I'm not saying that the 'size' change is the modification in question.. in that respect, the signal is fine.
But what if, instead of realvideo, they were actually broadcasting on VHF (normal TV). And they took another stations signal, shrunk it a bit, and put their own video around the outside of it. *NOW* the *signal* they are presenting to other viewers has had it's content modified. THey are *NOT* simply extending the range.
The RealVideo stream contains *MORE* than just the original content, it contains extra advertsing infromation present at the side and bottom of the video signal, and this is what they will be prosectued over.
This is not a court ruling. There has been no trial. The judge granted a Preliminary Injunction, ordering ICrave to cease broadcasting these programmes into the USA, until the trial is over.
The NFL is full of it.. they already allowed the programs to be *broadcast* over *RF*, which is broadcasting in the true sense of the word.
If iCrave had, instead of an internet RealVideo server, simply had some kind of legal-but-wierd radio receiver that allowed anyone in the world to pick up VHF TV from Ontario.... nobody would be suing them.
I'm canadian, and I don't find this strange. For several reasons.
1) The US has prosecuted people, in foreign countries, and for acts performed in foreign countries, under US law. They feel that if it touches the US in any way, US law applies. 2) The US court can give whatever verdict they like. This does not change the fact that they have no jurisdiction in Canada. They may have ruled that iCrave is violating American law (that sure was a speedy trial.. btw... but that's because this is so clearcut under american law)... but they have no jurisdiction here in canada.. so they can't ENFORCE Their ruling.
Can a canadian court issue a ruling against an american company? Sure.. can they enforce it? Doubtful.
Yes. An dlocal TV operators are *allowed* to do this. They pay license fees for these priveleges. iCrave TV operates under a different section of law... that, in Canada, a TV signal broadcast over public airwaves may be rebroadcast, without payment to anyone, so long as it is rebroadcast in realtime, and without modification (effectively, the only thing this accomplishes is extending the viewer count for that particular channel.).
Icrave, by wrapping their own banners around the outside of the signal (sort of shrinking the original signal).. well.. that seems to constitute 'modifying' the content of the signal.
Noo... sorry. When the broadcast is licensed in a certain way, you consent to the terms of that license. When the copyright holders (say, the NFL), *license* a canadian broadcaster to broadcast over the air, they are agreeing to abide by all the legal implications of that broadcasting right. This means it can be rebroadcast.
Now, on an *intent* issue, I believe the way the original law is worded ist hat the signal may not be time-shifted (ie: to a different time slot.. propagation delays are okay...), and may not be modified as to content. If you are going to rebroadcast, you must rebroadcast *only* that signal, as the original broadcaster intended.
Now.. the video stream that comes over RealVideo from Icrave has the original video content *framed* by other banners... (not html banners.. they are in the video stream, or at least, it looks that way in the player). So as to *intent*, they are using someone elses video stream to insert their own advertising. This is exactly what the original law was meant to protect.
You say, 'even if it was initially broadcast'. Realize, please, that Icrave is not trying to claim some bizarre exemption under canadian law that says any broadcast singal is free game... there is explicit law dealing whith TV Broadcasting over publicly owned airwaves, and that law says that those broadcasts may be picked up and rebroadcast by anyone, so long as they are rebroadcast live, and the content is not modified.
No. And recall, giving it back means putting it legally into his posession. Perhaps just given to his lawyer.
And his use of computers is not absolutely forbidden by law. He can, as with all parole cases, do things at the discretion of the parole officer. The parole conditions are more guidelines for the parole officer than anything else.
6 year ago was 1994. There were some pretty cool laptops in 1994. A laptop capable of running a useful algorithm? My C64 could do strong encryption. Encryption may have become more POPULAR lately... but some VERY strong algorithms have existed for 10 years or more.
A day to encrypt one doc? Think about this. I can encrypt a doc in 5 seconds. For it to take a day, say, half a day, 12 hours, I would have to say... computers would have to be 8640 times faster today than they were in 1994.
