Actually they'd likely pirate Windows or use their own OS, and still use the DRM capabilities to oppress their own people.
They'd use the master key they'd mandate the chip companies in China to divulge to the gov't so they would not be controlled by the US or Microsoft and use it to control their own people.
We will tolerate it for the sake of diplomatic relations and the fact it gives the US gov't more control and Microsoft more profits. Perhaps we will demand a master key from the Chinese which they'll give in exchange for being allowed preferred access to our markets.
Our gov't could stop dissident's (or pirates, or hackers, or anti-corporate agitators,...) computers and/or break their encryption.
And Microsoft would make much more money here with even more of a monopoly.
China will make their own OS which they could because they would make all the DRM'd chips and the gov't controls the economy.
Microsoft and the US will allow it to exist, as long as it stays "over there".
Importation or use of that OS in the USA would be a felony (like 5 years or more in prison) and so would be facilitating such importation or use. Anyone convicted would also be banned from the Internet for life by the gov't
It's "Shut Down" (2 words) on the Start menu and the ctrl-all-del menu, and "Shut down" (again 2 words) when choosing the shut down type from the menu.
Their Hypervisor will enforce DRM, so even linux can't override it.
They'll make it so all device drivers must be signed to go into the Hypervisor which will be the only thing with any I/O privs that aren't virtualized.
They'll make it so new hardware has closed interfaces and can only be supported by a driver at the Hypervisor level.
Any drivers in any OS level won't be able to circumvent the DRM, since they'll just THINK they are talking to hardware, but will get virtual hardware instead - and the Hypervisor won't let it read any protected content through the virtual I/O, it will blank it out (e.g. all zero bytes from the "soundcard") or something similar.
The drivers designed for the Hypervisor won't work in any higher level, since they'll need to do a crypographic handshake with the hardware to verify it is "real" and the hardware will also monitor bus activity so it'll know if any extraneous activity is occur (as it would if it was being virtualized).
Everything will have a standard interface to the O/S, so Linux will still run but be very limited and slowed down - since only Windows will be allowed "preferred" access to hardware, other O/S will be deliberately crippled.
They'll say you can still run Linux.
Hardware manufacturers won't release specs, they'll say use the Hypervisor and you can still use Linux.
You'll still need to buy Windows to use any hardware - Linux won't even boot on the raw hardware.
MS doesn't care if Linux isn't killed - the above allows them lock in - no windows - your PC won't boot - since nothing but the Hypervisor will know how to talk to the IDE card, etc.
What about manufacturers that want to support open interfaces, etc? Microsoft will deny them a key which they will need to talk to the Hypervisor - and the Hypervisor will refuse to talk to them.
Support anything other than solely the Hypervisor and you can't use the Hypervisor. No Windows - lose too many sales.
And they can say other O/S's are still allowed.
They'll just not be able to give you freedom to use your hardware as you see fit (DRM, need to pay more to get software to unlock other features on your hardware), only Windows will run well, and you need a Windows license and Hypervisor for every PC or else it is unbootable.
Fair use is 17 USC 107. It might also apply, but section 117 make it a moot point when it comes to running software - section 117 says it is not infringement to make those copies.
One has a right to do something by default, a law needs to take that away (or allow a contract to take it away - if you AGREED to it).
You have the right to USE software by default. Copyright can take it away due to the RAM copy being made - but not only is thier fair use - there is an explicit provision in the law allowing copying which is an essential part of USING the software.
Copyright law contains an explicit exemption to prevent it from restricting USE or any steps necessary for such use, including copying.
Anything not prohibited is permitted is the way the US law is structured. I don't need a law saying I am allowed to do something for it to be legal.
There is no contract or law granting you the right to reply to my comment - but you what you did is legal - by default. I couldn't sue you and win even if I wanted to (let's say I had a no-reply license on my post). The First Amendment just affirms rights we already have - and (in theory) prevents any laws from being passed or enforced which would infringe that right.
US and Britain are extremely friendly with each other and even allow espionage of each other's citizens (which sidesteps laws against spying on one's own citizens).
Look up UKUSA and spying.
Also, Canada and the US share nuclear defense (NORAD).
So Canada and Britain can be considered special cases.
I don't think the FBI could go into Germany or France (ok that last one was a bad example) and not expect a fight.
Don't allow frames to encapsulate a secure web site and unsecure web sites, and don't allow 2 secure pages with different certificates to share a frameset, ever.
