Shit. your right. But it is only a misdemeanor. Here it is in Texas.. 76(R) HB 1415
(1) Intentionally and knowingly makes or maintains an 1-20 unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, 1-21 electronically, or inductively, to any cable, wire, or other 1-22 component of a multichannel video or information services 1-23 provider's system or to a cable, wire or other media, or television 1-24 set, video tape recorder, or other receiver that is attached to a
2-1 multichannel video or information services provider's system.
2-2 (2) Intentionally and knowingly attaches, causes to be
2-3 attached, or maintains the attachment of any unauthorized device to
2-4 any cable, wire, or other component of a multichannel video or
2-5 information services provider's system or to a cable, wire or other
2-6 media, or television set, video tape recorder, or other receiver
2-7 that is attached to a multichannel video or information services
2-8 provider's system.
2-9 (3) Intentionally and knowingly tampers with, changes, 2-10 makes or maintains any modification or alteration to any device 2-11 installed by the multichannel video or information services 2-12 provider. 2-13 (4) Intentionally and knowingly tampers with, changes, 2-14 makes or maintains any modification or alterations to an access 2-15 device that authorizes services, or obtains any unauthorized access 2-16 device and uses the modified, altered, or unauthorized access 2-17 device to obtain services from a multichannel video or information 2-18 services provider. 2-19 (b) In this section: 2-20 (1) "Multichannel video or information service" means 2-21 a duly licensed cable television system, video dialtone system, 2-22 Multichannel Multipoint Distribution service system (MMDS), Direct 2-23 Broadcast Satellite system (DBS) or other system providing video or 2-24 information services that are distributed via cable, wire, radio 2-25 frequency, or other media; and 2-26 (2) "unauthorized connection," "unauthorized device" 2-27 and "unauthorized access device" means a connection, device and
3-1 access device not authorized by the multichannel video or
3-2 information services provider and designed in whole or in part to
3-3 decrypt, intercept, descramble, decode or otherwise make
3-4 intelligible any encrypted, encoded, scrambled, or other
3-5 nonstandard signal carried by a multichannel video or information
3-6 services provider.
3-7 (3) "Encrypted, encoded, scrambled, or other
3-8 nonstandard signal" means any type of signal or transmission that
3-9 is not intended to produce an intelligible program or service 3-10 without the use of a special device, signal, or information 3-11 provided by the multichannel video or information services provider 3-12 or its agents to authorized subscribers. 3-13 (c) For purposes of this section, each purchase, connection, 3-14 attachment, tamper, change, incorporation, or modification shall 3-15 constitute a separate violation of this section.
The punishement follows:
An offense under this section is a Class C [B] 5-12 misdemeanor unless the actor committed the offense for 5-13 remuneration, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor. 5-14 (f) A second offense under this section is a Class B 5-15 misdemeanor unless the actor committed the offense for 5-16 remuneration, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor. 5-17 (g) A third and any subsequent offense under this section is 5-18 a Class A misdemeanor unless the actor committed the offense for 5-19 remuneration, in which event it is a state jail felony.
This happened to me once. I tried to be honest and called the bank. They thought I was a freakin looney. They didn't have anyway to deal with me returning the the money. Yeah I spent it. Guess I'm going to jail and hell.
Why do I care if the local stations go out of business? I already pay $80/ month for additional programming. That business model seems to survive just fine.
Ok This is off topic. but here is my feeling on the whole Israely\Palestine thing. Build One BIG HONKIN wall around the whole place and let the crazy bastards blow each other to smitherines. When you stop seeing smoke coming over the top we can think about tearing the wall down.
Actually your logic is faulty. You can't watch the DVD at Best Buy(R) (or maybe you can) because you are on somebody else's property. If you refused to leave you would probably be arrested for intrudence or trespassing. This has nothing with whether or not you own the movie. A more realistic analogy might be if you were only allowed to watch the movie in your living room but not in your bedroom (a real possibility given the current climate).
