As rescue workers tried to reach the injured and recover the dead at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, explosions were seen and heard in Kabul, Afghanistan. President Bush will address the nation at 9 p.m. EDT.
As rescue workers tried to reach the injured and recover the dead at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, explosions were seen and heard in Kabul, Afghanistan. President Bush will address the nation at 9 p.m. EDT.
THE SCALE of the attacks and the loss of life -- mostly in New York City's World Trade Center, but also in Pittsburgh and Washington -- ensured that "no option has been taken off the table," senior U.S. officials said. Asked if that included nuclear weapons, one senior official said: "I said no option is out of the question. That's precisely what I mean."
Further:
Among the options under active consideration:
Major retaliatory airstrikes: The United States could strike at Afghanistan with missile strikes -- possibly even tactical nuclear weapons -- to demonstrate its anger and the grave consequences of such an attack on U.S. soil.
The entire article is copied below.
U.S. pondering its response
'No options taken off the table' -- senior U.S. official
By Michael Moran
MSNBC
Sept. 11 -- Reeling from the most devastating day of terrorist attacks in history, President George W. Bush and his advisors struggled on Tuesday to devise a response that would convey the depth of the outrage felt across the United States without appearing to lash out blindly.
THE SCALE of the attacks and the loss of life -- mostly in New York City's World Trade Center, but also in Pittsburgh and Washington -- ensured that "no option has been taken off the table," senior U.S. officials said. Asked if that included nuclear weapons, one senior official said: "I said no option is out of the question. That's precisely what I mean."
The nature and precision of the attacks, along with their unknown origin, left the United States with no useful precedents or contingency plans to fall back on. Procedurally, the attacks prompted officials to institute safeguards consistent with a state of war: Airspace over major American cities was cleared of commercial traffic and replaced by military interceptors; large, obvious targets like the White House, Capitol building, the Disney theme parks in Florida and California and the Sears Tower in Chicago, were evacuated. Most tellingly, the president, vice president, congressional leaders and other key government officials were spirited to secure, undisclosed locations -- an indication that the attacks achieved an astounding degree of surprise.
Indeed, many officials echoed the words of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet's commander, Navy Adm. Robert J. Natter: "We have been attacked like we haven't been attacked since Pearl Harbor." He then dispatched aircraft carriers to the waters off New York and Washington -- an unprecedented step -- to provide air cover.
HIGH ALERT
The United States military and its diplomatic organs quickly ordered steps consistent with imminent action.
President Bush placed American military commands around the world, including North American Air Defense Command, or NORAD, on their highest level of alert. Air Force One, carrying Bush, landed briefly at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, the home of Strategic Air Command, the nation's nuclear war fighting command, as well as the so-called "doomsday plane," a flying command post meant for use in case of a nuclear attack on America.
Ambassadors of the world's most powerful military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, scheduled an emergency meeting for 5 p.m. ET to discuss the crisis at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.
While no public accusations of blame were made by the U.S. government, senior officials, along with experts on terrorism, were unanimous in their belief that the attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden, the Saudi exile who leads the shadowy Al-Qaeda terrorist organization. "No one else but Bin Laden has the capability to do this is Bin Laden," one senior intelligence official said. "No one."
Bin Laden is living in Afghanistan as a guest of the Islamic regime there, the Taliban. The United States already has warned the Taliban that any act of terrorism on American soil by bin Laden or his followers would be regarded as an act of war.
That said, exactly how to hit out at bin Laden has been a continuing problem for the United States. U.S. intelligence agencies once tracked his movements within Afghanistan fairly reliably by eavesdropping on cell phone communications. Bin Laden has long since stopped using cell phones and is now said to sleep in a different safe house each night. Three years ago, after the dual bombings at American embassies in Kenya and Mozambique were tied to Al-Qaeda, the United States launched Tomahawk cruise missiles at suspected bin Laden training camps in Afghanistan and a plant in Sudan the CIA suspected of ties with him. Neither air strike did much to dissuade him. The U.S. suspects bin Laden's hand behind the April 2000 attack on the USS destroyer Cole in Yemen.
MILITARY OPTIONS
As President Bush weighs options, the difficulty of pinpointing bin Laden -- if in fact the United States decides he is responsible -- presents a dilemma. Among the options under active consideration:
Major retaliatory airstrikes: The United States could strike at Afghanistan with missile strikes -- possibly even tactical nuclear weapons -- to demonstrate its anger and the grave consequences of such an attack on U.S. soil.
Military invasion: The president could declare war on Afghanistan and order a buildup of forces similar to that which preceded the Gulf War in 1990. Such a move, however, would require the acquiescence of a neighboring state -- either Pakistan or one of the former Soviet Central Asian nations.
Manhunt: The Army's Delta Force or other assets could be inserted into Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden.
Proxy action: The United States could exert extreme diplomatic pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two states that have supported the Afghan Taliban in the past, to bring Bin Laden to justice.
'NO EASY ANSWERS'
Each and every one of these options has drawbacks, however, and those potential pitfalls will animate the debates of the coming days within the U.S. national security establishment. For instance, the use of nuclear weapons, in any form, risks alienating a world that is almost united in its revulsion at such attacks -- and whose help will be necessary in preventing future such attacks.
"The worst thing we can do is to completely lose our cool and overreact," said Sean Anderson, domestic terrorism expert at Idaho State University who studied the Oklahoma City bombing and the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
"The best thing we can do is carry on, not to depart from our ordinary constitutional legal processes... get the markets open today and carry on with our lives."
Indeed, it is quite possible the United States will refrain from any immediate action until investigators have time to more thoroughly make the case against whoever directed the attack.
"There are not a lot of easy answers," former Secretary of State James Baker told NBC News. "The president, I think, did the right thing when he said 'we're under terrorist attack and we're going to hunt down those responsible.' "
We go through airport security to protect us. Well, I guess our rights being trounced on did nothing to protect us. The metal detectors in government buildings did nothing to keep those planes out.
Maybe the next time, people will question, "are having our rights trampled on really giving us security?"
Realistically, that is not the conclusion the vast majority of people are going to come to. I suspect you know that, and are afraid, with very good reason, of the result
The vast majority of people are going to conclude that obviously metal detectors at airports, etc., are NOT enough. That if, in the interest of safety, searching all luggage, body searches, hell, cavity searches are necessary, then so be it. And if you don't like it? You don't have to fly.
Please understand, I am neither advocating nor endorsing that view. I am making a factual prediction. Expect American society to be a LOT more security conscious, a lot more closed, and for civil liberties to suffer.
Income Tax; Illegal Income; 5th Amendment Concern
on
RIAA To Target CD-R
·
· Score: 1
Reminds me of a decade or so ago when certain jurisdictions in the USA decided to put a tax on marijuana so that they could hit their victims up for tax evasion along with the the usual time in the pokey.
It seemed to me at the time that establishing a tax on something was a de facto way of legalizing it, though I hardly expected the f0cked 0p US legal system to reach that obvious conclusion.
