Albert Einstein once said: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." By your logic, then, we shouldn't value human stupidity, which is what capitalism essentially does.
1. War on drugs. There ought to be limits on freedom.
2. Minority Religions. There ought to be limits on freedom.
3. Why give a tax cut. There ought to be limits on freedom.
4. Electoral Reform There ought to be limits on freedom.
5. Intellectual Property There ought to be limits on freedom.
6. Encryption. There ought to be limits on freedom.
7. Rising Political Protests There ought to be limits on freedom.
8. Asteroid Defenses. There ought to be limits on freedom.
9. The future of the Country and of Humanity. There ought to be limits on freedom.
This in from Gore:
1. War on drugs. I invented drugs.
2. Minority Religions. I invented minority religions.
3. Why give a tax cut. I invented taxes.
4. Electoral Reform I invented the Electoral College.
5. Intellectual Property I invented Intellectual Property.
6. Encryption. I invented encryption.
7. Rising Political Protests I invented political protests.
8. Asteroid Defenses. I invented Asteroids.
9. The future of the Country and of Humanity. I invented humanity.
Best be careful, you might wind up like Nader being sued by MasterCard for your parody. That said, very nicely done:
Old 486: $50. Geek on a caffeine high: $5, $0 if s/he's already jacked on coffee. OpenBSD or Slackware burned on a CD: $0. A kickass firewall to confound the kiddiez with the latest 'sploits and nmap: priceless.
When it all comes down to it, one can say any piece of information is encrypted. Who's to say that this message isn't an encrypted and compressed recipe for Niemann Marcus' famed cookies or details of the Roswell Incident?
The fact is, this message was digitally encoded in ASCII (unless Slashdot went UniCode). Taken at face value, this message is just a really big number, represented in binary. Your browser assumes it to be ASCII and "decrypts" it as such.
Now, if my information on copyright is correct, facts cannot be copyrighted. A number is a fact. Thus, no one can copyright the number 7. Now help me out here, why can an MP3 file, which is, when it all comes down to it, a really big number be copyrighted?
I can't cite the source, but I recall hearing that one of the reasons that the Vikings didn't make permanent settlements in what is now Canada was the result of a "Mini-Ice Age" that occurred during the 15th Century.
I find the global warming arguments flawed. I am not convinced that 10 or 100 years is enough to extrapolate out that we are even in a period of warming. Were it the case that we are in a period of unusual warming, I find it difficult to lay the blame squarely on Mankind's (Humankind's for feminists, though they might be willing to lay the blame solely on men for this one) shoulders. Perhaps the climate would be the same regardless of industrialization.
Without getting all "me too", I would have to agree that the Political System will survive. Citations include the American Two Party System's survival of the Industrialization of the country and the Restoration Period.
We have not had a political revolution since the Civil War (which may not even qualify as a political revolution). The power system is in place. The party system is in place. There will be no revolutions, merely evolutions. The previous century marked the rise and fall of American Unions. What will this century bring?
Both parties have raced to the Center - the only difference is the direction in which they lean. Any 3rd party hope is doomed to become incorporated into the mainstream.
To further clarify why DMCA trumps AHRA - it was passed after (1998 to 198?) so, my understanding, is that anywhere the DMCA and AHRA conflict, the DMCA wins. Unless, of course, it violates the Constituition.
The DMCA does supercede the AHRA because of the word Digital. It changes everything. Face it, the content providers have one by buying legislation that favors them.
All hope is not lost, however. We (the people) can challenge the legality of all copyright extention acts (such as Sonny Bono) on a Constitutional basis (why should extentions apply to extant works).
Furthermore, to challege the definition of "Sciences and the Useful Arts" as set by the Constitution.
And finally, to pursue monopoly charges against content providers and device manufacturers. By this, I mean that if all device manufacturers make products that conform to content provider wishes, then that creates a monopolistic environment. For example, Sony produces (in a supreme irony of the term) music and devices to play that music. The situation forces me to buy both content and access devices from the same source (e.g. RIAA and cronies).
I am, in general, not very hopeful. The recent suck.com article (am I allowed to link to it anymore? http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/09/08/) brought the point home. It is apparent to me now, that in the USA, We (the People) don't have bubcus on The Corporation. Warren Buffet's recent article on how to limit soft money contributions was particularly glaring. I wish I had the link to it.
The point is, laws are bought. The People's will matters not a wit.
