Yes, let's look at the US. Museums are piracy houses. Look at all that art they hang without paying the descendents of the original artists. And libraries? These are hypocritical institutions.
This statement demonstrates your fundamental lack of understanding of copyright law.
And for making movies. Biggest two movie producers in the world are Hollywood and Hong Kong. Hong Kong has long been known as piracy haven (your terminology), even during British occupation, yes? Yet an entire successful movie industry developed there. Explain that if lack of IP discourages creativity? HK Movies are number two in world for profits.
Just because movies are made in Hong Kong does not mean that is the bigesst market.
Video rental stores, neither pays a portion of each rental to the IP owner.
You are incorrect. Radio stations also pay royalties on the music they play. As does anyone else who legally plays any kind of copyrighted music in public.
As for your photographer, maybe he should WORK TO PROMOTE AND PROFIT FROM HIS WORK instead of relying on gov't. If you need courts and police behind you to earn a living from your work, then you are not a good businessman to start, yes? You expect to just sit and have money roll in?
How do you say "troll" in your country? The above statement is truely absurd. Of course the artist promotes and markest his work, otherwise you never would have heard his name.
The argument on IP distills down this, "If profit can be made from a persons indvidual labor, it should be that person." This of course does not in any way preclude exclusive licensing or selling of copyrights, it just means it is up to the creator.
Are you are Russian? Otherwise, why would the Russian ambassador, plenipotentiary or not care wht you think? He is an ambassador between the Russian government and ours. He doesn't even answer to Russian citizens let alone American.
You really don't. Maybe this explanation is better than mine.
The point is that an airspeed indicator reports air SPEED. not amount of air, not air pressure, not lift. It actually reports the SPEED of the air moving past the aircraft.
I just noticed, however, that when you quoted me I said, "an airplane moving at 350kts", which I suppose accidentally implies ground speed, when I really meant to say "an airplane with an airspeed of 350kts", so this may have caused some confusion.
No confusion, pilots rarely talk about ground speed since it is really irrelevant to most aspects of flying (it is however important for navigation). That said, assuming no wind, a plane at sea level flying at 350kia (Knots Indicated Airspeed) will have the same groundspeed as the same plane flying at 35,000ft 350kia.
Anyway, for the most part, knowing how fast you actually move at a given times doesn't work out as important as knowing whether you have enough speed to create sufficient lift, which the airspeed indicator will tell you regardless of your altitude.
Knowing how fast you are going is probaly the single most important thing when flying. You know that you are creating sufficient lift because the plane is still flying, there is no "lift indicator" on aircraft. Again, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ALTITUDE the airspeed indicator tells you your AIRSPEED.
Naturally, as you go higher, the lesser density of the air means you need a greater groundspeed (and therefore, more thrust) to get the same airspeed, which explains why all airplanes couldn't just keep climbing until they reach outer space.
Let me reiterate, altitude has NOTHING to do with airspeed the reason for the static port is so that the airspeed indicator will "know" the ambient pressure and the indicator will compensate. In fact, your airspeed indicator will fail as you describe if your static port becomes clogged. Groundspeed = Airspeed +- Wind regardless of altitude. It takes LESS thrust to reach the same airspeed at a higher altitude because there is less drag that is why it saves fuel.
Not all airplanes are incapable of climbing out of the atmosphere the flight ceilings of most aircraft have more to do with the engines than the abilty to make lift.
The way I understand it, airspeed does not measure how fast the aircraft actually moves, but rather how much air moves across the wings.
no, you don't understand it. Pilots actually want to know how fast the are going. Its pretty important actually.
The system for measuring airspeed on an aircraft consisists of three devices, a pitot tube which extends into the airstream and measures ram air pressure, and a static port which is usually in some shelterd place on the aircraft and measure ambient pressure (note: many aircraft have multiples of the above for redundancy) the third device is an airspeed indicator which really just compares the preassure from the other two devices. Regardless of altitude if the pressure is the same you are standing still and the greater the difference the faster you are going. The fact that air is less dense at altitude is precisely the reason for the static port.
Therefore, an airplane moving at 350kts will have the same air pressure coming across its wing at sea level and 25,000 feet, and hence, the same amount of drag.
