This is not insightfull, it is ignorant. Fair use is not a right. Not now, not ever. "Fair Use" is a Legal Defense to the crime of copyright infringement. Publishers are under no obligation to allow any particualr use of thir content.
Disagree? Please cite relevant sections of US code or court decisions not some BS you read on/.
First, assume the noise has to be identifiable as a watermark (or else their players won't refuse to play it.)
This is not a safe assumption. And just because a compliant player can identify the watermark bits doesn't mean that you can
Thus, any software player that can identify it can be disassembled to point out which bits of the stream are watermarks.
Please support this assertion. You have never seen such a player have you? How do you know it can be dissasembled for any purpose? Is it inconcivable to build a player that cannot be disassembled?
Remove those bits, and it's gone. The meanings of the bits are irrelevant.
The point is to make the meaning of those bits relevant. If those bits are also meaningful to the data stream you can't remove them without altering the data.
The goal of SDMI is to put the watermark in significant areas so that you can't remove them. Just like the security watermark on your paycheck. If you try to change the amount of the check you ruin the whole thing.
And this has nothing to do with getting rid of MP3's or tracking pirates. The point of SDMI is to be able to distribute digital music without worrying about piracy. SDMI prevents pirtacy the same way CSS prevents pirating of DVDs; not because the encryption is secure, but because you must play a DVD to copy it. Sure you could make a bitwise copy of a DVD and it would play in any DVD player, but to do so is prohibitivly expensive.
As long as you must play music to copy it you (the vast majority of people) will not be able to make digital copies of it. And the music industry has never been very concerend with analog piracy of digital music.
Explain how this works over the phone please. Simon needed to authenticate himself to the person on the other end using the cleartext, but he couldn't use any of the cleartext to do so since he didn't know if the other person had actually solved it.
It doesn't even tell you the addresses, although you could find them for yourself by searching the net.
Hmm...
I type my zip code into this page and it sends me to this page listing my Representatives and Senators. I can now send them a form letter or...click on one of the ProfileHis email address!
I case anyone actually cares what the bill says, it states that you aren't violating a copyright if you make copies for the purpose of providing "personal interactive performance" The bill then defines "personal interactive performance"
"As used in this section, the term "personal interactive performance" means the performance of a sound recording and the non-dramatic musical works embodied therein by means of a digital transmission and includes any digital phonorecord deliveries associated with such transmission, provided that the transmission is received only by a recipient who has provided to the transmitting organization proof that the recipient lawfully possesses a phonorecord of such sound recording and who has conveyed to the transmitting organization a specific request to receive the transmission of the performance."
Ther is nothing in this defenition, or elsewhere in the bill that says the user can't record the stream (although it doesn't protect it either). It also dosen't define what constitutes "proof that the recipient lawfully possesses a phonorecord of such sound recording."
Certainly though MP3.com's current method is insufficient since it only demonstrates momentary possesion.
Is there anyone here that really belives no one played their friends CDs from MP3.com?
Even if you could somehow decrypt the files, the owner of the node has complete deniability because of Freenet's dynamic mirroring. (i.e. "I never downloaded that file. Someone must have requested it through my node.")
So, your legal argument is, "I set up this system which was esxplicitly designed to allow people to move illegal material without getting caught, and someone used it to move illegal material." That doesn't really sound like a defense does it?
No wonder the media portrays this community as a bunch of whinning theives.
What are you talking about? Why does an already bankrupt and kaput company need a tax shelter? Everything they have is losses. The banckrupcy court mandated that Iridium maintain the satelites and then destroy them safely. Every other dime went to their creditors. That's what banckrupcy means.
Since when is it my responsibility as an entity of a seperate state to uphold and obey the laws of another state? I am very interested in the official response from Yahoo.
If you want to do business in another place you must obey the laws of that jurisiction. Same between states and countries. If a Deleware corporation wants to operate in Texas they must apply (and pay for) the right to do so. They alos have to follow the law.