Back to the matter at hand - the point is: the RIAA (and MPAA) have bought the laws. They have the lawyers. They own the judges. They own the parties. Geeks have no legal hope in any of these matters. No matter how absurd the law is, no matter what rights they take away, there is no short term hope for remedy.
Let's face it, have you heard one candidate's stance on Intellectual Property? Do you even know if your Congresscritter voted for or against DMCA (passed by voice vote, so you don't).
Intellectual Property laws (as they stand) were designed for the Industrial Era. And while everyone talks of the promise of the Informtion Era, most of the USA lives in the Industrial Era. There is no overwhelming call to re-examine IP/Copyright law. The Machiavellian Quote that has been floating around/. is very apropos:
"It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the emnity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones."
-Niccolo Machiavelli, 1513
We have an uphill battle to face. The Revolution will not be Televised. The Revolution will not be Digitized. The Revolution will not be Re-broadcast or Re-Transmitted without the Express Written Consent of Major League Baseball, the Motion Picture Association of America and the RIAA. Any attempts to reverse engineer the Revolution will be prosecuted under the DMCA.
Why should laws apply to the entertainment industry? Mr. Valenti seems to think the entire industry so critical to the nation that it be above the law.
I don't understand why the FCC could take away a right given to "We, The People" by the Supreme Court (time/space shifting). Somebody 'splain that one!
The problem isn't whether copy protection *can* be built into these devices, it's whether the MPAA can strong arm manufacturers into forcing them to do so.
I saw a "dramatic reading" of a portion of the code available in MP3 format. I wonder if Naturally Speaking (or some speach recognition software) could turn this back into a source file ready for gcc.....
I use my hotmail account a lot (to protect my work account) and have lately noticed a number of SPAMs to me, from me. I know the headers are forged, but that's abuse!
Okay, I don't have cable but have heard good things about the show. I've never been to either web-site, so I can't evaluate the content.
With that said, on with my opinion (which is worth as much as the electrons used to express it).
Sound clips: What is the difference between using footage for a news site and footage for a fan site? Do news sites always "ask permission"? Fan sites definately attribute the source of the sound clip. Provided the site is not rebroadcasting the show in its entirety without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, the UN, and Fuji, then why can't they use clips under the Copyright's Fair Use Doctrine?
Still photos: If sluggo simply took a picture of his TV while it was showing Iron Chef, then why does this constitute infringement? He's merely displaying what his TV displayed.
What next, am I no longer allowed to say, "Ha" in a Japanese accent? Am I no longer allowed to describe what happened on last night's show around the water cooler at work?
I know of only one way to fight corporate behavior like this: Write Fuji and tell them that you will no longer watch their show (although hopefully you have VCR tapes of the show which are legal under the "Time Shift" Copyright Fair Use Doctrine) and send a copy to your cable provider. Tell them you'll be reading a cook book anytime that a show airs and you're home. The only way to fight this bullshit is to hurt corporations where it hurts: The bottom line.
First, that 80 views includes bots (granted that it is probably a very small percent). But the ratio of bot views to bot bids is 1:0. We'd be more inclined to take a friendlier view towards bots if they actually bid.
We've been discussing whether or not Bidder's Edge is a Good Thing (from our point of view) or not. My company does B2C auctions (e.g. we actually warehouse the products unlike eBay's C2C model). There's two schools of thought:
1. Good: It potentially drives traffic to the site. The whole point of an auction is to allow as many people as possible to see it to find the one who is willing to pay the highest price. 2. Bad: Bidder's Edge (AFAIK) aggregates auctions (e.g. it consolidates auctions from eBay, Yahoo, Amazon, etc.) and so if there are 2 of the same product, people will obviously bid on the one they can get cheaper. This essentially drives traffic away.
Our current opinion is that 2 is the dominant factor. Plus, these sites train users to go to Bidder's Edge before going to a specific site.
The real problem is that there is a significant difference between a person viewing a page and a bot "viewing" a page. It is reasonable to assume that a person might (however remotely) bid on the listing. Bots can't bid.
I agree with your assessment of the ethics of the situation.
Just to nitpik, Linux is *not* in the Public Domain. In fact, if Microsoft were forced to put the *current* Windows (say Win2K) in the public domain, they could still release a closed source Windows TNG, replete with examples of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.
The only way to force MS to compete on the basis of features and functionality is to stop them from using a monopoly on desktop OSes to establish a monopoly on Desktop apps (Office) which would then allow them to use those two monopolies to establish a server OS monopoly. The only way to do this is to break up the company. This is still fraught with peril, as the OS division might be able to leverage a desktop OS monopoly into a server OS monopoly (witness the Kerberos (sp?) excitement).
