This doesn't make sense. You say that MS own the browser market, therefore they don't have to respond to the user wishlist. If that is the case, MS don't have to listen to anybody, web developers included.
My apologies for not being clearer. Before MS had a monopolistic hold on the market for web browsers, their goal was to gain market share. Anyone who could offer themselves up as a new browser user (either for them or against them) had a currency MS found valuable. In response to this, MS put great emphasis on ensuring such potential customers became MS customers. That translated into a fully featured, easy to use, and low cost (free beer) product.
But the situation has now changed in at least two respects. First, because MS owns the browser client market, it no longer finds new customers so valuable. They feel confident that the majority of web surfers will become their customer even if they do nothing. And second, MS doesn't add to their bottom line by giving away web browsers, but by selling products and services to businesses and home computer users. These days, the currency MS needs is held by anyone who can buy their products and services.
In this game, your purchase of an OEM windows license when you replace your PC every three years is nothing compared to the purchase power of web content providers, who will pay dearly for better control of the the browser their visitors are using. That will translate into better page layout controls, ubiquitous multimedia, easier "click to buy" features, and transparent authentication, but also things like a way to present advertisements that you can't "mute" or "fast-forward" through (a deficiency of the TV) or just click to close. You'll also begin to see better tracking of exactly who is viewing the ad (Nielsen can only say "18-34 year old single male", but the browser can send your personalized passport ID, allowing the content provider to know everything about you) and of course Digital Rights Management built right into the operating system.
You may not want that, but your currency no longer matters, and it's not like you have a choice of browsers anyway. Unless you're willing to spend some currency of a different kind.
Have you ever used IE 5 or 6? Your post would clearly indicate that you haven't.
Onto the personal attacks early, eh? I use Lynx when I'm surfing abroad. Care to guess what I use when I'm at home?
You can disable activeX and scripting very easily.
Even if you don't understand the power of defaults, be assured Microsoft does. Yes there are many things which you can do under Windows, including replacing the whole operating system altogether. But market research has clearly shown the vast majority of personal comupter users change only the minimum of the factory set defaults, and when they are changed, it's almost universally done to increase functionality (gain features) rather than to decrease functionality (increase security). So, if it ships or installs with activeX or scripting enabled, the fact that it can be disabled or uninstalled means little.
Bashing M$ is one thing, bashing in ignorance is something entirely different.
Some day when you're older you'll learn to never be so sure about what you know, or what other people are ignorant about. You're misinterpreting your knowledge lamp. It doesn't mean "I know this, there's nothing more to learn here." It means "I know something about this, there's plenty more to learn from others here."
What I don't understand is why Microsoft hasn't gotten on the ball and added configuration options to MSIE to completely disable this sorta thing.
Think again.
Who does Microsoft write their browser for? It's not for the browser user, it's for the web content provider.
The only way the end user can 'pay' for IE is by choosing to use it. The web has now finished voting (for all practical purposes) and IE won. Your "choice to use it" has become a currency Microsoft no longer needs.
Now, since IE owns the market, Microsoft will be listening to what the content providers want. If they want pop-up ads which can't be blocked, that's what IE will provide. If they want proprietary tags, that's what they'll get.
If they want to 'own' your system, that's what the'll get.
If you want to block ads, or real security, or even just better control of your own computer, you'll need to pay for it with a currently which still has some value. In some cases [opera] that means paying with greenbacks. In others [mozilla] you may be able to pay with just your mindshare.
Have you ever heard the saying "There's no such thing as a free lunch?"
But with digital content and the Internet, a home computer user can share a perfect copy of any content with potentially millions of other people, with minimal time and effort. Doesn't that pose an immediate danger to copyright holders? How do you propose we stem illegal distribution of copyrighted material, other than mandating that copy-thwarting be built into any device that can read the original work?
Excellent question. I applaud you for asking it.
Perhaps you're starting with the wrong question. May I propose a few of my own?
Why should we assume that the "infinite perfect copies" nature of digital publishing poses any danger at all to copyright holders? Has this been proven, or are we just assuming it must be so?
Even if there is a proven danger to copyright holders, what incentive do we have to protect copyright holders? Has it been proven that protection of copyright holders is a net benefit to the country as a whole? Our Founding Fathers thought so (to the tune of 14 years total) but has it been proven in the context of a digital publishing environment? For the past 200 years or so in this country, we have used copyright law to protect copyright holders, but prior to that we didn't. If times have changed before (and we found the lack of a copyright law was problematic, necessitating the current need for copyright law) why should we presume that times will never change again, and we find the support of a copyright law becoming problematic, necessitating the removal of copyright protections?
Current copyright law protects copyright for upwards of 150 years. That's almost as long as copyright law has existed in this country. Have we really become so wise that we can see the future as well as we can see the past?
Or perhaps you just need a good absurd question to drive the point home...
If I can demonstrate the duplication of copyrighted digital material using (oh , let's say) a bread making machine, will this legislation require the manufacturer to recall all bread making machines and install the appropriate DRM software into the device?
Why yes, it really could get to that point.
