Make it so only the rich and powerful can get resources (such as IP addresses). Make it so residential customers aren't allowed to host content, even if their ISP doesn't mind, since their ISP will have beeen ordered to use NAT and hence the customers lack an Internet routable address to host off. No more pesky speech from the masses. Shift information transfer totally from bottom-up to top-down.
Along those lines, eventually, make it so the shortage is so bad the government comes in and requires mandatory FCC licenses at thousands/millions of dollars each and strict regulations on who can use them and how. The justification would be "scarce resources". Does that sound totally unbelievable? Well, if it does, you need to look at the early history of radio. Used to be free, now it is extremely regulated and restricted.
Like companies being required to use NAT, even if they don't want to and want each machine to have an Internet routable IP. Like ISPs that serve residential customors via DSL or cable modem being required to tell their customers they can not be on the net more that 8 hours a day average. Why would they do that? Because even if you have dynamic IPs you don't get any savings of IPs if everyone is holding on to them 24/7. Or even just telling ISPs they have to put all residential customers on NAT. Each ISP would get IPs for themselves, but home customers would only get "private" 10.x.y.z IPs (of course they can't serve content then, but it is likely that neither the ISPs nor ARIN would be at all upset about that.)
3. Who can use VitalViewerTMand can I share
VitalViewerTM with a friend or with upperclassmen?
Only registered students and faculty are legally allowed to use the
VitalViewerTM application or the VitalBookTM DVD. Any
unauthorized use or distribution of the VitalViewerTM software is a
major Copyright Violation and is subject to legal action. Please
don't make us do that.
They specifically say it is illegal to even let a friend or upperclassman use you book. It isn't saying anything about copying, it is saying unauthorized use is a copyrgiht violation. This is serious people. I'm a pessimist, but even admittedly had trouble believing it could be this bad until I saw it for myself.
We need to get Open Content (open source for books) going, and fast!
You're seeing this disclaimer everywhere now because it's a requirement of the DMCA that it be present. I find it pretty inane.
Say what?! Umm, no. The thing in the DMCA about perjury is that infringement notices and counter-notices need to have a statement that it is undertaken under penalty of perjury to be valid, but that an infringement notice without that disclaimer still needs to be followed up on. The counter-notice is invalid without a disclaimer. How's that for fairness?:(
The perjury disclaimer in most legal filings is something that has been part of the system for a long time. The filing being referred to is not a notice of infringement, and the DMCA does not apply to it. The DMCA doesn't apply to this at all, and the MPAA is even directly involved in this lawsuit.
This is the DVDCCA suing based on trade-secret misappropriation.
The DMCA doesn't even give the right to circumvent to the author of the encryption tool. Only to the copyright holder for a protected work. Now Time Warner indirectly owns copyright to some CSS encrypted movies. So maybe there are allowed. But they could possibly get sued by other MPAA members.
to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to
descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or
otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a
technological measure, without the authority of the copyright
owner
Circumvention is illegal, no exception for fair use or even for access by those writing the encryption (the phrase "without the authority of the copyright owner" is very strict, it does take into account authority to access a work under the fair use provisions of Title 17 or any other law.)
Why does it seem to me that many companies don't have a problem charging for software, they only seem to have a problem paying for it? Seems a bit one-sided to me.
And unless you know a hell of a lot of intricate high-level mathematics, the NSA breaking your code will be the LEAST of your problems. Probably any halfway decent cryptoanalyst could break your code trivially.
Privacy. Want us to see EVERYTHING (and I mean EVERYTHING) you do?... Didn't think so.
Because so many things that shouldn't be illegal, are. Because so many things you have the moral right to do will still get you punished (harrassed, fired, sued, imprisoned, assassinated, etc). If you say something The Man doesn't like, you might really begin to appreciate secrecy.
It's like having all the homes come with locks that only let Republicans (for example) into the house and refuse entry to anyone else. So if you are a Democrat and pick the lock to get into your own home you don't get busted for tresspass (analogous to copyright infringement), but you get busted for the new crime of lock-picking (*).
