Hey! Even the Apple ][ had 4 "hi-res" colors, and 16 (I think) "lo-res" colors. I think I used an amber screen because it was cheap, and sharper than a TV -- color used to be $$$. We considered the "e" past prime. I used my Apple ][+ through college until upgrading to a Macintosh SE. In many ways, I could still be using the Apple ][.
What I was primarily trying to suggest -- sit down, this may stike you as crazy -- is this whole rights enforcement thing is OUR problem. The us v. them business is silly, both because for many of us the lines blur -- some of our living may wel be derived from protected IP -- and because we need a solution that wil protect the ability of the creative to create AND pay the rent.
The DRM doesn't have to change the nature of computers -- it can just be an optional feature, or something you have to choose to enable if you want to access a certain content. Secretly I believe many object to it because it will be too effective against piracy, and not because of its adverse impact on fair use. No one talks about the wonderful source of income piracy provides for criminal enterprises, which will persist so long as it is black market, which it will have to be because distributing music on the honor system will not work except in limited cases. The predominant attitude it why pay for it if you can get it for free, and I would love to be wrong on that, but I'm not..... People who steal cable offer remarkably similar excuses. Note how the thieves insist the victimes are the real thieves. Uh-huh.
Anyway, we've had DRM in the sense of difficult-to-manipulate media. Who ever though of copying a CD byte-for-byte a few years ago? What has changed is the technology. I've talked to artists who foresee losing their livelihood and doing something else. What progress for the arts -- this is the whole reason copyright was invented, from day 1 of the republic.
So the problem is our problem and would like a third option that poses muscular defense against piracy, something like the real key that makes sure only you use your car, but which is more convenient. (But doesn't your car "want to be free"?)
So, did you snip a diode before or after doing your taxes?:)
Funny, too, how machines like were considered minor miracles. I mean, a computer on your desktop! Imagine the incredulity if you'd told people what was in store 30 years down the pike. You wouldn't have been taken seriously, I think.
I still have one of the classic red-LED TI's from maybe 1980. Danged if I know where it is, but I bet it still works.
For historical accuracy, I'm pretty sure it was written Apple///. The Apple 3 IIRC was a spectacular failure, redeemed eventually by Macintosh.
I have my Apple ][+ downstairs, and it may even still work.... Note the strange characters there, too. There was only so much creativity possible in the days of ASCII.
My basement is continually collecting classic computers. And classic clothes, books, toys, baby furniture..... Any bids?
I went to a Smithsonian exhibit a dozen years ago with a very impressive array of vintage (aka "classic" or "old" or "junk") computers. They do collect almost anything after all, and can display only about 5% at any one time. The computers weren't on; I'd be interested in how many years we'll be able to save working Commodore and the like. After all, computers were never meant to be just looked at.
A computer part I'd really like to see old-fashioned magnetic core memory -- that still works! It just sounds so improbable.
I saw a lecture years ago by an MIT professor who worked on the Apollo mission designing an on-board guidance computer (AGC) described here (they planned to used ground-based telemetry but worried the Soviets might jam their signals out of pique or something -- nothing happened). He commented that when they delivered the unbelievably expensive core memory with its delicate wound wiring, they handled it with the utmost caution -- it was 2K (RAM) after all!
I would want the Statue of Liberty replaced. It's a historical symbol.
The WTC were big office buildings, and frankly not very attractive ones. It makes a lot of sense to update their appearance and functionality in the course of rebuilding. They will endure as symbols, in our memories.
Their goal is to create highly-accurate blueprints that can be used to reconstruct the monuments if they are damaged by a terrorist attack or other means.
I was thinking the project sounded cool until I read the reason. Sigh.
More on the Kinko's case and related problems. Especially lethal to fair use arguments is anyone making a profit off of it.
When this happened, the instructor distributed a half-dozen copies of the materials (mostly science journal studies) to different libraries where students could access them or, per our fair use rights, copy them for later consumption. Kind of silly. A unitary scheme as mentioned in the article where the copy shop coordiantes obtaining permissions sounds pretty good -- it could ba handled quickly electronically, and I hope at reasonable cost.
I'm glad I don't buy textbooks any more, the prices are horrifying, but this has a lot to do with inefficiency rather than gouging.
Funny you should mention Kinko's -- they got their butts kicked in a lawsuit and clamped down on the practice of copying books. They went so far that it inconvenienced fair use dupication. They literally wanted a letter from the copyright holder granting permission... and you should have seen the clerk's face when I actually had one! (Which the publisher Elsevier granted for free, for the purposes of my thesis.)
Now, picture those textbooks in digital form, which will happen at some point. Without copy protection, how many college students will pick a free copy over paying for it? Too many, IMHO.
