"For Judge Jackson to honestly make the comment that he was ill-equipped says something," said James L. Thompson...
That is not what he said:
Judge Jackson said he had backed a proposal by the Justice Department and state attorneys general to break up Microsoft because "there's no way I can equip myself to do a better job than they have done."
There's a big difference between the two, and Thompson iss twisting Jackson's words. Unless he was quoting a different statement, in which case the NYT article is a little misleading.
So because a PC isn't primarily designed or marketed for home copying, and therefore isn't subject to the "piracy tax", using it for home copying is actionable. The "therefore..." above is, I think, why even a home-built PC that is designed for home copying would still be actionable... you haven't paid your piracy tax.
A 'digital audio recording device' is defined, with exceptions not relevant here, as any machine or device 'the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use.'
There's been a lot of junk spouted about this definition. Let's analyse it....the digital recording function of which... implies that a general purpose device could be a DARD even if only part of it is for digital recording. However for the primary purpose of...making a digital audio copied recording for private use is less clear. Sound cards IMO don't count, because their primary purpose is to make computer generated sounds for games or applications. CD drives don't count, their primary purpose is to access data files stored on a CD. I'd say the whole PC caboodle doesn't count, unless it is a model which is marketed as a home recording station. It does say designed or marketed as, so home-built units might count, and the digital recording function could be taken to mean the ripping software, but there may well be some other clause that clarifies the law as only applying to commercial units. So, I think it's highly unlikely that a PC could be said to be a digital audio recording device, given the limited excerpt above.
If thou art truly LORD, then send me a sign! Fill mine account with karma!
Re:Australian ISPs take on DeCSS
on
DeCSS Down Under
·
· Score: 2
The very law that would make DeCSS illegal in Australia will also indemnify ISPs from responsibility for users' actions:
Carrier and ISP liability ... The Bill seeks to clarify the circumstances in which carriers and ISPs will be held liable: they will not be liable for infringements by their customers simply because the infringements occurred using their facilities.
If AOL can defend their trademark through direct action, and other non-Registrar companies have to go to the courts, then AOL have an unfair competitive advantage. We have laws to govern trademark disputes, and the WIPO is there to adjudicate, so AOL can sit and wait like everyone else, IMO.
I can't remember what it's called - I'll look it up on Friday night and post it as a reply to this comment. It was on the cover of last month's PCPlus magazine in the UK. I can't find it on their web site.
The basic difference is that in a regular shop, the same price is advertised to all. You know that they aren't preying on your buying habits. If you send your brother to get something, he'll be charged the same as you would have been. At a.com, it's like the shopkeeper takes a look at what kind of credit card you have and charges you more if it's a platinum. Which Amazon can do, 'cos they've seen your credit card.
I'm not that happy about installing a closed-source setuid-root program.
I agree that the ideal would be for it to be a)OSS or b)non-root, but if both of the above are non-optional, then consider the alternative: dual boot to windows, and any windows app can directly access the hardware and fandango on your linux partition if it wants to. There's a utility for Windows that allows you to browse an ex2fs partition and copy files to and from it.
Some have accused Ashleigh Brilliant of doing just that, writing cute little sayings like "Everyone is entitled to my opinion", copyrighting it, and suing anyone that uses it in a published work. In practice, if you can get it to stand up in court, you can effectively copyright it. I'd laugh at anyone trying the above, but I'd laugh at Mr Brilliant's lawsuit, and Lawrence Godfrey for that matter, and they won.
For instance, you do not need to qualify variables in any way ( not event with the pre-pended special characters Perl uses).
Personally, I think that's a beneficial feature. You can tell whether something is a variable or an array of values, and it removes absolutely any conflict between variable names and language keywords.
Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently forfeits the right to distribute the code at all.
Is that right? If I take a GPL'd program, make a change, and give a binary to my brother, I cannot then ever distribute the source to my change under the GPL? One strike and you're out! That seems a bit OTT.
