(Though sec 1201 (a)(2)(C) might get you if you're distributing it and advertise "this will let you listen to pirated music!")
First, thanks for the link. Second, IANAL. Third, until I read the actual text, I had no idea just how evil the DMCA was. I mean, I knew it was bad, but I had no idea just how much so. It looks as though it was written to specifically overrule Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., which affirmed Sony's right to sell VCRs even though the main advertised use at the time was arguably piracy.
Finally, while we could argue all day about what constitutes "effective", the best place to look would be back in the DMCA, where it is formally defined. I agree that any device which can gain access by simply ignoring the technological measure should nullify DMCA protection, but hardware eventually fails, and I think the RIAA (and MPAA) are banking on the expectation that someday, no such hardware will exist.
AFAIK, DMCA only covers devices that effectively control access to a copyrighted work. In other words, if there were 10 million ways to get around the access control before it was ever released, then I don't think it's effectively controlling access and can't be covered by the DMCA.
You're confusing the meaning of "effectively". You're reading it as "robustly". The correct interpretation is "for all intents and purposes". Read this way, something "effectively controls access" if it can control access at all, not just very well.
I realize common sense demands your interpretation, but Judge Lewis Kaplan is the first judge to interpret that part of the DMCA, and that's how he read it, so that's the way it is.
Remember, open source can confer an economic advantage -- the old "many eyes" principles is just one of the reason that Microsoft might want be releasing the source.
Indeed, wasn't this one of the strategies discussed in the first Halloween document? "Combat OSS by using its strengths to our advantage," or something with equivalent meaning?
What most people don't realise is that there's the address range #D9C0-#DABF reserved entirely to provide the address space for 256 large, jiggly breasted, pictographs.
Silly me, I thought it was somewhere in the #BABE range.
I know that prior to the DeCSS case, part of the MPAA's attempt to spin everything their way was to claim that a Linux DVD player already existed, or was in the works, or something like that. Were they referring to Intervideo, another company, or was it a bald-faced lie?
Re:Is this the suit/geek showdown?
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
Do they really think that we can't see how the crappy old world works?
There are two possible answers to that: 1) They can't see how crappy the old world works; or 2) They don't care if we see it.
I thought the whole raison d'etre for geekdom was a retirement from the real world...
But that's just it: you can't retire from the Real World. At least, not if you want to have access to things like electricity, telephones, MP3s, and DVDs. All of these things were produced in the Real World. Pretending you can access all this stuff, but don't have to respond to the Real World's complaints is just hiding your head in the sand.
Truth is, it's the Amish who have retired from the Real World, and when was the last time they were dragged into court?
Sorry, not quite. Dividing zero by itself cannot be solved. Unlike 1/0, we don't even get a limit. Perhaps D approaches infinity, and/or maybe you used L'Hôpital's Rule (I'm too lazy to check the notes for myself), but a plain 0/0 is indeterminate.
If your connection is so slow you can't upload, why can you download?
First, a lot of ISPs keep upload speeds below download speeds, because pre-Napster, et al, most users wouldn't notice (they've kept them low, despite the new demand). Also, bear in mind that in Europe, even local phone calls have a per-minute charge, so a lot of users can't afford to sit back and let others upload at their (very real) expense.
...I think with Yahoo you must agree to receive spam to get a POP3 account, otherwise you're limited to web-based mail.
True, but there's an easy way around that, which I use myself:
Create your Yahoo! address (foo@yahoo.com); when you sign up, you must provide another real account (foo@isp.com)
Create a new "throw-away" account (bar@yahoo.com), which also refers to foo@isp.com
Go back to foo@yahoo.com, and make bar@yahoo.com your "real" account
When you "enhance" your foo account for POP3 access, you get a choice: spam goes to foo@yahoo.com; or spam goes to bar@yahoo.com (select bar)
You may now use foo@yahoo.com without receiving any spam on that account; just remember to occasionally login to bar to delete the piles of spam it accumulates;)
I don't understand why OEMs put up with this. I realize MS can railroad just about any change, but won't the inability to make backups make a given OEMs PCs look less attractive? I would think if enough end-users complain, the OEMs would stop letting MS push them around.
