The difference being that if you looked in the HTML source, you could find the offending link and fix it so that it does not reference the page. You could download it, and package it together with the HTML, modifying the reference so that other people will not hit the link. With the binary file format of Word, it's going to be hard to do this.
What I would like to know is simply this: Is CSS a symmetric encryption algorithm? Is it like XOR, where performing the same operation (with the same key) unscrambles the scrambled text. If it is, one could argue that CSS itself is illegal, since it is the same algorithm. This argument even works if in some sense, encryption and decryption are just simple reverses of each other - one just reverses the order of operations.
The guy clearly states that he does not care about the conclusion of Moody's report ("Linux Sux"). In fact, all he did was to criticize the statistical method of taking numbers which clearly overlap and
add them together to produce a highly inflated number. That isd all he said. I think that is an
extremely fair comment. You don't have to be a journalist with integrity to appreciate that.
How we feel about the conclusion that "Linux Sucks" does not matter at all!
Then by the principle of first sale, I should be able to sell that single license copy away to someone who could use it, and get my money back. So if the EULA was fairly written, companies still have some way of getting their money back.
But there is a good chance that (a) the liscense is non-transferable, (b) nobody wants that license because nobody knows what the fair price of the MS OS is (go ask MS what it is - I'll bet they will be very shifty about this)
(b)
Two plane tickets still gets two people onboard.
The problem is that for small businesses, they don't have the clout to go out and ask the OEM to ship them bare. Also installing Windows from a bare system is not a simple thing, if you have it preloaded. It is far better to have some running system which you can access the CDROM from, so you can preload it. (Norton's Ghost should solve that problem). MS is so big that they can afford to piss on their small customers - think about that.
The problem is one of interpretation, [Microsoft's] Bernard-Hason contends. The analogy most appropriate to understanding licenses is buying an
air ticket, he said.
"If you have a really low-cost discount ticket, it will get you from point A to point B, but the usage rights of that ticket would be somewhat
restrictive. It may be non-transferable," he said.
At the other end are first-class tickets, "where you have as much flexibility as you want," he said. "In those analogous terms, I would
characterize an OEM (PC maker) license as a discount ticket and an Enterprise Agreement (volume licensing plan) along the lines of a
first-class ticket."
The last time I checked, having both the low cost ticket and the high-price ticket would still get two people on that plane!
Well, it certainly isn't the normal copyright that we know of. In FSF terms, it's copylefted, not copyrighted. Which means that its distribution in source form is expressedly allowed, and in binaries alone, not allowed. In fact, this strengthens the case for DeCSS and the point Prof Tourezsky (sp?) is making - as source code, it could be expressed in any form an any medium whatsoever.
Judges and juries are capable of makng that distinction. It's perfectly reasonable that the t-shirt is protected from DCMA, but the program and the links are not.
I got your argument all the way up to here. Even we supposed that the program is illegal. Why should the links be illegal? After all, the link is just a pointer - it may not even be linking to anything. I could say this is DeCSS when it is not. It is also not illegal to say "you can buy drugs from the corner of 11th and 13th". Why is a hyperlink illegal?
Now turn to the question of the program being illegal. What do you mean "DeCSS program"? Is the DeCSS program any different from the decryptor running inside any DVD player? What about source code to DeCSS? Under Unix, many programas are distruibuted as source, not binary, for portability reasons. Why should the binary, but not the source be illegal? And if you claim the source is illegal, then by Tourezshky's (sp?) argument, T-shirts are too, since the T-shirt graphic is just the output of a mechanical translating device, just like a compiler.
This is a great point. The EFF lawyers can make the argument that the MPAA is trying to cut off their legal means of financing a their fight against them. That should give an anyone with a sense of justice and fairplay food for thought.
That is not what the argument is about. Bear in mind that DeCSS is not a patented algorithm. Nor is it copyrighted (CSS may be copyrighted, but DeCSS?). In fact, CSS is just a trade-secret - that is all. DeCSS is something else altogther.
There is nothing illegal about writing a free public, source code on T-shirts. Should I be arrested for putting the source code of Quicksort on a T-Shirt. Yes, Quicksort was discovered by C.A.R. Hoare. But by publishing it, Hoare has "given" that knowledge to the public. Just like DeCSS, which as effectively the same status.
Are the people in the MPAA that stupid? If the CMU professor says that logically they have to go after T-shirts, then they will do so? Do they really think the argument is about the consistency of their stand? This just shows how stupid they are, to pay lawyers to do this.
This is exactly like the schoolyard bully, who picks in the nerdy kid, who (with guts and chutzpah) asks him why he does not pick on the rest of the kids. It would be a stupid bully indeed that decides that therefore to go pick on everyone else too.
Instead of trying to find a good counterargument against this "code == speech" argument, they are now showing everyone else exactly what their intentions are. I don't see them winning any friends with this move. In fact, this is just makes it easier for the uniformed to make a judgment.
Are there truly good counterarguments for this code is speech issue? Well I can't think of any. But in trying to formulate and defend their position logically, the MPAA may truly forge precedent, and force the courts to confront the issue. But instead of doing this, they are instead withdrawing from the good fight, and revealing themselves to be the bullies that they are.
From this point on, IMHO, the battle has become truly boring. We are no longer in a "Xavier-vs-Magneto" situation, but a "Neo-vs-The-Agents" scenario. The MPAA has no credibility left to speak of, whatever the merits of their case (and I do think there is some small modicum of merit to their case).
For an industry wide report, to miss Debian is really strange. Why should they judge the various releases? Most Debian user install right off the network, and the speed of the Debian security fixes should be taken into consideration!
