I researched the X10 stuff and bought three floodcams, extra receivers, a RF/powerline transciever, and USB RF receiver and control interfaces for a computer for about US$430.
For the money spent, it was a good deal: the cameras, though poor quality work, and the flood lights come on when sensing motion, sending X10 events and responding to X10 commands to turn on the cameras and floodlight.
However:
1) The video range is poor. Figure 20 feet max through typical household construction, and interference can be significant.
2) The motion sensors are not particularly responsive. The floodcams have the option to gate the lights based on the motion sensors and it being dark (i.e. at night), but those motion sensors are fairly insensitive, and worse, it appears that the turn off delay does not work if the light sensor detects light after the motion sensor turns the light on -- if the light reflects of a shiny object -- we have trouble with one car in our driveway if it is parked too close.
Still, being able to control the floodlights with a handheld remote or a computer is, by itself, a nice plus. The (admitedly poor quality) cams are a bit of a perk, but I wouldn't rely on them for serious surveillance (a good stationary camera will run $250 to $500 alone -- closer to $1000 when you start talking about good PTZ units).
Of course, compare this to close to $200 for a decent motion / time of day sensing light alone which I used to have.
Granted the X10 ads are annoying and I've let them know, several times, that their practices reflect badly on their products which are otherwise fair value for the money. I suppose that they remain effective, though.
IIRC, Steve Ciarcia did this way back in the '80s (or late '70s) with a photocell, parabolic mirror, and servo mechanisms.
16x16x8 bits intensity, IIRC
Way back when I was single and and was renting my first apartment (and only apartment -- I bought a house when I got married), I decked out my living room in (c. 1985) style: leather furniture, brushed aluminum window blinds, minimalist glass tables, designed halogen lighting, and a B&O 5500 stereo. I wanted a nice media/equipment (media meaning cassettes and CDs) cabinet for the stereo, so I worked with an artist and came up with a design. I then hired someone to build it.
The B&O 5500 was made of four identical-appearing units: turntable, CD player, cassette player, and receiver/amp (with preamp output for a real amp).
We had designed a solid oak display unit, shaped basically as an inverted, squat trapezoid, over a non-inverted taller trapezoid. The (open in front, closed on sides and back) bottom trapezoid accomodated a drawer in the middle with space above for an amp. The drawer held up to 90 cassettes, manuals, and misc parts.
The top was logically devided into two parts, left and right. It accomodated two drawers capable of holding 120 CDs each. The very top held and openly displayed the B&O components: two units on each side.
To avoid the wood cabinet transmitting vibration to the equipment (particularly the turntable), the components rested on inlayed granite slabs (I used jiupirana but should have gone with blue pearl, in retrospect -- fortunately, they are swappable), that were shock-mounted: equipment on stone, on rubber, on wood. The mechanical acoustic impedance mismatch ensured that the equipment was isolated from vibration.
4 hours to concept design, 30 hours to build, and $1000 in lumber and stone. Figure $100 an hour for the design, $45 an hour for a master carpenter, that comes out to $2750 in 1985 dollars for the cabinet alone.
$6-7k in 2006 dollars is not expensive, particularly given the work these cases require, and the fact that they include a running system.
Of course, whether they are practical, in terms of heat management, and fan noise is another issue. Too many designers tend to sacrifice function to form.
The message, which read "Kip Hawley is an Idiot," resulted in a confrontation with law enforcement, the traveler being told that his right to freedom of speech applied only "out there (pointing past the id checkers) not while in here [the checkpoint]."
It was written "out there"! I am not responsible what you chose to read "in here".
I pay to access the internet, not some part of it.
The lack of net neutrality means that an ISP can prevent me from accessing content hosted by someone who uses a competing ISP unless I, or they, "pay extra". They're already "paying extra" to interconnect in the first place!
Do we really want to reduce the internet to a bunch of transiently connected BBSes?
renehollan: Is there not a "fit for use" expectation?
And that might make for an interesting breach of warranty suit, but it still wouldn't keep the patent from being in force.
Yes, but the only way I can use the DVD as advertised is to have a player with the necesasry hardware and algorithms licensed under patent, and the patent holders are on record as only licensing to manufacturers that build "defective" players, that is, those that forcibly play "unskippable" content.