Okay, I started to jump the gun here, but I re-read this post and am confused. Did you mean that you can't divide any smaller than a Hertz? It's easy to omit a "t" in haste, but I'm not sure you meant that.
Nevertheless, I got the impression that you thought 1 Hz is indivisible. I must disagree. I don't have a physics degree, but from what I recall, Hertz measure how many wavelengths of a (e.g.) light wave pass a given point in 1 s. This means that for a given wavelength w:
f = c / w
Thus, a 100 MHz frequency is the result of a (roughly) three meter wavelength. Why couldn't I choose a wavelength resulting in a fractional frequency? Of course, I imagine there is a quantum limit on the granularity of wavelengths, but I doubt that it forces all frequencies to be integral.
You do, after all, have the basic right to use your own property.
[Emphasis in original.]
But there's the rub. According to UCITA, you don't buy the software, hence, it is not your property. What really happens is you enter into a license agreement: you give the developer money, and in return, they let you use the software in accordance with the terms of the license. If that license says, "You can't copy this program into RAM unless you agree to all the terms of this license," and you don't agree to the terms, then the license is revoked, and you lose permission to use the software.
Educational institutions (specifically K-12, universities and state community colleges) may download and reproduce the Documents for distribution in the classroom.
[Emphasis added.]
Parent: So, Honey, what did you learn in school today?
I think if they still want a big shiny surface to catch the eye, they could at least make it a big card with the jewel case and leaflet shrik wrapped on, sorta like how matchbox cars used to be packaged...
Aside from the theft issues raised above, this seems a decent plan. While I deplore the waste of packaging we've seen, I've also noticed that many software packages I buy (read: games) have far too much information to present on the surface area allotted (many now have flaps on the boxes to provide even more advertising space). Finding system reqs becomes a game of hide-and-seek, because the rest of the box is covered by screenshots, quotes from favorable reviewers, and sentences ending with exclamation points. Of course, those self-serving statements can provide some value to other consumers (I guess), but more importantly: people with poor vision can't read all the important stuff if it's jammed onto the area of a jewel case.
I'll admit up front that I've never heard RMS pronounce "Gnu," but it's my understanding of English that when a G is followed by an N, the G is silent, as in "gnat," or "gnarled." The only time I heard someone pronounce the G in "gnu" was Gary Gnu from "The Great Space Coaster," and I always thought it was a deliberate mispronunciation.
Did the judge clearly define the difference between a public API and a private function, from a legal perspective?
IANAL, so I can't interpret this, but the relevant portion of the Memorandum and Order reads:
7.b. "Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)" means the interfaces, service provider interfaces, and protocols that enable a hardware device or an application, Middleware, or server Operating System to obtain services from (or provide services in response to requests from) Platform Software in a Personal Computer and to use, benefit from, and rely on the resources, facilities, and capabilities of such Platform Software.
The question is whether or not the "Negative" clause even applies to reviews. There is another clause that says that discussion is allowed.
Another far-too-rare comment from someone who bothered to read the document they're commenting on.
To me (IANAL), "Duke Nuke'em sucks" would not be allowed under the license as stated.
I'd like to add that the first paragraph says that "[b]y accessing the Property, you agree to the terms and conditions as outlined in this legal notice." Now, IANAL, but it seems to me that "Duke Nuke'em sucks" is allowed, as long as I don't actually play the game (take your example from MS bashers!;).
Except that the theory proposed claims that there are no infinities... as in no infinite gravitational fields... no event horizons.
But an event horizon isn't an infinity. An event horizon is simply the sphere around a mass at which the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light (c). Closer to that mass, the escape velocity is greater than c, so it is impossible to see any "event" that occurs beyond that "horizon," hence the name.
...non-English slashdotters... see Unicode as a monstrosity, forced on them by a bunch of dumbasses at Unicode Consortium...
While in principal I feel there is a genuine need to use a globally-unified character set, I've heard that Unicode is proprietary. Is this true? If so, how does it affect attempts to support it in, for example, Linux?
Slashdot Mirror
(Though sec 1201 (a)(2)(C) might get you if you're distributing it and advertise "this will let you listen to pirated music!")