Re:Does it really matter?
on
Carnivore Update
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why do people care if the FBI can snoop what they do on-line? Are folks paranoid the FBI will find out they illegally download MP3s, software, and movies? Invasion of privacy? Bah. I could care less if the FBI sees me buy a movie from amazon.com or read the latest hockey news on nhl.com. If this is what it takes in this modern day and age for the law enforcement agencies to protect us, so be it.
Maybe all you do is check hockey scores, but some of us do real work on the Internet. Think about this, for example: What if I wanted John Ashcroft's job, and I was using email on the Internet to plan my campaign strategy. Maybe we can trust John Ashcroft not to take advantage of his position to protect his own interests, but what about the rest of the people in his organization? Do you want to bet your democracy on it? As a rule, in the US, we don't grant this level of inherent trust to our elected officials; we've found it unnecessary because we've created a government based on a set of checks and balances. A lot of people made a lot of sacrifices to bring you the democracy your enjoy today. You disrespect their memory to abandon what they've built just to make your own ass a bit safer for a while.
Carnivore allows one branch to "snoop" on the other two (and every citizen as well). Carnivore is root access to the email system.
Maybe we can trust John Ashcroft, but ask yourself this: Why is this administration demanding the ability to look at the inner workings of all other organizations (Carnivore), and simultaneously blocking requests by other organixations to find out about the administrations inner workings (energy policy scandal)?
"Suppose you have some information encoded in atoms," says Walsworth. "You could map that information onto light, send it over to some other group of atoms, and imprint the information there."
In other news, the RIAA filed suit today against God for failing to include Digital Rights Management technology with each atom, in violation of the SSSCA, and for providing an anti-circumvention mechanism within His "Laws of Physics" prodict.
"This will destroy the music industry as we know it!" exclaimed an unnamed music industry representative, "Evil Hackers will be able to use this technology to pirate music off of even protected CD's, because they're all made of atoms!"
God was contacted for comment on these developments, but apparently prefers only to listen, and not reply.
in fact, an older version of Windows NT does comform to a subset of this Posix layer...
That's some slick talking there. My Commodore C-64 conforms to "a subset of this Posix layer" too, but I wouldn't want to port any POSIX application there as anything other than an intellectual challenge.
I think it's more likely they're trying to prevent people from doing something that hasn't been attempted yet.
In this industry, that particular activity is usually called innovation.
This is one of the threats Lessig points to in Future of Ideas; the use of private law (licensing) to prevent innovation by new entrants to the industry.
I keep forgetting that some of you young'uns weren't around back in the late 80's and early 90's when this was most recently settled (again)...
For it to mean anything at all you have to read and understand what every single line of the code does.
No. It doesn't. It means that somebody has to, but it doesn't have to be you. It just has to be someone you trust to be acting in your own interest.
No one understands every aspect of a computer operating system. But for every aspect of a computer operating system, there is someone who understands it, because someone wrote it. The primary differences with open source software are:
That someone who wrote it is obligated to make the source available. That means they are not obligated (or even encouraged) to keep their knowledge secret for trade secret reasons, and they are motivated to spread their knowledge around.
No matter how well you know a certain aspect of an operating system, there's no guarantee that you know it better than anyone else, so trying to 'pull a fast one' and slip something through may (and likely will) cost you all respect and trust you've gained from the community. And there's no shortcut to earning trust or respect from this community.
Because you can't hide your actions in a precompiled binary, it's darn near impossible to 'full a fast one' in the first place.
The fact that the source is available keeps everyone honest; you don't have to understand that a certain call deep in the heart of httpd could, under certain circumstances, allow an attacker to read arbitrary files off your hard disk, because someone else (who lives in Apache) already found it.
Of course, to assess trust, you need to assess motivation. What would possibly be the motivation behind someone trying to do something nefarious inside code which they give away for free in source form? What about someone who sells pre-compiled binaries and has quarterly financial results targets to meet?
If you want to learn more about the concept of "security through peer review" and "web of trust", I'm sure Google can be of some help.
There's one right missing from this list; the right to be left alone.
I don't have cable or a satellite dish, so I don't watch much TV.
I don't have broadband so I'm not one of the people downloading movies or MP3's off the Internet.
I don't own a DVD player, and while I do own a VCR, I don't use it to record programs off the air; instead it plays Lion King and Toy Story videos to keep the kids off my back.
I haven't bought a (music) CD in years, I don't own an MP3 player or even a writable CD drive.
While I admit I'm not the best customer of the audio/video content industries, I'm not a pirate in any sense of the term. I don't even exercise many of the rights that the content industries themselves grant that I have. I understand the technologies, and could probably become one, but that stuff just doesn't interest me. In short, I'm just not equipped to be a pirate.
But I do work with computers, and I am concerned about the effects that legislation like the DMCA and the SSSCA will have on me directly.
I guess I need to go out and buy a few CD's so I can begin to boycott them, eh?;-)
The MPAA and the RIAA should view this as a shot across their bow; they are motivating people who otherwise couldn't care less and making enemies of people who would hapilly leave them alone. This is not a wise tactic.
Someone with a lot of literary skills...bastard liberal media companies...
There's an old addage from the newspaper business which is very applicable here:
Only a fool would start a publicity fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
If you want the media companies back in line, unplug your television and start talking to people about something other than SouthPark for a change.