Why should the presence/absence of a CD iso-image matter?
Great! So in the small claims court, all I have to do is to hit play on the answering machine that I bring. Instead of my word against theirs, I have got a recording of them calling me twice!
Well I'd like to ask your opinion about breaking the speed of light. After all people were convinced of not being able to break the sound barrier in the past...
You are right - it is an engineering issue. So you should pay attention to the numbers. If neither you nor they have numbers, then this engineering issue is just not addressed. Not amount of examples or counterexamples beats a quantifiable number - even if it was just a handwaving guesstimate.
Slashdot Mirror
CGI = Computer Generated Imagery
The difference being that if you looked in the HTML source, you could find the offending link and fix it so that it does not reference the page. You could download it, and package it together with the HTML, modifying the reference so that other people will not hit the link. With the binary file format of Word, it's going to be hard to do this.
So MPAA, when are you outlawing your own players?
I bet they got that from the World Wide Web. But isn't this particular spider's poisonous? Is that a friendly corporate image or what?
I'd rather be alive in them than be caught dead, actually. :-)
For two years, he was interested in Linux. That's fantastic. [/SARCASM]
The guy clearly states that he does not care about the conclusion of Moody's report ("Linux Sux"). In fact, all he did was to criticize the statistical method of taking numbers which clearly overlap and add them together to produce a highly inflated number. That isd all he said. I think that is an extremely fair comment. You don't have to be a journalist with integrity to appreciate that.
How we feel about the conclusion that "Linux Sucks" does not matter at all!
But there is a good chance that (a) the liscense is non-transferable, (b) nobody wants that license because nobody knows what the fair price of the MS OS is (go ask MS what it is - I'll bet they will be very shifty about this) (b) Two plane tickets still gets two people onboard.
The problem is that for small businesses, they don't have the clout to go out and ask the OEM to ship them bare. Also installing Windows from a bare system is not a simple thing, if you have it preloaded. It is far better to have some running system which you can access the CDROM from, so you can preload it. (Norton's Ghost should solve that problem). MS is so big that they can afford to piss on their small customers - think about that.
Plan 9: Horse.
Well, it certainly isn't the normal copyright that we know of. In FSF terms, it's copylefted, not copyrighted. Which means that its distribution in source form is expressedly allowed, and in binaries alone, not allowed. In fact, this strengthens the case for DeCSS and the point Prof Tourezsky (sp?) is making - as source code, it could be expressed in any form an any medium whatsoever.
I got your argument all the way up to here. Even we supposed that the program is illegal. Why should the links be illegal? After all, the link is just a pointer - it may not even be linking to anything. I could say this is DeCSS when it is not. It is also not illegal to say "you can buy drugs from the corner of 11th and 13th". Why is a hyperlink illegal?
Now turn to the question of the program being illegal. What do you mean "DeCSS program"? Is the DeCSS program any different from the decryptor running inside any DVD player? What about source code to DeCSS? Under Unix, many programas are distruibuted as source, not binary, for portability reasons. Why should the binary, but not the source be illegal? And if you claim the source is illegal, then by Tourezshky's (sp?) argument, T-shirts are too, since the T-shirt graphic is just the output of a mechanical translating device, just like a compiler.
This is a great point. The EFF lawyers can make the argument that the MPAA is trying to cut off their legal means of financing a their fight against them. That should give an anyone with a sense of justice and fairplay food for thought.
There is nothing illegal about writing a free public, source code on T-shirts. Should I be arrested for putting the source code of Quicksort on a T-Shirt. Yes, Quicksort was discovered by C.A.R. Hoare. But by publishing it, Hoare has "given" that knowledge to the public. Just like DeCSS, which as effectively the same status.
This is exactly like the schoolyard bully, who picks in the nerdy kid, who (with guts and chutzpah) asks him why he does not pick on the rest of the kids. It would be a stupid bully indeed that decides that therefore to go pick on everyone else too.
Instead of trying to find a good counterargument against this "code == speech" argument, they are now showing everyone else exactly what their intentions are. I don't see them winning any friends with this move. In fact, this is just makes it easier for the uniformed to make a judgment.
Are there truly good counterarguments for this code is speech issue? Well I can't think of any. But in trying to formulate and defend their position logically, the MPAA may truly forge precedent, and force the courts to confront the issue. But instead of doing this, they are instead withdrawing from the good fight, and revealing themselves to be the bullies that they are.
From this point on, IMHO, the battle has become truly boring. We are no longer in a "Xavier-vs-Magneto" situation, but a "Neo-vs-The-Agents" scenario. The MPAA has no credibility left to speak of, whatever the merits of their case (and I do think there is some small modicum of merit to their case).
I am sure the WIPO would have given it to him!
A better question is ask is: what level is he reading at.
Or how would Neo dodge bullets or bend spoons in The Matrix???
Why should the presence/absence of a CD iso-image matter?
But whether you do that or not is irrelevant. You did not distribute the binary, so you don't need to give anyone the source.
Yes $500 - easy money!
You are right - it is an engineering issue. So you should pay attention to the numbers. If neither you nor they have numbers, then this engineering issue is just not addressed. Not amount of examples or counterexamples beats a quantifiable number - even if it was just a handwaving guesstimate.
Daddy: That's a meat eater - eats kids like you!
Little Johhny: Ohhh - I am scared. Make it go away!
Daddy: But look - it's chewing on a branch. It an herbivore!
Johnny: A vegan! I am safe!! Thank you daddy!!!
Does that include this little flea too?