The shame of it is that switching to electronic format with bring down the cost of those outrageous $50 textbooks, but the publishers are going resist that step if it means a collape of revenues. Producing a technical book costs serious money. You should see how much law books cost, and they are rarely useful later or for resale. And they don't even have pictures!:)
A minor comment -- I think it's cool that you buy your music and boycott the major labels. I wasted a bunch of time looking for sneakers that weren't made in China for similar reasons -- I bought from one of those minor label countries.:)
Re:He waived his rights.....
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I agree and am sympathetic. I am very concerned about things like identity theft that result largely because of the irresponsibility of the financial institutions. But there are better cures than going easy on Mitnicks, like meaningful civil penalties against outfits that don't protect client privacy. There have been other useful laws, such as the one limiting your credit card liability if you report the loss promptly, that encourage the big guys to take the problem of con artists seriously.
Mitnick just blows me away for his attitude. He could act as a big bank's personality any day!:)
But wait a few minutes and you'll see a gadget that lets you put in a DVD and a blank, then press a big red button to record. $199 at Walmart.:)
You see my point I hope -- e.g., it used to be really inconvenient to make a good analog recording -- at least 45 minutes, and you had to get the level right and use Dolby and on and on -- and the copy still would wear out. Thinsg have changed for audio, and soon very much so for video. Think how easy it would be for you to set up a dedicated CD copying service for your friend sin the 'hood. I don't think they're being all that paranoid. What I don't like is not the death of piracy, but the death of fair use, and other inconveniences that are apprent side effects of most every copy-protection scheme.
(1) what the heck is a quid anyway (literally) or a pound (literally)... that's been bugging me.
(2) I'm not worried about the labels' "business model". What about the artists' business model? How are they any less susceptible to piracy in exactly the same way? They might see DRM as the only alternative to getting ripped off -- unless offered better alternatives.
I agree that the DRM'd product is inferior, and like fair use, and don't want to pay a lot for an inferior product.
Nope, I said it right. People have due process rights, not forums. The lawsuit was about private rights, not California's, except to vindicate the rights of its citizens.
In this case, CA was home to the plaintiffs. The forum Q here was simply which forums are constitutionally appropriate, and Calif. did not believe they were one of them. The Constitution gives them no choice. Had they rules the other way and been wrong, the Supreme Court might have overruled them. (There are secondary nonconstitutional elements that influence forum choice, too.) There is no reason the dispute has to be in federal court (in which Calif. would probably still be the wrong forum); Texas sounds fine.
Justice O'Connor didn't make any call other than not referring the Q to the full Court. The Court doesn't care about outcomes in individual cases so much as resolving broad legal controversies, and this difficult Q of personal jurisdiction will be before them soon enough, when they find the right case.
Thanks. We have one policy with State Farm that Allstate couldn't write for some reason, and I am getting strange signals from SF. It's a weird business, whether you're insuring a house or your health.
Hadn't heard about Geico's policy. Hmm. We live in a residential "island" between several major roads and have had a lot of trouble with commuters whipping through at barely sublight speed to trim ten seconds off of their commute. The solutions have been traffic islands, speed bumps, dead-end streets, etc. -- expensive and irritating. It's especially irritating because it is a minority of the drivers who really abuse the speed (and I been really, like 60 in a 25 zone).
Hollywood and the music labels DO have a piracy problem and it IS growing. Napster, CD burners, and the like simply didn't exist a few years ago. Moreover, we're going in circles, this same essential battle has been fought before, over cassette tapes andf DAT (remember that?:) and the VCR. It's just a question of degree.
My question is that if you object to DRM because of the way its is done, what should be done? Please don't say "lower prices" because that's just a rationalization that they're somehow forcing pirates to do it. A boycott is a well-proven means of protext.
If you're against intellectual property in general, just skip this, because the industry is never going to work for free, nor accept your suggestion, nor IMHO should they. Folks who create intangibles are as entitled to compensation as people who build bridges.
In an age when it is orders of magnitude easier to copy, what should the rights holders do to protect their work? Think positive! Frankly, I don't know.
Re:He waived his rights.....
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 2
Yes and no. Obviously when they set out to "make an example" of someone, that someone gets treated somewhat harshly. But so far as I know Mitnick was not convited of anything he did commit (helpfully, he pleaded guilty), nor were his prison terms in excess of what was allowed by statute. One sticky point is whether and how much his terms were inflated by the inflated estimates of loss furnished by the victims, but I think in the end his punishment was proportional, esp. considering his record of repeating the same basic offenses over and over. The plea agreement watered down the gov't demands substantially, and his order of restitution was a piddly $4100. Frankly, I thought he should have been dealt with severly not at all because he was some fearsome hacker, but because his pattern of recidivism meant he just wasn't getting deterred or reformed.