First, the demo disk has little to do with embedded applications. It's just showing off the size and functionality of QNX. Embedded/RealTime applications are generally.. well.. any time you see a computer in a device that's not a computer. A car. A space probe. A satellite. A DVD player. A stereo. Embedded controllers for robots. Too many people in the OSS/Linux world seem to think that 'embedded applications' means a miniature PC.. or a web browser/email appliance...
Secondly, QNX is closed source, and competes with a fair number of other RTOS vendors. (VxWorks, etc..) Thirdly, QNX (& VxWorks, and others) are fairly complex, multitasking embedded OS. If freeDOS were to be used, it would be because these functions were not needed, and would just add clutter.
It does not state that code is GPL'ed automatically.. it states that IF the modified code is released, it must be released under the terms of the GPL. It is still possible for someone to a) release the code and b) have a bad license on it, one that the GPL forbids. It is then up to the copyright holder(s) to deal with the legalities, as the user has violated their license agreement (the GPL).
Repeat.. this does NOT mean that code is automatically GPL'd because it includes GPL. It just means that it can only be legally distributed under the terms of the GPL.
This is something people keep saying. The GPL DOES NOT in ANY WAY *FORCE* you to release your code.
What it does say is that if you *DO* want to release your code that includes GPL code, that you MUST abide by the GPL. IF you cannot or will not, you simply cannot release it. IF you had already released it, and realize that it wasn't legal, you must stop releasing it. Period. Nothing will put you in a position of forcing you to release your code.
This is one step in the right direction towards good Privacy standards.
Remember, when it comes to these 'marketing companies'....
How is it companies that you do business with are free to give any information you give them to a marketing company, but the marketing company will not give you information about *their* customers?
The VA box I purchased, VarServer 1100 or some such.. (not available anymore.)... I forget the exact model. The price was comparable to similar equipment from Compaq. The difference, of course, was that it came running linux, and all the hardware was supported. this, by far, was the biggest timesaver for me. As a corporate IT manager, I don't have to purchase the absolute lowest cost box. You don't just buy compaq over dell over VA over IBM based on price, you must factor in everything.
VA offered me a box that did what I needed, when I needed it, and it's still running smoothly to this day. (200+ days uptime).
Would the compaq have done the same? Probably. Would I have had problems when I called them for support because of linux driver issues? Probably. What if Linux didn't work on it, the way I wanted? That would have been a problem. I would have had to spend several days setting it up and finding drivers, as well.
The VA box I purchased, VarServer 1100 or some such.. (not available anymore.)... I forget the exact model. The price was comparable to similar equipment from Compaq. The difference, of course, was that it came running linux, and all the hardware was supported. this, by far, was the biggest timesaver for me. As a corporate IT manager, I don't have to purchase the absolute lowest cost box. You don't just buy compaq over dell over VA over IBM based on price, you must factor in everything.
VA offered me a box that did what I needed, when I needed it, and it's still running smoothly to this day. (200+ days uptime).
Would the compaq have done the same? Probably. Would I have had problems when I called them for support because of linux driver issues? Probably. What if Linux didn't work on it, the way I wanted? That would have been a problem. I would have had to spend several days setting it up and finding drivers, as well. And is several days of my time worth an extra $500 on the server? YOU BET!
NOt really. As someone said before, it doesn't mean they can't change the law, or that it doesn't apply to you, just that you can't be charged under new laws if what you did was legal when you did it.
These cops *own* guns today.. the act of *owning* is continuous, and in their case, no longer lawful (what a silly law...). The only thing they did in the past was *acquire* the weapon, which may be covered under different terms.
What does the defense have to gain by arguing that the court records should not be sealed? On what basis will they claim that this is unfair? It harms them in no way. You can't just say 'it's supposed to be a public document!'. Court records are sealed for a number of reasons.
What do you mean, off balance? This is not something that needs to be defended, and not about an actual court case. There is no 'defense'. Council asks the judge for an injunction (or in this case, to seal the records) and the defense has the opportunity to state why it isn't necessary to do so.
Given that the judge already granted a temporary *TEMPORARY, get it?* inunction against many web sites in the suit... preventing them from distributing DeCSS source until *after* the trial.. and the purpose of the trial is allegedly to protect trade secret information, it makes sense that those court documents that include said alleged secrets should be shielded until the trial is over.
