Credibility is really the issue. I tend to be suspect of people who say one thing, then later change their story pretending they never said the first version.
If a news site has a policy of changing the story without notifying the reader, how is the reader supposed to know that the current version is correct and that it won't be updated again in twenty minutes, or twenty days? Am I really supposed to go back and re-read every article in case something changed?
In order to maintain credibility, news sites should make it clear that the story has changed from the originally published version and provide links to earlier versions. It would encourage making sure the facts are correct before publishing the story and allay the fear that the current story won't be completely rewritten and made to disappear.
If you're going to post something as "news" (ie. factual), take responsibility for it. Make sure the facts are correct, admit it if you make a mistake. And, yes, things do change and you are allowed to update it, but make it clear that you have.
I'm willing to tolerate a little inaccuracy for timely news so long as you acknowledge the error. I'm also willing to tolerate some delay in getting the news so long as the facts are correct.
Worrying more about breaking the story than having the facts correct is little better than "FIRST POST!"
How about if it was unlocked with the keys on the dashboard? My guess is they try to make it look enticing to the thief they are trying to catch, but at what point does it become entrapment (honest question, IANAL)?
According to http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm , entrapment is based on where the perpetrator got the idea to commit the crime. Providing an opportunity to commit a crime someone was already willing to commit is not entrapment, but encouraging someone to commit a crime they were not already willing to commit is. At what point does "providing an opportunity" become "encouragement"?
Yeah, I know, "but he stole the car". But would he have stolen it if it wasn't set up to be stolen? If the car were no more attractive to steal than the cars surrounding it, then yeah, I don't think it's entrapment.
Just as nobody is completely evil, nobody is completely honest. I'd bet most people could be encouraged to commit a crime if the circumstances were right.
No, there's nothing wrong with SUV's except that they pollute the atmosphere, guzzle gas and are way more likely to kill the occupants of a passenger car in a collision.
They'd be much less detestable if they were only covered in wildebeast hair....
Just a pet peeve: a "default-opt-out" is an opt-in. A "default-opt-in" is an opt-out.
"Opt-in" requires specific action from the user to get on the list. No action[1] keeps him off it. "Opt-out" requires specific action to get off the list. No action puts him on it. It's the same for class action suits.
If you have to uncheck the box to stay off the list, it's opt-out regardless of what they call it.
[1]By "action" I'm not including entering your email address on a form or clicking the "Submit" button unless the form specifically says "Enter your email address to receive promotional email"
And exactly how are you supposed to write a decent review of a product without using it?
"No reviews without permission" clauses give you two things: reviews only from people who liked it and reviews from people who haven't used it. And this is informing the public how?
Anyone can threaten anyone under anything. That is completely irrelevant to the law itself.
Felton did not break the DMCA.
It's not irrelevant if the law can be read as if he did break it. It's irrelevant if it's not a credible threat. If I threaten to sue you for libel because you disagree with me, that is not a credible threat and libel law is irrelevant. The threat from the RIAA was a credible threat because it's not unreasonable for the law to be read as if his acts would be illegal. This is the whole point of the Ed Felton suit. He wants someone to say, "yes, this is ok" so if he receives another threat, he can be confident his actions aren't against the law.
Complete and utter FUD. It doesn't need to be legal to distribute DeCSS, you can distribute the unencrypted work,
What if the unencrypted work isn't available? Or, if it is, why should I download a many GB file of a movie I already own when a few KB file will give me access to it? Making it legal but extremely inconvenient is little better than making it illegal.
or distribute a crack specifically for a certain DVD.
As far as I know, the algorithm which cracks one CSS protected work can be used on another, especially if you have the source code.
DeCSS has zero to do with reverse engineering. The creator of the software has testified as such.
Whether or not that is true doesn't invalidate my point. Which is...
You should also note that my statement was that reverse engineering was legal, not dissemination of the results.
