Or you could just block email from people you don't know, and force new contacts to contact you through a web page. Make the webpage nonstandard and changing so bots can't hit it. Or email a reply to those who aren't on your contact list, which says: you're not on my contact list, to enter onto my contact list, send a reply to blahblahwhatever. At the least that forces spammers to use their real email address, at best you can apply anti-bot measures there too (make the email address an image, for instance, and include false addresses which when sent to block that email address).
You can sit and whine about how its being delayed or you can get off your duff and help.
I was a FreeBSD advocate since 1995 or so. I started to lose interest back when Jordan Hubbard left the project to work for Apple. I imagine a lot of others did too. With this announcement I'm completely moving away from FreeBSD. I've already switched my workstation to Linux, and I now plan to switch all my servers over too, and won't deploy any new FreeBSD servers. I guess the GPL really did beat the BSD license. It's too bad, really, FreeBSD was a much cleaner solution, IMHO.
If it's broadcast over the radio, you pay nothing to the recording label. You pay money to the owner of the song, not the recording, which is usually the artist through ASCAP or BMI. See www.ascap.com for more information.
"Broadcasting" over the internet is a completely different story, and I'm not sure about the legal details since they have been changing and still aren't ironed out.
Another interesting point is that compulsory licenses only apply to music. They do not apply to radio shows (such as Howard Stern) or commercials. One expense which must be specifically negotiated is the rights to rebroadcast the commercials. Again I'm not sure exactly what became of that, but the whole industry is going through an important stage where all these details are being negotiated right now.
For the copyright laws, "broadcasting" is (I think) roughly equivalent to "copying".
Radio broadcasts and playing a video tape in a movie theatre are both examples of "public display", not "copying". Incidently, so is playing a TV station in a bar where you charge admission.
This means the above 263 MB video is supposed to compress down to less than (don't forget about the sound!) 26 k.
Nah, you can pretty much leave out the audio, get the words by "reading" the lips of the actors, then using text to speech in the already downloaded database of actor voices. Splice in a few "" messages, and you have your special effects.
As for the video, you just put a 3D image of all the actors into your distribution DVD, then you can just send position vectors of their movements. Add in a couple "" messages, and you have a full action-feature. The advantage being that you don't even have to hire the actors any more. You just feed the screenplay into the decompression algorithm, and out pops the movie. As an advantage you can change the actors on the fly, in case you'd rather see certain ones during the nude scenes, for instance.
I'm joking of course, but one question to ponder is whether that would even be enough, then you can just use information theory to see if it would be possible. Certainly a screenplay could be sent in 28.8kps, but you'd have to include the information coding all the decisions made by the actors/directors/DPs/etc. too.
I've seen far too many 5, Insightful, posts about how it's so horrible that he was arrested for giving a speech. Of course anyone actually following the case knows that the speech had nothing to do with the indictment.
*BZZT* wrong answer, thank you for playing our game.
I knew some bozo like you was going to say that, which is exactly why I used the word "indictment" and not "arrest".
He did not sell any software. The software was sold by his employer.
Dmitry is listed on that software as the copyright holder of the software. Elcomsoft is merely a distributor.
If the crime was for selling the software, why was his boss not arrested as well?
1) Because they didn't have an arrest warrant for his boss, probably because 2) Because his boss was not listed as the copyright holder of the software and/or 3) Because they did not know his boss was going to be in the country.
If he was arrested for trafficking, why was the US broker (that handled the transaction) not arrested?
Because the US broker did not do so willfully, and stopped as soon as it found out about it.
If the crime was trafficking, why was the US broker not arrested when the crime was actually committed instead of months afterward?
Because he wasn't in the country, Russia would never have extridited, and he wasn't a big of enough deal to risk American lives to go over to Russia and capture.
The arrest warrant may have said that he was arrested for trafficking, but logic proves otherwise.
I'm not so sure about that... Adobe was trying to stop him long before they even knew about the speech. But I'll certainly agree that giving the speech pissed off Adobe and the government, perhaps enough to convince them to make the arrest where they otherwise wouldn't have. But that's just the way things work in this country. If I'm speeding and I get pulled over, and when I get pulled over I explain to the cop that I was going to a convention where I am going to give a speech on how to get out of traffic tickets, the cop is going to be much more likely to give me a speeding ticket. That doesn't mean I got the ticket for giving a speech, it just means I pissed the wrong person off and they found a way to get back at me.
