The difference is that this time there is a newly passed law which claims to make said reverse engineering and "fair use" illegal. Previous court prescedent, as long as it isn't constitutional in nature, is irrelevant. Acts of Congress can override a court decision easily, as long as the new Act is constitutional.
Why is it good that shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable? Contract terms should be negotiated -before- purchase. If you want to sell me something, and want me to agree to terms, show me a contract, let me sign it, and -then- sell it to me.
On the other hand, if the UCITA does let you return it for a refund if you disagree, and you have to open the shrinkwrap to see the license, then casual pirating of games will go way up. Many retail game shops won't let you return an opened box, but now they have to?
So you do agree that once you've bought the DVD drive and the DVD disk, you have the right to use whatever tools you want to view it on a Linux computer?
Of course. However, you do not have the right to distribute those tools, or to repurpose those tools to violate studio's intellectual property rights by copying the tracks off the DVD for potential redistribution across the 'net.
You're equating a potential redistribution with an actual violation of intellectual property rights.
In any event, plain reading of the DMCA would seem to indicate that fair use is dead, and that if you view a DVD on a non-sanctioned player of any kind, you are "circumventing an access control device" without the authorization of the copyright holder. Distributing the tools to others is a separate offense. This is clearly insane, but that's the way it is.
It's important to keep in mind the distinction between a potential act, and an actual act. Using an unencrypted medium (one without an access control device to be circumvented) I may make a personal "fair use" copy. This copy has the 'potential' to be used in an infringing manner, such as net distribution, but is not actually an offense until I do so.
You are highly restricted with VHS. You can't successfully copy most purchased movies on it without a Macrovision remover. Most of these are patented, so you are looking at a sync restoring piece of gear (big $$$) or being lucky enough to find a non-patented macrovision remover (moderate $$$) or an illegal one (reasonable $$$), or build one by yourself (cheap, but a lot of effort for most people).
Buy a $100 "color corrector". Perfectly legal, strips it right out. It's just a decoder+frame buffer+encoder.
Copying DVD, on the other hand, is VERY easy (IMHO). I just backed up a movie overnight... Was as easy as getting some software and clicking a few buttons. And, yes, you unpaid piracy "fighters" (snitching assholes), I *DID* buy the movie.
You may have bought the movie, but if it was an encrypted disc, you committed the act of "circumvention of an access control mechanism" and thus violated the DMCA, fair use be damned.
That particular logic is for athiests, who believe that there exists nothing outside of a given finite set of beings, and yet also insist there is no supreme being. I'm merely trying to point out that there is a falacy there - you can't have an unbounded, finite, linear set. If, by athiesm, you determine that the set if finite and linear, it must also then be bounded. And, if it's bounded, it has a furthest extent.
Don't conflate 'supreme' in the sense of 'the greatest that there is' with 'supreme' in the sense of 'the greatest that possibly could be, and therefore posseded of the following specific enumerated properties, including existance'.
A copyright can be owned anonymously or pseudonymously; USC Title 17, Chapter 3, Section 302 discusses the copyright duration for anonymous works, for example
No, DeCSS makes it no easier to pirate. Right now I can go out rent a DVD download the *encrypted* image to my harddrive. Write the encrypted DVD to my DVD writer. Voila! I have an exact copy of the original DVD which, by virtue of being an exact copy, is playable by the same hardware as the original.
Sure, if you have a DVD burner that can burn a "real" blank DVD, not a DVD-RAM.
A language like the one you are looking for actually exists, and it is Objective-C. The object model in Java is actually a (for, as I believe, security reasons) dumbed down version of ObjC, which in turn is more or less Smalltalk in disguise (i.e. a really nice OO environment).
It's been a while since I touched Smalltalk, but as I recall, you can send any message to any object, and it's only trapped as an error if there's a mismatch at runtime; Java is much more strongly typed than Smalltalk. I thought Objective C was similar to Smalltalk in that regard, meaning ObjC isn't all that much like Java.