Haven't heard anything about this in years, so I don't know how it turned out.
The situation you describe is legally different from a tax (or levey) on media. That is because in the situation you describe, the tax is collected pursuant to an individual, signed tax form. This raises concerns re: the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
If I remember the case-law correctly (and I may be mistaken; THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE), what happened is this. I believe the courts have uniformly held that taxation of income from illegal activities (i.e., drug sales, gambling, etc.) is legal as long as the taxing authorities provide some legal mechanism to pay the tax without incriminating yourself. One example would be acknowledging the amount of such income income, paying the appropriate tax, but not being forced to disclose the source. Another example would be paying the tax in some anonymous, but subsequently proveable traceable way -- i.e., send in tax payment with a code number etc., such that if you were audited later for the income from you drug sales, you could say, "ah, but I sent in the letter identified as "a12foduis85037439", in the amount of $1,243,245 for the income tax on my cocaine sales!" Finally, I believe I have heard of provisions to pay such taxes through an attorney, who would simply say the tax was being paid on behalf of an anonymous client.
Are these alternatives realistic? No, of course not. But I believe (again, THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, I may be wrong) one or more of these mechanisms has been held to make legal collection of income tax on illegally obtained income in light of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
but I can always release it again, under a new license, because it's my code, and neither RMS nor anyone else can do anything to change that.
That may not be a satisfactory to you for two reasons.
First, relicensing may be possible if and only if you wrote all of the code. However, I thought at least part of the point was for people to communicate, cooperate, and contribute. Once you have accepted patches and code from others, you are no longer the sole author and copyright holder. Once there are numerous copyright holders, relicensing becomes problematic, if not, as a practical matter, impossible.
Secondly, as for the code you wrote that you previously licensed to others under the (L)GPL using the "or any later version" language, while you may be satisfied by the current version of the (L)GPL, you may not want to have your code modified and distributed under the new, improved version of the (L)GPL. I just don't want you to be surprised, or feel screwed, when people copy, modify, and/ or distribute code you wrote under terms you never contemplated.
If future FSF licensing changes force you to add GPL/ to all your software, you can relicense it.
You own the software, you made it, you license it. If RMS gets too big for his boots, reword the license and "re-release" your software. Problem solved.
This is true if and only if you wrote all of the code. However, I thought at least part of the point was for people to communicate, cooperate, and contribute. Once you have accepted patches and code from others, you are no longer the sole author and copyright holder. Once there are numerous copyright holders, relicensing becomes problematic, if not, as a practical matter, impossible.
Also, the "or any later version" provision of the (L)GPL does not allow RMS to "to screw you when it pleases him", because the license explicitly states that "Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version."
The "similar in spirit to the present version" language offers very little protection to the copyright holder / licensor for two reasons. First, as a technical legal matter, one could argue said language is so vague as to be unenforceable. Secondly, more practically, and far more importantly, even if enforceable the language is so vague as to invite multiple, endless litigation. How the hell is anyone, much less a judge or jury, going to know whether a future version of the GPL or LGPL is "similar in spirit" to the present version? What the hell does that mean? How do you decide?
I'm an attorney who has worked for a number of judges in the past. Upon looking at such language, they would know they had a horrible case that could not be resolved short of trial, and probably appeal.
Also, the "or any later version" provision of the (L)GPL does not allow RMS to "to screw you when it pleases him", because the license explicitly states that "Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version."
More importantly, "OR any later version" means you can keep using the old one if you prefer.
You are wrong. For example, the LGPL provides in pertinent part:
This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
The "you" is the above quote refers to the licensee, and not the author of the code, the copyright holder, the licensor. The option to copy, distribute, modify, etc. code licensed under a GPL or LGPL license that includes the "or any later version" language lies with the licensee, not the licensor.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's nothing stopping the author from relicensing the software under a different license. Isn't this what trolltech is doing with the QT toolkit?
I have no idea how many, if any, people have contributed to the QT toolkit. However, relicensing is not a practical option for the Linux kernel, Glibc, or any other major project with many contributors, and thus many copyright holders. They would have to all agree to the license change. Anyone who didn't agree could demand that the code he contributed be yanked out of the project -- not a pretty sight.
Perhaps it will surprise you, but the GPL is independent of GNU. You can slap the GPL on your own software products, and GNU would have nothing to do with it, apart from the fact that you used the same one from FSF.
And interestingly, the GPL does not grant RMS the control you think it does. Since it does not, and the GPL is the only relevant bit of information about GNU's control,everything else - that RMS is kinda extreme - is quite beside the point.
This is largely, but not entirely, true. As Mr. Drepper explains in the glibc 2.2.4 Release Notes:
Read the licenses carefully and rip out parts which give Stallman any possibility to influence your future. Phrases like
[...] GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
just invites him to screw you when it pleases him. Rip out the "any later version" part and make your own decisions when to use a different license since otherwise he can potentially do you or your work harm.
It is very important to understand the import of the "or (at your option) any later version" language. This future alternative option is: (a) the option of the licensee; and (b) defined by, and only by, the FSF.
For example, you write a piece of software. You decide the current version of LGPL is appropriate, and distribute the software under that license, including the "or (at your option) any later version language." [Note: this analysis also applies to the GPL, which has the same language in this area.] Later, the FSF adopts a "later," new improved version of the LGPL which you happen to loath and despise. Too bad. You are screwed. The licensee of your software "can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms" of the "later," improved version of the LGPL you believe is utter garbage.
Also, I had infinite problems with ReiserFS because you included it when it was WAY too beta in 7.1, and then never checked if the filesystems created under 7.1 would run with a kernel upgrade. Well, it would not. I had to spend many days in the reiserfs developers list to find out how to fix the problem. And I did the big mistake of installing mdk 7.1 with reiserfs on many of my servers at work.
With all due respect, why would you install a new release with reiserfs on "many" of your servers at work? When you knew it was in beta? Without any prior testing? Before you got it to reliably work on you home machine, much less a server that perfectly duplicates each of your servers at work?
The article of course mentons Deep Blue and chess:
Probably the most famous example of a machine which taught itself, IBM's Deep Blue, which taught itself to play chess better than the human world chess champion, Garry Kasparov.
I find chess programs, and indeed the problem of chess, relatively unimpressive. Chess is a game of at least almost perfect information, and almost pure deductive logic.
[I'm not sure I agree with those who say chess is a game of perfect information and pure deductive logic. I believe imperfect, probablisitc information, and induction may come into play under certain circumstances. You offer a sacrafice to set a trap. Will your opponent see the trap? Will he take the sacrafice? If he does, great. If he doesn't, perhaps you have wasted a move, and allowed him to seize the initiative. There is an element of induction and probability in making your decision.]
Let's face it, pretty soon the World Chess Champion will be a human only because computers are excluded from play. Hell, pretty soon your laptop will consistently beat the (human) World Chess Champion while you watch (the DeCSSed version, shh, don't tell anyone) of Matrix V and recompile Linux Kernel version 4.4 at the same time.
