The main thing wrong with x86 backwards compatibility isn't that the machine code is awkward; you're absolutely right that if you can make it run fast, who cares? One problem is that it makes it difficult to run fast, so it would run faster without the cruft. However, the biggest problem is that it encourages manufacturers to continue producing machines that are basically the same crap as we've always had. IDE, lousy serial ports, the parallel port for gosh sake, the same lousy BIOS architecture, ISA ports and IRQs. The PC world really needs to take the plunge the way Apple did - use a decent boot architecture (hey, maybe they could use Open Firmware!), drop serial ports, go to FireWire/USB. Apple's only mistake was justifiable, going to IDE (due to the ridiculous price differential between SCSI/IDE drives, which was due to a self-perpetuating cycle of being more expensive because it wasn't as widely used).
Anyone authorized by DVDCCA to make CSS-encrypted DVDs probably has to agree to only allow the DVDCCA to be able to authorize playback devices (and to require any content owner who is getting a DVD made to agree as well).
However, the legal status of CSS (as opposed to DeCSS) seems pretty straightforward. It isn't protected by patent, it doesn't seem to be protected by trade secret (although the California case could change that, I suppose), and it wouldn't be covered by DMCA. So, use CSS, with your own private random key (that you don't publish) to encrypt some home movies, put them on a CD or DVD or even the Internet, and then authorize any and everyone to use DeCSS to decrypt your files. Since you didn't publish the key, a key-breaking routine would need to be part of the program.
Where does the Macrovision bit get set? It would also be interesting to tweak their noses by turning on the bit and not pay them royalties. It would make an interesting court case, as that bit is only a convention telling certain DVD players to enable already-licensed hardware to utilize their patent.
Maybe at the very beginning, but in the two years or so before DVDs displaced them, laser discs were coming out usually a bit cheaper than the VHS version of the same title. E.g. the tape would be for around $35, the disc would be $28.
And that codec would be written in what, Java bytecode? C source? IA-64? IA-32? 68K? Alpha? PPC? Sparc? MIPS? ARM? Z80? 6502? PDP-11? Cyber? 4004? C# bytecode? Lisp? Tcl? Guile? I know, just send them all!
they are legally obligated to provide free access to it if they made any changes, even for those who did not buy the software
That's not right at all. They are legally obligated to either provide the source to anyone they provide binaries to or offer it for at least three years at no more than the cost of physically performing source distribution (i.e. not necessarily for free). If they always provide binaries, they have no further obligation (and making them available at the same location where you can download the binaries is counted as "providing", even if the person doing the downloading isn't forced to download the source when they get the binaries).
Unix Notes and Lotus Notes both have origins in the PLATO Notes system written in the early '70s at the University of Illinois. Notesfile "pad" is still going strong on the NovaNET system (which is what the PLATO system was renamed to, after CDC sold the rights to the name PLATO to TRO), with origins dating to around 1972 or 1973 (before Notes was written).
Have you looked at dbmail? I believe I found it on freshmeat.
Available via CVS at
:pserver:cvs@lightning.fastxs.net:/cvsroot-dbmail
module dbmail, no password necessary.
Originally used just mysql, but I believe they've added interfaces to other DBs. Some of the coding was horrible, but it basically worked. Has an MDA that can be made to work with sendmail, has an IMAP and POP server. Haven't looked at it for about 4 months, we were going to use it for an e-mail system (along with Columba as a client) but the project was cancelled. There was lots of room for improvement, but there's been quite a bit of work done on it since then, so it might be worth using as a starting point at least.
Is perjury protected speech? If so, how should the parts of the Constitution which require sworn testimony (e.g. for a warrant) work? If not, doesn't your "absolute" statement go right out the window?
The latest versions of sendmail already have this enabled by default, with an MSA (Message Submission Agent) listening on port 587, as defined in RFC 2476. Now if only client programs would start allowing the use of it, ugly hacks like having to change your mail server depending on what network you're connected through, or else the ISP having to run the even uglier hack to have SMTP only allow connections from someone who has authenticated through POP recently, could be eliminated. Then SMTP servers could block messages with return addresses that don't match the server it is coming from. It wouldn't be perfect, of course, but it would help with accountability and probably make it easier to block the right servers without affecting innocent ones.
