"That's because in the case of Ford or GM, defects like that would cost people their health or their lives. I very much doubt that anyone has ever been killed by an email virus or worm."
When it comes down to the courts, even health and life is expressed in dollar damage awards.
Software security holes and bugs lead to what is probably many milliions to maybe BILLIONS of dollars in damage and loss each year.
If the software industry took QUALITY as seriously as they do feeding their BSA stormtroopers, I might be more sympathetic to their piracy cries.
" Careful what you wish for. There are people out here in real world who cannot afford to get sued."
You know what? If this happens, the software industry has no one but themselves to blame. They've had plenty of time and then some to self-police, and have failed to take bugs and security seriously.
True, not ALL software companies are MS, but it is MS that has the flaws, and is on most of the machines. Sadly.
The BEST virus spreader evern invented... The sad thing is, it doesn't MATTER IF MS fixes it, there are so many millions of the "take me in the ass, script kiddie" versions of Outlook and/or IIS running on 2000/NT and 9x workstations owned by users with no clue as to how to patch their systems that this will be a problem for YEARS...
I'm telling you, software makers NEED liability. It's the only way we will ever have responsible programs released. Right now, software makers can get away with selling products that have defects in them on the order of ones that if they were in cars, would send Ford or GM into receivership.
These e-mail worms would never be able to spread in this way if it were not for defects in Microsoft products.
Until software houses are FORCED by liability that can't be EULA'ed away, there will never be wuality control.
I've got an old HP 672C that basically refuses to die... It uses an older cart that is readily available from Pelikan and other 3rd parties that keeps it going cheaply.
But, I never really use it for anything serious, just printing out some docs, FAQ's etc, and the occasional shot of Britney;)
I wouldn't even think of replacing it until the thing dies. When it does go, I'd more than likely go with another HP. Or possibly one of the Okidata LED's.
I wish I could afford a HP LaserJet 4500C for home use though;)
"Once they figure out how to force you legally to use their ink... printer prices will skyrocket too."
Isn't that what MS basically did with `Doze? Once they got 98% of the market, and laws that protect their monopoly (DMCA), not to mention ran out the clock on the antitrust suit, they came out with a new OS, XP, that more than doubled the price, and increased the strings fourfold...
They will get it banned, if the overreaction to PGP is any indication. One has to wonder as to whether we really live in a free country, when our government insists that we use insecure communications, just so they can tap them when they wish.
Our government uses communications Joe Citizen can't tap. So should Joe Citizen have the right to use such technology for himself.
" Yes - but short of a massive public campaign against this - it's going to go through. The companies that have a vested interest in this make large donations - the parties/ senators wouldn't like to see that stream of revenue disappear. The best that can be hoped for is that it goes through in a modified form."
Which is what pisses me off about the so-called "campaign finance reform". It does nothing to address the existance of industry-wide "cartels" like the MPAA, RIAA, etc. Who even if not allowed to give money to a candidate, will still get their ear, BECAUSE they are an industry cartel.
Maybe the MPAA/RIAA's memberships are of multiple companies, but when it comes to setting prices and policies, and lobbying, they act as ONE... That can't be legal under the Sherman act.
Indeed, the RIAA has been found to be guilty of price fixing the cost of CD's... Punishment? none that matters.
When such a group has been found to break the law in that way, it should be dissolved.
" Veto? I pray it doesn't get that far. There can't be that many Media Whores on the Hill... can there?"
Bush already signed an Unconstitutional campaign finance "reform" law, one that makes it a FELONY to buy any advertisement dissing one of your representatives 60 days before an election.
This means, that you coudn't run any ads detailing what Sentator "Disney" Hollings has done TO the Constitution, in the time period where most people who will are paying attention...
Guess who gets an exemption and gets to decide what is said about candidates? The MEDIA, largely owned by the IP cartel. Note that this law will be in full effect next time Senator Disney runs.
This is also the same Congress that passed the DMCA by unanimous voice vote.
That the Founders weren't wise enough to end the Bill of Rights as it started:
"Congress shall make no law"...
Every law passed (and there are thousands every year), at the state, local, and federal level creates a new crime and takes away some freedom. And people wonder why we are becoming a Lawyerocracy?
With the million or so laws on the books nationwide, it's IMPOSSIBLE for even the most law abiding citizen to go though any given day, week, month, or year without breaking many...
Which is slavery. The law should be simple, and understandable by all.
We are supposed to be a Republic, based on majority rule through representatives, with civil rights protected by a Constitution. Tell me, anyone, how the DMCA or CBDTPA serves the majority interest, or isn't contrary to the Constitution?
