I had to prove you wrong in the other thread, and now I'll do it here, too.
1. OF COURSE law trumps contracts. I never suggested it didn't. Go actually READ what you're disputing 2. I wasn't talking about copyright. Once again, go READ what you're disputing. This guy isn't even in America. American copyright law doesn't apply to him. 3. Any contract, especially one that's been executed with mutual consideration, is a very tough instrument. A judge doesn't throw out contracts because he doesn't like the typeface. He has to have a _reason_ to do so. It's not "in the public interest" to be charged 30% interest and $50 late fees but you don't see people getting (non-bankruptcy) relief from Credit Card contracts, do you? While technically you're correct, the burden for "in the publics interest" is not a low one as you imply. Furthermore, a judge can strike specific line items without striking the entire contract.
"Discuss this defense with your attorney. It is not as simple as it seems. <b>You take on a burden of proof when you argue entrapment</b>. First, you have to admit you are guilty of the crime, which is why it is called an "affirmative defense". This can be dangerous. Second, <b>you have to prove you would not have committed the crime except for the external pressure to which you were subjected</b>. It cannot just be slight pressure or a mere request, as described in your inquiry. <b>There is a certain standard of proof you must satisfy, based on the law in your state</b>. Otherwise, you are basically admitting your guilt. You also have to show it is completely out of character for you to accept "what she does" you had to pay for, and/or to violate the law."
That article confirms everything I said, EXCEPT that the Government must prove beyond doubt that entrapment was used. However, on that point (and others) there's no reason to believe that the actual wording of the law doesn't differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Furthermore, let's look at what you wrote:
"it would be sufficient to prove that the defendent was not ready at that time to commit the offense."
Actually, you should sharpen those reading comprehension skills!
From your article:
"However, there is no entrapment... [when] the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime."
So while the specific word I used ("never") is not a word often found in legalese, the intent of my words, and the meaning they conveyed, was very clear, and exactly inline with the article you linked to.
So, in other words, thanks for backing me up with some links!
You're right, if things were cut and dried, we wouldn't need judges and juries.
However, you seem to use "affilaited in any way with the gubmint" to mean that somebody is an agent of the state.
While my legal knowledge only extends to prelaw (I decided not to sell my soul after all), I'm relatively positive that to be an Agent of the state, the state must have invested you with authority over and above what you or your peers have.
So if the police told the RIAA to go in there and arrest them and drop them off at the county jail, THAT would be an agent of the state.
Going back to my store security analogy. Store security will search you (always at least two people present), and detain you if need be, until the police come. The police will then accept the evidence they took from you as well as signed affidavits swearing to chain of custody of the evidence. This is standard procedure. I only bring it up because this HAS been tried before in a court and it was determined that these security personell are, in fact, wholly private and not invested with any state powers.
Again, the real details of what ACTUALLY happened are murky at best. I mean, who contact the police, how, when and why? Were the police "in" on it before they actually contacted the DJs for the first time.
Yawn. Anarchy is so 1990s. Go rent SLC Punk and relive the glory days.
The only reason we HAVE laws is that humans no know intrinsic "laws against human nature." Moral relativism. As Plato said "There is no universal truth."
Grown-ups, however, understand that laws are essential parts of a cooperative society. Deal with it. It's not going to change anytime soon. If you overthrew the US government today, people would gather together, elect new leaders, and CREATE NEW LAWS.
Besides, you are ENTIRELY WRONG about entrapment. This is what I railed against in my OP. Entrapment IS NOT used to catch drug offenses or prostitution. When a hot cop poses as a hooker, that is _NOT_ entrapment. When an undercover narc tries to sell drugs, NOT ENTRAPMENT.
I'll tell you what _I_ call scary: How dismal our education system is.
But it is worth pointing out that the BSA has been using similar tactics (deep cooperation between them and the feds), so this isn't exactly unheard of.
And it's totally bullshit (from a taxpayer perspective) that an expensive SWAT team was sent when a squad car would probably make due.
Please, quit. Quit now. Quit posting your opinion that you dress up to look like fact.
An "Officer of the Court" is far different than an "Agent of the State"
First, the connotation of "Agent of the State" is "Agent of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH." Second, even if some court does say that an attorney is an "agent of the state" (which I'll bet a weeks pay they wont), the burden is still on the defense to prove that they'd never have made such a mix tape without being prompted to. Considering the DJs probably have a whole load of mix tapes already out in the "wild" they'll have a hard time proving that this specific behavior was prompted by state interference.
