Is it possible to exchange that hug from CowboyNeal for a few shares of stock in VA, Redhat or Andover? Come on, if I'd win, I'd be more than happy to not be hugged by a sweaty geek;-). Just a one or two share token... just a drop in the biiiiiiig collective bucket... nobody would even notice...
Basically, my advice to you, is that if you think Christina Aguilera and the Backstreet Boys is the cream of what the current music industry has to offer, I suggest that you try just to put just a little more effort into locating good music, because there is an endless supply of it (and, no, you will not find it on the radio or MTV).
My point exactly:-). Ten or twenty years ago, a band like Pink Floyd or a white blues guitarist like Clapton COULD MAKE IT MAINSTREAM. Today, if someone comes along who doesn't conform to "pop standards" they don't get a second glance from record labels. Sure, there's more variety today, but IT'S HARDER TO FIND. Labels are too busy promoting the newest purchased-faces group to bother with promoting the small-yet-better-with-more-potential artists because the short term profit just isn't there. Good music will always be out there. It just doesn't have a chance to make it to the masses who don't go seeking it out. Years ago, the labels brought good music to those who hadn't heard it before. Now, they create "pop senstations" instead. And those who don't know what they're missing out on never will find out.
Sure, they're established NOW. So's Metallica, who I also meant to mention earlier. But they weren't MADE in a studio.
Look at the top 10 today. Backstreet boys. Britney Spears. And the 1001 ripoff acts like NSYNC and Christina Aguilera that follow them. When Clapton came along, could PLAY. The record labels saw an opportunity to make money on his TALENT, and jumped in. They didn't make the man. Metallica had lp's go platinum BEFORE they ever even released a radio single or a video. The labels came to THEM. Same with Guns N' Roses. They put on a hell of a live show (when Axl decided to finish one rather than bitch and quit early - before the Illusion days), and record labels came to THEM. That's a HUGE difference from today's music industry. Record labels have found it's more profitable to CREATE a "superstar" like the boybands (formed by newspaper ads in the case of backstreet boys and nsync - neither asked for singing experience) or tight skirted teens rather than go looking for talent. They decide "Hey, lets make HER our next project" and get her radio play, MTV exposure, a few live appearances that they can carefully enhance with dancers and the soundboard, and THAT is what they market now.
Real bands have to work twice as hard to keep up. The REAL rock bands and performers that are capable of forming a fiercely loyal fanbase aren't signed until the fans are ALREADY present. Record labels no longer take a chance on the POTENTIAL that someone can make it. Now they dictate who is allowed the chance rather than look for someone who does. And fans suffer for it.
So now we have one single company that controls the news (CNN), a huge amount of digital infrastructure (AOL), and a huge amount of entertainment distribution (new stuff). Lets see... one company can control the content we see and hear, and the means of distribution for it.
It's already scary how much old people in suits get to decide what's "cool" or not. If the execs don't like you for some reason, you never get your band off the ground, no matter HOW good you are. This certainly won't help. Now instead of MTV deciding what the newest trend is going to be (god damn them for bringing us "Mambo Number Five"...), we have CNN doing it. I don't know which scares me more. I think I'll stick to my Guns N' Roses, Clapton, and Pink Floyd, thanks...
The primary purpose of the LiViD software is to play dvd under linux. Not to pirate. Not to copy. The fact that encryption was bypassed is secondary. It does not define the purpose of the program. If playing could be accomplished without breaking encryption, it would be. Saying the LiViD software is illegal is like saying microwave ovens should be illegal because their primary purpose is to roast live infants and kittens. It's just stupid. Sure, it's an unpleasant possibility with a microwave. As is copying with the software in question. But that's not its primary purpose. So long as the court is kept straight on this point, all shall be well. I hope:-).
Well, you're right, this isn't about piracy. But you make no real argument to support this. I'm gonna try:-).
Regarding the quotes above:
Ok, I've seen swiss cheese with less holes in it that this bullshit theory. I should be an attorney, yes indeed...
