Since when did you get to decide who is a "real" journalist? Just because you disagree/dislike his opinions that makes them no longer valid? Grow up. How about you find something more constructive to do right now than bash someone else's opinions.
Yeah, that works. Then the terrorists won't have to down our planes, we'll do it ourselves. Ever heard of/seen examples of air rage? Road rage? Going postal? Having large numbers of people carting around quick ways to kill each other is not a good idea in the here and now.
And even putting aside the whole irrational anger angle, we would still lose more planes to accidents with weapons than we do to terrorism. Remember, guns and planes do not play well together at all.
Katz's statments were in the context of media, please address them in proper context. I don't believe it was any kind of sleight on the actual behavior of the two respective leaders, but rather a very accurate description of the images and impressions that the idiot box showed the world. There is a fine but very important distinction between the two.
His statement was ridiculous? I think you need to check the dictrionary. It was a simple statement of fact. The UN has, in writing and through much fairly open deliberation, given Iraq a set of very specific things they must do to end the sanctions. On the other hand an unknown group which is angry at us for unknown reasons killed thousands of people without warning and without remorse.
Drawing parallels between terrorism and negotiated economic sanctions is the ridiculous thing here.
All of what you point out is irrelevant. The tenants on which this country and our constitution apply to everyone. That includes makers of spamware, guns, drugs, and lots of other things many of us dislike. Because many of dislike them is in fact even more reason for their speach to be protected.
The people who wrote and enacted are, by and large, also motivated by pure simple greed. The only difference between them and Dmitry is that what they did violates our constitution and one of its most basic and highly regarded ideals while Dmitry was simply excercising his rights under those ideals.
Your analogy is weak, very weak. In particular because the activity you describe is NOT ILLEGAL. Distributing instructions for doing something is not against the law ni the country (save for breaking encryption due to the industry written idiocy of the DMCA). The person breaking into the house gets put in jail, not the writer/distributor of the method.
It is legal to produce instructions on how to kill someone (make a bomb, make poisons, make guns, whatever) and in most cases legal even to make the objects themselves. By your argument every gun manufacturer and designer in this country should be in jail for accessory homicide. But we, as a society, have decided that is not how our system should work. Or, more directly, the NRA decided that and pushed enough power/money around in washington for decades to make sure it happened. The only reason that basic tenant has changed with regards to protecting IP instead of lives is that the public no longer has any voice in the legislature with regards to issues that fall outside the top ten debate topics at election time.
The chilling effect in the research/journalism community is reason enough for this case to blow the doors off the DMCA. As of now it is illegal to meaningfully bring criticism against any security measures protecting anything. Without the ability to demonstrate the security flaws one is intending to expose you simply become a chicken little yelling about the sky falling. Thus it is meaningless criticism and quite possibly libelous. If on the other hand a person can and does demonstrate the weakness they have violate one or more provisions of the DMCA. This is visibly demonstrated by Sklyarov's arrest.
In the past the US courts have always sided with the 1st Amendment on cases where widespread chilling effects could be easily demonstrated. If I can come up with a solid example in 15 minutes a good lawyer should be able to build an ironclad case. While the man should most definitely be released (and file suit for the numerous rights violations that have been outlined in other posts) I almost hope this case DOES stay active through the legal system as it seems to be an almost perfect weapon against this ludicrous law. Sklyarov committed no actual infringement. The company issuing the complaint has backed down. The presentation was given in an obviously journalistic/educational setting. If this can't win in court, what can?
I can, and often do, set aside picking nits to enjoy a good romp through space, or fantasy, or action sequences, or whatever. But Voyager had problems far beyond the nits. The writing was some of the worst on TV this side of the WWF. I tried for all 7 years of it's run to like it. I really did. And, yes, there were a few good episodes here and there. On the whole, however, I couldn't even finish watching most of them. Sadly the finally fell into that catagory.
This is the angle that should be used for the 'speech' part. Print a copy of the plain english version of DeCSS in the brief. Is that illegal? Would translating that into German be illegal? So why is translating it into C or perl be illegal? The MPAA can make a case for distributing a compiled program as non-expressive (at least with regards to encryption utilities) but code is just words on paper.
It would clean up the pool all right.. by killing of the vast majority of western style humanity. The environments in which we live (for the most part) don't have the ability to sustain much human life any longer. Even if you're a survivalist with the knowledge to survive if dropped in the woods with nothing but a knife and your boxers you can't do it if there isn't any game within 100 miles of you.
Here are two examples, both related to making back-up copies.
1. I purchased several learning programs for my computer to be sed by my 7 year old son. Being a young boy he obviously does not handle the cd-roms with quite the care an adult would so there is a definate possiblity for one or more of these legally purchased discs to become damaged. Due to this I wish to make back-up copies for him to use on a daily basis. However these programs have copy protection implemented. Therefore I cannot create the archival copies that I am allowed under fair use as determined by the Supreme Court.
2. In a similar situation I have also purchased several DVDs which are intended for him to use as well. Again, boys being boys, I'm concerned that they will be damaged if he uses them normally day-in and day-out. Thus I would like to format-shift these movies onto VHS tapes, currently the only consumer recordable format with wide acceptance so my son can view these movies without having to have an adult help him with it (as well as viewing in rooms other than the one with the dvd player). Under the DMCA it is illegal for me to bypass either the Macrovision encoding to record directly from the player or to bypass the CSS encryption to use my computer to produce some other form of backup.
