I was born and lived in Quebec, though I am not a lawyer. This does have greater significance beyond the obvious.
The city attempted to use a bylaw regulating commercial signs to stifle this expression of speech, and it was struck down, because, among other things, it wasn't commercial. Now, in Quebec, there are provincial laws that require commercial speech (advertising, bills, etc.) to be in French, with narrow exceptions (English signage must be half as large and half as prominent, and yes, tax dollars do go to pay people to go around with rulers measuring the height of English words). Perhaps this ruling means that people can now express their opinions in English too.
First off, copyrights and other restrictions are a cornerstone of capitalism. The make it free to everyone approach is the foundation of communism, not capitalism.
Since I am a libertarian, you'd expect me to agree with this, and I generally do, except that it fails in the extreme.
Imagine a world where the wheel is patented... forever. To use a wheel, you have to pay a licence fee to the decendents of Og, Inventor of the Wheel. And, this license fee is as dear as the market can bear. Clearly such a world would evolve to the point where Og's decendents and those who could afford to license wheels would build an economy that has no need for the wheel-less (out of sheer efficiency advantages). Would you expect them to accept this situation? Certainly, they would rebel.
So, now Og-decendents and wheel-licensees have to fight off the wheel-less swine. This is an difficult proposition: genocide is neither cheap or easy. Even Hitler couldn't slaughter all the Jews, though, after being disarmed (in a move much of the Western world praised at the time as "progressive"), they were pretty much sitting ducks. Ignoring the moral and ethical issue this raises (and I'm not suggesting they should be ignored, but we are playing Devil's Advocate, so...), enforcement of the wheel patent comes at the price of war. Wars, especially drawn out ones, tend to be unpopular and expensive.
Does this mean that the wheel-patent holders are "wrong" and should "share"? Well, not from a moral standpoint (we've chosen to ignore morality), but, just as it would not be "wrong" to tease a bear with cubs, the consequences would be undesirable. Think of the wheel-denied humans as angry beasts, if not "equals".
Such extreme examples are often used to illustrate the supposed falacy of libertarian philosophy. However, such an extreme situation would not make economic sense: make wheels more available and more people can afford them and the rebels are fewer in number. Even pre-revolutionary French aristocracy knew the art of "shearing the sheep without making them bleat"). In retrospect, I guess they miscalculated after all.
But we are still left with the problem of deciding whether this is "right" or "wrong". If one's libertarianism is founded on contractarianism, there is no "right" or "wrong" unless there is an agreement of morals. If the wheel-licenses want to be "right" they need the concent of the wheel-less, and this only comes with some concessions. Thus, the agreed to notion of limits on patents, and by extention copyrights, and other examples of intellectual property, which, by definition, are not scarce goods (once invented), and thus not appropriate subjects for the application of purely capitalist principles. In short: you accept term limits on intellectual property because you benefit from a more peaceful society, and have little moral standing to argue that something can be "stolen" if you still have use of it.
We see this even now: many people violate copyright on entertainment media because they find the terms unacceptable. Try jailing them all and regaining "lost profits". You can't.
The second thought, is that if I devote my life to a project and produce a great work, shouldn't I be able to enjoy the spoils and decide the future of that great work?
Yes, but the key point there is the future of that great work. While protections for the present version may expire after some time, you essentially enjoy an interval of a monopoly on improvements. Each of those improvements also enjoys protections for a limited term. So long as you continue to produce improvements, you continue to enjoy intellectual property protection. But, the minute you stop, the "free ride" stops. Many people would find this fair, and indeed the U.S. Constitution (a rather libertarian document) does not recognize ideas as property once shared (you're free to keep them secret, of course). Copyright is to be granted for a limited time.
Shouldn't I be able to go to my grave, comforted by the fact that my magnum opus will provide for my children's future?
To the degree that you manage to convince others to not "rob" them of those spoils, yes. You are but one, and "others" are many.
Let's face a little fact that we keep forgetting. Rarely, if ever, is a great work supressed or lost. Most often the works *ARE* available to any and everyone. But, you *do* have to pay for it.
