Sebastian Malaby has an a href="http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5 5529-2001Mar11.html">interesting Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post, in which he argues that the original anarchic fantasies of a Internet transcending national bounderies, is unrealistic because at some point, there is always a human involved, who ultimately is subject to national law.
I believe that Malaby may be misintepreting John Perry Barlow's Declaration of CyberSpace Independence
This declaration rests on the assumption that the Internet was (or could be) designed so that national bounderies would be irrelevant.
Malaby argues that certain steps can be mandated by various courts of law and legislatures that would reimpose traditional sovereignty on the electronic domain. He suggests that sales taxes, for instance, would not present much of a burden for electronic merchants, and recent steps taken by US auction sites to satisfy French concerns regarding Nazi related merchandise, are indicative of how easily the Internet can be renationalized.
Barlow's decalaration appeared in February of 1996
. In late August, 1996, Jaohan Helsingus closed down his anonymous remailing service because a court order (since reversed) compelled him to reveal the names of some of his clients.
Incidentally, the case was brought by Scientologists, alleging copyright infringement.
The extension of national sovreignity into cybersapce is technically possible. However, it is also technically possible to design a telecommunications system that uses a combination of encyrption and anonymity to limit national intrusions to a minimum.
At the same time, we must also actively resist and/or circumvent proposals to embed censorship into network hardware and software. (I have seen at least on mention of the possibility of mp3 rejecting routers (The Absolute Sound, Issue 128))
As a graduate student, I occasionally need to run xmaple, or matlab remotely-- but only have a 56k modem. (Yes, I do have local copies of the programs, but sometimes I need to test if my files are compatible with my school's versions.) Low Bandwidth X, while not a panacea, does allow me to run some of these programs.
It is not unknown for a religion to possess "intellectual property"
For instance, several christian denominations vigerously enforce their copyrights on their translations of the bible.
The Worldwide Church of God, having disavowed one of their main religious texts, have (rather sucessfully) accused a splinter group (Philadelphia Church of God) of copyright infringement for continuing to distribute this text. (Mystery of the Ages)
Most of the protestant denominations were founded partly on a belief that clergy should not intercede between God and the individual worshipper-- thus literacy, and a widespread distribution of religious texts are both important.) At a more extreme level, the freedom of an individual to define their own relationship to God should not be impeded by intellectual property. (Despite this, the Supreme Court has recognized the copyrightability of divinely inspired texts)
However, almost diametrically opposed to this religious tenet is the so called "Mystery cult", in which religious secrets are gradually revealed to an initiate. This apparently is the basic model behind scientology.
Just wanted to comment: although the Copyright Act of 1976 references fair use, "fair use" was a judicial doctrine, and if Congress defines "fair use" in such a way as to materially diminish it, the courts are free to ignore that definition.
As for the commercial aspect of "fair use", the Supreme Court has noted that a parody, however commercial, may not be a copyright infringement. However, insubstantial parodies are not "fair use." A finding of fair use involves a weighing of the totality of the individual factors surrounding a possible infringement, including the commercial nature of the infringing work, a determination of the transformative nature of the offending work, the amount that was copied, and the effect on the marketability of the original work.
If I copy 1000 pages out of a phone book, that may be fair use. If I copy a few pages that constitute the "heart" of some memoir, that may not be fair use.
Because "fair use" claims are often complex, and should properly be weighed by a court of law, "fair use" constitutes a defence against copyright infringement claims. However, this does not mean that a moral right to fair use does not exist.
Canceling CAM kills the best potential source of useful science next to the Lab. We know that 1G is good and 0G is bad for the human body. The CAM could tell us if there is some fraction of a G that is acceptable, which will in turn tell us much about long term colonization of the Moon and Mars; and how to design future space stations and vehicles for travel through the Solar System. Presumably, there are also other benefits to having the CAM.
What exactly was CAM? I'm not familiar with the variable gravity aspects of this module... It sounds very interesting.
The ISS has always been dogged by cost concerns. However, the proposed cuts (elimination of a lifeboat,living quarters, and propulsion module) would reduce the space station crew complement from seven to three, making the ISS even less useful for scientific experiments.
