So these are the independant artists suing mp3.com for people downloading their music that they made availble for downod, and then the same music getting shared on napster.
If this is the case, then the claim is even more idiotic. Where is the standing for some huge organization to step in? Is it a case where mp3.com is getting sued because the artists chose NOT to join a certain groups of artists or the RIAA? Isn't that racateering?
Getting a streamed version from them gave you nothing - except slowing you down.
There was no way to directly save mp3 files from your locker onto your hard drive, even though you had "proven" (you could borrow someone else's CD) you had the orginal.
SO... to get one of the "illegally encoded" copies that mp3.com made, you would have had to have one of those stream rippers to even get the file on your hard drive. That is probably illegal under the DMCA (anything a corp doesn't like can be brought up on DMCA charges, face it). *Who* is really breaking the law in that situation?
That is like suing the gun maker because your wife got killed by a robber. Oh.. we sue for that too, don't we. It's an idiotic claim... so of course it could work.
The argument goes like this: MP3.com made compressed copies of about 900,000 songs, which it placed on its computer servers -- without obtaining the rights to do so.
Man... this is this total rubbish. It's probably been mentioned, but I don't know they can tell where individual files came from without fingerprinting. If you can't tell who created the individual files without a doubt, there should be no case. In this case, it seems all theya are saying that MP3 encoded so many files that SOME of them must be made by MP3. That's like suing Kinkos and saying "there are so many pirated novels out there, SOME of them must be your fault."
Another thing, doesn't this show ignorance of the situation. MP3.com never put downloadable copies of work in their service, just streamable copies. For this claim to be true, someone would have to record the stream with some outside software. If that's the case, who is the *Real* culprit?
This case seems like a shot in the dark, but it just might work. When it comes to tech these days, I think judges have become irrational. The courts have proven that huge companies can put stars in the judges eyes and make them follow blindly. Judges aren't listening to outside experts, professors (legal and otherwise), or consumer advocates, they are only listening to big corps.
In a rational world, this wouldn't even go to trial, but if they go and succeed, we'll know this: the corporations have the ability to interpret the law in any way they care to. That's sad...
I'm surprised at you geeks
on
SIGGRAPH 2001
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I can't believe that the Slashdot geeks are tarnishing their name so much.. no one has mentioned the "2001 in 2001: How a Film Inspired Our Future" session on Friday.
We had Robert Abel, the inventer of slit scanning (remember the 4th Doctor Who opening?) who produced the graphics for the final 1/3 of the movie (the Jupiter sequence). There was Syd Mead, the person who designed the look of Blade Runner and 2010. There was also Peter Hyams, director and photographer of 2010 and other (crap) films (End of Days), and Dennis Muren of ILM that helped create some of the real time compositing stuff for A.I.
They talked about Kubrick a lot, but had some problems staying on topic. Syd Mead gave a great little intro to his vast array of work (including the design of cars and plane), and Bob Abel actually gave some major explainations of how different parts of the movie were done. It was my favorite thing there this year.
I'm not a graphics guy (I am a Linux admin that works for a department that teaches Maya and 3DM, so I get a free ride, it's in the budget), so SIGGRAPH isn't my major conference (that would be OSCON), but I did enjoy it.
Oh, on a final note, there were several sessions about public policy. There was a lot of talk about Dimitri, DeCSS and other IP issues that everyone here would have been proud of. ACM and SIGGRAPH are solidly against the DMCA.
Today is day one at SIGGRAPH, and there has already been a course on Public Policy issues, including mentions of Sklyarov, DeCSS, the Felten case, and others.
During the presentation, USACM co-chair Barbara Simons announced that tomorrow ACM is going to release a "declaration" strongly in Favor of Felten, and that ACM is going to take a strong stance on the Felten case. The group is starting to worry that the anti-circumvention provisions are getting close to "criminializing" a lot of work being done by ACM members, and they think that some of the papers being submitting for an upcoming conference are close to doing the same thing Felten did and that there could be trouble. They said that ACM is going to take some strong anti-DMCA stances.
