Finally, for a personal recording for archival purposes that will not be distributed, even in the unlikely event that this is some theoretical violation of copyright,
damages are precisely zero and thus the composer can't "sue the recorder into oblivion".
Then they can sue under statuatory damages. $200 minimum, $2500 maximum for circumvention. Read sections 1201 and 1203 of the DMCA for yourself.
Still room for trouble. E.G. Let's say someone wrote the X on a slant. At what point is it slanted into a plus sign instead of an X and thus invalid? How many degrees of of the ideal must the line be for it to be invalid?
A good voting system makes it possible for there to be only 2 possibilities, either you clearly voted for the candidate or not. Nothing that allows judgesment calls....
NC-17 needs to go. "No Children under 17 allowed", period. Even if the parent agrees. Ratings should be about informing people and empowering them to make a choice. What is now NC-17 should be treated like R, no one under 17 without parent or guardian. You could still use another letter or something to indicate it is more extreme content. Such as RR or something. The complete banning of under 17 people from NC-17 (they aren't ALL porn films) automatically, by force, eliminates part of the market and profits right off the bat. And labels it in people's minds as being a porn film, which further keeps people away and causes theaters showing it to be considered porn theaters. Perhaps they should have R, RR and P (porn). All treated as R is today. R would be as it is. RR would be for stuff that would currently get an NC-17, but isn't outright porn (such as South Park would've been before being edited). Porn would get a P rating.
And get the MPAA out of the rating business. Conflicts of interest, and they don't exactly support free speech (see the DeCSS fiasco). Get an independent group.
You don't need a DSP, just a simple D/A and A/D conversion. As long as the conversion isn't horribly inaccurate (doubtful, even cheapo CD players do well on this), you can do almost anything in software. DTMF detection isn't THAT hard to do, and recording/playing back audio is just a matter of moving bits around. Also 64kbps isn't very hard to deal with with a decent speed machine. You can't get higher quality than that, the phone switches only sample 8 bits every 125 microseconds (8000X/sec) and send theat digital data around.
That interpretation of the DMCA is scary. Heck, if I were to pirate DVDs, I'd need a power cord to power the computer. Since the power cord is capable of being used in the process of copying the DVDs it should be illegal. So now we can outlaw power cords.;) Let's just be proactive, and outlaw everything.;)
The bottom line is: Users and content providers want pages to look the same in all major browsers, and don't want to use plug-ins. Simple as that. You may like it or not, but that's how the world works.
Oh really?
So your web page should look exactly the same on my 24 bit 1280x1024 19in display as it does on a small black-and-white LCD display on a cell phone?!
The web is more powerful and accessible when it is adaptable.
Some people are disabled. Some people have limited capability displays. Some people actually run into web pages that look too bad since their browser window is too large (like me, I usually run my browser in the full 1280x1024). I also run into pages with microscope fonts under Linux when Netscape completely IGNORES my font settings no matter how large I make them to compensate.
IE is not superior for me. It will not run on my OS, which is Linux. Therefore I must run Netscape.
IE is simply *NOT* even an option for me.
Doesn't run under my OS is a *TOTAL* disqualification from the running for me. If I can't get it to run, it is useless for me.
Thast said, Netscape sucks and AOL/Time Warner is an evil empire. If Konqueror (KDE browser) would stop ignoring style sheets and anything more recent than HTML 2.0 (Javascript, etc) maybe I could use it instead. It does work for quite a few things though.
The jocks that tormented the nerds in high school are now politicians, who are making it illegal for us to engage in our hobbies - they are the one's passing laws such as the DMCA. The only computer use that they'll allow after they are through is that serving the corporations either as wage-slaves or as mindless consumers - they'll get rich and popular off us. They'll still rule us.
Local gov't are state.*state*.us and ci.*city*.*state*.us where *city* is the city name, and *state* is the state postal code or it is localagency.com and localagency.org..com-ism is popular even with Fed's though, see www.goarmy.com. www.army.mil exists, but many of their target audience are more likely to go to a.com than a.mil. (.com sounds cooler, people don't know about.mil, people remember.com and forget other extensions, people are afraid to go to.mil sites, etc)
Why do police even bother with these seize and hold operations? They don't have the same "air of legitimacy" that civil forfeiture does. Civil forfeiture laws allow them to take and even destroy or sell a suspect's items without the "bother" of a criminal trial; they certainly do not require a criminal conviction. They also appear more legitimate because they can say, look you had a hearing, and you lost. We know civil forfeiture is an egregious abuse of rights, but average citizens do not.
