...but just because I'm a geek, it doesn't mean I have to be some lazy tard that can't do anything but drink coffee and read 'blogs.' Maybe I'm abnormal, but I do things outside of using a computer.
I camp. I walk a lot. I bike a lot. I go take naps in the woods. I garden. I hike. I program on my iBook or my iPAQ (with Squeak) while sitting in the woods, having had to hike a few miles to get to a nice place to sit.
For the biking and walking, I don't go out of my way to do it. It's just part of the way I live. When there's not snow on the ground, it's my main method of getting around. I suppose that's not possible if you're living in some gigantic post-apocalyptic hell hole, though.
And for the other things, I live in a very green town, with lots of nice big parts and a sanctioned green-belt, so taking naps in the woods isn't extraordinary. Just a way of life.:)
Now, I suppose some people really strive for their activities to be labeled as something a 'geek' would do, trying to live that 'cool' middle school clique feeling that they may have missed out on the first time around. Can't say I identify with that, but to each her own.
So, I suppose you could make the above activities 'geeky' by bringing a PDA and doing something useful with it. If you're not going to do something useful with it, however, do yourself a favor and leave it at home.
For instance, I'll write a bunch of code on my iPAQ. May not be as practical for others, but the programming environment I use on my desktop is the same one I use on my PDA, so code flows back and forth easily, and I can work on the same problems as if I were at my desk. Some people think it's some disgrace to "Nature" to program in the middle of a forest. Frankly, I find it beautiful and peaceful. Especially after a mind-clearing hike. And it sure beats being stuck inside on a beautiful spring day!
Most importantly- have fun!
But what if I'm at a party, and some hottie asks for my web page address? Now I could make up a username and password for em, but what if ey gets home before I do, therefore before I set up the account?
I shouldn't have to go through all that trouble just to stop people from trespassing on my private property.
Last time I checked, receiving spam wasn't something that I had a choice about.
Neither is receiving hits to my website.
I suppose you could say that my ISP's mail server had the choice not to accept the message, but there's not really a standard for making that decision, at least in the same way that a web server can check referrers to make a decision about serving a page.
Not all browsers send referrers, and some proxies filter them. Besides, the user can always copy the link address and then paste it. Or what if I want to allow links from free websites, but not from commercial ones?
The thing with spam is that it often masquerades as a real message, so you pretty much have to download it to find out that it's spam.
Links from free websites often masquerade as links from commercial ones.
Or else just ignore mail from anyone you don't know, which isn't always a viable option.
Or else just ignore links from any referer you don't know, which isn't always a viable option.
Spam uses fraud (often including forged headers and poorly-secured third-party servers) to work; essentially removing the choice of whether or not to get spam from the reach of most people.
Spam doesn't always use fraud. It rarely involves forged headers, and even less often involves open relays.
If the choice of whether or not to get spam were as simple as the choice whether or not to accept a collect call, don't you think most people would choose not to get spam?
It already is. "You received mail from spammer@spam.spam, would you like to download it?" Or alternatively, at the server level, simply disconnect when you receive the MSG FROM line. Or don't accept the incomming connection in the first place!
I compared my website to a house. Slashdot's website is more like a store.
In any case, if slashdot can prove that that person is accessing slashdot's site without permission, they should sue them for trespassing.
Not true. You have to put up No Tresspassing signs.
My Server: line clearly states "No Trespassing"
Judges may frown on litigation where there are simple technical solutions available.
I don't want you visiting my website without my permission. What is the simple technical solution?
Contrast that to spammers where they make efforts to hide the source and bypass filters.
Contrast that to web browsers that make efforts to hide the source and bypass filters.
But, if you see someone deep linking, you can redirect them to a page that gives your opinion of the deep linker.:)
How can you determine this? What if the browser has referrers turned off?
But, you are allowing them on your private property, but forcing them to walk down the driveway instead of levitating over the grass.
No, I don't care about deep linking. We shouldn't ban the act of linking, only the act of clicking on the link. No one should enter my website and cost me money without my permission.
EULAs have already been shown to be not really that binding. For example, a EULA cannot forbid you from doing something. It can't say "You can't use this piece of software as a frisbee" because it has no legal clout.
