The point of the DRM-DVD player is to/prevent/ copying, so that a non-DRM-DVD player would, in fact, be useless.
Where would you buy a cracked one? You're assuming that it could be cracked.
As long as I can see the content, there is no way to make a DRM system that won't be gotten around, in the foreseeable future
Like I said, the analog hole can be closed. It will take time, but assuming laws start requiring consumer electronics to respect watermarks, eventually we'll be in a state where we can't find/buy old hardware to make an analog copy.
In an iron fist situation, it could work. Even the analog hole can be tightened considerably (read up on some of the technology that reads watermarks and refuses to record if they appear in the lens). Beyond that, all you need are DVD players that "phone home" in order to authorize playback. With public key encryption and the ability to revoke keys, any time something is cracked, those keys can be revoked and the player rendered useless. One or two films might be copied, but the mass piracy you see these days would slow to a trickle.
I generally try not to feed trolls, particularly the incredibly stupid kind....
The difference between a ROUTER and a SERVER is the intent of use. It's a particularly poor debat technique to say something like, "The difference between a computer and a computer is what, exactly?"
I'm done talking to you since you're apparently unable to make a post without sounding either stupid or condescending.
So it's not a federal crime, but states apparently can further restrict it. Reading through Florida's laws, it looks like you do need express permission, in which case you then get to argue whether or not the TCP negotiation, SSID broadcasat, and potential DHCP negotiation counts as express permission.
Got a link to that US code, or at least the Slashdot post? I'm pretty shocked that it's not relegated to the states. It must be an FCC thing. There was some US code Sec. 2511 stuff about intentionally providing public access--well someone who doesn't know that they're broadcasting to the public certainly couldn't be accused of "intentional public access".
{Of course, in this instance, the person DID know, so we're left to assume that according to US 2511, the person who was arrested was wrongfully arrested. Then you have to look at whether the state law trumps the federal law in this case, which would amount to whether or not wireless broadcast access is separated from access to the router, cable modem, and the guy's ISP. All that is probably for a judge/jury to decide}
Well, in that case, *every* wireless network is private, and since there are plenty that are open to the public, how is a user to know that any specific one doesn't allow just anyone to use it?
This is simply not true. At work, we have a wireless network which exclusively uses public, routable IPs.
After all, it's behind my router on the "private" side of the network, but it is reachable from the public side. By your definition above, my web server must be a private resource and anyone who accesses it without my express permission is breaking the law (at least in some jurisdictions).
If you're talking off-the-shelf commodity routers like the offerings from D-Link, Netgear, and Linksys, you have to do something pretty explicit in order to get that server accessible from the public Internet. You don't just plug it all in and suddenly the world has access to any machine on your private network.
Setting an access point to not be publically available is a trivial matter.
Tell that to my grandfather. Or my mom, for that matter. It's easy to say that it's trivial if you are technically inclined. Rebuilding a carburetor can be trivial to the mechanically inclined. "Hello World" programs are pretty trivial, too. But ask anyone who's never taken a programming class to do it and they'll probably look at you like you're crazy.
By allowing your access point to grant me access if I ask for it, you are in effect granting me access to your network.
That's a pretty bold statement. Got any legal backing for it?
Spammers actually disrupt the Internet. It'd be no different than if a telemarketing firm actually called so many people and so often that you got more unwanted calls than calls from friends/family/work that you actually need to take.
As for the RIAA/MPAA.. well they're pretty greedy. They could probably live quite well without lobbying to extend copyrights (for example) or shut down sites and services rather than going after the individual traders. Instead, they take the easy ways out by trying to ban things that shouldn't be banned. I don't have a problem with the RIAA/MPAA protecting their copyrights, I just have a problem with the way they do it.
Yeah, no analogy is perfect, but we use them anyway because they help us get a better understanding of a complex situation. Thank you for the civil discourse. Lots of people get pretty flamy and arrogant when you post something that's contrary to their views, and in those cases, I tend to respond in kind;)
1) Sure, but it's still illegal. Maybe no one would be prosecuted for dumping a few packets into someone's wireless router, but the legality of such an action is important so that when abuse occurs, it can be prosecuted. The guy in the article was apparently there for several hours--in the garbage analogy, that would be like dumping a couch on someone's lawn for pickup.
Similarly, consider filling up a water bottle vs. using your neighbor's hose to water your own lawn.
2) This is, of course, where almost every analogy about wireless networking breaks down. At this point, you just have to start using common sense. Unfortunately, this is where lots of people start disagreeing--some people seem to think that it's obvious that if it's open, it's intended to be open and that anyone ignorant of this fact is simply an unwitting victim. The other, admittedly smaller camp, thinks that without explicit permission, access should be presumed to be denied.