Total cost of media (3 disks) is 30 cents?!? I made another post on here about economics vs. quality, and said the cheap disks are 3/$1 and the good disks are 1/$1. You appear to be able to get disks for 10/$1. I shudder to think how poor quality those disks are...
SSH with rz/sz? Someone must be on crack! If you've got SSH you've almost certainly got the scp command, which is much more suited for that sort of thing (file transfer over an SSH connection).
This reminds me of a friend of mine. Always laughing at me because I spend $1/floppy disk when he can get 3 for that price. And always telling me how unreliable floppies are, when I have had almost no problems.;)
As for the whole "$$$ for the better lawyer" story, what do you think has been the major
problem for the DECSS case? Judges who don't get it and lawyers who can talk circles around
the truth.
A lot of the DeCSS defeat has to do with Judge Kraplan. That decision only holds in the Southern District of New York by the way. Some judges actually have half a brain.:)
Governments love fuzzy laws. Interpreted one way, almost everyone is a criminal. Interpreted another way, only few people are. If THEY don't like you, they interpret the law the strict way and send you to jail, even if you weren't doing wrong. If THEY like you, they interpret the law the loose way, and let you go, sometimes even if you were up to no good. They can make criminals of almost anyone.
And they can even corrupt the voting process. Make those acts felonies and ban felons from voting for life (both of these are true in many cases). Now if THEY don't like you they not only lock you up for a while, they have also revoked your right to vote. Now you have no voice at all, no influence on the gov't at all. If THEY do that to many people who think that way (people like US, the geeks/hackers), they can EASILY make the voting population be more supportive of them and their laws, just by eliminating the competition.
As for prisons filling up they have many choices. Build more, let criminals go after a short sentence (they've still killed your vote), let out the rapists and thieves to make room for the hackers and geeks (they'd want to leave some of them in there to harm the hackers/geeks - read the story about Bernie S) or some combination of the above.
Another example: Your encrypt your sex diary by XORing with the word "sex". You don't tell anyone that you XOR it but you instead say "I've got strong security
on my sex diary." Now someone like me comes along and plays around and breaks it with a lucky guess or three. What safety did your security through obscurity
provide? Absolutely none.
Wrong. You get the full protection of the DMCA. You have put a "device" that "controls access" to a "protected work" and people decrypting it are "circumventing" that device without the "authority of the copyright owner" (i.e. you). So you can sue them for a minimum of $250 per incident (minimum statutory damages - you only have to prove it is likely they did it - not prove harm or anything). You could get $2500 in statuatory damages if the court so chooses, or actual damages and profits of the violator.
But if DMCA protection is all you need just do a one byte XOR with 255. Easy to implement and STILL gives you DMCA protection.
Sony couldn't care less. Really. They market the PS/2 to teenagers interested in entertainment, not slashdotters with obscure conspiracy theories. It's their console,
they've made the investment, they've built the market. If you want to develop for it then you have to play by their rules. If you don't want to then tough. There are
plenty of people who do.
Well one can always reverse-engineer. I think DMCA shouldn't apply, since you'd be finding a way to write your own code (that you have the copyright on - thus you are the copyright holder and thus have permission of the copyright holder) to run on the console. Of course Sony, etc could just buy an amendment to the DMCA making circumventing any system illegal, even if it does NOT control access to a protected (by copyright) work without the authorization of the copyright holder.
Even the DMCA doesn't force hardware
manufacturers to use protection technologies.
Wrong. It is illegal to sell a VCR which can record Macrovision infested signals without degradation. This is part of the DMCA. If the VCR's electronics are not confused by a Macrovision signal (e.g. due to automatic gain control), the manufacturer has to intentionally add electronics that recognize Macrovision and deny or screw up the recording.
All the content industry has to do is buy some more Congresspeople and get that restriction to apply to every technology. I.E. if a protection technology gets more than x% of the market, it would be illegal for a device to record or retransmit in spite of it.
