More seriously, does the DMCA have any limit on it's scope?
It dosn't appear that usable by small corps/individuals against large corps. Even in situations which involve actual copyright infringement, such as SCO claiming that can do what they like with GPL code.
That would be Richard Wagner. He's dead. He's been dead for 124 years. The copyright on that expired a very long time ago, if it ever was copyrighted in the first place.
Until some "joker" decides that life + 70 years should become life + 140 years. Something which may very well happen within the next 16 years the way "copy"right is heading.
The Mythical Man Month has a better principal. One really good programmer is more productive than 10 mediocre programmers. Or something to that effect.
Also 10 really good programmers are never going to be 10 times productive as 1. Since there are overheads involved in spreading the task around and co-ordinating. (The same also applies to writing software for multi-processor computers. It's a little easier since getting identical CPUs is trivial compared with getting identical programmers.) Another part of this is that two people doing a "job share" is likely to be less productive and cost the employer more than having one person do the job.
Except it's not for once. I have several pieces of hardware which didn't work out of the box in Windows, but did so in Linux. Off the top of my head, my wireless card (RA2500) worked without any installation of any kind in Ubuntu 6.* whereas I had to scour the net for several minutes to find a version that worked in Windows.
Drivers really are a part of the OS and lacking one for a network card tends to be in the "showstopper" catagory.
The list goes on, and I believe one of the reasons is that computers that come preloaded with Windows also come preloaded with the drivers needed.
It's also that Microsoft rarely (if ever in the case of XP) update the drivers on their install media. Whilst it's possible to get a Windows XP install disk with all the latest drivers (and patches) on you'd have to hunt around and Microsoft would probably consider you a "pirate".
Maybe someone at Microsoft should work on porting the Linux nvidia drivers to Vista. The work well on Linux, so maybe the drivers can be "reverse engineered" to work with Vista.
If the Linux drivers suddenly become GPL then you'll know there has been a big falling out between Nvidia and Microsoft.
The only reason that we have AC at the wall is because we didn't have a DC, solid-state equivalent of the transformer in 1900, and therefore it was difficult to create high-voltage DC power.
There's also the matter of AC generators (and motors) being simpler than their DC equivalents and AC not causing an electrolysis issue where disimilar metals are involved in connectors.
If I had to do something like that myself, I would make a generic system image and just copy it across all the computers through nfs or something similar.
There's actually a handy little program called "rsync" which is less network intensive than the GNU cp command and can do so with all sorts of network protocols. The only tweak you might want to make is to have statically linked versions of the relevent programs if you are using them to manage updates, rather than just initial installs.
I mean to do the above requires alot of IT resources for making MSI packages, group policies, SMS / AD administration, etc, etc.
Something the original poster rather glosses over.
If you had the equivalent Linux gurus is it also that easy to setup? Our setup is the same and I can think of kindof how you would do it with Linux but, say, is there some equivalent of SMS in the Linux world?
One thing to consider is how much of these wonderful tools are actually compensating for things Windows has difficulty doing. e.g. Windows can't even set it's hostname via DHCP. It also has a tendency to bug the user when it performs upgrades which it thinks require a reboot.
Enterprises with IT infrastructure based on proprietary, single-vendor platforms with no published interfaces for interoperability obviously are NOT the business environments where you'd expect to have Linux work seamlessly.
In such an environment it can even be hardwork to get Windows (and Windows applications to work) because there can be different versions (even subversions) which don't interoperate as expected.
MS further raises the barrier by making their interfaces and protocols DELIBERATELY COMPLEX so as to be harder to reverse engineer. This is the only explanation I can come up with for why MS does some of what they do in Exchange and Active Directory.
Plenty of things Microsoft have done are so daft from the software engineering POV that it would be suprising if the coders didn't realise this. But they do make sense from a "lock in" POV.
Even more perverse is their penchant for taking open technologies like LDAP and Kerberos and obfuscating them enough to break them.