Ok, Fine, you want to be pedantic, so let's be pedantic.
Suppose apple hires a fab shop in America to produce 2GB iPod Nanos.
Then apple hears that the fab shop is taking confidential Apple information and "mixing" it with info they got from Microsoft (since the same factory produces a Zune) and the company is planning to produce a music player with all the best parts of the Zune and the iPod.
So apple decides to pose as an investor to buy some of these devices. At that time, they call the feds.
So, there. The gist is the same, but not it's been made uber-specific for those with pedantic tendencies.
I can sell you anything I want--be it a book, a movie, a car, a menorah, you name it. And if you agree to abide by terms and conditions, then that is a legally binding contract.
In america, you have no choice but agree with Copyright.
Besides, Fair Use Rights aren't universal. They're AMERICAN law. As you said yourself, you're not bound by American law. And even if you were, your characterization that anything short of reproducing and selling the work is protected as fair use is wrong. Fair use is very narrow.
Someone else replied to my OP with a similar sentiment (see below) and both of you are correct, that if the RIAA gave them 'permission' then that is a bit murky.
And you're also right that hiring someone to break the law is also illegal.
My only (original) point was that it's not entrapment in the legal sense.
But I disagree slightly. A content producer, in my opinion, has a right do do whatever they want with their content. So, in my opinion, a perfect DRM would disallow actions the content producer DOESN'T WANT and allow action that IT DOES.
See, people have this feeling that they're entitled to creative work. A song. A movie. Whatever. It's a product that's owned by the person that produces it. And if they don't want you sharing it with your friends, it's THEIR RIGHT to say so. You don't _have_ to buy it from them. You don't _have_ to listen to it or be their consumer of fan.
If someone wants to create a DRM scheme that says you must be standing on your head to listen to the song, well, it's their right. They probably wouldn't sell many records, but it's still their right.
It's up to the power of the free market to disincentivize this. (yes I know disincentivize isn't a word). If people just don't buy DRMd work, they will quit trying to force it on you. In the end, all they want to do is make value for their shareholders. That's it. They don't want to be evil. They don't want to be mean. All they want to do is meet the obligation they've made to their investors. It's up to us to show them that they can create more value by "allowing" rampant piracy than by trying to stop it.
I understand your sentiment, but strictly speaking, you're wrong.
Co-operating with the government doesn't make you an agent of the state.
It's really a legal gray area, but it's still legal.
Another example of this is employer drug testing. In Ohio where I live, the state government gives a kickback to companies that drug screen their employees, in the form of reduced Workmans Comp premiums. Often DRAMATICALLY reduced. In this particular case, the State could never drug test people. So they enlist a willing partner.
In this particular case, the police aren't working for the RIAA, as you claim. They are merely doing their job. A crime has been reported by a reputable investigator (yes, reputable could be argued, especially here, but work with me..) and the state is right to respond.
Consider the scenario where a shoplifter is detained by store security (a reputable investigator) and when the police arrive, they take them into custody. Very similar.
The sneaky part is that the RIAA is hiring these guys to break the law. Yes, that's sneaky, but it's entirely legal.
And I contend that it only looks as bad as it does because it's the RIAA doing it. An infamous villan.
Consider this: What if, say, Apple (cause everyone LOVES apple) discovered a factory in the US that would make counterfeits. So they represent themselves as "investors" and contact this factory and ask them to make a counterfeit iPod. The company agrees. During production, Apple contacts the authorities, and has the plant shut down. I doubt many slashdotters would be crying about such a scenario, and it's very analogous to what's happening here.
...The example you gave: "a policeman is selling drugs undercover and approaches you with an offer and you buy" is (most likely) NOT entrapment. The reason being that an "average person" would NOT buy drugs in such a situation.
To be considered entrapment, the officer would have to "convince" you to do something you normally would not do. That means threats, coercion, whatever. So if he points his gun at you and tells you to buy the drugs, THATS entrapment. Or if he suggests that he knows right where your beautiful 7 year old daughter goes to school and 'suggests' that you buy the drugs, again, entrapment.
But if he stands outside of, say, a Narcotics Anonymous meeting, and casually and quietly announces that he's got things for sale and you buy them, that's not entrapment, it's just stupidity.