So, it is impossible for me to legally play the DVD as to was described to me. I'd think that if one wants to use patents to restrict how copywritten material can be used, the manner of those restrictions should be clearly disclosed when the copy is offered for sale.
Today, a "reasonable person" would understand "that's how DVD's work", having gotten used to the behavior. But it was a real surprise to me the first time I encountered it. Ads in a theatre are not an appropriate analogy: the feature is advertised as starting at a particular time (within a few minutes to let the refreshment queues clear), and the ads run before the start time -- my problem if I arive early.
There have been allegations of price fixing in the entertainment business, and here appears to be evidence of fraud (the DVD publishers intentionally want you to forcibly see the ads, but do not disclose this clearly). Add the barratracious (Is that a word? It should be:-) nature of the MPAA, and you've got some nasty goons there, IMHO.
As you point out, it's the intention to deceive that's at issue.
Yes. I see someone is using my wireless network, and then decide to have some fun with them. A no, no. But, I think if I modified the content to popup a window warning that what was provided was a parody, my liablilty becomes a lot less certain, no?
I still maintain that if I were to originally deploy a wireless network that way, that I actually use, but with some "surprises" should outsiders try to freeload, it should be fine. Espescially, if the "surprises" are rather obvious. Copyright does allow for parody, you know.
Then again, that enters into the realm of a "digital boobytrap", the electronic equivalent of the rake left on the grass.
In real life, the salesman would be sued for misrepresenting the contents of the free "cookie", and thereby causing harm to the customer.
Except, I am not offering the customer anything! Bad analogy.
A better one is this: someone wanders into a building, sees a sign that says, "free" and says, "I want one of your cookies.... Hey, this tastes like shit!". "Yes, everything we sell is shit in various forms." Might be a bit different if the sign said "Free Cookies", but that is not the case here.
Look, you're asking some unknown service to translate a web request into a web page. You're not even checking to see if you're asking the write service. If I stand on a street corner and asl "What's one plus one?" and someone shouts "Three!", can I sue them, effectively? I doubt it.
Your points are understood, but I am not misrepresenting anything. I am providing a service to myself that mangles web requests. What you request to be mangled is your business. If I take an store's "special's" flyer and ask someone to edit it for me, that's fine, no? The fact that someone else can ask that it be edited the same way, at my expense, is not my problem.
I understand the legal loopholes, disagree with them, and think they need to be tested in a court of law.
The best counter is that I intended to deceive (hmm, would a pop-up window saying the sites have been modified suffuce as "notice" of the service I provide? What if the client disables popups? What if I know it does?).
But, even then, at most, I should be guilty of "mischief".
If, however, apple and ebay were bored one day they'd sic their lawyers on this guy. Nonsense about modifying their webpages and whatnot. Even if he won, he'd lose.
IANAL, but I don't think Apple, Ebay, etc. would have a case.
If I request a web page, and my proxy renders it to my network's http clients in a modified fashion, that's my business. I can take Apple's logo, write "crap" all over it, and post it in my home. I can't publish it, though.
If you happen to use my network, what you get is your own problem.
Now, I suppose, that you do this intentionally, knowing that someone is using your network, the misrepresentation argument might apply. But still, you do this to all web sites. Does that make you a "common carrier" because you don't discriminate?.
I'd give my left nut to hear the support calls on this
Heh, mod the banner ads to serve offers for "free VoIP", wait until he orders the "free adapter", and then you can listen in on the tech support call, as you hurridly craft an Asterix PBX on your end. Worth the cost of the H/W, IMHO. Might need some careful legaleeze in the "VoIP service agreement" you require him to sign to allow such evesdropping, but man, what a hack that would be!
/me thinks to open up a wireless LAN and see who tries to use it...
Patents and copyrights are on equal footing; it's not like trademarks, which are subservient to both. One blocking the other is a perfectly ordinary and acceptable situation.
