No pay-per-view or other copy protection scheme will ever thwart the serious pirate. That it is obvious - we know it and they know it. Still, the
media companies persits in inventing one silly "protection" scheme after the other and see to that outragous laws are enacted to cover up the inherent and intrinsic weaknesses in these schemes.
When will they get it? I mean, when will they understand that thay have the potential of providing a service that no pirate ever can rival -- namely the world's collected litterature and recorded music, on-line!!!
If I knew that whenever I wanted I could access any book or any music recording ever made in the world for, let's say, a nickle and some dimes, well, I personally wouldn't care much for Napster and its brethren. Why bother with poorly indexed stuff and uncertain downloads when I can get it cheaply directly from the source?
Intricate and cumbersome copy protection schemes wouldn't be necessary. Presicely as for ordinary CDs and videos, "fair use" copying wouldn't be a problem and the problem of large scale, criminal pirating would be the same but remain within in the juristiction of the "old" copyright legislation. Sure, I would stack my favourite mp3s on disk, and maybe even mail one or two to my pals - but then they would have to place the song somwhere they could find it when they want it. But what if it's much simpler for my friend John, for a negligible one-time fee, just to enter a few characters at the website of BigMediaMultiCorp and get it from there?
Assume I today would like to listen to all Glen Miller recordings from 1941. Or all recordings artist X made with other artist Y. Or that song I heard on the radion with the catchy refraing "Sing La-la-la... "... I'd be willing to pay for having all that at my fingertips.
When will the get it? Digital technolgy isn't a threat to media companies - it's an unsurpassed opportunity that does not require either new copy protection schemes or sweeping and overboard legislation!
"Sklyarov is accused of "trafficking" in or providing to the public, software that can circumvent technological protection on copyrighted material under the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions (section 1201(b)(1)(A)). He's also charged with aiding and abetting. The Complaint doesn't identify the factual basis of that charge, but people have speculated that the US government would claim that Dmitry, as an employee of ElcomSoft Co. Ltd., aided and abetted the company to manufacture and distribute software that circumvents a technological protection that effectively protects a copyrighted work."
EFF also has the complaint filed by FBI Special Agent Daniel J. O'Connell. Even though the conclusion is that agent O'Connell "based on the forgoing' believes that Sklyarov has "has willfully and for financial gain imported,... and otherwise trafficked.. " etc, etc, very little in the affidavit substantiates this. More importantly, there is no mention of any "trafficking" taking place by Dimitri personally and DEF CON. The grievances seems to be more with Elcomsoft (Dimitri's employer) rather than with himself. As I read things, it is clear that Elcomsoft has offered its unlocking software for sale in the US, however, the prosecution will have to prove that Dimitri, after having written the software, was actively involved in this.
Basically, sony Europe will sue anyone importing psx2 in Europe (businesses & individuals).
How could they possibly do that? Remember, we're talking export control, not import. They can go after a business or indivdual who tries to export the thingie from Japan, but only in a Japanse court! Once it's outside Japan the only chance they (i.e. Sony) would have is if there's a domestic law somehow restricting import and sales of a products unlawfully exported from the place of origin. I've never heard of such a law that would, for instance, restrict the trade in my country a banned book written by a dissedent in some country with an opressive regeime...
I believe what is referred to is the Scientology "bible" that where submitted in some way or another to the Swedish parliment and thus came on public record.
Sweden has a long tradition of openness, every document sent out, received or created by a public body (local or state governement, or anything run by them) automaticly is put on public record. There are of course exception, for instance medical records, "state security", and other cases where disclosure would cause considerable harm, but each exception must be excplicit and under a specific law or regulation.
For instance, I have a constitutional right to walk into the government office building and ask to see a list of what e-mails the Prime Minister has sent and received during the day. I may then ask to have a copy of any mail that might interest me. The law explicitly state that this is should be a "no questions asked" procedure, I don't have to identify myself or state the reason for my request and the official handling things must no ask and are further more required to handle the request "without undue delay". I think it's a great system -- Sweden has very little corruption and suspect activites by politicians and government officials that actually take place are sooner or later dug out from the records by the media.
The problem is not how the black lists are manufactured. In my view the main issues is that there are considerable forces that want to supress also protected speach. The number of laws overturned on constitutional grounds is ample proof of this.
I have no problem with evasive fathers being rounded up and made to pay for the upbringing of their children - on the contrary.
A question though, is it really a problem that mothers refuse to identify the father even if they know who he is? Isn't stuff like that registered at birth?