Or MIME, didn't Microsoft even manage to break TCP?
it makes their own software less stable and more bloated than it needs to be.
In Vista this is possibly less obvious, since they stuck in a lot of extra bloat in the name of DRM.
I've tried many times to get a working Linux system, but I've always found something not working, and I don't mean Microsoft software not working. I mean sound not working or USB ports not working.
There are also plenty of anecdotes of driver issues under various versions of Windows. Including cases where it all "just works" when running from a Knoppix CD. As well as such stupidity as a working USB device changing USB port and Windows demanding a driver.
The main problem with diesel is the higher particulate emissions (among a few others) as a result of the high compression used in the engines. These (non-CO2) emissions is why the US uses gasoline. The Europeans -- unlike the US -- were willing to compromise (as well as weigh CO2 as an emission) and invested a lot in diesel engines and high-purity diesel fuel, which have about 20%-30% better mileage and better torque than gasoline...in use all over Europe, today.
This may be the case for cars. But AFAIK trucks, trains, construction and agricultural machinary in the US tends to be diesel just like everywhere else.
Judge: So even though you admit to pouring sugar in your ex's gas tank you are claiming to be innocent of damaging her car?
Defendant: Yes your Honor. I mistook it for a diesel.
Or even Defendant: It won't do anything to harm the engine. I call up on my expert witnesses Savage and Hyneman.
Nevermind that Hydrogen is currently produced by steam cracking natural gas, as that is the only cost-effective method available. Why do you think the oil companies quash biodiesel, straight veggie oil burners, resist ethanol, kill the electric car, but embrace hydrogen?
Hydrogen simply dosn't make a good replacement for existing fuels. Where as biodiesel, even regular vegetable oil, can go straight into the tank of an unmodified vehicle. Especially a modern one which comes complete with a computerised engine managment system. Of course the best vehicle to run on used cooking oil would be a garbage truck.
Also, slightly pedantic, but the fuel component of diesel #1 and JetA are the same damn thing, so the article (summary) is kinda mis-leading.
This sounds like you could fill up a 747 with "diesel" and have nothing look unusual up on the flight deck...
What about trucks, planes, ships and rail vehicles that need hundreds or thousands of gallons of fuel just to make one trip?
IIRC Both Rudolf Diesel and Frank Whittle ran their prototypes on vegetable oil. So that covers two of the three commonly used internal combustion engines.
When I said that it would create more terrorists, I'm considering your "pranksters" as being terrorists as well, since they fit the more traditional sense of the word, being someone who terrorizes or frightens other people.
If a fake bomb, even a claim that there is a bomb somewhere, is effective at causing mayhem. Then there is little point going to the expense and danger of making a real bomb.
"Real terrorists" can be anyone. Malicious hackers are terrorists. The hippies who bomb buildings that test chemicals on animals are terrorists.
Since the latter have a political adgenda they very easily meet with a definition of "terrorists".
Makes me think of the USPS instituting that "packages over one pound can no longer be put in mailboxes -- they must be brought to the counter" garbage. Never mind that the incident that prompted the rule (TWA 800) had nothing whatsoever to do with explosive packages, or that much less than a pound of C4 could do some serious damage.
Or any other explosive if "Terrorists R US" have run out of C4. If someone wants to blow up a mailbox they are unlikely to obey a "no more than one pound of explosive" rule.
As I commented to a postal clerk in the wake of the change: "Yeah, so instead of the bomb blowing up a mailbox out on the street, it'll blow up inside the post office. Sounds a LOT safer to me....."
Or it won't blow up until someone opens it, which is a typical approach with with letter and parcel bombs.
But other than that, there is an inherent risk of this which we just can't get rid of. If someone wants to hide a gun in their pocket and randomly start shooting people, there is really nothing we can do about it.
Actually the most effective thing to do is to ensure that as many people as possible carry guns and can shoot straight. The stupidest thing is to declare somewhere a "gun free zone". It's a lot easier for someone to carry out a Dunblane or Columbine type attack if they know that they will be better armed than their intended victims.