Well, yes. So, negotiate terms. But, realize that your negotiating with members of a species that will take what they will if they find the terms unacceptable. Humans are assholes, that way, don't ya know?
You've obviously put a good deal of thought into this, but there are some "gotchas" that need to be addressed in more detail:
Distinguish between metadata syntax (of which there should be one and only one) and data syntax (of which we have several different types).
The first describes what kind of data is in a particular configuration set, rather like an XML DTD (except the configuration set syntax need not be XML). Note that one can think of the configuration data itself as virtually stored in XML, consistent with some DTD, even if it is not: one can imagine a transformational grammer for converting between XML and "legacy" versions.
A generic configuration editor would require two things: a DTD description of the XML version, and a transformational grammer description of the translation between the XML and legacy versions. The transformational grammer could be one-way or two-way depending on how the configuration data was read, IOW you have an input format and an output format.
The quick and dirty approach then, is to edit an XML version of one's data, and export, via a transformational grammer to legacy format files. Of course, this is frought with the usual problem of being incompatible with manual editing of the legacy format file. Add a reverse transformational grammer and you can now read XML and legacy versions of the configuration file -- so this desirable property can be added incrementally, if necessary.
Sharing configuration data between different applications requires them only to agree on the DTD describing the data, and the transformational grammers used to read the configuration files (or, for legacy apps, the implied DTD and transformational grammers). It is reasonable to assume that existing applications that share configuration data do so by virtue of each application understanding the legacy file format. New applications could be oblivious to this format, if a DTD and transformational grammer were available. So, when the legacy file format is abandoned, new applications do not have to change: just the transformational grammer to use changes.
For simplicity's sake, one should settle on a single configuration file for each configuration data set -- this may be initally driven by the need for legacy application compatibility. One will also have to settle on a single DTD describing this data, or at least compatible DTDs. Otherwise, the problem has just been moved from having different configuration file formats to different metadata descriptions.
PVR, n.: Personal Video Recorder. A device capable of recording video programs that meet one's personal preferences, almost always using a local hard disk.
I grew up with guns (well, mostly shotguns and the odd rifle). My father was a hunter (small game generally: partridge, rabbit), fisherman, and general outdoorsman. I learned firearm safety at an early age, and while I didn't take up hunting (really, it was a lot of effort, and while you can't buy wild partridge, I was happy with chicken -- wild game is a luxery that I can live without), this was useful basic safety training, along the lines of "don't touch a hot stove, don't run into traffic, etc."
Most of my friends had a similar upbringing: their fathers had firearms, whether for hunting or sport.. rarely with the primary intent of defense, but that was a useful "double duty" option.
We didn't go around shooting our peers or go on a killing rampage in our schools. Guns were just another somewhat dangerous "tool", like knives, and chainsaws.
If anything gun-related is to be blamed for gun violence in society, perhaps it should be the nonchalant or glorified unrealistic portrayal firearms are given by movie-makers.
Being arrested doesn't mean anything more than the fact that you've been arrested
There are situations where arrests (not convitions) can be used against you: immigration proceedings, job applications.
In many states, when you are ticketed for a traffic violation, you are arrested, and released on promise to either (a) pay the fine and admit guilt or (b) agree to appear in court on the charge. Sometimes you have to post bond to the cop (typically via a "Bond Card", at least in the U.S.A.)
I was once thus arrested for an illegal lane change, fought the charge, and one. Of course, it cost me quadruple in legal fees what the fine was, but as an H1B visa holder awaiting a Green Card, a conviction would be very bad (the arrest was bad enough).
No EULA on the CD jacket or packaging, but there are TOS regarding what I can do with PayMyBills service (basically, I can't resell it).
As for the DMCA... the encrypted data are mine and PayMyBills acknowledges that. In fact I give them limited power of attorney to use that only to facilitate it's collection and presentation to me. They go to some pains to express that the data is not theirs.
The situation is hypothetical, of course, but possible under present law, IMHO. We should not accept laws just because we think they won't be enforced.