Check out the web site in the morning for the declaration. It's not up yet, but it will be up at http://www.acm.org and/or http://www.acm.org/
The only news outlet that I know of that might be willing to listen about airing a DMCA debate is NPR's Talk of the Nation. For instance, today they are airing an hour about a guy that got thrown in jail for imagining a kiddie porn story and writing it in his journal. If they are willing to spend an hour on a first amendment topic like that (which is sure to get a lot of people pissed off really quick), do you think they might spend an hour on Sklyarov?
We should all send letters to totn@npr.org and maybe if there is enough people that talk about it they will do an hour about this.
but most EULA's have a clause about not reverse engineering the software
This is, of course, assumes the EULA is found to be legally binding. To my knowledge they haven't been litigated very aggressively, so that's an open question.
Also, don't forget the DMCA itself is supposed to guarantee the right to reverse engineer, even though the DeCSS ruling seems to have made that section irrelevant.
Now THAT is a nifty idea. Someone's GOT to try this.
But you know this wouldn't work. The law is designed in such a way that it puts more emphasis on corporate copyright than an individual's copyright. The group with more (or the best) lawyers wins every time.
Plus, the virus writer would get the "hacker" scarlett letter. They could never get over that mark of shame with any idiotic American jury (of our peers.. what a laugh).
Yeah, it's good, but did you read the end? Lessig is a member of the EFF board of directors. The MSNBC article was written by someone that was on the board of another.org concerned about electronic freedom. Yeah, people are talking about it's the same insular group. Only the proverbial choir is listening.
Talk about this case and EXACTLY where the law was broken. If you are going to continue to say "but he broke the law" argument, let's see if you have REALLY studied what is happening in this case.
Let's go through it point by point. Maybe THEN you can see the reasonable doubt element behind this arrest. When you have a bit of understanding about 1) The wording of the DMCA 2)The timing of the Adobe complaint 3) how jursidiction works then any resonable person can see there are major problems with how this case is being handled by the government.
If you are going to continue putting up this idiotic one line reply, let's see that you actually know what you are talking about.
Okay... Bruce talked about Sklyarov really quickly, but he did talk about it forcefully. I don't want to get into specifics, but he did do something technically illegal and in the realm of civil disobedience. He did get a rather large room of people to learn about the current situtation, and in general this conference has stayed asleep regarding the Sklyarov arrest.
He also went through the PDF of the Sklyarov presentation to let everyone know exactly what was said at the conference. The revelations about the types of encryption caused quite a bit of laughter in the audience. Bruce also stated his belief that most of these companies should be accursed of fraud since this stuff would not really be called "real" encryption by any expert.
The rest of his talk has been about patents and GPL and stuff... great but not as interesting. This is the type of talk I've been waiting for at OSCON.
Yup.. but let's look at the different definition of success..
I to be successful, I would not require...
An IPO
Multi-billions in and out every year
International recognition
A house with every nerd device ever to hit the planet (the Gate's estate)
I would require..
Satisfaction that I am making a positive world change
Verification that I wasn't doing stuff solely to promote myself while hurting others.
The ability to for me and my employees to live.
I don't need to be a billionare to feel validated and I have no intention of ever getting myself in the position where I will feel the only way to protect myself is to screw others. This is where MS is right now.
I'm just not sure why people are continuing to assert the validity of a model that has almost universally failed, and nowhere succeeded.
I don't agree that the model has universally failed, but never mind for a moment. This comment has the same problem as when someone says "dot-coms have universally failed." The problem is no one has found the *right* model. Just because no one has found the correct answer to a problem doesn't mean the answer to the correct answer doesn't exist.
Secondly, there are plenty of us that don't give a ding darn whether the "business model" is "valid" or not. Richard Stallman sure as hell doesn't care. I would be happy to set up a business that allows me (and other employees) to survive that fits into my system of right and wrong.
There are still those people that care about people's rights over profit potential. This might make me an idealist, I don't care. I don't see why my idealism should be overriden simply because it fits in with "buisness interests."
What exactly does this mean for me, the common Linux user?
It means you won't have to phone home to Big Brother (Microsoft main Passport servers) before you can send and recieve messages directly from who (or what) you're tring to communicate with.
Now.. this wasn't exactly the answer. The answer was "Yes," but that you might WANT the info from Microsoft. Ok... maybe, but let me tell you this: I will *_NEVER_* set up a site that requires an authentication call through Microsoft. I will call every damn user myself before making Microsoft a party to my security. If security is 3rd party, you must trust that 3rd party, and Microsoft has never shown to be worthy of that kind of trust.