Yes, they will give in and compromise with the French, and everything will be lovey-dovey with both Yahoo and the government of France. But my question is, "Why?"
See above
Why is compromise the first thing that both business and government (or organization and government, in the case of most special-interest groups) look to when they clash on any particular topic?
Compromise is by far the most cost effective means of conflict resolution.
Why can't someone of some stature just stand up and say, "Hell no I won't do that, it goes against everything I stand for!"
Go ahead
I'm awaiting the CEO, President, or celebrity that does just such a thing, and planning on backing them 100% despite my opinion of what the situation is.
You are a moron
I would have backed Lars with his stand against Napster if he wouldn't have stood behind the RIAA and requested government action.
I would have backed PETA if they wouldn't have called on the government to make a decision regarding the removal of an offensive website.
I would have backed Netscape, Sun, and even possibly AOL, but they continue to hide behind the judicial system, and promote fear, uncertainity, and doubt about what a world without them would be like.
Down with the process! Down with representaion! Down with Government! Anarchy Rules!
I'd like to challenge big business, big interest groups, and big people altogether to try something new: Don't take the easy way out. Nowadays, getting the government involved is the wimp's way of handling a problem.
Not to mention how much all this "governement" involvement is making us the piss at the bottom of the gutter. The difference between myself and the rest of the accumulation is that I know I'm nothing.
You are the what nothing scrapes of its shoes. You aspire to be nothing.
For the first time in world history, all humans exist under a government in which not a single person reading this message had any involvement in creating.
I voted, didn't you?
For United States citizens, it is our money and our troops being used by foreign countries irresponsibily and without reason.
Collectivly the US owes more money than it is owed. Foriegn goverments are not using our troops. Our government is using our troops for the advancement of the goals of foreign governments. BIG difference.
For other countries, it is those damn Yanks with their freaking "pop culture" and liberal views corrupting society.
The "culture" of the US is only 200 years old. much less influencial than the many thousand years of culture in Europe.
The only solution is for the US to drop support of the UN.
US: No problem
Other countries: You can't do that!
Doesn't that tin foil hat chafe?
I would like to see a President who would. Unfortunately, Bush isn't the one who would do it. I'm not an isolationist, just someone who notices that the current situation is getting us nowhere, so we need to rethink it.
Here's the way it works: I encrypt a message with the server's public key requesting a shared key.
Without a secure channel, how did you ever get the server's public key, and know that is indeed the servers public key?
There is no 'man in the middle' attack possible here. If you change your public/private key often enough, and reject any old nonces (that may have been discovered through brute-force attacks), you're pretty safe.
If you re-read the post your replied to you will see that the man in the middle attacked already happened. Changing your key doesn't help either if your adversary is ubiquitous (a la NSA) and spoofs all future key exchanges as well.
If you purchase from a company that has no presence in your state they are PROHIBITED from collecting sales tax for either state. The federal government has the exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce. You also do not need to remit sales tax in your own state because nothing was sold in your state.
That said, anyone can purchase something in their own state and not pay sales tax, e.g. for resale or a non-profit. If you wind up using the item for a taxable purpose you are responsible for paying the appropriate tax.
There are plenty of companies mapping/monitoring the Internet that aren't so secretive. The company's claim that they are trying to "come in under the radar" doesn't make anyone feel more comfortable.
The article also states that they have in certain case excluded networks, but from the discussions I have seen on security lists, thie type response is more like go f--- yourself.
They claim to be using propietary technology to make performace maps of the Internet, but ICMP from one network to the rest of the Internet hardly provides useful data.
MIDS has been mapping/monitoring the Internet for some time now without pissing everyone off.
What are the differences between web-based text and print media? --Web-based is dynamic within certain limits, print much less so. --Web-based is available only with certain equipment (computers, web access, etc.). Print is accessible to anyone that can read the language it's printed in.
--The web is ephemeral, put something in a book and it will be around forever.
--Nobody pays to read Slashdot.
