tarball.
Which is perfectly legal if you've agreed to the GPL. Otherwise, it's a violation of copyright law, not the GPL. That's why the GPL should hold up as long as copyright law holds up.
Actually, I'm not entirely clear on whether I have to agree to the GPL to make a copy of RedHat 7 for a friend, or if I only have to agree to it to distribute a modified version. Either way, the above still applies. It just might be less strict than I thought.
It's really all about the fact that bar code readers are a good way to get from real world to digital world, and now someone's ponied up the dollars to make one that can connect to the Internet (and then distribute tons of them).
The CueCat does NOT "connect to the Internet." It's just a plain old cheap-ass bar-code reader that uses a "C++ for Dummies" encryption routine. The software, which is hardly unique, simply allows you to read barcodes and transmits the encrypted (*snicker*) results to DC's website where it is decoded (*chuckle*) and used to lookup a product. That's it. It's really not much different than entering an ISBN number at Amazon to lookup a book except that the reader reads in the number instead of you typing it in. Whoopee....
Ok... that was pretty smug and sarcastic, so I know I'll get flamed all to hell and back if I messed up anything there. That's how I understand the system to work though. Feel free to correct me... with or without your flamethrowers...
(and we promise not to miss even the most trivial of GPL violations. Hypocrites? No! _Our_ licenses are inviolable. CueCat wanted to be free.)
I think this issue has been argued to death already, and we'll never know for certain whether we're right or not until it goes to court (which it may never do). DC sent CueCats out by mail all over the place, unsolicited apparently. According to the law, the people who received them own them now and can do as they please with them as long as they aren't breaking some other law. Since most people chucked the software out unopened, they didn't agree to any EULA. Therefore they aren't breaking any laws. That's why everyone is pissed at DC for attempting to strongarm software authors with C&D letters. We understand that being right doesn't always mean that you'll come out on top. The way our legal system works, you can be destroyed by someone with more money, even if you manage to win the case (which you'd be hard-pressed to do if you can't afford an attorney to represent you for the full length of the case). DC can afford lots of lawyers. I'm pretty sure the various software authors that are being harrassed can't. Given that the field is already pretty unbalanced, can you blame them for not wanting to risk the loss of everything they have?
From what you say, we're doing the right thing by letting them go ahead and implement SDMI. It's almost certainly not uncrackable. It will provide some protection for those who want it. It will probably be just enough of an annoyance that Joe Average will just go for a subscription music service or somesuch rather than try to make an alternative work.
NPR did a show this morning on the RIAA/Napster debate. I think that one of the best lines that came out of it was that there needs to be a public discussion about how far we really want copyright laws to go, and whether or not they've already gone too far. I think they have, and I've been saying that for a long time. I believe that if they would fix the copyright laws so that the public once again sees some return for their support of "limited" monopolies on information, then many of these problems that the entertainment and other industries are seeing would be greatly reduced. But, of course, they'll fight tooth-and-nail to prevent the public from getting copyright law changed to their perceived detriment. But, if they want a war, it looks like they'll get it.
They have an abundance of time, not of money.
Not bloody likely. If they're poor and not working, then yeah... they may have time. But they probably won't have any inclination to learn anything. If they're of the working poor class, then they probably have the inclination to learn, but they don't have the time or money since all their time is wrapped up in trying to make enough money to stay afloat. My family was somewhat like this.. except we were more of a lower-middle class, paycheck-to-paycheck living family. Still are really. It's very hard to get out of it once you're there. Any unforseen problem can start you on a downward spiral too, which makes you spend your time trying to get back to where you were before. Families that are worse off than mine was certainly aren't likely to have the time to devote to learning computers when they are spending their time trying to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. I got lucky when the company my mom worked for threw out some old computers and we got one of them (286/12mhz(IIRC), 1 meg of ram, CGA monitor, 10MB HD). It was the summer before my senior year in HS. If it weren't for that, I might not be typing this right now.
I like the idea, but such an organization would certainly need funding, as it would be a full-time job for many people to try to track down the prior art and/or experts in various fields to challenge these patents, and I'm not sure how you go about challenging a patent without going to court, which will cost even more money. Who would likely be interested in funding such an organization? Who would it benefit most?
You seem to have missed the point. The point is that it's stupid to have a law that allows you to reverse engineer for compatibility reasons as long as the original product doesn't encrypt its content (even with trivial encryption), but not allow reverse engineering of those who do, even for fair use purposes. That's why the law makes no sense.
Maybe Kaplan's ruling will help clear things up. Since he's basically saying that fair use is overridden by the DMCA clause prohibiting the circumvention of "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." This will either wake people up to what's going on, and it will get fixed by Congress, or big corporations will rally behind the ruling and Congress will go cower in the corner, allowing the ruling to become permanent law.
Actually, what you're saying makes it even more clear that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly. The fact that people are getting screwed, know that they're getting screwed, and still decide to buy the computer anyway tells me that they know they don't have any real choice. The problem is that all the major vendors do this. There is no alternative if you want to buy your computer from a major vendor (because you trust their hardware).
If you didn't want the software, you didn't have to purchase the hardware.
In anti-trust terms, that's called "tying," and it's illegal.
Why don't any of the vendor's offer their customers a choice? Because they can't afford to. Why can't they afford to? Because if they offer a choice, Microsoft will ream them on the cost of Windows, thus making them unable to compete with the other vendors on system prices. Does this sound like a healthy market to anybody? I doubt it. That's why something needs to be done about Microsoft.
What you probably mean is that this defies common sense and in some way it does. Logically, however, it holds.
That's exactly what I meant. If I have the right to receive such streams of music, then why should MP3.com not have the right to send them to me? It makes no sense. While the interpretation of the law may be logical, the law itself is not.
