Yeah, but they'd have to forge a site certificate too. Browsers come with a certificate to make sure the site certificates are legimate for the site. So when you https to Ebay, you know its really Ebay. What you are saying is possible, but extremely difficult. Perhaps the NSA could do it, but unlikely anyone else. (assuming 128 bit or better encryption, 40 bit is child's play, but even that can't be real time cracked as far as I know). For them to get at the actual data (decrypted) they have to make your browser think they are the actual site. That is (extremely) hard. For them to simply pass encrypted data back and forth transparently is easy. No data (no URL level info) but they'd know source and destination IP's (which they can get anyway by packet sniffing).
Also threatening litigation, etc: even if it's totally non-legit, they can really fuck with people who can't afford a team of top-flight lawyers.
Litigation only works because a court (i.e. government) can use force to take money away from you and give it to those that are attacking you. Reduce the ability of the court to do so and you weaken the threat from the corporations. Make it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to get awarded any damages beyond profits gained from any allegedly illegal activities and people won't be scared of having their personal funds forcibly taken away from them and possibly going into poverty of bankruptcy. Then free speech won't be chilled as often as it is now.
Government IS the underlying problem much of the time. Litigation isn't just something the plaintiff does to you, it is something the government does to you on their behalf. It isn't the school yard bully beating you up, it is the school yard bully getting the principal to beat you up. And now the beating you get is legiitimized in the public eye and you are the bad guy. That makes it worse.
The bottom line is that it's their hardware, their bandwidth, and their choice.
It is NOTtheir choice. It is as much their choice as it is your choice to give a robber his money when he has a gun to your head. The ISP's "choice" is whether to censor or get sued and be ordered by a court, i.e. the government, with their force (i.e guns, etc - lets tell it like it is) to pay money to the plaintiff. Just like you have a choice to give up your money to a robber or get shot.
A forced choice is no real choice at all.
If it was an unforced business decision it might be as you describe. But this is clearly different.
What rights are you talking about? The "rights" people are using to pirate music and videos?
No, the rights to use content we paid for. Without them telling us how to use it, what OS to run, etc. How about we allow Pizza Hut to say you aren't allowed to order a pizza to your house if you have any Coca Cola at home? How much control to we give a seller? Everything? The courts generally do not allow that in the real world. Product tying is illegal. We need to educate the judges on the virtual world, and also strive to make sure they don't keeping getting unduly influenced by commercial interests (e.g. bought)
The average person doesn't care about his/her rights. And they outnumber those of us who still care about freedom. So we will lose. And we either have to kiss our rights goodbye or have no content. If the content providers were required to respect our freedom, guess what, the content would not dry up. They'd still try to make us much money as they can. And us freedom loving people would be able to partake of the content, rather than being locked out.
Also, I have as much a right to break CSS (and not get sued for it) as they do to implement it, or even more. Fair use is analogus to an easement on private property. I can't put up a fence blocking access to the easement and sue people for hopping said fence. Actually I'm not even allowed to put up such a fence at all. Why is intellectual property given more legitimacy than physical property?
That is a much less far fetched scenario that you think. The intellectual property interests would help any company that does that, as long as they made piracy harder and still allowed the content providers (but only the big boys that can buy lawmakers and judges and pay off all "interested" parties) to have enough "freedom" to market products over this network and make a killing doing so.
The lawmakers would support it too, as long as they gave the government enough control. "Yeah, let us take over, don't stop us. Why do you have to listen to us? Well you are the gov't so you don't, but here is way you want to. We can make all the politically incorrect speech disappear. We can make any pro-drug info disappear. We can make all independant political speech disappear. With UCITA and the DMCA any people trying to use our net despite our wishes (which will include your wishes) will be breaking that law. But it won't be "censorship" or a violation of the First Amendment, since we will do the censoring for you. No one will sue you or stop you or hate you, since you'll just have us do your dirty work."
That is a risk you missed on your otherwise very good analysis. And you weren't being cynical, just realistic. It will and has been attempted. DVDCCA/MPAA is about control, not just piracy. Welcome to the 21st century. Please check your freedom at the door.