Remember, these are prelimenary injunctions/motions we are talking about.. *NOT* final court decisions.
THe court simply says... what is the cost/benefit/likelyhood of success?
It is *possible* the DVD CCA will win. Perhaps their rights *have* been violated. If they HAVE, then having all this code all over, including in public documents means any ruling the court would make after the fact meaningless. on the other hand.. the courts simply say 'stop doing this until the case is decided'.. doesn't this make sense?
Hey... nobody said it was unfair an injunction was granted acgainst Microsoft, to make them stop distributing J++ until the Sun-MS Java trial is over... hey.. same thing there, no? TRIAL isn't over.. no judgement made... but the jude figured that if MS was in the wrong, then by letting them continue, sun's whole plan could be shot, wheras if MS was right, they would simply suffer a minor setback in sales.
Actually, I believe they are not law at all. I was describing how it should be, not how it is.
EU e-commerce laws, apparently, are similar to this though, mainly dealing with credit card info and other stuff. Sorry, I have no link, but I recall that the EU has some policies that to do e-commerce with the EU, you must follow their strict privacy rules. ie: contact/name info can be provided for payment, but it is *forbidden* for the company receiving it to use it for anything else.
And you are right.. it is completely screwed up that these companies can tell DoubleClick who *I* am, as their customer, but DoubleClick cannot tell *me* about their customers;)
Your 'right' to view them simply means you cannoy be punished for viewing them. The act of viewing them within the context of the stated terms is legal. The act of *publishing the decryption routines & keys* is what is in question here.
Folks.. let's think rationally for a second. Judge already granted prelimenaty injunctions agatinst TONS of sources of the DeCSS code. It follows that he most likely seal this as well, for the exact same reasons. He would have done it at the same time as the previous one, had they asked.
Having court records sealed until the trial is over is *not* a violation of your rights.
We all know the CCA is *evil*... me included.. but, hey.. they *are* *LAWS* that the CCA thinks should apply here, and they have gone to court to have the court decide. *IF* the CCA is correct, and they can have their work protected by the acts in question, then it follows that the court record will be sealed.
Rather.. if the Judge doesn't seal the record, it makes his other injuncions useless anyway.
The articles don't say it. The issue is not the VM, but the compiler (Visual J++). Sun's compiler was producing code that *only* works as the programmer intended onthe MS VM.
To get around their contract with sun (which required that software 'work' on sun's reference VM), MS ensured that if the code produced by J++ was run on a proper Java VM, it would run, but bring up messages explaining that functions were disabled and it would not run correctly.
So, as MS puts it, technically, the code *runs*, and technically, Sun didn't say it had to run the same way as the programmer intended.. (which is sooo damn obvious in the first place.. )
This is true, from what I've seen. But you can also move the appropriate extra classes to whatever platform you are implementing on and they will work, as they are just extensions of the existing classes.
The problem with MS, is that it used native Windows methods that are *not* cross platform, and code written for it can not work anywhere but in windows.
MS cannot do this even if they have a clean-room java codebase.
If they want to call it a Java compiler, it *must* compile java code, according to the specification and rules set out by Sun. If it doesn't, they cannot call it Java, period.
In order to call something a Java(tm) compiler, and to claim it produces Java(tm) code, it must produce code that executes properly on the reference JVM from sun. MS extended the java classes to include a bunch of MS-proprietary gui & system stuff.
MS tried to exploit what they thought was a 'loophole' in the java contract. They made it so if you ran the code produced by j++ on the reference JVM, rather than crash (as should happen), they first had code to decide what JVM it was on, and pop up messages indicating what features would not work unless it was run on the appropriate VM from Microsoft. Microsoft says 'well, it still RUNS, it just doesn't do the same thing'. Totally violated the spirit of the agreement. The judge decided that they had to change it.
The whole point is, you can do whatever you want with your java compiler/JVM, but what is produced from the compiler *must* run *as the programmer intended* on the reference JVM, and your Java(tm) virtual machine must run all code produced by the Java(tm) reference compiler;)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying that the 'size' change is the modification in question.. in that respect, the signal is fine.
