Why should people who don't drive pay taxes for road construction?
Same thing here with the Internet. Some people pay for more than they use, and some less, but it evens out, seems to work, and is a lot less complicated (and less prone to abuse) than pay-per-page.
An interesting note: Any radio station at that frequency would have to be non-profit. The FCC has reserved frequencies below 92 MHZ (88-92) for non-profits only.
88.1 is the first FM broadcast band frequency (even though I have seen radios go as low as 87.5), and 107.9 is the last frequency (I haven't seen a radio that tunes above that).
Here in Las Vegas, we have radio stations at both extreme ends of the dial, and they both rule.
If the original owner does not have a registered trademark or service mark, the UDRP won't help them. Simple as that.
The original question didn't mention the existence or lack thereof of a relevent trademark or service mark.
The UDRP doesn't say whether the trademark has to be registered or not. (This is a flaw in the UDRP, IMHO). It seems quite likely that the arbitrator or a court would interpret trademark to mean registered trademark.
In a related action, a coalition of TV networks filed suit today in the Southern District of New York against LazyBoy. The basis of their suit is that LazyBoy recliners make it too easy for people to get up from their seat during commercials. An attempt to negotiate with LazyBoy by having a piece of hardware added that would prvent the chair from being raised during a commercial was rebuffed.
The TV networks are saying that "technologies such as the LazyBoy recliner hurt our intellectual property rights. We need to be able to make money so we can continue to give you the quality programming you deserve and have come to expect from commercial TV."
You miss the point. The technical measures stopping you aren't most significant as a roadblock. They are more like a speed bump.
The significant point is that the existance of those meaures makes it illegal for you to exercise your fair use rights.
rot13 is an extremely weak "encryption" (more like an encoding method than encryption), but it was enough of an "effective" (legal definition) measure to get Sklyarov arrested and indicted, and facing a possible 25 year prison sentence (5 counts, 5 years each).
They could outlaw non-DRM content (actually devices that can play/record it) by saying allowing non-DRM recording/playback would allow someone to use legacy analog equipment or some similiar workaround (microphone to speaker, or anything of that sort) to record a DRM "protected" (restricted) work in a non-restricted medium. If there is no such thing as a non-restricted medium, then there is no risk of a work not being restricted by DRM.
This would make it illegal to allow consumers to record un-"protected" content - just like Sony mini-disc where even if you own the copyright, recording from the analog inputs creates an SCMS limited disk.
At the very least the work would be labeled with the "infringer"'s key/id (one can imagine a law saying recording devices must be registered with the person's identity recorded - if contraband content labeled with that ID gets out - they arrest and imprison the person associated with that ID) and not-usable by others or at least severely limited - by both technology and legal penalties.
There could also be a new felony created - receipt of unauthorized music - i.e. it would be illegal to posses music with a creator label other than yourself or a "licensed" (by RIAA) music content provider.
This has the added "benefit" the distribution of music in competition with the RIAA would be illegal.
Jeez, some of those security holes are downright embarrassing. Especially since this kernel is "mature" and the holes allow root compromise and DoS attacks.
I'd fix it quietly too and claim the DMCA was the reason.;);)
The only way to be safe is make sure that you are obeying the law of every country in which your information can be viewed or transmitted through.
Unless you never plan on visiting there and it isn't an extraditable offense, and we don't have an agreement (like the Hague accord) to prosecute you for breaking a foreign law.
Even that is not enough - that assumes fair legal systems everywhere.
So many countries could reach out and smack you down, possibly with our help (the Hague accord would be used perhaps)
If you are writing a driver for a DVD card, it could be used with DeCSS and you could be found in violation of the DMCA for creating and distributing part of a circumvention device. $250 statuatory damages minimum ($2000 max) or "actual" damages/profits for every circumvention. And a felony (with all the lifelong civil disabilities that entails, plus a possible 5 year sentence first offense, 10 years anytime thereafter) if you did it for "commercial gain".
If you live in or visit (or plan to visit) the US, this can affect you.
We need to add IP options that list allowed or disallowed countries for a packet to go through or to. We could also have a bit which says by default if a packet is allowed into other countries or not. We could then have a standard for international routers to drop packets that have a disallow option set for the destination country, or have the disallow by default bit set and do not have a specific allow record for that country.
Just an IP option that says allow/disallow and the Internet country code, and a bit in the header for the default allow/disallow setting is all that is required. Routers could be made to deal with it without too much work. Only routers with interfaces in more than one country would have to do anything special, the rest could ignore those bits and options (they would still need to be preserved and propagated).