That's usually true, but the question isn't whether an EULA can forbid you from doing something. The question is, can an EULA limit the liability of a company distributing software.
Actually the first question is whether or not someone distributing software for free should have any liability at all. I say they shouldn't, but if you're going to say that they should, then you have to have some means for them to limit that liability. Otherwise we simply won't have free (aib) software any more.
Quite an amusing opinion, coming from someone whose.sig links to a website that takes all the text content (stories and user comments) from Slashdot and re-formats it into an ad-free digest.
What is amusing about that? I have permission to link to that site.
Should 13-year-olds have the right to flood you off the network by hammering your connection with thousands of well-formed HTTP requests?
Well, yes, but for a different reason, which I don't care to argue because there's no way in hell you'll agree with me.
The difference between DOS attacks, accessing websites, making collect calls, and spam, is that DOS attacks are done for the intentional purpose of harming others. Collect calls, spam, and accessing websites all cause harm indirectly and unintentionally.
Why should I have to put code into my webserver to stop people from trespassing? Are you one of those people who say that rape victims "were asking for it" too?
No, I don't have to do anything to stop you from trespassing on my private property.
Besides, your referrer solution doesn't work for browsers which lie about the referrer.
The nature of the web is that a web page is open unless proven otherwise. It is like a store with no locks on the door. If it is locked then I won't go in. If the door is wide open, I will go in.
My website is not a store. It is more like my house. By accessing it you are trespassing on my private property. It doesn't matter whether or not I locked the doors.
I pay for my bandwidth. People who go to my website without my permission are stealing, plain and simple. It's as though someone called me on the phone collect!
But what about Felten being threatened with the DMCA to cancel his presentation on security holes in audio copy protection schemes?
If I treaten you with the DMCA to remove your posts from slashdot, does that make the DMCA a bad law? Felton was never convicted of a crime. He was never even indicted for a crime. He was never even charged with a crime.
Or what about a pseudocode version of the DeCSS code?
What about instead of inventing fictional cases you come up with an actual case?
One of the arguments I heard in the DeCSS case was that the code was a device, and not merely speech. Can pseudocode be considered a device? How about a paragraph in plain English describing a piece of pseudocode for which an analagous piece of code could then be written in a real computer language?
Maybe. Maybe not. In any case your argument is a straw man.
My point is that whether or not the DMCA actually attempts to prohibit what should be consitutionally protected free speech (which, from what I have heard, it certainly seems to), it certainly seems to be being used by corporations to do just that.
Not really. Big corporations will always try to prohibit people from exercising their free speech rights. If it isn't for the DMCA, they'll use copyright law, or trade secret law, or whatever. If there is a solution (and I'm not so sure there is), it's a reform of the legal system which makes it so costly to defend oneself from frivolous lawsuits.
Felten isn't a great example because he backed down instead of ignoring the RIAA and facing the music of the court, and later sued because he felt he had been stifled by illegitimate legal action, or somesuch, but the real question is, had he fought it, would the courts have sided with the RIAA or with Felten?
There is no doubt in my mind that the courts would have sided with Felton. And I'm fairly certain that in the end Felton did give the speech, and thus did not back down.
MS can turn the BSA on the school, demand to see licenses for ALL their products, run up legal bills, and otherwise put the school through the wringer.
No they can't. The BSA can't force the school to do anything. Only a judge can do that, and a judge will only do that if there is reasonable cause.
Secondly, we're in full agreement that if the DCMA would/does prohibit the discussion of circumvention that would be/is unconsititutional.
Well, it may merely be narrowly constructed, which means that the rest of the law holds, but the part which is unconstitutional is interpreted in a way which makes it constitutional.
And thirdly, I only left out words because I was being lazy (and couldn't figure out how to copy/paste from the pdf)
In the future you might want to try "http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch12.html". Just a suggestion, not a complaint.
You seem to agree that the omitted words only restrict the paragraphs in question to cases where there is no circumvention of technological measures of copy protection.
As far as strict legal meaning, the omitted words don't really matter in our discussion, because the paragraph was of the form "You may", not "You may not". But the implication you were making was that there was already something in the law saying that you may not make information available to others, while the quoted text was referring to the rule that you may not reverse engineer, thus circumventing technological measures.