There's some good stuff in there as well:
<b>Carrier and ISP liability</b>
...
The Bill seeks to clarify the circumstances in which carriers and ISPs will be held liable: they will not be liable for infringements by their customers simply because the infringements occurred using their facilities.
<b>Temporary Reproductions</b>
ISPs have also been concerned about infringement because of the temporary copies that are made in the course of technical processes of transmission and browsing on the Internet. The Bill provides an exception from copyright infringement where temporary reproductions are made in the course of the technical process of electronic transmissions. Incidental copies made in the course of browsing on the Internet will not be a breach of copyright.
Books are kept in various national libraries, as are newspapers, magazines, etc., but who is keeping archives of significant web news and content? This needs to be addressed, or we are going to lose a large and important slice of history. It needs to get stored in non-digital form, too.
The Bill seeks to clarify the circumstances in which carriers and ISPs will be held liable: they will not be liable for infringements by their customers simply because the infringements occurred using their facilities.
Temporary Reproductions
ISPs have also been concerned about infringement because of the temporary copies that are made in the course of technical processes of transmission and browsing on the Internet. The Bill provides an exception from copyright infringement where temporary reproductions are made in the course of the technical process of electronic transmissions. Incidental copies made in the course of browsing on the Internet will not be a breach of copyright.
I say "ridiculous" not in the sense that it is wrong, although I think that it is, but in the sense that it is open to ridicule. Comparing writing computer software to assassination, making broad sweeping statements and snide remarks about the defense's attitudes to copyright, the notion that I gained the right to view DVD movies by buying a piece of hardware rather than the DVDs themselves, and the idea that in order to freely access a movie all I have to do is buy another copy of it in an older format - all this is going to seriously help the defendants when the case goes to appeal.
I feel strongly that the MPAA is fighting a battle to control something that they really have no right to control. It is unfortunate that copyright violations are difficult to trace on the internet, and that DVD movies are impossible to protect from copyright violations while retaining the principles of fair use and first sale.
On the nature of copyright law, I believe that it is not a law that is to do with ownership of property, "intellectual property" is not an appropriate phrase. Copyright law is about denying people the right to do what they wish to do with information that they have in their possession. Society grants limited restrictions on the free actions of the general public in order that the producers of creative content may reasonably profit from their creations. However, this law has been stretched and abused by "Big Media" to the point that it seems that the copyright on Mickey Mouse will never expire, because Disney keeps lobbying congress to manipulate the law in their favour. When the system is abused by powerful corporations, all the individual can do is to fight to take back the rights that the corrupt legislature is trying to take away from them. This is why I believe Napster, DeCSS, and the CyberPatrol hack were so popular, it gives us "little folk" the chance to take back some of what we are being denied, and level the field a little. If Corporate America wasn't cheating, then neither would "we" have to cheat back. I say "we" because I have never used Napster, I buy DVD movies and music CDs, and I pay for most of my computer software even when I could easily not do so. Nontheless, I understand why people feel so disempowered and fight back.
I hope that this situation does not spread to the UK in the way it has started in the USA, but if it does, I may be hearing from your legal department regarding my DeCSS mirror. I do not look forward to that day.
I admit, I don't understand why the Austrlian parliament would do this.
Because they signed an international treaty saying that they would impliment anti-anti-circumvention legislation. America was just quick off the mark with the DMCA. We can all look forward to this kind of legislation in the future.
http://www. nytimes.com/library/tech/00/08/circuits/articles/2 4free.html is titled "Whose Intellectual Property Is It, Anyway? The Open Source War", and comes down firmly on the side of DeCSS as legitimate work. It builds up by describing such Open Source successes as IBM's adopton of Linux after their failure to defeat Microsoft with OS2, then: "This success scares the dinosaur companies that rely upon intellectual property laws to protect their earnings. If they can't deliver the best solutions to the people themselves, they're reaching to the courts to ensure that no one will supplant them. The lawsuit against the DVD-playing program, for instance, will do more to stop new companies that want to play legitimately purchased DVD movies than pirates."
and on Napster:
"The lawsuits against Napster may be aimed at piracy, but they could also stomp out small record labels and unsigned artists who want their music to float freely through the world of Napster. But the big labels want to shut down the entire service. If the current laws are not strong enough, they want new laws that will stop people from making some kinds of open technology. They imagine a world where technology will control and limit people instead of liberating them."
