The alternative reason is that Star Trek 2 was coming out at about the same time, and it's original title was "Revenge of Khan". Lucas changed his movie so there'd be no confusion, but then it got changed to "Wrath of Khan" anyway.
Customer must maintain Fast Access Service for at least 12 months from the Professional Installation date and pay all charges in connection therewith in a timely fashion.
Well, goodie. Not only did I have to shell out for installation fees (mostly waived), but I'm stuck with whatever inanity they decide to pull for a full year. I really do want to get this particular part of the Agreement nixed.
Because different states have different laws. Secret cameras can record you in public while you are in Florida, but you cannot secretly record police when they pull you over in Massachusettes. Its not a double standard because the laws were passed by two different legislatures and affect two different groups of people.
That would make great sense and I would accept such an explanation instantly if not for this.
This is why we have a group (congress) making decisions. The bill is just a proposal by one man who obviously does not understand, and there is no way that it will get through and become a law
"Hello, my fellow senators. I'm putting forward this bill which makes it illegal for those evil hackers with their evil grunge look to even speak evilly to evil friends about their evil hacking on their evil computers over the evil internet. It should put a stop to all computer crime instantly! Best of all, it's even got a catchy name: the DMCA."
"Sounds good to me!"
"Me too!"
"Yeah, let's give those hippy anarchists some congressional hell!"
"Best of all, I'm getting paid mucho dinero to vote for that bill!"
If you'll recall, the DMCA passed unanimously in the Senate.
Your point of course was absolutely correct, but you must remember that this particular congress thinks that computers are powered by manna, the internet was invented by Al Gore and built by Bill Gates, and doesn't understand why naming a cat "Five" is a joke.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law." -Robert Heinlein
Sure, DirecTV has every right to make money. What they seem to forget is that they have every right to lose it, too. If they want to make sure that only paying customers can decode their signals, sending out nastygrams and junk mail isn't going to do it. Making it illegal to own a cell phone scanner isn't going to stop it, nor will outlawing radar detectors stop people from exceeding the speed limit.
Pure legislation is very often the least effective means to acheiving a goal. Which is more effective: leaving your house unlocked and trusting to the illegality of theft or installing deadbolts on your doors? Printing money on typing paper and hoping that nobody counterfeits it (after all, that would be -gasp- illegal!) or using cotton paper and any number of tricks to make forgery as difficult as possible?
Obviously, there are many cases where both laws and preventative measures are necessary (murder comes to mind), but why should that include ensuring a corporation a steady source of income?
I would infinitely rather that my cell phone service put money into keeping the signal encrypted and private than have them spend it on lobbying and have to depend on some flimsy law that supposedly has my best interests at heart. Law can and will be twisted to serve any purpose and is written by people who haven't got a clue, while a technical fix to a technical problem is more effective, usually costs less (when you consider money spent on enforcement of the new law), and adds to the knowledge in that field. How much money have the RIAA/MPAA spent on their wars, and just how effective have they been? The RIAA's attempt at CD copy-protection may be nasty, but it's a heck of a lot more effective than what they've been up to till now.
But as someone kindly pointed out, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 apparently makes it illegal to 'receive a signal not intended for your receipt'. Did it not occur to our fine upstanding legislators (snicker) that such a law would be extremely unenforcable? Imagine making it illegal to own an un-government-licensed radio receiver. No way would they be able to track down everyone tuned in. All you can do is go after the people who sell them, and still most of them will slip through your grasp.
No kidding. We were all very impressed at the way they gave the pirate problem to the engineers and not to the lawyers. Apparently, The Powers That Be at DirecTV have decided that lots of nastygrams and junk mail will be more effective. Sigh....
Actually, I don't think the DMCA can even apply to this. Nobody is copying the signal, it's being broadcast onto my property whether I like it or not. What they've got going here is a content scrambling system. This, at least, is the logical way to look at it. Given Adobe's recent despicable (and successful) behavior, doing anything with their product that the company didn't certify apparently qualifies as "copy protection circumvention".
I for one don't understand how they can even think they have a legal backing here. It'd be like charging me with illegal surveillance for listening to my two neighbors yell at each other across my backyard.
Can anyone explain to me why a voice vote is not a horrible way for a legislature to act? Seems to me that it just gives every conressman a license to lie and cheat their constituents. Secret voting is fine for the masses, but our representatives do in fact have to answer to us.
I made a little over $11K during my senior year in high school (1997-98) and I generally had 20-25% of my income withheld. And I also ended up having to send in a check on April 15th. It only goes up from there, and does so quickly.