Hmm. Ordinary, perhaps, but acceptable? I purchased a legitimate copy of copywritten material. Is there not a "fit for use" expectation? (Yes, I know, it probably depends on the State). What is use? Watching the movie? Or, watching the movie on an approved player? If the technologies to build a player are locked up by patents, it's hard for me to build my own, legally. Thus, I must use an approved player. Except, approved players might force me to view advertising before the movie starts.
I did not purchase a copy of advertising. What was offered to me was the movie. The movie is not "fit for use" if, in order to use it, I must suffer the inconvenience of advertising. Don't get me started on region codes...
It's [IP Law] just out of line with the expectations of laypeople
Well, "fit for use" generally comes up against what "a reasonable person" would assume. We now know that DVDs can have advertising that can't be avoided, when played in approved players. But, I'dve never imagined that to be the case until I actually encountered it: nothing comparable (videocassettes) had such restrictions -- vis. "fast forward") worked that way when DVDs were "new and shiney". Now, there is no requirement that "approved players" work the way I want. But, to not be able to "use" what I purchase because I can't make a machine that lets me, without this unusual circumstance being clearly disclosed when I purchase the DVD strikes me (yes, a layperson) as wrong.
Basically, the wool is being pulled over the eyes of the technologically ignorant. Experience breeds understanding and today "a resonable person" understands about required advertising and region codes on DVDs. But, I protest, that was "snuck in while we weren't watching" and accepted as "normal" because the DVD was "shiny, new, and novel" So, "that's the way they work". Bovine Feces! I cry.
Maybe a personal use exception for patents is more what you're looking for.
That would go a long way. Often a patent (particularly a software patent) in infringed in ignorance. And, complience with existing software patents is so difficult and unwieldly, that it threatens to undermine the small software producer. Since some 95% of all business is small business, I'd say that is not in the public's interest.
I'd go further though: patents should protect the ability to profit from an invention. If an indivudual, or even a business, provides a patented device at cost, there should be no infringement. Such organizations (cooperatives) tend to be small and would likely not have a major effect on the inventor. Furthermore, customers generally expect support for the products they purchase: warranty returns for defective units, operating instructions, etc. These have to be supported out of gross revenues, which must naturally exceed the cost of production. So, the patent should apply if there is a directly related revenue stream in excess of the products production cost. But, that's just me blathering.
I've long supported a personal use exception for copyrights (i.e. natural persons acting noncommercially could do anything and not infringe), so perhaps something like that.
Hmm. The doctrine of fair use seamed quite resonable to me: aren't there four basic principles that define a use as fair? Personal use of a copy of the whole, excerpts for critical review, educational use, and lack of commercial incentive (the latter driving my views on patents). 1201 basically throws traditional fair uses out the window.
Now, as a libertarian, I have no problem with an explicit contract regarding some of the restrictions in 1201 regarding fair use ("you WILL watch the advertising, and not circumvent it", etc.). But I am troubled deeply that one can trot out 1201 with all sort of non-obvious implied contract effects. It is not in
First, thanks so much for a real lawyer's perspective. And yeah, the usual disclaimer (this is not to be construed as legal advice,... every situation is unique,... retain one's own council, etc. is taken as a given).
Me: You can also build your own player to view it.
Yeah, you're going to run into some 1201 problems there. Did you miss the whole Reimerdes case?
No, I didn't miss it, though I think it's an insufficiently tested area of law. I think the interoperability exception might apply, for example. No, IANAL. But, I disagree with aspects of that case. I do think that it should be possible to build a DVD player that does not have the physical capability of facilitating copying, for example, unlike a general purpose computer.
I think it is absurd that I can have a right to watch the content on a DVD that I purchased, but not in the manner of my choosing. Patents, copyrights, and licenses on the various components that are traditionally necessary to do that "the easy way" (hardware and software) are out of sync with my right to view the content. At best, it might be necessary that I buy an "approved player", paying the "player tax", but surely it shouldn't be necessary that I use said player. I suppose the various encoding and decoding algorithms that are MPEG2 related might be protected by patent, and my reimplementation would violate that patent, but again, I could license implementations thereof.
You are a copyright lawyer.
You know that patents, licenses, and trade secrets are different areas of the law, though, to the layperson they appear to be variations on a theme: "intellectual property law", as it were.
