Q. If I have two computers do I need two cable modems?
A. No. By design, you will use only one cable modem in your house. You should consult with a computer dealer on how to configure a small network using a proxy-type router in your house. We will configure only one modem per residence or business.
They pretty much encourage you (by telling you how) to set up a home network! Pretty good policy.
Most of the movies used in MST3K, from what I understand, weren't public-domain, which is why they can't show some of them on TV anymore. They lost the rights to them.
The problem with your logic, of course, is that in the napster analogy you aren't paying for the media, but in the DVD analogy you are.
There's no law that says you have to play the audio CDs that you bought on an "approved player" - there's a ton of freely available CD player software online. How is it different? Just because DVDs are encrypted and CDs aren't? Does it make sense for a corporation to bring in more money just because they slap encryption on something? I think not.
Re:The natural evolution of this...
on
License to Sit
·
· Score: 1
I came across this in Germany too, mostly in the big cities. They had people sitting in the bathrooms to take money. You could use most of them without paying, but they got pretty pissed. Also, some had gates in front you had to put a coin in to go through the turnstile, and some of them were actual standalone boxes on the street like I detailed in my other reply to this message.
Re:The natural evolution of this...
on
License to Sit
·
· Score: 3
There are pay toilets all over in Europe. Well maybe not all over, but I did see a few. And they looked pretty nice. They cost about 10-15 cents for a max of 15 minutes, and when you get out it goes into a cleaning cycle. It's quite a spectacle.
I find that to be shocking. The U.S. government enforces a law that backs up the MPAA and their region coding/encryption yet they buy "hacked" players for their space program. This seems more than a little two-faced, and I think perhaps a sign that at least some sectors of government aren't all that keen on the whole DMCA thing either.
I'm personally more interested in issues than "real" news - especially from slashdot. That's what I come here for, because no other site is gonna feature this story, but if there is a huge genome breakthrough you'll know it as soon as it happens. And I do wonder the region coding of the ISS DVDs . . . it is something of a mystery. I bet it's region 1.
This paragraph from the Dissent basically says that "sucks" domains are similar but not confusingly similar, which, correct me if I'm wrong, was also the Majority position . . .
"There the Panel stated that: "Internet users with search engine results listing Respondent's domains are likely to be puzzled or surprised by the coupling of Complainant's mark with the pejorative verb "sucks." Such users, including potential customers of Complainant, are not likely to conclude that Complainant is the sponsor of the identified websites. However, it is likely (given the relative ease by which websites can be entered) that such users will choose to visit the sites, if only to satisfy their curiosity. Respondent will have accomplished his objective of diverting potential customers of Complainant to his websites by the use of domain names that are similar to Complainant's trademark." P. 11."
Yeah, that is probably the ultimate goal: to get the average American on our side. And we will, once they start trying to play other region DVDs, copying DVDs to VHS, etc, etc. At least I hope so.
The difference being, of course, that you would have paid full price for the DVD, whereas the shareware in question was undoubtedly free (which is full price for the shareware, yes, but not the full game). The DVD was not a 30 day trial or whatever - what you bought is as much as there is, there's no "upgrade" to buy or any such thing.
I do see where you're coming from however, and the analogy does work fairly well, except for the fact that you didn't buy anything in your example. That is a pretty good analogy . . . but DVDs aren't "shareware".
Exactly. Remember I was quoting the MPAA, not giving my own opinion. I can imagine the MPAA's reply to your logic: "But a lock breaking tool sounds bad, we just had to use it!!!"
Re:CSS if not a copyright enforcement device
on
DVD Case Follow-Up
·
· Score: 1
>>>>A CSS encrypted disk requires the key area to contain some information. Commercially available DVD burners cannot copy into that region, so copies of a protected disk cannot be made.
The copy protection comes in with the artificial scarcity of burners capable of setting the key area.>>>>
There are obviously burners out there that can write to this sector (how else would there even be such disks?) so it doesn't really matter how many people have or can get get the technology. The fact is: with the proper equipment you can make a direct copy of a region coded DVD, therefore CSS doesn't protect copyright per se, but this should be a third-string argument at best, because it legitimizes the DMCA to a point we do not want to.
>> 'fair use' has gotten stretched way out of context.
>> 'fair use' is the right to quote from a work in limited excerpts.
>> it's also the ability to make reasonable backup copies (backup
>> copies are those things you then put in a vault and don't use regularly).