No, it's a good thing... It lets those who are using the software pay for it, and doesn't force them to pay for freeloaders who are copying it from their friends for free. Plus, and most importantly IMHO, it eliminates the need to have a law which half the country breaks, thus alleviating our court systems and law enforcement systems, and all around making people not have to choose between paying for other people's software and breaking the law.
This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.
The paragraph says "does not prohibit..."; does not prohibit from what?
No from... "This paragraph does not prohibit any lawfully authorized...activity of [a bunch of possible activity-doers]."
Does that mean that the law doesn't apply to the government?
Yep, assuming by "the law" you mean section 1201 of the U.S. code (Circumvention of copyright protection systems).
If so, that throws out using ROT-13 to hide my sensitive data from government authorities.
Yep. It's a stupid thing to do anyway. Use real encryption if you want to hide something, not the law.
I don't like this idea at all. Too many of the 5 posts are complete crap which know not what they're talking about. Take the Dmitry case for instance. I've seen far too many 5, Insightful, posts about how it's so horrible that he was arrested for giving a speech. Of course anyone actually following the case knows that the speech had nothing to do with the indictment. The proper way to get insightful posts to the proper people is A) for the person who wrote them to also write to the appropriate people and B) for others with the same viewpoint to read those posts and incorporate them into their comments.
Forcing people to post in PDF format was a good thing. It helped separate those who actually had insight into the situation from those "click me if you disagree with the DMCA and I'll automatically send a letter to congress for you". The U.S. was set up to avoid democracy where every person is expected to give their vote on every opinion. Congress is there to hear the facts and to make their own opinions, and the voice of the people comes at election time.
If you have facts, by all means present them to your congresscritters. But spamming them with "Me Too" letters does nothing more than decrease the signal/noise ratio and keep them from making the right decisions. If they cared about your opinion they'd look at polls, or start their own.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but the US constitution only applies to US Citizens and those on US soil.
Well then, if the constitution doesn't apply, then it can't exactly be unconstitutional, can it?
I believe that there is jurisdiction in this case, since the products were sold through a U.S. company to U.S. citizens living in the U.S. But that's not my point.
The DMCA is a horrible law. The Dmitry arrest is doubly horrible. But that doesn't mean you should throw around the word "unconstitutional". A lot of people get the false impression that the constitution protects them from the government making bad laws. It doesn't. What it does is allows the people to make informed decisions about the laws and correct them when an overwhelming majority of people disagree with them.
Most people are for copyright law, not against it. Banning tools which are designed for the primary purpose of breaking copyright laws is a fairly natural extension. IMHO the solution is education of the public so that they can see that the DMCA (and indeed copyright law itself) is an unnecessary evil. Whining about constitutionality without backing it up with reasons as to why you think it's unconstitutional in the first place is completely unproductive. In my opinion, even fighting the DMCA on the grounds of constitutionality is unproductive. If it is unconstitutional, it's only due to the specific phrasing of the law and it will be trivial for congress to change that phrasing to make what Dmitry did illegal without the new law being unconstitutional.
Also, Instant messaging doesn't work as well as you say. When people are behind NAT, an intermediary who isn't behind NAT is required. It solves the p2p issue by not being p2p. If you can figure out how to make two machines that are using NAT find each other without an intermediary, and with no advance knowledge held by the NAT devices can you please let the rest of us know how to do it.
Say you move from the east coast US to the west coast. Would you rather update the routing tables for the entire country or update a single entry in a dns record?
That's a whole different (unrelated) problem. Of course it makes more sence to change a DNS record, that's how it works now. However, I thought we were talking about devices sharing an address...
You were talking about peer to peer applications needing an intermediary. My point was that the entire internet is based upon using intermediaries. When I try to reach http://www.yahoo.com/, it is completely reliant on an intermediary to tell me where yahoo.com is located. I don't think your restriction on using intermediaries is a valid one.
A single IP address with a fancy NAT setup could theoretically handle 32,000 computers each listening on single port.
A single IP address with each device that's behind it listening on a different port is possible, but unrealistic. First off, you broke one of the rules: with no advance knowledge held by the NAT devices.
