Now, I'm not an MS-basher or a Linux zealot -- I believe that everything has its place. That being said, the potential that this rumor is true makes me a little nervous.
Regardless of who is doing the porting, Microsoft apps for Linux sounds a little shady. Think about it: MS has got a pretty good stranglehold on the desktop market, and one of thier primary up-and-coming competitors is Linux. Now, does it sound like a terribly astute business decision to port your applications (which are what lock users to your OS) to your competitors' platform?
The only way I can see this making any sense is if MS has resigned themselved to being split into MS/OS and MS/Applications as per the initial DOJ v. MS ruling.
I believe the issue in question is whether a personal computer constitutes a digital home audio recording device under the statutory terms of the home recording act.
According to the transcript, the judge indicated that the court did not find the PC to be a home audio recording device. While the issue at hand may have been whether it was digital, the court found that it is not any kind of home audio recording device.
Having read the transcript, I find that the judge, though seemingly having a small amount of bias toward the RIAA, did its best to make a fair ruling. That's not to say I agree with it.
Particularly troubling is the Court's assertion that a personal computer does not constitute a home audio recording device. This could raise the issue of recording MP3's for personal use could come under fire. Besides that, since a PC can be (and commonly is) used to record audio, I think it falls well into the definition of a Home Audio Recording Device. If you doubt it's common, why does Windows include Sound Recorder??
That one comment is enough to make me a bit wary of the Judge's technical understanding of what is at stake in the Napster trials.
All of that said, I do think Napster et al will have a hard time showing that their primary purpose is noninfringing -- they shot themselves in the foot by advertising thier capacity to allow users to infringe. I think it would be in thier best interest to show why someone who legally owns a song (i.e. on CD) would download rather than rip an MP3. I think that case could be made: with my DSL, I can download a song much faster than I can rip and encode!
I suspected that the money would go to something more worthwhile than hiring someone. I posted in great haste -- what I was really trying to say is that given the numbers of people who are working for Debian (for free), $25k doesn't seem like a very big reward, since it doesn't even come close to what a single professional programmer makes.
I don't know what it is about the heavyweight technology (read: gadget) companies -- they seem to have a penchant for building really cool toys, hyping the breakthroughs they've made to produce them, then either deciding not to produce it or (even worse, IMO) release a similar item with a fraction of the functionality that made the prototype cool to begin with!
Besides, even if they do release it, small usually means expensive (so does "SONY"...), so I doubt it will reach mass-market proportions any time in the near future.
Do you think everything out this thoroughly? They provide a phone on the desk too. Does that mean that you can only use it for company business and that they have the right to record all of your phone conversations? I guess they can listen in when you call the doctor, or the Workman's compensation claim division, or any number of things.
Actually, if a company has a policy of "no personal calls", they can monitor conversations based on suspicion of violations of policy. You'd be surprised!
Besides, it is not unreasonable for a company to say up front that an personal phone calls, e-mails, etc. should not be taken care of using company resources (including company time), and that as a condition of employment you accept that they will check up on you if they suspect this activity.
Regardless of Britains world position, they do not have a massive population -- wether you are comparing with the whole of Europe or even the US. My question is, then, if the UK is planning on "setting an example" to the world, what influence might the rest of the world have on the process of this law?
IMHO, this is violation of a basic right of free speech -- does that not violate the ECHR's rulings at least somewhere? I sincerely hope that the rest of Europe, and even the US (though highly doubtful) will put pressure on the UK not to pass such idiotic legislation.
In the above, you postulate that personal privacy is outdated due to technological advancements.
Our society is increasingly reliant upon the fruits of technology, and despite what people think, this change is inherently at odds with the notion of personal privacy. ... For instance consider the possibility for gentically tailored medicines, something that isn't too far ahead in the future. In order to personalise such medicines drug companies are going to require your DNA profile. Are you willing to give up on advances like this for the sake of some nebulous concept like privacy?
It is one thing for an individual or organization to say "we require this piece of personal data in order to provide this service, do you agree?", and quite another for the same entity to simply take this information and assume you want thier "tailored" service.
In the example above, a drug company is requesting that you reveal your DNA profile so that they can offer a targeted medical treatment. This is perfectly ok. However, if my DNA profile was available to any drug company that wanted it - without my permission - it would be an invasion of privacy.
I guess that my concept of privacy involves maintaining/control/ over my personal information. Organizations should not be able to share personal data that I have agreed to divulge unless (a) they recieve my permission, or(b) I give them a carte blanche (sp?) to do so.
