This is true. Just try getting financial aid if you are white and have a financial status that would be considered "lower-middle class" (i.e. living paycheck to paycheck). I was passed over for financial aid every year I applied. My girlfriend, on the other hand, who is a member of a minority race in the U.S., had absolutely no trouble getting financial aid even though her economic status was basically the same as mine.
The copying isn't the illegal part. It's the distribution of copies that is illegal. I can copy a CD or DVD perfectly legally. If I then give that copy to someone else who hasn't paid for the right to own a copy of that work, I've broken the law.
This means you can only do what the owners WANT you to do. This means no copying, no broadcasting, and yes, even no playing.
Can you cite an instance where a license of this sort has been upheld in court as taking precedent over an individual's right to fair use? I've not heard of one, and until I do, I won't consider such licenses to be legal or enforceable.
While it may cost you something to use services such as Dialpad, cost isn't the real issue here. The issue is choice. If Dialpad can offer its service cheap enough, students won't mind that the quality sucks. It's better than the alternative, which is to pay the school, or ultimately the company that the school made a deal with, for better quality at a higher price. The school decided to remove that choice. They already admitted that they had no idea whether Dialpad was causing bandwidth problems, so I strongly suspect that their motives were much less noble than an attempt to preserve bandwidth for strictly educational purposes.
I think that within 5 years it will be commonplace for any average home in the US to have one computer for all the high-end needs
Only one? Like most homes have only one TV? I doubt it. I think the trend will be towards more PCs rather than fewer. They'll just become cheaper and cheaper. Unless they get so powerful that 3 or 4 people can play different games, surf the web, and/or use their favorite spreadsheet at the same time on the household server and not need their own box, just their own monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc, I think we'll start seeing more households with more PCs.
Ugh. It would suck to have a bunch of people in the office all talking to their computers. And people think cellphones are annoying. Wait'll they have to deal with people walking around talking to their pda too. Until I can subvocalize to my PC, I don't think I'm going to enjoy speech recognition all that much.
Doubtful, DIVX discs weren't much better than VHS. They rarely had the cool extras that you find on real DVDs. They were usually pan-and-scan versions. I doubt people would pay that much for a new player if they weren't getting a much better product.
Should be interesting to see how fast everybody who was going to boycott the major studios to put pressure on DVD CCA caves in when the big movies start coming out.
Labor unions are definitely not the right kind of power bloc. They have different goals than what we're talking about here. Their membership is miniscule compared to what is needed too. The corruption problem is a tough thing to deal with. Anywhere you have power, corruption is sure to rear its head. But we need power in order to create some kind of balance. The only thing that we can do is try to minimize the potential for corruption by keeping things as open as possible.
I can understand why many people fear many things, but that doesn't mean I want to see those things banned. I'm terribly sorry if they feel that piracy is going to cause grievous harm to their industry. I'm all in favor of them prosecuting true copyright violators. I simply won't stand idly by and let them take away my rights to make my own damn copies of DVDs that I have legitimately bought, or to use them with the OS of my choice, or in any other way that I am legitimately allowed to under copyright law. I don't care how afraid they are. They knew the risks, but they decided that they could make a substantial (or more likely unbelievably huge) profit with DVDs. Business ventures are always a risk, but I'm not going to give up my rights just so that they can reap more profits and not have to worry about the risks.
This is one of the best explanations of the case at hand that I've read yet. It uses some very good analogies. This should be front and center for everyone to read.
As near as I can tell from what's happened so far, and from descriptions of the judge's behavior, he is most definitely not on our side. It didn't seem likely that he could be swayed either, no matter how rational an argument the defence puts up.
Ah, but many of the rights enumerated in the amendments to the constitution (including, but not limited to the Bill of Rights) are inalienable rights.
Why? Because the United States government says so? That may fly here, but why should other countries conform to our beliefs? We sure don't conform to theirs. We'd raise holy hell if China tried to tell us what rights people should have. Why should it be different when we tell them what rights people should have?