" This isn't a time to rest on our laurels. Congress could still pass this thing. A simple majority wins, and Congress has passed many an unpopular act (USA Patriot anyone?) We still have to email and write letters and protest this thing and reach every single person we can.
We keep recieving good news, but that doesn't mean we should slack off... it means that we should work harder and spread our message. Advocacy works."
We shouldn't feel SAFE at all... Remember, it was only 1998 when Congress, by a UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE passed DMCA.
I don't belive that 535 members of Congress have been replaced in the last 4 years. That means, obviously, there is still a huge majority, a Veto-proof majority, that is still there who voted in DMCA.
Until people start changing their politicians like they do underwear (for the same reason), this kind of power and influence by industry cartels will continue to write the laws.
If they think the DMCA is "balanced" and that CBDTPA isn't...
Actually, there IS some balance in the DMCA, at least in the text (such as it's reverse-engineer for interoperability clause), but unfortunately, in the DeCSS case, Hillary Rosen and her merry bunch of IP cartel mangates were able to get the DMCA rewritten to not include that.
The CBDTPA doesn't even have any pro-forma acknowlegement of ANY existance of "fair use". But, again, as the DMCA has been enforced so far, there has been NO balance.
Why the commerce department is concerned, is very simple. This law would put the USA at a SERIOUS disadvantage in the world IT marketplace. It would with a stroke of a pen, put the slide rule makers in charge of the computer industry.
It would make open source and free software as we know it illegal. And OSS is where much of the world's software marketshare growth has been occurring...
It's also an incredibly dumb and bad law, one which will likely be almost universally disobeyed. Joe Consumer, who may not yet have been affected by the DMCA will be totally pissed by this.
Indeed, even AFTER CBDTPA OS's and hardware comes out, it should be possible for an OS like Linux to completely bypass any such restrictions, as it is the OS, after all, that controls the hardware.
Frankly, I'm amazed that this thing is even being introduced. There is already a lot of resistance to the DMCA, that is already opposed to this law. Also, academia is starting to get involved. The DMCA has already caused:
1. A respected professor (Felten) to fear presenting an ACADEMIC PAPER.
2. A whole application (DeCSS) to be banned simply because it COULD be used to break CSS encryption for the purpose of burning DVD's without it, ignoring the fact that *EVERY* DVD player ever sold does just this, and the fact that it's purpose was to allow the creation of an open source OS DVD player...
Indeed, the introduction of DVD-R drives to the market, and the ease of copying DVD's on them pretty much destroys the circular logic used to convince "judge" Kaplan (who needed little convincing, he rather was looking for an excuse) to ban DeCSS.
3. Has resulted in LINKS to sites not liked by the IP cartel being banned. This despite there is no legal precedent, and nothing in the DMCA that specifies this. This is by far the weakest part of so-called "judge" Kaplan's ruling.
The Commerce department is more concerned with the market implications. No matter how much the US strongarms, there will be some place that doesn't have this law, and that country will have the chance to surpass ALL countrys with CBDTPA in IT, the largest growth industry in the world.
It's in the EULA, unfortunately... They can audit you anytime they wish. To not let them do so breaches your licenses.
For God's sake, READ THOSE EULAs! If more schools, businesses, orgs, paid attention to what they were signing themselves up to, one of two things would happen:
1. They'd opt for more "Free" as in freedom software that does not have such draconian strings
2. There would be FAR more pressure to change or limit what can be put in EULA's..
But, the bottom line, the EULA is a contract that your org agreed to soon as you clicked "I agree". Submission to the BSA is one of those things they agreed to.
Sure, much of it MAY be illegal and unenforceable, including the BSA audits, BUT, because you all "signed" the contract, it's up to your org to go to court and PROVE it...
"But the main point is, look at bnet as a whole. 90%+ is used for no other purpose than to circumvent battle.net's authentication system so one can play unlicensed video games."
Why? I can see wanting to set up one on my LOCAL LAN, to play with friends only, with FAR better bandwith, etc than on Battle.Net.
Does it follow that just because I set up a BnetD server that I *AM* going to use it to "infringe" copyright? (I hate the term piracy.
Hell, it'd be to your advantage, if you have a lan with several workstations to set up your own server. Or if your friends all have broadband, etc.
" That's a whole boat load of bull and you know it. Do you not dispute the fact that bnet is overwhelmingly being used to play unlicensed games? Why are you talking about *MIGHT* and the "little guy"? It's not a *MIGHT* it's *OVERWHELMINGLY* and it's not the "little guy" it's "MASS THUGERY"."
Well, then, I suppose you will march to your nearest RIAA/MPAA office and "turn in" your VCR, casette recorders, and PC sound cards...
