Microsoft doesn't like the GPL because it doesn't allow them to steal others work without contributing anything back, and allowing their customers the same freedom to do with the software what they please.
The BSD license is a license to steal. I wonder why it's always the GPL supporters who are spun off as anarchist freeloaders, when that is precisely WHAT companies that exploit BSD licensed code are.
Also, I find it shocking:) that M$ feels that free software is a threat to IP as they see it. That is EXACTLY the whole point! If it took them THIS long to figure that one out, no wonder their software is so imitative (rather than innovative) and full of bugs.
This seems a continuation of the "Linux/GPL is Unamerican" FUD that Microsoft's Jim Allchin started some time back.
"They have no right to backstab these companies who are trying to implement technology openly, so please don't claim they do."
Exactly. As I recall, JEDEC even didn't have any objection to a member proposing to USE patented IP in the standard, so long as the license was open and reasonable. However, the requirement of disclosure was REQUIRED so that the other JEDEC members could negotiate such agreements WELL in advance of the patented IP being included in SDRAM.
The need for this is obvious, as to do otherwise would allow one member an unfair competitive advantage over the others, and the ability to DICTATE terms to the others after the standard had already been adopted.
This is exactly what Infineon and Micron allege that Rambus did (and they have the internal memos to prove it). Also, Rambus used an inside source at JEDEC called "secret squirrel" AFTER they had left to glean more info about the proposed SDRAM standard.... This info they used to amend their patent applications so as to patent IP actually not their own, so as to ensure SDRAM would infringe with their patents.
Infineon has already provided the Judge with enough evidence to get him to invoke the RICO act fraud-abuse exception to "attorney client priviledge" to allow them to discover more evidence of this.
This ruling, setting aside all but three infringement claims, and those having had their teeth pulled by his ruling that it wouldn't be ruled INTENTIONAL infringement.
The patents those three remaining claims are based on are unlikely to hold, given the evidence that has already been presented, and the additional evidence that will likely be found by Infineon as they go to trial.
"So this cd player, first bootleg music on ISS?
I can see tito with napster, a burner and a list of tracks from 2001."
Actually, there are already illegal (as per the DMCA and by applying the DeCSS case) DVD players on the ISS... They have region-free players that will play any disc.
"In the state of Florida, driver's licenses say "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law". And supposedly, your signature on your driver's license is what seals the deal. I wonder if you can take the fifth on such things. Like the Miranda laws."
I guess getting a driver's license to drive on public roads that you pay for entails agreeing to an "EULA":)
No activity that requires getting a license from the government is free. Look at over-the-air broadcasting for an example.
So you want genetically engineered "perfect" people to be made? That is, "perfect" people in the eyes of the test tube jockey who creates him/her?
Do you want to live in a world where you are a slave or second class citizen because you are a "natural" human, not a perfect clone?
That WILL happen if cloning happens. I'm far from perfect, though I'm a very talented Systems Engineer. But a cloner could easily create superhumans who would not only take my job, but eventually relegate me and everyone else of natural birth to subjugation.
Remember the Star Trek TOS episode "Space Seed"?
As Spock said "superior ability breeds superior ambition"
"You are guilty until proved innocent when pulled over for alleged DWI. Refusing the blood/breath/urine/sobriety test == automatic guilt, arrest, and DWI conviction.
Perhaps someone could how this is legally permitted?"
Constitutionally, it isn't... But, the sheep populace has accepted the premise that driving on PUBLICALLY FINANCED roads is a "priviledge" not a RIGHT, has allowed a much lower burden of proof to be enacted into law. Now you know why a Republic (rule of law) is superior to a "Democracy" (where the government acts to enact the wishes of a sheep population).
Basically, since 1933, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been meaningless. How convienient, as they are the MOST restrictive on the power of government...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
People don't realize it, but the 10th is by far the MOST important of the Bill of Rights!
It basically states that the Feds don't have any power that the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY GIVE IT isnt' theirs.
The power to pass the DMCA, which not only infringes many other Constitutional rights, but extends the copyright/patent provisions in the Constitution, would seem to be DENIED to the Congress by Amendment X...
But, the 10th Amendment has ceased to have any meaning since 1933, when FDR became our first "king" and ruled for 12 years. Want an example? Prior to 1933, the Feds passed an AMENDMENT to outlaw alchohol sales (prohibtition). After 1933, they felt no inclination to do the same to outlaw drugs and give power to law enforcement thugs to conduct a "drug war" against Americans. EVERY federal "drug war" statute is just that, a STATUTORY law. The 10th Amendment would seem to deny that power, wouldn't it? Maybe they could ban the interstate SALE of drugs (under the "interstate and foreign commerce clause") but not the sale WITHIN states!
How did that happen? FDR was able to pack all levels of the court system with people who would back his schemes. He was able to accomplish this because he decided to play king instead of obey Washington's precedent of serving only TWO terms!
And so the "modern" Federal government deals with the Constitution as a "technicality" (they call it a "living document" which is stupid... Law that can be individually and legally "interpreted" is NOT law, it's opinion) than as absolute law. The Constitution itself when read is pretty plain in what it means.
It is sad that in the USA, the level of justice you receive in the legal system more depends on WHO you are rather than the merits...
Which is why the RIAA jumped all over 2600, because they could be spun by a willing media as "eevil hackers".
That technique of slander and destroy won't work against a Princeton Pofessor like Felten.
The USA has, unfortunately, become more and more of a "democracy" since 1933, which is the worst form of government imaginable. The mob gets what they want. But he who controls the mob gets what HE wants. The RIAA/MPAA, because they basically ARE the media, thru the intertwining mecacorp ownership that exists these days, largely get their way with the mob because they have the ability to saturate.