What does it matter if you use them regularly or not? They're your copies, do with them as you will. Keep one at home, one at work, one at school, one in a locker, one in your car, etc, etc.
>> It is NOT the right to strip off the copy protection and spew
>> it all over the 'net anonymously to strangers.
Since when was this the issue at hand? I don't think we're condoning this type of behavior. We're talking about "stripping off the copy protection" so we can use it how we want to in our own homes and our own DVD players, not "spew it all over the 'net" - just because it's possible for this to happen doesn't justify this law. It's possible (and fairly easy) to kill someone with a knife, yet are they illegal? No. Why? Because there are MORE USES THAN JUST THE ILLEGAL ONES.
I'm probably joining a flood of similar replies here, but I always like replying to the "other side". So basically you're saying that a corporation can put whatever terms they want on something I own? And I have to live with it because there's a card in the box that says so? Hardly. Here's the hard truth for you: I buy something, I own that thing, I can do whatever I want with it short of selling/distributing copies. I can decrypt it, encrypt it again, make 1800 copies (MAKE 1800 copies), bury it, resell it (and not keep a copy, lol), piss on it . . . I think you get the idea. As for your "it's illegal because it's illegal" argument is the very essence of circular reasoning. And a small circle it is.
However, "stealing" means, or at the very least implies, taking something that the other party already has, not something they might get. Is the latter still wrong? Well, yes, but I'd say not nearly to the same degree as taking something they already have.
To what are you comparing "stealing" a ride on a subway? Copying DVDs? Pirating software? Neither works especially well, although it is a far better analogy than, say, stealing a bike. The subway is a service that you are expected to pay for. If you don't you have deprived them of revenue (note you haven't exactly stolen anything from them, it's more fraud than anything - kind of), and the same goes for software piracy. Copying DVDs, decrypting DVDs, and doing ANYTHING with a DVD you own short of selling copies, is different. Ramble . .
Slashdot Mirror
This is from the FAQ from my cable provider:
Q. If I have two computers do I need two cable modems?
A. No. By design, you will use only one cable modem in your house. You should consult with a computer dealer on how to configure a small network using a proxy-type router in your house. We will configure only one modem per residence or business.
They pretty much encourage you (by telling you how) to set up a home network! Pretty good policy.
Most of the movies used in MST3K, from what I understand, weren't public-domain, which is why they can't show some of them on TV anymore. They lost the rights to them.
Try putting "i love you" on a shoe. It doesn't let you, yet it has no problem with "jesus is gay"
The problem with your logic, of course, is that in the napster analogy you aren't paying for the media, but in the DVD analogy you are.
There's no law that says you have to play the audio CDs that you bought on an "approved player" - there's a ton of freely available CD player software online. How is it different? Just because DVDs are encrypted and CDs aren't? Does it make sense for a corporation to bring in more money just because they slap encryption on something? I think not.
I came across this in Germany too, mostly in the big cities. They had people sitting in the bathrooms to take money. You could use most of them without paying, but they got pretty pissed. Also, some had gates in front you had to put a coin in to go through the turnstile, and some of them were actual standalone boxes on the street like I detailed in my other reply to this message.
There are pay toilets all over in Europe. Well maybe not all over, but I did see a few. And they looked pretty nice. They cost about 10-15 cents for a max of 15 minutes, and when you get out it goes into a cleaning cycle. It's quite a spectacle.
But NASA is a government agency type thing . . . aren't they subject to U.S. law?? I say this is a good precedent.
I find that to be shocking. The U.S. government enforces a law that backs up the MPAA and their region coding/encryption yet they buy "hacked" players for their space program. This seems more than a little two-faced, and I think perhaps a sign that at least some sectors of government aren't all that keen on the whole DMCA thing either.
I'm personally more interested in issues than "real" news - especially from slashdot. That's what I come here for, because no other site is gonna feature this story, but if there is a huge genome breakthrough you'll know it as soon as it happens. And I do wonder the region coding of the ISS DVDs . . . it is something of a mystery. I bet it's region 1.
This paragraph from the Dissent basically says that "sucks" domains are similar but not confusingly similar, which, correct me if I'm wrong, was also the Majority position . . . "There the Panel stated that: "Internet users with search engine results listing Respondent's domains are likely to be puzzled or surprised by the coupling of Complainant's mark with the pejorative verb "sucks." Such users, including potential customers of Complainant, are not likely to conclude that Complainant is the sponsor of the identified websites. However, it is likely (given the relative ease by which websites can be entered) that such users will choose to visit the sites, if only to satisfy their curiosity. Respondent will have accomplished his objective of diverting potential customers of Complainant to his websites by the use of domain names that are similar to Complainant's trademark." P. 11."
