I don't think the purpose of this Ask is to avoid all responsibility, it's to avoid having the ISP pull the plug at the first sniff of a libel or copyright suit against *them*.
Conspiracy theory overload! No government is going to cut off telecoms to an entire country over a copyright violation, especially if you put your name and address up so that anyone in your country that wants to find you and sue you personally can do so. I think you should do this, because free speech should carry responsibility. Anonymity is for cowards, but there can also be a time and a place for cowardice.
Sort out that closing italics tag! The front page article only has the first paragraph, and the second paragraph has the tag. All the headlines are italicised!
On one hand, they have woven kerberos so tightly in with Active Directory that it would take a major overhaul to make it compatible with other versions of kerberos,
Is this true? Is it really incompatible? What are the issues here?
I use an Ericsson T18S and MC218, which is the Ericsson-branded Psion Series 5mx. The MC218 comes with a clip-on infrared modem for the Ericsson 'phone (a bit of a product tie-in, I know) so the 'phone and the psion need to be lined up.
The email application is great, it allows you to view your inbox and delete emails without downloading them, but the web browser is not too hot. Good enough for simple stuff, though.
Neil Pritchard, a fan on a mailing list: How do you see the 'digital revolution' affecting author's copyright?
Larry Niven, famous SF author: It's worth remembering that intellectual property is fiction. It obeys the laws that are set. If we can't defend intellectual property any more, then creation will become a hobby again.
Probably none. They might just find it easier to say "We got a patent" than "We got prior art" if someone comes knocking on their door later. It bulks out their patent portfolio so they have one more piece of paper to hit 'em with.
And the best "bitty box" it was too. It had a built in assember, the "user" port was one of the most generic expansion ports I've ever seen, you could plug a write-protectable ram cartridge into one of the ROM slots and write your own ROMs, wow! Those were the days. It only had 32k, though, not 64. The later machines had 128k, but it wasn't easy to access.
So why don't the crackers and script kiddies band together and knock the UK off the 'Net?
Great, thanks a bunch, pal.
Re:DeCSS & CPHack aren't illegal until October!
on
'Battling Censorware'
·
· Score: 2
Is CPHack a device for circumventing a copyright protection system?
I think they've got this one right, according to the DMCA. The clause pertains to access control mechanisms, and the encryption prevents access (ie. acquisition). CSS, on the other hand, is a use control mechanism, rather than an acccess control mechanism. The two are distinct in copyright terms - "access" means "acquisition".
Anyway, none of this applies to me, 'cos I'm in the UK. Except for the fact that Skala sold his rights. Shame. He was under a lot of pressure though, I'm not sure if I could have handled it and kept my nerve.
I think a more plausable attack on these lines would be "It doesn't effectively control access, because the access control is utterly undiscriminating in the case of fair use - it blocks fair use as well as unauthorised access, therefore it is not effective within the parameters that it must operate. It violates the First Sale principle."
`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
"code that cracks a protection device is criminal under the DMCA even if the use of the copyrighted material that the code enables would be fair use."
`Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Or... it might make them a few bucks. Free promotion and all that.
While that may be true, it's not an arguement that can ever be effectively defended. If the music industry were to adopt this philospohy, and make all music available as shareware, I'm convinced that their revenue would virtually disappear. The very fact of it being illegal keeps the lid on it. There are enough people (such as myself) that might download a few songs and then buy the good ones on CD to make illegal distribution benefit the record labels as you say. They have to keep it illegal in order to keep it working.
Illegally copying a copyrighted MP3 file (which I don't condone, BTW) might cost the artist or studio a few bucks. Making it available for download might cost them a few hundred bucks, but even that's debatable. Copying someone's web site and operating the same service, however, is unfair competition because you are trading using someone elses material, which they have invested time and money developing. You therefore have lower overheads because you didn't invest in the material, so you can undercut them.
Anyone remember the old Ray Harryhausen movie where the mad scientist painted gravity-blocking paint over the space capsue? An I can't find an IMDB link or similar, so here's a private page about it.
Firstly, as you point out, the "bypassing of access control mechanisms" clause does not come into effect until October of this year.
Secondly, as I keep saying, CSS (and macrovision) do not control access to a work, they controls use of the work. Therefore bypassing them is not illegal. Copyright law has clear distinctions between "access" and "use" - "access" is acquisition. See the American Libraries Association's comments.
Under the DMCA, circumventing copy protection is illegal,
The DMCA doesn't prohibit circumventing copy protection, it prohibits circumvention of access control protection. I'm pretty sure (IANAL) that CSS is not access control - it controls use, not access. "Access", in terms of copyright law, is acquisiton. "Use" is, well, use.
