Man, there is nothing quite like someone making a socio-political arguement using that oh so witty, "(NOT!)."
Put there purely for those unable to detect a sarcastic comment...
I suppose you're one of those/.ers dedicating his life to pointing out the grammatical errors and other attrocities of others whilst not actually having an opinion yourself.
I suppose you're sick of all the Microsoft stories, nanotech stories and Jon Katz features and still pissed with Rob for taking so long to release the slashbox code to boot....
and an AC as well? well that sums it up nicely doesn't it?
get a life.
BTW, you spelt argument wrong (just thought I'd let you know so you didn't accidently do it again - some poeple on/. are pretty hard on things like that - no offence)
Anyone who can "plunk" $15,000 down to buy a TV is going to hang around and wait for the price to drop or wait for impending technology... They want it now and the got the $$$. When (if) this technology takes off, I'm sure they'll go out and spend another $15k to get one of them too...
The plasma screen can then be consigned to its other major use... replicating modern art in a dingy hallway somewhere...
Having appeared so close to the 'Classic Games' article I'm wondering if we should be proud of where the quality of graphics on your home PC is currently at or lamenting that we're not further along.
The graphics on some of those 10-15 year games may look a little chunky these days, but they were pretty damn impressive given the hardware they were working with... and a lot of the games on the store shelves can't match the playability even now.
I may be stirring the pot a bit, but I've always wondered whether the increase in popularity of Wintel in the late 80s didn't set consumer based computer graphics back a a few years.
Point out that the article is a crock and have a go at their credibility. You may not see a direct affect over one article but if they don't learn, they eventually lose hits.
eg. Does anyone here automtically take anything MSNBC produces as gospel before they verify the facts of a story elsewhere?
ZDNETs another example... They may be pulling hits but do we really care if they pull the wool over the eyes of the inept? - nobody with a true tech. oriented background takes anything ZDNET posts at face value either...
I look at the graphics, sound and playability capabilites in something THAT old and that limitted hardware-wise and wonder why we have only gone as far as we have today...
True... but the question was why Rob determined that Julia Roberts was somehow a different case just because 'sting' was a dictionary word whereas Julia Roberts is not...
Words in the dictionary are totally different then, say,JuliaRoberts.com.
'cept if your name is Julia Roberts.... Is there any reason why Julia Roberts (the actor) has any greater/lesser claim to JuliaRoberts.com than any other Julia Roberts? (.com tld being as defining as it is these days...)
Lets try and forget about RIAA and MP3's for a moment and look at the process... what are the/. communities thoughts on the following scenarios?
Assuming the US legal system, determine what you're thoughts are on the legal status of each participant:
a) Person A copies a CD and gives it to Person B.
b) Person A copies a CD and gives it to Person B who gives to Person C.
c) Person B tells Person C that he can get a copy of a CD from Person A.
Before Person C receives the CD? After Person C receives the CD?
d) Person A organises a Music Swap Meet, charging stall holders and patrons a small fee, and stall holder B sells a copied CD to person C.
If Person A knows/doesn't know its a copy? If Person B knows/doesn't know its a copy? If Person C knows/doens't know its a copy?
e) Person A possesses a list of copied CDs available from Person B.
If Person A then gives that list to Person C who buys a copied CD from Person B?
If Person A/C don't know that they are copies?
Finally, which, if any, of the above situations best fits what Napster is doing with mp3s and how does the analogy affect your original position on the Napster lawsuit?
Then maybe you can answer the question that MPAA can't.
Can you tell the court in what way CSS is used to protect a copyrighted work from piracy?
I contend that CSS is used to control distribution and pricing of DVDs in different countries and has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the copyrighted work from exploitation.
Given this fact, the bypassing of CSS via DeCSS cannot be found in violation of the DCMA in reference to the circumvention of technical protection measures of a copyrighted work and I'd kindly ask the Judge to dismiss this case.
The question we should be asking is how long it would take the rest of the world to route around the US?
At the moment, everything goes through the US, because they have the greatest infrastructure in place and its the path of least resistance for most of the major telcos worldwide.
You remove the US from the Internet - everything that was old becomes new again - and suddenly Intramuros is the centre of the universe online.
