Perhaps, but realize that if it's the content that's the issue, then Napster is in the clear under the DMCA anyway. They're content providers, and as long as they block any user content which the RIAA (or the copyright owner) tells them is illegal (and presumably that they can verify as being illegal) then they are doing nothing wrong. The RIAA told them which filenames were illegal, Napster did their best to block them. They're a content provider, having complied with the RIAA in this case, so until the RIAA says that another user is sharing copyrighted material under xxx filename, they have no problem.
Microsoft has just put themselves in a VERY good legal position for dealing with residents of Maryland.
Scenario 1: Maryland resident sues M$.
Microsoft can simply claim that the resident was not an authorized user of their systems, and thus the case should be dismissed.
Scenario 2: M$ sues Maryland Resident.
The user will likely say "Oh ho! You cannot sue me under Washington law because of this clause!" but M$ will say that they were an unauthorized user, travel to Maryland (according to Maryland's law) and sue the user not only for the problems they caused, but for unauthorized use of their computer systems.
They've effectively created a system where they can sue but not be sued.
What you have to realize is that the RIAA is a bunch of old, fat, rich bastards who want every dime they can squeeze from you and don't give a damn about fair use rights.
When you purchase a CD, I think you still own the CD. The media. You don't own the music on there, but you own the disc itself. You have a LICENSE to listen to the music on your CD, but not to let anyone else listen to it. You can't play it in public or anything, in other words.
Under fair use, you are allowed to rip that CD for your own personal use. However you are not allowed to transfer that rip or those rights to anyone else. Furthermore, you aren't allowed to download someone else's rip because you don't have their license to use the music, you only have your own. It sounds stupid, and indeed it is, but that's the way it is.
The real kicker is that they in order to collect on the settlement, you have to buy more products which by a company who just admitted to have produced defective products!
Ok, they didn't admit it, they "settled" which could be construed as either admittal or not wanting to bother with it. Considering the massive number of people who were involved in the lawsuit (presumably) it's as good as admittal, in my book.
The only question that remains is how you collect. I know I don't have my receipts anymore, and I don't think I have the boxes the things came in. I got screwed out of two zip drives during this time period, one parallel and one scsi.
Ah well, that bit is my fault. It is a little lame that the company settles in a way that will ultimately bring them more business. Although it's also the fault of the lawyers handling the case, it sucks that the American judicial system allows this.
The sad thing is, XP has a lot of good things going for it, too. Things like the ability to detatch processes and run them after you log off, etc. I mean, it's nothing Unix hasn't had for years, but it's a step in the right direction.
But it seems that for everything they do *right* in XP, they do something else wrong. Changing the way CDRoms are read, only allowing signed drivers to be installed (this was in a/. story awhile back, no? if not, forgive my mistake) and now this....
First of all, I'd like a direct link to their rental plan.. browsing their site, I can't find one.
Secondly, I won't dispute your post entirely, but I'm *sure* that the rental agreement says that Microsoft has the right to terminate the license at any time, or at least not renew it. While they may say that you will pay incrementally for upgrades, do you really believe this? Will upgrades, then, be forced? If not, what happens when various upgrades conflict?
I don't see this as what M$ plans on doing. I suspect you will pay for upgrades in addition to the rental fee. Maybe the upgrades will cost less than a normal upgrade, but I bet it will be there, nonetheless.
No, the bigger question is "What happens when the company stops renewing license keys?"
Why do I say this?
Look at what M$ could do with Office. They rent keys for Office XP for a year. Then they decide they need a budget influx. So what do they do? They announce Office SX. And in 3 months they stop supporting Office XP. Which means once all your license keys expire, you are *forced* to spend a couple thousand bucks (if you're a personal user or small business) or maybe even a few hundred thousand to upgrade to the newest version. And then guess what? Back to license keys....
This has got to be one of the best business ideas M$ ever had....
It seems the computer industry in general (and in htis case, ISPs specificially) have not thought the future through. Or they have, and don't care, at the expense of their employees.