First, thanks for the link. Second, IANAL. Third, until I read the actual text, I had no idea just how evil the DMCA was. I mean, I knew it was bad, but I had no idea just how much so. It looks as though it was written to specifically overrule Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., which affirmed Sony's right to sell VCRs even though the main advertised use at the time was arguably piracy.
Finally, while we could argue all day about what constitutes "effective", the best place to look would be back in the DMCA, where it is formally defined. I agree that any device which can gain access by simply ignoring the technological measure should nullify DMCA protection, but hardware eventually fails, and I think the RIAA (and MPAA) are banking on the expectation that someday, no such hardware will exist.
AFAIK, DMCA only covers devices that effectively control access to a copyrighted work. In other words, if there were 10 million ways to get around the access control before it was ever released, then I don't think it's effectively controlling access and can't be covered by the DMCA.
You're confusing the meaning of "effectively". You're reading it as "robustly". The correct interpretation is "for all intents and purposes". Read this way, something "effectively controls access" if it can control access at all, not just very well.
I realize common sense demands your interpretation, but Judge Lewis Kaplan is the first judge to interpret that part of the DMCA, and that's how he read it, so that's the way it is.
Remember, open source can confer an economic advantage -- the old "many eyes" principles is just one of the reason that Microsoft might want be releasing the source.
Indeed, wasn't this one of the strategies discussed in the first Halloween document? "Combat OSS by using its strengths to our advantage," or something with equivalent meaning?
What most people don't realise is that there's the address range #D9C0-#DABF reserved entirely to provide the address space for 256 large, jiggly breasted, pictographs.
Silly me, I thought it was somewhere in the #BABE range.
Were they referring to Intervideo, another company, or was it a bald-faced lie?
the answer is yes. i know for a fact. i took logic ;)
Touché. Perhaps I should have said, "Were they referring to Intervideo, another company, xor was it a bald-faced lie?"
I know that prior to the DeCSS case, part of the MPAA's attempt to spin everything their way was to claim that a Linux DVD player already existed, or was in the works, or something like that. Were they referring to Intervideo, another company, or was it a bald-faced lie?
Do they really think that we can't see how the crappy old world works?
There are two possible answers to that: 1) They can't see how crappy the old world works; or 2) They don't care if we see it.
I thought the whole raison d'etre for geekdom was a retirement from the real world...
But that's just it: you can't retire from the Real World. At least, not if you want to have access to things like electricity, telephones, MP3s, and DVDs. All of these things were produced in the Real World. Pretending you can access all this stuff, but don't have to respond to the Real World's complaints is just hiding your head in the sand.
Truth is, it's the Amish who have retired from the Real World, and when was the last time they were dragged into court?
Sorry, not quite. Dividing zero by itself cannot be solved. Unlike 1/0, we don't even get a limit. Perhaps D approaches infinity, and/or maybe you used L'Hôpital's Rule (I'm too lazy to check the notes for myself), but a plain 0/0 is indeterminate.
I would have loved to have seen the faces of the Bristol people as they heard a series of "guilties",...
Actually, they heard a series of "Not Guilties" followed by a single "Guilty."
Well the windows history is not nearly as chaotic/complex/insane as unix (it fits on one page!!!)...
Plus, it appears that many of the nodes say "(announced)" or "(beta)". A formal history of vaporware!
If your connection is so slow you can't upload, why can you download?
First, a lot of ISPs keep upload speeds below download speeds, because pre-Napster, et al, most users wouldn't notice (they've kept them low, despite the new demand). Also, bear in mind that in Europe, even local phone calls have a per-minute charge, so a lot of users can't afford to sit back and let others upload at their (very real) expense.
True, but there's an easy way around that, which I use myself:
You may now use foo@yahoo.com without receiving any spam on that account; just remember to occasionally login to bar to delete the piles of spam it accumulates ;)
I don't understand why OEMs put up with this. I realize MS can railroad just about any change, but won't the inability to make backups make a given OEMs PCs look less attractive? I would think if enough end-users complain, the OEMs would stop letting MS push them around.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't [MS-Outlook] have been included under Running MS Office?
It depends on the version. Some people try to use MS-Office 4.3 or older, which predates Outlook.
You can divide any smaller than a hertz.