Poker is an excellent domain for artificial intelligence research. It offers many new challenges since it is a game of imperfect information, where decisions must be made under conditions of uncertainty. Multiple competing agents must deal with probabilistic knowledge, risk management, deception, and opponent modeling, among other things.
Second, you obviously have no idea what "free software" means. Often confused, Free as in Freedom. Not as in cost. Surely because of freedom there is no cost of software most of the time, but this is not always true.
I'm not so sure that the poster to whom you are responding really has "no idea" what free software means. As you admit, free in as speach software means that "most of the time" the software will, as a practical matter, be free as in beer. This, by itself, is a serious commercial handicap. The type of handicap that can cause a commercial company to fail, particularly in a competative industry like games.
Indeed, disregarding at first the transaction cost of finding and transmitting data, free as in speech software is necessarily free as in beer. Of course, as more and more people get faster pipes, and form communities such as this one, those costs decrease.
The only people in the world that truely use Free Software because it costs free are the 17 year old demograph who have no money in the first place.
I do not think this is fair or imperically acurate. I think that the "free is as beer" aspect, or very low cost, is very important to many people over 17 years old in two different ways. First, the obvious "why purchase the latest Mandrake when I can download it for free?" Secondly, and more insideously, why buy 150 copies of Mandrake when I can purchase 1 and load it on 150 machines? Further, a certain popular Linux related web site just today attempted to promote Linux by exlaining how, by using Linux, the consumer would be "saving buckets of money." This necessarily means that some software company, somewhere, and their employees and programmers, are not making a bucket of money.
At least times, telling consumers how they are going to "save big bucks" is inconsistent with telling software companies and programmers that they should not worry about making a good profit and earning the same living they do now.
Perhaps you fit into this category?
And perhaps you feel the need to make an ad hominum attack?
But the judge can guide the jury by controlling the evidence that is admitted.
What you say above is abolutely correct. The judge may do so, of course, at the risk of reversal on appeal.
What the judge in a criminal case cannot do is order a jury to find the defendant guilty, or enter a judgment of guilt, by the equivilant of summary judgment, directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the vedict in a civil action.
In principle, yes, but in practise the judge can overrule the jury nullification and in most cases they do.
You are wrong. Again (if you are the same AC as above), you may be thinking of a civil case. In a criminal case, in certain jurisdictions (I'm not sure about federal law; I would have to look it up), the judge may (at most) before deliberations instruct the jury that it has no right to consider the validity or fairness of the law, nullify the law, etc., but if the jury disregards the instructions and brings in a verdict of acquittal, there is not a damn thing the trial judge can do about it. Further, the prosecution cannot appeal a jury verdict of acquital. Finally, the defendant cannot be tried again.
Only questions of fact get to a jury (and mixed law and fact). This case will soley be a question of law. Juries do not get to decide if a law if legal.
You are wrong. You are thinking of a civil case. In a criminal case such as this one, if the defendant demands a jury trial, in the United States there must be jury trial. The trial judge may attempt to guide the jury via the jury instructions (which is very dangerous on appeal), but in the end the jury decides.
If Chess is added to the Olympics, it's only a matter of time before many many other "mental" games are petitioning the Olympic Commission for admission to the games.
I understand your concern. Before chess, or anything else (including anything so trivial and wimpy as triathlon:) is added to the Olympics, it is obvious that the ultimate game, Poker, should be added. Preferably Hold'em.
Let's face it, pretty soon the World Chess Champion will be a human only because computers are excluded from play. Hell, pretty soon your laptop will consistently beat the (human) World Chess Champion while you watch (the DeCSSed version, shh, don't tell anyone) of Matrix V and recompile Linux Kernel version 4.4 at the same time.
Poker is an excellent domain for artificial intelligence research. It offers many new challenges since it is a game of imperfect information, where decisions must be made under conditions of uncertainty. Multiple competing agents must deal with probabilistic knowledge, risk management, deception, and opponent modeling, among other things.
Now, if I haven't yet entirely hijacked this discussion, I will just have to try harder.:) The University of Alberta Computer Poker Research Group has implemented a poker playing program named Poki. Poki is implemented in Java, and some of the source code
has been released. To facilitate other research into poker, they have also
provided a
Texas Hold'em communication protocol, which allows new
computer programs and humans to play against each other online.
DISCLAIMER: I actually believe that the DMCA is poor public policy, and a bad law. I hope the Court's limit its impact to the extent legally possible, and that it is repealed. I think there is a better solution to the problem presented. However....
In response, simply because a product, in this case DeCSS, might have more illegal uses than legal uses does not necessarily mean it should be made illegal.
Conversely, the fact that DeCSS might have some legitimate uses does not necessarily mean it is, or should be, legal.
My simple questions are as follows: Do the numbers matter? Does how DeCSS is actually used in the real world matter?
If, hypothetically, as a matter of empirical fact, it turns out that 99% of DeCSS use is for an illegal, improper purpose (i.e., copying of DVDs for the purpose to distribution to others with no payment to the copyright holder), and only 1% of DeCSS use is for an arguably legal, proper purpose (i.e., play of DVDs on Linux, BSD systems, etc.), would it really be unreasonable, immoral or legally wrong (unconstitutional??) for Congress to make DeCSS illegal?
The sad truth is this. Many things -- e.g., guns, pesticides, medications, locksmith tools, cars without airbags, tri-wheel off-road vehicles, etc. -- have both legitimate and illegitimate functions, or legitimate functions coupled with danger to society and its values. In all these cases and many more, the law is about finding a balance drawing lines. Frequently those who are on the loosing side in a democracy (or a republic as you will) either complain that: (a) they have a "right" to engage in the activity (without ever specifying where in the Constitution that right may arise); or (b) the "corrupt" "big money" "corporations" had an unfair advantage in the system. And you know what, sometimes, just sometimes (albeit far, far more often in the case of (b) above) they are right.
And then the solution is what? Disregard the rule of law? Piss on Congress and vilify the courts? Take to the hills? Joke (hopefully), as some (not you) in this discussion have about blowing up buildings?
To me, it would mean two things: individuals are knowingly breaking copyright laws not caring about the consequences and if a large majority of people are engaged in such illegal acts, a better method for monitoring such actions needs to be created.
Why? Admitting that DeCSS has some legitimate and beneficial uses, if it in fact turns out that it's illegitimate uses far, far outweigh its legitimate ones, and that the most efficient way to prevent the unauthorized, uncompensated duplication and distribution of copyrighted digital material is to have the DMCA make DeCSS illegal, then why is Congress compelled to use less efficient means?
This then becomes an issue for enforcing the laws not predicting the possible uses - or misuses - of a piece of software.
Why? Law is often based on such predictions and empirical observations. The law frequently has to draw up a balance between benefit and burden.
But because many people decide to break the law so easily, does not mean the problem will be solved by making DeCSS illegal.
