The DMCA includes provisions which deal with technological copy protection schemes.
Will you please read the DMCA and show me where it mentions copy? It does not. It certainly doesn't mention it within the part of the DMCA they're using to sue. The word used is `access' and not `copy'
It really has nothing to do with copying, it has only to do with accessing. You are not allowed, by the DMCA, to freely access DVDs.
Do you think the MPAA really cares if you buy their products with the intention of watching them on Linux vs. Windows? Of course not. They get their cut either way.
Yes, I really do think the MPAA really cares if you buy their products with the intention of watching them on Linux, because
the Linux reader can read DVDs bought more cheaply from a different country,
the CSS owners charge a lot of money for a license to use their crypto.
Their interest is to extend the monopoly rights of copyright holders to prevent people being able to choose where they buy their DVDs, and what they choose to use to play them.
While Valenti's article may not be actionable libel, some of the letters of demand his organisation has sent to ISPs almost certainly are.
In those letters, the MPAA falsely states that the targetted individual has exhorted others to, or has offered him/herself to pirate copyright works. These false statements have the effect of defaming the target.
The stated intent of the letters was to have internet access provided by the adressee ISPs to the targets removed, which would likely cause them some real assessable commercial damage.
So, in summary (and depending upon the jurisdiction), I would say Valenti's organisation will have some nice civil suits heading their way.
[ObAbuse: Libel? Libel? I'll give you libel, you regurgitated lab-rat choad!]
This is not about pirating. The DMCA under which the MPAA is taking action says nothing about piracy. The only reason piracy's mentioned at all is to inflame the public, and to get that injunction. Don't be fooled.
This is about extending the rights of copyright owners to prevent fair-use, and expecting the government to pay the costs of enforcement.
I think it's important to a newspaper that it not reprint outright lies, and to that end, I've sent this to the LATimes, as follows.
May it do some good. If you also comment, you really should keep it polite.
To: letters@latimes.com
Subject: Misleading Misstatement in your paper.
Dear Editor,
In the article http://www.calendarlive.com/calendarlive/movies/20 000130/t000009450.html, Jack Valenti misleadingly misquotes the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, falsely implying that it says something which in fact it does not.
The actual text is `technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.', and not `technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner.'
This distinction is crucial, because Mr Valenti seeks much more than the rights of a copyright owner: total control over the means by which a copyright work is read, even when the act of reading is itself fair use, even when the reader (your readers!) have paid for the right to access the work.
As the effect of this misstatement is to mislead your readers, I recommend you (and they) carefully check Mr Valenti's words against the publically available facts, starting with the Act in question.
Mr Valenti's misinterpretations owe more to the private interests he represents than to any desire to inform your readership of the real issues. I hope you agree that your readers are owed better than this.
Interestingly enough, AltaVista search for DeCSS yields at least one source page reference.
I'm trying to communicate this fact to the MPAA, so they can try to get another injunction (this time against someone with competent counsel,) but their web site seems to be down.
It's the subtle exclusionary behaviors that are the real problem.
Problem? For whom is it a problem? Why, exactly, should I care?
Suppose my speech behavior does not include you, putatively because you are (presumably) a woman. Suppose I do not write, think, or act in a manner which makes you comfortable. Am I obliged to make you comfortable, and to include you in my social context? I really don't think so.
It is likely true that all of these "Natalie Portman" posts make it a less comfortable place for women
Again, so what? I suggest you either don't go there, or adapt. Learn to enjoy pouring hot grits down your pants, or just don't do it, but please don't demand that I care either way.
Why on earth should anyone posting give any thought to your egocentric puling victimhood?
You're free! Build your own space: make it wimmin friendly, exclude me and have fun doing it, but if I prefer to inhabit a harder edged space please don't expect me to scatter conversational chintz cushions around just to soften it up to your tastes.
Violent countries are encouraged to send delegates to the WTO, to better arrange the export of products of child labour, to brutalize, kill and maim their populations in the service of power and profits.