(*) For those that like to pick apart analogies, this is not like the currently existing "breaking and entering". In the physical world you can't get charged with that if you own the house in question. Even if the people that built/sold the house and locks want you to never get in your house again. You have less rights in the virtual world than you do in the "real" (physical) world.
Some software out there automatically turns URLs in text form into links. What is the legal situation with that in the mix?
Okay so what if they then say a URL is illegal? Then, for example, if instead of saying get "http://www.decss.com/DeCSS.zip", I say "Go to the server named www in the domain decss.com, connect to the http port and request a ZIP file called DeCSS with the standard extension for such a file and save the resulting output to a file", would that be illegal?
Where does it end?
Maybe we can just make it a felony to mention that CSS could be cracked, or to say anything that could make someone even think along those lines. If it is felt that we need thought police to protect copyright, the Corporatists are just going to say "So be it". Can't let something like basic human rights get in the way of profits. The bought out judges and politicians know who really pays their salaries and keeps them employed, since the majority of the voters don't care about the issues, they'll just vote for the guy that screams the loudest and most often (i.e. the one with the most money, since that is what buys the ability to "scream loudly and often").
In many civil forfeiture cases, it is the thing being prosecuted. Things do not have civil rights of any sort, so it is easy to convict them and "punish" them by confiscating them.
This post is not a joke, the (sick) joke is that this is actually the law of the land.
There are many cases out there along the lines of US vs some ship or US vs some car, etc.
CDDA encoding was never intended to be a "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work" protected under copyright. CSS is. Decoding CDDA is just a format conversion (CDDA -> raw audio). Encoding is just a transformation or derivative work. Copyright, but not necessarily the DMCA comes into effect. CSS decryption can be considered "circumvention of a technological measure."
Easy way for them to avoid libel claims (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer):
State that being listed in a category does not imply that that site actually contains the banned speech, just that it MAY contain that speech and/or information that could allow someone to access such content.
DeCSS could be seen as having a key to someone's house that you made yourself. You aren't cirumventing the lock, you are using it as intended. Just as DeCSS is using keys to decrypt the algorithm, not brute force cryptoanalyzing it (which would be like picking a lock).
The issues are whether you are legally allowed to posses the key and whether you are legally allowed to enter the house/access the original MPEG content.
Any lawyers care to comment?
Is it "circumvention" to decrypt something using the authorized algorithm (DeCSS does appear to do the same exact thing a DVD player does, cryptographically speaking), but using a key THEY do not what you to have?
Not that YOU release your software for free, but don't want to give other people THEIR freedom to release THEIR software how THEY choose.
How are they screwing over the OSS community? The used some code. I'm sure a lot of people have used some code. They keep their drivers closed.
How are they screwing us? Simple. Our license says you can't use our code in closed-source products. They did anyway. Their license says if we use their code without permission, we are violating their copyright, and they are quite likely to sue/press charges for infringement.
We say: You are free to use our code, if and only if, we are free to use yours. They make it illegal to use theirs freely (no reserve engineering, etc) and impractical too (no source). This it is illegal and wrong for them to use ours. If they can withold permission to use their code, we damn well sure can, and do, withold ours.
NVIDIA has THE highest quality OpenGL ICD in consumer space.
Even if that is true, that is irrelevant. Can we ignore a license just because we have some cool stuff? Should they be able to? Hell no!
If you publish a benchmark anyway, which of the two scenarios is more likely:
The company comes to your house and puts a gun to your head and takes your money
The company takes you to court, and the court issues a judgement against you. If you don't pay, some U.S. Marshalls with guns come and take your property away.
The second one, of course. The court and the U.S. Marshalls = gov't power. Thus: Gov't coercion is the problem. No gov't coercion, no problem.
If I tell someone to rob you, both me and the person doing the robbing are guilty of a crime (legally and morally). If a corporation gets a court to issue a judgement against you which is unfair, both the company and the gov't are morally guilty of theft.
You may be able to escape liability on this though: Contract clauses which are "contrary to public policy" can be found invalid. Preventing the exercise of free speech could be considered "contrary to public policy" enough to prevent a court from levying damages against (i.e. stealing from) you. Any lawyers (of which I am not) care to confirm or deny that?