A couple of years ago, there was a huge boom. Computers were flying off the shelves like nothing else in the world. It was, possibly, the best thing to happen to the economy in a long time. And to compensate, companies started hiring more people and making more computers. They had to, to keep up.
Then something happened. Everyone had a computer. The average person will not want to buy another computer until there's a damn good reason, even if their current one is slow and way behind the times. It's kinda like TV--sure you could get the next big thing, but if what you have suits you just fine (and obviously it does, 'cause they've been using it for so long) then why pay so much for a slightly bigger one?
So computer sales dropped like a rock, and these companies find themselves with too many payrolls to support. They have to let people go.
It's similar with ISPs. They see huge grown, they probably undersell their bandwidth to their customers ('cause the money just keeps coming in) but at some point everyone's gonna have broadband, and then what? At least with ISPs they get money monthly, but if they have too much bandwidth coming in or too many people on staff, it just won't work.
Microsoft used to make all it's money on bundleware. They got smart, real fast. You'll notice that once the computer economy started slowing, they started talking about subscription based software. Unfortunately, in order for a computer company to survive, this is how it's going to have to be--that is, until the next generation of hardware comes out that that the next generation of software requires in order to run, forcing everyone to upgrade again..
Be that as it may, you also have to realize that this happened once before already. Is it so unreasonable for them to fix a security hole once the server has been hacked using it?
No, this sounds like a case of a business actually trying to screw the customer by double-charging--charging for reinstalling the OS and charging for applying a security patch, and one that really wouldn't take much time anyway.
But the main point is, even if they don't promise security or anything, I disagree with some of your statements. Maybe it is reasonable for them to reinstall the OS for a charge. But then on top of that demanding a charge to patch the security hole is absurd.
I just wanted to say that we non US/Canada would be testers should be given the chance to work around this time difference. I know many who would be prepared to play games though the night!
Why? Why should you be given the chance to work around this? It's not like beta-testing is a right.
Blizzard wants to make the beta small and hit their servers fast and furious. They also want to limit the number of people who have access to the beta. Taking 2500 people from all over the world would probably not give them quite as good an idea as 2500 people from one region. Furtheremore, just saying "Well *some* of us could work around that" doesn't work because frankly, they can't require that you log on certain times of the day. The easiest way for them to get a good estimate of the server usage etc is to do it this way.
The problem is that that particular model of Graphics Card is *NOT* a 3d graphics card. Oh it's toted as such, sure. But deep down it isn't one.
I think the tests I ran on it said it didn't even support all the DirectX functions that most (if not all) the rest of the graphics cards in the world support.
The newer Dells can ship with a 32meg ATI Rage3dish card, which I hear is a thousand times better.
I was shopping around for a laptop last year. My main two choices (retail) were Compaq and Toshiba.
Now part of the requirements for this particular purchase were that it run Linux. BSD would be a plus, but Linux was a requirement. Not only that it run Linux, however, but also that it run X on Linux.
I'd read up on Linux on laptops and had narrowed it down basically to one of three machines: A Compaq, an IBM and a Toshiba. I tried them all out at various stores and discovered that for the most part, they were all the same. The Compaq was really cool (I like the placement of the speakers and such) and the Toshiba seemed reliable. I was replacing a Toshiba Satellite Pro that finally went dead on me--or rather, the onboard memory did, and you can't replace that without a new board, which would run about as much as a used laptop.
But I digress.
I was about to buy it when a burst of something hit me. I asked if I could try installing some software on the test machine and they said "Ok." I popped in my Debian install CD, rebooted and just stared. The visible screen was reduced to about 1/5 normal. Mind you I got all 80x25 characters, but they were TINY!
In awe of this, I popped out the CD and booted back into Windows, opened a command prompt, hit CTRL-ENTER (turns it fullscreen) and got the exact same display.
As it turns out, even switching the resolution made it use less of the screen, and thus the icons were smaller.
Tried the same thing on the Toshiba and got the same results.