Yeah, I think we should give them total control. They should make you buy one DVD that can only be listened to during the day at home, one for at night at home, and one for in the car. We should let them dictate as part of the license of the player (thanks to UCITA they control the licensing totally, thanks to DMCA your own player code is illegal) that you will not put bad software (i.e. anything they don't like, such as Linux) anywhere on any of your computers, also that you will never say anything bad about their companies or anything that could hurt their interests. Basically we should let them require you to sell yourself into slavery to them in order to access their wonderful content.
Okay, that's it for my sarcastic rant. If you want to live in such a world, go do it. Don't you dare try to make me live in it.
1. Will commercial content providers use it? This hinges on end-to-end control for some of them.
2. Can we use it? We as in those who want to make free content. We don't need the end to end control. We do need something that is patent-free. As for it being able to be used for piracy, guess what. I could encode some copyrighted work and put in in Real Audio and set the copyright flag to allow copies. So Real Audio is just as much a possible facilitation of piracy as an open format. So an open format doesn't have any more chance to be declared illegal. One would hope. I am not a lawyer, and some judges who appear to be controlled by the content industries (Kaplan, etc) or at the very least their way of thinking, might be more predisposed to assume a free format was more likely to be "criminal" than a "nice", "safe" commercial format.
But if we've really lost that much freedom, we should switch to Windows, since Linux will be judged a hacking tool or something.
My point? We need to support a free format. Especially due to legal issues.
RIAA getting Fraunhofer to enforce the MP3 patent is a risk we must prepare for!
Good God! What is he smoking? Let's just make su give ANYONE a root shell without asking for a password. We do need some order here!
Posting as AC since I don't want to lose karma over this. I know how some people here get when someone flames their poster boy or believes in any kind of control.
P.S. No I don't support the MPAA or the DVDCCA or the NSA or the KKK or anything else of that nature. So if you are going to call me a Nazi go screw yourself.
Do you want the government to know you watch DVDs under Linux? When your government (for those in the US) can and will assess a $2,500 civil fine on you for it? Lawsuit judgements are enforced by the power of the government. So even if it is the MPAA suing you, it is the force (yes, FORCE) of government that will take the money away from you. And if the rush to make more things a crime, make privacy less and less available, and for government to aid and abet corporations in their removing our freedom continues, this is what you have to look forward to. Big Brother making sure you never hurt the monied interests, because if you do, you'll receive civil judgements, fines and possibly even imprisonment. I wouldn't care as much about privacy if just living one's life wasn't breaking only God knows how many laws. Almost everyone has something to hide. Especially from those who can use the force of law to do you harm. Except possibly those living in a monastery.
What? I hate to tell you this, but with some interesting modifications you can get a copy of DVD in mpeg-2 content using a licensed DVD player in Windows. There are utilities that you can download for Windows that are specifically for taking advantage of some of the players to get a copy of the content. Doing so might actually be legal even if DeCSS is illegal. Why? Because the "accessing" of the protected work is done by the authorized player. The CSS decryption is done in an authorized manner. You didn't hack around its protections. You didn't "circumvent" the access control. You did circumvent controls in a program which accessed the copyrighted work. But that program is not "circumventing" the code, it is applying "information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." See 17 USC 1201(a)(3)(B). That is one degree removed from circumventing it yourself. So is it legal or illegal. I am not a lawyer, but it is an interesting question. Indirect circumvention? I know about software licenses, and that can come into play, also copyright infringement is also a possible change if you are exceeding fair use. But is having an authorized access tool provide you with access it should not have a DMCA violation? For the case where you hack the program? Maybe. For a case where you do not hack the program, but every time it writes to the "video card" it really is writing into a virtual framebuffer device which sends it to the hard disk? Can they say that is illegal? Could running a Windows DVD player under VMware under Linux be illegal if the MPAA was to say no linux players are allowed? (Yes I have heard of the possible authorized Linux player, but the point is could they ban Linux DVD if they wanted to, even to the point of prohibiting Windows emulation to view the DVD) The issues of law and technology collide and get very complicated here. What precedents we set today will determine our future (and our freedom) tomorrow.
If someone has a movie they made that they want to distribute without the CSS protection on the DVD, would they still be able to play it on a conventional DVD player or on a PC with "conventional" DVD software? Yes they would. Unencrypted moves work fine in all DVD players. Sorry.
It hasn't been ruled illegal. Linking to a site is different than hosting something. Also, should we never fight injustice because they can get mad and we could end up worse? Should be just lie down and take it?! Think things can't get worse then? Thank God the civil rights activists in the 1960's didn't think your way.