According to Wired, the agreement that they signed states that they "are the sole proprietors of all rights" involved with cphack and have "not assigned" them to anyone else. If they have released it under the GPL, then they are screwed because they have given everyone that has acquired it the right to distribute it. If the "Released under the GPL" comment in the source is not enough for it to be considered covered by the GPL, then we're stealing Mattel's legally-acquired property in distributing the cphack s/w. Bummer either way.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the purpose of this Ask is to avoid all responsibility, it's to avoid having the ISP pull the plug at the first sniff of a libel or copyright suit against *them*.
Conspiracy theory overload! No government is going to cut off telecoms to an entire country over a copyright violation, especially if you put your name and address up so that anyone in your country that wants to find you and sue you personally can do so. I think you should do this, because free speech should carry responsibility. Anonymity is for cowards, but there can also be a time and a place for cowardice.
http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/dvd
A: I didn't say. How much are you willing to give us?
Dunno about you but this doesn't give me much of a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
At least they seem to have a sense of humour.
Sort out that closing italics tag! The front page article only has the first paragraph, and the second paragraph has the tag. All the headlines are italicised!
My god! Where's all my karma going?
Is this true? Is it really incompatible? What are the issues here?
The email application is great, it allows you to view your inbox and delete emails without downloading them, but the web browser is not too hot. Good enough for simple stuff, though.
How do you see the 'digital revolution' affecting author's copyright?
Larry Niven, famous SF author:
It's worth remembering that intellectual property is fiction. It obeys the
laws that are set. If we can't defend intellectual property any more, then
creation will become a hobby again.
Probably none. They might just find it easier to say "We got a patent" than "We got prior art" if someone comes knocking on their door later. It bulks out their patent portfolio so they have one more piece of paper to hit 'em with.
Are .dll's checksummed? If not, you could just overwrite the "Netscape" message with some gibberish of your own.
And the best "bitty box" it was too. It had a built in assember, the "user" port was one of the most generic expansion ports I've ever seen, you could plug a write-protectable ram cartridge into one of the ROM slots and write your own ROMs, wow! Those were the days. It only had 32k, though, not 64. The later machines had 128k, but it wasn't easy to access.
Is CPHack a device for circumventing a copyright protection system?
I think they've got this one right, according to the DMCA. The clause pertains to access control mechanisms, and the encryption prevents access (ie. acquisition). CSS, on the other hand, is a use control mechanism, rather than an acccess control mechanism. The two are distinct in copyright terms - "access" means "acquisition".
Anyway, none of this applies to me, 'cos I'm in the UK. Except for the fact that Skala sold his rights. Shame. He was under a lot of pressure though, I'm not sure if I could have handled it and kept my nerve.
I think a more plausable attack on these lines would be "It doesn't effectively control access, because the access control is utterly undiscriminating in the case of fair use - it blocks fair use as well as unauthorised access, therefore it is not effective within the parameters that it must operate. It violates the First Sale principle."
`Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
Full text:http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DMCA/ hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-30 4.html
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/ja rgon/html/entry/HCF.html
Illegally copying a copyrighted MP3 file (which I don't condone, BTW) might cost the artist or studio a few bucks. Making it available for download might cost them a few hundred bucks, but even that's debatable. Copying someone's web site and operating the same service, however, is unfair competition because you are trading using someone elses material, which they have invested time and money developing. You therefore have lower overheads because you didn't invest in the material, so you can undercut them.
Anyone remember the old Ray Harryhausen movie where the mad scientist painted gravity-blocking paint over the space capsue? An I can't find an IMDB link or similar, so here's a private page about it.
Here's the link to the ALA comments, oops.
Firstly, as you point out, the "bypassing of access control mechanisms" clause does not come into effect until October of this year.
Secondly, as I keep saying, CSS (and macrovision) do not control access to a work, they controls use of the work. Therefore bypassing them is not illegal. Copyright law has clear distinctions between "access" and "use" - "access" is acquisition. See the American Libraries Association's comments.
I want to make a VHS copy of "Seven Samurai", so I can take it round to my friends house and watch it with them.
According to Wired, the agreement that they signed states that they "are the sole proprietors of all rights" involved with cphack and have "not assigned" them to anyone else. If they have released it under the GPL, then they are screwed because they have given everyone that has acquired it the right to distribute it. If the "Released under the GPL" comment in the source is not enough for it to be considered covered by the GPL, then we're stealing Mattel's legally-acquired property in distributing the cphack s/w. Bummer either way.