The driving up of costs for both PCs and network infrastructure would price out much of the poor and also make it economically infeasable to try to provide low-cost Internet to low-income residents. With Linux it could be practical, with Windows XP Server, no way. A Windows XP Server "solution" is not conducive to low-cost ISPs or volunteer networking efforts - at all.
If you want to have a nice evening with friends, do you hit up bloackbuster for a DVD, or spend 8 hours trying to download some crappy divix rip of the same movie?
For some of the Slashdot crowd, a nice evening with friends IS spending 8 hours trying to download a Divx;-).
It is still a matter of public record though, isn't it? As in anyone can go to the court and find out you settled a lawsuit against you.
Granted if it is not in the consumer credit report fewer people will find out about it but it can still come back to haunt you. If you own a business, people (vendors, etc) might not trust you and might refuse to do business with you.
And unlike credit reports, information in court records never expires.
If you cave in to corporate pressure, you will lose your money, your good name, and your credit rating when you settle out of court.
Very few people know just how bad it is for your credit rating to lose or settle a lawsuit against you. It basically destroys it - if you cave in to or lose a lawsuit then nobody will loan you ANYTHING - you probably will have trouble getting an apartment, non-pre-paid cell phone or even a job or insurance.
If you cave in you might not lose that much money - but you'll lose everything else. People won't trust you - they'll think you must've been at fault to some degree.
Heck you are better off representing yourself if it truly is frivolous - at least you have a chance at not having your life ruined - if you settle, kiss having a decent life goodbye forever.
Of course, the DeCSS case proves that even people who are innocent (the judge ignored fair use, the US Constitution, and all the exemptions listed in the DMCA itself) can and sometimes do lose, even when they do have good lawyers. And if you lose, you will be required to pay damages and sometimes even be required to pay for the court and/or the plaintiff's lawyers. This is just like in some countries where when someone is executed, the family is billed for the cost of the bullets that were shot into his/her head.
Maybe we should stop being who we are. Just leave IT totally. Or, we could emigrate from the US.
If enough of us leave - then we will be missed. When there is no one left to run the servers that they run their business on, when there is no one left to get their lawyer's computer back up after a crash, when there is no one left to buy their products because their market has disappeared, then we will be missed.
DMCA takedown provisions (basically ask for something to be taken down - no court involved - and the site has to or else loses "safe harbor" status) are only for cases of suspected infringement, not circumvention.
You can't use DMCA takedown provisions to get DeCSS taken down, you could however use them to get an "illegal" MP3 taken off a web server.
Of course there are other (legal) ways they can get something like DeCSS taken down (but they require court action - or at least threats of lawsuits).
I wouldn't be surprised if the DMCA takedown provisions were eventually extended to circumvention devices and information.
You are being logical. Don't expect the courts to do likewise (especially in the Southern District of New York).
Judge Kaplan, for example, very likely will treat this as a "technical measure which controls access to a work".
The DMCA doesn't specifically say it has to be encryption. It states:
"a technological measure 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
One could say that a consumer CD doing interpolation over bad sectors is sufficient to qualify for the above, and is done with authority of the copyright owner, but that hacking a CD ripper to do the same isn't.
The DMCA doesn't say you can't abuse pre-existing technology to "protect" content.
Look at Macrovision - it originally worked (and it some cases still does) by confusing automatic gain control circuits in consumer VCRs. The DMCA contains a mandate that a VCR "respect" Macrovision, not only disallowing modifications to VCRs to avoid that design shortcoming, but actually mandating that VCRs that would by default work even in the face of Macrovision encoding be hobbled so they do not.
If I made VCRs I would have it record this in text on the tape. "RECORDING PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW (Digital Millenium Copyright Act, 17 USC 1201(k)).
Let the consumer know exactly why it does not work, and give him the information needed to fix it. Even though the fix is more political than technical.
P.S. Your examples could be considered circumvention and probably would in at least one judge's courtroom.
You realize that you may have just broken the law, right?
Not that I think it should be illegal, but you could possibly get sued/imprisoned for trafficking (you helped people find it) in a circumvention device or process.
The fact that the above comment may be illegal should definitely motivate you to fight CBDTPA and fight to have the DMCA repealed/declared unconstitutional.
That's not a copyright (or a patent) that's a trademark. Trademarks NEVER expire, unless the compnay fails to renew it or allows infringment without taking action.
