... and throw the brakes on the biggest economic boom we've had in years (powered by those tech companies, which will suffer because of the UCITA).
Umm.... Have you taken a look at the stock market lately? Looks like the economic boom has had the brakes put on it already..
--
Sarcasm is a wonderful thing.
Disregarding the fact of religion having trade secrets, how can you have copyrighted trade secrets?
I thought, by the very act of copyright'ing something, you brought it into the public eye.
Otherwise, why bother copyrighting it?
What's funny is that I just wrote to a congress-man (Orrin Hatch) about an idea regarding Fair Use.
The crux of it went like this:
Since Fair Use is laid out in the US Code, people know what people have a right to do with a work.
However, there's no companion legislation saying that the people MUST have the right to be able to do that. I pointed out that without that little bit, you get the mess we're in now, where in people have all sorts of rights to take sections and criticize etc., but that there are artificially induced technical limitations that prevent them from doing so.
Has anyone else had this thought? Has anyone else voiced this to their Congress Critters?
Right...
Living less than a mile away from Intel's Chandler plants (And having the elephant that lives in the apartment above me working there, but that's a different story), I can say that it isn't electricity here, it's water.
It seems that most desirable (To Intel) places have some sort of problem, whether it be electricity, water, what have you.
And what happens when I have a machine I use strictly for development, and that's my business.. I'm not going to want my development machine to be mucked about with, either through viruses, DDOS attacks, or whatever else, so I have no communications devices whatsoever (I burn my work to CD). I'm screwed, is what M$ is telling me?!?
What happens to those people who use SCSI hard drives in their home machines?
If this is an ATA/IDE spec only, are those people who use SCSI hard drives out of luck if they use one of the programs that would like to use the copy protection/control "features" (I could see downloaded audio, etc. being likely candidates for this scenario)
By extension, this also applies to ANY Open Source project: Open Source makes likeable mutts instead of blue bloods.
I don't really see where that analogy was drawn from... The only place it mentioned Open Source was the first sentance, and that was to describe LinuxWorld, not Linux.
If you're going to draw that kind of conclusion, it should read something more like:
By extension, this also applies to ANY Unix project: Unix makes likeable mutts instead of blue bloods."
Reason for that is that he went on and on about Linux the OS, not Linux the model of OS ideals. But, he also took that argument down, in the bit about Solaris, and how it's great at high-availability, but not a game machine at all..
"If we are to ensure public safety and responsible computer use, then government, industry and the public must all work together," said Reno
I thought we lived in a democracy in the US, that the government was an extension of the people/public.. Good to know that a government employee is finally having the guts to stand up and say what the public has known for a while, that government is seperate from the people.
The district court granted a permanent injunction against (1) posting on any Internet site, or in any other way manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS or any other technology primarily designed to circumvent CSS, and (2) linking any Internet web site, either directly or through a series of links, to any other Internet web site containing DeCSS.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the injunction against 2600 only? They seem to be saying in this letter that the injunction was against all sites everywhere. Wouldn't they have to go through the same legal proceedings for every site?
"If you know there exists a use of a program which is infringing on intellectual property, how can you ignore it? Princeton is choosing to overlook a problem that they know exists," he said. "Its response seemed like a summary without a discussion of what is right and what is wrong." -- Howard King, Metallica/Dre's lawyer
Note the "... a use of a program". He didn't say "the use". So, we can assume that there exist other, non-infringing uses of the program. Doesn't that kind of hold up the test for Fair Use? Granted, the non-infringing uses have to be proved significant (I believe that's the wording), but I wonder how hard that can be.
I know that the current atmosphere in America is touchy-feely, but still... These people entered into the H1-B visa program knowing full well it was a temporary thing.
Now the time is up, and people are whining/complaining that it's unfair, when these people knew what the deal was, and that they couldn't count on being allowed to stay.
I refuse to feel sorry for these people, who knew what they were getting into.
The MSNBC piece is full of implied's, suppose's, and the like. No where in the article does it say anything like "The Congress told these people they could stay".. Instead it says
"The time limit was left in place, but made to seem irrelevant. Applicants no longer had to prove they intended to return home, and the visa was dubbed "transitional," implying: next stop, green card."
So, if these people believed something that wasn't in writing, they needed more education into America. As anyone knows, you can't cound on anything, unless it's in writing, and sometimes not even then.
It's not my fault.
I didn't vote for the FCC.
Hell, I wasn't able to vote until the mid 90's.. And most of the cockups in our government were started long before that. Long before most people could vote, since lobbyists and lawyers have been around for years and years.
Maybe if we got rid of lobbyists, the government wouldn't be tempted by all that money.. Then again, what do I know, I'm only an American Citizen.
The current sharing model that Napster uses *is* illegal.