"This is a case of theft. The posting of the de-encryption formula is no different than making and then distributing unauthorized keys to a department store. The keys have no real purpose except to circumvent the locks that stand between the thief and the goods he or she targets."
This is NOT a case of theft. First and foremost, nothing has been "stolen". Nobody is being prosecuted for stealing a DVD. That would be theft, and this is NOT what the suit is about. Nobody is being prosecuted for copying a DVD, or illegally distributing a movie. This is would be a grey area; the law says it's theft, some people feel it's not. Either way, this is NOT what the suit is about.
Next, the above analogy is piss poor. I've seen middle school students do better. If this analogy were considered valid, then another valid analogy would be "By making tools to remove car stereos from the dash, Crutchfield is in effect making and distributing keys to department stores." Sure, one CAN use a Crutchfield tool to steal a car stereo. But it's primary intent is to make installation and removal of systems easier for the owners. Mark this: primary intent of a product is vital. If someone can *shudder* "prove" that decss's primary purpose is pirating, we're screwed twice over, and three times on Saturday. BUT, there is NO evidence of decss's primary purpose being pirate activity. None. Not a bit. Not a single site has a "377373 h4x0r guide to DVD ripping". Look at the author's pages. They say "Hey, use this to watch your movies in Linux!" This is not a pirating tool. One does not sue Crutchfield for making those awesome stereo tools. One should not sue the decss folks for making theirs.
"The U.S. movie industry intends to defeat anyone who steals our intellectual property. We are determined to defend the technology that protects artists and intellectual property holder rights... If you can't protect that which you own, then you don't own anything."
Oh, I like this. A lot. I completely agree with that last sentence. Furthermore, how about this: If you can't use that which you own, then you don't own anything. If I purchase a DVD legally, I have every right in the world to do with it what I will, so long as I don't redistribute the contents. If I want to put it in my toaster oven and cover it in peanut butter and mayo, dammit I should be allowed to. If I want to watch it under Linux, then dammit I should be allowed to. Make no mistake; if I own something, I have every legal right to do with it what I please, however I see fit. This has been established time and time again (see the backups-of-nintendo-cartriges cases, for one). So long as an individual doesn't use decss to pirate, they are free and clear.
Basically, this whole thing reeks of bullshit. The DVD folks are making every effort to shift focus from the real issue of right-to-view-what-you-own to this pirating crap. I really hope the EFF attorneys don't allow this to happen; precident has already been set - once you have bought something, you can do what you want with it. I can copy my CD's to tape. I can back up my copy of MS-Office. I can put my DVD in a toaster oven, use it as skeet, or anything else I want - including play it under Linux. So long as I own the disc, I have every right to view the contents, and decrypt them. I'm not supporting any pirating here (because it's not a cost effective move at all, as the DVD folks admit), but if I've got money to spend, and I'll keep hoarding it until the day I can do whatever I wish with MY movies.
In summary, don't bend over. They have no case, and they seem to know it. Fight.
As more and more developers look to start helping Linux evolve, there are going to be some very cool projects popping up. Is there any chance that VA might give the developers of these projects a few shares, or the chance to purchase them at reduced price? There are also a great many people suddenly showing interest in getting subscribed to developer mailing lists; I've heard at least two comment that they're just hoping to get IPO letter s from the Next Big Company. How closely was the friends-and-family list reviewed to make sure that the individuals were deserving? Do you forsee IPO-prospecting having an impact on development? For example, Joe Developer saying "hey, i'm gonna develop X rather than Y, because there's a better chance of making some money from Company Q's IPO that way."
Computers are making huge strides, and are now able to store terabytes of data, and process information faster than any living being ever could. Considering this and the fact that the human brain is just a vast network of circuitry (albeit of a different type of molecules), do you think we'll see a machine attain a state of self-awareness? Will modern science ever discover the actual "thing" that makes us conscious?