Go NYT!
PS. I just submitted this as a story, and it's been reclassified as "YRO" in the submissions queueue, so it might hit the front page soon.
If they take the position that the Sony player does not circumvent, then how could they argue that DeCSS or Livid does circumvent?
Because the Sony player only allows playback, not direct conversion to an unprotected form. If you took DeCSS and made it into a program that *only* played the DVD and didn't allow it to be saved as.mpg or whatever, then you'd have a defensible case.
Slashdot Mirror
So because a PC isn't primarily designed or marketed for home copying, and therefore isn't subject to the "piracy tax", using it for home copying is actionable. The "therefore..." above is, I think, why even a home-built PC that is designed for home copying would still be actionable ... you haven't paid your piracy tax.
If thou art truly LORD, then send me a sign! Fill mine account with karma!
Carrier and ISP liability
...
The Bill seeks to clarify the circumstances in which carriers and ISPs will be held liable: they will not be liable for infringements by their customers simply because the infringements occurred using their facilities.
</IANAL>
If AOL can defend their trademark through direct action, and other non-Registrar companies have to go to the courts, then AOL have an unfair competitive advantage. We have laws to govern trademark disputes, and the WIPO is there to adjudicate, so AOL can sit and wait like everyone else, IMO.
What is this utility, and where can I get it?
Here it is: href="http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linu x/
I can't remember what it's called - I'll look it up on Friday night and post it as a reply to this comment. It was on the cover of last month's PCPlus magazine in the UK. I can't find it on their web site.
Phew, I was worried for a moment there - I thought you were monitoring me!
The basic difference is that in a regular shop, the same price is advertised to all. You know that they aren't preying on your buying habits. If you send your brother to get something, he'll be charged the same as you would have been. At a .com, it's like the shopkeeper takes a look at what kind of credit card you have and charges you more if it's a platinum. Which Amazon can do, 'cos they've seen your credit card.
I agree that the ideal would be for it to be a)OSS or b)non-root, but if both of the above are non-optional, then consider the alternative: dual boot to windows, and any windows app can directly access the hardware and fandango on your linux partition if it wants to. There's a utility for Windows that allows you to browse an ex2fs partition and copy files to and from it.
Some have accused Ashleigh Brilliant of doing just that, writing cute little sayings like "Everyone is entitled to my opinion", copyrighting it, and suing anyone that uses it in a published work. In practice, if you can get it to stand up in court, you can effectively copyright it. I'd laugh at anyone trying the above, but I'd laugh at Mr Brilliant's lawsuit, and Lawrence Godfrey for that matter, and they won.
Personally, I think that's a beneficial feature. You can tell whether something is a variable or an array of values, and it removes absolutely any conflict between variable names and language keywords.
Is that right? If I take a GPL'd program, make a change, and give a binary to my brother, I cannot then ever distribute the source to my change under the GPL? One strike and you're out! That seems a bit OTT.
There's some good stuff in there as well:
<b>Carrier and ISP liability</b>
...
The Bill seeks to clarify the circumstances in which carriers and ISPs will be held liable: they will not be liable for infringements by their customers simply because the infringements occurred using their facilities.
<b>Temporary Reproductions</b>
ISPs have also been concerned about infringement because of the temporary copies that are made in the course of technical processes of transmission and browsing on the Internet. The Bill provides an exception from copyright infringement where temporary reproductions are made in the course of the technical process of electronic transmissions. Incidental copies made in the course of browsing on the Internet will not be a breach of copyright.