Of course, there are a number of people who believe that the ISS is a wasteful use of scientific funding, and could never be justified on a peer-reviewed basis, and a numer of people who believe that the "just being in space" is an admirable goal. The former will argue that a reduced ISS, even if it is not justified on the basis of science, is still a waste of money. The latter, satisfied by a "show the flag" NASA, will be content by big flashy missions of no scientific value...
Much of today's understanding of molecular biology would not be possible without evolution.
For instance, in the human genome, only a portion is known to code for proteins. Although some of the remaining junk DNA may, in fact, have a biologically significant role, much of it does not.
It follows, from evolution, that since the biologically insignificant DNA will not code for genes, a mutation in a portion of junk DNA, will not, in general, deleteriously affect the physiological health of the resulting organism. Since no deleterious effects ensue, it follows that the reproductive success of the organism will not be affected by this mutation. One can then use data about the composition of a segment of DNA to locate putative genes.
It is well known that the amino acid composition of proteins in determined triplets of bases. It is also well known that there is considerable redundency in the genetic code-- there are 20 amino acids, and 64 possible combinations of 3 bases (A,C,G,U/T). Some amino acids are only coded for by one codon, others by two, three, four or six codons.
Take Alanine, for instance. Four possible codons exist, GCU, GCC, GCA, and GCG. The last base is esentially redundent. (This sort of redundency is a major motif of the genetic code.)
Now suppose that a protein contains alanine at a certain point. The gene will code for that specific amino acid at that point, with the codon GCG. Suppose that a mutagen comes along, and changes one base to a Thiamine.
Thus, the new gene contains either TCG, GTG, or GCT. The first codes for Serine, the second for Valine, and the third for Alanine. The first and second mutaions will cause the "wrong" amino acid to be incorporated in the protein, possibly impairing that protein's function. The third codes for the correct protein.Thus, DNA is partially third position redundant. In many cases, the third position is not contrained by evolutionary pressures, since a mutation at that point will not affect reproductive success. Hence, that mutation may be transmitted to offspring.
Now, a lingering problem in genomics, is that proteins may be coded in six different reading frames-- three different frames for the positive and negative strands of DNA. If one can incorporate the fact that the third position of some codons is not evolutionarily constrained, one can use that knowledge to devise algorithms for gene finding.
Hmm. From what Ive heard, creationism is fundamentally rooted in the concepts of a recent creation or at least a seperate creation. In otherwords, either humans were created, (along with the rest of the world) 7000 years ago, or humans were created seperately from the other animals-- which may or may not have "evolved" from "lower" organisms. But then again, I don't subscribe to a creationist viewpoint.
There have been many attemts to compare whole genomes-- and, in fact, you are likely to see such articles grace many a scientific journal. I'm not sure when a chimpanzee genome will be released-- the logistics of such a study are rather daunting. But rest assured, such a genome will eventually be published.
The automated systems will work for the Record Comapanies, enforcing a record companies idea of what's illegal, and what is not. Naturally, this idea may conflict with what society wants, needs, and has agreed upon.
Corporate control and corporate censorship all utimately benifit a corporation's income-- not the needs, desires and ideals of society. In other words, if a population suffers from censorship imposed by a democratic governemnt, they can work to remove or adjust such a regime. They cannot do that with similar controls imposed by a corporation...
Although Germany does restrict certain political activities related to National Socialism, and like France, has a certain societal interest in supressing Nazi memorabilia, nostalgia, or political expression, the system is designed to restrict or otherwise control online music transfers.
Personally, I believe that political expression on the net should not be limited by political bounderies-- suppress Nazi sites and you essentially give China the moral authority to control Tibetan political expression on the web, but that's just my opinion.
In any case, I believe that there is even less of a foundation for giving control over information flow to German Music Companies-- which is really what this is all about.
I don't play half life-- and I suck at Quake III. But I do enjoy the 'M' rated games from Bioware-- Torment, Fallout, etc. I did think that Privateer (also an 'M' game) was rather juvenile. On the whole, I like the freedom that a 'M' rating gives to its designers.
