Why does there need to be a legislative solution when the two parties are already in negotiations to resolve the situation? Current laws (DMCA) might not be to our liking, but provide a balanced view of the problem (when compared to laws like the CBDTPA) by making it a criminal act to knowingly circumvent a copy protection scheme which is in place. This gives law enforcement the tool needed to get the bad guys, but draws the line at presuming that we are all criminals.
Who cares if the people on capitol hill are "scratching for" a legislative fix. Legislators do one and only one thing well; they *create new laws*. By doing so, it justifies thier position.
You are, frankly, asking the wrong question. The question should be: How can current laws be used to reduce piracy?
As far as catching them, if they are doing this it will become obvious when thier code has the same bugs as the GPLed version of whatever software they are releasing.
In certain markets, economies of scarcity are unavoidable. In others economies of plenty are unavoidable. The information economy is one of plenty.
The internet was invented to allow for the quick and efficient dissemination of information. This is at odds w/ some of the basic paradigms that today's corporate giants operate on.
To take the example you set forth, suppose that some *did* invent the "food duplicator". I imagine that the produce growers and supermarket owners would protest against it, try to make it illegal, attempt to patent or copyright the genetic code of certain vegetables or meats to make it a crime to use the duplicator on them. They would also make creating your own genetic codes for such things illegal as they might not contain federally mandated gene sequences to make it safe. etc..etc..etc..
TRANSLATION: They want to benefit from the work of others for free, but they don't want to share the changes they have built on top of the hard work done by the original developers. GJC
P.S. Please don't mod me down as I am not trolling, just speaking the truth.:)
From the same idiots that brought you the (thankfully) failed CBDTPA and the DMCA, we now have MSUSA.
Yes, we plan to mandate that everyone use the technology that *we* approve of, but remember this is a free country.
Seriously, though... any effort to provide a *national id* (not that I agree w/ such a thing) should be based on an open standard, not a proprietary technology.
We are in the days of transition between an economy of scarcity and an economy of plenty. In years past the technology to create has been relegated to a select few. Now, it is open to all.
This is the time when all of those entities and industries which are dependent on the economy of scarcity are going to try to enforce a *false* scarcity on the people. They will resist changing their business models to fit the economy of plenty as they will see it as de-valuation of their assets.
The rule is plain and simple: When a paradigm shift occurs you either change with it or you get left behind.
No, they do not. Once a patent is granted it is in effect either 20 years from the application date or 17 years from the date of grant, whichever is *longer*.
While it is up to the patent holder to enforce the patent, they do *not* lose the right to the invention until the patent has expired.
Sounds like you've been ripped off a few times. This is what feedback on eBay is designed to prevent. Look at the feedback given for any buyer or seller to see if they are trustworthy. Chances are, if they've ripped off one person then no-one will buy from them again.
I've only had one person, unsuccessfully, try to rip me off on e-Bay.
Despite the fact that the general public might not have as big a voice as large corporations, when we all stand up and independently fight for the same goal it gets noticed.
Also, thinking that "the side with the most money won" is no excuse for not taking part in the political process. While, I agree that the government is corrupted by large corporations and vast sums of money, it's what we have.:/
No one is debating whether identity theft occurs. The article *will* be read by the common person and interpreted quite simply as "IRC is evil, let's kill it."
Information is a powerful thing. IRC is simply a means of disseminating information, just like the telephone or news groups.
The portion of the article which most concerns me is the part about "monitoring". Since when did we become a police state? If we're not already, that certainly seems to be the raod we are heading down lately.
I'm forced to ask: In this day and age with large corporations striving so hard to take away the rights of individuals for monetary gain, is it such bad thing to be "anti-corporation"?
Just a thought. Shades of Facism are entering this country. Imperial Americana here we come.:(
There are a large number of people who for some reason think that they are entitled, or that they have "paid enough to justify the illegal copy", but that is simply not true. Content makers have the right to make money off of what they produce, but not to the extent of stepping on legitimate fair-use.
Also, a disturbing trend recently has been that the software and entertainment industries are enjoying the use of a new toy *CONGRESS*. Now they literally have the power to legislate certain competing practices (like open source or free software) out of the market.
