That is a good point. This is about the public's perception that possessing something physical means that you own it until such time as you return it. People consider to be either paying for a product or a service. Owning a book is not a service.
It just doesn't make sense that you should be able to buy something with a built in self destruct mechanism. Once you buy it you own the damn thing.
Then the other issue is that the company can't argue that if they allow you to keep it longer than a certain amount of time, they are losing money. It suddenly sounds like they're trying to charge the customer twice.
This seems to be standard practice with contractors. Mention a reasonable small sounding amount of time to do something, but make sure it is sufficiently too long to be useful. It doesn't work very well that often, unless its something really trivial, and frequently results in the organisation responsible losing the contract.
After revolutionizing the data processing industry with
the 360, IBM is now revolutionizing mathematics. It seems
that sometimes the IBM personal computer will tell you that.1 divided by ten is.001, instead of.01. This apparently
happens sporadically, and is the result of a fault in the
output routine, not the calculation. Stay tuned for more
developments as they happen.
You would have thought that for this type of
system, the government could have demanded the software
as source. They aren't exactly going to break
an NDA. Proprietry isn't a problem. Its the black box
nature that is.
The reason CNN is allowed to link to it is because they are not trying to distribute it.
Why this should be legal when it is identical behaviour to something which is illegal is another matter, which suggests that the ruling was stupid. Now, there's a new viewpoint.
But, couldn't it have been NT 3.5? I think Bugs is great - the way half the time they seem to have some technological accuracy, and half the time they come up with ludicrous ideas that make no sense at all.
Absolutely. I posted a comment along the lines of this before, (and in response I got a load of analogies), but the thing is an analogy is only any use if its totally and unmistakable obvious.
What we should be asking is "is this wrong?" Is it wrong to distribute something that can decrypt an encrypted file? (Probably not) Is it wrong if the encryption serves no purpose other than to prevent copying? (probably) Is it wrong if the encryption also prevent people from performing legal acts? (A bit more difficult to decide - depends on what legal acts are being prevented)
Please explain what DeCSS even remotly has to do with copy protection
Didn't you read the court notes? It is now legally impossible to copy an encrypted file. (Yes, thats right this string "jut bmm hsffl up nf" can not be copied and pasted).
As pointed out in another comment, the judge was convinced that CSS was copy protection. Sorry, should have made that clearer in my post.
Well, like I said, it was a stupid ruling. I first typed it with a lot of clarifiers, and it turned into a piece of legalese. Nested if statements don't make the english language very easy to read.
Anyway, as far as the judge was concerned, DeCSS was designed to copy discs. This does suggest that he slept through half the preceedings, but this was pretty much what he ruled. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, DeCSS is a device that circumvents copy protection. Maybe he didn't rule it was a device, but thats a nitpick.
My point was simply that the ruling doesn't make all links to DeCSS illegal. It does make linking for the purpose of distributing DeCSS illegal. Search engines are not trying to distribute it. They're neutral. 2600 were. They weren't just trying to helpfully explain what they weren't allowed to distribute. They were trying to distribute it. It doesn't matter what you or I believe DeCSS was created for. As far as the law is concerned its there to steal from, murder, and destroy the movie industry.
The point is that 2600 were linking to the material as a specifically as a means to distribute information on how to make a device to circumvent copy protection.
Still a stupid ruling, but please get some perspective guys.
It might have been a joke that was taken out of context.
So in retaliation, I'm going to set up a huge multinational all encompassing music, film, and electronics company and make sure that I can offer a better deal to customers and artists than they could ever manage.
Slashdot Mirror
1. A stir fry dish
2. A hat
3. a frisbee
4. a very small boat for a very smooth sea
5. Turn it into a steel drum
As others have pointed out - MPAA. To piss off the RIAA we should send a copy of Napster, and lots and lots of MP3's
Unfortunately Disney are planning to persuade congress to extend the length of copyright to 52100 years in 51000AD
That is a good point. This is about the public's perception that possessing something physical means that you own it until such time as you return it. People consider to be either paying for a product or a service. Owning a book is not a service.
It just doesn't make sense that you should be able to buy something with a built in self destruct mechanism. Once you buy it you own the damn thing.
