Perhaps yes. Reverse engineering outside of the DMCA is now likely legal. Would the DMCA apply? Depends. Could what is being set out the CueCat, before the encryption be considered a copyrighted work? Quite likely not due to unoriginality,, since it is just a digital representation of the bar codes. DMCA prohibits circumvention of anything that "effectively controls access to a [protected] work." If it is not a protected work, DMCA wouldn't apply.
Still wouldn't work. Some for profit company needs to release an unauthorized DVD player for Windows (a "respectable *cough*, corporate" OS) which uses reverse-engineered CSS decryption, but which respects region codes, disallows copying, and enforces al the other restrictions of an MPAA/DVDCCA approved player. And charge $39.95 or more for it. THEY might have a better chance at winning. The MPAA/DVDCCA then, and only then, couldn't play the "hacker" angle. And the company might have a chance with a "restraint of trade" lawsuit. Since they could say they were trying to be a "legitamate" business doing "legitimate" things, and not "hackers" "breaking" people's systems. They'd probably still lose, since the MPAA/DVDCCA not only has more money but more legal clout with the judicial branch. Ugh, I can't stand the legal hypocracy.
See, the "encoding" of the programs into a form executable by a Play Station is intended to let them run on a Play Station. It was not specifically intented to "effectively control access to a [copyrighted] work.". So the DMCA doesn't apply. Now if Sony releases a new Play Station, deliberately encrypts their games' code (even with a trivial 1 bit encryption) and makes the new Play Station decrypt the code to run it, and intends the encryption to "effectively control access to a [copyrighted] work." (specifically their games), then they could win a DMCA suit.
So all the need to do is say it contains some encryption routine, implement their XOR 0xFF encryption or something similar, use it in their new games and consoles, and presto, reverse-engineering it is now illegal in at least one jurisdiction. Law is strange, isn't it?
Thank goodness I'm not a lawyer, I couldn't force myself to deal with such illogical laws on a day to day basis, I'd go nuts.
The DMCA is not about circumventing a copyrighted protection method. The copyright status of the method is irrelevant to the DMCA. THe DMCA is about circumventing a protection method that protects a copyrighted work. The relevant copyright is on the protected work, not the protection method. This is an important distinction. Also, you can violate the DMCA without infringing copyright, as they are two seperate charges. "Fair use" will get you off on a infringement charge, but not on a DMCA charge. Judge Kaplan's ruling set that precedent, unfortunately. (Just ask the DeCSS defendants who have been ordered to not deal in DeCSS, and to pay the court for the procedings against them.)
The DMCA states: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".
Check out the relevant section of the DMCA for yourself: 17 USC 1201
Umm you don't need copyright protection to protect your trade secrets! That is a whole different type of intellectual property! Also, you don't need the DMCA and prohibitions on reverse-engineering to have either a workable copyright system or a system where companies find it worth while to be involved in "information-based" business (Information Technology, Content providers, etc).
Unless you are going to try to argue there was no innovation or content developed before the DMCA was passed. In which case I'd ask whether you worked for the MPAA, the RIAA, Microsoft, or just forgot to take your medication.:)
Um, no. Tell that to survivors of Nazi concetration camps, US concentration camps (Japanese "internment" camps during WW 2), survivors of the Soviet Gulags, etc.
Freedom is precious. Freedom is more precious than security. And once you lose it, you may never get it back. And oppressive regimes can do, and have done, terrible things.
ISBN numbers are hardly secret. Having the service request some bytes right off the CD would work. For example say that on track 3, 5300 bytes in, what are the next 250 bytes. Or something of that nature.
I had a prof in a math class. He was from China and I could not understand him. I knew a Chinese lady in the class. She could not understand him either. So she asked him to explain it in Chinese. She still could not understand him.
It wasn't language or accent (he did have an accent, but that wasn't the issue). His ability to communicate was lacking. He'd show the steps of a mathematical problem all out of order. Shows how to do a step in the middle, then says but first you do this, etc. He was just going all over the place. Just couldn't communicate clearly.
Universities should make sure their profs and TAs can communicate the concepts clearly to their students. That is the main issue.
