Actually, that's not quite right. The DMCA is expressed to be extraterritorial - i.e. it applies outside the US. Therefore, regardless of where Elcomsoft's servers were, they would (under US law) be subject to the DMCA.
Of course, extraterritoriality of a country's laws is frequently protested by other countries, so its' status in international law is extremely suspect, but that doesn't stop the US throwing its weight around.
As long as it has (1) subject matter jurisdiction (given by the extraterritorial effect of the DMCA) and (2) personal jurisdiction (given by you travelling into or through the airspace of the US ("tag" jurisdiction)) the US courts will be able to get you.
If that's your concept of Libertarianism, then it's far too simplistic. The limited nature of our world simply means that rights always conflict. If I don't want to hear what you want to say, then your right to free speech has infringed upon my right to solitude. Your right to make bombs infringes on my right to feel safe. Etc etc etc. It's only possible for one person to have absolute freedom - that's when he has absolute power and everyone else just has to be oppressed by his wishes.
What the previous poster is saying (although I agree that the view he espouses appears to be extremely theoretical and naive) is that government is the expression of the people. In case you've forgotten, that's what the word democracy means - the rule of the majority. Yes, the majority can be oppressive of the minority. All the constitional protections of the minority ? They can be changed with a sufficient vote of the majority (2/3 of the voters, 2/3 of the states - that's how the First Amendment came about, remember ?).
What's the alternative ? If you prioritize the needs of the few of the wants of the many, then you have put the few in charge - that's what we call an oligarchy. If it's only your rights and freedoms that are absolutely protected - that's what we call a dictatorship. Would you prefer that ?
Gee, I don't know, there's also the fan on my motherboard, video card, the extra system fan I hooked up to cool the machine (yes, I know - I don't have a computer, I have a jet engine running.. the whine sounds exactly like the times when you're waiting on the tarmac to take off).
Good point. After all, the entire justification for software being protected by copyright (instead of patents, where IMHO it belongs) is that according to the law it is a form of creative expression. That being the case, I don't see why it shouldn't be eligible for grants from the Endowment.
Obviously we aren't defining egg here as any egg - otherwise since reptiles evolved before birds any reptiles' egg would come first. So egg = chicken's egg.
Still, does "chicken's egg" = "egg which gives rise to chicken" or = "egg which is laid by a chicken" ? Aha !
What you say makes sense... from one point of view.
If you truly feel this way - then (if you do, I'm assuming since practically everyone on slashdot feels this way) what's wrong with MS having a monopoly ?
After all, you do have a choice... don't use their software. There are plenty of programmers out there who have not sold their souls to the M$ machine. They are quite willing to offer reasonable prices for quality works. The fact that you are on the Net, posting on this forum virtually guarantees that you could find them quite easily if you wanted to (or more likely, are one of them:)
As for the sheep who use M$ software, they ought to pay the full price for the crap software, and stop complaining about M$'s "anticompetitive actions" (parallel to the music industry's control over radio and other distribution mechanisms). After all, you don't have to work for employers who use M$ software, there are plenty of other people out there.
Sorry if this grates. Pet peeve : internal inconsistency in people.
The Acceptable Use policy is completely irrelevant to this point.
Look at it this way : when the software companies want to sue, they don't want to sue some starving college kid with tons of debt. They want to sue a rich university with millions in their funds. It's called the deep pocket theory (and yes, they actually teach that in law school).
So the issue is not whether they're liable as regards YOU, the issue is whether M$ can sue THEM. And as long as they're monitoring the network, YOUR actions are attributable to THEM. So - no monitoring, no liability. M$ can sue you if they want (if they can), that's their problem, not the university's. No muss, no fuss, no pursuit.
In most other common law countries, the way it works is that there's a system of "taxation" - that's the legal term for it. Basically, when you're claiming the legal fees you spent, and the loser disputes the amount as excessive, you both submit the bill to a judge, who reviews the case and the costs. So if it's a simple case, and BHCorp really shouldn't have been paying their expensive lawyers so many hours for it, then they won't get that money from you. Same with all the interlocutory applications BHCorp can make (which is the basic way in which you intimidate the other party) - if the judge doesn't think the application should have been brought, then s/he won't award costs.
You've blithely bought the line of big companies (and governments which have been bought by the big companies) that the creation of "property rights" in intellectual products are the sole reason for innovation and progress.
Fortunately, the economic argument for intellectual property rights is at least an objective argument, which can therefore be refuted by objective proof.