All those devices are used for piracy, aren't they? It doesn't matter that they have legit uses, right?
Another quick point... Why is it that software companies are allowed to get away with spouting largely "made up" piracy numbers and dollar amounts, IN COURT?
This was one of the tactics used against Mitnick, and was used in the DeCSS case as well.
In any OTHER business, the SEC would be all over them for not reporting that as a *LOSS*. Which they can't do, because they can't PROVE it...
Fact is, I bet that "piracy", while a problem, is nowhere NEAR the scare numbers that the IP lobby loves to spout for marketing purposes.
What I find distasteful is that the DMCA allows IP cartel members like Vivendi sue the maker of a product just because of *POTENTIAL* use of pirated software...
It seems to not matter at all that Bnetd has 100 legit uses to the ONE potential illegit use.
Why is it that the law allows the big guns to go after the "little guy" for what someone ELSE *MIGHT* do with their product, yet allows the "big boys" off scott free when it comes to RESPONSIBILITY for quality, defects, bugs, etc?
Let's hope they don't get a "judge" Kaplan. As another poster said, they are getting the complete F.U.D. DeCSS treatment. Let's hope this doesn't turn into another show trial where the verdict is a foregone conclusion.
Did BLACKMAIL become legal? How is this any different?
It's about fucking time that the RICO act applied to companies like MS and their industry cartels like the BSA. MS, after all, is a CORPORATE FELON now... Convicted and everything, despite the odds. What RIGHT and place do they have to be threatening people?
Of course, I actually hope MS does more of this. Nothing will convince people that they need to go GPL more than to have the barrel of the legal gun held to their heads.
" How long will the DMCA be used to trample freedom of speech, expression, and fair use, until Congress gets it into their thick skulls that this is BAD LEGISLATION, and repeals it?
Maybe the overwhelmingly negative response to CBPTBA (or whatever) will act as a wakeup call."
All I can say is that if these sorts of laws continue to be passed and abused, methinks the IP hoarders will be "the first against the wall when the revolution comes" (to "fair use" some Douglas Adams).
The fact that the DMCA *IS* most definately being used to stifle free speech, in the terms of POLITICAL speech (as $cientology IS a religious lobby), should ALONE merit review....
But, alas, so long as the RIAA/MPAA/$cientologists, et all, get to INITIATE the cases, they will continue to get to handpick the judges and courts.
Which will get us more sham trials like the DeCSS case.
What is needed is for us to somehow file a CLASS ACTION against those enforcing the DMCA, on a first amendment basis, and based on the copyright/fair use provision of the Constitution.
I had such high hopes for the Felten case, because for once our side would be the initiator, instead of the defendant... I beleive it was a mistake for him to go ahead and GIVE his speech, because to not do so would have made it easier to show that he was INTIMIDATED into silence by DMCA saber rattling.
You know, I *LOVE* computers. I've been around them since I was 8 and got my first one, a VIC-20... But I think it's wrong to EVER put them in "charge" in any way in law enforcement.
The popular myth is that "computers never make mistakes". Well, we ALL know this is bullshit. No computer is any better than the software that it is running, and the hardware is no better than the people who designed it.
Show me ONE bug free piece of software that exists, anywhwere, that is more complex than the "hello world!" level and you can argue with me.
Better yet, show me one OPERATING SYSTEM, the layer atop the hardware that any applications software (such as this Orwell-Ware) that is bug free.
Bug=mistake.
That said, the odds of any such application, to be flawless itself, running on a flawless OS, running on flawless hardware, are SO small as to be non-existant.
The best that can be hoped for is accuracy in the 90%+ range. Multiply that by 300 million people, and the number of people who are going to be harassed is in the TENS of million... The potential for abuse, by both law enforcement, and by hackers with agendas is staggering...
Already the face scanners have been proven to be so inaccurate that they are being dropped in places. This is a FAR more complex algorhythm... I'd think an accuracy rate of 20% would be generous.
For one thing, they are assuming that normal people will behave normally, but that criminals will behave differently, evasive, etc... Well, I for one will NOT act normally anyplace I know such a thing is operating, and I doubt anyone else will either. This, I doubt can be taken into account.
If Microsoft's way had been in place for the past century, there never would have BEEN the rise of technology in the US.
Gates argument, when you cancel out all the mesmerizing buzzwords is this: Code that we can't lock up with one of our "fuck you" EULA's is not good for us.
I find it amazing that they actually have the balls to go out and defend THEIR license with these inane attacks on the GPL.
The fact is, yes, you ARE bound to a certain ideology if you use GPL'ed code. That is the price you pay for it. But you always have the option to NOT use it.