Your response might be that Slashdot is a commercial organization, supported by ads, like TV right?
What if you worte a play and performed it in the park for everyone to see. If you were covered on the TV news you would probably be happy. If someone saw your play (in public) and made a TV movie out of and gave all the profits to charity you probably would be unhappy.
Apparantly there is a profit to be made on this book, at least the publisher thinks so or they wouldn't be publishing it. Jon Katz has pledged his cut to charity, good for him, others might have chosen to keep the money, and they might be upset that they didn't get the chance.
The bottom line is that you don't have to understand the author's reasoning, but it is their right to determine how their words are used.
Hemos claims that they have(possibly good) lawyers who have told them to publish the book. A good lawyer would never make such a statement. A good lawyer would probably tell you that you probably would win in court, but that is still up to a judge or jury as you could still be sued by the author. While Slashdot _may_ have the right to reprint comments, there are other issues, like how important the comments are to the book, marketing etc. that are not black letter law.
Truth is a defence, but I'm almost certian that lack of knowledge is not.
Truth is a defence, but it isn't the only defence. As long as you believe the statement is true, and you have no reason to believe it is not you are pretty safe.
Besides, they swore under penalty of perjury that those 300,000 people pirated their music.
They swore that they believed those people were pirating the music. Unless you can demonstrate that they were in possesion of evidence to the contrary at the time then you are out of luck.
And the legislators MUST realize that the net is international waters and must be treated legally as such, and further that these international waters extend all the way up to our modems and ethernet ports.
Uhhh.... They do. A boat in international waters is subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the conutries who's flag they are flying. What if you aren't flying a flag? Well, then you are subject to the laws of the country of the authorities doing the intercepting.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in 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.
Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own.
Here's the thing. Anyone who is trading (or according to the RIAA anyone making) mp3's without the permision of the copyright holder is commiting copyright infrigement. Napster has maintained since the beginning (and in their own TOS) that they will not permit copyright infrigement "if they know about it". Now that they legally know about it they have no excuse. They will have to remove those users and those files.
Additionally Napster should put in place filters that block files based on artist/title strings at the request of the copyright holders. Others have pointed out that you could simply rename thefile, but this has limited usefulness since it would make them much more difficult to find.
Napster has claimed all along that they are unwitting participants in this "piracy" and many here have defended them. There is no defence if they continue to knowing allow anyine to engage in illegal activity.
Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own. The same holds true for copying music off the Internet. [Emphasis is mine]
Slashdot Mirror
Disagree? Please cite relevant sections of US code or court decisions not some BS you read on /.
So, while distributing VHS copies mastered from DVD could be profitable surely seling tapes of CDs would not.
This is not a safe assumption. And just because a compliant player can identify the watermark bits doesn't mean that you can
Thus, any software player that can identify it can be disassembled to point out which bits of the stream are watermarks.
Please support this assertion. You have never seen such a player have you? How do you know it can be dissasembled for any purpose? Is it inconcivable to build a player that cannot be disassembled?
Remove those bits, and it's gone. The meanings of the bits are irrelevant.
The point is to make the meaning of those bits relevant. If those bits are also meaningful to the data stream you can't remove them without altering the data.
The goal of SDMI is to put the watermark in significant areas so that you can't remove them. Just like the security watermark on your paycheck. If you try to change the amount of the check you ruin the whole thing.
And this has nothing to do with getting rid of MP3's or tracking pirates. The point of SDMI is to be able to distribute digital music without worrying about piracy. SDMI prevents pirtacy the same way CSS prevents pirating of DVDs; not because the encryption is secure, but because you must play a DVD to copy it. Sure you could make a bitwise copy of a DVD and it would play in any DVD player, but to do so is prohibitivly expensive.
As long as you must play music to copy it you (the vast majority of people) will not be able to make digital copies of it. And the music industry has never been very concerend with analog piracy of digital music.
Please explain why you believe it's impossible. Is it because they haven't done it yet?
BTW: Once you convert it to analog you start losing quality, and they don't really care what you do after that.
