I will certainly buy Micron memory for my new T-Bird 900 upgrade I'm planning. Vote with your wallet, buy products from companies that stand up for what is right, and (as Sony's Veep Heckler would suggest), firewall the ones that cave at your wallet.
RamBUST inc's patent claims will fail on two fronts. First, their membership in JEDEC precluded them from secretly patenting IP that the JEDEC group was involved in. RAMBUST did not disclose patents they had applied for on SDRAM technology (as they were required to), and IMO, probably kept that secret for the sole purpose of influencing JEDEC to adopt a SDRAM standard containing patented RAMBUST IP.
Second, anti-trust. This is like giving a mafia don a cut of every dollar spent in a vital industry.
RAMBUST is bad for technology. First, they failed to RAM inferior yet mega-expensive technology up our collective arses, then failing that they are going to try to collect on SDRAM technology that they never developed, marketed, or produced.
Don't judges have to take at least one class in law before they can be appointed? I'm beginning to wonder.
Of course URL's are property. You pay for them, don't you? Are they property to the Megacorps? You betcha!
If ths ruling stands, only the megacorps will have rights to their URL's, but then only because they have lawyers.
Hollywood supports Clinton-Gore. The most corrupt administration since Nixon, proven by thir own admission. So if they call we Linux crowd by name then we must be even more RIGHT than we think we are.
Proving how the commie-lib-inductrial complex misunderstands the real world of technology.
I think you make a god point. For one thing, this ruling places restrictions on the internet that do not exist in other media. Which could kill the entire concept of an "information superhighway".
Despite all the money that the corporates have made off the `net, I suspect that many of them (and politicos who now face scrutiny they never faced before) wouldn't mind at all of the `net were destroyed.
Absolutely correct, but let me expound on this a bit...
Judges are NOT supposed to make law, this was never intended by the founders, hence the reason why they are all given lifetime tenure. However, the fault of this can largely be laid at the feet of the executive and legislative branches, which thru inaction made it IMPERITIVE in the early 1950's that the Supreme Court make law (IE, Brown vs. the Board of Education). Since then, everyone has abused this, by using courts to make law that would never win at the ballot box.
IMHO the Brown decision is the only good example of law handed down from the bench that I can think of.
Kaplan's ruling sets the dangerous precedent of placing the burden on any individual, company, etc that discloses the location of information at equal liability to those who publish/distribute material that may be illegal.
If you take it to an extreme (which is plausable considering Kaplan used the MOST narrow and extreme interpretation of DMCA that is possible in his ruling), these things could now be lead to/be shut down by lawsuits:
Search Engines
Yellow Pages
Pointing at something
The whole WWW
Library card catalog
The list could contain most anything. If this ruling is allowed to become legal precedent, it will lead to nothing less than the END of the information age, and an American dark age.
They are scared. REALLY scared. For the first time ever, a mechanism exists for music to be distrubuted worldwide to millions of millions WITHOUT THEM!
They HAVE to kill Napster and use FUD to frighten the rest of us, just as Microsoft HAD to kill Netscape. Napster and the sucessor programs that the concept will spawn will make it possible for the ARTIST to escape perpetual bondage with the RIAA record companies, and make more money. CD's cost $18, but the artist receives less than $1 from each sale, and from that $1 or so, the artist has to pay back the RIAA label all the costs of production, promotion, etc. It's about the highest profit margin buisness there is, except for the artists, who created the product in the first place.
What this Veep said was even worse than that.. He THREATENED his customers. He is saying that he's going to tamper with everyone's computer, something that is illegal, inmoral, and just plain wrong.
Guess you don't want to buy any Sony PC's, huh?
What an arrogant statement, By someone with no clue. Actually, we probably should take it this way, they are desperate.
Napster may be able to be sued out of existance, but there will be other methods of recreating Napster's service with a client that is peer-to-peer (like Gnutella).