No, the bloodspatter isn't strictly neccesary, but decapitating kobolds is somehow more satisfying than a bloodless death. It also wouldn't be quite the same without the prostitutes (male and female).
Next thing you know, the'll be going after D&D taverns for serving liquor...
I've seen books with the disclaimer "this book is licensed, not sold." I've also seen people at the Library of Congress copy every page of such a book.
The RIAA, has, for some time, been moaning about the perils of digital piracy. A digital medium, by its very nature, involves no generational loss when it is copied. Thus, once a recording gets on the internet, there a few technical barriers (besides bandwidth) to mass "unauthorized" distribution.
So while the RIAA might not care about me taping an LP to give to a friend, it cares a great deal about my distribution of same song (in mp3 format) on the internet.
At the same time, while my local druggist might knwo that I purchase a particular combination of drugs each month, that information did not, (until recently) go into a central computer so as to inform hordes of people unknown to me, that I had such and such a combination of health problems.
In a sense, the mantra of the RIAA is correct. Digital is different. It allows the effortless transmission of information-- sometimes in a manner that may not be completely benign.
To extend this analogy-- if I copy a tape for my own personal use-- or let a friend borrow an album, my actions fall under "fair use." In the same manner, the corner drugstore is perfectly justified in using my purchase information to plan its inventory. It is a "fair use". It may even store information about my address, phone number, etc., so as to conduct an appropriate commercial relationship with me. If I have a problem with its discretion, I can and will shop elsewhere.
But if information is bought and sold on a free wheeling basis, and a complete list of my medications is transmitted to "Blackmail-drugs.com", what's to stop them from selling a complete pristine, "generation loss free" copy of my data to everybody?
Even if I value my privacy highly, and only let the most trustworthy individuals have access to my personal details, it only takes one previously trustworthy individual to sell that data to multiple non-discrete orginizations, reducing the value of my privacy.
If John gives me 10$ to keep my mouth shut, I can keep my mouth shut, I can accept $11 from sarah, and tell her, or I can accept 25$ from a newspaper intent on reveling the details of Congressman John's "secret life." The newspaper, of course, will sell these details to 50,000 people, for $0.25 each...
Was this a peer reviewed study? What journal did it appear in? Was a coorelation between PDA use and memory loss found, or were the findings correlated with age. Was there a control group?
Actually, Microsoft already has verification built into the operating system. If a driver is missing or damaged, the kernel can sense this via a checksum. This checksum routine can esily be upgraded to a crypto algorithm of some kind.
This prevents, not only some viruses, but also legitimate hacking.
Of course, the crypto algorithms may be bypassed, but what if Office 2004XTR verifies that the kernel hasn't been modified? What if the the encryption/checksums/annoyances are not built into the local kernel, but are accessed remotely?
I believe the latest Office upgrade already calls up Microsoft.com during the registration process... This can be bypassed, but for how long?
The difference is between "This (electronic) book cannot be read aloud" and "You may
not read this book aloud".
The former indicates the capabilities of the software, the latter indicates your rights.
Obviously, one is capable of reading the text aloud. In this case, you can interpret may and can in a straightforward manner.
However, with the arrival of DMCA protected systems, your rights and the technical capabilities of the software become as one.
Take the case of the electronic book. Let us say, say, for instance, that a user is blind, and wants to use a braile out put device. The user has software that allows them, to 'cat' the contents of any text file to 'dev/braile', which will allow them to read the text file in braile.
Now, suppose this user buys an electronic book. The book is not a mere collection of text files-- instead it is supplied in an encrypted format-- and is thus only readable by an approved "client." (Let us imagine that the encyryption is strong enough to resist the efforts of cryptoanalysts).
It does not matter that the publishers did not exclude braile readers by design. It does not matter that reading a text file in braile constitutes "fair use."
It only matters that the designers of the client software did not contemplate that a blind user might read their book, and therefore did not design their client software so that it would be compatible with a braile reader. Their design flaws are now protected by law.