I get into why it's realistic later. But as for breaking one of the rules, once again, that is not a valid restriction. When telnet to 216.115.108.243 (yahoo.com), it relies on advance knowledge held by the routers between myself and yahoo.com.
If the NAT device needs to be programmed with each new device added to the network then the device is screwed in the mass market.
Are you familiar with SOCKS? The client requests a port to be listened on, and incoming connections to that port are tunnelled through to the client.
For most applications, if they don't have a well known port then they're almost useless since you won't be able to find them.
Which applications? Once again, if you have a lookup server (similar to a DNS server) acting as an intermediary, this isn't a problem. If the user on DSL wants to run a webserver, the user can get a static port forwarded. Even without a static port there are services which will forward static URLS to dynamic ones. They use redirects, so only the URL goes through the intermediary, the data goes through the regular connection. If the user wants to look professional, they're going to need a static IP address, but if they're doing this for professional purposes it makes little sense for them to be using a home DSL connection. That's where the 1% I was talking about above fall in.
The problem could be solved by inventing some kind of automatic port allocation, and linking it to dynamically assigned DNS entrys, but if every router would need to be changed to support that then you might as well just switch to IPv6 which is already implemented and solves more then one problem.
Not every router would need to be changed, only the router the DSL user is using. But yeah, that's my point, IPv6 makes things a lot easier, but it is by no means necessary. On the other hand, I thought about the GPS thing after submitting it, and it wouldn't be an efficient solution because two computers could be right next to each other but using different ISPs, and for efficiency they should therefore only have similar IP addresses to the point where their ISPs peer. In theory that is fairly close, but perhaps the GPS coordinates of your peering point with your ISP combined with a code for your ISP and a secondary part given by your ISP would be better. But hey, now that's sounding a hell of a lot like NAT, except you're making the end computers hold the state rather than the NAT box.
The purpose of the ACLU is to defend the constitution. The constitution specifically states that "The Congress shall have power to...regulate commerce with foreign nations." The DMCA is not copyright law, it is interstate/international commerce law. So what exactly is the constitutional issue with respect to Dmitry? I could see how you could call it speech if his software was freely downloadable, but it wasn't, he was selling it. This seems a lot more to me like international commerce than free speech.
If you can figure out how to make two machines that are using NAT find each other without an intermediary, and with no advance knowledge held by the NAT devices can you please let the rest of us know how to do it.
This has nothing to do with NAT. Say you move from the east coast US to the west coast. Would you rather update the routing tables for the entire country or update a single entry in a dns record? A single IP address with a fancy NAT setup could theoretically handle 32,000 computers each listening on a single port.
IPv6 makes things a lot easier, but it is by no means necessary. If I were creating an IP scheme I'd probably just use GPS coordinates. If you need to move the computer, use DNS or some other app level feature, possibly with a tunnel in the mean time. Routing tables become partitions in physical space. For better privacy, the GPS coordinates could be those of your upstream provider, and then some static/dynamic number tacked on to the end. You can already be tracked to your upstream provider, if you want more privacy than that you need to start tunnelling.
Second, Adobe chose to invoke the DMCA demon, tipped law enforment to the speech, and is part of this big propaganda/scare tactic. They chose NOT to go the way of a civil lawsuit.
Would Adobe even have grounds for a civil lawsuit against Dmitry? The software facilitated infringing the rights of the copyright holder of the book(s), not the rights of Adobe.
Are copyright holders now obliged to monitor any party that they sell rights to and somehow revoke rights if that party violates some law somewhere?
If they know about the violation (about the act, not necessarily that it is a violation), they are certainly responsible. The fact that Sklyarov worked for the company certainly makes it appear that he knew that they company intended to sell the software in the U.S. Remember, the defense hasn't been able to present a case yet, and the standard is still much less than beyond a reasonable doubt.
Write the software, release it under the GPL and get your ass thrown in jail
If Dmitry had GPLed it, he wouldn't be in jail right now. It's only illegal if you do it for commercial purposes.
Re:Elcomsoft should be paying for his legal fees
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 2
It was Skylarov under their employ writing the program. So you're telling me that if I write a program for my company that violates some stupid law in some other country, I cannot ever hope to go to that country under fear of prosecution?
