And what if the court you are tried in is Judge Kaplan's court?
Where the only parts of the law that matter are those that can be used to find you liable, and not those that can be used to exonerate you.
And what will people do when the DMCA is tightened so that even owning a mod chip becomes an automatic felony with a 10 year prison sentence?
It is no longer just a game of tecnological cat and mouse. We are the mouse, and the gov't will stomp us to death if we try to run away from the cat - it is a no win situation - UNLESS WE GET THE LAWS CHANGED OR OVERTURNED.
MAO inhibitors are dangerous - they can cause EXTREMELY high blood pressure (i.e. levels which can be lethal very quickly) when combined with many drugs and common foods.
As for rats living longer, we can with very near 100% effectiveness cure cancer in rats. Too bad humans are different than rats (although in the case of lawyers, perhaps not much) and what works in a rat doesn't always work in us.
Also, let's say nootropics become popular. Now those too poor to afford them, those who are allergic to them, and those who want to live a natural lifestyle are placed at a disadvantage - perhaps serious enough where they could be denied employment - and forced to go on public assistance or starve.
Good bye freedom of choice, and hello to more inequality.
We can probably rule out the third possibility that longevity causes less sleep, however.
No we can't. The older you are, the less sleep you need (on average). The older you are - the higher your life expectancy (measured from birth) is. If you are already 50 years old, you can't be someone who has died before 50. The life expectancy of someone who is 50 is higher than that of someone who is 20. Did the study's authors bother to correct for age? If not, then the above would be a serious confounding factor.
I believe the copy protection is designed to create an error so bad that the CD-ROM refuses to read and pass on the data to the system.
If that is the case, the firmware would need to be hacked - which would "violate" (*) the DMCA.
(*) Making a CD-ROM deal more gracefully with errors shouldn't be considered "circumvention" and there is also the interoperability exemption, fair use, the provisions of the US Constitution, etc.
But in Judge Kaplan's court, those parts of the law (or the Constitution) that protect you do not count, only the ones that can be used to attack you.
Also, it may be that in a year or two cdparanoia is as "illegal" (again, by an unconstitutional law which is wrongly interpreted) as DeCSS.
Well, would you apply the same logic to your phone service? If not, WHY not.
Also, having my packets examined is one thing. Having my packets ALTERED is quite another. Yes, it can break stuff (I have another post on this thread that gives an example).
I have a reasonable expectation that things are not changed at the IP level or above.
If I send a postcard, I expect it to not be changed, other than the postage being cancelled to prevent reuse. I sure as heck don't expect them to rewrite parts of it.
Put this CGI program on a server somewhere (I have it on a server somewhere - but I like having a working, non-slashdotted server;):
#!/bin/sh
echo Status: 200 OK
echo Content-type: text/plain
echo
env
This CGI program will get you a lot of information about where the server thinks the client is. If you are using a "transparent" (*) proxy, it will have its IP where yours would usually be.
(*) If it was truly transparent, you wouldn't see it. Perhaps a translucent;) proxy would be a better name. Well maybe not, Lucent Technologies might consider that trademark infringement.;)
It *should* be using the IP address of the packet, not the Host header. Yes, a transparent proxy does know what the original IP destination is.
This method is more technically correct - and doesn't hose over people that need to have a host header mismatch the DNS IP. Why would someone need that? Let's say I have www.foo.com and a few other sites hosted (virtual servers - same IP) on xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx. www.foo.com resolves to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx. I have a test system on yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy. I configure the client I use for testing to connect to yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy for www.foo.com, but the proxy connects me to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx. So much for my testing.
Perhaps they use the courts since the courts can award monetary damages and can order the defendent to pay for the plaintiff's lawyers and for the court's costs (i.e. the defendant has to pay for all the costs of the attack against him). The plaintiff ends up paying nothing in that case.
Also, violations of the various trademark and cybersquatting acts can lead to up to a $100K fine!
The worst a UDRP hearing can do is a domain transfer.
Maybe the company wanted to line its pockets with the defendant's money and/or make him bleed. Note: even middle class defendants have houses that can be foreclosed on and sold to pay a judgement - so a lawsuit is useful to hurt/destroy an opponent and can be profitable even if the defendant doesn't have any spare money lying around (since the courts can sell everything one owns).
Just because it isn't moral doesn't mean it isn't legal.
Plaintiffs get undeserved judgements that bankrupt defendants so often it is commonplace.
It is conceivable that a mere statement of the copyright holder could nullify 17 USC 117 in some jurisdictions where it appears the courts (wrongly) treat 117 as not applying because the copyright holder, and not the purchaser is the owner, rather than going by the owner of the media/physical copy.
