... The MPAA/RIAA &c. start a DMCA-based lawsuit against the DVD-R drive manufacturers.
While they're at it, they might as well sue the makers of Sharpie markers for trafficking in merchandise that can be used to circumvent most CD copy protection.
They should also sue my aunt, she manufactured a 6-year old son who can decode the ROT-13 encryption on e-books.;)
Just randomly pick people and keep whoever is chosen, unless they're convicted felons or something. That guarantees impartiality. Just don't require total unanimity for any decision, only like 90% The jury should always be at least 10-12 people, IMO.
The whole jury selection process is flawed because they end up with nothing but dumb squares. Find the right audience, and you'll be able to convince them the sun is cubic.
US copyright law has no legal force outside of the USA. The DMCA is not a worldwide law. The companies have no legal jurisdiction to prosecute KaZaa then, unless there is a law against it wherever KaZaA is based. I can forsee the Intellectual Property interests creating their own mercenaries to (literally) combat foreign threats that they have no legal power to stop.
Patents are issued WAY too liberally nowdays. Be glad you're not paying royalties to the 200th generation descendents of the inventor of the wheel. If the IP interests had it their way, you would be. There are some things that are so simple that any idiot would have invented them given the requisite technology. For example, instant messaging or pipelined processing. Things like that should never be patentable. You should only have protection for your specific implementation that you develop and sell, not some ridiculously general category of products that anyone else could and would have come up with had you not existed.
Yeah, if this really takes off and phish sells a lot of recordings (in addition to getting more for each because there's no middleman), then that will completely refute the RIAA's argument for instituting the digital gestapo.
IMHO, there should be no laws against libel. If the statement is demonstrably false, no one will believe it, and if not, it isn't libel. Libel laws do nothing but allow corporations to censor their critics at (in effect) gunpoint.
It's much, much, much harder to get/crack my 15-character quasi-random password by any available means than to just steal a silly token I'm wearing.
OOh, man, gotta love mnemonics. Then you can have insanely long passwords that are impossible to crack by brute force or any intelligent means unless you can try a few petakeys per sec.
Oou ought to be able to make whatever fun of them you want, even if the implications are false (see: www.bushoncrack.com). But legally, the bastard lawyers could probably win a libel lawsuit. IMHO that is a crock of shit because 99% of everything is a matter of opinion anyway. Congressman Baughtandbribed could sue every newspaper that claims he had an affair with the new intern, but he can't prove it didn't happen.
Suppose there were never any ambiguous or good uses for circumventing copy protection. Would the DMCA be a good thing in that case?
Yes. The one thing that makes the DMCA intolerable is that it abolishes various forms of constitutionally protected fair use that sometimes require the circumvention of ill-concieved copy protection schemes. If the DMCA had no such side effects, it would be fine.
This is a ridiculously broad patent, and they were definitely not even the first to come up with this sort of thing. This is the kind of invention that any idiot would have come up with given the requisite technology, therefore it should not be patentable. They should only be ably to profit from their software/service that they actually develop, not bogus claims to ridiculously general categories of products that they didn't even invent.
C-Net reviews are great, but I'd like some comments from people that actually know how to use a computer
*cough* that's a bit harsh. I thought CNet actually has pretty good reviews.
Isn't software engineering, etc. the kind of thing that could be done well online whether you were in San Fransisco or Antarctica? For instance Ambrosia Software employs one guy in kansas and several guys in tasmania and other places working out of their basements, but the central office is in Rochester, NY.
As long as this technology is only used to enforce good laws (i.e., against murder) then there's no problem. They're not going to start getting you for victimless crimes (except drugs and software piracy, maybe). So you have nothing to fear.
When I write a research paper, first I determine what evidence I need, Google for a paper that has that kind of info cited, copy/paste their footnote entry, and voila. It runs completely counter to any intellectually honest attempt to actually figure out what is correct, but it's sure as hell the most efficient way to get an A on a research paper. It would take 10 to 20 times more time to do a research paper if I had to actually read my sources, and NO ONE I know has that kind of time. The system encourages this kind of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
... The MPAA/RIAA &c. start a DMCA-based lawsuit against the DVD-R drive manufacturers.
;)
While they're at it, they might as well sue the makers of Sharpie markers for trafficking in merchandise that can be used to circumvent most CD copy protection.
They should also sue my aunt, she manufactured a 6-year old son who can decode the ROT-13 encryption on e-books.
Violence is always the answer. ;) If at first you don't succeed, you're just not using enough violence.