I agree completely. I'm a CpE major, and this is exactly the reason. I've seen way to many "computer people" who can't use a saudering iron, let alone understand gate logic. If one is going to go into a geek field, ya might as well LEARN the stuff, rather than just how to use it.
And for what it's worth, I agree with the AC that started this... CS people do have a nasty habit of not being well rounded at all. It's sad to know that so many people don't recognize that big glowing ball in the sky anymore...
Hey, I hate MS-HTML as much as the next guy... but alas, I'm on break from school right now, so I don't have my Debian box to work from. It's the family win95 machine for me for a month. And lemme tell ya, it's frustrating as hell to keep typing ls everywhere;-). Is there a way to make Netscape 4.7 play nice w/standard HTML under win95?
On information and belief, this proprietary information was obtained by willfully
"hacking" and/or improperly reverse engineering software created by CSS licensee Xing Technology Corporation ("Xing"). Xing's software is and was licensed to users under a license agreement which specifically prohibits reverse engineering.
Article Number 142 Reverse engineering and patent infringement
In most instances, "reverse engineering" is an acceptable option for creating new products. However, there are legal and ethical limitations that must be considered.
Reverse engineering is a common procedure that typically involves the disassembly, examination, and analysis of a product to reveal its design and function. Normally, this is done for competitive analysis, and sometimes for the purpose of building and selling a similar product. It is legally and ethically acceptable for a company to purchase a commercially available product, to analyze it thoroughly, to design and develop a similar product and a method for its manufacture; provided the new product and method do not violate the patent rights of another company.
Seems to me (and I'm NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV) that the programmers were completely within their rights here. What really jumps out at this letter at me is that NOWHERE do they reference an actual patent number that I could look up. If they did, I'd be able to pick it apart a bit more; I can only assume that they intentionally left this out of the document because they're hoping a judge isn't smart enough to ask for it. I would think that if the patent helps their cause, they'd certainly quote it or reference it. My understanding of their letter is that they have their panties in a knot over illegal copying and distribution. The fact is, none of these defendants has been accused of either copying or distributing DVD movies. To quote the letter again:
49. Defendants knew or should have known when they posted or provided "links" to the DeCSS program on their web sites that it was being made available by virtue of the unauthorized use of proprietary information and that they were misusing proprietary confidential information gained through improper means. This is because the DeCSS program has the capability to defeat DVD encryption software and, as a result, the DeCSS program allows users to illegally pirate the copyrighted motion pictures contained on DVD videos - - activity which is fatal to the DVD video format and the hundreds of computer and consumer electronics companies whose businesses rely on the viability of this digital format.
Two things about this scare the living hell out of me. First, this business about "the DeCSS program allows users to illegally pirate the copyrighted motion pictures contained on DVD videos": Sure, it makes such things possible. At the same time, one can mix fertilizer, black powder and some other goodies together such that one could blow a building to hell. A camera makes it possible for one to observe you in the shower. A photocopy machine makes it possible for one to distribute damn near any document. But nobody's sueing Miracle Grow. Nobody's sueing Kodak. Nobody's sueing Xerox. See, the fact that Product X enables one to achieve a nasty objective DOES NOT make Company X liable. This has been established time and time again in the court system. And it holds, so long as Product X's primary purpose is NOT to assist in achieving the nasty objective. The software in question IS NOT written to aid in copying DVDs. It's NOT written to aid distributing illegal copys. It's primary objective was to make DVD's playable on Linux. Quite legal, if ya ask me.
Now, the second thing that really worries me here is that they're going after people who were NOT distributing the software. There are sites on that list who just LINK to the software, or a site that distributes it. Hasn't at least one prior ruling already said that this is a legal activity? If it's not, God help Google, and any other search engine out there. Or anyone who links to anyone who links to the software. And so on.
I'm also completely unsure if this program is anywhere near the stuff used by the licensed friends of the DVD CCA. If they're totally different, and don't make use of the same proprietary algorithms, etc, the case has just grown exponentially weaker. Me thinks that if these guys get shot down, someone oughta rewrite the program such that it doesn't use anything from Xing except the key - and whoops, that can be brute forced in a matter of weeks once a non-proprietary algorithm implementation is in place (see distributed.net efforts w/weak encryption cracking).