No. It will have the same pressure differential between the static and ram pressure, but believe it or not it is going the same speed relative to whatever and will therefore experience less drag from the oncoming less dense air.
Induced drag which is a by product of lift will actually be the same regardless of altitude however since the aircraft *must* be generating the same amount of lift to maintain level flight.
You are correct that jets fy at high altitudes to save fuel, however this statement make no sense:
So, 350kts airspeed at sea level, and 350kts airspeed at 25,000 feet will produce the same drag.
What does ground speed vs airspeed have to do with anything? There is more drag on an aircrfat flying 350kts at 500 ft. than the same aircraft flying 350kts at 30,000 ft. the fact that the air is less dense at 30,000 ft is why. And I don't understand what you mean by "it needs to go faster through thin air to get enough to do the job" Do you mean that a wing at 35,000 feet has to be travelling faster to generate the same lift? What does that have to do with fuel consumption?
Sorry, but you can't autorotate in a craft with fixed pitch blades like the soltrek. The CarterCopter is an autogyro, so it should be capable of at least short autorotation. The key to autorotation is foward flight, without the translational lift and additional drag of forward flight you would be falling straight down and would not likely have enough energy in the rotors to stop a fall from any significant altitude.
Nobody said you shouldn't document everything you do. An inherited system without documentation is a pain in the ass no matter how obscure it is. Document, just don't publish.
Remember, defense always has an advantage over offense, in terms of time and effort -- the "battle" is on the defender's own turf.
Offense almost always has the advantage. They get to decide where when and how. If there are 100 possible ways into your network then you has to protect all of them, and the offense only needs to break one. Offense gets to decide where, when and how. You have to be alert all the time.
Hmmm.... Obviously you read "Applied Cryptography," But you haven't gotten to "Secrets and Lies" yet.
You know very little (read: nothing) about security in the real world which is all that matters to those of use that manage computer systems outside of your academic bubble.
You are also confusing encryption algorithms with security in general. Additionally, although an algorithm will not be aknowledged as being "provably" secure if the algorithm itself is not public that is not to say that a secret algorithm is not secure.
Ask yourself, "if the algorithm for DES were secret would 3DES be more or less secure?"
The problem with secret algorithms is that it is non-trivial to write good usable encryption, and you are unlikely to do it in secret. Add to that the fact that most secret algorithms eventually become public and you have a recipe for failure.
No, saying a book is worth $10 does not make it so. People being willing to pay $10 for it makes it so. If you do not think the book is worth $10 don't buy it. If you think it is worth $5 offer the bookseller $5. It is his right to sell it to you for any price he choses. Or give it away free if that makes him feel good. I don't think that the TV I want is worth $900, so I don't have one. I want it, and I will buy it when the price comes down to what I think is fair, otherwise I will never have one. If I wanted to, I could certain steal one through brute force or cunning, but I won't. According to Slashbot conventional wisdom, if I can sneak the TV passed security at Best Buy I am entitled to do so.
If you create a work (say, a motion picture) and distribute it CSS encrypted, it is illegal for you (the copyright owner) to use anything other than the approved CSS decryption technology to access your work.
Absolute popycock.
Even if you read the DMCA in such a way as to apply it to the copyright owner (which is absurd since it would be the copyright owner who would have to alege in the first place that his copyright had been violated) the copyright owner can give anyone permission to use other means to decrypt it.
In other words, if:
You create a movie,
Encrypt it,
Use DeCSS to crack it,
Accuse yourself of violating the DMCA and your copyright,
Yes, in the US we have a whole bunch of stuff on the ballot. At a minimum, there's the President, Congressman, and Senator (if it's a senatorial election year).
In Texas, we have elections every year, sometimes even more. We only elect a President every 4 years, so we don't bother putting that on every ballot. We also elect Senators and Representatives, we call those people collectively Congressmen.
It is small wonder that the rest of the world looks at our country's political system with amazement. Many of our citizens don't even know how a bill becomes law since the demise of "Schoolhouse Rock".