I'm embarassed to be in Boston right now. Those things look nothing like a bomb.
The distinguishing feature of a bomb is that it's intended to go bang. Rather than what it looks like.
Unfortunately, a lot of people in power want people to think that everyone is out to get them.
Terrorists who really are "out to get" people in power tend to be a little more specific in their targeting. e.g. the IRA.
For a lot of the people in power, the reason they keep parroting the whole "terrorist" possibility (much like the communist scare of years gone by) is so that they can have even more power. They think that if they can keep the populace frightened enough, they will be able to justify keeping themselves in office indefinately and being able to act with impunity.
From there it is only a small step to either letting some real terrorists "get on with it" or even helping out some....
I hate to break it to people, but there is very little that we can do to stop dedicated terrorists, whether those terrorists are Muslim fundamentalists, the next Timothy McVeigh, or a group of teenagers who are pissed at their classmates.
There certainly are things which can be done, without bothering "regular people". But they tend to be difficult and dangerous for enforcement. i.e. those involved in a terrorist conspiracy are unlikely to be against torturing and killing an undercover police officer or one of "their own" who has "grassed them up".
If we try to prevent terrorism from happening by jumping at shadows or taking away freedom, we aren't going to make any progress and will probably just create more terrorists.
As well as missing even some of those who are in plain sight.
They want to sell their programmes to broadcasters in other countries,
In which case they need to "get their finger out" and do the selling within a reasonable timescale.
but they know that just restricting downloads to the UK won't be enough to stop UK-based viewers downloading and redistributing shows with BitTorrent.
The primary source here is the first broadcast. (Which in some cases, notably in the US, can even be before the official airdate.) These downloads would only become an issue if they were available before broadcast.
If all the Dr Who fans in Usania have already seen the latest episode online, then the Usanian TV network will be less keen to buy it.
If they wait an excessive time then they can be sure that many of them have not even just seen the episodes, but bought the DVDs too.
Although the DRM is effectively useless, as UK viewers can just capture the DRM-free signal from digital television,
It isn't even just the UK. BBC signals can be received in parts of Eire, France, Belgium and The Netherlands. What TV companies need to get their heads around is that the market for a TV programme in English (possibly also Arabic) is planet Earth.
Why can't they set up a proper clone of the iTunes store and simply allow folks who aren't already paying the franchise fee to buy shows -- like Top Gear, for example -- for a nominal fee?
Or even one "store" which only charges you if you can't prove that you have already paid the fee.
Since only people in Britain pay the BBC telly tax, what is the status of these downloads as far as the rest of the world is concerned?
It is possible to pick up the BBC in other parts of Europe. Around 20 odd years ago I was able to watch BBC and ITV through a cable service in Den Hagg, Netherlands. I doubt Sealand pays any money to the BBC either. There is also plenty of BBC content available through TV-on-demand from UK cable providers.
I can't see the BBC Trust subsidizing bandwidth of content paid for by Britons so that people in the US or Chile or Katmandu can watch Dr Who or whatever.
Then either the BBC needs to get their programming on some TV stations in America and West Africa or ensure a there is a supply of DVDs/chargable downloads available.
Since he's under 18, can he even enter into a contract?
Unless there is a specific law stating otherwise there is nothing stopping them. IIRC in many cases a minor cannot be sued for breaking a contract.
Can he effectively use the court system by himself?
AFAIK there are no special restrictions on minors using courts. If you make a contract with a minor they can sue you. If they are a defendent they have exactly the same rights as any other defendent. Which includes being able to file countersuits against the plaintiff(s).
In Canada, for example, the minister responsible for copyright reform is meeting frequently with CRIA (effectively the Canadian branch of the RIAA), but not with Canadian artists.
You'd first need to put together a representative sample. Also ommited is any representation of readers, viewers and listeners. Of course historically publishers have always been the strongest lobbiests for making and changing copyright laws.
Slashdot Mirror
More seriously, does the DMCA have any limit on it's scope?
