CD players refuse to play audio off a "non-music" (really non-audio) CD-R. You can still copy files off a CD-ROM drive, but the play function on it or on a stereo only would work with an audio CD-R. The tax on music distribution is divied up based on download of freely available music, markets, etc. People can still do audio, but each blank audio playable CD-R blank costs 40 cents more. Data CD-Rs can't be played, but don't cost extra.
I.e. the same tax structure, maybe different rates, divying up could be made more fair, and only audio CDs "play". (I'm not saying this is what is proposed)
Bad, good, or indifferent?
P.S. I am extremely strongly in favor of fair use, but I do want the artists to get payed. That's why I am going to BUY a Gladys Knight CD instead of downloading the songs. I want to support her, she is extremely good and is a Las Vegas resident as am I:).
RIAA: Listen up. I tried to buy that CD the other day when I have 30 minutes to kill, and could not get it at K-mart.
Make it EASIER TO BUY CDs and more people will buy - not just the true fans and those who can't use Napster. How about enter a CD and/or song title on RIAA.com, enter your zip code, and it tell you where to buy it. Or just buy it over the Net, and get the CD 48 hours later.
Let's say I record a song that I wrote and I hold all the copyrights to it and I can't record it without paying the RIAA $50,000 for a digital signature and have to sign a contract turning over all rights to my music to them and never being allowed to release MY OWN work on Napster.
Why didn't DAT kick out analog tape from its market? All the non-SCMS disadvantages of DAT you mentioned apply to analog tape. And analog tapes are STILL mentioned in those ads for music albums on TV.
Then
they'll jack the prices back up way high once non-SDMI producers go out of business.
If they do that, there will be a demand for non-SDMI hardware, but no supply. Anyone that would enter that market would make a killing selling at high prices due to the law of supply and demand, until the supply reached a resonable level - at which time the market would find a balance between low prices for the buyers and decent profits for the producers.
They'll also pay off the governments not only to make this monopoly legal, but to enforce compliance with it (SDMI says "DMCA is just the beginning").
Yes, a law mandating SDMI could happen and would be very bad. The AHRA mandated SCMS and the DMCA mandated the standard Macrovision and Colorstripe copy restriction technologies. It is illegal to sell VCRs that do not get hosed by Macrovision, even if the fact they are immune isn't engineered in on purpose to allow recording in spite of the restriction technologies. Example: A VCR company could have been making VCRs without AGC circuits. They would be immune to Macrovision. Under the DMCA, the manufacturer would have to deliberately engineer a bug into the product - make it so Macrovision just hoses it (e.g. add an AGC circuit) or detect it and block the copy.
If I made VCRs, I'd obey the law, but instead of recording gibberish I would put - "Copying prevented due to copy restriction measures. It is illegal for us to allow you to record under Federal law 17 USC 1201(k).". Let the citizens (not mere "consumers") know WHY their rights are being restricted.
I don't know if CD drives could be made to read the "copy protected" CDs. Since the "protected" CDs just have hosed metadata, and nothing is encrypted, and they break the standard, it might not be illegal under the DMCA. Unless Kaplan is presiding, it which case not only would it be illegal, but I'd likely be a criminal for even mentioning the "details" of "protected" CDs.
I am glad Martin Luther King did not think like you.
(P.S. Regarding jail conditions: The guy was convicted of a misdemeanor. He very likely would NOT be in with hardened criminals. One goes to prison on a felony and jail on a misdemeanor (yes, they are 2 separate classifications of penal institutions). Misdemeanor criminals are not usually dangerous, anything really serious is usually a felony.)
According to Judge Kaplan, "fair use" does NOT allow you to even tell people where to get a technology that enables you to make a fair use of a work if that technology circumvents any copy/access control measure. Fair use is only allowed if the copyright owner gives you unencrypted access to the content. Legal precendent as of now is that fair use ONLY exists where the copyright owner PERMITS it to. Yes, this goes against what fair use is supposed to be about, it is supposed to allow actions that the copyright owner can NOT prohibit. But with the DMCA, UCITA and shrink wrap licenses, the law says the providers has INFINITE rights, and you, the "consumer" has NONE except those the producer lets you TEMPORARILY exercise, for as long as HE/SHE wants you to.