As for Internet voting, one of the "major" problems in Florida was supposedly voter confusion about a ballot that had several names with circles and arrows. Additional the ballot was designed and approved by Gore supporters, so if there was confusion built in, it should have slanted toward him instead of Buchanan. Politics aside, if that really did confuse a significant number of people what will happen when you need a terminal and a smart card to vote?
It is well established that you do not have any "right" to make a backup copy of any copyrighted material EXCEPT FOR SOFTWARE.
Fair Use is a real protection - they can't stop you from ripping your non-protected CDs because it's perfectly legal to make copies to shift formats, make it more convenient to use a product, or as a back-up against breakage or degredation
You are completely wrong. Please read Chapter 17 of the US Code. There is also legal precident against you. Libraries cannot circulate copies of fragile works for the purpose of "protecting" the originals. Generally speaking if a copyrighted work is still available from the publisher i.e. it isn't out of print you cannot make backup copies of it. This is statutory law in the United States. I do not know if this is protected in other contries.
Please do not cite "Betamax" as that case was prmarily about "time shifting" which is not the same as making backup copies. It certainly would not apply if you were making copies of movies you rented at blockbuster.
Making MP3's for you own use of CDs you own is also of dubious legality. Although no one would care if you weren't trading them on Napster, a digital copy of a digital work is ONLY legal if it made using media for which royalties have been paid and on a device that implements SCMS.
If you believe I am wrong please read this before flaiming.
It appears that you are correct. There is no reference on either the 3web or cybersurf that the free service is being discontinued. In fact, it is still being advertised.
NBC does not sell Dateline. NBC sells eyeballs. NBC is in the buiness of "producing" audiences and selling them to advertisers. The advertisers pay for Dateline and you pay for the ads. Take away the advertisers and you have PBS. Now why is it that most cable markets have 100+ advertiser supported channels and maybe 1 viewer supported channel? People are a lot more willing to sacrifice 8 minutes an hour than the $1 million it cost to produce a single episode of a sitcom. All of the "free" content providers on the Internet tried this model and it didn't work out very well. People didn't want to look at ads on the "free" internet. People blocked them. People made a point of not clicking on them. Now the advertisers have gone away. Someone has to pay.
I'm working the CCIE right now, so if ya needs a hired gun
You'll fail. If you don't know what Hot Standby Router Protocol is you probably don't know a lot of other things as well. This isn't really an HSRP problem anyway. HSRP is only useful on the side of the router *not* running a routing protocol. If you have multiple routers talking to multiple routers (like in your core) you don't use HSRP. You use a dynamic routing protocol. In this case BGP would probably be most appropriate.
If you are process switching any non-insignificant number of packets in a core router you are doing something very wrong. The result will be router meltdown.
If your router is configured correctly the processor will be spending most of it's time running routing processes and things like that which don't require an extremely fast CPU. Any the stuff that needs that kind of speed is implemented on ASIC's in most Cisco gear.
It is highly unlikely that the "from:" and "reply to:" address contain legitamate addresses. If they did, the spammers would be mailbombing themselves with undeliverables.
Wow, I never realized that the whole idea of Free Software was based on childish whinning. I assumed that Bruce had some really good argument that just wasn't clear to me, and here he has his chance to "clarify" his position and it sounds about as rational as most of the 14 year old's posts about why Napster is legal.
Bruce says:
"But the best argument for this essay is that software patents block Free Software development."
Except the patent system is already in place and protected by the constitution, so we can immediatly reject this argument.
Bruce claims that if x, y, or z are true then software patents should not be allowed, but he never proves x, y, or z.
Bruce seems to think that patents exclusivly protect large companies. Most really new inventions have happened apart from large companies. And the companies that have the most patents are those that have made innovation their business (bell labs, anyone) and they use the proceeds from those patents to do things like pay the salaries of the guys working there inventing more stuff.
Many new companies appear in established industries and are succesful simpply because they do thing differently. These small companies prosper in a forest of giants only because of patents.
And to the argument I have seen many times that "corporations" have many patents and Free Software has few. Since we all *know* that free software is where all the innovation is happening all you Free Software developers must niot be filling for patents. Why doesn't Bruce do something useful like helping Open Source developers get patents and enforce them instead of encouraging them not to.
It is not infringement to make a high-resolution copy of a 20-second clip from a DVD I purchace.