So far as I can tell, Mitnick still shows no signs of remorse. His rationalization are stunningly shallow. He may be preoccupied with his alleged mistreatment by the gov't, but he still has to come to grips with the wrongfulness of his conduct. I don't care whether he goes to heaven or hell, but I do hope he has finally learned not to break into people's machines.
The factor that troubles me here is this extraordinary detention. I'm doubt Mitnick was deprived of anything of value -- a bail hearing would not have led to bail, and an actual trial would not have given him much less time in the slammer, probably much more -- but I don't think the system should be allowed to work that way, or else the speedy trial right means nothing. Note that most defendants would have spent that time out on bail, then served a sentence, but Mitnick himself screwed any chance of bail by going fugitive for an extraordinary 2 1/2 years.
the real problems were being caused by improperly trained employees following inadequate proceedures.
I don't buy into blame-the-victim. So maybe I leave my house unlocked sometimes, and that's foolish -- you still don't get to break in. Mitnick was out for kicks, and he chose vulnerable victims, just like some muggers prefer senior citizens.
(1) in US gov't, the fed does have powers of preemption, but they are enumerated, limited powers -- see "federalism";
(2) I don't remember the rules for airspace, but the old rule for property rights were that you owner everything to the heavans. Obviously modern times have cut back on that a bit. In a sense the gov't seized an easement through that airspace, which is what your Citibank probably purchased over its neighbor;
(3) The falling rock example was just a blunt quickie, really it wouldn't matter whether you were overhead or standing in the next state when you threw the rock. The rock landing in the forum state would be enough for them to have jurisdiction over you. (Imagine firing a rifle at people on the other side of the line and you'll see why.);
(4) As to space, I think they haven't really developed the topic, eventually there will be an international treaty of some sort. Obviously states and localites will not have jurisdiction for reasons of both due process and federal preemption; the possibility is just amusing to think about. In the tax-the-satellites cases, I think the deal was that Hughes was physical within their jurisdiction and the satellites were not, but Hughes had the value of the satellites listed as assets in its books. Localities sometimes tax assets like cars and boats, so they wanted to tax the satellites worth millions. Not at all as exotic as taxing the skies, but that's how the media reported it, carelessly, as usual.
I read the decision and I just don't see it; please quote whatever I've missed. The court repeatedly acknowledges to the breadth of its decision, and concludes that "the spectre which Dow Jones sought to conjure up in the present appeal, of a publisher forced to consider every article it publishes on the World Wide Web against the defamation laws of every country from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe is seen to be unreal when it is recalled that in all except the most unusual of cases, identifying the person about whom material is to be published will readily identify the defamation law to which that person may resort."
So, if you write about enough different people -- "the most unusual of cases" -- you may indeed face "the defamation laws of every country from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe." Those potential plaintiffs don't have to live in whatever country; all they need is a reputation there and access to the courts.
That's a peculiar point of view, since the only thing the GPL does (and it does it very thoroughly) is require that the code and ALL DERIVATIONS remain out there and accessible in a practical sense. That is ALL that is being required. It, and anything you do with it, cannot be bottled up. All the things done with it must remain not merely accessible but AVAILABLE.
Yes, there's just one basic requirement. Now, a requirement, restriction, licensing term, whatever you want to call it, is why it is not free is the sense of public domain. Free software imposes its own sense of copyright, but it is still copyright, and they will sue you for infringing on it. I only understood this when I realize copyleft is just a politicized synonym for copyright.
See GNU license. (" To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights." -- mild doublespeak, no? To protect your freedom we must limit it by requiring you to acquiesce to this license.) Notice that the document invokes that hoary old term "copyright" more than a dozen times.
I'm not critizing free software -- really I think it's quite clever, inspired even -- but I believe it is merely a form of licensed software with really liberal "fair use" provisions. The copyright's holder's right to force you to comply persists throughout, so I think the political pitch is slightly misleading. I don't think it's some gross violation of freedom, but then neither is "closed" software -- if you don't like it, write your own "free" or even (gasp) public domain software.:)
Once you establish a business presence in a state or other country you fall under the jurisdiction of the local courts.
The Australian decision did not turn on local presence. Rather, it held that a posting in one place is publication anywhere the internet may be accessed. (some commentary)
On the face of it, the Australian court made a strictly logical decision, as defamation law to the present has had no limiting principle except place of publication. The internet renders place of publication an anachronism. The court declined to develop a new limiting principle. As one of the concurrences reasoned:
165. Moreover, the spectre of "global" liability should not be exaggerated. Apart from anything else, the costs and practicalities of bringing proceedings against a foreign publisher will usually be a sufficient impediment to discourage even the most intrepid of litigants. Further, in many cases of this kind, where the publisher is said to have no presence or assets in the jurisdiction, it may choose simply to ignore the proceedings. It may save its contest to the courts of its own jurisdiction until an attempt is later made to enforce there the judgment obtained in the foreign trial. It may do this especially if that judgment was secured by the application of laws, the enforcement of which would be regarded as unconstitutional or otherwise offensive to a different legal culture.