Now, if you are rich and earning more than a couple hundred thou a year, you've generally got some accountants keeping your taxes well below what I was paying. So the IRS's attempts at "taking from the rich and giving to the poor" usually ends up as "taking from the everyone else and leaving the rich well enough alone".
The story goes that some the guys working a computer lab found a John Tesh CD left in one of the drives. Ordinarily, they'd just leave it next to, on top of, or in the computer and the owner would pick it up in the next day or so. Evidently owning a John Tesh CD is like the mark of Cain and the guys stuck it on the wall with a big sig saying "Whoever left their JOHN TESH CD here can pick it up", and predictably, nobody did.
and portable readers were cheap and readily available
And trying to read a good-sized novel on a computer screen didn't make your brain curl up and hide down your spine, then yeah, we might have a book piracy problem.
My music sounds about the same whether I bought the CD myself or got it from Napster. Reading a book on a screen just isn't the same. Tried it with 1984, and it sucked ass (reading it, not the book itself).
I'd never really thought about it like that. What's interesting is that the U.S. has gone from taking millions of immigrants into a melting pot to demanding a mosaic over all else. "We must promote diversity" and all that. Now we're getting to see the problems with making it official policy.
Exactly. And look at how widespread they are. Did the complete and total lack of copyright keep Shakespeare and Plato from writing? Granted, copying a book was a nasty, time-consuming process at the time, but still...
There is no law in the U.S. or the U.K. that would actually prohibit me from loaning my copy of Atari Teenage Riot to my friend. Similarly, I CAN give my copy of Fallout to someone else if I'm done with it (even stronger, I can sell it-- at least in the U.S.).
Wanna bet? Check out the UCITA. One of the many nasties in it is that the only person allowed to use software is the original purchaser. I cannot resell it or even give it away. And it's been passed in one or two states. Not fun.
Which is the more immoral? The businessman who pays the bribe, or the politician who makes the bribe necessary?
Thats easy, both are equally guilty, just of different crimes, one making the bribe and the other recieving it
I don't agree with that. What are the announced goals of the two? The businessman is out to make money for himself or his shareholders. Simple, straightforward, and known to all. It's extremely nice when a business has more altruistic goals, but let's face it: they're in this for the money. Giving a bribe is right in line with this.
The politician, on the other hand, says he is trying to uphold the power of the people or make his nation strong again or some such vague politico-babble but all the while is screwing his constituents over to fund his own charity.
Both are being sneaky and underhanded, but only one of them is betraying his office.
Hrmmm, that is a really good question, and I can't seem to come up with a good answer ot that.
But the analogy isn't quite the same. We're not out to require that music be free. We just want to be able to do with our property whatever we wish. A better analogy would be if you needed to purchase a given piece of food only once, and thereafter could replicate it any number of times. Share it with your friends, do whatever. This is in all likelyhood a Good Thing. Granted, the obesity problem will get worse, but it's better than starvation by the poor. The food industry would of course rebel at this. They would demand that in the face of changing circumstances (food no longer being a scarce commodity) and public interest (End world hunger! Rah, rah, rah...) that the government maintain their income.
Incidentally, that Heinlein quote was the court argument of the inventor of a machine that determined when a human being would die. He was being sued by life insurance companies at the time.
Fine by me. Attempting tech solutions puts them on the same level as us. Furthermore, and I wish they'd realize this, a successful tech solution gets applause from the/. crowd, while sicking copyright lawyers on 2600 earns our eternal hatred. Witness the DirectTV affair a little while ago; worked great and not a word of ire from anyone on/.
But they'll have to be very, very clever to come up with a foolproof solution to their problem. Anything purely software based is toast (hence the dongles, right). And it only takes one uncontrolled copy of controlled media to circulate and make the whole exercise worthless.
Plus, there's a limit as to how dongle-ized computers can get. I can just imagine a yard-long dongle 'stick' coming out the back of a computer. Need one for my Pink Floyd cd's, Orbital, Fluke, Queen, etc, etc...
Really, the only problem with the AA's trying for tech fixes is that they simultaneously get legislation passed making it illegal to use anything but their undoubtedly crummy protection schemes.
Pressure from the music industry fostering privacy tactics is a good thing compared to other pressures. By developing privacy technology now to prevent corporations from tracking us, we're also developing the means to prevent the government from doing the same thing. I'd much prefer the pressure from music and movies than government regulations
There's a problem, though. What kind of pressure are the industries going to exert? They apparently don't think that technical solutions by themselves will suffice (probably correct in that regard, since SDMI has worked so well), so they also resort to legal pressure. Hence the DMCA.
