IANAL, but this pretty clearly states that we are prohibited from talking about how to copy a DVD since actually copying one could be an infringement of the DMCA.
You're wrong. That would be unconstitutional.
The quote you give doesn't even have the word prohibit in it. It says something you may do, not something you may not do. Further, you left out a key part of the sentence, "acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2)". If you are not circumventing technological measures, these paragraphs don't apply.
this pretty clearly states [...] talking [...] could be an infringement of the DMCA.
But in any case, free speech doesn't mean you can't be arrested for any thing you say. Copyright law, slander, libel, fraud, and conspiracy are examples of some speech which is restricted.
what is NEEDED is a judge, a federal judge to rule that click through agreements are non-binding.
I can see how EULA might not be fully binding, but they have to at least be able to limit liability. Without that ability there will be no free (aib) software. Certainly no peer-to-peer software (which by definition relies on CPU/bandwidth sharing) without a signed contract.
The government cannot prohibit you from talking about how to copy DVDs just because it may increase your chances of actually doing something illegal with copies of DVDs.
Right. What's your point? The government doesn't prohibit you from talking about how to copy DVDs.
If you don't want people thermal scanning your house, you should get better insulation!
If you don't want people breaking into your house and raping your children, you should get better locks?
No way. Emitting E-M waves onto my private property is breaking and entering. It should be illegal, on a state and/or local level. Even federally, if it constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure.
The house was being rented. The owner was the videotaping sleezebag.
This is an important law to pass, but it's one that should be passed by the states. The federal government has very little authority to govern what I do in my own house.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
WHY do people spend time helping in a soup kitchen? *BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD*. Maybe not *physically* good, but spiritually good. Or morally superior. Or whatever. But we're all always motivated by selfishness.
Maybe they just don't know any better. Maybe they were just walking down the street, saw "Soup Kitchen Help Needed", and went in to help on a whim. Maybe it didn't make them feel good. Not physically, not morally, not at all. But it made them feel as good as anything else, so they did it again, and again. And then it became a habit. Without thinking, on the way home from work, they would stop at a soup kitchen and help people. They didn't even realize it was a nice thing to do. They were merely conditioned to do it.
MOST things in life are like that. They're not rational, they're not about physical needs, they're not about tangible gain, they're not about spiritual gain, they're just plain old conditioning.
Professors who assign homework should assume that the student is completing that homework using all means available.
I never cared about my fellow students cheating. What I did care about was when that cheating affected my class rank. In my schooling experience, about 80-95% of students cheated in any way which had a low probability of getting caught. Professors should realize this, and not assign grades based on how little honor a student has.
Rigid "honor codes" lead to ridiculous situations.
And generally tend to encourage more cheating. If most of the students are already doing something which could get them expelled, it doesn't exactly give them incentive to report the "true" cheaters, for fear that they'll get reported in retaliation. It also gives teachers little incentive to penalize students for minor infractions. If I caught a student cheating on homework, I might give him/her a zero for that homework. But if the school rules force me expel that student, I might decide to let the incident go unreported instead.
The database obviously has a list of "related links". Both the original "article" and this dup have the same link, to http://www.google.com/apis/. Why not just list all the other "articles" which contain that same "related link" in the last 2 weeks or so when the "editor" (and I use that term very loosely) submits the "article" (which I also use very loosely).
The GPL allows me to decide how my code may be used.
Nope, copyright law does that.
Nobody is being forced to do anything (or have any viewpoints forced upon them) because I chose to release my code under the GPL.
Right, but that's because RMS hasn't gotten his way. If RMS got his way, all authors would be forced to release the source code to all software they write.
I've written code. I've gotten paid for it. I never, not once, had to sue anyone over it, or even threaten to. How does that make me an idiot?
Don't like the restrictions I put on my code? Fine -- don't use my code.
Since that's the way the law happens to work, I won't (unless I think I can do it without getting caught). But don't give me some nonsense about how the FSF is fighting for my rights. That's bullshit.
If the Lindows folks want to use GPL'd code, they have to abide by the GPL. If they don't want to abide by the GPL, they need to write their own code.
That's just your twisted vision of the way things work. Although I'm sure it's your twisted hypocritical vision, and that you've broken copyright law before and will continue to in the future. Copyright infringement is so wide spread because it's an unjust law.
Sure, you could do that so long as you weren't caught. You'd be in copyright violation, and a lazy shit-for-brains scumbag ripping off my code, but apparently ethical considerations don't bother you.
It's not wrong to break unjust laws unless you get caught.
IIRC copyright law grants copyright holders the right to decide if this is a "big deal" or not.
