Actually, I don't think compcurr.com is the right place. The story appears on NewsBytes, which means the story went out on the wire, and I'd suspect papers around the nation to carry the story. The right thing to do is have RedHat/LinuxCare/VA Linux talk to NewsBytes, set them straight, and then issue a press release fixing Network Associates' Nelson guy straight. If I were RH/LinuxCare/VA right now, I'd think about forming an alliance with Network Associates to promote Linux admin knowledge to keep wrong and error-prone material from hitting the news wire.
It's upsetting when people forget that things like GUIs and such were originally developed at Xerox PARC, which Xerox just didn't do anything with. It always amazes me that folks like Apple, Microsoft, and other commercial GUI providers haven't been sued to kingdom come by Xerox for just this.
There is a law case... somewhere... a book publisher sued a bookstore. The publisher and store had gotten at odds, and the contract between the store and publisher stated that the books were provided on a license to the store, which could be revoked if the agreement ended.
But the bookstore had already paid for the books in question.
The court ruled that the store didn't purchase licenses of the books, but had, in fact, purchased real copies of the book in question, and was free to do whatever they damn well pleased to do with their property.
Unless this Judge in NY plans to revisit stare decisis, I imagine this case has to come into view.
I want to be able to build, use, modify, adapt, and construct a DVD movie playback rendering system for the DVD movies I own. Not for ones I don't own (which don't exist), but for ones I own.
Same reason I have a mod-chip in my PlayStation to play Japanese import games.
1. Invent nifty access control technology that limits who can playback my video clips.
2. Work with public policy department to push advocates and lobbyists in D.C. to support the Millennium Copyright Act. Have Bill sign it into law.
3. Meanwhile, set up de facto organization who is the only authority with power to grant licensed keys for access control to my movies.
4. Only license keys on my terms, and only when I like the people I'm licensing to. Only provide license keys to those who will pay me lots of $dough.
5. Squash anyone who attempts to reverse engineer my access control technology to prevent unauthorized 'players' from coming into existence, because if they do, I don't get my licensing money, and I lose control over ALL of the keys.
6. Repeat Steps 1-5 every decade or two when new home video technology gets invented.
Aren't these the actions of a monopolist? Or an organization playing like they are a monopolist?
Are any of the CSS or other DVD technologies involved in DVD playback patented? Arrrg.
Bzzt. What about the pending legislation that alters the UCC regulations to make EULAs and shrinkwrap licenses enforceable? (Including things like; violating the terms of the license allows the software publisher to disable the software on your machine?)
Here's my worry: DVDs will be judged as *software*, and not as *movies*. Why not? DVDs have a UI, APIs, input devices (remote control!), and a sorta-OS. Legally it could be good enough. This could be positive: If DVD movies are shown to be software, then reverse-engineering the software is no problem for interoperability. The downside: End User License Agreements for DVDs. I really, really think it's critical that the Judge in the case be well-educated on this: the DVD movie is the at-issue copyrightable content, but the CSS encryption system is *software*, and the deCSS utility is being used to provide for interoperability of said software, not a a means to harm the copyright rights owned by their respective holders. Otherwise, in the future... *everything* could be considered software. DVDs... eBooks... how about that electronic newspaper? And everything will have shrinkwrap rules governing the use of what's been judged as software, and THEN free speech is in real trouble. There are some very serious, broad issues at hand here. --Neil
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I don't think compcurr.com is the right place. The story appears on NewsBytes, which means the story went out on the wire, and I'd suspect papers around the nation to carry the story. The right thing to do is have RedHat/LinuxCare/VA Linux talk to NewsBytes, set them straight, and then issue a press release fixing Network Associates' Nelson guy straight. If I were RH/LinuxCare/VA right now, I'd think about forming an alliance with Network Associates to promote Linux admin knowledge to keep wrong and error-prone material from hitting the news wire.
It's upsetting when people forget that things like GUIs and such were originally developed at Xerox PARC, which Xerox just didn't do anything with. It always amazes me that folks like Apple, Microsoft, and other commercial GUI providers haven't been sued to kingdom come by Xerox for just this.
Exactly.
There is a law case... somewhere... a book publisher sued a bookstore. The publisher and store had gotten at odds, and the contract between the store and publisher stated that the books were provided on a license to the store, which could be revoked if the agreement ended.
But the bookstore had already paid for the books in question.
The court ruled that the store didn't purchase licenses of the books, but had, in fact, purchased real copies of the book in question, and was free to do whatever they damn well pleased to do with their property.
Unless this Judge in NY plans to revisit stare decisis, I imagine this case has to come into view.
I want to be able to build, use, modify, adapt, and construct a DVD movie playback rendering system for the DVD movies I own. Not for ones I don't own (which don't exist), but for ones I own.
Same reason I have a mod-chip in my PlayStation to play Japanese import games.
2. Work with public policy department to push advocates and lobbyists in D.C. to support the Millennium Copyright Act. Have Bill sign it into law.
3. Meanwhile, set up de facto organization who is the only authority with power to grant licensed keys for access control to my movies.
4. Only license keys on my terms, and only when I like the people I'm licensing to. Only provide license keys to those who will pay me lots of $dough.
5. Squash anyone who attempts to reverse engineer my access control technology to prevent unauthorized 'players' from coming into existence, because if they do, I don't get my licensing money, and I lose control over ALL of the keys.
6. Repeat Steps 1-5 every decade or two when new home video technology gets invented.
Aren't these the actions of a monopolist? Or an organization playing like they are a monopolist?
Are any of the CSS or other DVD technologies involved in DVD playback patented? Arrrg.
Bzzt. What about the pending legislation that alters the UCC regulations to make EULAs and shrinkwrap licenses enforceable? (Including things like; violating the terms of the license allows the software publisher to disable the software on your machine?)
Count me in. I just joined, too.
Here's my worry: DVDs will be judged as *software*, and not as *movies*. Why not? DVDs have a UI, APIs, input devices (remote control!), and a sorta-OS. Legally it could be good enough. This could be positive: If DVD movies are shown to be software, then reverse-engineering the software is no problem for interoperability. The downside: End User License Agreements for DVDs. I really, really think it's critical that the Judge in the case be well-educated on this: the DVD movie is the at-issue copyrightable content, but the CSS encryption system is *software*, and the deCSS utility is being used to provide for interoperability of said software, not a a means to harm the copyright rights owned by their respective holders. Otherwise, in the future... *everything* could be considered software. DVDs... eBooks... how about that electronic newspaper? And everything will have shrinkwrap rules governing the use of what's been judged as software, and THEN free speech is in real trouble. There are some very serious, broad issues at hand here. --Neil