Another common anecdote i've heard is "A cop can't sit outside a bar waiting for people to drive away. That's entrapment." No, it's not.
but you're right about what the GP said. While this RIAA/SWAT thing might be "entrapment" as in 'setting a trap', then yes, he's right. But in nearly every case when someone misuses "entrapment" they mean the legal definition.
If you read my very next sentence you'd see that I agree with you about this.
I want to be able to format shift. I want to be able to GIFT the music. However, if they prevent me from making an unprotected copy and giving that copy to a friend, meaning we'd both have a perfect "copy," well, I'd be OK with that. The only way you AREN'T be OK with it is if you want to illegally distribute music to your friends.
If I lend you a CD, or give it to you for that matter, there isn't (and should not be) anything wrong with it. Because we paid for one copy and only one person can enjoy the music at a time.
This is basically what I'm suggesting. Make the same rules apply digitally as applied to CDs before burners were in every household. There was nothing fundamentally flawed about it then, and there's nothing flawed about it now.
So give me a way I can "gift" my license, and give me a way to make a self-destructible copy for a temporary loan, and I'm fine with it.
Until they can figure that out, they should leave their fucking hands off it =)
I am so sick of hearing people misuse "entrapment" as a defense.
To be entrapment, two important things must be true:
1. You must be "convinced" to do something that you normally would _never_ do. (And it's your burden to prove this) 2. The person doing the convincing must be an agent of the State.
Actually, apple has done FAR BETTER than most other DRM producers.
As far as I know (and if I'm wrong, PLEASE PLEASE tell me), there's no way to bypass FairPlay Video DRM. That is, there is no "PlayFair" for iTunes video yet.
There are manual, lossy, ways to do this by taking screen-caps, but it sucks.
I say, give FairPlay to Macrovision. Let their engineers tool with it for six months.
Then maybe I can finally burn the $200 worth of TV shows I've purchased onto DVD.
I'm not really against DRM per se, but I am against how it's currently implemented.
In my opinion, if DRM existed just to prevent me from sharing my content with somebody else, that would be OK with me. As long as it lets me format-shift it to any device or future device, make self-destrutable copies for a friend that blows itself up, say, 3 days after being watched (like lending a DVD), and generally stays out of my way, I'm fine with it.
Unfortunately, they can't figure out how to do that, so instead they give us draconian content locking.
But what I _do_ agree with is that companies are now, for the first times, starting to realize it's not going to work.
Who remembers SDMI? The Secure Digital Music Initiative was created right about the time the labels sued (unsuccessfully) to have the Rio pulled from the market. It was a consortium of all the big companies--MSFT, SONY, etc. Probably no apple back then, tho--and they took like 18 months to come out with this way to "protect" music and, I swear to god, it was broken in like days.
The reason I bring this up are two fold:
1. It was the first crack at DRM and the first time DRM was cracked. 2. Maybe if it hadn't been cracked, things would be marginally better now. Just a thought, but maybe we'd have a single standard.
Point one is significant because every time DRM has failed the makers say "We've learned from our mistakes, wait until you see the NEXT version"
And now, finally, after hearing these promises from the likes of Macrovision, the industry has FINALLY started to get fed-up. When their hundreds of millions spent on securing HD content was just evaporated in the first few months of comming to market I swear you could just smell 1000 execs puking in their mouths.
The DRM battle has been a horrible experience for both consumers and content companies. The companies, each go around, get their hopes up. They're psyched to go out drinking. They slap hands, talking about all the bitches they'll pick up. All the fun they'll have. They change their shirt 4 times and use a can of Pomade in their hair. But every single time, without fail, they wake with a serious fucking hangover.
Meanwhile, Macrovision and the ilk already collected their huge development and licensing fees. To hell with the fact that what they produced doesn't actually _work_.
It would really be funny to watch the content companies in this self-destructive behavior if it wasn't such a shitty deal for consumers.
1. You can get sued for just about anything. Doesn't mean you'd necessarily lose, but it's still a pain in the ass. 2. Of course they said it's proprietary. This is akin to an executive leaving the company for "personal reasons" after he was just fired. Do you think they'd actually say "We've left this out because our lawyers said so" 3. Do you think that googles major competitors and other internet operations (like Amazon) are run by bumpkins? The thought didn't occur to them to find a way to buy the best hard drives possible for their hundreds of thousands of servers?