If you dont sell it, you are not liable for its use.
Don't go there. It's not what you really want.
We may soon find ourselves in a world where nobody sells software, just the services.
In other words, how would this work in a world where you buy a hardware-only net computer, purchase internet access (a service) to gain access to applications (software) which are downloaded over the net? You never pay for the software, so when MS Money bounces your checks, who owns the liability? Not the hardware company, because it's not their software. Not your ISP, because they are only providing the connectivity. And not the application provider, because you didn't pay them anything.
If we're going to fix this, let's get it right this time.
Yes, it would be the end of Open Source. Who in their right mind would code for a project part time if it meant they were legally liable for anything that might go wrong with it?
There is no software you can write which I cannot make faulty with the right (wrong) compiler. And it doesn't matter how good a programmer you are, or how simple the program you wrote.
It makes no sense to hold the author of the software liable for faults, because the faults could be intorduced by the compiler, or by the later stages of deployment and configuration. So there should be blanket immunity for anyone who vends software in source form under the theory that anyone who has access to the source must exercise due dilligence to ensure that the software is appropriate for the situation in which it is deployed.
On the other hand, vendors who deliver software as a pre-compiled binary must assume some liability, as the consumer is no longer in a position to exercise due dilligence.
This would be a win for free software developers, as long as they only deliver code as source; no liability.
This would be a win for companies like RedHat, who would be able to offer pre-compiled free software, and assume some of the liability for making sure it was compiled correctly.
This would be a win for anyone who uses software, because vendors would ensure their products have less faults, under threat of liability.
This would be the death blow for Microsoft, because (as a company which vends primarily pre-compiled binaries only) they would be fully liable for the software they ship, but would be fully responsible for detecting and correcting their own faults.
To summarize: OSS is a bad thing because if free software is available no one will want to pay for software, which will drive programmers out of work.
The logic breaks down thusly:
The programmers write the software.
The publishers sell the software.
The techs support the software.
The consumers use the software.
The only way the techs could be hurt by the availability of free software is if the consumers stop using the software. That's ain't gonna happen. The price of the software is a tax which detracts from the pool of money available in the total software budget.
The only way programmers could be hurt by the availability of free software is if the consumers stop needing more software to be written. That could happen, if a programmer happened to write a piece of software which is completely bug free, completely serves the function it was designed for, and will continue to serve that function on all future hardware platforms and technology through the end of time. Somehow I think if you're that programmer you won't have a problem finding a new job anyway. Again, it ain't gonna happen, but any money spent on procuring the software is less money spent on future developments.
However, the availability of free software puts software publishers out of business.
Now do you understand why Microsoft considers free software to be a mortal threat?
Just for a moment, suspend your instinctive outrage and listen to reason.
The Internet used to be about openness and trust. Back before Canter & Siegel; the "Green Card Lawyers", back before the Net was opened-up for the Dot Com's and commercial postings.
Back then, having an open relay was no big deal (it was even expected) because we were all friends working for the betterment of the Net, and each other. There was no "cut off their air" because the Internet was a cooperative; their air was our air. A network gains strength as a whole whenever any part of it is strengthened.
That was the Internet that Gillmore grew-up on (and helped found). Perhaps you can't remember, or perhaps you were just too young to remember what it was like back then.
That was back before the Fall of '93.
First it was spamming shutting down USENET groups, which begot CancelMoose.
Next we started seeing email SPAM, which begot procmail and it's necessary filters.
Then port 25 was blocked, and peer-to-peer email was to be nevermore.
Now we're starting to reap what we have sown.
The Internet will soon be owned by one or maybe two large network providers (AOL/Time Warner and/or MSN) and every packet you send will travel only with their permission; through paid transport or non at all. Intelligent routers will give these network providers the ability to block (or charge for) any activity they think they can make a buck off of.
And once there's a single majority player, it's all over. Internetworking always benefits the smaller organization more than the larger one (because it gains access to more resources in the bargain) but only benefits both sides until one gains a majority (at which point providing network access for your competitor cost more incrementally than providing the resource yourself).
We have lost the Internet to those who would claim it as their own and carve it up over those who come in good faith and trust to build and to share.
Think about those whom you loath the most, and what characterizes them all. We hate airline shoe bombers because they exploit the trust inherent in our air travel system to harm us where we are vulnerable. As a result, we must all remove our nail clippers when we fly.
We hate the RIAA and the MPAA because their actions to shutdown legitimate sharing of copyright materials. Their actions are a response not to the person who wants to rip the CD for their car, but to those who abuse the trust by ripping a track and making it available to all comers over the internet. And we (most of us here, anyway) hate them because of the price we must now pay as a result. We may find ourselves losing Fair Use forever because of the actions of a few individuals who's use was anything but fair.
We rant for columns on end about Microsoft's abuses of the market; and what we complain about is the abuse of trust we have placed with them. Then we complain about the latest Microsoft security vulnerability, and again it's about trust misplaced.
We complain about spyware, about online privacy, about the rights we've lost, about abuses of the GPL, and in each case it's the trust we've lost, and usually about how many Karma points we're going to grant to whichever post points this out in the funniest way.