Sklyarov (note the spelling), not Elcomsoft, was the copyright holder for the program. Therefore he was not merely working for Elcomsoft. In fact, Elcomsoft was working for him (as a distributor). In reality the distinction may be minor, but legally it may turn out to be a key issue in the case.
Not that this necessarily provides an incentive for IPv4 users to switch, but IMHO, as a person that's not too
knowledgeable about IPv6, I don't see why technically a migration has to be too difficult.
The problem with the 6bone is that it pretty much requires a static IP address to connect to, and more importantly, that there are no free service providers (that I know of) which allow you to run it through a firewall.
If you want to deploy ipv6 really fast just create a PPTP tunnel and a freenet. With the ability to get a static block of ipv6 addresses which work through a dynamic IPv4 (via PPTP), and IPSec (which is standard on ipv6), you can easily create a freenet-like system. The idea is that each of your fowarded connections go through a separate IPv6 tunnel.
Implement something like napster, provide an easy to use installer, and provide the 6bone tunnel, and IPv6 will be deployed in a matter of months. Plus you can probably escape a lawsuit since the only service you're providing is an IPv6 tunnel. Release the napster client part anonymously.
If the cost of an IPv6 block dwindles to about ten bucks a year per thousand (pulling numbers out of the air) then I
suspect each ISP account would come with 16 or so addresses.
you can get a tunnel to the 6bone with a billion IP addresses for free...
Be totally honest, would you have preferred to buy a computer with BeOS installed or without it? If you plan on using something other than Windows and/or BeOS, consider it a tossup... I'd rather not have to go through the bother of uninstalling BeOS, personally.
If properly implemented, you wouldn't actually kick out the customer, you'd merely have a staff member watch her extra closely. As long as you have your standard "you may be monitored" disclaimer, and you don't actually detain/kick out someone until s/he steps out the door with the merchandise, I don't see any grounds for a lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could just block email from people you don't know, and force new contacts to contact you through a web page. Make the webpage nonstandard and changing so bots can't hit it. Or email a reply to those who aren't on your contact list, which says: you're not on my contact list, to enter onto my contact list, send a reply to blahblahwhatever. At the least that forces spammers to use their real email address, at best you can apply anti-bot measures there too (make the email address an image, for instance, and include false addresses which when sent to block that email address).
Spam is pretty easy to stop, really.
You can sit and whine about how its being delayed or you can get off your duff and help.
I was a FreeBSD advocate since 1995 or so. I started to lose interest back when Jordan Hubbard left the project to work for Apple. I imagine a lot of others did too. With this announcement I'm completely moving away from FreeBSD. I've already switched my workstation to Linux, and I now plan to switch all my servers over too, and won't deploy any new FreeBSD servers. I guess the GPL really did beat the BSD license. It's too bad, really, FreeBSD was a much cleaner solution, IMHO.
Similarly, the kg could be defined as "the mass of 4.32415234895 x 10^33 protons (or whatever -- pulled that number out of you know where).
How is one supposed to accurately count 4x10^33 protons without allowing them to be bound into an atom (which decreases/increases the mass).
Every year there is a "beauty contest" and the winner along with the runners up get a butter sculpture in the likeness of their head.
I guess in Minnesota calling someone a "butter face" is a compliment.
If it's broadcast over the radio, you pay nothing to the recording label. You pay money to the owner of the song, not the recording, which is usually the artist through ASCAP or BMI. See www.ascap.com for more information.
"Broadcasting" over the internet is a completely different story, and I'm not sure about the legal details since they have been changing and still aren't ironed out.
Another interesting point is that compulsory licenses only apply to music. They do not apply to radio shows (such as Howard Stern) or commercials. One expense which must be specifically negotiated is the rights to rebroadcast the commercials. Again I'm not sure exactly what became of that, but the whole industry is going through an important stage where all these details are being negotiated right now.
For the copyright laws, "broadcasting" is (I think) roughly equivalent to "copying".
Radio broadcasts and playing a video tape in a movie theatre are both examples of "public display", not "copying". Incidently, so is playing a TV station in a bar where you charge admission.
This means the above 263 MB video is supposed to compress down to less than (don't forget about the sound!) 26 k.
Nah, you can pretty much leave out the audio, get the words by "reading" the lips of the actors, then using text to speech in the already downloaded database of actor voices. Splice in a few "" messages, and you have your special effects.