Stuff that would be required to stay in a given country, or stay out of a given country could then be kept within or outside of the national boundries.
You say that is fascist? You are right, but it will save a lot of people's behinds. And when people can't get around it, there will be much political protest. When people can circumvent it, and get data to/from other countries anyway, nobody really tries to change anything.
It has been said the best way to get rid of a bad law is to have it enforced strictly.
Perhaps the same principle will work, when people can plainly see the Internet getting sliced up before their eyes.
Put a frog in water and boil it and the frog dies. It is too gradual to be noticed. Throw a frog in boiling water and it jumps out.
Having people suddenly lose connectivity to much of the world and the sites therein will wake people up (hopefully).
Something that was developed, but wasn't necessary doesn't qualify as an "amazing" thing that merits economic reward, or even the admiration of the geek community.
Unnecessary solutions to non-problems become problems in themselves that others have to deal with. A lot of software falls into that category. Such as Microsoft's Active Directory and other such nonsense. The only problem that solves is the lack of a monopoly on enterprise DNS services.;)
SSSCA is all about the US Congress mandating copy/use restriction systems (*). This *IS* the fight we need to win. If SSSCA passes, systems without copy/use restrictions become illegal.
(*) CPRM is one of these systems. It is "Copy Protection for Removable Media".
Whenever a driver's license is accepted for ID, a non-driver ID from the DMV is also accepted (except for where proof of driving privilege is required - it is proof of identity). The non-driver ID is just like a drivers license, except it does NOT grant one the right to drive.
Anyone that doesn't have a drivers license can get a non-driver ID, even if they have are too young, blind, never passed a test, or have been convicted for driving 100 mph in a school zone, while drunk and on speed, 6 dozen times.
So people without a drivers license have the ability to get a proof of identity that is just as good - that's how many non-drivers get beer and other things they need ID for.
Voice over IP systems cannot provide the level of reliability of conventional switches. Conventional switches very rarely fail and very rarely (if ever) degrade the qaulity of calls. Look at how much less reliable the Internet is than the phone system. How often do you get "host unreachable" and "connection timed out" compared to "all circuits are busy". Phone switches can't just throw away connection requests, but IP routers can drop packets. Note also, that if a phone goes out, it is often a straightforward and rapid fix, but Internet based stuff often stays down for hours or days. Even Slashdot, which has a dedicated support staff and the help of their hosting company couldn't get it running for hours due to a routing issue.
Circuit switching is the only way to go for voice - it is the only way to get good quality service and reliability at acceptable first-world levels.
Packet switching just doesn't cut it.
With packet switching, you could just get a failed connection attempt "connection timed out" and not know where it is broken (without adding additional infrastructre). Phone switches can tell if the next switch or circuit is dead and it can be dealt with right at the spot of failure, and people aren't left wondering where in the network "cloud" the problem lies and why they can't make a simple phone call"
IP technology is not as tried and tested as phone tech. It never will be - phone tech has a head start and an installed base and it is the right tool for the job.
I would NOT feel comfortable in a place where if I needed to call 911, I had to hope and pray that the Voice-over-IP network wasn't down, and that my call would go through instead of timing out or getting a destination unreachable. I could be dead by the time it is fixed.
But once they get into your computer, they would be accessing your data, including files that aren't copyrighted by others, which by default are copyrighted by you?
Would that perhaps give you a right to hack back to protect your own copyrighted works from infringement?
And they also circumvented a protection measure which guards your copyrighted works. Then comes into play the DMCA.
An exemption to 18 USC 1030 isn't going to cover their whole behind.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should people who don't drive pay taxes for road construction?
Same thing here with the Internet. Some people pay for more than they use, and some less, but it evens out, seems to work, and is a lot less complicated (and less prone to abuse) than pay-per-page.
An interesting note: Any radio station at that frequency would have to be non-profit. The FCC has reserved frequencies below 92 MHZ (88-92) for non-profits only.
88.1 is the first FM broadcast band frequency (even though I have seen radios go as low as 87.5), and 107.9 is the last frequency (I haven't seen a radio that tunes above that).
Here in Las Vegas, we have radio stations at both extreme ends of the dial, and they both rule.
Everything posted here is posted online. Following your interpretation would make the "online" in "Your Rights Online" redundant, would it not?
Understand? Great, now let me tell you how sad it is that I even have to explain this. It's sad.
Ditto.
If the original owner does not have a registered trademark or service mark, the UDRP won't help them. Simple as that.