Then the other issue is that the company can't argue that if they allow you to keep it longer than a certain amount of time, they are losing money. It suddenly sounds like they're trying to charge the customer twice.
This seems to be standard practice with contractors. Mention a reasonable small sounding amount of time to do something, but make sure it is sufficiently too long to be useful. It doesn't work very well that often, unless its something really trivial, and frequently results in the organisation responsible losing the contract.
Star Trek had a newsgroup. They were just forced to share it with all those movie people.
IB M invents new math
.1 divided by ten is .001, instead of .01. This apparently
happens sporadically, and is the result of a fault in the
output routine, not the calculation. Stay tuned for more
developments as they happen.
After revolutionizing the data processing industry with the 360, IBM is now revolutionizing mathematics. It seems that sometimes the IBM personal computer will tell you that
Is there anyone in favour of UCITA? Surely the risks are greater than the gains for most software companies. They use software as well after all.
You would have thought that for this type of system, the government could have demanded the software as source. They aren't exactly going to break an NDA. Proprietry isn't a problem. Its the black box nature that is.
The reason CNN is allowed to link to it is because they are not trying to distribute it.
Why this should be legal when it is identical behaviour to something which is illegal is another matter, which suggests that the ruling was stupid. Now, there's a new viewpoint.
Yeah, the DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, EFF DeCSS and all get a bit confusing don't they.
But, couldn't it have been NT 3.5? I think Bugs is great - the way half the time they seem to have some technological accuracy, and half the time they come up with ludicrous ideas that make no sense at all.
...And the number 1000
SO how about fighting for a capital M for MegaByte (Or Mi for MebiBytes). All too often I seen ads quoting millibytes of RAM.
Yeah, I noticed. They occasionally show clips of battlebots tournaments (or something similar) The robots actually do some serious damage.
In Robot Wars, I've rarely seen a victor that didn't involve either a mechanical failure or being flipped.
This did happen in Norway of course. What does Section 1201 say about import?
Absolutely. I posted a comment along the lines of this before, (and in response I got a load of analogies), but the thing is an analogy is only any use if its totally and unmistakable obvious.
What we should be asking is "is this wrong?" Is it wrong to distribute something that can decrypt an encrypted file? (Probably not) Is it wrong if the encryption serves no purpose other than to prevent copying? (probably) Is it wrong if the encryption also prevent people from performing legal acts? (A bit more difficult to decide - depends on what legal acts are being prevented)
Okay, now run that 4 meg file through an mpeg decoder.
Happy now?
Please explain what DeCSS even remotly has to do with copy protection
Didn't you read the court notes? It is now legally impossible to copy an encrypted file. (Yes, thats right this string "jut bmm hsffl up nf" can not be copied and pasted).
As pointed out in another comment, the judge was convinced that CSS was copy protection. Sorry, should have made that clearer in my post.
Well, like I said, it was a stupid ruling. I first typed it with a lot of clarifiers, and it turned into a piece of legalese. Nested if statements don't make the english language very easy to read.
Anyway, as far as the judge was concerned, DeCSS was designed to copy discs. This does suggest that he slept through half the preceedings, but this was pretty much what he ruled. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, DeCSS is a device that circumvents copy protection. Maybe he didn't rule it was a device, but thats a nitpick.
My point was simply that the ruling doesn't make all links to DeCSS illegal. It does make linking for the purpose of distributing DeCSS illegal. Search engines are not trying to distribute it. They're neutral. 2600 were. They weren't just trying to helpfully explain what they weren't allowed to distribute. They were trying to distribute it. It doesn't matter what you or I believe DeCSS was created for. As far as the law is concerned its there to steal from, murder, and destroy the movie industry.
The point is that 2600 were linking to the material as a specifically as a means to distribute information on how to make a device to circumvent copy protection.
Still a stupid ruling, but please get some perspective guys.
This seems to be a guide to circumvent censorship software, with detailed instructions. Since Peacefire is usually blocked who is it helping?
I believe 'cartel' would be the word to use here.
It might have been a joke that was taken out of context.
So in retaliation, I'm going to set up a huge multinational all encompassing music, film, and electronics company and make sure that I can offer a better deal to customers and artists than they could ever manage.
All these people talking about making bombs. Just get them from http://www.cheapnukes.com
I thought it might be a contraction of platypus compatible.