You can have a DMCA violation even where no copyright infringment occurred, so it should be conceivable that one can lose the protections of 17 USC 117 even without being found in breach of a contract.
Also, the law authorizes temporary copies when doing so is an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program".
The software company could claim that use outside of the specifications of the license doesn't count. The program was never meant to be utilized like that.
(Layers out there, I have a question, could the above argument actually work?? I do hope the answer is NO)
I am not a lawyer and I came up with that. Imagine what a $100K/hour lawyer could come up with!
17 USC 117 appears to have as many holes as Swiss Cheese.
And with judges like Jacob (this case) or Kaplan (DeCSS) we are in great trouble indeed.
Think, a moment, what would happen if MicroSoft, or Apple... removed the ability for you to put compilers on their computers and write your own code. What if the computer manufacturers would ONLY allow code from *licensed* companies to run.
Don't give them (and the US Congress) any ideas - otherwise they might become a reality - enforced at the point of a government gun.
But they ARE legally allow to make it illegal for YOU to use YOUR OWN backups. Under the law they can do whatever they want, but our attempts to exercise our rights in spite of their resistance is illegal.
That is EXTREMELY anti-symetric in favor of the rights of the manufacturers.
What good is the right to make backups if they are illegal to use? And with the DMCA, even making the backup is often illegal (since "circumvention" is required to do so).
Slashdot Mirror
And what if the court you are tried in is Judge Kaplan's court?
Where the only parts of the law that matter are those that can be used to find you liable, and not those that can be used to exonerate you.
And what will people do when the DMCA is tightened so that even owning a mod chip becomes an automatic felony with a 10 year prison sentence?
It is no longer just a game of tecnological cat and mouse. We are the mouse, and the gov't will stomp us to death if we try to run away from the cat - it is a no win situation - UNLESS WE GET THE LAWS CHANGED OR OVERTURNED.
Let'em try to take that away.
Well the new BSSSCA (Biological SSSCA) makes it illegal to sing unless one has approved DRM hardware surgically implanted. ;)
MAO inhibitors are dangerous - they can cause EXTREMELY high blood pressure (i.e. levels which can be lethal very quickly) when combined with many drugs and common foods.
As for rats living longer, we can with very near 100% effectiveness cure cancer in rats. Too bad humans are different than rats (although in the case of lawyers, perhaps not much) and what works in a rat doesn't always work in us.
Also, let's say nootropics become popular. Now those too poor to afford them, those who are allergic to them, and those who want to live a natural lifestyle are placed at a disadvantage - perhaps serious enough where they could be denied employment - and forced to go on public assistance or starve.
Good bye freedom of choice, and hello to more inequality.
We can probably rule out the third possibility that longevity causes less sleep, however.
No we can't. The older you are, the less sleep you need (on average). The older you are - the higher your life expectancy (measured from birth) is. If you are already 50 years old, you can't be someone who has died before 50. The life expectancy of someone who is 50 is higher than that of someone who is 20. Did the study's authors bother to correct for age? If not, then the above would be a serious confounding factor.
Boeing 737??
September 11, 2001 involved 2 Boeing 767s and 2 Beoing 757s.
The news media said the terrorist likely used 757s and 767s since the training for them is similar.
Maybe if they weren't so silent, it would get done. ;)
Meanwhile, they could convince people to go to a different format...
;)
2 words: DVD audio
It doesn't matter that we only have 2 ears and can only hear up to 20 kHz (if we are VERY lucky) and that CDs can handle that.
DVD's with 5 audio channels and 96 kHz sampling rate (48 kHz maximum frequency response) is just so much "cooler".
Well at least your dogs can enjoy the high notes.
I believe the copy protection is designed to create an error so bad that the CD-ROM refuses to read and pass on the data to the system.
If that is the case, the firmware would need to be hacked - which would "violate" (*) the DMCA.
(*) Making a CD-ROM deal more gracefully with errors shouldn't be considered "circumvention" and there is also the interoperability exemption, fair use, the provisions of the US Constitution, etc.
But in Judge Kaplan's court, those parts of the law (or the Constitution) that protect you do not count, only the ones that can be used to attack you.
Also, it may be that in a year or two cdparanoia is as "illegal" (again, by an unconstitutional law which is wrongly interpreted) as DeCSS.
Well, would you apply the same logic to your phone service? If not, WHY not.
Also, having my packets examined is one thing. Having my packets ALTERED is quite another. Yes, it can break stuff (I have another post on this thread that gives an example).
I have a reasonable expectation that things are not changed at the IP level or above.
If I send a postcard, I expect it to not be changed, other than the postage being cancelled to prevent reuse. I sure as heck don't expect them to rewrite parts of it.