The original question didn't mention the existence or lack thereof of a relevent trademark or service mark.
The UDRP doesn't say whether the trademark has to be registered or not. (This is a flaw in the UDRP, IMHO). It seems quite likely that the arbitrator or a court would interpret trademark to mean registered trademark.
Why is this story posted under "Your Rights Online"?!
;)
Not everything is online, the ID card was intended for the real world.
In a related action, a coalition of TV networks filed suit today in the Southern District of New York against LazyBoy. The basis of their suit is that LazyBoy recliners make it too easy for people to get up from their seat during commercials. An attempt to negotiate with LazyBoy by having a piece of hardware added that would prvent the chair from being raised during a commercial was rebuffed.
:) :)
The TV networks are saying that "technologies such as the LazyBoy recliner hurt our intellectual property rights. We need to be able to make money so we can continue to give you the quality programming you deserve and have come to expect from commercial TV."
:)
You miss the point. The technical measures stopping you aren't most significant as a roadblock. They are more like a speed bump.
The significant point is that the existance of those meaures makes it illegal for you to exercise your fair use rights.
rot13 is an extremely weak "encryption" (more like an encoding method than encryption), but it was enough of an "effective" (legal definition) measure to get Sklyarov arrested and indicted, and facing a possible 25 year prison sentence (5 counts, 5 years each).
Doing 2) above would be a DMCA violation (because there is some intellectual "property" which is "protected" (restricted) by those ciphers.
You could get 5 years per count.
Sklyarov is facing a 25 year prison sentence (total of 5 years times 5 counts)
Saying that we as a group violate IP laws doesn't create significant risk for any members, as it refers to no specific act.
There is a risk for prosecution under the RICO Act. That is serious, you can be sentenced to decades in prison for that.
THIS IS NOT TRUE WITH COPYRIGHTS.
THIS IS NOT TRUE WITH PATENTS
It is (sometimes, somewhat) true with trade secrets and trademarks.
COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS CAN BE DEFENDED SELECTIVELY WITH NO LOSS OF ENFORCABILITY.
Sorry for yelling, but I have seen this mistake made many times here on Slashdot.
They could outlaw non-DRM content (actually devices that can play/record it) by saying allowing non-DRM recording/playback would allow someone to use legacy analog equipment or some similiar workaround (microphone to speaker, or anything of that sort) to record a DRM "protected" (restricted) work in a non-restricted medium. If there is no such thing as a non-restricted medium, then there is no risk of a work not being restricted by DRM.
This would make it illegal to allow consumers to record un-"protected" content - just like Sony mini-disc where even if you own the copyright, recording from the analog inputs creates an SCMS limited disk.
At the very least the work would be labeled with the "infringer"'s key/id (one can imagine a law saying recording devices must be registered with the person's identity recorded - if contraband content labeled with that ID gets out - they arrest and imprison the person associated with that ID) and not-usable by others or at least severely limited - by both technology and legal penalties.
There could also be a new felony created - receipt of unauthorized music - i.e. it would be illegal to posses music with a creator label other than yourself or a "licensed" (by RIAA) music content provider.
This has the added "benefit" the distribution of music in competition with the RIAA would be illegal.
Jeez, some of those security holes are downright embarrassing. Especially since this kernel is "mature" and the holes allow root compromise and DoS attacks.
;) ;)
I'd fix it quietly too and claim the DMCA was the reason.
Umm, who would be the 51st?
The only safe speed limit for a street where kids can play unattended is ZERO.
It isn't safe for kids to play unattended around moving vehicles.
How about some better parenting in this country?
Although idiots taking themselves out of the gene pool might mean the next generation will be smarter than this one.
The only way to be safe is make sure that you are obeying the law of every country in which your information can be viewed or transmitted through.
Unless you never plan on visiting there and it isn't an extraditable offense, and we don't have an agreement (like the Hague accord) to prosecute you for breaking a foreign law.
Even that is not enough - that assumes fair legal systems everywhere.
So many countries could reach out and smack you down, possibly with our help (the Hague accord would be used perhaps)
Oh well.
If you are writing a driver for a DVD card, it could be used with DeCSS and you could be found in violation of the DMCA for creating and distributing part of a circumvention device. $250 statuatory damages minimum ($2000 max) or "actual" damages/profits for every circumvention. And a felony (with all the lifelong civil disabilities that entails, plus a possible 5 year sentence first offense, 10 years anytime thereafter) if you did it for "commercial gain".
If you live in or visit (or plan to visit) the US, this can affect you.