Whether or not it is infringement depends on what you do with it and other factors. It is certainly not as obvious as you seem to believe.
It is not infringement to make a backup copy of equal qualitity of DVD's I buy. It is not infringement to make a second copy keep with my notebook PC for mobile use. If I own a second home, it is not infringement to make a separate copy and leave it there. All of these are examples of "fair use", and all are prevented by your reading of the DMCA.
Not a single one of those examples are fair use, and they all are very likely copyright infringement. You would only have the right to make a copy if your legally obtained copy was somehow deteriorating and a new copy was not reasonably available from the publisher. This exception exists mostly to allow libraries to preserve old and out of print books without infringing.
For those who claim that making multiple copies for personal use is always considered fair use I would like to see a citation to that fact. Under 17 U.S.C. Section 108 "backups" are NOT PERMITTED UNDER FAIR USE. There is an exception for computer software, but none exists for Audio or Video recordings. The only caveat to that is the Audio Home Recording Act which only covers audio devices and specifies that they must employ SCMS and pay royalties or they are considered infringing.
There either is fair use or there is not fair use. Excluding fair use from infringement means you have fair use. It's simple really.
A lot of people seem to be making that mistake.
The question is not whether the producer has to make the work available. The question is if the producer has the right to make it illegal for fair use. The producer does not have that right.
You are exactly correct.
But if you develop a method to copy those periodicals for fair use, should it then be illegal.
No, if you make copies that fall under fair use then you have not infringed. This does not mean that the publisher must make it easy or even posible for you to do so. But remeber that your ability to claim fair use is mitigated by, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Since the above mentioned publications are usually very expensive, and only valuable because the information is hard to get any copying would probably destroy their value and then could not be claimed as fair use. Although the MPAA has not yet made that argument if they did and a judge bought it then fair use would be moot.
Individuals here are arguing that DeCSS *MUST* be legal because it has fair use usages. That is ridiculous.
From U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 1 Sec 107, "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include.... the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
This does not define fair use as an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, it mearly EXCLUDES it from the definition of infringement.
I would be forced to settle for a low-quality analog duplication which would not serve my purpose at all. Therefore, DeCSS would be restricting my Fair Use rights as an educator.
Utter nonesense. I had the exact same lecture and in fact we watched the entire movie, long before DVD's or CSS existed. Again, the producer is under no obligation to make te work available, even under "fair use"
restrictions [on licenses] do not apply when they conflict with current laws concerning Fair Use
Many high priced periodicals are printed in such a way as to prevent copying. Does this interfere with your rights? No.
My paycheck is printed on paper that prints VOID across the check if I copy it. I should call my employer and demand that they stop doing this because it infringes on my rights!
The copyright and therefore fair use apply to the material not the media. You cannot claim that the MPAA has taken away your ability to use the work in non-infringing ways. There are still video tapes. You can still make analog copies of DVD movies. Most publishers will provided copies to educational institutions and individuals for reviews.
"This allows for things like viewing the DVD, and taking clips of the DVD for fair use purpoises that are impossible without some sort of decryption device."
Fair use is an EXCEPTION that allows certain infringing actions to not be considered legal infringement. Fair use does not allow you to use copyrighted material in any way that you chose.
A large portion of the Slashdot audinece fails to grasp that much of copyright law has nothing to do with direct copying. What you are talking about would be a violation of the license under which you are allowed to use the copyrighted maerial that is on the disk. This is the case even absent the DMCA. The copyright holder can prohibit you from doing certin things with their copyrighted work.
Even without the DMCA, using something like DeCSS to gain unauthorized access to the copyright material could be a violation. The problem with DMCA is that it makes DeCSS in itself illegal.
For example: If DIVX were still around and you bought one of the 48 hour disks you are buying a licesence to WATCH that content for 48 hours. If you had a program that allowed you crack the incryption, would you argue that you have a LEGAL right to watch the movie as much as you want?
The content on the DVD is licensed to you with certain restrictive conditions, the one in questions being that you can only play it on a licensed player. Even if the data were not encrypted what you are suggesting would still violate that liscene. CSS is simply a technological method of enforcing the license.