Read the DMCA. "Effectively" controls access means this: 17 USC 1201(a)(3)(B): a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Yeah, but if I reverse engineer one to make my car go faster/accelerate better/get more mileage or tell someone how to do the same I won't get sued. I won't get in any legal trouble for doing so at all (as far as I know, I am not a lawyer). I still could get busted for speeding if I actually exceeded a speed limit, but not for having a car which could go too fast. Analogy to DMCA and copyright would be only getting busted for infringment, not for circumvention. See how the DMCA is an extra infringment of rights? Closed source usually doesn't just mean closed source, it means lawsuit risk for using or distributing the product in a non-approved manner. We should come up with a new term, "dangerous software", or "fascist software" come to mind. Any ideas?
But you can't get slapped with a $2,500 fine for opening the hood on your car. But you can get slapped with a $2,500 fine for DMCA violations. Closed source might not be too bad, but closed source plus fascist laws is really bad. When industry controls the government and government controls you, it follows that industry controls you. And your vote doesn't give you any real control over them.
Real Networks' real (pun intended) revenue stream is the server side. Quicktime could run at a loss, since its existence benefits the rest of Apple (MacOS market share, etc). A company will tolerate a loss in one area if it causes a greater gain in another. Heck they can also use the loss as a tax writeoff perhaps.
What's the likelihood anyone would pay for an enhanced Quicktime? Or an enhanced Real Player. I feel very few people actually do so. The regular version works well enough.
I am talking about the implied license on the content between the consumer and the copyright holder, not the CSS license between the hardware manufacturer and the DVDCCA. A consumer is bound by and benefits by the first one, but not the second (at least not directly).
I don't think a third party can be bound to a contract between two other entities. E.g. I can not make an agreement with someone which states that neither I nor you will do something, and have you legally bound by it.
Again, I am not a lawyer. Any lawyers care to comment?
Yes, but it is still using the licensed CSS algorithm in the normal manner. That might satisfy the clause regarding "the normal course of operation" of a technological measure, and hence be legal. Whereas DeCSS uses an unlicensed attack on CSS. Tricking something which has licensed CSS code into using that licensed code in its normal manner (although at an "inappropriate" time) may well be different from going around CSS oneself. Also, doesn't one have an implied license to view. "This disc licensed for home use only" written on the DVDs and/or their cases. No mention of "You are legally not allowed to play in the wrong regions".
Also, is it illegal for someone in region 1 to buy a region 2 player from overseas. Just get one player from each region and you could (legally?) play any DVD. (Waste of money I know...) Or maybe it is legal to buy a multi-region player from overseas (I know one can get the Apex multi-region player here in the US, for now)
I am not a lawyer, but this is something to consider.
Agreed. Customer probably can't sue ISP - due to terms of service agreement. Spammer probably can't sue for e-mail being blocked - due to property rights issues (I don't have to let you into by house or e-mail system if I do not want to). Although one might be able to say discrimination/restraint of trade. Hmmm. The spammer could say libel/slander for being labeled as such, but truth is an absolute defense to those charges.
Complicated stuff. Glad I'm not an ISP or a lawyer.
Well everyone that got a copy from the original source got in before the transfer of ownership, so those licenses are good. Since the GPL grants licenses from a licensee who has the program to whoever he/she tranfers it to, those people should be licensed, and so on.
Also, as far as a license being revocable because we don't pay for it. Does this have to do with contract law and "consideration" (legal term for compensation) being required? Well by accepting the license we gain the right to distribute the software, which could legally be considered consideration. Also, the No Electronic Theft Act redefined "financial gain" to include receipt of copyrighted works. Wouldn't it be ironic if we could use that in our favor?
These are just some ideas. A real lawyer needs to look at this.
1. ISP's not in the US do not have to obey an order from a US court which lacks jurisdiction over them. No US court has jurisdiction in Sweden as far as I know.
2. If I ran an ISP, and got a court order to remove access to some documents which were in a user's account, guess what I would do?
I would remove access to those documents. NOT REMOVE OR DISABLE THE WHOLE ACCOUNT. I would still be obeying the order. I would not punish the user by removing his access which would restrict even legally non-disputed speech and deny him his right to access the Internet (which has has paid me for).