3. I legally purchased They Might Be Giants album 'Long Tall Weekend' from eMusic. This album is currently only available in the mp3 format. After buying the mp3s I made them into an audio cd so that I could listen to the album I fully paid for when away from my computer. Under the DMCA this could potentially have been illegal. If it was deemed that the mp3 encoding was an 'access control' then possesion of any mp3 player that allows you to convert them to a raw audio format would be a circumvention device.
And of course these particular examples are representative of a vast number of possible cases involving these same issues.
aron.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when did you get to decide who is a "real" journalist? Just because you disagree/dislike his opinions that makes them no longer valid? Grow up. How about you find something more constructive to do right now than bash someone else's opinions.
It was NOT a damned good evening is the point. It was quite possibly the worst evening in the history of mankind.
And even putting aside the whole irrational anger angle, we would still lose more planes to accidents with weapons than we do to terrorism. Remember, guns and planes do not play well together at all.
Katz's statments were in the context of media, please address them in proper context. I don't believe it was any kind of sleight on the actual behavior of the two respective leaders, but rather a very accurate description of the images and impressions that the idiot box showed the world. There is a fine but very important distinction between the two.
His statement was ridiculous? I think you need to check the dictrionary. It was a simple statement of fact. The UN has, in writing and through much fairly open deliberation, given Iraq a set of very specific things they must do to end the sanctions. On the other hand an unknown group which is angry at us for unknown reasons killed thousands of people without warning and without remorse.
Drawing parallels between terrorism and negotiated economic sanctions is the ridiculous thing here.
The people who wrote and enacted are, by and large, also motivated by pure simple greed. The only difference between them and Dmitry is that what they did violates our constitution and one of its most basic and highly regarded ideals while Dmitry was simply excercising his rights under those ideals.
It is legal to produce instructions on how to kill someone (make a bomb, make poisons, make guns, whatever) and in most cases legal even to make the objects themselves. By your argument every gun manufacturer and designer in this country should be in jail for accessory homicide. But we, as a society, have decided that is not how our system should work. Or, more directly, the NRA decided that and pushed enough power/money around in washington for decades to make sure it happened. The only reason that basic tenant has changed with regards to protecting IP instead of lives is that the public no longer has any voice in the legislature with regards to issues that fall outside the top ten debate topics at election time.
In the past the US courts have always sided with the 1st Amendment on cases where widespread chilling effects could be easily demonstrated. If I can come up with a solid example in 15 minutes a good lawyer should be able to build an ironclad case. While the man should most definitely be released (and file suit for the numerous rights violations that have been outlined in other posts) I almost hope this case DOES stay active through the legal system as it seems to be an almost perfect weapon against this ludicrous law. Sklyarov committed no actual infringement. The company issuing the complaint has backed down. The presentation was given in an obviously journalistic/educational setting. If this can't win in court, what can?
I can, and often do, set aside picking nits to enjoy a good romp through space, or fantasy, or action sequences, or whatever. But Voyager had problems far beyond the nits. The writing was some of the worst on TV this side of the WWF. I tried for all 7 years of it's run to like it. I really did. And, yes, there were a few good episodes here and there. On the whole, however, I couldn't even finish watching most of them. Sadly the finally fell into that catagory.
This is the angle that should be used for the 'speech' part. Print a copy of the plain english version of DeCSS in the brief. Is that illegal? Would translating that into German be illegal? So why is translating it into C or perl be illegal? The MPAA can make a case for distributing a compiled program as non-expressive (at least with regards to encryption utilities) but code is just words on paper.
It would clean up the pool all right.. by killing of the vast majority of western style humanity. The environments in which we live (for the most part) don't have the ability to sustain much human life any longer. Even if you're a survivalist with the knowledge to survive if dropped in the woods with nothing but a knife and your boxers you can't do it if there isn't any game within 100 miles of you.
Why did the forum strip out all my line breaks and render that post almost unreadable?
Here are two examples, both related to making back-up copies. 1. I purchased several learning programs for my computer to be sed by my 7 year old son. Being a young boy he obviously does not handle the cd-roms with quite the care an adult would so there is a definate possiblity for one or more of these legally purchased discs to become damaged. Due to this I wish to make back-up copies for him to use on a daily basis. However these programs have copy protection implemented. Therefore I cannot create the archival copies that I am allowed under fair use as determined by the Supreme Court. 2. In a similar situation I have also purchased several DVDs which are intended for him to use as well. Again, boys being boys, I'm concerned that they will be damaged if he uses them normally day-in and day-out. Thus I would like to format-shift these movies onto VHS tapes, currently the only consumer recordable format with wide acceptance so my son can view these movies without having to have an adult help him with it (as well as viewing in rooms other than the one with the dvd player). Under the DMCA it is illegal for me to bypass either the Macrovision encoding to record directly from the player or to bypass the CSS encryption to use my computer to produce some other form of backup. 3. I legally purchased They Might Be Giants album 'Long Tall Weekend' from eMusic. This album is currently only available in the mp3 format. After buying the mp3s I made them into an audio cd so that I could listen to the album I fully paid for when away from my computer. Under the DMCA this could potentially have been illegal. If it was deemed that the mp3 encoding was an 'access control' then possesion of any mp3 player that allows you to convert them to a raw audio format would be a circumvention device. And of course these particular examples are representative of a vast number of possible cases involving these same issues. aron.