Have a license/copyright statement that says if you redistribute it in any way, that you can not forbid redistribution from anyone that receives it. Even if they try to use some database protection act (if it passes) to forbid redistribution, they would be stuck. They would lose the right to distribute it at all. If they did, then YOU could sue THEM for copyright infringement. And get criminal charges filed too.
Owning the patents for a technology you wish to bury can be very powerful. When Macrovision developed the copy protection mechanism embedded in all DVD
players, they also created and patented a device for removing the protection. This enables them to sue anyone attempting to sell such a device or distribute the
details of constructing one. (Not that it eliminates said information, but it drives it sufficiently underground to keep the ordinary people from seeing it.)
Not true. A patent itself distributes the details of constructing the device. Plus one can get patent details on www.patents.ibm.com and www.uspto.gov. It is part of the tradeoff of a patent. Anyone can freely describe how to make it, making the actual invention is what is not allowed. Source code for doing so is a gray area - is it a description or a product or a means for making the product? I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say.
Slashdot Mirror
Motion Picture Association is the international version/affiliate/arm of the Motion Picture Association of America. It is a real organization.
Yes, the infamous Homolka trial information ban. You can find more info at http://www.cs.indiana.edu/canada/karla. html
Here is what they want:
Make it so only the rich and powerful can get resources (such as IP addresses). Make it so residential customers aren't allowed to host content, even if their ISP doesn't mind, since their ISP will have beeen ordered to use NAT and hence the customers lack an Internet routable address to host off. No more pesky speech from the masses. Shift information transfer totally from bottom-up to top-down.
Along those lines, eventually, make it so the shortage is so bad the government comes in and requires mandatory FCC licenses at thousands/millions of dollars each and strict regulations on who can use them and how. The justification would be "scarce resources". Does that sound totally unbelievable? Well, if it does, you need to look at the early history of radio. Used to be free, now it is extremely regulated and restricted.
Like companies being required to use NAT, even if they don't want to and want each machine to have an Internet routable IP. Like ISPs that serve residential customors via DSL or cable modem being required to tell their customers they can not be on the net more that 8 hours a day average. Why would they do that? Because even if you have dynamic IPs you don't get any savings of IPs if everyone is holding on to them 24/7. Or even just telling ISPs they have to put all residential customers on NAT. Each ISP would get IPs for themselves, but home customers would only get "private" 10.x.y.z IPs (of course they can't serve content then, but it is likely that neither the ISPs nor ARIN would be at all upset about that.)
This is right from their site. Here is the URL: http://www.vitalviewer.com/files/macsupport.html#A nchor-11481
They specifically say it is illegal to even let a friend or upperclassman use you book. It isn't saying anything about copying, it is saying unauthorized use is a copyrgiht violation. This is serious people. I'm a pessimist, but even admittedly had trouble believing it could be this bad until I saw it for myself.
We need to get Open Content (open source for books) going, and fast!
Say what?! Umm, no. The thing in the DMCA about perjury is that infringement notices and counter-notices need to have a statement that it is undertaken under penalty of perjury to be valid, but that an infringement notice without that disclaimer still needs to be followed up on. The counter-notice is invalid without a disclaimer. How's that for fairness? :(
The perjury disclaimer in most legal filings is something that has been part of the system for a long time. The filing being referred to is not a notice of infringement, and the DMCA does not apply to it. The DMCA doesn't apply to this at all, and the MPAA is even directly involved in this lawsuit.
This is the DVDCCA suing based on trade-secret misappropriation.
Disclaimer: I am not a laywer.
17 USC 1201, part of the DMCA, says the following:
to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner
Circumvention is illegal, no exception for fair use or even for access by those writing the encryption (the phrase "without the authority of the copyright owner" is very strict, it does take into account authority to access a work under the fair use provisions of Title 17 or any other law.)
How do you go from 0 to 1000MHz in software? I don't think software can do much at all when the clock speed is at zero.
Why does it seem to me that many companies don't have a problem charging for software, they only seem to have a problem paying for it? Seems a bit one-sided to me.
Crypto ain't easy folks.
(*) For those that like to pick apart analogies, this is not like the currently existing "breaking and entering". In the physical world you can't get charged with that if you own the house in question. Even if the people that built/sold the house and locks want you to never get in your house again. You have less rights in the virtual world than you do in the "real" (physical) world.
