The motive for preventing the indefinate extension of copyright isn't to do with "hey, I can get that book for free now so I don't have to pay for their hard work" or whatever. (Although since many IP producers enjoy their work, the extent to which it can be called "hard work" isn't clear - there are plenty of harder jobs.. but, I digress)
The motive is that the indefinate extension of copyright is PREVENTING *NEW* IP AUTHORS from getting any reward for their work at all. This is the problem. Copyright extensions are great if you've made your work already. But if you have yet to make it, they hose you; and if you have yet to be born, they'll hose you when you want to start making stuf.
Book publishers, for example, can now make money just by selling books that have existed for a long while. Because of that, they don't need to take the risk of trying out any new authors, so they don't - and new authors thus find their route to market impossibly blocked, and thus can never get the rewards for their work. If the copyright on books was more rigidly limited, the publishers would have to be more welcoming to new authors, because if they didn't take them on the copyrights and thus the money would dry up.
> Jursidiction is really not that complicated > here. If you avail yourself of the benefits of > doing business in America, then you are subject > to the laws of America.
But this isn't quite the case. If I'm running a firm in the UK (for example), then I'm subject to the taxes and business laws of the UK. If I get orders from the US, it's harder - not easier - for me to ship them. Do I then have to be considered subject to US law simply because people from the US choose to use my product?
Or does the fact that I have an Internet presence automatically mean I just want to sell to the US? Ah yes, of course, they're the biggest Internet users so I must have an interest in them if I use the net. (Never mind that there are still more non-Americans using the Net than Americans - they just aren't all in the same country.)
Hey, how about some ISPs set up a ".nonus" domain which has no routers or hosts in the states?
The other problem is it's an aberration from standard law. In every other country, and for every other type of illegal material, there's a simple argument: if you import a product from a country where it's legal, but it's illegal in YOUR country, then customs swipe it and kick YOUR ass. That's reasonably fair.
The precedent followed by this law would imply further things - like, for example, many other countries suing US gun manufacture firms because the guns they make are being exported to countries where they're illegal.
If Americans don't know about their own DMCA and don't know that they can't legally download or use Kazaa, why should Dutch people be punished for giving them the option, when doing so isn't locally illegal for them?
True, but this doesn't diminish the legal argument. Microsoft have to obey the court's instructions themselves, in the world as it is now; they can't start asking other firms to change stuff or setting up artifical prerequisites. How often does a casual user download a browser update that includes an installer?
If they make high-quality content, what are they going to do instead of releasing it? Leave the tapes in the warehouse? Even a cinema release has a piracy risk.
And if they don't make the content, what are they going to do instead? There won't be extra jobs suddenly springing up in the economy to accommodate them.
You can say that current IP law inhibits creation, and doesn't protect those who don't publish through traditional channels (because of "parallel development"). That's true. But nobody cares - businesses are fine with the limited number of artists they work with now, and the public easily believes the claim that anybody who doesn't wind up on shop shelves wasn't talented.
Yea, the public likes trading MP3s and swapping videos and stuff. But if they get told they can't do it anymore, they can't effectively protest. They won't boycott, they like their films and music too much, and it wouldn't hurt the companies much anyway - they have plenty of other markets.
Yea, firms that make defeating devices will make money from them. But they won't make as much money as the content firms do, and they'll get sued out of existance. Besides, all these people will technically be criminals, and that HURTS the cause of trying to get IP treated sensibly, as anyone who argues for it will instantly get accused of encouraging crime.
I think there's pretty much nothing left to do apart from rolling over. Well, you could possibly start generating random 650mb numbers.
Re:Nothing new; DRM is still destined to failure.
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 2
> Consumers define a market, not the other way > around. When people start getting crippled > hardware that doesn't do what they want it to, > companies will pay the price.
No, it doesn't work like that. It ideally ought to, but it doesn't. The majority of consumers will still buy the hardware they need for whatever entertainment they want to view, and won't give a damn about fair use. I mean, how long have games consoles been selling for?
Another point is - they already HAVE paid for the crippled hardware. DVD players have already sold. Copy-protected CDs have already sold. They'd need new hardware to get the "nice" DRM methods - and nobody will make it for them.
I've posted it before and I'll post it again: developing "nice" DRM, which respects consumers' rights, will do NOTHING until legislation forces companies to use it. Until that happens, IP companies will just carry on using the old consumer-hosing DRM because it's to their benefit to do so; and as there's always a significantly large population of lemmings who refuse to go without their entertainment, consumer backlash is unlikely as well.