Microsoft would like the open source community to change to BSD style licenses because this would mean the END of us. A BSD license lets Microsoft take what we have and not give anything back for it. And they will do it too, there is a LOT of BSD code that has been used in `Doze. Too bad they didn't use more of it, really.
A BSD license for Linux and other GNU code would doom us to being the perpetual "red headed stepchild" to proprietary software, because it means they always can take anything we have, without returning the favor.
The GPL, on the other hand, is a defense, in that the license itself is a "poison pill" that is anathema to M$'s whole business structure.
Indeed, GPL'ed software is the ONLY competition to Microsoft that can't be: bought, stolen, or marketed away.
You can't compete with Microsoft making proprietary software when they target you for elimination. Ask Netscape about this. This is because they not only compete with your application software, but they OWN the highway you have to drive on to get to your customer.
I feel this is why there is now a DEARTH of proprietary software development, and why the only place where competition for MS is happening is in the open source and GPL license community.
And, you know what? It works! Open source software, in general, ends up SUPERIOR in quality to proprietary. Look at Mozilla. Yes, it took a year too long to develop, but I'd not even THINK of going back to IE's "pop up hell" even on my `Doze machine.
I disagree... I don't think the failure of advertising is limited ONLY to the Internet... I think it was just the Internet that EXPOSED the fact that "The Emperor has no clothes".
Internet advertising so far is the ONLY means of advertising that shows 100% accurate stats on views/reads/clicks, and how many result in purchase.
I'd be willing to bet that if the same accuracy were available for TV, Radio, and other more "traditional" advertising, you'd find similar rates of return, maybe even less.
IMO, I think the whole advertising/marketing profession is due for a crash soon. Already, TV and radio ad buys are down...
Radio, in particular is concerned about competition from national, and largely ad-free satcaster radio that offers FAR greater diversity than broadcast radio.
By bombarding us with ads from every corner and every surface, the marketers have made us more resistant... I liken it to how strains of bacteria eventually develop that resist the latest, most powerful version of penicillin...
Just as doctors fear "superbacteria" reisistant to ANY penecillin, Marketers should fear taht eventually a "strain" of pissed off consumers will finally become resistant to any and ALL new methods of obnoxious delivery of copy.
And you know what I say? Tough shit! Information like that costs MONEY to gather in any other endeavor. For example, Arbitron and Nielsen are "opt in" and pay a (token) amount to participants.
If customer information for marketing purposes is so valueable, then make them PAY for it. I think the recent Yahoo! "preferences reset" shows how rife ANY "opt out" system will be for such abuse... When I got that message from Yahoo!, I wanted to go into my account and CLOSE it rather than just reset the preferences..
Guess what, KILLING OFF your Yahoo! ID (and your information stored, such as your e-mail address) is NOT an option!
Which means that even if I never visit Yahoo! again nor use any of the "services" you get with a Yahoo! ID, they are still keeping my e-mail address, and other info, and are likely to at some point in the future pull an "oops I did it again".
To clarify one point in my post above... "judge" Kaplan not only failed to apply the required Constitutionality test to the DMCA (which his oath of office requires), but he allowed the MPAA to rewrite it in his court to little resemble even what was passed by Congress.
When did you EVER hear of a US federal judge ever ruling that he didn't have jurisdiction?
Rarely (if ever) happens. I do think the Constitutionality question is their best defense. "Fair use" is derived from the Constitution's own copyright provisions.
Also, the main intended use of Elcomsoft's product (access to e-books for the disabled) would seem to fall under the DMCA's own interoperability clause. Not to mention, the lack of such features may make E-books illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act (but I'm unsure of this)
However, the "interoperability" provision of the DMCA was TOTALLY blown off by his Imperial Highness, "judge" Kaplan in the DeCSS case, when such a clause would seem to make it legal to circumvent CSS for the purpose of making a Linux DVD player (which is why DeCSS was written).
One of the worst problems with the DMCA and the DeCSS case is not just that it's a bad law (it's worse), but that the courts have let the IP cartels pick and cboose WHAT parts to enforce and what parts to ignore. They are getting the most favorable interpretation of the DMCA possible, while ignoring the parts that temper this and make at least a token attempt at "fair use".
IMO, this may eventually make it easier to strike the whole thing down. The more extreme and umprecedented the DMCA is interpreted, the more likely it is to be an obvious clash with the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
"That's because in the case of Ford or GM, defects like that would cost people their health or their lives. I very much doubt that anyone has ever been killed by an email virus or worm."
When it comes down to the courts, even health and life is expressed in dollar damage awards.