Now, the second issue is a bit different. You talk about storing intermediate data, such as parse trees. An extension to the "everything under revision control" method. What benefit does this get you? If the source has changed, you are going to have to rebuild the output anyway. If the original has not changed, you can just use the object file from revision control. What is the point?
Oh man, I wish I had the references handy, but there are a couple algorithms for incremental lexing and parsing, which run big-O(n) where n is the number of *modified* tokens in the input. If you keep intermediate representations around, you don't have to rebuild the entire parse tree just because you changed X *= 2; to X *= 3; in a 50,000 line source file.
It has always been this way, in fact the license agreement of every game or product such as Microsoft Word has always said this. It has always stated that you can't reverse engineer it and you have a one use per your own computer license.. DUH.
They can write anything they want to on a little slip of paper inside a box; I already paid money, they sold it to me, it's mine. I have to obey copyright law, but I have no obligation to honor their little slip of paper. Until now. Now I get to agree to a contract sight-unseen.
If the company wants me to agree to a contract, they should make me -sign- something -before- I buy it.
A second set of engineers then came and made a processor based upon that which opened up the market for clones. Since that time the laws I believe have become more strict which is why you don't see any Mac clones.
The reason there are no Mac clones (well, actually there are, I'm using one now. The difference is that UMAX licensed the ROM from Apple) is that nobody wants to rewrite a 4MB ROM. In theory, nothing stops someone from making a Mac-workalike by rewriting the mac Toolbox ROM. (Now, there's no toolbox code in ROM, just Open Firmware, so in thoery it might be easier now). Apple wasn't selling their ROM, and nobody wanted to reverse engineer it because it would be too much work. NOT because it would be illegal. The Executor people actually did start rewriting everything for a software emulator; no idea how far they are these days though.
If I can't reverse engineer it, fine. Reverse engineering may be legal but you still have to go to court next week just to point that out. Meanwhile Apple steals a GUI from Xerox, has it stolen by Windows, and then yells at Stardock over a lookalike skin? Since when has the letter of the law even mattered? Etoy still doesn't have a web site and Nestle is still hawking baby formula. The world goes on.
If by "Apple steals" you mean "Apple trades stock for", then sure.
Of course the requirement of putting your invention in the open is good, but why the protection? The protection is the incentive to disclose the invention, instead of keeping it secret. The government encourages disclosure to "...promote the useful arts..."
So why offer patent protection for devices which are trivially reverse-engineerable upon inspection--they're basically public to begin with. Patents are granted nonetheless. So much for public good.
In the 1970s when my family got its pool, there was a chemical you could buy and add to your pool that would turn purple if anyone urinated in the pool. The idea being that folks wouldn't pee in the pool if they knew they'd be caught.
I always thought that was just a story people told kids to scare them out of pissing in pools. Worked, though.
People seem to think it's the GPL's fault that it can infect things. The GPL gains this power ONLY through copyright law. It is copyright law that "infects" your modification to an original work, granting "ownership" of that modification to the original author. That author has the legal right to decide what to do with it. BSD? Do whatever. GPL? Use it only under the same terms as the original work. Without the "derivative work" notion, the GPL would have no power.
If you want true BSD-style freedom? Why copyright your code? What real difference is there between a non-advertising clause BSD license and placing your code into the public domain?
DeCSS can be used to -copy- a DVD. Not all copying is piracy. DVDs can get scratched pretty easily, but if you have a "color corrector box" you can record you DVD onto a high-quality VHS tape, and watch that until it wears out, keeping your DVDs safely in a safe deposit box or something. They're acting as if there's no legitimate reason to even copy a DVD, let alone that DeCSS has applications other than copying them.
It doesn't matter how much magic C++ hides from you, it's just as prone to bugs. You're still going to read in an unknown amount of data so you don't know how much space to allocate.