Put this CGI program on a server somewhere (I have it on a server somewhere - but I like having a working, non-slashdotted server ;):
/bin/sh
;) proxy would be a better name. Well maybe not, Lucent Technologies might consider that trademark infringement. ;)
#!
echo Status: 200 OK
echo Content-type: text/plain
echo
env
This CGI program will get you a lot of information about where the server thinks the client is. If you are using a "transparent" (*) proxy, it will have its IP where yours would usually be.
(*) If it was truly transparent, you wouldn't see it. Perhaps a translucent
It *should* be using the IP address of the packet, not the Host header. Yes, a transparent proxy does know what the original IP destination is.
This method is more technically correct - and doesn't hose over people that need to have a host header mismatch the DNS IP. Why would someone need that? Let's say I have www.foo.com and a few other sites hosted (virtual servers - same IP) on xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx. www.foo.com resolves to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx. I have a test system on yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy. I configure the client I use for testing to connect to yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy for www.foo.com, but the proxy connects me to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx. So much for my testing.
That doesn't mean anything anymore.
;)
;)
Just ask people who ran 2.4.11 how "stable" that kernel was.
P.S. The proper way to say a number is odd is to say it is an x such than x%2=1 or x&1=1
Isn't that prohibited by the DVD license agreement?
Perhaps they use the courts since the courts can award monetary damages and can order the defendent to pay for the plaintiff's lawyers and for the court's costs (i.e. the defendant has to pay for all the costs of the attack against him). The plaintiff ends up paying nothing in that case.
Also, violations of the various trademark and cybersquatting acts can lead to up to a $100K fine!
The worst a UDRP hearing can do is a domain transfer.
Maybe the company wanted to line its pockets with the defendant's money and/or make him bleed. Note: even middle class defendants have houses that can be foreclosed on and sold to pay a judgement - so a lawsuit is useful to hurt/destroy an opponent and can be profitable even if the defendant doesn't have any spare money lying around (since the courts can sell everything one owns).
Just because it isn't moral doesn't mean it isn't legal.
Plaintiffs get undeserved judgements that bankrupt defendants so often it is commonplace.
How about make February the "Implement the still currently unimplemented ext3fs attributes Month".
I am still waiting for the "c", "s", and "u" attributes to be implemented.
I suggest the Feds put the database on Oracle running on a Beowulf cluster of Linux machines, running the newest kernel.
Then Slashdot would LOVE it.
;)
Remember the "shoe bomber". Maybe we could have stopped him from getting on the plane in the first place if we had a system in place...
We could avoid the whole problem by never declaring an end to the war. ;)
And if you do any of those things forget about EVER visiting the US.
Just ask Dmitry Sklyarov.
Also, since Israel gets a lot of US aid, they might even be willing to extradite you to the US for illegal DVD usage, decryption, etc.
It is spelled PostgreSQL, not PostgresSQL.
But the mouse is often faster than the cat, and gets away.
The DMCA makes it illegal for the mouse to run, and if it does, a big elephant (US Federal gov't) will stomp on it.
No, it doesn't sound PATENTly ridiculous to me at all. Ogg Vorbis is not patented.
;)
It is conceivable that a mere statement of the copyright holder could nullify 17 USC 117 in some jurisdictions where it appears the courts (wrongly) treat 117 as not applying because the copyright holder, and not the purchaser is the owner, rather than going by the owner of the media/physical copy.
You can have a DMCA violation even where no copyright infringment occurred, so it should be conceivable that one can lose the protections of 17 USC 117 even without being found in breach of a contract.
Also, the law authorizes temporary copies when doing so is an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program".
The software company could claim that use outside of the specifications of the license doesn't count. The program was never meant to be utilized like that.
(Layers out there, I have a question, could the above argument actually work?? I do hope the answer is NO)
I am not a lawyer and I came up with that. Imagine what a $100K/hour lawyer could come up with!
17 USC 117 appears to have as many holes as Swiss Cheese.
And with judges like Jacob (this case) or Kaplan (DeCSS) we are in great trouble indeed.
Think, a moment, what would happen if MicroSoft, or Apple... removed the ability for you to put compilers on their computers and write your own code. What if the computer manufacturers would ONLY allow code from *licensed* companies to run.
Don't give them (and the US Congress) any ideas - otherwise they might become a reality - enforced at the point of a government gun.
But they ARE legally allow to make it illegal for YOU to use YOUR OWN backups. Under the law they can do whatever they want, but our attempts to exercise our rights in spite of their resistance is illegal.
That is EXTREMELY anti-symetric in favor of the rights of the manufacturers.
What good is the right to make backups if they are illegal to use? And with the DMCA, even making the backup is often illegal (since "circumvention" is required to do so).