So the only point in question is: does copying DVDs involve the circumvention of technological measures?
Strictly, bit copying does not, but I don't see how that matters. Copying DVDs is already illegal under copyright infringement laws. Telling people how to copy DVDs is not (unless you are directly and knowingly profiting and thus can be found guilty under conspiracy or contributory copyright infringement laws).
P.S. My base belief that the DMCA prohibits discussion of means of circumvention comes, not from reading the law itself, but from a variety of published sources, e.g. the book "Digital Copyright."
Sure, it's a common strawman argument used against the DMCA. You misrepresent the actual law, then you use that misrepresentation to knock the law down.
If you want to attack the DMCA, you should attack the things the DMCA actually does. Distributing DeCSS over the internet is illegal. Creating and distributing software to crack Adobe copyright protections is illegal. Presenting a speech on how to break anti-piracy technologies (a la Felton) is not.
Incidently, I believe that MS would probably have a very hard time making such a licence agreement stand up in court, but that doesn't really matter. Do you have the time and money to fight it out with them?
OTOH, does MS have the time and money to catch every high school teacher who gets a computer for his classroom? No, not even Microsoft has that much money and power.
Slashdot Mirror
...but just because I'm a geek, it doesn't mean I have to be some lazy tard that can't do anything but drink coffee and read 'blogs.' Maybe I'm abnormal, but I do things outside of using a computer. I camp. I walk a lot. I bike a lot. I go take naps in the woods. I garden. I hike. I program on my iBook or my iPAQ (with Squeak) while sitting in the woods, having had to hike a few miles to get to a nice place to sit. For the biking and walking, I don't go out of my way to do it. It's just part of the way I live. When there's not snow on the ground, it's my main method of getting around. I suppose that's not possible if you're living in some gigantic post-apocalyptic hell hole, though. And for the other things, I live in a very green town, with lots of nice big parts and a sanctioned green-belt, so taking naps in the woods isn't extraordinary. Just a way of life. :)
Now, I suppose some people really strive for their activities to be labeled as something a 'geek' would do, trying to live that 'cool' middle school clique feeling that they may have missed out on the first time around. Can't say I identify with that, but to each her own.
So, I suppose you could make the above activities 'geeky' by bringing a PDA and doing something useful with it. If you're not going to do something useful with it, however, do yourself a favor and leave it at home.
For instance, I'll write a bunch of code on my iPAQ. May not be as practical for others, but the programming environment I use on my desktop is the same one I use on my PDA, so code flows back and forth easily, and I can work on the same problems as if I were at my desk. Some people think it's some disgrace to "Nature" to program in the middle of a forest. Frankly, I find it beautiful and peaceful. Especially after a mind-clearing hike. And it sure beats being stuck inside on a beautiful spring day!
Most importantly- have fun!
No troll problem when you cruise the posts at only 2 or higher!
First Reply proving you wrong!!!!!
Your post came right before barbaq666. Be afraid, be very afraid....
IGT(H)GSBWSGAA
I should sue you for slander and libel.
ok then your infringing on my copyright! Could you as me next time before STEALING my comments for your own fame?
Thanks again
I'm not doing anything except linking.
And copyright infringement isn't stealing.
But what if I'm at a party, and some hottie asks for my web page address? Now I could make up a username and password for em, but what if ey gets home before I do, therefore before I set up the account? I shouldn't have to go through all that trouble just to stop people from trespassing on my private property.
Last time I checked, receiving spam wasn't something that I had a choice about.
Neither is receiving hits to my website.
I suppose you could say that my ISP's mail server had the choice not to accept the message, but there's not really a standard for making that decision, at least in the same way that a web server can check referrers to make a decision about serving a page.
Not all browsers send referrers, and some proxies filter them. Besides, the user can always copy the link address and then paste it. Or what if I want to allow links from free websites, but not from commercial ones?
The thing with spam is that it often masquerades as a real message, so you pretty much have to download it to find out that it's spam.
Links from free websites often masquerade as links from commercial ones.