So? I'm not arguing legality, I'm arguing principle. Yes, legally, RMS can be a dick. But that doesn't mean he should, or even that it's in his best interests to.
Then don't use GPL'd code in your works. If I GPL *my* code, I'm specifically telling *you* - yes, you - that you have no right whatsoever to use my code unless you comply with my rules.
And I could use the same argument right back. If you want source code, then don't download Lindows.
Thems the breaks. That's copyright. If you don't like it write your own fucking code and don't touch mine at all.
How 'bout this instead: I do whatever the hell I want with your code, and you have no fucking clue that I did it.
But you have no right to whine about whatever restrictions I put on my copyright.
No, someone is taking something from me - my right to prepare and distribute derivitive works.?
You have no such right. All rights to create and distribute derivative works for a copyrighted work belong to the copyright owner of the original work.
I have no such right because congress took that right away from me.
Since they have given no written offer (or at least that interview mentions none, and with the attitude of Lindows, I expect there wasn't one), and they are a commercial distributor, section A applies directly to them.
Commercial distributors may use section B, but you're correct, they have to have given a written offer at the time of distribution, which apparently - apparently - they haven't. So, my fault on that one, you are correct that they apparently violated the license. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the FSF is being excessively anal and stupid.
What do you think would happen if I copied Microsoft Windows from a friend, and when the police knocked at my door, I'd reply "Sure, I'll pay for a license in a few months. Right now, this product seems like a beta-level project to me; I'll think about complying with the license when it's more stable."
Slashdot would post a story about how horrible Microsoft was. And 99% of you would agree.
Besides, copying Windows from a friend is not a criminal issue, so the police wouldn't knock on your door about it.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but this pretty clearly states that we are prohibited from talking about how to copy a DVD since actually copying one could be an infringement of the DMCA.
You're wrong. That would be unconstitutional.
The quote you give doesn't even have the word prohibit in it. It says something you may do, not something you may not do. Further, you left out a key part of the sentence, "acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2)". If you are not circumventing technological measures, these paragraphs don't apply.
this pretty clearly states [...] talking [...] could be an infringement of the DMCA.
See what happens when you leave out key words?
No, DeCSS was about code, not speech.
But in any case, free speech doesn't mean you can't be arrested for any thing you say. Copyright law, slander, libel, fraud, and conspiracy are examples of some speech which is restricted.
what is NEEDED is a judge, a federal judge to rule that click through agreements are non-binding.
I can see how EULA might not be fully binding, but they have to at least be able to limit liability. Without that ability there will be no free (aib) software. Certainly no peer-to-peer software (which by definition relies on CPU/bandwidth sharing) without a signed contract.
For all they can tell, a dog or cat walked across the keyboard and accepted the EULA...
Thereby breaking the DMCA.
The government cannot prohibit you from talking about how to copy DVDs just because it may increase your chances of actually doing something illegal with copies of DVDs.
Right. What's your point? The government doesn't prohibit you from talking about how to copy DVDs.
Does this mean slashdot is going to abandon subscriptions, and start giving away its content for free?
If you don't want people thermal scanning your house, you should get better insulation!
If you don't want people breaking into your house and raping your children, you should get better locks?
No way. Emitting E-M waves onto my private property is breaking and entering. It should be illegal, on a state and/or local level. Even federally, if it constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure.
In Louisiana tresspassing is not illegal?
The house was being rented. The owner was the videotaping sleezebag.
This is an important law to pass, but it's one that should be passed by the states. The federal government has very little authority to govern what I do in my own house.
I tried to reply to say "At least slashdot doesn't have any bugs in it", but the reply button wasn't working...
WHY do people spend time helping in a soup kitchen? *BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD*. Maybe not *physically* good, but spiritually good. Or morally superior. Or whatever. But we're all always motivated by selfishness.
Maybe they just don't know any better. Maybe they were just walking down the street, saw "Soup Kitchen Help Needed", and went in to help on a whim. Maybe it didn't make them feel good. Not physically, not morally, not at all. But it made them feel as good as anything else, so they did it again, and again. And then it became a habit. Without thinking, on the way home from work, they would stop at a soup kitchen and help people. They didn't even realize it was a nice thing to do. They were merely conditioned to do it.
MOST things in life are like that. They're not rational, they're not about physical needs, they're not about tangible gain, they're not about spiritual gain, they're just plain old conditioning.
Jerking off to anime of 13 year old girls fucking = free speech. Sending an advertisement to a 13 year old girl = "disturbing".
I got a better rule:
Professors who assign homework should assume that the student is completing that homework using all means available.