However, even Joe-blow-I-didn't-finish-High-School has respect for an Ivy League universtity, as you said. In other words, Felten's status and his case are so compelling to the average American, that HE, not the RIAA, will conrol the mob in the event of confrontation.
"See, the RIAA doesn't even have to go to court to be effective. It just has to threaten. And, last I checked, threatening legal action is perfectly legal pretty much everywhere. The RIAA knows that the mere threat of legal action is enough to shut most everyone up."
That is actually NOT true! It's NOT legal to threaten legal action for the purposes of intimidating people from doing legal things. And there is over 200 years of case law and precedent supporting the right of Felten to publish his research. But then, there were also specific exemptions within the DMCA itself that would allow DeCSS for it's intended purpose, but that didn't stop the lawless "judge" Kaplan...
Intimidation and threat of the use of of frivilous legal action as a weapon to deprive someone of their civil rights is legally NO DIFFERENT from writing a note that says "publish that and we will have your legs broken"
Remember, the DMCA is an untested STATUTORY law that largely conflicts with CONSTITUTIONAL law. It wasn't tested because Kaplan refused to test it (it wouldn't have been in his former and future? clients best interest). Somewhere down the line it WILL be tested, and at the very least, it will be weakened considerably, if not outright rejected.
The RIAA's threats at Professor Felten (and his backing down) are proof that when they passed the DMCA, Congress ESTABLISHED a law "abridging free speech".
BTW, the RIAA seem to now be aware that they have put themselves in jeopardy on that point by this statement (from the Salon article:)
"The Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation (SDMI) does not -- nor did it ever -- intend to bring any legal action against Professor Felten or his co-authors. We sent the letter because we felt an obligation to the watermark licensees who had voluntarily submitted their valuable inventions to SDMI for testing... The Recording Industry Association of America, one of the founding members of SDMI, strongly believes in academic freedom and freedom of speech."
Probably too little too late, as the RIAA has already created an injury by sending the letters in the first place, which were the SOLE cause for Felten to withdraw his paper...
"you would know that Felten intends to fight and that Princeton will back him up. As was mentioned in another reply, there are other parties involved (Xerox would be my guess, but maybe one of the other universities involved) who don't feel that exposure in such a case would be to their benefit. Again, Felten intends to fight, and he's smart enough to pick his battlefield."
Which is what he's done... Instead of publishing the paper and then waiting for the RIAA to sue him on in the venue of THEIR choosing (and we know it'd be the so-called "judge" Kaplan or some other judge who was from an AOL Time Warner law firm), he now holds the cards...
The RIAA can't sue him because he complied with their "cease and desist" threat note. But he can sue them for using illegal threats and intimidation to deprive him of his civil rights!
This means that Felten gets to CHOOSE the venue and the structure that the case is argued in. Remember, in the 2600 case, the MPAA steamrolled the whole thing through as quickly as they could so as to deny 2600 and the EFF ANY chance to adequately defend themselves... As if that was possible with so obviously a prejusticed "judge" as Kaplan in charge of what became nothing more than a show trial. Kaplan's court was so unethical that a noose might as well have been hung over the defense bench in preparation for the "hangin" after the trial.
In one of my posts in the previous stories, I mentioned that Felten might be able to pull an "Infineon" on the RIAA, and strike back against them using the RICO statute. Infineon is close to breaking Rambus, because the courts have allowed them to investigate fraud and corrupt practices using the RICO statute.
Given the cartel nature of the RIAA/MPAA structure, it may be possible (IANAL) to do something similar to them over their obvious use of intimidation, threat, and possible extortion. Felten created a "smoking gun" by withdrawing his paper, and thus establishing the fact that he WAS intimidated.
"While you do certainly make a point on cigarettes, I still hold my position that cigarette lawsuits had more to do with lawyers' wallets than it did with smokers' health"
Money is ALL it had to do with. A greedy government (which nets in tax revenue over THREE TIMES what a tobacco company does in profit on a pack of cigarettes) and greedy lawyers (the same, since the government IS lawyers) exploited tobacco users (who are paying for ALL of it, thus victimizing the victims) to line their pockets.
In all that mess, NOT ONE GOVERNMENT LAWYER tried to get this "deadly" product banned. Why, that can't happen, the government is too addicted to tobacco taxes!
This suit would be much the same thing... They won't try to get violent video games banned (after all there is that inconvienient first amendment), they just want the cash.
"Looksee, it's the American Legal System at work here. Rationality doesn't enter the picture."
Neither does JUSTICE. Justice has nothing at ALL to do with the law, it's only an "intended" side effect.
So long as this culture of "it's not my fault" continues, we will continue to allow unscrupulous lawyers (redundant, all lawyers are unscrupulous) to continue to rape the American economy, and all citizens.
After all, its everyone else who pays for the ridiculous awards in these suits, with higher prices, lost jobs (because the software company went under) etc.
We are getting very close to turning our legal system into a complete "Salem witch hunt".
"Sadly, most anti-gun folks recoil in horror at the idea of public education, unless the "education" comes from gun control propaganda. I think it's because they see a *real* education program as acceptance of the fact that guns are part of the culture... they'd rather people be ignorant and afraid than aware and perhaps a bit safer, and lose some ground in their fight."
The best gun education is to teach them how to responsibly handle and USE them. The NRA's programs are excellent in this regard. Children who learn at an early age that guns are to be treated carefully, with RESPECT, not fear, and ALWAYS if they are loaded tend to become responsible adults.
Teaching FEAR of guns, as the ever-so PC schools would do is no solution at all. In fact teaching FREAR of guns, if anything, would ENCOURAGE some demented hellspawn of absent parents to use such fear against his/her classmates.