If violence was really unacceptable to the WTO, the US delegates would be standing five blocks back alongside the protesters they've brutalized.
Trade always benefits people? Like the trade in buffalo hides benefited the plains indians?
Benefited them to the point of extinction, as was its aim. It was economic warfare, and the WTO helps corporations prosecute economic warfare right now.
I never thought the US population would support the third world until it became part of it.
Microsoft does not `share' keys with government agencies. Perhaps it `escrows' them with government agencies, though. Perhaps it's even a requirement of them getting NSA approval for the crypto system. Who could argue that escrowing a key with NSA wasn't secure offsite storage?
One serious problem the Australian government faced was that many `porn' sites are password protected, and perhaps the owners of those sites would not like to give Australian government agencies the right to access their sites so they can be prohibited.
So it may be necessary to hack the sites, or to fraudulently gain access to their copyrighted material, which contravenes Crimes Act Sect 76 (and elsewhere), which act provides for a jail sentence.
What to do? It's simple: suspend the operation of all Australian criminal law as it applies to the operation of the censorship act. So that's what they did, in Part 8 - Protection from civil and criminal proceedings. What does `Draconian' mean anyway?
What does this legislative provision actually mean? Well, for example, since you might have a password or cryptographic key deemed reasonably necessary to permit the ABA to obtain information, the ABA can hire a consultant to obtain the password by torturing you. Giving Spooks the right to hack.
What is also interesting, in this regard, is the suppressed content of the Australian Government's Walsh Report " Review of Policy relating to Encryption Technologies." The government tried to suppress its contents, including this paragraph, among others which demonstrate the same intent:
1.2.28 The Crimes Act 1914 should be amended to permit the AFP, NCA and ASIO to 'hack' into a nominated computer system to secure access to that system or evidence of an electronic attack on a computer system. (paragraphs 6.2.3; 6.2.22 refer)
People have been wondering why the Australian government would bother trying to legislate to turn back the tide of internet content and have laughed at their ineptitude in writing the legislation. I suggest that the censorship legislation is merely a Trojan horse as cover for the kinds of covert operations spooks have been begging for.
This Trojan horse should be seen in the context of such legislation as NSW Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997 which enables police forces to break the law in order to catch criminals, after a case was lost on appeal to the High Court because the court exercised a judicial discretion to exclude evidence in a case where a criminal offence has been procured by illegal conduct on the part of police.
What if (after the DOJ trials are over) MicroSoft wanted to take over Linux? How would it do it?
It might well buy the private corporation most publicly associated with Linux. RedHat is perfectly placed to be bought by MS. MS's even got a close partner inside already. Who knows, perhaps they're even influencing them by proxy (RedHat Certified Engineer, hmmm?)
MS might then throw some of its unemployed NT programmers onto the kernel project to give it that real Windows BSoD look, might use the company to push divergent kernel versions to divert energy from the main community, special Intel-only features, perhaps? WinModem driver?
In the end, what would it profit MS to do this? How could they make their bucks?
Well, if we look at history (IBM's monopoly preservation tactics) when one part of the monopoly is undercut, you start giving it away, and making your profit from another part. So I think you could expect to see people paying more for Word, Excel and such - they're how MS established its hegemony in the first place. I think, also, there could be more profit in hardware (at least that's how IBM used to play the game, switching from O/S to H/W profits.)
The best defense against this seems to me to be vigilance, yes, but also plurality.
It's great to see RedHat raising Linux awareness, putting on a suit and tackling the big end of town. When they've tasted the system, some will hopefully move to where the real system is (shameless Debian plug.)
In the interests of that plurality, I think it'd be really nice if RedHat gave some of its voting stock to the FSF. That would be fair, and it would enable them to act in the public interest before they list, which eventuality would make it illegal to do so in some situations where the public and shareholders' interests diverge.