Tried the same thing on the IBM, and it worked just like it should--fullscreen 80x25, etc.
Needless to say, I went with the IBM.
Now I eventually took it back (the manager was REALLY cool about this) because running X required using the Framebuffer X server, which frankly sucks. Ended up with a Dell Inspiron 7500 and couldn't be happier.
Oh, and it *does* change resolutions correctly:)
I find this hard to believe. The only explanation could be tweakability. I've used OEM systems (and Dells) and never found them to be lacking from the ones I build myself. I also only use the highest quality parts in my own systems.
And actually, I have a GeForce 400mhz system at home and I work with Dell 700mhz Celerons with Ati 4meg graphics cards. The Dell actually beats my system in a few cases. Of course not in all, but it does in some.
My guess is he got a bad system or you tweaked the hell out of yours. Plus you DO have an ultra version of the card. That is a huge plus when it comes to 3d benchmarks.
And aside from *all* of that, the original poster wanted a machine he could carry with him. The Inspiron 8000 series is, flat out, a powerhouse. Up to 1ghz processor, up to 512megs ram, up to 32meg graphics card (Ati Rage == good, GeForce == better and coming soon), with DVD and CDRW. I was pricing them just last night and came up with a slightly reduced version of what I just said for around $2400. Not bad, and my current dell laptop rules my world except for the graphics card:)
Ultimately though, this means more work for the company anyway.
Why?
Well imagine their servers. They have to keep backwards compatibility with your older box, or else they lose you as a customer. Or you're forced to upgrade. I think lots of people have been talking and thinking about this as only a client-side issue, but it's server side as well.
Simply put, you cannot expect a company to allow you to configure every aspect of their product and support it at the same time. It sucks, yes. But as long as there's a server at the other end that your client has to interact with, that's how it is. No one's forcing you to upgrade your Windows or Linux installation to continue using it. Even Windows 3.1 can still be used, as long as you only use the software available for it.
Fact of the matter is, if you're using their service, you gotta play by their rules.
What gets me are programs that have no server with which to communicate (in order to function, that is) but automatically check for an update and download/install it for you. This is not only an annoyance, but a security risk as well.
I was thinking too much like a programmer, I guess:)
You're probably right, but there is also the matter of the judge. The judge might instruct the jury to ignore the fact that 1.0 was registered if the product in question is 1.5, and if the opposition can persuade the judge that they're different enough. Usually (from what I understand) the jury will do what the judge tells them, in situations like this.
So you weren't referring to the DMCA? If you weren't, then your post was truly offtopic. I mean, the title of the article was DMCA.
But if you manage to convince anyone that your one line about buying laws in response to an article that is specifically about the DMCA was insightful, hey, more power to you.
Hey, I guess I could just post something about how shareware software sucks, and that would be just as insightful since the article is about shareware.
Ok, as has been said in the comments already, the problem was that this guy didn't have enough money to fight the big badguy.
A question that hasn't come up, however, is in regards to the DMCA provision for filing copyrights on your software.
Indeed, it looks as though this guy could have made quite a pretty penny on his software if he'd just filed for a copyright on it originally. But then, the real question is, how often do you have to do this? For example, going over to freshmeat will show you that a GREAT deal of very good software is in beta or lower stages. Do you have to get a copyright on this? What if you change the code by just a variable name? Small changes could end up costly due to the copyright filing charges.
This means that the copyright system in general is anti-free software. If you have to get a new copyright on every cvsupdate you make, there is no way any individual working out of his or her garage could manage this. Sure, you may file copyright on version 1.0, but when you release 1.2 (which adds few new features), suddenly that version is not copyrighted?
I'm asking if this is the case because I truly don't know, but from my limited understanding of copyright law, derivative works aren't included (at least, in filed copyrights).
This means that the GPL and Open Source models will always be behind closed source, proprietary software.
Sucks, doesn't it?
