That's why a new amendment to the proposed amendment gives them the right to burn down your house as long as such action is "intended to impede or prevent the infringement of copyright". Of course you could sing the songs. Well a Senator from South Carolina wants to add murder to the list of measures copyright holders are allowed to use. Its called the "Rightsholder Lethal Self-help Authorization Act". Cool, the acronym even ends in "AA".
Of course infringement is not going to be a big problem, since the new version of the SSSCA expands the definition of an "interactive digital device" to include humans, so the neural implants required under the Act will keep things under control. And if someone tries to infringe, it can be set to kill them on the spot. After all, no one has the right to infringe, and it must be stopped by any means necessary. Any collateral damage is the fault of the infringer - if they didn't want to be electrocuted from within, they could have chosen not to infringe.
;)
(yes this is sarcastic, but you can see the parallels to what the copyright cartel is trying to do)
It'll take real courage and perhaps bloodshed to change this.
Or maybe something even more radical, like actually voting on Election Day for the candidate who is best on the issues, instead of the one with the best and most advertisements
Just having 10% of the votes be truly informed voters would swing enough important elections to make a BIG difference. Urban areas and large states with a lot of political power are often fairly close to evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Critical elections are often very close. Look at 2000 - the difference between the vote for Bush and Gore percentage-wise was very low.
We can do far more far easier with the ballot than with the bullet.
September 11 was enough bloodshed for me and the rest of the USA. We don't need any unnecessary loss of life.
No more open PCs, no more independent musicians
on
What's The Future of DRM?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
That's why the SSSCA will make non-DRM controlled hardware illegal.
Eventually, after enough hacking of the systems, PCs will be required to be tamper-proof, DRM enabled, no end-user access to raw bit streams, etc. The SSSCA could pass, and the certified systems required by the act could include such requirements.
And the DRM system will likely prevent playing of unauthenticated content. Ostensibly to stop people from making analog recordings of music with a microphone, but it would also make independant music production impossible. The legally mandated system could require that in order for a piece of music to play, it would need to be signed with a valid key - and only the RIAA could license such keys. Onle would then need an RIAA license to make music.
You misunderstood. Public key encryption would prevent 3rd parties from eavesdropping, but would NOT stop the 2nd party (the receiver) from sharing the unencrypted data with others whom the first party does not want the information to be shared with.
DRM would stop the 2nd party from doing that, in theory.
I am not supporting DRM, just explaining that it could theoretically be useful for the above scenario. The social desirability of DRM is a whole nother issue. (I am opposed to DRM)
Well, a car engine will take at least a couple of minutes to go from cooling failure to overheat to physical damage.
Your car's engine won't burn up in a couple of seconds like an AMD processor will.
With a car, you have time to pull over and shut down the engine. With an AMD, even the fastest temperature sensing system won't be able to detect it and remove power in time. Even if you knew instantly when your heat sink failed, the combination your reaction time and the delay between pressing the power button and dropping of the power supply voltage to zero would be enough time for your CPU to burn.
As for a motherboard temperature monitor, most can only poll every 1.5 seconds or so (HW limitation). That doesn't leave enough time between when the cooling fails and when the power gets cut off. Remember also, that monitoring software and the power off BIOS calls take time, and there is also a delay between the power off bit on the MB being toggled and the power from the power supply dropping to zero.
We may (or may not) have the upper hand technologically, but we DO NOT have the upper hand legally. The RIAA does. Ripping a protected CD will likely get you sued and/or prosecuted.
Also, the copy/use restriction technology appears to cause the CD drive firmware to prevent the PC from even getting the bits. So a software hack wouldn't work.
In which case, a CD maker which modified their firmware (which is what it would take to have the CD be rippable) to allow the PC to read it would very likely face CRIMINAL charges, including massive fines and 5 years in prison.
I'm still waiting for the RIAA and MPAA to go after the software and hardware makers next... I mean, they must know that their products are being used for illegal purposes, so they must be at fault too...
The copy protection does make things harder, but one of its crucial features is the fact it makes fair use activities ILLEGAL.
From the article: "Peter Jacobs faces a daunting challenge: convincing millions of music fans that he's not a policeman."
And when asked about if someone bypasses the "protection" scheme:
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits users from circumventing copy protection. It's now a crime in America to do that."
And he says he's not a cop, but his technology now means the cops and courts can come after you for doing what used to be legal. They take away our rights using technology, we try to take them back, again using technology, and we are punished by the gov't! If they are allowed to use technology to stop us, we should be allowed to use technology to protect our rights.