They don't grant me anything that copyright law does not.
Copyright law allows me to install and run the program, so I can fail to agree to the EULA and still have that right. Making the program run without clicking the button could mean you never agreed and the contract is unilateral anyway. A contract can't give you something you already have and use that to say it is not unilateral. "Consideration" (the legal term for what a party gets) must be something given to you that you didn't already have. I can't write a contract which requires you to pay me $50, gives you the right to live, and say you agreed by walking on the sidewalk in front of my house. EULAs try to do something equally ridiculous.
Unfortunately, some courts are ignoring the law.
Now the GPL, does give one extra rights not allowed by copyright. One need not agree to it to run GPL software (sane open source people will agree - some zealots will dispute this statement), but then one can't distribute or do anything not otherwise allowed by copyright law and fair use.
No they won't hire you, even if they are sympathetic or even otherwise supportive.
Look up "negligent hiring" and "awarded damages" on an Internet search, and see what huge sums courts have stolen from employers and given to others because the employers did not provide extra-judicial punishment (in the form of denied employment) to persons convicted of crimes.
The law requires employers to add on their own punishment to the official sentence (even after that has been served).
It even mandates current people to be fired. Look up "negligent retention".
Courts make their own law. If the gov't is going to demand someone convicted of crime "X" to be barred from job (or part of town or from the voting booth or any other right) "Y", WRITE IT INTO THE LAW MAKING "X" a crime that it can (or must) be part of the sentence and have the judge EXPLICITLY state it in the sentence.
FBI can't raid other countries. Our authorities invading a sovereign country would cause a war.
And after the public outcry, expense and casualties (over 1000 dead, many maimed and otherwise injured) of Iraq, I don't think we are going to go to war to defend movie studios.
Making backups of your DVDs when you go on a road trip (kids can watch the movies rather than whine at you) so you can keep the originals safe at home so they won't get lost, damaged, stolen or scratched.
I had also been under the impression Plextor was American, not Japanese.
2 more reasons not to buy (1: they aren't American - we have enough unemployment here - the Bay Area is in a Depression so bad they've even had to cut hours on public transit, people are leaving, etc - I really don't want more Americans out of work and 2: they are Japanese - never forget their brutal treatment of American POWs in WWII, their brutalization of the Chinese and Koreans, their collaboration with the Nazis and the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor - the worst attack on US soil until September 11, 2001 - I'd rather buy Taiwanese, e.g. Asus instead - plus they seem to be more open source friendly [Asus and the Taiwanese in general - most all Taiwanese chipsets for motherboards, lm_sensors, etc are well documented by public data sheets]).
Email cease and desists I don't believe have legal standing. I may be wrong, but the law often demands registered/certified postal mail (and for actually lawsuits, subpoenas, etc - physical service of papers).
Also, doesn't one have the right to make public any legal threat against oneself, like a C-and-D letter. Are those protected by copyright, or (likely) not, as they are functional not creative, and are a legal document (the law often favors legal documents being public) and in addition, one might want to make it public to defend themselves.
chillingeffects.org might be a good place to go.
I had bought a Plextor CD-RW a while back. It is the last Plextor product I will ever buy (*). I will convince other's to boycott also.
(*) Unless they repudiate their C-and-D letter, promise to never do that again, and release specs on all proprietary commands to the public without any license on those specs which restricts their use in free software.
Slashdot Mirror
Those things won't pay the mortgage.
Someone with skills and a good job, will.
On Mars.
Could that be a possible GPL violation to restrict Linux like that?
More thoughts:
...) computers and/or break their encryption.
Actually they'd likely pirate Windows or use their own OS, and still use the DRM capabilities to oppress their own people.
They'd use the master key they'd mandate the chip companies in China to divulge to the gov't so they would not be controlled by the US or Microsoft and use it to control their own people.
We will tolerate it for the sake of diplomatic relations and the fact it gives the US gov't more control and Microsoft more profits. Perhaps we will demand a master key from the Chinese which they'll give in exchange for being allowed preferred access to our markets.
Our gov't could stop dissident's (or pirates, or hackers, or anti-corporate agitators,
And Microsoft would make much more money here with even more of a monopoly.
They can make it illegal not to have it.
Remember the SSSCA/CBDTPA?