THis guy has no clue about how the internet works. So long as there are TCP/IP PORTS, there will be ways to transfer files. Unless Sony plans on suing every ISP that uses a TCP/IP based internet out of existance in favor of ones that use another protocal. Not bloody likely.
Also, could Sony's remarks be contempt of court? They have threatened Napster and their "customers" to use illegal means (firewalling my pc, etc) to stop it no matter WHAT the court decides. But given that my already low respect for Federal couts was driven even lower this week by Emperor Kaplan, MPAA Cporporate Judge, I don't expect that this woman will be any better. Particularly since she was reversed in all of 15 minutes on her peliminary injunction. Like the DECSS case, the first round will likely be a bad ruling by a bought and paid for handpicked Imperial District Judge, and killed at a higher level.
I know this has been said, but I'm going to avoid SOny products whenever possible. Their VP has said that his company will stop at nothing, legal or illegal to control the way I use my PC and network.
In theroy, yes, especially given the conflict of interest admitted to by Kaplan, but he refused to recuse himself.
In practice: not a snowball's chance in hell. The federal court is a fraternity of "emperors for life" political apointee judges. They are beyond touch, they can only be impeached by the US senate, which has proven it's incompetence there...
Unfortulately, the USA is the best government on earth for "freedom". Or at least it was 20 years ago.
This is a measure of how much further we HAVE to go to create the best possible government.
This is the arrogance and stupidity of government in general, and judges in particular. They think a piece of paper, or a slam of a gavel makes it so.
Well, number one, it doesn't!
As long as there are PC's and hackers, there will never be total control of the digital medium by the MPAA/RIAA.
Open digital standards, like MP3 and DivX will always allow us to exercise "fair use" whether illegal or not. Fact is, until Emperor Kaplan grants the MPAA the right to send in the Elian Gonzales hit squad in the dead of night (not as farfetched as you think given the extremist nature of his interpretation of DMCA), nothing can stop this.
And they ignore the fact that with the internet, which is communication that is cheap, international, and accesable to millions by one, will always make sure Emperor Kaplan's nudity is exposed and discussed.
Which makes me wonder... In the future, if Kaplan's extreme interpretation of the DMCA is upheld, will the USA go to war against small nations that allow net freedom (which they will to gain the $billions that it will bring them)?
I shudder at this thought. As a Conservative, strict-constructionist Constitutionalist, I would advocate burning draft cards in such a war.
The best way, IMO, to protest cartels like the MPAA and RIAA is to not buy their product. Steal it (by piracy), but always contribute to the actual artists who created it. Send in anon money orders.
This would be a true civil disobedience. Maybe for once they will get the message that reasonably priced, open products are the best anti-piracy program there is.
I agree that the arrogant ignorant stupidity of governments like the US, UK, and Australian ones create a TREMENDOUS opportunity for innovators like Sealand.
Ultimately, I see poorer nations getting rich by having sensible `net laws and taxes. It's a sure fire way to draw business, because ANY geographical location is a potentially prime `net location.
It could happen that the MPAA could impose restrictions in their license to require CSS/DVD player makers to not allow non-CSS DVD's to be played.
If there ever WAS an "indie" studio that took off and decided not to play the MPAA game, they could do this to effectively kill of competition. Another reason why ALL monopolist cartels, be they industrial (RIAA, MPAA), or otherwise (AFL/CIO, NEA) should be outlawed, as they are not in the best interest of the consumer.
Kaplan admonished Garbus for a much lesser conflict of interest than he himself admitted to having.
He refused to recuse himself, and now has made an illogical ruling in conflict with the facts.
Clearly his bias and conflict of interest played the defining role in his decision. There is no way that he EVER should have been permitted to handle this case.
As you pointed out, he is a Clinton appointee. The Clintons have long been the darlings of Hollywood, and receive much support. This could be quid quo pro.