Remember, connecting an digital out to a digital in will circumvent the protection, but it won't circumvent the statuatory damages ($250 - $2000, no proof of you profiting or them being harmed is required - they ask for it and the court grants it), it won't circumvent "actual damages" (whatever Judge Kaplan and similar thinking judges want to steal from you and give to the RIAA) and it won't circumvent you being locked in a cage for 5 years of your life.
If your idea if winning includes statuatory damages of $250 (MINIMUM) to $2500, actual monetary damages (i.e. whatever they hoodwink the judge into thinking you cost them), and possibly 5 years in prison (NO PAROLE ALLOWED IN FEDERAL PRISON) if you at all financially benefitted (*) from it, yeah, in that case, I'd say we have a good chance of winning.
* In the copyright law "financially benefit" has been redefined to include non-monetary benefits!
See the DMCA and how Judge Kaplan interprets it as removing fair use in the DeCSS trial (*) for more info.
(*) The DeCSS defendants have been ORDERED TO PAY COURT COSTS, i.e. ordered to pay the court for their own persecution by the court. It would be like me throwing a rock and you and billing you for the cost of the rock.
And its our right to make fair use of a product by overriding their protection measures. We have as much right to override them as they do to put them there. It is NOT like breaking into someone's house, there you are breaking a protection system (lock, etc) to do something intrinsically illegal. Breaking copy protection to infringe is illegal, but doing so to make fair use shouldn't be. Fair use is legal.
(If some random person, not acting on orders from the local gov't, padlocks the public park, it would be legal to break that bogus lock. And the one that put the lock there would likely be in trouble. It would be nice if obstructing fair use were similarly illegal.)
Even the DMCA itself says it doesn't affect fair use. Anything that violates fair use is also unconstitutional.
Of course, Judge Kaplan ignores all that (DeCSS case), and he isn't the only one out there.
So we morally, and according to the letter of the law as I understand it, have the right for "self-help" to get back fair use, but not according to the gov't. As they can assess monetary penalties and even lock you up, we need to keep in mind that we need more than just a technical solution.
We need to repeal the DMCA.
Of course, anyone that knows of a defeat method or code, please do let us know.
I am not actually stating this, but I wonder what you think about the argument that since it was reverse engineered intellectual property, that the one doing the reverse engineering didn't "create" the IP, but rather unobscured it? Then one could argue that he/she wouldn't need to be credited.
What if key escrow/back-door crypto becomes a reality, and the master key or the escrowed key repository gets compromised by a terrorist?
Wouldn't that represent a gravely serious threat?
The terrorist would have the ability to monitor, and perhaps disrupt, any encrypted communications, including that for critical infrastructure.
Let's increase the NSA's (*) staff and budget, not take knee jerk actions that help the terrorists.
(*) NSA is mostly code-breakers and the like. Not goons out to get you. Anyone that comes in the middle of the night to crack your head will almost certainly NOT be NSA.
I'd assume it would be interpreted as in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 USC 1030, which pretty much defines it as cyberspace breaking and entering. This would not include acts done with the authorization of the owner of the computer, so it wouldn't apply to DMCA style restrictions.
Here's another crypto fact. It is very easy to make bad crypto (XOR 67, rot13, CSS are 3 real world examples that come to mind), but very hard to make good crypto. And if you don't know what you are doing, you can't tell bad crypto is bad. It will still appear to "work", i.e. encode to something apparently meaningless and decode to the original data. But people with the right knowledge can decipher it.
Bad crypto looks good to all but experts. Really bad crypto of course is easy to spot; however flawed but complex crypto can look quite good yet be quite weak.
Even Russians (Sklyarov comes to mind) appear to be subject to our laws. Whether you agree with it or not, just living outside the US doesn't mean you can break US law and get away with it. I am just making a political observation, not trolling here.
It's called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" if I remember correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why a new amendment to the proposed amendment gives them the right to burn down your house as long as such action is "intended to impede or prevent the infringement of copyright". Of course you could sing the songs. Well a Senator from South Carolina wants to add murder to the list of measures copyright holders are allowed to use. Its called the "Rightsholder Lethal Self-help Authorization Act". Cool, the acronym even ends in "AA".
Of course infringement is not going to be a big problem, since the new version of the SSSCA expands the definition of an "interactive digital device" to include humans, so the neural implants required under the Act will keep things under control. And if someone tries to infringe, it can be set to kill them on the spot. After all, no one has the right to infringe, and it must be stopped by any means necessary. Any collateral damage is the fault of the infringer - if they didn't want to be electrocuted from within, they could have chosen not to infringe.