Software security holes and bugs lead to what is probably many milliions to maybe BILLIONS of dollars in damage and loss each year.
If the software industry took QUALITY as seriously as they do feeding their BSA stormtroopers, I might be more sympathetic to their piracy cries.
" Careful what you wish for. There are people out here in real world who cannot afford to get sued."
You know what? If this happens, the software industry has no one but themselves to blame. They've had plenty of time and then some to self-police, and have failed to take bugs and security seriously.
True, not ALL software companies are MS, but it is MS that has the flaws, and is on most of the machines. Sadly.
The BEST virus spreader evern invented... The sad thing is, it doesn't MATTER IF MS fixes it, there are so many millions of the "take me in the ass, script kiddie" versions of Outlook and/or IIS running on 2000/NT and 9x workstations owned by users with no clue as to how to patch their systems that this will be a problem for YEARS...
I'm telling you, software makers NEED liability. It's the only way we will ever have responsible programs released. Right now, software makers can get away with selling products that have defects in them on the order of ones that if they were in cars, would send Ford or GM into receivership.
These e-mail worms would never be able to spread in this way if it were not for defects in Microsoft products.
Until software houses are FORCED by liability that can't be EULA'ed away, there will never be wuality control.
I've got an old HP 672C that basically refuses to die... It uses an older cart that is readily available from Pelikan and other 3rd parties that keeps it going cheaply.
;)
;)
But, I never really use it for anything serious, just printing out some docs, FAQ's etc, and the occasional shot of Britney
I wouldn't even think of replacing it until the thing dies. When it does go, I'd more than likely go with another HP. Or possibly one of the Okidata LED's.
I wish I could afford a HP LaserJet 4500C for home use though
"Once they figure out how to force you legally to use their ink... printer prices will skyrocket too."
Isn't that what MS basically did with `Doze? Once they got 98% of the market, and laws that protect their monopoly (DMCA), not to mention ran out the clock on the antitrust suit, they came out with a new OS, XP, that more than doubled the price, and increased the strings fourfold...
They will get it banned, if the overreaction to PGP is any indication. One has to wonder as to whether we really live in a free country, when our government insists that we use insecure communications, just so they can tap them when they wish.
Our government uses communications Joe Citizen can't tap. So should Joe Citizen have the right to use such technology for himself.
" Yes - but short of a massive public campaign against this - it's going to go through. The companies that have a vested interest in this make large donations - the parties/ senators wouldn't like to see that stream of revenue disappear. The best that can be hoped for is that it goes through in a modified form."
Which is what pisses me off about the so-called "campaign finance reform". It does nothing to address the existance of industry-wide "cartels" like the MPAA, RIAA, etc. Who even if not allowed to give money to a candidate, will still get their ear, BECAUSE they are an industry cartel.
Maybe the MPAA/RIAA's memberships are of multiple companies, but when it comes to setting prices and policies, and lobbying, they act as ONE... That can't be legal under the Sherman act.
Indeed, the RIAA has been found to be guilty of price fixing the cost of CD's... Punishment? none that matters.
When such a group has been found to break the law in that way, it should be dissolved.
" Veto? I pray it doesn't get that far. There can't be that many Media Whores on the Hill... can there?"
Bush already signed an Unconstitutional campaign finance "reform" law, one that makes it a FELONY to buy any advertisement dissing one of your representatives 60 days before an election.
This means, that you coudn't run any ads detailing what Sentator "Disney" Hollings has done TO the Constitution, in the time period where most people who will are paying attention...
Guess who gets an exemption and gets to decide what is said about candidates? The MEDIA, largely owned by the IP cartel. Note that this law will be in full effect next time Senator Disney runs.
This is also the same Congress that passed the DMCA by unanimous voice vote.
That the Founders weren't wise enough to end the Bill of Rights as it started:
"Congress shall make no law"...
Every law passed (and there are thousands every year), at the state, local, and federal level creates a new crime and takes away some freedom. And people wonder why we are becoming a Lawyerocracy?
With the million or so laws on the books nationwide, it's IMPOSSIBLE for even the most law abiding citizen to go though any given day, week, month, or year without breaking many...
Which is slavery. The law should be simple, and understandable by all.
We are supposed to be a Republic, based on majority rule through representatives, with civil rights protected by a Constitution. Tell me, anyone, how the DMCA or CBDTPA serves the majority interest, or isn't contrary to the Constitution?
" This isn't a time to rest on our laurels. Congress could still pass this thing. A simple majority wins, and Congress has passed many an unpopular act (USA Patriot anyone?) We still have to email and write letters and protest this thing and reach every single person we can.