Slashdot Mirror
Will you please read the DMCA and show me where it mentions copy? It does not. It certainly doesn't mention it within the part of the DMCA they're using to sue. The word used is `access' and not `copy'
It really has nothing to do with copying, it has only to do with accessing. You are not allowed, by the DMCA, to freely access DVDs.
Do you think the MPAA really cares if you buy their products with the intention of watching them on Linux vs. Windows? Of course not. They get their cut either way.
Yes, I really do think the MPAA really cares if you buy their products with the intention of watching them on Linux, because
Their interest is to extend the monopoly rights of copyright holders to prevent people being able to choose where they buy their DVDs, and what they choose to use to play them.
While Valenti's article may not be actionable libel, some of the letters of demand his organisation has sent to ISPs almost certainly are.
In those letters, the MPAA falsely states that the targetted individual has exhorted others to, or has offered him/herself to pirate copyright works. These false statements have the effect of defaming the target.
The stated intent of the letters was to have internet access provided by the adressee ISPs to the targets removed, which would likely cause them some real assessable commercial damage.
So, in summary (and depending upon the jurisdiction), I would say Valenti's organisation will have some nice civil suits heading their way.
[ObAbuse: Libel? Libel? I'll give you libel, you regurgitated lab-rat choad!]
This is not about pirating. The DMCA under which the MPAA is taking action says nothing about piracy. The only reason piracy's mentioned at all is to inflame the public, and to get that injunction. Don't be fooled.
This is about extending the rights of copyright owners to prevent fair-use, and expecting the government to pay the costs of enforcement.
It's a bad law.
May it do some good. If you also comment, you really should keep it polite.
To: letters@latimes.com
Subject: Misleading Misstatement in your paper.
Dear Editor,
In the article http://www.calendarlive.com/calendarlive/movies/20 000130/t000009450.html, Jack Valenti misleadingly misquotes the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, falsely implying that it says something which in fact it does not.
The actual text is `technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.', and not `technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner.'
This distinction is crucial, because Mr Valenti seeks much more than the rights of a copyright owner: total control over the means by which a copyright work is read, even when the act of reading is itself fair use, even when the reader (your readers!) have paid for the right to access the work.
As the effect of this misstatement is to mislead your readers, I recommend you (and they) carefully check Mr Valenti's words against the publically available facts, starting with the Act in question.
Mr Valenti's misinterpretations owe more to the private interests he represents than to any desire to inform your readership of the real issues. I hope you agree that your readers are owed better than this.
Yours Faithfully,
Interestingly enough, AltaVista search for DeCSS yields at least one source page reference.
I'm trying to communicate this fact to the MPAA, so they can try to get another injunction (this time against someone with competent counsel,) but their web site seems to be down.
Can't imagine why.
It's the subtle exclusionary behaviors that are the real problem.
Problem? For whom is it a problem? Why, exactly, should I care?
Suppose my speech behavior does not include you, putatively because you are (presumably) a woman. Suppose I do not write, think, or act in a manner which makes you comfortable. Am I obliged to make you comfortable, and to include you in my social context? I really don't think so.
It is likely true that all of these "Natalie Portman" posts make it a less comfortable place for women
Again, so what? I suggest you either don't go there, or adapt. Learn to enjoy pouring hot grits down your pants, or just don't do it, but please don't demand that I care either way.
Why on earth should anyone posting give any thought to your egocentric puling victimhood?
You're free! Build your own space: make it wimmin friendly, exclude me and have fun doing it, but if I prefer to inhabit a harder edged space please don't expect me to scatter conversational chintz cushions around just to soften it up to your tastes.
Alles klar, Herr (or Madame) Kommisar?
Unless it's violence for profit.
Violent countries are encouraged to send delegates to the WTO, to better arrange the export of products of child labour, to brutalize, kill and maim their populations in the service of power and profits.
If violence was really unacceptable to the WTO, the US delegates would be standing five blocks back alongside the protesters they've brutalized.
>Better than getting screwed by a totalitarian gowernment.
