Back to basics. The phrase 'copyright protection system' is part of the header of Sec. 103, the applicable section of the DMCA.
In the text, which is the important part, is this: to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work...without the authority of the copyright owner...
There is really nothing new about skewing the numbers to put your position in the best light possible. It has been done thousands of times over, and it will continue to be done. Only mathematicians will ever know the whole truth, and even with them I have my doubts.
The really tricky part about numbers is that they can be technically correct without giving the whole picture. A labor union reports their average wages as $46,000, while the corporation they work for reports the average salary paid to be $72,000. The lower number is the median, while the higher number is the mean, which is higher due to the fact that a few executives have much higher salaries.
The corporation's number is technically correct, but fails to provide the scope of its meaning.
Very few are knowledgeable enough to know the difference, let alone the significance of that difference.
If the author had enumerated some of the evidences brought to light by the project, I might be able to make a call as to whether his conclusions are sound. Unfortunately, he sticks to the too-often used, "The evidence makes it obvious."
I am not so much of a sheep that I will simply swallow that. The evidence may very well be quite convincing, but without seeing any of it, I am not going to blindly accept his conclusion.
Evidence is never obvious to those who never see the evidence. Looks like he doesn't know that:
"The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt..."
"The proof is right here..."
"There is no other way to explain..."
"There is...no other possible explanation."
"The theory of evolution is the only way to explain..."
Nice, neat conclusions, with absolutely no evidence. No matter how 'obvious' the thing is that you are trying to prove, this method is simply unacceptable.
Christian Fundie slant? How does your slant explain this?
news:soc.religion.christian - "Christianity and related topics." blacklisted Cult/Occult
news:soc.religion.christian.bible-study - "Examining the Holy Bible." blacklisted Cult/Occult
news:soc.religion.christian.promisekeepers - "The Christian group Promise Keepers." blacklisted Cult/Occult
news:soc.religion.christian.youth-work - "Christians working with young people." blacklisted Cult/Occult
I have a better explanation: All around, in every direction, censorship sucks!
With somewhat of a surprise, I agree with you. Large organizations have every right to filter the material their people are going to be viewing. Using a piece of filtering software is currently the most efficient way to do that. Filters do well in handling bulk numbers of sites.
Unfortunately, I also believe that censorship sucks. It's not that I want to surf for porn, or that I think no one should have the right to decide for me what I should be looking at. My university implements a filter on its network, and as a student, I recognize that I am under the university's authority, so I have no problem with that.
No, the problem, as you said, is that there is no real check on the manufacturers of these pieces of software. However, my school has a solution that I consider adequate. If we believe a site to be blocked in error, we can bring it to the attention of the admin, and they will review it themselves. If they agree, the site is unblocked. Already I have gotten them to unblock 2600, attrition, and some other computer-related sites.
In reality, I am the check on the manufacturers. I turn off image loading, bypass the filter, and check the page out for myself if I think there is a mistake. Because unless I have made a typo in the address, the filter is most likely making a judgment call I am not going to agree with. True, I am not going to make the companies change by doing this, but neither am I going to get the movie industry to change the rating of a movie simply because I disagree with it. Instead, I will do like I always do: Ask my friends who have seen the movie, check out the previews, and maybe give a little weight to the rating, then make my own call.
My method works for me, because the admin is cool enough to acutally listen to users who complain, and I am getting the sites that would otherwise be blocked. Maybe this will not work for you, but it is worth a shot.
How can someone possibly be removed from their ISP just for expressing an opinion?
That is not exactly how it happened, and definitely not how the ISP is going to spin it. Still, this is something that should send red-flags popping up in all of your heads.
The thing is, the ISP can pretty much do whatever it wants with your account. It owns the account, it can sell/not sell use of that account to you as it chooses. Remember those signs you always see in restaurants? "We reserve the right to refuse service... This is essentially just a way of disclaiming yourself into discrimination if you so chose to abuse it that way, and the ISP can do the same.
