they should also demand that Lunixes ship only with the kernel - no netscape or xmms, or anything.
Linus does ship Linux only as the Kernal. It is third parties, RedHat etc., who sell the grouping of Linux with other projects such as Xfree86, Gnome, etc.
M$ on the otherhand restrained third parties (Dell, Gateway) from shipping Windows with other software such as Netscape, or other OSs such as BeOS, installed on the machine.
No, it is illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title". If you're not accessing a copyrighted work, you're not liable under the DMCA
But under the SSSCA(sic.) all access is required to be under "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work". Stated otherwise, if you write software which allows access to your hard drive (etc) without DRM checking, you are creating a device which substantially circumvents the measure designed to insure that any data which is read is not copyrighted.
An example of this under the DMCA is the GBA programming cables which have been detained in custioms as being illegal. Even though the primary use is to generically program one's GBA legally, some people have used them to copy GBA games, therefore the cable must be confiscated.
I hope you are right about the bill requiring the measures to be open-source. But given the current state of patent and copyright law, I wouldn't be suprised if we wound up in a situation where one has all the specs to work with but can't write a program implementing it without paying a licencing fee. Remember Open-source != GPL.
Ahh. Yes... The hobbiest might not be prosecuted under this law, but the existance of this law would make many hobbiest built machines (or software) run afoul of the DMCA. Remember, the DMCA makes illegal even the construction of a device which circumvents a copy-control measure.
As soon as devices are produced with copy control, it becomes illegal to interface with that device in a way that doesn't implement the copy control. If the API for that copy control mechanism is itself controlled (ie, propritary or even just a "non-open" standard) then it becomes illegal to distribute source code to access the device.
After all, what happened in 9/11 was somehow related to bad international affairs that the US is still maintaining. for globalization to really work we, the US, should try to take it more seriously and really help those in need...
I will agree that the US (as a society) needs to recognize that we are not the same as the rest of the world, and need to be partners with our neighbors, not overseers. However I have a problem with the phrase "really help those in need".
The US is currently one of the largest benefactor nations in the world. But in most cases our beneficence only engenders more hatred. This effect is just part of human nature. One of the more extreme examples is in domestic violence cases(as in spouse abuse) where it is common for the woman who was being beaten by her husband to start attacking the person who just pulled him off of her. To connect this to 9/11, Afganistan was one of the largest recipients of US aid. Also, the US helped Saudi Aribia defend against Iraqi agression, and yet most of the terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudi.
I am not saying we should walk away from the rest of the world. On the contrary we should work with the world, through free trade, not charity.
waves hand "You will change to channel 56" the TV complies and changes channels
Ok, maybe not so neat, I can do that with my remote right now (waves hand over remote while touching buttons). On the other hand (no pun intended) controlling Traffic Lights with a wave could be useful....
A local mother was convicted of "indecent exposure" when her 3 yr old escaped the house during a diaper change. She was right on the child's heels chasing after it, but a police officer happened to be driving by, and charged her anyway.
The point being that many of these things are handled in a completely subjective manner. If the cop is having a bad day, look out!
Now, the proxy issue... the law says "disabling access", which could be interpreted as either accessing directly (which makes a certain degree of sense, as the law mentions that banning requests should include URLs -- so ban the URL might be sufficient under that) or even banning indirect access (proxies, mirrors, and other foo).
Hmm. So either every ISP has to run a web proxy, and filter all port 80 traffic, which can be avoided by the pr0nographer using a nonstandard port, or the ISP has to filter IP addresses, which may cut off more than just the pr0n site.
This still leaves VPNs, tunnels, and encrypted traffic that emerges from its tunnel outside of Pensylvania.
Sounds like a rather unworkable plan to me.
Even worse, I wonder what logging happens when you accidently click on that piece of spam that links to a restricted site. Picture something like this:
Mr.User recieves e-mail with subject "Please proofread this document for me" and clicks on the attachment, which is really an outlook virus that pops up IE to display a kidde-pr0n site. Mr.User doesn't see the pr0n because his ISP proxy blocks the site, but he is entered in a daily report to the police of suspected kidde-pr0nographers.
