Evidently, you're not a first year poli-sci major, nor have you ever taken US History.
The job of the courts is most certainly not to enforce the laws - we have law enforcement groups for that. The job of the courts is to weigh the evidence and decide if a law has actually been broken.
Additionally, the courts may also decide on the legality of the laws. Congress may pass a law saying I may not spread peanut butter on my head and dance the Cha-Cha on my front lawn, the President may sign it, and the police may enforce it, but the courts decide whether or not it violates my Constitutional rights (which it would almost invariably would). Go buy a book on US Government and look up Separation of Power in the index.
he had a pretty good idea of what DeCSS could do and why other website operators were having it taken down by the MPAA. He knew what he was doing.
[snip]
... civil disobedience does not come without a price. If you aren't willing to take the punishment for standing up against unjust laws, then you really shouldn't be breaking the law in the first place.
What do you think he's doing? He's standing up for his Constitutional rights. The DVD-CCA does not have a valid case for the following reasons:
Pavlovich's freedom of speech
Pavlovich's freedom to reverse engineer
Pavlovich's freedom to distribute trade secrets that have become public (e.g. once they become public they are not longer protected as "trade secrets")
... all of which have strong support in past judgements. So contrary to what you say, he is standing up against an unjust law, not to mention, the ludicrous idea that the California court system has jurisdiction outside of California.
(BTW: You have the lamest sig I've ever seen. What are you? 14? Grow up.)
When the megacorporations meet in secrecy to lay down laws that a democratically elected government will enforce I have doubts it is for the good of the consumer. The recent spat of copy-restricted CDs, DVDs, digital media, and draconian IP laws (not to mention the peversion of copywrite law over the last 50 years) all lead me to the same conclusion as the author of the article - the people who run the IP corps are trying to stave off extinction. These groups have already admitted that their intent is not stop the professional pirates but to "keep the honest man honest". That's doublespeak if I've ever heard it. So in the end, they don't put much of a dent in piracy, yet they do significantly hinder *my* ability to space- and time-shift media that I *paid* for as I see fit. This is conjecture on my part I know, but I see them going for the golden-cash cow of pay-per-use. I'm not against IP, but I am against that (as I suspect many others are too).
That was a long ramble to say this isn't about the artist or author - this is about the media conglomorates that position themselves (unnecessarily in the digital age) between the end-user and author, raping both in the process.
Also, the only nerve you struck was to imply that "anti-IP" is about freeloading. Firstly, it's pejorative to call it "anti-IP" - that's like calling "Pro-Choice", "Anti-Life". Life is not the issue - freedom of choice is. The same thing applies here - I am not against IP; I am against Draconian restrictions on how I may use things I've purchased.
It's a shame that I just used my last mod point on someone else, b/c you would have gotten "Troll=1" if I hadn't. The parent post makes a good point about the motivation of the corporations driving the WIPO. You, however, spew the same mindless rant you think you're responding to. Having reasonable expectations of free use doesn't make me an envious freeloader.
Dr. Rabiner said he was excited about the possibility of resurrecting renowned voices, like that of Harry Caray, the Chicago Cubs announcer who delivered rousing play-by-play broadcasts. "There are probably hours of recordings in archives," he said. Wouldn't it be great, he asked, if Harry Caray's voice could again be broadcasting in Wrigley Field?
Absolutely not. And for the same reason that second-printings, plastic surgery, and fake breasts all suck - they're not the real deal.
And as a die-hard Cubs fan since the age of 4, might I also add that the World Series drought for the last half century has taken on a sort of religious significance, not unlike the 40 years the Hebrews spent wandering in the desert. And Harry Caray was our Moses - resurrecting his voice without the man behind it is tantamount to sacrilege (not to mention unbelievably morbid!).
That's the ironic thing. During the trial, the defense made a point of illustrating that he *wasn't* a hacker! He may have technical knowledge by virtue of reporting on techinical issues, but this guy was first and foremost a journalist. But I agree with you - he wasn't a journalist for a "respected" publication. I'm sure the same would happen for any other fringe publication, like "High Times".
Katz is right on with this article. Sure, there was an initial outcry and the appropriate media coverage right after the arrest, but it's "old news" now. And if the media has proved one thing time and time again, the half-life of its attention span is measured in hours. Unless there's blood or sex involved, the media won't be in it for the long haul. Miscarriage of justice? The US government exhibiting behavior that it's accused its worst enemies of? Apparently, the media doesn't think that will sell advertising.
