Remember: Jack Valenti tried his hardest to kill home video, which now represents a very large revenue stream for the film industry. He hasn't really learned from that mistake, either. The problem is that the MPAA sees its goals as "minimizing unauthorized copying", whereas the studios have a goal of "maximizing profits". Where the two collide, the MPAA fails to represent the film industry. In practice, the best way to minimize unauthorized copying is never to produce anything, but that doesn't generate any profit.
Part of the problem is that Valenti is hostile to any new technology, and his knee-jerk reaction is to try his best to stifle it. For the MPAA to serve the film industry better, the film industry needs to get rid of Valenti and replace him with someone a bit more forward-thinking.
Beowulf survived through a single manuscript. Various other parts of the manuscript are missing, and the manuscript itself narrowly escaped destruction in the Cotton library fire of 1731. As it exists now, the edges of the manuscript are scorched, and much of the manuscript is rather heavily worn. Parts of it are only legible with the aid of various transcriptions that were made at the time it was first printed in 1815.
Parchment lasts a long time; this manuscript is about a thousand years old. But it can wear out, and it was most vulnerable when there was only one copy. Out-of-print books which may exist only in the LoC are in danger of loss, and I think society has some responsibility to reduce that risk, especially when such actions can increase accessibility.
One advantage to digitizing works is that it's relatively easy to duplicate the digitized versions. We may need to refresh the copies before bitrot sets in, but I'm inclined to think we'll learn from our mistakes and get stable long term digital storage media.
The question is not so much whether a book is in print; it's whether the copyright is still in effect. Despite that, there still exists in some quarters the concept of fair use. Scanning isn't much different from photocopying, and most libraries I've been in recently have photocopiers. That doesn't mean the copying is always legal, but copying isn't always illegal either.
On closer reading, the article says that the DoS attack was on Tuesday, and I've found another article describing the attack that is dated before this story was posted.
If, as it is argued, the DMCA is so broadly worded as to outlaw the distribution of unauthorized viewing software (which exists chiefly to allow an entirely legal activity: the watching of DVD's you have legally bought and paid for), the counterargument needs to be that DMCA is unconstitutionally vague.
I'm going to copyright something written in English (say, for example, this post). Then I'm going to sue under the DMCA all the English teachers out there for telling people how to evade the access protection mechanism (the English language) of my copyrighted material. I fail to see how this case is in any meaningful way different.
The MPAA and DVD CCA are arguing that it is illegal under DMCA and trade secret laws to redistribute DeCSS. I haven't yet heard any argument that it's illegal to have it. Notice the distinction. Lots of people having the source undermines the notion that CSS is a trade secret deserving of protection, so there's some good (and little risk) in saying that you have the DeCSS source. Then again, the DVD CCA lawyers are doing an admirable job of screwing it up and letting people have it. If I understand it correctly, it was legal until the records were sealed to distribute the exhibit that had the source code. In honesty, this all helps us only in the DVD CCA (California state) case, which has to do with trade secrets. It does little to undermine the MPAA's case (Federal, tried in New York, apparently based on DMCA). It still feels good, though.
Good, then Disney can only screw him over in voice-overs, commentary, biased questions, etc. I don't expect Disney to let ABC air a piece that is favorable to Jon.
Nightmare scenario: an ABC/Disney/MPAA reporter is going to ask questions, an ABC/Disney/MPAA translater will translate them into Norwegian, Jon answers the questions, and an ABC/Disney/MPAA translator translates the answers into English for the benefit of the audience. This gives the MPAA two opportunities to skew the translation in an attempt to incriminate him. Hopefully, he speaks English; otherwise he should get his own translator. Personally I think he should nix the interview. We can expect some of the media (those owned by or owing favors to the major studios, which is pretty much all of American television) to be strongly biased against us on this. Expect dirty tricks by the MPAA.
"Bush", vulgar term for the female pubic region: pornographic, block it. "Gore", vulgar term for visceral matter released by serious injury: violence, block it. "Bradley": inoffensive, let it through. "McCain": inoffensive, let it through.