I pretty clearly fall into the latter camp. I think it's different than a website, which generally is "all access", because of foreknowledge of the majority of users. If you set up a website, you presumably know that it is going to be accessed. If you set up an access point, you might not realize that other people will try to use it.
Effective consent is defined above on that link. Read it.
Furthermore, since we're all mostly talking out of our asses in hypotheticals anyway, I can go to an open access point, use Kismet to find out the IP range, and set my computer to that IP rather than sending a DHCP request. 99% of consumer level wireless routers will route my packets. I've performed no DHCP request. Most people won't go this route, sure, but I bet you'd find some way to show that this wasn't unauthorized computer access, wouldn't you?
#6 - If you really intend to look at it as theft, then here's your analogy.
That's all I really need to read in your post to realize that you are clueless. Do me and yourself a favor and read through my post--you remember, it's the one you replied to. Search for the word "steal" "stole" "theft" "thief" or any similar word. You won't find it. I'm not trying to look at it as theft. In one part, I was using similar service analogies and showing that they were just as illegal--for example, illegal dumping. In the other part, I was using the words straight from the laws, such as "computer trespass". Not once did I imply anything was stolen, but since so many of you kneejerk to that reaction when discussing the RIAA, I can almost understand your desire to assume I wanted to discuss how wrong my wording is.
As to everything else you said in your post, you mostly presented a few statements as fact with absolutely nothing to back them up--no legal decisions, no laws, not even any dissenting opinions from minority judges. Nothing. So all you have is your opinion on how things ought to be based on router documentation stated as fact. And you think I don't have a flippin' clue?
Trash, is generally left near the curb. If you saw a computer on the porch, would you feel as entitled to take it?
Sure, it's stupid to leave it there, but now you're blaming the victim. Do you tell rape victims that they shouldn't have been walking around that part of town?
The fact is, private property laws don't care whether the private property was in your house, on your porch, or hell, in the street. If you take it, you have committed a crime. The only exception to this that I'm aware of is regards items left for trash pickup.
When you stand on the sidewalk and soak up the water my sprinkler is throwing out, you aren't also peeing onto my lawn. So your analogy only works to someone who is eavesdropping on my wireless connection--something that might considered a violation of federal wiretapping laws. Once you join the network and start broadcasting, the analogy falls apart. Closest I can come using your analogy is that you've moved my sprinkler. Sure, it's still watering my lawn (I can still use the wireless) but not precisely in the way I want (you're using up some of my bandwidth).
Of course, analogies are never perfect, they're just used to help get a point across to someone otherwise unable to see it.
You make many statements as fact without any sort of link or backing up. Can you provide any evidence that "ignorance is no defense" as you put it, or that, "an open network is meant to be used"? Any at all? And don't go spouting that "de facto" authorization crap or that "That's the way the Internet works" because that doesn't hold up against the statuate in Florida (where the alleged crime took place).
Ah, but the wireless router has two sides to it--a private network and a publicly routable IP. When you connect to someone's wireless, you are on their private network, not the Internet. It just so happens that the private network does NAT and routes to public IPs.
If you want to get really technical about it, the router says, "here I am!" not "here I am, connect to me!" It's Windows and other auto-connect operating systems that imply the latter.
So it's more like someone being listed in the phone book, then someone coming over, and me charging them with trespassing.
Why don't you try putting up a webserver and suing whoever accesses it, then put up a wireless access point and sue whoever accesses THAT. See which court you get laughed out of.
Just because some people around here are too thick to understand the difference, doesn't mean the rest of the world is.
Here's another question. I have a wireless access point, open to the world, connected to my ISP. Since I'm paying for an ISP, I have a Terms of Use/End User Licence Agreement, whatever with them--in other words, I'm authorized to use their computer systems for routing traffic.
Now, provably (since this guy was caught), someone else uses the wireless network without my permission and connects to the Internet. They do NOT have an agreement with my ISP. Even if I can't have them arrested for computer trespass (an assumption based solely on your opinion on the matter), surely my ISP can. After all, they are clearly accessing the ISP's computers without authorization.
And in anticipation of your question, yes, that would mean that anyone other than myself who used my ISP's connection, whether wirelessly or not, is technically infringing. But as with many laws, it would only come into play if there was either mass infringement or a case like this, where the guy got arrested and the ISP wanted to make a point.
Slashdot Mirror
Which poker product had the spyware?
Oh yeah, you're right. Man, it's going to suck when they start outlawing access points.
You clearly didn't read the definitions in the laws I quoted, as RF hitting your antennae don't qualify as "computer access".
The point of the DRM-DVD player is to /prevent/ copying, so that a non-DRM-DVD player would, in fact, be useless.
Where would you buy a cracked one? You're assuming that it could be cracked.
