That is how it works for DVD players. But the DVD standard was created before DVD players became widespread. Audio DVDs would probably be covered under the DMCA. Audio CDs probably do not.
Hmm, this is a troll, right? I ask for no claim to the words I speak or write. I think this is evidenced by the fact that my name isn't even attached to them.
Your "nobody would write books or produce films" argument was already debunked by pointing out the fact that books are much older than copyright. Films would be easily sold in a scenario without copyright. Simply make a contract with the theatres to not copy the film. Books would be a bit more difficult, but they are also much harder to copy. You could claim that people would just scan them in and publish them on the internet, but if that's true, why aren't people doing it now?
The fact is that for all realistic purposes, copyright never did exist for noncommercial entities anyway. The internet is starting to make noncommercial, global distribution easy and efficient. Now we're starting to see laws like the DMCA come into play. But even that will eventually be noneffective, and we'll have to resort to even more intrusive measures. Copyright is dying. It's time we start coming up with more effective ways to "promote the progress of science and useful arts".
By that rationale, no one can sell a CD player without the permission of the copyright holder. No, the only way the DMCA is going to apply is if they stop the backward compatibility. The key phrase here is "with the authority of the copyright owner". CD player manufacturers do not have this, so neither must software CD player manufacturers.
(A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to
descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or
otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a
technological measure, without the authority of the copyright
owner; and
(B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a
work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation,
requires the application of information, or a process or a
treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain
access to the work.
There are many issues. The first and easiest one for me is that I don't believe in copyright law. I don't believe in crimes without direct victims, and in my opinion copying something does not involve a direct victim. Perhaps copying and distributing to kill a competitor could be illegal under anti-monopolistic laws, but other than that I just don't see it.
Second. DirectTV is using public airwaves. They are sending signals into my home, onto my property. I should have the right to do anything I want with those signals. Actually I thought the supreme court had ruled that to be the case, but I guess I was mistaken.
Third. I don't believe in laws which are blatently ignored by most of the country. That leads to a situation where the government has the power to arrest anyone, for any reason, because everyone is breaking some law. If you're going to make a law, it has to be enforced. For this reason, I'm all for the 1 million people "pirating" DirecTV being arrested. Hopefully a few will be members of congress, a few will be great lawyers, a few will be rich, and a few will be mobsters. Hopefully we'll get a relative of each member of the Supreme Court. We'll see how quickly the laws get changed and/or overruled then.
Someone needs to collect all these ideas together and make a nice pluggable framework for it. I'm not sure how it does it, but hotmail's spam filter has stopped 100% of my spam so far, with no false positives. If they can do it, so can we.
After reading all the comments, and then finally reading the article, I finally see what it is this thing actually does, switches your jumpers between master and "not master". Now, what would be cool is if they could build these things into the already very cool removable drive bays. Basically have a switch on the front of the caddy itself to switch between master and slave.
Remember, I said it here first, so don't try to get a patent or anything. There is a patent on the NickLock, but this probably wouldn't infringe.
That's the great thing for these people. Their Social Security number will never again be used for identification, because there will be a nice little note about the incident on their credit reports. It's very simple to get creditors to stop relying on your social security number. Simply have a note added to your credit report, that your SSN has been comprimised.
Hmm, or you could just let the companies that accept social security numbers as identification get screwed over. I'm not paying for anything which I didn't personally promise to pay for. No court of law will ever force me to.
The new sound could also rid everyday life of one of its embarrassing moments, when everyone in a room searches for their mobile phone when just one rings.
And at a new embarrassing moment, when the entire room is unable to resist turning to face your crotch.
I love free software, and use it daily, but I also use commercial software purchased with my hard earned dollars. If all software were free then all programmers would need a second job for money to live on.
I disagree. If all software was free bad programmers would need a second job (really a first job) for money to live on, but good programmers would be in the same position they're in now. For all intents and purposes, there are only three types of software that people ever pay for anyway. 1) Server side software - jobs for programmers would obviously not go away with a free model. Server software needs to be constantly updated and enhanced. 2) Business software - jobs for these types of programmers would probably actually increase, since the quality of the tools would probably go down. But even if the jobs decreased, the savings would probably wind up going to the programmers anyway. R&D budgets are fairly fixed. If you save money on the tools, you'll probably pay the programmers more. 3) Windows - yes, if you work for Microsoft, you'd probably be in trouble. Although, Gates is smart, I'm sure he'd figure out a way to still make money.