I never cared about my fellow students cheating. What I did care about was when that cheating affected my class rank. In my schooling experience, about 80-95% of students cheated in any way which had a low probability of getting caught. Professors should realize this, and not assign grades based on how little honor a student has.
So, you feel that copying large code segments from other students educates students somehow?
Yeah, how to get around in the real world.
Rigid "honor codes" lead to ridiculous situations.
And generally tend to encourage more cheating. If most of the students are already doing something which could get them expelled, it doesn't exactly give them incentive to report the "true" cheaters, for fear that they'll get reported in retaliation. It also gives teachers little incentive to penalize students for minor infractions. If I caught a student cheating on homework, I might give him/her a zero for that homework. But if the school rules force me expel that student, I might decide to let the incident go unreported instead.
How long until slashdot offers this service? (No, I don't mean just the headlines, I mean the whole site).
The database obviously has a list of "related links". Both the original "article" and this dup have the same link, to http://www.google.com/apis/. Why not just list all the other "articles" which contain that same "related link" in the last 2 weeks or so when the "editor" (and I use that term very loosely) submits the "article" (which I also use very loosely).
The GPL allows me to decide how my code may be used.
Nope, copyright law does that.
Nobody is being forced to do anything (or have any viewpoints forced upon them) because I chose to release my code under the GPL.
Right, but that's because RMS hasn't gotten his way. If RMS got his way, all authors would be forced to release the source code to all software they write.
I've written code. I've gotten paid for it. I never, not once, had to sue anyone over it, or even threaten to. How does that make me an idiot?
Don't like the restrictions I put on my code? Fine -- don't use my code.
Since that's the way the law happens to work, I won't (unless I think I can do it without getting caught). But don't give me some nonsense about how the FSF is fighting for my rights. That's bullshit.
If the Lindows folks want to use GPL'd code, they have to abide by the GPL. If they don't want to abide by the GPL, they need to write their own code.
That's just your twisted vision of the way things work. Although I'm sure it's your twisted hypocritical vision, and that you've broken copyright law before and will continue to in the future. Copyright infringement is so wide spread because it's an unjust law.
Sure, you could do that so long as you weren't caught. You'd be in copyright violation, and a lazy shit-for-brains scumbag ripping off my code, but apparently ethical considerations don't bother you.
It's not wrong to break unjust laws unless you get caught.
IIRC copyright law grants copyright holders the right to decide if this is a "big deal" or not.
So? I'm not arguing legality, I'm arguing principle. Yes, legally, RMS can be a dick. But that doesn't mean he should, or even that it's in his best interests to.
Then don't use GPL'd code in your works. If I GPL *my* code, I'm specifically telling *you* - yes, you - that you have no right whatsoever to use my code unless you comply with my rules.
And I could use the same argument right back. If you want source code, then don't download Lindows.
Thems the breaks. That's copyright. If you don't like it write your own fucking code and don't touch mine at all.
How 'bout this instead: I do whatever the hell I want with your code, and you have no fucking clue that I did it.
But you have no right to whine about whatever restrictions I put on my copyright.
Sure I do, it's called the right to free speech.
It's my code and I make the rules - not you.
It's my computer and I make the rules - not you.
No, someone is taking something from me - my right to prepare and distribute derivitive works.?
You have no such right. All rights to create and distribute derivative works for a copyrighted work belong to the copyright owner of the original work.
I have no such right because congress took that right away from me.
So the FSF is forcing you to use GPLed source code if you use GPLed source code. How can they force you to do something you're already doing.
I think I might have been unclear. The FSF is forcing me to GPL my code - if I use GPLed source code as the basis for it.
So someone is giving you something for free, and you're whining that you can't use it in any way you want?
No, someone is taking something from me - my right to prepare and distribute derivitive works.
Basically, you're saying that it's your right to take our work, and do whatever with you want.
Yep.
Are you willing to do that with your work?
Yep.
Since they have given no written offer (or at least that interview mentions none, and with the attitude of Lindows, I expect there wasn't one), and they are a commercial distributor, section A applies directly to them.
Commercial distributors may use section B, but you're correct, they have to have given a written offer at the time of distribution, which apparently - apparently - they haven't. So, my fault on that one, you are correct that they apparently violated the license. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the FSF is being excessively anal and stupid.
What do you think would happen if I copied Microsoft Windows from a friend, and when the police knocked at my door, I'd reply "Sure, I'll pay for a license in a few months. Right now, this product seems like a beta-level project to me; I'll think about complying with the license when it's more stable."
Slashdot would post a story about how horrible Microsoft was. And 99% of you would agree.
Besides, copying Windows from a friend is not a criminal issue, so the police wouldn't knock on your door about it.