OK, so I just read the indictment. There is
one charge of "Conspiracy to Traffic in Technology Primarily Designed to Circumvent, and
Marketed for Use in Circumventing, Technology that Protects a Right of a Copyright Owner."
There then follow four nearly identical charges
of actually "Trafficking" in such technology,
one for each copy of the e-book processor software sold in the U.S.A.
That's right, friends. Apparently they think they can send
you to prison for five years for EACH COPY of
infringing software that you sell (plus one for "conspiracy"). It doesn't take long to build up a life sentence that way...
Actualy, I think that this is pretty well taken care of. Dmitri is represented by Joseph Burton, a partner at the firm of Duane, Morris, and Heckscher. Mr. Burton is a former federal prosecutor in the Northern District of California where the case is being tried.
However, sending money to Dmitri's legal defense fund would definitely be in order. Good attorneys like Mr. Burton don't come cheap.
Re:is there a schedule of planned protest?
on
Sklyarov Update
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Those who are too lazy to contribute do not make money. Thus there is a very high incentive to do something worthwhile. Of course, this is in theory and there are plenty of holes in the system, but it does work.
The most obvious problem is that plenty of hard-working people don't make enough money to afford decent housing, food, and medical care.
Meanwhile, some people who seem much lazier live in luxury.
$6/hour * 40 hours/week * 50 weeks/year = $12000/year. That's barely enough to live some places in the U.S. (here in Champaign-Urbana, IL, for example), but definitely not in major urban areas.
By giving away source and charging for binaries, the result is that the technical elite who can compile source will get free as in beer software, while the masses will have to pay. How can they be convinced that this is fair for them?
I think you might have misunderstood: For
software licensed under the GPL, you are allowed to charge for the service of distributing binaries. However, the binaries themselves are "free as in speech": your customer is entitled to redistribute them as well. For example, you
see LinuxMall.com selling "Penguin Power Red Hat
Linux" for $3.98, or the offical Red Hat boxed set for ten times more money.
This was a particle accelerator of the old variety, unreliable and weak by todays standards, but relatively inexpensive.
I'm willing to bet that it can be made far
more reliable than the big accelerators of today: it
has many fewer parts, and they are all much more
accessible. You're also not subject to overbearing safety rules that make everything take much longer than it really needs to (without
providing much improvement in safety).
For reference, during operating periods, the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron at Brookhaven National Laboratory tries to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. On average, beam is delivered successfully for about 100 out of those 168 hours.
If your friend is going to run this cyclotron, I recommend
that he learn about radiation safety and put
together a radiation monitoring system.
As for a couple of posts i've read about CDFreak being in danger of legal repercussions, their case is different from Dmitry's in that (please correct me if i'm mistaken) they're giving the software away for free, not selling it to make money, so they're not breaking any laws, even under the DMCA.
If they aren't distributing their tool "for commercial advantage," then they can't be charged
with a criminal violation of the DMCA. However, Macrovision can still file a civil suit against them, probably leaving them in debt to Macrovision (and to their own attorneys) for the rest of their lives.
If I decide to go around taking apart locks to see which ones I'll be able to break into, I should have that right, because a lock is only SECURE if I'm able to take it apart and still not know how to break it. Encryption is the same.
First of all, I agree that you should have that
right. And if you feel strongly about it, I hope
you'll join us in the streets to tell the world about it.
Unfortunately, here's the problem with eBooks: they can't ever be encrypted effectively, because your adversary (formerly called your "customer") always has the key. It almost doesn't matter whether Adobe uses ROT-13 or triple-DES, because they have to give you both the algorithm and the key for you to be able to do anything at all with the eBook. All they can do is to obfuscate the software to make it difficult to figure out what they've already given you. However, experience shows that there will always be a sufficiently talented and motivated individual who figures it out. The current "solution" to this problem is to imprison those people.
I think that one point that might save us was raised by
Brad Templeton: the main problem with commercial eBook publishing isn't piracy, it's that no one wants to read eBooks! Publishers might eventually get the hint that they have to make their products maximally useful rather than trying to lock them up tightly.
Basically cost me my job since my credit cards put me on old because the payments bounced and i traveled 100% of the time.. airlines don't accept cash or promises to pay for tickets.
Actually, at least all major US airlines do accept cash for tickets. Paying cash is very likely to flag you as a potential terrorist requiring extra security screening, though.
Champaign-Urbana event WEDNESDAY
on
Adobe Backs Down
·
· Score: 1
The important thing:
Is that the law still stands. Now what are you going to do about it?
