I don't have the right to access it from a CD-ROM >drive anymore, do I?
On any old CD's where you bought that right you still have it. Go right ahead.
On the brand new CD you just bought, well... did you ever have that right? Hmmm, unclear. I'd like to think you did buy that right but that the manufacturer's technological access control device and the DMCA are preventing you from excercising it. It could also be argued that you never bought that specific right. But this is both pedantic and a little off topic now since this is supposed to be about RFIDs. A good example of what's to hate about the DMCA though.:)
Encrypted communications between the RFID and the scanner doesn't affect the fact that it ceases to be part of their access control device when you purchase the item. Corporations would have to purchase more legislation from their congressmen to make destroying RFIDs in items you've purchased illegal. A definite possability though.
I agree completely that some companies would very much want to leave RFIDs active and compile databases of information to mine once RFIDs become pervasive. It would require legislation to prevent this. Companies can pay off congressmen to prevent this. (I mean make campaign donations, of course.:)
I think the current reason why companies wouldn't want to disable RFIDs is product returns. For disabling an RFID to be meaningful it would have to be permanent. What does a store do when the item is returned? They want to just scan it and add it back to the inventory. They could also check to see that the item was actually purchased at their store. Instead, they will have to rely on the receipt like they do now and put a new RFID tag on the item. I don't think they really want to do that.
What I wrote concerned RFIDs and the earlier concern of them being interpreted as an access control device the circomvention or destruction of which might violate the DMCA. I can only see the RFID in an item being a part of an access control device while that item belongs to the store. The store's database has an entry for that item showing it to be the store's property. If you pay for the item the RFID is scanned, the store's database is updated to show the item sold and the scanner at the door doesn't sound an alarm when you walk out. You've been granted access, it's your item now. The RFID is no longer a part of the store's access control device and the DMCA can no longer apply.
In your example the item is a CD. What is the access control device? It can't be the RIAA, they are an organization of IP rights owners not a device. Do you mean that the CD or its packaging has an RFID? Well, OK. Then what I said above applies exactly as I said it.
Don't go assuming that you own the IP recorded on the CD, though. You only bought the right to access it. RFIDs don't apply here. At no point in thier existance do they control access to that IP. The IP recorded on the CD might be encrypted. That encryption is the access control device that may be covered under the DMCA.
I don't agree with much in the DMCA. This is just my current interpretation of how the DMCA applies.
You have gained access to the item by buying it. Hence the RFID no longer controls access to it. The RFID scanner/zapper can freely be used in this non-infringing manner.
Only the numbers. Transfer of hardware between providers with incompatible types of systems will never happen, obviously. The insane part is that providers using exactly the same technology often won't let you transfer hardware.
The norm on Unix/Linux is for an application to be usable by all users on the system. Anything less is a severe bug. I'm very disappointed that 1.4 will still have this bug and still require the work around in the release notes for multiuser installs.
Once you get past that bug it is a great program. I love Mozilla.
No. The service they are performing is listing his number. This is the actual work being performed.
They are charging $2 to NOT perform that service. It is a clasic protection racket. It is definitely unethical and it would be nice if it is also illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have the right to access it from a CD-ROM >drive anymore, do I?
:)
:)
On any old CD's where you bought that right you still have it. Go right ahead.
On the brand new CD you just bought, well... did you ever have that right? Hmmm, unclear. I'd like to think you did buy that right but that the manufacturer's technological access control device and the DMCA are preventing you from excercising it. It could also be argued that you never bought that specific right. But this is both pedantic and a little off topic now since this is supposed to be about RFIDs. A good example of what's to hate about the DMCA though.
Encrypted communications between the RFID and the scanner doesn't affect the fact that it ceases to be part of their access control device when you purchase the item. Corporations would have to purchase more legislation from their congressmen to make destroying RFIDs in items you've purchased illegal. A definite possability though.
I agree completely that some companies would very much want to leave RFIDs active and compile databases of information to mine once RFIDs become pervasive. It would require legislation to prevent this. Companies can pay off congressmen to prevent this. (I mean make campaign donations, of course.
I think the current reason why companies wouldn't want to disable RFIDs is product returns. For disabling an RFID to be meaningful it would have to be permanent. What does a store do when the item is returned? They want to just scan it and add it back to the inventory. They could also check to see that the item was actually purchased at their store. Instead, they will have to rely on the receipt like they do now and put a new RFID tag on the item. I don't think they really want to do that.
What I wrote concerned RFIDs and the earlier concern of them being interpreted as an access control device the circomvention or destruction of which might violate the DMCA. I can only see the RFID in an item being a part of an access control device while that item belongs to the store. The store's database has an entry for that item showing it to be the store's property. If you pay for the item the RFID is scanned, the store's database is updated to show the item sold and the scanner at the door doesn't sound an alarm when you walk out. You've been granted access, it's your item now. The RFID is no longer a part of the store's access control device and the DMCA can no longer apply.
In your example the item is a CD. What is the access control device? It can't be the RIAA, they are an organization of IP rights owners not a device. Do you mean that the CD or its packaging has an RFID? Well, OK. Then what I said above applies exactly as I said it.
Don't go assuming that you own the IP recorded on the CD, though. You only bought the right to access it. RFIDs don't apply here. At no point in thier existance do they control access to that IP. The IP recorded on the CD might be encrypted. That encryption is the access control device that may be covered under the DMCA.
I don't agree with much in the DMCA. This is just my current interpretation of how the DMCA applies.
You have gained access to the item by buying it. Hence the RFID no longer controls access to it. The RFID scanner/zapper can freely be used in this non-infringing manner.
Only the numbers. Transfer of hardware between providers with incompatible types of systems will never happen, obviously. The insane part is that providers using exactly the same technology often won't let you transfer hardware.
> And yes, I think the policy of tying phones to providers is part of the problem, but I don't see that changing in the US any time soon.
It changes in November when when Number Portability requirements take effect.
[
The norm on Unix/Linux is for an application to be usable by all users on the system. Anything less is a severe bug. I'm very disappointed that 1.4 will still have this bug and still require the work around in the release notes for multiuser installs.
Once you get past that bug it is a great program. I love Mozilla.
No. The service they are performing is listing his number. This is the actual work being performed.
They are charging $2 to NOT perform that service. It is a clasic protection racket. It is definitely unethical and it would be nice if it is also illegal.
# cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver
That's OK. I dont expect Windows XP to be a webserver. Just install Apache and use Apache as a webserver.