As for me, I'd rather get arrested fighting oppression, than not help my fellow.
The titles of those two books are now associated, with you, the reader. That could be construed as reasonable suspicion to arrest you for drug dealing and confiscate all your property under the asset forfeiture laws.
No, you don't get your property back if you're innocent.
True enough, and as I'm very much a libertarian, I afgree with you. But...
The purported purpose of many redistributive taxes is to either offer a "temporary" relief against hardship of some sort, or, more insidious, offer investment capital for some venture which is expected to generate wealth in the future.
Historically, private charity (when not the victim of dollars that go toward taxes instead of the charity) does a better job of taking care of the poor and destiture than does government.
As for "investment capital", if the venture were worthy of funding, private investors would do so, for a share of the expected gains.
Sometimes, of course, the government wins, or at least had a miniscule investment in something that wins big (think "Al Gore's" Internet). And I've seen many a slashdotter argue where government should "invest" -- NASA being a favorite "charity" (because they do cool stuff, I suppose). So, we slashdotters, as a group, are not immune to the lure of redistributed tax dollars. The big problem here, is that no matter how small the "government's" (i.e. taxpayers) investment, they claim ownership, lock, stock, and barrel, citing that "it wouldn't be if not for Uncle Sam [substitute your government as appropriate]".
Perhaps not as soon, but worthwhile things do get tended to by the private sector "when the time is right" (yes, to expect to profit, of course). The private sector tends to be far more responsive as well, espescially in innovative new technologies exploited by startups.
So, no, I am not any friend of government redistributive taxation, but I do think we should have strong counter arguments for all the "justifications" for it.
How long before you have to provide the government with compute cycles, as a cyber-tax?
I like the idea, but consent must remain with the owner of each computer. Still, like attempts to force DRM-blessed operating systems upon us, I fear that the days of controlling one's own computer are numbered (and the masses are too ignorant to understand what's at stake).
Oh, FWIW, I'm starting to keep a slashdot journal.
The INS isn't all that bad. I just wish the rules were simpler (not requiring a lawyer to do every little thing), and they processed things faster. They just have a good deal of clout, and, like any organization, occasionally employ an asshole. Assholes with clout == bad.
I found out a bit more about the CD. It contains cryptix32.jar: an open source JCE 1.2 implementation. The interesting thing is that this includes RSA (no longer patented), and IDEA algorithms. IDEA is free to use for noncommercial purposes. Since I paid for the CD, I'd think PayMyBills is using cryptix32 for "a commercial purpose". It is a bit more complex since the IDEA code appears not to be executed in PayMyBills' application (they use Blowfish), so I suppose it's up to the lawyers to argue whether IDEA is "used" or not. Still, I'm finding this fun... I'm tempted to rework my own version of the CD with none of PayMyBills' code. I figure I'll rework the embedded http server (which does the encryption), and then tackle the HTML UI and add a few features (like exporting the data).
Your points are insightful, but there are several problems:
1) The whole H1B visa thing: it can be so bad that you can get kicked out of the country for cleaning your own gutters -- "depriving an American of the job"! Yes, that was an extreme case, and it involved a TN1 instead of an H1B visa (basically, someone pissed off their neighbor who found an INS asshole and turned the gutter-cleaner in), but the fact is INS people have increadible discretionary powers.
2) It's not like PayMyBills needs the patch. I'm sure they have plenty of Windows customers.
3) If I don't give it to them, or they refuse to pay me for it, or I can't make it available to them for INS reasons, the Linux community is left poorer. I don't care as much about PayMyBills getting a freebie, or getting paid for it, as I do the community getting a useful tool.
4) DMCA. One could argue that PayMyBills has a compilation copyright on the compilation of my bills. They've protected access to that compilation with an encryption scheme (a good one, I might add, as far as I can tell). My disclosure of how to circumvent that could run me afoul of the DMCA (though I already described the basic steps in my journal). I suppose I could argue an "interoperability defense" but it is questionable if that would work. Since one still requires the key, I could argue that nothing was circumvented, but the counter would be "use of Windows was circumvented".
