To me, the following exemption is the most interesting part of the Library's recommendation:
Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsoleteness
Obsoleteness! Isn't an access control method "obsolete" once knowledge of a circumvention method is available to the public? It seems that if this exemption (which I consequently strongly favor) becomes part of the law, then only the first person to reverse-engineer the access control method (or disseminate documentation about said deconstruction) is actually infringing. Or am I misinterpreting?
All I ask of government is that it stay the hell away from me.
If you could look beyond the end of your nose you'd realize the myriad ways in which social program spending contributes to your quality of life - ways that you could not make up for with infinite personal wealth.
Chief among them is the reduction of crime. This is most visible in Britain, where the Thatcher and post-Thatcher erosion of social progams has led to skyrocketing criminal activity against property and persons. When people who see or have no other options are not taken care of, they become desperate and turn to crime, and that's when they come after you.
Many people say, "Let charity deal with them." But that is not fair to society. Everyone benefits from the reduction of poverty, and everyone should pay for it, in direct proportion to the amount they stand to lose.
The same applies to other services which cannot be provided through private means, such as military protection. The richer you are, the more you stand to lose through hostile action against US interests, and therefore the more you should be paying to foot the bill for all the soldiers and tanks out there.
It's always seemed to me that people who vote Republican are either very rich or very naive(generally not both) and nothing I've read here suggests otherwise. Why middle-income people who clearly benefit from more liberal policies continue to oppose them is a psychological baffler. My best guess is that it's a form of self-hate, propelled by jealousy for the better-off.
/. should be careful about trivializing IP or it may find itself at the butt end of a lawsuit
Oh, come now. We've seen a lot of ridiculous things in recent years, but I think we're still some time away from the day when a noncorporeal legal concept successfully sues for defamation of character. Until then, trivialization remains a God-given right of one and all.
As for DeCSS, you've been reading too much RIAA propaganda. Is trading copies of movies illegal? Sure, and it should be. But this is not the way to fight it. Running DeCSS is something that a person does in their own home with a DVD they have purchased. While it can in theory (though certainly not in practice, given reports to date) be the prelude to an illegal act, it in itself has no legitimate harmful effect on the IP owner, and it has plenty of perfectly legitimate uses, and should therefore not be illegal. Going after DeCSS is like going after someone who invents a better lumber milling process: Yes, the fruits of their invention could conceivably be used to produce counterfeit $20 bills, but the fact is that the criminal is the counterfeiter.
To keep this on-topic: I'm surprised there haven't been any anonymous diaries on the web. Surely among all those thousands of athletes there must be one or two who feels that his/her inside-the-games perceptions are more interesting and valuable than the self-aggrandization of having his/her name in print.
Not everyone deserves to be in business. It's called the market. People who have a viable model and execute it well, of course, are performing a service and should - and often do - reap rewards. People who follow up a flawed model with peevish tantrums are not benefitting the economy, and we don't need them.
There's a lot of similarity between this and the DeCSS case: A company (or group of companies) wants to control private consumer behavior through a mechanism other than appealing to consumer economic self-interest. That's not how things have worked in the past, and it's scary to think that it might change. The only reason I participate in the capitalist economy is because I think it's better for me. If I wanted other people to tell me how to live, I'd go to Sweden or somewhere, where at least they have my interests at heart.
Slashdot Mirror
To me, the following exemption is the most interesting part of the Library's recommendation:
Obsoleteness! Isn't an access control method "obsolete" once knowledge of a circumvention method is available to the public? It seems that if this exemption (which I consequently strongly favor) becomes part of the law, then only the first person to reverse-engineer the access control method (or disseminate documentation about said deconstruction) is actually infringing. Or am I misinterpreting?
All I ask of government is that it stay the hell away from me.
If you could look beyond the end of your nose you'd realize the myriad ways in which social program spending contributes to your quality of life - ways that you could not make up for with infinite personal wealth.
Chief among them is the reduction of crime. This is most visible in Britain, where the Thatcher and post-Thatcher erosion of social progams has led to skyrocketing criminal activity against property and persons. When people who see or have no other options are not taken care of, they become desperate and turn to crime, and that's when they come after you.
Many people say, "Let charity deal with them." But that is not fair to society. Everyone benefits from the reduction of poverty, and everyone should pay for it, in direct proportion to the amount they stand to lose.
The same applies to other services which cannot be provided through private means, such as military protection. The richer you are, the more you stand to lose through hostile action against US interests, and therefore the more you should be paying to foot the bill for all the soldiers and tanks out there.
It's always seemed to me that people who vote Republican are either very rich or very naive(generally not both) and nothing I've read here suggests otherwise. Why middle-income people who clearly benefit from more liberal policies continue to oppose them is a psychological baffler. My best guess is that it's a form of self-hate, propelled by jealousy for the better-off.
/. should be careful about trivializing IP or it may find itself at the butt end of a lawsuit Oh, come now. We've seen a lot of ridiculous things in recent years, but I think we're still some time away from the day when a noncorporeal legal concept successfully sues for defamation of character. Until then, trivialization remains a God-given right of one and all. As for DeCSS, you've been reading too much RIAA propaganda. Is trading copies of movies illegal? Sure, and it should be. But this is not the way to fight it. Running DeCSS is something that a person does in their own home with a DVD they have purchased. While it can in theory (though certainly not in practice, given reports to date) be the prelude to an illegal act, it in itself has no legitimate harmful effect on the IP owner, and it has plenty of perfectly legitimate uses, and should therefore not be illegal. Going after DeCSS is like going after someone who invents a better lumber milling process: Yes, the fruits of their invention could conceivably be used to produce counterfeit $20 bills, but the fact is that the criminal is the counterfeiter. To keep this on-topic: I'm surprised there haven't been any anonymous diaries on the web. Surely among all those thousands of athletes there must be one or two who feels that his/her inside-the-games perceptions are more interesting and valuable than the self-aggrandization of having his/her name in print.
Not everyone deserves to be in business. It's called the market. People who have a viable model and execute it well, of course, are performing a service and should - and often do - reap rewards. People who follow up a flawed model with peevish tantrums are not benefitting the economy, and we don't need them.
There's a lot of similarity between this and the DeCSS case: A company (or group of companies) wants to control private consumer behavior through a mechanism other than appealing to consumer economic self-interest. That's not how things have worked in the past, and it's scary to think that it might change. The only reason I participate in the capitalist economy is because I think it's better for me. If I wanted other people to tell me how to live, I'd go to Sweden or somewhere, where at least they have my interests at heart.