It dosn't appear that usable by small corps/individuals against large corps. Even in situations which involve actual copyright infringement, such as SCO claiming that can do what they like with GPL code.
That would be Richard Wagner. He's dead. He's been dead for 124 years. The copyright on that expired a very long time ago, if it ever was copyrighted in the first place.
Until some "joker" decides that life + 70 years should become life + 140 years. Something which may very well happen within the next 16 years the way "copy"right is heading.
The housing and construction business has professional estimators. Perhaps the software biz needs the same thing.
Compared with constructing buildings software is in it's infancy.
The Mythical Man Month has a better principal. One really good programmer is more productive than 10 mediocre programmers. Or something to that effect.
Also 10 really good programmers are never going to be 10 times productive as 1. Since there are overheads involved in spreading the task around and co-ordinating. (The same also applies to writing software for multi-processor computers. It's a little easier since getting identical CPUs is trivial compared with getting identical programmers.)
Another part of this is that two people doing a "job share" is likely to be less productive and cost the employer more than having one person do the job.
Except it's not for once. I have several pieces of hardware which didn't work out of the box in Windows, but did so in Linux. Off the top of my head, my wireless card (RA2500) worked without any installation of any kind in Ubuntu 6.* whereas I had to scour the net for several minutes to find a version that worked in Windows.
Drivers really are a part of the OS and lacking one for a network card tends to be in the "showstopper" catagory.
The list goes on, and I believe one of the reasons is that computers that come preloaded with Windows also come preloaded with the drivers needed.
It's also that Microsoft rarely (if ever in the case of XP) update the drivers on their install media. Whilst it's possible to get a Windows XP install disk with all the latest drivers (and patches) on you'd have to hunt around and Microsoft would probably consider you a "pirate".
Maybe someone at Microsoft should work on porting the Linux nvidia drivers to Vista. The work well on Linux, so maybe the drivers can be "reverse engineered" to work with Vista.
If the Linux drivers suddenly become GPL then you'll know there has been a big falling out between Nvidia and Microsoft.
The only reason that we have AC at the wall is because we didn't have a DC, solid-state equivalent of the transformer in 1900, and therefore it was difficult to create high-voltage DC power.
There's also the matter of AC generators (and motors) being simpler than their DC equivalents and AC not causing an electrolysis issue where disimilar metals are involved in connectors.
If I had to do something like that myself, I would make a generic system image and just copy it across all the computers through nfs or something similar.
There's actually a handy little program called "rsync" which is less network intensive than the GNU cp command and can do so with all sorts of network protocols. The only tweak you might want to make is to have statically linked versions of the relevent programs if you are using them to manage updates, rather than just initial installs.
I mean to do the above requires alot of IT resources for making MSI packages, group policies, SMS / AD administration, etc, etc.
Something the original poster rather glosses over.
If you had the equivalent Linux gurus is it also that easy to setup? Our setup is the same and I can think of kindof how you would do it with Linux but, say, is there some equivalent of SMS in the Linux world?
One thing to consider is how much of these wonderful tools are actually compensating for things Windows has difficulty doing. e.g. Windows can't even set it's hostname via DHCP. It also has a tendency to bug the user when it performs upgrades which it thinks require a reboot.
Enterprises with IT infrastructure based on proprietary, single-vendor platforms with no published interfaces for interoperability obviously are NOT the business environments where you'd expect to have Linux work seamlessly.
In such an environment it can even be hardwork to get Windows (and Windows applications to work) because there can be different versions (even subversions) which don't interoperate as expected.
MS further raises the barrier by making their interfaces and protocols DELIBERATELY COMPLEX so as to be harder to reverse engineer. This is the only explanation I can come up with for why MS does some of what they do in Exchange and Active Directory.
Plenty of things Microsoft have done are so daft from the software engineering POV that it would be suprising if the coders didn't realise this. But they do make sense from a "lock in" POV.
Even more perverse is their penchant for taking open technologies like LDAP and Kerberos and obfuscating them enough to break them.
