My proposal referred to *all* blue prints and documentation. That doesn't just mean "how nuclear power plants work". It means all entrances and exit, floor layouts, fences, delivery points, supply arrival times, etc.
So where I can I download that? From someone who works there.
Only a half-decent metaphor, though admittedly better than my first. Since the fair-use equivalent would make it legal to have any number of people over for holiday meals in your analogy, it wouldn't be illegal for you to have 6 people there, it would only be illegal to use a window to get the 6th person in if the door would have prevented it.
If you read the DMCA, it states that nothing in the DMCA hampers fair use. To that end, it is legal to make a backup copy of a DVD that you own. Yes, the DMCA does not make it illegal to make a fair use backup, but it does make it illegal to circumvent copy protection in order to do so.
He also created and distributed a program with the sole and explicit purpose of allowing others to commit fraud. He posted instructions on the internet about how to circumvent the program's fraud protection mechanisms.
The problem is that the retailer where the coupon is redeemed has no means of verifying the authenticity of the coupon when the purchase is made. That is why photocopies of coupons is also a problem for Coupons.com. Coupons.com validates them when the retailer asks them for the redemption value, they then use the serial number to black-list accounts that try to redeem more than they were authorized to have, blocking them from using Coupons.com coupons in the future.
I see more comments about "Effectively control" == "in effect controls". Is this "standard legalese" or something? Why was this ambiguity written into the laws? And I'm just curious, not being difficult. The law tries to clarify:
(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. So basically if the normal use of the the coupon program controlled access to the coupons, it "effectively controls access to" the coupons, and anything you do to "avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair" that control is in violation of the DMCA.
If you did that with the intent of circumventing a copy protection mechanism, then it would be in violation of the DMCA. The circumvention clauses of the DMCA deal much more with intent than the actual specifics of the act.
I know you are trying to be funny, but since you have been rated +5 Interesting, I thought I should add this clarification to your post. System Restore is not a circumvention measure because it was not designed to allow circumvention, it has significant commercial value outside of circumvention, and is not marketed as a circumvention method.
From the article:
Coupons Inc. accuses Stottlemire of creating and giving away a program that erases the unique identifier, allowing consumers to repeatedly download and print as many copies of a particular coupon as they want. So probably the more important paragraph to this case is this:
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
I think the complaint is that the act of deleting files on your own computer should not be considered an act of circumvention. It borders on making it illegal to uninstall software. I can see the next round of spyware/adware claiming that anti-malware software violates the DMCA.
Now, this idiot went and posted a program to do all this on the internet, and so he'll probably get nailed with distributing a circumvention mechanism, which is completely different than you personally deleting files, so the article is still pure troll.
The DMCA isn't about copyright, it's about circumventing copyright protection mechanisms. It is entirely possible to be guilty of violating the DMCA, but not guilty of copyright violation. Consider this:
1.) It is legal to make a personal backup copy of a DVD that you own.
2.) It is illegal to bypass copy protection on a DVD that you own for the purposes of #1.
It's basically a law that makes you guilty of "breaking and entering" into your own home. It's worse than redundant.
But taking on your point, XP doesn't get worse, but it also doesn't get better anymore, so eventually it will be worse than most everything else out there, with the possible exception of Vista.
Photons have no mass. Therefore, using f=ma re-written as a=f/m, as m approaches 0 acceleration from any amount of force becomes infinite, thus instantly propelling a photon (in a vacuum) to the absolute fastest it can travel, c, the speed of light.
Then the only people who will be making chips and boxes will be the Chinese, and their chips will be knock-offs of some retro CPU Correction, they will be making state of the art UltraSPARC T2 chips, since they can do so for free, and have the exact specifications to work from. And if it just so happens that the only quality chip being manufactured anymore was specifically designed to run Solaris and Java, well I guess that's just a lucky break for Sun.
A compromised system might be able to do it, but a system just going dark? The article says it was a partial failure, so I'm guessing the NIC didn't "go dark", instead it started flooding the network with bad packets.
He could check his ISO against the MD5 hashes from Canonical. But regardless, the breach was in community outreach servers, not distribution servers, so he has nothing to worry about.