Behold, exhibit 1 : fire
Exhibit 2 : the wheel
and on and on and on...
Look back, all through humanity's history there has been innovation and progress - whether with or without "intellectual property" rights. Some people just like to think ! and they'll do it even if you don't pay them for it.
If your beef is that they deserve, on some moral level, to be paid for it, that's another issue. (I may even agree with you on that one). But don't think that progress will stop without it - it won't.
Side question : has anyone tried a defamation suit against the RIAA, or is a takedown notice protected by some special exemption in US law (yet again) ? I mean, it seems that all the elements are present : (1) publication (2) to a third party (3) of a fact that cannot be proven to be true.
Were they completely within their rights ? Can somebody cite me a case which they won in this regard ? I'm thinking specifically of the legal doctrine of estoppel - Unisys made a representation that they wouldn't enforce the patent, the website owners relied on it, if Unisys were allowed to resile from their position it would cause detriment to the website owners - therefore, Unisys should be estopped from going back on their representation. This is a standard age-old doctrine of common law - it should be true in the US as well
But he completely misses the fact that even if circumvention itself were legal, it would be impossible in a practical sense as long as circumvention devices are illegal.
Not entirely true. One of the critical conclusions in the Sony time-shifting case was that if there are legitimate uses to a particular device, then distributing that device is not illegal (not sure how this is/will be impacted by the Napster case, though).
The devices are now illegal because ALL circumvention is illegal via the DMCA. If circumvention for particular purposes were legalized, then the necessary consequence under the Sony case would be that the devices would also have to be legalized. (notwithstanding the DMCA provisions, statutory "interpretation" is a wonderful tool!)
Not necessarily. I think that was the point made by some other post. The idea that "1/2 storage space at the same quality" means "2 x quality at the same storage space" depends on the assumption that the quality:space ratio is constant - an assumption which (may or may not : any expert out there ?) be true (for any audio format).
The thing is, with media costs going down (yes, I know flash is still horrendously expensive, but it WILL go down someday) - the increase in quality is much more important than the decrease in storage space.
This is particularly so when you consider the time factor. The one constant that can NEVER change in this equation is the fact that there are only 24 hours a day. Yes, there is some added utility in being able to have my entire library with me, but the marginal utility of each added song BEYOND that which I could listen to pales in comparison with the marginal utility for each time I am not forced to listen to the same song because of insufficient space.
Sorry, got a little confusing there. The point I'm trying to make is that once you have enough songs for the entire day, an improvement in the quality of those songs is more important (to me) than having more songs stored in the same amount of space.
I apologize in advance if I'm covering ground others have already...
The way I see it there are 2 different points being raised here :
1) whether people who actually did rack up debts/commit crimes should have those matters disclosed and kept in credit records; and
2) whether people who didn't actually rack up debts/commit crimes have any recourse aganst credit agencies which say they did.
I'm not even going to TOUCH (1):)
But for (2) (i.e. innocent people) - why doesn't someone just sue the damn credit agencies for defamation ? I mean, all the requirements seem to be present
(a) publication to third parties (i.e. to the banks)
(b) of a fact which the credit agency cannot prove to be true (i.e. it is their responsibility to prove that it is untrue. The reverse is only true of public figures, which most of the affected are not)
(c) causing damage (e.g. being unable to get a loan)
I know this would work in any other common law country; does the US have any special quirks in the law ?
Fortunately for all of us, this scheme is entirely too complicated to administer and therefore unlikely to ever happen.
Think about it : cars have to be registered. EVERY transaction where ownership of the car changes hands has to be registered. Furthermore,cars can't just be thrown away; you need to scrap them. (Ever have your car break down on a freeway, come back a day later to tow it and see the police sticker ?) This ensures that the government always knows who owns the car. (Note : even then, the owner is not automatically responsible for what damage caused by the car. Consider if thieves go joyriding in his car and kill someone : not the owner's responsibility)
So we can do it with cars, how come we can't do it with copyrighted material ? Because, although it WOULD (as you say)be easy to track the original sale or rental of a DVD, it would not be easy to track re-sales (which, under established copyright law - the first sale doctrine - you are perfectly entitled to do). And re-sales of re-sales... ad infinitum.