Of course not. Nothing is 100%. Nothing is ever "solved." But it may very well be the case that the DMCA will, as a practical matter, solve 90% or more of the problem of unauthorized, uncompensated distribution of digital material, and do so in a manner that is more efficient -- in terms of the total cost to society -- than any other alternative.
If they care so little about copyright laws what is to stop them from finding another means.
This is easy. "They" -- i.e., those who would violate copyright -- won't have the benefit of tools created by you, other Slashdotters, and other "geeks" to help them.:) (I am using the term "geek" as a term of high praise and distinction.) Creating DeCSS is, at least from my perspective, HARD. I'm a reasonably well-educated, intelligent non-"geek" guy, and I couldn't do it. Using DeCSS is, again from my perspective, easy. Hell, even I could use it.
This other means will then need to be made illegal and then another means will be found. The problem isn't in the software, but rather with the morals of the people.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people.":)
Now, I happen to be one of the people who think the Second Amendment provides a constitutional right to individuals to bear arms. But even constitutional rights can be limited if the limit is narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest (the current legal test). Few people who believe there is an individual Constitutional right to bear arms really believe there is an individual Constitutional right to own and possess tanks, artillery, surface-to-surface missiles and atomic weapons.
You may think that is a bad, extreme example (although it does involve a recognized Constitutional right). You may be right.:) How about the following:
Locksmith tools have many legitimate purposes. If I'm locked out of my house, I can get the tools from my hiding spot and let myself in! You might say I could just hide my keys outside. Ah, but what if my neighbor locks himself out, and didn't hide any keys? I could get my get my tools and, with his permission, let him into his house! A perfectly legitimate, and even laudable purpose.
And in many jurisdictions, not sufficient. In many jurisdictions, mere possession of locksmith tools is a crime unless you are licensed as a locksmith. The relevant legislative body considered the legitimate uses and benefit to society, and weighed it against the illegitimate uses and possible cost to society, and drew a line. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean you have a "right" to possess locksmith tools, or that a law outlawing their unlicensed possession is irrational or wrong.
And when I purchase a product, it is my right to use that product however I deem fit.
I keep hearing this, but no-one ever explains to me where this right comes from? Is this a God given right? A natural right that preexists government? A Constitutional right? If so, what Article and Clause?
Saying otherwise would restrict my freedom with respect to the product.
So what? You can legally purchase pesticides, but not only use them in certain areas under certain conditions. Hell, you can legally purchase an automobile but you can't drive it at 90 mph through most cities.
What if every car manufacture required the consumer to take the car back to one of their dealerships for maintenance? Doing so would limit the consumers freedom of choice by forcing the consumer to always return to a dealership and pay whatever prices the dealer wanted to charge. Instead of having the option to shop around for a competitive price. This, of course, assumes the dealerships all work together trying to maximum their profit by charging the same prices.
If the dealerships are all working together trying to maximize profit, this would violate antitrust law.
How would such a restriction affect taking your vehicle to a mom and pop auto mechanic shop?
If it was a contractual obligation, you would either refrain from taking your vehicle to the mom and pop auto mechanic shop, or you would be in breach of the contract. However, I wouldn't purchase an automobile from such a dealership.
Then again, such service limitations already exist to some extent. If you don't have your scheduled maintenance and repairs done by an authorized shop, you void your warranty and lose its protection.
Requiring a DVD player to be used on a few systems, or not on a specific system - GNU/Linux for example - would also restrict my freedom in a way similar as the above example. Once you open this closet door, a lot could come tumbling out because the manufactures could then dictate how their product is to be used, repaired and maintained under penalty of the law.
You know what? I largely agree with you. As I stated above, I think the DMCA is poor public policy and a bad law. However, that does not mean it is unconstitutional or morally wrong. It certainly doesn't mean you have a right to disregard it, or to do whatever the hell you want anytime Congress passes a law you don't like.
My freedom of use and choice is not a freedom I will give up lightly.
Great! I hope you vote, are politically active, etc. Contribute to a legal defense fund.
I just pulled out several DVDs from my collection and read them. None of them have the disclaimer you mention. They have the following: "This product is authorized for sale in U.S.A. only. This DVD is [or "these DVDs are" for 2-DVD sets] for private home viewing only. They are not authorized for any other use. All other rights reserved. Distributed by blah blah blah..."
In their own legal disclaimers, they gave me explicit rights to private home viewing. No limitation is given for licensed players. The verbiage varies, but no mention is made on any of them for licensed players; therefore, I have the right to use any player I wish as long as it's for private home viewing.
You raise a very good point. However, let me ask:
If the DVDs in fact had the disclaimer I mention above, would you still believe you have the moral right to display or play them on any unlicensed player? Would you have the legal right to do so?
Is the issue for you solely one of misrepresentation, or failure to disclose, on the part of the DVD manufacturer?
I agree with the rest of your post, but it is easier to use DeCSS to convert the DVD into (say) an MPEG file and distribute that over the internet, than it is for `pirates' to distribute disc images and for the end person to write the DVD image on his DVD writer, and play it through an authorized player.
I said it didn't have to be decrypted to be copied; not that it couldn't. And there are other (arguably easier) ways of changing the format than using DeCSS.
My point was and is that DeCSS is far from a necessary tool for DVD copying, but it is a vital part of a DVD player--a player DVDs legally purchased by the consumer.
This may be true. However, I suspect the courts and, yes, even Congress will analyze the situation on a deeper, more statistical level.
Honestly, what percentage of DeCSS use is for: (a) legitimate, legally recognized fair use purposes under the copyright law -- e.g., for archiving, playback on Linux and BSD systems, etc. ; compared to (b) the illegal purpose, under the copyright law, of copying movies to distribute to others over the net?
Then there is the deeper, more fundamental point. You purchase a DVD. What makes you think you have a moral right to play it on a Linux system? What makes you think you have the legal right to play it on a Linux system? Simply the old, "Once I purchased it, its mine, I get to play it back on whatever system I want?"
What if each DVD has (and perhaps is, or should be, required by law to have) prominently displayed on the front thereof a disclaimer: "NOTE: THIS DVD MAY BE LEGALLY PLAYED OR DISPLAYED ONLY ON A LICENSED DVD PLAYER. IF YOU INTEND TO PLAY OR DISPLAY THIS DVD ON A NON-LICENSED PLAYER DO NOT PURCHASE THIS DVD?"
Is it that you honestly believe you, or other consumers are being misled? That you, or others, purchase DVDs believing they can be played on you Linux system only to be shocked, shocked to learn otherwise?
Or is it that you believe you have a God given, natural law, pre-sociatal, and/or perhaps Constitutional right to play DVDs on your Linux system even if the seller sells it to you with the clear understanding, and with the honest admission, that they can be displayed only on licensed players?
The kernel hackers want to push out the best standalone product possible....