The problem is that the IP sharing is done as a company-to-company deal, and is not specific to products or technologies. This isn't usually an issues with these IP sharing deals, because usually both companies distribute close-source software, and there is no question of a third party modifying and redistributing a product or technology made by one of the companies in the deal. With Mono, Novell is not the sole owner and distributor of the technology, so there is some question as to whether the IP sharing deal is bound to the technology, or to the company distributing the technology. What remains to be seen is whether Canonical can distribute a Novell product that utilizes Microsoft IP, as-is or with modifications or re-branding, and not be found in violation of Microsoft IP.
Slashdot Mirror
So where I can I download that? From someone who works there.
Only a half-decent metaphor, though admittedly better than my first. Since the fair-use equivalent would make it legal to have any number of people over for holiday meals in your analogy, it wouldn't be illegal for you to have 6 people there, it would only be illegal to use a window to get the 6th person in if the door would have prevented it.
DeCSS's only purpose that I know of is to circumvent the CSS copy protection system on DVD's, so it is in violation of the DMCA.
He also created and distributed a program with the sole and explicit purpose of allowing others to commit fraud. He posted instructions on the internet about how to circumvent the program's fraud protection mechanisms.
The problem is that the retailer where the coupon is redeemed has no means of verifying the authenticity of the coupon when the purchase is made. That is why photocopies of coupons is also a problem for Coupons.com. Coupons.com validates them when the retailer asks them for the redemption value, they then use the serial number to black-list accounts that try to redeem more than they were authorized to have, blocking them from using Coupons.com coupons in the future.
If you did that with the intent of circumventing a copy protection mechanism, then it would be in violation of the DMCA. The circumvention clauses of the DMCA deal much more with intent than the actual specifics of the act.
It may also be that they didn't want to foot the bill for the lawsuit, so by invoking the DMCA they get the state prosecutors to do it for them.
I know you are trying to be funny, but since you have been rated +5 Interesting, I thought I should add this clarification to your post. System Restore is not a circumvention measure because it was not designed to allow circumvention, it has significant commercial value outside of circumvention, and is not marketed as a circumvention method.
I think the complaint is that the act of deleting files on your own computer should not be considered an act of circumvention. It borders on making it illegal to uninstall software. I can see the next round of spyware/adware claiming that anti-malware software violates the DMCA.
Now, this idiot went and posted a program to do all this on the internet, and so he'll probably get nailed with distributing a circumvention mechanism, which is completely different than you personally deleting files, so the article is still pure troll.
The DMCA isn't about copyright, it's about circumventing copyright protection mechanisms. It is entirely possible to be guilty of violating the DMCA, but not guilty of copyright violation. Consider this:
1.) It is legal to make a personal backup copy of a DVD that you own.
2.) It is illegal to bypass copy protection on a DVD that you own for the purposes of #1.
It's basically a law that makes you guilty of "breaking and entering" into your own home. It's worse than redundant.
Linux doesn't have Vista's hardware requirements, it will run perfectly well on the computer you currently have.
I can get you a copy of Linux real cheap....
Why wait? I have a nice Linux system right now.
It was a programmer's joke.
But taking on your point, XP doesn't get worse, but it also doesn't get better anymore, so eventually it will be worse than most everything else out there, with the possible exception of Vista.
Photons have no mass. Therefore, using f=ma re-written as a=f/m, as m approaches 0 acceleration from any amount of force becomes infinite, thus instantly propelling a photon (in a vacuum) to the absolute fastest it can travel, c, the speed of light.
Don't worry, we'll invade you soon enough.
He could check his ISO against the MD5 hashes from Canonical. But regardless, the breach was in community outreach servers, not distribution servers, so he has nothing to worry about.
The problem is that the IP sharing is done as a company-to-company deal, and is not specific to products or technologies. This isn't usually an issues with these IP sharing deals, because usually both companies distribute close-source software, and there is no question of a third party modifying and redistributing a product or technology made by one of the companies in the deal. With Mono, Novell is not the sole owner and distributor of the technology, so there is some question as to whether the IP sharing deal is bound to the technology, or to the company distributing the technology. What remains to be seen is whether Canonical can distribute a Novell product that utilizes Microsoft IP, as-is or with modifications or re-branding, and not be found in violation of Microsoft IP.