But seriouslyish, Cracking into a system and avoiding getting caught are 2
different skills. The ability to crack into a
system is useful. You need people with a proven ability to
test security systems. Whether they get caught is irrelevent.
Security is about preventing acces, not catching people who do get access.
The MPAA case would ostensibly seem to be about preventing people from getting a copy of DeCSS, but surely they can't be stupid enough to think they can actually succeed?
The did succeed. The result of this is that DVD players can not be included in Linix distros. DeCSS can't be used as the basis for alternative DVD players. (And you can get aroung the GPL by writing a specification from it and clean room rewriting it)
For the record, you don't need a signature for a contract. It certainly helps having it all written down, but a verbal contract is still legally binding. Opening packaging would probably not be accepted as acceptance. Clicking on "I agree" might or might not but has never been tested, but right of first sale might apply. But maybe not in this case if it was given to you. Of course, contracts start to look a bit suspicious if they have clauses that are not to do with the item in question.
No mention at all about taking DNA samples from those that partake of the public teat.
A very good point. If a person with any level
of power has criminal tendencies then it should be
viewed much more seriously than if a normal
person is a criminal purely because of the extra
harm they could do.
Never been to Walmart. When I go shopping I use
cash. I avoid loyalty cards unless there are
direct discounts for users of the cards. Yes,
I AM paranoid. More to the point, if they want
information and are willing to charge others for
it then they have to pay for it.
It just seems a shame that people are throwing
suit after suit at MS, when there are a lot of
other organisations who have behaved in pretty
much the same way. (And for some reason, I don't
think that there are many companies that would behave
any differently in the same position. Not that this
excuses it or anything)
Actually, you probably can licence physical property by lending it. Giving something away, then telling people that it can't be used for certain purposes is not the way to do it of course. (They could possibly demand the return of their property)
I agree. The damages seemed a little excessive (A whole days coffee sales worth - punitative), but apart from that, it seems reasonable that McD should have offered to pay for the medical bills.
they'll do chargebacks in response to buyer complaints/credit card fraud/etc.
Check the terms and conditions. Its not as bad as all that. You can be protected as long as you get proof of delivery and you're a verified seller (Plus you'll help catch a fraudster)
You might still find it a little too risky. Its your choice.
Yes. Assuming its stealing the same story. Does Scoop have the same story as Slash? No it just has the same functionality. I'm pretty certain you can't copyright functionaility.
I wouldn't call a program that performed the same function a derived work though. Just like I wouldn't call one physics textbook a copy of another if it happened by some sheer coincidence to contain the same physics.
There are a lot of websites that use code that is very similar to slash, and was often designed by people analysing what slashcode does and rewriting it. The copyright does not belong to Slashdot. Rob et al would not consider claiming it did.
This is slightly different though. If he was reverse engineering the erver to create a compatible server then it might cause problems.
Since he is reverse engineering the client to produce a server, which will be its nature not share a substantial portion of the same code, he will probably be isolated in that way.
Slashdot Mirror
:)
But seriouslyish, Cracking into a system and avoiding getting caught are 2 different skills. The ability to crack into a system is useful. You need people with a proven ability to test security systems. Whether they get caught is irrelevent. Security is about preventing acces, not catching people who do get access.
The MPAA case would ostensibly seem to be about preventing people from getting a copy of DeCSS, but surely they can't be stupid enough to think they can actually succeed?
The did succeed. The result of this is that DVD players can not be included in Linix distros. DeCSS can't be used as the basis for alternative DVD players. (And you can get aroung the GPL by writing a specification from it and clean room rewriting it)
For the record, you don't need a signature for a contract. It certainly helps having it all written down, but a verbal contract is still legally binding. Opening packaging would probably not be accepted as acceptance. Clicking on "I agree" might or might not but has never been tested, but right of first sale might apply. But maybe not in this case if it was given to you. Of course, contracts start to look a bit suspicious if they have clauses that are not to do with the item in question.
No mention at all about taking DNA samples from those that partake of the public teat.
A very good point. If a person with any level of power has criminal tendencies then it should be viewed much more seriously than if a normal person is a criminal purely because of the extra harm they could do.
Huh? You mean to say Tony Blair hasn't got round to making himself life president of the Republic of New Labour's England yet?
Can I have one?
Never been to Walmart. When I go shopping I use cash. I avoid loyalty cards unless there are direct discounts for users of the cards. Yes, I AM paranoid. More to the point, if they want information and are willing to charge others for it then they have to pay for it.
It just seems a shame that people are throwing suit after suit at MS, when there are a lot of other organisations who have behaved in pretty much the same way. (And for some reason, I don't think that there are many companies that would behave any differently in the same position. Not that this excuses it or anything)
Actually, you probably can licence physical property by lending it. Giving something away, then telling people that it can't be used for certain purposes is not the way to do it of course. (They could possibly demand the return of their property)
I agree. The damages seemed a little excessive (A whole days coffee sales worth - punitative), but apart from that, it seems reasonable that McD should have offered to pay for the medical bills.
I believe in that case there was actually some code copied as well (verification code mainly). Not a substantial part was copied though.
Why not just photocopy the barcode onto sticky labels?
Anyone checked contract law? I can't believe that a clause that the contract can be changed is lawful. (Not that I've made the effort to check)
But right now I don't buy stuff from them anyway.
Anyway, I might have missed something, but as far as I can tell, there's no way to remove oneself from the database.
they'll do chargebacks in response to buyer complaints/credit card fraud/etc.
Check the terms and conditions. Its not as bad as all that. You can be protected as long as you get proof of delivery and you're a verified seller (Plus you'll help catch a fraudster)
You might still find it a little too risky. Its your choice.
Yes. Assuming its stealing the same story. Does Scoop have the same story as Slash? No it just has the same functionality. I'm pretty certain you can't copyright functionaility.
I wouldn't call a program that performed the same function a derived work though. Just like I wouldn't call one physics textbook a copy of another if it happened by some sheer coincidence to contain the same physics.
Umm. Yeah. Although reverse engineering is getting a specification from a piece of sftware, so I guess packet sniffing still counts.
There are a lot of websites that use code that is very similar to slash, and was often designed by people analysing what slashcode does and rewriting it. The copyright does not belong to Slashdot. Rob et al would not consider claiming it did.
I Am Not A Lawyer.
This is slightly different though. If he was reverse engineering the erver to create a compatible server then it might cause problems.
Since he is reverse engineering the client to produce a server, which will be its nature not share a substantial portion of the same code, he will probably be isolated in that way.
That clause should be taken out and shot. Can someone write a version of babelfish to translate legalese?
Whether reverse engineering is legal or not has yet to be decided. Thats what the California case is based on.
The New York case just made a distributing an unauthorised computer program to decrypt "protected" files illegal.
I haven't seen a 25" or larger TV for a while that won't handle an NTSC signal or at least a PAL 60.
1 - US, canada
2 - Japan, Europe (Bizarre, but hey!)
3 - Aisa.
4 - Australia/NZ
5 - Africa, India
6 - China