I'm No Lawyer, but it seems to me there is a logical contridiction here.
If the circumvention exists, then the technology no longer "effectively" controls access. It's linguistic nonsense of the same order as, "What happens when an irresitable force meets an unmovable object?"
But I'm sure the DRM lawyers aren't really interested in whether the law is logical...
One thing I've wondered about is whether we are limited in depth perception to the horizontal. Our eyes are (we only have two of 'em) are displaced from each other along a single (normaly horizontal) axis. Does this mean we can only perceive depth horizontally, but not vertically? Such a conjecture doesn't seem right, but still, I wonder, would we have better depth perception if we also had an eye displaced vertically from the other two?
I think the reason sniping works is because eBay auctions end at a specific time. A real auction would keep on going until there were no more bids offered.
What I'd like to see eBay offer is a bid system where the auction lasts some minimum amount of days (specified by the seller), but doesn't end until after that specified amount of time AND some number of hours (also seller specified maybe) after the last bid.
I suggest that the very idea that "intermediate copies" need any kind of license is bullshit. Bits in transit -- even if they do layover for a while here and there along the way -- are analogous to electrical signals necessary to get the information from point A to point B in an analog playback system.
These aren't the kinds of "copies" that copyright law is (or should be) concerned with. But leave it to the greedy bastards and their lawyers to to twist the meaning of "copy" to suit themselves...
I would think that whether the copy is analog or digital would be irrelevant. Copyright law make no distinction.
However, the speaker example brings up an interesting point (in my tiny little mind, anyway).
Nobody thinks of the analog signal being sent to the speaker as being a "copy", it's just a transitory signal that exists to effect reproduction of the audio. It would be ridiculous to try to make copyright law apply here.
Likewise, it seems to me that "copies" in store-and-forward buffers are not really the kind of copies that copyright law is concerned with. They are just transitory "signals" (albeit digital, not analog) in the playback path, necessary to effect the reproduction of the work.
At least that's how I would argue if I were a lawyer, which I'm not...
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it said, "Self Cleaning House"....
WTF???
There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!
More like books on conjugating Latin verbs. ...or are nerds cool these days?
Comic books are way too cool for nerds.
This article from LANL says it will run Linux. Imagine a Beowolf cluster of those...
... for the same reason that "New Coke" was a failure.
...is not a myth. It's a personal opinion.
For some people, no video game is too violent; for others, even Pac-Man is way too 62% violent.
What'd you expect from a PhD college professor?
Now, will you also rip my DIVX disks?
I'm No Lawyer, but it seems to me there is a logical contridiction here.
If the circumvention exists, then the technology no longer "effectively" controls access.
It's linguistic nonsense of the same order as, "What happens when an irresitable force meets an unmovable object?"
But I'm sure the DRM lawyers aren't really interested in whether the law is logical...
But it's free, right?
Is this not the quote of the year?
Too bad I have no mod points right now...
One thing I've wondered about is whether we are limited in depth perception to the horizontal. Our eyes are (we only have two of 'em) are displaced from each other along a single (normaly horizontal) axis. Does this mean we can only perceive depth horizontally, but not vertically? Such a conjecture doesn't seem right, but still, I wonder, would we have better depth perception if we also had an eye displaced vertically from the other two?
Right?
An object is said to posess the attribute "Vorpal" if it goes, "snicker-snack" when in use.
So... What was that bit about "gas pedal technology"?
This isn't really about gas pedals on vehicles is it?
I think the reason sniping works is because eBay auctions end at a specific time.
A real auction would keep on going until there were no more bids offered.
What I'd like to see eBay offer is a bid system where the auction lasts some minimum amount of days (specified by the seller), but doesn't end until after that specified amount of time AND some number of hours (also seller specified maybe) after the last bid.
Oh, grow up!
"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
I suggest that the very idea that "intermediate copies" need any kind of license is bullshit.
Bits in transit -- even if they do layover for a while here and there along the way -- are analogous to electrical signals necessary to get the information from point A to point B in an analog playback system.
These aren't the kinds of "copies" that copyright law is (or should be) concerned with. But leave it to the greedy bastards and their lawyers to to twist the meaning of "copy" to suit themselves...
I would think that whether the copy is analog or digital would be irrelevant. Copyright law make no distinction.
However, the speaker example brings up an interesting point (in my tiny little mind, anyway).
Nobody thinks of the analog signal being sent to the speaker as being a "copy", it's just a transitory signal that exists to effect reproduction of the audio. It would be ridiculous to try to make copyright law apply here.
Likewise, it seems to me that "copies" in store-and-forward buffers are not really the kind of copies that copyright law is concerned with. They are just transitory "signals" (albeit digital, not analog) in the playback path, necessary to effect the reproduction of the work.
At least that's how I would argue if I were a lawyer, which I'm not...
Now how is the mini satellite dish on my head supposed to coexist with my tin-foil hat?
Thanks for reminding me of the Nacirema!
Interesting read: "Body Ritual among the Nacirema"
You're an idiot!
Obviously Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Haliburton are in charge...
The allocation is 20 MHz wide, not at 20 MHz.