Part of the trouble here, I think, is the immaturity of case law when all these areas of IP law intersect in potentially contradictory ways.
But, again, thanks for the illuminating response! Cheers.
Actually, I think the studios have got that beat: it's not "buy it today" or "license it today", but rather "own it on DVD today".
Own what?
A copy, or a license?
I guess since owning the license on DVD would be silly (unless the license was on the DVD or printed on it), it must be owning the copy under license to view it.
So, you have two privileges that you purchased: (1) a copy of the content, and (2) a license to view it in an approved player (other than just looking at the shiny reflection in the DVD).
But, there is the doctrine of first sale: if you own the copy, you can do whatever you want with it (including resell it, though the recipient might not have a license to view it in an approved player in that case because the license is not transferrable, just the copy is). You can also build your own player to view it. As can anyone you resell it to (in fact, they might have to, legally).
Of course, IANAL. But still, it's a fascinating subject (I always wondered why there weren't more geek lawyers -- the two personalities seam to go together well -- I enjoy legal hacks, for example).
"Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party..."
I dunno. Perhaps you're correct.
The thing is, the 3c redistributor has to extend the same offer that he received, "valid for three years" (and the 3b redistributor has to agree to this). Interpreting it your way, the offer would not be the same, because it would "expire" sooner. IOW, is the "three years" bit part of the offer to any third party or only to the the 3b recipient?
Put another way, the question is "three years since when?"
Your interpretation is easier to imlement. But, what bothers me is that it likely goes against the grain of RMS's thinking at the time and allows binaries to lapse to a state of non-source availability. RMS has never surrendered to convenience over principle and I don't think he intended to here. In fact, IIRC, 3b is intentionally onerous in order to encourage distribution under 3a.
I don't think that these actions taken by a third party should/would make any difference to that obligation.
Except that the 3b distributer has to extend the same offer to "any third party".
I think that what is at issue is what, exactly, is "the same offer"? Is the three year window from the time of the first distribution to the first 3c recipient part of it, or is a comparable, new, three year window part of it? The latter is the more generous (or onerous, depending on your POV) interpretration, and, IIRC, when someone writes up the terms of a contract or a license, they are held to the interpretation most disadvantagous to them (because they had the opportunity to write the license/contract).
Slashdot Mirror
*cough* Ernst Zundel *cough* was jailed for denying the Holocaust.
I researched the X10 stuff and bought three floodcams, extra receivers, a RF/powerline transciever, and USB RF receiver and control interfaces for a computer for about US$430.
For the money spent, it was a good deal: the cameras, though poor quality work, and the flood lights come on when sensing motion, sending X10 events and responding to X10 commands to turn on the cameras and floodlight.
However:
1) The video range is poor. Figure 20 feet max through typical household construction, and interference can be significant.
2) The motion sensors are not particularly responsive. The floodcams have the option to gate the lights based on the motion sensors and it being dark (i.e. at night), but those motion sensors are fairly insensitive, and worse, it appears that the turn off delay does not work if the light sensor detects light after the motion sensor turns the light on -- if the light reflects of a shiny object -- we have trouble with one car in our driveway if it is parked too close.
Still, being able to control the floodlights with a handheld remote or a computer is, by itself, a nice plus. The (admitedly poor quality) cams are a bit of a perk, but I wouldn't rely on them for serious surveillance (a good stationary camera will run $250 to $500 alone -- closer to $1000 when you start talking about good PTZ units).
Of course, compare this to close to $200 for a decent motion / time of day sensing light alone which I used to have.
Granted the X10 ads are annoying and I've let them know, several times, that their practices reflect badly on their products which are otherwise fair value for the money. I suppose that they remain effective, though.
IIRC, Steve Ciarcia did this way back in the '80s (or late '70s) with a photocell, parabolic mirror, and servo mechanisms. 16x16x8 bits intensity, IIRC
I have a Motorola E815.
I have a bluetooth-enabled earbud.
I can tap the earbud and have it recognize "Call Home" and call home.
I can't have the earbud discretely tell me the caller id info of an incoming call, with the phone set to vibrate.
WHY THE FS*K NOT!?