Copyright law simply isn't enforced that well. It never will be. Changing the law would change very little, other than in the market for business software, because other than businesses, no one gets sued for copyright infringement anyway.
I am a programmer and I am strongly for the elimination of copyright laws. The fact is that I don't own the copyright of my software anyway, my employer does. Neither do most of my employers, too, since I work mainly for backend products which aren't sold. Perhaps this would affect those who make client software, but other than Microsoft, who really makes money off client software anyway? And if you're a good programmer, you'll adjust.
I don't think the core Internet routers can perform stateful-enough inspection as to route "Code Red infection" attacks to/dev/null.
No, but they can automatically block anyone repeatedly sending packets to the old whitehouse site, and not start routing them again until they've spoken to someone on the phone.
Wait...I'm growing a brain!!! Please disregaurd everything I said about IIS and Outlook. I think I will start using Apache...
Don't run it on FreeBSD...
An overflowable buffer was found in the version of telnetd included
with FreeBSD. Due to incorrect bounds checking of data buffered for
output to the remote client, an attacker can cause the telnetd process
to overflow the buffer and crash, or execute arbitrary code as the
user running telnetd, usually root. A valid user account and password
is not required to exploit this vulnerability, only the ability to
connect to a telnetd server.
The telnetd service is enabled by default on all FreeBSD installations
if the 'high' security setting is not selected at install-time. This
vulnerability is known to be exploitable, and is being actively
exploited in the wild.
Patches are a part of running a server. Security holes are a part of life. It has nothing to do with this being Windows. The worm could just have easily been written for FreeBSD. If I didn't mind risking getting thrown in jail for the rest of my life, I'd consider proving that.
Are you aware that the DMCA can theoretically be used to punish individuals with criminal sanctions even if they don't make a single penny of profit?
Back that up. The DMCA I read says that criminal offenses are for "any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain."
Re:Good News, the only problem is...
on
Adobe Backs Down
·
· Score: 2
now we don't get the opportunity to test the validity of the DMCA in the court system. Of course, I don't want to wish that on poor Dmitri. He has been abused enough by the FBI/Adobe in this matter
Actually, now the DMCA has an even better shot. Just think if this went to the supreme court. On one hand you have a man who almost no one wants to see in jail, including the supposed "victim" of the crime. On the other, you have a law saying that he should be thrown in jail nonetheless. That is what the law says (except for the possible jurisdictional issues).
Re:That's like MSFT saying it won't ship free brow
on
Adobe Backs Down
·
· Score: 2
oh, sure, "we can't ignore a court order"
But the DMCA says:
to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to
descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or
otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a
technological measure, without the authority of the copyright
owner;
So, presumably, if Adobe says they give him authority, then all is well? Makes for an interesting licensing case. How much is your life for the next five years worth?
Does anyone have information on Google's patents? Last thing I knew was they only were "patent pending", and I just checked Google's site and it doesn't even mention it. Maybe their patent was denied???
No, they can't. No one can sue under the DMCA. The DMCA is criminal law, not civil law, and Adobe didn't sue Sklyarov, they told the FBI "hey, this evil haxx0r d00d is breaking federal law (viz. the DMCA)".
Have you read the DMCA? Even the part that I quoted? It is both civil law and criminal law. Section 1203 refers to civil remedies. Specifically, "Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court for such violation." My point was, I wonder if it is implied that that "person injured" must be the copyright holder of the work. I would assume so, but you never know. Section 1204 refers to the criminal penalties, which is only for both willful and commercial violation.
There is no question of whom the original copyright belongs to, I'm not even sure what copyright you're talking about - Sklyarov hasn't been accused of copyright infringement.
Now let's turn to Section 1201: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." [emphasis mine]. If it is not copyrighted, it is not "a work protected under this title," and you are not violating the DMCA.
Under the DMCA, there needn't be any copyright infringement involved at all, and in this case, there isn't. The DMCA makes it a federal crime for Sklyarov to distribute a tool that could theoretically be used to circumvent an access control device, even if the tool in question is never used at all.
