Being cautious around a car whose passenger is on the phone doesn't hurt me. It's more of the "Any phone use in the car is at least as dangerous as no phone use" plan.
How would you implement such a check? File checksum? Easily bypassed. (Though better than nothing for about a day.) Filename? Easily bypassed and false positives. File contents? Hiring folks to actually look inside each file doesn't qualify as "easy checking" (nor does hiring people to look at the title of each file). What am I missing?
My apologies, I was unclear. I should have said "a product that claims to support HDMI is required to purchase a license for HDCP, where for DVI it's optional". You are correct, if your source is determined to send only encrypted bits and your display can't do decryption, you're SOL.
really? The last I'd heard was that the drive to denser data had led to higher intensity magnetic fields that were _harder_ to securely scrub, not easier. Certainly, the drive can swap from 1 to 0 easily enough, but to do it in a way that doesn't leave the field strength with variations that can lead to reconstructing former values isn't really a priority.
Is that a bad thing?:)
I don't have both only because I ran out of room. Instead I added stuff to my fileserver upstairs to allow the ps3 to do most of what I'd be having the computer do:)
You're right, they're not _made up of_ magic people with superpowers. Corporations _are_ magic people with superpowers that cannot be rivaled by mortal man. Starting with 'mortal'.
I like this. We're getting a lot of companies that look a lot like vertical trusts, and nothing's happening about them. But then again, I think "too big to fail" should instantly imply "too indispensable to be left as is and too tightly coupled to be considered resilient".
Omega did sue under US law. US law (section 602) says that importing copyrighted goods in violation of foreign copyright law is also a violation of US law. First Sale doctrine (section 109(a)) says that a sale subject to US law means that the copyright holder has given up some of their rights. But if you bought it outside the US, the sale isn't subject to US law, and 109(a) doesn't apply. That's been decided previously; omega/costco just failed to overturn it.
I should clarify. This case was about illegally imported goods, but it's not the fact that they were illegally imported that makes them not subject to first sale; it's the fact that they're not subject to first sale that makes the way they were imported illegal.
The point is that when someone bought the watches (outside the US), they didn't get permission from Omega (who holds a copyright on some aspect of the watch; could be the logo, could be the watch body style, I dunno) to bring them _into_ the US. The notes in the decision aren't clear as to whether that someone is Costco, ENE, or the folks who sold the watches to ENE, but whoever it was, since they didn't have permission from Omega, they were (according to section 602) in violation of copyright law, specifically section 106(3). And since the goods were made and bought by that someone outside the US, the transaction was not subject to US law and hence section 109(a), the main exception to 106(3), doesn't apply.
First Sale doesn't apply if you bought it outside the US. If you buy it outside, bring it inside (with consent of the copyright holder), and then sell it, _then_ first sale does apply, and the guy you sold it to _can_ do anything they want. You as the importer are the restricted one.
The importation itself, without consent of the copyright holder, is a violation of copyright law. Yes, if you are in Switzerland and buy a DVD pressed in Switzerland, you are technically supposed to have permission of the copyright holder to bring it back to the US. Nobody bothers to enforce it because in practice the copyright holder never cares. Well, until now.
And it still does that within the US. But it doesn't apply to stuff made and purchased outside the US, because that transaction is not subject to US law. I don't like the implications any more than you do, but if you're in a country which doesn't have first-sale doctrine, nothing's going to make that country abide by it.
True, but note that the rule being violated is specifically section 106. 602 is essentially a redirect. It doesn't forbid anything itself, it just points to what does forbid the specific act of such importation. And 106 is overruled by 109, except when the items in question were made outside the US and bought outside the US.
An essential part of the importation being illegal is that 109 doesn't apply.
It's about both. The limitation for foreign-made goods applies to 109(a) specifically (BMG v. Perez, referenced in section A of the decision), but only if the goods were also bought outside the US (Givenchy v. Drug Emporium, also referenced in section A). If the goods were made outside the US and you bought them outside the US, then 109(a) does not apply, and you have no right to sell or dispose of the property without the copyright holder's consent (unless you can find justification elsewhere in 107-122).
Star Trek society has money. It shows up most on DS9, I believe, because that's the series that has the most economic interactions between folks who are not ship's crew (who are allotted their daily room and board as part of their salary), but even in TOS there were traders (Cyrano Jones and his tribbles, for example) and gamblers (the Gamesters of Triskelion).
Nah, just someone who is pretty sure his chances of being in the 100k are higher than his chances of being in the 3k. Which, you know, they kind of are.
Well, after engaging my magnificent brain, I see two options: accept it unthinkingly, and think about it. Thinking about it, I can only come up with one reason for the judge to suppress that information: he wanted a guilty verdict. Would you care to engage your own magnificent brain and present a viable alternative hypothesis?
Slashdot Mirror
Being cautious around a car whose passenger is on the phone doesn't hurt me. It's more of the "Any phone use in the car is at least as dangerous as no phone use" plan.
Not marketing, just insufficient information. Thanks for the pointer :)
iirc, the F22 project was defunded so that they could move the money to the F35 project, which seems to be progressing nicely...