No longer will active circumvention be required to prove an offense, but merely not recognizing/being affected by protection will be illegal, As will giving any info that could aid in the construction of such a device.
Telling hobbyists how to make their own electronic devices would be illegal - declared as trafficing in devices which allow avoiding (which includes more than circumvention) of copy protection.
The obvious solution to that problem is to eliminate government programs of insurance.
And then those with risk factors and little money get denied medical care and just die, either right away or after a short, sick, and/or painful life.
You could go one further and say it isn't worth educating people who are likely to be sick and die or not be productive, and disallow then from public school. Or you could just have government executions of the genetically unfit, all the the interests of "saving money" or "making things better for the 'rest' of us".
That is travelling down a very dangerous road. We really need to NOT go there.
Um. Read the bill. It says, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to interfere with the rights of disabled students under the law"..
From the DMCA: Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
Notice the similarity? The clause in the DMCA didn't save the DeCSS defendants from a permanent injunction and an order to pay court costs. Even though they claimed fair use. Why do you think the clause in this bill will fare any better? (Other than the fact California is outside Judge Kaplan's jurisdiction).
Slashdot Mirror
Then they can sue under statuatory damages. $200 minimum, $2500 maximum for circumvention. Read sections 1201 and 1203 of the DMCA for yourself.
A good voting system makes it possible for there to be only 2 possibilities, either you clearly voted for the candidate or not. Nothing that allows judgesment calls....
There are some people that would say EMACS is the one thing he can't be forgiven for. ;)
And get the MPAA out of the rating business. Conflicts of interest, and they don't exactly support free speech (see the DeCSS fiasco). Get an independent group.
You don't need a DSP, just a simple D/A and A/D conversion. As long as the conversion isn't horribly inaccurate (doubtful, even cheapo CD players do well on this), you can do almost anything in software. DTMF detection isn't THAT hard to do, and recording/playing back audio is just a matter of moving bits around. Also 64kbps isn't very hard to deal with with a decent speed machine. You can't get higher quality than that, the phone switches only sample 8 bits every 125 microseconds (8000X/sec) and send theat digital data around.
That interpretation of the DMCA is scary. Heck, if I were to pirate DVDs, I'd need a power cord to power the computer. Since the power cord is capable of being used in the process of copying the DVDs it should be illegal. So now we can outlaw power cords. ;) Let's just be proactive, and outlaw everything. ;)
Oh really?
So your web page should look exactly the same on my 24 bit 1280x1024 19in display as it does on a small black-and-white LCD display on a cell phone?!
The web is more powerful and accessible when it is adaptable.
Some people are disabled. Some people have limited capability displays. Some people actually run into web pages that look too bad since their browser window is too large (like me, I usually run my browser in the full 1280x1024). I also run into pages with microscope fonts under Linux when Netscape completely IGNORES my font settings no matter how large I make them to compensate.
Is that useful behavior?
IE is not superior for me. It will not run on my OS, which is Linux. Therefore I must run Netscape.
IE is simply *NOT* even an option for me.
Doesn't run under my OS is a *TOTAL* disqualification from the running for me. If I can't get it to run, it is useless for me.
Thast said, Netscape sucks and AOL/Time Warner is an evil empire. If Konqueror (KDE browser) would stop ignoring style sheets and anything more recent than HTML 2.0 (Javascript, etc) maybe I could use it instead. It does work for quite a few things though.
I hope I am wrong....
Local gov't are state.*state*.us and ci.*city*.*state*.us where *city* is the city name, and *state* is the state postal code or it is localagency.com and localagency.org. .com-ism is popular even with Fed's though, see www.goarmy.com. www.army.mil exists, but many of their target audience are more likely to go to a .com than a .mil. (.com sounds cooler, people don't know about .mil, people remember .com and forget other extensions, people are afraid to go to .mil sites, etc)
Why do police even bother with these seize and hold operations? They don't have the same "air of legitimacy" that civil forfeiture does. Civil forfeiture laws allow them to take and even destroy or sell a suspect's items without the "bother" of a criminal trial; they certainly do not require a criminal conviction. They also appear more legitimate because they can say, look you had a hearing, and you lost. We know civil forfeiture is an egregious abuse of rights, but average citizens do not.
