that is, if you make something which circumvents copyright protections, it doesn't matter if you intended it to circumvent or not. trafficking in the device is enough for a conviction.
I wonder if the driver authors could get hit by the DMCA...
what that means is that anyone who receives their signals does so in contravention of the Broadcasting Act, and in particular, s. 32(2).
however, DirecTV cannot prosecute under the Broadcasting Act;Canada has to. so in order to get Canadian pirates, they have to persuade the CRTC to go along. so far the CRTC hasn't cared much. this may eventually change, if more Canadians start getting DirecTV and StarChoice or somebody whines enough.
this is an inaccurate perception of the Federal Circuit.
the Federal Circuit was created to handle federal cases, in general. before the federal circuit, there were several types of federal courts, each with their own specific jurisdiction. the specialized court for patent appeals used to be the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals). it wasn't good either. the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was responsible for State Street, it's true, probably the worst patent decision in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, but the CCPA came up with plenty of doozies too (and the Supreme Court set it up pretty nicely on more than a few occasions).
actually, it's a federal offense to open mail that isn't addressed to you. this means that nosy parents who open their children's mail, even if it comes from, say, Leather Lovers'R'Us, are felons. but anyway.
this is more like the following situation: the postman changes the label on your neighbour's mail to you, and deposits it on your step. in that case, the postman is breaking the law, you're okay.
opening documents in your mailbox is fine. they're addressed to you. duh.
people who learn about a trade secret by accident or mistake, but had reason to know that the information was a protected trade secret
the phrase "reason to believe" is tricky. what's more, trade secrets law in the US is state jurisdiction. this is a highly complex area.
part of the reason why it's complex is that trade secret law is so fuzzy, and many courts dislike it. there's a basic idea that companies should apply for patents instead. if they seek to protect their processes by keeping them secret, they should get less protection from the law.
in some jurisdictions, if you're a competitor, and you get a SirCam document, just by you opening and reading the document, the trade secret is gone. if this happens to you, contact a lawyer.
when you make a purchase, you effect a contract between yourself and the vendor. if you charge the purchase, you are saying to the vendor "I will not pay you; this other person will." if the other person does not pay up, you have violated your contract with the vendor, yes.
normally, third parties will only guarantee to cover your payments for one of two reasons:
they like you (hey gigolo);
you have a business relationship with them.
the banks wanted to setup reason #2 with the card-holders. the problem with reason #2 is that it normally requires the entering into of a contract, between the card-holder and the bank. unfortunately, in these old cases, the banks failed to actually complete the formalities of a contract. so their card-holders decided to treat the banks as gigolos.
What happens if someone steals your car and causes a fatal accident with it?
See Kierthos' post. you don't have to worry about insurance rates either; you're not liable, so long as you weren't negligent in protecting your car. at least, not in most jurisdictions. no liability, no insurance claim, no problem.
What happens if a child finds the gun you left in your dresser and shoots himself?
I would almost say, see Kierthos' post. However, if you took reasonable precautions to keep the gun safe (for example, if it was unloaded, and the bullets were locked away somewhere), then it's just a horrible, horrible accident. odds are, though, you're not observing good gun safety. negligence is illegal.
What happens if someone breaks into your house, trips over something and breaks a leg?
this is an interesting question.
normally, it's their tough luck.
however, there are cases where burglars have sued over home-defense systems that were excessive. you're allowed to use a certain amount of force to defend your property. the actual amount varies by jurisdiction. (I believe, for example, in Arizona there are no limits, nor any warning necessary. if you're on private property, you better get explicit permission. however, in Canada you're not allowed to use lethal force to defend property, only people.)
copyright: you can't copy the emailed document. you can summarize and paraphrase it, however.
trademark: I can't see how this could apply.
insider trading: this would be interesting, and complicated. suppose you get an email from company x detailing how it's going to double all its forecasts. then you buy a few thousand shares, only to sell in a little bit.
now, if you were to do this in the normal way, by getting the email from your friend inside the company, it'd be insider trading, and you'd be busted. however, with this situation, you could argue that you didn't know how accurate the data was. you might be getting a faked report, or something. some cooked books. it can happen.