Could a solution be to copyright the major versions, and then to provide diffs to update them to minor versions? This way a company might steal the diffs, but without the original software+source code, they'd be largely worthless, and you'd still have a leg to stand on in court, not to mention the possibility of puntitive damages.
what did you expect? When you buy a law you make sure it can't be used against you.
This is insightful? Praise God for meta-moderation.
Read the article. This isn't even about the DMCA. It's about the fact that going to court costs money. It's about the fact that the average American doesn't have that money to spend.
This guy could EASILY have won a court battle assuming he had equal resources with which to hire attorneys. The problem was not in the law, but in the legal system itself.
But upon reading the article, you notice that the guy never took the matter to court. This isn't an issue where the DMCA failed a small developer. Rather this is an issue where the US court system failed the individual. The DMCA certainly doesn't gaurantee financial resources to sue, nor does it gaurantee that someone will settle out of court when they are faced with it. In fact, the DMCA really doesn't merit mention in this article, because the injustice has nothing to do with the DMCA or even copyright law in general--it has to do with the fact that large corporations will always have the money to win lawsuits because the little guy can't cough up $20k to take the issue to court.
I mean, people here will bitch and moan about not being allowed to convert their music to any format they wish, why can the publishers not do the same? Is it because they make money off of it? Is that *really* enough of a difference?
The biggest problem with micropayments like this is the ease with which false micropayment sites could be created... many people would click on the paypal icon at the bottom of the screen without ever even noticing that the site they were directed to was false.
You're right... I was smoking crack and being overly optimistic.
However even in this scenario, it doesn't mean that the file can no longer be shared. It all depends on how they do the "protection." A form of public key encryption...yes, it would have to be able to remove the encryption. A new file format *could* still be shared, or could be restricted. It could even be done according to the copyright holder's preferences, in case they only want the songs to be downloaded from their own machines (in order to track usage, for example.)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but realize that if it's the content that's the issue, then Napster is in the clear under the DMCA anyway. They're content providers, and as long as they block any user content which the RIAA (or the copyright owner) tells them is illegal (and presumably that they can verify as being illegal) then they are doing nothing wrong. The RIAA told them which filenames were illegal, Napster did their best to block them. They're a content provider, having complied with the RIAA in this case, so until the RIAA says that another user is sharing copyrighted material under xxx filename, they have no problem.
Or shouldn't anyway...
Microsoft has just put themselves in a VERY good legal position for dealing with residents of Maryland.
Scenario 1: Maryland resident sues M$.
Microsoft can simply claim that the resident was not an authorized user of their systems, and thus the case should be dismissed.
Scenario 2: M$ sues Maryland Resident.
The user will likely say "Oh ho! You cannot sue me under Washington law because of this clause!" but M$ will say that they were an unauthorized user, travel to Maryland (according to Maryland's law) and sue the user not only for the problems they caused, but for unauthorized use of their computer systems.
They've effectively created a system where they can sue but not be sued.
What you have to realize is that the RIAA is a bunch of old, fat, rich bastards who want every dime they can squeeze from you and don't give a damn about fair use rights.
When you purchase a CD, I think you still own the CD. The media. You don't own the music on there, but you own the disc itself. You have a LICENSE to listen to the music on your CD, but not to let anyone else listen to it. You can't play it in public or anything, in other words.
Under fair use, you are allowed to rip that CD for your own personal use. However you are not allowed to transfer that rip or those rights to anyone else. Furthermore, you aren't allowed to download someone else's rip because you don't have their license to use the music, you only have your own. It sounds stupid, and indeed it is, but that's the way it is.
Maybe not, but many cases are designed with airflow in mind, and that design is assuming the entire case is on the machine.
Remove a panel and you might overheat your processor/mobo.
The real kicker is that they in order to collect on the settlement, you have to buy more products which by a company who just admitted to have produced defective products!
Ok, they didn't admit it, they "settled" which could be construed as either admittal or not wanting to bother with it. Considering the massive number of people who were involved in the lawsuit (presumably) it's as good as admittal, in my book.