I thought that if there was anything in this world that was not a "standalone product," it was an operating system. If an "improvement" breaks important and/or popular applications, just how much of an "improvement" is it really?
Then again, it is not like VMware is either popular or important. Who cares if people can run their "stupid" commercial apps? Particuarly if they are those stupid Windows productivity applications that no one uses anway.
Far better for the Linux world for those VMware lusers to simply save their data, reformat, and install Windows XP.
You are wrong. These are Justices of the California State Court of Appeal. For them the rules are as follows:
During every general election, which occurs every four years, more than a third of California's 93 Court of Appeal justices face voters in an effort to retain their position. No one may run against the justices. Voters simply decide yes or no. If a majority of voters cast a yes vote for a particular justice, that justice remains in office for another term.
California Supreme Court justices face retention elections as well. Voters everywhere cast a ballot for Supreme Court justices.
Court of Appeal justices - who serve in districts that cover certain parts of the state - are elected by voters in their districts. These justices are divided among six districts, centered in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Fresno and San Jose.
The state Constitution sets the term of office at 12 years, or less if a justice is replacing one who retired. In that case, the justice must run for confirmation in the next general election. At the end of that term, the justice must again be confirmed by the voters at a general election, in order to begin a new term.
Yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not offering anyone legal advice. No, I do not currently practice law (though I do keep up). No, you most definitely may not rely on anything I say below.
Blatantly false statements like "Further; Pavlovich knew that his Web site allowed the illegal publishing and distribution of DVDs." do nothing to make me think the Court even understands what is alleged to have occurred.
If you read the Court's opinion, it is clear that Court perfectly understands what is alleged to have occurred. In the context of the rest of the Court's opinion, the statement "Furthermore; Pavlovich knew that his Web site allowed the illegal publishing and distribution of DVDs," clearly means, and is functionally the same as, the more precise statement "Furthermore; Pavlovich knew that [the tools or code distributed on] his Web site allowed the illegal publishing and distribution of DVDs." If you read the Pavlovich's deposition testimony quoted in the Court's opinion, it is obvious that the Court's statement is correct.
And since the Court describes Pavlovich's activities as "illegal", it appears to have already decided the main issue of the case itself (which has not yet been tried).
The Court has not "decided the main issue of the case" in any binding way. The Court of Appeal did not do anything improper. On the contrary, in making the statement Michael quotes above the Court of Appeal was acting properly, and in the same manner it does in every prejudgment appeal of a trial court's determination of personal jurisdiction. I'll try to explain.
Personal jurisdiction is not determined by the mere allegations of the complaint, but by the facts. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, personal jurisdiction in California is constitutionally permissible where intentional conduct outside of California is calculated to cause injury to the plaintiff in California. SeeCalder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 791. Thus, parties submit admissible evidence -- e.g., affidavits, declarations, deposition testimony, etc. -- and the trial court must make a preliminary, non-binding determination of what the jurisdictional facts are prior to trial -- i.e., did the defendant in fact engage in conduct outside of California that was calculated to cause injury to the plaintiff in California? The preliminary determination of the jurisdictional facts is made by the trial judge and is NOT binding on the jury at trial. Where, as here, the defendant seeks an appeal (actually a petition for writ of mandamus) of the jurisdictional issue in order to get the case dismissed prior to trial, the Court of Appeal must necessarily review the trial court's (i.e., trial judge's) determination of the jurisdictional facts. Again, neither the factual determination by the Court of Appeal nor by the trial court is binding on the jury at trial. Indeed, said determinations are not even admissible as evidence at trial. The defendant starts the jury trial with an evidentiary clean slate.
Why is it done this way? For two reasons. First, to give the defendant a pre-trial opportunity to seek dismissal of the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Secondly, this procedure avoids what many on Slashdot might think of as an endless loop where: (a) you can't have a trial without first establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant; but (b) you can't establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant until you determine what the facts are.
Slashdot Mirror
From MSNBC
From CNN:
From CNN:
Further:
The entire article is copied below.
U.S. pondering its response
'No options taken off the table' -- senior U.S. official
By Michael Moran
MSNBC
Sept. 11 -- Reeling from the most devastating day of terrorist attacks in history, President George W. Bush and his advisors struggled on Tuesday to devise a response that would convey the depth of the outrage felt across the United States without appearing to lash out blindly.
THE SCALE of the attacks and the loss of life -- mostly in New York City's World Trade Center, but also in Pittsburgh and Washington -- ensured that "no option has been taken off the table," senior U.S. officials said. Asked if that included nuclear weapons, one senior official said: "I said no option is out of the question. That's precisely what I mean."
The nature and precision of the attacks, along with their unknown origin, left the United States with no useful precedents or contingency plans to fall back on. Procedurally, the attacks prompted officials to institute safeguards consistent with a state of war: Airspace over major American cities was cleared of commercial traffic and replaced by military interceptors; large, obvious targets like the White House, Capitol building, the Disney theme parks in Florida and California and the Sears Tower in Chicago, were evacuated. Most tellingly, the president, vice president, congressional leaders and other key government officials were spirited to secure, undisclosed locations -- an indication that the attacks achieved an astounding degree of surprise.
Indeed, many officials echoed the words of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet's commander, Navy Adm. Robert J. Natter: "We have been attacked like we haven't been attacked since Pearl Harbor." He then dispatched aircraft carriers to the waters off New York and Washington -- an unprecedented step -- to provide air cover.
HIGH ALERT
The United States military and its diplomatic organs quickly ordered steps consistent with imminent action.
President Bush placed American military commands around the world, including North American Air Defense Command, or NORAD, on their highest level of alert. Air Force One, carrying Bush, landed briefly at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, the home of Strategic Air Command, the nation's nuclear war fighting command, as well as the so-called "doomsday plane," a flying command post meant for use in case of a nuclear attack on America.
Ambassadors of the world's most powerful military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, scheduled an emergency meeting for 5 p.m. ET to discuss the crisis at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.
While no public accusations of blame were made by the U.S. government, senior officials, along with experts on terrorism, were unanimous in their belief that the attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden, the Saudi exile who leads the shadowy Al-Qaeda terrorist organization. "No one else but Bin Laden has the capability to do this is Bin Laden," one senior intelligence official said. "No one."
Bin Laden is living in Afghanistan as a guest of the Islamic regime there, the Taliban. The United States already has warned the Taliban that any act of terrorism on American soil by bin Laden or his followers would be regarded as an act of war.
That said, exactly how to hit out at bin Laden has been a continuing problem for the United States. U.S. intelligence agencies once tracked his movements within Afghanistan fairly reliably by eavesdropping on cell phone communications. Bin Laden has long since stopped using cell phones and is now said to sleep in a different safe house each night. Three years ago, after the dual bombings at American embassies in Kenya and Mozambique were tied to Al-Qaeda, the United States launched Tomahawk cruise missiles at suspected bin Laden training camps in Afghanistan and a plant in Sudan the CIA suspected of ties with him. Neither air strike did much to dissuade him. The U.S. suspects bin Laden's hand behind the April 2000 attack on the USS destroyer Cole in Yemen.