Books on these protocols are published all the time by third parties which do not require a license agreement to read their documentation. Despite the fact that these are not from the "horse's mouth" some third party reference docs have been know to be just as complete as those coming out of Redmond. Use those to implement the protocols, without fear.
Also, I very much doubt that MS could enforce such a license since they would need to PROVE that you learned the information from their documentation.
GJC P.S. I am not a lawyer, these are just my opinions.
1) It will criminalize the creative activity of millions of Americans who are contributing to the public good and who are not pirates.
2) It will isolate the US from outside imports which do not contain the "copy protection" technologies. It will discourage imports since companies will be unwilling to accept liability for thier product potentially being used to break the law in the US.
3) Said companies in #3 might be unwilling to change thier products for sale in the US.
4) It *WILL* create a black market for such things here in the US and abroad.
Good enough?
GJC
Happiness==not being treated like company property
on
Managing Einsteins
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
YOU need to send a letter, email, phone or otherwise contact you representatives about this. Please act, while there is still time. Don't depend on others to do it. Every voice counts.
> I think I am the first post so far to speak out > in support of SSSCA and its derivatives. As a > capitalist, I believe it is the right of every > entity to protect its own property.
Only up to the point where doing so does not harm others. Read on..
> Hollywood/Disney et al. would simply not need to > push this bill if they did not believe it would > protect their fundamental rights. They are the > creators, the producers of a fantastic > entertainment industry, one enjoyed by visitors > to this site and others alike.
The SSSCA is a way for content makers to make more money by *taking away* the fair use rights of individuals in this country. It is an affront to every American because it assumes that ALL Americans are theives and pirates.
Under fair use doctrine when I have bought a CD or a DVD I am free to make backup copies of it for my own use. I am free to make my CDs into mp3 files so I can listen to them on my computer, *NOT* so that I can post them to Napster or Morpheus.
> The Internet, through such havens as FSF and > more recently EFF, has been an outpost for > subversives of the American way, attemping to > destroy the proud American businessman by > punishing him for the very succcesses that make > our country great.
As for the FSF and EFF being subversive. Since when is freedom subversive? Both of these organizations fight for your rights and my rights every single day.
They don't seek to punish anyone and arguably work to *help*. Many businesses have sprung up selling open source and free software. And many more business use Free Software to enhance their own offerings. Apple is one such company. The UNIX under pinnings of Mac OS X are open source and most of the UNIX command line utilities packaged w/ it are free software (e.g. gcc).
> Imagine if someone found the key to your house > and made a copy, then made it their business to > clone and redistribute these keys to the nation, > becoming rich and powerful in the process. And > when you changed your lock, they did the same > thing. Is this illegal now? No. But under such > honourable bills as SSSCA, your (digital) house > would be protected by the government against > what amounts to nothing more and nothing less > than illegal entry.
Your analogy is inadequate as it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the fundamental problem. It doesn't address the issue. What is happening here is not analogous to "illegal entry" in any way.
> If certain "Open Source" operating systems have > trouble reading digital content, so what? Why > should a system which is built on the premise > that intellectual property is evil have the > privilege of processing assets from an industry > which only exists thanks to intellectual > property laws?
Intellectual property should be viewed differently for different industries. There is no one way to look at this issue. In the software industry IP laws arguably hurt the progress of technology (such as patents on fundamental ideas).
In the entertainment industry, which depends solely on copyright, IP is a Good Thing[tm]. It prevents someone from stealing the work of others. But what do you classify as stealing? Am I stealing when I make a copy for myself so that if my original gets hosed I can have a backup? No. Am I stealing when I give that copy to someone else? ABSOLUTELY, YES. I agree that the second case is wrong, but legislating copy protection for all computers, software and digital devices is not the way to solve the problem. Not to mention the fact that any copy protection scheme can be circumvented.
Slashdot Mirror
1) This kind of thing can never happen w/ free software.
2) Apple is denying itself revenue by cutting off a major platform.
GJC
watching Turner Classic Movies. Nor do I remember signing anything when I bought my television that said that I *must* watch the commercials.
I don't watch much TV, but when I do I usually ignore the commercials.