I'd want legal advice before trying it though. or securities insurance.
although I still think the ethical issues are more complicated than most slashdotters seem to be saying. 'course, I haven't had a single SirCam email to my knowledge (maybe my junkfilters have killed some). says something about me I guess:)
you have access to major popular media and could publicize the contents of this document anonymously;
the document details illegal conduct that caused some pretty major harm to a number of people;
the sender of this document is not responsible for any of the crimes that you have found documentation for;
you cannot contact the sender safely; and
the sender may be in danger if you publish the document.
what would you do?
just trying to say, it might be more complicated than just trade secrets. trade secrets, I'd publish them and be done with it. they're just a form of anti-competitive conduct anyway.
BMG's not exactly firmly in with the RIAA line. they toe it to some extent, but what they're really trying to do is conquer the music-listening habits of the traders. that's why they bought into napster.
they want kids to think their artists are Cool.
that's why they're in with this. they want to capture mindshare.
if the country's copyright law is in the British tradition, where copyright is primarily an economic right, then the answer is no. this program does not alter the content, all it does is change how it's presented on the screen.
if the software hacked into the server at the other end and altered it, that'd be different.:)
if the country's copyright law is in the so-called author's rights tradition, then the answer is yes. one of the most common moral rights in these countries is the author's right to choose how the work is presented.
most author's rights countries are in Europe. however, Canada, despite being a British copyright country mostly, has moral rights sections in its copyright law.
The UK and US do not. dunno about Australia.
somebody should sue these bastards either in Canada or in continental Europe. get an injunction. this is so open-and-shut it's not funny.
Adobe thinks they're like Oracle. and they might be right.
Oracle's clients are, generally, large corporations which are completely dependent on the reliability of their databases. the reason why they're not going to SQL Server (or mysql or any of the others) is not because it's not cheaper, but because they know Oracle works, how it works, and they've invested in it.
many of Adobe's clients are the marketing divisions of those same large corporations (apart from the aforementioned Postscript tax). that's why Acrobat took off so quickly, because it's fairly useful to the megacorps (apart from the common use of publishing press releases to the web, it also has a lot of commenting features that are really handy for document exchanging and revision).
also, many artists have invested in Adobe. these people are not computer-savvy. they have learned Photoshop & Illustrator, and that's really all they ever want to know.
the only thing I can see wrecking Adobe is if Apple goes down. then, the artists will be dragged kicking and screaming into the windows world, and may actually be willing to learn something different. but probably not. photoshop runs on windows too:)
coke's secret formula is not subject to copyright. it's a trade secret.
normally, corporations guard trade secrets pretty close. they make the few employees who have to know them sign non-disclosure agreements. things like that.
if those employees violate their contracts, they get sued for breach of contract.
there's no jail involved.
copyright is the only form of intellectual property that has the risk of jail.
you might be right about Macromedia. You're wrong about Adobe.
Adobe owns PostScript. all the laser printers out there which use it pay the Adobe tax.
they're a monopoly. they've just managed to stay out of trouble with the DOJ because they haven't (yet) done anything really bad with PostScript the way MS has abused its control over Windows.
on the other hand, Macromedia now looks a lot like Corel did ten years ago...
Custom stuff is not irrelevant. What Compaq is doing is trying to be a custom seller of Windows.
MS is saying to Compaq, no, you're too big, we won't let you custom-fit our operating system.
It's true that in the world of Ford dealerships, the big ones tend not to want to custom-fit vehicles. However, a better example might be Harley Davidson. There are some huge Harley dealerships that do almost nothing but custom-fit vehicles. Why can't Compaq be like a Harley seller if it wants to?
david duchovny will only be successful in his movie career if he can manage to arrange getting into more films with brad pitt.
well, that's what I say.
the problem with Exposure after Joel was that the whole show was basically Joel and Maggie at that point, and the doctor they got in was an idiot. (the actor, not the character. many of the characters were idiots on that show. part of the charm:)
however, dig Patrick. he is the essence of cool. I actually prefer this guy to Duchovny. for a guy who was supposed to be obsessed with aliens, he always came off as totally flat.
at least the lone gunmen spinoff died. there was something that had a real possibility of making people make fun of geeks even more than they do already.
Slashdot Mirror
the DMCA doesn't specify a need for intent.
that is, if you make something which circumvents copyright protections, it doesn't matter if you intended it to circumvent or not. trafficking in the device is enough for a conviction.
I wonder if the driver authors could get hit by the DMCA...
the recipient is acting as an accessory. by receiving the signal, the receiver is assisting the broadcaster in breaking the law.
at least, that's the theory. far as I know, it's never been tried in court.