Do something about it? If one can't vote? What should one do??
As for "bleeding hearts" (no need to insult) how about people that do not like the conflict of interest, where politicians whose fate is determined by elections get to decide who is allowed to vote in those elections. Make marijuana possesion a felony, bar felons for life from voting, and just like magic, the elections favor drug war supporters. Could it be because many of the constitutents on the other side of the fence were left voiceless at the ballot box?
P.S. Randal Schwatz can vote, but not if he moved to certain states.
After reading the article, I got the impression he was a severe overachiever/"perfect" child, and that this was reinforced by the family. Thus he would face extreme shame, loss of honor, and humiliation, both in his mind and with his family.
And dealing with a mental overload due to the overachieving made it worse. Pushing a person (even if the person doing the pushing is him/herself) beyond their limits will eventually cause damage.
It is a near duplicate (minus hyperlinks) of my post in the recent story about contacting lost clients about bad security.
I don't know if I should be flattered, just have a good laugh, or send Slashdot a DMCA takedown notice.
Posting the source to "cp" could expose one to liability then too, as it is capable of infrining activity. Also, I THINK contributory liability requires that it KNOWINGLY be INTENDED to further infringement, unlike vicarious liability. Also, a DMCA violation is NOT a copyright infringement. That is why fair use is not (seen as) a defense. But one might escape the theories of contributory and vicarious liability. Or maybe not. Those theories were added by court precendent to copyright, they could similarly be added to the DMCA.
The bad news is quite bad though. As a felon he is legally barred from many rights full citizens (which he NO LONGER IS in the eyes of the law) have.
It is illegal for him to own a firearm ever again everywhere, (in some states, not his state of Oregon) to ever vote again, and of special interest to people in the I.T. field:
Also, a lot of people are under the impression that all felons are intrinsically untrustworthy individuals.
The above still applies even if the persons motives were pure.
P.S. Randal Schwartz would likely have not been convicted if he were in Nevada. The laws here provide for implied authorization of an employee to access employer's systems unless their is "clear and convincing" evidence to the contrary. He still could've been fired though (Nevada is an at will state).
The moral: Don't try to do any favors. If you want to break into systems as a good guy, find a way to do it LEGALLY.
What about copyright restrictions on ephemeral copies? Such as that in RAM (some courts consider that an infringement!)?
I could theoretically get GPL'd software, and ignore the license (no, *I* would never do such a thing, this is a HYPOTHETICAL argument), as long as I don't try to copy (including allowing a copy to be made in RAM) or modify the program, or perform any of the "exclusive rights" under 17 USC. I can use the CD as a drink coaster without any legal liability. But anything else, including actually running the program could potentially be an infringement.
Send a take down demand to them, and their ISP (someone provides the connectivity to the company after all). They could then just go and file a counter notification and get it right back up, but if they lied in doing so it is considered perjury, which is a Federal FELONY. They could go to prison. And it costs nothing to ask the Feds to press charges.
Anyway. vicarious liability requires that you BENEFIT from the infringment and that you can STOP the infringing activity. Contributory liability requires that you intentionally AID and ABET an infringing activity.
There doesn't appear to be contributory or vicarious liability for DMCA violations as far as I can tell.
If they don't draw the line somewhere, the RIAA could sue the power companies that provide electricity to Napster users...
The Internet is not much less reliable than the phone system that
supplies 911 emergency telephone services
Umm, no. My phone doesn't go down often at all, same with not being able to reach people due to technical problems. However I have dealt with many network failures, both local and remote (host unreachable, connection timed out, routing loops, dropped packets, etc). I have phone problems less than once a month, excluding my Verizon (ugh) cellphone. I deal with Internet failures every WEEK.