If it is a problem, have you reflected as to the reason for it? It seems to me that anyone passing up a chance of getting fincial help in bringing up their child must have a pretty compelling reason for acting in that way. Could it perhaps be that these women are afraid of being beaten and abused by the man if they disclose who he is? In such case you would be contering one threat ("If you tell I beat you") with another ("If you don't tell you don't get welfare"). In between you have an human being...
I don't wish the government to tax me in order to give away cars to people who could otherwise afford their own. Would my opinion then be interpreted as wishing that poor old ladies be cut off from a way to go to church on Sundays?
I'm afraid I don't understand the analogy. Do you imply that single mothers on welfare as a rule would not be in need of welfare if they named the father? Or did you mean to write "... who could otherwise not afford..."? In any case, I fail to see what you are getting at. My, amittedly pointed, point was that by requiring a single mother, in need of welfare (in order to buy food and pay for roof over her head) to a name the father in cases when she could not would perhaps result in her effectively being thrown onto the street. There's a difference between not being able to go church because you don't have a car and between not having food and housing. One might perhaps argue that an exception should be made when the father is truly unknown, but how can that be proved by lesser means than the father is identified? Or do you mean that someone that has a breif sexual encounter with a man that is gone the next morning and in addition has the bad luck of becoming pregnant and moral values (or legislation) that prevents an abortion, is a somehow a person that by her behaviour at one time shall be disqualified from welfare as long as she is supporting her child? I hope not.
[...], because (and the reason is important) we do it better.
It's not clear to whom you are referring when you write "we". Nevertheless, I agree that such generalizations are just plain silly. It's all in the eye of the beholder -- and there exists no absolute truth as to what is "best". It is rellay sad when people take to the "We're better than you" attitude because it shows that they are unwilling to listen to what "the other side" has to say.
But what happens to the children born out of wedlock? [...] Why isn't the 'man' who fathered the child paying his fair share? (My personal belief is that a woman should be required to name the father before receiving welfare. [...])
Well, I agree that a father should be obliged help support his children. But, what about when the father himself or his whereabouts are unknown? A rule or scheme as you propose obviously would not reduce to zero the number of such cases. As a consequence, your opinion must be interpreted as it is your will, intent, and wish that a significant number of single mothers should be cut off from welfare benefits. How do you envison them providing for their kids, if they cannot get a job? A well known last resort for destitute women is prostitution, is that what you whish?
For the people claiming that Europe is so great because they do this and that. Fuck-off. This ain't Europe.
I'd say this is the Net and a forum for the exchange of ideas and opinions - not America or Europe or Africa or whatever. Or do you think only Americans (i.e. US citizens) should have access to/. ? And, by the way, why the use of offensive language? Flamebate?
We'll decide to do things our way.
I sincerely hope so, that's the idea of democracy, but isn't democracy all about the free exchange of ideas and opinons before deciding what to do? Does it matter from where ideas and opinons originate? I think not.
Besides, wasn't it Sweden that wouldn't allow Donald Duck to appear on TV because he wasn't wearing pants?
Naw, I don't think so, he has been around on TV (at least on christmas eve) for some 30+ years (i.e. as long as I can remember). Mayhap there can have been some debate originally, but that would then have been in the late fifties or early sixties...
Slashdot Mirror
When will they get it? I mean, when will they understand that thay have the potential of providing a service that no pirate ever can rival -- namely the world's collected litterature and recorded music, on-line!!!
If I knew that whenever I wanted I could access any book or any music recording ever made in the world for, let's say, a nickle and some dimes, well, I personally wouldn't care much for Napster and its brethren. Why bother with poorly indexed stuff and uncertain downloads when I can get it cheaply directly from the source?
Intricate and cumbersome copy protection schemes wouldn't be necessary. Presicely as for ordinary CDs and videos, "fair use" copying wouldn't be a problem and the problem of large scale, criminal pirating would be the same but remain within in the juristiction of the "old" copyright legislation. Sure, I would stack my favourite mp3s on disk, and maybe even mail one or two to my pals - but then they would have to place the song somwhere they could find it when they want it. But what if it's much simpler for my friend John, for a negligible one-time fee, just to enter a few characters at the website of BigMediaMultiCorp and get it from there?
Assume I today would like to listen to all Glen Miller recordings from 1941. Or all recordings artist X made with other artist Y. Or that song I heard on the radion with the catchy refraing "Sing La-la-la ... " ... I'd be willing to pay for having all that at my fingertips.
When will the get it? Digital technolgy isn't a threat to media companies - it's an unsurpassed opportunity that does not require either new copy protection schemes or sweeping and overboard legislation!