Although we are all pleased by the actions of
Adobe and the EFF today, there will nevertheless be a protest
event in Champaign-Urbana, IL on Wednesday.
We'll meet on the Quad in front of the Illini
Union from 11:00 until 1:00. Our focus will be to educate the University community on the problems with the DMCA. If Dmitry is still in jail, we will focus on his plight as well (I hope not!). If you're can
be there, PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY.
I'm curious here. What if you married that 16 year old and brought her into the US ? Could you still be arrested (out of pure idiocy on behalf of the lawmakers) ?
Many, but not all, states have exceptions for married couples in their statutory rape laws.
So, it depends where in the U.S. you go.
Technically, the only thing the US can do is revoke his visa (passport/whatever) and kick him out of the country. In practice, the police (FBI/whatever) don't ask for proof of citizenship before they arrest you -- they don't care.
This is not true. There are plenty of non-U.S. citizens imprisoned in the U.S.
If you only need servlets and Java Server Pages, I highly recommend Jetty from Mort Bay Consulting. It is Open Source/Free Software and is written entirely in Java. It is a Web server in its own right (that is, not an add-on to Apache), supporting HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 and SSL
It is small and very easy to install and configure. It can easily be embedded in a larger Java application, allowing a Web interface to be added "after the fact."
I wish that SDMI would follow through with their threat and pursue Princeton University and the United States Navy in court to suppress publication of an academic paper. These parties have the resources to mount an aggressive defense, and the case would set a precedent that would significantly weaken the DMCA.
Of course, SDMI's lawyers probably aren't this stupid.
I'm a graduate student who works on the experiment to which this thread is alluding.
It is the
muon g-2 experiment.
The post to which I am responding contains several factual errors:
There is about a 1 or 2 percent (rather than 10 percent) probability of obtaining this
result by chance if the "true" value is given
by the Standard Model. In any event, this is a
probability of obtaining the result because of
a statistical fluctuation, rather than a
mistake (as implied by the phrase "their data is incorrect).
We actually use GNU/Linux for the vast
majority of our data analysis! Our data acquisition system, which moves the raw data from the electronics to DLT tapes, is based on vxWorks. Essentially every other step in the
analysis chain runs on Linux machines, either at
Brookhaven or one of the collaboration institutions. For instance, we have a cluster with twelve dual 500 MHz Linux machines in our
group here at the University of Illinois.
In some sense, the experiment has already
been repeated. The result that we recently announced was based on an analysis of only about
20 percent of the data that we currently have on tape. We're working hard on getting the rest of it analyzed, though: hopefully we'll have an answer by the end of the year. Then I can write my thesis, add "Ph.D." to my name, and start collecting the kind of salary that IT people make straight out of high school.:-)
Upon a second reading, I retract my statement above that Robert Clark's
post above is "not scientifically serious."
There is some informed although very speculative content there. I had a knee-jerk "this must be
a crackpot" reaction to the talk about faster-than-light travel.
Good question! Let me quote the point you're
referring to:
So that the muons don't spiral up or down and
out of the ring, an electric field is used to confine them. The electric field could also affect the spin, except at a "magic" speed where the electric-field effect vanishes. This interaction of the muon spin and the electric field is a specific consequence of Einstein's special theory of relativity. The experiment is performed with muons at this magic speed, namely 99.94 percent the speed of light.
The first answer to the question is that the
magnetic field of the storage ring is chosen to
store particles at the magic momentum.
This field is very precisely calibrated and monitored, since it appears in
the denominator of the expression by which we calculate the anomalous moment from the precession
frequency. Particles that are moving much
slower or faster spiral in or out of the ring
without being stored.
We measure the momentum of the muons using what
we call the "fast rotation." The muons are
injected into our storage ring in a tight bunch.
At early times after injection, the bunch structure modulates the time spectrum that we
see in the detectors. We can measure the times
at which we see the bunch pass by and from this
determine the momentum distribution. The central
value is correct.
Finally, the finite momentum spread (about 0.6
percent) of the beam means that some of the particles do have an momentum which differs from the magic momentum.
We apply a correction for this; we determine it from computational simulations of the beam dynamics. The magnitude of
the correction is about 0.5 parts per
million (ppm), with an error estimate of less
than 0.1 ppm. (Our result has an error estimate
of 1.3 ppm, so the correction is small on this
scale.)
While the post to which I'm replaying is not
scientifically serious, you might want to see a relevant paper on the subject of using muon
g-2 to test Lorentz and CPT invariance:
CPT and Lorentz Tests with Muons,
Robert Bluhm, Alan Kostelecky, and Charles Lane,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1098 (2000).