The whole point is that it can keep track of how much data it's reading, and keep allocating space as needed. You can do this in C too, but apparantly not everyone does. If it were trivial to do, then there wouldn't be a problem with people not doing it. Any language with umpteen different ways for a programmer to smash the runtime system is going to have problems. (Drinking Game: read the ANSI C spec, and take a drink every time the effect of a particular action is said to be "undefined")
Perhaps you fail to realize what beliefs Einstein actually held concerning religion. I will give you one of my favorite quotes of his:
And here are some of mine:
"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?" Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." Albert Einstein, The World as I See It
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." Albert Einstein, "Albert Einstein: The Human Side"
"The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action." Albert Einstein
You're kidding here right? The USPS is a branch of the government, not a busness. It is not out to make a profit, nor does it. Do you think FedEx or UPS would deliver a letter anywhere in the country for a meer 33 cents? Perhaps we should end the "monopoly" the military has as well?
The post office, while not in the black over the course of its entire history, -does- turn an annual profit. Presumably if they ever profit enough to pay off their historic "debt"/subsidy, they'll lower their rates. Also remember that 1st class mail rates are heavily subsidized by bulk mail.
The post office seems to like to think of itself as a corporation lately, with an objective of turning a profit, rather than providing good service as a #1 objective. That I disagree with, but whatever.
I'm already boycotting Amazon for their new policy of sending me ads for power tools just because I bought a book from them. I can't boycott them -twice-.
Do you read them all, caring about the name of the grip, or do you do it looking for the odd joke, and waiting till the theatre empties?
Actually, I do it for all of those reasons. If I were in a movie, I'd want people to see my name, and there's the off-chance I'll see a name I recognize. I may not remember the names, but I like to see them, note the strange names, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that this time there is a newly passed law which claims to make said reverse engineering and "fair use" illegal. Previous court prescedent, as long as it isn't constitutional in nature, is irrelevant. Acts of Congress can override a court decision easily, as long as the new Act is constitutional.
Why is it good that shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable? Contract terms should be negotiated -before- purchase. If you want to sell me something, and want me to agree to terms, show me a contract, let me sign it, and -then- sell it to me.
On the other hand, if the UCITA does let you return it for a refund if you disagree, and you have to open the shrinkwrap to see the license, then casual pirating of games will go way up. Many retail game shops won't let you return an opened box, but now they have to?
You're equating a potential redistribution with an actual violation of intellectual property rights.
In any event, plain reading of the DMCA would seem to indicate that fair use is dead, and that if you view a DVD on a non-sanctioned player of any kind, you are "circumventing an access control device" without the authorization of the copyright holder. Distributing the tools to others is a separate offense. This is clearly insane, but that's the way it is.
It's important to keep in mind the distinction between a potential act, and an actual act. Using an unencrypted medium (one without an access control device to be circumvented) I may make a personal "fair use" copy. This copy has the 'potential' to be used in an infringing manner, such as net distribution, but is not actually an offense until I do so.
Buy a $100 "color corrector". Perfectly legal, strips it right out. It's just a decoder+frame buffer+encoder.
You may have bought the movie, but if it was an encrypted disc, you committed the act of "circumvention of an access control mechanism" and thus violated the DMCA, fair use be damned.
Don't conflate 'supreme' in the sense of 'the greatest that there is' with 'supreme' in the sense of 'the greatest that possibly could be, and therefore posseded of the following specific enumerated properties, including existance'.
A copyright can be owned anonymously or pseudonymously; USC Title 17, Chapter 3, Section 302 discusses the copyright duration for anonymous works, for example
Sure, if you have a DVD burner that can burn a "real" blank DVD, not a DVD-RAM.
Congress has shoehorned much more frightening things than the FCC into federal jurisdiction via the commerce clause, etc.
In practice the only thing that matters about the constitution is what the supreme court thinks about it.
It's been a while since I touched Smalltalk, but as I recall, you can send any message to any object, and it's only trapped as an error if there's a mismatch at runtime; Java is much more strongly typed than Smalltalk. I thought Objective C was similar to Smalltalk in that regard, meaning ObjC isn't all that much like Java.