We keep recieving good news, but that doesn't mean we should slack off... it means that we should work harder and spread our message. Advocacy works."
We shouldn't feel SAFE at all... Remember, it was only 1998 when Congress, by a UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE passed DMCA.
I don't belive that 535 members of Congress have been replaced in the last 4 years. That means, obviously, there is still a huge majority, a Veto-proof majority, that is still there who voted in DMCA.
Until people start changing their politicians like they do underwear (for the same reason), this kind of power and influence by industry cartels will continue to write the laws.
If they think the DMCA is "balanced" and that CBDTPA isn't...
Actually, there IS some balance in the DMCA, at least in the text (such as it's reverse-engineer for interoperability clause), but unfortunately, in the DeCSS case, Hillary Rosen and her merry bunch of IP cartel mangates were able to get the DMCA rewritten to not include that.
The CBDTPA doesn't even have any pro-forma acknowlegement of ANY existance of "fair use". But, again, as the DMCA has been enforced so far, there has been NO balance.
Why the commerce department is concerned, is very simple. This law would put the USA at a SERIOUS disadvantage in the world IT marketplace. It would with a stroke of a pen, put the slide rule makers in charge of the computer industry.
It would make open source and free software as we know it illegal. And OSS is where much of the world's software marketshare growth has been occurring...
It's also an incredibly dumb and bad law, one which will likely be almost universally disobeyed. Joe Consumer, who may not yet have been affected by the DMCA will be totally pissed by this.
Indeed, even AFTER CBDTPA OS's and hardware comes out, it should be possible for an OS like Linux to completely bypass any such restrictions, as it is the OS, after all, that controls the hardware.
Frankly, I'm amazed that this thing is even being introduced. There is already a lot of resistance to the DMCA, that is already opposed to this law. Also, academia is starting to get involved. The DMCA has already caused:
1. A respected professor (Felten) to fear presenting an ACADEMIC PAPER.
2. A whole application (DeCSS) to be banned simply because it COULD be used to break CSS encryption for the purpose of burning DVD's without it, ignoring the fact that *EVERY* DVD player ever sold does just this, and the fact that it's purpose was to allow the creation of an open source OS DVD player...
Indeed, the introduction of DVD-R drives to the market, and the ease of copying DVD's on them pretty much destroys the circular logic used to convince "judge" Kaplan (who needed little convincing, he rather was looking for an excuse) to ban DeCSS.
3. Has resulted in LINKS to sites not liked by the IP cartel being banned. This despite there is no legal precedent, and nothing in the DMCA that specifies this. This is by far the weakest part of so-called "judge" Kaplan's ruling.
The Commerce department is more concerned with the market implications. No matter how much the US strongarms, there will be some place that doesn't have this law, and that country will have the chance to surpass ALL countrys with CBDTPA in IT, the largest growth industry in the world.
It's in the EULA, unfortunately... They can audit you anytime they wish. To not let them do so breaches your licenses.
For God's sake, READ THOSE EULAs! If more schools, businesses, orgs, paid attention to what they were signing themselves up to, one of two things would happen:
1. They'd opt for more "Free" as in freedom software that does not have such draconian strings
2. There would be FAR more pressure to change or limit what can be put in EULA's..
But, the bottom line, the EULA is a contract that your org agreed to soon as you clicked "I agree". Submission to the BSA is one of those things they agreed to.
Sure, much of it MAY be illegal and unenforceable, including the BSA audits, BUT, because you all "signed" the contract, it's up to your org to go to court and PROVE it...
"But the main point is, look at bnet as a whole. 90%+ is used for no other purpose than to circumvent battle.net's authentication system so one can play unlicensed video games."
Why? I can see wanting to set up one on my LOCAL LAN, to play with friends only, with FAR better bandwith, etc than on Battle.Net.
Does it follow that just because I set up a BnetD server that I *AM* going to use it to "infringe" copyright? (I hate the term piracy.
Hell, it'd be to your advantage, if you have a lan with several workstations to set up your own server. Or if your friends all have broadband, etc.
" That's a whole boat load of bull and you know it. Do you not dispute the fact that bnet is overwhelmingly being used to play unlicensed games? Why are you talking about *MIGHT* and the "little guy"? It's not a *MIGHT* it's *OVERWHELMINGLY* and it's not the "little guy" it's "MASS THUGERY"."
Well, then, I suppose you will march to your nearest RIAA/MPAA office and "turn in" your VCR, casette recorders, and PC sound cards...
All those devices are used for piracy, aren't they? It doesn't matter that they have legit uses, right?
Another quick point... Why is it that software companies are allowed to get away with spouting largely "made up" piracy numbers and dollar amounts, IN COURT?
