For all that is wrong with the US, the US Constitution is one of its crowning achievements. This kind of nonsense is exactly why the first ammendment to the US Constitution is so important.
True freedom of speech includes the right not to speak on your behalf. The government cannot prevent you from issuing a rebuttal against my opinions, but it also cannot force me to be an outlet for such a rebuttal. If I make libelous statements about you then your only remedy should be to sue me and demand a retraction. Otherwise you have absolutely no right to force me to speak. None.
It's frightening that a large political body like the European Union does not have the same constitutional restrictions on its legislative powers as the United States. It keeps growing, while the member nations slowly lose their sovereignty.
My signature reflects my feelings about Trusted Computing. Because Trusted Computing is so easily abused by content producers who want strict control over media consumption, I feel it's potential for harm outweighs most of its benefits.
The kind of contract you're describing is called a contract of adhesion. The terms of such a contract are the same for everybody, and there's no room for negotiation. Because of this, contracts of adhesion are less enforceable than negotiated contracts. It may be argued that the DVD publisher's terms do not constitute an agreement, since the terms are imposed unilaterally upon the consumer. Frankly, any restrictions on personal use should require a negotiated contract.
The article did give an idea of how the effect is achieved. I guess the keyword is "exactly", where the article gives us only an overview. It's more a matter of principle than about the man's invention.
"But I'm not telling exactly how I achieve the effect."
"James Dyson - no stranger to court battles over patents - has presumably taken care of the necessary legal business."
Imagine that! Apparently he's been granted a patent on this invention but he's "not telling" people how it works. Whatever happened to full disclosure before being granted a patent? You know, advancing the arts and all that? Or is he perhaps going for a different kind of IP protection, like Penrose and his idiotic toilet paper lawsuit?
Please don't confuse things in an attempt to make them clearer. The obligation to distribute sources to any third party only applies to folks who distribute binaries to modified programs without also providing the sources. Specifically:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following [emphasis added]:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
So, if you provide sources along with the binaries, your obligation to the public has ended. If you do not then you're obligated to provide sources for at least three years after distributing each binary.
Just because the director shot the film in 4:3 doesn't mean he intended it to be shown that way. What most directors do when shooting 1.85:1 is to compose for 1:85 and protect the 4:3 frame so that it doesn't contain boom mikes or other distractions.
Keeping the theatrical aspect ratio is not about getting as much image as possible, it's about preserving the composition of the theatrical release. People forget that when they bring up the fact that some 4:3 video transfers show more picture than the matted 1.85:1.
Correction: Just like ISPs may be required to remove copyrighted content from the websites they host, eBay should be subject to a court's authority regarding the removal of libelous statements.
I don't think it should be eBay's responsibility to take down negative feedback if it hasn't been established to be libel, but once it is established to be libel by a court of law it should be eBay's responsibility to remove it.
Just like ISPs may be required to remove copyrighted content from the websites they host, eBay be subject to a court's authority regarding the removal of libelous statements. So the proper thing to do would be to first sue the poster and then require eBay to remove the libelous feedback.
As an authorized technician and reseller, the people that sell Apple Manuals and OS updates without any original material are promoting fraud. Most, who sells tech manuals, even say in their auctions, "Why pay a technician to fix it when you can do it at home?"
This is fine for out of warranty items, but promoting this for items that are still covered by Apple care, is promoting fraud. here's how: if someone ( a novice) takes this manual and then tries to fix a hardware problem themselves while a unit is still under warranty, then can't fix it or breaks something else, then brings the item in for repair under warranty, Apple and I have to pay for it! Hmmmm...
This is not fraud. Telling people how to modify a system, even in ways that would void the warranty, does not in any way constitute fraud. If it were fraud then all those websites that tell people how to overclock their systems would be illegal.
On the other hand, this may be a case of copyright infingement. If the people selling manuals are selling unauthorized copies of Apple's original manuals, then it's a copyright violation. If all they're doing is selling documents that describe how to repair Apple machines, then it's not a copyright violation (it may be an NDA violation, depending on how they obtained the information).
By the way, neither you nor Apple have to pay for damage that is caused by the user, and if you do so it's only to keep your customers happy.
As for the OS updates, apple has to pay licensing fees for codecs included in some of these updates and they have to pay them based on download totals and CD sales. For instance, last year, Apple paid out $7400 in liscensing for the OS8.6 update. It includes several sorenson codecs and a few TCP/IP network protocols that have to paid for.