These Columbine parents are marching off to "Blame Canada!" when they should be looking in the mirror... The blame rests with the parents who created those two animals, AND with the community that allowed a school like that to exist off their taxes...
For one thing, they sent their kids off to a Government school. That in and of itself it child abuse to me.
Not only that, but the Columbine administration was irresponsible enough to allow two kids the unsupervised OPPORTUNITY to plant bombs all OVER the campus! That is extreme negligence, but typical.
Certainly the ones MOST to blame are the parents of the two murderers. They were "shocked" that their kids did such a thing... I'm sure they WERE shocked, as they probably didn't spend even 2 hours a week with them.
I doubt they knew ANYTHING about the monsters they raised. The seem to me to have been the type of parents who put having the second BMW and "we have lives too, not just children" above the ULTIMATE responsibility in society: raising YOUR children.
And now, just like the song "Blame Canada!" from the South Park movie, the parents are marching off to blame anyone but themselves. And I have a feeling that the courts (which are political these days) will humor them. After all, no politician ever got re-elected (or no Federal Judge ever got greased on the corporate lecture circuit) by proclaiming that the parents they represent are lousy.
The fact is, the Baby Boomers were lousy parents, and Gen X is doing an even worse job. They are ducking out of the reposnibility to raise the children THEY CREATED into responsible citizens. They are leaving their kids to be raised by TV, movies, thug rap, video games, the Internet and are not at ALL shy about proclaiming that the rights of OTHERS be infringed to censor said babysitters FOR them. Why? Because THEY can't be bothered to...
"Why, because he disagreed with you? Maybe the law actually says what he said it meant, and it's the law, not the judge, which is wrong."
Kaplan DID NOT apply the Constitution to the DMCA, which he is required to do by his sworn oath he took when he (allegedly) became a "judge" (remember, judges, like ALL federal officeholders swear an oath to defend the Constitution).
Not only did he fail to apply a Constitutional test to the DMCA, he conviently "forgot" to apply the provisions WITHIN the DMCA that allow for reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability. Which I think DeCSS as the key component of a Linux DVD player, clearly IS!
The DMCA itself has provisions stating that it cannot circumvent the Constitution's own provisions for fair use. Which the so-called "judge" completely failed to evaluate.
Furthermore, the DMCA contains NO provision expressely allowing a court to forbid web links! He invented that out of thin air.
TO summarize, Kaplan interpreted the DMCA as applied to the DeCSS case only in the most extreme and narrow manner in the most favorable way to the MPAA as could be done. He has very little in the way of precedent or law on his side to support his judgement, which I expect to get tossed out on the same ass Kaplan should be tossed out on.
Kaplan's own ties to the MPAA previous to his becoming a "judge" alone is reason enough to call into question his conduct in the case. And that's why he SHOULD have recused himself... The Courts are supposed to have NO appearance of impropriety.
Kaplan's actions reprimanding EFF lawyer Martn Garbus for similar and less direct ties to the plantiff MPAA, then tossing off a motion for his recusal with 90 pages of schlock gives any reasonable person plenty of room to doubt and question his motives.
It could be said, because of his behavior in the case, that Kaplan had his bread buttered BEFORE becoming a judge by the MPAA, and his actions were designed to make sure that it was buttered by them AFTER he leaves the bench. Don't forget that Kaplan, a Clinton appointee, is a relatively new judge. And unfortunately, probably representative of the direction the courts are headed...
"Hasn't it been said before that no matter how well-kept a democracy may be, it will almost never last for more than ten generations?"
I think it was Athens, Greece that was the reference in that statement. Athens was only one city, and it was the only powerful city-state that had a democratic government. And it was ultimately taken over by Macedonia, which had a purely authoritarian government.
"I wouldn't be sure this is absolutely true, as the Greeks managed to stave off total political decay for hundreds of years until the Romans had conquered them (still, their democracy was a bit different)."
10 generarions is approximately 300 years... Which is about right for the duration of BOTH the Roman Republic and the Athenian democracy.
The Roman Republic, BTW, is largely the framework that was used to create the American Republic...
"However, it seems that there is no perfect government, and I doubt there ever will be. "
Correct. Humans are imprefect, and there is no possibility of any Human creation of being truly perfect.
But, we always must strive for better. Just as the American Republic is an improvement of the Roman one (more perfect), someday there will be one that is more perfect than it is. Society evolves slowly over time just as biology does.
"If they can push laws through that would make it illegal to sell a device which circumvented SDMI, the RIAA wouldn't be as concerned about rogue players because they could sue the manufacturers for damages. Perhaps worst of all, they could sue YOU for violating the DMCA by using your rogue player."
If our government does that, then you might understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment (just as ignored as the clearly power-limiting 9th and 10th amendments), as that would be an indication that the time may be for some kind of revolt...
I don't like or advocate violence, but someday ultimately, violence may become necessary to force the government to start living within the law (Constitution).
Simply, the purpose of establishing a government is to SAFEGUARD the freedom of the people. If the government sells out solely to corporate interests, then it is ceasing to perform it's function.
You might find this hard to belive, but one of the "matches to the fuse" that started the American Revolution was something not all that dissimilar... England had the habit of granting and supporting "corporate" monopolies in it's own self interest. The "Boston Tea Party" was a revolt against one such market monopoly, granted to the British West Indian Company to sell tea to the colonies...
This government action prevented the Colonists from buying their tea from cheaper sources, and mandated they buy from a government suported and subsidized monopoly.
"Perhaps not, but nor do they want to get in the habit of not publishing research because someone with lotsa lawyers says not to."
Now you see why the USA is in rapid decline as a nation of innovation...
Today you can't produce something new or better unless you are a megacorporation without fear of being sued out of existance.