Please explain why you need the unfettered abilty to make a COPY in order to accomplish either of the above. Remember that Copyright does not only apply to copying, but also how and when the work can be exhibitted, sold etc., and most of the fair use exceptions are only applicable in this context.
The only fair use exception that I can think of that REQUIRES the ability to make an exact Copy would be to make a backup. As michael pointed out "DVD copying is performed by stamping complete copies of the DVDs, encryption and all, no decryption required"
It would be pretty lame to claim that you were using DeCSS to make backup copies since the "copies" you are making wouldn't even be playable in the same format as the original. And you can't claim that it is unfair that you don't have the expensive equipment that would be required either. Many people do not have the equipment required to make backup copies of CD's, CD-ROM's, books, etc. and there is no requirement for publishers to make it easier for you to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
This statement demonstrates your fundamental lack of understanding of copyright law.
And for making movies. Biggest two movie producers in the world are Hollywood and Hong Kong. Hong Kong has long been known as piracy haven (your terminology), even during British occupation, yes? Yet an entire successful movie industry developed there. Explain that if lack of IP discourages creativity? HK Movies are number two in world for profits.
Just because movies are made in Hong Kong does not mean that is the bigesst market.
Video rental stores, neither pays a portion of each rental to the IP owner.
You are incorrect. Radio stations also pay royalties on the music they play. As does anyone else who legally plays any kind of copyrighted music in public.
As for your photographer, maybe he should WORK TO PROMOTE AND PROFIT FROM HIS WORK instead of relying on gov't. If you need courts and police behind you to earn a living from your work, then you are not a good businessman to start, yes? You expect to just sit and have money roll in?
How do you say "troll" in your country? The above statement is truely absurd. Of course the artist promotes and markest his work, otherwise you never would have heard his name.
The argument on IP distills down this, "If profit can be made from a persons indvidual labor, it should be that person." This of course does not in any way preclude exclusive licensing or selling of copyrights, it just means it is up to the creator.
Are you are Russian? Otherwise, why would the Russian ambassador, plenipotentiary or not care wht you think? He is an ambassador between the Russian government and ours. He doesn't even answer to Russian citizens let alone American.
You really don't. Maybe this explanation is better than mine.
The point is that an airspeed indicator reports air SPEED. not amount of air, not air pressure, not lift. It actually reports the SPEED of the air moving past the aircraft.
I just noticed, however, that when you quoted me I said, "an airplane moving at 350kts", which I suppose accidentally implies ground speed, when I really meant to say "an airplane with an airspeed of 350kts", so this may have caused some confusion.
No confusion, pilots rarely talk about ground speed since it is really irrelevant to most aspects of flying (it is however important for navigation). That said, assuming no wind, a plane at sea level flying at 350kia (Knots Indicated Airspeed) will have the same groundspeed as the same plane flying at 35,000ft 350kia.
Anyway, for the most part, knowing how fast you actually move at a given times doesn't work out as important as knowing whether you have enough speed to create sufficient lift, which the airspeed indicator will tell you regardless of your altitude.
Knowing how fast you are going is probaly the single most important thing when flying. You know that you are creating sufficient lift because the plane is still flying, there is no "lift indicator" on aircraft. Again, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ALTITUDE the airspeed indicator tells you your AIRSPEED.
Naturally, as you go higher, the lesser density of the air means you need a greater groundspeed (and therefore, more thrust) to get the same airspeed, which explains why all airplanes couldn't just keep climbing until they reach outer space.
Let me reiterate, altitude has NOTHING to do with airspeed the reason for the static port is so that the airspeed indicator will "know" the ambient pressure and the indicator will compensate. In fact, your airspeed indicator will fail as you describe if your static port becomes clogged. Groundspeed = Airspeed +- Wind regardless of altitude. It takes LESS thrust to reach the same airspeed at a higher altitude because there is less drag that is why it saves fuel.
Not all airplanes are incapable of climbing out of the atmosphere the flight ceilings of most aircraft have more to do with the engines than the abilty to make lift.
no, you don't understand it. Pilots actually want to know how fast the are going. Its pretty important actually.