But what if, instead of realvideo, they were actually broadcasting on VHF (normal TV). And they took another stations signal, shrunk it a bit, and put their own video around the outside of it. *NOW* the *signal* they are presenting to other viewers has had it's content modified. THey are *NOT* simply extending the range.
The RealVideo stream contains *MORE* than just the original content, it contains extra advertsing infromation present at the side and bottom of the video signal, and this is what they will be prosectued over.
This is not a court ruling. There has been no trial. The judge granted a Preliminary Injunction, ordering ICrave to cease broadcasting these programmes into the USA, until the trial is over.
The NFL is full of it.. they already allowed the programs to be *broadcast* over *RF*, which is broadcasting in the true sense of the word.
If iCrave had, instead of an internet RealVideo server, simply had some kind of legal-but-wierd radio receiver that allowed anyone in the world to pick up VHF TV from Ontario.... nobody would be suing them.
I'm canadian, and I don't find this strange. For several reasons.
1) The US has prosecuted people, in foreign countries, and for acts performed in foreign countries, under US law. They feel that if it touches the US in any way, US law applies.
2) The US court can give whatever verdict they like. This does not change the fact that they have no jurisdiction in Canada. They may have ruled that iCrave is violating American law (that sure was a speedy trial.. btw... but that's because this is so clearcut under american law)... but they have no jurisdiction here in canada.. so they can't ENFORCE Their ruling.
Can a canadian court issue a ruling against an american company? Sure.. can they enforce it? Doubtful.
Yes. An dlocal TV operators are *allowed* to do this. They pay license fees for these priveleges.
iCrave TV operates under a different section of law... that, in Canada, a TV signal broadcast over public airwaves may be rebroadcast, without payment to anyone, so long as it is rebroadcast in realtime, and without modification (effectively, the only thing this accomplishes is extending the viewer count for that particular channel.).
Icrave, by wrapping their own banners around the outside of the signal (sort of shrinking the original signal).. well.. that seems to constitute 'modifying' the content of the signal.
Noo... sorry.
When the broadcast is licensed in a certain way, you consent to the terms of that license.
When the copyright holders (say, the NFL), *license* a canadian broadcaster to broadcast over the air, they are agreeing to abide by all the legal implications of that broadcasting right. This means it can be rebroadcast.
Now, on an *intent* issue, I believe the way the original law is worded ist hat the signal may not be time-shifted (ie: to a different time slot.. propagation delays are okay...), and may not be modified as to content. If you are going to rebroadcast, you must rebroadcast *only* that signal, as the original broadcaster intended.
Now.. the video stream that comes over RealVideo from Icrave has the original video content *framed* by other banners... (not html banners.. they are in the video stream, or at least, it looks that way in the player). So as to *intent*, they are using someone elses video stream to insert their own advertising. This is exactly what the original law was meant to protect.
You say, 'even if it was initially broadcast'.
Realize, please, that Icrave is not trying to claim some bizarre exemption under canadian law that says any broadcast singal is free game... there is explicit law dealing whith TV Broadcasting over publicly owned airwaves, and that law says that those broadcasts may be picked up and rebroadcast by anyone, so long as they are rebroadcast live, and the content is not modified.
No.
And recall, giving it back means putting it legally into his posession. Perhaps just given to his lawyer.
And his use of computers is not absolutely forbidden by law. He can, as with all parole cases, do things at the discretion of the parole officer. The parole conditions are more guidelines for the parole officer than anything else.
If you know he could give it to someone else.. what are you blabbing about?
6 year ago was 1994. There were some pretty cool laptops in 1994.
A laptop capable of running a useful algorithm?
My C64 could do strong encryption.
Encryption may have become more POPULAR lately...
but some VERY strong algorithms have existed for 10 years or more.
A day to encrypt one doc? Think about this.
I can encrypt a doc in 5 seconds.
For it to take a day, say, half a day, 12 hours, I would have to say... computers would have to be 8640 times faster today than they were in 1994.
First, the demo disk has little to do with embedded applications. It's just showing off the size and functionality of QNX. Embedded/RealTime applications are generally.. well.. any time you see a computer in a device that's not a computer. A car. A space probe. A satellite. A DVD player. A stereo. Embedded controllers for robots.