> If "functional" and "actually able to cause real > carnage", and "shredded steel plate flying > through the air" are "simple", then give me > simple any day.
Umm.. HypnoDisc?
Umm.. the current UK series has a flipper which threw the opposing bot into the safety glass and out of the arena FROM THE CENTRE OF IT?
Haven't you heard? The next step is going to be fingerprints in all audio. If your soundcard hears a fingerprint in what comes out of that jack, it'll refuse to forward the audio onto the bus.
> If you don't have a system to protect the > producer from theft, he must charge more to > the consumer to make up for lost items.
And if you don't have a system to protect the consumer from being ripped off, the producer will charge more because - hey, why not.
In most cases competition serves as this system. But that doesn't work in the business of creative works, because no creative work is a substitute for another. If you want a CD that you think is too expensive, you can't go buy the same music on a different company's cheaper CD.
You can do without the CD, of course, but the extent to which entertainment can still be considered a luxury is variable. This might seem like an outrageous claim, but the problem is that so much social interaction is based on popular trends in consumer entertainment that somebody who chooses not to consume any of it could wind up socially disadvantaged - and social acceptance is a fundamental human need.
> Similarly copyright and IP law protects > comsumers because it helps keep the price down.
No - it means that the costs to the producer are lower. This by no means guarantees that the producers will past the cost on to publishers. Have any media costs actually fallen since the DMCA passed? Nope. Oh, yes, of course, that's right, they're still paying off their losses from the last 20 years piracy. I'm reminded of the similar business with petrol.
> But if you were a programmer, writer, artist, > and musician, you would be able to control how > your work is used (whether it's pay-per-view, > enjoys all prior fair uses, can be resold, > loaned, licenses for each use, etc.)
Um, nope - DRM makes this *worse*.
The problem that *individual* programmers, writers, artists and similar invariably have is that they can't get direct access to distribution channels; and if they go through a middleman, the middleman can take whatever cut they wish from the profits, and may demand the surrender of the copyright.
Even if somehow these individuals could apply DRM to their works, the companies controlling distribution could simply tell them to remove it or not get distributed. NO reform of copyright law can possibly affect this problem, because the distribution middlemen can always ask the authors to waive whatever rights copyright gives them.
But in the real world the existance of DRM makes the distribution problem worse, because usually the only people who can legitimately produce material which includes the 'keys' or whatever to be recognised as a proper copy by DRM are the 'trusted' content producers - ie, the same firms that have a 'reputation' that gets them access to distribution channels.
So DRM well and truly cements the distribution channels shut. Some little guys manage to get distributed, but overcoming the DRM barrier is much harder, because there's usually only DRM granting authority but multiple distributors on a single channel. If HMV won't put your stuff on its shelves, you could try Virgin instead, and HMV know that they might lose out to Virgin if they gamble on you and it pays off. But if Sony won't give you a secret key for your SecureCD, you can't try anyone else and they have no fear of competition because they know you're completely frozen out.
"Unbreakable DRM" is just another step along the line of transforming computers into media consumption devices. I wonder what Babbage would have thought.
> In the case of Adobe and you, Adobe consider the > money to be worth more than the license, and you > consider the license to be worth more > than the money.
Not in the least. I might well think the license isn't worth Adobe's asking price, but if I need Photoshop's functionality and don't want to break the law I have no other choice.
> (And you consider the money to be worth more > than the amount of time you need to work to get > it, but this is in a more complex setting.)
Umm, that's a really bizarre statement.
> At other words, for each and every trade, both > sides gets something that is worth more. They do > not get something that is worth the same - > they get something that is worth more.
To them, perhaps, yes. But we were talking about creating wealth in the real economy, not about wealth that exists purely in people's skulls.
> I want to see PERSONAL responsibility brought > back into the justice system. If a high-level > manager makes a decision that amounts to > committing a crime, don't drag the company to > court - drag HIM to court.
The thing is, it is technically possible to do this - IF you can identify the specific manager who did it.
In practice, the crime is probably committed by some employee or other. But he's not responsible, because he was only following his manager's orders. But the manager's not responsible, because he was doing what was decided at a meeting. And so on.