A few days later he is visited by the local constable, who has a warrant to confiscate and search his computer (and house) for kidde-pr0n. He goes to court where he is acquitted because the email-virus has become well enough known that his explanation is accepted. However, many states now keep and publish lists of not just convicted sexual predators but also those who have only been accused!
Mr.User now wonders why he is having trouble finding a new job, getting credit, etc.
Is this far fetched? Perhaps not. Change the Kidde-pr0n part to spousal abuse, and it is quite close to what happened a co-worker of mine. His wife tripped, hit her head on furniture, and blacked out. He tripped over her, and fell on top of her. He called 911 for an ambulance, and while describing what happened, said he might have kicked her during his tumble. The officer arrests him. Charges are filed by the prosecutor, even though the wife insists that nothing happened (after-all, the wife could be lying to protect him). He is acquitted, but had to go through hell to get his antique gun collection (family heirloom rifles) returned and his name removed from a violent offender list.
I believe that is what the parent commentor was referring to. Programmers could stop using (or use less of) the DLLs and compile almost everything statically, thereby generating only an.EXE file with perhaps a few "settings" files in addition.
The DLL hell is created when program "B" replaces a DLL used by program "A" with an incompatible version. Eliminate installing new DLLs (by statically linking) and you eliminate most of the hellishness. Or if M$ would follow their own API rules it wouldn't matter which revision of XXXX.DLL you have and every other program wouldn't feel compelled to overwrite the DLL.
Steve Gibson does a good enough job of avoiding this for the apps that he givs away. He writes everything in assembly, even the windows apps, and all you need to do to install is copy the program to wherever you want it. Granted they are rather single minded things, but they work well for what they are intended, and are extremely small in size. On the other hand I have seen many other programs of equal single-mindedness that install half a dozen DLLs and/or require that you install the latest Run-Time for VB-whatever (which installs even more potentially corrupting DLLs).
For those who aren't into antique aircraft, think of the construction of the Kites your flew as a kid.
Many of these old aircraft are made of 1/4 to 1/2 inch wood sticks creating a framework for a fabric covering, which is sewn on and shrunk in place to make it tight and stiff. Add a motorcycle sized engine and you have the right idea.
In fact, many recent small aircraft designs are little more. Substitute small steel rods in the fusilage -- wood is still used in the wings -- and better engines. Another common modern construction tecnique involves fiberglass over foam. But of course this is much too recent to be affected by this article's subject rulings.
The point is that driving a car into whatever you wanted to destroy would probably be more effective.
The problem with software patents as currently applied is that it is far too easy to do something "obvious to one skilled in the art" and get zinged for infringing on someones patent. At least copyright allows one to achieve a similar result by independent means.
Software is like art in that just as there are many different ways to paint a landscape showing the same subject, there are many different ways to implement a spreadsheet etc.
While it is true that your source code may remain secret (perhaps even trade secret?), in your hypothetical case, your binary was published and therefore will rise to public domain. This mainly means that you can't stop anyone from reproducing your binaries. It also means that anyone can reverse engineer your binaries, recreate the source which you didn't publish (or very close) and use it however they want.
Note that in doing so nobody has forced you, or your heirs, to do anything. Nobody is asserting the right to your source, only the right to reverse engineer your binaries after the expiration of your copyright.
BTW, with the original 14yr. copyright timing, you could have also patented your idea and had several more years of protection. Under the current law, your copyright lasts longer than your patent; leading to clean-room implementations, etc.
File this in the "If you can't beat them, change the rules" category.
What if an ammendment was added to the SSSCA to incourage innovation and new product devopment? Specifically, an ammendment that would require that any DRM algorythms be made public standards, freely implementable as long as the item (software) which uses the DRM has non-infringing uses.
Thus, while it would be necessary to include DRMlib.h in your programs, you would still be legal when writing your file viewer (whether that file is a text file or a movie file).