Strange stuff
Why does there need to be a legislative solution when the two parties are already in negotiations to resolve the situation? Current laws (DMCA) might not be to our liking, but provide a balanced view of the problem (when compared to laws like the CBDTPA) by making it a criminal act to knowingly circumvent a copy protection scheme which is in place. This gives law enforcement the tool needed to get the bad guys, but draws the line at presuming that we are all criminals.
Who cares if the people on capitol hill are "scratching for" a legislative fix. Legislators do one and only one thing well; they *create new laws*. By doing so, it justifies thier position.
You are, frankly, asking the wrong question. The question should be: How can current laws be used to reduce piracy?
GJC
*twitch* This gets old after a while.. :)
Yes, they can be sued.
As far as catching them, if they are doing this it will become obvious when thier code has the same bugs as the GPLed version of whatever software they are releasing.
GJC
In certain markets, economies of scarcity are unavoidable. In others economies of plenty are unavoidable. The information economy is one of plenty.
The internet was invented to allow for the quick and efficient dissemination of information. This is at odds w/ some of the basic paradigms that today's corporate giants operate on.
To take the example you set forth, suppose that some *did* invent the "food duplicator". I imagine that the produce growers and supermarket owners would protest against it, try to make it illegal, attempt to patent or copyright the genetic code of certain vegetables or meats to make it a crime to use the duplicator on them. They would also make creating your own genetic codes for such things illegal as they might not contain federally mandated gene sequences to make it safe. etc..etc..etc..
GJC
TRANSLATION:
:)
They want to benefit from the work of others for free, but they don't want to share the changes they have built on top of the hard work done by the original developers. GJC
P.S. Please don't mod me down as I am not trolling, just speaking the truth.
From the same idiots that brought you the (thankfully) failed CBDTPA and the DMCA, we now have MSUSA.
Yes, we plan to mandate that everyone use the technology that *we* approve of, but remember this is a free country.
Seriously, though... any effort to provide a *national id* (not that I agree w/ such a thing) should be based on an open standard, not a proprietary technology.
GJC
We are in the days of transition between an economy of scarcity and an economy of plenty. In years past the technology to create has been relegated to a select few. Now, it is open to all.
This is the time when all of those entities and industries which are dependent on the economy of scarcity are going to try to enforce a *false* scarcity on the people. They will resist changing their business models to fit the economy of plenty as they will see it as de-valuation of their assets.
The rule is plain and simple: When a paradigm shift occurs you either change with it or you get left behind.
GJC
No, they do not. Once a patent is granted it is in effect either 20 years from the application date or 17 years from the date of grant, whichever is *longer*.
While it is up to the patent holder to enforce the patent, they do *not* lose the right to the invention until the patent has expired.
GJC
... too bad.
It'll be thrown out.
GJC
What information will be contained in this "national database"? I've worked extensively w/ several versions of Oracle and I know it's faults.
It's marketing hype guys.
GJC
Sounds like you've been ripped off a few times. This is what feedback on eBay is designed to prevent. Look at the feedback given for any buyer or seller to see if they are trustworthy. Chances are, if they've ripped off one person then no-one will buy from them again.
I've only had one person, unsuccessfully, try to rip me off on e-Bay.
GJC
Despite the fact that the general public might not have as big a voice as large corporations, when we all stand up and independently fight for the same goal it gets noticed.
:/
Also, thinking that "the side with the most money won" is no excuse for not taking part in the political process. While, I agree that the government is corrupted by large corporations and vast sums of money, it's what we have.
GJC
This is extremely funny! However, given the relative dullness/stupidity of most members of congress, they might actually think you support it! ;)
GJC
No one is debating whether identity theft occurs. The article *will* be read by the common person and interpreted quite simply as "IRC is evil, let's kill it."
Information is a powerful thing. IRC is simply a means of disseminating information, just like the telephone or news groups.
The portion of the article which most concerns me is the part about "monitoring". Since when did we become a police state? If we're not already, that certainly seems to be the raod we are heading down lately.
GJC
I'm forced to ask: In this day and age with large corporations striving so hard to take away the rights of individuals for monetary gain, is it such bad thing to be "anti-corporation"?
:(
Just a thought. Shades of Facism are entering this country. Imperial Americana here we come.
GJC
They're the same thing.
GJC
There are a large number of people who for some reason think that they are entitled, or that they have "paid enough to justify the illegal copy", but that is simply not true. Content makers have the right to make money off of what they produce, but not to the extent of stepping on legitimate fair-use.