As for the video, you just put a 3D image of all the actors into your distribution DVD, then you can just send position vectors of their movements. Add in a couple "" messages, and you have a full action-feature. The advantage being that you don't even have to hire the actors any more. You just feed the screenplay into the decompression algorithm, and out pops the movie. As an advantage you can change the actors on the fly, in case you'd rather see certain ones during the nude scenes, for instance.
I'm joking of course, but one question to ponder is whether that would even be enough, then you can just use information theory to see if it would be possible. Certainly a screenplay could be sent in 28.8kps, but you'd have to include the information coding all the decisions made by the actors/directors/DPs/etc. too.
I've seen far too many 5, Insightful, posts about how it's so horrible that he was arrested for giving a speech. Of course anyone actually following the case knows that the speech had nothing to do with the indictment.
*BZZT* wrong answer, thank you for playing our game.
I knew some bozo like you was going to say that, which is exactly why I used the word "indictment" and not "arrest".
He did not sell any software. The software was sold by his employer.
Dmitry is listed on that software as the copyright holder of the software. Elcomsoft is merely a distributor.
If the crime was for selling the software, why was his boss not arrested as well?
1) Because they didn't have an arrest warrant for his boss, probably because 2) Because his boss was not listed as the copyright holder of the software and/or 3) Because they did not know his boss was going to be in the country.
If he was arrested for trafficking, why was the US broker (that handled the transaction) not arrested?
Because the US broker did not do so willfully, and stopped as soon as it found out about it.
If the crime was trafficking, why was the US broker not arrested when the crime was actually committed instead of months afterward?
Because he wasn't in the country, Russia would never have extridited, and he wasn't a big of enough deal to risk American lives to go over to Russia and capture.
The arrest warrant may have said that he was arrested for trafficking, but logic proves otherwise.
I'm not so sure about that... Adobe was trying to stop him long before they even knew about the speech. But I'll certainly agree that giving the speech pissed off Adobe and the government, perhaps enough to convince them to make the arrest where they otherwise wouldn't have. But that's just the way things work in this country. If I'm speeding and I get pulled over, and when I get pulled over I explain to the cop that I was going to a convention where I am going to give a speech on how to get out of traffic tickets, the cop is going to be much more likely to give me a speeding ticket. That doesn't mean I got the ticket for giving a speech, it just means I pissed the wrong person off and they found a way to get back at me.
No, it's a good thing... It lets those who are using the software pay for it, and doesn't force them to pay for freeloaders who are copying it from their friends for free. Plus, and most importantly IMHO, it eliminates the need to have a law which half the country breaks, thus alleviating our court systems and law enforcement systems, and all around making people not have to choose between paying for other people's software and breaking the law.
This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.
The paragraph says "does not prohibit..."; does not prohibit from what?
No from... "This paragraph does not prohibit any lawfully authorized...activity of [a bunch of possible activity-doers]."
Does that mean that the law doesn't apply to the government?
Yep, assuming by "the law" you mean section 1201 of the U.S. code (Circumvention of copyright protection systems).
If so, that throws out using ROT-13 to hide my sensitive data from government authorities.
Yep. It's a stupid thing to do anyway. Use real encryption if you want to hide something, not the law.
I don't like this idea at all. Too many of the 5 posts are complete crap which know not what they're talking about. Take the Dmitry case for instance. I've seen far too many 5, Insightful, posts about how it's so horrible that he was arrested for giving a speech. Of course anyone actually following the case knows that the speech had nothing to do with the indictment. The proper way to get insightful posts to the proper people is A) for the person who wrote them to also write to the appropriate people and B) for others with the same viewpoint to read those posts and incorporate them into their comments.
Forcing people to post in PDF format was a good thing. It helped separate those who actually had insight into the situation from those "click me if you disagree with the DMCA and I'll automatically send a letter to congress for you". The U.S. was set up to avoid democracy where every person is expected to give their vote on every opinion. Congress is there to hear the facts and to make their own opinions, and the voice of the people comes at election time.
If you have facts, by all means present them to your congresscritters. But spamming them with "Me Too" letters does nothing more than decrease the signal/noise ratio and keep them from making the right decisions. If they cared about your opinion they'd look at polls, or start their own.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but the US constitution only applies to US Citizens and those on US soil.