The system for measuring airspeed on an aircraft consisists of three devices, a pitot tube which extends into the airstream and measures ram air pressure, and a static port which is usually in some shelterd place on the aircraft and measure ambient pressure (note: many aircraft have multiples of the above for redundancy) the third device is an airspeed indicator which really just compares the preassure from the other two devices. Regardless of altitude if the pressure is the same you are standing still and the greater the difference the faster you are going. The fact that air is less dense at altitude is precisely the reason for the static port.
Therefore, an airplane moving at 350kts will have the same air pressure coming across its wing at sea level and 25,000 feet, and hence, the same amount of drag.
No. It will have the same pressure differential between the static and ram pressure, but believe it or not it is going the same speed relative to whatever and will therefore experience less drag from the oncoming less dense air.
Induced drag which is a by product of lift will actually be the same regardless of altitude however since the aircraft *must* be generating the same amount of lift to maintain level flight.
So, 350kts airspeed at sea level, and 350kts airspeed at 25,000 feet will produce the same drag.
What does ground speed vs airspeed have to do with anything? There is more drag on an aircrfat flying 350kts at 500 ft. than the same aircraft flying 350kts at 30,000 ft. the fact that the air is less dense at 30,000 ft is why. And I don't understand what you mean by "it needs to go faster through thin air to get enough to do the job" Do you mean that a wing at 35,000 feet has to be travelling faster to generate the same lift? What does that have to do with fuel consumption?
Sorry, but you can't autorotate in a craft with fixed pitch blades like the soltrek. The CarterCopter is an autogyro, so it should be capable of at least short autorotation. The key to autorotation is foward flight, without the translational lift and additional drag of forward flight you would be falling straight down and would not likely have enough energy in the rotors to stop a fall from any significant altitude.
Offense almost always has the advantage. They get to decide where when and how. If there are 100 possible ways into your network then you has to protect all of them, and the offense only needs to break one. Offense gets to decide where, when and how. You have to be alert all the time.
Hmmm.... Obviously you read "Applied Cryptography," But you haven't gotten to "Secrets and Lies" yet.
You know very little (read: nothing) about security in the real world which is all that matters to those of use that manage computer systems outside of your academic bubble.
You are also confusing encryption algorithms with security in general. Additionally, although an algorithm will not be aknowledged as being "provably" secure if the algorithm itself is not public that is not to say that a secret algorithm is not secure.
Ask yourself, "if the algorithm for DES were secret would 3DES be more or less secure?"
The problem with secret algorithms is that it is non-trivial to write good usable encryption, and you are unlikely to do it in secret. Add to that the fact that most secret algorithms eventually become public and you have a recipe for failure.
No, saying a book is worth $10 does not make it so. People being willing to pay $10 for it makes it so. If you do not think the book is worth $10 don't buy it. If you think it is worth $5 offer the bookseller $5. It is his right to sell it to you for any price he choses. Or give it away free if that makes him feel good. I don't think that the TV I want is worth $900, so I don't have one. I want it, and I will buy it when the price comes down to what I think is fair, otherwise I will never have one. If I wanted to, I could certain steal one through brute force or cunning, but I won't. According to Slashbot conventional wisdom, if I can sneak the TV passed security at Best Buy I am entitled to do so.
Absolute popycock.
Even if you read the DMCA in such a way as to apply it to the copyright owner (which is absurd since it would be the copyright owner who would have to alege in the first place that his copyright had been violated) the copyright owner can give anyone permission to use other means to decrypt it.
In other words, if:
You create a movie,
Encrypt it,
Use DeCSS to crack it,
Accuse yourself of violating the DMCA and your copyright,
Tell yourself that you gave yourself permission,
Rinse and Repeat.
In Texas, we have elections every year, sometimes even more. We only elect a President every 4 years, so we don't bother putting that on every ballot. We also elect Senators and Representatives, we call those people collectively Congressmen.
It is small wonder that the rest of the world looks at our country's political system with amazement. Many of our citizens don't even know how a bill becomes law since the demise of "Schoolhouse Rock".
As for Internet voting, one of the "major" problems in Florida was supposedly voter confusion about a ballot that had several names with circles and arrows. Additional the ballot was designed and approved by Gore supporters, so if there was confusion built in, it should have slanted toward him instead of Buchanan. Politics aside, if that really did confuse a significant number of people what will happen when you need a terminal and a smart card to vote?