However, I think that this ruling will be overturned in appeal, on the basis of his conflict of interest ALONE, much less tha facts. In some ways, this could be a good thing for those who oppose the MPAA, as what we have here in Kaplan's court was a lynching, in public, all on record.
I agree with your points 110%. I consider myself a "true" conservative, and the free market is most benefitted by free innovation and competition.
What the DMCA does is grant the MPAA and RIAA monopoly status, something that is repulsive to someone with my views. Of course I respect the right of a movie studio to copyright their property, but once they sell me a movie, their rights end there, I can sell it, copy it, play it, etc, as long as I do not sell it or give away copies.
Same with a DVD player I buy. Once I fork over my money, the company that sold it to me has no further rights to restrict what I do with it, so long as I don't clone the circuit board and sell copies. But if I were smart enough to reverse-engineer the principle behind the DVD player and make my own, then I should have that right.
God, does ANYONE realize what is happening here? 4-5 megacorps and one monopoly cartel are saying they ALONE can sell or license PLAYERS. Anyone can make and sell casette , CD, or VCR players...
How can a law that gives the MPAA cartel power over digital device makers that they don't currently have over analog device makers be legal?
As a conservative, I oppose DMCA and the MPAA's opposition to DECSS. Why? Because it denies the free market the possibility of better engineered, cheaper DVD players. Which is in the best interests of everyone, the more who own DVD players, the more DVD's presumably will be sold. DECSS does not enable copying of DVD's, that can be done without it.
As for Hollywood, represented by the MPAA, most of their $$$ is pouring into the Gore campaign, not Bush.
Case law like this will kill American technological advancement, which has been THE driving force for the advancement of improvements in the last, oh, 2 centuries.
The way I read the descision is this: Unless you are a $mega-billion corp, you cannot innovate. You cannot take what others before have built and improve it.
Friends, it's law like that that can eventually allow M$ and Apple to kill Linux. Face it, if the DMCA is interpreted in such an extremist way as Judge Kaplan did, then no one has the right to reverse engineer so much as a light bulb, dirt, or the fork.
I've long been opposed to the federal judiciary as it is, a fraternity of no-accontability, life-serving bureaucrats whom the best of which are few, and the worst of which are corrupt black robed Napoleons who excercise their virtually unlimited authority with no fear of retribution.
And WHY should this be? Would you give AOL a monopoly for $33/month nationwide and outlaw ANY other ISP's in exchange for their guarantee that they will cover every area? That's BS. The USPS has the worst service and poorest record of any package delivery provider. Send it UPS or FedEx, yes, it's more expensive, but it WILL get there. Or there will be a damn good excuse. Same thing for e-mail providers. If the USPS e-mail service runs like it's snail mail counterpart, e-mail will take 2-3 days to get across town but SPAM will travel across the continent in seconds.
I'm very ignorant of New Zealand's government or Constitution (if any), so I'll speak of the US. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) were written by men who feared and distrusted strong central governments. Read their other writings if you doubt this... The SOLE purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was to DENY power to government. It grants NO rights to citizens, it assumes that citizens have all powers that the Constitution does not EXPLICITLY grant Government. But I digress (apologies) Why is it that government so fears anon, encrypted, private communication that cannot be intercepted without showing probable cause to a judge to get a warrant? Because government fears ideas. Ideas that it does not like. Information that it does not like. Look at Bill Clinton and his taxpayer-financed operation that has smeared (and IRS audited) people who have had legitimate allegations of his wrongdoing? The Internet is a threat to all would-be Napoleons in power because it is a FLOOD of information that is cheap, fast, and open to ALL. Not controlled by any single or collecticve corporate or government interest. In such an enviornment no corrupt government officials and/or actions is free of public scrutiny. They FEAR this. That's why Carnivore, Echelon, RIP, etc are all needed, to protect them.