The authors propose that it is possible to
test special relativity by comparing g-2 measured
during the sidereal day with the value from
the sidereal night. We intend to do this analysis.
As a participant in this experiment, I agree with
your sentiment entirely. (One correction, though: it's actually a 2.6 sigma effect. This makes a
rather significant difference in the associated
probability.)
We have the data on tape to reduce the error
estimate by about a factor of 2. Analyzing this
data is going to be my thesis topic, and I look
forward to sharing the result with you in a year
or so.
By the way, one aspect of our analysis that
hasn't been made apparent in some of the press
reports is that it was done semi-blind. We
measure the precession frequency and the magnetic
field strength separately. Without both numbers,
you can't get the physics result. Different teams
analyze the two sets of data independently.
Until the very end, hidden offsets are added to
the numbers. This way, we can't bias the result
by working towards (or away from!) a particular
value.
Well, this is close, but not quite right. (I'm a
graduate student on the muon g-2 experiment;
in fact, I'm in the control room waiting for
beam now.)
First of all, we measure two quantities: the
anomalous precession frequency of the spin
(that is, how fast the spin rotates with respect
to the momentum of the muons) AND the strength of the magnetic field in which the muons are stored.
g-2 is proportional to the ratio of these two
values. The other factors in the equation are
fundamental constants that have also been measured
very precisely. There are really very few
theoretical assumptions embedded in the measurement itself (some single-particle
relativistic electrodynamics of spin motion),
so we aren't working backwards.
Second, the Standard Model consists of more than
QED! At the level of statistics that we have,
there are significant contributions from hadron
loops (the strong interaction) and from W and Z
bosons (the weak interaction).
Our "confidence level" is between 98 and 99
percent, a 2.6 standard deviation discrepancy.
At this level, we do not claim that we have made
a discovery. We've only found a very suggestive
hint that there might be a discrepancy.
In fact, although it's been fun, I would say
that we've almost gotten an embarassing amount of
publicity out of our result.
We don't test superstring theory at all. However,
the more popular supersymmetry models can
potentially lead to perturbations at the scale
of our measurement.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right, friends. Apparently they think they can send you to prison for five years for EACH COPY of infringing software that you sell (plus one for "conspiracy"). It doesn't take long to build up a life sentence that way...
Yes, here's the indictment.
Actualy, I think that this is pretty well taken care of. Dmitri is represented by Joseph Burton, a partner at the firm of Duane, Morris, and Heckscher. Mr. Burton is a former federal prosecutor in the Northern District of California where the case is being tried.
However, sending money to Dmitri's legal defense fund would definitely be in order. Good attorneys like Mr. Burton don't come cheap.
Yes...have a look at sf.freesklyarov.org.
The most obvious problem is that plenty of hard-working people don't make enough money to afford decent housing, food, and medical care. Meanwhile, some people who seem much lazier live in luxury.
$6/hour * 40 hours/week * 50 weeks/year = $12000/year. That's barely enough to live some places in the U.S. (here in Champaign-Urbana, IL, for example), but definitely not in major urban areas.
I think you might have misunderstood: For software licensed under the GPL, you are allowed to charge for the service of distributing binaries. However, the binaries themselves are "free as in speech": your customer is entitled to redistribute them as well. For example, you see LinuxMall.com selling "Penguin Power Red Hat Linux" for $3.98, or the offical Red Hat boxed set for ten times more money.
I'm willing to bet that it can be made far more reliable than the big accelerators of today: it has many fewer parts, and they are all much more accessible. You're also not subject to overbearing safety rules that make everything take much longer than it really needs to (without providing much improvement in safety). For reference, during operating periods, the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron at Brookhaven National Laboratory tries to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. On average, beam is delivered successfully for about 100 out of those 168 hours.
If your friend is going to run this cyclotron, I recommend that he learn about radiation safety and put together a radiation monitoring system.
If they aren't distributing their tool "for commercial advantage," then they can't be charged with a criminal violation of the DMCA. However, Macrovision can still file a civil suit against them, probably leaving them in debt to Macrovision (and to their own attorneys) for the rest of their lives.
First of all, I agree that you should have that right. And if you feel strongly about it, I hope you'll join us in the streets to tell the world about it.
Unfortunately, here's the problem with eBooks: they can't ever be encrypted effectively, because your adversary (formerly called your "customer") always has the key. It almost doesn't matter whether Adobe uses ROT-13 or triple-DES, because they have to give you both the algorithm and the key for you to be able to do anything at all with the eBook. All they can do is to obfuscate the software to make it difficult to figure out what they've already given you. However, experience shows that there will always be a sufficiently talented and motivated individual who figures it out. The current "solution" to this problem is to imprison those people.