Anyways, I highly encourage these defendants to pull together and find a decent defense attorney (anyone out there who is one, and reads slashdot...?), and make sure that DVD CCA doesn't force them to bend over and take this...
Heh... ya know, as loony as everyone's favorite green cheese loving man/woman/thing is, it does make a good point here. If all you've got to whine about is quake cheeters, do you really have anything to whine about at all?
The middle schools must not be in session today, right? Christmas eve... that'd explain you being around at 2:00 in the afternoon.
If you weren't 14, I'd tell you to pull that stick out of your ass, and come call me a faggot to my face... I hate to break the news to you, but people who speak well are NOT all small and weak... and you just found one who's got a temper, too.
Well, because saying that certain types of content are "wrong" and certain types are "right" opens a pandora's box of problems. Sure, most rational people will agree that it's wrong to build bombs and kill people. I'm at the head of the list. But, while I'll certainly never BUILD ONE, I do (to a limited extent) know how to do it. The fact is, most people are well adjusted enough to have that kind of knowledge and not apply it. Same thing with knowledge of virus writing. You think that your idolized kernel hackers couldn't do some really destructive stuff if they wanted to? Same thing with knowledge of the human body. You think that someone trained in martial arts couldn't kill a room full of people before they get overpowered?
The fact is, people DO know how to do hideous things. The stable ones just DON'T DO THEM. I like to think I'm a pretty stable guy. Just because I could shoot a hunting partner rather than a deer doesn't mean I'm going to. Just because I could cut the fuel line to your car and let the ignition spark blow it to hell doesn't mean I'm going to.
So, since people don't do these hideous things, you ask, why should they know how to at all? Well, ya never know where knowledge can be applied. Hey, I agree that building bombs is wrong, but surely you don't think it's wrong to understand the principles of combustion that make your car drivable. Surely you don't think building demolition crews should be jailed.
Now, my problem with censoring damn near anything other than kiddie porn and death threats is that somewhere, someone would be speaking for me, and deciding what I'm stable enough to handle, and what my moral judgements should be. Sure, I feel there's a line between allowable and not allowable. But not everyone is gonna agree with it. Pedophiles and criminals sure won't. Neither will the Christian Coalition. I fall somewhere in the middle.
But to make some universal judgement that applies to EVERYONE - and make no mistake, that's what censorware does - is NOT right. Nobody has the right to dictate what I may or may not learn, or may or may not know. What I'm allowed to DO is within the scope of the law. But my KNOWLEDGE itself does NOT affect anyone but ME, unless I chose to apply it in a stupid and illegal manor. If I were to bomb a building, I hope I'd be fried for it. Bombers (in my opinion) deserve that. But just because I know how to pack a pipe bomb doesn't mean I should be jailed - because I've NEVER built one, and NEVER done anything remotely illegal with the knowledge of how to.
Sure, you can go ahead and censor bomb building instructions. But then wouldn't instructions for making gun powder be wrong too? And while we're on the subject, why should pages on explosive reactions be allowed at all? Terrorists and teenagers could use them to kill people. Hrm... you know, we ought to give a good deal of thought to pressurized reactions of any sort. You can create enough pressure to blow up bottles without explosives of any type. And exploding glass is bad news. Never mind that this will upset tons of hobbyists that build model rockets and cars. It can be used to kill people, so make it illegal. Ya know, for THAT matter, alcohol kills people. Lots of 'em. Lets ban microbrew instructions - they're used to make poison. Hell, so are cigarettes. Growing tobacco is wrong. And the list can go on and on.