Total cost of media (3 disks) is 30 cents?!? I made another post on here about economics vs. quality, and said the cheap disks are 3/$1 and the good disks are 1/$1. You appear to be able to get disks for 10/$1. I shudder to think how poor quality those disks are...
SSH with rz/sz? Someone must be on crack! If you've got SSH you've almost certainly got the scp command, which is much more suited for that sort of thing (file transfer over an SSH connection).
This reminds me of a friend of mine. Always laughing at me because I spend $1/floppy disk when he can get 3 for that price. And always telling me how unreliable floppies are, when I have had almost no problems. ;)
A lot of the DeCSS defeat has to do with Judge Kraplan. That decision only holds in the Southern District of New York by the way. Some judges actually have half a brain. :)
Figures. Only one line of code and it has a bug in it! One bug per line of code is an EXTREMELY high ratio!
Thank goodness big companies NEVER, EVER lie!
:)
And they can even corrupt the voting process. Make those acts felonies and ban felons from voting for life (both of these are true in many cases). Now if THEY don't like you they not only lock you up for a while, they have also revoked your right to vote. Now you have no voice at all, no influence on the gov't at all. If THEY do that to many people who think that way (people like US, the geeks/hackers), they can EASILY make the voting population be more supportive of them and their laws, just by eliminating the competition.
As for prisons filling up they have many choices. Build more, let criminals go after a short sentence (they've still killed your vote), let out the rapists and thieves to make room for the hackers and geeks (they'd want to leave some of them in there to harm the hackers/geeks - read the story about Bernie S) or some combination of the above.
Wrong. You get the full protection of the DMCA. You have put a "device" that "controls access" to a "protected work" and people decrypting it are "circumventing" that device without the "authority of the copyright owner" (i.e. you). So you can sue them for a minimum of $250 per incident (minimum statutory damages - you only have to prove it is likely they did it - not prove harm or anything). You could get $2500 in statuatory damages if the court so chooses, or actual damages and profits of the violator.
But if DMCA protection is all you need just do a one byte XOR with 255. Easy to implement and STILL gives you DMCA protection.
Well one can always reverse-engineer. I think DMCA shouldn't apply, since you'd be finding a way to write your own code (that you have the copyright on - thus you are the copyright holder and thus have permission of the copyright holder) to run on the console. Of course Sony, etc could just buy an amendment to the DMCA making circumventing any system illegal, even if it does NOT control access to a protected (by copyright) work without the authorization of the copyright holder.
U.S. libel law: Plaintiff has to prove the statements were false.
British libel law: Defendant has to prove the statements were true.
Wrong. It is illegal to sell a VCR which can record Macrovision infested signals without degradation. This is part of the DMCA. If the VCR's electronics are not confused by a Macrovision signal (e.g. due to automatic gain control), the manufacturer has to intentionally add electronics that recognize Macrovision and deny or screw up the recording.
All the content industry has to do is buy some more Congresspeople and get that restriction to apply to every technology. I.E. if a protection technology gets more than x% of the market, it would be illegal for a device to record or retransmit in spite of it.
No longer will active circumvention be required to prove an offense, but merely not recognizing/being affected by protection will be illegal, As will giving any info that could aid in the construction of such a device.
Telling hobbyists how to make their own electronic devices would be illegal - declared as trafficing in devices which allow avoiding (which includes more than circumvention) of copy protection.
And then those with risk factors and little money get denied medical care and just die, either right away or after a short, sick, and/or painful life.
You could go one further and say it isn't worth educating people who are likely to be sick and die or not be productive, and disallow then from public school. Or you could just have government executions of the genetically unfit, all the the interests of "saving money" or "making things better for the 'rest' of us".
That is travelling down a very dangerous road. We really need to NOT go there.
From the DMCA: Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
Notice the similarity? The clause in the DMCA didn't save the DeCSS defendants from a permanent injunction and an order to pay court costs. Even though they claimed fair use. Why do you think the clause in this bill will fare any better? (Other than the fact California is outside Judge Kaplan's jurisdiction).
Ugh, now my new patent on Open Source is going to fail.
;) ;)
Well I still have my Distributing Open Source Software Over The Internet patent.