...During the NAIAS when the GM proto was introduced, NPR ran a story with an Electrical Enginner who specialized in battery technology.
I don't remember a whole lot about it, but I do remember this quote: "There are three kinds of liars in this world: Liars. Damn Liars. And Battery Engineers"
He basically said that it's really easy to get theoretical advancements to battery technology, but that actually putting them into a medium that can be mass-marketed with acceptable quality levels is hard.
From reading these comments, it seems as though HIV evolves just like any other organism, only on an accelerated timeline due to the large carrying capacity of the environment and the incredibly short "ingestion" time needed to for the virus to copy itself.
Would you agree with that?
So, in the early stages of the virus, perhaps it didn't have the 'sugary shell?' (Perhaps they picked that up after infecting a rabid M&M eater.?)
Which brings me to my real question: Wouldn't that mean that todays HIV is much 'stronger' and more 'fit' than the HIV of 1980?
Mentioning PBS made me think of the way all public broadcasting gets funded--both PBS and NPR.
They adhere to a strict schedule of in-your-face fund-raisers.
I know it's easier to make an emotional pitch over a broadcast medium, but there's no reason why, for 2 weeks a year, Wikipedia couldn't go into a heavy pledge mode, with lots of interstitials, side bars on pages, maybe break every article every, say, 500 words, and include a "we need your help" link.
I mean, just steal wholesale from the public broadcasting book. Get corporations to pledge matching funds, get registered contributors to write 40 words about their Wikipedia story and randomly display them on the interstitial/sidebar adverts.
Slashdot Mirror
"clearly entrapment" ??
Uh, no. Sorry. It's not.
A private security guard is NOT an agent of the state.
For someone so pedantic about other things, you liberally blur the lines you think will help you sound more correct.
This, too:
"Again, with the drug testing -- it's not entrapment because the employer never suggested that the tested employee should take drugs."
It's not entrapment even if they DO suggest you take drugs because THE EMPLOYER IS NOT AN AGENT OF THE STATE.
Seriously, go find me a link for this so I can prove you wrong again.
Who are you?
I had to prove you wrong in the other thread, and now I'll do it here, too.
1. OF COURSE law trumps contracts. I never suggested it didn't. Go actually READ what you're disputing
2. I wasn't talking about copyright. Once again, go READ what you're disputing. This guy isn't even in America. American copyright law doesn't apply to him.
3. Any contract, especially one that's been executed with mutual consideration, is a very tough instrument. A judge doesn't throw out contracts because he doesn't like the typeface. He has to have a _reason_ to do so. It's not "in the public interest" to be charged 30% interest and $50 late fees but you don't see people getting (non-bankruptcy) relief from Credit Card contracts, do you? While technically you're correct, the burden for "in the publics interest" is not a low one as you imply. Furthermore, a judge can strike specific line items without striking the entire contract.
So really, what was your point again?
More Links!
a pment-Defense-5742.html
An excerpt you might enjoy from Lawyers.com:
"Discuss this defense with your attorney. It is not as simple as it seems. <b>You take on a burden of proof when you argue entrapment</b>. First, you have to admit you are guilty of the crime, which is why it is called an "affirmative defense". This can be dangerous. Second, <b>you have to prove you would not have committed the crime except for the external pressure to which you were subjected</b>. It cannot just be slight pressure or a mere request, as described in your inquiry. <b>There is a certain standard of proof you must satisfy, based on the law in your state</b>. Otherwise, you are basically admitting your guilt. You also have to show it is completely out of character for you to accept "what she does" you had to pay for, and/or to violate the law."
http://criminal-law.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/Entr
so please, tell me more about how wrong I am.
LOL, Wrong?
... [when] the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime."
That article confirms everything I said, EXCEPT that the Government must prove beyond doubt that entrapment was used. However, on that point (and others) there's no reason to believe that the actual wording of the law doesn't differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Furthermore, let's look at what you wrote:
"it would be sufficient to prove that the defendent was not ready at that time to commit the offense."
Actually, you should sharpen those reading comprehension skills!
From your article:
"However, there is no entrapment
So while the specific word I used ("never") is not a word often found in legalese, the intent of my words, and the meaning they conveyed, was very clear, and exactly inline with the article you linked to.
So, in other words, thanks for backing me up with some links!
You're right, if things were cut and dried, we wouldn't need judges and juries.