I think I agree with most of the rest of your post though. I should probably read it again when I'm more awake:)
I guess this is why we have courts. I read it differently.
Let me substitute some words here to illustrate what I think it's saying. Keep in mind, IANAL, so I may be misinterpreting a word or two, but it sounds reasonable to me.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a DVD may circumvent an encryption scheme that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that DVD for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of the DVD with other programs, and that the decryption routine has not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
The way I see it, since the decryption routine wasn't available to the person who wanted to write a DVD player, whether other DVD players are available or not, they have the right to reverse engineer the encryption scheme in order to make their program work if the decryption routine isn't already available to them. Just because other players have built in decoders, doesn't mean I can achieve interoperability with the program I'm writing. Therefore I have the right to circumvent the protection that is keeping me from making my program work with DVDs.
What needs to be done is to fix the problems in this country that are producing people stupid enough or desperate enough to use these drugs in the first place. What needs to be done is to lock up anyone who commits a violent crime, drug-related or not, and not let them out again 2 years later instead of filling up the prisons with people convicted of "drug use" or "drug possession." Drug use should not be a crime in itself, nor should possession, except in very large amounts when intent to sell can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't have a problem with them prosecuting people for selling drugs that are addictive and have well-known adverse effects, especially without a doctor's prescription. (This should apply to tobacco too, but there's too many people already hooked and it generates too much money for the government for them to do anything about it.)
What I take serious issue with is the government's blatant disregard for people's rights. If I'm carrying over a certain amount of money with me when I cross the border, they are free, without any evidence whatsoever, to confiscate it. They decided that they should be able to just assume it's drug money and take it from you. No trial, no conviction of anything, they just take it. Same thing they're doing with some of the alleged computer crimes now. They take people's computers and any related hardware and they keep them for as long as they are allowed (5 years). They don't need to prove you did anything. By the time you get the stuff back, it's virtually worthless.
I'm entirely in favor of reducing drug use and illegal drug sales in this country, I just vehemently oppose the methods they are using.
The CSS encryption apparently exists to prevent people from copying DVDs illegally. DeCSS exists to allow people who have legitimately purchased DVDs to view them on their PCs running Linux. There is absolutely nothing illegal about this. Perhaps DeCSS could be used to make digital copies that could in turn be transmitted to other people, but that doesn't really matter as it isn't its primary purpose or the purpose intended by its creators. I could stab you in the eye with a hunting knife, but that doesn't make hunting knives illegal. Sure, stabbing and cutting is their primary purpose, but you should not use them in an illegal way. If someone buys a DVD, they have every right to convert the data contained on it into a format that is useful to them. Even the DMCA explicitly states this.
You're thinking of trademark law, not trade secret law. IANAL, but as far as I know, the only trade secret laws apply to employees and other people or entities that have legitimate access to the secret. They can be prosecuted for revealing the secret. In this case, trade secret law could possibly be applied to Xing, since they were not careful and left their key unencrypted which made DeCSS possible (or at least easier). That probably violated an NDA or three. Other than that, once the secret is out, it's not a secret anymore. The DeCSS guys didn't reveal any trade secret, Xing did. They just took advantage of Xing's mistake, and they did it in a legal way since even the DMCA allows you bypass security measures in order to achieve interoperability. That's why this whole case is such a crock. But that won't stop it from happening. There's too much money behind it for it to stop.
They can sieze your computer equipment (all of it, not just things that could actually contain evidence) and hold it for 5 years, at which time it's worth approximately nothing. Hell, it sounds to me like we should be able to buy insurance against acts of our own fscked up legal system.
But they let the cat out of the bag by not encrypting their key like they were supposed to. That's what made DeCSS possible (or at least a lot easier than it would otherwise have been).
Slashdot Mirror
This is true. Just try getting financial aid if you are white and have a financial status that would be considered "lower-middle class" (i.e. living paycheck to paycheck). I was passed over for financial aid every year I applied. My girlfriend, on the other hand, who is a member of a minority race in the U.S., had absolutely no trouble getting financial aid even though her economic status was basically the same as mine.