As I said in another post, the world leader in technology soon will not be the USA, unless things radically change direction. It will be some nation without the US and EU's draconian IP laws and tort systems. Some nation will get smart and become the world's haven for science and technology, and the best minds will flock to it.
"So, all they have left is to bring legal action against those few who dare to openly and publicly present this information, to make these people suffer for opposing the corporations.
Which means that there will be martyrs. It's not that fun to BE a martyr, so I don't think there will be much of this.
"There's a war on folks, and this is just another battle in that war. We'll see LOTS of casualties before it's over, but in the end, I think we can win this one. Any speculation on what the final costs might be, when corporations realize they can't win this war???"
You have more faith in the sheep masses than I do. Since 1933, and accelerating since 1964 or so, we've been becoming a nation centered around meeting the public's ever-increasing demand for "bread and circuses".
In 50 years, at our rate of population growth, tax rates will have to be over 75% just to support these "bread and circuses" programs.
By then, there will either be a second revolution (not likely, given the fact that most will be happy living off everyone else), or else the ONLY producers left will be mega corporations. The megacorps will be even MORE powerful than they are now as a result... Would you work 40 hours a week for less than 1/4th of what you earn? I wouldn't...
"As for noticably less free, well, we're free from the worry of Nuclear War, something you can't say about '84"
Maybe on a World War III scale, but the inevitibility of some sort of nuclear catastrophe increases yearly. It's only a matter of time before a rogue state or terrorist group gets a nuke and explodes it on a US city. In fact, the breakup of the USSR probably INCRESED the possibility, as there are many Russian nuclear engineers now unemployed, and LOTS of Russian nuclear material out there.
Also, don't forget that China now has multiple ICBM's targeted at the USA now, and thanks to Clinton, they might actually HIT something, when 3 years ago, a Chinese rocket could barely reach orbit with any reliability... And, China puts a far lower value on human life than even the USSR did...
Nuclear fission bombs are INCREDIBLY simple devices! They are less complex than most consumer electronics, including your PC! Anyone with half a brain and fissionable nuclear material can make one. In fact, this information is pretty much public domain and easily available.
So far, it's only the strict controls of the nuclear material that has prevented every rogue state in the world from having nukes. But inevitably, somewhere, someone will get it.
"Keep in mind that the highest note on a piano is somewhere near 4 kHz; so even though the "robust" component of the watermark may be audible, it will most likely only slightly alter the timbre of sounds in the average song (and so will probably only be heard by musicians and extreme audiophiles)"
Which is why watermarking is a doomed technology. The FIRST adopters of any new audio technology are the musicians and audiophiles. Why? For one thing, brand new technology is almost ALWAYS very expensive at first, and the true devotees are the only ones that will run right out and get it, because it's the best, right?
Well, as you and others have demonstrated, SDMI "watermarking" makes for audio quality that is INFERIOR to current media. The audiophiles will NOT run out and buy it, which will drasticaly slow if not STOP it's acceptance as a replacement for CD. It's the early adopters who subsidize the mass production that ends up lowering the costs for the "rest of us" when we start buying into it.
The only way SDMI will ever make it is if the RIAA, et all, subsidize it, ie, make the players CHEAPER than what is out there now. I don't see that happening, as it would cost them BILLIONS to do this.
"I'm not particularly interested in the argument about this particular ruling or judge Kaplan, but I can't help but ask one question in response to those two paragraphs:
Is the constitution above question?"
No, of course not. As I said there is NOTHING that is beyond questioning in a free society. It can be AMENDED, by a public process that requires debate, and approval by a 2/3rds majority of Congress AND the states.
The DMCA is such a radical repeal of the Constitution's provisions covering Patent and Copyright, that it would seem to require some sort of amendment to be legal.
Is the Constitution perfect? Of course not. But as written, it's the MOST perfect form of government for a free society that has ever been invented.
Unfortunately, the Federal government, in it's own self-interest, has pretty much ignored the parts of it that limits it's power (most notably the 9th and 10th Amendments, part of the ORIGINAL bill of rights), pretty much since 1933.
Prior to 1933, the government went about acquiring new powers the proper way, by amending the Constitution. Most notably, they didn't outlaw alchohol )prohibition) by STATUTORY law, it was done by amendment.
Contrast that with the post-1933 "War on Drugs" which has been ENTIRELY conducted through statutory law, using authority that the Constitution clearly does not give the Feds. Prior to 1933, the government would have felt it needed to amend the Constitution to outlaw drugs. Post 1933, the Feds think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, so long as it's "the will of the people".
The bottom line, the year 1933 marks the END of the United States as a Rebublic, and the beginning of "democracy". Democracy (mob rule), is the absolute WORST form of government that ever could be. Since 1933, the Federal government has gone to no end in implimenting the "will of the people", Constitution be dammed.
1933 was the year we had our first "King", Mr Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ignored 130 years of precedent (established by George Washington, the only man in history that I know of to ever TURN DOWN a throne). Roosevelt gained power and kept it by giving the masses "bread and circuses" and if not for his death in 1945, probably would have ruled for another decade had he lived. Thankfully, the Constitution WAS amended limiting all future Presidents to the Washington precedent of 2 terms. This definately slowed the slide to tyrrany down a bit, though with the concept of using "bread and circuses genie" out of the bottle, eventual collapse into some form of authoritarian regeime is inevitable. Imagine if Clinton had gotten a third term...
And, the "will of the people" is easily molded to correspond to the "will of the powerful" given that our public educational system collapsed sometime in the 1960's with LBJ.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft doesn't like the GPL because it doesn't allow them to steal others work without contributing anything back, and allowing their customers the same freedom to do with the software what they please.