Some software out there automatically turns URLs in text form into links. What is the legal situation with that in the mix?
Okay so what if they then say a URL is illegal? Then, for example, if instead of saying get "http://www.decss.com/DeCSS.zip", I say "Go to the server named www in the domain decss.com, connect to the http port and request a ZIP file called DeCSS with the standard extension for such a file and save the resulting output to a file", would that be illegal?
Where does it end?
Maybe we can just make it a felony to mention that CSS could be cracked, or to say anything that could make someone even think along those lines. If it is felt that we need thought police to protect copyright, the Corporatists are just going to say "So be it". Can't let something like basic human rights get in the way of profits. The bought out judges and politicians know who really pays their salaries and keeps them employed, since the majority of the voters don't care about the issues, they'll just vote for the guy that screams the loudest and most often (i.e. the one with the most money, since that is what buys the ability to "scream loudly and often").
In many civil forfeiture cases, it is the thing being prosecuted. Things do not have civil rights of any sort, so it is easy to convict them and "punish" them by confiscating them.
This post is not a joke, the (sick) joke is that this is actually the law of the land.
There are many cases out there along the lines of US vs some ship or US vs some car, etc.
See the DMCA, specifically 17 USC 1201 for more details.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice.
State that being listed in a category does not imply that that site actually contains the banned speech, just that it MAY contain that speech and/or information that could allow someone to access such content.
Not very nice, but legal perhaps?
They'll just get a bill passed that makes anything which has the purpose or effect of circumventing filtering illegal.
The article states that the woman that is banned is an attorney.
She should seriously consider filing a lawsuit.
Parties named could possibly include the site, the people at the site who refuse to override the censorware and the company producing the censorware.
Could set a very interesting precedent.
Are you speeding on the information superhighway? :)
The issues are whether you are legally allowed to posses the key and whether you are legally allowed to enter the house/access the original MPEG content.
Any lawyers care to comment?
Is it "circumvention" to decrypt something using the authorized algorithm (DeCSS does appear to do the same exact thing a DVD player does, cryptographically speaking), but using a key THEY do not what you to have?
I think that is also true in Nevada.
How are they screwing us? Simple. Our license says you can't use our code in closed-source products. They did anyway. Their license says if we use their code without permission, we are violating their copyright, and they are quite likely to sue/press charges for infringement.
We say: You are free to use our code, if and only if, we are free to use yours. They make it illegal to use theirs freely (no reserve engineering, etc) and impractical too (no source). This it is illegal and wrong for them to use ours. If they can withold permission to use their code, we damn well sure can, and do, withold ours.
NVIDIA has THE highest quality OpenGL ICD in consumer space.
Even if that is true, that is irrelevant. Can we ignore a license just because we have some cool stuff? Should they be able to? Hell no!
The second one, of course. The court and the U.S. Marshalls = gov't power. Thus: Gov't coercion is the problem. No gov't coercion, no problem.
If I tell someone to rob you, both me and the person doing the robbing are guilty of a crime (legally and morally). If a corporation gets a court to issue a judgement against you which is unfair, both the company and the gov't are morally guilty of theft.
You may be able to escape liability on this though: Contract clauses which are "contrary to public policy" can be found invalid. Preventing the exercise of free speech could be considered "contrary to public policy" enough to prevent a court from levying damages against (i.e. stealing from) you. Any lawyers (of which I am not) care to confirm or deny that?
Have a license/copyright statement that says if you redistribute it in any way, that you can not forbid redistribution from anyone that receives it. Even if they try to use some database protection act (if it passes) to forbid redistribution, they would be stuck. They would lose the right to distribute it at all. If they did, then YOU could sue THEM for copyright infringement. And get criminal charges filed too.
Not true. A patent itself distributes the details of constructing the device. Plus one can get patent details on www.patents.ibm.com and www.uspto.gov. It is part of the tradeoff of a patent. Anyone can freely describe how to make it, making the actual invention is what is not allowed. Source code for doing so is a gray area - is it a description or a product or a means for making the product? I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say.