I'm saying you can't just say 'Child porn is illegal' and let it go at that
Of course I can. The subject was a specific ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It said nothing about child pornography. Child pornography remains illegal in the United States, under the definitions that the United States legislature has made. That is fact, and the decision in question doesn't have anything to do with it. The person I was responding to seemed to think that the decision was somehow about child porn, and it isn't. The decision also isn't about whether US law has any bearing anywhere else, what should be done about it, etc. The fact remains that child pornography is illegal in the US, the definition includes "under 18", and even if it is legal somewhere else, if you download it to a computer in the US you can be prosecuted.
Child porn isn't an issue. It is illegal, regardless of whether it is on the Internet or elsewhere. Community standards have no say in whether child porn is allowed. All the judges have said is that a statute can refer to "community standards" to decide what is allowable for kids to access. What it doesn't sound like they did is define what "community" means in the context of material made available on the Internet. Until a lower court makes that decision (or makes a decision that a particular interpretation of the government is either right or wrong), the Supreme Court isn't going to say anything else about it.
Are you kidding? Playing and socializing is some of the most important learning a kid can do. Other than that, learning to read, learning arithmetic, learning to ask questions and find the answers, and then learn from those answers, is what school should be about. Included in there is basic grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. The scientific method and basic math (geometry, algebra, elementary calculus) is also basic, and very important, but not quite as basic as the rest.
Providing a structure in which to learn about more specialized knowledge (history, science, math, geography, literature) is dependent on those basics.
The computer in the classroom can come into things in five primary ways: as a simple tool (word processing, spreadsheets) that you need to learn how to use; as a more general research tool (searching for stuff on the Web); as communications (e-mail, homework assignments); as a real educational tool (specific educational software that teaches both the basics or the more specialized knowledge; and some of it is good, although much of it is not); and as computers (learning to program, understanding computer architecture, learning to play with the hardware). All of these can be useful, but NONE of them should be taught to or depend on a specific platform.
a) So people have to put themselves at risk of legal action to provide you with a copy, and this is fine as long as YOU don't come under fire? and b) you really think they couldn't come after you for downloading, say on a conspiracy charge? Conspiracy to traffic in a prohibited device...or perhaps they'll simply find that the act of storing it on your hard drive constitutes "manufacture".
I am not manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS. I am merely using it for fair use puposes, which is specifically exempted from the law.
So you're fine for DeCSS, since you managed to get a copy before the final set of rules kicked in. Anyone who doesn't have a copy now is out of luck, and you're out of luck when the next protection scheme is released.
Observe that in the case of DeCSS, it COULD NOT be released under GPL because portions of the content are patented, and the patent owners are unwilling to agree to that style of license issue. The program CAN be released to the Public Domain, because the author does not need to keep the copyright. The legality of the program is being decided by the courts.
Of course you could release it under the GPL, but no one else would be authorized to re-distribute it because of patent restrictions. However, if you chose not to pursue copyright infringement claims against someone who DID re-distribute it (in violation of the GPL), then that wouldn't matter anyway. In either case, GPL or PD, you'd STILL be liable for patent infringement AND for violation of DMCA, regardless of what the GPL might say about it. Regardless, DeCSS has ended up in court because of DMCA and trade secret law, not because of patent infringement issues. Are you trying to say that a PD version of DeCSS would expose you to more liability (say, someone suing you because they got sued under DMCA) than if you released it under GPL (hypothetically assuming that there are no patent issues), or that somehow you yourself couldn't be prosecuted under DMCA?
A perfectly legal GPL'd prime number generating program could generate the DeCSS source code as a prime number which is illigal under the DMCA.
No, generating a prime number out of DeCSS source code is not illegal. Distributing DeCSS source code, in whatever form, might be (depending on how the DMCA fares in court).
The program has substantial non-infringing uses, but is also clearly punishable by the DMCA.
Clearly it is not. Otherwise, all compilers, assembler, text editors, uuencode, gzip, cp, cat, ftp, etc. would be prohibited by the DMCA as well, as they can all be used to distribute, transform or copy DeCSS source code.