What really frightens me is the chicken-and-egg problem inherent in all of this. The media thinks that the masses only want titilating sensationalism in their news. Yet, the masses typically look to the media to know what to be concerned about and to what they should pay attention. Unfortunately, the media isn't giving issues about digital law any type of coverage, therefore no one is concerned about it.
The other thing that worries me is that people just don't seem to care about laws in the digital age. Given that the average computer user doesn't show the slightest interest in how and why computers work, I honestly can't imagine that they would care about how and why digital laws work. As long as they can get their music and chat rooms, they will probably be content with the DMCA. Professors being threatened by the RIAA over a scholarly paper? Big deal. Russian hacker tossed in jail? That Commie deserves it. The Slashdot community is up in arms but that is only because it has entered our realm.
Perhaps I've been reading Transmetropolitan too much lately, but I'm starting to think that society in the future really will degenerate into a group of apathetic people who are only concerned with what they can buy, eat, or fuck.
Let me recommend a couple of books that relate to web development and user interfaces:
Designing Web Usability - Jakob Nielsen
Information Architecture for the World Wide Web - Louis Rosenfeld and Peter Morville
Web Pages That Suck: Learn Good Design by Looking at Bad Design - Vincent Flanders and Michael Willis
Philip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing - Philip Greenspun
Good usability design and testing are two things that still seems to get shortchanged by companies as being unimportant or extraneous. It is probably the most important thing a company can do with its website or product! All of these books are good but I would recommend Nielsen's most strongly. He has written the... ahem, "book" on usability.
Of course, I don't think it's the government's business either, at least until you start holding up 7-11's to get money for your habit.
The government's only concern is that I'm committing a crime - the reason is irrelevant at that point. Whether I'm stealing money to pay for my gambling habit (legal) or my drug habit (illegal) the only relevant fact is that I'm committing armed robbery. Either way, as far as the government is concerned, as long as I'm not holding up the local 7-11 it's none of their damn business what I smoke, be it hash or the lawn clipping from my yard.
Setup Enter Setup Normal use, no connection between harddisks
In the setup chose automatic detect on your first IDE unit.
If you like to boot from either one HDD and be able to reach the other
Set also the slave to automatic.
Of course it would have to be an economic reason, rather than a moral one. I was actually referring to the pre-employment drug screening but what you had to endure was even worse! Even though I find it a loathsome practice, there are occasions I can understand it to be a good policy (e.g. those who operate machinery). But for me to go through a drug-screening so I can hack out crappy JavaScript and JSP code? Then it just becomes a blatant inquisition of my weekend behavior. It smacks of the worse aspects of this unholy War on (Some) Drugs our government wages against it's own citizens.
As long as corporations require me to go in a cup so they can search my piss, I will consider my right to privacy to be dead, regardless of whether they check their firewall logs or not.
I think you and I are in total agreement. You hold the government responsible for passing and enforcing an unconstitutional law - I hold the corporations responsible for buying and wielding an unconstituational law.
although it's somewhat counter-sentiment here, I think it is the government's job to protect people (and other corportations) from corporations which are doing damage to the social web, and to limit what they can do in order to prevent this damage from occuring.
This is how it is supposed to work but the DMCA illustrates that it doesn't. A law, that was bought by lobbyists and hardly brought forth for public debate, was passed that has chilling effects on speech, fair use, and educational research. And now, this law enables corporations to use the FBI as their own police force to charge individuals for "crimes". This is a frightening precedent.
My girlfriend and I debate this a lot. She feels the threats to our privacy and liberty come from the government; I feel they come from corporations, who are working the strings behind the black curtain.
I guess the problem is the toothpaste is out of the tube at this point. As one of the other replies to my post stated, Adobe may have gotten what they really wanted and now it's just damage control. My point is that any company can do this - pursue charges and then back off and say "Hey we made a mistake, mea culpa mea culpa" once the government takes it over. They have their cake and eat it too.
I'm not suggesting we punish companies out of vindictiveness - I'm suggesting that we make it clear to corporations that they need to choose their battles carefully. Corporations can ruin people's lives by following Adobe's example - and allowing them to do so in ambiguous cases like Dmitry's is something we cannot do.
Despite the fact that the US Government has now become the heavy in this debacle, everyone should remember who got the ball rolling: Adobe.