#-- disclaimer: I'm in over my head, I'm just asking!:P
If this is an extention of x86, I assume existing binaries will still function -- but I have two questions: -Will 16- or 32-bit apps notice a speed performance on a 64-bit architechture? -Will 16- or 32-bit apps need to be ported or just recompiled to gain a speed boost?
I'd also be curious to see if the gain in performance is going to be worth the doubtless hefty price...
#- disclaimer: I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, this is a question.
From what I can decipher, this seems to be a more extensible protocol, which would allow easy creation of network-aware applications. My question is, since there is an added layer of abstraction, wouldn't there be an overall performance hit?
Besides, wouldn't multiple "layers" of data on the same connection open tons of potential security risks?
I'm seeing constant references to "aiding and abedding" as relates to MP3Board's activities. IANAL, but I believe this falls outside that particular description.
Aiding and abedding has to do with helping a known criminal evade detection or capture, often by hiding or obscuring evidence or providing inside information on the investigation. What's happening here falls more under accessory to copyright violations -- they are helping commit the crime, not helping the criminals evade the law.
If I am wrong, I would appreciate a member of the BARR correcting me...
At least he's a *cough*"good hacker"*cough* -- I wonder if that's what we have to do to get the mass media to realize that hacking is a good thing -- accept defeat on the Hacker v. Cracker issue, and make a point about "good" vs. "bad" "hacking"...
Does anyone else find it intriguing that "Closed" is defined in this article as Newspapers, Broadcast news, and pay-per-use News sites? If the intent was to draw a parallel to OpenSource/closed source in news media, this article fails badly.
What makes an OpenSource project bear that name has largely to do with allowing public contribution to the project -- thus, a more accurate defintion of Closed Media would include free sites that do not publish public comments (aside from letters to the editor). Since this covers even most "new" media, most of the points in this article become moot.
Besides, this seems like a sad attempt by the author to gain favor with Slashdot readers. As an earlier poster said (I paraphrase) - 'Gee, a Slashdot columnist says Slashdot is the best.' This would be like Nintendo publishing an article by one of thier engineers saying "the N64 is better than any other console." Regardless of wether that statement is accurate or not, it would come as no surprise, considering the source, and would probably be categorically ignored.
I bet if you asked your local newspaper editor which form of news media was the best (on record), [s]he'd plug his/her own media...
Besides, Slashdot is not exactly a News site, per se -- rather, it is an editorial site. The editors choose which stories (which come mostly from news media) to publish, and often contribute thier own opinions right on the front page. Readers are then allowed to make editorial comments as well. Yet another reason this article is moot.
The judge has ordered that all depositions, etc -- in fact, anything not containing "trade secrets" -- be released to the public. I especially like this bit:
"Given the extent that you folks have gone out and solicited publicity," Kaplan said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Sounds like we have a sensible judge who might just see this whole thing as the farce that it is. Let's just hope the final ruling is just as sensible as the release order.
Tourism may be the first thing that people pay to go into space for, but I can just see it being the next fashion in business management to have "team building" exercises in orbit.
Actually, it's probably the only "team building" that would require teamwork to succeed -- somehow I doubt that a disorganized group could last more than a day or two in micro-gravity!
Well, I'm glad to see that the "hacker's ethic" isn't dead yet.
This could easily have been a lot worse -- the author could have trashed the systems of victims. However, it is simply a warning created to illustrate a serious security hole. Kudos! This is the ethical side of hacking that was always encouraged by the community as I was learning.
And spare the "hacker v. cracker" definition wars -- IMO, crackers are malevolent, and the author of this worm is certainly not.
Calling someone a slut vocally is slander, calling them that online is libel.
Seems to me libel has always been more capable of taking legal action against that slander.
Our rights online may be being taken away left and right, but this seems a pretty clear cut case to me. The fact that online libelous writing hasn't been taken up in courts before this has no bearing on it.
I would tend to agree - this person may be guilty of libel (note that we don't have all the facts). However, libel is a civil offense, not a criminal one. The involvement of the police in this case should have been limited to serving civil suit papers to the family.
Criminal libel is a special case -- one where irrevocable damage is caused to one's reputation. Somehow I doubt that any teachers lost thier jobs, or any students were expelled over what this one student said. Most courts would be reluctant to allow criminal charges to continue on something like this had it been said in the school newspaper.