Lessig mentions the Alice in Wonderland license which states that "This book cannot be read aloud." I believe that this has already been the subject of a slashdot article. But what does that restriction really mean-- does the ebook have the technical ability to read certain "enhanced" texts aloud, or is it an obnoxious loicensing restriction.
Lessig is right about one thing. It is unfair and unethical to impose restrictions on the use of a non-copyrighted book-- especially since the text was entered in by Project Gutenberg.
Citing sources does not imply a commercial exchange. Facts alone cannot be copyrighted, so when the new Encyclopedia publishes a value for the "gas constant" (R), it may choose to note the scientific journal in which this value was published, but it is not obligated to pay a "licensing" fee.
The pfizer article all but admits that in the absence of a patent system, drug prices are reduced. Pfizer claims that the reason behind the growth in pharmaceutical expenditures is the elective use of more pharmaceutical products, and not necessarily a growth in pharmaceutical prices.
However, since nongeneric drugs are protected from external pricing pressure by patent systems, pharmaceutical corporations are under no obligation to control the prices of their basic product. Although drug companies may each deliver a drug to control "Disease X", the persons who prescribe these medications are often not aware of the drug's price, further insulating the drug companies from proper market regulation.
Many of these patented prescription drugs are themselves based on Government or nonprofit research. Although some noncommercial institutions have secured patents on possible application of their research, the proliferation of patents, cross-licensing, and profit-driven economic departments, is probably, on the whole, not good for scientific progress. (Indeed, the economic barriers associated with the basic research contribute, in small, but appreciable amounts, to the costs inherent in drug design.)
Although pfizer does comment on the cost of libaility lawsuits, they should also point out the legal infrastucture asociated with "intellectual property" defense and infringement. A half dozen interlocking patent disputes can prevent a firm from delivering a product to market in a timely fashion.
The patent system ensures that the technology that remains affordable is 20 years old. Seldane, for instance, was pulled off the market, just as it's successor drug, Allegra entered the market. Now, sure, there were safety issues associated with terfenadine (the drug could interact with othe prescription drugs to cause heart problems), but this decision protected Hoechst Marion Russell from generic competition. Compared with the drugs of twenty years ago, the drugs of today are far safer and more effective. The're also a lot more expensive, mostly due to patent laws.
I'm not sure where I heard this (probably NY Times), but replace "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas" with "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Noodles".
Slashdot Mirror
"Information wants to be free" properly refers to "freedom," not "free beer."
I moved to Linux primarily to avoid reboots. In fact, rebooting requires root and/or console privilages.
Why should I extend those same privilages to an idiot content manager?
I believe that Malaby may be misintepreting John Perry Barlow's Declaration of CyberSpace Independence This declaration rests on the assumption that the Internet was (or could be) designed so that national bounderies would be irrelevant.
Malaby argues that certain steps can be mandated by various courts of law and legislatures that would reimpose traditional sovereignty on the electronic domain. He suggests that sales taxes, for instance, would not present much of a burden for electronic merchants, and recent steps taken by US auction sites to satisfy French concerns regarding Nazi related merchandise, are indicative of how easily the Internet can be renationalized.
Barlow's decalaration appeared in February of 1996 . In late August, 1996, Jaohan Helsingus closed down his anonymous remailing service because a court order (since reversed) compelled him to reveal the names of some of his clients. Incidentally, the case was brought by Scientologists, alleging copyright infringement.
The extension of national sovreignity into cybersapce is technically possible. However, it is also technically possible to design a telecommunications system that uses a combination of encyrption and anonymity to limit national intrusions to a minimum.
At the same time, we must also actively resist and/or circumvent proposals to embed censorship into network hardware and software. (I have seen at least on mention of the possibility of mp3 rejecting routers (The Absolute Sound, Issue 128))
As a graduate student, I occasionally need to run xmaple, or matlab remotely-- but only have a 56k modem. (Yes, I do have local copies of the programs, but sometimes I need to test if my files are compatible with my school's versions.) Low Bandwidth X, while not a panacea, does allow me to run some of these programs.