:) that M$ feels that free software is a threat to IP as they see it. That is EXACTLY the whole point! If it took them THIS long to figure that one out, no wonder their software is so imitative (rather than innovative) and full of bugs.
The BSD license is a license to steal. I wonder why it's always the GPL supporters who are spun off as anarchist freeloaders, when that is precisely WHAT companies that exploit BSD licensed code are.
Also, I find it shocking
This seems a continuation of the "Linux/GPL is Unamerican" FUD that Microsoft's Jim Allchin started some time back.
"They have no right to backstab these companies who are trying to implement technology openly, so please don't claim they do."
Exactly. As I recall, JEDEC even didn't have any objection to a member proposing to USE patented IP in the standard, so long as the license was open and reasonable. However, the requirement of disclosure was REQUIRED so that the other JEDEC members could negotiate such agreements WELL in advance of the patented IP being included in SDRAM.
The need for this is obvious, as to do otherwise would allow one member an unfair competitive advantage over the others, and the ability to DICTATE terms to the others after the standard had already been adopted.
This is exactly what Infineon and Micron allege that Rambus did (and they have the internal memos to prove it). Also, Rambus used an inside source at JEDEC called "secret squirrel" AFTER they had left to glean more info about the proposed SDRAM standard.... This info they used to amend their patent applications so as to patent IP actually not their own, so as to ensure SDRAM would infringe with their patents.
Infineon has already provided the Judge with enough evidence to get him to invoke the RICO act fraud-abuse exception to "attorney client priviledge" to allow them to discover more evidence of this.
This ruling, setting aside all but three infringement claims, and those having had their teeth pulled by his ruling that it wouldn't be ruled INTENTIONAL infringement.
The patents those three remaining claims are based on are unlikely to hold, given the evidence that has already been presented, and the additional evidence that will likely be found by Infineon as they go to trial.
"So this cd player, first bootleg music on ISS?
I can see tito with napster, a burner and a list of tracks from 2001."
Actually, there are already illegal (as per the DMCA and by applying the DeCSS case) DVD players on the ISS... They have region-free players that will play any disc.
"In the state of Florida, driver's licenses say "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law". And supposedly, your signature on your driver's license is what seals the deal. I wonder if you can take the fifth on such things. Like the Miranda laws."
:)
I guess getting a driver's license to drive on public roads that you pay for entails agreeing to an "EULA"
No activity that requires getting a license from the government is free. Look at over-the-air broadcasting for an example.
So you want genetically engineered "perfect" people to be made? That is, "perfect" people in the eyes of the test tube jockey who creates him/her?
Do you want to live in a world where you are a slave or second class citizen because you are a "natural" human, not a perfect clone?
That WILL happen if cloning happens. I'm far from perfect, though I'm a very talented Systems Engineer. But a cloner could easily create superhumans who would not only take my job, but eventually relegate me and everyone else of natural birth to subjugation.
Remember the Star Trek TOS episode "Space Seed"?
As Spock said "superior ability breeds superior ambition"
"You are guilty until proved innocent when pulled over for alleged DWI. Refusing the blood/breath/urine/sobriety test == automatic guilt, arrest, and DWI conviction.
Perhaps someone could how this is legally permitted?"
Constitutionally, it isn't... But, the sheep populace has accepted the premise that driving on PUBLICALLY FINANCED roads is a "priviledge" not a RIGHT, has allowed a much lower burden of proof to be enacted into law. Now you know why a Republic (rule of law) is superior to a "Democracy" (where the government acts to enact the wishes of a sheep population).
Basically, since 1933, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been meaningless. How convienient, as they are the MOST restrictive on the power of government...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
People don't realize it, but the 10th is by far the MOST important of the Bill of Rights!
It basically states that the Feds don't have any power that the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY GIVE IT isnt' theirs.
The power to pass the DMCA, which not only infringes many other Constitutional rights, but extends the copyright/patent provisions in the Constitution, would seem to be DENIED to the Congress by Amendment X...
But, the 10th Amendment has ceased to have any meaning since 1933, when FDR became our first "king" and ruled for 12 years. Want an example? Prior to 1933, the Feds passed an AMENDMENT to outlaw alchohol sales (prohibtition). After 1933, they felt no inclination to do the same to outlaw drugs and give power to law enforcement thugs to conduct a "drug war" against Americans. EVERY federal "drug war" statute is just that, a STATUTORY law. The 10th Amendment would seem to deny that power, wouldn't it? Maybe they could ban the interstate SALE of drugs (under the "interstate and foreign commerce clause") but not the sale WITHIN states!
How did that happen? FDR was able to pack all levels of the court system with people who would back his schemes. He was able to accomplish this because he decided to play king instead of obey Washington's precedent of serving only TWO terms!
And so the "modern" Federal government deals with the Constitution as a "technicality" (they call it a "living document" which is stupid... Law that can be individually and legally "interpreted" is NOT law, it's opinion) than as absolute law. The Constitution itself when read is pretty plain in what it means.
It is sad that in the USA, the level of justice you receive in the legal system more depends on WHO you are rather than the merits...
Which is why the RIAA jumped all over 2600, because they could be spun by a willing media as "eevil hackers".
That technique of slander and destroy won't work against a Princeton Pofessor like Felten.
The USA has, unfortunately, become more and more of a "democracy" since 1933, which is the worst form of government imaginable. The mob gets what they want. But he who controls the mob gets what HE wants. The RIAA/MPAA, because they basically ARE the media, thru the intertwining mecacorp ownership that exists these days, largely get their way with the mob because they have the ability to saturate.
However, even Joe-blow-I-didn't-finish-High-School has respect for an Ivy League universtity, as you said. In other words, Felten's status and his case are so compelling to the average American, that HE, not the RIAA, will conrol the mob in the event of confrontation.