Telephony is way more reliable than the net, unless you are using Voice-over-IP, in which case your phone reliability degrades to that of the net, but that is for another debate.
I'd feel much safer having medically critical communications done over the phone, or be able to use the phone as a backup, rather than relying on a *unreliable) packet-switched network such as the Internet.
Ford may not care about how you drive your car,
but your friendly neighborhood speedtrap certainly does.
You are comparing the police, who (in theory at least) function as the representatives of the people, and are (in theory at least) accountable to elected officials, and hence, to us, "we the people", to a corporation which is privately owned and can do basically whatever the hell it wants to?
Are you serious?
Nor are they too keen on you feeding rat poison to other people
Who in their right mind would want to? That is not only illegal, unethical, and immoral (in almost all cases). That is a FAR cry from DMCA "violations".
As for single engine private planes, I wouldn't fly in one if I could! I have been in a car that stalled. Had it been a single engine private plane instead I'd be dead. That is just bad engineering. If I were to say backup web servers were silly, I'd get flamed. And a web server failure with no backup doesn't (usually) kill someone.
I agree that lawsuits against gun manufacturers are stupid. Just like lawsuits against DeCSS.
CMU (Carnegie Mellon University). They developed the Lycos serach engine in an academic environment, and even released source to version 0.9. Then they commercialize the operation and got a software patent, so it is now illegal to use the code they released, supposedly for everyone's free use.
See, one CAN retroactively take back the right to use software, even if one forgot to put such a provision in the license.
Some find it difficult to compare the causes of free software and the causes Ghandi fought for, but as far as I can see they are both about human opression.
Not to mention that free software could do a lot to bridge the digital divide, so the causes are more related than you'd think. A poor inner-city school can afford as many Linux licenses as it wants (since they're free), but few or no Microsoft licenses.
The proper way, of course, is to show them what competition gives them. Show, rather than tell.
Well, we can just show them Sendmail (which handles the majority of internet mail), Apache (the most popular web server), and Linux (rapidly gaining market share in everything from servers to embedded systems). We can show them gcc, which runs on almost every system. There are countless other notable examples, and there will be more in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
I.e. the same tax structure, maybe different rates, divying up could be made more fair, and only audio CDs "play". (I'm not saying this is what is proposed)
Bad, good, or indifferent?
P.S. I am extremely strongly in favor of fair use, but I do want the artists to get payed. That's why I am going to BUY a Gladys Knight CD instead of downloading the songs. I want to support her, she is extremely good and is a Las Vegas resident as am I :).
RIAA: Listen up. I tried to buy that CD the other day when I have 30 minutes to kill, and could not get it at K-mart.
Make it EASIER TO BUY CDs and more people will buy - not just the true fans and those who can't use Napster. How about enter a CD and/or song title on RIAA.com, enter your zip code, and it tell you where to buy it. Or just buy it over the Net, and get the CD 48 hours later.
MAKE IT EASY folks.
Good (bad) enough scenario for you?
Why didn't DAT kick out analog tape from its market? All the non-SCMS disadvantages of DAT you mentioned apply to analog tape. And analog tapes are STILL mentioned in those ads for music albums on TV.
If they do that, there will be a demand for non-SDMI hardware, but no supply. Anyone that would enter that market would make a killing selling at high prices due to the law of supply and demand, until the supply reached a resonable level - at which time the market would find a balance between low prices for the buyers and decent profits for the producers.
They'll also pay off the governments not only to make this monopoly legal, but to enforce compliance with it (SDMI says "DMCA is just the beginning").
Yes, a law mandating SDMI could happen and would be very bad. The AHRA mandated SCMS and the DMCA mandated the standard Macrovision and Colorstripe copy restriction technologies. It is illegal to sell VCRs that do not get hosed by Macrovision, even if the fact they are immune isn't engineered in on purpose to allow recording in spite of the restriction technologies. Example: A VCR company could have been making VCRs without AGC circuits. They would be immune to Macrovision. Under the DMCA, the manufacturer would have to deliberately engineer a bug into the product - make it so Macrovision just hoses it (e.g. add an AGC circuit) or detect it and block the copy.