It is not unknown for a religion to possess "intellectual property"
For instance, several christian denominations vigerously enforce their copyrights on their translations of the bible.
The Worldwide Church of God, having disavowed one of their main religious texts, have (rather sucessfully) accused a splinter group (Philadelphia Church of God) of copyright infringement for continuing to distribute this text. (Mystery of the Ages)
Most of the protestant denominations were founded partly on a belief that clergy should not intercede between God and the individual worshipper-- thus literacy, and a widespread distribution of religious texts are both important.) At a more extreme level, the freedom of an individual to define their own relationship to God should not be impeded by intellectual property. (Despite this, the Supreme Court has recognized the copyrightability of divinely inspired texts)
However, almost diametrically opposed to this religious tenet is the so called "Mystery cult", in which religious secrets are gradually revealed to an initiate. This apparently is the basic model behind scientology.
Just wanted to comment: although the Copyright Act of 1976 references fair use, "fair use" was a judicial doctrine, and if Congress defines "fair use" in such a way as to materially diminish it, the courts are free to ignore that definition.
As for the commercial aspect of "fair use", the Supreme Court has noted that a parody, however commercial, may not be a copyright infringement. However, insubstantial parodies are not "fair use." A finding of fair use involves a weighing of the totality of the individual factors surrounding a possible infringement, including the commercial nature of the infringing work, a determination of the transformative nature of the offending work, the amount that was copied, and the effect on the marketability of the original work.
If I copy 1000 pages out of a phone book, that may be fair use. If I copy a few pages that constitute the "heart" of some memoir, that may not be fair use.
Because "fair use" claims are often complex, and should properly be weighed by a court of law, "fair use" constitutes a defence against copyright infringement claims. However, this does not mean that a moral right to fair use does not exist.
But, IANAL.
What exactly was CAM? I'm not familiar with the variable gravity aspects of this module... It sounds very interesting.
The ISS has always been dogged by cost concerns. However, the proposed cuts (elimination of a lifeboat,living quarters, and propulsion module) would reduce the space station crew complement from seven to three, making the ISS even less useful for scientific experiments.
Of course, there are a number of people who believe that the ISS is a wasteful use of scientific funding, and could never be justified on a peer-reviewed basis, and a numer of people who believe that the "just being in space" is an admirable goal. The former will argue that a reduced ISS, even if it is not justified on the basis of science, is still a waste of money. The latter, satisfied by a "show the flag" NASA, will be content by big flashy missions of no scientific value...
Much of today's understanding of molecular biology would not be possible without evolution.
For instance, in the human genome, only a portion is known to code for proteins. Although some of the remaining junk DNA may, in fact, have a biologically significant role, much of it does not.
It follows, from evolution, that since the biologically insignificant DNA will not code for genes, a mutation in a portion of junk DNA, will not, in general, deleteriously affect the physiological health of the resulting organism. Since no deleterious effects ensue, it follows that the reproductive success of the organism will not be affected by this mutation. One can then use data about the composition of a segment of DNA to locate putative genes.
It is well known that the amino acid composition of proteins in determined triplets of bases. It is also well known that there is considerable redundency in the genetic code-- there are 20 amino acids, and 64 possible combinations of 3 bases (A,C,G,U/T). Some amino acids are only coded for by one codon, others by two, three, four or six codons.
Take Alanine, for instance. Four possible codons exist, GCU, GCC, GCA, and GCG. The last base is esentially redundent. (This sort of redundency is a major motif of the genetic code.)
Now suppose that a protein contains alanine at a certain point. The gene will code for that specific amino acid at that point, with the codon GCG. Suppose that a mutagen comes along, and changes one base to a Thiamine.
Thus, the new gene contains either TCG, GTG, or GCT. The first codes for Serine, the second for Valine, and the third for Alanine. The first and second mutaions will cause the "wrong" amino acid to be incorporated in the protein, possibly impairing that protein's function. The third codes for the correct protein.Thus, DNA is partially third position redundant. In many cases, the third position is not contrained by evolutionary pressures, since a mutation at that point will not affect reproductive success. Hence, that mutation may be transmitted to offspring.