Oh man, I wish I had the references handy, but there are a couple algorithms for incremental lexing and parsing, which run big-O(n) where n is the number of *modified* tokens in the input. If you keep intermediate representations around, you don't have to rebuild the entire parse tree just because you changed X *= 2; to X *= 3; in a 50,000 line source file.
They can write anything they want to on a little slip of paper inside a box; I already paid money, they sold it to me, it's mine. I have to obey copyright law, but I have no obligation to honor their little slip of paper. Until now. Now I get to agree to a contract sight-unseen.
If the company wants me to agree to a contract, they should make me -sign- something -before- I buy it.
The reason there are no Mac clones (well, actually there are, I'm using one now. The difference is that UMAX licensed the ROM from Apple) is that nobody wants to rewrite a 4MB ROM. In theory, nothing stops someone from making a Mac-workalike by rewriting the mac Toolbox ROM. (Now, there's no toolbox code in ROM, just Open Firmware, so in thoery it might be easier now). Apple wasn't selling their ROM, and nobody wanted to reverse engineer it because it would be too much work. NOT because it would be illegal. The Executor people actually did start rewriting everything for a software emulator; no idea how far they are these days though.
If by "Apple steals" you mean "Apple trades stock for", then sure.
(Score: 5, Repeats Common Misconceptions)
This is usually followed by "My basis is right, yours is wrong" and lots of lots of killing, opressing, and/or hatred.
Why not just mind your own business, and gloat if you reach your version of the afterlife?
So why offer patent protection for devices which are trivially reverse-engineerable upon inspection--they're basically public to begin with. Patents are granted nonetheless. So much for public good.
I've never seen one even offered for better than about 12%. Unless you're counting those deceptive ads that say 3% APR!!*
*For 3 months
I always thought that was just a story people told kids to scare them out of pissing in pools. Worked, though.
People seem to think it's the GPL's fault that it can infect things. The GPL gains this power ONLY through copyright law. It is copyright law that "infects" your modification to an original work, granting "ownership" of that modification to the original author. That author has the legal right to decide what to do with it. BSD? Do whatever. GPL? Use it only under the same terms as the original work. Without the "derivative work" notion, the GPL would have no power.
If you want true BSD-style freedom? Why copyright your code? What real difference is there between a non-advertising clause BSD license and placing your code into the public domain?
DeCSS can be used to -copy- a DVD. Not all copying is piracy. DVDs can get scratched pretty easily, but if you have a "color corrector box" you can record you DVD onto a high-quality VHS tape, and watch that until it wears out, keeping your DVDs safely in a safe deposit box or something. They're acting as if there's no legitimate reason to even copy a DVD, let alone that DeCSS has applications other than copying them.
The whole point is that it can keep track of how much data it's reading, and keep allocating space as needed. You can do this in C too, but apparantly not everyone does. If it were trivial to do, then there wouldn't be a problem with people not doing it. Any language with umpteen different ways for a programmer to smash the runtime system is going to have problems. (Drinking Game: read the ANSI C spec, and take a drink every time the effect of a particular action is said to be "undefined")
And here are some of mine:
"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?" Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." Albert Einstein, The World as I See It
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." Albert Einstein, "Albert Einstein: The Human Side"
"The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action." Albert Einstein
Don't you mean "At least they're funny"?
*ducking*
The post office, while not in the black over the course of its entire history, -does- turn an annual profit. Presumably if they ever profit enough to pay off their historic "debt"/subsidy, they'll lower their rates. Also remember that 1st class mail rates are heavily subsidized by bulk mail.
The post office seems to like to think of itself as a corporation lately, with an objective of turning a profit, rather than providing good service as a #1 objective. That I disagree with, but whatever.
I'm already boycotting Amazon for their new policy of sending me ads for power tools just because I bought a book from them. I can't boycott them -twice-.
Actually, I do it for all of those reasons. If I were in a movie, I'd want people to see my name, and there's the off-chance I'll see a name I recognize. I may not remember the names, but I like to see them, note the strange names, etc.