My bet is that the victims (and I use the term loosely) in this case will use the concept that a web site has a potentially limitless, worldwide audience as a forum, whereas a school newspaper is very limited. They will doubtless ignore the fact that no one gives a dingo's kidney what this student thinks of his teachers.:)
If companies took Open Source and made it less open, then I doubt they'd get many developers. And if they took Open Source and exploited the free software without doing a lot of the development themselves, then, hey, what's wrong with that? Isn't that sort of what companies that distribute Linux do?
I'm not terribly concerned that anyone will make Open software less open (though the GPL has yet to be thoroughly tested in court), or that companies will make money selling support for free products like Linux distros do.
My concern is that companies will start saying "hey, we have this idea, lets give it to the Open Source community, and they'll write it for us." Then they simply obfuscate the open source nature of the product and pack it up. Now, to geeks and programmers who keep tabs and *shock* read licenses, this probably would have little effect. But the mass populace won't know the difference. That's a Bad Thing because it really doesn't further the goals of Open Source -- the availability of Free Software to whomever wants it.
This is a very interesting use of the Open Source community. I applaud the effort.
That said, I have to express a mixture of excitement and concern over what the success of this project could mean. On the one hand, it could mean that corporate culture will begin (slowly) to adapt to the Open Source model. On the other, it could mean that corporations will glean the hard work of Open Source developers and cash in, doing very little actual work themselves.
In the first case, I am happy on two counts: changing corporate culture is difficult, and if the Open Source Movement succeeds, it will be a big "feather" in our collective hat; and, corporate adaptation means that more companies are likely to open hardware specs for Linux support, and software specs for cross-platform ports.
In the second case, I have mixed feelings: having a corporate infrastructure to market and distribute Open Source works has the makings of a rather sound business model -- however, the less ethical companies out there (which, IMHO are a vast majority) may abuse the model so thoroughly that Open Source developers are alienated.
However, I cannot decide whether Open Source would be hurt, or if developers would just move thier resources to the more ethical companies. The concern is that even if the latter, the "evil" orgs can still get the work -- possibly with even less effort.
It's like, OK, 'It's January, my name is Napster, or I'm Sean, or whoever the CEO was at the time, we have this service, we would like to know if you are interested in being part of it.'
I think they're missing the point of Napster a bit. Napster was created with the valid purpose of providing a way for users to share MP3s of thier choice, not provide an outlet for certain bands' music to be traded.
While Metallica still has valid reasons to be pissed at Napster, I don't think they really understand how the service is intended to work. Napster is great in concept, but perhaps they do need to do thier best to filter songs from bands that request it. Granted, that can never be done perfectly, but it should be available.
On a side note, I wonder how Metallica determined that the 1.4 million donwloads of Metallica songs were _actually_ copyright violations. I mean, I downloaded Metallica songs during that period, but not any that I didn't already own on CD. Thus, none of my downloads were violations: I just didn't want to spend the time ripping them myself. How can anyone know how many real violations are occuring??
If you couldn't figure it out, that doesn't mean it doesn't WORK, got it? That just means there's something wrong with YOU.
A little defensive, are we? I had no problem figuring out CF, I had problems doing anything beyond its basic intent. I couldn't "tweak" anything. I found that exceedingly annoying. Someone said, "hey, borrow my Learning Perl book and see if that works for you," and I found that Perl gave me exactly what was needed without all the crap that CF made me go through.
Let me put it this way: MS Frontpage makes web pages. Some companies use it for large corporate extranets. I find it sucks because you lose a level of control (not to mention the hell it plays with "backups" on your site), so I code HTML in some text editor or other. In this way, I can actually accomplish complex designs more quickly than with Frontpage.
CF is the same thing, IMO: too much time was spent on "gee, this is easy" that it makes anything with any level of complexity remarkably annoying to deal with.
Granted the "Open" license that Allaire is using is not exactly wonderful. And, granted, Cold Fusion is an application that a lot of coders find excrutiatingly useless.
However, we should be happy that it's a step in the right direction. I have seen literally hundreds of posts on Slashdot expressing the desire for companies to open up products that are aging, instead of just shelving them. Here, Allaire has done this (sort of), and they're being criticized for the manner in which it was handled.
I agree that Allaire deserves some criticism for their half-hearted approach, but we should remember that they didn't have to do anything: they could have just abandoned this product. Someone there is facing in the right direction, so let's not be so hasty to beat them down for thier blunders.