GPL-ing a virus that you've put out into the wild isn't going to absolve you of legal responsibility for what you've done. What I'm asking is for is an example of where releasing something into Public Domain actually exposes you to liability, where releasing it under the GPL would have shielded you in some way. Specifically, the subject was where someone is caused damage because they relied on source code that had a bug in it; talking about legal liability because of violating copyright, patent, DMCA, etc. isn't of any use as you'd still be liable regardless of what the GPL disclaimer of warranty says (unless you want to discuss a case where someone is sued under DMCA, patent, or copyright law and comes after you even though you weren't directly sued by the patent/copyright owner).
Public Domain has different rights and obligations. If you place work under the Public Domain you may be responsible for problems with it, where the GPL allows you to not be responsible for errors.
Please point me to either a statute or case law that leads to this conclusion. How can something taken for no consideration whatsoever have any implied warranty or legal obligation, assuming it isn't illegal in the first place (i.e. violation of something like the DMCA, infringes someone's copyright or patent (direct or contributory), etc.)? How does adding a "I'm not responsible for anything this software does" clause to a license that the end user doesn't even have to accept shield you from any liability?
I'd really like to see a lawyer try to explain how writing some words on a license, for which no consideration was paid, shields you from liability, but that there is somehow an implied warranty given when someone takes something that was in the public domain and does something with it. The only way there should be any possibility of legal liability should be if the work itself is illegal or directly infringes on someone's rights. If that somehow isn't the actual current legal situation, it should be changed.
They do not have a legal obligation to raise the stock price. That's nonsense. It's also nonsense to think that a public corporation can't have a philosophy. Of course they can, that can even be a big part of the worth of the company! Yes, there's a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. You have to do what's good for the company (and thus the shareholders), and the primary measurement of that is net worth/profit, but there are many ways of going about that.
There's nothing that says a company can't take a long-term view, even if the market tends to not reward them for it; what you can't do is mislead investors about the nature of your company and business plan, or change things without due consideration of how a change will affect stockholders (including having stockholders approve such changes).
Why shouldn't they get paid? They're doing work for the company. The fallacy is believing that a company, having paid someone to develop or modify some software, must then keep that software private (either out of some principle of "we paid for it, it must be valuable, hence we can't give it away, but we're not a software company so we can't sell it either" or simply to keep competitors at a disadvantage so they can't compete against you as effectively). The former is simply misguided; the latter is a failing of capitalism, as it makes the market less efficient.
One way out of the conundrum would be for companies to form "software development consortiums", specifically to develop software that all of the companies could use. For software developed from scratch (or, at least, not using GPL or similarly licensed software), it could be kept proprietary to members of the consortium for a limited time before being released as GPL (or whatever). Joining the consortium would give a company the advantage of getting earlier access to such work, as well as being able to steer development of things they are particularly interested in. Requiring a fee helps reduce the free-rider problem. Releasing it as GPL eventually allows multiple consortiums to build on each other's work, as well as the rest of the free/open software community and existing work.
Where free/open software doesn't seem to be working well, as a business model, is for companies that are primarily software developers - their only product is software. I think it can still be made to work, but not at the profit levels that Microsoft is used to getting. However, if they don't accept it, they'll eventually be crowded out by companies that can operate much more effectively by developing upon, and supporting, free/open software. Note that Apple is also a hardware company, and that's why they can embrace free/open software more easily than Microsoft. The software, even if they don't have a monopoly on it, still helps them sell their other products, and thus has value beyond the raw revenue that the software itself brings in.
I already said it may be an access control, but only to the Battle.net servers. Since bnetd doesn't give anyone access to Battle.net servers, that isn't a copyright or DMCA issue.
Copyright is in fact precisely about the right to copy. The GPL doesn't try to control usage, it is ONLY about copying, and what it does is to ALLOW copying, under certain terms. Don't copy, GPL doesn't apply to you. If Blizzard wanted to, say, allow you to make copies of the game, but only under certain conditions (say, don't use the copied games with any server but their own), then that would be every bit as valid as the GPL. However, they do NOT get to control how you use an authorized copy of the game (i.e. one you purchased in a store).
bnetd is under no obligation to check the authenticity of a copy of the game that connects through it. Offering to put such a check in was nice of them, but not required. Blizzard refusing to allow them to check was dumb of them, but again was not required. Saying that bnetd is bad because it encourages copyright violation is specious - it's actually Blizzard that chose that route.
