I just hope no judges here in the States get any cute ideas from this ruling.
No need for us to look to other countries for that. The USA is NUMBER ONE when it comes to bad court rulings! We are also the leader in lawyers per capita.
The exemptions in the DMCA are useless. Look at Judge Kaplan's decision. The courts don't respect them, so we can't trust them.
We can't even be guaranteed our right to trial under the 7th Amendment. "Summary judgement for plaintiff" overrides that. Unconstitutional yes, but that won't stop the courts from taking everything you have and giving it to the plaintiff.
Be careful, copyright infringement can (and has) resulted in huge damages being awarded. 60K pounds total or approx $96K US in the case mentioned in this article.
The above web page mentions "MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer", which was an incredibly bad decision which basically says 17 USC 117 only applies if the copyright owner allows it to apply (by selling rather than licensing the software). In other words, it is useless for keeping the courts from stealing your money and giving it to the plaintiff.
Also, the fact the defendent in the Sony vs Channel Technology case lost on summary judgement is scary. What about the RIGHT TO A TRIAL? Here in the USA, we have it in the Constitution - the 7th Amendment for civil cases - but that part of the Constitution has been de facto suspended for a long time (anyone know how old "summary judgement for plaintiff" is in the US?)
Is it just me, or does it strike anyone as a bit fascist (not to mention unconstitutional) that one can win a case without trial.
7th Amendment:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The government is what is stopping free speech and openness on the Internet.
A company may sue you, but it is the government that actually steals your money (at the point of a gun) and gives it to the company.
No government enforcement of corporate whims, no problem.
The corporations are just doing what the law says they need to do (be as competitive as possible). If murder were legal, companies would be obligated to do that if it would benefit their shareholders. Companies aren't allowed to be moral.
The courts have no such excuse. They are the law (effectively, even if not "in theory") and their job according to the Constitution and the natural rights of man is to protect our interests.
It not always being "easy" to make fair use of things wasn't a great situation, but it was tolerable.
The DMCA makes any fair use that isn't "easy" illegal, which makes the whole situation much worse.
It is worse to the point of being intolerable - what good is fair use if it is illegal to make use of it if the copyright owner doesn't want you to - fair use is NOT a check on copyright owner's power if the copyright owner can make it illegal to exercise it - thus the balance between copyright and the First Amendment is GONE and the current law is unconstitutional.
Judge Kaplan disregarded fair use protection clauses and exemptions written directly into the DMCA itself and found against the defendants (they were ordered to pay the court for the "privilege" of being persecuted by the court).
If a 3rd party releases a patch, who is making the derivative work? The patch-maker or the person who applies the patch?
Of course that leaves open the fact that the patch maker had to have a modified version from which to make the patch (possible infringement) and that the patch itself could be contributory infringement (contributes to the user's infringement).
Providing patches for a binary-only software product may be a violation of the EULA, but that doesn't in itself make it a COPYRIGHT violation.
EULA violations are purely civil, there might not be any statutory or punitive damages, etc. (depends on the local laws). EULAs are based in CONTRACT law.
Copyright violations can be civil or criminal (FELONY (*) in some cases), there are statuatory damages (you can be ordered to pay even if they weren't harmed AND you didn't benefit), punitive damages, contributory and vicarious infringement theories (which don't seem to exist with EULAs) which judges follow, etc.
The DMCA may apply in both cases, depends on the country and the judge. If you get Judge Kaplan, you might as well sell all your stuff and live on the street right now and get it over with. 1/2:)
Ask a lawyer (in your jurisdiction) for legal advice.
(*) In the US. I don't know the situation in other countries.
P.S. If a company acts so irresponsibly as to try to assess a $500 bill for sending a cease and desist letter because you were trying to be helpful, then to hell with them. Asking you to pay for the costs of their legal attack is unconscionable.
But what I heard about the laws in Germany, that practice seems to be blessed by the gov't there.
"abmahnung" I believe it is called.
Perhaps in your situation, but there are likely users for whom that is NOT the case.
Think large enterprises which have huge databases. Oracle might know better about how to organize and access and cache the data than the OS does. The OS buffer could make things LESS efficient. Think read-ahead in situations where it is not appropriate.