Why the Swedish ISP obeyed an order which appears to be outside the court's jurisdiction, and furthermore removed the whole account, thus banning the user from the Internet is beyond me. Well actually it isn't, ISPs are pro-censorship these days.
Fascism is now a major export of the United States.
Yes, I thought that as soon as I read the first part of the first clause of the first claim:
"generating opposing magnetic fields each having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the respective magnetic field;"
Opposing EM fields produce scalar waves. This is really weird stuff, but there is evidence for scalar waves and scalar effects.
Scalar waves are said to affect gravity, time, and biological systems among other things.
It's our fault for allow lobbyists to have so much power over Congress, and hence over us.
We elect people whose name we hear the most, not those who have the same stand on the issues as we do. We don't even understand the issues, what the candidates' stand on them are, or what the implications of them are for our freedoms.
So the politicians obey the lobbyists so they can get more money, which buys more ads, which gets more votes.
We need to get educated on the issues, vote based on them, see through the ads and let our elected representatives know we are doing this!
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but they'd have to forge a site certificate too. Browsers come with a certificate to make sure the site certificates are legimate for the site. So when you https to Ebay, you know its really Ebay. What you are saying is possible, but extremely difficult. Perhaps the NSA could do it, but unlikely anyone else. (assuming 128 bit or better encryption, 40 bit is child's play, but even that can't be real time cracked as far as I know). For them to get at the actual data (decrypted) they have to make your browser think they are the actual site. That is (extremely) hard. For them to simply pass encrypted data back and forth transparently is easy. No data (no URL level info) but they'd know source and destination IP's (which they can get anyway by packet sniffing).
Litigation only works because a court (i.e. government) can use force to take money away from you and give it to those that are attacking you. Reduce the ability of the court to do so and you weaken the threat from the corporations. Make it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to get awarded any damages beyond profits gained from any allegedly illegal activities and people won't be scared of having their personal funds forcibly taken away from them and possibly going into poverty of bankruptcy. Then free speech won't be chilled as often as it is now.
Government IS the underlying problem much of the time. Litigation isn't just something the plaintiff does to you, it is something the government does to you on their behalf. It isn't the school yard bully beating you up, it is the school yard bully getting the principal to beat you up. And now the beating you get is legiitimized in the public eye and you are the bad guy. That makes it worse.
It is NOT their choice. It is as much their choice as it is your choice to give a robber his money when he has a gun to your head. The ISP's "choice" is whether to censor or get sued and be ordered by a court, i.e. the government, with their force (i.e guns, etc - lets tell it like it is) to pay money to the plaintiff. Just like you have a choice to give up your money to a robber or get shot.
A forced choice is no real choice at all.
If it was an unforced business decision it might be as you describe. But this is clearly different.
No, the rights to use content we paid for. Without them telling us how to use it, what OS to run, etc. How about we allow Pizza Hut to say you aren't allowed to order a pizza to your house if you have any Coca Cola at home? How much control to we give a seller? Everything? The courts generally do not allow that in the real world. Product tying is illegal. We need to educate the judges on the virtual world, and also strive to make sure they don't keeping getting unduly influenced by commercial interests (e.g. bought)
Also, I have as much a right to break CSS (and not get sued for it) as they do to implement it, or even more. Fair use is analogus to an easement on private property. I can't put up a fence blocking access to the easement and sue people for hopping said fence. Actually I'm not even allowed to put up such a fence at all. Why is intellectual property given more legitimacy than physical property?
The lawmakers would support it too, as long as they gave the government enough control. "Yeah, let us take over, don't stop us. Why do you have to listen to us? Well you are the gov't so you don't, but here is way you want to. We can make all the politically incorrect speech disappear. We can make any pro-drug info disappear. We can make all independant political speech disappear. With UCITA and the DMCA any people trying to use our net despite our wishes (which will include your wishes) will be breaking that law. But it won't be "censorship" or a violation of the First Amendment, since we will do the censoring for you. No one will sue you or stop you or hate you, since you'll just have us do your dirty work."
That is a risk you missed on your otherwise very good analysis. And you weren't being cynical, just realistic. It will and has been attempted. DVDCCA/MPAA is about control, not just piracy. Welcome to the 21st century. Please check your freedom at the door.
Okay, that's it for my sarcastic rant. If you want to live in such a world, go do it. Don't you dare try to make me live in it.