My guess is that they (c)(3) is covered by (b)(1)(b). Specifically, that given the current status, bnetd is allowing the bypassing of the CD Key check to allow TCP/IP network play. That is the technological measure that is being bypassed.
The CD Key doesn't prevent copying and doesn't control access to content. It only provides access to their servers. The DMCA only protects technological measures that protect content. Although you might be able to successfully claim that accessing the Battle.net servers is accessing content, that's not what is being done. DMCA doesn't apply. Copy Right - the Right to Copy - is not being violated. That they even offered to go beyond what the law requires and check for valid keys bolsters their case. It isn't a mitigating issue, it completely demolishes any inkling of an idea that they're doing this as a means of allowing unauthorized copies to be used.
There were 25 other bills and two resolutions introduced that same day, see the Daily Digest. All were referred to the appropriate committees (Page S2260) except for one resolution, S. Res 231, which was considered and agreed to (Page S2261). You can get to those from the Daily Digest link, then go to Pages S2260-S2261, which then has some of those "temp" URLs, but once you're there you can use "next document" and "previous document" to get less ephemeral links (although the temp links I get are the same as yours, so they are at least somewhat persistent).
It's odd that there's no reference on their page to the CBDTPA that's been introduced (S.2048). I realize it isn't in their committee (it's now in the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee), but it is still relevant to what they're requesting comments on.
If you're going to comment on the CBDTPA, I strongly suggest you actually read the text. Whining about how it will kill fair use, for example, won't win you any points, since the bill requires that any security measures respect the limits on the copyright owner, including fair use, and explicitly requires that people be able to make recordings for personal home use. You might reasonably object that such a goal is incompatible with all of the other requirements that such a system would have, but don't claim that they haven't considered the consumer at all in this.
I sent in my comments by e-mail; as others have reported, I got it back with a link for re-submitting it using their Web site, which I did. I didn't get any acknowledgement, nor has it been posted to the Web site yet. As at least one comment was posted the day it was written (based on a comment that included the day's date), I'm not sure what's going on. Maybe it was too long, but I didn't get a rejection, either. I don't think it was of lower quality than the comments that I've read so far (and certainly better than some). I updated what I said to reference the CBDTPA instead of the SSSCA and resubmitted it (indicating it was a resubmission), but I still haven't heard anything, and nothing's been added to their Web site since yesterday.
As a side note, they should split up the user comments into a separate page for each day; the current page is over 600K for one week's worth of comments (March 18-March 25, with nothing posted on March 23). For anyone checking to see new comments, it'd save a whole lot of bandwidth and time.
Slashdot Mirror
The main thing wrong with x86 backwards compatibility isn't that the machine code is awkward; you're absolutely right that if you can make it run fast, who cares? One problem is that it makes it difficult to run fast, so it would run faster without the cruft. However, the biggest problem is that it encourages manufacturers to continue producing machines that are basically the same crap as we've always had. IDE, lousy serial ports, the parallel port for gosh sake, the same lousy BIOS architecture, ISA ports and IRQs. The PC world really needs to take the plunge the way Apple did - use a decent boot architecture (hey, maybe they could use Open Firmware!), drop serial ports, go to FireWire/USB. Apple's only mistake was justifiable, going to IDE (due to the ridiculous price differential between SCSI/IDE drives, which was due to a self-perpetuating cycle of being more expensive because it wasn't as widely used).
Anyone authorized by DVDCCA to make CSS-encrypted DVDs probably has to agree to only allow the DVDCCA to be able to authorize playback devices (and to require any content owner who is getting a DVD made to agree as well).
However, the legal status of CSS (as opposed to DeCSS) seems pretty straightforward. It isn't protected by patent, it doesn't seem to be protected by trade secret (although the California case could change that, I suppose), and it wouldn't be covered by DMCA. So, use CSS, with your own private random key (that you don't publish) to encrypt some home movies, put them on a CD or DVD or even the Internet, and then authorize any and everyone to use DeCSS to decrypt your files. Since you didn't publish the key, a key-breaking routine would need to be part of the program.
Where does the Macrovision bit get set? It would also be interesting to tweak their noses by turning on the bit and not pay them royalties. It would make an interesting court case, as that bit is only a convention telling certain DVD players to enable already-licensed hardware to utilize their patent.