However, you seem to use "affilaited in any way with the gubmint" to mean that somebody is an agent of the state.
While my legal knowledge only extends to prelaw (I decided not to sell my soul after all), I'm relatively positive that to be an Agent of the state, the state must have invested you with authority over and above what you or your peers have.
So if the police told the RIAA to go in there and arrest them and drop them off at the county jail, THAT would be an agent of the state.
Going back to my store security analogy. Store security will search you (always at least two people present), and detain you if need be, until the police come. The police will then accept the evidence they took from you as well as signed affidavits swearing to chain of custody of the evidence. This is standard procedure. I only bring it up because this HAS been tried before in a court and it was determined that these security personell are, in fact, wholly private and not invested with any state powers.
Again, the real details of what ACTUALLY happened are murky at best. I mean, who contact the police, how, when and why? Were the police "in" on it before they actually contacted the DJs for the first time.
No doubt that you're right about gray areas.
Yawn. Anarchy is so 1990s. Go rent SLC Punk and relive the glory days.
The only reason we HAVE laws is that humans no know intrinsic "laws against human nature." Moral relativism. As Plato said "There is no universal truth."
Grown-ups, however, understand that laws are essential parts of a cooperative society. Deal with it. It's not going to change anytime soon. If you overthrew the US government today, people would gather together, elect new leaders, and CREATE NEW LAWS.
Besides, you are ENTIRELY WRONG about entrapment. This is what I railed against in my OP. Entrapment IS NOT used to catch drug offenses or prostitution. When a hot cop poses as a hooker, that is _NOT_ entrapment. When an undercover narc tries to sell drugs, NOT ENTRAPMENT.
I'll tell you what _I_ call scary: How dismal our education system is.
Good point about #3.
But it is worth pointing out that the BSA has been using similar tactics (deep cooperation between them and the feds), so this isn't exactly unheard of.
And it's totally bullshit (from a taxpayer perspective) that an expensive SWAT team was sent when a squad car would probably make due.
Please, quit. Quit now. Quit posting your opinion that you dress up to look like fact.
An "Officer of the Court" is far different than an "Agent of the State"
First, the connotation of "Agent of the State" is "Agent of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH."
Second, even if some court does say that an attorney is an "agent of the state" (which I'll bet a weeks pay they wont), the burden is still on the defense to prove that they'd never have made such a mix tape without being prompted to. Considering the DJs probably have a whole load of mix tapes already out in the "wild" they'll have a hard time proving that this specific behavior was prompted by state interference.
I said in the OP that started this branch that, yes, the test is "Agent of the State"
And your comparison is apt.
However, the policeman didn't ask the RIAA to join them. The RIAA notified the police that a law was being broken.
Under your scenario, anytime anyone gives the police a tip they're "agents of the state." I disagree.
Ok, Fine, you want to be pedantic, so let's be pedantic.
Suppose apple hires a fab shop in America to produce 2GB iPod Nanos.
Then apple hears that the fab shop is taking confidential Apple information and "mixing" it with info they got from Microsoft (since the same factory produces a Zune) and the company is planning to produce a music player with all the best parts of the Zune and the iPod.
So apple decides to pose as an investor to buy some of these devices. At that time, they call the feds.
So, there. The gist is the same, but not it's been made uber-specific for those with pedantic tendencies.
Are we good now?
You're wrong.
I can sell you anything I want--be it a book, a movie, a car, a menorah, you name it. And if you agree to abide by terms and conditions, then that is a legally binding contract.
In america, you have no choice but agree with Copyright.
Besides, Fair Use Rights aren't universal. They're AMERICAN law. As you said yourself, you're not bound by American law. And even if you were, your characterization that anything short of reproducing and selling the work is protected as fair use is wrong. Fair use is very narrow.
Someone else replied to my OP with a similar sentiment (see below) and both of you are correct, that if the RIAA gave them 'permission' then that is a bit murky.
And you're also right that hiring someone to break the law is also illegal.
My only (original) point was that it's not entrapment in the legal sense.
now THAT is a good point.
Fair enough.
But I disagree slightly. A content producer, in my opinion, has a right do do whatever they want with their content. So, in my opinion, a perfect DRM would disallow actions the content producer DOESN'T WANT and allow action that IT DOES.