Now, a lingering problem in genomics, is that proteins may be coded in six different reading frames-- three different frames for the positive and negative strands of DNA. If one can incorporate the fact that the third position of some codons is not evolutionarily constrained, one can use that knowledge to devise algorithms for gene finding.
Hmm. From what Ive heard, creationism is fundamentally rooted in the concepts of a recent creation or at least a seperate creation. In otherwords, either humans were created, (along with the rest of the world) 7000 years ago, or humans were created seperately from the other animals-- which may or may not have "evolved" from "lower" organisms. But then again, I don't subscribe to a creationist viewpoint.
There have been many attemts to compare whole genomes-- and, in fact, you are likely to see such articles grace many a scientific journal. I'm not sure when a chimpanzee genome will be released-- the logistics of such a study are rather daunting. But rest assured, such a genome will eventually be published.
eReferee won the arbitration initially, but the arbitration result was overthrown by a federal judge.
Oops, my fault. Teen lets you go to prostitutes. Mature lets you pimp.
(Fallout 1/2 is M, Torment is T.Privateer 2 is also M)
The automated systems will work for the Record Comapanies, enforcing a record companies idea of what's illegal, and what is not. Naturally, this idea may conflict with what society wants, needs, and has agreed upon.
Corporate control and corporate censorship all utimately benifit a corporation's income-- not the needs, desires and ideals of society. In other words, if a population suffers from censorship imposed by a democratic governemnt, they can work to remove or adjust such a regime. They cannot do that with similar controls imposed by a corporation...
Although Germany does restrict certain political activities related to National Socialism, and like France, has a certain societal interest in supressing Nazi memorabilia, nostalgia, or political expression, the system is designed to restrict or otherwise control online music transfers.
Personally, I believe that political expression on the net should not be limited by political bounderies-- suppress Nazi sites and you essentially give China the moral authority to control Tibetan political expression on the web, but that's just my opinion.
In any case, I believe that there is even less of a foundation for giving control over information flow to German Music Companies-- which is really what this is all about.
I don't play half life-- and I suck at Quake III. But I do enjoy the 'M' rated games from Bioware-- Torment, Fallout, etc. I did think that Privateer (also an 'M' game) was rather juvenile. On the whole, I like the freedom that a 'M' rating gives to its designers.
No, the bloodspatter isn't strictly neccesary, but decapitating kobolds is somehow more satisfying than a bloodless death. It also wouldn't be quite the same without the prostitutes (male and female).
Next thing you know, the'll be going after D&D taverns for serving liquor...
Actually, the story said 256 mbits. 256Mbits would be equivalent to 32 Megabytes. You can't do much of anything with 256 millibits
I've seen books with the disclaimer "this book is licensed, not sold." I've also seen people at the Library of Congress copy every page of such a book.
The RIAA, has, for some time, been moaning about the perils of digital piracy. A digital medium, by its very nature, involves no generational loss when it is copied. Thus, once a recording gets on the internet, there a few technical barriers (besides bandwidth) to mass "unauthorized" distribution.
So while the RIAA might not care about me taping an LP to give to a friend, it cares a great deal about my distribution of same song (in mp3 format) on the internet.
At the same time, while my local druggist might knwo that I purchase a particular combination of drugs each month, that information did not, (until recently) go into a central computer so as to inform hordes of people unknown to me, that I had such and such a combination of health problems.
In a sense, the mantra of the RIAA is correct. Digital is different. It allows the effortless transmission of information-- sometimes in a manner that may not be completely benign.
To extend this analogy-- if I copy a tape for my own personal use-- or let a friend borrow an album, my actions fall under "fair use." In the same manner, the corner drugstore is perfectly justified in using my purchase information to plan its inventory. It is a "fair use". It may even store information about my address, phone number, etc., so as to conduct an appropriate commercial relationship with me. If I have a problem with its discretion, I can and will shop elsewhere.
But if information is bought and sold on a free wheeling basis, and a complete list of my medications is transmitted to "Blackmail-drugs.com", what's to stop them from selling a complete pristine, "generation loss free" copy of my data to everybody?