Wow, thank you for telling us that sharing files is illegal. Now, please stop using this website, as the server is sharing it's html, gif, and other types of files with you. After all, you searched for this story because you clicked on the link.
See the problem with your statement? If a sharing model is illegal, then many, MANY things the Internet is used for (And has been used for) are illegal.
Gopher was illegal, because you could search for a document, and then download it.
Search Engines are illegal, because you could search for a document, and then download it.
What the bruhaha about Napster is, is that it facilitates the downloading of copyrighted mp3's. (Just facts, no opinion being stated here)
Then again, K-Mart facilitates the murder of Innocent Little Baby's (tm) by selling guns. But, do we hear all the frightened mothers out there filing lawsuit after lawsuit against K-Mart? I don't hear them, do you?
*sigh*
Who else wants a revolution, and overthrow the current US Government? The Republicrats need a swift kick in the pants.
The problem is not whether Joe Blow, Middle American, would get pissed off or not (It's pretty much a given he would)... The problem is making sure Joe Blow knows about it.
How many people outside of Slashdot know about this petition? It's terribly close to the deadline, and I know I haven't seen anything on the nightly news about it. Does anyone know the extent to which the cable companies might already have buckled to this? Yes, it's a blatant conspiracy theory, but still.. You gotta wonder how cozy they are.
It is specifically stated in the EULA that every user has to "agree" too that you not reverse engineer any part of the application or its communication protocol for the purposes of cheating or creating a server emulator or anything along those lines.
What if you didn't buy the software?
What if your brother bought the software, uses it legally (Pays the fees, etc.), but you, being the Evil Hacker Brother (tm) that you are, decide to sniff his packets going through the house network and out the cable modem/dsl line? No one is violating an EULA (Unless it says you must not let anyone sniff any packets between your machine and the Verant servers).
As far as I know, watching a program in action (For instance, watching over your brother's shoulder) does not bind you to its EULA (IANAL of course). Therefore, you can watch the program as your brother plays it, check your own packet sniffer, and figure it out that way.
Did anyone notice this line from the Napster legal brief?
Napster also has, since the District Court's May 5 ruling, strengthened its method of terminating user accounts. It now disables the user name and password and places a code on the user's computer to prevent further use of that computer to access Napster under any account name.
- Pages 56 and 57
A code placed on my computer? Do they ask about doing that? I'd doubt it.
I would assume the MPAA would be upset by this, but what could they do? I don't remmeber any sort of licensing agreement when I bought my DVD player, only the standard "If you modify this equipment, you void your warranty" sort of statement.
Anyone with a recent DVD player purchase care to look through their packaging, and see if they have anything that prohibits modifying on pain of legal consequences, rather than just voiding your warranty?
According to the judge, section 1201(a)(2) prohitibts "... creating and making available certain technologies . . . developed or advertised to defeat technological protections against unauthorized access to a work."
He also says that he's not convinced about DeCSS being about Linux, as it was written for Windows.
Ergo, Windows was just advertised to defeat a technological measure, in conjunction with DeCSS!
Woohoo!!!:)
In college, I took a couple of animation courses, taught in Open Inventor. Basically, it's a handy dandy interface into OpenGL. We didn't get down and dirty with it, as it was only beginning courses (We used the OI primitives and the like).
The big thing it adds (That's easier to understand than OpenGL's standard) is an object graph.
Assume you have an arm attached to a body. You want to reach the arm out. You could rotate the shoulder, and the rest of the arm would rotate, as it would be down the object graph from the shoulder. You could add a second rotation onto the elbow, and then on down to the hand etc.
Yes, you can do this with OpenGL, but the way OI does it is a bit easier to understand. Plus, you had a "preview" program (Can't remember what it's called) where you can basically build your models out of OI widgits, and then get the text, so you know what the coordinates of everything are, etc. One of the handiest things in the world, IMO.
First off, I am not a lawyer (as it seems is the case with the rest of SlashDot:)).
Anyways, is the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA actually needed? I have read a lot of people saying that it's to protect copyright holders etc.
However, what does it provide that existing laws did not?
"Before" (IE Pre-DMCA), I would have assumed that companies could have sued the maker of some software program that bypassed their encryption under contributaory reasons. IE, this person contributed to the rampant copying of our material. It's done with the warez'ers out there, when people in the groups get arrested (I know, not a great example). They get arrested for contributing/making available pirated material (I don't know the actual charges, but along those lines).
Whether or not the movies were encrypted on the DVD disks, it still is illegal to download a movie you don't own. Is the DMCA just another way to make it more of a loss for people to do, by more directly threatning the people who provide such tools, as opposed to the non-direct threats "before"?
Slashdot Mirror
... and throw the brakes on the biggest economic boom we've had in years (powered by those tech companies, which will suffer because of the UCITA).