See, people have this feeling that they're entitled to creative work. A song. A movie. Whatever. It's a product that's owned by the person that produces it. And if they don't want you sharing it with your friends, it's THEIR RIGHT to say so. You don't _have_ to buy it from them. You don't _have_ to listen to it or be their consumer of fan.
If someone wants to create a DRM scheme that says you must be standing on your head to listen to the song, well, it's their right. They probably wouldn't sell many records, but it's still their right.
It's up to the power of the free market to disincentivize this. (yes I know disincentivize isn't a word). If people just don't buy DRMd work, they will quit trying to force it on you. In the end, all they want to do is make value for their shareholders. That's it. They don't want to be evil. They don't want to be mean. All they want to do is meet the obligation they've made to their investors. It's up to us to show them that they can create more value by "allowing" rampant piracy than by trying to stop it.
I understand your sentiment, but strictly speaking, you're wrong.
Co-operating with the government doesn't make you an agent of the state.
It's really a legal gray area, but it's still legal.
Another example of this is employer drug testing. In Ohio where I live, the state government gives a kickback to companies that drug screen their employees, in the form of reduced Workmans Comp premiums. Often DRAMATICALLY reduced. In this particular case, the State could never drug test people. So they enlist a willing partner.
In this particular case, the police aren't working for the RIAA, as you claim. They are merely doing their job. A crime has been reported by a reputable investigator (yes, reputable could be argued, especially here, but work with me..) and the state is right to respond.
Consider the scenario where a shoplifter is detained by store security (a reputable investigator) and when the police arrive, they take them into custody. Very similar.
The sneaky part is that the RIAA is hiring these guys to break the law. Yes, that's sneaky, but it's entirely legal.
And I contend that it only looks as bad as it does because it's the RIAA doing it. An infamous villan.
Consider this: What if, say, Apple (cause everyone LOVES apple) discovered a factory in the US that would make counterfeits. So they represent themselves as "investors" and contact this factory and ask them to make a counterfeit iPod. The company agrees. During production, Apple contacts the authorities, and has the plant shut down. I doubt many slashdotters would be crying about such a scenario, and it's very analogous to what's happening here.
...The example you gave: "a policeman is selling drugs undercover and approaches you with an offer and you buy" is (most likely) NOT entrapment. The reason being that an "average person" would NOT buy drugs in such a situation.
To be considered entrapment, the officer would have to "convince" you to do something you normally would not do. That means threats, coercion, whatever. So if he points his gun at you and tells you to buy the drugs, THATS entrapment. Or if he suggests that he knows right where your beautiful 7 year old daughter goes to school and 'suggests' that you buy the drugs, again, entrapment.
But if he stands outside of, say, a Narcotics Anonymous meeting, and casually and quietly announces that he's got things for sale and you buy them, that's not entrapment, it's just stupidity.
Another common anecdote i've heard is "A cop can't sit outside a bar waiting for people to drive away. That's entrapment." No, it's not.
but you're right about what the GP said. While this RIAA/SWAT thing might be "entrapment" as in 'setting a trap', then yes, he's right. But in nearly every case when someone misuses "entrapment" they mean the legal definition.
If you read my very next sentence you'd see that I agree with you about this.
I want to be able to format shift. I want to be able to GIFT the music. However, if they prevent me from making an unprotected copy and giving that copy to a friend, meaning we'd both have a perfect "copy," well, I'd be OK with that. The only way you AREN'T be OK with it is if you want to illegally distribute music to your friends.
If I lend you a CD, or give it to you for that matter, there isn't (and should not be) anything wrong with it. Because we paid for one copy and only one person can enjoy the music at a time.
This is basically what I'm suggesting. Make the same rules apply digitally as applied to CDs before burners were in every household. There was nothing fundamentally flawed about it then, and there's nothing flawed about it now.
So give me a way I can "gift" my license, and give me a way to make a self-destructible copy for a temporary loan, and I'm fine with it.
Until they can figure that out, they should leave their fucking hands off it =)
I am so sick of hearing people misuse "entrapment" as a defense.
To be entrapment, two important things must be true:
1. You must be "convinced" to do something that you normally would _never_ do. (And it's your burden to prove this)
2. The person doing the convincing must be an agent of the State.
That is what "entrapment" means.
Actually, apple has done FAR BETTER than most other DRM producers.
As far as I know (and if I'm wrong, PLEASE PLEASE tell me), there's no way to bypass FairPlay Video DRM. That is, there is no "PlayFair" for iTunes video yet.