DirecTV isn't licensed to broadcast in Canada.
what that means is that anyone who receives their signals does so in contravention of the Broadcasting Act, and in particular, s. 32(2).
however, DirecTV cannot prosecute under the Broadcasting Act; Canada has to. so in order to get Canadian pirates, they have to persuade the CRTC to go along. so far the CRTC hasn't cared much. this may eventually change, if more Canadians start getting DirecTV and StarChoice or somebody whines enough.
this is an inaccurate perception of the Federal Circuit.
the Federal Circuit was created to handle federal cases, in general. before the federal circuit, there were several types of federal courts, each with their own specific jurisdiction. the specialized court for patent appeals used to be the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals). it wasn't good either. the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was responsible for State Street, it's true, probably the worst patent decision in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, but the CCPA came up with plenty of doozies too (and the Supreme Court set it up pretty nicely on more than a few occasions).
actually, it's a federal offense to open mail that isn't addressed to you. this means that nosy parents who open their children's mail, even if it comes from, say, Leather Lovers'R'Us, are felons. but anyway.
this is more like the following situation: the postman changes the label on your neighbour's mail to you, and deposits it on your step. in that case, the postman is breaking the law, you're okay.
opening documents in your mailbox is fine. they're addressed to you. duh.
trade secrets aren't federal, either in the US or Canada. they're state or provincial jurisdiction.
the phrase "reasonable care" is defined by a judge, btw. I don't know of any cases yet. this would be so much fun to litigate.
oo. :)
the phrase "reason to believe" is tricky. what's more, trade secrets law in the US is state jurisdiction. this is a highly complex area.
part of the reason why it's complex is that trade secret law is so fuzzy, and many courts dislike it. there's a basic idea that companies should apply for patents instead. if they seek to protect their processes by keeping them secret, they should get less protection from the law.
in some jurisdictions, if you're a competitor, and you get a SirCam document, just by you opening and reading the document, the trade secret is gone. if this happens to you, contact a lawyer.
you fail to understand.
when you make a purchase, you effect a contract between yourself and the vendor. if you charge the purchase, you are saying to the vendor "I will not pay you; this other person will." if the other person does not pay up, you have violated your contract with the vendor, yes.
normally, third parties will only guarantee to cover your payments for one of two reasons:
the banks wanted to setup reason #2 with the card-holders. the problem with reason #2 is that it normally requires the entering into of a contract, between the card-holder and the bank. unfortunately, in these old cases, the banks failed to actually complete the formalities of a contract. so their card-holders decided to treat the banks as gigolos.
big deal. the banks know better now.
What happens if someone steals your car and causes a fatal accident with it?
See Kierthos' post. you don't have to worry about insurance rates either; you're not liable, so long as you weren't negligent in protecting your car. at least, not in most jurisdictions. no liability, no insurance claim, no problem.
What happens if a child finds the gun you left in your dresser and shoots himself?
I would almost say, see Kierthos' post. However, if you took reasonable precautions to keep the gun safe (for example, if it was unloaded, and the bullets were locked away somewhere), then it's just a horrible, horrible accident. odds are, though, you're not observing good gun safety. negligence is illegal.
What happens if someone breaks into your house, trips over something and breaks a leg?
this is an interesting question.
normally, it's their tough luck.
however, there are cases where burglars have sued over home-defense systems that were excessive. you're allowed to use a certain amount of force to defend your property. the actual amount varies by jurisdiction. (I believe, for example, in Arizona there are no limits, nor any warning necessary. if you're on private property, you better get explicit permission. however, in Canada you're not allowed to use lethal force to defend property, only people.)
let's deal with this one by one.
now, if you were to do this in the normal way, by getting the email from your friend inside the company, it'd be insider trading, and you'd be busted. however, with this situation, you could argue that you didn't know how accurate the data was. you might be getting a faked report, or something. some cooked books. it can happen.
I'd want legal advice before trying it though. or securities insurance.
although I still think the ethical issues are more complicated than most slashdotters seem to be saying. 'course, I haven't had a single SirCam email to my knowledge (maybe my junkfilters have killed some). says something about me I guess :)
it depends on your ethical system.
Here's a conundrum:
what would you do?
just trying to say, it might be more complicated than just trade secrets. trade secrets, I'd publish them and be done with it. they're just a form of anti-competitive conduct anyway.