Well then, if the constitution doesn't apply, then it can't exactly be unconstitutional, can it?
I believe that there is jurisdiction in this case, since the products were sold through a U.S. company to U.S. citizens living in the U.S. But that's not my point.
The DMCA is a horrible law. The Dmitry arrest is doubly horrible. But that doesn't mean you should throw around the word "unconstitutional". A lot of people get the false impression that the constitution protects them from the government making bad laws. It doesn't. What it does is allows the people to make informed decisions about the laws and correct them when an overwhelming majority of people disagree with them.
Most people are for copyright law, not against it. Banning tools which are designed for the primary purpose of breaking copyright laws is a fairly natural extension. IMHO the solution is education of the public so that they can see that the DMCA (and indeed copyright law itself) is an unnecessary evil. Whining about constitutionality without backing it up with reasons as to why you think it's unconstitutional in the first place is completely unproductive. In my opinion, even fighting the DMCA on the grounds of constitutionality is unproductive. If it is unconstitutional, it's only due to the specific phrasing of the law and it will be trivial for congress to change that phrasing to make what Dmitry did illegal without the new law being unconstitutional.
Also, Instant messaging doesn't work as well as you say. When people are behind NAT, an intermediary who isn't behind NAT is required. It solves the p2p issue by not being p2p. If you can figure out how to make two machines that are using NAT find each other without an intermediary, and with no advance knowledge held by the NAT devices can you please let the rest of us know how to do it.
Say you move from the east coast US to the west coast. Would you rather update the routing tables for the entire country or update a single entry in a dns record?
That's a whole different (unrelated) problem. Of course it makes more sence to change a DNS record, that's how it works now. However, I thought we were talking about devices sharing an address...
You were talking about peer to peer applications needing an intermediary. My point was that the entire internet is based upon using intermediaries. When I try to reach http://www.yahoo.com/, it is completely reliant on an intermediary to tell me where yahoo.com is located. I don't think your restriction on using intermediaries is a valid one.
A single IP address with a fancy NAT setup could theoretically handle 32,000 computers each listening on single port.
A single IP address with each device that's behind it listening on a different port is possible, but unrealistic. First off, you broke one of the rules: with no advance knowledge held by the NAT devices.
I get into why it's realistic later. But as for breaking one of the rules, once again, that is not a valid restriction. When telnet to 216.115.108.243 (yahoo.com), it relies on advance knowledge held by the routers between myself and yahoo.com.
If the NAT device needs to be programmed with each new device added to the network then the device is screwed in the mass market.
Are you familiar with SOCKS? The client requests a port to be listened on, and incoming connections to that port are tunnelled through to the client.
For most applications, if they don't have a well known port then they're almost useless since you won't be able to find them.
Which applications? Once again, if you have a lookup server (similar to a DNS server) acting as an intermediary, this isn't a problem. If the user on DSL wants to run a webserver, the user can get a static port forwarded. Even without a static port there are services which will forward static URLS to dynamic ones. They use redirects, so only the URL goes through the intermediary, the data goes through the regular connection. If the user wants to look professional, they're going to need a static IP address, but if they're doing this for professional purposes it makes little sense for them to be using a home DSL connection. That's where the 1% I was talking about above fall in.
The problem could be solved by inventing some kind of automatic port allocation, and linking it to dynamically assigned DNS entrys, but if every router would need to be changed to support that then you might as well just switch to IPv6 which is already implemented and solves more then one problem.
Not every router would need to be changed, only the router the DSL user is using. But yeah, that's my point, IPv6 makes things a lot easier, but it is by no means necessary. On the other hand, I thought about the GPS thing after submitting it, and it wouldn't be an efficient solution because two computers could be right next to each other but using different ISPs, and for efficiency they should therefore only have similar IP addresses to the point where their ISPs peer. In theory that is fairly close, but perhaps the GPS coordinates of your peering point with your ISP combined with a code for your ISP and a secondary part given by your ISP would be better. But hey, now that's sounding a hell of a lot like NAT, except you're making the end computers hold the state rather than the NAT box.
