Depends on the vote. Voting for US Pres is a waste of time since whoever wins will be bought and paid for by someone you didn't vote for, once they're in. Voting to say how you feel about things is fine.
I believe their reasoning was that, as it in theory could be used to make an illegal copy, or a device to do that, it was a prohibited device.
I believe that Kaplan's reasoning was "If I find in favor of fair use I'm going to squash one of the biggest ever money spinners for the legal profession before it's even started. Oh, and make my life hard too. Why bother, it's just a bunch of hippies - who cares?".
If a device's primary function is that function for which it is most often used,
But it isn't. The primary function of the net in that case would be the publication of pornography, which still accounts for more than half the traffic.
Is a gun's primary use murder? Or is that just one very common illegal use.
The primary function of DeCSS is to allow the viewing of DVDs which it achieves by converting them to a format for which there is a player available. It happens that illegal use of this format includes giving it away, but the same's true for tape recorders and wav files of CDs.
The fact is that no one is worried about wav files because they are a stupid way of pirating CDs, but they are worried about MP3 because it is an efficient way to copy them. DeCSS is a stupid way to copy DVDs. But that just means it's one more way to spot stupid people (although being on alt.binaries.movies was a clue to start with).
I just can't see how DMCA isn't self contradictory.... For many fair use purposes, unhindered access is necessary, so circumventing
access control is necessary...
Look at it this way: what the US law now says (and this is not what the MPAA lawyers say it says...) is that it's okay to do whatever you want to make copies for yourself that you don't distribute (for free or money, makes a bit of difference but not much if it's 10000 copies). What you are not allowed to do is to sell or import or write etc. software which is designed for large scale duplication, where large scale is simply more copies than a single person could use (in the judge's opinion since it's not specified how many is too many).
So DeCSS is okay, because is is a crap way to make distribution copies, they're far too big. But an unlicenced DVD copier would be a no-no as the copies are in fact as good as the original both in quality of picture etc. and in quality of format. It would not exacly take Judge Jefferies to interpret such a machine as being mainly for non-fair use copying, although you could make a case. That's why we have trials, because no law is, or should be, black and white.
As ever, the law as written is not the same as the law as spoken by lawyers.
I do agree that finding a fair judge is probably the real problem. One that didn't used to be the MPAA's own lawyer would be a start. In the UK I know that would have meant a re-trial.
What they say is, it is illegal to make a device, either software or hardaware, which circumvents accesss control.
Only if that is the main reason for the software existing. I'm saying that it is logically improbable (to a high degree) that that can be the main reason for DeCSS being written. This is covered in 1201 para a part 2 sub-parts A through C.
But, even ignoreing that, section C of 1201 states that nothing in that section (dealing with circumvention) overrides fair use as laid out in chapter 1. Fair use takes precedence. It actually specifically states that in black and white.
(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to
copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
So, fair use as defined in Chapter 1 section 107 still stands. Case 4 of that section makes it clear that making an incidental copy (such as with DeCSS), of a work in order to view/listen to it is fine if the incidental copy is not distributed, ie if the actions take to use the work have no effect on the market for the product. If I use DeCSS to make a version of a movie that I can watch on my computer I'm in the clear so long as I don't ever let anyone else possess that copy
So, where's the problem? It is that the whole DeCSS thing revolves around MPAA pretending DeCSS's primary function is duplication for distribution (which breaches para 4 of 1:107 since it reduces the market for the "genuine" product). Now they know this is a lie, and we all know it's a lie. The real reason is that they want to protect their monopoly on DVD players and the licence fees from that. The weakness of this argument is that the copies they claim are the main purpose are so bulky and inconvienient compared to a bitwise copy of the disc that it makes no sense to use DeCSS for this purpose, which only leaves the legal use.
Surely this can't be that hard to demonstrate in front of a judge?