Trying to remain on-topic, though, discrimination is not the issue here either. The way the ISP dealt with the situation is the critical part, the thing that is sending my mind into a confusion. As I see it, there are two possibilities:
The ISP could stop the DoS, but is too lazy/cheap/irresponsible to do it, so they 'solve' the problem the easy way, and yet another helpless victim gets squashed by the big company's indifference.
The ISP cannot stop the DoS, in which case I would have serious questions about the integrity of their system [these were 'script kiddies' remember] and yet another victim gets squashed by the big company's incompetence.
Either way, it is not good for the customer. Come to think of it, when are situations like this ever good for the customer?
If the judgments needed for those cases are that straightforward, they are simple enough for a human judge to consider without too much time or effort.
Consider: How is this going to save the judge time? If he is saved time because he does not have to look at all of the evidence, how is he going to make a fully accurate assessment of how valid the computer's judgment is? Personally, I would not want a judge to spend 2 minutes reviewing a computer's decision based on facts he has never seen before.
With that in mind, I really do not see how this plan will help an overburdened court system.
DeCSS it! For those of us who downloaded the program before the injunction, this should be perfectly legal. Just refrain from distributing anything, and all will be well.
Pixar, the company that brought you the animation wonder Toy Story has a few things you might check out. They have a product called RenderMan which might help. For the software side of your question, take a look at the Pixar website.
1) To be totally fair, the violence in video games will have an effect on children...or anyone, for that matter. However, the effect is not always going to send the kids rushing to kill the nearest living object. Most of us are proof of that. 2) If the kids are moved to murder someone because of the violence they saw in a video game, they probably had a few problems with their morality beforehand. I cannot imagine a child with a perfect grasp of morality throwing it all out the window because of Quake. 3) Therefore, a lawsuit against the gaming company is ridiculous. Sue the parents for not instilling a greater sense of morality or something that makes just a tiny bit more sense.
Exactly so. The reason for the crackdown on the wrong things is simple. After incidents like Columbine, the people want action. They do not think about whether it is going to be effective, whether it is going to be infringing on the rights of others, or even if it is going to cause more harm than good. It is for this reason that we get these ridiculous stories for months afterward.
For an article that pokes fun at the largely computer-illiterate public, it does a good job. I have always wanted to do something about those incessant chain letters I get, passed along by good-intentioned, yet ignorant people. Maybe this is just the thing.
There is no cure for human stupidity. We might as well work it to our advantage!
All in all, there are going to be about two different responses to this new development, which is not really all that new a thing to begin with.
1: [Technofreak]: "New feature? Sign me up! Who cares about hidden fees, security concerns, or anything else? I am wired! Woohoo!"
2: [Paranoid]: "They just want my personal information so they can sell it to marketers! And the hackers are going to get all my credit card numbers! We need laws to protect us from this sort of thing!"
Unfortunately, almost everyone in the media and in the public seems to take one of the above positions.
Key the balance: 1: It can be convenient to be wired. 2: There is no such thing as absolute security.
Yes, but not all that many people have Mac, so if you want to play a DVD on your computer, you are probably going to be using whatever Windows program MS has come up with.
"DeCSS was written to defeat encryption in order to subvert the distribution rights of the intellectual property owner."
Have you read the articles about the authors? Obviously not.
"Its not your business to determine how, where or what media they choose distribute."
Absolutely correct. And it is not their business how I choose to view the media they distribute. Or where I can view it, for that matter. Truthfully, what they do here is not illegal, but it certainly is what I would consider an unethical business practice.
"In reality, we all know that this is just another tool to allow online pirates to strip content from one medium and place in it into another medium that is easily distributed online."
Either I am not included in 'we all' or I have a little more technical knowledge than you. This kind of a copying is impractical for the average, or even the above-average user. While you might be able to translate the data into another medium, like AVI [who on earth would do that?] it is not going to happen.
