I totally agree that it's fair use, even if you DO circumvent copy protection through a complex scheme. The law is trying to say otherwise -- that there essentially is no fair use -- through the DMCA, but the Constitution says otherwise.
You would not be circumventing the copy-protection scheme they'd expect you to, no. That'd be decrypt-copy. Instead, you're just doing a copy. But the DMCA doesn't make a distinction; if the way you copy wasn't specifically protected against, you're still guilty and a felon. And there's no grandfather clause for old programs.
This law is unconstitutional and immoral. Software is not property, and should not be treated as such.
It's not against the DMCA, at least, to copy something that's encrypted, right?
Wrong. Dead wrong. That's exactly what the law says: if you circumvent copy protection, it's a felony. If you find a way to make a copy, here come the cops.
Netcraft confirms: TiVo is Dying
on
TiVo Will Die
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Clearly, they should've just written the article this way:
It is official; Netcraft confirms: TiVo is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered TiVo community when IDC confirmed that TiVo market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent TiVocraft survey which plainly states that TiVo has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. TiVo is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent television viewer comprehensive recording test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict TiVo's future. The hand writing is on the wall: TiVo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for TiVo because TiVo is dying. Things are looking very bad for TiVo. As many of us are already aware, TiVo continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeTiVo is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeTiVo developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeTiVo is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenTiVo leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenTiVo. How many users of NetTiVo are there? Let's see. The number of OpenTiVo versus NetTiVo posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetTiVo users. TiVo posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetTiVo posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/PVR. A recent article put FreeTiVo at about 80 percent of the TiVo market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeTiVo users. This is consistent with the number of FreeTiVo Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of TiVo, abysmal sales and so on, FreeTiVo went out of business and was taken over by TiVo who sell another troubled PVR. Now TiVo is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that TiVo has steadily declined in market share. TiVo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If TiVo is to survive at all it will be among PVR dilettante dbblers. TiVo continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, TiVo is dead.
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Richard C. Hoagland is dying.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered conspiracy theory community when IDC confirmed that Richard C. Hoagland's market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all conspiracy theorists. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Richard C. Hoagland has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Richard C. Hoagland is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent conspiracy theory comprehensive scientific test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Richard C. Hoagland's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Richard C. Hoagland faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Richard C. Hoagland because Richard C. Hoagland is dying. Things are looking very bad for Richard C. Hoagland. As many of us are already aware, Richard C. Hoagland continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Enterprise Mission is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Enterprise Mission developers Art Bell and George Noory only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Enterprise Mission is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Enterprise Mission leader Richard C. Hoagland states that there are 7000 users of Enterprise Mission. How many listeners of Coast to Coast AM are there? Let's see. The number of Enterprise Mission versus Coast to Coast AM posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Coast to Coast AM listeners. Coast to Coast AM posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Coast to Coast AM posts. Therefore there are about 700 listeners of Coast to Coast AM. A recent article put Enterprise Mission at about 80 percent of the Richard C. Hoagland market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Enterprise Mission users. This is consistent with the number of Enterprise Mission Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, Enterprise Mission went out of business and was taken over by Coast to Coast AM who sell another troubled theory. Now Coast to Coast AM is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Richard C. Hoagland has steadily declined in market share. Richard C. Hoagland is very sick and his long term survival prospects are very dim. If Richard C. Hoagland is to survive at all it will be among conspiracy theory dilettante dbblers. Richard C. Hoagland continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Richard C. Hoagland is dead.
Actually I'll take this all the way to the bank. No one "owns" money. Furthermore, if money suddenly went from being scarce to easily reproducible, the whole system would fall apart. That's exactly what's happening to the "commerce" of ideas that practically reproduce themselves.
It is easy -- you can't own something if you cannot physically hold it, and especially if it's easy to duplicate it as well.
What's hard is getting a society founded on physical materials to realize that non-physical reality isn't the same thing.
<IRONY>Perhaps in the future, we will be forced to own all your ideas, and be prohibited from sharing them. Then we can finally fully realize the future of Idea Commerce.</IRONY>
How do you allow people to get paid for creating an idea? If I generate millions of wonderful ideas and never get credit, what incentive is there for me to continue doing so.