Or else just ignore mail from anyone you don't know, which isn't always a viable option.
Or else just ignore links from any referer you don't know, which isn't always a viable option.
Spam uses fraud (often including forged headers and poorly-secured third-party servers) to work; essentially removing the choice of whether or not to get spam from the reach of most people.
Spam doesn't always use fraud. It rarely involves forged headers, and even less often involves open relays.
If the choice of whether or not to get spam were as simple as the choice whether or not to accept a collect call, don't you think most people would choose not to get spam?
It already is. "You received mail from spammer@spam.spam, would you like to download it?" Or alternatively, at the server level, simply disconnect when you receive the MSG FROM line. Or don't accept the incomming connection in the first place!
I compared my website to a house. Slashdot's website is more like a store. In any case, if slashdot can prove that that person is accessing slashdot's site without permission, they should sue them for trespassing.
Not true. You have to put up No Tresspassing signs.
My Server: line clearly states "No Trespassing"
Judges may frown on litigation where there are simple technical solutions available.
I don't want you visiting my website without my permission. What is the simple technical solution?
Contrast that to spammers where they make efforts to hide the source and bypass filters.
Contrast that to web browsers that make efforts to hide the source and bypass filters.
But, if you see someone deep linking, you can redirect them to a page that gives your opinion of the deep linker. :)
How can you determine this? What if the browser has referrers turned off?
But, you are allowing them on your private property, but forcing them to walk down the driveway instead of levitating over the grass.
No, I don't care about deep linking. We shouldn't ban the act of linking, only the act of clicking on the link. No one should enter my website and cost me money without my permission.
EULAs have already been shown to be not really that binding. For example, a EULA cannot forbid you from doing something. It can't say "You can't use this piece of software as a frisbee" because it has no legal clout.
That's usually true, but the question isn't whether an EULA can forbid you from doing something. The question is, can an EULA limit the liability of a company distributing software.
Actually the first question is whether or not someone distributing software for free should have any liability at all. I say they shouldn't, but if you're going to say that they should, then you have to have some means for them to limit that liability. Otherwise we simply won't have free (aib) software any more.
Quite an amusing opinion, coming from someone whose .sig links to a website that takes all the text content (stories and user comments) from Slashdot and re-formats it into an ad-free digest.
What is amusing about that? I have permission to link to that site.
Why do you have a website again?
Same reason I have an email account. So people who I choose to let use it can use it.
Should 13-year-olds have the right to flood you off the network by hammering your connection with thousands of well-formed HTTP requests?
Well, yes, but for a different reason, which I don't care to argue because there's no way in hell you'll agree with me.
The difference between DOS attacks, accessing websites, making collect calls, and spam, is that DOS attacks are done for the intentional purpose of harming others. Collect calls, spam, and accessing websites all cause harm indirectly and unintentionally.
Why should I have to put code into my webserver to stop people from trespassing? Are you one of those people who say that rape victims "were asking for it" too?
No, I don't have to do anything to stop you from trespassing on my private property.
Besides, your referrer solution doesn't work for browsers which lie about the referrer.
If email address = on public domain then
I don't have permission = tough shit;
print("Take email address out of public domain");
I can't believe that none of you got the joke/irony here.
I can't either.
Calling someone collect means that they get to choose whether to pay to talk to you.
True...
Requesting a page from a web server means that the web server gets to choose whether to give you the page (possibly based on your referrer, etc).
True...
It is exactly like calling collect - the choice is entirely up to the responder, not the requester.
It's also exactly like... Receiving spam!!!
Basically aozilla agrees with everyone else, he/she just didn't include the smiley so that you could get the joke.
Yes, I do agree with everyone else that we shouldn't have laws against accessing websites or making collect calls.
Or spam!
The nature of the web is that a web page is open unless proven otherwise. It is like a store with no locks on the door. If it is locked then I won't go in. If the door is wide open, I will go in.
My website is not a store. It is more like my house. By accessing it you are trespassing on my private property. It doesn't matter whether or not I locked the doors.
I pay for my bandwidth. People who go to my website without my permission are stealing, plain and simple. It's as though someone called me on the phone collect!
Jesus, you should be a lawyer.