So when Gillmore sticks his nose out and actually still trusts the community he helped to create, you shoot the messenger when you should be shooting the message.
It's not the open relay that's harming your computer; it's the virus, and the impure pond scum who wrote it!
You want the RIAA off your back? Give them a reason to trust you.
You want Microsoft to change their ways? Stop paying them for the trust they've stolen from you.
You want to keep spammers from sending UCE to you? Spread the word that spammers lie.
And if you want a free (speech) Internet where ideas are judged by their merits, rather than by the forum where they are delivered? Speak up and be heard.
Or don't. This Internet is already lost. Trust takes decades to build and seconds to destroy, and all of it which was once here is now gone for good.
You want to know what built the free software community? Trust is the operating system of the free software movement. Destroy that trust and free software will not survive. That's one reason why it's so important to assign your copyrights to the FSF (so they can defend them) and to contribute to the EFF (who understand all this stuff).
You should speak more carefully when discussing copyright law. It is not nearly as straightforward as you might think.
In certain cases, a publisher can have his copyright monopoly revoked. Under current law (I believe) this is restricted only to sound recordings, (wherein a publisher who has been proven to have abused his monopoly grant over the use of a work can lose his right to enforce any further rights to the work) but there may be other applications.
But my main response to your "No, it is not possible." is that you are forgetting that the Law is a construction of Man, not of Nature.
We can, with (relative) certainty, make a statement like "No, it's not possible for two objects to occupy the same place at the same time." but no such statement can be made about Law.
If we were to make a law today which says "this copyright is hereby revoked", then the copyright would be revoked. Done deal. It might be difficult to get such a law passed, might require pulling out of international treaties and agreements, and may even require a modification to the U.S. Constitution itself, but all of these things are infinitely more possible than, say, making two objects occupy the same place at the same time, which we cannot make happen no matter how many constitutions we change.
Copyright is a monopoly we grant to the creator because of the benefits that granting such a monopoly bring to us. If we decide that we are not seeing the benefits we expect, we can and should rethink the grants we make.
This is a Democracy. We are bound only by the laws we make.
...part and parcel of whatever new nifty whiz-bang thing that you can't continue living without...
You'd be surprised at how many whiz-bang things you can continue living without.
If you don't download movies or share songs, you don't really need broadband. And that's what the MPAA/RIAA are really afraid of. Not that the Internet will destroy them, but that the Internet will never materialize as a market they can control.
If you convince yourself that you don't need broadband:
you can browse the internet using a text-based web browser and avoid the pop-up windows, the banner ads, and the 1x1 pixel web bugs.
you can network over telephone voiceband channels, which by law cannot be port-blocked, sniffed*, bandwidth-hogged by your neighbor, or QOS'ed into the ground by your provider.
you can completely avoid DOS attacks, script kiddees, etc, because you know exactly which computer you connected to
I've had enough of this wonderful Internet. Bring back FidoNet!
it's easy to say that battle.net *provides* access contro for wciii (and starcraft). however, its primary purpose is to allow SC players to play online.
The primary purpose of BattleNet is
not relevant to this discussion (perhaps the primary purpose of bnetd is) and
not for you to decide (Blizzard gets to decide that.)
do you think people use bnetd *primarily* to facilitate piracy of a program you can pick up at electronics boutique for five bucks, or to play legal (and/or illegal) versions online?
It used to be about "primarily", but under the DMCA it isn't any more. The test now is to show that bnetd has no other substantial commercial use than to act as a means to circumvent Battlenet. It has nothing to do with piracy; even if you could show that bnetd has no effect on piracy (as was done with DeCSS) you've gained nothing. The DMCA allows publishers to shut down competitors simply for having the ability to compete.
bnetd certainly isn't *marketed* as a piracy-enabling technology...
Irrelevant. It doesn't need to be marketed, the test is weather it provides the capability to bypass the access control, and weather the group producing it or making it available knows it can. That would be a tough one to disprove; made even tougher by the fact that Blizzard has now notified them in a very public fashion.
bnetd was (A) not
primarily designed for the purposes of being a circumvention device...
(emphasis in original)
Blizzard claim copyright to their games. Blizzard claims that they use their BattleNet servers as a means of controling access to their games (specifically, to the WarCraft III beta). This makes the BattleNet server an access control device.
I'm not aware of any purpose which bnetd serves which is not geared toward circumventing the use of Blizzard's BattleNet server, but I'm open to educating... And I don't think you could get around this by just saying "bnetd also allows chat..." You might be able to assert that bnetd was designed for StarCraft, and only incidentally acts as a server for WarCraftIII, but then Blizzard could always just reply that it was their intention all along to be able to limit the use of StarCraft on-line using their control of the BattleNet server. You lose either way.
Blizzard has asserted that bnetd has commercial significance to them, insofar as it impacts their commercially oriented BattleNet service. What is the purpose of bnetd beyond circumvention? Is that a commercially significant use? Wanna bet jail time on that?
And "marketing" is not limited to buying SuperBowl ads. If the web page says "use this instead of BattleNet, or if the creators knew it could be used as a replacement to BattleNet, then it's considered marketed for that purpose.