MILITARY OPTIONS
As President Bush weighs options, the difficulty of pinpointing bin Laden -- if in fact the United States decides he is responsible -- presents a dilemma. Among the options under active consideration:
Major retaliatory airstrikes: The United States could strike at Afghanistan with missile strikes -- possibly even tactical nuclear weapons -- to demonstrate its anger and the grave consequences of such an attack on U.S. soil.
Military invasion: The president could declare war on Afghanistan and order a buildup of forces similar to that which preceded the Gulf War in 1990. Such a move, however, would require the acquiescence of a neighboring state -- either Pakistan or one of the former Soviet Central Asian nations.
Manhunt: The Army's Delta Force or other assets could be inserted into Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden.
Proxy action: The United States could exert extreme diplomatic pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two states that have supported the Afghan Taliban in the past, to bring Bin Laden to justice.
'NO EASY ANSWERS'
Each and every one of these options has drawbacks, however, and those potential pitfalls will animate the debates of the coming days within the U.S. national security establishment. For instance, the use of nuclear weapons, in any form, risks alienating a world that is almost united in its revulsion at such attacks -- and whose help will be necessary in preventing future such attacks.
"The worst thing we can do is to completely lose our cool and overreact," said Sean Anderson, domestic terrorism expert at Idaho State University who studied the Oklahoma City bombing and the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
"The best thing we can do is carry on, not to depart from our ordinary constitutional legal processes
Indeed, it is quite possible the United States will refrain from any immediate action until investigators have time to more thoroughly make the case against whoever directed the attack.
"There are not a lot of easy answers," former Secretary of State James Baker told NBC News. "The president, I think, did the right thing when he said 'we're under terrorist attack and we're going to hunt down those responsible.' "
Realistically, that is not the conclusion the vast majority of people are going to come to. I suspect you know that, and are afraid, with very good reason, of the result
The vast majority of people are going to conclude that obviously metal detectors at airports, etc., are NOT enough. That if, in the interest of safety, searching all luggage, body searches, hell, cavity searches are necessary, then so be it. And if you don't like it? You don't have to fly.
Please understand, I am neither advocating nor endorsing that view. I am making a factual prediction. Expect American society to be a LOT more security conscious, a lot more closed, and for civil liberties to suffer.
The situation you describe is legally different from a tax (or levey) on media. That is because in the situation you describe, the tax is collected pursuant to an individual, signed tax form. This raises concerns re: the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
If I remember the case-law correctly (and I may be mistaken; THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE), what happened is this. I believe the courts have uniformly held that taxation of income from illegal activities (i.e., drug sales, gambling, etc.) is legal as long as the taxing authorities provide some legal mechanism to pay the tax without incriminating yourself. One example would be acknowledging the amount of such income income, paying the appropriate tax, but not being forced to disclose the source. Another example would be paying the tax in some anonymous, but subsequently proveable traceable way -- i.e., send in tax payment with a code number etc., such that if you were audited later for the income from you drug sales, you could say, "ah, but I sent in the letter identified as "a12foduis85037439", in the amount of $1,243,245 for the income tax on my cocaine sales!" Finally, I believe I have heard of provisions to pay such taxes through an attorney, who would simply say the tax was being paid on behalf of an anonymous client.
Are these alternatives realistic? No, of course not. But I believe (again, THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, I may be wrong) one or more of these mechanisms has been held to make legal collection of income tax on illegally obtained income in light of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
That may not be a satisfactory to you for two reasons.
First, relicensing may be possible if and only if you wrote all of the code. However, I thought at least part of the point was for people to communicate, cooperate, and contribute. Once you have accepted patches and code from others, you are no longer the sole author and copyright holder. Once there are numerous copyright holders, relicensing becomes problematic, if not, as a practical matter, impossible.
Secondly, as for the code you wrote that you previously licensed to others under the (L)GPL using the "or any later version" language, while you may be satisfied by the current version of the (L)GPL, you may not want to have your code modified and distributed under the new, improved version of the (L)GPL. I just don't want you to be surprised, or feel screwed, when people copy, modify, and/ or distribute code you wrote under terms you never contemplated.
This is true if and only if you wrote all of the code. However, I thought at least part of the point was for people to communicate, cooperate, and contribute. Once you have accepted patches and code from others, you are no longer the sole author and copyright holder. Once there are numerous copyright holders, relicensing becomes problematic, if not, as a practical matter, impossible.
The "similar in spirit to the present version" language offers very little protection to the copyright holder / licensor for two reasons. First, as a technical legal matter, one could argue said language is so vague as to be unenforceable. Secondly, more practically, and far more importantly, even if enforceable the language is so vague as to invite multiple, endless litigation. How the hell is anyone, much less a judge or jury, going to know whether a future version of the GPL or LGPL is "similar in spirit" to the present version? What the hell does that mean? How do you decide?
I'm an attorney who has worked for a number of judges in the past. Upon looking at such language, they would know they had a horrible case that could not be resolved short of trial, and probably appeal.
Vague contractual language breeds litigation.
You are wrong. For example, the LGPL provides in pertinent part:
The "you" is the above quote refers to the licensee, and not the author of the code, the copyright holder, the licensor. The option to copy, distribute, modify, etc. code licensed under a GPL or LGPL license that includes the "or any later version" language lies with the licensee, not the licensor.
I have no idea how many, if any, people have contributed to the QT toolkit. However, relicensing is not a practical option for the Linux kernel, Glibc, or any other major project with many contributors, and thus many copyright holders. They would have to all agree to the license change. Anyone who didn't agree could demand that the code he contributed be yanked out of the project -- not a pretty sight.
This is largely, but not entirely, true. As Mr. Drepper explains in the glibc 2.2.4 Release Notes:
It is very important to understand the import of the "or (at your option) any later version" language. This future alternative option is: (a) the option of the licensee; and (b) defined by, and only by, the FSF.
For example, you write a piece of software. You decide the current version of LGPL is appropriate, and distribute the software under that license, including the "or (at your option) any later version language." [Note: this analysis also applies to the GPL, which has the same language in this area.] Later, the FSF adopts a "later," new improved version of the LGPL which you happen to loath and despise. Too bad. You are screwed. The licensee of your software "can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms" of the "later," improved version of the LGPL you believe is utter garbage.
With all due respect, why would you install a new release with reiserfs on "many" of your servers at work? When you knew it was in beta? Without any prior testing? Before you got it to reliably work on you home machine, much less a server that perfectly duplicates each of your servers at work?
The article of course mentons Deep Blue and chess: I find chess programs, and indeed the problem of chess, relatively unimpressive. Chess is a game of at least almost perfect information, and almost pure deductive logic.