Sometimes you just need the OS to get out of the way.
You aren't supposed to use block and character devices for the same device at the same time!
You have the raw device ignore the buffer cache. If you must switch between block and char devices (unlikely), use the block device, then flush it before any access to the character device (unless it already has been flushed).
Just because using raw char devices messes up the block device cache isn't a reason to remove the feature. It is a reason to NOT MISUSE the feature.
Do your light sockets have anything in them designed to keep your tougue out of them?;)
al-Qaida and the Taliban are NOT innocent. The people who orchestrated the September 11 attacks on our nation and those that supported them are NOT innocent.
As for innocent people being killed, that is a part of every WAR, which is what this is. We are trying our best to minimize this.
Innocent people got killed when we fought the Nazis in WWII. Should we have not fought, and just let them take over the world? And then they'd kill all the Jews, and everyone non-white, etc, etc, but at least we "wouldn't have been guilty of killing innocents".
As for the US using chemical and biological weapons, that is a vicious lie. If it were true, do you think we'd have the support from our allies that we do now?
The US gov't has made bad choices (e.g. providing support to wackos in Afghanistan to keep out Communism, which ended up collapsing).
I do however, believe we are for the most part a moral nation and we try to do what is right.
As for recognizing evil, if September 11 didn't make things crystal clear for you, I shudder to think what would? Maybe L.A. getting leveled by a nuke?
That is the future we are facing if we don't fight to stop terrorism now.
The US gov't should have shutdown al-Barakaat, and al-Taqwa a long time ago. Better late than never.
We (most of us) in the country have been woken up down - and we are responding.
Well I assume you are dragging the US-Iraq war (Desert Storm).
Don't forget, Iraq INVADED Kuwait, i.e. they started it, and we finished it. We took military action to reverse an unlawful invasion of a soverign nation.
Think about how it would be if whatever country you are from (USA or otherwise) were to be invaded - and whether you'd think military force would be justified then.
If you can't make a moral distinction between the events of September 11th and our actions in Afghanistan, you are truly lost.
We are fighting to destroy al-Qaida and those (especially the Taliban) who harbor them. Calling our actions "terrorism" is disgusting.
This war is to ensure the security of our homeland. We didn't start the fighting, they did, right in the heart of New York City!
Wake up people!
As for the Afghan people, a LOT of them are enjoying freedoms that haven't had in FIVE YEARS!
P.S. If you hate the US so much, nobody is forcing you to stay.
P.P.S. I'm not a shill for the US gov't. I have been critical of many of their decisions (DMCA, etc). I do know when it is time to stand together against evil.
P.P.P.S. Oh yeah, when the raids of the ISPs happened right before September 11, I had a feeling that the USA gov't was in the right (a dn did say so right here on Slashdot), even though I am usually a strong civil libertarian. And then September 11 happened.
Why must every time someone says anything pro-Christian or pro-religion they get modded down?
"Flamebait"? Nothing up there is flamebait as far as I can tell. It seems to be a good argument, one that one could disagree with, but not "flamebait". But someone moderated it as such, and I suspect it is due to anti-religious bias.
There is more to the world than technology, folks.
(P.S. I suspect this one likely will get modded down also. Just remember, there is always metamod.)
Slashdot Mirror
I just hope no judges here in the States get any cute ideas from this ruling.
No need for us to look to other countries for that. The USA is NUMBER ONE when it comes to bad court rulings! We are also the leader in lawyers per capita.
The exemptions in the DMCA are useless. Look at Judge Kaplan's decision. The courts don't respect them, so we can't trust them.
We can't even be guaranteed our right to trial under the 7th Amendment. "Summary judgement for plaintiff" overrides that. Unconstitutional yes, but that won't stop the courts from taking everything you have and giving it to the plaintiff.
"MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer" held the defendent liable for copyright infringement, not for contract breach.
Copyright infringement is MUCH more serious BTW, statuatory damages and criminal charges are even possible.
Here is a web page explaing why 17 USC 117 is essentially useless
See this web page explaining why 17 USC 117 does not protect you in all jurisdictions.