Thanks to the Sony Bono Copyright Extention Act, we merely have to wait 90 years before the games become a part of the public domain. And that's just the binary version of the game; the source will likely never be accessible. Depending on how the DCMA turns out, reverse-engineering abandonware could be illegal. The DCMA might even make emulators illegal.
I was not aware that charges had been brought against you in your native land. Was it to be a test case for Reverse Engineering?
While I am somewhat disappointed in the turn your case took, I can't say I would have gone the full mile (Green Mile or not). I understand your desire to spend your time on more productive efforts than martyring your time and energy to this battle, though I think you would have won (#include ). My understanding was that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was going to represent you in Mass. Warning stupid question to follow: Would the ACLU (or a sibling organization) have aided your defense in Canada?
Like I said, I would have liked to see this one go to court (and I think the ACLU really wanted it to go to trial), I likely would have made the same choice as you when facing a lengthy period of time interacting with lawyers and the "justice" system.
The difference would be that Gumby does not (AFAIK) have multiple uses in the English language in the same way that "coke" (or, more accurately "Coke") is used to refer to 1) a form of coal (probably the oldest version of the word) 2) slang for coccaine (sp?) or 3) the soft drink.
A more accurate comparison would probably be the Ajax.org dispute. Ajax, of course, refers to many things and has quite a long history.
Slashdot Mirror
Albert Einstein once said: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." By your logic, then, we shouldn't value human stupidity, which is what capitalism essentially does.
This in from Bush:
1. War on drugs.
There ought to be limits on freedom.
2. Minority Religions.
There ought to be limits on freedom.
3. Why give a tax cut.
There ought to be limits on freedom.
4. Electoral Reform
There ought to be limits on freedom.
5. Intellectual Property
There ought to be limits on freedom.
6. Encryption.
There ought to be limits on freedom.
7. Rising Political Protests
There ought to be limits on freedom.
8. Asteroid Defenses.
There ought to be limits on freedom.
9. The future of the Country and of Humanity.
There ought to be limits on freedom.
This in from Gore:
1. War on drugs.
I invented drugs.
2. Minority Religions.
I invented minority religions.
3. Why give a tax cut.
I invented taxes.
4. Electoral Reform
I invented the Electoral College.
5. Intellectual Property
I invented Intellectual Property.
6. Encryption.
I invented encryption.
7. Rising Political Protests
I invented political protests.
8. Asteroid Defenses.
I invented Asteroids.
9. The future of the Country and of Humanity.
I invented humanity.
Cheers,
Slak
Best be careful, you might wind up like Nader being sued by MasterCard for your parody. That said, very nicely done:
Old 486: $50. Geek on a caffeine high: $5, $0 if s/he's already jacked on coffee. OpenBSD or Slackware burned on a CD: $0. A kickass firewall to confound the kiddiez with the latest 'sploits and nmap: priceless.
Cheers,
Slak
When it all comes down to it, one can say any piece of information is encrypted. Who's to say that this message isn't an encrypted and compressed recipe for Niemann Marcus' famed cookies or details of the Roswell Incident?
The fact is, this message was digitally encoded in ASCII (unless Slashdot went UniCode). Taken at face value, this message is just a really big number, represented in binary. Your browser assumes it to be ASCII and "decrypts" it as such.
Now, if my information on copyright is correct, facts cannot be copyrighted. A number is a fact. Thus, no one can copyright the number 7. Now help me out here, why can an MP3 file, which is, when it all comes down to it, a really big number be copyrighted?
Cheers,
Slak
I can't cite the source, but I recall hearing that one of the reasons that the Vikings didn't make permanent settlements in what is now Canada was the result of a "Mini-Ice Age" that occurred during the 15th Century.
I find the global warming arguments flawed. I am not convinced that 10 or 100 years is enough to extrapolate out that we are even in a period of warming. Were it the case that we are in a period of unusual warming, I find it difficult to lay the blame squarely on Mankind's (Humankind's for feminists, though they might be willing to lay the blame solely on men for this one) shoulders. Perhaps the climate would be the same regardless of industrialization.
Cheers,
Slak
Without getting all "me too", I would have to agree that the Political System will survive. Citations include the American Two Party System's survival of the Industrialization of the country and the Restoration Period.