In reality you do own a copy of that movie. You should be able to do whatever you want with that movie short of making copies to sell to other people, claiming the work as your own, or creating derivative works with out licensing. Everything else should be fair game.
Stop the 'fair use' bullshit. Putting a $100m movie on KAZAA does NOT constiture 'fair use.' That definition of fair use has infact eroded most of the legitimate 'fair use.'
I am a Multi-Disciplined, Multi-Certified, and very talented professional in a good paying job. I do not have a college degree. I am going back to school in order to get more money. The only thing I want from a BS is a piece of paper. That piece of paper will allow me to earn more money and to pursue other pieces of paper. I have been successful with out it, but I feel like I will be even more successful with it. As for only wanting to be an SA; that's now. What about the future?
Funny statement from Jack, "Pirates seek to profit off the enormous popularity of DVDs by using the latest in technology to illegally manufacture DVD copies of Hollywood films, and again dupe consumers into purchasing a wholly inferior product." I thought the whole purpose of encrypting them is because the copies are indestinguishable form the originals.
Well I wote it in Word, why would you expect it to be error free?. But then again the errors might have been introduced when I changed it in to HTML. You are welcome to use it for a class template. I would like to follow up.
Actually, thats what the supreme court is supposed to be for. Unfortunately someone has to sue to get it overturned. The second ammendment is what happens after that.
It has been brought to my attention that the bill entitled
"Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" has been introduced in
the Senate as proposed legislation.
A bit of background about myself:
I have worked in the computer industry for about 7
years. I create software and design networking infrastructures. I am familiar
with various uses of technology relating to the telecommunications industry.
Outside of work, I watch satellite television, own a DVD player, and have a
broadband connection to the Internet. I go to a few movies and own 100 or so
music CDs.
I mention all these things as evidence that I am a typical
entertainment consumer. I also think that it is necessary to know that some of
the entertainment appliances I own are encrypted. My DVD player uses the
standard CSS encryption and my satellite receiver uses a 'SmartCard' to decrypt
its transmission.
I submit myself to these encrypted technologies voluntarily. I
make what I consider a sacrifice, in order to get the higher quality of the
digital technologies. Even though, I do this of my own free will, I do not
necessarily agree with the politics involved in the encryption of digital
transmissions, as some of the technologies interfere with my fair use rights of
the copyrighted content.
In the devices that I use there are basically two kinds of
encryption at work. The first kind is used by my satellite provider. My
satellite provider encrypts the transmission from the satellite to my receiver.
I do not have a problem with this type of encryption. I understand their
concern that the signal might be intercepted and used by unscrupulous
individuals. Once the content gets past the box, I am able to exercise my
fair use rights by recording it to my PVR (personal video recorder) or my VCR.
In this manner, I am able to either "time shift1," "location shift2,"
or "media shift.3"
My DVD player is a much different case. Because of the way
encryption is implemented in the device, I am unable to make any fair use copies
of its content. I am unable to make copies of a DVD for backup purposes. DVDs
are quite fragile. A tiny scratch can render a $30.00 DVD unusable. I am also
unable to "media shift." I can not create a copy of a DVD to view on my VCR.
There is also a larger concern; there is no current legal way to make exact
duplicates of a DVD once that material falls in the public domain.
The key point here is that I submit myself to these
technologies voluntarily, so that I may enjoy these higher quality digital
pictures and audio.
I absolutely agree that copyrights should be
enforced. The copying of material that somebody else has claim to is and always
has been against the law. People who own these copyrights should defend these
properties vigorously. The current law known as the DMCA criminalizes copyright
infringement, as it should. Unfortunately, the current law goes way too far.
It also criminalizes the creation and use of any device or software that may be
used for the circumvention of encryption. That law makes no exception for uses
that would traditionally be considered fair use.
The proposed law goes even further.
It requires the implementation of an encryption scheme on all
technology that is capable of manipulating digital content. It makes the
circumvention of this mandated technology illegal and actionable.