I can't wait for Intel to release a 2.45 GHz chip that takes 1000 watts. That's where they seem to be heading. Then you could use your CPU to crunch numbers and cook dinner.;)
And for those of you that still go to the movies (not everyone is going to boycott completely), for every dollar to spend doing so, send a dollar to EFF. So if you go to 15 movies a year at $7 each, send an extra $105 (15x7) to EFF, above and beyond what you would otherwise give. That will allow them to fight back.
I had a friend this happened to many years ago, for entirely different reasons, and by the time he got his stuff back (much of it
damaged) it was so obsolete as to be not worth using.
If the police damaged his stuff he can sue. Those responsible could also be criminially liable for vandalism.
Even for undamaged stuff, there might be some grounds for a lawsuit, such as depreciation, loss of use during the time it was seized, etc. A good civil lawyer would be very helpful....
Just like I said in another post. Now that I think about that, if the above is the case, that is really sad. Something as critical as the domain name system should not have bugs like that! But it would not surprise me, given how many large, complex systems have serious bugs in them today...
There could very well be a "race condition" in the domain name system. In other words, due to insufficient locking, 2 entities can gain access to an exclusive resource, because the system does not efforce consistent, ordered access to the shared database. I.e. registrar one sees it available, and registar two sees it available, and then registrar one claims the domain, after registrar two thought it was available. registrar two will then blindly overwrite the domain record.
Or it could still be maliciousness on the part of AOL. The courts very likely will decide which.
Whether the technology actually works in blocking access is NOT the point. The point is, that if there is technology there to block access, any access in spite of that technology is illegal.
When you implement a technological protection measure, you can override copyright law with your own "legislation" that applies to your content. Whatever your code tries to prevent is now illegal.
Well if that is really the case then we shouldn't be blasting Compaq. They are the successor to Digital, which did a lot for Linux, and Compaq does a lot for Linux. Let's not roast a potential ally unless they really are attacking our community. An honest mistake is not attacking our community, if they rectify it. A crazy license on a web page is not a reason for war.
Now if they or someone else does blatantly and deliberately violate the GPL and/or refuse to rectify any mistake, then we can act.
I am one of the first to complain about unethical corporate behavior. But I also believe that not every corporate action is evil - and that some corporations can, in some cases, be an ally.
Actually, the third guys story is really intersting. Apperently the banking company said "no we do not believe that any money could be stolen with this
exploit, could you prove it to us by making a transfer." the guy made a ransfer and they said "Oh you've stolen some money so we are going to throw you in jail."
The implication being that they were tring to shut him up, so they tricked him into doing somthing illegal.
Was he actually convicted (if so , what was his sentence and the crime he was convicted of) or just arrested?
See, if I hack your ssystem, I am committing a crime. If you ask me/authorize me to hack it, then I'm not. If you make it sound like you are authorizing me, but you aren't, but I can reasonably believe you are, then I might not be committing a crime. Example, you give me an "authorization form" that looks like it says you want/allow me to hack your system, but it has an obscure trick of phraseology that says I'm really not allow to do so. A court might say that it looked like I was authorized and let me go.
Slashdot Mirror
Bug #1387 of 2500: ;)
The number 2500 is sometimes mysterously converted to 19 on web submissions.
Deleting all your files randomly is useful, it is part of our new MoreFreeSpace technology. :)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Still wouldn't work. Some for profit company needs to release an unauthorized DVD player for Windows (a "respectable *cough*, corporate" OS) which uses reverse-engineered CSS decryption, but which respects region codes, disallows copying, and enforces al the other restrictions of an MPAA/DVDCCA approved player. And charge $39.95 or more for it. THEY might have a better chance at winning. The MPAA/DVDCCA then, and only then, couldn't play the "hacker" angle. And the company might have a chance with a "restraint of trade" lawsuit. Since they could say they were trying to be a "legitamate" business doing "legitimate" things, and not "hackers" "breaking" people's systems. They'd probably still lose, since the MPAA/DVDCCA not only has more money but more legal clout with the judicial branch. Ugh, I can't stand the legal hypocracy.
So all the need to do is say it contains some encryption routine, implement their XOR 0xFF encryption or something similar, use it in their new games and consoles, and presto, reverse-engineering it is now illegal in at least one jurisdiction. Law is strange, isn't it?
Thank goodness I'm not a lawyer, I couldn't force myself to deal with such illogical laws on a day to day basis, I'd go nuts.