This should really be simple: I should just give the damn fix away to anyone BUT PayMyBills unless they pay for the right to use it. But the legalities are surprisingly complex.
I have already spoken to one of their customer service reps at length about some of the flaws in their "encryption" approach: 1) it's rather pointless since they send the key in plain text; 2) it disenfranchises non-Windows and non-Mac users; 3) it increases support costs; 4) Linux users are a growing crowd. He seamed willing to listen at least and acknowledged my points.
I mentioned that, with a bit of effort and luck, I might be able to read the disk under [GNU/]Linux. So far, I have managed to decrypt the CD contents, and more importantly, gotten their local http server to run under Linux to read the CD directly (using J2SDK 1.4.0 and more file name folding hackery -- their java presumes upon Windows (well DOS) filename case folding in a couple of places and has other less avoidable Windowsisms). I had asked for any tech support they could send my way, with a promise to share my findings. To date, I have received no support. (In fairness, they made it clear that they "do not support" Linux).
As to negotiating reimbursement from them for sharing my efforts, I'm afraid that would be a violation of my H1B visa. Even doing it for them for free might be (I'd have to show that I volounteered something that was not ordinarily a paid service).
The big question is if it comes bundled with a complete enough JRE. I'd also have to use jode to decompile the.class files and recompile them with gjc, but that's probably not a big problem.
Actually, what bothers me is that they don't make a point of saying that Windows is required. They saw the CD is "browsable". A reasonable person would presume that it would be browsable by any moderately complient browser, espescially a browser that works with their online system. It isn't: you need Windows executables.
The ironic thing is they could at least provide a Linux JRE to permit Linux users to decrypt the CD and browse it normally. (Browsing the encrypted CD would require running Apache properly integrated with Tomcat, I imagine).
Well, my solution does involve software which isn't (I think) completely free: the JRE that Sun ships with the J2SDK 1.4.0 for Linux. Kaffe barfs on ptcopycd.class
I'm interested in this too. I've been playing with a Netstream2000 (with H/W MPEG2 decoder) and various DVD code under Linux on an Athlon 1600 XP, but GATOS capture using an ATI All-In-Wonder Pro has still proved problematic.
Slashdot Mirror
The city attempted to use a bylaw regulating commercial signs to stifle this expression of speech, and it was struck down, because, among other things, it wasn't commercial. Now, in Quebec, there are provincial laws that require commercial speech (advertising, bills, etc.) to be in French, with narrow exceptions (English signage must be half as large and half as prominent, and yes, tax dollars do go to pay people to go around with rulers measuring the height of English words). Perhaps this ruling means that people can now express their opinions in English too.
unlikely.
Since I am a libertarian, you'd expect me to agree with this, and I generally do, except that it fails in the extreme.
Imagine a world where the wheel is patented... forever. To use a wheel, you have to pay a licence fee to the decendents of Og, Inventor of the Wheel. And, this license fee is as dear as the market can bear. Clearly such a world would evolve to the point where Og's decendents and those who could afford to license wheels would build an economy that has no need for the wheel-less (out of sheer efficiency advantages). Would you expect them to accept this situation? Certainly, they would rebel.
So, now Og-decendents and wheel-licensees have to fight off the wheel-less swine. This is an difficult proposition: genocide is neither cheap or easy. Even Hitler couldn't slaughter all the Jews, though, after being disarmed (in a move much of the Western world praised at the time as "progressive"), they were pretty much sitting ducks. Ignoring the moral and ethical issue this raises (and I'm not suggesting they should be ignored, but we are playing Devil's Advocate, so...), enforcement of the wheel patent comes at the price of war. Wars, especially drawn out ones, tend to be unpopular and expensive.
Does this mean that the wheel-patent holders are "wrong" and should "share"? Well, not from a moral standpoint (we've chosen to ignore morality), but, just as it would not be "wrong" to tease a bear with cubs, the consequences would be undesirable. Think of the wheel-denied humans as angry beasts, if not "equals".