The only question that remains is how you collect. I know I don't have my receipts anymore, and I don't think I have the boxes the things came in. I got screwed out of two zip drives during this time period, one parallel and one scsi.
Ah well, that bit is my fault. It is a little lame that the company settles in a way that will ultimately bring them more business. Although it's also the fault of the lawyers handling the case, it sucks that the American judicial system allows this.
The sad thing is, XP has a lot of good things going for it, too. Things like the ability to detatch processes and run them after you log off, etc. I mean, it's nothing Unix hasn't had for years, but it's a step in the right direction.
/. story awhile back, no? if not, forgive my mistake) and now this....
But it seems that for everything they do *right* in XP, they do something else wrong. Changing the way CDRoms are read, only allowing signed drivers to be installed (this was in a
First of all, I'd like a direct link to their rental plan.. browsing their site, I can't find one.
Secondly, I won't dispute your post entirely, but I'm *sure* that the rental agreement says that Microsoft has the right to terminate the license at any time, or at least not renew it. While they may say that you will pay incrementally for upgrades, do you really believe this? Will upgrades, then, be forced? If not, what happens when various upgrades conflict?
I don't see this as what M$ plans on doing. I suspect you will pay for upgrades in addition to the rental fee. Maybe the upgrades will cost less than a normal upgrade, but I bet it will be there, nonetheless.
No, the bigger question is "What happens when the company stops renewing license keys?"
Why do I say this?
Look at what M$ could do with Office. They rent keys for Office XP for a year. Then they decide they need a budget influx. So what do they do? They announce Office SX. And in 3 months they stop supporting Office XP. Which means once all your license keys expire, you are *forced* to spend a couple thousand bucks (if you're a personal user or small business) or maybe even a few hundred thousand to upgrade to the newest version. And then guess what? Back to license keys....
This has got to be one of the best business ideas M$ ever had....
It says they pass or guess simultaneously, and that they win if someone guesses correctly without anyone else guessing incorrectly.
So the condition for winning does *not* have to occur. If everyone passed, they'd lose.
It seems the computer industry in general (and in htis case, ISPs specificially) have not thought the future through. Or they have, and don't care, at the expense of their employees.
A couple of years ago, there was a huge boom. Computers were flying off the shelves like nothing else in the world. It was, possibly, the best thing to happen to the economy in a long time. And to compensate, companies started hiring more people and making more computers. They had to, to keep up.
Then something happened. Everyone had a computer. The average person will not want to buy another computer until there's a damn good reason, even if their current one is slow and way behind the times. It's kinda like TV--sure you could get the next big thing, but if what you have suits you just fine (and obviously it does, 'cause they've been using it for so long) then why pay so much for a slightly bigger one?
So computer sales dropped like a rock, and these companies find themselves with too many payrolls to support. They have to let people go.
It's similar with ISPs. They see huge grown, they probably undersell their bandwidth to their customers ('cause the money just keeps coming in) but at some point everyone's gonna have broadband, and then what? At least with ISPs they get money monthly, but if they have too much bandwidth coming in or too many people on staff, it just won't work.
Microsoft used to make all it's money on bundleware. They got smart, real fast. You'll notice that once the computer economy started slowing, they started talking about subscription based software. Unfortunately, in order for a computer company to survive, this is how it's going to have to be--that is, until the next generation of hardware comes out that that the next generation of software requires in order to run, forcing everyone to upgrade again..
Be that as it may, you also have to realize that this happened once before already. Is it so unreasonable for them to fix a security hole once the server has been hacked using it?
No, this sounds like a case of a business actually trying to screw the customer by double-charging--charging for reinstalling the OS and charging for applying a security patch, and one that really wouldn't take much time anyway.
But the main point is, even if they don't promise security or anything, I disagree with some of your statements. Maybe it is reasonable for them to reinstall the OS for a charge. But then on top of that demanding a charge to patch the security hole is absurd.
I just wanted to say that we non US/Canada would be testers should be given the chance to work around this time difference. I know many who would be prepared to play games though the night!
Why? Why should you be given the chance to work around this? It's not like beta-testing is a right.