Also, a disturbing trend recently has been that the software and entertainment industries are enjoying the use of a new toy *CONGRESS*. Now they literally have the power to legislate certain competing practices (like open source or free software) out of the market.
GJC
Nuff said...
Books on these protocols are published all the time by third parties which do not require a license agreement to read their documentation. Despite the fact that these are not from the "horse's mouth" some third party reference docs have been know to be just as complete as those coming out of Redmond. Use those to implement the protocols, without fear.
Also, I very much doubt that MS could enforce such a license since they would need to PROVE that you learned the information from their documentation.
GJC
P.S. I am not a lawyer, these are just my opinions.
Several arguments against the CBDTPA:
1) It will criminalize the creative activity of millions of Americans who are contributing to the public good and who are not pirates.
2) It will isolate the US from outside imports which do not contain the "copy protection" technologies. It will discourage imports since companies will be unwilling to accept liability for thier product potentially being used to break the law in the US.
3) Said companies in #3 might be unwilling to change thier products for sale in the US.
4) It *WILL* create a black market for such things here in the US and abroad.
Good enough?
GJC
Enough said.
GJC
YOU need to send a letter, email, phone or otherwise contact you representatives about this. Please act, while there is still time. Don't depend on others to do it. Every voice counts.
GJC
> I think I am the first post so far to speak out
> in support of SSSCA and its derivatives. As a
> capitalist, I believe it is the right of every
> entity to protect its own property.
Only up to the point where doing so does not harm others. Read on..
> Hollywood/Disney et al. would simply not need to
> push this bill if they did not believe it would
> protect their fundamental rights. They are the
> creators, the producers of a fantastic
> entertainment industry, one enjoyed by visitors
> to this site and others alike.
The SSSCA is a way for content makers to make more money by *taking away* the fair use rights of individuals in this country. It is an affront to every American because it assumes that ALL Americans are theives and pirates.
Under fair use doctrine when I have bought a CD or a DVD I am free to make backup copies of it for my own use. I am free to make my CDs into mp3 files so I can listen to them on my computer, *NOT* so that I can post them to Napster or Morpheus.
> The Internet, through such havens as FSF and
> more recently EFF, has been an outpost for
> subversives of the American way, attemping to
> destroy the proud American businessman by
> punishing him for the very succcesses that make
> our country great.
As for the FSF and EFF being subversive. Since when is freedom subversive? Both of these organizations fight for your rights and my rights every single day.
They don't seek to punish anyone and arguably work to *help*. Many businesses have sprung up selling open source and free software. And many more business use Free Software to enhance their own offerings. Apple is one such company. The UNIX under pinnings of Mac OS X are open source and most of the UNIX command line utilities packaged w/ it are free software (e.g. gcc).
> Imagine if someone found the key to your house
> and made a copy, then made it their business to
> clone and redistribute these keys to the nation,
> becoming rich and powerful in the process. And
> when you changed your lock, they did the same
> thing. Is this illegal now? No. But under such
> honourable bills as SSSCA, your (digital) house
> would be protected by the government against
> what amounts to nothing more and nothing less
> than illegal entry.
Your analogy is inadequate as it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the fundamental problem. It doesn't address the issue. What is happening here is not analogous to "illegal entry" in any way.
> If certain "Open Source" operating systems have
> trouble reading digital content, so what? Why
> should a system which is built on the premise
> that intellectual property is evil have the
> privilege of processing assets from an industry
> which only exists thanks to intellectual
> property laws?
Intellectual property should be viewed differently for different industries. There is no one way to look at this issue. In the software industry IP laws arguably hurt the progress of technology (such as patents on fundamental ideas).
In the entertainment industry, which depends solely on copyright, IP is a Good Thing[tm]. It prevents someone from stealing the work of others. But what do you classify as stealing? Am I stealing when I make a copy for myself so that if my original gets hosed I can have a backup? No. Am I stealing when I give that copy to someone else? ABSOLUTELY, YES. I agree that the second case is wrong, but legislating copy protection for all computers, software and digital devices is not the way to solve the problem. Not to mention the fact that any copy protection scheme can be circumvented.
> Just my two cents.
You entitled to your opinion.