The burden of proof MUST always be on the accuser, and it IS incumbent on the RIAA to tell Napster WHAT to ban!
To do otherwise is to turn the USA into a country where you are guilty and liable until YOU prove you are innocent. That is tyranny.
"See, the RIAA doesn't even have to go to court to be effective. It just has to threaten. And, last I checked, threatening legal action is perfectly legal pretty much everywhere. The RIAA knows that the mere threat of legal action is enough to shut most everyone up."
That is actually NOT true! It's NOT legal to threaten legal action for the purposes of intimidating people from doing legal things. And there is over 200 years of case law and precedent supporting the right of Felten to publish his research. But then, there were also specific exemptions within the DMCA itself that would allow DeCSS for it's intended purpose, but that didn't stop the lawless "judge" Kaplan...
Intimidation and threat of the use of of frivilous legal action as a weapon to deprive someone of their civil rights is legally NO DIFFERENT from writing a note that says "publish that and we will have your legs broken"
Remember, the DMCA is an untested STATUTORY law that largely conflicts with CONSTITUTIONAL law. It wasn't tested because Kaplan refused to test it (it wouldn't have been in his former and future? clients best interest). Somewhere down the line it WILL be tested, and at the very least, it will be weakened considerably, if not outright rejected.
The RIAA's threats at Professor Felten (and his backing down) are proof that when they passed the DMCA, Congress ESTABLISHED a law "abridging free speech".
BTW, the RIAA seem to now be aware that they have put themselves in jeopardy on that point by this statement (from the Salon article:)
... The Recording Industry Association of America, one of the founding members of SDMI, strongly believes in academic freedom and freedom of speech."
"The Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation (SDMI) does not -- nor did it ever -- intend to bring any legal action against Professor Felten or his co-authors. We sent the letter because we felt an obligation to the watermark licensees who had voluntarily submitted their valuable inventions to SDMI for testing
Probably too little too late, as the RIAA has already created an injury by sending the letters in the first place, which were the SOLE cause for Felten to withdraw his paper...
"you would know that Felten intends to fight and that Princeton will back him up. As was mentioned in another reply, there are other parties involved (Xerox would be my guess, but maybe one of the other universities involved) who don't feel that exposure in such a case would be to their benefit. Again, Felten intends to fight, and he's smart enough to pick his battlefield."
Which is what he's done... Instead of publishing the paper and then waiting for the RIAA to sue him on in the venue of THEIR choosing (and we know it'd be the so-called "judge" Kaplan or some other judge who was from an AOL Time Warner law firm), he now holds the cards...
The RIAA can't sue him because he complied with their "cease and desist" threat note. But he can sue them for using illegal threats and intimidation to deprive him of his civil rights!
This means that Felten gets to CHOOSE the venue and the structure that the case is argued in. Remember, in the 2600 case, the MPAA steamrolled the whole thing through as quickly as they could so as to deny 2600 and the EFF ANY chance to adequately defend themselves... As if that was possible with so obviously a prejusticed "judge" as Kaplan in charge of what became nothing more than a show trial. Kaplan's court was so unethical that a noose might as well have been hung over the defense bench in preparation for the "hangin" after the trial.
In one of my posts in the previous stories, I mentioned that Felten might be able to pull an "Infineon" on the RIAA, and strike back against them using the RICO statute. Infineon is close to breaking Rambus, because the courts have allowed them to investigate fraud and corrupt practices using the RICO statute.
Given the cartel nature of the RIAA/MPAA structure, it may be possible (IANAL) to do something similar to them over their obvious use of intimidation, threat, and possible extortion. Felten created a "smoking gun" by withdrawing his paper, and thus establishing the fact that he WAS intimidated.
"While you do certainly make a point on cigarettes, I still hold my position that cigarette lawsuits had more to do with lawyers' wallets than it did with smokers' health"
Money is ALL it had to do with. A greedy government (which nets in tax revenue over THREE TIMES what a tobacco company does in profit on a pack of cigarettes) and greedy lawyers (the same, since the government IS lawyers) exploited tobacco users (who are paying for ALL of it, thus victimizing the victims) to line their pockets.
In all that mess, NOT ONE GOVERNMENT LAWYER tried to get this "deadly" product banned. Why, that can't happen, the government is too addicted to tobacco taxes!
This suit would be much the same thing... They won't try to get violent video games banned (after all there is that inconvienient first amendment), they just want the cash.
"unless you somehow think the victims should be held responsible for iD losing money"
I don't think that the "victims" should be allowed to create MORE victims just because they were victimized by an unfortunate tragedy.
"Looksee, it's the American Legal System at work here. Rationality doesn't enter the picture."
Neither does JUSTICE. Justice has nothing at ALL to do with the law, it's only an "intended" side effect.
So long as this culture of "it's not my fault" continues, we will continue to allow unscrupulous lawyers (redundant, all lawyers are unscrupulous) to continue to rape the American economy, and all citizens.
After all, its everyone else who pays for the ridiculous awards in these suits, with higher prices, lost jobs (because the software company went under) etc.
We are getting very close to turning our legal system into a complete "Salem witch hunt".
"Sadly, most anti-gun folks recoil in horror at the idea of public education, unless the "education" comes from gun control propaganda. I think it's because they see a *real* education program as acceptance of the fact that guns are part of the culture... they'd rather people be ignorant and afraid than aware and perhaps a bit safer, and lose some ground in their fight."
The best gun education is to teach them how to responsibly handle and USE them. The NRA's programs are excellent in this regard. Children who learn at an early age that guns are to be treated carefully, with RESPECT, not fear, and ALWAYS if they are loaded tend to become responsible adults.