Some might say that this would be a "poison pill" ammendment, but that wouldn't be too bad either.
Wireless networking in USL is quite simple, it only requires that you compile libpenandpaper-1.0, and exchange messages using the HandToHand networking model.
No No No!... The HandtoHand protocol is succeptable to a "man in the middle" attack. Even worse, if you don't properly install the BicLighter module it can be subject to a DOS (Dumpster OutSide) attack.
In my case I am now using LowCostDomains.com as my registrar. They give you free "mail forwarding" which sends the mail to whatever isp mailbox you specify. You can specify as many different aliases as you want, as well as a catchall for anything left over.
The better way, which I did for a short time while I had direct access to a DNS server and a cooperative ISP (they were bought out and became less so) is to set the MX record on the DNS server to point to the proper place. If you have a static IP that is "always-on" you can even skip the ISP and point directly to yourself. Of course if you have a static IP you can host your own DNS records. (but you do need a secondary DNS too... ie swap with another friend with a static, always on connection)
p.s. Don't let the low budget name bother you. Low cost domains is actually Tucows.
...I applaud Miguel's willingness to embrace the technologies he feels are best, regardless of the political fallout
OK, but wasn't Gnome the result of the fact that KDE was using a "less-than-free" library from Troll-Tech. Isn't Gnome doing one step worse if it embraces a proprietary Microsoft psudo-standard like.NET?
An additional problem is that USE of the domain now translates to posting a WEB page of some sort. I have a domain that I am only (currently) using for the purpose of recieving e-mail. And I have been using it actively for several years that way. It makes it really nice when I decide that a particular ISP has stopped being competitive. I just point the DNS MX record to my new ISP and nobody has to worry about "my new email address is..." type of issues.
In some cases, such as the theos.com issue, companies have agrued that because they couldn't find a web page the holder was cybersquatting.
(Theo used it only for e-mail.) Now in Chip's case the company is arguing that BECAUSE he is using the web page he is either cybersquatting or infringing on trademark.
IIRC algorithms used to be unpatentable. This changed when someone proved that a mechanical equivalent to something like an NAND gate could be built and therefore combined to make any digital circuit. Therefore the courts ruled that if an algorithm could be run on a computer, it was possible to create a mechanical device, therefore the algorithm is patentable.
Screwy reasoning to used to screw over one of the better restrictions on patents, but what do you expect from a bunch of lawyers.
p.s. If YOU are a lawyer, I am obviously NOT referring to you personaly; just lawyers in general.;)
Slashdot Mirror
M$ on the otherhand restrained third parties (Dell, Gateway) from shipping Windows with other software such as Netscape, or other OSs such as BeOS, installed on the machine.
Actually this gives ME an idea.
Keep track of spammer and "remove" addresses, and use them when filling in "free reg., email required" forms.
Give both parties a taste of their own medicine.
Yes, but does it fully support VBA Macro Viruses?
If not, it doesn't truly replicate the "Microsoft Experience."
(Note to moderators: Laugh, it's funny!)
No, it is illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title". If you're not accessing a copyrighted work, you're not liable under the DMCA
But under the SSSCA(sic.) all access is required to be under "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work". Stated otherwise, if you write software which allows access to your hard drive (etc) without DRM checking, you are creating a device which substantially circumvents the measure designed to insure that any data which is read is not copyrighted.
An example of this under the DMCA is the GBA programming cables which have been detained in custioms as being illegal. Even though the primary use is to generically program one's GBA legally, some people have used them to copy GBA games, therefore the cable must be confiscated.
I hope you are right about the bill requiring the measures to be open-source. But given the current state of patent and copyright law, I wouldn't be suprised if we wound up in a situation where one has all the specs to work with but can't write a program implementing it without paying a licencing fee. Remember Open-source != GPL.
Ahh. Yes... The hobbiest might not be prosecuted under this law, but the existance of this law would make many hobbiest built machines (or software) run afoul of the DMCA. Remember, the DMCA makes illegal even the construction of a device which circumvents a copy-control measure.