Be careful, copyright infringement can (and has) resulted in huge damages being awarded. 60K pounds total or approx $96K US in the case mentioned in this article.
The above web page mentions "MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer", which was an incredibly bad decision which basically says 17 USC 117 only applies if the copyright owner allows it to apply (by selling rather than licensing the software). In other words, it is useless for keeping the courts from stealing your money and giving it to the plaintiff.
Also, the fact the defendent in the Sony vs Channel Technology case lost on summary judgement is scary. What about the RIGHT TO A TRIAL? Here in the USA, we have it in the Constitution - the 7th Amendment for civil cases - but that part of the Constitution has been de facto suspended for a long time (anyone know how old "summary judgement for plaintiff" is in the US?)
Not malicious, but perhaps reckless in some cases. Some (many) sites can't withstand a Slashdotting.
Is it just me, or does it strike anyone as a bit fascist (not to mention unconstitutional) that one can win a case without trial.
7th Amendment:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The government is what is stopping free speech and openness on the Internet.
A company may sue you, but it is the government that actually steals your money (at the point of a gun) and gives it to the company.
No government enforcement of corporate whims, no problem.
The corporations are just doing what the law says they need to do (be as competitive as possible). If murder were legal, companies would be obligated to do that if it would benefit their shareholders. Companies aren't allowed to be moral.
The courts have no such excuse. They are the law (effectively, even if not "in theory") and their job according to the Constitution and the natural rights of man is to protect our interests.
They have failed.
Yes, you'd be dealing with red tape no matter what region you worked in.
Why would one ever want to claim they wrote Emacs? (even if they did?!)
Someone wanting to claim they wrote vi seems much more likely.
Didn't Iceland have the highest Internet usage per capita?
It not always being "easy" to make fair use of things wasn't a great situation, but it was tolerable.
The DMCA makes any fair use that isn't "easy" illegal, which makes the whole situation much worse.
It is worse to the point of being intolerable - what good is fair use if it is illegal to make use of it if the copyright owner doesn't want you to - fair use is NOT a check on copyright owner's power if the copyright owner can make it illegal to exercise it - thus the balance between copyright and the First Amendment is GONE and the current law is unconstitutional.
Judge Kaplan disregarded fair use protection clauses and exemptions written directly into the DMCA itself and found against the defendants (they were ordered to pay the court for the "privilege" of being persecuted by the court).
So don't expect the Constitution to save you.
When has the boss had complete
knowledge and complete control over the actions of employees? Never.
During the Industrial Revolution, many had to buy from company stores, live in company housing, etc.
And nowadays, H1-Bs can basically be deported by their employer.
Putting an exploit in a "kernel upgrade" could also work.
;)
Hey, maybe that is the explanation for why 2.4.15 is so buggy.
If a 3rd party releases a patch, who is making the derivative work? The patch-maker or the person who applies the patch?
Of course that leaves open the fact that the patch maker had to have a modified version from which to make the patch (possible infringement) and that the patch itself could be contributory infringement (contributes to the user's infringement).
These sorts of things should not creep into the STABLE kernel series.
A clarification here.
:)
Providing patches for a binary-only software product may be a violation of the EULA, but that doesn't in itself make it a COPYRIGHT violation.
EULA violations are purely civil, there might not be any statutory or punitive damages, etc. (depends on the local laws). EULAs are based in CONTRACT law.
Copyright violations can be civil or criminal (FELONY (*) in some cases), there are statuatory damages (you can be ordered to pay even if they weren't harmed AND you didn't benefit), punitive damages, contributory and vicarious infringement theories (which don't seem to exist with EULAs) which judges follow, etc.
The DMCA may apply in both cases, depends on the country and the judge. If you get Judge Kaplan, you might as well sell all your stuff and live on the street right now and get it over with. 1/2
Ask a lawyer (in your jurisdiction) for legal advice.
(*) In the US. I don't know the situation in other countries.
P.S. If a company acts so irresponsibly as to try to assess a $500 bill for sending a cease and desist letter because you were trying to be helpful, then to hell with them. Asking you to pay for the costs of their legal attack is unconscionable.