How many living Americans actually were born in Africa? It is a constant source of puzzlement to me that blatant and open racism of this sort (a person has black skin so can't just be an "American") is not only tolerated but appears to be used by the people it's directed against. Although the same thing is starting to catch on in the UK (the MOBO awards are given to artists who are deemed racialy acceptable - ie Black) it still seems unethical to me.
Is XOR really an operation that can be performed on Racism?
And two years down the line when they're still buying good games for their machines, how much will you need to have spent to keep your PC fit for current releases?
PC's are for work; consoles are for play; board games are for a social life.
Then we need a system without names. There must be a way to get around this trademark issue. Some system purely based on the technical contact's address/postcode/phonenumber perhaps. I don't know, but the trademark problem is the Achilles' Heel of the current net.
Alternative root servers are VERY possible. You can basically treat them the same as you would internal network rootservers. If they don't have the proper answer, then send the query to the ICANN root servers. Job done.
Yes, I know that there are alternatives which work in this way, but the problem is that ICANN has no reason to care about alternative roots and so will have no compunction about selling domain names which overlap with ones registered in the alternative servers. Then chaos ensues.
Another, possibly bigger, issue is the commercialisation of any centralised domain system. Once it gets popular it starts being the object of business and control starts to leech away to those with the cash (eg anyone interested in the olympics can forget about setting up a web page with the word in the url). A centralised system means one (or a few) people can be leant on/bribed/sued by the big guys with their cries of "IP".
I sometimes think the whole idea of text-based urls will be the downfall of the net. Think about the number of court cases that would never have appeared over the last 4 years if the IP address was the only way to contact a web-server.
Is it possible to build a non-centralised DNS? At the moment whoever controls the root servers controls the net and it's obvious to everyone that this is not working anymore.
Has anyone researched such an idea? Alternative root servers are not the answer as they always have to mesh with the existing servers and the control issue appears all over again. But perhaps there is no solution that is backwards-compatible with the current DNS.
TWW
Re:And who is powering the air?!
on
Air-Powered Cars
·
· Score: 2
This whole thing about electric cars, air cars, and you name others do nohting but shift the polution focuse away from the car.
That is true, but it does mean that the pollution all happens in a single place where it's easier to apply sophisticated controls which could never be put into something as small as a car.
In a related note, there are economies of scale in pollution control just as many other things
All ICANN has to do is close down the gTLD's and force people to use the ccTLD's. Every new gTLD is just an accident waiting for a lawyer to happen.
.COM,.ORG etc shouls be closed to new registrations. I wouldn't take the current ones off people since that would cause confusion for users, but at the moment if I start a site I have to buy [name].com and [name].co.uk and, if I can, [name].net. I actually only want [name].co.uk but if I don't get the others I'm open to "thief" marketing or cybersquatting.
Since when is solving a problem not a step forward?
Hitler: We have a problem; the German people are down, they feel they have been unjustly treated and have no vision of themselves as a nation.
Goebbels: Let's make the Jews into a scapegoat for our troubles. No one really knows much about them and they don't mix well with non-Jews. People will be able to rally around a common cause and find a purpose in Nationalism without feeling guilty, since they have little emotional connection with the victims.
These guys are actually advertising their greatest weakness: that Windows is set in stone, you can't change it and your OEM can't tailor it to your needs.
Someone should run this picture as an ad for Linux.
What was unfair about this one? It just stated the two jokers' stances on a topic. I can't see any bias one way or the other. Maybe you should lay off the paranoia drugs for a while.
So what if people can "steal" your idea, and sell different versions of your product? That's the whole idea behind competition!
It is not, unfortunately, as simple as that. Imagine you invent a new way of sucking up dust without using a filter. What's to stop Hoover pumping millions into using you idea and pushing out a product using their factories at a cost (due to their economies of scale) well below what you can, even assuming that you can get backing to even try when the venture capitalists will all know Hoover will copy you? Where's the competition in that?
The intent of patent law is to protect small inventors in exactly this position and here in the UK Dyson has just succeeded in having Hoover's copy of his vacuum cleaner pulled off the market.