Umm.... Have you taken a look at the stock market lately? Looks like the economic boom has had the brakes put on it already.. -- Sarcasm is a wonderful thing.
Disregarding the fact of religion having trade secrets, how can you have copyrighted trade secrets? I thought, by the very act of copyright'ing something, you brought it into the public eye. Otherwise, why bother copyrighting it?
What's funny is that I just wrote to a congress-man (Orrin Hatch) about an idea regarding Fair Use.
The crux of it went like this:
Since Fair Use is laid out in the US Code, people know what people have a right to do with a work. However, there's no companion legislation saying that the people MUST have the right to be able to do that. I pointed out that without that little bit, you get the mess we're in now, where in people have all sorts of rights to take sections and criticize etc., but that there are artificially induced technical limitations that prevent them from doing so.
Has anyone else had this thought? Has anyone else voiced this to their Congress Critters?
Right...
Living less than a mile away from Intel's Chandler plants (And having the elephant that lives in the apartment above me working there, but that's a different story), I can say that it isn't electricity here, it's water.
It seems that most desirable (To Intel) places have some sort of problem, whether it be electricity, water, what have you.
And what happens when I have a machine I use strictly for development, and that's my business.. I'm not going to want my development machine to be mucked about with, either through viruses, DDOS attacks, or whatever else, so I have no communications devices whatsoever (I burn my work to CD). I'm screwed, is what M$ is telling me?!?
What happens to those people who use SCSI hard drives in their home machines?
If this is an ATA/IDE spec only, are those people who use SCSI hard drives out of luck if they use one of the programs that would like to use the copy protection/control "features" (I could see downloaded audio, etc. being likely candidates for this scenario)
I don't really see where that analogy was drawn from... The only place it mentioned Open Source was the first sentance, and that was to describe LinuxWorld, not Linux.
If you're going to draw that kind of conclusion, it should read something more like:
Reason for that is that he went on and on about Linux the OS, not Linux the model of OS ideals. But, he also took that argument down, in the bit about Solaris, and how it's great at high-availability, but not a game machine at all..
You forget... They can't pay a machine to say what they want.
If my mind takes that long to purge it's inbox, I'm getting too much mail.
This must explain why I dream about sex so much... I haven't gotten any in so long, that it's moved to my long-term memory, instead of my short-term.
No, those people don't matter..
What you really need to ask is:
What would Brian Boitano do?
From the SF article:
"If we are to ensure public safety and responsible computer use, then government, industry and the public must all work together," said Reno
I thought we lived in a democracy in the US, that the government was an extension of the people/public.. Good to know that a government employee is finally having the guts to stand up and say what the public has known for a while, that government is seperate from the people.
The district court granted a permanent injunction against (1) posting on any Internet site, or in any other way manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS or any other technology primarily designed to circumvent CSS, and (2) linking any Internet web site, either directly or through a series of links, to any other Internet web site containing DeCSS.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the injunction against 2600 only? They seem to be saying in this letter that the injunction was against all sites everywhere. Wouldn't they have to go through the same legal proceedings for every site?
From the Princeton article:
"If you know there exists a use of a program which is infringing on intellectual property, how can you ignore it? Princeton is choosing to overlook a problem that they know exists," he said. "Its response seemed like a summary without a discussion of what is right and what is wrong." -- Howard King, Metallica/Dre's lawyer
Note the "... a use of a program". He didn't say "the use". So, we can assume that there exist other, non-infringing uses of the program. Doesn't that kind of hold up the test for Fair Use? Granted, the non-infringing uses have to be proved significant (I believe that's the wording), but I wonder how hard that can be.
Disclaimer: IANAL
I know that the current atmosphere in America is touchy-feely, but still... These people entered into the H1-B visa program knowing full well it was a temporary thing.
Now the time is up, and people are whining/complaining that it's unfair, when these people knew what the deal was, and that they couldn't count on being allowed to stay. I refuse to feel sorry for these people, who knew what they were getting into.
The MSNBC piece is full of implied's, suppose's, and the like. No where in the article does it say anything like "The Congress told these people they could stay".. Instead it says
"The time limit was left in place, but made to seem irrelevant. Applicants no longer had to prove they intended to return home, and the visa was dubbed "transitional," implying: next stop, green card."
So, if these people believed something that wasn't in writing, they needed more education into America. As anyone knows, you can't cound on anything, unless it's in writing, and sometimes not even then.
IMHO,It's our fault.
It's not my fault.
I didn't vote for the FCC.
Hell, I wasn't able to vote until the mid 90's.. And most of the cockups in our government were started long before that. Long before most people could vote, since lobbyists and lawyers have been around for years and years.
Maybe if we got rid of lobbyists, the government wouldn't be tempted by all that money.. Then again, what do I know, I'm only an American Citizen.