We have not had a political revolution since the Civil War (which may not even qualify as a political revolution). The power system is in place. The party system is in place. There will be no revolutions, merely evolutions. The previous century marked the rise and fall of American Unions. What will this century bring?
Both parties have raced to the Center - the only difference is the direction in which they lean. Any 3rd party hope is doomed to become incorporated into the mainstream.
Cheers,
Slak
Rats; I didn't check spelling - it should read:
"...content providers have won by buying..."
To further clarify why DMCA trumps AHRA - it was passed after (1998 to 198?) so, my understanding, is that anywhere the DMCA and AHRA conflict, the DMCA wins. Unless, of course, it violates the Constituition.
IANAL:
/. is very apropos:
The DMCA does supercede the AHRA because of the word Digital. It changes everything. Face it, the content providers have one by buying legislation that favors them.
All hope is not lost, however. We (the people) can challenge the legality of all copyright extention acts (such as Sonny Bono) on a Constitutional basis (why should extentions apply to extant works).
Furthermore, to challege the definition of "Sciences and the Useful Arts" as set by the Constitution.
And finally, to pursue monopoly charges against content providers and device manufacturers. By this, I mean that if all device manufacturers make products that conform to content provider wishes, then that creates a monopolistic environment. For example, Sony produces (in a supreme irony of the term) music and devices to play that music. The situation forces me to buy both content and access devices from the same source (e.g. RIAA and cronies).
I am, in general, not very hopeful. The recent suck.com article (am I allowed to link to it anymore? http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/09/08/) brought the point home. It is apparent to me now, that in the USA, We (the People) don't have bubcus on The Corporation. Warren Buffet's recent article on how to limit soft money contributions was particularly glaring. I wish I had the link to it.
The point is, laws are bought. The People's will matters not a wit.
Back to the matter at hand - the point is: the RIAA (and MPAA) have bought the laws. They have the lawyers. They own the judges. They own the parties. Geeks have no legal hope in any of these matters. No matter how absurd the law is, no matter what rights they take away, there is no short term hope for remedy.
Let's face it, have you heard one candidate's stance on Intellectual Property? Do you even know if your Congresscritter voted for or against DMCA (passed by voice vote, so you don't).
Intellectual Property laws (as they stand) were designed for the Industrial Era. And while everyone talks of the promise of the Informtion Era, most of the USA lives in the Industrial Era. There is no overwhelming call to re-examine IP/Copyright law. The Machiavellian Quote that has been floating around
"It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the emnity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones."
-Niccolo Machiavelli, 1513
We have an uphill battle to face. The Revolution will not be Televised. The Revolution will not be Digitized. The Revolution will not be Re-broadcast or Re-Transmitted without the Express Written Consent of Major League Baseball, the Motion Picture Association of America and the RIAA. Any attempts to reverse engineer the Revolution will be prosecuted under the DMCA.
Why should laws apply to the entertainment industry? Mr. Valenti seems to think the entire industry so critical to the nation that it be above the law.
I don't understand why the FCC could take away a right given to "We, The People" by the Supreme Court (time/space shifting). Somebody 'splain that one!
The problem isn't whether copy protection *can* be built into these devices, it's whether the MPAA can strong arm manufacturers into forcing them to do so.
I saw a "dramatic reading" of a portion of the code available in MP3 format. I wonder if Naturally Speaking (or some speach recognition software) could turn this back into a source file ready for gcc.....
Can you put it out on Napster and have a direct link between the two most important cases currently involving the internet & IP law?
I use my hotmail account a lot (to protect my work account) and have lately noticed a number of SPAMs to me, from me. I know the headers are forged, but that's abuse!
Blackbird? Wasn't that supposed to be M$'s answer to Java 2 or 3 years ago?
Just wait for Fuji to reverse hijack the ironchef.com and ironchef.net domains.
Still, there might be hope as Fuji presumably holds "Iron Chef" as trademark, while the domains are "ironchef".
Cheers,
Slak
Okay, I don't have cable but have heard good things about the show. I've never been to either web-site, so I can't evaluate the content.
With that said, on with my opinion (which is worth as much as the electrons used to express it).
Sound clips: What is the difference between using footage for a news site and footage for a fan site? Do news sites always "ask permission"? Fan sites definately attribute the source of the sound clip. Provided the site is not rebroadcasting the show in its entirety without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, the UN, and Fuji, then why can't they use clips under the Copyright's Fair Use Doctrine?