It puts the control of traditional fair use in the hands of the
content providers. This is an obvious conflict of interest.
It limits what I can do on devices that I own. It implements
these limitations on the use of my personal property, whether or not I use that
property to view or listen to digital content.
It does this at the monetary expense of and to the detriment of
the ordinary citizen, which the government and the law is empowered to protect.
The supporters of this law are trying to convince
congress that this mandated encryption is required for them to place digital
content on the Internet or in the air for the use of digital television. The
opposite is true and is easily demonstrated by the digital cable and digital
satellite industries. Those industries use encryption on a voluntary basis.
There is absolutely no technical reason this same method can not be used for
Internet delivery of digital content. That is, if you want to receive those
signals, you must voluntarily use their decrypting hardware or software.
As for the encrypting of digital content offered
over the airwaves, the concept is actually quite ridiculous. What the
supporters would contend is that if they broadcast the programs in digital
format, that they currently broadcast, unencrypted, in analog format, somehow,
pirating of that content will increase. Why would anybody take the time to
pirate content that is already free to them? The only goal encrypting this
content would achieve, is the absolute control, by the content industry, of the
way that the digital content is viewed. For instance, they might allow you to
make a digital recording of the content, but place a restriction on fast
forwarding through the commercials.
We live in a free market society. History has
proven that technology will be adopted if and when the consumer views that
technology as useful or preferred. Instead of letting the free market rule, the
supporter would push these technologies down or throats, and then limit how we
could use them.
In direct conflict with the bills title, the real
agenda of this bill seems to be to limit the function of the personal computer
in regards to copying data, and to eliminate the consumer's ability to watch or
listen to content in the way that they choose.
1
Time Shifting is the act of recording a program,
in order to view/listen it at a different time than it originally aired.
For example, I might want to record the news so that I can watch it at 6:00 am,
instead of 10:00 pm.
2 Location Shifting is the act of recoding a program in order to
view/listen it from a different location.
For example, I might want to watch a program that I recorded at friend's house.
3
Media Shifting is the act of recording a program
in order to view/listen to it on a preferred media.
For example, I may want to watch a movie on my VCR that I own on DVD, or play
music that I own on CD on
an MP3 player.
You are absolutely right. As I mentioned, one of the big perks of Citrix, is the fact that it has a client for any OS. There are terminals however that support RDP and therefore WTS. The Terminal Server Client software does only run windows based machines. I haven't tried it with Wine or anything like that. There are projects to port RDP to *NIX.
Citrix rocks, but is unecessary. You can use terminal services with out it. There are bennies to using citrix, like clients for any OS, and seamless windows(r), but I think you can get along with out them quite well.
This happend once, but it was publishing the combination of bank safe in the news paper. The news paper was found innocent of any wrong doing. I am sure someone can find a link to the story.
Could somebody please tell me how he broke the law? He wrote code in Russia that is legal in Russia. He then put it on his website in Russia. The only people who broke the law, it seems to me, are the people who boughtit. This I believe include the FBI and ADOBE.
I think we can all admit this LAW is over reaching. Doesn't the 11th admendment say something like
"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.".
Doesn't this mean that our laws do not apply to other courties?
I know this is a totally unique opinion, and therefore can't posibly have any relevence, but maybe its possible that if you don't like the content of a website or a tv station or a radio station or a book or a news paper, DON'T GO THERE, WATCH IT, LISTEN TO IT OR READ IT. Bunch of freeking right wing, do as I say not as I do, you aren't able to make reasonable decisions for yourself therefore you aren't responsible for your actions IDIOTS.
And yes I am quite aware of the bad grammer, mispellings and run-on sentences. And if you care, you are the person I am talking to.
Slashdot Mirror
This is rediculous. Microsoft is looking for a cut. How much would you like to bet they settle for a % of future earnings.
Wouldn't he have prior art?
Shit. your right. But it is only a misdemeanor. Here it is in Texas..