Maybe at the very beginning, but in the two years or so before DVDs displaced them, laser discs were coming out usually a bit cheaper than the VHS version of the same title. E.g. the tape would be for around $35, the disc would be $28.
And that codec would be written in what, Java bytecode? C source? IA-64? IA-32? 68K? Alpha? PPC? Sparc? MIPS? ARM? Z80? 6502? PDP-11? Cyber? 4004? C# bytecode? Lisp? Tcl? Guile? I know, just send them all!
Actually, the important question is when will RMS and the FSF start working on the Free version of GNU (Gnu's Not Universe)?
So you're saying that Quantum Mechanics is really just a bug in a positional subroutine?
That's not right at all. They are legally obligated to either provide the source to anyone they provide binaries to or offer it for at least three years at no more than the cost of physically performing source distribution (i.e. not necessarily for free). If they always provide binaries, they have no further obligation (and making them available at the same location where you can download the binaries is counted as "providing", even if the person doing the downloading isn't forced to download the source when they get the binaries).
Unix Notes and Lotus Notes both have origins in the PLATO Notes system written in the early '70s at the University of Illinois. Notesfile "pad" is still going strong on the NovaNET system (which is what the PLATO system was renamed to, after CDC sold the rights to the name PLATO to TRO), with origins dating to around 1972 or 1973 (before Notes was written).
Have you looked at dbmail? I believe I found it on freshmeat.
Available via CVS at
module dbmail, no password necessary.Originally used just mysql, but I believe they've added interfaces to other DBs. Some of the coding was horrible, but it basically worked. Has an MDA that can be made to work with sendmail, has an IMAP and POP server. Haven't looked at it for about 4 months, we were going to use it for an e-mail system (along with Columba as a client) but the project was cancelled. There was lots of room for improvement, but there's been quite a bit of work done on it since then, so it might be worth using as a starting point at least.
Is perjury protected speech? If so, how should the parts of the Constitution which require sworn testimony (e.g. for a warrant) work? If not, doesn't your "absolute" statement go right out the window?
The latest versions of sendmail already have this enabled by default, with an MSA (Message Submission Agent) listening on port 587, as defined in RFC 2476. Now if only client programs would start allowing the use of it, ugly hacks like having to change your mail server depending on what network you're connected through, or else the ISP having to run the even uglier hack to have SMTP only allow connections from someone who has authenticated through POP recently, could be eliminated. Then SMTP servers could block messages with return addresses that don't match the server it is coming from. It wouldn't be perfect, of course, but it would help with accountability and probably make it easier to block the right servers without affecting innocent ones.
Of course I can. The subject was a specific ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It said nothing about child pornography. Child pornography remains illegal in the United States, under the definitions that the United States legislature has made. That is fact, and the decision in question doesn't have anything to do with it. The person I was responding to seemed to think that the decision was somehow about child porn, and it isn't. The decision also isn't about whether US law has any bearing anywhere else, what should be done about it, etc. The fact remains that child pornography is illegal in the US, the definition includes "under 18", and even if it is legal somewhere else, if you download it to a computer in the US you can be prosecuted.
Child porn isn't an issue. It is illegal, regardless of whether it is on the Internet or elsewhere. Community standards have no say in whether child porn is allowed. All the judges have said is that a statute can refer to "community standards" to decide what is allowable for kids to access. What it doesn't sound like they did is define what "community" means in the context of material made available on the Internet. Until a lower court makes that decision (or makes a decision that a particular interpretation of the government is either right or wrong), the Supreme Court isn't going to say anything else about it.
Are you kidding? Playing and socializing is some of the most important learning a kid can do. Other than that, learning to read, learning arithmetic, learning to ask questions and find the answers, and then learn from those answers, is what school should be about. Included in there is basic grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. The scientific method and basic math (geometry, algebra, elementary calculus) is also basic, and very important, but not quite as basic as the rest.
Providing a structure in which to learn about more specialized knowledge (history, science, math, geography, literature) is dependent on those basics.