What are Apple's license terms on redistribution? If Apple's license does not explicitly allow redistribution then selling the updates would be illegal. If it does allow redistribution then Apple has no right to complain about license fees. Either way, it doesn't constitute fraud.
The problem is that a law requiring Ebay or any other entity to reveal, without a warrant, the identity of an alleged copyright violator is easy to abuse. It's not as if companies are in a position to review every claim of copyright violation. They're not courts, after all. It's for this reason that such a law has great potential to stifle free speech, despite its legitimate uses.
Even binary-only implementations are vulnerable. Binary code may be hard to understand, but it's still understandable. Open source DRM is similar to the current implementation of Windows Media DRM in that it's software only, which means it may be broken by discovering the decryption key and algorithm. Only something like TCPA would make this very difficult.
Re:Independent and Unsanctioned?
on
Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's not really the customer's choice when content is only available under DRM restrictions, is it? As such, it makes no difference whether the DRM software is integrated or "added on", since the choice to protect or not protect the content is ultimately left to content providers.
Re:Independent and Unsanctioned?
on
Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 1
Open and free does not exclude DRM. An open implementation allows everyone to see how the thing works and examine the source code. A free implementation is unencumbered by patents and IP problems.
Just because something is free as in speech does not make it free as in beer.
The source code may be open and free (unless modified under SideSpace Solution's commercial license), but content that is saddled by DRM restrictions is not free in the "freedom" sense of the word.
Right at the bottom of the page: "Please note that OGG-S is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by Xiph.org or Ogg Vorbis."
It's funny how these folks claim to care for people's fair-use rights (see the FAQ on their site). Protect fair use rights by establishing obstacles to fair use? Riiight.
Independent and Unsanctioned?
on
Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 1
Is it safe to say that these people are in no way associated with the Ogg/Vorbis people? I can't see how this is a good thing. The whole point of Ogg formats is that they're open and free. Do we really want a version of Ogg/Vorbis that is saddled by use restrictions?
While a community intranet seems like a nice idea, I'm afraid it will likely be strangled by the unforgiving leash of community policy that's become so popular in modern neighborhood developments. As a form of legislation by contract, not usually subject to constitutional protections, neighborhoods could easily prohibit any but the most inoffensive content being hosted by servers connected to the intranet.
An anarchist intranet, on the other hand, would be a joy to see.
I don't know what MS is doing to market Palladium these days, but their old marketing hook - that Palladium allows users to protect their privacy by limiting what others can do with their personal data - is misleading, manipulative and underhanded.
As a way to protect people's privacy, Palladium is useless. If you as a recepient of somebody else's data are able to read it, then you're also able to copy it: you can use a camcorder to copy video, a tape recorder to copy audio, and a pencil to copy text. The copies will be reduced in quality, but the message itself can still be disseminated.
As a way to protect redistribution of copyrighted material, it is "good enough": because analog copies of movies and music are significantly reduced in quality, and because copies of protected software are non-functional (hacked copies excepted), content producers benefit significantly from such a system.
People who think Palladium is purpose neutral - that it has significant uses outside of DRM - should give some thought to whether such tight control is really necessary to achieve a reasonable degree of privacy and security.
Make no mistake, Palladium's primary purpose isn't to enhance consumer privacy and security, it's to cater to the whims of content producers. It will be a sad day when I can no longer move my software from one computer to another, or when I'm no longer able to print out documents without the publisher's permission, or when I'm only allowed limited-time access to software or documents I've purchased.
After searching google for the "Eldred Act" it seems that Lessig is not proposing that copyrights be renewable forever, as Forbes' statements seemed to suggest, but rather that copyrights should still be granted for limited times with the added restriction of an extension fee every so-many years. That's not as bad as I thought, although I still think it would do little to free up the most valuable works.
Of all the works that might enter the public domain under Lessig's proposal, those works that offer the most value to society are precisely the ones that copyright holders would like to prevent from entering the public domain.
If there's anything to be learned from corporations and the estates of the famous deceased is that both tend to be very protective of their intellectual "property". You can bet that as long as it is possible for these and other groups to renew the copyright to valuable works, they will likely continue to do so.
All that would happen under Lessig's proposal is that the least valuable works would enter the public domain, while the most valuable works would forever remain copy-restricted.
Every time I see an article dicussing the FCCs mandate to TV manufacturers to include digital tuners in TVs I can't help but think: "These people are not Congressmen. What right do they have to regulate manufacturing?". So what is the answer? What law gives the FCC the right to mandate inclusion of certain devices, such as digital tuners with broadcast flag support, as part of television sets? It's a little scary to think the FCC has such powers. It makes me glad that the Internet is not as heavily regulated as other communications channels.