As long as I can see the content, there is no way to make a DRM system that won't be gotten around, in the foreseeable future
Like I said, the analog hole can be closed. It will take time, but assuming laws start requiring consumer electronics to respect watermarks, eventually we'll be in a state where we can't find/buy old hardware to make an analog copy.
In an iron fist situation, it could work. Even the analog hole can be tightened considerably (read up on some of the technology that reads watermarks and refuses to record if they appear in the lens). Beyond that, all you need are DVD players that "phone home" in order to authorize playback. With public key encryption and the ability to revoke keys, any time something is cracked, those keys can be revoked and the player rendered useless. One or two films might be copied, but the mass piracy you see these days would slow to a trickle.
I generally try not to feed trolls, particularly the incredibly stupid kind....
The difference between a ROUTER and a SERVER is the intent of use. It's a particularly poor debat technique to say something like, "The difference between a computer and a computer is what, exactly?"
I'm done talking to you since you're apparently unable to make a post without sounding either stupid or condescending.
That's exactly what I wanted, thanks!
So it's not a federal crime, but states apparently can further restrict it. Reading through Florida's laws, it looks like you do need express permission, in which case you then get to argue whether or not the TCP negotiation, SSID broadcasat, and potential DHCP negotiation counts as express permission.
Got a link to that US code, or at least the Slashdot post? I'm pretty shocked that it's not relegated to the states. It must be an FCC thing. There was some US code Sec. 2511 stuff about intentionally providing public access--well someone who doesn't know that they're broadcasting to the public certainly couldn't be accused of "intentional public access".
{Of course, in this instance, the person DID know, so we're left to assume that according to US 2511, the person who was arrested was wrongfully arrested. Then you have to look at whether the state law trumps the federal law in this case, which would amount to whether or not wireless broadcast access is separated from access to the router, cable modem, and the guy's ISP. All that is probably for a judge/jury to decide}
Do you not know the difference between a router and a server?
Man, you probably shouldn't even be on Slashdot.
Well, in that case, *every* wireless network is private, and since there are plenty that are open to the public, how is a user to know that any specific one doesn't allow just anyone to use it?
This is simply not true. At work, we have a wireless network which exclusively uses public, routable IPs.
After all, it's behind my router on the "private" side of the network, but it is reachable from the public side. By your definition above, my web server must be a private resource and anyone who accesses it without my express permission is breaking the law (at least in some jurisdictions).
If you're talking off-the-shelf commodity routers like the offerings from D-Link, Netgear, and Linksys, you have to do something pretty explicit in order to get that server accessible from the public Internet. You don't just plug it all in and suddenly the world has access to any machine on your private network.
Setting an access point to not be publically available is a trivial matter.
Tell that to my grandfather. Or my mom, for that matter. It's easy to say that it's trivial if you are technically inclined. Rebuilding a carburetor can be trivial to the mechanically inclined. "Hello World" programs are pretty trivial, too. But ask anyone who's never taken a programming class to do it and they'll probably look at you like you're crazy.
By allowing your access point to grant me access if I ask for it, you are in effect granting me access to your network.
That's a pretty bold statement. Got any legal backing for it?
Spammers actually disrupt the Internet. It'd be no different than if a telemarketing firm actually called so many people and so often that you got more unwanted calls than calls from friends/family/work that you actually need to take.
As for the RIAA/MPAA.. well they're pretty greedy. They could probably live quite well without lobbying to extend copyrights (for example) or shut down sites and services rather than going after the individual traders. Instead, they take the easy ways out by trying to ban things that shouldn't be banned. I don't have a problem with the RIAA/MPAA protecting their copyrights, I just have a problem with the way they do it.
Glad I could provide some amusement!
Yeah, no analogy is perfect, but we use them anyway because they help us get a better understanding of a complex situation. Thank you for the civil discourse. Lots of people get pretty flamy and arrogant when you post something that's contrary to their views, and in those cases, I tend to respond in kind ;)
1) Sure, but it's still illegal. Maybe no one would be prosecuted for dumping a few packets into someone's wireless router, but the legality of such an action is important so that when abuse occurs, it can be prosecuted. The guy in the article was apparently there for several hours--in the garbage analogy, that would be like dumping a couch on someone's lawn for pickup.
Similarly, consider filling up a water bottle vs. using your neighbor's hose to water your own lawn.
2) This is, of course, where almost every analogy about wireless networking breaks down. At this point, you just have to start using common sense. Unfortunately, this is where lots of people start disagreeing--some people seem to think that it's obvious that if it's open, it's intended to be open and that anyone ignorant of this fact is simply an unwitting victim. The other, admittedly smaller camp, thinks that without explicit permission, access should be presumed to be denied.
I pretty clearly fall into the latter camp. I think it's different than a website, which generally is "all access", because of foreknowledge of the majority of users. If you set up a website, you presumably know that it is going to be accessed. If you set up an access point, you might not realize that other people will try to use it.