We need to keep the pressure on Adobe. We need to let them know that the boycottwill continue. We need to let them know that they cannot pressure the FBI to press charges against someone and then back-off when they witness the PR fallout. Keep writing the letters. Keep sending the emails. Keep encouraging people to boycott this company!
If corporations do not understand that there will serious consequences to both their reputation and bottom-line when they pursue prosecution under the DMCA (regardless of how they feel the morning after!), then they will continue to do so under the flimsiest pretenses.
They want to make an example of Dmitry? Fine, then we'll make an example of Adobe.
No wonder this guy is bitching about the performance of the Internet - the website for his company took nearly a minute and a half to download over my modem! Check out the website (http://cimicorp.com/). I nearly lost my hearing too when the goddamn midi file they embedded in the homepage starting playing at full volume over my headphones. They are really asking this guy to comment on a story like this?
Now that I'm on a daily crash with Win98, I've decided it's time to upgrade to something else. I might have stuck with MS had it not been for all the Big Brother "innovations" they added to XP. Bad move for them. I'm installing Red Hat this weekend instead.
I wish I'd saved the letter, so I could post it to back me up. It seems too bizarre that they'd be accusing others of slamming now.
I received the same letter. At first I was worried that NSI had perhaps bought out or acquired all of the domains from Register.com and I was unknowingly transferred to NSI. After reading it I came to the same conclusion you did - a sleezy and deceptive tactic to drum up business. They will NEVER receive my business now.
The site requires a credit-card to access the content. What's the problem? The only kids who will be viewing the footage will be those whose parents are not responsible enough to keep tabs on their children or those who feel they are mature enough to see it.
That said, I find it interesting that Katz is railing on CBS about corrupting children when this is clearly a matter of parental responsibility. He brings up the info-tainment program (I refuse to call it "news" or "journalism") about video games - sorry Katz, but you're committing the same cardinal sin - blaming a corporation for something that really falls in the domain of parental responsibility.
While I think these reality TV programs are a colossal waste of time and only appeal to the most base standards of quality, I won't begrudge CBS for selling it. Some people can't get enough of that pap show. It's like the outtakes or deleted scenes offered on a DVD - some people want to see the fat that was trimmed off the steak.
But please, don't start crying about the children, when all you are trying to do is make a point. Doing so makes you no better than the Liebermans who exploit children for political mileage.
They're sort of like locks on our doors and cars, they keep the honest man honest.
Many people are using this saying when talking about these copy-control schemes and it is really starting to irritate me. I'm an honest man and I don't need door locks to tell me not to steal any more than I need a fence to tell me not to walk off of a cliff. The record companies should stick to what they are marginally average at - distributing music. I'll worry about keeping myself honest.
If you want a euphemism, why don't you say "getting more money from the honest man". That's all this bullshit is about - another revenue stream. I rip all my CDs to mp3 on my computer for listening and keep the CD as my master back-up copy. Now, the recording companies want to change the rules of the game. Sure, I can have the higher-quality CD but if I want the mp3 I can plunk down $1 a song for their low-quality, DMR proprietary format at their website. And many honest men will play this utterly fixed game and pay for it.
Not this one. The day I cannot rip a CD I purchased to my computer is the day I will cease to be an "honest" man (in their eyes, anyway). They aren't keeping anyone "honest" with this crap. In fact, they will turn "honest" men into "dishonest" men.
Based on your argument I would guess that you find it confusing when people pay for movies at theaters, concerts, public speakers, or anything that one rents.
You make a good point, but I think you're naively ignoring the plentiful examples of paying for something you can't "hold" in meatspace already.
Some chemicals are demonstrably more dangerous than others, so addictive that they'll drive people to committ crimes to pay for their next fix. Some drugs can cause violent activity. I think it is pretty reasonable to restrict access to them because they aren't always "victimless crimes."
Some cars are demonstrably loaded with more options than others, so loaded that they'll drive people to commit crimes to obtain that car. Some cars can cause excessive speeds. I think it is pretty reasonable to restrict access to them because they aren't always "victimless crimes."
Perhaps a silly example, but it gets my point across. People steal to pay for drugs b/c criminalization has inflated the cost. People cannot go to court to fight battles over drug territories and markets b/c of criminalization so they fight in the streets with guns. People need to wake up and realize that the worst aspects that are attributed to drugs are in fact a direct result of the drug war and criminalization. Whether you are a drug user or not, legalization is in your best interests.