DMCA took away almost all of your rights. The CBDTPA (formerly known as the SSSCA) will take the rest, including the right to independently produce content or use your PC as anything more than an "entertainment" device.
You try to exercise what used to be your rights and the gov't will smack you down hard. Look at the DeCSS and Sklyarov cases.
Hitting his head on the fire extingushers (see the NY Times article) sounds like a more likely cause of brain damage than having his "cyborg" systems shut down and damaged.
If he was dependent on the technology to the point where it would be injurious to be removed from it - I would say that is an over-dependence on technology he should have NEVER let himself get into.
It is likely a copy or hard-link of the system/bin/ls in the chroot environment in which ftpd runs. It needs that copy/hard-link to provide directory listings since it cannot access anything outside the chroot environment (this is done for security).
The/bin you see then isn't/bin on the system it is/path_to_ftpd_chroot_directory/bin
There is a world of difference between causing seizures and causing suicide.
And if the seizures can cause personality disorder (which he suffered) or suicidal behavior (any doctors care to comment if that is possible) then that should be in any new warning labels.
I am a libertarian, but I believe people should be made aware of any risks that are known.
Slashdot Mirror
Well Congress could just pass a law outlawing buildings as an "illegal circumvention device".
;)
well, it makes about as much sense as the DMCA and the SSSCA/CBDTPA...
You realize you could be violating the DMCA by saying that?
Maybe we should add a new moderation:
(+1, Illegal).
;)
The driving up of costs for both PCs and network infrastructure would price out much of the poor and also make it economically infeasable to try to provide low-cost Internet to low-income residents. With Linux it could be practical, with Windows XP Server, no way. A Windows XP Server "solution" is not conducive to low-cost ISPs or volunteer networking efforts - at all.
This would worsen the digital divide.
If you want to have a nice evening with friends, do you hit up bloackbuster for a DVD, or spend 8 hours trying to download some crappy divix rip of the same movie?
For some of the Slashdot crowd, a nice evening with friends IS spending 8 hours trying to download a Divx ;-).
It is still a matter of public record though, isn't it? As in anyone can go to the court and find out you settled a lawsuit against you.
Granted if it is not in the consumer credit report fewer people will find out about it but it can still come back to haunt you. If you own a business, people (vendors, etc) might not trust you and might refuse to do business with you.
And unlike credit reports, information in court records never expires.
By settling he has likely ruined his life. Do you have any idea just how bad your credit rating gets if you settle or lose a lawsuit?
Heck if I sue you for $1 and you settle with me for $0.01 in damages it will STILL be a big impact on your life. Strange but true.
Bad credit = No loans, no non-pre-paid cell phone, possibly no place to live, job, or insurance.
Quite likely. If you settle, well, you settled. A lawyer might know of ways to get out of it, but it probably won't be easy if it is possible.
If you cave in to corporate pressure, you will lose your money, your good name, and your credit rating when you settle out of court.
Very few people know just how bad it is for your credit rating to lose or settle a lawsuit against you. It basically destroys it - if you cave in to or lose a lawsuit then nobody will loan you ANYTHING - you probably will have trouble getting an apartment, non-pre-paid cell phone or even a job or insurance.
If you cave in you might not lose that much money - but you'll lose everything else. People won't trust you - they'll think you must've been at fault to some degree.
Heck you are better off representing yourself if it truly is frivolous - at least you have a chance at not having your life ruined - if you settle, kiss having a decent life goodbye forever.
Of course, the DeCSS case proves that even people who are innocent (the judge ignored fair use, the US Constitution, and all the exemptions listed in the DMCA itself) can and sometimes do lose, even when they do have good lawyers. And if you lose, you will be required to pay damages and sometimes even be required to pay for the court and/or the plaintiff's lawyers. This is just like in some countries where when someone is executed, the family is billed for the cost of the bullets that were shot into his/her head.
Maybe we should stop being who we are. Just leave IT totally. Or, we could emigrate from the US.
If enough of us leave - then we will be missed. When there is no one left to run the servers that they run their business on, when there is no one left to get their lawyer's computer back up after a crash, when there is no one left to buy their products because their market has disappeared, then we will be missed.
Smaller at the same bitrate? Don't you mean smaller for the same quality?
Isn't file size = bit rate * time
(plus an insignificant amount of overhead)
Fair use means he could not get convicted of copyright infringement, it is not a defense to a circumvention violation under the DMCA.