Such extreme examples are often used to illustrate the supposed falacy of libertarian philosophy. However, such an extreme situation would not make economic sense: make wheels more available and more people can afford them and the rebels are fewer in number. Even pre-revolutionary French aristocracy knew the art of "shearing the sheep without making them bleat"). In retrospect, I guess they miscalculated after all.
But we are still left with the problem of deciding whether this is "right" or "wrong". If one's libertarianism is founded on contractarianism, there is no "right" or "wrong" unless there is an agreement of morals. If the wheel-licenses want to be "right" they need the concent of the wheel-less, and this only comes with some concessions. Thus, the agreed to notion of limits on patents, and by extention copyrights, and other examples of intellectual property, which, by definition, are not scarce goods (once invented), and thus not appropriate subjects for the application of purely capitalist principles. In short: you accept term limits on intellectual property because you benefit from a more peaceful society, and have little moral standing to argue that something can be "stolen" if you still have use of it.
We see this even now: many people violate copyright on entertainment media because they find the terms unacceptable. Try jailing them all and regaining "lost profits". You can't.
The second thought, is that if I devote my life to a project and produce a great work, shouldn't I be able to enjoy the spoils and decide the future of that great work? Yes, but the key point there is the future of that great work. While protections for the present version may expire after some time, you essentially enjoy an interval of a monopoly on improvements. Each of those improvements also enjoys protections for a limited term. So long as you continue to produce improvements, you continue to enjoy intellectual property protection. But, the minute you stop, the "free ride" stops. Many people would find this fair, and indeed the U.S. Constitution (a rather libertarian document) does not recognize ideas as property once shared (you're free to keep them secret, of course). Copyright is to be granted for a limited time.
Shouldn't I be able to go to my grave, comforted by the fact that my magnum opus will provide for my children's future?
To the degree that you manage to convince others to not "rob" them of those spoils, yes. You are but one, and "others" are many.
Let's face a little fact that we keep forgetting. Rarely, if ever, is a great work supressed or lost. Most often the works *ARE* available to any and everyone. But, you *do* have to pay for it.
Well, yes. So, negotiate terms. But, realize that your negotiating with members of a species that will take what they will if they find the terms unacceptable. Humans are assholes, that way, don't ya know?
Distinguish between metadata syntax (of which there should be one and only one) and data syntax (of which we have several different types).
The first describes what kind of data is in a particular configuration set, rather like an XML DTD (except the configuration set syntax need not be XML). Note that one can think of the configuration data itself as virtually stored in XML, consistent with some DTD, even if it is not: one can imagine a transformational grammer for converting between XML and "legacy" versions.
A generic configuration editor would require two things: a DTD description of the XML version, and a transformational grammer description of the translation between the XML and legacy versions. The transformational grammer could be one-way or two-way depending on how the configuration data was read, IOW you have an input format and an output format.
The quick and dirty approach then, is to edit an XML version of one's data, and export, via a transformational grammer to legacy format files. Of course, this is frought with the usual problem of being incompatible with manual editing of the legacy format file. Add a reverse transformational grammer and you can now read XML and legacy versions of the configuration file -- so this desirable property can be added incrementally, if necessary.
Sharing configuration data between different applications requires them only to agree on the DTD describing the data, and the transformational grammers used to read the configuration files (or, for legacy apps, the implied DTD and transformational grammers). It is reasonable to assume that existing applications that share configuration data do so by virtue of each application understanding the legacy file format. New applications could be oblivious to this format, if a DTD and transformational grammer were available. So, when the legacy file format is abandoned, new applications do not have to change: just the transformational grammer to use changes.
For simplicity's sake, one should settle on a single configuration file for each configuration data set -- this may be initally driven by the need for legacy application compatibility. One will also have to settle on a single DTD describing this data, or at least compatible DTDs. Otherwise, the problem has just been moved from having different configuration file formats to different metadata descriptions.