This is why the current USPO administration is so bad. By allowing lots of stupid patents on simple, obvious ideas they are moving the balance back towards the big boys. It is getting harder and harder for a new idea to be produced which does not incidently infringe one of these "patented breathing" patents, thus giving the owner of that patent veto over new ideas that are too close to competing successfully with them.
Your sentiments are correct but do not work in the real world where not all companies have the same resources.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the vote. Voting for US Pres is a waste of time since whoever wins will be bought and paid for by someone you didn't vote for, once they're in. Voting to say how you feel about things is fine.
TWW
Try SJ Games' site for an overview of the case and the various court materials.
TWW
Yes, but they left in sub-section C of 1201, which specifically says that the right to fair use overrides the ban on circumvention.
TWW
TWW
I believe that Kaplan's reasoning was "If I find in favor of fair use I'm going to squash one of the biggest ever money spinners for the legal profession before it's even started. Oh, and make my life hard too. Why bother, it's just a bunch of hippies - who cares?".
TWW
But it isn't. The primary function of the net in that case would be the publication of pornography, which still accounts for more than half the traffic.
Is a gun's primary use murder? Or is that just one very common illegal use.
The primary function of DeCSS is to allow the viewing of DVDs which it achieves by converting them to a format for which there is a player available. It happens that illegal use of this format includes giving it away, but the same's true for tape recorders and wav files of CDs.
The fact is that no one is worried about wav files because they are a stupid way of pirating CDs, but they are worried about MP3 because it is an efficient way to copy them. DeCSS is a stupid way to copy DVDs. But that just means it's one more way to spot stupid people (although being on alt.binaries.movies was a clue to start with).
TWW
Look at it this way: what the US law now says (and this is not what the MPAA lawyers say it says...) is that it's okay to do whatever you want to make copies for yourself that you don't distribute (for free or money, makes a bit of difference but not much if it's 10000 copies). What you are not allowed to do is to sell or import or write etc. software which is designed for large scale duplication, where large scale is simply more copies than a single person could use (in the judge's opinion since it's not specified how many is too many).
So DeCSS is okay, because is is a crap way to make distribution copies, they're far too big. But an unlicenced DVD copier would be a no-no as the copies are in fact as good as the original both in quality of picture etc. and in quality of format. It would not exacly take Judge Jefferies to interpret such a machine as being mainly for non-fair use copying, although you could make a case. That's why we have trials, because no law is, or should be, black and white.
As ever, the law as written is not the same as the law as spoken by lawyers.
TWW
TWW
What they say is, it is illegal to make a device, either software or hardaware, which circumvents accesss control.
Only if that is the main reason for the software existing. I'm saying that it is logically improbable (to a high degree) that that can be the main reason for DeCSS being written. This is covered in 1201 para a part 2 sub-parts A through C.
But, even ignoreing that, section C of 1201 states that nothing in that section (dealing with circumvention) overrides fair use as laid out in chapter 1. Fair use takes precedence. It actually specifically states that in black and white.
TWW
(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
So, fair use as defined in Chapter 1 section 107 still stands. Case 4 of that section makes it clear that making an incidental copy (such as with DeCSS), of a work in order to view/listen to it is fine if the incidental copy is not distributed, ie if the actions take to use the work have no effect on the market for the product. If I use DeCSS to make a version of a movie that I can watch on my computer I'm in the clear so long as I don't ever let anyone else possess that copy
So, where's the problem? It is that the whole DeCSS thing revolves around MPAA pretending DeCSS's primary function is duplication for distribution (which breaches para 4 of 1:107 since it reduces the market for the "genuine" product). Now they know this is a lie, and we all know it's a lie. The real reason is that they want to protect their monopoly on DVD players and the licence fees from that. The weakness of this argument is that the copies they claim are the main purpose are so bulky and inconvienient compared to a bitwise copy of the disc that it makes no sense to use DeCSS for this purpose, which only leaves the legal use.
Surely this can't be that hard to demonstrate in front of a judge?