BMG's not exactly firmly in with the RIAA line. they toe it to some extent, but what they're really trying to do is conquer the music-listening habits of the traders. that's why they bought into napster.
they want kids to think their artists are Cool.
that's why they're in with this. they want to capture mindshare.
depends on the country.
if the country's copyright law is in the British tradition, where copyright is primarily an economic right, then the answer is no. this program does not alter the content, all it does is change how it's presented on the screen.
if the software hacked into the server at the other end and altered it, that'd be different. :)
if the country's copyright law is in the so-called author's rights tradition, then the answer is yes. one of the most common moral rights in these countries is the author's right to choose how the work is presented.
most author's rights countries are in Europe. however, Canada, despite being a British copyright country mostly, has moral rights sections in its copyright law.
The UK and US do not. dunno about Australia.
somebody should sue these bastards either in Canada or in continental Europe. get an injunction. this is so open-and-shut it's not funny.
Adobe thinks they're like Oracle. and they might be right.
Oracle's clients are, generally, large corporations which are completely dependent on the reliability of their databases. the reason why they're not going to SQL Server (or mysql or any of the others) is not because it's not cheaper, but because they know Oracle works, how it works, and they've invested in it.
many of Adobe's clients are the marketing divisions of those same large corporations (apart from the aforementioned Postscript tax). that's why Acrobat took off so quickly, because it's fairly useful to the megacorps (apart from the common use of publishing press releases to the web, it also has a lot of commenting features that are really handy for document exchanging and revision).
also, many artists have invested in Adobe. these people are not computer-savvy. they have learned Photoshop & Illustrator, and that's really all they ever want to know.
the only thing I can see wrecking Adobe is if Apple goes down. then, the artists will be dragged kicking and screaming into the windows world, and may actually be willing to learn something different. but probably not. photoshop runs on windows too :)
coke's secret formula is not subject to copyright. it's a trade secret.
normally, corporations guard trade secrets pretty close. they make the few employees who have to know them sign non-disclosure agreements. things like that.
if those employees violate their contracts, they get sued for breach of contract.
there's no jail involved.
copyright is the only form of intellectual property that has the risk of jail.
you might be right about Macromedia. You're wrong about Adobe.
Adobe owns PostScript. all the laser printers out there which use it pay the Adobe tax.
they're a monopoly. they've just managed to stay out of trouble with the DOJ because they haven't (yet) done anything really bad with PostScript the way MS has abused its control over Windows.
on the other hand, Macromedia now looks a lot like Corel did ten years ago...
Custom stuff is not irrelevant. What Compaq is doing is trying to be a custom seller of Windows.
MS is saying to Compaq, no, you're too big, we won't let you custom-fit our operating system.
It's true that in the world of Ford dealerships, the big ones tend not to want to custom-fit vehicles. However, a better example might be Harley Davidson. There are some huge Harley dealerships that do almost nothing but custom-fit vehicles. Why can't Compaq be like a Harley seller if it wants to?
dejanews? have you been paying close attention to news on google's site in the past year or two? :)
hey, at least lycos hasn't been bought yet. sure it sucks but... ;)
this is canada.
we shoot jerks at the border. and collect their guns.
it's how we keep the gun count down here :)
dreamweaver's not idiot-proof, bizarre though that may seem.
I've watched idiots struggle with it.
frontpage on the other hand is sensible-proof. I think you're going for HomeSite. :)
wow. once again I recall why I avoid windows ie. :) (posting from macos 9.1, ie5)
um. inside ie, you can selectively discriminate between sites for javascript. you can setup Trusted Sites which get to run JS and ban others.
actually, JS can't create shortcuts. that'd have to be one of the other IE scripts, jscript or vbscript or something.
what do you think gillian was for?
hmmmmm.... ;)
david duchovny will only be successful in his movie career if he can manage to arrange getting into more films with brad pitt.
well, that's what I say.
the problem with Exposure after Joel was that the whole show was basically Joel and Maggie at that point, and the doctor they got in was an idiot. (the actor, not the character. many of the characters were idiots on that show. part of the charm :)
however, dig Patrick. he is the essence of cool. I actually prefer this guy to Duchovny. for a guy who was supposed to be obsessed with aliens, he always came off as totally flat.
at least the lone gunmen spinoff died. there was something that had a real possibility of making people make fun of geeks even more than they do already.
actually, my lesbian friends argued about it for many years.
(weird, as a straight male, that I would have more lesbian friends than guy friends, total. I find it odd anyway.)
some were convinced, others were just, like, "you just want there to be something going on because of all the leather." :)