But what I heard about the laws in Germany, that practice seems to be blessed by the gov't there.
"abmahnung" I believe it is called.
Perhaps in your situation, but there are likely users for whom that is NOT the case.
Think large enterprises which have huge databases. Oracle might know better about how to organize and access and cache the data than the OS does. The OS buffer could make things LESS efficient. Think read-ahead in situations where it is not appropriate.
Sometimes you just need the OS to get out of the way.
You aren't supposed to use block and character devices for the same device at the same time!
;)
You have the raw device ignore the buffer cache. If you must switch between block and char devices (unlikely), use the block device, then flush it before any access to the character device (unless it already has been flushed).
Just because using raw char devices messes up the block device cache isn't a reason to remove the feature. It is a reason to NOT MISUSE the feature.
Do your light sockets have anything in them designed to keep your tougue out of them?
al-Qaida and the Taliban are NOT innocent. The people who orchestrated the September 11 attacks on our nation and those that supported them are NOT innocent.
As for innocent people being killed, that is a part of every WAR, which is what this is. We are trying our best to minimize this.
Innocent people got killed when we fought the Nazis in WWII. Should we have not fought, and just let them take over the world? And then they'd kill all the Jews, and everyone non-white, etc, etc, but at least we "wouldn't have been guilty of killing innocents".
As for the US using chemical and biological weapons, that is a vicious lie. If it were true, do you think we'd have the support from our allies that we do now?
The US gov't has made bad choices (e.g. providing support to wackos in Afghanistan to keep out Communism, which ended up collapsing).
I do however, believe we are for the most part a moral nation and we try to do what is right.
As for recognizing evil, if September 11 didn't make things crystal clear for you, I shudder to think what would? Maybe L.A. getting leveled by a nuke?
That is the future we are facing if we don't fight to stop terrorism now.
The US gov't should have shutdown al-Barakaat, and al-Taqwa a long time ago. Better late than never.
We (most of us) in the country have been woken up down - and we are responding.
Well I assume you are dragging the US-Iraq war (Desert Storm).
Don't forget, Iraq INVADED Kuwait, i.e. they started it, and we finished it. We took military action to reverse an unlawful invasion of a soverign nation.
Think about how it would be if whatever country you are from (USA or otherwise) were to be invaded - and whether you'd think military force would be justified then.
If you can't make a moral distinction between the events of September 11th and our actions in Afghanistan, you are truly lost.
We are fighting to destroy al-Qaida and those (especially the Taliban) who harbor them. Calling our actions "terrorism" is disgusting.
This war is to ensure the security of our homeland. We didn't start the fighting, they did, right in the heart of New York City!
Wake up people!
As for the Afghan people, a LOT of them are enjoying freedoms that haven't had in FIVE YEARS!
P.S. If you hate the US so much, nobody is forcing you to stay.
P.P.S. I'm not a shill for the US gov't. I have been critical of many of their decisions (DMCA, etc). I do know when it is time to stand together against evil.
P.P.P.S. Oh yeah, when the raids of the ISPs happened right before September 11, I had a feeling that the USA gov't was in the right (a dn did say so right here on Slashdot), even though I am usually a strong civil libertarian. And then September 11 happened.
It may give your first job if your lucky but since I was fired from my first IT job I am now screwed. Get solaris certification or something instead.
You still have the experience (they can't take that away). That should help you land another job.
P.S. If your ex-boss is making it hard for you to obtain work that might be in violation of the law.
Unlike a totalitarian state, we can still fix this one non-violently.
We still have the right to vote out those that are violating our liberties.
If enough people are made to care and support liberty, then we can elect pro-liberty leaders and make the USA more free.
Why must every time someone says anything pro-Christian or pro-religion they get modded down?
"Flamebait"? Nothing up there is flamebait as far as I can tell. It seems to be a good argument, one that one could disagree with, but not "flamebait". But someone moderated it as such, and I suspect it is due to anti-religious bias.
There is more to the world than technology, folks.
(P.S. I suspect this one likely will get modded down also. Just remember, there is always metamod.)
With the current Anthrax situation, that might cause alarm.