I discovered about Cold Fusion exactly what Einstein did - it doesn't work.
After messing around with Cold Fusion for several weeks, trying to do anything reasonably beyond the included toolkits, I was extremely frustrated. I finally got our Support Ticket system coded and online after almost a month.
Just for kicks, I re-wrote the whole thing from scratch in Perl. Took me about a week to write and debug, and I even worked in more features. And when all was said and done, I had a faster product.
Point of note: this was my very first Perl project. I found Perl actually far easier.
It is a modification to the original Copyright Act that was orignally intended to update copyright law so that it makes more sense for the era of digital information. In reality, it has become a boon for the software industry by allowing software developers to enforce unreasonable license restrictions.
To cite one example, Microsoft could license Word with language that would prohibit you from using Word to disparage or criticize Microsoft. If you did so, they could yank your license and repossess your software.
A few other restrictions: under the DMCA, reverse-engineering is prohibited (it isn't currently), software can be licensed on a "Rental" basis with added restrictions to exporting data to another format (this makes it impossible to change software for a particular purpose), circumventing any kind of copy protection -- even if only to make a legally allowed backup -- is illegal.
This bill is just a whole lot of wrong. To see other Slashdot articles on this topic you can search the archives for DMCA.
For a scholarly discussion, participate in this forum.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of who is doing the porting, Microsoft apps for Linux sounds a little shady. Think about it: MS has got a pretty good stranglehold on the desktop market, and one of thier primary up-and-coming competitors is Linux. Now, does it sound like a terribly astute business decision to port your applications (which are what lock users to your OS) to your competitors' platform?
The only way I can see this making any sense is if MS has resigned themselved to being split into MS/OS and MS/Applications as per the initial DOJ v. MS ruling.
What are we missing? What am I missing?
--
According to the transcript, the judge indicated that the court did not find the PC to be a home audio recording device. While the issue at hand may have been whether it was digital, the court found that it is not any kind of home audio recording device.
--
Particularly troubling is the Court's assertion that a personal computer does not constitute a home audio recording device. This could raise the issue of recording MP3's for personal use could come under fire. Besides that, since a PC can be (and commonly is) used to record audio, I think it falls well into the definition of a Home Audio Recording Device. If you doubt it's common, why does Windows include Sound Recorder??
That one comment is enough to make me a bit wary of the Judge's technical understanding of what is at stake in the Napster trials.
All of that said, I do think Napster et al will have a hard time showing that their primary purpose is noninfringing -- they shot themselves in the foot by advertising thier capacity to allow users to infringe. I think it would be in thier best interest to show why someone who legally owns a song (i.e. on CD) would download rather than rip an MP3. I think that case could be made: with my DSL, I can download a song much faster than I can rip and encode!
--
I suspected that the money would go to something more worthwhile than hiring someone. I posted in great haste -- what I was really trying to say is that given the numbers of people who are working for Debian (for free), $25k doesn't seem like a very big reward, since it doesn't even come close to what a single professional programmer makes.
--
I mean, I'm happy for Debian and all, but I think that $25k is a little short for an award of this calibur.
--
Besides, even if they do release it, small usually means expensive (so does "SONY"...), so I doubt it will reach mass-market proportions any time in the near future.
--
Actually, if a company has a policy of "no personal calls", they can monitor conversations based on suspicion of violations of policy. You'd be surprised!
Besides, it is not unreasonable for a company to say up front that an personal phone calls, e-mails, etc. should not be taken care of using company resources (including company time), and that as a condition of employment you accept that they will check up on you if they suspect this activity.
You want personal e-mail? Get your own account!
--
IMHO, this is violation of a basic right of free speech -- does that not violate the ECHR's rulings at least somewhere? I sincerely hope that the rest of Europe, and even the US (though highly doubtful) will put pressure on the UK not to pass such idiotic legislation.
--
Our society is increasingly reliant upon the fruits of technology, and despite what people think, this change is inherently at odds with the notion of personal privacy.
...
For instance consider the possibility for gentically tailored medicines, something that isn't too far ahead in the future. In order to personalise such medicines drug companies are going to require your DNA profile. Are you willing to give up on advances like this for the sake of some nebulous concept like privacy?
It is one thing for an individual or organization to say "we require this piece of personal data in order to provide this service, do you agree?", and quite another for the same entity to simply take this information and assume you want thier "tailored" service.