Really, the whole cause of these problems is the government giving legal force to the demands of the media industries.
There's a Heinlein quote that describes the situation perfectly: "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law."
Slashdot Mirror
The alternative reason is that Star Trek 2 was coming out at about the same time, and it's original title was "Revenge of Khan". Lucas changed his movie so there'd be no confusion, but then it got changed to "Wrath of Khan" anyway.
Customer must maintain Fast Access Service for at least 12 months from the Professional Installation date and pay all charges in connection therewith in a timely fashion.
Well, goodie. Not only did I have to shell out for installation fees (mostly waived), but I'm stuck with whatever inanity they decide to pull for a full year. I really do want to get this particular part of the Agreement nixed.
That would make great sense and I would accept such an explanation instantly if not for this.
"Hello, my fellow senators. I'm putting forward this bill which makes it illegal for those evil hackers with their evil grunge look to even speak evilly to evil friends about their evil hacking on their evil computers over the evil internet. It should put a stop to all computer crime instantly! Best of all, it's even got a catchy name: the DMCA."
"Sounds good to me!"
"Me too!"
"Yeah, let's give those hippy anarchists some congressional hell!"
"Best of all, I'm getting paid mucho dinero to vote for that bill!"
If you'll recall, the DMCA passed unanimously in the Senate.
Your point of course was absolutely correct, but you must remember that this particular congress thinks that computers are powered by manna, the internet was invented by Al Gore and built by Bill Gates, and doesn't understand why naming a cat "Five" is a joke.
--
Sure, DirecTV has every right to make money. What they seem to forget is that they have every right to lose it, too. If they want to make sure that only paying customers can decode their signals, sending out nastygrams and junk mail isn't going to do it. Making it illegal to own a cell phone scanner isn't going to stop it, nor will outlawing radar detectors stop people from exceeding the speed limit.
Pure legislation is very often the least effective means to acheiving a goal. Which is more effective: leaving your house unlocked and trusting to the illegality of theft or installing deadbolts on your doors? Printing money on typing paper and hoping that nobody counterfeits it (after all, that would be -gasp- illegal!) or using cotton paper and any number of tricks to make forgery as difficult as possible?
Obviously, there are many cases where both laws and preventative measures are necessary (murder comes to mind), but why should that include ensuring a corporation a steady source of income?
I would infinitely rather that my cell phone service put money into keeping the signal encrypted and private than have them spend it on lobbying and have to depend on some flimsy law that supposedly has my best interests at heart. Law can and will be twisted to serve any purpose and is written by people who haven't got a clue, while a technical fix to a technical problem is more effective, usually costs less (when you consider money spent on enforcement of the new law), and adds to the knowledge in that field. How much money have the RIAA/MPAA spent on their wars, and just how effective have they been? The RIAA's attempt at CD copy-protection may be nasty, but it's a heck of a lot more effective than what they've been up to till now.
But as someone kindly pointed out, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 apparently makes it illegal to 'receive a signal not intended for your receipt'. Did it not occur to our fine upstanding legislators (snicker) that such a law would be extremely unenforcable? Imagine making it illegal to own an un-government-licensed radio receiver. No way would they be able to track down everyone tuned in. All you can do is go after the people who sell them, and still most of them will slip through your grasp.
Actually, I don't think the DMCA can even apply to this. Nobody is copying the signal, it's being broadcast onto my property whether I like it or not. What they've got going here is a content scrambling system. This, at least, is the logical way to look at it. Given Adobe's recent despicable (and successful) behavior, doing anything with their product that the company didn't certify apparently qualifies as "copy protection circumvention".
I for one don't understand how they can even think they have a legal backing here. It'd be like charging me with illegal surveillance for listening to my two neighbors yell at each other across my backyard.
Oh yeah. Someone pointed out earlier the irony in a Russian coming to America and being imprisoned for a thought crime.
--
Can anyone explain to me why a voice vote is not a horrible way for a legislature to act? Seems to me that it just gives every conressman a license to lie and cheat their constituents. Secret voting is fine for the masses, but our representatives do in fact have to answer to us.
--
Now, if you are rich and earning more than a couple hundred thou a year, you've generally got some accountants keeping your taxes well below what I was paying. So the IRS's attempts at "taking from the rich and giving to the poor" usually ends up as "taking from the everyone else and leaving the rich well enough alone".