The computer in the classroom can come into things in five primary ways: as a simple tool (word processing, spreadsheets) that you need to learn how to use; as a more general research tool (searching for stuff on the Web); as communications (e-mail, homework assignments); as a real educational tool (specific educational software that teaches both the basics or the more specialized knowledge; and some of it is good, although much of it is not); and as computers (learning to program, understanding computer architecture, learning to play with the hardware). All of these can be useful, but NONE of them should be taught to or depend on a specific platform.
a) So people have to put themselves at risk of legal action to provide you with a copy, and this is fine as long as YOU don't come under fire? and b) you really think they couldn't come after you for downloading, say on a conspiracy charge? Conspiracy to traffic in a prohibited device...or perhaps they'll simply find that the act of storing it on your hard drive constitutes "manufacture".
So you're fine for DeCSS, since you managed to get a copy before the final set of rules kicked in. Anyone who doesn't have a copy now is out of luck, and you're out of luck when the next protection scheme is released.
Of course you could release it under the GPL, but no one else would be authorized to re-distribute it because of patent restrictions. However, if you chose not to pursue copyright infringement claims against someone who DID re-distribute it (in violation of the GPL), then that wouldn't matter anyway. In either case, GPL or PD, you'd STILL be liable for patent infringement AND for violation of DMCA, regardless of what the GPL might say about it. Regardless, DeCSS has ended up in court because of DMCA and trade secret law, not because of patent infringement issues. Are you trying to say that a PD version of DeCSS would expose you to more liability (say, someone suing you because they got sued under DMCA) than if you released it under GPL (hypothetically assuming that there are no patent issues), or that somehow you yourself couldn't be prosecuted under DMCA?
No, generating a prime number out of DeCSS source code is not illegal. Distributing DeCSS source code, in whatever form, might be (depending on how the DMCA fares in court).
Clearly it is not. Otherwise, all compilers, assembler, text editors, uuencode, gzip, cp, cat, ftp, etc. would be prohibited by the DMCA as well, as they can all be used to distribute, transform or copy DeCSS source code.
GPL-ing a virus that you've put out into the wild isn't going to absolve you of legal responsibility for what you've done. What I'm asking is for is an example of where releasing something into Public Domain actually exposes you to liability, where releasing it under the GPL would have shielded you in some way. Specifically, the subject was where someone is caused damage because they relied on source code that had a bug in it; talking about legal liability because of violating copyright, patent, DMCA, etc. isn't of any use as you'd still be liable regardless of what the GPL disclaimer of warranty says (unless you want to discuss a case where someone is sued under DMCA, patent, or copyright law and comes after you even though you weren't directly sued by the patent/copyright owner).
Please point me to either a statute or case law that leads to this conclusion. How can something taken for no consideration whatsoever have any implied warranty or legal obligation, assuming it isn't illegal in the first place (i.e. violation of something like the DMCA, infringes someone's copyright or patent (direct or contributory), etc.)? How does adding a "I'm not responsible for anything this software does" clause to a license that the end user doesn't even have to accept shield you from any liability?
I'd really like to see a lawyer try to explain how writing some words on a license, for which no consideration was paid, shields you from liability, but that there is somehow an implied warranty given when someone takes something that was in the public domain and does something with it. The only way there should be any possibility of legal liability should be if the work itself is illegal or directly infringes on someone's rights. If that somehow isn't the actual current legal situation, it should be changed.
They do not have a legal obligation to raise the stock price. That's nonsense. It's also nonsense to think that a public corporation can't have a philosophy. Of course they can, that can even be a big part of the worth of the company! Yes, there's a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. You have to do what's good for the company (and thus the shareholders), and the primary measurement of that is net worth/profit, but there are many ways of going about that.
There's nothing that says a company can't take a long-term view, even if the market tends to not reward them for it; what you can't do is mislead investors about the nature of your company and business plan, or change things without due consideration of how a change will affect stockholders (including having stockholders approve such changes).
Why shouldn't they get paid? They're doing work for the company. The fallacy is believing that a company, having paid someone to develop or modify some software, must then keep that software private (either out of some principle of "we paid for it, it must be valuable, hence we can't give it away, but we're not a software company so we can't sell it either" or simply to keep competitors at a disadvantage so they can't compete against you as effectively). The former is simply misguided; the latter is a failing of capitalism, as it makes the market less efficient.