Or MIME, didn't Microsoft even manage to break TCP?
it makes their own software less stable and more bloated than it needs to be.
In Vista this is possibly less obvious, since they stuck in a lot of extra bloat in the name of DRM.
I've tried many times to get a working Linux system, but I've always found something not working, and I don't mean Microsoft software not working. I mean sound not working or USB ports not working.
There are also plenty of anecdotes of driver issues under various versions of Windows. Including cases where it all "just works" when running from a Knoppix CD. As well as such stupidity as a working USB device changing USB port and Windows demanding a driver.
The main problem with diesel is the higher particulate emissions (among a few others) as a result of the high compression used in the engines. These (non-CO2) emissions is why the US uses gasoline. The Europeans -- unlike the US -- were willing to compromise (as well as weigh CO2 as an emission) and invested a lot in diesel engines and high-purity diesel fuel, which have about 20%-30% better mileage and better torque than gasoline...in use all over Europe, today.
This may be the case for cars. But AFAIK trucks, trains, construction and agricultural machinary in the US tends to be diesel just like everywhere else.
Judge: So even though you admit to pouring sugar in your ex's gas tank you are claiming to be innocent of damaging her car?
Defendant: Yes your Honor. I mistook it for a diesel.
Or even Defendant: It won't do anything to harm the engine. I call up on my expert witnesses Savage and Hyneman.
Nevermind that Hydrogen is currently produced by steam cracking natural gas, as that is the only cost-effective method available. Why do you think the oil companies quash biodiesel, straight veggie oil burners, resist ethanol, kill the electric car, but embrace hydrogen?
Hydrogen simply dosn't make a good replacement for existing fuels. Where as biodiesel, even regular vegetable oil, can go straight into the tank of an unmodified vehicle. Especially a modern one which comes complete with a computerised engine managment system. Of course the best vehicle to run on used cooking oil would be a garbage truck.
Also, slightly pedantic, but the fuel component of diesel #1 and JetA are the same damn thing, so the article (summary) is kinda mis-leading.
This sounds like you could fill up a 747 with "diesel" and have nothing look unusual up on the flight deck...
What about trucks, planes, ships and rail vehicles that need hundreds or thousands of gallons of fuel just to make one trip?
IIRC Both Rudolf Diesel and Frank Whittle ran their prototypes on vegetable oil. So that covers two of the three commonly used internal combustion engines.
When I said that it would create more terrorists, I'm considering your "pranksters" as being terrorists as well, since they fit the more traditional sense of the word, being someone who terrorizes or frightens other people.
If a fake bomb, even a claim that there is a bomb somewhere, is effective at causing mayhem. Then there is little point going to the expense and danger of making a real bomb.
"Real terrorists" can be anyone. Malicious hackers are terrorists. The hippies who bomb buildings that test chemicals on animals are terrorists.
Since the latter have a political adgenda they very easily meet with a definition of "terrorists".
Makes me think of the USPS instituting that "packages over one pound can no longer be put in mailboxes -- they must be brought to the counter" garbage. Never mind that the incident that prompted the rule (TWA 800) had nothing whatsoever to do with explosive packages, or that much less than a pound of C4 could do some serious damage.
Or any other explosive if "Terrorists R US" have run out of C4. If someone wants to blow up a mailbox they are unlikely to obey a "no more than one pound of explosive" rule.
As I commented to a postal clerk in the wake of the change: "Yeah, so instead of the bomb blowing up a mailbox out on the street, it'll blow up inside the post office. Sounds a LOT safer to me....."
Or it won't blow up until someone opens it, which is a typical approach with with letter and parcel bombs.
But other than that, there is an inherent risk of this which we just can't get rid of. If someone wants to hide a gun in their pocket and randomly start shooting people, there is really nothing we can do about it.
Actually the most effective thing to do is to ensure that as many people as possible carry guns and can shoot straight. The stupidest thing is to declare somewhere a "gun free zone". It's a lot easier for someone to carry out a Dunblane or Columbine type attack if they know that they will be better armed than their intended victims.