Also, an individual cannot be fined more money than they have. But an individual can be fined so much money that, after paying the fine, their regular outgoings (house/car/etc) drive them into debt - ie, they can be fined more money than they have _SPARE_. A corporation can also be closed down by a fine. The only difference is that corporations tend to have more money and people go easier on them for debts. (The obvious solution to that is to start your own corporation, buy your own shares. Then, as you, buy your housing and basics from your corporation; and actually pay the rent and fuel and stuff as the CEO of your company.)
Mind you, there should be some fallback. A "jailed" company could be prevented from doing business with the outside world for a period of time. A "fined" company, instead of paying a fixed amount of money, has to give a fixed number of products away for free before it can sell any more (it may not change its catalogue; if it ceases production, the number left will never go down).
> Face it, this is the new dawn -- we're living > the first generation in history in which the > workers truly do own the means of production -- > their own brains.
Unfortunately, Marx's complaints about the means of production are out of date too. Nowadays, the problem would be the means of market access.
I think the theory you're talking about is "credit creation". I borrow $1000 from the bank and buy a computer with it. Then, I'll pay the bank back it's $1000, but the guy who built the computer also pays in the $1000, so there's $2000 in the system now. Then Sid borrows $2000 and goes to buy a widescreen TV. He pays back the $2000, but the guy who sold the TV also pays in the $2000, so there's $4000 in the system now.
Of course, this isn't creation at all. Because in order to GET that $1000 that I paid the loan back with, someone else had to pay it to me. So if I take out a loan of $1000, I pay back $1000. the guy I paid the money to pays in $1000, and the guy who paid me my money takes out $1000. Zero sum.
> You apparently have never had ecconomics, and > are operating under the assumption that there > is a fixed amount of wealth, so that if it is > transfered from one entity to another then > that's that, and the rich can by selling a lot > of stuff accumulate all of the wealth and > starve out the poor. This is true of certain > kinds of wealth (the most obvious example > being real estate), but it is not true in > general and is certainly not true of currency, > If currency _did_ work that way, then we could > increase the total amount of wealth by just > printing tons more money. But in reality, that > would just cause extra inflation.
You have made your own point.
In your example, I lose a few days work and gain a copy of Photoshop. Adobe loses a copy of Photoshop and gains a glyph. The font designer loses 30 minutes work and gains a long distance call. AT&T loses the use of one of its lines and gains some money.
In other words, every time somebody gains something they lose something of equal value. This is essential for the economy to work.
Re:"I wasn't using my civil liberties, anyway"
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
Sadly, it's not just funny, it's absolutely true.
What do civil rights and liberties matter, when in order to achieve anything you inevitably have to use something that belongs to someone else, and they can oblige you to sign whatever they like?
The average person, who isn't unusually talented at anything in particular, has little or no real freedom anyway - they spend most of the day doing what other people have decided to give them money for, and then on evenings and weekends they get to go do what other people have decided the amount of money they possess can be exchanged for.
The only way these can mean anything is if a law is created that makes it impossible for an individual to waive his or her civil rights, and that makes it a crime to take any action which makes it harder for a person to exercise their civil rights.
Actually, I recall there was a petition on JavaLobby a while back for Netscape browsers to load and initialise the JVM as soon as they were started. The reason being that, when they did it "On Demand", users percieved a page loading slowly due to a delay explained as "starting Java.." and therefore associated Java with awkward and slow pages.
The way to do copy protection is to make data that can't be WRITTEN, not that can't be READ.
After all, if you want to READ it, all you have to do is to find the part of the protected program that reads it and see how it does it - presto. And that part can't be encrypted or anything, because it hasn't read the key yet.
All of the 'error based' protections were based on this - that most copying programs, and BIOSs, won't deliberately write an error on a disk.
Except that this has a kicker that's been mentioned loads of times here - by the same logic you could ask a Christian to turn water into wine and, if he can't do it, he's not a Christian.
Belonging to "the Jedi religion" need not be the same as being a Jedi, just as belonging to "the Christian religion" is not the same as being Christ.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not QUITE that, though.
The motive for preventing the indefinate extension of copyright isn't to do with "hey, I can get that book for free now so I don't have to pay for their hard work" or whatever. (Although since many IP producers enjoy their work, the extent to which it can be called "hard work" isn't clear - there are plenty of harder jobs.. but, I digress)
The motive is that the indefinate extension of copyright is PREVENTING *NEW* IP AUTHORS from getting any reward for their work at all. This is the problem. Copyright extensions are great if you've made your work already. But if you have yet to make it, they hose you; and if you have yet to be born, they'll hose you when you want to start making stuf.