The purpose of the ACLU is to defend the constitution. The constitution specifically states that "The Congress shall have power to...regulate commerce with foreign nations." The DMCA is not copyright law, it is interstate/international commerce law. So what exactly is the constitutional issue with respect to Dmitry? I could see how you could call it speech if his software was freely downloadable, but it wasn't, he was selling it. This seems a lot more to me like international commerce than free speech.
If you can figure out how to make two machines that are using NAT find each other without an intermediary, and with no advance knowledge held by the NAT devices can you please let the rest of us know how to do it.
This has nothing to do with NAT. Say you move from the east coast US to the west coast. Would you rather update the routing tables for the entire country or update a single entry in a dns record? A single IP address with a fancy NAT setup could theoretically handle 32,000 computers each listening on a single port.
IPv6 makes things a lot easier, but it is by no means necessary. If I were creating an IP scheme I'd probably just use GPS coordinates. If you need to move the computer, use DNS or some other app level feature, possibly with a tunnel in the mean time. Routing tables become partitions in physical space. For better privacy, the GPS coordinates could be those of your upstream provider, and then some static/dynamic number tacked on to the end. You can already be tracked to your upstream provider, if you want more privacy than that you need to start tunnelling.
Which part of the constitution would that be? The part I read is "The Congress shall have power...To regulate commerce with foreign nations".
Second, Adobe chose to invoke the DMCA demon, tipped law enforment to the speech, and is part of this big propaganda/scare tactic. They chose NOT to go the way of a civil lawsuit.
Would Adobe even have grounds for a civil lawsuit against Dmitry? The software facilitated infringing the rights of the copyright holder of the book(s), not the rights of Adobe.
Are copyright holders now obliged to monitor any party that they sell rights to and somehow revoke rights if that party violates some law somewhere?
If they know about the violation (about the act, not necessarily that it is a violation), they are certainly responsible. The fact that Sklyarov worked for the company certainly makes it appear that he knew that they company intended to sell the software in the U.S. Remember, the defense hasn't been able to present a case yet, and the standard is still much less than beyond a reasonable doubt.
Write the software, release it under the GPL and get your ass thrown in jail
If Dmitry had GPLed it, he wouldn't be in jail right now. It's only illegal if you do it for commercial purposes.
It was Skylarov under their employ writing the program. So you're telling me that if I write a program for my company that violates some stupid law in some other country, I cannot ever hope to go to that country under fear of prosecution?
Sklyarov (note the spelling), not Elcomsoft, was the copyright holder for the program. Therefore he was not merely working for Elcomsoft. In fact, Elcomsoft was working for him (as a distributor). In reality the distinction may be minor, but legally it may turn out to be a key issue in the case.
Not that this necessarily provides an incentive for IPv4 users to switch, but IMHO, as a person that's not too
knowledgeable about IPv6, I don't see why technically a migration has to be too difficult.
The problem with the 6bone is that it pretty much requires a static IP address to connect to, and more importantly, that there are no free service providers (that I know of) which allow you to run it through a firewall.
If you want to deploy ipv6 really fast just create a PPTP tunnel and a freenet. With the ability to get a static block of ipv6 addresses which work through a dynamic IPv4 (via PPTP), and IPSec (which is standard on ipv6), you can easily create a freenet-like system. The idea is that each of your fowarded connections go through a separate IPv6 tunnel.
Implement something like napster, provide an easy to use installer, and provide the 6bone tunnel, and IPv6 will be deployed in a matter of months. Plus you can probably escape a lawsuit since the only service you're providing is an IPv6 tunnel. Release the napster client part anonymously.
If the cost of an IPv6 block dwindles to about ten bucks a year per thousand (pulling numbers out of the air) then I suspect each ISP account would come with 16 or so addresses.
you can get a tunnel to the 6bone with a billion IP addresses for free...
Oh no, does that mean that every company which trades on NYSE is going to have to release its source now?
Be totally honest, would you have preferred to buy a computer with BeOS installed or without it? If you plan on using something other than Windows and/or BeOS, consider it a tossup... I'd rather not have to go through the bother of uninstalling BeOS, personally.
If properly implemented, you wouldn't actually kick out the customer, you'd merely have a staff member watch her extra closely. As long as you have your standard "you may be monitored" disclaimer, and you don't actually detain/kick out someone until s/he steps out the door with the merchandise, I don't see any grounds for a lawsuit.