Slashdot Mirror
I will certainly buy Micron memory for my new T-Bird 900 upgrade I'm planning. Vote with your wallet, buy products from companies that stand up for what is right, and (as Sony's Veep Heckler would suggest), firewall the ones that cave at your wallet. RamBUST inc's patent claims will fail on two fronts. First, their membership in JEDEC precluded them from secretly patenting IP that the JEDEC group was involved in. RAMBUST did not disclose patents they had applied for on SDRAM technology (as they were required to), and IMO, probably kept that secret for the sole purpose of influencing JEDEC to adopt a SDRAM standard containing patented RAMBUST IP. Second, anti-trust. This is like giving a mafia don a cut of every dollar spent in a vital industry. RAMBUST is bad for technology. First, they failed to RAM inferior yet mega-expensive technology up our collective arses, then failing that they are going to try to collect on SDRAM technology that they never developed, marketed, or produced.
Don't judges have to take at least one class in law before they can be appointed? I'm beginning to wonder. Of course URL's are property. You pay for them, don't you? Are they property to the Megacorps? You betcha! If ths ruling stands, only the megacorps will have rights to their URL's, but then only because they have lawyers.
Hollywood supports Clinton-Gore. The most corrupt administration since Nixon, proven by thir own admission. So if they call we Linux crowd by name then we must be even more RIGHT than we think we are. Proving how the commie-lib-inductrial complex misunderstands the real world of technology.
I guess Imperial Corporate Judge Kaplan really ruled that if your company's net worth is $1 billion or more you have freedom of speech.
I think you make a god point. For one thing, this ruling places restrictions on the internet that do not exist in other media. Which could kill the entire concept of an "information superhighway". Despite all the money that the corporates have made off the `net, I suspect that many of them (and politicos who now face scrutiny they never faced before) wouldn't mind at all of the `net were destroyed.
Absolutely correct, but let me expound on this a bit... Judges are NOT supposed to make law, this was never intended by the founders, hence the reason why they are all given lifetime tenure. However, the fault of this can largely be laid at the feet of the executive and legislative branches, which thru inaction made it IMPERITIVE in the early 1950's that the Supreme Court make law (IE, Brown vs. the Board of Education). Since then, everyone has abused this, by using courts to make law that would never win at the ballot box. IMHO the Brown decision is the only good example of law handed down from the bench that I can think of. Kaplan's ruling sets the dangerous precedent of placing the burden on any individual, company, etc that discloses the location of information at equal liability to those who publish/distribute material that may be illegal. If you take it to an extreme (which is plausable considering Kaplan used the MOST narrow and extreme interpretation of DMCA that is possible in his ruling), these things could now be lead to/be shut down by lawsuits: Search Engines Yellow Pages Pointing at something The whole WWW Library card catalog The list could contain most anything. If this ruling is allowed to become legal precedent, it will lead to nothing less than the END of the information age, and an American dark age.
They are scared. REALLY scared. For the first time ever, a mechanism exists for music to be distrubuted worldwide to millions of millions WITHOUT THEM! They HAVE to kill Napster and use FUD to frighten the rest of us, just as Microsoft HAD to kill Netscape. Napster and the sucessor programs that the concept will spawn will make it possible for the ARTIST to escape perpetual bondage with the RIAA record companies, and make more money. CD's cost $18, but the artist receives less than $1 from each sale, and from that $1 or so, the artist has to pay back the RIAA label all the costs of production, promotion, etc. It's about the highest profit margin buisness there is, except for the artists, who created the product in the first place.
What this Veep said was even worse than that.. He THREATENED his customers. He is saying that he's going to tamper with everyone's computer, something that is illegal, inmoral, and just plain wrong.