They were continually amazed at the amount of work that is poured into free software, and they wondered what Linux or *BSD would be like if there were some system for everyone who contributes to be compensated
Apparently, these guys do not volunteer at homeless shelters, help someone with a flat tire, or drop their change into the little red buckets next to the person ringing the bell. Otherwise, they'd know the answer -
The compensation is in giving of themselves - the satisfaction of contributing to a greater good and asking for nothing in return.
Slashdot Mirror
The job of the courts is most certainly not to enforce the laws - we have law enforcement groups for that. The job of the courts is to weigh the evidence and decide if a law has actually been broken.
Additionally, the courts may also decide on the legality of the laws. Congress may pass a law saying I may not spread peanut butter on my head and dance the Cha-Cha on my front lawn, the President may sign it, and the police may enforce it, but the courts decide whether or not it violates my Constitutional rights (which it would almost invariably would). Go buy a book on US Government and look up Separation of Power in the index.
he had a pretty good idea of what DeCSS could do and why other website operators were having it taken down by the MPAA. He knew what he was doing.
[snip]
What do you think he's doing? He's standing up for his Constitutional rights. The DVD-CCA does not have a valid case for the following reasons:
(BTW: You have the lamest sig I've ever seen. What are you? 14? Grow up.)
That was a long ramble to say this isn't about the artist or author - this is about the media conglomorates that position themselves (unnecessarily in the digital age) between the end-user and author, raping both in the process.
Also, the only nerve you struck was to imply that "anti-IP" is about freeloading. Firstly, it's pejorative to call it "anti-IP" - that's like calling "Pro-Choice", "Anti-Life". Life is not the issue - freedom of choice is. The same thing applies here - I am not against IP; I am against Draconian restrictions on how I may use things I've purchased.
That should have said "fair use". Teach me not to Preview.
Absolutely not. And for the same reason that second-printings, plastic surgery, and fake breasts all suck - they're not the real deal.
And as a die-hard Cubs fan since the age of 4, might I also add that the World Series drought for the last half century has taken on a sort of religious significance, not unlike the 40 years the Hebrews spent wandering in the desert. And Harry Caray was our Moses - resurrecting his voice without the man behind it is tantamount to sacrilege (not to mention unbelievably morbid!).
-------
-------
What really frightens me is the chicken-and-egg problem inherent in all of this. The media thinks that the masses only want titilating sensationalism in their news. Yet, the masses typically look to the media to know what to be concerned about and to what they should pay attention. Unfortunately, the media isn't giving issues about digital law any type of coverage, therefore no one is concerned about it.
The other thing that worries me is that people just don't seem to care about laws in the digital age. Given that the average computer user doesn't show the slightest interest in how and why computers work, I honestly can't imagine that they would care about how and why digital laws work. As long as they can get their music and chat rooms, they will probably be content with the DMCA. Professors being threatened by the RIAA over a scholarly paper? Big deal. Russian hacker tossed in jail? That Commie deserves it. The Slashdot community is up in arms but that is only because it has entered our realm.
Perhaps I've been reading Transmetropolitan too much lately, but I'm starting to think that society in the future really will degenerate into a group of apathetic people who are only concerned with what they can buy, eat, or fuck.
-------
Unfortunately, they didn't seem too interested when Emmanuel Goldstein (aka Eric Corley) was hauled into court by the MPAA...
-------
- Designing Web Usability - Jakob Nielsen
- Information Architecture for the World Wide Web - Louis Rosenfeld and Peter Morville
- Web Pages That Suck: Learn Good Design by Looking at Bad Design - Vincent Flanders and Michael Willis
- Philip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing - Philip Greenspun
Good usability design and testing are two things that still seems to get shortchanged by companies as being unimportant or extraneous. It is probably the most important thing a company can do with its website or product! All of these books are good but I would recommend Nielsen's most strongly. He has written the... ahem, "book" on usability.-------
The government's only concern is that I'm committing a crime - the reason is irrelevant at that point. Whether I'm stealing money to pay for my gambling habit (legal) or my drug habit (illegal) the only relevant fact is that I'm committing armed robbery. Either way, as far as the government is concerned, as long as I'm not holding up the local 7-11 it's none of their damn business what I smoke, be it hash or the lawn clipping from my yard.
-------
-------
-------
As long as corporations require me to go in a cup so they can search my piss, I will consider my right to privacy to be dead, regardless of whether they check their firewall logs or not.
-------
although it's somewhat counter-sentiment here, I think it is the government's job to protect people (and other corportations) from corporations which are doing damage to the social web, and to limit what they can do in order to prevent this damage from occuring.