"But your honor, some guy on slashdot said 'Unlocked, presumably'."
But what about Felten being threatened with the DMCA to cancel his presentation on security holes in audio copy protection schemes?
If I treaten you with the DMCA to remove your posts from slashdot, does that make the DMCA a bad law? Felton was never convicted of a crime. He was never even indicted for a crime. He was never even charged with a crime.
Or what about a pseudocode version of the DeCSS code?
What about instead of inventing fictional cases you come up with an actual case?
One of the arguments I heard in the DeCSS case was that the code was a device, and not merely speech. Can pseudocode be considered a device? How about a paragraph in plain English describing a piece of pseudocode for which an analagous piece of code could then be written in a real computer language?
Maybe. Maybe not. In any case your argument is a straw man.
My point is that whether or not the DMCA actually attempts to prohibit what should be consitutionally protected free speech (which, from what I have heard, it certainly seems to), it certainly seems to be being used by corporations to do just that.
Not really. Big corporations will always try to prohibit people from exercising their free speech rights. If it isn't for the DMCA, they'll use copyright law, or trade secret law, or whatever. If there is a solution (and I'm not so sure there is), it's a reform of the legal system which makes it so costly to defend oneself from frivolous lawsuits.
Felten isn't a great example because he backed down instead of ignoring the RIAA and facing the music of the court, and later sued because he felt he had been stifled by illegitimate legal action, or somesuch, but the real question is, had he fought it, would the courts have sided with the RIAA or with Felten?
There is no doubt in my mind that the courts would have sided with Felton. And I'm fairly certain that in the end Felton did give the speech, and thus did not back down.
MS can turn the BSA on the school, demand to see licenses for ALL their products, run up legal bills, and otherwise put the school through the wringer.
No they can't. The BSA can't force the school to do anything. Only a judge can do that, and a judge will only do that if there is reasonable cause.
Secondly, we're in full agreement that if the DCMA would/does prohibit the discussion of circumvention that would be/is unconsititutional.
Well, it may merely be narrowly constructed, which means that the rest of the law holds, but the part which is unconstitutional is interpreted in a way which makes it constitutional.
And thirdly, I only left out words because I was being lazy (and couldn't figure out how to copy/paste from the pdf)
In the future you might want to try "http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch12.html". Just a suggestion, not a complaint.
You seem to agree that the omitted words only restrict the paragraphs in question to cases where there is no circumvention of technological measures of copy protection.
As far as strict legal meaning, the omitted words don't really matter in our discussion, because the paragraph was of the form "You may", not "You may not". But the implication you were making was that there was already something in the law saying that you may not make information available to others, while the quoted text was referring to the rule that you may not reverse engineer, thus circumventing technological measures.
So the only point in question is: does copying DVDs involve the circumvention of technological measures?
Strictly, bit copying does not, but I don't see how that matters. Copying DVDs is already illegal under copyright infringement laws. Telling people how to copy DVDs is not (unless you are directly and knowingly profiting and thus can be found guilty under conspiracy or contributory copyright infringement laws).
P.S. My base belief that the DMCA prohibits discussion of means of circumvention comes, not from reading the law itself, but from a variety of published sources, e.g. the book "Digital Copyright."
Sure, it's a common strawman argument used against the DMCA. You misrepresent the actual law, then you use that misrepresentation to knock the law down.
If you want to attack the DMCA, you should attack the things the DMCA actually does. Distributing DeCSS over the internet is illegal. Creating and distributing software to crack Adobe copyright protections is illegal. Presenting a speech on how to break anti-piracy technologies (a la Felton) is not.
Make an example how? Do you really think a judge is going to award any verdict to someone for deleting an OS, let alone a large verdict?
At the very worst Microsoft might win a few hundred dollars, which it likely won't even be able to collect.
Those cowering in fear likely think they will go to jail for removing the "Do Not Remove" tag from their matresses, as well.
Incidently, I believe that MS would probably have a very hard time making such a licence agreement stand up in court, but that doesn't really matter. Do you have the time and money to fight it out with them?
OTOH, does MS have the time and money to catch every high school teacher who gets a computer for his classroom? No, not even Microsoft has that much money and power.