Without dissemination of the results, there is little use in reverse engineering in the first place. The DMCA requires that the person doing the reverse engineering legally obtain a copy of the program or device they are trying to reverse engineer. Why bother making it run on another platform if you're the only one who can use it and you have a copy of the original?
Backups can be made regardless of CSS encryption. The decryption is necessary to view
the DVD, not to copy it.
Actually, I was talking about Dmitry Sklyarov creating a program to make backup copies of Adobe's Ebook format which did not allow backup copies. But you raise an interesting point. If the encryption doesn't prevent copying, how is it a copy control mechanism?
Highly unlikely, unless you mean publishing of results which are cirumvention code.
That is exactly what I mean. An important part of the scientific method is peer review. This requires access to the methods used to get the results. This means someone else must be able to repeat the experiment and obtain the same results. In encryption research, it is necessary to publish the code used to circumvent the encryption so that others may do the same and verify the results. Without publication of the results, there is little point in doing the research.
The DMCA only covers copyrighted material, not material which is in the public domain.
From the DMCA, Section 1201(a)(2)(A)
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any
technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
DVD's encrypted with CSS will eventually become part of the public domain. Not all DVD's will become part of the public domain at the same time. So when will it be legal to distribute DeCSS? As long as there are DVD's encrypted with CSS that are not part of the public domain, selling the program to access the DVD's which are will be illegal.
>I've told them about the intimidation and outright threatening of scientists who dare to
expose flaws in a sham security system.
Completely irrelevant to the DMCA.
How? They threatened to sue him under the DMCA.
>I've told them about losing their time-honored rights to Fair Use, to First Sale, to archival copies...
Something which is specifically protected in the DMCA.
No it isn't. Section 1201(c)(1) only protects fair use as a defense to copyright infringement, not to circumvention.
>They don't think that reverse engineering for system interoperability should be illegal.
Also specifically protected by the DMCA.
Section 1201(f) only protects "identification and analysis", not dissemination of the results. Meaning the only people who can use the information are the person who do the reverse engineering. And they have to own a legal copy of what they are trying to reverse engineer. Hence the DeCSS case.
>They don't think allowing backups should be illegal.
Which it isn't.
No, but distributing the program which allows backups to be made is. Hence Dmitry Sklyarov.
>They don't think that quotation from a digital source, for the purposes of scholarship,
should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA.
Again, the distributing the program which allows normal users to do this is illegal.
>They don't think that scientific research should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA.
But publishing the results of the research is not. Hence Ed Felton.
There are entire countries where people are praying that they'll eat tomorrow. Whole cultures oppressed by their governments. People who can't remember a time that bombs weren't exploding in the distance. I could never name a hundredth of the grave injustices that other governments inflict upon their people.
Pointing out worse deeds doesn't make bad deeds ok. You don't let a murderer go because somebody else killed more people.
I'll tell you what - why don't you go stay in Afghanistan for a month. Then report back
on whether you'd still like to trade your life in the U.S. for a few poorly-crafted laws.
Or, in other words, "Love it or leave it".
I'll take the third choice you didn't mention: stay here and get the poorly-crafted laws fixed. Just because it's worse other places doesn't mean it can't be better here.
When asked about the fact that you have to buy one copy for your laptop and one for your desktop, the guy said "this has always been the case" and just now they have the product activation.
Here's my problem with this: Everybody knows you only bought one copy of Windows and put it on every computer you owned, even though you weren't supposed to. Microsoft even knew this and priced the software to account for it. They didn't enforce the single-copy license very strenuously, essentially giving their permission (passively at least) to pirate the software. Now the product activation is making this extremely difficult, essentially ending the "piracy", but where's the price break? This is not a lot different then offering a site license for $200, then changing it to a single-copy license for the same price.
Slashdot Mirror
Credibility is really the issue. I tend to be suspect of people who say one thing, then later change their story pretending they never said the first version.
If a news site has a policy of changing the story without notifying the reader, how is the reader supposed to know that the current version is correct and that it won't be updated again in twenty minutes, or twenty days? Am I really supposed to go back and re-read every article in case something changed?