I have to say this, first of all: the Mundie opening comments might have been "statesmanlike," but the whole idea came down to the same thing that happened in our first keynote (from a Cisco bigwig). He said that we basically don't see economic reality and we don't know about business, and while we have good points we should abandon most of our philosophical ideas. More Red Herring arguments and usual anti-os crap that gets refuted again again.
Converstaions since the Mundie debate around here seem to mention this: when Mundie was really forced to face issues (especially when it came down to hard DMCA questions) he fell back to basic Corporatespeak. The same old crap: "If you don't like the law, write your Congressman and change it." Sorry, it's easy to say that when you have millions of dollars to back you up. When faced with a question about defending against Patent infringement suits and there costs, his comment was something like "Well get the money."
This debate was interesting, but when it came down to it Microsoft retained their basic Arrogance. In addition, they tried to paint themselves as UNDERDOGS. "We have seen a lot of failure" they say. Whatever.
Business good... GPL bad... that was most of their argument...
You can go to the free-sklyarov mailing list here and do a search (at the bottom of the page) for IEEE. This brings up the messages about the link between the American Association of Publishers (AAP) and IEEE. The problem comes in because the IEEE is on the AAP list of supporting organizations, and the AAP has come out (of course) with a basic "let Sklyarov rot" statement. As a result, free-sklyarov is asking members of IEEE to show concern. It IEEE has been against DMCA actions in general, so the association and whether it actually means something is kind of unclear.
I would be sure that you check up on this. IEEE said that Adobe the the Gov't were right in the Sklyarov situtation, and in some ways seem mostly in favor of the DMCA. They may be changing their mind about how they handle publications and their "Intelectual Property" and inserting the middleman strongarm.
I'm in San Diego at OSCON this week, and yesterday I attended a great tutorial on home, or "micro" publishing. The presenter's web site is at www.genericbooks.com. This site has quite a bit of info on how you can make your own books for the price of materials, from layout to full "perfect binding." It also has links to other folks out there that are binding books on their own for fun and profit.
You can build, even as an individual, the means to bind well-bound books that will last. Full hardback, paperback, stiched, or almost any type of non-patented binding be done using everyday workbench tools. If you work at a univeristy and can get a bit of extra money or a grant, you can buy better equipment and pre-built, low cost binders and material and create semi-professional looking books. This is a good way to get around a publisher's stupid intelectual property philosophy or to distribute opinions that might cause a mainstream publishing house to lose face.
The goal of this: force libraries and schools to only allow access to new ".kids" domains... in other words, total censorship.
I keep thinking more and more about the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
When is another Tim McVegh going to take this litterally again? It seems these days our government is getting close to a "Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends." Sad...
I see two interesting possibilities for home use. I want to know what you think:
1. Cheap rendering machines. I'll admit that I don't know much about hardware, but do you think there is possibily a way to make these machines cheap rendering farms? Maybe not only software rendering to frames, but ways for users to create their own rendered-on-the-fly creations, like maybe a very-poor-man's VR system?
2. Home server uses. Possibily ports of Apache and other Linux staples that allows more self-hosting of web sites and streaming media. (Real democracy of video and audio content... home broadcasting beyond webcams.)
3. Hardcore Internet Telephony. Home use of telepresence tech. House to house video conferencing.
4. Home holography. Holographic phones like in Wild Palms. I'm really just kidding... but with enough graphical power this could be an eventual possibility.
I would love to see high end graphical hardware enter the home and actually be controlled by interested users/hackers instead of a small number of game publishers. I think it would be an excellent development.
Why don't you read all the literature and past articles before you make the god-damned "the law is the law" argument for the 4000th time?!?
Read the facts... it isn't clear than ANY law was broken when you read history of the situtation. There is definitely no smoking gun.
Stop being a right-wing law and order facist for 10 minutes and look to see what is going on.
Also.. why not read http://www.elcomsoft.com/aebpr.html and see what type of tactics Adobe was using before this all happened. They lied to a number of ISPs and used other shady tacticts.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is the case, then the claim is even more idiotic. Where is the standing for some huge organization to step in? Is it a case where mp3.com is getting sued because the artists chose NOT to join a certain groups of artists or the RIAA? Isn't that racateering?