"I have noticed a tremendous increase of pirated DVDs translated via VCD on this internet."
Really? Show me. Sounds like a BAS to me. I get around, and I am sure I would have noticed a 'tremendous increase' in pirate traffic.
Anyway, these are my thoughts. Next time sign your name, would you?
I just had another thought. Is it possible that Microsoft has a hand in this suit somewhere? Think about it. Right now, barring DeCSS, about the only way you can play a DVD on your computer is if you do it under Windows. Maybe they spent a large sum of money for a license with the DVD people. Maybe they have even started a project on THE player for DVDs under Windows, so they could dominate the new domain.
Just a thought. Maybe I am too paranoid. Then again...
One thing that confounds me is why they are trying to stop DeCSS on the grounds that it "is produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work." If, by this definition, DeCSS is illegal, then the DVD players you get from department stores are just as illegal! DeCSS decrypts the information stored on the DVD. A DVD player decrypts the information stored on the DVD. They will have to come up with something better if they expect this to stick.
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva Luck is what others call skill when they have none themselves. ~Phelan Kell
Slashdot Mirror
In the text, which is the important part, is this:
to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work...without the authority of the copyright owner...
The really tricky part about numbers is that they can be technically correct without giving the whole picture. A labor union reports their average wages as $46,000, while the corporation they work for reports the average salary paid to be $72,000. The lower number is the median, while the higher number is the mean, which is higher due to the fact that a few executives have much higher salaries.
The corporation's number is technically correct, but fails to provide the scope of its meaning.
Very few are knowledgeable enough to know the difference, let alone the significance of that difference.
I am not so much of a sheep that I will simply swallow that. The evidence may very well be quite convincing, but without seeing any of it, I am not going to blindly accept his conclusion.
Evidence is never obvious to those who never see the evidence. Looks like he doesn't know that:
"The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt..."
"The proof is right here..."
"There is no other way to explain..."
"There is...no other possible explanation."
"The theory of evolution is the only way to explain..."
Nice, neat conclusions, with absolutely no evidence. No matter how 'obvious' the thing is that you are trying to prove, this method is simply unacceptable.
news:soc.religion.christian - "Christianity and related topics." blacklisted Cult/Occult
news:soc.religion.christian.bible-study - "Examining the Holy Bible." blacklisted Cult/Occult
news:soc.religion.christian.promisekeepers - "The Christian group Promise Keepers." blacklisted Cult/Occult
news:soc.religion.christian.youth-work - "Christians working with young people." blacklisted Cult/Occult
I have a better explanation: All around, in every direction, censorship sucks!
Unfortunately, I also believe that censorship sucks. It's not that I want to surf for porn, or that I think no one should have the right to decide for me what I should be looking at. My university implements a filter on its network, and as a student, I recognize that I am under the university's authority, so I have no problem with that.
No, the problem, as you said, is that there is no real check on the manufacturers of these pieces of software. However, my school has a solution that I consider adequate. If we believe a site to be blocked in error, we can bring it to the attention of the admin, and they will review it themselves. If they agree, the site is unblocked. Already I have gotten them to unblock 2600, attrition, and some other computer-related sites.
In reality, I am the check on the manufacturers. I turn off image loading, bypass the filter, and check the page out for myself if I think there is a mistake. Because unless I have made a typo in the address, the filter is most likely making a judgment call I am not going to agree with. True, I am not going to make the companies change by doing this, but neither am I going to get the movie industry to change the rating of a movie simply because I disagree with it. Instead, I will do like I always do: Ask my friends who have seen the movie, check out the previews, and maybe give a little weight to the rating, then make my own call.
My method works for me, because the admin is cool enough to acutally listen to users who complain, and I am getting the sites that would otherwise be blocked. Maybe this will not work for you, but it is worth a shot.
Which state gets the right to levy the tax? Pennsylvania, where the purchaser resides, or, say, California, the state of the seller's residence.