Blizzard wants to make the beta small and hit their servers fast and furious. They also want to limit the number of people who have access to the beta. Taking 2500 people from all over the world would probably not give them quite as good an idea as 2500 people from one region. Furtheremore, just saying "Well *some* of us could work around that" doesn't work because frankly, they can't require that you log on certain times of the day. The easiest way for them to get a good estimate of the server usage etc is to do it this way.
The problem is that that particular model of Graphics Card is *NOT* a 3d graphics card. Oh it's toted as such, sure. But deep down it isn't one.
I think the tests I ran on it said it didn't even support all the DirectX functions that most (if not all) the rest of the graphics cards in the world support.
The newer Dells can ship with a 32meg ATI Rage3dish card, which I hear is a thousand times better.
I *severely* don't reccommend Compaq Laptops.
:)
Why?
I was shopping around for a laptop last year. My main two choices (retail) were Compaq and Toshiba.
Now part of the requirements for this particular purchase were that it run Linux. BSD would be a plus, but Linux was a requirement. Not only that it run Linux, however, but also that it run X on Linux.
I'd read up on Linux on laptops and had narrowed it down basically to one of three machines: A Compaq, an IBM and a Toshiba. I tried them all out at various stores and discovered that for the most part, they were all the same. The Compaq was really cool (I like the placement of the speakers and such) and the Toshiba seemed reliable. I was replacing a Toshiba Satellite Pro that finally went dead on me--or rather, the onboard memory did, and you can't replace that without a new board, which would run about as much as a used laptop.
But I digress.
I was about to buy it when a burst of something hit me. I asked if I could try installing some software on the test machine and they said "Ok." I popped in my Debian install CD, rebooted and just stared. The visible screen was reduced to about 1/5 normal. Mind you I got all 80x25 characters, but they were TINY!
In awe of this, I popped out the CD and booted back into Windows, opened a command prompt, hit CTRL-ENTER (turns it fullscreen) and got the exact same display.
As it turns out, even switching the resolution made it use less of the screen, and thus the icons were smaller.
Tried the same thing on the Toshiba and got the same results.
Tried the same thing on the IBM, and it worked just like it should--fullscreen 80x25, etc.
Needless to say, I went with the IBM.
Now I eventually took it back (the manager was REALLY cool about this) because running X required using the Framebuffer X server, which frankly sucks. Ended up with a Dell Inspiron 7500 and couldn't be happier.
Oh, and it *does* change resolutions correctly
I find this hard to believe. The only explanation could be tweakability. I've used OEM systems (and Dells) and never found them to be lacking from the ones I build myself. I also only use the highest quality parts in my own systems.
:)
And actually, I have a GeForce 400mhz system at home and I work with Dell 700mhz Celerons with Ati 4meg graphics cards. The Dell actually beats my system in a few cases. Of course not in all, but it does in some.
My guess is he got a bad system or you tweaked the hell out of yours. Plus you DO have an ultra version of the card. That is a huge plus when it comes to 3d benchmarks.
And aside from *all* of that, the original poster wanted a machine he could carry with him. The Inspiron 8000 series is, flat out, a powerhouse. Up to 1ghz processor, up to 512megs ram, up to 32meg graphics card (Ati Rage == good, GeForce == better and coming soon), with DVD and CDRW. I was pricing them just last night and came up with a slightly reduced version of what I just said for around $2400. Not bad, and my current dell laptop rules my world except for the graphics card
Ultimately though, this means more work for the company anyway.
Why?
Well imagine their servers. They have to keep backwards compatibility with your older box, or else they lose you as a customer. Or you're forced to upgrade. I think lots of people have been talking and thinking about this as only a client-side issue, but it's server side as well.
Simply put, you cannot expect a company to allow you to configure every aspect of their product and support it at the same time. It sucks, yes. But as long as there's a server at the other end that your client has to interact with, that's how it is. No one's forcing you to upgrade your Windows or Linux installation to continue using it. Even Windows 3.1 can still be used, as long as you only use the software available for it.