There was no way to directly save mp3 files from your locker onto your hard drive, even though you had "proven" (you could borrow someone else's CD) you had the orginal.
SO... to get one of the "illegally encoded" copies that mp3.com made, you would have had to have one of those stream rippers to even get the file on your hard drive. That is probably illegal under the DMCA (anything a corp doesn't like can be brought up on DMCA charges, face it). *Who* is really breaking the law in that situation?
That is like suing the gun maker because your wife got killed by a robber. Oh.. we sue for that too, don't we. It's an idiotic claim... so of course it could work.
Man... this is this total rubbish. It's probably been mentioned, but I don't know they can tell where individual files came from without fingerprinting. If you can't tell who created the individual files without a doubt, there should be no case. In this case, it seems all theya are saying that MP3 encoded so many files that SOME of them must be made by MP3. That's like suing Kinkos and saying "there are so many pirated novels out there, SOME of them must be your fault."
Another thing, doesn't this show ignorance of the situation. MP3.com never put downloadable copies of work in their service, just streamable copies. For this claim to be true, someone would have to record the stream with some outside software. If that's the case, who is the *Real* culprit?
This case seems like a shot in the dark, but it just might work. When it comes to tech these days, I think judges have become irrational. The courts have proven that huge companies can put stars in the judges eyes and make them follow blindly. Judges aren't listening to outside experts, professors (legal and otherwise), or consumer advocates, they are only listening to big corps.
In a rational world, this wouldn't even go to trial, but if they go and succeed, we'll know this: the corporations have the ability to interpret the law in any way they care to. That's sad...
I can't believe that the Slashdot geeks are tarnishing their name so much.. no one has mentioned the "2001 in 2001: How a Film Inspired Our Future" session on Friday.
We had Robert Abel, the inventer of slit scanning (remember the 4th Doctor Who opening?) who produced the graphics for the final 1/3 of the movie (the Jupiter sequence). There was Syd Mead, the person who designed the look of Blade Runner and 2010. There was also Peter Hyams, director and photographer of 2010 and other (crap) films (End of Days), and Dennis Muren of ILM that helped create some of the real time compositing stuff for A.I.
They talked about Kubrick a lot, but had some problems staying on topic. Syd Mead gave a great little intro to his vast array of work (including the design of cars and plane), and Bob Abel actually gave some major explainations of how different parts of the movie were done. It was my favorite thing there this year.
I'm not a graphics guy (I am a Linux admin that works for a department that teaches Maya and 3DM, so I get a free ride, it's in the budget), so SIGGRAPH isn't my major conference (that would be OSCON), but I did enjoy it.
Oh, on a final note, there were several sessions about public policy. There was a lot of talk about Dimitri, DeCSS and other IP issues that everyone here would have been proud of. ACM and SIGGRAPH are solidly against the DMCA.
Today is day one at SIGGRAPH, and there has already been a course on Public Policy issues, including mentions of Sklyarov, DeCSS, the Felten case, and others.
During the presentation, USACM co-chair Barbara Simons announced that tomorrow ACM is going to release a "declaration" strongly in Favor of Felten, and that ACM is going to take a strong stance on the Felten case. The group is starting to worry that the anti-circumvention provisions are getting close to "criminializing" a lot of work being done by ACM members, and they think that some of the papers being submitting for an upcoming conference are close to doing the same thing Felten did and that there could be trouble. They said that ACM is going to take some strong anti-DMCA stances.
Check out the web site in the morning for the declaration. It's not up yet, but it will be up at http://www.acm.org and/or http://www.acm.org/
You're the fucking idiot. Why don't you read before you post?
The only news outlet that I know of that might be willing to listen about airing a DMCA debate is NPR's Talk of the Nation. For instance, today they are airing an hour about a guy that got thrown in jail for imagining a kiddie porn story and writing it in his journal. If they are willing to spend an hour on a first amendment topic like that (which is sure to get a lot of people pissed off really quick), do you think they might spend an hour on Sklyarov?
We should all send letters to totn@npr.org and maybe if there is enough people that talk about it they will do an hour about this.
but most EULA's have a clause about not reverse engineering the software
This is, of course, assumes the EULA is found to be legally binding. To my knowledge they haven't been litigated very aggressively, so that's an open question.