[I'm not sure I agree with those who say chess is a game of perfect information and pure deductive logic. I believe imperfect, probablisitc information, and induction may come into play under certain circumstances. You offer a sacrafice to set a trap. Will your opponent see the trap? Will he take the sacrafice? If he does, great. If he doesn't, perhaps you have wasted a move, and allowed him to seize the initiative. There is an element of induction and probability in making your decision.]
Let's face it, pretty soon the World Chess Champion will be a human only because computers are excluded from play. Hell, pretty soon your laptop will consistently beat the (human) World Chess Champion while you watch (the DeCSSed version, shh, don't tell anyone) of Matrix V and recompile Linux Kernel version 4.4 at the same time.
Poker, thank God, is different. As explained by The University of Alberta Computer Poker Research Group: The University of Alberta Computer Poker Research Group has implemented a poker playing program named Poki . Poki is implemented in Java, and some of the source code has been released. To facilitate other research into poker, they have also provided a Texas Hold'em communication protocol, which allows new computer programs and humans to play against each other online.
See also:
Wilson Software, makers of the best commercial poker software. There are free Windows (sorry) demo programs for: Texas Hold'Em, 7-Card Stud, Stud 8/or better, Omaha Hi-Low, Omaha High, and Tournament Texas Hold'em
rec.gambling.poker [Usenet]
IRC Poker Server
Greg Reynold's Gpkr GUI
World Series of Poker
Great Poker Forums
Card Player Magazine
Poker Digest
Gambler's Book Shop
And now, if you will, may we please have a moment of silence for Stu Ungar.
I'm not so sure that the poster to whom you are responding really has "no idea" what free software means. As you admit, free in as speach software means that "most of the time" the software will, as a practical matter, be free as in beer. This, by itself, is a serious commercial handicap. The type of handicap that can cause a commercial company to fail, particularly in a competative industry like games.
Indeed, disregarding at first the transaction cost of finding and transmitting data, free as in speech software is necessarily free as in beer. Of course, as more and more people get faster pipes, and form communities such as this one, those costs decrease.
I do not think this is fair or imperically acurate. I think that the "free is as beer" aspect, or very low cost, is very important to many people over 17 years old in two different ways. First, the obvious "why purchase the latest Mandrake when I can download it for free?" Secondly, and more insideously, why buy 150 copies of Mandrake when I can purchase 1 and load it on 150 machines? Further, a certain popular Linux related web site just today attempted to promote Linux by exlaining how, by using Linux, the consumer would be "saving buckets of money." This necessarily means that some software company, somewhere, and their employees and programmers, are not making a bucket of money.
At least times, telling consumers how they are going to "save big bucks" is inconsistent with telling software companies and programmers that they should not worry about making a good profit and earning the same living they do now.
And perhaps you feel the need to make an ad hominum attack?
What you say above is abolutely correct. The judge may do so, of course, at the risk of reversal on appeal.
What the judge in a criminal case cannot do is order a jury to find the defendant guilty, or enter a judgment of guilt, by the equivilant of summary judgment, directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the vedict in a civil action.
You are wrong. Again (if you are the same AC as above), you may be thinking of a civil case. In a criminal case, in certain jurisdictions (I'm not sure about federal law; I would have to look it up), the judge may (at most) before deliberations instruct the jury that it has no right to consider the validity or fairness of the law, nullify the law, etc., but if the jury disregards the instructions and brings in a verdict of acquittal, there is not a damn thing the trial judge can do about it. Further, the prosecution cannot appeal a jury verdict of acquital. Finally, the defendant cannot be tried again.
You are wrong. You are thinking of a civil case. In a criminal case such as this one, if the defendant demands a jury trial, in the United States there must be jury trial. The trial judge may attempt to guide the jury via the jury instructions (which is very dangerous on appeal), but in the end the jury decides.
I understand your concern. Before chess, or anything else (including anything so trivial and wimpy as triathlon
Let's face it, pretty soon the World Chess Champion will be a human only because computers are excluded from play. Hell, pretty soon your laptop will consistently beat the (human) World Chess Champion while you watch (the DeCSSed version, shh, don't tell anyone) of Matrix V and recompile Linux Kernel version 4.4 at the same time.
Poker, thank God, is different. As explained by The University of Alberta Computer Poker Research Group: Now, if I haven't yet entirely hijacked this discussion, I will just have to try harder.
See also:
rec.gambling.poker [Usenet]
IRC Poker Server
Greg Reynold's Gpkr GUI
World Series of Poker
Great Poker Forums
Card Player Magazine [Currently down, but well worth a look.]
Poker Digest
Gambler's Book Shop
And now, if you will, may we please have a moment of silence for Stu Ungar.
DISCLAIMER: I actually believe that the DMCA is poor public policy, and a bad law. I hope the Court's limit its impact to the extent legally possible, and that it is repealed. I think there is a better solution to the problem presented. However....
Conversely, the fact that DeCSS might have some legitimate uses does not necessarily mean it is, or should be, legal.
My simple questions are as follows: Do the numbers matter? Does how DeCSS is actually used in the real world matter?
If, hypothetically, as a matter of empirical fact, it turns out that 99% of DeCSS use is for an illegal, improper purpose (i.e., copying of DVDs for the purpose to distribution to others with no payment to the copyright holder), and only 1% of DeCSS use is for an arguably legal, proper purpose (i.e., play of DVDs on Linux, BSD systems, etc.), would it really be unreasonable, immoral or legally wrong (unconstitutional??) for Congress to make DeCSS illegal?
The sad truth is this. Many things -- e.g., guns, pesticides, medications, locksmith tools, cars without airbags, tri-wheel off-road vehicles, etc. -- have both legitimate and illegitimate functions, or legitimate functions coupled with danger to society and its values. In all these cases and many more, the law is about finding a balance drawing lines. Frequently those who are on the loosing side in a democracy (or a republic as you will) either complain that: (a) they have a "right" to engage in the activity (without ever specifying where in the Constitution that right may arise); or (b) the "corrupt" "big money" "corporations" had an unfair advantage in the system. And you know what, sometimes, just sometimes (albeit far, far more often in the case of (b) above) they are right.
And then the solution is what? Disregard the rule of law? Piss on Congress and vilify the courts? Take to the hills? Joke (hopefully), as some (not you) in this discussion have about blowing up buildings?
Why? Admitting that DeCSS has some legitimate and beneficial uses, if it in fact turns out that it's illegitimate uses far, far outweigh its legitimate ones, and that the most efficient way to prevent the unauthorized, uncompensated duplication and distribution of copyrighted digital material is to have the DMCA make DeCSS illegal, then why is Congress compelled to use less efficient means? Why? Law is often based on such predictions and empirical observations. The law frequently has to draw up a balance between benefit and burden. Of course not. Nothing is 100%. Nothing is ever "solved." But it may very well be the case that the DMCA will, as a practical matter, solve 90% or more of the problem of unauthorized, uncompensated distribution of digital material, and do so in a manner that is more efficient -- in terms of the total cost to society -- than any other alternative. This is easy. "They" -- i.e., those who would violate copyright -- won't have the benefit of tools created by you, other Slashdotters, and other "geeks" to help them.