Teaching FEAR of guns, as the ever-so PC schools would do is no solution at all. In fact teaching FREAR of guns, if anything, would ENCOURAGE some demented hellspawn of absent parents to use such fear against his/her classmates.
These Columbine parents are marching off to "Blame Canada!" when they should be looking in the mirror... The blame rests with the parents who created those two animals, AND with the community that allowed a school like that to exist off their taxes...
For one thing, they sent their kids off to a Government school. That in and of itself it child abuse to me.
Not only that, but the Columbine administration was irresponsible enough to allow two kids the unsupervised OPPORTUNITY to plant bombs all OVER the campus! That is extreme negligence, but typical.
Certainly the ones MOST to blame are the parents of the two murderers. They were "shocked" that their kids did such a thing... I'm sure they WERE shocked, as they probably didn't spend even 2 hours a week with them.
I doubt they knew ANYTHING about the monsters they raised. The seem to me to have been the type of parents who put having the second BMW and "we have lives too, not just children" above the ULTIMATE responsibility in society: raising YOUR children.
And now, just like the song "Blame Canada!" from the South Park movie, the parents are marching off to blame anyone but themselves. And I have a feeling that the courts (which are political these days) will humor them. After all, no politician ever got re-elected (or no Federal Judge ever got greased on the corporate lecture circuit) by proclaiming that the parents they represent are lousy.
The fact is, the Baby Boomers were lousy parents, and Gen X is doing an even worse job. They are ducking out of the reposnibility to raise the children THEY CREATED into responsible citizens. They are leaving their kids to be raised by TV, movies, thug rap, video games, the Internet and are not at ALL shy about proclaiming that the rights of OTHERS be infringed to censor said babysitters FOR them. Why? Because THEY can't be bothered to...
"Why, because he disagreed with you? Maybe the law actually says what he said it meant, and it's the law, not the judge, which is wrong."
Kaplan DID NOT apply the Constitution to the DMCA, which he is required to do by his sworn oath he took when he (allegedly) became a "judge" (remember, judges, like ALL federal officeholders swear an oath to defend the Constitution).
Not only did he fail to apply a Constitutional test to the DMCA, he conviently "forgot" to apply the provisions WITHIN the DMCA that allow for reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability. Which I think DeCSS as the key component of a Linux DVD player, clearly IS!
The DMCA itself has provisions stating that it cannot circumvent the Constitution's own provisions for fair use. Which the so-called "judge" completely failed to evaluate.
Furthermore, the DMCA contains NO provision expressely allowing a court to forbid web links! He invented that out of thin air.
TO summarize, Kaplan interpreted the DMCA as applied to the DeCSS case only in the most extreme and narrow manner in the most favorable way to the MPAA as could be done. He has very little in the way of precedent or law on his side to support his judgement, which I expect to get tossed out on the same ass Kaplan should be tossed out on.
Kaplan's own ties to the MPAA previous to his becoming a "judge" alone is reason enough to call into question his conduct in the case. And that's why he SHOULD have recused himself... The Courts are supposed to have NO appearance of impropriety.
Kaplan's actions reprimanding EFF lawyer Martn Garbus for similar and less direct ties to the plantiff MPAA, then tossing off a motion for his recusal with 90 pages of schlock gives any reasonable person plenty of room to doubt and question his motives.
It could be said, because of his behavior in the case, that Kaplan had his bread buttered BEFORE becoming a judge by the MPAA, and his actions were designed to make sure that it was buttered by them AFTER he leaves the bench. Don't forget that Kaplan, a Clinton appointee, is a relatively new judge. And unfortunately, probably representative of the direction the courts are headed...
"Hasn't it been said before that no matter how well-kept a democracy may be, it will almost never last for more than ten generations?"
I think it was Athens, Greece that was the reference in that statement. Athens was only one city, and it was the only powerful city-state that had a democratic government. And it was ultimately taken over by Macedonia, which had a purely authoritarian government.
"I wouldn't be sure this is absolutely true, as the Greeks managed to stave off total political decay for hundreds of years until the Romans had conquered them (still, their democracy was a bit different)."
10 generarions is approximately 300 years... Which is about right for the duration of BOTH the Roman Republic and the Athenian democracy.
The Roman Republic, BTW, is largely the framework that was used to create the American Republic...
"However, it seems that there is no perfect government, and I doubt there ever will be. "
Correct. Humans are imprefect, and there is no possibility of any Human creation of being truly perfect.
But, we always must strive for better. Just as the American Republic is an improvement of the Roman one (more perfect), someday there will be one that is more perfect than it is. Society evolves slowly over time just as biology does.
"If they can push laws through that would make it illegal to sell a device which circumvented SDMI, the RIAA wouldn't be as concerned about rogue players because they could sue the manufacturers for damages. Perhaps worst of all, they could sue YOU for violating the DMCA by using your rogue player."
If our government does that, then you might understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment (just as ignored as the clearly power-limiting 9th and 10th amendments), as that would be an indication that the time may be for some kind of revolt...
I don't like or advocate violence, but someday ultimately, violence may become necessary to force the government to start living within the law (Constitution).
Simply, the purpose of establishing a government is to SAFEGUARD the freedom of the people. If the government sells out solely to corporate interests, then it is ceasing to perform it's function.
You might find this hard to belive, but one of the "matches to the fuse" that started the American Revolution was something not all that dissimilar... England had the habit of granting and supporting "corporate" monopolies in it's own self interest. The "Boston Tea Party" was a revolt against one such market monopoly, granted to the British West Indian Company to sell tea to the colonies...
This government action prevented the Colonists from buying their tea from cheaper sources, and mandated they buy from a government suported and subsidized monopoly.
"Perhaps not, but nor do they want to get in the habit of not publishing research because someone with lotsa lawyers says not to."