I know this rambled. To summarize: Yes, there's a dividing line - but it varries from person to person, and the simple fact is, there is nobody qualified to tell EVERYONE where they should draw that line. Except God. But that's a whole separate can of worms:-). The knowledge of HOW to do something is totally separate from the DOING of something. Half the classical books in existance could be banned for talking about how to cover up murder, how to poison someone, cheat on a spouse, etc. Steinbeck, anyone? Poe?
I'm curious... didn't VA just file for IPO under the same ticker symbol?
{conspiracy theory} Could it be that Linux One is nothing more than an attempt to grab a fast $500,000 or so from VA for the LINX symbol? {/conspiracy theory}
Um... what exactly is IN that pipe you're taking hits from?
I hate to break the news to you buddy, but some of us are good with computers and also -gasp- good with people. One does NOT have to be EITHER intelligent OR good looking. One does NOT have to be EITHER trustworthy OR personable. Give me a damn break. You know what I hate most about being a Computer Engineering major? The fact that narrow sighted people like yourself associate themselves with me, and try to quantify me and my personallity. Come on, throw that chip on your shoulder away. There's 3 billion guys in the world, and unless your name is Jesus Q. Christ, there's no way you've met even a fraction of them. Who are you to tell me I've got no prayer of landing an attractive wife because I happen to work with computers? Who are you to tell me I'm an arrogant jock who's not got two functioning brain cells because I play soccer and can squat twice my body weight?
Seriously, people, think for a second. If you have absolutely no luck with the fairer sex, maybe the problem is with YOU, not them. I mean, you're so busy cutting women down and calling them stupid it's no damn wonder none of the good ones want anything to do with you. I don't blame them a bit. But ya know what... the world does need narrow sighted people like you, so that women can see just how good us well rounded guys are when compared to the morons out there.
My advice to you is to forget about the fact you probably outscored someone on a standardized test, and get to know the person. When it comes right down to it, women want security, comfort, and love. What they DON'T want is someone arrogant, self-absorbed, and psuedo-superior. And they most definately don't want someone who they would have to hide from their friends and family because of his total lack of social skills and his overpowering ego.
Come off your ego trip and relax a bit. Your world will be a much happier place.
Uh, sure. It's easily possible that a machine can string chords together or pick along the major scale; my fourteen year old brother can do that. Damn near any combination of random chords/notes can be considered a "song" if they're all taken from the same key/have same rhythm/etc. Computers can certainly be made to do this, and maybe even realize how to step up and down to make it appear less random. But for a computer to to be equated to Chuck Berry, or Jimi Hendricks? Not a chance. Not today, not tomorrow, not next year.
BTW, CmdrTaco, I remember you wanting to use slashdoting to win a guitar like two years ago... if you've been playing that long and only know three chords, well, maybe it's time to take some lessons;-).
Slashdot Mirror
--
--
My point exactly
--
Look at the top 10 today. Backstreet boys. Britney Spears. And the 1001 ripoff acts like NSYNC and Christina Aguilera that follow them. When Clapton came along, could PLAY. The record labels saw an opportunity to make money on his TALENT, and jumped in. They didn't make the man. Metallica had lp's go platinum BEFORE they ever even released a radio single or a video. The labels came to THEM. Same with Guns N' Roses. They put on a hell of a live show (when Axl decided to finish one rather than bitch and quit early - before the Illusion days), and record labels came to THEM. That's a HUGE difference from today's music industry. Record labels have found it's more profitable to CREATE a "superstar" like the boybands (formed by newspaper ads in the case of backstreet boys and nsync - neither asked for singing experience) or tight skirted teens rather than go looking for talent. They decide "Hey, lets make HER our next project" and get her radio play, MTV exposure, a few live appearances that they can carefully enhance with dancers and the soundboard, and THAT is what they market now.
Real bands have to work twice as hard to keep up. The REAL rock bands and performers that are capable of forming a fiercely loyal fanbase aren't signed until the fans are ALREADY present. Record labels no longer take a chance on the POTENTIAL that someone can make it. Now they dictate who is allowed the chance rather than look for someone who does. And fans suffer for it.