Ask yourself how they did it before there were printing presses or recording devices. What incentive was there for Homer to write The Odyssey, or for Chaucer to write Canterbury Tales?
No one said direct financial reward had to go away, but you obviously recognize that in the future, we're not going to try and shoehorn the concept of "property" into the world of ideas, the way Baby Boom World has tried. A new model will arise. Alas, it'll be the next generation that finds it, not us.
They "stood on your shoulders" to get the idea. Just as I stood on millions of other shoulders to come up with this hypothetical idea to begin with. "No man is an island, entire to itself." (And, quoting John Donne -- why did he write Meditation XVII? Certainly not for massive financial reward in the 16th century.)
This just goes to show how fucked up we've become.
If I, blogger, quote someone else, even unattributed, or talk about someone else's idea, that's "theft?" Gimme a break. You don't automatically own ideas just because you write them down.
You can't really "own" an idea anyway -- there's no US constitutional provision for that, just an allowance for a limited monopoly to encourage more creation.
Blogs are, by definition, a conversation. Calling that conversation "theft" is ridiculous to an extremem. What, if I'm talking to someone IRL, should I force them to "license" my ideas before continuing?
"Sorry, before we can continue, please sign here and pay this fee. Then we can keep talking about my ideas about how to set up a new centralized login server."
What, is that a joke? A huge company like that, headquartered in Germany, is not going to fight back? They're braver than I thought (as long as "brave" is a synonym for "stupid and way over-confident").
These are questions that have been asked here before; they're logical.
The simple answer is: SCO doesn't have a case, and it knows it. This is not an actual attempt to prove something in court, since it'd need to prove that
there is code in Linux that actually "belonged" to it
running a binary has something to do with the original source code
being a mere customer somehow makes you a party to the "crime"
What SCO is hoping is that AutoZone will simply settle, setting a precedent for other defendents, and creating what Darl obviously promised the SCOX Board: a new "revenue stream." SCO is now in the Lawsuit Business -- and it didn't actually have to do anything to get there.
My hope: IBM lends some of its lawyers to AutoZone so that it can actually defend itself and perhaps even counter-sue. That'd stuff a fat cork in SCO's pipe.
Also, it's been mentioned many times here that SCO's tactics may be illegal under the US RICO Act (used to prosecute racketeers like the Mafia).
If you want more insight (perhaps better-informed insight than what you're getting from me:), check out Groklaw.
This article offers no proof of any kind that outsourcing is good for the US economy.
Let's go a step further: if the computers are from Compaq, the software from Microsoft, and the phones are from Lucent, do you really think that means more US workers have good jobs? Or maybe the "lucky" ones who have jobs are just forced to work harder? (And pay more payroll and state taxes because income tax has gone down for the ultra-rich, and someone has to make up the difference.)
When US companies benefit, read that as: fat executives get fatter, and US workers work harder for less.
Ultimately, free trade works out well; I think one of the issues is that white collar jobs are just beginning to feel the pinch, and are acting like manufacturers did in the 1970s and 1980s.
It's easy enough for Hemos to say that -- until his job at./ gets outsourced to India or the Philippines. You know, it'd be pretty easy to do that for all the./ editors... hmmmm...
This is Libertarian Central, my friend. No communists here.
Once again, technological evolution will force good capitalists to improve their business models. Poor capitalists. Unfortunately, that is exactly the way it's supposed to work. Go back and read your Adam Smith, pal.
Most states have statues that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement.
Really? Big marbles statues that speak, or something? If you mean statute, I have strong doubts that any states have such laws -- or, more to the point, that such a law would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.
See, we have this concept called "unwarranted search or seizure". Unless a policeman has a good, justifiable reason for asking for my ID, he shouldn't be asking, and I shouldn't have to show it to him.
People (read: me, but I am not the only one) get upset about this kind of thing because it sets precedent. The path from a free society to a Police State (where all your movements are tracked and must be justified) is lined with stepping stones, and this is one of the bigger ones.
It's in the news because the case is going to the Supreme Court in March, genius.
and the guy had it coming
That is a frightening statement. He had it coming? Based on what -- that the police didn't like the way he looked?