The kicker: these are or's, not and's (see 1201.b.2.B) so if it meets any one of the tests, it meets the definition.
Blizzard is on solid ground here, at least as long as the DMCA remains solid ground. I'd say they'd be within their rights, under the law, to seek criminal charges against the bnetd team. That's not to say that's what should happen, but rather to demonstrate how far out-of-whack the DMCA is.
From the Settlement, under Spaceshifting and Notice of Minimum System Requirements: in II.B.a.v:
a warning that the downloadable encrypted digital music files of the songs contained on the Charlie Pride CD may only be downloaded six times.
then later under First Sale/Downloads: in II.B.c:
Defendants shall not impair or limit in any manner the ability and right of consumers to lawfully sell or transfer ownership of the Charlie Pride CD to others who shall have the equal ability to download related digital music files.
So, if I buy a Charlie Pride CD, download the encrypted files six times, then sell it to my friend, does he also get to download six times? If he then sells it back to me again, do I get another six downloads?
It sounds like Farenheit Entertainment just caved and said "whatever, we're not going to attempt to be sell any more of these things anyway, so any restrictions on what we can or can't do are moot.
Slashdot Mirror
My apologies for not being clearer. Before MS had a monopolistic hold on the market for web browsers, their goal was to gain market share. Anyone who could offer themselves up as a new browser user (either for them or against them) had a currency MS found valuable. In response to this, MS put great emphasis on ensuring such potential customers became MS customers. That translated into a fully featured, easy to use, and low cost (free beer) product.
But the situation has now changed in at least two respects. First, because MS owns the browser client market, it no longer finds new customers so valuable. They feel confident that the majority of web surfers will become their customer even if they do nothing. And second, MS doesn't add to their bottom line by giving away web browsers, but by selling products and services to businesses and home computer users. These days, the currency MS needs is held by anyone who can buy their products and services.
In this game, your purchase of an OEM windows license when you replace your PC every three years is nothing compared to the purchase power of web content providers, who will pay dearly for better control of the the browser their visitors are using. That will translate into better page layout controls, ubiquitous multimedia, easier "click to buy" features, and transparent authentication, but also things like a way to present advertisements that you can't "mute" or "fast-forward" through (a deficiency of the TV) or just click to close. You'll also begin to see better tracking of exactly who is viewing the ad (Nielsen can only say "18-34 year old single male", but the browser can send your personalized passport ID, allowing the content provider to know everything about you) and of course Digital Rights Management built right into the operating system.
You may not want that, but your currency no longer matters, and it's not like you have a choice of browsers anyway. Unless you're willing to spend some currency of a different kind.
Onto the personal attacks early, eh? I use Lynx when I'm surfing abroad. Care to guess what I use when I'm at home?
Even if you don't understand the power of defaults, be assured Microsoft does. Yes there are many things which you can do under Windows, including replacing the whole operating system altogether. But market research has clearly shown the vast majority of personal comupter users change only the minimum of the factory set defaults, and when they are changed, it's almost universally done to increase functionality (gain features) rather than to decrease functionality (increase security). So, if it ships or installs with activeX or scripting enabled, the fact that it can be disabled or uninstalled means little.
Some day when you're older you'll learn to never be so sure about what you know, or what other people are ignorant about. You're misinterpreting your knowledge lamp. It doesn't mean "I know this, there's nothing more to learn here." It means "I know something about this, there's plenty more to learn from others here."
Think again.
Who does Microsoft write their browser for? It's not for the browser user, it's for the web content provider.
The only way the end user can 'pay' for IE is by choosing to use it. The web has now finished voting (for all practical purposes) and IE won. Your "choice to use it" has become a currency Microsoft no longer needs.
Now, since IE owns the market, Microsoft will be listening to what the content providers want. If they want pop-up ads which can't be blocked, that's what IE will provide. If they want proprietary tags, that's what they'll get.
If they want to 'own' your system, that's what the'll get.
If you want to block ads, or real security, or even just better control of your own computer, you'll need to pay for it with a currently which still has some value. In some cases [opera] that means paying with greenbacks. In others [mozilla] you may be able to pay with just your mindshare.
Have you ever heard the saying "There's no such thing as a free lunch?"
Excellent question. I applaud you for asking it.
Perhaps you're starting with the wrong question. May I propose a few of my own?
Why should we assume that the "infinite perfect copies" nature of digital publishing poses any danger at all to copyright holders? Has this been proven, or are we just assuming it must be so?
Even if there is a proven danger to copyright holders, what incentive do we have to protect copyright holders? Has it been proven that protection of copyright holders is a net benefit to the country as a whole? Our Founding Fathers thought so (to the tune of 14 years total) but has it been proven in the context of a digital publishing environment? For the past 200 years or so in this country, we have used copyright law to protect copyright holders, but prior to that we didn't. If times have changed before (and we found the lack of a copyright law was problematic, necessitating the current need for copyright law) why should we presume that times will never change again, and we find the support of a copyright law becoming problematic, necessitating the removal of copyright protections?
Current copyright law protects copyright for upwards of 150 years. That's almost as long as copyright law has existed in this country. Have we really become so wise that we can see the future as well as we can see the past?