Books are kept in various national libraries, as are newspapers, magazines, etc., but who is keeping archives of significant web news and content? This needs to be addressed, or we are going to lose a large and important slice of history. It needs to get stored in non-digital form, too.
Phil.
Maybe 50% or more of DVD players sold in the UK have region hacks as well. Mine does.
I had heard that it's illegal to sell a region-locked DVD player in NZ, but what about the discs? Are they region coded?
Carrier and ISP liability
...
The Bill seeks to clarify the circumstances in which carriers and ISPs will be held liable: they will not be liable for infringements by their customers simply because the infringements occurred using their facilities.
Temporary Reproductions
ISPs have also been concerned about infringement because of the temporary copies that are made in the course of technical processes of transmission and browsing on the Internet. The Bill provides an exception from copyright infringement where temporary reproductions are made in the course of the technical process of electronic transmissions. Incidental copies made in the course of browsing on the Internet will not be a breach of copyright.
Judge Caplan's ridiculous DeCSS ruling
I say "ridiculous" not in the sense that it is wrong, although I think that it is, but in the sense that it is open to ridicule. Comparing writing computer software to assassination, making broad sweeping statements and snide remarks about the defense's attitudes to copyright, the notion that I gained the right to view DVD movies by buying a piece of hardware rather than the DVDs themselves, and the idea that in order to freely access a movie all I have to do is buy another copy of it in an older format - all this is going to seriously help the defendants when the case goes to appeal.
I feel strongly that the MPAA is fighting a battle to control something that they really have no right to control. It is unfortunate that copyright violations are difficult to trace on the internet, and that DVD movies are impossible to protect from copyright violations while retaining the principles of fair use and first sale.
On the nature of copyright law, I believe that it is not a law that is to do with ownership of property, "intellectual property" is not an appropriate phrase. Copyright law is about denying people the right to do what they wish to do with information that they have in their possession. Society grants limited restrictions on the free actions of the general public in order that the producers of creative content may reasonably profit from their creations. However, this law has been stretched and abused by "Big Media" to the point that it seems that the copyright on Mickey Mouse will never expire, because Disney keeps lobbying congress to manipulate the law in their favour. When the system is abused by powerful corporations, all the individual can do is to fight to take back the rights that the corrupt legislature is trying to take away from them. This is why I believe Napster, DeCSS, and the CyberPatrol hack were so popular, it gives us "little folk" the chance to take back some of what we are being denied, and level the field a little. If Corporate America wasn't cheating, then neither would "we" have to cheat back. I say "we" because I have never used Napster, I buy DVD movies and music CDs, and I pay for most of my computer software even when I could easily not do so. Nontheless, I understand why people feel so disempowered and fight back.
I hope that this situation does not spread to the UK in the way it has started in the USA, but if it does, I may be hearing from your legal department regarding my DeCSS mirror. I do not look forward to that day.
Phil.
http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk
Because they signed an international treaty saying that they would impliment anti-anti-circumvention legislation. America was just quick off the mark with the DMCA. We can all look forward to this kind of legislation in the future.
and on Napster:
"The lawsuits against Napster may be aimed at piracy, but they could also stomp out small record labels and unsigned artists who want their music to float freely through the world of Napster. But the big labels want to shut down the entire service. If the current laws are not strong enough, they want new laws that will stop people from making some kinds of open technology. They imagine a world where technology will control and limit people instead of liberating them."
Go NYT!
PS. I just submitted this as a story, and it's been reclassified as "YRO" in the submissions queueue, so it might hit the front page soon.
Because the Sony player only allows playback, not direct conversion to an unprotected form. If you took DeCSS and made it into a program that *only* played the DVD and didn't allow it to be saved as .mpg or whatever, then you'd have a defensible case.
Don't you mean aychteeteepeeslashslashslashdotdotorg?