Still photos: If sluggo simply took a picture of his TV while it was showing Iron Chef, then why does this constitute infringement? He's merely displaying what his TV displayed.
What next, am I no longer allowed to say, "Ha" in a Japanese accent? Am I no longer allowed to describe what happened on last night's show around the water cooler at work?
I know of only one way to fight corporate behavior like this: Write Fuji and tell them that you will no longer watch their show (although hopefully you have VCR tapes of the show which are legal under the "Time Shift" Copyright Fair Use Doctrine) and send a copy to your cable provider. Tell them you'll be reading a cook book anytime that a show airs and you're home. The only way to fight this bullshit is to hurt corporations where it hurts: The bottom line.
Cheers,
Slak
First, that 80 views includes bots (granted that it is probably a very small percent). But the ratio of bot views to bot bids is 1:0. We'd be more inclined to take a friendlier view towards bots if they actually bid.
Cheers,
Slak
[Note: I work for a different online auctioneer].
We've been discussing whether or not Bidder's Edge is a Good Thing (from our point of view) or not. My company does B2C auctions (e.g. we actually warehouse the products unlike eBay's C2C model). There's two schools of thought:
1. Good: It potentially drives traffic to the site. The whole point of an auction is to allow as many people as possible to see it to find the one who is willing to pay the highest price.
2. Bad: Bidder's Edge (AFAIK) aggregates auctions (e.g. it consolidates auctions from eBay, Yahoo, Amazon, etc.) and so if there are 2 of the same product, people will obviously bid on the one they can get cheaper. This essentially drives traffic away.
Our current opinion is that 2 is the dominant factor. Plus, these sites train users to go to Bidder's Edge before going to a specific site.
The real problem is that there is a significant difference between a person viewing a page and a bot "viewing" a page. It is reasonable to assume that a person might (however remotely) bid on the listing. Bots can't bid.
I agree with your assessment of the ethics of the situation.
Cheers,
Slak
Just to nitpik, Linux is *not* in the Public Domain. In fact, if Microsoft were forced to put the *current* Windows (say Win2K) in the public domain, they could still release a closed source Windows TNG, replete with examples of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.
The only way to force MS to compete on the basis of features and functionality is to stop them from using a monopoly on desktop OSes to establish a monopoly on Desktop apps (Office) which would then allow them to use those two monopolies to establish a server OS monopoly. The only way to do this is to break up the company. This is still fraught with peril, as the OS division might be able to leverage a desktop OS monopoly into a server OS monopoly (witness the Kerberos (sp?) excitement).
Cheers,
Slak
Thanks to the Sony Bono Copyright Extention Act, we merely have to wait 90 years before the games become a part of the public domain. And that's just the binary version of the game; the source will likely never be accessible. Depending on how the DCMA turns out, reverse-engineering abandonware could be illegal. The DCMA might even make emulators illegal.
Cheers,
Slak
I'm sure that if an implementation ever becomes a reality, then the successors of our friends Ms. Reno and Mr. Freeh will vehemently oppose it.
I was not aware that charges had been brought against you in your native land. Was it to be a test case for Reverse Engineering?
While I am somewhat disappointed in the turn your case took, I can't say I would have gone the full mile (Green Mile or not). I understand your desire to spend your time on more productive efforts than martyring your time and energy to this battle, though I think you would have won (#include ). My understanding was that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was going to represent you in Mass. Warning stupid question to follow: Would the ACLU (or a sibling organization) have aided your defense in Canada?
Like I said, I would have liked to see this one go to court (and I think the ACLU really wanted it to go to trial), I likely would have made the same choice as you when facing a lengthy period of time interacting with lawyers and the "justice" system.
Cheers,
Slak
I guess another question is: Since this didn't go to court, was any precedent set? As we're all aware, the case was strange for several reasons:
1. Does US Copyright Law apply to foreign nationals not living in the US.
2. Sub peanos (sp?) sent via email. The question: was it served properly?
Cheers,
Slak
Just wondering if Stanley Kubrik was mentioned in the "In memory of...", though I can't remember if he died in 1999 or 2000. Anyone know?
Cheers,
Slak
The difference would be that Gumby does not (AFAIK) have multiple uses in the English language in the same way that "coke" (or, more accurately "Coke") is used to refer to 1) a form of coal (probably the oldest version of the word) 2) slang for coccaine (sp?) or 3) the soft drink.
A more accurate comparison would probably be the Ajax.org dispute. Ajax, of course, refers to many things and has quite a long history.
Cheers,
Slak