This was one of the tactics used against Mitnick, and was used in the DeCSS case as well.
In any OTHER business, the SEC would be all over them for not reporting that as a *LOSS*. Which they can't do, because they can't PROVE it...
Fact is, I bet that "piracy", while a problem, is nowhere NEAR the scare numbers that the IP lobby loves to spout for marketing purposes.
What I find distasteful is that the DMCA allows IP cartel members like Vivendi sue the maker of a product just because of *POTENTIAL* use of pirated software...
It seems to not matter at all that Bnetd has 100 legit uses to the ONE potential illegit use.
Why is it that the law allows the big guns to go after the "little guy" for what someone ELSE *MIGHT* do with their product, yet allows the "big boys" off scott free when it comes to RESPONSIBILITY for quality, defects, bugs, etc?
Let's hope they don't get a "judge" Kaplan. As another poster said, they are getting the complete F.U.D. DeCSS treatment. Let's hope this doesn't turn into another show trial where the verdict is a foregone conclusion.
Did BLACKMAIL become legal? How is this any different?
It's about fucking time that the RICO act applied to companies like MS and their industry cartels like the BSA. MS, after all, is a CORPORATE FELON now... Convicted and everything, despite the odds. What RIGHT and place do they have to be threatening people?
Of course, I actually hope MS does more of this. Nothing will convince people that they need to go GPL more than to have the barrel of the legal gun held to their heads.
" How long will the DMCA be used to trample freedom of speech, expression, and fair use, until Congress gets it into their thick skulls that this is BAD LEGISLATION, and repeals it?
Maybe the overwhelmingly negative response to CBPTBA (or whatever) will act as a wakeup call."
All I can say is that if these sorts of laws continue to be passed and abused, methinks the IP hoarders will be "the first against the wall when the revolution comes" (to "fair use" some Douglas Adams).
The fact that the DMCA *IS* most definately being used to stifle free speech, in the terms of POLITICAL speech (as $cientology IS a religious lobby), should ALONE merit review....
But, alas, so long as the RIAA/MPAA/$cientologists, et all, get to INITIATE the cases, they will continue to get to handpick the judges and courts.
Which will get us more sham trials like the DeCSS case.
What is needed is for us to somehow file a CLASS ACTION against those enforcing the DMCA, on a first amendment basis, and based on the copyright/fair use provision of the Constitution.
I had such high hopes for the Felten case, because for once our side would be the initiator, instead of the defendant... I beleive it was a mistake for him to go ahead and GIVE his speech, because to not do so would have made it easier to show that he was INTIMIDATED into silence by DMCA saber rattling.
You know, I *LOVE* computers. I've been around them since I was 8 and got my first one, a VIC-20... But I think it's wrong to EVER put them in "charge" in any way in law enforcement.
The popular myth is that "computers never make mistakes". Well, we ALL know this is bullshit. No computer is any better than the software that it is running, and the hardware is no better than the people who designed it.
Show me ONE bug free piece of software that exists, anywhwere, that is more complex than the "hello world!" level and you can argue with me.
Better yet, show me one OPERATING SYSTEM, the layer atop the hardware that any applications software (such as this Orwell-Ware) that is bug free.
Bug=mistake.
That said, the odds of any such application, to be flawless itself, running on a flawless OS, running on flawless hardware, are SO small as to be non-existant.
The best that can be hoped for is accuracy in the 90%+ range. Multiply that by 300 million people, and the number of people who are going to be harassed is in the TENS of million... The potential for abuse, by both law enforcement, and by hackers with agendas is staggering...
Already the face scanners have been proven to be so inaccurate that they are being dropped in places. This is a FAR more complex algorhythm... I'd think an accuracy rate of 20% would be generous.
For one thing, they are assuming that normal people will behave normally, but that criminals will behave differently, evasive, etc... Well, I for one will NOT act normally anyplace I know such a thing is operating, and I doubt anyone else will either. This, I doubt can be taken into account.
If Microsoft's way had been in place for the past century, there never would have BEEN the rise of technology in the US.
Gates argument, when you cancel out all the mesmerizing buzzwords is this: Code that we can't lock up with one of our "fuck you" EULA's is not good for us.
I find it amazing that they actually have the balls to go out and defend THEIR license with these inane attacks on the GPL.
The fact is, yes, you ARE bound to a certain ideology if you use GPL'ed code. That is the price you pay for it. But you always have the option to NOT use it.
Microsoft would like the open source community to change to BSD style licenses because this would mean the END of us. A BSD license lets Microsoft take what we have and not give anything back for it. And they will do it too, there is a LOT of BSD code that has been used in `Doze. Too bad they didn't use more of it, really.