TWW
Why? A good game is a good game, I still play Diplomacy when I can and it was designed in 1963. What has the age of a game got to do with it?
I think perhaps you feel that a game is only "relevant" if it's got state of the art graphics; I am more interested in the gameplay.
TWW
How many living Americans actually were born in Africa? It is a constant source of puzzlement to me that blatant and open racism of this sort (a person has black skin so can't just be an "American") is not only tolerated but appears to be used by the people it's directed against. Although the same thing is starting to catch on in the UK (the MOBO awards are given to artists who are deemed racialy acceptable - ie Black) it still seems unethical to me.
Is XOR really an operation that can be performed on Racism?
TWW
PC's are for work; consoles are for play; board games are for a social life.
TWW
TWW
Yes, I know that there are alternatives which work in this way, but the problem is that ICANN has no reason to care about alternative roots and so will have no compunction about selling domain names which overlap with ones registered in the alternative servers. Then chaos ensues.
Another, possibly bigger, issue is the commercialisation of any centralised domain system. Once it gets popular it starts being the object of business and control starts to leech away to those with the cash (eg anyone interested in the olympics can forget about setting up a web page with the word in the url). A centralised system means one (or a few) people can be leant on/bribed/sued by the big guys with their cries of "IP".
I sometimes think the whole idea of text-based urls will be the downfall of the net. Think about the number of court cases that would never have appeared over the last 4 years if the IP address was the only way to contact a web-server.
TWW
Has anyone researched such an idea? Alternative root servers are not the answer as they always have to mesh with the existing servers and the control issue appears all over again. But perhaps there is no solution that is backwards-compatible with the current DNS.
TWW
That is true, but it does mean that the pollution all happens in a single place where it's easier to apply sophisticated controls which could never be put into something as small as a car.
In a related note, there are economies of scale in pollution control just as many other things
TWW
.COM, .ORG etc shouls be closed to new registrations. I wouldn't take the current ones off people since that would cause confusion for users, but at the moment if I start a site I have to buy [name].com and [name].co.uk and, if I can, [name].net. I actually only want [name].co.uk but if I don't get the others I'm open to "thief" marketing or cybersquatting.
TWW
TWW
Hitler: We have a problem; the German people are down, they feel they have been unjustly treated and have no vision of themselves as a nation.
Goebbels: Let's make the Jews into a scapegoat for our troubles. No one really knows much about them and they don't mix well with non-Jews. People will be able to rally around a common cause and find a purpose in Nationalism without feeling guilty, since they have little emotional connection with the victims.
Problem solved but not, I think, a step forward.
TWW
Linux - Cuz one size doesn't fit all."
These guys are actually advertising their greatest weakness: that Windows is set in stone, you can't change it and your OEM can't tailor it to your needs.
Someone should run this picture as an ad for Linux.
TWW
What was unfair about this one? It just stated the two jokers' stances on a topic. I can't see any bias one way or the other. Maybe you should lay off the paranoia drugs for a while.
It is not, unfortunately, as simple as that. Imagine you invent a new way of sucking up dust without using a filter. What's to stop Hoover pumping millions into using you idea and pushing out a product using their factories at a cost (due to their economies of scale) well below what you can, even assuming that you can get backing to even try when the venture capitalists will all know Hoover will copy you? Where's the competition in that?
The intent of patent law is to protect small inventors in exactly this position and here in the UK Dyson has just succeeded in having Hoover's copy of his vacuum cleaner pulled off the market.
This is why the current USPO administration is so bad. By allowing lots of stupid patents on simple, obvious ideas they are moving the balance back towards the big boys. It is getting harder and harder for a new idea to be produced which does not incidently infringe one of these "patented breathing" patents, thus giving the owner of that patent veto over new ideas that are too close to competing successfully with them.
Your sentiments are correct but do not work in the real world where not all companies have the same resources.
TWW
4. Frustrated Linux user looks at reset button and thinks "What does that do again?".
So you reckon that fighting Nazis is morally equivilent to rape and lynching blacks. Not going to get much support for that idea.