For that matter, why does the phone not recognize the immensely useful, "say time" verbal command?
Indeed, I think people generally mean pederast when they say pedophile.
Yeah, they are beautiful.
Way back when I was single and and was renting my first apartment (and only apartment -- I bought a house when I got married), I decked out my living room in (c. 1985) style: leather furniture, brushed aluminum window blinds, minimalist glass tables, designed halogen lighting, and a B&O 5500 stereo. I wanted a nice media/equipment (media meaning cassettes and CDs) cabinet for the stereo, so I worked with an artist and came up with a design. I then hired someone to build it.
The B&O 5500 was made of four identical-appearing units: turntable, CD player, cassette player, and receiver/amp (with preamp output for a real amp).
We had designed a solid oak display unit, shaped basically as an inverted, squat trapezoid, over a non-inverted taller trapezoid. The (open in front, closed on sides and back) bottom trapezoid accomodated a drawer in the middle with space above for an amp. The drawer held up to 90 cassettes, manuals, and misc parts.
The top was logically devided into two parts, left and right. It accomodated two drawers capable of holding 120 CDs each. The very top held and openly displayed the B&O components: two units on each side.
To avoid the wood cabinet transmitting vibration to the equipment (particularly the turntable), the components rested on inlayed granite slabs (I used jiupirana but should have gone with blue pearl, in retrospect -- fortunately, they are swappable), that were shock-mounted: equipment on stone, on rubber, on wood. The mechanical acoustic impedance mismatch ensured that the equipment was isolated from vibration.
4 hours to concept design, 30 hours to build, and $1000 in lumber and stone. Figure $100 an hour for the design, $45 an hour for a master carpenter, that comes out to $2750 in 1985 dollars for the cabinet alone.
$6-7k in 2006 dollars is not expensive, particularly given the work these cases require, and the fact that they include a running system.
Of course, whether they are practical, in terms of heat management, and fan noise is another issue. Too many designers tend to sacrifice function to form.
Sure, but is there a difference between locking up confidential information, and locking it up tighter than Fort Knox?
Probably not, in most circumstances like this.
It's not so much that there's a wide gap between expected and exceptional as much as there is a wide gap between adequate and inadequate.
It was written "out there"! I am not responsible what you chose to read "in here".
We used to have random walkthroughs looking for confidential documentation that was not locked up, among other things.
Not only were offenders cited, but those who maintained clean records for some period of time were rewarded.
The lack of net neutrality means that an ISP can prevent me from accessing content hosted by someone who uses a competing ISP unless I, or they, "pay extra". They're already "paying extra" to interconnect in the first place!
Do we really want to reduce the internet to a bunch of transiently connected BBSes?
And that might make for an interesting breach of warranty suit, but it still wouldn't keep the patent from being in force.
Yes, but the only way I can use the DVD as advertised is to have a player with the necesasry hardware and algorithms licensed under patent, and the patent holders are on record as only licensing to manufacturers that build "defective" players, that is, those that forcibly play "unskippable" content.
So, it is impossible for me to legally play the DVD as to was described to me. I'd think that if one wants to use patents to restrict how copywritten material can be used, the manner of those restrictions should be clearly disclosed when the copy is offered for sale.
Today, a "reasonable person" would understand "that's how DVD's work", having gotten used to the behavior. But it was a real surprise to me the first time I encountered it. Ads in a theatre are not an appropriate analogy: the feature is advertised as starting at a particular time (within a few minutes to let the refreshment queues clear), and the ads run before the start time -- my problem if I arive early.
There have been allegations of price fixing in the entertainment business, and here appears to be evidence of fraud (the DVD publishers intentionally want you to forcibly see the ads, but do not disclose this clearly). Add the barratracious (Is that a word? It should be :-) nature of the MPAA, and you've got some nasty goons there, IMHO.
Yes. I see someone is using my wireless network, and then decide to have some fun with them. A no, no. But, I think if I modified the content to popup a window warning that what was provided was a parody, my liablilty becomes a lot less certain, no?
I still maintain that if I were to originally deploy a wireless network that way, that I actually use, but with some "surprises" should outsiders try to freeload, it should be fine. Espescially, if the "surprises" are rather obvious. Copyright does allow for parody, you know.