Explain how this works over the phone please. Simon needed to authenticate himself to the person on the other end using the cleartext, but he couldn't use any of the cleartext to do so since he didn't know if the other person had actually solved it.
No. They can't.
Even if you turn on one-click you still need a password to make any changes to your account.
Hmm...
I type my zip code into this page and it sends me to this page listing my Representatives and Senators. I can now send them a form letter or...click on one of the ProfileHis email address!
"As used in this section, the term "personal interactive performance" means the performance of a sound recording and the non-dramatic musical works embodied therein by means of a digital transmission and includes any digital phonorecord deliveries associated with such transmission, provided that the transmission is received only by a recipient who has provided to the transmitting organization proof that the recipient lawfully possesses a phonorecord of such sound recording and who has conveyed to the transmitting organization a specific request to receive the transmission of the performance."
Ther is nothing in this defenition, or elsewhere in the bill that says the user can't record the stream (although it doesn't protect it either). It also dosen't define what constitutes "proof that the recipient lawfully possesses a phonorecord of such sound recording."
Certainly though MP3.com's current method is insufficient since it only demonstrates momentary possesion.
Is there anyone here that really belives no one played their friends CDs from MP3.com?
If you don't know, why post? Transmeta has a FAQ on their website. You might try reading it.
10. Are Crusoe processors available now? The first Crusoe processors, the TM3200 and TM5400 are available and shipping now.
The above post is not redundant. Why don't you moderators try clicking on links?
Noise
So, your legal argument is, "I set up this system which was esxplicitly designed to allow people to move illegal material without getting caught, and someone used it to move illegal material." That doesn't really sound like a defense does it?
No wonder the media portrays this community as a bunch of whinning theives.
Read the article. The $50 million offer was retracted.
What are you talking about? Why does an already bankrupt and kaput company need a tax shelter? Everything they have is losses. The banckrupcy court mandated that Iridium maintain the satelites and then destroy them safely. Every other dime went to their creditors. That's what banckrupcy means.
If you want to do business in another place you must obey the laws of that jurisiction. Same between states and countries. If a Deleware corporation wants to operate in Texas they must apply (and pay for) the right to do so. They alos have to follow the law.
Yes, they will give in and compromise with the French, and everything will be lovey-dovey with both Yahoo and the government of France. But my question is, "Why?"
See above
Why is compromise the first thing that both business and government (or organization and government, in the case of most special-interest groups) look to when they clash on any particular topic?
Compromise is by far the most cost effective means of conflict resolution.
Why can't someone of some stature just stand up and say, "Hell no I won't do that, it goes against everything I stand for!"
Go ahead
I'm awaiting the CEO, President, or celebrity that does just such a thing, and planning on backing them 100% despite my opinion of what the situation is.
You are a moron
I would have backed Lars with his stand against Napster if he wouldn't have stood behind the RIAA and requested government action. I would have backed PETA if they wouldn't have called on the government to make a decision regarding the removal of an offensive website. I would have backed Netscape, Sun, and even possibly AOL, but they continue to hide behind the judicial system, and promote fear, uncertainity, and doubt about what a world without them would be like.
Down with the process! Down with representaion! Down with Government! Anarchy Rules!
I'd like to challenge big business, big interest groups, and big people altogether to try something new: Don't take the easy way out. Nowadays, getting the government involved is the wimp's way of handling a problem. Not to mention how much all this "governement" involvement is making us the piss at the bottom of the gutter. The difference between myself and the rest of the accumulation is that I know I'm nothing.
You are the what nothing scrapes of its shoes. You aspire to be nothing.
For the first time in world history, all humans exist under a government in which not a single person reading this message had any involvement in creating.
I voted, didn't you?
For United States citizens, it is our money and our troops being used by foreign countries irresponsibily and without reason.
Collectivly the US owes more money than it is owed. Foriegn goverments are not using our troops. Our government is using our troops for the advancement of the goals of foreign governments. BIG difference.