M@T
signal to noise might improve a bit too...ok...sounds worthwhile...all in favour say AYE!!
Fact: DeCSS circumvents CSS Fact: That is, currently (like it or not),illegal. Fact: The judge has no choice but to do easy math: 1+1=Defendents lose.
This is the whole problem with this debate. Who says bypassing CSS is illegal?
As far as I see it, there are only two distinct issues before the court... all the rest are either politically motivated or hypothetical "perfect world" arguments.
Issue 1: Is it illegal to use a utility that came about as a result of reverse engineering?
Remember - CSS wasn't reverse engineered in the States, therefore the question lies with the legal status of the resulting product ie. DeCSS
Issue 2: Is circumventing CSS actually a violation of the DCMA?
CSS is purported to be a copy protection mechanism, however, as many have pointed out, CSS's primary purpose is as a playback protection mechanism. eg. you can take a bit for bit copy of a DVD and play it back on a machine equipped with CSS without a problem.
If CSS can be shown to have no impact as a copy protection mechanism, then circumventing it cannot be in violation of that section of the DCMA.
IANAL, but to my mind if the answer to both of these is 'NO' then the MPAA should be fighting a lost cause.
"Fair Use" may be a valid argument against the implementation of the DCMA in general but it has no real relevance in this case at this point in time.
Are they talking about peoples recognition of the name or the value of that specific name in the marketplace?
Microsoft create a myriad of different software packages and operating systems that all have one thing in common, they're badged 'Microsoft'.
Coca-cola manufacture a myriad of different soft drinks and they all have one thing in common, none of them are badged coca-cola. (excpet one)
Microsoft, the name, is associated with the company and everything the company associates its name with.
Coca-Cola, the name, is associated with a particular thing - a can of coke. You don't buy Sprite or Fanta or any other product of Coca-Cola because its made by Coca-Cola, nor do the use the name heavily in the marketing of these products...
The value of the name Microsoft is, to me, a very grey area as it is applied and marketed in a very large number of different industries and pushing a very large number of products and technologies.
Coca-Cola's value, however, is very specific - how many cans of Coke did we sell this year?
The fact is, Microsoft were charged with committing a crime. A court in the US judicial system (to which Microsoft are supposedly bound) has found Microsoft guilty of that crime.
Surely the restrictions on their conduct should apply until Microsft wins the appeal (if they win). They've been found guilty. The onus is on them now to prove that that guilt is misplaced.
I'm all hoping the the mpaa or whoever loses badly...this whole thing is BS.. but this guy, Velenti, *does* answer honestly and truthfully.. it seems.
For a great many of his 'i don't know' he is simply being asked for the record whether or not he is aware of certain things.
Pure BS! A great many of the things being asked are issues to which Mr. Valenti has dedicated a very large portion of his life's work. If he doesn't know the answer or have an opinion on a lot of these areas, then he shouldn't have been president of the MPAA for 1 year, let alone 34!
As for whenever he is asked about something illegal... he re-states over and over again, that 'circumventing the encryption on a DVD is illegal according to DMCA, plain and clearly'..and he *is* correct..
...and at most times was a totally irrelevant answer to the question being asked of him.
BTW, What he should have been asked is a direct question on whether he believes that deCSS is bypassing a DVD copy-control mechansim, and then going on to prove that the mechanism has nothing to do with copy control whatsoever thus making the DCMA irrelevant to the case.
MR. GARBUS: When you say you have spoken to people at those companies, who is it that you have spoken to at each of the companies? For example, Universal.
MR. GOLD to Mr. Schumann: If it was after January of 00, don't answer. If it was before, don't answer.
So if a guy kills someone is charged and found guilty, you would let him run free until such time as his appeal is heard??? I thought not...
They've been found guilty... the punishment applies until such time as the appelate courts determine otherwise, if at all.
If the decision made yesterday is so irrelevant to the final outcome then why didn't they just move straight to the appeals and bypass the trial altogether?
A large majority of the./ crowd (myself included) keep saying that the medium should be irrelevant. How is this different?