As soon as devices are produced with copy control, it becomes illegal to interface with that device in a way that doesn't implement the copy control. If the API for that copy control mechanism is itself controlled (ie, propritary or even just a "non-open" standard) then it becomes illegal to distribute source code to access the device.
The US is currently one of the largest benefactor nations in the world. But in most cases our beneficence only engenders more hatred. This effect is just part of human nature. One of the more extreme examples is in domestic violence cases(as in spouse abuse) where it is common for the woman who was being beaten by her husband to start attacking the person who just pulled him off of her. To connect this to 9/11, Afganistan was one of the largest recipients of US aid. Also, the US helped Saudi Aribia defend against Iraqi agression, and yet most of the terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudi.
I am not saying we should walk away from the rest of the world. On the contrary we should work with the world, through free trade, not charity.
waves hand "You will change to channel 56" the TV complies and changes channels
Ok, maybe not so neat, I can do that with my remote right now (waves hand over remote while touching buttons). On the other hand (no pun intended) controlling Traffic Lights with a wave could be useful....
Sounds rather safe to me. If the trigger is welded, it can't be moved.
A local mother was convicted of "indecent exposure" when her 3 yr old escaped the house during a diaper change. She was right on the child's heels chasing after it, but a police officer happened to be driving by, and charged her anyway.
The point being that many of these things are handled in a completely subjective manner. If the cop is having a bad day, look out!
Hmm. So either every ISP has to run a web proxy, and filter all port 80 traffic, which can be avoided by the pr0nographer using a nonstandard port, or the ISP has to filter IP addresses, which may cut off more than just the pr0n site.
This still leaves VPNs, tunnels, and encrypted traffic that emerges from its tunnel outside of Pensylvania.
Sounds like a rather unworkable plan to me.
Even worse, I wonder what logging happens when you accidently click on that piece of spam that links to a restricted site. Picture something like this:
Is this far fetched? Perhaps not. Change the Kidde-pr0n part to spousal abuse, and it is quite close to what happened a co-worker of mine. His wife tripped, hit her head on furniture, and blacked out. He tripped over her, and fell on top of her. He called 911 for an ambulance, and while describing what happened, said he might have kicked her during his tumble. The officer arrests him. Charges are filed by the prosecutor, even though the wife insists that nothing happened (after-all, the wife could be lying to protect him). He is acquitted, but had to go through hell to get his antique gun collection (family heirloom rifles) returned and his name removed from a violent offender list.Sorry for the rant, but this stuff does happen!
What sort of sick individual wants a robot dressed in a teddy. Next thing you know we will have usenet groups like alt.binaries.erotica.robot!
I believe that is what the parent commentor was referring to. Programmers could stop using (or use less of) the DLLs and compile almost everything statically, thereby generating only an .EXE file with perhaps a few "settings" files in addition.
The DLL hell is created when program "B" replaces a DLL used by program "A" with an incompatible version. Eliminate installing new DLLs (by statically linking) and you eliminate most of the hellishness. Or if M$ would follow their own API rules it wouldn't matter which revision of XXXX.DLL you have and every other program wouldn't feel compelled to overwrite the DLL.
Steve Gibson does a good enough job of avoiding this for the apps that he givs away. He writes everything in assembly, even the windows apps, and all you need to do to install is copy the program to wherever you want it. Granted they are rather single minded things, but they work well for what they are intended, and are extremely small in size. On the other hand I have seen many other programs of equal single-mindedness that install half a dozen DLLs and/or require that you install the latest Run-Time for VB-whatever (which installs even more potentially corrupting DLLs).
--777
The State of Washington is heretofore declared to be a "non-cognative" zone.
After-all, any thoughts you may have could advance a programming effort, which would then make you liable for non-payment of taxes.
For those who aren't into antique aircraft, think of the construction of the Kites your flew as a kid.
Many of these old aircraft are made of 1/4 to 1/2 inch wood sticks creating a framework for a fabric covering, which is sewn on and shrunk in place to make it tight and stiff. Add a motorcycle sized engine and you have the right idea.