Fact of the matter is, if you're using their service, you gotta play by their rules.
What gets me are programs that have no server with which to communicate (in order to function, that is) but automatically check for an update and download/install it for you. This is not only an annoyance, but a security risk as well.
I was thinking too much like a programmer, I guess :)
You're probably right, but there is also the matter of the judge. The judge might instruct the jury to ignore the fact that 1.0 was registered if the product in question is 1.5, and if the opposition can persuade the judge that they're different enough. Usually (from what I understand) the jury will do what the judge tells them, in situations like this.
Only if the VCD watermarked copy wasn't also copyrighted. Or are you talking about less-than-legal copies?
So you weren't referring to the DMCA? If you weren't, then your post was truly offtopic. I mean, the title of the article was DMCA.
But if you manage to convince anyone that your one line about buying laws in response to an article that is specifically about the DMCA was insightful, hey, more power to you.
Hey, I guess I could just post something about how shareware software sucks, and that would be just as insightful since the article is about shareware.
Ok, as has been said in the comments already, the problem was that this guy didn't have enough money to fight the big badguy.
A question that hasn't come up, however, is in regards to the DMCA provision for filing copyrights on your software.
Indeed, it looks as though this guy could have made quite a pretty penny on his software if he'd just filed for a copyright on it originally. But then, the real question is, how often do you have to do this? For example, going over to freshmeat will show you that a GREAT deal of very good software is in beta or lower stages. Do you have to get a copyright on this? What if you change the code by just a variable name? Small changes could end up costly due to the copyright filing charges.
This means that the copyright system in general is anti-free software. If you have to get a new copyright on every cvsupdate you make, there is no way any individual working out of his or her garage could manage this. Sure, you may file copyright on version 1.0, but when you release 1.2 (which adds few new features), suddenly that version is not copyrighted?
I'm asking if this is the case because I truly don't know, but from my limited understanding of copyright law, derivative works aren't included (at least, in filed copyrights).
This means that the GPL and Open Source models will always be behind closed source, proprietary software.
Sucks, doesn't it?
Could a solution be to copyright the major versions, and then to provide diffs to update them to minor versions? This way a company might steal the diffs, but without the original software+source code, they'd be largely worthless, and you'd still have a leg to stand on in court, not to mention the possibility of puntitive damages.
what did you expect? When you buy a law you make sure it can't be used against you.
This is insightful? Praise God for meta-moderation.
Read the article. This isn't even about the DMCA. It's about the fact that going to court costs money. It's about the fact that the average American doesn't have that money to spend.
This guy could EASILY have won a court battle assuming he had equal resources with which to hire attorneys. The problem was not in the law, but in the legal system itself.
But upon reading the article, you notice that the guy never took the matter to court. This isn't an issue where the DMCA failed a small developer. Rather this is an issue where the US court system failed the individual. The DMCA certainly doesn't gaurantee financial resources to sue, nor does it gaurantee that someone will settle out of court when they are faced with it. In fact, the DMCA really doesn't merit mention in this article, because the injustice has nothing to do with the DMCA or even copyright law in general--it has to do with the fact that large corporations will always have the money to win lawsuits because the little guy can't cough up $20k to take the issue to court.
I mean, people here will bitch and moan about not being allowed to convert their music to any format they wish, why can the publishers not do the same? Is it because they make money off of it? Is that *really* enough of a difference?
The biggest problem with micropayments like this is the ease with which false micropayment sites could be created... many people would click on the paypal icon at the bottom of the screen without ever even noticing that the site they were directed to was false.
You're right... I was smoking crack and being overly optimistic.
However even in this scenario, it doesn't mean that the file can no longer be shared. It all depends on how they do the "protection." A form of public key encryption...yes, it would have to be able to remove the encryption. A new file format *could* still be shared, or could be restricted. It could even be done according to the copyright holder's preferences, in case they only want the songs to be downloaded from their own machines (in order to track usage, for example.)