Too many people in the OSS/Linux world seem to think that 'embedded applications' means a miniature PC.. or a web browser/email appliance...
Secondly, QNX is closed source, and competes with a fair number of other RTOS vendors. (VxWorks, etc..)
Thirdly, QNX (& VxWorks, and others) are fairly complex, multitasking embedded OS. If freeDOS were to be used, it would be because these functions were not needed, and would just add clutter.
It does not state that code is GPL'ed automatically.. it states that IF the modified code is released, it must be released under the terms of the GPL.
It is still possible for someone to a) release the code and b) have a bad license on it, one that the GPL forbids. It is then up to the copyright holder(s) to deal with the legalities, as the user has violated their license agreement (the GPL).
Repeat.. this does NOT mean that code is automatically GPL'd because it includes GPL. It just means that it can only be legally distributed under the terms of the GPL.
This is something people keep saying. The GPL DOES NOT in ANY WAY *FORCE* you to release your code.
What it does say is that if you *DO* want to release your code that includes GPL code, that you MUST abide by the GPL. IF you cannot or will not, you simply cannot release it. IF you had already released it, and realize that it wasn't legal, you must stop releasing it. Period.
Nothing will put you in a position of forcing you to release your code.
This is one step in the right direction towards good Privacy standards.
Remember, when it comes to these 'marketing companies'....
How is it companies that you do business with are free to give any information you give them to a marketing company, but the marketing company will not give you information about *their* customers?
The VA box I purchased, VarServer 1100 or some such.. (not available anymore.)... I forget the exact model. The price was comparable to similar equipment from Compaq.
The difference, of course, was that it came running linux, and all the hardware was supported. this, by far, was the biggest timesaver for me. As a corporate IT manager, I don't have to purchase the absolute lowest cost box. You don't just buy compaq over dell over VA over IBM based on price, you must factor in everything.
VA offered me a box that did what I needed, when I needed it, and it's still running smoothly to this day. (200+ days uptime).
Would the compaq have done the same? Probably. Would I have had problems when I called them for support because of linux driver issues? Probably. What if Linux didn't work on it, the way I wanted? That would have been a problem. I would have had to spend several days setting it up and finding drivers, as well.
The VA box I purchased, VarServer 1100 or some such.. (not available anymore.)... I forget the exact model. The price was comparable to similar equipment from Compaq.
The difference, of course, was that it came running linux, and all the hardware was supported. this, by far, was the biggest timesaver for me. As a corporate IT manager, I don't have to purchase the absolute lowest cost box. You don't just buy compaq over dell over VA over IBM based on price, you must factor in everything.
VA offered me a box that did what I needed, when I needed it, and it's still running smoothly to this day. (200+ days uptime).
Would the compaq have done the same? Probably. Would I have had problems when I called them for support because of linux driver issues? Probably. What if Linux didn't work on it, the way I wanted? That would have been a problem. I would have had to spend several days setting it up and finding drivers, as well. And is several days of my time worth an extra $500 on the server? YOU BET!
NOt really. As someone said before, it doesn't mean they can't change the law, or that it doesn't apply to you, just that you can't be charged under new laws if what you did was legal when you did it.
These cops *own* guns today.. the act of *owning* is continuous, and in their case, no longer lawful (what a silly law...).
The only thing they did in the past was *acquire* the weapon, which may be covered under different terms.
What does the defense have to gain by arguing that the court records should not be sealed? On what basis will they claim that this is unfair?
It harms them in no way. You can't just say 'it's supposed to be a public document!'.
Court records are sealed for a number of reasons.
What do you mean, off balance? This is not something that needs to be defended, and not about an actual court case. There is no 'defense'. Council asks the judge for an injunction (or in this case, to seal the records) and the defense has the opportunity to state why it isn't necessary to do so.
Given that the judge already granted a temporary *TEMPORARY, get it?* inunction against many web sites in the suit... preventing them from distributing DeCSS source until *after* the trial.. and the purpose of the trial is allegedly to protect trade secret information, it makes sense that those court documents that include said alleged secrets should be shielded until the trial is over.