Knowing all governments' tendencies for getting as much as they can, I would be willing to bet on both trying to get their fingers in the pie.
Lightning never strikes twice. Too bad the same cannot be said of taxes.
That is not exactly how it happened, and definitely not how the ISP is going to spin it. Still, this is something that should send red-flags popping up in all of your heads.
The thing is, the ISP can pretty much do whatever it wants with your account. It owns the account, it can sell/not sell use of that account to you as it chooses. Remember those signs you always see in restaurants?
"We reserve the right to refuse service...
This is essentially just a way of disclaiming yourself into discrimination if you so chose to abuse it that way, and the ISP can do the same.
Trying to remain on-topic, though, discrimination is not the issue here either. The way the ISP dealt with the situation is the critical part, the thing that is sending my mind into a confusion. As I see it, there are two possibilities:
Either way, it is not good for the customer. Come to think of it, when are situations like this ever good for the customer?
From Chapter 4.1, "Behavior of the Robot Finger":
"We thought that a single robot finger, provided that it possesses the same motion capabilities...as a human finger, would have been sufficient..."
Well, why not, most humans only use a single finger.
Consider: How is this going to save the judge time? If he is saved time because he does not have to look at all of the evidence, how is he going to make a fully accurate assessment of how valid the computer's judgment is? Personally, I would not want a judge to spend 2 minutes reviewing a computer's decision based on facts he has never seen before.
With that in mind, I really do not see how this plan will help an overburdened court system.
1) a hacker
2) a virus
3) Y2K
DeCSS it! For those of us who downloaded the program before the injunction, this should be perfectly legal. Just refrain from distributing anything, and all will be well.
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva
1) To be totally fair, the violence in video games will have an effect on children...or anyone, for that matter. However, the effect is not always going to send the kids rushing to kill the nearest living object. Most of us are proof of that.
2) If the kids are moved to murder someone because of the violence they saw in a video game, they probably had a few problems with their morality beforehand. I cannot imagine a child with a perfect grasp of morality throwing it all out the window because of Quake.
3) Therefore, a lawsuit against the gaming company is ridiculous. Sue the parents for not instilling a greater sense of morality or something that makes just a tiny bit more sense.
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva
Remember, there is no cure for human stupidity.
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva
There is no cure for human stupidity. We might as well work it to our advantage!
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva
1: [Technofreak]: "New feature? Sign me up! Who cares about hidden fees, security concerns, or anything else? I am wired! Woohoo!"
2: [Paranoid]: "They just want my personal information so they can sell it to marketers! And the hackers are going to get all my credit card numbers! We need laws to protect us from this sort of thing!"
Unfortunately, almost everyone in the media and in the public seems to take one of the above positions.
Key the balance:
1: It can be convenient to be wired.
2: There is no such thing as absolute security.
Take it from there.
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva
Have you read the articles about the authors? Obviously not.
"Its not your business to determine how, where or what media they choose distribute."
Absolutely correct. And it is not their business how I choose to view the media they distribute. Or where I can view it, for that matter. Truthfully, what they do here is not illegal, but it certainly is what I would consider an unethical business practice.
"In reality, we all know that this is just another tool to allow online pirates to strip content from one medium and place in it into another medium that is easily distributed online."
Either I am not included in 'we all' or I have a little more technical knowledge than you. This kind of a copying is impractical for the average, or even the above-average user. While you might be able to translate the data into another medium, like AVI [who on earth would do that?] it is not going to happen.
"I have noticed a tremendous increase of pirated DVDs translated via VCD on this internet."
Really? Show me. Sounds like a BAS to me. I get around, and I am sure I would have noticed a 'tremendous increase' in pirate traffic.
Anyway, these are my thoughts. Next time sign your name, would you?
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva
Just a thought. Maybe I am too paranoid. Then again...
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva
I never was good with sarcasm....
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva
Luck is what others call skill when they have none themselves. ~Phelan Kell
Luck is skill supplemented by chance. ~Ketriva