And why only DVDs ? It would be quite difficult for Congress to justify that. The scheme would have to be extended to books, magazines, newspapers - imagine having to fill out a form in order to be able to throw the morning paper in the trash after reading it ! Cost of administration : astronomical.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that's not quite right. The DMCA is expressed to be extraterritorial - i.e. it applies outside the US. Therefore, regardless of where Elcomsoft's servers were, they would (under US law) be subject to the DMCA.
Of course, extraterritoriality of a country's laws is frequently protested by other countries, so its' status in international law is extremely suspect, but that doesn't stop the US throwing its weight around.
As long as it has (1) subject matter jurisdiction (given by the extraterritorial effect of the DMCA) and (2) personal jurisdiction (given by you travelling into or through the airspace of the US ("tag" jurisdiction)) the US courts will be able to get you.
If that's your concept of Libertarianism, then it's far too simplistic. The limited nature of our world simply means that rights always conflict. If I don't want to hear what you want to say, then your right to free speech has infringed upon my right to solitude. Your right to make bombs infringes on my right to feel safe. Etc etc etc. It's only possible for one person to have absolute freedom - that's when he has absolute power and everyone else just has to be oppressed by his wishes.
What the previous poster is saying (although I agree that the view he espouses appears to be extremely theoretical and naive) is that government is the expression of the people. In case you've forgotten, that's what the word democracy means - the rule of the majority. Yes, the majority can be oppressive of the minority. All the constitional protections of the minority ? They can be changed with a sufficient vote of the majority (2/3 of the voters, 2/3 of the states - that's how the First Amendment came about, remember ?).
What's the alternative ? If you prioritize the needs of the few of the wants of the many, then you have put the few in charge - that's what we call an oligarchy. If it's only your rights and freedoms that are absolutely protected - that's what we call a dictatorship. Would you prefer that ?
Gee, I don't know, there's also the fan on my motherboard, video card, the extra system fan I hooked up to cool the machine (yes, I know - I don't have a computer, I have a jet engine running .. the whine sounds exactly like the times when you're waiting on the tarmac to take off).
Just curious, on what do you base the asset value of each country ? Considering the vast network of cross-linked multinational companies ...
Good point. After all, the entire justification for software being protected by copyright (instead of patents, where IMHO it belongs) is that according to the law it is a form of creative expression. That being the case, I don't see why it shouldn't be eligible for grants from the Endowment.
Well it depends on how you define egg isn't it?
Obviously we aren't defining egg here as any egg - otherwise since reptiles evolved before birds any reptiles' egg would come first. So egg = chicken's egg.
Still, does "chicken's egg" = "egg which gives rise to chicken" or = "egg which is laid by a chicken" ? Aha !
What you say makes sense ... from one point of view.
... don't use their software. There are plenty of programmers out there who have not sold their souls to the M$ machine. They are quite willing to offer reasonable prices for quality works. The fact that you are on the Net, posting on this forum virtually guarantees that you could find them quite easily if you wanted to (or more likely, are one of them :)
If you truly feel this way - then (if you do, I'm assuming since practically everyone on slashdot feels this way) what's wrong with MS having a monopoly ?
After all, you do have a choice
As for the sheep who use M$ software, they ought to pay the full price for the crap software, and stop complaining about M$'s "anticompetitive actions" (parallel to the music industry's control over radio and other distribution mechanisms). After all, you don't have to work for employers who use M$ software, there are plenty of other people out there.
Sorry if this grates. Pet peeve : internal inconsistency in people.
The Acceptable Use policy is completely irrelevant to this point.
Look at it this way : when the software companies want to sue, they don't want to sue some starving college kid with tons of debt. They want to sue a rich university with millions in their funds. It's called the deep pocket theory (and yes, they actually teach that in law school).
So the issue is not whether they're liable as regards YOU, the issue is whether M$ can sue THEM. And as long as they're monitoring the network, YOUR actions are attributable to THEM. So - no monitoring, no liability. M$ can sue you if they want (if they can), that's their problem, not the university's. No muss, no fuss, no pursuit.
In most other common law countries, the way it works is that there's a system of "taxation" - that's the legal term for it. Basically, when you're claiming the legal fees you spent, and the loser disputes the amount as excessive, you both submit the bill to a judge, who reviews the case and the costs. So if it's a simple case, and BHCorp really shouldn't have been paying their expensive lawyers so many hours for it, then they won't get that money from you. Same with all the interlocutory applications BHCorp can make (which is the basic way in which you intimidate the other party) - if the judge doesn't think the application should have been brought, then s/he won't award costs.