ACM's position on software engineering is that software engineers should not be licensed as professional engineers. Follow the link for lots of reasons.
My own opinion is that liability can exist without licensing. Companies working on safety-critical projects should be careful about people they pick to work for them. They should have adequate quality control procedures in place and should be held liable for negligent behavior. On top of that you could have regulation addressing specific safety concerns as you do for car and medical equipment manufacturers.
apple.com/switch should become apple.com/wesue
on
Switch Different
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Speaking of Switch parodies, one of the reasons I refuse to switch over to Macs is Apple's disgustingly litigious attitude. This website was forced by Apple's lawyers to take down their parody of the switch campaign, if there's any truth to the webmasters claims. I wonder how long these other parody sites will last.
What about all the free software that has already been released? You can't change the licenses of old versions of software already out there. In any case, the greater implications are significant enough that all kinds of users should oppose it.
Slashdot Mirror
For all that is wrong with the US, the US Constitution is one of its crowning achievements. This kind of nonsense is exactly why the first ammendment to the US Constitution is so important.
True freedom of speech includes the right not to speak on your behalf. The government cannot prevent you from issuing a rebuttal against my opinions, but it also cannot force me to be an outlet for such a rebuttal. If I make libelous statements about you then your only remedy should be to sue me and demand a retraction. Otherwise you have absolutely no right to force me to speak. None.
It's frightening that a large political body like the European Union does not have the same constitutional restrictions on its legislative powers as the United States. It keeps growing, while the member nations slowly lose their sovereignty.
My signature reflects my feelings about Trusted Computing. Because Trusted Computing is so easily abused by content producers who want strict control over media consumption, I feel it's potential for harm outweighs most of its benefits.
The kind of contract you're describing is called a contract of adhesion. The terms of such a contract are the same for everybody, and there's no room for negotiation. Because of this, contracts of adhesion are less enforceable than negotiated contracts. It may be argued that the DVD publisher's terms do not constitute an agreement, since the terms are imposed unilaterally upon the consumer. Frankly, any restrictions on personal use should require a negotiated contract.
I assumed he had already recieved a patent. I guess not.
The article did give an idea of how the effect is achieved. I guess the keyword is "exactly", where the article gives us only an overview. It's more a matter of principle than about the man's invention.
Just because the director shot the film in 4:3 doesn't mean he intended it to be shown that way. What most directors do when shooting 1.85:1 is to compose for 1:85 and protect the 4:3 frame so that it doesn't contain boom mikes or other distractions.
Keeping the theatrical aspect ratio is not about getting as much image as possible, it's about preserving the composition of the theatrical release. People forget that when they bring up the fact that some 4:3 video transfers show more picture than the matted 1.85:1.
Correction: Just like ISPs may be required to remove copyrighted content from the websites they host, eBay should be subject to a court's authority regarding the removal of libelous statements.
I don't think it should be eBay's responsibility to take down negative feedback if it hasn't been established to be libel, but once it is established to be libel by a court of law it should be eBay's responsibility to remove it.
Just like ISPs may be required to remove copyrighted content from the websites they host, eBay be subject to a court's authority regarding the removal of libelous statements. So the proper thing to do would be to first sue the poster and then require eBay to remove the libelous feedback.
On the other hand, this may be a case of copyright infingement. If the people selling manuals are selling unauthorized copies of Apple's original manuals, then it's a copyright violation. If all they're doing is selling documents that describe how to repair Apple machines, then it's not a copyright violation (it may be an NDA violation, depending on how they obtained the information).
By the way, neither you nor Apple have to pay for damage that is caused by the user, and if you do so it's only to keep your customers happy. What are Apple's license terms on redistribution? If Apple's license does not explicitly allow redistribution then selling the updates would be illegal. If it does allow redistribution then Apple has no right to complain about license fees. Either way, it doesn't constitute fraud.
The problem is that a law requiring Ebay or any other entity to reveal, without a warrant, the identity of an alleged copyright violator is easy to abuse. It's not as if companies are in a position to review every claim of copyright violation. They're not courts, after all. It's for this reason that such a law has great potential to stifle free speech, despite its legitimate uses.
Even binary-only implementations are vulnerable. Binary code may be hard to understand, but it's still understandable. Open source DRM is similar to the current implementation of Windows Media DRM in that it's software only, which means it may be broken by discovering the decryption key and algorithm. Only something like TCPA would make this very difficult.