Fair Use is a real protection - they can't stop you from ripping your non-protected CDs because it's perfectly legal to make copies to shift formats, make it more convenient to use a product, or as a back-up against breakage or degredation
You are completely wrong. Please read Chapter 17 of the US Code. There is also legal precident against you. Libraries cannot circulate copies of fragile works for the purpose of "protecting" the originals. Generally speaking if a copyrighted work is still available from the publisher i.e. it isn't out of print you cannot make backup copies of it. This is statutory law in the United States. I do not know if this is protected in other contries.
Please do not cite "Betamax" as that case was prmarily about "time shifting" which is not the same as making backup copies. It certainly would not apply if you were making copies of movies you rented at blockbuster.
Making MP3's for you own use of CDs you own is also of dubious legality. Although no one would care if you weren't trading them on Napster, a digital copy of a digital work is ONLY legal if it made using media for which royalties have been paid and on a device that implements SCMS.
If you believe I am wrong please read this before flaiming.
NBC does not sell Dateline. NBC sells eyeballs. NBC is in the buiness of "producing" audiences and selling them to advertisers. The advertisers pay for Dateline and you pay for the ads. Take away the advertisers and you have PBS. Now why is it that most cable markets have 100+ advertiser supported channels and maybe 1 viewer supported channel? People are a lot more willing to sacrifice 8 minutes an hour than the $1 million it cost to produce a single episode of a sitcom. All of the "free" content providers on the Internet tried this model and it didn't work out very well. People didn't want to look at ads on the "free" internet. People blocked them. People made a point of not clicking on them. Now the advertisers have gone away. Someone has to pay.
You'll fail. If you don't know what Hot Standby Router Protocol is you probably don't know a lot of other things as well. This isn't really an HSRP problem anyway. HSRP is only useful on the side of the router *not* running a routing protocol. If you have multiple routers talking to multiple routers (like in your core) you don't use HSRP. You use a dynamic routing protocol. In this case BGP would probably be most appropriate.
If you are process switching any non-insignificant number of packets in a core router you are doing something very wrong. The result will be router meltdown.
If your router is configured correctly the processor will be spending most of it's time running routing processes and things like that which don't require an extremely fast CPU. Any the stuff that needs that kind of speed is implemented on ASIC's in most Cisco gear.
It is highly unlikely that the "from:" and "reply to:" address contain legitamate addresses. If they did, the spammers would be mailbombing themselves with undeliverables.
Bruce says: "But the best argument for this essay is that software patents block Free Software development."
Except the patent system is already in place and protected by the constitution, so we can immediatly reject this argument.
Bruce claims that if x, y, or z are true then software patents should not be allowed, but he never proves x, y, or z.
Bruce seems to think that patents exclusivly protect large companies. Most really new inventions have happened apart from large companies. And the companies that have the most patents are those that have made innovation their business (bell labs, anyone) and they use the proceeds from those patents to do things like pay the salaries of the guys working there inventing more stuff.
Many new companies appear in established industries and are succesful simpply because they do thing differently. These small companies prosper in a forest of giants only because of patents.
And to the argument I have seen many times that "corporations" have many patents and Free Software has few. Since we all *know* that free software is where all the innovation is happening all you Free Software developers must niot be filling for patents. Why doesn't Bruce do something useful like helping Open Source developers get patents and enforce them instead of encouraging them not to.
Look at the properties for winsock.dll. On the verison tab under description you will see "BSD Socket API for Windows" It also says "Copyright © Microsoft Corp. 1993-1997"
I don't know what it means or exactly how much if any code actually came from BSD or if it is simply a Windows implementation of "BSD Sockets".
Whether or not it is infringement depends on what you do with it and other factors. It is certainly not as obvious as you seem to believe.
It is not infringement to make a backup copy of equal qualitity of DVD's I buy. It is not infringement to make a second copy keep with my notebook PC for mobile use. If I own a second home, it is not infringement to make a separate copy and leave it there. All of these are examples of "fair use", and all are prevented by your reading of the DMCA.