In the example above, a drug company is requesting that you reveal your DNA profile so that they can offer a targeted medical treatment. This is perfectly ok. However, if my DNA profile was available to any drug company that wanted it - without my permission - it would be an invasion of privacy.
I guess that my concept of privacy involves maintaining /control/ over my personal information. Organizations should not be able to share personal data that I have agreed to divulge unless (a) they recieve my permission, or(b) I give them a carte blanche (sp?) to do so.
--
If this is an extention of x86, I assume existing binaries will still function -- but I have two questions:
-Will 16- or 32-bit apps notice a speed performance on a 64-bit architechture?
-Will 16- or 32-bit apps need to be ported or just recompiled to gain a speed boost?
I'd also be curious to see if the gain in performance is going to be worth the doubtless hefty price...
--
From what I can decipher, this seems to be a more extensible protocol, which would allow easy creation of network-aware applications. My question is, since there is an added layer of abstraction, wouldn't there be an overall performance hit?
Besides, wouldn't multiple "layers" of data on the same connection open tons of potential security risks?
Or am I off my rocker on both counts?
--
Aiding and abedding has to do with helping a known criminal evade detection or capture, often by hiding or obscuring evidence or providing inside information on the investigation. What's happening here falls more under accessory to copyright violations -- they are helping commit the crime, not helping the criminals evade the law.
If I am wrong, I would appreciate a member of the BARR correcting me...
--
At least he's a *cough*"good hacker"*cough* -- I wonder if that's what we have to do to get the mass media to realize that hacking is a good thing -- accept defeat on the Hacker v. Cracker issue, and make a point about "good" vs. "bad" "hacking"...
--
What makes an OpenSource project bear that name has largely to do with allowing public contribution to the project -- thus, a more accurate defintion of Closed Media would include free sites that do not publish public comments (aside from letters to the editor). Since this covers even most "new" media, most of the points in this article become moot.
Besides, this seems like a sad attempt by the author to gain favor with Slashdot readers. As an earlier poster said (I paraphrase) - 'Gee, a Slashdot columnist says Slashdot is the best.' This would be like Nintendo publishing an article by one of thier engineers saying "the N64 is better than any other console." Regardless of wether that statement is accurate or not, it would come as no surprise, considering the source, and would probably be categorically ignored.
I bet if you asked your local newspaper editor which form of news media was the best (on record), [s]he'd plug his/her own media...
Besides, Slashdot is not exactly a News site, per se -- rather, it is an editorial site. The editors choose which stories (which come mostly from news media) to publish, and often contribute thier own opinions right on the front page. Readers are then allowed to make editorial comments as well. Yet another reason this article is moot.
--
--
Actually, it's probably the only "team building" that would require teamwork to succeed -- somehow I doubt that a disorganized group could last more than a day or two in micro-gravity!
--
This could easily have been a lot worse -- the author could have trashed the systems of victims. However, it is simply a warning created to illustrate a serious security hole. Kudos! This is the ethical side of hacking that was always encouraged by the community as I was learning.
And spare the "hacker v. cracker" definition wars -- IMO, crackers are malevolent, and the author of this worm is certainly not.
--
Seems to me libel has always been more capable of taking legal action against that slander.
Our rights online may be being taken away left and right, but this seems a pretty clear cut case to me. The fact that online libelous writing hasn't been taken up in courts before this has no bearing on it.
I would tend to agree - this person may be guilty of libel (note that we don't have all the facts). However, libel is a civil offense, not a criminal one. The involvement of the police in this case should have been limited to serving civil suit papers to the family.
Criminal libel is a special case -- one where irrevocable damage is caused to one's reputation. Somehow I doubt that any teachers lost thier jobs, or any students were expelled over what this one student said. Most courts would be reluctant to allow criminal charges to continue on something like this had it been said in the school newspaper.
My bet is that the victims (and I use the term loosely) in this case will use the concept that a web site has a potentially limitless, worldwide audience as a forum, whereas a school newspaper is very limited. They will doubtless ignore the fact that no one gives a dingo's kidney what this student thinks of his teachers. :)
--
I'm not terribly concerned that anyone will make Open software less open (though the GPL has yet to be thoroughly tested in court), or that companies will make money selling support for free products like Linux distros do.