--
It's already scary how much old people in suits get to decide what's "cool" or not. If the execs don't like you for some reason, you never get your band off the ground, no matter HOW good you are. This certainly won't help. Now instead of MTV deciding what the newest trend is going to be (god damn them for bringing us "Mambo Number Five"...), we have CNN doing it. I don't know which scares me more. I think I'll stick to my Guns N' Roses, Clapton, and Pink Floyd, thanks...
--
The primary purpose of the LiViD software is to play dvd under linux. Not to pirate. Not to copy. The fact that encryption was bypassed is secondary. It does not define the purpose of the program. If playing could be accomplished without breaking encryption, it would be. Saying the LiViD software is illegal is like saying microwave ovens should be illegal because their primary purpose is to roast live infants and kittens. It's just stupid. Sure, it's an unpleasant possibility with a microwave. As is copying with the software in question. But that's not its primary purpose. So long as the court is kept straight on this point, all shall be well. I hope
--
--
How about some of that cash, instead of a man-thing and a beanie...?
--
Regarding the quotes above:
Ok, I've seen swiss cheese with less holes in it that this bullshit theory. I should be an attorney, yes indeed...
"This is a case of theft. The posting of the de-encryption formula is no different than making and then distributing unauthorized keys to a department store. The keys have no real purpose except to circumvent the locks that stand between the thief and the goods he or she targets."
This is NOT a case of theft. First and foremost, nothing has been "stolen". Nobody is being prosecuted for stealing a DVD. That would be theft, and this is NOT what the suit is about. Nobody is being prosecuted for copying a DVD, or illegally distributing a movie. This is would be a grey area; the law says it's theft, some people feel it's not. Either way, this is NOT what the suit is about.
Next, the above analogy is piss poor. I've seen middle school students do better. If this analogy were considered valid, then another valid analogy would be "By making tools to remove car stereos from the dash, Crutchfield is in effect making and distributing keys to department stores." Sure, one CAN use a Crutchfield tool to steal a car stereo. But it's primary intent is to make installation and removal of systems easier for the owners. Mark this: primary intent of a product is vital. If someone can *shudder* "prove" that decss's primary purpose is pirating, we're screwed twice over, and three times on Saturday. BUT, there is NO evidence of decss's primary purpose being pirate activity. None. Not a bit. Not a single site has a "377373 h4x0r guide to DVD ripping". Look at the author's pages. They say "Hey, use this to watch your movies in Linux!" This is not a pirating tool. One does not sue Crutchfield for making those awesome stereo tools. One should not sue the decss folks for making theirs.
"The U.S. movie industry intends to defeat anyone who steals our intellectual property. We are determined to defend the technology that protects artists and intellectual property holder rights... If you can't protect that which you own, then you don't own anything."
Oh, I like this. A lot. I completely agree with that last sentence. Furthermore, how about this: If you can't use that which you own, then you don't own anything. If I purchase a DVD legally, I have every right in the world to do with it what I will, so long as I don't redistribute the contents. If I want to put it in my toaster oven and cover it in peanut butter and mayo, dammit I should be allowed to. If I want to watch it under Linux, then dammit I should be allowed to. Make no mistake; if I own something, I have every legal right to do with it what I please, however I see fit. This has been established time and time again (see the backups-of-nintendo-cartriges cases, for one). So long as an individual doesn't use decss to pirate, they are free and clear.
Basically, this whole thing reeks of bullshit. The DVD folks are making every effort to shift focus from the real issue of right-to-view-what-you-own to this pirating crap. I really hope the EFF attorneys don't allow this to happen; precident has already been set - once you have bought something, you can do what you want with it. I can copy my CD's to tape. I can back up my copy of MS-Office. I can put my DVD in a toaster oven, use it as skeet, or anything else I want - including play it under Linux. So long as I own the disc, I have every right to view the contents, and decrypt them. I'm not supporting any pirating here (because it's not a cost effective move at all, as the DVD folks admit), but if I've got money to spend, and I'll keep hoarding it until the day I can do whatever I wish with MY movies.