Then again, that enters into the realm of a "digital boobytrap", the electronic equivalent of the rake left on the grass.
Except, I am not offering the customer anything! Bad analogy.
A better one is this: someone wanders into a building, sees a sign that says, "free" and says, "I want one of your cookies.... Hey, this tastes like shit!". "Yes, everything we sell is shit in various forms." Might be a bit different if the sign said "Free Cookies", but that is not the case here.
Look, you're asking some unknown service to translate a web request into a web page. You're not even checking to see if you're asking the write service. If I stand on a street corner and asl "What's one plus one?" and someone shouts "Three!", can I sue them, effectively? I doubt it.
I understand the legal loopholes, disagree with them, and think they need to be tested in a court of law.
The best counter is that I intended to deceive (hmm, would a pop-up window saying the sites have been modified suffuce as "notice" of the service I provide? What if the client disables popups? What if I know it does?).
But, even then, at most, I should be guilty of "mischief".
IANAL, but I don't think Apple, Ebay, etc. would have a case.
If I request a web page, and my proxy renders it to my network's http clients in a modified fashion, that's my business. I can take Apple's logo, write "crap" all over it, and post it in my home. I can't publish it, though.
If you happen to use my network, what you get is your own problem.
Now, I suppose, that you do this intentionally, knowing that someone is using your network, the misrepresentation argument might apply. But still, you do this to all web sites. Does that make you a "common carrier" because you don't discriminate?.
Heh, mod the banner ads to serve offers for "free VoIP", wait until he orders the "free adapter", and then you can listen in on the tech support call, as you hurridly craft an Asterix PBX on your end. Worth the cost of the H/W, IMHO. Might need some careful legaleeze in the "VoIP service agreement" you require him to sign to allow such evesdropping, but man, what a hack that would be!
I guess one would call such a thing a "honeyWAN".
What part of "free" implying "no warrantability of fitness for use" don't you understand?
Hmm. Ordinary, perhaps, but acceptable? I purchased a legitimate copy of copywritten material. Is there not a "fit for use" expectation? (Yes, I know, it probably depends on the State). What is use? Watching the movie? Or, watching the movie on an approved player? If the technologies to build a player are locked up by patents, it's hard for me to build my own, legally. Thus, I must use an approved player. Except, approved players might force me to view advertising before the movie starts.
I did not purchase a copy of advertising. What was offered to me was the movie. The movie is not "fit for use" if, in order to use it, I must suffer the inconvenience of advertising. Don't get me started on region codes...
It's [IP Law] just out of line with the expectations of laypeople
Well, "fit for use" generally comes up against what "a reasonable person" would assume. We now know that DVDs can have advertising that can't be avoided, when played in approved players. But, I'dve never imagined that to be the case until I actually encountered it: nothing comparable (videocassettes) had such restrictions -- vis. "fast forward") worked that way when DVDs were "new and shiney". Now, there is no requirement that "approved players" work the way I want. But, to not be able to "use" what I purchase because I can't make a machine that lets me, without this unusual circumstance being clearly disclosed when I purchase the DVD strikes me (yes, a layperson) as wrong.
Basically, the wool is being pulled over the eyes of the technologically ignorant. Experience breeds understanding and today "a resonable person" understands about required advertising and region codes on DVDs. But, I protest, that was "snuck in while we weren't watching" and accepted as "normal" because the DVD was "shiny, new, and novel" So, "that's the way they work". Bovine Feces! I cry.
Maybe a personal use exception for patents is more what you're looking for.
That would go a long way. Often a patent (particularly a software patent) in infringed in ignorance. And, complience with existing software patents is so difficult and unwieldly, that it threatens to undermine the small software producer. Since some 95% of all business is small business, I'd say that is not in the public's interest.
I'd go further though: patents should protect the ability to profit from an invention. If an indivudual, or even a business, provides a patented device at cost, there should be no infringement. Such organizations (cooperatives) tend to be small and would likely not have a major effect on the inventor. Furthermore, customers generally expect support for the products they purchase: warranty returns for defective units, operating instructions, etc. These have to be supported out of gross revenues, which must naturally exceed the cost of production. So, the patent should apply if there is a directly related revenue stream in excess of the products production cost. But, that's just me blathering.