Now, I happen to be one of the people who think the Second Amendment provides a constitutional right to individuals to bear arms. But even constitutional rights can be limited if the limit is narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest (the current legal test). Few people who believe there is an individual Constitutional right to bear arms really believe there is an individual Constitutional right to own and possess tanks, artillery, surface-to-surface missiles and atomic weapons.
You may think that is a bad, extreme example (although it does involve a recognized Constitutional right). You may be right.
Locksmith tools have many legitimate purposes. If I'm locked out of my house, I can get the tools from my hiding spot and let myself in! You might say I could just hide my keys outside. Ah, but what if my neighbor locks himself out, and didn't hide any keys? I could get my get my tools and, with his permission, let him into his house! A perfectly legitimate, and even laudable purpose.
And in many jurisdictions, not sufficient. In many jurisdictions, mere possession of locksmith tools is a crime unless you are licensed as a locksmith. The relevant legislative body considered the legitimate uses and benefit to society, and weighed it against the illegitimate uses and possible cost to society, and drew a line. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean you have a "right" to possess locksmith tools, or that a law outlawing their unlicensed possession is irrational or wrong. I keep hearing this, but no-one ever explains to me where this right comes from? Is this a God given right? A natural right that preexists government? A Constitutional right? If so, what Article and Clause? So what? You can legally purchase pesticides, but not only use them in certain areas under certain conditions. Hell, you can legally purchase an automobile but you can't drive it at 90 mph through most cities. If the dealerships are all working together trying to maximize profit, this would violate antitrust law. If it was a contractual obligation, you would either refrain from taking your vehicle to the mom and pop auto mechanic shop, or you would be in breach of the contract. However, I wouldn't purchase an automobile from such a dealership.
Then again, such service limitations already exist to some extent. If you don't have your scheduled maintenance and repairs done by an authorized shop, you void your warranty and lose its protection.
You know what? I largely agree with you. As I stated above, I think the DMCA is poor public policy and a bad law. However, that does not mean it is unconstitutional or morally wrong. It certainly doesn't mean you have a right to disregard it, or to do whatever the hell you want anytime Congress passes a law you don't like.
Great! I hope you vote, are politically active, etc. Contribute to a legal defense fund.
You raise a very good point. However, let me ask:
If the DVDs in fact had the disclaimer I mention above, would you still believe you have the moral right to display or play them on any unlicensed player? Would you have the legal right to do so?
Is the issue for you solely one of misrepresentation, or failure to disclose, on the part of the DVD manufacturer?
This may be true. However, I suspect the courts and, yes, even Congress will analyze the situation on a deeper, more statistical level.
Honestly, what percentage of DeCSS use is for: (a) legitimate, legally recognized fair use purposes under the copyright law -- e.g., for archiving, playback on Linux and BSD systems, etc. ; compared to (b) the illegal purpose, under the copyright law, of copying movies to distribute to others over the net?
Then there is the deeper, more fundamental point. You purchase a DVD. What makes you think you have a moral right to play it on a Linux system? What makes you think you have the legal right to play it on a Linux system? Simply the old, "Once I purchased it, its mine, I get to play it back on whatever system I want?"
What if each DVD has (and perhaps is, or should be, required by law to have) prominently displayed on the front thereof a disclaimer: "NOTE: THIS DVD MAY BE LEGALLY PLAYED OR DISPLAYED ONLY ON A LICENSED DVD PLAYER. IF YOU INTEND TO PLAY OR DISPLAY THIS DVD ON A NON-LICENSED PLAYER DO NOT PURCHASE THIS DVD?"
Is it that you honestly believe you, or other consumers are being misled? That you, or others, purchase DVDs believing they can be played on you Linux system only to be shocked, shocked to learn otherwise?
Or is it that you believe you have a God given, natural law, pre-sociatal, and/or perhaps Constitutional right to play DVDs on your Linux system even if the seller sells it to you with the clear understanding, and with the honest admission, that they can be displayed only on licensed players?
I thought that if there was anything in this world that was not a "standalone product," it was an operating system. If an "improvement" breaks important and/or popular applications, just how much of an "improvement" is it really?
Then again, it is not like VMware is either popular or important. Who cares if people can run their "stupid" commercial apps? Particuarly if they are those stupid Windows productivity applications that no one uses anway.
Far better for the Linux world for those VMware lusers to simply save their data, reformat, and install Windows XP.
You are wrong. These are Justices of the California State Court of Appeal. For them the rules are as follows: See California State Appellate Courts Overview
You are thinking of Federal Judges, who are appointed for life.
Yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not offering anyone legal advice. No, I do not currently practice law (though I do keep up). No, you most definitely may not rely on anything I say below. If you read the Court's opinion, it is clear that Court perfectly understands what is alleged to have occurred. In the context of the rest of the Court's opinion, the statement "Furthermore; Pavlovich knew that his Web site allowed the illegal publishing and distribution of DVDs," clearly means, and is functionally the same as, the more precise statement "Furthermore; Pavlovich knew that [the tools or code distributed on] his Web site allowed the illegal publishing and distribution of DVDs." If you read the Pavlovich's deposition testimony quoted in the Court's opinion, it is obvious that the Court's statement is correct.
The Court has not "decided the main issue of the case" in any binding way. The Court of Appeal did not do anything improper. On the contrary, in making the statement Michael quotes above the Court of Appeal was acting properly, and in the same manner it does in every prejudgment appeal of a trial court's determination of personal jurisdiction. I'll try to explain.
Personal jurisdiction is not determined by the mere allegations of the complaint, but by the facts. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, personal jurisdiction in California is constitutionally permissible where intentional conduct outside of California is calculated to cause injury to the plaintiff in California. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 791. Thus, parties submit admissible evidence -- e.g., affidavits, declarations, deposition testimony, etc. -- and the trial court must make a preliminary, non-binding determination of what the jurisdictional facts are prior to trial -- i.e., did the defendant in fact engage in conduct outside of California that was calculated to cause injury to the plaintiff in California? The preliminary determination of the jurisdictional facts is made by the trial judge and is NOT binding on the jury at trial. Where, as here, the defendant seeks an appeal (actually a petition for writ of mandamus) of the jurisdictional issue in order to get the case dismissed prior to trial, the Court of Appeal must necessarily review the trial court's (i.e., trial judge's) determination of the jurisdictional facts. Again, neither the factual determination by the Court of Appeal nor by the trial court is binding on the jury at trial. Indeed, said determinations are not even admissible as evidence at trial. The defendant starts the jury trial with an evidentiary clean slate.
Why is it done this way? For two reasons. First, to give the defendant a pre-trial opportunity to seek dismissal of the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Secondly, this procedure avoids what many on Slashdot might think of as an endless loop where: (a) you can't have a trial without first establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant; but (b) you can't establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant until you determine what the facts are.