They'd have to buy some more members of Congress or just have it added to an anti-terror bill.
which won't activate from a USA IP address and will refuse to allow a USA IP address to be assigned to any network device even if it is activated.
Plus any smart ideas like taking a trip to Europe to activate it would be illegal circumvention.
China will make their own OS which they could because they would make all the DRM'd chips and the gov't controls the economy.
Microsoft and the US will allow it to exist, as long as it stays "over there".
Importation or use of that OS in the USA would be a felony (like 5 years or more in prison) and so would be facilitating such importation or use. Anyone convicted would also be banned from the Internet for life by the gov't
It's "Shut Down" (2 words) on the Start menu and the ctrl-all-del menu, and "Shut down" (again 2 words) when choosing the shut down type from the menu.
They are doing this for DRM.
Their Hypervisor will enforce DRM, so even linux can't override it.
They'll make it so all device drivers must be signed to go into the Hypervisor which will be the only thing with any I/O privs that aren't virtualized.
They'll make it so new hardware has closed interfaces and can only be supported by a driver at the Hypervisor level.
Any drivers in any OS level won't be able to circumvent the DRM, since they'll just THINK they are talking to hardware, but will get virtual hardware instead - and the Hypervisor won't let it read any protected content through the virtual I/O, it will blank it out (e.g. all zero bytes from the "soundcard") or something similar.
The drivers designed for the Hypervisor won't work in any higher level, since they'll need to do a crypographic handshake with the hardware to verify it is "real" and the hardware will also monitor bus activity so it'll know if any extraneous activity is occur (as it would if it was being virtualized).
Everything will have a standard interface to the O/S, so Linux will still run but be very limited and slowed down - since only Windows will be allowed "preferred" access to hardware, other O/S will be deliberately crippled.
They'll say you can still run Linux.
Hardware manufacturers won't release specs, they'll say use the Hypervisor and you can still use Linux.
You'll still need to buy Windows to use any hardware - Linux won't even boot on the raw hardware.
MS doesn't care if Linux isn't killed - the above allows them lock in - no windows - your PC won't boot - since nothing but the Hypervisor will know how to talk to the IDE card, etc.
What about manufacturers that want to support open interfaces, etc? Microsoft will deny them a key which they will need to talk to the Hypervisor - and the Hypervisor will refuse to talk to them.
Support anything other than solely the Hypervisor and you can't use the Hypervisor. No Windows - lose too many sales.
And they can say other O/S's are still allowed.
They'll just not be able to give you freedom to use your hardware as you see fit (DRM, need to pay more to get software to unlock other features on your hardware), only Windows will run well, and you need a Windows license and Hypervisor for every PC or else it is unbootable.
Somebody or something censored me:
I said 17 USC 117(a)(1)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
I get my permission in the form of .
Fair use is 17 USC 107. It might also apply, but section 117 make it a moot point when it comes to running software - section 117 says it is not infringement to make those copies.
One has a right to do something by default, a law needs to take that away (or allow a contract to take it away - if you AGREED to it).
You have the right to USE software by default. Copyright can take it away due to the RAM copy being made - but not only is thier fair use - there is an explicit provision in the law allowing copying which is an essential part of USING the software.
Copyright law contains an explicit exemption to prevent it from restricting USE or any steps necessary for such use, including copying.
Anything not prohibited is permitted is the way the US law is structured. I don't need a law saying I am allowed to do something for it to be legal.
There is no contract or law granting you the right to reply to my comment - but you what you did is legal - by default. I couldn't sue you and win even if I wanted to (let's say I had a no-reply license on my post). The First Amendment just affirms rights we already have - and (in theory) prevents any laws from being passed or enforced which would infringe that right.
US and Britain are extremely friendly with each other and even allow espionage of each other's citizens (which sidesteps laws against spying on one's own citizens).
Look up UKUSA and spying.
Also, Canada and the US share nuclear defense (NORAD).
So Canada and Britain can be considered special cases.
I don't think the FBI could go into Germany or France (ok that last one was a bad example) and not expect a fight.
Their test didn't work on my Firefox, it just opened in a whole new tab so it seems Firefox is safe, at least when configured as I have it.
I have new windows open up in tabs instead.
Perhaps my setup could be exploited a different way, I am not sure I am 100% safe, but at least the flaw can be sidestepped in some instances.
Don't allow frames to encapsulate a secure web site and unsecure web sites, and don't allow 2 secure pages with different certificates to share a frameset, ever.