In summary, don't bend over. They have no case, and they seem to know it. Fight.
--
Participate
--
--
--
How about... a life?
--
Join it.
--
And for what it's worth, I agree with the AC that started this... CS people do have a nasty habit of not being well rounded at all. It's sad to know that so many people don't recognize that big glowing ball in the sky anymore...
--
--
Taken from The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science:
Seems to me (and I'm NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV) that the programmers were completely within their rights here. What really jumps out at this letter at me is that NOWHERE do they reference an actual patent number that I could look up. If they did, I'd be able to pick it apart a bit more; I can only assume that they intentionally left this out of the document because they're hoping a judge isn't smart enough to ask for it. I would think that if the patent helps their cause, they'd certainly quote it or reference it. My understanding of their letter is that they have their panties in a knot over illegal copying and distribution. The fact is, none of these defendants has been accused of either copying or distributing DVD movies. To quote the letter again:
Two things about this scare the living hell out of me. First, this business about "the DeCSS program allows users to illegally pirate the copyrighted motion pictures contained on DVD videos": Sure, it makes such things possible. At the same time, one can mix fertilizer, black powder and some other goodies together such that one could blow a building to hell. A camera makes it possible for one to observe you in the shower. A photocopy machine makes it possible for one to distribute damn near any document. But nobody's sueing Miracle Grow. Nobody's sueing Kodak. Nobody's sueing Xerox. See, the fact that Product X enables one to achieve a nasty objective DOES NOT make Company X liable. This has been established time and time again in the court system. And it holds, so long as Product X's primary purpose is NOT to assist in achieving the nasty objective. The software in question IS NOT written to aid in copying DVDs. It's NOT written to aid distributing illegal copys. It's primary objective was to make DVD's playable on Linux. Quite legal, if ya ask me.
Now, the second thing that really worries me here is that they're going after people who were NOT distributing the software. There are sites on that list who just LINK to the software, or a site that distributes it. Hasn't at least one prior ruling already said that this is a legal activity? If it's not, God help Google, and any other search engine out there. Or anyone who links to anyone who links to the software. And so on.
I'm also completely unsure if this program is anywhere near the stuff used by the licensed friends of the DVD CCA. If they're totally different, and don't make use of the same proprietary algorithms, etc, the case has just grown exponentially weaker. Me thinks that if these guys get shot down, someone oughta rewrite the program such that it doesn't use anything from Xing except the key - and whoops, that can be brute forced in a matter of weeks once a non-proprietary algorithm implementation is in place (see distributed.net efforts w/weak encryption cracking).
Anyways, I highly encourage these defendants to pull together and find a decent defense attorney (anyone out there who is one, and reads slashdot...?), and make sure that DVD CCA doesn't force them to bend over and take this...
--
--
If you weren't 14, I'd tell you to pull that stick out of your ass, and come call me a faggot to my face... I hate to break the news to you, but people who speak well are NOT all small and weak... and you just found one who's got a temper, too.
--
Why?
Well, because saying that certain types of content are "wrong" and certain types are "right" opens a pandora's box of problems. Sure, most rational people will agree that it's wrong to build bombs and kill people. I'm at the head of the list. But, while I'll certainly never BUILD ONE, I do (to a limited extent) know how to do it. The fact is, most people are well adjusted enough to have that kind of knowledge and not apply it. Same thing with knowledge of virus writing. You think that your idolized kernel hackers couldn't do some really destructive stuff if they wanted to? Same thing with knowledge of the human body. You think that someone trained in martial arts couldn't kill a room full of people before they get overpowered?
The fact is, people DO know how to do hideous things. The stable ones just DON'T DO THEM. I like to think I'm a pretty stable guy. Just because I could shoot a hunting partner rather than a deer doesn't mean I'm going to. Just because I could cut the fuel line to your car and let the ignition spark blow it to hell doesn't mean I'm going to.