Also from Section 1201, "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that [...] is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that
effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this
title in a work or a portion thereof." The tool need not only theoretically be used to circumvent an access control device, it must be primarily designed to to circumvent an access control device of a copyrighted work.
Slashdot Mirror
That is how it works for DVD players. But the DVD standard was created before DVD players became widespread. Audio DVDs would probably be covered under the DMCA. Audio CDs probably do not.
Hmm, this is a troll, right? I ask for no claim to the words I speak or write. I think this is evidenced by the fact that my name isn't even attached to them.
Your "nobody would write books or produce films" argument was already debunked by pointing out the fact that books are much older than copyright. Films would be easily sold in a scenario without copyright. Simply make a contract with the theatres to not copy the film. Books would be a bit more difficult, but they are also much harder to copy. You could claim that people would just scan them in and publish them on the internet, but if that's true, why aren't people doing it now?
The fact is that for all realistic purposes, copyright never did exist for noncommercial entities anyway. The internet is starting to make noncommercial, global distribution easy and efficient. Now we're starting to see laws like the DMCA come into play. But even that will eventually be noneffective, and we'll have to resort to even more intrusive measures. Copyright is dying. It's time we start coming up with more effective ways to "promote the progress of science and useful arts".
By that rationale, no one can sell a CD player without the permission of the copyright holder. No, the only way the DMCA is going to apply is if they stop the backward compatibility. The key phrase here is "with the authority of the copyright owner". CD player manufacturers do not have this, so neither must software CD player manufacturers.
(A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Sorry, DMCA doesn't even remotely apply.
I write code.
There are many issues. The first and easiest one for me is that I don't believe in copyright law. I don't believe in crimes without direct victims, and in my opinion copying something does not involve a direct victim. Perhaps copying and distributing to kill a competitor could be illegal under anti-monopolistic laws, but other than that I just don't see it.
Second. DirectTV is using public airwaves. They are sending signals into my home, onto my property. I should have the right to do anything I want with those signals. Actually I thought the supreme court had ruled that to be the case, but I guess I was mistaken.
Third. I don't believe in laws which are blatently ignored by most of the country. That leads to a situation where the government has the power to arrest anyone, for any reason, because everyone is breaking some law. If you're going to make a law, it has to be enforced. For this reason, I'm all for the 1 million people "pirating" DirecTV being arrested. Hopefully a few will be members of congress, a few will be great lawyers, a few will be rich, and a few will be mobsters. Hopefully we'll get a relative of each member of the Supreme Court. We'll see how quickly the laws get changed and/or overruled then.
Generals do not call up guards.
And bosses don't send attachments saying "I love you", but that never stopped people from believing it anyway.
Geez, just start recording 5 minutes early and end 5 minutes late. It's a random access storage device, anyway...
Someone needs to collect all these ideas together and make a nice pluggable framework for it. I'm not sure how it does it, but hotmail's spam filter has stopped 100% of my spam so far, with no false positives. If they can do it, so can we.
After reading all the comments, and then finally reading the article, I finally see what it is this thing actually does, switches your jumpers between master and "not master". Now, what would be cool is if they could build these things into the already very cool removable drive bays. Basically have a switch on the front of the caddy itself to switch between master and slave.
Remember, I said it here first, so don't try to get a patent or anything. There is a patent on the NickLock, but this probably wouldn't infringe.
Hmm, I always thought there were 10 digits in pi. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
I don't know, I got 3 karma points for it... and now I am maxed at 50....
That's the great thing for these people. Their Social Security number will never again be used for identification, because there will be a nice little note about the incident on their credit reports. It's very simple to get creditors to stop relying on your social security number. Simply have a note added to your credit report, that your SSN has been comprimised.
Hmm, or you could just let the companies that accept social security numbers as identification get screwed over. I'm not paying for anything which I didn't personally promise to pay for. No court of law will ever force me to.
The new sound could also rid everyday life of one of its embarrassing moments, when everyone in a room searches for their mobile phone when just one rings.
And at a new embarrassing moment, when the entire room is unable to resist turning to face your crotch.
I love free software, and use it daily, but I also use commercial software purchased with my hard earned dollars. If all software were free then all programmers would need a second job for money to live on.