For other countries, it is those damn Yanks with their freaking "pop culture" and liberal views corrupting society.
The "culture" of the US is only 200 years old. much less influencial than the many thousand years of culture in Europe.
The only solution is for the US to drop support of the UN. US: No problem Other countries: You can't do that!
Doesn't that tin foil hat chafe?
I would like to see a President who would. Unfortunately, Bush isn't the one who would do it. I'm not an isolationist, just someone who notices that the current situation is getting us nowhere, so we need to rethink it.
First try thinking.
Without a secure channel, how did you ever get the server's public key, and know that is indeed the servers public key?
There is no 'man in the middle' attack possible here. If you change your public/private key often enough, and reject any old nonces (that may have been discovered through brute-force attacks), you're pretty safe.
If you re-read the post your replied to you will see that the man in the middle attacked already happened. Changing your key doesn't help either if your adversary is ubiquitous (a la NSA) and spoofs all future key exchanges as well.
That said, anyone can purchase something in their own state and not pay sales tax, e.g. for resale or a non-profit. If you wind up using the item for a taxable purpose you are responsible for paying the appropriate tax.
The article also states that they have in certain case excluded networks, but from the discussions I have seen on security lists, thie type response is more like go f--- yourself.
They claim to be using propietary technology to make performace maps of the Internet, but ICMP from one network to the rest of the Internet hardly provides useful data.
MIDS has been mapping/monitoring the Internet for some time now without pissing everyone off.
Completely fallacious.
--The web is ephemeral, put something in a book and it will be around forever.
--Nobody pays to read Slashdot.
Your response might be that Slashdot is a commercial organization, supported by ads, like TV right?
What if you worte a play and performed it in the park for everyone to see. If you were covered on the TV news you would probably be happy. If someone saw your play (in public) and made a TV movie out of and gave all the profits to charity you probably would be unhappy.
Apparantly there is a profit to be made on this book, at least the publisher thinks so or they wouldn't be publishing it. Jon Katz has pledged his cut to charity, good for him, others might have chosen to keep the money, and they might be upset that they didn't get the chance.
The bottom line is that you don't have to understand the author's reasoning, but it is their right to determine how their words are used.
Hemos claims that they have(possibly good) lawyers who have told them to publish the book. A good lawyer would never make such a statement. A good lawyer would probably tell you that you probably would win in court, but that is still up to a judge or jury as you could still be sued by the author. While Slashdot _may_ have the right to reprint comments, there are other issues, like how important the comments are to the book, marketing etc. that are not black letter law.
Truth is a defence, but it isn't the only defence. As long as you believe the statement is true, and you have no reason to believe it is not you are pretty safe.
Besides, they swore under penalty of perjury that those 300,000 people pirated their music.
They swore that they believed those people were pirating the music. Unless you can demonstrate that they were in possesion of evidence to the contrary at the time then you are out of luck.
Uhhh.... They do. A boat in international waters is subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the conutries who's flag they are flying. What if you aren't flying a flag? Well, then you are subject to the laws of the country of the authorities doing the intercepting.
Apparantly, you don't understand fair use at all if you really think it applies here.
The fair use statute:
Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in 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.
And from the RIAA website:
Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own.
Here's the thing. Anyone who is trading (or according to the RIAA anyone making) mp3's without the permision of the copyright holder is commiting copyright infrigement. Napster has maintained since the beginning (and in their own TOS) that they will not permit copyright infrigement "if they know about it". Now that they legally know about it they have no excuse. They will have to remove those users and those files.
Additionally Napster should put in place filters that block files based on artist/title strings at the request of the copyright holders. Others have pointed out that you could simply rename thefile, but this has limited usefulness since it would make them much more difficult to find.
Napster has claimed all along that they are unwitting participants in this "piracy" and many here have defended them. There is no defence if they continue to knowing allow anyine to engage in illegal activity.
Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own. The same holds true for copying music off the Internet. [Emphasis is mine]