PVR, n.: Personal Video Recorder. A device capable of recording video programs that meet one's personal preferences, almost always using a local hard disk.
I grew up with guns (well, mostly shotguns and the odd rifle). My father was a hunter (small game generally: partridge, rabbit), fisherman, and general outdoorsman. I learned firearm safety at an early age, and while I didn't take up hunting (really, it was a lot of effort, and while you can't buy wild partridge, I was happy with chicken -- wild game is a luxery that I can live without), this was useful basic safety training, along the lines of "don't touch a hot stove, don't run into traffic, etc."
Most of my friends had a similar upbringing: their fathers had firearms, whether for hunting or sport.. rarely with the primary intent of defense, but that was a useful "double duty" option.
We didn't go around shooting our peers or go on a killing rampage in our schools. Guns were just another somewhat dangerous "tool", like knives, and chainsaws.
If anything gun-related is to be blamed for gun violence in society, perhaps it should be the nonchalant or glorified unrealistic portrayal firearms are given by movie-makers.
There are situations where arrests (not convitions) can be used against you: immigration proceedings, job applications.
In many states, when you are ticketed for a traffic violation, you are arrested, and released on promise to either (a) pay the fine and admit guilt or (b) agree to appear in court on the charge. Sometimes you have to post bond to the cop (typically via a "Bond Card", at least in the U.S.A.)
I was once thus arrested for an illegal lane change, fought the charge, and one. Of course, it cost me quadruple in legal fees what the fine was, but as an H1B visa holder awaiting a Green Card, a conviction would be very bad (the arrest was bad enough).
As for the DMCA... the encrypted data are mine and PayMyBills acknowledges that. In fact I give them limited power of attorney to use that only to facilitate it's collection and presentation to me. They go to some pains to express that the data is not theirs.
The situation is hypothetical, of course, but possible under present law, IMHO. We should not accept laws just because we think they won't be enforced.
As for me, I'd rather get arrested fighting oppression, than not help my fellow.
The titles of those two books are now associated, with you, the reader. That could be construed as reasonable suspicion to arrest you for drug dealing and confiscate all your property under the asset forfeiture laws.
No, you don't get your property back if you're innocent.
I salute your heretofore never observed capacity for understatement, kind sir.
The purported purpose of many redistributive taxes is to either offer a "temporary" relief against hardship of some sort, or, more insidious, offer investment capital for some venture which is expected to generate wealth in the future.
Historically, private charity (when not the victim of dollars that go toward taxes instead of the charity) does a better job of taking care of the poor and destiture than does government.
As for "investment capital", if the venture were worthy of funding, private investors would do so, for a share of the expected gains.
Sometimes, of course, the government wins, or at least had a miniscule investment in something that wins big (think "Al Gore's" Internet). And I've seen many a slashdotter argue where government should "invest" -- NASA being a favorite "charity" (because they do cool stuff, I suppose). So, we slashdotters, as a group, are not immune to the lure of redistributed tax dollars. The big problem here, is that no matter how small the "government's" (i.e. taxpayers) investment, they claim ownership, lock, stock, and barrel, citing that "it wouldn't be if not for Uncle Sam [substitute your government as appropriate]".
Perhaps not as soon, but worthwhile things do get tended to by the private sector "when the time is right" (yes, to expect to profit, of course). The private sector tends to be far more responsive as well, espescially in innovative new technologies exploited by startups.
So, no, I am not any friend of government redistributive taxation, but I do think we should have strong counter arguments for all the "justifications" for it.
How long before you have to provide the government with compute cycles, as a cyber-tax?
I like the idea, but consent must remain with the owner of each computer. Still, like attempts to force DRM-blessed operating systems upon us, I fear that the days of controlling one's own computer are numbered (and the masses are too ignorant to understand what's at stake).
Oh, FWIW, I'm starting to keep a slashdot journal.
The first time I rented DVDs, one out of the three I rented had a nasty defect about half-way through the movie. This was not encouraging.
...on a dedicated pair 12.6 kft from the C/O, from Internet America in the Dallas, Texas area.