Also, don't forget the DMCA itself is supposed to guarantee the right to reverse engineer, even though the DeCSS ruling seems to have made that section irrelevant.
Flamebait? Excuse me.. how is putting up a challenge to reasoning flamebait? There must be a mod out there with very thin skin.
Now THAT is a nifty idea. Someone's GOT to try this.
But you know this wouldn't work. The law is designed in such a way that it puts more emphasis on corporate copyright than an individual's copyright. The group with more (or the best) lawyers wins every time.
Plus, the virus writer would get the "hacker" scarlett letter. They could never get over that mark of shame with any idiotic American jury (of our peers.. what a laugh).
If you want a debate, let's have a debate. Reply here and let's do it. Otherwise, stop your personal attacks and shut up.
Pretty good, I thought. It was in Slashback too.
.org concerned about electronic freedom. Yeah, people are talking about it's the same insular group. Only the proverbial choir is listening.
Yeah, it's good, but did you read the end? Lessig is a member of the EFF board of directors. The MSNBC article was written by someone that was on the board of another
Are stations in other markets covering this?
In a word.. no.
Put your money where your mouth is, Tandonroon.
Talk about this case and EXACTLY where the law was broken. If you are going to continue to say "but he broke the law" argument, let's see if you have REALLY studied what is happening in this case.
Let's go through it point by point. Maybe THEN you can see the reasonable doubt element behind this arrest. When you have a bit of understanding about 1) The wording of the DMCA 2)The timing of the Adobe complaint 3) how jursidiction works then any resonable person can see there are major problems with how this case is being handled by the government.
If you are going to continue putting up this idiotic one line reply, let's see that you actually know what you are talking about.
Okay... Bruce talked about Sklyarov really quickly, but he did talk about it forcefully. I don't want to get into specifics, but he did do something technically illegal and in the realm of civil disobedience. He did get a rather large room of people to learn about the current situtation, and in general this conference has stayed asleep regarding the Sklyarov arrest.
He also went through the PDF of the Sklyarov presentation to let everyone know exactly what was said at the conference. The revelations about the types of encryption caused quite a bit of laughter in the audience. Bruce also stated his belief that most of these companies should be accursed of fraud since this stuff would not really be called "real" encryption by any expert.
The rest of his talk has been about patents and GPL and stuff... great but not as interesting. This is the type of talk I've been waiting for at OSCON.
I am in the middle of a presentation where Bruce Perens is talking about the Skylarov incident. He is actually re-giving the Skylarov talk.
I want to write more about this later and listen now..
Yup.. but let's look at the different definition of success..
I to be successful, I would not require...
- An IPO
- Multi-billions in and out every year
- International recognition
- A house with every nerd device ever to hit the planet (the Gate's estate)
I would require..Satisfaction that I am making a positive world change
Verification that I wasn't doing stuff solely to promote myself while hurting others.
The ability to for me and my employees to live. I don't need to be a billionare to feel validated and I have no intention of ever getting myself in the position where I will feel the only way to protect myself is to screw others. This is where MS is right now.
I'm just not sure why people are continuing to assert the validity of a model that has almost universally failed, and nowhere succeeded.
I don't agree that the model has universally failed, but never mind for a moment. This comment has the same problem as when someone says "dot-coms have universally failed." The problem is no one has found the *right* model. Just because no one has found the correct answer to a problem doesn't mean the answer to the correct answer doesn't exist.
Secondly, there are plenty of us that don't give a ding darn whether the "business model" is "valid" or not. Richard Stallman sure as hell doesn't care. I would be happy to set up a business that allows me (and other employees) to survive that fits into my system of right and wrong.
There are still those people that care about people's rights over profit potential. This might make me an idealist, I don't care. I don't see why my idealism should be overriden simply because it fits in with "buisness interests."
What exactly does this mean for me, the common Linux user?
It means you won't have to phone home to Big Brother (Microsoft main Passport servers) before you can send and recieve messages directly from who (or what) you're tring to communicate with.
Now.. this wasn't exactly the answer. The answer was "Yes," but that you might WANT the info from Microsoft. Ok... maybe, but let me tell you this: I will *_NEVER_* set up a site that requires an authentication call through Microsoft. I will call every damn user myself before making Microsoft a party to my security. If security is 3rd party, you must trust that 3rd party, and Microsoft has never shown to be worthy of that kind of trust.
