I wish they'd get those speeding cameras here in my state. Maybe then when millions of people start getting tickets for breaking the speed limit there'll be enough support to actually start putting reasonable speed limits in place.
Then maybe we can get the cops to focus on people failing to keep right except to pass.
A wide open left lane for rich people who can afford to pay the speeding tickets - now there's something I'd like to see.
Wrong, so wrong. Both the Southeastern and MAI cases postdated adoption of Section 117 of the Copyright Act. Both courts held that the defendant was not an "owner" of the copy (the legal significance of the "you are a bailee, not owner" arguments).
Right... Because the defendant was maintaining a computer owned by someone else. I was referring to cases before Section 117 was passed, which are the reason that Section 117 was passed in the first place.
There are other cases (also post-Section 117) that tend to cast doubt on the broad construction you would like to assert.
What cases would that be? How about one where the owner of the CD is being sued for copying software into ram. Post Section 117, you won't find one.
However, under copyright laws, you cannot produce a copy of that copy without permission of the copyright holder. Thus, in order to copy the code into RAM or a hard disk, you must agree to a license which allows you to do so.
Since USE of software has been treated by the courts as a reproduction (since it entails loading a copy from a fixed disk to RAM), your unlicensed execution of the program may well be violating their copyright.
Yes, once upon a time the courts made that ruling. Then congress passed this:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
Try calling a support number and asking them what the EULA says, they'll feed you B.S. about what they think it says, with lots of "Basically"'s...
But ultimately they do it because we let them. If you tried to buy a house and the seller said "I won't let you see the contract until after you sign it," you'd tell them to go to hell. But with software that's exactly what so many consumers are willing to do.
It's a measure, but it's a contractual measure, not a technological measure, so it may not count.
Maybe. One simple solution is to give out serial numbers in return for signed contracts, or even over the phone in return for oral contracts.
As for consumers, the only real solution is to not buy/use the software. Or not get caught breaking the EULA. The second option is probably the easiest.
Unlike many of the strawman arguments against the DMCA, this instance actually is a violation. You're distributing software which circumvents a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. Hopefully you'll go to jail, and we can get our first legitimate constitutional test of the DMCA.
And you would prefer what? That the editor censored it because it wasn't a publicly accepted/acceptable viewpoint? Moved on to another post that didn't contain the offending remark?
It's not that it was offensive, it's that it was childish and useless. What would be preferred is someone like timothy actually putting a little work into his job, and maybe writing his own summary if there were none handy.
But why bother? Ultimately as long as we keep bringing in the ad revenue, slashdot doesn't have any incentive to grow the fuck up.
Lately we've had a guy using a lot of bandwidth, and our Sprint link has been up and down more times than I can count (i've received 135 pages today, from 3 monitoring systems, as of 9PM est).
Sign me up! Sounds like a nice reliable service. Have you refunded your users for this month of intermittent service?
I'd actually like to have a little more freedom than "obviously illegal" since there are so many things that are illegal in so many places that just have no right to be even mentioned in the laws, and I'd like to have someone on my side if idiots come in and try to shut things down...
Perhaps "obviously illegal in the United States or the state of [insert jurisdiction of ISP]". The idea is that if the ISP is knowingly hosting clearly illegal material, then they could be charged with conspiracy, but if they are hosting illegal material unknowingly, they can't.
If I run an email forwarding service, and people complain to you that the email addresses are being used as "drop boxes" for spammers, but neither I nor my users are sending mail through your system, will you shut me down?
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you haven't seen enough porn. There are lots of prostitutes who are also doctors and get it on with their patients.
I wish they'd get those speeding cameras here in my state. Maybe then when millions of people start getting tickets for breaking the speed limit there'll be enough support to actually start putting reasonable speed limits in place.
Then maybe we can get the cops to focus on people failing to keep right except to pass.
A wide open left lane for rich people who can afford to pay the speeding tickets - now there's something I'd like to see.
Fair enough, but that doesn't apply to either of those two cases.
Heisenberg was right
That God really does play dice
With the universe
The issue isn't whether the computer is owned, but whether the copy is owned by the person asserting the Section 109 or 117 right.
Yes, but how can you own a copy of software if you don't own the computer on which it resides?