;)
(yes this is sarcastic, but you can see the parallels to what the copyright cartel is trying to do)
It'll take real courage and perhaps bloodshed to change this.
Or maybe something even more radical, like actually voting on Election Day for the candidate who is best on the issues, instead of the one with the best and most advertisements
Just having 10% of the votes be truly informed voters would swing enough important elections to make a BIG difference. Urban areas and large states with a lot of political power are often fairly close to evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Critical elections are often very close. Look at 2000 - the difference between the vote for Bush and Gore percentage-wise was very low.
We can do far more far easier with the ballot than with the bullet.
September 11 was enough bloodshed for me and the rest of the USA. We don't need any unnecessary loss of life.
That's why the SSSCA will make non-DRM controlled hardware illegal.
Eventually, after enough hacking of the systems, PCs will be required to be tamper-proof, DRM enabled, no end-user access to raw bit streams, etc. The SSSCA could pass, and the certified systems required by the act could include such requirements.
And the DRM system will likely prevent playing of unauthenticated content. Ostensibly to stop people from making analog recordings of music with a microphone, but it would also make independant music production impossible. The legally mandated system could require that in order for a piece of music to play, it would need to be signed with a valid key - and only the RIAA could license such keys. Onle would then need an RIAA license to make music.
You misunderstood. Public key encryption would prevent 3rd parties from eavesdropping, but would NOT stop the 2nd party (the receiver) from sharing the unencrypted data with others whom the first party does not want the information to be shared with.
DRM would stop the 2nd party from doing that, in theory.
I am not supporting DRM, just explaining that it could theoretically be useful for the above scenario. The social desirability of DRM is a whole nother issue. (I am opposed to DRM)
Well, a car engine will take at least a couple of minutes to go from cooling failure to overheat to physical damage.
Your car's engine won't burn up in a couple of seconds like an AMD processor will.
With a car, you have time to pull over and shut down the engine. With an AMD, even the fastest temperature sensing system won't be able to detect it and remove power in time. Even if you knew instantly when your heat sink failed, the combination your reaction time and the delay between pressing the power button and dropping of the power supply voltage to zero would be enough time for your CPU to burn.
As for a motherboard temperature monitor, most can only poll every 1.5 seconds or so (HW limitation). That doesn't leave enough time between when the cooling fails and when the power gets cut off. Remember also, that monitoring software and the power off BIOS calls take time, and there is also a delay between the power off bit on the MB being toggled and the power from the power supply dropping to zero.
A whole 30 days? Wow, that's better than the MTBF of regular AMD chips! ;)
We may (or may not) have the upper hand technologically, but we DO NOT have the upper hand legally. The RIAA does. Ripping a protected CD will likely get you sued and/or prosecuted.
Also, the copy/use restriction technology appears to cause the CD drive firmware to prevent the PC from even getting the bits. So a software hack wouldn't work.
In which case, a CD maker which modified their firmware (which is what it would take to have the CD be rippable) to allow the PC to read it would very likely face CRIMINAL charges, including massive fines and 5 years in prison.
I'm still waiting for the RIAA and MPAA to go after the software and hardware makers next... I mean, they must know that their products are being used for illegal purposes, so they must be at fault too...
They already have. It is called the SSSCA
The copy protection does make things harder, but one of its crucial features is the fact it makes fair use activities ILLEGAL.
From the article: "Peter Jacobs faces a daunting challenge: convincing millions of music fans that he's not a policeman."
And when asked about if someone bypasses the "protection" scheme:
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits users from circumventing copy protection. It's now a crime in America to do that."
And he says he's not a cop, but his technology now means the cops and courts can come after you for doing what used to be legal. They take away our rights using technology, we try to take them back, again using technology, and we are punished by the gov't! If they are allowed to use technology to stop us, we should be allowed to use technology to protect our rights.
Remember, connecting an digital out to a digital in will circumvent the protection, but it won't circumvent the statuatory damages ($250 - $2000, no proof of you profiting or them being harmed is required - they ask for it and the court grants it), it won't circumvent "actual damages" (whatever Judge Kaplan and similar thinking judges want to steal from you and give to the RIAA) and it won't circumvent you being locked in a cage for 5 years of your life.
If your idea if winning includes statuatory damages of $250 (MINIMUM) to $2500, actual monetary damages (i.e. whatever they hoodwink the judge into thinking you cost them), and possibly 5 years in prison (NO PAROLE ALLOWED IN FEDERAL PRISON) if you at all financially benefitted (*) from it, yeah, in that case, I'd say we have a good chance of winning.