A good definition of Police State might be one in which the police can demand things of you just because they feel like it. This guy may not be someone you want to be best friends with, but unless there are Big Facts left out of the story -- or unless it's an out-and-out lie -- then certainly did not "have it coming."
Unless you've entered into a contract and committed not to distribute it
In which case you either abide by the contract and voluntarily agree not to distribute, or break the contract. But the law doesn't change, and from what I understand, such a contract would not withstand court scrutiny anyway. shrug.
This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. You're trying to suggest that one can own the copyright of a work and somehow be prevented from distributing the work (in other words, exercising the copyright)?
That's not what "exclusive rights" means -- that phrase doesn't have anything to do with what you're suggesting.
Anyway: hogwash. If I have the copyright, I can distribute. That ain't conjecture: it's the law.
I suppose if you're paranoid you could always be fearful that redhat will somehow pull the rug out from under you, despite their excellent track record.
I don't call ceasing update support of an OS that's less than a year old an "excellent track record." It ruins their track record.
Nope, RH 9 is still maintained until end of april, as a quick glance at the RH web site will tell you.
You just made my point for me. I said that RH is ceasing updates. I meant "in April", which is a couple of months from now -- may as well be next week.
The fedora legacy project has already addressed your concern, and will be picking up the maintenance on RH 9
Maybe. But the damage is already done. If I want to take advantage of pure community support, I would probably want to go with a community that's been around for a long time and has a proven track record. Debian fits that bill pretty well.
SELinux is built into the 2.6 kernel, so all they'd need to do is package the userland tools. I'm under the impression that they're doing that -- RH has already put please-come-hack-me SELinux boxes on the net to see how good their standard policies are.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, also assuming that the Supreme Court can't be bought and will not behave like a bunch of ideologues.
Past behavior leads me to be cynical about the possibilities.
I totally agree that it's fair use, even if you DO circumvent copy protection through a complex scheme. The law is trying to say otherwise -- that there essentially is no fair use -- through the DMCA, but the Constitution says otherwise.
You would not be circumventing the copy-protection scheme they'd expect you to, no. That'd be decrypt-copy. Instead, you're just doing a copy. But the DMCA doesn't make a distinction; if the way you copy wasn't specifically protected against, you're still guilty and a felon. And there's no grandfather clause for old programs.
This law is unconstitutional and immoral. Software is not property, and should not be treated as such.
copying something thats still encrypted (2 protected dvds, not 1 protected, 1 unprotected) isn't circumventing protection.
Circumventing copy protection by finding a way to copy something: that's illegal under the DMCA, even if it's easy.
It's not against the DMCA, at least, to copy something that's encrypted, right?
Wrong. Dead wrong. That's exactly what the law says: if you circumvent copy protection, it's a felony. If you find a way to make a copy, here come the cops.
Clearly, they should've just written the article this way:
It is official; Netcraft confirms: TiVo is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered TiVo community when IDC confirmed that TiVo market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent TiVocraft survey which plainly states that TiVo has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. TiVo is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent television viewer comprehensive recording test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict TiVo's future. The hand writing is on the wall: TiVo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for TiVo because TiVo is dying. Things are looking very bad for TiVo. As many of us are already aware, TiVo continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeTiVo is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeTiVo developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeTiVo is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenTiVo leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenTiVo. How many users of NetTiVo are there? Let's see. The number of OpenTiVo versus NetTiVo posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetTiVo users. TiVo posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetTiVo posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/PVR. A recent article put FreeTiVo at about 80 percent of the TiVo market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeTiVo users. This is consistent with the number of FreeTiVo Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of TiVo, abysmal sales and so on, FreeTiVo went out of business and was taken over by TiVo who sell another troubled PVR. Now TiVo is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that TiVo has steadily declined in market share. TiVo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If TiVo is to survive at all it will be among PVR dilettante dbblers. TiVo continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, TiVo is dead.