I may have misread, but didn't the US suspend the constitution in Seattle? Isn't it abridging the rights of assembly and peaceful protest?
What would it take for a government to be totalitarian, in your view? Oh, and where's a well-armed militia when you need one?
Trade always benefits people? Like the trade in buffalo hides benefited the plains indians?
Benefited them to the point of extinction, as was its aim. It was economic warfare, and the WTO helps corporations prosecute economic warfare right now.
I never thought the US population would support the third world until it became part of it.
Microsoft does not `share' keys with government agencies. Perhaps it `escrows' them with government agencies, though. Perhaps it's even a requirement of them getting NSA approval for the crypto system. Who could argue that escrowing a key with NSA wasn't secure offsite storage?
The nice man at the NSA said he wouldn't read it.
One serious problem the Australian government faced was that many `porn' sites are password protected, and perhaps the owners of those sites would not like to give Australian government agencies the right to access their sites so they can be prohibited.
So it may be necessary to hack the sites, or to fraudulently gain access to their copyrighted material, which contravenes Crimes Act Sect 76 (and elsewhere), which act provides for a jail sentence.
What to do? It's simple: suspend the operation of all Australian criminal law as it applies to the operation of the censorship act. So that's what they did, in Part 8 - Protection from civil and criminal proceedings. What does `Draconian' mean anyway?
What does this legislative provision actually mean? Well, for example, since you might have a password or cryptographic key deemed reasonably necessary to permit the ABA to obtain information, the ABA can hire a consultant to obtain the password by torturing you. Giving Spooks the right to hack.
What is also interesting, in this regard, is the suppressed content of the Australian Government's Walsh Report " Review of Policy relating to Encryption Technologies." The government tried to suppress its contents, including this paragraph, among others which demonstrate the same intent:
1.2.28 The Crimes Act 1914 should be amended to permit the AFP, NCA and ASIO to 'hack' into a nominated computer system to secure access to that system or evidence of an electronic attack on a computer system. (paragraphs 6.2.3; 6.2.22 refer)
People have been wondering why the Australian government would bother trying to legislate to turn back the tide of internet content and have laughed at their ineptitude in writing the legislation. I suggest that the censorship legislation is merely a Trojan horse as cover for the kinds of covert operations spooks have been begging for.
This Trojan horse should be seen in the context of such legislation as NSW Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997 which enables police forces to break the law in order to catch criminals, after a case was lost on appeal to the High Court because the court exercised a judicial discretion to exclude evidence in a case where a criminal offence has been procured by illegal conduct on the part of police.
What if (after the DOJ trials are over) MicroSoft wanted to take over Linux? How would it do it?
It might well buy the private corporation most publicly associated with Linux. RedHat is perfectly placed to be bought by MS. MS's even got a close partner inside already. Who knows, perhaps they're even influencing them by proxy (RedHat Certified Engineer, hmmm?)
MS might then throw some of its unemployed NT programmers onto the kernel project to give it that real Windows BSoD look, might use the company to push divergent kernel versions to divert energy from the main community, special Intel-only features, perhaps? WinModem driver?
In the end, what would it profit MS to do this? How could they make their bucks?
Well, if we look at history (IBM's monopoly preservation tactics) when one part of the monopoly is undercut, you start giving it away, and making your profit from another part. So I think you could expect to see people paying more for Word, Excel and such - they're how MS established its hegemony in the first place. I think, also, there could be more profit in hardware (at least that's how IBM used to play the game, switching from O/S to H/W profits.)
The best defense against this seems to me to be vigilance, yes, but also plurality.
It's great to see RedHat raising Linux awareness, putting on a suit and tackling the big end of town. When they've tasted the system, some will hopefully move to where the real system is (shameless Debian plug.)
In the interests of that plurality, I think it'd be really nice if RedHat gave some of its voting stock to the FSF. That would be fair, and it would enable them to act in the public interest before they list, which eventuality would make it illegal to do so in some situations where the public and shareholders' interests diverge.