Guess you don't want to buy any Sony PC's, huh? What an arrogant statement, By someone with no clue. Actually, we probably should take it this way, they are desperate. Napster may be able to be sued out of existance, but there will be other methods of recreating Napster's service with a client that is peer-to-peer (like Gnutella). THis guy has no clue about how the internet works. So long as there are TCP/IP PORTS, there will be ways to transfer files. Unless Sony plans on suing every ISP that uses a TCP/IP based internet out of existance in favor of ones that use another protocal. Not bloody likely. Also, could Sony's remarks be contempt of court? They have threatened Napster and their "customers" to use illegal means (firewalling my pc, etc) to stop it no matter WHAT the court decides. But given that my already low respect for Federal couts was driven even lower this week by Emperor Kaplan, MPAA Cporporate Judge, I don't expect that this woman will be any better. Particularly since she was reversed in all of 15 minutes on her peliminary injunction. Like the DECSS case, the first round will likely be a bad ruling by a bought and paid for handpicked Imperial District Judge, and killed at a higher level. I know this has been said, but I'm going to avoid SOny products whenever possible. Their VP has said that his company will stop at nothing, legal or illegal to control the way I use my PC and network.
In theroy, yes, especially given the conflict of interest admitted to by Kaplan, but he refused to recuse himself. In practice: not a snowball's chance in hell. The federal court is a fraternity of "emperors for life" political apointee judges. They are beyond touch, they can only be impeached by the US senate, which has proven it's incompetence there...
Unfortulately, the USA is the best government on earth for "freedom". Or at least it was 20 years ago. This is a measure of how much further we HAVE to go to create the best possible government.
This is the arrogance and stupidity of government in general, and judges in particular. They think a piece of paper, or a slam of a gavel makes it so. Well, number one, it doesn't!
This isn't possible today, as any artist has to go thru a MPAA or RIAA member to get to the masses.
As long as there are PC's and hackers, there will never be total control of the digital medium by the MPAA/RIAA. Open digital standards, like MP3 and DivX will always allow us to exercise "fair use" whether illegal or not. Fact is, until Emperor Kaplan grants the MPAA the right to send in the Elian Gonzales hit squad in the dead of night (not as farfetched as you think given the extremist nature of his interpretation of DMCA), nothing can stop this.
And they ignore the fact that with the internet, which is communication that is cheap, international, and accesable to millions by one, will always make sure Emperor Kaplan's nudity is exposed and discussed. Which makes me wonder... In the future, if Kaplan's extreme interpretation of the DMCA is upheld, will the USA go to war against small nations that allow net freedom (which they will to gain the $billions that it will bring them)? I shudder at this thought. As a Conservative, strict-constructionist Constitutionalist, I would advocate burning draft cards in such a war.
The best way, IMO, to protest cartels like the MPAA and RIAA is to not buy their product. Steal it (by piracy), but always contribute to the actual artists who created it. Send in anon money orders. This would be a true civil disobedience. Maybe for once they will get the message that reasonably priced, open products are the best anti-piracy program there is.
I agree that the arrogant ignorant stupidity of governments like the US, UK, and Australian ones create a TREMENDOUS opportunity for innovators like Sealand. Ultimately, I see poorer nations getting rich by having sensible `net laws and taxes. It's a sure fire way to draw business, because ANY geographical location is a potentially prime `net location.
It could happen that the MPAA could impose restrictions in their license to require CSS/DVD player makers to not allow non-CSS DVD's to be played. If there ever WAS an "indie" studio that took off and decided not to play the MPAA game, they could do this to effectively kill of competition. Another reason why ALL monopolist cartels, be they industrial (RIAA, MPAA), or otherwise (AFL/CIO, NEA) should be outlawed, as they are not in the best interest of the consumer.
Not only inmoral, but IMHO, if CSS was designed INTENTIONALLY to circumvent "fair use" then it is illegal as well.
Kaplan admonished Garbus for a much lesser conflict of interest than he himself admitted to having. He refused to recuse himself, and now has made an illogical ruling in conflict with the facts. Clearly his bias and conflict of interest played the defining role in his decision. There is no way that he EVER should have been permitted to handle this case. As you pointed out, he is a Clinton appointee. The Clintons have long been the darlings of Hollywood, and receive much support. This could be quid quo pro. However, I think that this ruling will be overturned in appeal, on the basis of his conflict of interest ALONE, much less tha facts. In some ways, this could be a good thing for those who oppose the MPAA, as what we have here in Kaplan's court was a lynching, in public, all on record.