If I made VCRs, I'd obey the law, but instead of recording gibberish I would put - "Copying prevented due to copy restriction measures. It is illegal for us to allow you to record under Federal law 17 USC 1201(k).". Let the citizens (not mere "consumers") know WHY their rights are being restricted.
I don't know if CD drives could be made to read the "copy protected" CDs. Since the "protected" CDs just have hosed metadata, and nothing is encrypted, and they break the standard, it might not be illegal under the DMCA. Unless Kaplan is presiding, it which case not only would it be illegal, but I'd likely be a criminal for even mentioning the "details" of "protected" CDs.
(P.S. Regarding jail conditions: The guy was convicted of a misdemeanor. He very likely would NOT be in with hardened criminals. One goes to prison on a felony and jail on a misdemeanor (yes, they are 2 separate classifications of penal institutions). Misdemeanor criminals are not usually dangerous, anything really serious is usually a felony.)
The ruling makes perfect sense. Remember, the case was heard in CALIFORNIA. :/
According to Judge Kaplan, "fair use" does NOT allow you to even tell people where to get a technology that enables you to make a fair use of a work if that technology circumvents any copy/access control measure. Fair use is only allowed if the copyright owner gives you unencrypted access to the content. Legal precendent as of now is that fair use ONLY exists where the copyright owner PERMITS it to. Yes, this goes against what fair use is supposed to be about, it is supposed to allow actions that the copyright owner can NOT prohibit. But with the DMCA, UCITA and shrink wrap licenses, the law says the providers has INFINITE rights, and you, the "consumer" has NONE except those the producer lets you TEMPORARILY exercise, for as long as HE/SHE wants you to.
Ask a lawyer for real legal advice.
They can't. I have a business method patent on patenting patent search engines. Between that and my two-click ordering patent, I should be rich. ;)
Do something about it? If one can't vote? What should one do??
As for "bleeding hearts" (no need to insult) how about people that do not like the conflict of interest, where politicians whose fate is determined by elections get to decide who is allowed to vote in those elections. Make marijuana possesion a felony, bar felons for life from voting, and just like magic, the elections favor drug war supporters. Could it be because many of the constitutents on the other side of the fence were left voiceless at the ballot box?
P.S. Randal Schwatz can vote, but not if he moved to certain states.
If he moves to Nevada, he will NEVER be allowed to vote (we share this "distinction" with 13 other states). Sad but true.
Oregon is one of the states that is quite favorable to felon's voting rights.
Walking away from one's responsibilities?!?
One's responsibilities AS A CITIZEN outweigh one's responsibilities at work.
Do you want to be tried exclusively by unemployed people? Would that be a jury of your peers?
Umm don't people run Linux on their Intel or non-Intel PCs??
And dealing with a mental overload due to the overachieving made it worse. Pushing a person (even if the person doing the pushing is him/herself) beyond their limits will eventually cause damage.
The above post is plagarized.
It is a near duplicate (minus hyperlinks) of my post in the recent story about contacting lost clients about bad security.
I don't know if I should be flattered, just have a good laugh, or send Slashdot a DMCA takedown notice.
(Just kidding about that last one!!!)
Posting the source to "cp" could expose one to liability then too, as it is capable of infrining activity. Also, I THINK contributory liability requires that it KNOWINGLY be INTENDED to further infringement, unlike vicarious liability. Also, a DMCA violation is NOT a copyright infringement. That is why fair use is not (seen as) a defense. But one might escape the theories of contributory and vicarious liability. Or maybe not. Those theories were added by court precendent to copyright, they could similarly be added to the DMCA.
The good news is he likely won't serve any time.
The bad news is quite bad though. As a felon he is legally barred from many rights full citizens (which he NO LONGER IS in the eyes of the law) have.
It is illegal for him to own a firearm ever again everywhere, (in some states, not his state of Oregon) to ever vote again, and of special interest to people in the I.T. field:
It is illegal for him to work in certain technical jobs ever again. Such as working for a certification authority in at least one State.