I've long supported a personal use exception for copyrights (i.e. natural persons acting noncommercially could do anything and not infringe), so perhaps something like that.
Hmm. The doctrine of fair use seamed quite resonable to me: aren't there four basic principles that define a use as fair? Personal use of a copy of the whole, excerpts for critical review, educational use, and lack of commercial incentive (the latter driving my views on patents). 1201 basically throws traditional fair uses out the window.
Now, as a libertarian, I have no problem with an explicit contract regarding some of the restrictions in 1201 regarding fair use ("you WILL watch the advertising, and not circumvent it", etc.). But I am troubled deeply that one can trot out 1201 with all sort of non-obvious implied contract effects. It is not in
Me: You can also build your own player to view it.
Yeah, you're going to run into some 1201 problems there. Did you miss the whole Reimerdes case?
No, I didn't miss it, though I think it's an insufficiently tested area of law. I think the interoperability exception might apply, for example. No, IANAL. But, I disagree with aspects of that case. I do think that it should be possible to build a DVD player that does not have the physical capability of facilitating copying, for example, unlike a general purpose computer.
I think it is absurd that I can have a right to watch the content on a DVD that I purchased, but not in the manner of my choosing. Patents, copyrights, and licenses on the various components that are traditionally necessary to do that "the easy way" (hardware and software) are out of sync with my right to view the content. At best, it might be necessary that I buy an "approved player", paying the "player tax", but surely it shouldn't be necessary that I use said player. I suppose the various encoding and decoding algorithms that are MPEG2 related might be protected by patent, and my reimplementation would violate that patent, but again, I could license implementations thereof.
You are a copyright lawyer.
You know that patents, licenses, and trade secrets are different areas of the law, though, to the layperson they appear to be variations on a theme: "intellectual property law", as it were.
Part of the trouble here, I think, is the immaturity of case law when all these areas of IP law intersect in potentially contradictory ways.
But, again, thanks for the illuminating response! Cheers.
Own what?
A copy, or a license?
I guess since owning the license on DVD would be silly (unless the license was on the DVD or printed on it), it must be owning the copy under license to view it.
So, you have two privileges that you purchased: (1) a copy of the content, and (2) a license to view it in an approved player (other than just looking at the shiny reflection in the DVD).
But, there is the doctrine of first sale: if you own the copy, you can do whatever you want with it (including resell it, though the recipient might not have a license to view it in an approved player in that case because the license is not transferrable, just the copy is). You can also build your own player to view it. As can anyone you resell it to (in fact, they might have to, legally).
Of course, IANAL. But still, it's a fascinating subject (I always wondered why there weren't more geek lawyers -- the two personalities seam to go together well -- I enjoy legal hacks, for example).
One word: baratry.
The classic oath, yes.
But that's because surgery was the exclusive domain of barbers ("cutters") way back then.
I dunno. Perhaps you're correct.
The thing is, the 3c redistributor has to extend the same offer that he received, "valid for three years" (and the 3b redistributor has to agree to this). Interpreting it your way, the offer would not be the same, because it would "expire" sooner. IOW, is the "three years" bit part of the offer to any third party or only to the the 3b recipient?
Put another way, the question is "three years since when?"
Your interpretation is easier to imlement. But, what bothers me is that it likely goes against the grain of RMS's thinking at the time and allows binaries to lapse to a state of non-source availability. RMS has never surrendered to convenience over principle and I don't think he intended to here. In fact, IIRC, 3b is intentionally onerous in order to encourage distribution under 3a.
Except that the 3b distributer has to extend the same offer to "any third party".
I think that what is at issue is what, exactly, is "the same offer"? Is the three year window from the time of the first distribution to the first 3c recipient part of it, or is a comparable, new, three year window part of it? The latter is the more generous (or onerous, depending on your POV) interpretration, and, IIRC, when someone writes up the terms of a contract or a license, they are held to the interpretation most disadvantagous to them (because they had the opportunity to write the license/contract).