Not a single one of those examples are fair use, and they all are very likely copyright infringement. You would only have the right to make a copy if your legally obtained copy was somehow deteriorating and a new copy was not reasonably available from the publisher. This exception exists mostly to allow libraries to preserve old and out of print books without infringing.
For those who claim that making multiple copies for personal use is always considered fair use I would like to see a citation to that fact. Under 17 U.S.C. Section 108 "backups" are NOT PERMITTED UNDER FAIR USE. There is an exception for computer software, but none exists for Audio or Video recordings. The only caveat to that is the Audio Home Recording Act which only covers audio devices and specifies that they must employ SCMS and pay royalties or they are considered infringing.
A lot of people seem to be making that mistake.
The question is not whether the producer has to make the work available. The question is if the producer has the right to make it illegal for fair use. The producer does not have that right.
You are exactly correct.
But if you develop a method to copy those periodicals for fair use, should it then be illegal.
No, if you make copies that fall under fair use then you have not infringed. This does not mean that the publisher must make it easy or even posible for you to do so. But remeber that your ability to claim fair use is mitigated by, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Since the above mentioned publications are usually very expensive, and only valuable because the information is hard to get any copying would probably destroy their value and then could not be claimed as fair use. Although the MPAA has not yet made that argument if they did and a judge bought it then fair use would be moot. Individuals here are arguing that DeCSS *MUST* be legal because it has fair use usages. That is ridiculous.
This does not define fair use as an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, it mearly EXCLUDES it from the definition of infringement.
I would be forced to settle for a low-quality analog duplication which would not serve my purpose at all. Therefore, DeCSS would be restricting my Fair Use rights as an educator.
Utter nonesense. I had the exact same lecture and in fact we watched the entire movie, long before DVD's or CSS existed. Again, the producer is under no obligation to make te work available, even under "fair use"
restrictions [on licenses] do not apply when they conflict with current laws concerning Fair Use
Many high priced periodicals are printed in such a way as to prevent copying. Does this interfere with your rights? No.
My paycheck is printed on paper that prints VOID across the check if I copy it. I should call my employer and demand that they stop doing this because it infringes on my rights!
The copyright and therefore fair use apply to the material not the media. You cannot claim that the MPAA has taken away your ability to use the work in non-infringing ways. There are still video tapes. You can still make analog copies of DVD movies. Most publishers will provided copies to educational institutions and individuals for reviews.
"This allows for things like viewing the DVD, and taking clips of the DVD for fair use purpoises that are impossible without some sort of decryption device."
Fair use is an EXCEPTION that allows certain infringing actions to not be considered legal infringement. Fair use does not allow you to use copyrighted material in any way that you chose.
A large portion of the Slashdot audinece fails to grasp that much of copyright law has nothing to do with direct copying. What you are talking about would be a violation of the license under which you are allowed to use the copyrighted maerial that is on the disk. This is the case even absent the DMCA. The copyright holder can prohibit you from doing certin things with their copyrighted work.
Even without the DMCA, using something like DeCSS to gain unauthorized access to the copyright material could be a violation. The problem with DMCA is that it makes DeCSS in itself illegal.
For example: If DIVX were still around and you bought one of the 48 hour disks you are buying a licesence to WATCH that content for 48 hours. If you had a program that allowed you crack the incryption, would you argue that you have a LEGAL right to watch the movie as much as you want?
The content on the DVD is licensed to you with certain restrictive conditions, the one in questions being that you can only play it on a licensed player. Even if the data were not encrypted what you are suggesting would still violate that liscene. CSS is simply a technological method of enforcing the license.
The only fair use exception that I can think of that REQUIRES the ability to make an exact Copy would be to make a backup. As michael pointed out "DVD copying is performed by stamping complete copies of the DVDs, encryption and all, no decryption required"
It would be pretty lame to claim that you were using DeCSS to make backup copies since the "copies" you are making wouldn't even be playable in the same format as the original. And you can't claim that it is unfair that you don't have the expensive equipment that would be required either. Many people do not have the equipment required to make backup copies of CD's, CD-ROM's, books, etc. and there is no requirement for publishers to make it easier for you to do so.