I found out a bit more about the CD. It contains cryptix32.jar: an open source JCE 1.2 implementation. The interesting thing is that this includes RSA (no longer patented), and IDEA algorithms. IDEA is free to use for noncommercial purposes. Since I paid for the CD, I'd think PayMyBills is using cryptix32 for "a commercial purpose". It is a bit more complex since the IDEA code appears not to be executed in PayMyBills' application (they use Blowfish), so I suppose it's up to the lawyers to argue whether IDEA is "used" or not. Still, I'm finding this fun... I'm tempted to rework my own version of the CD with none of PayMyBills' code. I figure I'll rework the embedded http server (which does the encryption), and then tackle the HTML UI and add a few features (like exporting the data).
Yeah, I found out very quickly that AWT is unsupported in gcj. Still, gjc is worth watching.
1) The whole H1B visa thing: it can be so bad that you can get kicked out of the country for cleaning your own gutters -- "depriving an American of the job"! Yes, that was an extreme case, and it involved a TN1 instead of an H1B visa (basically, someone pissed off their neighbor who found an INS asshole and turned the gutter-cleaner in), but the fact is INS people have increadible discretionary powers.
2) It's not like PayMyBills needs the patch. I'm sure they have plenty of Windows customers.
3) If I don't give it to them, or they refuse to pay me for it, or I can't make it available to them for INS reasons, the Linux community is left poorer. I don't care as much about PayMyBills getting a freebie, or getting paid for it, as I do the community getting a useful tool.
4) DMCA. One could argue that PayMyBills has a compilation copyright on the compilation of my bills. They've protected access to that compilation with an encryption scheme (a good one, I might add, as far as I can tell). My disclosure of how to circumvent that could run me afoul of the DMCA (though I already described the basic steps in my journal). I suppose I could argue an "interoperability defense" but it is questionable if that would work. Since one still requires the key, I could argue that nothing was circumvented, but the counter would be "use of Windows was circumvented".
This should really be simple: I should just give the damn fix away to anyone BUT PayMyBills unless they pay for the right to use it. But the legalities are surprisingly complex.
I have already spoken to one of their customer service reps at length about some of the flaws in their "encryption" approach: 1) it's rather pointless since they send the key in plain text; 2) it disenfranchises non-Windows and non-Mac users; 3) it increases support costs; 4) Linux users are a growing crowd. He seamed willing to listen at least and acknowledged my points.
I mentioned that, with a bit of effort and luck, I might be able to read the disk under [GNU/]Linux. So far, I have managed to decrypt the CD contents, and more importantly, gotten their local http server to run under Linux to read the CD directly (using J2SDK 1.4.0 and more file name folding hackery -- their java presumes upon Windows (well DOS) filename case folding in a couple of places and has other less avoidable Windowsisms). I had asked for any tech support they could send my way, with a promise to share my findings. To date, I have received no support. (In fairness, they made it clear that they "do not support" Linux).
As to negotiating reimbursement from them for sharing my efforts, I'm afraid that would be a violation of my H1B visa. Even doing it for them for free might be (I'd have to show that I volounteered something that was not ordinarily a paid service).
The big question is if it comes bundled with a complete enough JRE. I'd also have to use jode to decompile the .class files and recompile them with gjc, but that's probably not a big problem.
I'll try it out. I've had fairly good success with jode.
The ironic thing is they could at least provide a Linux JRE to permit Linux users to decrypt the CD and browse it normally. (Browsing the encrypted CD would require running Apache properly integrated with Tomcat, I imagine).
Well, my solution does involve software which isn't (I think) completely free: the JRE that Sun ships with the J2SDK 1.4.0 for Linux. Kaffe barfs on ptcopycd.class
Of course you could! That's just one of the things broken in the patent system: it precludes the possibility of independent discovery.
I'm interested in this too. I've been playing with a Netstream2000 (with H/W MPEG2 decoder) and various DVD code under Linux on an Athlon 1600 XP, but GATOS capture using an ATI All-In-Wonder Pro has still proved problematic.