You complain over and over about Microsoft, and then you try to impose this apalling copyright scheme on/. You may own the copyright on words like "simple", "that" and "them", but you'll never stop me using those words, you bastard!
It's simple. (oops) I can cut and paste thousands of words like "that" (oops) and distribute them (oops) all over the internet, and you can't stop me!
Hey, I love yummy sarcasm as much as the next guy, but what the hell are you talking about? Are you implying that Intel did, or didn't want them to test the chip? Are they both too buddy-buddy with Intel *and* "anti-Intel"? Do you suggest that they made up the "Intel asked us pretty please" scenario to give their review street cred?
Sorry, but it's shaping up to be a low-tolerance Monday.
Actually, 2600 was sued, not for "copyright infringement" as we generally think of it, but for violating one section of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
That specific section makes it illegal to circumvent "protections" (like CSS) implemented by the copyright holder that were designed (however crappily) to prevent copyright infringement.
2600, as we know, didn't create the circumventing program (DeCSS) themselves. Buuuut, Judge Kaplan went the law one step further, saying that by first making DeCSS available on their site, and later by telling people where to get DeCSS, 2600 was circumventing CSS, and therefore violating the DMCA.
IMHO, to be constitutional, the DMCA probably can prevent someone from actually circumventing the CSS encryption/protection scheme. But it cannot prevent people talking about how to break the crypto, or telling peeps how to break the crypto, or pointing at sites that tell you how to break the crypto, or possessing or reviewing tools that break... etc... etc... etc...
Garbus doesn't look dumb at all for making the motion. Most judges have learned not to take recusal motions personally.
In fact, Garbus might have looked worse had he not raised the issue. If the defense didn't even raise the issue that Kaplan had represented T/W previously they would
lose the right to argue the point on appeal
look like they hadn't done their homework.
That being said, bickering with Kaplan after he denied the motion probably wasn't the best tactic. D'oh!:-)
Slashdot Mirror
"{blah}...launch the nonprofit center, known as IT-ISAC."
Just say "itty-sack"
Yeah, I know your kind!
/.
You complain over and over about Microsoft, and then you try to impose this apalling copyright scheme on
You may own the copyright on words like "simple", "that" and "them", but you'll never stop me using those words, you bastard!
It's simple. (oops) I can cut and paste thousands of words like "that" (oops) and distribute them (oops) all over the internet, and you can't stop me!
Open Source Everything! - Fight the powah!
What's that? It's a typo? Oooooo. Sorry.
Yeah. Hahah. hahaha. Ohh, that's a good one.
(wipes tear from eye)
Hey, I love yummy sarcasm as much as the next guy, but what the hell are you talking about? Are you implying that Intel did, or didn't want them to test the chip? Are they both too buddy-buddy with Intel *and* "anti-Intel"? Do you suggest that they made up the "Intel asked us pretty please" scenario to give their review street cred? Sorry, but it's shaping up to be a low-tolerance Monday.... Wait.
I don't get it.
Now there's a guy who stands up for what he believes!
Or maybe he had a thing he had to go to.
Actually, 2600 was sued, not for "copyright infringement" as we generally think of it, but for violating one section of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
That specific section makes it illegal to circumvent "protections" (like CSS) implemented by the copyright holder that were designed (however crappily) to prevent copyright infringement.
2600, as we know, didn't create the circumventing program (DeCSS) themselves. Buuuut, Judge Kaplan went the law one step further, saying that by first making DeCSS available on their site, and later by telling people where to get DeCSS, 2600 was circumventing CSS, and therefore violating the DMCA.
IMHO, to be constitutional, the DMCA probably can prevent someone from actually circumventing the CSS encryption/protection scheme. But it cannot prevent people talking about how to break the crypto, or telling peeps how to break the crypto, or pointing at sites that tell you how to break the crypto, or possessing or reviewing tools that breakIn fact, Garbus might have looked worse had he not raised the issue. If the defense didn't even raise the issue that Kaplan had represented T/W previously they would
That being said, bickering with Kaplan after he denied the motion probably wasn't the best tactic. D'oh! :-)