Damn Kaa... I'm not sure if you were trolling the poor guy or what. That was a pretty pathetic performance though. You still didn't explain why the law is logical. You just reiterated it and said that it sounds logical to you. If I purchase an album, that currently gives me the right to listen to the album and any copies of the album that I make. What the law doesn't do is explain why it's legal for me to upload the bits to my own server and listen to them from wherever I like, but it's not legal for me to prove to MP3.com that I have paid for the right to listen to the album and then listen to the identical bits coming from their server. If I have purchased the right to listen to the album, what difference does it make whether the bits come from my CD, a copy of my CD, my server, their server, or anyplace else, as long as I have proven to that source that I have paid for the right to listen to that album? You have done nothing to explain this, and that is why you frustrated zencode so badly. At least he was polite and patient.
Regardless of who was actually responsible for creating the "feature", the fact remains that it is a Microsoft product, and Bill Gates is the Chairman of Microsoft. Therefore, the ultimate responsibility resides with him. I too doubt that he actually knew of the feature himself, and I doubt that he would have given a damn about it even if he did know. It doesn't really matter though. If he had any real convictions about such things, then his managers would know it and this wouldn't have happened. Apparently there wasn't much review done, or the feature was intentionally allowed to remain. The only reason anything is being done now is because it pissed off a lot of people. The potential damage outweighs the potential gains. Therefore it is more profitable to change the feature. It's also better to bullshit people about why it was changed to make it look like it was unintentional in the first place so that the average moron using the software will bear no ill will towards Chairman Bill.
You show me where in the judge's ruling he says any of the things you claim.
So can I tell you to shuttup? :)
Unfortunately, corporations exist for the sole purpose of allowing those in control to make decisions without being held responsible for the consequences of those decisions. Sure, sometimes corporations are punished, but that usually doesn't do much harm to those who were running the show. It usually just hurts those who depended on the corp for their livelihood. The little guys get screwed and the big guys usually have their golden parachutes that let them laugh all the way to the bank.
The longer the delay, the less effect the reparations will be and the more damage MS's actions will be allowed to continue to cause.
Which is exactly why the law allows the DOJ to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Why the court made this decision, I can't understand. It simply allows Microsoft to continue as usual. They've been in court before and settled with a consent decree which they ignored and nothing changed. The DOJ learned from this and that is why they have refused to settle with Microsoft. Now, instead of bringing this thing to a close, the Supremes are going to allow it to continue for years probably. When it's all over, it won't matter anymore. That's why the DOJ is allowed to appeal directly, and why the Supremes should have heard the case.
The average Joes are victimized by extension through such things as the Microsoft Tax. It may not be direct victimization, but it's there and it's real.
they were ruling on whether or not MS should be allowed to bypass normal legal processes and proceed directly to trial by the Supreme Court.
Actually, the law provides for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court for cases exactly like this one. Basically the Supreme Court just disregarded that law and the reasons why it exists.
In other words, Rehnquist had every right to participate in the decision about whether or not to advance the case; given the reference you cite, he was *required* to participate in that decision.
Wrong. The portion of the USC that was cited says that the judge should have recused himself from making any decisions regarding the Microsoft case. Including whether or not the Supreme Court (note that the decision was whether or not the court should hear the case, not Rehnquist himself) hears it now instead of later. Rehnquist should have recused himself from participating in that decision, as well as recusing himself from hearing the case when it gets before his court.
Kaplan did not personally represent the MPAA at all. Some attornies in the firm he used to work for did represent them though. (Can't remember if it was the MPAA that they represented or the DVDCCA)
I think Rehnquist is on much more shaky ground than Kaplan was. While he denies that his participation in the decision to refuse to hear the Microsoft case will have any significant effect on his son or his son's firm, I think he's crossed the line, bigtime. I think there are very obvious effects. First of all, it will dramatically extend the length of the case. This obviously will allow his son to continue working on it for some time to come. Second, by refusing to hear it, he's sending it to a court that has all but broken out the pom-poms to cheer for the Microsoft team. Think that might help his son out a bit?
Which is stupid considering the law that allows the DOJ to appeal directly to the Supreme Court was created for the purpose of speeding up the judicial path for cases exactly like this one. I think it was incredibly disingenous of Rehnquist to say that it wouldn't have any significant effect on his son or his son's firm. By refusing to hear the case, the SC just sent it to a court known to be much more friendly to Microsoft, thereby giving Microsoft's lawyers a better chance of winning the case than they would likely have if it went straight to the Supreme Court.
Let's see... how is it theft to compile a database (presumably from purchased CDs), and then allow people to stream that music wherever they happen to be, but only after they have proven that they have purchased the right to listen to the music. Sounds to me like something that should be perfectly legal, but that the record industry doesn't like, and they are, once again, trying to control what people do with the music they purchase after the sale. If you and I both buy the same CD, and then we meet and I hand you my copy and you give me your copy, have we broken the law? That's essentially what my.mp3.com was doing. I think the RIAA's argument is ridiculous.
Regardless, they lost on legal grounds. They just managed to minimize the damage by settling with the rest of the companies.
I guess I just don't get your analogy. Why do we keep trying to create analogies between physical property and digital property? Why don't we just accept that they are two different things that need to be dealt with differently? Prohibiting a company from making a database of music in order to allow people (who have legally purchased the right to listen to that music) to listen to the music they have purchased wherever they like, after they have proven that they have purchased that right, is asinine. It's just the record companies throwing their weight around and trying to further limit how we can make use of the music that we purchase, as well as extorting money which they are not due. Yes, it's often good that the law is slow to change, but when we see that it needs to change, we should certainly encourage it. That's why I'm sending a similar letter to my congresscritters.