A BSD license for Linux and other GNU code would doom us to being the perpetual "red headed stepchild" to proprietary software, because it means they always can take anything we have, without returning the favor.
The GPL, on the other hand, is a defense, in that the license itself is a "poison pill" that is anathema to M$'s whole business structure.
Indeed, GPL'ed software is the ONLY competition to Microsoft that can't be: bought, stolen, or marketed away.
You can't compete with Microsoft making proprietary software when they target you for elimination. Ask Netscape about this. This is because they not only compete with your application software, but they OWN the highway you have to drive on to get to your customer.
I feel this is why there is now a DEARTH of proprietary software development, and why the only place where competition for MS is happening is in the open source and GPL license community.
And, you know what? It works! Open source software, in general, ends up SUPERIOR in quality to proprietary. Look at Mozilla. Yes, it took a year too long to develop, but I'd not even THINK of going back to IE's "pop up hell" even on my `Doze machine.
Do these moronic drones have ANY CAPACITY FOR THOUGHT?!! There has to be a century of prior art on this, as in, ask any 6 year old kid.
The only "innovation" here is in thinking to file for a patent. I guess these guys are going to go around suing playgrounds for royalties.
If any of these idiots at the USPTO dare to cash their paychecks, they are comitting fraud. This madness has got to stop.
I disagree... I don't think the failure of advertising is limited ONLY to the Internet... I think it was just the Internet that EXPOSED the fact that "The Emperor has no clothes".
Internet advertising so far is the ONLY means of advertising that shows 100% accurate stats on views/reads/clicks, and how many result in purchase.
I'd be willing to bet that if the same accuracy were available for TV, Radio, and other more "traditional" advertising, you'd find similar rates of return, maybe even less.
IMO, I think the whole advertising/marketing profession is due for a crash soon. Already, TV and radio ad buys are down...
Radio, in particular is concerned about competition from national, and largely ad-free satcaster radio that offers FAR greater diversity than broadcast radio.
By bombarding us with ads from every corner and every surface, the marketers have made us more resistant... I liken it to how strains of bacteria eventually develop that resist the latest, most powerful version of penicillin...
Just as doctors fear "superbacteria" reisistant to ANY penecillin, Marketers should fear taht eventually a "strain" of pissed off consumers will finally become resistant to any and ALL new methods of obnoxious delivery of copy.
That day is coming, if it's not already here.
Why? Because they know almost no one would...
And you know what I say? Tough shit! Information like that costs MONEY to gather in any other endeavor. For example, Arbitron and Nielsen are "opt in" and pay a (token) amount to participants.
If customer information for marketing purposes is so valueable, then make them PAY for it. I think the recent Yahoo! "preferences reset" shows how rife ANY "opt out" system will be for such abuse... When I got that message from Yahoo!, I wanted to go into my account and CLOSE it rather than just reset the preferences..
Guess what, KILLING OFF your Yahoo! ID (and your information stored, such as your e-mail address) is NOT an option!
Which means that even if I never visit Yahoo! again nor use any of the "services" you get with a Yahoo! ID, they are still keeping my e-mail address, and other info, and are likely to at some point in the future pull an "oops I did it again".
To clarify one point in my post above... "judge" Kaplan not only failed to apply the required Constitutionality test to the DMCA (which his oath of office requires), but he allowed the MPAA to rewrite it in his court to little resemble even what was passed by Congress.
When did you EVER hear of a US federal judge ever ruling that he didn't have jurisdiction?
Rarely (if ever) happens. I do think the Constitutionality question is their best defense. "Fair use" is derived from the Constitution's own copyright provisions.
Also, the main intended use of Elcomsoft's product (access to e-books for the disabled) would seem to fall under the DMCA's own interoperability clause. Not to mention, the lack of such features may make E-books illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act (but I'm unsure of this)
However, the "interoperability" provision of the DMCA was TOTALLY blown off by his Imperial Highness, "judge" Kaplan in the DeCSS case, when such a clause would seem to make it legal to circumvent CSS for the purpose of making a Linux DVD player (which is why DeCSS was written).
One of the worst problems with the DMCA and the DeCSS case is not just that it's a bad law (it's worse), but that the courts have let the IP cartels pick and cboose WHAT parts to enforce and what parts to ignore. They are getting the most favorable interpretation of the DMCA possible, while ignoring the parts that temper this and make at least a token attempt at "fair use".
IMO, this may eventually make it easier to strike the whole thing down. The more extreme and umprecedented the DMCA is interpreted, the more likely it is to be an obvious clash with the Constitution.