1. Will commercial content providers use it? This hinges on end-to-end control for some of them.
2. Can we use it? We as in those who want to make free content. We don't need the end to end control. We do need something that is patent-free. As for it being able to be used for piracy, guess what. I could encode some copyrighted work and put in in Real Audio and set the copyright flag to allow copies. So Real Audio is just as much a possible facilitation of piracy as an open format. So an open format doesn't have any more chance to be declared illegal. One would hope. I am not a lawyer, and some judges who appear to be controlled by the content industries (Kaplan, etc) or at the very least their way of thinking, might be more predisposed to assume a free format was more likely to be "criminal" than a "nice", "safe" commercial format.
But if we've really lost that much freedom, we should switch to Windows, since Linux will be judged a hacking tool or something.
My point? We need to support a free format. Especially due to legal issues.
RIAA getting Fraunhofer to enforce the MP3 patent is a risk we must prepare for!
Posting as AC since I don't want to lose karma over this. I know how some people here get when someone flames their poster boy or believes in any kind of control.
P.S. No I don't support the MPAA or the DVDCCA or the NSA or the KKK or anything else of that nature. So if you are going to call me a Nazi go screw yourself.
Do you want the government to know you watch DVDs under Linux? When your government (for those in the US) can and will assess a $2,500 civil fine on you for it? Lawsuit judgements are enforced by the power of the government. So even if it is the MPAA suing you, it is the force (yes, FORCE) of government that will take the money away from you.
And if the rush to make more things a crime, make privacy less and less available, and for government to aid and abet corporations in their removing our freedom continues, this is what you have to look forward to. Big Brother making sure you never hurt the monied interests, because if you do, you'll receive civil judgements, fines and possibly even imprisonment.
I wouldn't care as much about privacy if just living one's life wasn't breaking only God knows how many laws.
Almost everyone has something to hide. Especially from those who can use the force of law to do you harm. Except possibly those living in a monastery.
What? I hate to tell you this, but with some interesting modifications you can get a copy of DVD in mpeg-2 content using a licensed DVD player in Windows. There are utilities that you can download for Windows that are specifically for taking advantage of some of the players to get a copy of the content.
Doing so might actually be legal even if DeCSS is illegal. Why? Because the "accessing" of the protected work is done by the authorized player. The CSS decryption is done in an authorized manner. You didn't hack around its protections. You didn't "circumvent" the access control. You did circumvent controls in a program which accessed the copyrighted work. But that program is not "circumventing" the code, it is applying "information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." See 17 USC 1201(a)(3)(B). That is one degree removed from circumventing it yourself. So is it legal or illegal. I am not a lawyer, but it is an interesting question. Indirect circumvention? I know about software licenses, and that can come into play, also copyright infringement is also a possible change if you are exceeding fair use. But is having an authorized access tool provide you with access it should not have a DMCA violation? For the case where you hack the program? Maybe. For a case where you do not hack the program, but every time it writes to the "video card" it really is writing into a virtual framebuffer device which sends it to the hard disk? Can they say that is illegal? Could running a Windows DVD player under VMware under Linux be illegal if the MPAA was to say no linux players are allowed? (Yes I have heard of the possible authorized Linux player, but the point is could they ban Linux DVD if they wanted to, even to the point of prohibiting Windows emulation to view the DVD) The issues of law and technology collide and get very complicated here. What precedents we set today will determine our future (and our freedom) tomorrow.
If someone has a movie they made that they want to distribute without the CSS protection on the DVD, would they still be able to play it on a conventional DVD player or on a PC with "conventional" DVD software?
Yes they would. Unencrypted moves work fine in all DVD players. Sorry.
It hasn't been ruled illegal. Linking to a site is different than hosting something. Also, should we never fight injustice because they can get mad and we could end up worse? Should be just lie down and take it?! Think things can't get worse then? Thank God the civil rights activists in the 1960's didn't think your way.
Read the DMCA. "Effectively" controls access means this:
17 USC 1201(a)(3)(B):
a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Yeah, but if I reverse engineer one to make my car go faster/accelerate better/get more mileage or tell someone how to do the same I won't get sued. I won't get in any legal trouble for doing so at all (as far as I know, I am not a lawyer). I still could get busted for speeding if I actually exceeded a speed limit, but not for having a car which could go too fast. Analogy to DMCA and copyright would be only getting busted for infringment, not for circumvention. See how the DMCA is an extra infringment of rights? Closed source usually doesn't just mean closed source, it means lawsuit risk for using or distributing the product in a non-approved manner. We should come up with a new term, "dangerous software", or "fascist software" come to mind. Any ideas?