One way out of the conundrum would be for companies to form "software development consortiums", specifically to develop software that all of the companies could use. For software developed from scratch (or, at least, not using GPL or similarly licensed software), it could be kept proprietary to members of the consortium for a limited time before being released as GPL (or whatever). Joining the consortium would give a company the advantage of getting earlier access to such work, as well as being able to steer development of things they are particularly interested in. Requiring a fee helps reduce the free-rider problem. Releasing it as GPL eventually allows multiple consortiums to build on each other's work, as well as the rest of the free/open software community and existing work.
Where free/open software doesn't seem to be working well, as a business model, is for companies that are primarily software developers - their only product is software. I think it can still be made to work, but not at the profit levels that Microsoft is used to getting. However, if they don't accept it, they'll eventually be crowded out by companies that can operate much more effectively by developing upon, and supporting, free/open software. Note that Apple is also a hardware company, and that's why they can embrace free/open software more easily than Microsoft. The software, even if they don't have a monopoly on it, still helps them sell their other products, and thus has value beyond the raw revenue that the software itself brings in.
I already said it may be an access control, but only to the Battle.net servers. Since bnetd doesn't give anyone access to Battle.net servers, that isn't a copyright or DMCA issue.
Copyright is in fact precisely about the right to copy. The GPL doesn't try to control usage, it is ONLY about copying, and what it does is to ALLOW copying, under certain terms. Don't copy, GPL doesn't apply to you. If Blizzard wanted to, say, allow you to make copies of the game, but only under certain conditions (say, don't use the copied games with any server but their own), then that would be every bit as valid as the GPL. However, they do NOT get to control how you use an authorized copy of the game (i.e. one you purchased in a store).
bnetd is under no obligation to check the authenticity of a copy of the game that connects through it. Offering to put such a check in was nice of them, but not required. Blizzard refusing to allow them to check was dumb of them, but again was not required. Saying that bnetd is bad because it encourages copyright violation is specious - it's actually Blizzard that chose that route.
The CD Key doesn't prevent copying and doesn't control access to content. It only provides access to their servers. The DMCA only protects technological measures that protect content. Although you might be able to successfully claim that accessing the Battle.net servers is accessing content, that's not what is being done. DMCA doesn't apply. Copy Right - the Right to Copy - is not being violated. That they even offered to go beyond what the law requires and check for valid keys bolsters their case. It isn't a mitigating issue, it completely demolishes any inkling of an idea that they're doing this as a means of allowing unauthorized copies to be used.
It was read into the record, then referred to committee. See Bill Summary & Status.
There were 25 other bills and two resolutions introduced that same day, see the Daily Digest. All were referred to the appropriate committees (Page S2260) except for one resolution, S. Res 231, which was considered and agreed to (Page S2261). You can get to those from the Daily Digest link, then go to Pages S2260-S2261, which then has some of those "temp" URLs, but once you're there you can use "next document" and "previous document" to get less ephemeral links (although the temp links I get are the same as yours, so they are at least somewhat persistent).
It's odd that there's no reference on their page to the CBDTPA that's been introduced (S.2048). I realize it isn't in their committee (it's now in the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee), but it is still relevant to what they're requesting comments on.
If you're going to comment on the CBDTPA, I strongly suggest you actually read the text. Whining about how it will kill fair use, for example, won't win you any points, since the bill requires that any security measures respect the limits on the copyright owner, including fair use, and explicitly requires that people be able to make recordings for personal home use. You might reasonably object that such a goal is incompatible with all of the other requirements that such a system would have, but don't claim that they haven't considered the consumer at all in this.
I sent in my comments by e-mail; as others have reported, I got it back with a link for re-submitting it using their Web site, which I did. I didn't get any acknowledgement, nor has it been posted to the Web site yet. As at least one comment was posted the day it was written (based on a comment that included the day's date), I'm not sure what's going on. Maybe it was too long, but I didn't get a rejection, either. I don't think it was of lower quality than the comments that I've read so far (and certainly better than some). I updated what I said to reference the CBDTPA instead of the SSSCA and resubmitted it (indicating it was a resubmission), but I still haven't heard anything, and nothing's been added to their Web site since yesterday.
As a side note, they should split up the user comments into a separate page for each day; the current page is over 600K for one week's worth of comments (March 18-March 25, with nothing posted on March 23). For anyone checking to see new comments, it'd save a whole lot of bandwidth and time.