Book publishers, for example, can now make money just by selling books that have existed for a long while. Because of that, they don't need to take the risk of trying out any new authors, so they don't - and new authors thus find their route to market impossibly blocked, and thus can never get the rewards for their work. If the copyright on books was more rigidly limited, the publishers would have to be more welcoming to new authors, because if they didn't take them on the copyrights and thus the money would dry up.
> Jursidiction is really not that complicated
> here. If you avail yourself of the benefits of
> doing business in America, then you are subject
> to the laws of America.
But this isn't quite the case. If I'm running a firm in the UK (for example), then I'm subject to the taxes and business laws of the UK. If I get orders from the US, it's harder - not easier - for me to ship them. Do I then have to be considered subject to US law simply because people from the US choose to use my product?
Or does the fact that I have an Internet presence automatically mean I just want to sell to the US? Ah yes, of course, they're the biggest Internet users so I must have an interest in them if I use the net. (Never mind that there are still more non-Americans using the Net than Americans - they just aren't all in the same country.)
Hey, how about some ISPs set up a ".nonus" domain which has no routers or hosts in the states?
The other problem is it's an aberration from standard law. In every other country, and for every other type of illegal material, there's a simple argument: if you import a product from a country where it's legal, but it's illegal in YOUR country, then customs swipe it and kick YOUR ass. That's reasonably fair.
The precedent followed by this law would imply further things - like, for example, many other countries suing US gun manufacture firms because the guns they make are being exported to countries where they're illegal.
If Americans don't know about their own DMCA and don't know that they can't legally download or use Kazaa, why should Dutch people be punished for giving them the option, when doing so isn't locally illegal for them?
True, but this doesn't diminish the legal argument. Microsoft have to obey the court's instructions themselves, in the world as it is now; they can't start asking other firms to change stuff or setting up artifical prerequisites. How often does a casual user download a browser update that includes an installer?
Yea, it's silly.
If they make high-quality content, what are they going to do instead of releasing it? Leave the tapes in the warehouse? Even a cinema release has a piracy risk.
And if they don't make the content, what are they going to do instead? There won't be extra jobs suddenly springing up in the economy to accommodate them.
But it just isn't going to work.
I'm sorry, but all rationality says it isn't.
You can say that current IP law inhibits creation, and doesn't protect those who don't publish through traditional channels (because of "parallel development"). That's true. But nobody cares - businesses are fine with the limited number of artists they work with now, and the public easily believes the claim that anybody who doesn't wind up on shop shelves wasn't talented.
Yea, the public likes trading MP3s and swapping videos and stuff. But if they get told they can't do it anymore, they can't effectively protest. They won't boycott, they like their films and music too much, and it wouldn't hurt the companies much anyway - they have plenty of other markets.
Yea, firms that make defeating devices will make money from them. But they won't make as much money as the content firms do, and they'll get sued out of existance. Besides, all these people will technically be criminals, and that HURTS the cause of trying to get IP treated sensibly, as anyone who argues for it will instantly get accused of encouraging crime.
I think there's pretty much nothing left to do apart from rolling over. Well, you could possibly start generating random 650mb numbers.
> Consumers define a market, not the other way
> around. When people start getting crippled
> hardware that doesn't do what they want it to,
> companies will pay the price.
No, it doesn't work like that. It ideally ought to, but it doesn't. The majority of consumers will still buy the hardware they need for whatever entertainment they want to view, and won't give a damn about fair use. I mean, how long have games consoles been selling for?
Another point is - they already HAVE paid for the crippled hardware. DVD players have already sold. Copy-protected CDs have already sold. They'd need new hardware to get the "nice" DRM methods - and nobody will make it for them.
I've posted it before and I'll post it again: developing "nice" DRM, which respects consumers' rights, will do NOTHING until legislation forces companies to use it. Until that happens, IP companies will just carry on using the old consumer-hosing DRM because it's to their benefit to do so; and as there's always a significantly large population of lemmings who refuse to go without their entertainment, consumer backlash is unlikely as well.
> If "functional" and "actually able to cause real
> carnage", and "shredded steel plate flying
> through the air" are "simple", then give me
> simple any day.
Umm.. HypnoDisc?
Umm.. the current UK series has a flipper which threw the opposing bot into the safety glass and out of the arena FROM THE CENTRE OF IT?
Easy solution - write an emulator (like VirtualPC) that emulates a Palladium processor on non-Palladium kit.