Or perhaps you just need a good absurd question to drive the point home...
If I can demonstrate the duplication of copyrighted digital material using (oh , let's say) a bread making machine, will this legislation require the manufacturer to recall all bread making machines and install the appropriate DRM software into the device?
Why yes, it really could get to that point.
Maybe all you do is check hockey scores, but some of us do real work on the Internet. Think about this, for example: What if I wanted John Ashcroft's job, and I was using email on the Internet to plan my campaign strategy. Maybe we can trust John Ashcroft not to take advantage of his position to protect his own interests, but what about the rest of the people in his organization? Do you want to bet your democracy on it? As a rule, in the US, we don't grant this level of inherent trust to our elected officials; we've found it unnecessary because we've created a government based on a set of checks and balances. A lot of people made a lot of sacrifices to bring you the democracy your enjoy today. You disrespect their memory to abandon what they've built just to make your own ass a bit safer for a while.
Carnivore allows one branch to "snoop" on the other two (and every citizen as well). Carnivore is root access to the email system.
Maybe we can trust John Ashcroft, but ask yourself this: Why is this administration demanding the ability to look at the inner workings of all other organizations (Carnivore), and simultaneously blocking requests by other organixations to find out about the administrations inner workings (energy policy scandal)?
In other news, the RIAA filed suit today against God for failing to include Digital Rights Management technology with each atom, in violation of the SSSCA, and for providing an anti-circumvention mechanism within His "Laws of Physics" prodict.
"This will destroy the music industry as we know it!" exclaimed an unnamed music industry representative, "Evil Hackers will be able to use this technology to pirate music off of even protected CD's, because they're all made of atoms!"
God was contacted for comment on these developments, but apparently prefers only to listen, and not reply.
That's some slick talking there. My Commodore C-64 conforms to "a subset of this Posix layer" too, but I wouldn't want to port any POSIX application there as anything other than an intellectual challenge.
Explain to me again what I save by replacing my expensive UNIX expert with an expensive Windows expert?
You don't want that. That would be racketeering, and it's illegal.
And at any rate, businesses shouldn't have to resort to illegal behavior to counter illegal behavior.
The correct response it so fix the problem (the Microsoft monopoly).
In this industry, that particular activity is usually called innovation.
This is one of the threats Lessig points to in Future of Ideas; the use of private law (licensing) to prevent innovation by new entrants to the industry.
No. It doesn't. It means that somebody has to, but it doesn't have to be you. It just has to be someone you trust to be acting in your own interest.
No one understands every aspect of a computer operating system. But for every aspect of a computer operating system, there is someone who understands it, because someone wrote it. The primary differences with open source software are:
That someone who wrote it is obligated to make the source available. That means they are not obligated (or even encouraged) to keep their knowledge secret for trade secret reasons, and they are motivated to spread their knowledge around.
No matter how well you know a certain aspect of an operating system, there's no guarantee that you know it better than anyone else, so trying to 'pull a fast one' and slip something through may (and likely will) cost you all respect and trust you've gained from the community. And there's no shortcut to earning trust or respect from this community.
Because you can't hide your actions in a precompiled binary, it's darn near impossible to 'full a fast one' in the first place.
The fact that the source is available keeps everyone honest; you don't have to understand that a certain call deep in the heart of httpd could, under certain circumstances, allow an attacker to read arbitrary files off your hard disk, because someone else (who lives in Apache) already found it.
Of course, to assess trust, you need to assess motivation. What would possibly be the motivation behind someone trying to do something nefarious inside code which they give away for free in source form? What about someone who sells pre-compiled binaries and has quarterly financial results targets to meet?
If you want to learn more about the concept of "security through peer review" and "web of trust", I'm sure Google can be of some help.
In most cases they're gracious enough to let you keep doing things with it, but make no mistake about it.
It comes down to a question of how much you trust the person/company who wrote the software.
I don't have cable or a satellite dish, so I don't watch much TV.
I don't have broadband so I'm not one of the people downloading movies or MP3's off the Internet.
I don't own a DVD player, and while I do own a VCR, I don't use it to record programs off the air; instead it plays Lion King and Toy Story videos to keep the kids off my back.
I haven't bought a (music) CD in years, I don't own an MP3 player or even a writable CD drive.
While I admit I'm not the best customer of the audio/video content industries, I'm not a pirate in any sense of the term. I don't even exercise many of the rights that the content industries themselves grant that I have. I understand the technologies, and could probably become one, but that stuff just doesn't interest me. In short, I'm just not equipped to be a pirate.
But I do work with computers, and I am concerned about the effects that legislation like the DMCA and the SSSCA will have on me directly.
I guess I need to go out and buy a few CD's so I can begin to boycott them, eh? ;-)
The MPAA and the RIAA should view this as a shot across their bow; they are motivating people who otherwise couldn't care less and making enemies of people who would hapilly leave them alone. This is not a wise tactic.
There's an old addage from the newspaper business which is very applicable here: Only a fool would start a publicity fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
If you want the media companies back in line, unplug your television and start talking to people about something other than SouthPark for a change.