Okay, I started to jump the gun here, but I re-read this post and am confused. Did you mean that you can't divide any smaller than a Hertz? It's easy to omit a "t" in haste, but I'm not sure you meant that.
Nevertheless, I got the impression that you thought 1 Hz is indivisible. I must disagree. I don't have a physics degree, but from what I recall, Hertz measure how many wavelengths of a (e.g.) light wave pass a given point in 1 s. This means that for a given wavelength w:
f = c / w
Thus, a 100 MHz frequency is the result of a (roughly) three meter wavelength. Why couldn't I choose a wavelength resulting in a fractional frequency? Of course, I imagine there is a quantum limit on the granularity of wavelengths, but I doubt that it forces all frequencies to be integral.
You do, after all, have the basic right to use your own property.
[Emphasis in original.]
But there's the rub. According to UCITA, you don't buy the software, hence, it is not your property. What really happens is you enter into a license agreement: you give the developer money, and in return, they let you use the software in accordance with the terms of the license. If that license says, "You can't copy this program into RAM unless you agree to all the terms of this license," and you don't agree to the terms, then the license is revoked, and you lose permission to use the software.
Educational institutions (specifically K-12, universities and state community colleges) may download and reproduce the Documents for distribution in the classroom.
[Emphasis added.]
Parent:
So, Honey, what did you learn in school today?
5-year-old:
We learnt 'bout Curb-rose!
Thanks for the tip, but alas, it still doesn't make up for the fact that it's a Word document.
I think if they still want a big shiny surface to catch the eye, they could at least make it a big card with the jewel case and leaflet shrik wrapped on, sorta like how matchbox cars used to be packaged...
Aside from the theft issues raised above, this seems a decent plan. While I deplore the waste of packaging we've seen, I've also noticed that many software packages I buy (read: games) have far too much information to present on the surface area allotted (many now have flaps on the boxes to provide even more advertising space). Finding system reqs becomes a game of hide-and-seek, because the rest of the box is covered by screenshots, quotes from favorable reviewers, and sentences ending with exclamation points. Of course, those self-serving statements can provide some value to other consumers (I guess), but more importantly: people with poor vision can't read all the important stuff if it's jammed onto the area of a jewel case.
"Gah-nu" indeed. ... Gnome (aka Gah-nome)...
I'll admit up front that I've never heard RMS pronounce "Gnu," but it's my understanding of English that when a G is followed by an N, the G is silent, as in "gnat," or "gnarled." The only time I heard someone pronounce the G in "gnu" was Gary Gnu from "The Great Space Coaster," and I always thought it was a deliberate mispronunciation.
"Where no gah-nus is good gah-nus..."
Did the judge clearly define the difference between a public API and a private function, from a legal perspective?
IANAL, so I can't interpret this, but the relevant portion of the Memorandum and Order reads:
Rather than reproduce the whole document here, you can find the legal definitions of all those capitalized terms at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4900/ 4909.htm.
The question is whether or not the "Negative" clause even applies to reviews. There is another clause that says that discussion is allowed.
Another far-too-rare comment from someone who bothered to read the document they're commenting on.
To me (IANAL), "Duke Nuke'em sucks" would not be allowed under the license as stated.
I'd like to add that the first paragraph says that "[b]y accessing the Property, you agree to the terms and conditions as outlined in this legal notice." Now, IANAL, but it seems to me that "Duke Nuke'em sucks" is allowed, as long as I don't actually play the game (take your example from MS bashers! ;).
Is the X-Box going to be giving the PS2 some competition?
But, the X-Box could seriously give the PS2 a run for its money.
Oh! I get it. You mean the PlayStation 2. My bad. And here I thought you were slamming MS by saying this was comparable to the IBM P/S 2. ;)
Except that the theory proposed claims that there are no infinities... as in no infinite gravitational fields... no event horizons.
But an event horizon isn't an infinity. An event horizon is simply the sphere around a mass at which the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light (c). Closer to that mass, the escape velocity is greater than c, so it is impossible to see any "event" that occurs beyond that "horizon," hence the name.
While in principal I feel there is a genuine need to use a globally-unified character set, I've heard that Unicode is proprietary. Is this true? If so, how does it affect attempts to support it in, for example, Linux?