So, since people don't do these hideous things, you ask, why should they know how to at all? Well, ya never know where knowledge can be applied. Hey, I agree that building bombs is wrong, but surely you don't think it's wrong to understand the principles of combustion that make your car drivable. Surely you don't think building demolition crews should be jailed.
Now, my problem with censoring damn near anything other than kiddie porn and death threats is that somewhere, someone would be speaking for me, and deciding what I'm stable enough to handle, and what my moral judgements should be. Sure, I feel there's a line between allowable and not allowable. But not everyone is gonna agree with it. Pedophiles and criminals sure won't. Neither will the Christian Coalition. I fall somewhere in the middle.
But to make some universal judgement that applies to EVERYONE - and make no mistake, that's what censorware does - is NOT right. Nobody has the right to dictate what I may or may not learn, or may or may not know. What I'm allowed to DO is within the scope of the law. But my KNOWLEDGE itself does NOT affect anyone but ME, unless I chose to apply it in a stupid and illegal manor. If I were to bomb a building, I hope I'd be fried for it. Bombers (in my opinion) deserve that. But just because I know how to pack a pipe bomb doesn't mean I should be jailed - because I've NEVER built one, and NEVER done anything remotely illegal with the knowledge of how to.
Sure, you can go ahead and censor bomb building instructions. But then wouldn't instructions for making gun powder be wrong too? And while we're on the subject, why should pages on explosive reactions be allowed at all? Terrorists and teenagers could use them to kill people. Hrm... you know, we ought to give a good deal of thought to pressurized reactions of any sort. You can create enough pressure to blow up bottles without explosives of any type. And exploding glass is bad news. Never mind that this will upset tons of hobbyists that build model rockets and cars. It can be used to kill people, so make it illegal. Ya know, for THAT matter, alcohol kills people. Lots of 'em. Lets ban microbrew instructions - they're used to make poison. Hell, so are cigarettes. Growing tobacco is wrong. And the list can go on and on.
I know this rambled. To summarize: Yes, there's a dividing line - but it varries from person to person, and the simple fact is, there is nobody qualified to tell EVERYONE where they should draw that line. Except God. But that's a whole separate can of worms
--
--
--
{conspiracy theory}
Could it be that Linux One is nothing more than an attempt to grab a fast $500,000 or so from VA for the LINX symbol?
{/conspiracy theory}
--
I hate to break the news to you buddy, but some of us are good with computers and also -gasp- good with people. One does NOT have to be EITHER intelligent OR good looking. One does NOT have to be EITHER trustworthy OR personable. Give me a damn break. You know what I hate most about being a Computer Engineering major? The fact that narrow sighted people like yourself associate themselves with me, and try to quantify me and my personallity. Come on, throw that chip on your shoulder away. There's 3 billion guys in the world, and unless your name is Jesus Q. Christ, there's no way you've met even a fraction of them. Who are you to tell me I've got no prayer of landing an attractive wife because I happen to work with computers? Who are you to tell me I'm an arrogant jock who's not got two functioning brain cells because I play soccer and can squat twice my body weight?
Seriously, people, think for a second. If you have absolutely no luck with the fairer sex, maybe the problem is with YOU, not them. I mean, you're so busy cutting women down and calling them stupid it's no damn wonder none of the good ones want anything to do with you. I don't blame them a bit. But ya know what... the world does need narrow sighted people like you, so that women can see just how good us well rounded guys are when compared to the morons out there.
My advice to you is to forget about the fact you probably outscored someone on a standardized test, and get to know the person. When it comes right down to it, women want security, comfort, and love. What they DON'T want is someone arrogant, self-absorbed, and psuedo-superior. And they most definately don't want someone who they would have to hide from their friends and family because of his total lack of social skills and his overpowering ego.
Come off your ego trip and relax a bit. Your world will be a much happier place.
/rant
--
BTW, CmdrTaco, I remember you wanting to use slashdoting to win a guitar like two years ago... if you've been playing that long and only know three chords, well, maybe it's time to take some lessons
--