I think that one point that might save us was raised by Brad Templeton: the main problem with commercial eBook publishing isn't piracy, it's that no one wants to read eBooks! Publishers might eventually get the hint that they have to make their products maximally useful rather than trying to lock them up tightly.
Actually, at least all major US airlines do accept cash for tickets. Paying cash is very likely to flag you as a potential terrorist requiring extra security screening, though.
Although we are all pleased by the actions of Adobe and the EFF today, there will nevertheless be a protest event in Champaign-Urbana, IL on Wednesday. We'll meet on the Quad in front of the Illini Union from 11:00 until 1:00. Our focus will be to educate the University community on the problems with the DMCA. If Dmitry is still in jail, we will focus on his plight as well (I hope not!). If you're can be there, PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY.
Thanks!
Free Dmitry Sklyarov!
Many, but not all, states have exceptions for married couples in their statutory rape laws. So, it depends where in the U.S. you go.
This is not true. There are plenty of non-U.S. citizens imprisoned in the U.S.
It is small and very easy to install and configure. It can easily be embedded in a larger Java application, allowing a Web interface to be added "after the fact."
Of course, SDMI's lawyers probably aren't this stupid.
On the other hand, this might be the result of a generic DoE policy that no one has taken the time to review for appropriateness to the facility.
Thanks,
Fred Gray
I'm a graduate student who works on the experiment to which this thread is alluding. It is the muon g-2 experiment.
The post to which I am responding contains several factual errors:
Thanks,
Fred Gray
Upon a second reading, I retract my statement above that Robert Clark's post above is "not scientifically serious." There is some informed although very speculative content there. I had a knee-jerk "this must be a crackpot" reaction to the talk about faster-than-light travel.
The first answer to the question is that the magnetic field of the storage ring is chosen to store particles at the magic momentum. This field is very precisely calibrated and monitored, since it appears in the denominator of the expression by which we calculate the anomalous moment from the precession frequency. Particles that are moving much slower or faster spiral in or out of the ring without being stored.
We measure the momentum of the muons using what we call the "fast rotation." The muons are injected into our storage ring in a tight bunch. At early times after injection, the bunch structure modulates the time spectrum that we see in the detectors. We can measure the times at which we see the bunch pass by and from this determine the momentum distribution. The central value is correct.
Finally, the finite momentum spread (about 0.6 percent) of the beam means that some of the particles do have an momentum which differs from the magic momentum. We apply a correction for this; we determine it from computational simulations of the beam dynamics. The magnitude of the correction is about 0.5 parts per million (ppm), with an error estimate of less than 0.1 ppm. (Our result has an error estimate of 1.3 ppm, so the correction is small on this scale.)
Thanks,
Fred
CPT and Lorentz Tests with Muons, Robert Bluhm, Alan Kostelecky, and Charles Lane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1098 (2000).
The authors propose that it is possible to test special relativity by comparing g-2 measured during the sidereal day with the value from the sidereal night. We intend to do this analysis.
We have the data on tape to reduce the error estimate by about a factor of 2. Analyzing this data is going to be my thesis topic, and I look forward to sharing the result with you in a year or so.
By the way, one aspect of our analysis that hasn't been made apparent in some of the press reports is that it was done semi-blind. We measure the precession frequency and the magnetic field strength separately. Without both numbers, you can't get the physics result. Different teams analyze the two sets of data independently. Until the very end, hidden offsets are added to the numbers. This way, we can't bias the result by working towards (or away from!) a particular value.
First of all, we measure two quantities: the anomalous precession frequency of the spin (that is, how fast the spin rotates with respect to the momentum of the muons) AND the strength of the magnetic field in which the muons are stored. g-2 is proportional to the ratio of these two values. The other factors in the equation are fundamental constants that have also been measured very precisely. There are really very few theoretical assumptions embedded in the measurement itself (some single-particle relativistic electrodynamics of spin motion), so we aren't working backwards.
Second, the Standard Model consists of more than QED! At the level of statistics that we have, there are significant contributions from hadron loops (the strong interaction) and from W and Z bosons (the weak interaction).
Our "confidence level" is between 98 and 99 percent, a 2.6 standard deviation discrepancy. At this level, we do not claim that we have made a discovery. We've only found a very suggestive hint that there might be a discrepancy. In fact, although it's been fun, I would say that we've almost gotten an embarassing amount of publicity out of our result.
We don't test superstring theory at all. However, the more popular supersymmetry models can potentially lead to perturbations at the scale of our measurement.
Thanks,
Fred