AFAIK MS patented the OS component, not the processor support. DMCA? You're not breaking copy protection technologies, you're complying with them.
Haven't you heard? The next step is going to be fingerprints in all audio. If your soundcard hears a fingerprint in what comes out of that jack, it'll refuse to forward the audio onto the bus.
'Cept many CPUs aren't made in the States. And they don't all sell there.
> If you don't have a system to protect the
> producer from theft, he must charge more to
> the consumer to make up for lost items.
And if you don't have a system to protect the consumer from being ripped off, the producer will charge more because - hey, why not.
In most cases competition serves as this system. But that doesn't work in the business of creative works, because no creative work is a substitute for another. If you want a CD that you think is too expensive, you can't go buy the same music on a different company's cheaper CD.
You can do without the CD, of course, but the extent to which entertainment can still be considered a luxury is variable. This might seem like an outrageous claim, but the problem is that so much social interaction is based on popular trends in consumer entertainment that somebody who chooses not to consume any of it could wind up socially disadvantaged - and social acceptance is a fundamental human need.
> Similarly copyright and IP law protects
> comsumers because it helps keep the price down.
No - it means that the costs to the producer are lower. This by no means guarantees that the producers will past the cost on to publishers. Have any media costs actually fallen since the DMCA passed? Nope. Oh, yes, of course, that's right, they're still paying off their losses from the last 20 years piracy. I'm reminded of the similar business with petrol.
> The DMCA protects copyright owners. If you own
> any copyrighted material, it protects you.
No it doesn't. If you own copyright material that isn't protected by copyright enforcement technology, the DMCA does nothing for you.
> But if you were a programmer, writer, artist,
> and musician, you would be able to control how
> your work is used (whether it's pay-per-view,
> enjoys all prior fair uses, can be resold,
> loaned, licenses for each use, etc.)
Um, nope - DRM makes this *worse*.
The problem that *individual* programmers, writers, artists and similar invariably have is that they can't get direct access to distribution channels; and if they go through a middleman, the middleman can take whatever cut they wish from the profits, and may demand the surrender of the copyright.
Even if somehow these individuals could apply DRM to their works, the companies controlling distribution could simply tell them to remove it or not get distributed. NO reform of copyright law can possibly affect this problem, because the distribution middlemen can always ask the authors to waive whatever rights copyright gives them.
But in the real world the existance of DRM makes the distribution problem worse, because usually the only people who can legitimately produce material which includes the 'keys' or whatever to be recognised as a proper copy by DRM are the 'trusted' content producers - ie, the same firms that have a 'reputation' that gets them access to distribution channels.
So DRM well and truly cements the distribution channels shut. Some little guys manage to get distributed, but overcoming the DRM barrier is much harder, because there's usually only DRM granting authority but multiple distributors on a single channel. If HMV won't put your stuff on its shelves, you could try Virgin instead, and HMV know that they might lose out to Virgin if they gamble on you and it pays off. But if Sony won't give you a secret key for your SecureCD, you can't try anyone else and they have no fear of competition because they know you're completely frozen out.
"Unbreakable DRM" is just another step along the line of transforming computers into media consumption devices. I wonder what Babbage would have thought.
> In the case of Adobe and you, Adobe consider the
> money to be worth more than the license, and you
> consider the license to be worth more
> than the money.
Not in the least. I might well think the license isn't worth Adobe's asking price, but if I need Photoshop's functionality and don't want to break the law I have no other choice.
> (And you consider the money to be worth more
> than the amount of time you need to work to get
> it, but this is in a more complex setting.)
Umm, that's a really bizarre statement.
> At other words, for each and every trade, both
> sides gets something that is worth more. They do
> not get something that is worth the same -
> they get something that is worth more.
To them, perhaps, yes. But we were talking about creating wealth in the real economy, not about wealth that exists purely in people's skulls.
> I want to see PERSONAL responsibility brought
> back into the justice system. If a high-level
> manager makes a decision that amounts to
> committing a crime, don't drag the company to
> court - drag HIM to court.
The thing is, it is technically possible to do this - IF you can identify the specific manager who did it.
In practice, the crime is probably committed by some employee or other. But he's not responsible, because he was only following his manager's orders. But the manager's not responsible, because he was doing what was decided at a meeting. And so on.