How could they possibly do that? Remember, we're talking export control, not import. They can go after a business or indivdual who tries to export the thingie from Japan, but only in a Japanse court! Once it's outside Japan the only chance they (i.e. Sony) would have is if there's a domestic law somehow restricting import and sales of a products unlawfully exported from the place of origin. I've never heard of such a law that would, for instance, restrict the trade in my country a banned book written by a dissedent in some country with an opressive regeime ...
Sweden has a long tradition of openness, every document sent out, received or created by a public body (local or state governement, or anything run by them) automaticly is put on public record. There are of course exception, for instance medical records, "state security", and other cases where disclosure would cause considerable harm, but each exception must be excplicit and under a specific law or regulation.
For instance, I have a constitutional right to walk into the government office building and ask to see a list of what e-mails the Prime Minister has sent and received during the day. I may then ask to have a copy of any mail that might interest me. The law explicitly state that this is should be a "no questions asked" procedure, I don't have to identify myself or state the reason for my request and the official handling things must no ask and are further more required to handle the request "without undue delay". I think it's a great system -- Sweden has very little corruption and suspect activites by politicians and government officials that actually take place are sooner or later dug out from the records by the media.
The problem is not how the black lists are manufactured. In my view the main issues is that there are considerable forces that want to supress also protected speach. The number of laws overturned on constitutional grounds is ample proof of this.
A question though, is it really a problem that mothers refuse to identify the father even if they know who he is? Isn't stuff like that registered at birth?
If it is a problem, have you reflected as to the reason for it? It seems to me that anyone passing up a chance of getting fincial help in bringing up their child must have a pretty compelling reason for acting in that way. Could it perhaps be that these women are afraid of being beaten and abused by the man if they disclose who he is? In such case you would be contering one threat ("If you tell I beat you") with another ("If you don't tell you don't get welfare"). In between you have an human being ...
I don't wish the government to tax me in order to give away cars to people who could otherwise afford their own. Would my opinion then be interpreted as wishing that poor old ladies be cut off from a way to go to church on Sundays?
I'm afraid I don't understand the analogy. Do you imply that single mothers on welfare as a rule would not be in need of welfare if they named the father? Or did you mean to write "... who could otherwise not afford ..."? In any case, I fail to see what you are getting at. My, amittedly pointed, point was that by requiring a single mother, in need of welfare (in order to buy food and pay for roof over her head) to a name the father in cases when she could not would perhaps result in her effectively being thrown onto the street. There's a difference between not being able to go church because you don't have a car and between not having food and housing. One might perhaps argue that an exception should be made when the father is truly unknown, but how can that be proved by lesser means than the father is identified? Or do you mean that someone that has a breif sexual encounter with a man that is gone the next morning and in addition has the bad luck of becoming pregnant and moral values (or legislation) that prevents an abortion, is a somehow a person that by her behaviour at one time shall be disqualified from welfare as long as she is supporting her child? I hope not.
[...], because (and the reason is important) we do it better.
It's not clear to whom you are referring when you write "we". Nevertheless, I agree that such generalizations are just plain silly. It's all in the eye of the beholder -- and there exists no absolute truth as to what is "best". It is rellay sad when people take to the "We're better than you" attitude because it shows that they are unwilling to listen to what "the other side" has to say.
Well, I agree that a father should be obliged help support his children. But, what about when the father himself or his whereabouts are unknown? A rule or scheme as you propose obviously would not reduce to zero the number of such cases. As a consequence, your opinion must be interpreted as it is your will, intent, and wish that a significant number of single mothers should be cut off from welfare benefits. How do you envison them providing for their kids, if they cannot get a job? A well known last resort for destitute women is prostitution, is that what you whish?
For the people claiming that Europe is so great because they do this and that. Fuck-off. This ain't Europe.
I'd say this is the Net and a forum for the exchange of ideas and opinions - not America or Europe or Africa or whatever. Or do you think only Americans (i.e. US citizens) should have access to /. ? And, by the way, why the use of offensive language? Flamebate?
We'll decide to do things our way.
I sincerely hope so, that's the idea of democracy, but isn't democracy all about the free exchange of ideas and opinons before deciding what to do? Does it matter from where ideas and opinons originate? I think not.
Besides, wasn't it Sweden that wouldn't allow Donald Duck to appear on TV because he wasn't wearing pants?
Naw, I don't think so, he has been around on TV (at least on christmas eve) for some 30+ years (i.e. as long as I can remember). Mayhap there can have been some debate originally, but that would then have been in the late fifties or early sixties ...