This is how it is supposed to work but the DMCA illustrates that it doesn't. A law, that was bought by lobbyists and hardly brought forth for public debate, was passed that has chilling effects on speech, fair use, and educational research. And now, this law enables corporations to use the FBI as their own police force to charge individuals for "crimes". This is a frightening precedent.
My girlfriend and I debate this a lot. She feels the threats to our privacy and liberty come from the government; I feel they come from corporations, who are working the strings behind the black curtain.
-------
I'm not suggesting we punish companies out of vindictiveness - I'm suggesting that we make it clear to corporations that they need to choose their battles carefully. Corporations can ruin people's lives by following Adobe's example - and allowing them to do so in ambiguous cases like Dmitry's is something we cannot do.
-------
We need to keep the pressure on Adobe. We need to let them know that the boycott will continue. We need to let them know that they cannot pressure the FBI to press charges against someone and then back-off when they witness the PR fallout. Keep writing the letters. Keep sending the emails. Keep encouraging people to boycott this company!
If corporations do not understand that there will serious consequences to both their reputation and bottom-line when they pursue prosecution under the DMCA (regardless of how they feel the morning after!), then they will continue to do so under the flimsiest pretenses.
They want to make an example of Dmitry? Fine, then we'll make an example of Adobe.
-------
Apparently, commenting is all this guy does.
-------
-------
I received the same letter. At first I was worried that NSI had perhaps bought out or acquired all of the domains from Register.com and I was unknowingly transferred to NSI. After reading it I came to the same conclusion you did - a sleezy and deceptive tactic to drum up business. They will NEVER receive my business now.
-------
That said, I find it interesting that Katz is railing on CBS about corrupting children when this is clearly a matter of parental responsibility. He brings up the info-tainment program (I refuse to call it "news" or "journalism") about video games - sorry Katz, but you're committing the same cardinal sin - blaming a corporation for something that really falls in the domain of parental responsibility.
While I think these reality TV programs are a colossal waste of time and only appeal to the most base standards of quality, I won't begrudge CBS for selling it. Some people can't get enough of that pap show. It's like the outtakes or deleted scenes offered on a DVD - some people want to see the fat that was trimmed off the steak.
But please, don't start crying about the children, when all you are trying to do is make a point. Doing so makes you no better than the Liebermans who exploit children for political mileage.
-------
Many people are using this saying when talking about these copy-control schemes and it is really starting to irritate me. I'm an honest man and I don't need door locks to tell me not to steal any more than I need a fence to tell me not to walk off of a cliff. The record companies should stick to what they are marginally average at - distributing music. I'll worry about keeping myself honest.
If you want a euphemism, why don't you say "getting more money from the honest man". That's all this bullshit is about - another revenue stream. I rip all my CDs to mp3 on my computer for listening and keep the CD as my master back-up copy. Now, the recording companies want to change the rules of the game. Sure, I can have the higher-quality CD but if I want the mp3 I can plunk down $1 a song for their low-quality, DMR proprietary format at their website. And many honest men will play this utterly fixed game and pay for it.
Not this one. The day I cannot rip a CD I purchased to my computer is the day I will cease to be an "honest" man (in their eyes, anyway). They aren't keeping anyone "honest" with this crap. In fact, they will turn "honest" men into "dishonest" men.
-------
You make a good point, but I think you're naively ignoring the plentiful examples of paying for something you can't "hold" in meatspace already.
-------
Some cars are demonstrably loaded with more options than others, so loaded that they'll drive people to commit crimes to obtain that car. Some cars can cause excessive speeds. I think it is pretty reasonable to restrict access to them because they aren't always "victimless crimes."
Perhaps a silly example, but it gets my point across. People steal to pay for drugs b/c criminalization has inflated the cost. People cannot go to court to fight battles over drug territories and markets b/c of criminalization so they fight in the streets with guns. People need to wake up and realize that the worst aspects that are attributed to drugs are in fact a direct result of the drug war and criminalization. Whether you are a drug user or not, legalization is in your best interests.
-------
Apparently, these guys do not volunteer at homeless shelters, help someone with a flat tire, or drop their change into the little red buckets next to the person ringing the bell. Otherwise, they'd know the answer -
The compensation is in giving of themselves - the satisfaction of contributing to a greater good and asking for nothing in return.
-------
It takes a special type of arrogance to assume that the use you made of a service is exactly the same use the other 40 million users made.
-------