It's much more legal if you do that with a lock that you own.
The copying isn't the illegal part. It's the distribution of copies that is illegal. I can copy a CD or DVD perfectly legally. If I then give that copy to someone else who hasn't paid for the right to own a copy of that work, I've broken the law.
This means you can only do what the owners WANT you to do. This means no copying, no broadcasting, and yes, even no playing.
Can you cite an instance where a license of this sort has been upheld in court as taking precedent over an individual's right to fair use? I've not heard of one, and until I do, I won't consider such licenses to be legal or enforceable.
While it may cost you something to use services such as Dialpad, cost isn't the real issue here. The issue is choice. If Dialpad can offer its service cheap enough, students won't mind that the quality sucks. It's better than the alternative, which is to pay the school, or ultimately the company that the school made a deal with, for better quality at a higher price. The school decided to remove that choice. They already admitted that they had no idea whether Dialpad was causing bandwidth problems, so I strongly suspect that their motives were much less noble than an attempt to preserve bandwidth for strictly educational purposes.
I think that within 5 years it will be commonplace for any average home in the US to have one computer for all the high-end needs
Only one? Like most homes have only one TV? I doubt it. I think the trend will be towards more PCs rather than fewer. They'll just become cheaper and cheaper. Unless they get so powerful that 3 or 4 people can play different games, surf the web, and/or use their favorite spreadsheet at the same time on the household server and not need their own box, just their own monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc, I think we'll start seeing more households with more PCs.
Ugh. It would suck to have a bunch of people in the office all talking to their computers. And people think cellphones are annoying. Wait'll they have to deal with people walking around talking to their pda too. Until I can subvocalize to my PC, I don't think I'm going to enjoy speech recognition all that much.
Doubtful, DIVX discs weren't much better than VHS. They rarely had the cool extras that you find on real DVDs. They were usually pan-and-scan versions. I doubt people would pay that much for a new player if they weren't getting a much better product.
If I make a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD to my hard drive, could i watch it with a Win32 DVD player?
Should be interesting to see how fast everybody who was going to boycott the major studios to put pressure on DVD CCA caves in when the big movies start coming out.
Both of these teams played their hearts out all season and in tonight's great game. Don't you have anything better to do than disparage them?
For the kind of money they make, should you expect any less?
Labor unions are definitely not the right kind of power bloc. They have different goals than what we're talking about here. Their membership is miniscule compared to what is needed too. The corruption problem is a tough thing to deal with. Anywhere you have power, corruption is sure to rear its head. But we need power in order to create some kind of balance. The only thing that we can do is try to minimize the potential for corruption by keeping things as open as possible.
Works for me. Can still watch independent films I guess. Bring your own munchies too.
I can understand why many people fear many things, but that doesn't mean I want to see those things banned. I'm terribly sorry if they feel that piracy is going to cause grievous harm to their industry. I'm all in favor of them prosecuting true copyright violators. I simply won't stand idly by and let them take away my rights to make my own damn copies of DVDs that I have legitimately bought, or to use them with the OS of my choice, or in any other way that I am legitimately allowed to under copyright law. I don't care how afraid they are. They knew the risks, but they decided that they could make a substantial (or more likely unbelievably huge) profit with DVDs. Business ventures are always a risk, but I'm not going to give up my rights just so that they can reap more profits and not have to worry about the risks.
This is one of the best explanations of the case at hand that I've read yet. It uses some very good analogies. This should be front and center for everyone to read.
As near as I can tell from what's happened so far, and from descriptions of the judge's behavior, he is most definitely not on our side. It didn't seem likely that he could be swayed either, no matter how rational an argument the defence puts up.
Ah, but many of the rights enumerated in the amendments to the constitution (including, but not limited to the Bill of Rights) are inalienable rights.
Why? Because the United States government says so? That may fly here, but why should other countries conform to our beliefs? We sure don't conform to theirs. We'd raise holy hell if China tried to tell us what rights people should have. Why should it be different when we tell them what rights people should have?