Don't go there. It's not what you really want.
We may soon find ourselves in a world where nobody sells software, just the services.
In other words, how would this work in a world where you buy a hardware-only net computer, purchase internet access (a service) to gain access to applications (software) which are downloaded over the net? You never pay for the software, so when MS Money bounces your checks, who owns the liability? Not the hardware company, because it's not their software. Not your ISP, because they are only providing the connectivity. And not the application provider, because you didn't pay them anything.
If we're going to fix this, let's get it right this time.
There is no software you can write which I cannot make faulty with the right (wrong) compiler. And it doesn't matter how good a programmer you are, or how simple the program you wrote.
It makes no sense to hold the author of the software liable for faults, because the faults could be intorduced by the compiler, or by the later stages of deployment and configuration. So there should be blanket immunity for anyone who vends software in source form under the theory that anyone who has access to the source must exercise due dilligence to ensure that the software is appropriate for the situation in which it is deployed.
On the other hand, vendors who deliver software as a pre-compiled binary must assume some liability, as the consumer is no longer in a position to exercise due dilligence.
This would be a win for free software developers, as long as they only deliver code as source; no liability.
This would be a win for companies like RedHat, who would be able to offer pre-compiled free software, and assume some of the liability for making sure it was compiled correctly.
This would be a win for anyone who uses software, because vendors would ensure their products have less faults, under threat of liability.
This would be the death blow for Microsoft, because (as a company which vends primarily pre-compiled binaries only) they would be fully liable for the software they ship, but would be fully responsible for detecting and correcting their own faults.
I say bring it on.
The logic breaks down thusly:
The programmers write the software.
The publishers sell the software.
The techs support the software.
The consumers use the software.
The only way the techs could be hurt by the availability of free software is if the consumers stop using the software. That's ain't gonna happen. The price of the software is a tax which detracts from the pool of money available in the total software budget.
The only way programmers could be hurt by the availability of free software is if the consumers stop needing more software to be written. That could happen, if a programmer happened to write a piece of software which is completely bug free, completely serves the function it was designed for, and will continue to serve that function on all future hardware platforms and technology through the end of time. Somehow I think if you're that programmer you won't have a problem finding a new job anyway. Again, it ain't gonna happen, but any money spent on procuring the software is less money spent on future developments.
However, the availability of free software puts software publishers out of business.
Now do you understand why Microsoft considers free software to be a mortal threat?
The Internet used to be about openness and trust. Back before Canter & Siegel; the "Green Card Lawyers", back before the Net was opened-up for the Dot Com's and commercial postings.
Back then, having an open relay was no big deal (it was even expected) because we were all friends working for the betterment of the Net, and each other. There was no "cut off their air" because the Internet was a cooperative; their air was our air. A network gains strength as a whole whenever any part of it is strengthened.
That was the Internet that Gillmore grew-up on (and helped found). Perhaps you can't remember, or perhaps you were just too young to remember what it was like back then.
That was back before the Fall of '93.
First it was spamming shutting down USENET groups, which begot CancelMoose.
Next we started seeing email SPAM, which begot procmail and it's necessary filters.
Then port 25 was blocked, and peer-to-peer email was to be nevermore.
Now we're starting to reap what we have sown.
The Internet will soon be owned by one or maybe two large network providers (AOL/Time Warner and/or MSN) and every packet you send will travel only with their permission; through paid transport or non at all. Intelligent routers will give these network providers the ability to block (or charge for) any activity they think they can make a buck off of.
And once there's a single majority player, it's all over. Internetworking always benefits the smaller organization more than the larger one (because it gains access to more resources in the bargain) but only benefits both sides until one gains a majority (at which point providing network access for your competitor cost more incrementally than providing the resource yourself).
We have lost the Internet to those who would claim it as their own and carve it up over those who come in good faith and trust to build and to share.
Think about those whom you loath the most, and what characterizes them all. We hate airline shoe bombers because they exploit the trust inherent in our air travel system to harm us where we are vulnerable. As a result, we must all remove our nail clippers when we fly.
We hate the RIAA and the MPAA because their actions to shutdown legitimate sharing of copyright materials. Their actions are a response not to the person who wants to rip the CD for their car, but to those who abuse the trust by ripping a track and making it available to all comers over the internet. And we (most of us here, anyway) hate them because of the price we must now pay as a result. We may find ourselves losing Fair Use forever because of the actions of a few individuals who's use was anything but fair.
We rant for columns on end about Microsoft's abuses of the market; and what we complain about is the abuse of trust we have placed with them. Then we complain about the latest Microsoft security vulnerability, and again it's about trust misplaced.
We complain about spyware, about online privacy, about the rights we've lost, about abuses of the GPL, and in each case it's the trust we've lost, and usually about how many Karma points we're going to grant to whichever post points this out in the funniest way.
So when Gillmore sticks his nose out and actually still trusts the community he helped to create, you shoot the messenger when you should be shooting the message.
It's not the open relay that's harming your computer; it's the virus, and the impure pond scum who wrote it!
You want the RIAA off your back? Give them a reason to trust you.
You want Microsoft to change their ways? Stop paying them for the trust they've stolen from you.