Remember, these are prelimenary injunctions/motions we are talking about.. *NOT* final court decisions.
THe court simply says... what is the cost/benefit/likelyhood of success?
It is *possible* the DVD CCA will win. Perhaps their rights *have* been violated. If they HAVE, then having all this code all over, including in public documents means any ruling the court would make after the fact meaningless. on the other hand.. the courts simply say 'stop doing this until the case is decided'.. doesn't this make sense?
Hey... nobody said it was unfair an injunction was granted acgainst Microsoft, to make them stop distributing J++ until the Sun-MS Java trial is over... hey.. same thing there, no? TRIAL isn't over.. no judgement made...
but the jude figured that if MS was in the wrong, then by letting them continue, sun's whole plan could be shot, wheras if MS was right, they would simply suffer a minor setback in sales.
Actually, I believe they are not law at all. I was describing how it should be, not how it is.
;)
EU e-commerce laws, apparently, are similar to this though, mainly dealing with credit card info and other stuff. Sorry, I have no link, but I recall that the EU has some policies that to do e-commerce with the EU, you must follow their strict privacy rules.
ie: contact/name info can be provided for payment, but it is *forbidden* for the company receiving it to use it for anything else.
And you are right.. it is completely screwed up that these companies can tell DoubleClick who *I* am, as their customer, but DoubleClick cannot tell *me* about their customers
Your 'right' to view them simply means you cannoy be punished for viewing them. The act of viewing them within the context of the stated terms is legal.
The act of *publishing the decryption routines & keys* is what is in question here.
Folks.. let's think rationally for a second.
Judge already granted prelimenaty injunctions agatinst TONS of sources of the DeCSS code. It follows that he most likely seal this as well, for the exact same reasons. He would have done it at the same time as the previous one, had they asked.
Having court records sealed until the trial is over is *not* a violation of your rights.
We all know the CCA is *evil*... me included.. but, hey.. they *are* *LAWS* that the CCA thinks should apply here, and they have gone to court to have the court decide. *IF* the CCA is correct, and they can have their work protected by the acts in question, then it follows that the court record will be sealed.
Rather.. if the Judge doesn't seal the record, it makes his other injuncions useless anyway.
The articles don't say it.
The issue is not the VM, but the compiler (Visual J++).
Sun's compiler was producing code that *only* works as the programmer intended onthe MS VM.
To get around their contract with sun (which required that software 'work' on sun's reference VM), MS ensured that if the code produced by J++ was run on a proper Java VM, it would run, but bring up messages explaining that functions were disabled and it would not run correctly.
So, as MS puts it, technically, the code *runs*, and technically, Sun didn't say it had to run the same way as the programmer intended.. (which is sooo damn obvious in the first place.. )
This is true, from what I've seen.
But you can also move the appropriate extra classes to whatever platform you are implementing on and they will work, as they are just extensions of the existing classes.
The problem with MS, is that it used native Windows methods that are *not* cross platform, and code written for it can not work anywhere but in windows.
MS cannot do this even if they have a clean-room java codebase.
If they want to call it a Java compiler, it *must* compile java code, according to the specification and rules set out by Sun. If it doesn't, they cannot call it Java, period.
In order to call something a Java(tm) compiler, and to claim it produces Java(tm) code, it must produce code that executes properly on the reference JVM from sun.
;)
MS extended the java classes to include a bunch of MS-proprietary gui & system stuff.
MS tried to exploit what they thought was a 'loophole' in the java contract.
They made it so if you ran the code produced by j++ on the reference JVM, rather than crash (as should happen), they first had code to decide what JVM it was on, and pop up messages indicating what features would not work unless it was run on the appropriate VM from Microsoft.
Microsoft says 'well, it still RUNS, it just doesn't do the same thing'. Totally violated the spirit of the agreement.
The judge decided that they had to change it.
The whole point is, you can do whatever you want with your java compiler/JVM, but what is produced from the compiler *must* run *as the programmer intended* on the reference JVM, and your Java(tm) virtual machine must run all code produced by the Java(tm) reference compiler