I think I agree with most of the rest of your post though. I should probably read it again when I'm more awake :)
I guess this is why we have courts. I read it differently.
Let me substitute some words here to illustrate what I think it's saying. Keep in mind, IANAL, so I may be misinterpreting a word or two, but it sounds reasonable to me.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a DVD may circumvent an encryption scheme that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that DVD for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of the DVD with other programs, and that the decryption routine has not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
The way I see it, since the decryption routine wasn't available to the person who wanted to write a DVD player, whether other DVD players are available or not, they have the right to reverse engineer the encryption scheme in order to make their program work if the decryption routine isn't already available to them. Just because other players have built in decoders, doesn't mean I can achieve interoperability with the program I'm writing. Therefore I have the right to circumvent the protection that is keeping me from making my program work with DVDs.
Nevermind. The post just got moderated down below my viewing level. I see it now.
Did I miss something?
the "war on drugs" is a much needed campaign.
That may be, but not the way it's being done now.
What needs to be done is to fix the problems in this country that are producing people stupid enough or desperate enough to use these drugs in the first place. What needs to be done is to lock up anyone who commits a violent crime, drug-related or not, and not let them out again 2 years later instead of filling up the prisons with people convicted of "drug use" or "drug possession." Drug use should not be a crime in itself, nor should possession, except in very large amounts when intent to sell can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't have a problem with them prosecuting people for selling drugs that are addictive and have well-known adverse effects, especially without a doctor's prescription. (This should apply to tobacco too, but there's too many people already hooked and it generates too much money for the government for them to do anything about it.)
What I take serious issue with is the government's blatant disregard for people's rights. If I'm carrying over a certain amount of money with me when I cross the border, they are free, without any evidence whatsoever, to confiscate it. They decided that they should be able to just assume it's drug money and take it from you. No trial, no conviction of anything, they just take it. Same thing they're doing with some of the alleged computer crimes now. They take people's computers and any related hardware and they keep them for as long as they are allowed (5 years). They don't need to prove you did anything. By the time you get the stuff back, it's virtually worthless.
I'm entirely in favor of reducing drug use and illegal drug sales in this country, I just vehemently oppose the methods they are using.
Using it for playback in Winblows would be illegal because there are already software DVD players for Winblows available.
Actually, it would be legal to do it in Windows as well. It doesn't matter if other players are available or not.
The CSS encryption apparently exists to prevent people from copying DVDs illegally. DeCSS exists to allow people who have legitimately purchased DVDs to view them on their PCs running Linux. There is absolutely nothing illegal about this. Perhaps DeCSS could be used to make digital copies that could in turn be transmitted to other people, but that doesn't really matter as it isn't its primary purpose or the purpose intended by its creators. I could stab you in the eye with a hunting knife, but that doesn't make hunting knives illegal. Sure, stabbing and cutting is their primary purpose, but you should not use them in an illegal way. If someone buys a DVD, they have every right to convert the data contained on it into a format that is useful to them. Even the DMCA explicitly states this.
You're thinking of trademark law, not trade secret law. IANAL, but as far as I know, the only trade secret laws apply to employees and other people or entities that have legitimate access to the secret. They can be prosecuted for revealing the secret. In this case, trade secret law could possibly be applied to Xing, since they were not careful and left their key unencrypted which made DeCSS possible (or at least easier). That probably violated an NDA or three. Other than that, once the secret is out, it's not a secret anymore. The DeCSS guys didn't reveal any trade secret, Xing did. They just took advantage of Xing's mistake, and they did it in a legal way since even the DMCA allows you bypass security measures in order to achieve interoperability. That's why this whole case is such a crock. But that won't stop it from happening. There's too much money behind it for it to stop.
They can sieze your computer equipment (all of it, not just things that could actually contain evidence) and hold it for 5 years, at which time it's worth approximately nothing. Hell, it sounds to me like we should be able to buy insurance against acts of our own fscked up legal system.
But they let the cat out of the bag by not encrypting their key like they were supposed to. That's what made DeCSS possible (or at least a lot easier than it would otherwise have been).