Fact: TiVo is dying
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Richard C. Hoagland is dying.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered conspiracy theory community when IDC confirmed that Richard C. Hoagland's market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all conspiracy theorists. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Richard C. Hoagland has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Richard C. Hoagland is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent conspiracy theory comprehensive scientific test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Richard C. Hoagland's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Richard C. Hoagland faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Richard C. Hoagland because Richard C. Hoagland is dying. Things are looking very bad for Richard C. Hoagland. As many of us are already aware, Richard C. Hoagland continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Enterprise Mission is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Enterprise Mission developers Art Bell and George Noory only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Enterprise Mission is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Enterprise Mission leader Richard C. Hoagland states that there are 7000 users of Enterprise Mission. How many listeners of Coast to Coast AM are there? Let's see. The number of Enterprise Mission versus Coast to Coast AM posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Coast to Coast AM listeners. Coast to Coast AM posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Coast to Coast AM posts. Therefore there are about 700 listeners of Coast to Coast AM. A recent article put Enterprise Mission at about 80 percent of the Richard C. Hoagland market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Enterprise Mission users. This is consistent with the number of Enterprise Mission Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, Enterprise Mission went out of business and was taken over by Coast to Coast AM who sell another troubled theory. Now Coast to Coast AM is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Richard C. Hoagland has steadily declined in market share. Richard C. Hoagland is very sick and his long term survival prospects are very dim. If Richard C. Hoagland is to survive at all it will be among conspiracy theory dilettante dbblers. Richard C. Hoagland continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Richard C. Hoagland is dead.
Fact: Richard C. Hoagland is dying
Actually I'll take this all the way to the bank. No one "owns" money. Furthermore, if money suddenly went from being scarce to easily reproducible, the whole system would fall apart. That's exactly what's happening to the "commerce" of ideas that practically reproduce themselves.
It is easy -- you can't own something if you cannot physically hold it, and especially if it's easy to duplicate it as well.
What's hard is getting a society founded on physical materials to realize that non-physical reality isn't the same thing.
<IRONY>Perhaps in the future, we will be forced to own all your ideas, and be prohibited from sharing them. Then we can finally fully realize the future of Idea Commerce.</IRONY>
How do you allow people to get paid for creating an idea? If I generate millions of wonderful ideas and never get credit, what incentive is there for me to continue doing so.
Ask yourself how they did it before there were printing presses or recording devices. What incentive was there for Homer to write The Odyssey, or for Chaucer to write Canterbury Tales?
No one said direct financial reward had to go away, but you obviously recognize that in the future, we're not going to try and shoehorn the concept of "property" into the world of ideas, the way Baby Boom World has tried. A new model will arise. Alas, it'll be the next generation that finds it, not us.
They "stood on your shoulders" to get the idea. Just as I stood on millions of other shoulders to come up with this hypothetical idea to begin with. "No man is an island, entire to itself." (And, quoting John Donne -- why did he write Meditation XVII? Certainly not for massive financial reward in the 16th century.)
This just goes to show how fucked up we've become.
If I, blogger, quote someone else, even unattributed, or talk about someone else's idea, that's "theft?" Gimme a break. You don't automatically own ideas just because you write them down.
You can't really "own" an idea anyway -- there's no US constitutional provision for that, just an allowance for a limited monopoly to encourage more creation.
Blogs are, by definition, a conversation. Calling that conversation "theft" is ridiculous to an extremem. What, if I'm talking to someone IRL, should I force them to "license" my ideas before continuing?
"Sorry, before we can continue, please sign here and pay this fee. Then we can keep talking about my ideas about how to set up a new centralized login server."
I hereby propose that we Googlebomb the phrase "Microsoft Shill" to point to www.thescogroup.com.
EOL
You left something out.
*BSD == John the Baptist (proclaimed the coming of Linux; dead)
What, is that a joke? A huge company like that, headquartered in Germany, is not going to fight back? They're braver than I thought (as long as "brave" is a synonym for "stupid and way over-confident").
Assuming you're not a troll --
These are questions that have been asked here before; they're logical.
The simple answer is: SCO doesn't have a case, and it knows it. This is not an actual attempt to prove something in court, since it'd need to prove that
What SCO is hoping is that AutoZone will simply settle, setting a precedent for other defendents, and creating what Darl obviously promised the SCOX Board: a new "revenue stream." SCO is now in the Lawsuit Business -- and it didn't actually have to do anything to get there.