There are manual, lossy, ways to do this by taking screen-caps, but it sucks.
I say, give FairPlay to Macrovision. Let their engineers tool with it for six months.
Then maybe I can finally burn the $200 worth of TV shows I've purchased onto DVD.
Yawn. Another witless comment by another rabid anti-microsoftie.
I agree entirely.
Well, mostly.
I'm not really against DRM per se, but I am against how it's currently implemented.
In my opinion, if DRM existed just to prevent me from sharing my content with somebody else, that would be OK with me. As long as it lets me format-shift it to any device or future device, make self-destrutable copies for a friend that blows itself up, say, 3 days after being watched (like lending a DVD), and generally stays out of my way, I'm fine with it.
Unfortunately, they can't figure out how to do that, so instead they give us draconian content locking.
But what I _do_ agree with is that companies are now, for the first times, starting to realize it's not going to work.
Who remembers SDMI? The Secure Digital Music Initiative was created right about the time the labels sued (unsuccessfully) to have the Rio pulled from the market. It was a consortium of all the big companies--MSFT, SONY, etc. Probably no apple back then, tho--and they took like 18 months to come out with this way to "protect" music and, I swear to god, it was broken in like days.
The reason I bring this up are two fold:
1. It was the first crack at DRM and the first time DRM was cracked.
2. Maybe if it hadn't been cracked, things would be marginally better now. Just a thought, but maybe we'd have a single standard.
Point one is significant because every time DRM has failed the makers say "We've learned from our mistakes, wait until you see the NEXT version"
And now, finally, after hearing these promises from the likes of Macrovision, the industry has FINALLY started to get fed-up. When their hundreds of millions spent on securing HD content was just evaporated in the first few months of comming to market I swear you could just smell 1000 execs puking in their mouths.
The DRM battle has been a horrible experience for both consumers and content companies. The companies, each go around, get their hopes up. They're psyched to go out drinking. They slap hands, talking about all the bitches they'll pick up. All the fun they'll have. They change their shirt 4 times and use a can of Pomade in their hair. But every single time, without fail, they wake with a serious fucking hangover.
Meanwhile, Macrovision and the ilk already collected their huge development and licensing fees. To hell with the fact that what they produced doesn't actually _work_.
It would really be funny to watch the content companies in this self-destructive behavior if it wasn't such a shitty deal for consumers.
1. You can get sued for just about anything. Doesn't mean you'd necessarily lose, but it's still a pain in the ass.
2. Of course they said it's proprietary. This is akin to an executive leaving the company for "personal reasons" after he was just fired. Do you think they'd actually say "We've left this out because our lawyers said so"
3. Do you think that googles major competitors and other internet operations (like Amazon) are run by bumpkins? The thought didn't occur to them to find a way to buy the best hard drives possible for their hundreds of thousands of servers?
...During the NAIAS when the GM proto was introduced, NPR ran a story with an Electrical Enginner who specialized in battery technology.
I don't remember a whole lot about it, but I do remember this quote: "There are three kinds of liars in this world: Liars. Damn Liars. And Battery Engineers"
He basically said that it's really easy to get theoretical advancements to battery technology, but that actually putting them into a medium that can be mass-marketed with acceptable quality levels is hard.
From reading these comments, it seems as though HIV evolves just like any other organism, only on an accelerated timeline due to the large carrying capacity of the environment and the incredibly short "ingestion" time needed to for the virus to copy itself.
Would you agree with that?
So, in the early stages of the virus, perhaps it didn't have the 'sugary shell?' (Perhaps they picked that up after infecting a rabid M&M eater.?)
Which brings me to my real question: Wouldn't that mean that todays HIV is much 'stronger' and more 'fit' than the HIV of 1980?
Mentioning PBS made me think of the way all public broadcasting gets funded--both PBS and NPR.
They adhere to a strict schedule of in-your-face fund-raisers.
I know it's easier to make an emotional pitch over a broadcast medium, but there's no reason why, for 2 weeks a year, Wikipedia couldn't go into a heavy pledge mode, with lots of interstitials, side bars on pages, maybe break every article every, say, 500 words, and include a "we need your help" link.
I mean, just steal wholesale from the public broadcasting book. Get corporations to pledge matching funds, get registered contributors to write 40 words about their Wikipedia story and randomly display them on the interstitial/sidebar adverts.
The current campaign is too hands-off.