It's not really the customer's choice when content is only available under DRM restrictions, is it? As such, it makes no difference whether the DRM software is integrated or "added on", since the choice to protect or not protect the content is ultimately left to content providers.
Open and free does not exclude DRM. An open implementation allows everyone to see how the thing works and examine the source code. A free implementation is unencumbered by patents and IP problems.
Just because something is free as in speech does not make it free as in beer.
The source code may be open and free (unless modified under SideSpace Solution's commercial license), but content that is saddled by DRM restrictions is not free in the "freedom" sense of the word.
Right at the bottom of the page: "Please note that OGG-S is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by Xiph.org or Ogg Vorbis."
It's funny how these folks claim to care for people's fair-use rights (see the FAQ on their site). Protect fair use rights by establishing obstacles to fair use? Riiight.
Is it safe to say that these people are in no way associated with the Ogg/Vorbis people? I can't see how this is a good thing. The whole point of Ogg formats is that they're open and free. Do we really want a version of Ogg/Vorbis that is saddled by use restrictions?
While a community intranet seems like a nice idea, I'm afraid it will likely be strangled by the unforgiving leash of community policy that's become so popular in modern neighborhood developments. As a form of legislation by contract, not usually subject to constitutional protections, neighborhoods could easily prohibit any but the most inoffensive content being hosted by servers connected to the intranet.
An anarchist intranet, on the other hand, would be a joy to see.
I don't know what MS is doing to market Palladium these days, but their old marketing hook - that Palladium allows users to protect their privacy by limiting what others can do with their personal data - is misleading, manipulative and underhanded.
As a way to protect people's privacy, Palladium is useless. If you as a recepient of somebody else's data are able to read it, then you're also able to copy it: you can use a camcorder to copy video, a tape recorder to copy audio, and a pencil to copy text. The copies will be reduced in quality, but the message itself can still be disseminated.
As a way to protect redistribution of copyrighted material, it is "good enough": because analog copies of movies and music are significantly reduced in quality, and because copies of protected software are non-functional (hacked copies excepted), content producers benefit significantly from such a system.
People who think Palladium is purpose neutral - that it has significant uses outside of DRM - should give some thought to whether such tight control is really necessary to achieve a reasonable degree of privacy and security.
Make no mistake, Palladium's primary purpose isn't to enhance consumer privacy and security, it's to cater to the whims of content producers. It will be a sad day when I can no longer move my software from one computer to another, or when I'm no longer able to print out documents without the publisher's permission, or when I'm only allowed limited-time access to software or documents I've purchased.
After searching google for the "Eldred Act" it seems that Lessig is not proposing that copyrights be renewable forever, as Forbes' statements seemed to suggest, but rather that copyrights should still be granted for limited times with the added restriction of an extension fee every so-many years. That's not as bad as I thought, although I still think it would do little to free up the most valuable works.
Of all the works that might enter the public domain under Lessig's proposal, those works that offer the most value to society are precisely the ones that copyright holders would like to prevent from entering the public domain.
If there's anything to be learned from corporations and the estates of the famous deceased is that both tend to be very protective of their intellectual "property". You can bet that as long as it is possible for these and other groups to renew the copyright to valuable works, they will likely continue to do so.
All that would happen under Lessig's proposal is that the least valuable works would enter the public domain, while the most valuable works would forever remain copy-restricted.
Every time I see an article dicussing the FCCs mandate to TV manufacturers to include digital tuners in TVs I can't help but think: "These people are not Congressmen. What right do they have to regulate manufacturing?". So what is the answer? What law gives the FCC the right to mandate inclusion of certain devices, such as digital tuners with broadcast flag support, as part of television sets? It's a little scary to think the FCC has such powers. It makes me glad that the Internet is not as heavily regulated as other communications channels.
ACM's position on software engineering is that software engineers should not be licensed as professional engineers. Follow the link for lots of reasons.
My own opinion is that liability can exist without licensing. Companies working on safety-critical projects should be careful about people they pick to work for them. They should have adequate quality control procedures in place and should be held liable for negligent behavior. On top of that you could have regulation addressing specific safety concerns as you do for car and medical equipment manufacturers.
Speaking of Switch parodies, one of the reasons I refuse to switch over to Macs is Apple's disgustingly litigious attitude. This website was forced by Apple's lawyers to take down their parody of the switch campaign, if there's any truth to the webmasters claims. I wonder how long these other parody sites will last.
What about all the free software that has already been released? You can't change the licenses of old versions of software already out there. In any case, the greater implications are significant enough that all kinds of users should oppose it.