My hope: IBM lends some of its lawyers to AutoZone so that it can actually defend itself and perhaps even counter-sue. That'd stuff a fat cork in SCO's pipe.
Also, it's been mentioned many times here that SCO's tactics may be illegal under the US RICO Act (used to prosecute racketeers like the Mafia).
If you want more insight (perhaps better-informed insight than what you're getting from me :), check out Groklaw.
This article offers no proof of any kind that outsourcing is good for the US economy.
Let's go a step further: if the computers are from Compaq, the software from Microsoft, and the phones are from Lucent, do you really think that means more US workers have good jobs? Or maybe the "lucky" ones who have jobs are just forced to work harder? (And pay more payroll and state taxes because income tax has gone down for the ultra-rich, and someone has to make up the difference.)
When US companies benefit, read that as: fat executives get fatter, and US workers work harder for less.
Ultimately, free trade works out well; I think one of the issues is that white collar jobs are just beginning to feel the pinch, and are acting like manufacturers did in the 1970s and 1980s.
It's easy enough for Hemos to say that -- until his job at ./ gets outsourced to India or the Philippines. You know, it'd be pretty easy to do that for all the ./ editors ... hmmmm ...
This is Libertarian Central, my friend. No communists here.
Once again, technological evolution will force good capitalists to improve their business models. Poor capitalists. Unfortunately, that is exactly the way it's supposed to work. Go back and read your Adam Smith, pal.
Ah, then it must've been Art Bell.
My best guess: it was a HAARP experiment.
I think you're not thinking this through.
Most states have statues that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement.
Really? Big marbles statues that speak, or something? If you mean statute, I have strong doubts that any states have such laws -- or, more to the point, that such a law would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.
See, we have this concept called "unwarranted search or seizure". Unless a policeman has a good, justifiable reason for asking for my ID, he shouldn't be asking, and I shouldn't have to show it to him.
People (read: me, but I am not the only one) get upset about this kind of thing because it sets precedent. The path from a free society to a Police State (where all your movements are tracked and must be justified) is lined with stepping stones, and this is one of the bigger ones.
this took place in 2000
It's in the news because the case is going to the Supreme Court in March, genius.
and the guy had it coming
That is a frightening statement. He had it coming? Based on what -- that the police didn't like the way he looked?
A good definition of Police State might be one in which the police can demand things of you just because they feel like it. This guy may not be someone you want to be best friends with, but unless there are Big Facts left out of the story -- or unless it's an out-and-out lie -- then certainly did not "have it coming."
Unless you've entered into a contract and committed not to distribute it
In which case you either abide by the contract and voluntarily agree not to distribute, or break the contract. But the law doesn't change, and from what I understand, such a contract would not withstand court scrutiny anyway. shrug.
This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. You're trying to suggest that one can own the copyright of a work and somehow be prevented from distributing the work (in other words, exercising the copyright)?
That's not what "exclusive rights" means -- that phrase doesn't have anything to do with what you're suggesting.
Anyway: hogwash. If I have the copyright, I can distribute. That ain't conjecture: it's the law.
I suppose if you're paranoid you could always be fearful that redhat will somehow pull the rug out from under you, despite their excellent track record.
I don't call ceasing update support of an OS that's less than a year old an "excellent track record." It ruins their track record.
Nope, RH 9 is still maintained until end of april, as a quick glance at the RH web site will tell you.
You just made my point for me. I said that RH is ceasing updates. I meant "in April", which is a couple of months from now -- may as well be next week.
The fedora legacy project has already addressed your concern, and will be picking up the maintenance on RH 9
Maybe. But the damage is already done. If I want to take advantage of pure community support, I would probably want to go with a community that's been around for a long time and has a proven track record. Debian fits that bill pretty well.
Will this have the Security Enhanced Linux?
SELinux is built into the 2.6 kernel, so all they'd need to do is package the userland tools. I'm under the impression that they're doing that -- RH has already put please-come-hack-me SELinux boxes on the net to see how good their standard policies are.