76(R) HB 1415
(1) Intentionally and knowingly makes or maintains an
1-20 unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically,
1-21 electronically, or inductively, to any cable, wire, or other
1-22 component of a multichannel video or information services
1-23 provider's system or to a cable, wire or other media, or television
1-24 set, video tape recorder, or other receiver that is attached to a
2-1 multichannel video or information services provider's system.
2-2 (2) Intentionally and knowingly attaches, causes to be
2-3 attached, or maintains the attachment of any unauthorized device to
2-4 any cable, wire, or other component of a multichannel video or
2-5 information services provider's system or to a cable, wire or other
2-6 media, or television set, video tape recorder, or other receiver
2-7 that is attached to a multichannel video or information services
2-8 provider's system.
2-9 (3) Intentionally and knowingly tampers with, changes,
2-10 makes or maintains any modification or alteration to any device
2-11 installed by the multichannel video or information services
2-12 provider.
2-13 (4) Intentionally and knowingly tampers with, changes,
2-14 makes or maintains any modification or alterations to an access
2-15 device that authorizes services, or obtains any unauthorized access
2-16 device and uses the modified, altered, or unauthorized access
2-17 device to obtain services from a multichannel video or information
2-18 services provider.
2-19 (b) In this section:
2-20 (1) "Multichannel video or information service" means
2-21 a duly licensed cable television system, video dialtone system,
2-22 Multichannel Multipoint Distribution service system (MMDS), Direct
2-23 Broadcast Satellite system (DBS) or other system providing video or
2-24 information services that are distributed via cable, wire, radio
2-25 frequency, or other media; and
2-26 (2) "unauthorized connection," "unauthorized device"
2-27 and "unauthorized access device" means a connection, device and
3-1 access device not authorized by the multichannel video or
3-2 information services provider and designed in whole or in part to
3-3 decrypt, intercept, descramble, decode or otherwise make
3-4 intelligible any encrypted, encoded, scrambled, or other
3-5 nonstandard signal carried by a multichannel video or information
3-6 services provider.
3-7 (3) "Encrypted, encoded, scrambled, or other
3-8 nonstandard signal" means any type of signal or transmission that
3-9 is not intended to produce an intelligible program or service
3-10 without the use of a special device, signal, or information
3-11 provided by the multichannel video or information services provider
3-12 or its agents to authorized subscribers.
3-13 (c) For purposes of this section, each purchase, connection,
3-14 attachment, tamper, change, incorporation, or modification shall
3-15 constitute a separate violation of this section.
The punishement follows:
An offense under this section is a Class C [B]
5-12 misdemeanor unless the actor committed the offense for
5-13 remuneration, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor.
5-14 (f) A second offense under this section is a Class B
5-15 misdemeanor unless the actor committed the offense for
5-16 remuneration, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor.
5-17 (g) A third and any subsequent offense under this section is
5-18 a Class A misdemeanor unless the actor committed the offense for
5-19 remuneration, in which event it is a state jail felony.
This happened to me once. I tried to be honest and called the bank. They thought I was a freakin looney. They didn't have anyway to deal with me returning the the money. Yeah I spent it. Guess I'm going to jail and hell.
Why yes Mr garbage man, I won't put out more than 3 bags of garbage and I'll prove it by signing your terms of service.
Three days later.
I'm sorry sir your under arrest for putting out five bags of garbage. BTW we are taking your sofa and your garage door opener as evidence.
What!!!?????
In this case violating contract != stealing
Microsoft still pays the bills.
I had to buy one.
Why do I care if the local stations go out of business? I already pay $80/ month for additional programming. That business model seems to survive just fine.
Ok This is off topic. but here is my feeling on the whole Israely\Palestine thing. Build One BIG HONKIN wall around the whole place and let the crazy bastards blow each other to smitherines. When you stop seeing smoke coming over the top we can think about tearing the wall down.
I'm sorry I was under the impression that consumer technology should be driven by economics. Can you say Free Market? I new you could.