"We need to shield young children from the trauma of exposure to such things as the naked female breast. If a young child sees a bare breast, that child will be scarred for life."
What a messed-up country this is when such a large share of the electorate seems to believe such nonsense. I'm surprised more people don't get locked up for breastfeeding and diaper changing.
IANAL. It's not about patents or copyright. It's about the validity of a license term that forbids reverse engineering, which may be considered fair use by some. Licenses fall under contract law, which certainly varies from place to place, and the definition of fair use may also vary from place to place. I don't think a California state judge is qualified to rule on the validity of terms of a contract in Norway, and if it's presented in those terms, I'm inclined to think the judge will agree. If a Norwegian court of law had decided that the license was violated, that might be admissible.
How to attract a whole bunch of people to your corporate web site:
1) Block Linux users, calling them "garbage". 2) Tell Slashdot you've done this. 3) Give the Slashdot readers time to stew. 4) Stop blocking Linux users. 5) Let Slashdot know of the change.
If the case depends upon an alleged violation of the Xing license, that raises another question: is a California state judge qualified to rule on the validity of the Xing license in Norway?
My understanding is that Asimov was reacting to the earlier tradition of the golem, Frankenstein's monster, etc. in which all such creations turn on their creators. He purposefully made it impossible for his robots to do that because that plot had become cliched. Of course, once Asimov had written enough about them, the Three Laws became their own cliche, but that's obviously not how they started.
Someday the boomers are going to retire and start cashing in their 401(k)'s. That's the time to worry about the bottom falling out of the market. Right now they're furiously saving for retirement. Is it any wonder that stock prices are going up (independent of the current Linux fad)?
Slashdot Mirror
Why, the nerve of those people at Apple! To imagine that Pixar would stand for such a flagrant abuse of their intellectual property!
;-)
He's always been good at grandstanding. I still assert that the film industry has succeeded despite his best efforts, not because of them.
Remember: Jack Valenti tried his hardest to kill home video, which now represents a very large revenue stream for the film industry. He hasn't really learned from that mistake, either. The problem is that the MPAA sees its goals as "minimizing unauthorized copying", whereas the studios have a goal of "maximizing profits". Where the two collide, the MPAA fails to represent the film industry. In practice, the best way to minimize unauthorized copying is never to produce anything, but that doesn't generate any profit.
Part of the problem is that Valenti is hostile to any new technology, and his knee-jerk reaction is to try his best to stifle it. For the MPAA to serve the film industry better, the film industry needs to get rid of Valenti and replace him with someone a bit more forward-thinking.
Beowulf survived through a single manuscript. Various other parts of the manuscript are missing, and the manuscript itself narrowly escaped destruction in the Cotton library fire of 1731. As it exists now, the edges of the manuscript are scorched, and much of the manuscript is rather heavily worn. Parts of it are only legible with the aid of various transcriptions that were made at the time it was first printed in 1815.
Parchment lasts a long time; this manuscript is about a thousand years old. But it can wear out, and it was most vulnerable when there was only one copy. Out-of-print books which may exist only in the LoC are in danger of loss, and I think society has some responsibility to reduce that risk, especially when such actions can increase accessibility.
One advantage to digitizing works is that it's relatively easy to duplicate the digitized versions. We may need to refresh the copies before bitrot sets in, but I'm inclined to think we'll learn from our mistakes and get stable long term digital storage media.
The question is not so much whether a book is in print; it's whether the copyright is still in effect. Despite that, there still exists in some quarters the concept of fair use. Scanning isn't much different from photocopying, and most libraries I've been in recently have photocopiers. That doesn't mean the copying is always legal, but copying isn't always illegal either.
On closer reading, the article says that the DoS attack was on Tuesday, and I've found another article describing the attack that is dated before this story was posted.
At The Register. They claim the attack was on Tuesday, but I'm not sure it's coincidence.