The "real" issue here is the grey area between what is a comment amongst friends (eg. email) and what is public (eg. web pages). Exactly how large does a mailing list have to become before it makes the transition from a private conversation to a public forum?
But I do know a lot about the U.S. judicial system. I do not think this ruling will have any effect in the U.S. It probably will not spread elsewhere, either.
What ruling was that again?
The judge threw out the jury... not the case! They hit reset button and start again.
Fucking journalists... The reason the jury was dismissed was that, even though they may not have seen the defendants priors on CrimeNet, the fact was that, due to discussions within the court room, those jurors are now aware that the defendant does appear on CrimeNet (which they also know is a public database of criminal records) which could unfairly bias their opinions in the case at hand.
It should also be pointed out that the case hasn't been tossed... its merely that the jury has been let go.
The question on CrimeNet's ability to bias a jury still stands however and needs to be addressed. In Austrlia, a defendants prior convictions can only be disclosed for the purposes of sentencing *after* the defendant has been found guilty.
Can you get more ignorant than this!? Isn't this exactly how the US gov't have treated every issue related to the Internet???
(not that I'm condoning the action of the French courts)
As a previous poster mentioned... Jon Johansen (sp?) springs readily to mind and I'm sure it wouldn't take much searching to put together a page full of situations where the US or US courts have made rulings way, way outside the realms of their jurisdiction...
perhaps take a look in your own backyard before you open your mouth next time eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Man, there is nothing quite like someone making a socio-political arguement using that oh so witty, "(NOT!)."
/.ers dedicating his life to pointing out the grammatical errors and other attrocities of others whilst not actually having an opinion yourself.
/. are pretty hard on things like that - no offence)
Put there purely for those unable to detect a sarcastic comment...
I suppose you're one of those
I suppose you're sick of all the Microsoft stories, nanotech stories and Jon Katz features and still pissed with Rob for taking so long to release the slashbox code to boot....
and an AC as well? well that sums it up nicely doesn't it?
get a life.
BTW, you spelt argument wrong (just thought I'd let you know so you didn't accidently do it again - some poeple on
M@T
An MP3 player is like a gun..
Ahh yeah... this is THE argument to take to the streets with...
Associate the plight of MP3 with that of guns and gun manufacturers... people will just HAVE TO see the light after this elegant point is made. (NOT!)
Its an IT trade show.
what kind of hold could RIAA have over CeBit (apart from Sony pulling out) to get CeBit to ban any and all MP3 related devices from the show?
Surely there are manufacturers other than Creative who have a vested interest in this as well...
M@T
Anyone who can "plunk" $15,000 down to buy a TV is going to hang around and wait for the price to drop or wait for impending technology... They want it now and the got the $$$. When (if) this technology takes off, I'm sure they'll go out and spend another $15k to get one of them too...
The plasma screen can then be consigned to its other major use... replicating modern art in a dingy hallway somewhere...
If its a far reaching - you're all damned - kinda patent, why not broadcast it to the world so it can be picked to pieces?
Sounds more like you're getting Slashdot to provide you with, or prove the absense of, prior art to:
a) Fight a lawsuit brought about by you over a patent you own
or
b) Check for prior art the easy way before filing for a patent of your own.... perhaps saving a bit of your own time and money?
If not, why would you not provide the patent number so that everyone else can join the call to arms? (ie. safety in numbers??)
Sorry to be cynical, but what legal reason could there be to prevent you from stating the number?
M@T
Slightly OT but I wonder just how far some of the larger corporations have gone before they realised they were suing themselves...
Anyone got a good story to tell?
Having appeared so close to the 'Classic Games' article I'm wondering if we should be proud of where the quality of graphics on your home PC is currently at or lamenting that we're not further along.
The graphics on some of those 10-15 year games may look a little chunky these days, but they were pretty damn impressive given the hardware they were working with... and a lot of the games on the store shelves can't match the playability even now.
I may be stirring the pot a bit, but I've always wondered whether the increase in popularity of Wintel in the late 80s didn't set consumer based computer graphics back a a few years.