In order to maintain credibility, news sites should make it clear that the story has changed from the originally published version and provide links to earlier versions. It would encourage making sure the facts are correct before publishing the story and allay the fear that the current story won't be completely rewritten and made to disappear.
If you're going to post something as "news" (ie. factual), take responsibility for it. Make sure the facts are correct, admit it if you make a mistake. And, yes, things do change and you are allowed to update it, but make it clear that you have.
I'm willing to tolerate a little inaccuracy for timely news so long as you acknowledge the error. I'm also willing to tolerate some delay in getting the news so long as the facts are correct.
Worrying more about breaking the story than having the facts correct is little better than "FIRST POST!"
How about if it was unlocked with the keys on the dashboard? My guess is they try to make it look enticing to the thief they are trying to catch, but at what point does it become entrapment (honest question, IANAL)?
According to http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm , entrapment is based on where the perpetrator got the idea to commit the crime. Providing an opportunity to commit a crime someone was already willing to commit is not entrapment, but encouraging someone to commit a crime they were not already willing to commit is. At what point does "providing an opportunity" become "encouragement"?
Yeah, I know, "but he stole the car". But would he have stolen it if it wasn't set up to be stolen? If the car were no more attractive to steal than the cars surrounding it, then yeah, I don't think it's entrapment.
Just as nobody is completely evil, nobody is completely honest. I'd bet most people could be encouraged to commit a crime if the circumstances were right.
Ok, you've managed to contradict yourself. At first you say it's, "labouring like an ape", then
you say it's, "the easy way".
He did put "do it the easy way" in quotes suggesting that the easy way to make a lot of money is in fact a lot of work to make not a lot.
Personally, I'd love to see a picture of a "Janus" sign with the 'J' missing.
No, there's nothing wrong with SUV's except that they pollute the atmosphere, guzzle gas and are way more likely to kill the occupants of a passenger car in a collision.
They'd be much less detestable if they were only covered in wildebeast hair....
One must assume that 'God' (Commonly defined as an all-knowing being) is capable of breaking one-time pad encryption systems.
Presumably, 'God' would already know what the message said anyway and wouldn't need to break it.
Just a pet peeve: a "default-opt-out" is an opt-in. A "default-opt-in" is an opt-out.
"Opt-in" requires specific action from the user to get on the list. No action[1] keeps him off it. "Opt-out" requires specific action to get off the list. No action puts him on it. It's the same for class action suits.
If you have to uncheck the box to stay off the list, it's opt-out regardless of what they call it.
[1]By "action" I'm not including entering your email address on a form or clicking the "Submit" button unless the form specifically says "Enter your email address to receive promotional email"
And exactly how are you supposed to write a decent review of a product without using it?
"No reviews without permission" clauses give you two things: reviews only from people who liked it and reviews from people who haven't used it. And this is informing the public how?
Anyone can threaten anyone under anything. That is completely irrelevant to the law itself. Felton did not break the DMCA.
It's not irrelevant if the law can be read as if he did break it. It's irrelevant if it's not a credible threat. If I threaten to sue you for libel because you disagree with me, that is not a credible threat and libel law is irrelevant. The threat from the RIAA was a credible threat because it's not unreasonable for the law to be read as if his acts would be illegal. This is the whole point of the Ed Felton suit. He wants someone to say, "yes, this is ok" so if he receives another threat, he can be confident his actions aren't against the law.
Complete and utter FUD. It doesn't need to be legal to distribute DeCSS, you can distribute the unencrypted work,
What if the unencrypted work isn't available? Or, if it is, why should I download a many GB file of a movie I already own when a few KB file will give me access to it? Making it legal but extremely inconvenient is little better than making it illegal.
or distribute a crack specifically for a certain DVD.
As far as I know, the algorithm which cracks one CSS protected work can be used on another, especially if you have the source code.