* In the copyright law "financially benefit" has been redefined to include non-monetary benefits!
See the DMCA and how Judge Kaplan interprets it as removing fair use in the DeCSS trial (*) for more info.
(*) The DeCSS defendants have been ORDERED TO PAY COURT COSTS, i.e. ordered to pay the court for their own persecution by the court. It would be like me throwing a rock and you and billing you for the cost of the rock.
And its our right to make fair use of a product by overriding their protection measures. We have as much right to override them as they do to put them there. It is NOT like breaking into someone's house, there you are breaking a protection system (lock, etc) to do something intrinsically illegal. Breaking copy protection to infringe is illegal, but doing so to make fair use shouldn't be. Fair use is legal.
(If some random person, not acting on orders from the local gov't, padlocks the public park, it would be legal to break that bogus lock. And the one that put the lock there would likely be in trouble. It would be nice if obstructing fair use were similarly illegal.)
Even the DMCA itself says it doesn't affect fair use. Anything that violates fair use is also unconstitutional.
Of course, Judge Kaplan ignores all that (DeCSS case), and he isn't the only one out there.
So we morally, and according to the letter of the law as I understand it, have the right for "self-help" to get back fair use, but not according to the gov't. As they can assess monetary penalties and even lock you up, we need to keep in mind that we need more than just a technical solution.
We need to repeal the DMCA.
Of course, anyone that knows of a defeat method or code, please do let us know.
I am not actually stating this, but I wonder what you think about the argument that since it was reverse engineered intellectual property, that the one doing the reverse engineering didn't "create" the IP, but rather unobscured it? Then one could argue that he/she wouldn't need to be credited.
I'd like to add, you have more to fear from the DEA than from the NSA.
In the UK it is illegal to have a gathering of more than a certain number of people I believe. I think it is 10 people. Anyone have more info?
If you are carrying a running TRANSMITTER around, expect the Feds, and hackers, and anyone with the right equipment to be able to:
1. Listen in
2. Find your location (triangulation is one method)
That should be common sense people.
You can have a high IQ and still be stupid in the ways that count.
Couldn't that be considered treason? That is punishable by DEATH (or life or any term of years).
Isn't retroactively changing the statute of limitations an "ex post facto" law and hence unconstitutional?
Any laywers care to comment?
What if key escrow/back-door crypto becomes a reality, and the master key or the escrowed key repository gets compromised by a terrorist?
Wouldn't that represent a gravely serious threat?
The terrorist would have the ability to monitor, and perhaps disrupt, any encrypted communications, including that for critical infrastructure.
Let's increase the NSA's (*) staff and budget, not take knee jerk actions that help the terrorists.
(*) NSA is mostly code-breakers and the like. Not goons out to get you. Anyone that comes in the middle of the night to crack your head will almost certainly NOT be NSA.
Speaking of P2P and terrorism, here is something to think about:
A P2P network is MORE RESISTANT to terrorist attack, since there is NO CENTRAL POINT OF VULNERABILITY to attack.
Distributed systems are more secure against such attacks.
Any Linux kernel copyright holder can send a DMCA takedown to the ISP for the firm that is (being alleged to be) infringing the GPL.
Use whois to find the ISP, and look at the DMCA itself for what you need to do. You might want legal advice before you actually do anything though.
Just because we hate that law doesn't mean we shouldn't use it when we have the legal and moral right to do so.
I'd assume it would be interpreted as in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 USC 1030, which pretty much defines it as cyberspace breaking and entering. This would not include acts done with the authorization of the owner of the computer, so it wouldn't apply to DMCA style restrictions.
I am not a lawyer, contact one for legal advice.
Sometimes a good old fashioned wiretap and bugging operation will accomplish far more than trying to intercept and decrypt electronic communications.
There are also infiltration tactics, which can be quite useful.
The most high tech solution to a problem is NOT always the best.
Here's another crypto fact. It is very easy to make bad crypto (XOR 67, rot13, CSS are 3 real world examples that come to mind), but very hard to make good crypto. And if you don't know what you are doing, you can't tell bad crypto is bad. It will still appear to "work", i.e. encode to something apparently meaningless and decode to the original data. But people with the right knowledge can decipher it.
Bad crypto looks good to all but experts. Really bad crypto of course is easy to spot; however flawed but complex crypto can look quite good yet be quite weak.
Even Russians (Sklyarov comes to mind) appear to be subject to our laws. Whether you agree with it or not, just living outside the US doesn't mean you can break US law and get away with it. I am just making a political observation, not trolling here.
It's called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" if I remember correctly.