What? The hard drive didn't come with the game on it, but the DVD comes with the movie on it. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Yeah, that is probably the ultimate goal: to get the average American on our side. And we will, once they start trying to play other region DVDs, copying DVDs to VHS, etc, etc. At least I hope so.
Unfortunately there's this thing called money . . .
The difference being, of course, that you would have paid full price for the DVD, whereas the shareware in question was undoubtedly free (which is full price for the shareware, yes, but not the full game). The DVD was not a 30 day trial or whatever - what you bought is as much as there is, there's no "upgrade" to buy or any such thing.
I do see where you're coming from however, and the analogy does work fairly well, except for the fact that you didn't buy anything in your example. That is a pretty good analogy . . . but DVDs aren't "shareware".
Exactly. Remember I was quoting the MPAA, not giving my own opinion. I can imagine the MPAA's reply to your logic: "But a lock breaking tool sounds bad, we just had to use it!!!"
So we shouldn't fight? pooey
>>>>A CSS encrypted disk requires the key area to contain some information. Commercially available DVD burners cannot copy into that region, so copies of a protected disk cannot be made. The copy protection comes in with the artificial scarcity of burners capable of setting the key area.>>>> There are obviously burners out there that can write to this sector (how else would there even be such disks?) so it doesn't really matter how many people have or can get get the technology. The fact is: with the proper equipment you can make a direct copy of a region coded DVD, therefore CSS doesn't protect copyright per se, but this should be a third-string argument at best, because it legitimizes the DMCA to a point we do not want to.
>> 'fair use' has gotten stretched way out of context.
>> 'fair use' is the right to quote from a work in limited excerpts.
>> it's also the ability to make reasonable backup copies (backup
>> copies are those things you then put in a vault and don't use regularly).
What does it matter if you use them regularly or not? They're your copies, do with them as you will. Keep one at home, one at work, one at school, one in a locker, one in your car, etc, etc.
>> It is NOT the right to strip off the copy protection and spew
>> it all over the 'net anonymously to strangers.
Since when was this the issue at hand? I don't think we're condoning this type of behavior. We're talking about "stripping off the copy protection" so we can use it how we want to in our own homes and our own DVD players, not "spew it all over the 'net" - just because it's possible for this to happen doesn't justify this law. It's possible (and fairly easy) to kill someone with a knife, yet are they illegal? No. Why? Because there are MORE USES THAN JUST THE ILLEGAL ONES.
I'm probably joining a flood of similar replies here, but I always like replying to the "other side". So basically you're saying that a corporation can put whatever terms they want on something I own? And I have to live with it because there's a card in the box that says so? Hardly. Here's the hard truth for you: I buy something, I own that thing, I can do whatever I want with it short of selling/distributing copies. I can decrypt it, encrypt it again, make 1800 copies (MAKE 1800 copies), bury it, resell it (and not keep a copy, lol), piss on it . . . I think you get the idea. As for your "it's illegal because it's illegal" argument is the very essence of circular reasoning. And a small circle it is.
However, "stealing" means, or at the very least implies, taking something that the other party already has, not something they might get. Is the latter still wrong? Well, yes, but I'd say not nearly to the same degree as taking something they already have.
To what are you comparing "stealing" a ride on a subway? Copying DVDs? Pirating software? Neither works especially well, although it is a far better analogy than, say, stealing a bike. The subway is a service that you are expected to pay for. If you don't you have deprived them of revenue (note you haven't exactly stolen anything from them, it's more fraud than anything - kind of), and the same goes for software piracy. Copying DVDs, decrypting DVDs, and doing ANYTHING with a DVD you own short of selling copies, is different. Ramble . .
You think that's amusing, start reading some of Jack Valenti's "testimony" and "depositions" . . . wait maybe those are more frightening than amusing.
That's not "my logic", I was just quoting the MPAA. Sorry for the confusion, I totally agree with you. Sources: http://www.mpaa.org/Press/DVD_FAQ.htm and http://www.mpaa.org/Press/Hyperlink_FAQ.htm
No different. You paid for it, you can record/copy it. Plain and simple. Now if we can only get the courts to agree.
That's what I thought it was like in America too. Now I'm not so sure.