Hi there.. another OSCON guy here...
I have to say this, first of all: the Mundie opening comments might have been "statesmanlike," but the whole idea came down to the same thing that happened in our first keynote (from a Cisco bigwig). He said that we basically don't see economic reality and we don't know about business, and while we have good points we should abandon most of our philosophical ideas. More Red Herring arguments and usual anti-os crap that gets refuted again again.
Converstaions since the Mundie debate around here seem to mention this: when Mundie was really forced to face issues (especially when it came down to hard DMCA questions) he fell back to basic Corporatespeak. The same old crap: "If you don't like the law, write your Congressman and change it." Sorry, it's easy to say that when you have millions of dollars to back you up. When faced with a question about defending against Patent infringement suits and there costs, his comment was something like "Well get the money."
This debate was interesting, but when it came down to it Microsoft retained their basic Arrogance. In addition, they tried to paint themselves as UNDERDOGS. "We have seen a lot of failure" they say. Whatever.
Business good... GPL bad... that was most of their argument...
You can go to the free-sklyarov mailing list here and do a search (at the bottom of the page) for IEEE. This brings up the messages about the link between the American Association of Publishers (AAP) and IEEE. The problem comes in because the IEEE is on the AAP list of supporting organizations, and the AAP has come out (of course) with a basic "let Sklyarov rot" statement. As a result, free-sklyarov is asking members of IEEE to show concern. It IEEE has been against DMCA actions in general, so the association and whether it actually means something is kind of unclear.
I would be sure that you check up on this. IEEE said that Adobe the the Gov't were right in the Sklyarov situtation, and in some ways seem mostly in favor of the DMCA. They may be changing their mind about how they handle publications and their "Intelectual Property" and inserting the middleman strongarm.
I'm in San Diego at OSCON this week, and yesterday I attended a great tutorial on home, or "micro" publishing. The presenter's web site is at www.genericbooks.com. This site has quite a bit of info on how you can make your own books for the price of materials, from layout to full "perfect binding." It also has links to other folks out there that are binding books on their own for fun and profit.
You can build, even as an individual, the means to bind well-bound books that will last. Full hardback, paperback, stiched, or almost any type of non-patented binding be done using everyday workbench tools. If you work at a univeristy and can get a bit of extra money or a grant, you can buy better equipment and pre-built, low cost binders and material and create semi-professional looking books. This is a good way to get around a publisher's stupid intelectual property philosophy or to distribute opinions that might cause a mainstream publishing house to lose face.
The goal of this: force libraries and schools to only allow access to new ".kids" domains... in other words, total censorship.
I keep thinking more and more about the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
When is another Tim McVegh going to take this litterally again? It seems these days our government is getting close to a "Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends." Sad...
I see two interesting possibilities for home use. I want to know what you think:
1. Cheap rendering machines. I'll admit that I don't know much about hardware, but do you think there is possibily a way to make these machines cheap rendering farms? Maybe not only software rendering to frames, but ways for users to create their own rendered-on-the-fly creations, like maybe a very-poor-man's VR system?
2. Home server uses. Possibily ports of Apache and other Linux staples that allows more self-hosting of web sites and streaming media. (Real democracy of video and audio content... home broadcasting beyond webcams.)
3. Hardcore Internet Telephony. Home use of telepresence tech. House to house video conferencing.
4. Home holography. Holographic phones like in Wild Palms. I'm really just kidding... but with enough graphical power this could be an eventual possibility.
I would love to see high end graphical hardware enter the home and actually be controlled by interested users/hackers instead of a small number of game publishers. I think it would be an excellent development.
Why don't you read all the literature and past articles before you make the god-damned "the law is the law" argument for the 4000th time?!?
Read the facts... it isn't clear than ANY law was broken when you read history of the situtation. There is definitely no smoking gun.
Stop being a right-wing law and order facist for 10 minutes and look to see what is going on.
Also.. why not read http://www.elcomsoft.com/aebpr.html and see what type of tactics Adobe was using before this all happened. They lied to a number of ISPs and used other shady tacticts.
If you don't know the facts. SHUT UP!