How would you implement such a check? File checksum? Easily bypassed. (Though better than nothing for about a day.) Filename? Easily bypassed and false positives. File contents? Hiring folks to actually look inside each file doesn't qualify as "easy checking" (nor does hiring people to look at the title of each file). What am I missing?
he didn't say whose gene pool was being improved :)
My apologies, I was unclear. I should have said "a product that claims to support HDMI is required to purchase a license for HDCP, where for DVI it's optional". You are correct, if your source is determined to send only encrypted bits and your display can't do decryption, you're SOL.
Very cool :) Thanks for the pointer!
really? The last I'd heard was that the drive to denser data had led to higher intensity magnetic fields that were _harder_ to securely scrub, not easier. Certainly, the drive can swap from 1 to 0 easily enough, but to do it in a way that doesn't leave the field strength with variations that can lead to reconstructing former values isn't really a priority.
Have another vote for ps3 media server. I run it on my linux fileserver so I can turn off my windows desktop and still watch my stories :)
yes, but if I recall right, HDMI is not allowed to ignore HDCP, whereas for DVI it's merely optional.
Is that a bad thing? :)
:)
I don't have both only because I ran out of room. Instead I added stuff to my fileserver upstairs to allow the ps3 to do most of what I'd be having the computer do
You're right, they're not _made up of_ magic people with superpowers. Corporations _are_ magic people with superpowers that cannot be rivaled by mortal man. Starting with 'mortal'.
I like this. We're getting a lot of companies that look a lot like vertical trusts, and nothing's happening about them. But then again, I think "too big to fail" should instantly imply "too indispensable to be left as is and too tightly coupled to be considered resilient".
Omega did sue under US law. US law (section 602) says that importing copyrighted goods in violation of foreign copyright law is also a violation of US law. First Sale doctrine (section 109(a)) says that a sale subject to US law means that the copyright holder has given up some of their rights. But if you bought it outside the US, the sale isn't subject to US law, and 109(a) doesn't apply. That's been decided previously; omega/costco just failed to overturn it.
I should clarify. This case was about illegally imported goods, but it's not the fact that they were illegally imported that makes them not subject to first sale; it's the fact that they're not subject to first sale that makes the way they were imported illegal.
The point is that when someone bought the watches (outside the US), they didn't get permission from Omega (who holds a copyright on some aspect of the watch; could be the logo, could be the watch body style, I dunno) to bring them _into_ the US. The notes in the decision aren't clear as to whether that someone is Costco, ENE, or the folks who sold the watches to ENE, but whoever it was, since they didn't have permission from Omega, they were (according to section 602) in violation of copyright law, specifically section 106(3). And since the goods were made and bought by that someone outside the US, the transaction was not subject to US law and hence section 109(a), the main exception to 106(3), doesn't apply.
First Sale doesn't apply if you bought it outside the US. If you buy it outside, bring it inside (with consent of the copyright holder), and then sell it, _then_ first sale does apply, and the guy you sold it to _can_ do anything they want. You as the importer are the restricted one.
The importation itself, without consent of the copyright holder, is a violation of copyright law. Yes, if you are in Switzerland and buy a DVD pressed in Switzerland, you are technically supposed to have permission of the copyright holder to bring it back to the US. Nobody bothers to enforce it because in practice the copyright holder never cares. Well, until now.
And it still does that within the US. But it doesn't apply to stuff made and purchased outside the US, because that transaction is not subject to US law. I don't like the implications any more than you do, but if you're in a country which doesn't have first-sale doctrine, nothing's going to make that country abide by it.
True, but note that the rule being violated is specifically section 106. 602 is essentially a redirect. It doesn't forbid anything itself, it just points to what does forbid the specific act of such importation. And 106 is overruled by 109, except when the items in question were made outside the US and bought outside the US.
An essential part of the importation being illegal is that 109 doesn't apply.
It's about both. The limitation for foreign-made goods applies to 109(a) specifically (BMG v. Perez, referenced in section A of the decision), but only if the goods were also bought outside the US (Givenchy v. Drug Emporium, also referenced in section A). If the goods were made outside the US and you bought them outside the US, then 109(a) does not apply, and you have no right to sell or dispose of the property without the copyright holder's consent (unless you can find justification elsewhere in 107-122).
Star Trek society has money. It shows up most on DS9, I believe, because that's the series that has the most economic interactions between folks who are not ship's crew (who are allotted their daily room and board as part of their salary), but even in TOS there were traders (Cyrano Jones and his tribbles, for example) and gamblers (the Gamesters of Triskelion).
Nah, just someone who is pretty sure his chances of being in the 100k are higher than his chances of being in the 3k. Which, you know, they kind of are.
Ahhhh, that makes sense. I hadn't considered that side of it. Thanks for clarifying :)
Well, after engaging my magnificent brain, I see two options: accept it unthinkingly, and think about it. Thinking about it, I can only come up with one reason for the judge to suppress that information: he wanted a guilty verdict. Would you care to engage your own magnificent brain and present a viable alternative hypothesis?