Now you see why the USA is in rapid decline as a nation of innovation...
Today you can't produce something new or better unless you are a megacorporation without fear of being sued out of existance.
As I said in another post, the world leader in technology soon will not be the USA, unless things radically change direction. It will be some nation without the US and EU's draconian IP laws and tort systems. Some nation will get smart and become the world's haven for science and technology, and the best minds will flock to it.
"So, all they have left is to bring legal action against those few who dare to openly and publicly present this information, to make these people suffer for opposing the corporations.
Which means that there will be martyrs. It's not that fun to BE a martyr, so I don't think there will be much of this.
"There's a war on folks, and this is just another battle in that war. We'll see LOTS of casualties before it's over, but in the end, I think we can win this one. Any speculation on what the final costs might be, when corporations realize they can't win this war???"
You have more faith in the sheep masses than I do. Since 1933, and accelerating since 1964 or so, we've been becoming a nation centered around meeting the public's ever-increasing demand for "bread and circuses".
In 50 years, at our rate of population growth, tax rates will have to be over 75% just to support these "bread and circuses" programs.
By then, there will either be a second revolution (not likely, given the fact that most will be happy living off everyone else), or else the ONLY producers left will be mega corporations. The megacorps will be even MORE powerful than they are now as a result... Would you work 40 hours a week for less than 1/4th of what you earn? I wouldn't...
"As for noticably less free, well, we're free from the worry of Nuclear War, something you can't say about '84"
Maybe on a World War III scale, but the inevitibility of some sort of nuclear catastrophe increases yearly. It's only a matter of time before a rogue state or terrorist group gets a nuke and explodes it on a US city. In fact, the breakup of the USSR probably INCRESED the possibility, as there are many Russian nuclear engineers now unemployed, and LOTS of Russian nuclear material out there.
Also, don't forget that China now has multiple ICBM's targeted at the USA now, and thanks to Clinton, they might actually HIT something, when 3 years ago, a Chinese rocket could barely reach orbit with any reliability... And, China puts a far lower value on human life than even the USSR did...
Nuclear fission bombs are INCREDIBLY simple devices! They are less complex than most consumer electronics, including your PC! Anyone with half a brain and fissionable nuclear material can make one. In fact, this information is pretty much public domain and easily available.
So far, it's only the strict controls of the nuclear material that has prevented every rogue state in the world from having nukes. But inevitably, somewhere, someone will get it.
"Keep in mind that the highest note on a piano is somewhere near 4 kHz; so even though the "robust" component of the watermark may be audible, it will most likely only slightly alter the timbre of sounds in the average song (and so will probably only be heard by musicians and extreme audiophiles)"
Which is why watermarking is a doomed technology. The FIRST adopters of any new audio technology are the musicians and audiophiles. Why? For one thing, brand new technology is almost ALWAYS very expensive at first, and the true devotees are the only ones that will run right out and get it, because it's the best, right?
Well, as you and others have demonstrated, SDMI "watermarking" makes for audio quality that is INFERIOR to current media. The audiophiles will NOT run out and buy it, which will drasticaly slow if not STOP it's acceptance as a replacement for CD. It's the early adopters who subsidize the mass production that ends up lowering the costs for the "rest of us" when we start buying into it.
The only way SDMI will ever make it is if the RIAA, et all, subsidize it, ie, make the players CHEAPER than what is out there now. I don't see that happening, as it would cost them BILLIONS to do this.
"I'm not particularly interested in the argument about this particular ruling or judge Kaplan, but I can't help but ask one question in response to those two paragraphs:
Is the constitution above question?"
No, of course not. As I said there is NOTHING that is beyond questioning in a free society. It can be AMENDED, by a public process that requires debate, and approval by a 2/3rds majority of Congress AND the states.
The DMCA is such a radical repeal of the Constitution's provisions covering Patent and Copyright, that it would seem to require some sort of amendment to be legal.
Is the Constitution perfect? Of course not. But as written, it's the MOST perfect form of government for a free society that has ever been invented.
Unfortunately, the Federal government, in it's own self-interest, has pretty much ignored the parts of it that limits it's power (most notably the 9th and 10th Amendments, part of the ORIGINAL bill of rights), pretty much since 1933.
Prior to 1933, the government went about acquiring new powers the proper way, by amending the Constitution. Most notably, they didn't outlaw alchohol )prohibition) by STATUTORY law, it was done by amendment.
Contrast that with the post-1933 "War on Drugs" which has been ENTIRELY conducted through statutory law, using authority that the Constitution clearly does not give the Feds. Prior to 1933, the government would have felt it needed to amend the Constitution to outlaw drugs. Post 1933, the Feds think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, so long as it's "the will of the people".
The bottom line, the year 1933 marks the END of the United States as a Rebublic, and the beginning of "democracy". Democracy (mob rule), is the absolute WORST form of government that ever could be. Since 1933, the Federal government has gone to no end in implimenting the "will of the people", Constitution be dammed.
1933 was the year we had our first "King", Mr Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ignored 130 years of precedent (established by George Washington, the only man in history that I know of to ever TURN DOWN a throne). Roosevelt gained power and kept it by giving the masses "bread and circuses" and if not for his death in 1945, probably would have ruled for another decade had he lived. Thankfully, the Constitution WAS amended limiting all future Presidents to the Washington precedent of 2 terms. This definately slowed the slide to tyrrany down a bit, though with the concept of using "bread and circuses genie" out of the bottle, eventual collapse into some form of authoritarian regeime is inevitable. Imagine if Clinton had gotten a third term...
And, the "will of the people" is easily molded to correspond to the "will of the powerful" given that our public educational system collapsed sometime in the 1960's with LBJ.