M@T
Point out that the article is a crock and have a go at their credibility. You may not see a direct affect over one article but if they don't learn, they eventually lose hits.
eg. Does anyone here automtically take anything MSNBC produces as gospel before they verify the facts of a story elsewhere?
ZDNETs another example... They may be pulling hits but do we really care if they pull the wool over the eyes of the inept? - nobody with a true tech. oriented background takes anything ZDNET posts at face value either...
Lightforce or the original Elite for the C64?
Damn they used to rock!
I look at the graphics, sound and playability capabilites in something THAT old and that limitted hardware-wise and wonder why we have only gone as far as we have today...
True... but the question was why Rob determined that Julia Roberts was somehow a different case just because 'sting' was a dictionary word whereas Julia Roberts is not...
Words in the dictionary are totally different then, say,JuliaRoberts.com.
'cept if your name is Julia Roberts.... Is there any reason why Julia Roberts (the actor) has any greater/lesser claim to JuliaRoberts.com than any other Julia Roberts? (.com tld being as defining as it is these days...)
M@T
Just trying to draw a line in the sand....
/. communities thoughts on the following scenarios?
Lets try and forget about RIAA and MP3's for a moment and look at the process... what are the
Assuming the US legal system, determine what you're thoughts are on the legal status of each participant:
a) Person A copies a CD and gives it to Person B.
b) Person A copies a CD and gives it to Person B who gives to Person C.
c) Person B tells Person C that he can get a copy of a CD from Person A.
Before Person C receives the CD? After Person C receives the CD?
d) Person A organises a Music Swap Meet, charging stall holders and patrons a small fee, and stall holder B sells a copied CD to person C.
If Person A knows/doesn't know its a copy?
If Person B knows/doesn't know its a copy?
If Person C knows/doens't know its a copy?
e) Person A possesses a list of copied CDs available from Person B.
If Person A then gives that list to Person C who buys a copied CD from Person B?
If Person A/C don't know that they are copies?
Finally, which, if any, of the above situations best fits what Napster is doing with mp3s and how does the analogy affect your original position on the Napster lawsuit?
Then maybe you can answer the question that MPAA can't.
Can you tell the court in what way CSS is used to protect a copyrighted work from piracy?
I contend that CSS is used to control distribution and pricing of DVDs in different countries and has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the copyrighted work from exploitation.
Given this fact, the bypassing of CSS via DeCSS cannot be found in violation of the DCMA in reference to the circumvention of technical protection measures of a copyrighted work and I'd kindly ask the Judge to dismiss this case.
M@T
The question we should be asking is how long it would take the rest of the world to route around the US?
At the moment, everything goes through the US, because they have the greatest infrastructure in place and its the path of least resistance for most of the major telcos worldwide.
You remove the US from the Internet - everything that was old becomes new again - and suddenly Intramuros is the centre of the universe online.
M@T
signal to noise might improve a bit too...ok...sounds worthwhile...all in favour say AYE!!
Fact: DeCSS circumvents CSS
Fact: That is, currently (like it or not),illegal.
Fact: The judge has no choice but to do easy math: 1+1=Defendents lose.
This is the whole problem with this debate. Who says bypassing CSS is illegal?
As far as I see it, there are only two distinct issues before the court... all the rest are either politically motivated or hypothetical "perfect world" arguments.
Issue 1: Is it illegal to use a utility that came about as a result of reverse engineering?
Remember - CSS wasn't reverse engineered in the States, therefore the question lies with the legal status of the resulting product ie. DeCSS
Issue 2: Is circumventing CSS actually a violation of the DCMA?
CSS is purported to be a copy protection mechanism, however, as many have pointed out, CSS's primary purpose is as a playback protection mechanism. eg. you can take a bit for bit copy of a DVD and play it back on a machine equipped with CSS without a problem.
If CSS can be shown to have no impact as a copy protection mechanism, then circumventing it cannot be in violation of that section of the DCMA.
IANAL, but to my mind if the answer to both of these is 'NO' then the MPAA should be fighting a lost cause.
"Fair Use" may be a valid argument against the implementation of the DCMA in general but it has no real relevance in this case at this point in time.
M@T
Are they talking about peoples recognition of the name or the value of that specific name in the marketplace?