Even if I value my privacy highly, and only let the most trustworthy individuals have access to my personal details, it only takes one previously trustworthy individual to sell that data to multiple non-discrete orginizations, reducing the value of my privacy.
If John gives me 10$ to keep my mouth shut, I can keep my mouth shut, I can accept $11 from sarah, and tell her, or I can accept 25$ from a newspaper intent on reveling the details of Congressman John's "secret life." The newspaper, of course, will sell these details to 50,000 people, for $0.25 each...
Was this a peer reviewed study? What journal did it appear in? Was a coorelation between PDA use and memory loss found, or were the findings correlated with age. Was there a control group?
Newspapers should print proper citations...
Actually, Microsoft already has verification built into the operating system. If a driver is missing or damaged, the kernel can sense this via a checksum. This checksum routine can esily be upgraded to a crypto algorithm of some kind.
This prevents, not only some viruses, but also legitimate hacking.
Of course, the crypto algorithms may be bypassed, but what if Office 2004XTR verifies that the kernel hasn't been modified? What if the the encryption/checksums/annoyances are not built into the local kernel, but are accessed remotely?
I believe the latest Office upgrade already calls up Microsoft.com during the registration process... This can be bypassed, but for how long?
Obviously, one is capable of reading the text aloud. In this case, you can interpret may and can in a straightforward manner.
However, with the arrival of DMCA protected systems, your rights and the technical capabilities of the software become as one.
Take the case of the electronic book. Let us say, say, for instance, that a user is blind, and wants to use a braile out put device. The user has software that allows them, to 'cat' the contents of any text file to 'dev/braile', which will allow them to read the text file in braile.
Now, suppose this user buys an electronic book. The book is not a mere collection of text files-- instead it is supplied in an encrypted format-- and is thus only readable by an approved "client." (Let us imagine that the encyryption is strong enough to resist the efforts of cryptoanalysts).
It does not matter that the publishers did not exclude braile readers by design. It does not matter that reading a text file in braile constitutes "fair use."
It only matters that the designers of the client software did not contemplate that a blind user might read their book, and therefore did not design their client software so that it would be compatible with a braile reader. Their design flaws are now protected by law.
Lessig mentions the Alice in Wonderland license which states that "This book cannot be read aloud." I believe that this has already been the subject of a slashdot article. But what does that restriction really mean-- does the ebook have the technical ability to read certain "enhanced" texts aloud, or is it an obnoxious loicensing restriction. Lessig is right about one thing. It is unfair and unethical to impose restrictions on the use of a non-copyrighted book-- especially since the text was entered in by Project Gutenberg.
Citing sources does not imply a commercial exchange. Facts alone cannot be copyrighted, so when the new Encyclopedia publishes a value for the "gas constant" (R), it may choose to note the scientific journal in which this value was published, but it is not obligated to pay a "licensing" fee.
Many of these patented prescription drugs are themselves based on Government or nonprofit research. Although some noncommercial institutions have secured patents on possible application of their research, the proliferation of patents, cross-licensing, and profit-driven economic departments, is probably, on the whole, not good for scientific progress. (Indeed, the economic barriers associated with the basic research contribute, in small, but appreciable amounts, to the costs inherent in drug design.)
Although pfizer does comment on the cost of libaility lawsuits, they should also point out the legal infrastucture asociated with "intellectual property" defense and infringement. A half dozen interlocking patent disputes can prevent a firm from delivering a product to market in a timely fashion.
The patent system ensures that the technology that remains affordable is 20 years old. Seldane, for instance, was pulled off the market, just as it's successor drug, Allegra entered the market. Now, sure, there were safety issues associated with terfenadine (the drug could interact with othe prescription drugs to cause heart problems), but this decision protected Hoechst Marion Russell from generic competition. Compared with the drugs of twenty years ago, the drugs of today are far safer and more effective. The're also a lot more expensive, mostly due to patent laws.
I'm not sure where I heard this (probably NY Times), but replace "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas" with "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Noodles".