The DMCA is not about circumventing a copyrighted protection method. The copyright status of the method is irrelevant to the DMCA. THe DMCA is about circumventing a protection method that protects a copyrighted work. The relevant copyright is on the protected work, not the protection method. This is an important distinction. Also, you can violate the DMCA without infringing copyright, as they are two seperate charges. "Fair use" will get you off on a infringement charge, but not on a DMCA charge. Judge Kaplan's ruling set that precedent, unfortunately. (Just ask the DeCSS defendants who have been ordered to not deal in DeCSS, and to pay the court for the procedings against them.)
The DMCA states: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".
Check out the relevant section of the DMCA for yourself: 17 USC 1201
Unless you are going to try to argue there was no innovation or content developed before the DMCA was passed. In which case I'd ask whether you worked for the MPAA, the RIAA, Microsoft, or just forgot to take your medication. :)
Um, no. Tell that to survivors of Nazi concetration camps, US concentration camps (Japanese "internment" camps during WW 2), survivors of the Soviet Gulags, etc.
Freedom is precious. Freedom is more precious than security. And once you lose it, you may never get it back. And oppressive regimes can do, and have done, terrible things.
ISBN numbers are hardly secret. Having the service request some bytes right off the CD would work. For example say that on track 3, 5300 bytes in, what are the next 250 bytes. Or something of that nature.
factoring primes? Who are you, Bill Gates? Only some one of his power can break the laws of mathematics.
Let's hope we don't get Judge Kaplan again. :)
1/2
Umm, you can sue inanimate objects. Some civil forfeitures cases, "in rem" actions, etc.
People won't pay artists for crap anymore. Crap will die. Like those silly boy bands that are all the rage right now, etc.
People that really appreciate music will pay - but these people have no interest in mass market crap.
Music quantity will go down, but the quality will skyrocket.
It wasn't language or accent (he did have an accent, but that wasn't the issue). His ability to communicate was lacking. He'd show the steps of a mathematical problem all out of order. Shows how to do a step in the middle, then says but first you do this, etc. He was just going all over the place. Just couldn't communicate clearly.
Universities should make sure their profs and TAs can communicate the concepts clearly to their students. That is the main issue.
I can't wait for Intel to release a 2.45 GHz chip that takes 1000 watts. That's where they seem to be heading. Then you could use your CPU to crunch numbers and cook dinner. ;)
And for those of you that still go to the movies (not everyone is going to boycott completely), for every dollar to spend doing so, send a dollar to EFF. So if you go to 15 movies a year at $7 each, send an extra $105 (15x7) to EFF, above and beyond what you would otherwise give. That will allow them to fight back.
Umm where do you get THAT idea?
Hey, maybe he should've encrypted his mp3s with CSS instead. Would be interesting indeed for the police to have to use DeCSS... ;)
If the police damaged his stuff he can sue. Those responsible could also be criminially liable for vandalism.
Even for undamaged stuff, there might be some grounds for a lawsuit, such as depreciation, loss of use during the time it was seized, etc. A good civil lawyer would be very helpful....
Just like I said in another post. Now that I think about that, if the above is the case, that is really sad. Something as critical as the domain name system should not have bugs like that! But it would not surprise me, given how many large, complex systems have serious bugs in them today...
Or it could still be maliciousness on the part of AOL. The courts very likely will decide which.
When you implement a technological protection measure, you can override copyright law with your own "legislation" that applies to your content. Whatever your code tries to prevent is now illegal.
Now if they or someone else does blatantly and deliberately violate the GPL and/or refuse to rectify any mistake, then we can act.
I am one of the first to complain about unethical corporate behavior. But I also believe that not every corporate action is evil - and that some corporations can, in some cases, be an ally.
Was he actually convicted (if so , what was his sentence and the crime he was convicted of) or just arrested?
See, if I hack your ssystem, I am committing a crime. If you ask me/authorize me to hack it, then I'm not. If you make it sound like you are authorizing me, but you aren't, but I can reasonably believe you are, then I might not be committing a crime. Example, you give me an "authorization form" that looks like it says you want/allow me to hack your system, but it has an obscure trick of phraseology that says I'm really not allow to do so. A court might say that it looked like I was authorized and let me go.
That would actually persuade me to vote for him. Makes him seem like a nice ordinary American who speaks his mind.
But his ideological views scare me, so I'm not going to vote for him, but that is beside the point.