Just randomly pick people and keep whoever is chosen, unless they're convicted felons or something. That guarantees impartiality. Just don't require total unanimity for any decision, only like 90% The jury should always be at least 10-12 people, IMO.
The whole jury selection process is flawed because they end up with nothing but dumb squares. Find the right audience, and you'll be able to convince them the sun is cubic.
Use real snow and shoot on location? After all, they're spending millions of dollars on each actor, they could at least afford to do that.
US copyright law has no legal force outside of the USA. The DMCA is not a worldwide law. The companies have no legal jurisdiction to prosecute KaZaa then, unless there is a law against it wherever KaZaA is based. I can forsee the Intellectual Property interests creating their own mercenaries to (literally) combat foreign threats that they have no legal power to stop.
Patents are issued WAY too liberally nowdays. Be glad you're not paying royalties to the 200th generation descendents of the inventor of the wheel. If the IP interests had it their way, you would be. There are some things that are so simple that any idiot would have invented them given the requisite technology. For example, instant messaging or pipelined processing. Things like that should never be patentable. You should only have protection for your specific implementation that you develop and sell, not some ridiculously general category of products that anyone else could and would have come up with had you not existed.
Yeah, if this really takes off and phish sells a lot of recordings (in addition to getting more for each because there's no middleman), then that will completely refute the RIAA's argument for instituting the digital gestapo.
LOL... It was only a matter of time before the evil Intellectual Property ologopolies turned on each other...
Finally some big-time artists are deciding to bypass the obsolete middleman (RIAA) which gets most of the revenue from CD sales.
Well then, obviously the only solution is to prevent stupid people from breeding. That would solve the vast majority of the world's problems. :)
No, that's called a tabloid.
IMHO, there should be no laws against libel. If the statement is demonstrably false, no one will believe it, and if not, it isn't libel. Libel laws do nothing but allow corporations to censor their critics at (in effect) gunpoint.
It's much, much, much harder to get/crack my 15-character quasi-random password by any available means than to just steal a silly token I'm wearing.
OOh, man, gotta love mnemonics. Then you can have insanely long passwords that are impossible to crack by brute force or any intelligent means unless you can try a few petakeys per sec.
Oou ought to be able to make whatever fun of them you want, even if the implications are false (see: www.bushoncrack.com). But legally, the bastard lawyers could probably win a libel lawsuit. IMHO that is a crock of shit because 99% of everything is a matter of opinion anyway. Congressman Baughtandbribed could sue every newspaper that claims he had an affair with the new intern, but he can't prove it didn't happen.
Suppose there were never any ambiguous or good uses for circumventing copy protection. Would the DMCA be a good thing in that case?
Yes. The one thing that makes the DMCA intolerable is that it abolishes various forms of constitutionally protected fair use that sometimes require the circumvention of ill-concieved copy protection schemes. If the DMCA had no such side effects, it would be fine.
This is a ridiculously broad patent, and they were definitely not even the first to come up with this sort of thing. This is the kind of invention that any idiot would have come up with given the requisite technology, therefore it should not be patentable. They should only be ably to profit from their software/service that they actually develop, not bogus claims to ridiculously general categories of products that they didn't even invent.
C-Net reviews are great, but I'd like some comments from people that actually know how to use a computer *cough* that's a bit harsh. I thought CNet actually has pretty good reviews.
A beowulf cluster of those?
Isn't software engineering, etc. the kind of thing that could be done well online whether you were in San Fransisco or Antarctica? For instance Ambrosia Software employs one guy in kansas and several guys in tasmania and other places working out of their basements, but the central office is in Rochester, NY.
...Siberia escapes YOU!*
*Surgeon General's Warning: This joke is not intended to make any sense whatsoever. It has been known to cause brain tumors in lab rats.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, your code compiles YOU!
As long as this technology is only used to enforce good laws (i.e., against murder) then there's no problem. They're not going to start getting you for victimless crimes (except drugs and software piracy, maybe). So you have nothing to fear.
What's the point? Is this some sort of S&M toy?
When I write a research paper, first I determine what evidence I need, Google for a paper that has that kind of info cited, copy/paste their footnote entry, and voila. It runs completely counter to any intellectually honest attempt to actually figure out what is correct, but it's sure as hell the most efficient way to get an A on a research paper. It would take 10 to 20 times more time to do a research paper if I had to actually read my sources, and NO ONE I know has that kind of time. The system encourages this kind of thing.
I mean, everyone in the neighborhood's signals are transmitted over the same cable circuit. Anyone could snoop on other people's packets.