But you can't get slapped with a $2,500 fine for opening the hood on your car.
But you can get slapped with a $2,500 fine for DMCA violations.
Closed source might not be too bad, but closed source plus fascist laws is really bad. When industry controls the government and government controls you, it follows that industry controls you. And your vote doesn't give you any real control over them.
Real Networks' real (pun intended) revenue stream is the server side. Quicktime could run at a loss, since its existence benefits the rest of Apple (MacOS market share, etc). A company will tolerate a loss in one area if it causes a greater gain in another. Heck they can also use the loss as a tax writeoff perhaps.
What's the likelihood anyone would pay for an enhanced Quicktime? Or an enhanced Real Player. I feel very few people actually do so. The regular version works well enough.
I am talking about the implied license on the content between the consumer and the copyright holder, not the CSS license between the hardware manufacturer and the DVDCCA. A consumer is bound by and benefits by the first one, but not the second (at least not directly).
I don't think a third party can be bound to a contract between two other entities. E.g. I can not make an agreement with someone which states that neither I nor you will do something, and have you legally bound by it.
Again, I am not a lawyer. Any lawyers care to comment?
Yes, but it is still using the licensed CSS algorithm in the normal manner. That might satisfy the clause regarding "the normal course of operation" of a technological measure, and hence be legal. Whereas DeCSS uses an unlicensed attack on CSS. Tricking something which has licensed CSS code into using that licensed code in its normal manner (although at an "inappropriate" time) may well be different from going around CSS oneself. Also, doesn't one have an implied license to view. "This disc licensed for home use only" written on the DVDs and/or their cases. No mention of "You are legally not allowed to play in the wrong regions".
Also, is it illegal for someone in region 1 to buy a region 2 player from overseas. Just get one player from each region and you could (legally?) play any DVD. (Waste of money I know...) Or maybe it is legal to buy a multi-region player from overseas (I know one can get the Apex multi-region player here in the US, for now)
I am not a lawyer, but this is something to consider.
Complicated stuff. Glad I'm not an ISP or a lawyer.
Also, as far as a license being revocable because we don't pay for it. Does this have to do with contract law and "consideration" (legal term for compensation) being required? Well by accepting the license we gain the right to distribute the software, which could legally be considered consideration. Also, the No Electronic Theft Act redefined "financial gain" to include receipt of copyrighted works. Wouldn't it be ironic if we could use that in our favor?
These are just some ideas. A real lawyer needs to look at this.
1. ISP's not in the US do not have to obey an order from a US court which lacks jurisdiction over them. No US court has jurisdiction in Sweden as far as I know.
2. If I ran an ISP, and got a court order to remove access to some documents which were in a user's account, guess what I would do?
I would remove access to those documents. NOT REMOVE OR DISABLE THE WHOLE ACCOUNT. I would still be obeying the order. I would not punish the user by removing his access which would restrict even legally non-disputed speech and deny him his right to access the Internet (which has has paid me for).
Why the Swedish ISP obeyed an order which appears to be outside the court's jurisdiction, and furthermore removed the whole account, thus banning the user from the Internet is beyond me. Well actually it isn't, ISPs are pro-censorship these days.
Fascism is now a major export of the United States.
Yes, I thought that as soon as I read the first part of the first clause of the first claim:
"generating opposing magnetic fields each having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the respective magnetic field;"
Opposing EM fields produce scalar waves. This is really weird stuff, but there is evidence for scalar waves and scalar effects.
Scalar waves are said to affect gravity, time, and biological systems among other things.
Quite likely useful, but quite scary.
It's our fault for allow lobbyists to have so much power over Congress, and hence over us.
We elect people whose name we hear the most, not those who have the same stand on the issues as we do. We don't even understand the issues, what the candidates' stand on them are, or what the implications of them are for our freedoms.
So the politicians obey the lobbyists so they can get more money, which buys more ads, which gets more votes.
We need to get educated on the issues, vote based on them, see through the ads and let our elected representatives know we are doing this!