Microsoft create a myriad of different software packages and operating systems that all have one thing in common, they're badged 'Microsoft'.
Coca-cola manufacture a myriad of different soft drinks and they all have one thing in common, none of them are badged coca-cola. (excpet one)
Microsoft, the name, is associated with the company and everything the company associates its name with.
Coca-Cola, the name, is associated with a particular thing - a can of coke. You don't buy Sprite or Fanta or any other product of Coca-Cola because its made by Coca-Cola, nor do the use the name heavily in the marketing of these products...
The value of the name Microsoft is, to me, a very
grey area as it is applied and marketed in a very large number of different industries and pushing a very large number of products and technologies.
Coca-Cola's value, however, is very specific - how many cans of Coke did we sell this year?
I don't see how the two can be compared....
The fact is, Microsoft were charged with committing a crime. A court in the US judicial system (to which Microsoft are supposedly bound)
has found Microsoft guilty of that crime.
Surely the restrictions on their conduct should apply until Microsft wins the appeal (if they win). They've been found guilty. The onus is on them now to prove that that guilt is misplaced.
...to anyone else?
M@T
I'm all hoping the the mpaa or whoever loses badly.. .this whole thing is BS.. but this guy, Velenti, *does* answer honestly and truthfully.. it seems.
.and he *is* correct..
For a great many of his 'i don't know' he is simply being asked for the record whether or not he is aware of certain things.
Pure BS! A great many of the things being asked are issues to which Mr. Valenti has dedicated a very large portion of his life's work. If he doesn't know the answer or have an opinion on a lot of these areas, then he shouldn't have been president of the MPAA for 1 year, let alone 34!
As for whenever he is asked about something illegal... he re-states over and over again, that 'circumventing the encryption on a DVD is illegal according to DMCA, plain and clearly'.
...and at most times was a totally irrelevant answer to the question being asked of him.
BTW, What he should have been asked is a direct question on whether he believes that deCSS is bypassing a DVD copy-control mechansim, and then going on to prove that the mechanism has nothing to do with copy control whatsoever thus making the DCMA irrelevant to the case.
MR. GARBUS: When you say you have spoken to people at those companies, who is it that you have
spoken to at each of the companies? For example,
Universal.
MR. GOLD to Mr. Schumann: If it was after January of 00, don't answer. If it was before, don't answer.
I guess that about covers all the bases....
So if a guy kills someone is charged and found guilty, you would let him run free until such time as his appeal is heard??? I thought not...
They've been found guilty... the punishment applies until such time as the appelate courts determine otherwise, if at all.
If the decision made yesterday is so irrelevant to the final outcome then why didn't they just move straight to the appeals and bypass the trial altogether?
A large majority of the
The "real" issue here is the grey area between what is a comment amongst friends (eg. email) and what is public (eg. web pages). Exactly how large does a mailing list have to become before it makes the transition from a private conversation to a public forum?
M@T
But I do know a lot about the U.S. judicial system. I do not think this ruling will have any effect in the U.S. It probably will not spread elsewhere, either.
What ruling was that again?
The judge threw out the jury... not the case!
They hit reset button and start again.
Fucking journalists... The reason the jury was dismissed was that, even though they may not have seen the defendants priors on CrimeNet, the fact was that, due to discussions within the court room, those jurors are now aware that the defendant does appear on CrimeNet (which they also know is a public database of criminal records) which could unfairly bias their opinions in the case at hand.
It should also be pointed out that the case hasn't been tossed... its merely that the jury has been let go.
The question on CrimeNet's ability to bias a jury still stands however and needs to be addressed. In Austrlia, a defendants prior convictions can only be disclosed for the purposes of sentencing *after* the defendant has been found guilty.
Can you get more ignorant than this!? Isn't this exactly how the US gov't have treated every issue related to the Internet???
(not that I'm condoning the action of the French courts)
As a previous poster mentioned... Jon Johansen (sp?) springs readily to mind and I'm sure it wouldn't take much searching to put together a page full of situations where the US or US courts have made rulings way, way outside the realms of their jurisdiction...
perhaps take a look in your own backyard before you open your mouth next time eh?