My concern is that companies will start saying "hey, we have this idea, lets give it to the Open Source community, and they'll write it for us." Then they simply obfuscate the open source nature of the product and pack it up. Now, to geeks and programmers who keep tabs and *shock* read licenses, this probably would have little effect. But the mass populace won't know the difference. That's a Bad Thing because it really doesn't further the goals of Open Source -- the availability of Free Software to whomever wants it.
--
That said, I have to express a mixture of excitement and concern over what the success of this project could mean. On the one hand, it could mean that corporate culture will begin (slowly) to adapt to the Open Source model. On the other, it could mean that corporations will glean the hard work of Open Source developers and cash in, doing very little actual work themselves.
In the first case, I am happy on two counts: changing corporate culture is difficult, and if the Open Source Movement succeeds, it will be a big "feather" in our collective hat; and, corporate adaptation means that more companies are likely to open hardware specs for Linux support, and software specs for cross-platform ports.
In the second case, I have mixed feelings: having a corporate infrastructure to market and distribute Open Source works has the makings of a rather sound business model -- however, the less ethical companies out there (which, IMHO are a vast majority) may abuse the model so thoroughly that Open Source developers are alienated.
However, I cannot decide whether Open Source would be hurt, or if developers would just move thier resources to the more ethical companies. The concern is that even if the latter, the "evil" orgs can still get the work -- possibly with even less effort.
Anyone see a way around that mess?
--
I think they're missing the point of Napster a bit. Napster was created with the valid purpose of providing a way for users to share MP3s of thier choice, not provide an outlet for certain bands' music to be traded.
While Metallica still has valid reasons to be pissed at Napster, I don't think they really understand how the service is intended to work. Napster is great in concept, but perhaps they do need to do thier best to filter songs from bands that request it. Granted, that can never be done perfectly, but it should be available.
On a side note, I wonder how Metallica determined that the 1.4 million donwloads of Metallica songs were _actually_ copyright violations. I mean, I downloaded Metallica songs during that period, but not any that I didn't already own on CD. Thus, none of my downloads were violations: I just didn't want to spend the time ripping them myself. How can anyone know how many real violations are occuring??
--
A little defensive, are we? I had no problem figuring out CF, I had problems doing anything beyond its basic intent. I couldn't "tweak" anything. I found that exceedingly annoying. Someone said, "hey, borrow my Learning Perl book and see if that works for you," and I found that Perl gave me exactly what was needed without all the crap that CF made me go through.
Let me put it this way: MS Frontpage makes web pages. Some companies use it for large corporate extranets. I find it sucks because you lose a level of control (not to mention the hell it plays with "backups" on your site), so I code HTML in some text editor or other. In this way, I can actually accomplish complex designs more quickly than with Frontpage.
CF is the same thing, IMO: too much time was spent on "gee, this is easy" that it makes anything with any level of complexity remarkably annoying to deal with.
--
However, we should be happy that it's a step in the right direction. I have seen literally hundreds of posts on Slashdot expressing the desire for companies to open up products that are aging, instead of just shelving them. Here, Allaire has done this (sort of), and they're being criticized for the manner in which it was handled.
I agree that Allaire deserves some criticism for their half-hearted approach, but we should remember that they didn't have to do anything: they could have just abandoned this product. Someone there is facing in the right direction, so let's not be so hasty to beat them down for thier blunders.
--
After messing around with Cold Fusion for several weeks, trying to do anything reasonably beyond the included toolkits, I was extremely frustrated. I finally got our Support Ticket system coded and online after almost a month.
Just for kicks, I re-wrote the whole thing from scratch in Perl. Took me about a week to write and debug, and I even worked in more features. And when all was said and done, I had a faster product.
Point of note: this was my very first Perl project. I found Perl actually far easier.
--
It is a modification to the original Copyright Act that was orignally intended to update copyright law so that it makes more sense for the era of digital information. In reality, it has become a boon for the software industry by allowing software developers to enforce unreasonable license restrictions.
To cite one example, Microsoft could license Word with language that would prohibit you from using Word to disparage or criticize Microsoft. If you did so, they could yank your license and repossess your software.
A few other restrictions: under the DMCA, reverse-engineering is prohibited (it isn't currently), software can be licensed on a "Rental" basis with added restrictions to exporting data to another format (this makes it impossible to change software for a particular purpose), circumventing any kind of copy protection -- even if only to make a legally allowed backup -- is illegal.
This bill is just a whole lot of wrong. To see other Slashdot articles on this topic you can search the archives for DMCA.
For a scholarly discussion, participate in this forum.
--