DMCA takedown provisions (basically ask for something to be taken down - no court involved - and the site has to or else loses "safe harbor" status) are only for cases of suspected infringement, not circumvention.
You can't use DMCA takedown provisions to get DeCSS taken down, you could however use them to get an "illegal" MP3 taken off a web server.
Of course there are other (legal) ways they can get something like DeCSS taken down (but they require court action - or at least threats of lawsuits).
I wouldn't be surprised if the DMCA takedown provisions were eventually extended to circumvention devices and information.
You are being logical. Don't expect the courts to do likewise (especially in the Southern District of New York).
Judge Kaplan, for example, very likely will treat this as a "technical measure which controls access to a work".
The DMCA doesn't specifically say it has to be encryption. It states:
"a technological measure 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
One could say that a consumer CD doing interpolation over bad sectors is sufficient to qualify for the above, and is done with authority of the copyright owner, but that hacking a CD ripper to do the same isn't.
The DMCA doesn't say you can't abuse pre-existing technology to "protect" content.
Look at Macrovision - it originally worked (and it some cases still does) by confusing automatic gain control circuits in consumer VCRs. The DMCA contains a mandate that a VCR "respect" Macrovision, not only disallowing modifications to VCRs to avoid that design shortcoming, but actually mandating that VCRs that would by default work even in the face of Macrovision encoding be hobbled so they do not.
If I made VCRs I would have it record this in text on the tape. "RECORDING PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW (Digital Millenium Copyright Act, 17 USC 1201(k)).
Let the consumer know exactly why it does not work, and give him the information needed to fix it. Even though the fix is more political than technical.
P.S. Your examples could be considered circumvention and probably would in at least one judge's courtroom.
Which would be a good thing, since the current version appears to have a grammar flaw. ("you copy") ;)
Philips still has a TRADEMARK on their logo. That does NOT expire. Even though their patents will.
So yes, after 2003 they can't sue for patent infringement, only for trademark infringement (whereas now they can do both).
Trademark infringement can even carry criminal penalties.
You'll never be able to independantly sell a "Whopper" hamburger - because of the trademark. Same deal here.
You realize that you may have just broken the law, right?
Not that I think it should be illegal, but you could possibly get sued/imprisoned for trafficking (you helped people find it) in a circumvention device or process.
The fact that the above comment may be illegal should definitely motivate you to fight CBDTPA and fight to have the DMCA repealed/declared unconstitutional.
Well you can sue if your coffee is hot.
Ask McDonalds. They paid MILLIONS of dollars in damages.
That's not a copyright (or a patent) that's a trademark. Trademarks NEVER expire, unless the compnay fails to renew it or allows infringment without taking action.
Ask a lawyer for legal advice.
DMCA took away almost all of your rights. The CBDTPA (formerly known as the SSSCA) will take the rest, including the right to independently produce content or use your PC as anything more than an "entertainment" device.
You try to exercise what used to be your rights and the gov't will smack you down hard. Look at the DeCSS and Sklyarov cases.
Hitting his head on the fire extingushers (see the NY Times article) sounds like a more likely cause of brain damage than having his "cyborg" systems shut down and damaged.
If he was dependent on the technology to the point where it would be injurious to be removed from it - I would say that is an over-dependence on technology he should have NEVER let himself get into.
It is likely a copy or hard-link of the system /bin/ls in the chroot environment in which ftpd runs. It needs that copy/hard-link to provide directory listings since it cannot access anything outside the chroot environment (this is done for security).
/bin you see then isn't /bin on the system it is /path_to_ftpd_chroot_directory/bin
The
If you want to be protected from lawsuits you actually need warnings like that.
Look at any aerosol can, they all say don't throw it in a fire. Isn't that common sense too? Can you find even one aerosol can without that warning?
Adding yet another warning is cheaper than defending against even one lawsuit and much cheaper than losing one.
There is a world of difference between causing seizures and causing suicide.
And if the seizures can cause personality disorder (which he suffered) or suicidal behavior (any doctors care to comment if that is possible) then that should be in any new warning labels.
I am a libertarian, but I believe people should be made aware of any risks that are known.
Well I guess Microsoft is safe then. ;)
s/AD\&D/Everquest/go
s/TSR/Sony/go
Will make it go faster.
Perl will only compile the expression once.