Be careful.
We need to add IP options that list allowed or disallowed countries for a packet to go through or to. We could also have a bit which says by default if a packet is allowed into other countries or not. We could then have a standard for international routers to drop packets that have a disallow option set for the destination country, or have the disallow by default bit set and do not have a specific allow record for that country.
Just an IP option that says allow/disallow and the Internet country code, and a bit in the header for the default allow/disallow setting is all that is required. Routers could be made to deal with it without too much work. Only routers with interfaces in more than one country would have to do anything special, the rest could ignore those bits and options (they would still need to be preserved and propagated).
Stuff that would be required to stay in a given country, or stay out of a given country could then be kept within or outside of the national boundries.
You say that is fascist? You are right, but it will save a lot of people's behinds. And when people can't get around it, there will be much political protest. When people can circumvent it, and get data to/from other countries anyway, nobody really tries to change anything.
It has been said the best way to get rid of a bad law is to have it enforced strictly.
Perhaps the same principle will work, when people can plainly see the Internet getting sliced up before their eyes.
Put a frog in water and boil it and the frog dies. It is too gradual to be noticed. Throw a frog in boiling water and it jumps out.
Having people suddenly lose connectivity to much of the world and the sites therein will wake people up (hopefully).
Something that was developed, but wasn't necessary doesn't qualify as an "amazing" thing that merits economic reward, or even the admiration of the geek community.
;)
Unnecessary solutions to non-problems become problems in themselves that others have to deal with. A lot of software falls into that category. Such as Microsoft's Active Directory and other such nonsense. The only problem that solves is the lack of a monopoly on enterprise DNS services.
Maybe we could get something tacked on that says any prosecutions or lawsuits under the Act may NOT be tried in Judge Kaplan's court. ;)
SSSCA is the:
Security Systems Standards and Certification Act
The post above had:
Software Security Standards and Certification Act.
SSSCA is all about the US Congress mandating copy/use restriction systems (*). This *IS* the fight we need to win. If SSSCA passes, systems without copy/use restrictions become illegal.
(*) CPRM is one of these systems. It is "Copy Protection for Removable Media".
Whenever a driver's license is accepted for ID, a non-driver ID from the DMV is also accepted (except for where proof of driving privilege is required - it is proof of identity). The non-driver ID is just like a drivers license, except it does NOT grant one the right to drive.
Anyone that doesn't have a drivers license can get a non-driver ID, even if they have are too young, blind, never passed a test, or have been convicted for driving 100 mph in a school zone, while drunk and on speed, 6 dozen times.
So people without a drivers license have the ability to get a proof of identity that is just as good - that's how many non-drivers get beer and other things they need ID for.
Voice over IP systems cannot provide the level of reliability of conventional switches. Conventional switches very rarely fail and very rarely (if ever) degrade the qaulity of calls. Look at how much less reliable the Internet is than the phone system. How often do you get "host unreachable" and "connection timed out" compared to "all circuits are busy". Phone switches can't just throw away connection requests, but IP routers can drop packets. Note also, that if a phone goes out, it is often a straightforward and rapid fix, but Internet based stuff often stays down for hours or days. Even Slashdot, which has a dedicated support staff and the help of their hosting company couldn't get it running for hours due to a routing issue.
Circuit switching is the only way to go for voice - it is the only way to get good quality service and reliability at acceptable first-world levels.
Packet switching just doesn't cut it.
With packet switching, you could just get a failed connection attempt "connection timed out" and not know where it is broken (without adding additional infrastructre). Phone switches can tell if the next switch or circuit is dead and it can be dealt with right at the spot of failure, and people aren't left wondering where in the network "cloud" the problem lies and why they can't make a simple phone call"
IP technology is not as tried and tested as phone tech. It never will be - phone tech has a head start and an installed base and it is the right tool for the job.
I would NOT feel comfortable in a place where if I needed to call 911, I had to hope and pray that the Voice-over-IP network wasn't down, and that my call would go through instead of timing out or getting a destination unreachable. I could be dead by the time it is fixed.
But once they get into your computer, they would be accessing your data, including files that aren't copyrighted by others, which by default are copyrighted by you?
Would that perhaps give you a right to hack back to protect your own copyrighted works from infringement?
And they also circumvented a protection measure which guards your copyrighted works. Then comes into play the DMCA.
An exemption to 18 USC 1030 isn't going to cover their whole behind.
Well all they have to do is get the case tried in Judge Kaplan's court. He isn't averse to making up new law right on the spot.