Would this be enough? (I'm not sure)
How are EULAs not unilateral?
They don't grant me anything that copyright law does not.
Copyright law allows me to install and run the program, so I can fail to agree to the EULA and still have that right. Making the program run without clicking the button could mean you never agreed and the contract is unilateral anyway. A contract can't give you something you already have and use that to say it is not unilateral. "Consideration" (the legal term for what a party gets) must be something given to you that you didn't already have. I can't write a contract which requires you to pay me $50, gives you the right to live, and say you agreed by walking on the sidewalk in front of my house. EULAs try to do something equally ridiculous.
Unfortunately, some courts are ignoring the law.
Now the GPL, does give one extra rights not allowed by copyright. One need not agree to it to run GPL software (sane open source people will agree - some zealots will dispute this statement), but then one can't distribute or do anything not otherwise allowed by copyright law and fair use.
No they won't hire you, even if they are sympathetic or even otherwise supportive.
Look up "negligent hiring" and "awarded damages" on an Internet search, and see what huge sums courts have stolen from employers and given to others because the employers did not provide extra-judicial punishment (in the form of denied employment) to persons convicted of crimes.
The law requires employers to add on their own punishment to the official sentence (even after that has been served).
It even mandates current people to be fired. Look up "negligent retention".
Courts make their own law. If the gov't is going to demand someone convicted of crime "X" to be barred from job (or part of town or from the voting booth or any other right) "Y", WRITE IT INTO THE LAW MAKING "X" a crime that it can (or must) be part of the sentence and have the judge EXPLICITLY state it in the sentence.
But the rule of law is in sharp decline here.
What the heck were you thinking, doing 27 kph (almost 17 mph) over the limit on the last day of the month? :)
:|
Well you did have bad luck, getting nabbed the day after your birth day tho
FBI can't raid other countries. Our authorities invading a sovereign country would cause a war.
And after the public outcry, expense and casualties (over 1000 dead, many maimed and otherwise injured) of Iraq, I don't think we are going to go to war to defend movie studios.
I sure hope we aren't THAT far gone.
Making backups of your DVDs when you go on a road trip (kids can watch the movies rather than whine at you) so you can keep the originals safe at home so they won't get lost, damaged, stolen or scratched.
Rebel?
Heck, we can't even get the average citizen to bother to even show up at the polls.
We will reach that point eventually if people don't wake up though.
It's like boiling a frog - do it slow enough and the frog wno't try to escape.
I had also been under the impression Plextor was American, not Japanese.
2 more reasons not to buy (1: they aren't American - we have enough unemployment here - the Bay Area is in a Depression so bad they've even had to cut hours on public transit, people are leaving, etc - I really don't want more Americans out of work and 2: they are Japanese - never forget their brutal treatment of American POWs in WWII, their brutalization of the Chinese and Koreans, their collaboration with the Nazis and the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor - the worst attack on US soil until September 11, 2001 - I'd rather buy Taiwanese, e.g. Asus instead - plus they seem to be more open source friendly [Asus and the Taiwanese in general - most all Taiwanese chipsets for motherboards, lm_sensors, etc are well documented by public data sheets]).
Email cease and desists I don't believe have legal standing. I may be wrong, but the law often demands registered/certified postal mail (and for actually lawsuits, subpoenas, etc - physical service of papers).
Also, doesn't one have the right to make public any legal threat against oneself, like a C-and-D letter. Are those protected by copyright, or (likely) not, as they are functional not creative, and are a legal document (the law often favors legal documents being public) and in addition, one might want to make it public to defend themselves.
chillingeffects.org might be a good place to go.
I had bought a Plextor CD-RW a while back. It is the last Plextor product I will ever buy (*). I will convince other's to boycott also.
(*) Unless they repudiate their C-and-D letter, promise to never do that again, and release specs on all proprietary commands to the public without any license on those specs which restricts their use in free software.
I was making a joke (but one with a point).
The no-copy flag doesn't stop your fair use.
Did it even get in your way at all?
That is DRM that doesn't hurt fair use. It doesn't work either, but that is part of my point.
There is no DRM which works at stopping illegal uses while protecting legal ones.
it's now a US requirement for ISPs to implement Trusted Connections for people to get net access.
It is? When does it take effect?
If it is in effect right now, all the ISPs are breaking the law.