In fact, many recent small aircraft designs are little more. Substitute small steel rods in the fusilage -- wood is still used in the wings -- and better engines. Another common modern construction tecnique involves fiberglass over foam. But of course this is much too recent to be affected by this article's subject rulings.
The point is that driving a car into whatever you wanted to destroy would probably be more effective.
It has been awhile since my civics class, but as I recall you need to get permission from the government to sue the government.
To your point, this may not apply to the government suing itself, as would be the case in one branch suing another.
OK you have a point in the utility of code.
The problem with software patents as currently applied is that it is far too easy to do something "obvious to one skilled in the art" and get zinged for infringing on someones patent. At least copyright allows one to achieve a similar result by independent means.
Software is like art in that just as there are many different ways to paint a landscape showing the same subject, there are many different ways to implement a spreadsheet etc.
While it is true that your source code may remain secret (perhaps even trade secret?), in your hypothetical case, your binary was published and therefore will rise to public domain. This mainly means that you can't stop anyone from reproducing your binaries. It also means that anyone can reverse engineer your binaries, recreate the source which you didn't publish (or very close) and use it however they want.
Note that in doing so nobody has forced you, or your heirs, to do anything. Nobody is asserting the right to your source, only the right to reverse engineer your binaries after the expiration of your copyright.
BTW, with the original 14yr. copyright timing, you could have also patented your idea and had several more years of protection. Under the current law, your copyright lasts longer than your patent; leading to clean-room implementations, etc.
File this in the "If you can't beat them, change the rules" category.
What if an ammendment was added to the SSSCA to incourage innovation and new product devopment? Specifically, an ammendment that would require that any DRM algorythms be made public standards, freely implementable as long as the item (software) which uses the DRM has non-infringing uses.
Thus, while it would be necessary to include DRMlib.h in your programs, you would still be legal when writing your file viewer (whether that file is a text file or a movie file).
Some might say that this would be a "poison pill" ammendment, but that wouldn't be too bad either.
-
No No No!
In my case I am now using LowCostDomains.com as my registrar. They give you free "mail forwarding" which sends the mail to whatever isp mailbox you specify. You can specify as many different aliases as you want, as well as a catchall for anything left over.
The better way, which I did for a short time while I had direct access to a DNS server and a cooperative ISP (they were bought out and became less so) is to set the MX record on the DNS server to point to the proper place. If you have a static IP that is "always-on" you can even skip the ISP and point directly to yourself. Of course if you have a static IP you can host your own DNS records. (but you do need a secondary DNS too... ie swap with another friend with a static, always on connection)
p.s. Don't let the low budget name bother you. Low cost domains is actually Tucows.
Seems a little hypocritical to me.
An additional problem is that USE of the domain now translates to posting a WEB page of some sort. I have a domain that I am only (currently) using for the purpose of recieving e-mail. And I have been using it actively for several years that way. It makes it really nice when I decide that a particular ISP has stopped being competitive. I just point the DNS MX record to my new ISP and nobody has to worry about "my new email address is..." type of issues.
In some cases, such as the theos.com issue, companies have agrued that because they couldn't find a web page the holder was cybersquatting. (Theo used it only for e-mail.) Now in Chip's case the company is arguing that BECAUSE he is using the web page he is either cybersquatting or infringing on trademark.
Sounds like you can't win either way.
IIRC algorithms used to be unpatentable. This changed when someone proved that a mechanical equivalent to something like an NAND gate could be built and therefore combined to make any digital circuit. Therefore the courts ruled that if an algorithm could be run on a computer, it was possible to create a mechanical device, therefore the algorithm is patentable.
;)
Screwy reasoning to used to screw over one of the better restrictions on patents, but what do you expect from a bunch of lawyers.
p.s. If YOU are a lawyer, I am obviously NOT referring to you personaly; just lawyers in general.
With complete anonymity couldn't anyone pollute the CVS tree, thereby destroying the viability of the software in question?