I'm embarassed to be in Boston right now. Those things look nothing like a bomb.
The distinguishing feature of a bomb is that it's intended to go bang. Rather than what it looks like.
Unfortunately, a lot of people in power want people to think that everyone is out to get them.
Terrorists who really are "out to get" people in power tend to be a little more specific in their targeting. e.g. the IRA.
For a lot of the people in power, the reason they keep parroting the whole "terrorist" possibility (much like the communist scare of years gone by) is so that they can have even more power. They think that if they can keep the populace frightened enough, they will be able to justify keeping themselves in office indefinately and being able to act with impunity.
From there it is only a small step to either letting some real terrorists "get on with it" or even helping out some....
I hate to break it to people, but there is very little that we can do to stop dedicated terrorists, whether those terrorists are Muslim fundamentalists, the next Timothy McVeigh, or a group of teenagers who are pissed at their classmates.
There certainly are things which can be done, without bothering "regular people". But they tend to be difficult and dangerous for enforcement. i.e. those involved in a terrorist conspiracy are unlikely to be against torturing and killing an undercover police officer or one of "their own" who has "grassed them up".
If we try to prevent terrorism from happening by jumping at shadows or taking away freedom, we aren't going to make any progress and will probably just create more terrorists.
As well as missing even some of those who are in plain sight.
They want to sell their programmes to broadcasters in other countries,
In which case they need to "get their finger out" and do the selling within a reasonable timescale.
but they know that just restricting downloads to the UK won't be enough to stop UK-based viewers downloading and redistributing shows with BitTorrent.
The primary source here is the first broadcast. (Which in some cases, notably in the US, can even be before the official airdate.) These downloads would only become an issue if they were available before broadcast.
If all the Dr Who fans in Usania have already seen the latest episode online, then the Usanian TV network will be less keen to buy it.
If they wait an excessive time then they can be sure that many of them have not even just seen the episodes, but bought the DVDs too.
Although the DRM is effectively useless, as UK viewers can just capture the DRM-free signal from digital television,
It isn't even just the UK. BBC signals can be received in parts of Eire, France, Belgium and The Netherlands.
What TV companies need to get their heads around is that the market for a TV programme in English (possibly also Arabic) is planet Earth.
Why can't they set up a proper clone of the iTunes store and simply allow folks who aren't already paying the franchise fee to buy shows -- like Top Gear, for example -- for a nominal fee?
Or even one "store" which only charges you if you can't prove that you have already paid the fee.
Since only people in Britain pay the BBC telly tax, what is the status of these downloads as far as the rest of the world is concerned?
It is possible to pick up the BBC in other parts of Europe. Around 20 odd years ago I was able to watch BBC and ITV through a cable service in Den Hagg, Netherlands. I doubt Sealand pays any money to the BBC either. There is also plenty of BBC content available through TV-on-demand from UK cable providers.
I can't see the BBC Trust subsidizing bandwidth of content paid for by Britons so that people in the US or Chile or Katmandu can watch Dr Who or whatever.
Then either the BBC needs to get their programming on some TV stations in America and West Africa or ensure a there is a supply of DVDs/chargable downloads available.
Since he's under 18, can he even enter into a contract?
Unless there is a specific law stating otherwise there is nothing stopping them. IIRC in many cases a minor cannot be sued for breaking a contract.
Can he effectively use the court system by himself?
AFAIK there are no special restrictions on minors using courts. If you make a contract with a minor they can sue you. If they are a defendent they have exactly the same rights as any other defendent. Which includes being able to file countersuits against the plaintiff(s).
In Canada, for example, the minister responsible for copyright reform is meeting frequently with CRIA (effectively the Canadian branch of the RIAA), but not with Canadian artists.
You'd first need to put together a representative sample. Also ommited is any representation of readers, viewers and listeners.
Of course historically publishers have always been the strongest lobbiests for making and changing copyright laws.