Actually your logic is faulty. You can't watch the DVD at Best Buy(R) (or maybe you can) because you are on somebody else's property. If you refused to leave you would probably be arrested for intrudence or trespassing. This has nothing with whether or not you own the movie. A more realistic analogy might be if you were only allowed to watch the movie in your living room but not in your bedroom (a real possibility given the current climate).
In reality you do own a copy of that movie. You should be able to do whatever you want with that movie short of making copies to sell to other people, claiming the work as your own, or creating derivative works with out licensing. Everything else should be fair game.
This may be the best analogy for the situation that I have heard yet.
Stop the 'fair use' bullshit. Putting a $100m movie on KAZAA does NOT constiture 'fair use.' That definition of fair use has infact eroded most of the legitimate 'fair use.'
I am a Multi-Disciplined, Multi-Certified, and very talented professional in a good paying job. I do not have a college degree. I am going back to school in order to get more money. The only thing I want from a BS is a piece of paper. That piece of paper will allow me to earn more money and to pursue other pieces of paper. I have been successful with out it, but I feel like I will be even more successful with it. As for only wanting to be an SA; that's now. What about the future?
Funny statement from Jack, "Pirates seek to profit off the enormous popularity of DVDs by using the latest in technology to illegally manufacture DVD copies of Hollywood films, and again dupe consumers into purchasing a wholly inferior product." I thought the whole purpose of encrypting them is because the copies are indestinguishable form the originals.
Well I wote it in Word, why would you expect it to be error free?. But then again the errors might have been introduced when I changed it in to HTML. You are welcome to use it for a class template. I would like to follow up.
Actually, thats what the supreme court is supposed to be for. Unfortunately someone has to sue to get it overturned. The second ammendment is what happens after that.
Dear Member of Congress,
It has been brought to my attention that the bill entitled "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" has been introduced in the Senate as proposed legislation.
A bit of background about myself:
I have worked in the computer industry for about 7 years. I create software and design networking infrastructures. I am familiar with various uses of technology relating to the telecommunications industry. Outside of work, I watch satellite television, own a DVD player, and have a broadband connection to the Internet. I go to a few movies and own 100 or so music CDs.I mention all these things as evidence that I am a typical entertainment consumer. I also think that it is necessary to know that some of the entertainment appliances I own are encrypted. My DVD player uses the standard CSS encryption and my satellite receiver uses a 'SmartCard' to decrypt its transmission.
I submit myself to these encrypted technologies voluntarily. I make what I consider a sacrifice, in order to get the higher quality of the digital technologies. Even though, I do this of my own free will, I do not necessarily agree with the politics involved in the encryption of digital transmissions, as some of the technologies interfere with my fair use rights of the copyrighted content.
In the devices that I use there are basically two kinds of encryption at work. The first kind is used by my satellite provider. My satellite provider encrypts the transmission from the satellite to my receiver. I do not have a problem with this type of encryption. I understand their concern that the signal might be intercepted and used by unscrupulous individuals. Once the content gets past the box, I am able to exercise my fair use rights by recording it to my PVR (personal video recorder) or my VCR. In this manner, I am able to either "time shift1," "location shift2," or "media shift.3"
My DVD player is a much different case. Because of the way encryption is implemented in the device, I am unable to make any fair use copies of its content. I am unable to make copies of a DVD for backup purposes. DVDs are quite fragile. A tiny scratch can render a $30.00 DVD unusable. I am also unable to "media shift." I can not create a copy of a DVD to view on my VCR. There is also a larger concern; there is no current legal way to make exact duplicates of a DVD once that material falls in the public domain.