You've blithely bought the line of big companies (and governments which have been bought by the big companies) that the creation of "property rights" in intellectual products are the sole reason for innovation and progress.
Fortunately, the economic argument for intellectual property rights is at least an objective argument, which can therefore be refuted by objective proof.
Behold, exhibit 1 : fire
Exhibit 2 : the wheel
and on and on and on ...
Look back, all through humanity's history there has been innovation and progress - whether with or without "intellectual property" rights. Some people just like to think ! and they'll do it even if you don't pay them for it.If your beef is that they deserve, on some moral level, to be paid for it, that's another issue. (I may even agree with you on that one). But don't think that progress will stop without it - it won't.
Side question : has anyone tried a defamation suit against the RIAA, or is a takedown notice protected by some special exemption in US law (yet again) ? I mean, it seems that all the elements are present : (1) publication (2) to a third party (3) of a fact that cannot be proven to be true.
Were they completely within their rights ? Can somebody cite me a case which they won in this regard ? I'm thinking specifically of the legal doctrine of estoppel - Unisys made a representation that they wouldn't enforce the patent, the website owners relied on it, if Unisys were allowed to resile from their position it would cause detriment to the website owners - therefore, Unisys should be estopped from going back on their representation. This is a standard age-old doctrine of common law - it should be true in the US as well
But he completely misses the fact that even if circumvention itself were legal, it would be impossible in a practical sense as long as circumvention devices are illegal. Not entirely true. One of the critical conclusions in the Sony time-shifting case was that if there are legitimate uses to a particular device, then distributing that device is not illegal (not sure how this is/will be impacted by the Napster case, though). The devices are now illegal because ALL circumvention is illegal via the DMCA. If circumvention for particular purposes were legalized, then the necessary consequence under the Sony case would be that the devices would also have to be legalized. (notwithstanding the DMCA provisions, statutory "interpretation" is a wonderful tool!)
The thing is, with media costs going down (yes, I know flash is still horrendously expensive, but it WILL go down someday) - the increase in quality is much more important than the decrease in storage space.
This is particularly so when you consider the time factor. The one constant that can NEVER change in this equation is the fact that there are only 24 hours a day. Yes, there is some added utility in being able to have my entire library with me, but the marginal utility of each added song BEYOND that which I could listen to pales in comparison with the marginal utility for each time I am not forced to listen to the same song because of insufficient space.
Sorry, got a little confusing there. The point I'm trying to make is that once you have enough songs for the entire day, an improvement in the quality of those songs is more important (to me) than having more songs stored in the same amount of space.
I apologize in advance if I'm covering ground others have already ...
The way I see it there are 2 different points being raised here :
1) whether people who actually did rack up debts/commit crimes should have those matters disclosed and kept in credit records; and
2) whether people who didn't actually rack up debts/commit crimes have any recourse aganst credit agencies which say they did.
I'm not even going to TOUCH (1) :)
But for (2) (i.e. innocent people) - why doesn't someone just sue the damn credit agencies for defamation ? I mean, all the requirements seem to be present
(a) publication to third parties (i.e. to the banks)
(b) of a fact which the credit agency cannot prove to be true (i.e. it is their responsibility to prove that it is untrue. The reverse is only true of public figures, which most of the affected are not)
(c) causing damage (e.g. being unable to get a loan)
I know this would work in any other common law country; does the US have any special quirks in the law ?
Fortunately for all of us, this scheme is entirely too complicated to administer and therefore unlikely to ever happen. Think about it : cars have to be registered. EVERY transaction where ownership of the car changes hands has to be registered. Furthermore,cars can't just be thrown away; you need to scrap them. (Ever have your car break down on a freeway, come back a day later to tow it and see the police sticker ?) This ensures that the government always knows who owns the car. (Note : even then, the owner is not automatically responsible for what damage caused by the car. Consider if thieves go joyriding in his car and kill someone : not the owner's responsibility) So we can do it with cars, how come we can't do it with copyrighted material ? Because, although it WOULD (as you say)be easy to track the original sale or rental of a DVD, it would not be easy to track re-sales (which, under established copyright law - the first sale doctrine - you are perfectly entitled to do). And re-sales of re-sales ... ad infinitum.
And why only DVDs ? It would be quite difficult for Congress to justify that. The scheme would have to be extended to books, magazines, newspapers - imagine having to fill out a form in order to be able to throw the morning paper in the trash after reading it ! Cost of administration : astronomical.