Also, a lot of people are under the impression that all felons are intrinsically untrustworthy individuals.
The above still applies even if the persons motives were pure.
P.S. Randal Schwartz would likely have not been convicted if he were in Nevada. The laws here provide for implied authorization of an employee to access employer's systems unless their is "clear and convincing" evidence to the contrary. He still could've been fired though (Nevada is an at will state).
The moral: Don't try to do any favors. If you want to break into systems as a good guy, find a way to do it LEGALLY.
Consult a lawyer for legal advice.
Blue pickles???
What about copyright restrictions on ephemeral copies? Such as that in RAM (some courts consider that an infringement!)?
I could theoretically get GPL'd software, and ignore the license (no, *I* would never do such a thing, this is a HYPOTHETICAL argument), as long as I don't try to copy (including allowing a copy to be made in RAM) or modify the program, or perform any of the "exclusive rights" under 17 USC. I can use the CD as a drink coaster without any legal liability. But anything else, including actually running the program could potentially be an infringement.
I am not a lawyer, ask one for real advice.
Send a take down demand to them, and their ISP (someone provides the connectivity to the company after all). They could then just go and file a counter notification and get it right back up, but if they lied in doing so it is considered perjury, which is a Federal FELONY. They could go to prison. And it costs nothing to ask the Feds to press charges.
I am not a laywer, ask one for legal advice.
I am not a lawyer...
Anyway. vicarious liability requires that you BENEFIT from the infringment and that you can STOP the infringing activity. Contributory liability requires that you intentionally AID and ABET an infringing activity.
There doesn't appear to be contributory or vicarious liability for DMCA violations as far as I can tell.
If they don't draw the line somewhere, the RIAA could sue the power companies that provide electricity to Napster users...
Umm, no. My phone doesn't go down often at all, same with not being able to reach people due to technical problems. However I have dealt with many network failures, both local and remote (host unreachable, connection timed out, routing loops, dropped packets, etc). I have phone problems less than once a month, excluding my Verizon (ugh) cellphone. I deal with Internet failures every WEEK.
Telephony is way more reliable than the net, unless you are using Voice-over-IP, in which case your phone reliability degrades to that of the net, but that is for another debate.
I'd feel much safer having medically critical communications done over the phone, or be able to use the phone as a backup, rather than relying on a *unreliable) packet-switched network such as the Internet.
You are comparing the police, who (in theory at least) function as the representatives of the people, and are (in theory at least) accountable to elected officials, and hence, to us, "we the people", to a corporation which is privately owned and can do basically whatever the hell it wants to?
Are you serious?
Nor are they too keen on you feeding rat poison to other people
Who in their right mind would want to? That is not only illegal, unethical, and immoral (in almost all cases). That is a FAR cry from DMCA "violations".
As for single engine private planes, I wouldn't fly in one if I could! I have been in a car that stalled. Had it been a single engine private plane instead I'd be dead. That is just bad engineering. If I were to say backup web servers were silly, I'd get flamed. And a web server failure with no backup doesn't (usually) kill someone.
I agree that lawsuits against gun manufacturers are stupid. Just like lawsuits against DeCSS.
CMU (Carnegie Mellon University). They developed the Lycos serach engine in an academic environment, and even released source to version 0.9. Then they commercialize the operation and got a software patent, so it is now illegal to use the code they released, supposedly for everyone's free use.
See, one CAN retroactively take back the right to use software, even if one forgot to put such a provision in the license.
Not to mention that free software could do a lot to bridge the digital divide, so the causes are more related than you'd think. A poor inner-city school can afford as many Linux licenses as it wants (since they're free), but few or no Microsoft licenses.
Well, we can just show them Sendmail (which handles the majority of internet mail), Apache (the most popular web server), and Linux (rapidly gaining market share in everything from servers to embedded systems). We can show them gcc, which runs on almost every system. There are countless other notable examples, and there will be more in the future.