Yeah, I hit submit too soon and neglected that part. I added it in post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154957&cid=129 92443
Seems clear cut to me. The only defense this guy might have is whether the SSID broadcast counts as authorization.
Effective consent is defined above on that link. Read it.
Furthermore, since we're all mostly talking out of our asses in hypotheticals anyway, I can go to an open access point, use Kismet to find out the IP range, and set my computer to that IP rather than sending a DHCP request. 99% of consumer level wireless routers will route my packets. I've performed no DHCP request. Most people won't go this route, sure, but I bet you'd find some way to show that this wasn't unauthorized computer access, wouldn't you?
#6 - If you really intend to look at it as theft, then here's your analogy.
That's all I really need to read in your post to realize that you are clueless. Do me and yourself a favor and read through my post--you remember, it's the one you replied to. Search for the word "steal" "stole" "theft" "thief" or any similar word. You won't find it. I'm not trying to look at it as theft. In one part, I was using similar service analogies and showing that they were just as illegal--for example, illegal dumping. In the other part, I was using the words straight from the laws, such as "computer trespass". Not once did I imply anything was stolen, but since so many of you kneejerk to that reaction when discussing the RIAA, I can almost understand your desire to assume I wanted to discuss how wrong my wording is.
As to everything else you said in your post, you mostly presented a few statements as fact with absolutely nothing to back them up--no legal decisions, no laws, not even any dissenting opinions from minority judges. Nothing. So all you have is your opinion on how things ought to be based on router documentation stated as fact. And you think I don't have a flippin' clue?
Probably the links to the laws, which state pretty clearly what constitutes computer trespass.
Trash, is generally left near the curb. If you saw a computer on the porch, would you feel as entitled to take it?
Sure, it's stupid to leave it there, but now you're blaming the victim. Do you tell rape victims that they shouldn't have been walking around that part of town?
The fact is, private property laws don't care whether the private property was in your house, on your porch, or hell, in the street. If you take it, you have committed a crime. The only exception to this that I'm aware of is regards items left for trash pickup.
Man, want to talk about flawed analogies?
When you stand on the sidewalk and soak up the water my sprinkler is throwing out, you aren't also peeing onto my lawn. So your analogy only works to someone who is eavesdropping on my wireless connection--something that might considered a violation of federal wiretapping laws. Once you join the network and start broadcasting, the analogy falls apart. Closest I can come using your analogy is that you've moved my sprinkler. Sure, it's still watering my lawn (I can still use the wireless) but not precisely in the way I want (you're using up some of my bandwidth).
Of course, analogies are never perfect, they're just used to help get a point across to someone otherwise unable to see it.
If you do something illegal on my AP, it certainly can cost me something--my wife, my job, my house, my car, my life.
If I knew people weren't going to be doing illegal things with my AP, I'd leave it open. Fact is, I don't know that, and as such, it is locked down.
You make many statements as fact without any sort of link or backing up. Can you provide any evidence that "ignorance is no defense" as you put it, or that, "an open network is meant to be used"? Any at all? And don't go spouting that "de facto" authorization crap or that "That's the way the Internet works" because that doesn't hold up against the statuate in Florida (where the alleged crime took place).
Ah, but the wireless router has two sides to it--a private network and a publicly routable IP. When you connect to someone's wireless, you are on their private network, not the Internet. It just so happens that the private network does NAT and routes to public IPs.
Try again.
If you want to get really technical about it, the router says, "here I am!" not "here I am, connect to me!" It's Windows and other auto-connect operating systems that imply the latter.
So it's more like someone being listed in the phone book, then someone coming over, and me charging them with trespassing.
Why don't you try putting up a webserver and suing whoever accesses it, then put up a wireless access point and sue whoever accesses THAT. See which court you get laughed out of.
Just because some people around here are too thick to understand the difference, doesn't mean the rest of the world is.
Glad to provide the link, though it was in another post and perhaps you've found it yourself by now:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/hacklaw.htm
Here's another question. I have a wireless access point, open to the world, connected to my ISP. Since I'm paying for an ISP, I have a Terms of Use/End User Licence Agreement, whatever with them--in other words, I'm authorized to use their computer systems for routing traffic.
Now, provably (since this guy was caught), someone else uses the wireless network without my permission and connects to the Internet. They do NOT have an agreement with my ISP. Even if I can't have them arrested for computer trespass (an assumption based solely on your opinion on the matter), surely my ISP can. After all, they are clearly accessing the ISP's computers without authorization.
And in anticipation of your question, yes, that would mean that anyone other than myself who used my ISP's connection, whether wirelessly or not, is technically infringing. But as with many laws, it would only come into play if there was either mass infringement or a case like this, where the guy got arrested and the ISP wanted to make a point.