Nuclear fission...
PS, the person who hacked our Honeynet is not eligible to submit an entry, you know who you are. The question is, do we? .... :)
Wrong, so wrong. Both the Southeastern and MAI cases postdated adoption of Section 117 of the Copyright Act. Both courts held that the defendant was not an "owner" of the copy (the legal significance of the "you are a bailee, not owner" arguments).
Right... Because the defendant was maintaining a computer owned by someone else. I was referring to cases before Section 117 was passed, which are the reason that Section 117 was passed in the first place.
There are other cases (also post-Section 117) that tend to cast doubt on the broad construction you would like to assert.
What cases would that be? How about one where the owner of the CD is being sued for copying software into ram. Post Section 117, you won't find one.
However, under copyright laws, you cannot produce a copy of that copy without permission of the copyright holder. Thus, in order to copy the code into RAM or a hard disk, you must agree to a license which allows you to do so.
Wrong.
Since USE of software has been treated by the courts as a reproduction (since it entails loading a copy from a fixed disk to RAM), your unlicensed execution of the program may well be violating their copyright.
Yes, once upon a time the courts made that ruling. Then congress passed this:
If you can read the EULA before you hand over the cash, however, you're agreeing to it by handing over the cash.
And that agreement is between me and the retailer, so it cannot be enforced by the software developer.
Try calling a support number and asking them what the EULA says, they'll feed you B.S. about what they think it says, with lots of "Basically"'s...
But ultimately they do it because we let them. If you tried to buy a house and the seller said "I won't let you see the contract until after you sign it," you'd tell them to go to hell. But with software that's exactly what so many consumers are willing to do.
When a law doesn't make sense, should people follow it?
Depends on how important it is to break the law, how harsh the penalties are, and how likely it is you'll get caught.
It's a measure, but it's a contractual measure, not a technological measure, so it may not count.
Maybe. One simple solution is to give out serial numbers in return for signed contracts, or even over the phone in return for oral contracts.
As for consumers, the only real solution is to not buy/use the software. Or not get caught breaking the EULA. The second option is probably the easiest.
The "I agree" button is the measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work.
No, the entering into the contractual agreement is the measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work.
Read your history books. Many people have been killed and/or gone to jail for performing symbolic acts.
The DMCA is a law though. And by circumventing the EULA screen you are violating it.
Unlike many of the strawman arguments against the DMCA, this instance actually is a violation. You're distributing software which circumvents a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. Hopefully you'll go to jail, and we can get our first legitimate constitutional test of the DMCA.
there is no security through obscurity
Then why do you hide your email address?
The scariest part:
It's really scary tho- more then half of Slashdot's readers NEVER read a comment. - CmdrTaco
Half the people who come here never read more than the crap on the front page.
And you would prefer what? That the editor censored it because it wasn't a publicly accepted/acceptable viewpoint? Moved on to another post that didn't contain the offending remark?
It's not that it was offensive, it's that it was childish and useless. What would be preferred is someone like timothy actually putting a little work into his job, and maybe writing his own summary if there were none handy.
But why bother? Ultimately as long as we keep bringing in the ad revenue, slashdot doesn't have any incentive to grow the fuck up.
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
What makes you think the commerce secretary doesn't legitimately hold the values he's expressing?
Lately we've had a guy using a lot of bandwidth, and our Sprint link has been up and down more times than I can count (i've received 135 pages today, from 3 monitoring systems, as of 9PM est).
Sign me up! Sounds like a nice reliable service. Have you refunded your users for this month of intermittent service?
I'd actually like to have a little more freedom than "obviously illegal" since there are so many things that are illegal in so many places that just have no right to be even mentioned in the laws, and I'd like to have someone on my side if idiots come in and try to shut things down...
Perhaps "obviously illegal in the United States or the state of [insert jurisdiction of ISP]". The idea is that if the ISP is knowingly hosting clearly illegal material, then they could be charged with conspiracy, but if they are hosting illegal material unknowingly, they can't.
If I run an email forwarding service, and people complain to you that the email addresses are being used as "drop boxes" for spammers, but neither I nor my users are sending mail through your system, will you shut me down?
For a web hosting service, same question.