Also, an individual cannot be fined more money than they have. But an individual can be fined so much money that, after paying the fine, their regular outgoings (house/car/etc) drive them into debt - ie, they can be fined more money than they have _SPARE_. A corporation can also be closed down by a fine. The only difference is that corporations tend to have more money and people go easier on them for debts. (The obvious solution to that is to start your own corporation, buy your own shares. Then, as you, buy your housing and basics from your corporation; and actually pay the rent and fuel and stuff as the CEO of your company.)
Mind you, there should be some fallback. A "jailed" company could be prevented from doing business with the outside world for a period of time. A "fined" company, instead of paying a fixed amount of money, has to give a fixed number of products away for free before it can sell any more (it may not change its catalogue; if it ceases production, the number left will never go down).
> Face it, this is the new dawn -- we're living
> the first generation in history in which the
> workers truly do own the means of production --
> their own brains.
Unfortunately, Marx's complaints about the means of production are out of date too. Nowadays, the problem would be the means of market access.
I think the theory you're talking about is "credit creation". I borrow $1000 from the bank and buy a computer with it. Then, I'll pay the bank back it's $1000, but the guy who built the computer also pays in the $1000, so there's $2000 in the system now. Then Sid borrows $2000 and goes to buy a widescreen TV. He pays back the $2000, but the guy who sold the TV also pays in the $2000, so there's $4000 in the system now.
Of course, this isn't creation at all. Because in order to GET that $1000 that I paid the loan back with, someone else had to pay it to me. So if I take out a loan of $1000, I pay back $1000. the guy I paid the money to pays in $1000, and the guy who paid me my money takes out $1000. Zero sum.
> You apparently have never had ecconomics, and
> are operating under the assumption that there
> is a fixed amount of wealth, so that if it is
> transfered from one entity to another then
> that's that, and the rich can by selling a lot
> of stuff accumulate all of the wealth and
> starve out the poor. This is true of certain
> kinds of wealth (the most obvious example
> being real estate), but it is not true in
> general and is certainly not true of currency,
> If currency _did_ work that way, then we could
> increase the total amount of wealth by just
> printing tons more money. But in reality, that
> would just cause extra inflation.
You have made your own point.
In your example, I lose a few days work and gain a copy of Photoshop. Adobe loses a copy of Photoshop and gains a glyph. The font designer loses 30 minutes work and gains a long distance call. AT&T loses the use of one of its lines and gains some money.
In other words, every time somebody gains something they lose something of equal value. This is essential for the economy to work.
Sadly, it's not just funny, it's absolutely true.
What do civil rights and liberties matter, when in order to achieve anything you inevitably have to use something that belongs to someone else, and they can oblige you to sign whatever they like?
The average person, who isn't unusually talented at anything in particular, has little or no real freedom anyway - they spend most of the day doing what other people have decided to give them money for, and then on evenings and weekends they get to go do what other people have decided the amount of money they possess can be exchanged for.
The only way these can mean anything is if a law is created that makes it impossible for an individual to waive his or her civil rights, and that makes it a crime to take any action which makes it harder for a person to exercise their civil rights.
In a Utopia, no economic system would be necessary. (Or rather, the existance of any economic system would make it cease to be a Utopia.)
Actually, I recall there was a petition on JavaLobby a while back for Netscape browsers to load and initialise the JVM as soon as they were started. The reason being that, when they did it "On Demand", users percieved a page loading slowly due to a delay explained as "starting Java.." and therefore associated Java with awkward and slow pages.
This is the real kicker.
The way to do copy protection is to make data that can't be WRITTEN, not that can't be READ.
After all, if you want to READ it, all you have to do is to find the part of the protected program that reads it and see how it does it - presto. And that part can't be encrypted or anything, because it hasn't read the key yet.
All of the 'error based' protections were based on this - that most copying programs, and BIOSs, won't deliberately write an error on a disk.
No, you want Ez2Dancer. Uses both arms and feet; three foot sensors and between two and four active arm sensors.
> Because they're made-up, mythical,
And the essence of the irony here is - you can't prove (legally) that any OTHER religion ISN'T made up or mythical.
> and there are no--repeat, NO--Jedi churches.
Well, exactly. The census readers did say that the survey would affect what was going to get built...
Except that this has a kicker that's been mentioned loads of times here - by the same logic you could ask a Christian to turn water into wine and, if he can't do it, he's not a Christian.
Belonging to "the Jedi religion" need not be the same as being a Jedi, just as belonging to "the Christian religion" is not the same as being Christ.