There are ample examples of obfuscated literature, mostly from the 20th century, with James Joyce being one of the better known practitioners.
If, as it is argued, the DMCA is so broadly worded as to outlaw the distribution of unauthorized viewing software (which exists chiefly to allow an entirely legal activity: the watching of DVD's you have legally bought and paid for), the counterargument needs to be that DMCA is unconstitutionally vague.
I'm going to copyright something written in English (say, for example, this post). Then I'm going to sue under the DMCA all the English teachers out there for telling people how to evade the access protection mechanism (the English language) of my copyrighted material. I fail to see how this case is in any meaningful way different.
If you check his biographical info on the mpaa.org web site, it says he was in the motorcade in Dallas that day.
Yes, I have the DeCSS source code. Neener-neener.
Good, then Disney can only screw him over in voice-overs, commentary, biased questions, etc. I don't expect Disney to let ABC air a piece that is favorable to Jon.
Nightmare scenario: an ABC/Disney/MPAA reporter is going to ask questions, an ABC/Disney/MPAA translater will translate them into Norwegian, Jon answers the questions, and an ABC/Disney/MPAA translator translates the answers into English for the benefit of the audience. This gives the MPAA two opportunities to skew the translation in an attempt to incriminate him. Hopefully, he speaks English; otherwise he should get his own translator. Personally I think he should nix the interview. We can expect some of the media (those owned by or owing favors to the major studios, which is pretty much all of American television) to be strongly biased against us on this. Expect dirty tricks by the MPAA.
"Bush", vulgar term for the female pubic region: pornographic, block it.
"Gore", vulgar term for visceral matter released by serious injury: violence, block it.
"Bradley": inoffensive, let it through.
"McCain": inoffensive, let it through.
It blocks access to sites related to pornography (such as those that show Bush) and violence (such as those that show Gore).
"We need to shield young children from the trauma of exposure to such things as the naked female breast. If a young child sees a bare breast, that child will be scarred for life."
What a messed-up country this is when such a large share of the electorate seems to believe such nonsense. I'm surprised more people don't get locked up for breastfeeding and diaper changing.
I'm picturing the antics of an animated lizard and its friends (esr springs to mind) in their weekly endeavor to put a pie in Bill Gates' face.
"Good" has connotations that are inaccurate in this context. "Good lawyers" do pro bono work for EFF. :-)
IANAL. It's not about patents or copyright. It's about the validity of a license term that forbids reverse engineering, which may be considered fair use by some. Licenses fall under contract law, which certainly varies from place to place, and the definition of fair use may also vary from place to place. I don't think a California state judge is qualified to rule on the validity of terms of a contract in Norway, and if it's presented in those terms, I'm inclined to think the judge will agree. If a Norwegian court of law had decided that the license was violated, that might be admissible.
How to attract a whole bunch of people to your corporate web site:
;-)
1) Block Linux users, calling them "garbage".
2) Tell Slashdot you've done this.
3) Give the Slashdot readers time to stew.
4) Stop blocking Linux users.
5) Let Slashdot know of the change.
Wow! Look at all those hits!
If the case depends upon an alleged violation of the Xing license, that raises another question: is a California state judge qualified to rule on the validity of the Xing license in Norway?
Summary: the patent office is under pressure to rubber stamp just about any application they receive, and they seldom fail in this task.
My understanding is that Asimov was reacting to the earlier tradition of the golem, Frankenstein's monster, etc. in which all such creations turn on their creators. He purposefully made it impossible for his robots to do that because that plot had become cliched. Of course, once Asimov had written enough about them, the Three Laws became their own cliche, but that's obviously not how they started.
Techno-trousers, ex-NASA. Perfect for walkies!
Someday the boomers are going to retire and start cashing in their 401(k)'s. That's the time to worry about the bottom falling out of the market. Right now they're furiously saving for retirement. Is it any wonder that stock prices are going up (independent of the current Linux fad)?