I agree with your points 110%. I consider myself a "true" conservative, and the free market is most benefitted by free innovation and competition. What the DMCA does is grant the MPAA and RIAA monopoly status, something that is repulsive to someone with my views. Of course I respect the right of a movie studio to copyright their property, but once they sell me a movie, their rights end there, I can sell it, copy it, play it, etc, as long as I do not sell it or give away copies. Same with a DVD player I buy. Once I fork over my money, the company that sold it to me has no further rights to restrict what I do with it, so long as I don't clone the circuit board and sell copies. But if I were smart enough to reverse-engineer the principle behind the DVD player and make my own, then I should have that right. God, does ANYONE realize what is happening here? 4-5 megacorps and one monopoly cartel are saying they ALONE can sell or license PLAYERS. Anyone can make and sell casette , CD, or VCR players... How can a law that gives the MPAA cartel power over digital device makers that they don't currently have over analog device makers be legal?
As a conservative, I oppose DMCA and the MPAA's opposition to DECSS. Why? Because it denies the free market the possibility of better engineered, cheaper DVD players. Which is in the best interests of everyone, the more who own DVD players, the more DVD's presumably will be sold. DECSS does not enable copying of DVD's, that can be done without it. As for Hollywood, represented by the MPAA, most of their $$$ is pouring into the Gore campaign, not Bush.
Case law like this will kill American technological advancement, which has been THE driving force for the advancement of improvements in the last, oh, 2 centuries. The way I read the descision is this: Unless you are a $mega-billion corp, you cannot innovate. You cannot take what others before have built and improve it. Friends, it's law like that that can eventually allow M$ and Apple to kill Linux. Face it, if the DMCA is interpreted in such an extremist way as Judge Kaplan did, then no one has the right to reverse engineer so much as a light bulb, dirt, or the fork. I've long been opposed to the federal judiciary as it is, a fraternity of no-accontability, life-serving bureaucrats whom the best of which are few, and the worst of which are corrupt black robed Napoleons who excercise their virtually unlimited authority with no fear of retribution.
And WHY should this be? Would you give AOL a monopoly for $33/month nationwide and outlaw ANY other ISP's in exchange for their guarantee that they will cover every area? That's BS. The USPS has the worst service and poorest record of any package delivery provider. Send it UPS or FedEx, yes, it's more expensive, but it WILL get there. Or there will be a damn good excuse. Same thing for e-mail providers. If the USPS e-mail service runs like it's snail mail counterpart, e-mail will take 2-3 days to get across town but SPAM will travel across the continent in seconds.
I'm very ignorant of New Zealand's government or Constitution (if any), so I'll speak of the US. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) were written by men who feared and distrusted strong central governments. Read their other writings if you doubt this... The SOLE purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was to DENY power to government. It grants NO rights to citizens, it assumes that citizens have all powers that the Constitution does not EXPLICITLY grant Government. But I digress (apologies) Why is it that government so fears anon, encrypted, private communication that cannot be intercepted without showing probable cause to a judge to get a warrant? Because government fears ideas. Ideas that it does not like. Information that it does not like. Look at Bill Clinton and his taxpayer-financed operation that has smeared (and IRS audited) people who have had legitimate allegations of his wrongdoing? The Internet is a threat to all would-be Napoleons in power because it is a FLOOD of information that is cheap, fast, and open to ALL. Not controlled by any single or collecticve corporate or government interest. In such an enviornment no corrupt government officials and/or actions is free of public scrutiny. They FEAR this. That's why Carnivore, Echelon, RIP, etc are all needed, to protect them.