--
While I have never heard it used as such, I had assumed that the word 'pave' was in this case used as a synonym for main, hurt, kill, destroy...
--
The story goes that some the guys working a computer lab found a John Tesh CD left in one of the drives. Ordinarily, they'd just leave it next to, on top of, or in the computer and the owner would pick it up in the next day or so. Evidently owning a John Tesh CD is like the mark of Cain and the guys stuck it on the wall with a big sig saying "Whoever left their JOHN TESH CD here can pick it up", and predictably, nobody did.
--
And trying to read a good-sized novel on a computer screen didn't make your brain curl up and hide down your spine, then yeah, we might have a book piracy problem.
My music sounds about the same whether I bought the CD myself or got it from Napster. Reading a book on a screen just isn't the same. Tried it with 1984, and it sucked ass (reading it, not the book itself).
--
Well, what was the CD, when did you get it, and have you come across anyone with the same problem with that CD?
--
Well, sure. So do I. Point is, there are some poor shlobs who live within these borders and would be breaking a law by doing what you just described.
--
I'd never really thought about it like that. What's interesting is that the U.S. has gone from taking millions of immigrants into a melting pot to demanding a mosaic over all else. "We must promote diversity" and all that. Now we're getting to see the problems with making it official policy.
--
Exactly. And look at how widespread they are. Did the complete and total lack of copyright keep Shakespeare and Plato from writing? Granted, copying a book was a nasty, time-consuming process at the time, but still...
--
Wanna bet? Check out the UCITA. One of the many nasties in it is that the only person allowed to use software is the original purchaser. I cannot resell it or even give it away. And it's been passed in one or two states. Not fun.
--
Thats easy, both are equally guilty, just of different crimes, one making the bribe and the other recieving it
I don't agree with that. What are the announced goals of the two? The businessman is out to make money for himself or his shareholders. Simple, straightforward, and known to all. It's extremely nice when a business has more altruistic goals, but let's face it: they're in this for the money. Giving a bribe is right in line with this.
The politician, on the other hand, says he is trying to uphold the power of the people or make his nation strong again or some such vague politico-babble but all the while is screwing his constituents over to fund his own charity.
Both are being sneaky and underhanded, but only one of them is betraying his office.
--
Sure, but he's only charging for printed text and spoken syllables.
--
But the analogy isn't quite the same. We're not out to require that music be free. We just want to be able to do with our property whatever we wish. A better analogy would be if you needed to purchase a given piece of food only once, and thereafter could replicate it any number of times. Share it with your friends, do whatever. This is in all likelyhood a Good Thing. Granted, the obesity problem will get worse, but it's better than starvation by the poor. The food industry would of course rebel at this. They would demand that in the face of changing circumstances (food no longer being a scarce commodity) and public interest (End world hunger! Rah, rah, rah...) that the government maintain their income.
Incidentally, that Heinlein quote was the court argument of the inventor of a machine that determined when a human being would die. He was being sued by life insurance companies at the time.
--
Ah hah! You forgot sign language.
--
Fine by me. Attempting tech solutions puts them on the same level as us. Furthermore, and I wish they'd realize this, a successful tech solution gets applause from the /. crowd, while sicking copyright lawyers on 2600 earns our eternal hatred. Witness the DirectTV affair a little while ago; worked great and not a word of ire from anyone on /.
But they'll have to be very, very clever to come up with a foolproof solution to their problem. Anything purely software based is toast (hence the dongles, right). And it only takes one uncontrolled copy of controlled media to circulate and make the whole exercise worthless.
Plus, there's a limit as to how dongle-ized computers can get. I can just imagine a yard-long dongle 'stick' coming out the back of a computer. Need one for my Pink Floyd cd's, Orbital, Fluke, Queen, etc, etc...
Really, the only problem with the AA's trying for tech fixes is that they simultaneously get legislation passed making it illegal to use anything but their undoubtedly crummy protection schemes.
--
There's a problem, though. What kind of pressure are the industries going to exert? They apparently don't think that technical solutions by themselves will suffice (probably correct in that regard, since SDMI has worked so well), so they also resort to legal pressure. Hence the DMCA.
Really, the whole cause of these problems is the government giving legal force to the demands of the media industries.
There's a Heinlein quote that describes the situation perfectly: "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law."
--
The key phrase there is 'top albums'. It's only the ones that the labels choose. For anything else the radio wants to play, they gotta pay up.
--