DeCSS has zero to do with reverse engineering. The creator of the software has testified as such.
Whether or not that is true doesn't invalidate my point. Which is...
You should also note that my statement was that reverse engineering was legal, not dissemination of the results.
Without dissemination of the results, there is little use in reverse engineering in the first place. The DMCA requires that the person doing the reverse engineering legally obtain a copy of the program or device they are trying to reverse engineer. Why bother making it run on another platform if you're the only one who can use it and you have a copy of the original?
Backups can be made regardless of CSS encryption. The decryption is necessary to view the DVD, not to copy it.
Actually, I was talking about Dmitry Sklyarov creating a program to make backup copies of Adobe's Ebook format which did not allow backup copies. But you raise an interesting point. If the encryption doesn't prevent copying, how is it a copy control mechanism?
Highly unlikely, unless you mean publishing of results which are cirumvention code.
That is exactly what I mean. An important part of the scientific method is peer review. This requires access to the methods used to get the results. This means someone else must be able to repeat the experiment and obtain the same results. In encryption research, it is necessary to publish the code used to circumvent the encryption so that others may do the same and verify the results. Without publication of the results, there is little point in doing the research.
From the DMCA, Section 1201(a)(2)(A) DVD's encrypted with CSS will eventually become part of the public domain. Not all DVD's will become part of the public domain at the same time. So when will it be legal to distribute DeCSS? As long as there are DVD's encrypted with CSS that are not part of the public domain, selling the program to access the DVD's which are will be illegal.
>I've told them about the intimidation and outright threatening of scientists who dare to expose flaws in a sham security system.
Completely irrelevant to the DMCA.
How? They threatened to sue him under the DMCA.
>I've told them about losing their time-honored rights to Fair Use, to First Sale, to archival copies...
Something which is specifically protected in the DMCA.
No it isn't. Section 1201(c)(1) only protects fair use as a defense to copyright infringement, not to circumvention.
>They don't think that reverse engineering for system interoperability should be illegal.
Also specifically protected by the DMCA.
Section 1201(f) only protects "identification and analysis", not dissemination of the results. Meaning the only people who can use the information are the person who do the reverse engineering. And they have to own a legal copy of what they are trying to reverse engineer. Hence the DeCSS case.
>They don't think allowing backups should be illegal.
Which it isn't.
No, but distributing the program which allows backups to be made is. Hence Dmitry Sklyarov.
>They don't think that quotation from a digital source, for the purposes of scholarship, should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA.
Again, the distributing the program which allows normal users to do this is illegal.
>They don't think that scientific research should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA.
But publishing the results of the research is not. Hence Ed Felton.
You should read it some time.
Maybe you should take your own advice.
There are entire countries where people are praying that they'll eat tomorrow. Whole cultures oppressed by their governments. People who can't remember a time that bombs weren't exploding in the distance. I could never name a hundredth of the grave injustices that other governments inflict upon their people.
Pointing out worse deeds doesn't make bad deeds ok. You don't let a murderer go because somebody else killed more people.
I'll tell you what - why don't you go stay in Afghanistan for a month. Then report back
on whether you'd still like to trade your life in the U.S. for a few poorly-crafted laws.
Or, in other words, "Love it or leave it".
I'll take the third choice you didn't mention: stay here and get the poorly-crafted laws fixed. Just because it's worse other places doesn't mean it can't be better here.
When asked about the fact that you have to buy one copy for your laptop and one for your desktop, the guy said "this has always been the case" and just now they have the product activation.
Here's my problem with this: Everybody knows you only bought one copy of Windows and put it on every computer you owned, even though you weren't supposed to. Microsoft even knew this and priced the software to account for it. They didn't enforce the single-copy license very strenuously, essentially giving their permission (passively at least) to pirate the software. Now the product activation is making this extremely difficult, essentially ending the "piracy", but where's the price break? This is not a lot different then offering a site license for $200, then changing it to a single-copy license for the same price.