You want to keep spammers from sending UCE to you? Spread the word that spammers lie.
And if you want a free (speech) Internet where ideas are judged by their merits, rather than by the forum where they are delivered? Speak up and be heard.
Or don't. This Internet is already lost. Trust takes decades to build and seconds to destroy, and all of it which was once here is now gone for good.
You want to know what built the free software community? Trust is the operating system of the free software movement. Destroy that trust and free software will not survive. That's one reason why it's so important to assign your copyrights to the FSF (so they can defend them) and to contribute to the EFF (who understand all this stuff).
In certain cases, a publisher can have his copyright monopoly revoked. Under current law (I believe) this is restricted only to sound recordings, (wherein a publisher who has been proven to have abused his monopoly grant over the use of a work can lose his right to enforce any further rights to the work) but there may be other applications.
But my main response to your "No, it is not possible." is that you are forgetting that the Law is a construction of Man, not of Nature.
We can, with (relative) certainty, make a statement like "No, it's not possible for two objects to occupy the same place at the same time." but no such statement can be made about Law.
If we were to make a law today which says "this copyright is hereby revoked", then the copyright would be revoked. Done deal. It might be difficult to get such a law passed, might require pulling out of international treaties and agreements, and may even require a modification to the U.S. Constitution itself, but all of these things are infinitely more possible than, say, making two objects occupy the same place at the same time, which we cannot make happen no matter how many constitutions we change.
Copyright is a monopoly we grant to the creator because of the benefits that granting such a monopoly bring to us. If we decide that we are not seeing the benefits we expect, we can and should rethink the grants we make.
This is a Democracy. We are bound only by the laws we make.
It don't mean nuthin' until they submit it to the Judge as a formal revised settlement proposal.
And as soon as they do, I'll be back in line with my revised Tunney Act comments...
Does anyone else get the impression that Microsoft wants to keep this from ever reaching a decision by a Judge?
You'd be surprised at how many whiz-bang things you can continue living without.
If you don't download movies or share songs, you don't really need broadband. And that's what the MPAA/RIAA are really afraid of. Not that the Internet will destroy them, but that the Internet will never materialize as a market they can control.
If you convince yourself that you don't need broadband:
you can browse the internet using a text-based web browser and avoid the pop-up windows, the banner ads, and the 1x1 pixel web bugs.
you can network over telephone voiceband channels, which by law cannot be port-blocked, sniffed*, bandwidth-hogged by your neighbor, or QOS'ed into the ground by your provider.
you can completely avoid DOS attacks, script kiddees, etc, because you know exactly which computer you connected to
I've had enough of this wonderful Internet. Bring back FidoNet!
So what do I do if I've received a Cease & Desist letter, but can't post it at the site because the sender is claimimg copyright on it?
The primary purpose of BattleNet is
It used to be about "primarily", but under the DMCA it isn't any more. The test now is to show that bnetd has no other substantial commercial use than to act as a means to circumvent Battlenet. It has nothing to do with piracy; even if you could show that bnetd has no effect on piracy (as was done with DeCSS) you've gained nothing. The DMCA allows publishers to shut down competitors simply for having the ability to compete.
Irrelevant. It doesn't need to be marketed, the test is weather it provides the capability to bypass the access control, and weather the group producing it or making it available knows it can. That would be a tough one to disprove; made even tougher by the fact that Blizzard has now notified them in a very public fashion.
Blizzard claim copyright to their games. Blizzard claims that they use their BattleNet servers as a means of controling access to their games (specifically, to the WarCraft III beta). This makes the BattleNet server an access control device.
I'm not aware of any purpose which bnetd serves which is not geared toward circumventing the use of Blizzard's BattleNet server, but I'm open to educating... And I don't think you could get around this by just saying "bnetd also allows chat..." You might be able to assert that bnetd was designed for StarCraft, and only incidentally acts as a server for WarCraftIII, but then Blizzard could always just reply that it was their intention all along to be able to limit the use of StarCraft on-line using their control of the BattleNet server. You lose either way.
Blizzard has asserted that bnetd has commercial significance to them, insofar as it impacts their commercially oriented BattleNet service. What is the purpose of bnetd beyond circumvention? Is that a commercially significant use? Wanna bet jail time on that?
And "marketing" is not limited to buying SuperBowl ads. If the web page says "use this instead of BattleNet, or if the creators knew it could be used as a replacement to BattleNet, then it's considered marketed for that purpose.
The kicker: these are or's, not and's (see 1201.b.2.B) so if it meets any one of the tests, it meets the definition.
Blizzard is on solid ground here, at least as long as the DMCA remains solid ground. I'd say they'd be within their rights, under the law, to seek criminal charges against the bnetd team. That's not to say that's what should happen, but rather to demonstrate how far out-of-whack the DMCA is.
then later under First Sale/Downloads: in II.B.c:
So, if I buy a Charlie Pride CD, download the encrypted files six times, then sell it to my friend, does he also get to download six times? If he then sells it back to me again, do I get another six downloads?
It sounds like Farenheit Entertainment just caved and said "whatever, we're not going to attempt to be sell any more of these things anyway, so any restrictions on what we can or can't do are moot.