The makers of Junkyard Wars are starting up a new series called Clock Speed Wars. 2 dorks each build an "ultimate computing device" to battle in a "secret porn downloading race". This is attracting fellow pocket-protector devotees of all genres, including my local Taped Glasses Club
Actually, the DMCA restricts the design or production of devices produced for the purpose of "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work..." An effective technological measure such as encryption is very different from the "copy protection scheme" that isn't even mentioned in the DMCA
Anyway, there is an exemption for encyrption research, so the DMCA is not applicable here anyway.
You're right, but since the unmarked music entering into the sdmi system does not contain a watermark, you can just import multiple copies of the same music. It's a pain, but it makes the 4 copy rule irrelevant for unmarked content.
Though the article stresses that it was the location of the server that was the deciding factor in this case, there is more to this case than that. The article stated:
"...jurisdiction was justified for three reasons: Bochan lived in Virginia; the harm, if any, would be suffered there; and the La Fontaines knew Bochan was a Virginia citizen, despite their contentions to the contrary. As a result, they could "reasonably foresee" being sued in Virginia, Judge Ellis said. "
This paragraph shows the application of standerd personal jurisdiction doctrine. Take the server away and even the fact that this happened on the Internet and you get the same result as in this case. If you commit an act that causes harm in another state you can be brought to trial there.
Slashdot Mirror
The makers of Junkyard Wars are starting up a new series called Clock Speed Wars. 2 dorks each build an "ultimate computing device" to battle in a "secret porn downloading race". This is attracting fellow pocket-protector devotees of all genres, including my local Taped Glasses Club
Actually, the DMCA restricts the design or production of devices produced for the purpose of "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work..." An effective technological measure such as encryption is very different from the "copy protection scheme" that isn't even mentioned in the DMCA
Anyway, there is an exemption for encyrption research, so the DMCA is not applicable here anyway.
You're right, but since the unmarked music entering into the sdmi system does not contain a watermark, you can just import multiple copies of the same music. It's a pain, but it makes the 4 copy rule irrelevant for unmarked content.
Though the article stresses that it was the location of the server that was the deciding factor in this case, there is more to this case than that. The article stated:
"...jurisdiction was justified for three reasons: Bochan lived in Virginia; the harm, if any, would be suffered there; and the La Fontaines knew Bochan was a Virginia citizen, despite their contentions to the contrary. As a result, they could "reasonably foresee" being sued in Virginia, Judge Ellis said. "
This paragraph shows the application of standerd personal jurisdiction doctrine. Take the server away and even the fact that this happened on the Internet and you get the same result as in this case. If you commit an act that causes harm in another state you can be brought to trial there.