I disagree. If all software was free bad programmers would need a second job (really a first job) for money to live on, but good programmers would be in the same position they're in now. For all intents and purposes, there are only three types of software that people ever pay for anyway. 1) Server side software - jobs for programmers would obviously not go away with a free model. Server software needs to be constantly updated and enhanced. 2) Business software - jobs for these types of programmers would probably actually increase, since the quality of the tools would probably go down. But even if the jobs decreased, the savings would probably wind up going to the programmers anyway. R&D budgets are fairly fixed. If you save money on the tools, you'll probably pay the programmers more. 3) Windows - yes, if you work for Microsoft, you'd probably be in trouble. Although, Gates is smart, I'm sure he'd figure out a way to still make money.
Copyright law simply isn't enforced that well. It never will be. Changing the law would change very little, other than in the market for business software, because other than businesses, no one gets sued for copyright infringement anyway.
I am a programmer and I am strongly for the elimination of copyright laws. The fact is that I don't own the copyright of my software anyway, my employer does. Neither do most of my employers, too, since I work mainly for backend products which aren't sold. Perhaps this would affect those who make client software, but other than Microsoft, who really makes money off client software anyway? And if you're a good programmer, you'll adjust.
I don't think the core Internet routers can perform stateful-enough inspection as to route "Code Red infection" attacks to /dev/null.
No, but they can automatically block anyone repeatedly sending packets to the old whitehouse site, and not start routing them again until they've spoken to someone on the phone.
Wait...I'm growing a brain!!! Please disregaurd everything I said about IIS and Outlook. I think I will start using Apache...
Don't run it on FreeBSD...
Patches are a part of running a server. Security holes are a part of life. It has nothing to do with this being Windows. The worm could just have easily been written for FreeBSD. If I didn't mind risking getting thrown in jail for the rest of my life, I'd consider proving that.
"Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
Are you aware that the DMCA can theoretically be used to punish individuals with criminal sanctions even if they don't make a single penny of profit?
Back that up. The DMCA I read says that criminal offenses are for "any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain."
now we don't get the opportunity to test the validity of the DMCA in the court system. Of course, I don't want to wish that on poor Dmitri. He has been abused enough by the FBI/Adobe in this matter
Actually, now the DMCA has an even better shot. Just think if this went to the supreme court. On one hand you have a man who almost no one wants to see in jail, including the supposed "victim" of the crime. On the other, you have a law saying that he should be thrown in jail nonetheless. That is what the law says (except for the possible jurisdictional issues).
oh, sure, "we can't ignore a court order"
But the DMCA says:
to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
So, presumably, if Adobe says they give him authority, then all is well? Makes for an interesting licensing case. How much is your life for the next five years worth?
Does anyone have information on Google's patents? Last thing I knew was they only were "patent pending", and I just checked Google's site and it doesn't even mention it. Maybe their patent was denied???
No, they can't. No one can sue under the DMCA. The DMCA is criminal law, not civil law, and Adobe didn't sue Sklyarov, they told the FBI "hey, this evil haxx0r d00d is breaking federal law (viz. the DMCA)".
Have you read the DMCA? Even the part that I quoted? It is both civil law and criminal law. Section 1203 refers to civil remedies. Specifically, "Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court for such violation." My point was, I wonder if it is implied that that "person injured" must be the copyright holder of the work. I would assume so, but you never know. Section 1204 refers to the criminal penalties, which is only for both willful and commercial violation.
There is no question of whom the original copyright belongs to, I'm not even sure what copyright you're talking about - Sklyarov hasn't been accused of copyright infringement.
Now let's turn to Section 1201: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." [emphasis mine]. If it is not copyrighted, it is not "a work protected under this title," and you are not violating the DMCA.
Under the DMCA, there needn't be any copyright infringement involved at all, and in this case, there isn't. The DMCA makes it a federal crime for Sklyarov to distribute a tool that could theoretically be used to circumvent an access control device, even if the tool in question is never used at all.
Also from Section 1201, "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that [...] is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof." The tool need not only theoretically be used to circumvent an access control device, it must be primarily designed to to circumvent an access control device of a copyrighted work.
Well, you're wrong