The key point here is that I submit myself to these technologies voluntarily, so that I may enjoy these higher quality digital pictures and audio. I absolutely agree that copyrights should be enforced. The copying of material that somebody else has claim to is and always has been against the law. People who own these copyrights should defend these properties vigorously. The current law known as the DMCA criminalizes copyright infringement, as it should. Unfortunately, the current law goes way too far. It also criminalizes the creation and use of any device or software that may be used for the circumvention of encryption. That law makes no exception for uses that would traditionally be considered fair use. The proposed law goes even further. It requires the implementation of an encryption scheme on all technology that is capable of manipulating digital content. It makes the circumvention of this mandated technology illegal and actionable. It puts the control of traditional fair use in the hands of the content providers. This is an obvious conflict of interest. It limits what I can do on devices that I own. It implements these limitations on the use of my personal property, whether or not I use that property to view or listen to digital content. It does this at the monetary expense of and to the detriment of the ordinary citizen, which the government and the law is empowered to protect. The supporters of this law are trying to convince congress that this mandated encryption is required for them to place digital content on the Internet or in the air for the use of digital television. The opposite is true and is easily demonstrated by the digital cable and digital satellite industries. Those industries use encryption on a voluntary basis. There is absolutely no technical reason this same method can not be used for Internet delivery of digital content. That is, if you want to receive those signals, you must voluntarily use their decrypting hardware or software. As for the encrypting of digital content offered over the airwaves, the concept is actually quite ridiculous. What the supporters would contend is that if they broadcast the programs in digital format, that they currently broadcast, unencrypted, in analog format, somehow, pirating of that content will increase. Why would anybody take the time to pirate content that is already free to them? The only goal encrypting this content would achieve, is the absolute control, by the content industry, of the way that the digital content is viewed. For instance, they might allow you to make a digital recording of the content, but place a restriction on fast forwarding through the commercials. We live in a free market society. History has proven that technology will be adopted if and when the consumer views that technology as useful or preferred. Instead of letting the free market rule, the supporter would push these technologies down or throats, and then limit how we could use them. In direct conflict with the bills title, the real agenda of this bill seems to be to limit the function of the personal computer in regards to copying data, and to eliminate the consumer's ability to watch or listen to content in the way that they choose.1 Time Shifting is the act of recording a program, in order to view/listen it at a different time than it originally aired.
For example, I might want to record the news so that I can watch it at 6:00 am, instead of 10:00 pm.
2 Location Shifting is the act of recoding a program in order to view/listen it from a different location.
For example, I might want to watch a program that I recorded at friend's house.
3 Media Shifting is the act of recording a program in order to view/listen to it on a preferred media.
For example, I may want to watch a movie on my VCR that I own on DVD, or play music that I own on CD on
an MP3 player.
You are absolutely right. As I mentioned, one of the big perks of Citrix, is the fact that it has a client for any OS. There are terminals however that support RDP and therefore WTS. The Terminal Server Client software does only run windows based machines. I haven't tried it with Wine or anything like that. There are projects to port RDP to *NIX.
Citrix rocks, but is unecessary. You can use terminal services with out it. There are bennies to using citrix, like clients for any OS, and seamless windows(r), but I think you can get along with out them quite well.
Hello am I on the air?
Oh.
Long time listener, first time caller. I'd just like to say how much I like your show.
Just send me a freakin bill for cuttin ou the ads.
This happend once, but it was publishing the combination of bank safe in the news paper. The news paper was found innocent of any wrong doing. I am sure someone can find a link to the story.
Could somebody please tell me how he broke the law? He wrote code in Russia that is legal in Russia. He then put it on his website in Russia. The only people who broke the law, it seems to me, are the people who boughtit. This I believe include the FBI and ADOBE. I think we can all admit this LAW is over reaching. Doesn't the 11th admendment say something like
.
"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."
Doesn't this mean that our laws do not apply to other courties?
I know this is a totally unique opinion, and therefore can't posibly have any relevence, but maybe its possible that if you don't like the content of a website or a tv station or a radio station or a book or a news paper, DON'T GO THERE, WATCH IT, LISTEN TO IT OR READ IT. Bunch of freeking right wing, do as I say not as I do, you aren't able to make reasonable decisions for yourself therefore you aren't responsible for your actions IDIOTS.
And yes I am quite aware of the bad grammer, mispellings and run-on sentences. And if you care, you are the person I am talking to.