The current sharing model that Napster uses *is* illegal.
Wow, thank you for telling us that sharing files is illegal. Now, please stop using this website, as the server is sharing it's html, gif, and other types of files with you. After all, you searched for this story because you clicked on the link.
See the problem with your statement? If a sharing model is illegal, then many, MANY things the Internet is used for (And has been used for) are illegal.
Gopher was illegal, because you could search for a document, and then download it.
Search Engines are illegal, because you could search for a document, and then download it.
What the bruhaha about Napster is, is that it facilitates the downloading of copyrighted mp3's. (Just facts, no opinion being stated here) Then again, K-Mart facilitates the murder of Innocent Little Baby's (tm) by selling guns. But, do we hear all the frightened mothers out there filing lawsuit after lawsuit against K-Mart? I don't hear them, do you?
*sigh*
Who else wants a revolution, and overthrow the current US Government? The Republicrats need a swift kick in the pants.
The problem is not whether Joe Blow, Middle American, would get pissed off or not (It's pretty much a given he would)... The problem is making sure Joe Blow knows about it.
How many people outside of Slashdot know about this petition? It's terribly close to the deadline, and I know I haven't seen anything on the nightly news about it. Does anyone know the extent to which the cable companies might already have buckled to this? Yes, it's a blatant conspiracy theory, but still.. You gotta wonder how cozy they are.
It is specifically stated in the EULA that every user has to "agree" too that you not reverse engineer any part of the application or its communication protocol for the purposes of cheating or creating a server emulator or anything along those lines.
What if you didn't buy the software? What if your brother bought the software, uses it legally (Pays the fees, etc.), but you, being the Evil Hacker Brother (tm) that you are, decide to sniff his packets going through the house network and out the cable modem/dsl line? No one is violating an EULA (Unless it says you must not let anyone sniff any packets between your machine and the Verant servers). As far as I know, watching a program in action (For instance, watching over your brother's shoulder) does not bind you to its EULA (IANAL of course). Therefore, you can watch the program as your brother plays it, check your own packet sniffer, and figure it out that way.
Did anyone notice this line from the Napster legal brief?
Napster also has, since the District Court's May 5 ruling, strengthened its method of terminating user accounts. It now disables the user name and password and places a code on the user's computer to prevent further use of that computer to access Napster under any account name.
- Pages 56 and 57
A code placed on my computer? Do they ask about doing that? I'd doubt it.
I would assume the MPAA would be upset by this, but what could they do? I don't remmeber any sort of licensing agreement when I bought my DVD player, only the standard "If you modify this equipment, you void your warranty" sort of statement.
Anyone with a recent DVD player purchase care to look through their packaging, and see if they have anything that prohibits modifying on pain of legal consequences, rather than just voiding your warranty?
According to the judge, section 1201(a)(2) prohitibts "... creating and making available certain technologies . . . developed or advertised to defeat technological protections against unauthorized access to a work." He also says that he's not convinced about DeCSS being about Linux, as it was written for Windows. :)
Ergo, Windows was just advertised to defeat a technological measure, in conjunction with DeCSS!
Woohoo!!!
PS - I am not a lawyer, obviously.
In college, I took a couple of animation courses, taught in Open Inventor. Basically, it's a handy dandy interface into OpenGL. We didn't get down and dirty with it, as it was only beginning courses (We used the OI primitives and the like). The big thing it adds (That's easier to understand than OpenGL's standard) is an object graph.
Assume you have an arm attached to a body. You want to reach the arm out. You could rotate the shoulder, and the rest of the arm would rotate, as it would be down the object graph from the shoulder. You could add a second rotation onto the elbow, and then on down to the hand etc. Yes, you can do this with OpenGL, but the way OI does it is a bit easier to understand.
Plus, you had a "preview" program (Can't remember what it's called) where you can basically build your models out of OI widgits, and then get the text, so you know what the coordinates of everything are, etc. One of the handiest things in the world, IMO.
First off, I am not a lawyer (as it seems is the case with the rest of SlashDot :)).
Anyways, is the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA actually needed? I have read a lot of people saying that it's to protect copyright holders etc.
However, what does it provide that existing laws did not?
"Before" (IE Pre-DMCA), I would have assumed that companies could have sued the maker of some software program that bypassed their encryption under contributaory reasons. IE, this person contributed to the rampant copying of our material. It's done with the warez'ers out there, when people in the groups get arrested (I know, not a great example). They get arrested for contributing/making available pirated material (I don't know the actual charges, but along those lines).
Whether or not the movies were encrypted on the DVD disks, it still is illegal to download a movie you don't own. Is the DMCA just another way to make it more of a loss for people to do, by more directly threatning the people who provide such tools, as opposed to the non-direct threats "before"?
DeCSS -- If kids from Norway can do it, why can't Americans? :)