166. However, such results are still less than wholly satisfactory. They appear to warrant national legislative attention and to require international discussion in a forum as global as the Internet itself[202]. In default of local legislation and international agreement, there are limits on the extent to which national courts can provide radical solutions that would oblige a major overhaul of longstanding legal doctrine in the field of defamation law. Where large changes to settled law are involved, in an area as sensitive as the law of defamation, it should cause no surprise when the courts decline the invitation to solve problems that others, in a much better position to devise solutions, have neglected to repair.
The Australian decision isn't obviously "wrong" but its implications are very disturbing. I don't know the structure of Australian gov't; perhaps there these problems are expected to be taken up by the legislature. In the United States, unlike most countries I know of, the courts can in certain cases overrule the legislature ("judicial review"), and are in a sense its co-equal.
The upshot is that a website operator not wishing to publish in Australia will have to find some clever way of preventing access, though the structure of the Web makes that all but impossible. Alternatively, any publisher not wanting to roll the dice of international litigation will have to publish to the lowest common dominator of all internet-connected countries, or avoid referring to anyone in countries it wishes to elude. So much for free speech.
Countries do have jurisdiction over things that happen within their borders, things that happen elsewhere with effects within their borders, and acts of their citizens wherever they are. Those are the broad strokes, the devil is in the details. But the basic reality of jurisdiction is neither novel nor oppressive. A group of hackers, or anybody, with the power to "rule the web" could haev terrible consequences not because hackers aren't up to it (necessarily) but because no one is that wise. there is also the problem of bias, which intelligence by no means abolishes.
I honestly believe that these new problems can be dealt with through the existing framework, and have faith in human intelligence. The internet is really an incremental step in publishing and data transfer, not a whole new game. The real challenge is to harmonize or coordinate all law, not just internet law. Hence things like the Berne Convention with respect to copyright law; and the same law applies regardless of the countries involved or the means used to commit a violation.
It already has. Many years ago, a dry state, IIRC OK, banned the serving of drinks on any flights that passed over their boundries. It was eventually overturned; but, I don't recall on which grounds.
Good cite, wrong generalization. I don't know how that was decided either, perhaps interstate commerce. But I was referring to jurisdiction over person, not application of law to that person.
The Q again turns on contacts and fairness. If that overflying plane dropped a rock on Oklahoma, we wouldn't question jurisdiction over the perpetrators. Mere overflight, without some connection, is probably not minimum contacts. But if something happens, whose law applies, and where is the case tried?
So you look at what the person did, and what they intended, and the impact in the forum state.
I would like to know why O'Connor acted. Perhaps she wanted some research done, or perhaps she floated the case by other Justices without getting a bite. It takes four Justices to grant certiorari and hear the full case.
To label personal jurisdiction a procedural question is misleading. Things like filing dates for briefs are classically procedural. But personal jurisdiction goes to constitutional due process and the very life or death of entire classes of cases. PJ over Web disputes will prove to be as critical issue as the free speech question at the heart of this DMCA case. What good is free speech in the U.S. if you can be charged in some country antagonistic to the concept (Singapore, China, others).
Here, PJ appears decides the case for now. PJ is not a question of the rights of the CA court, but its power, and fundamental fairness to the defendant ("traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"). If the party has not had or consented to contact with the forum, it is a violation of substantive due process to impose jurisidiction. You don't have to visit the state to get into trouble there. Yet it is important also to consider fairness to the plaintiff, who may have been injured by something really foul done by the defendant -- they're not all as sympathetic as Pavlovich.
Already, the U.S. is already indirectly disagreeing with Australia over this point, a recent Fourth Circuit case. Note the heavy hitters who participated in that appeal --- NYT, WP, DJ, and others. It's not just little website operators who are worried.
The questions can become quite difficult and are the sort of stuff law professors use to torture their students now that thumbscrews are banned. How much "contact" is enough? Is passing over California in the Space Shuttle or ISS enough for them to nail you court? (Don't laugh, I bet this will comes up some day: picture astronaut Francine is on break sitting at his console typing away decryption codes while zipping over dozens of states and countries... for that matter, who has jurisdiction and whose laws apply the first time two pieces of space stuff whack into each other? The first fender bender will be messy.)
Anyway, I'm skeptical whether California got PJ right here -- in an analytical sense that will carry the day for eventual federal standards -- but for all intents it appears the CA aspect of the litigation is dead. Sooner or later, this jurisdictional question will land squarely in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! Even the Apple ][ had 4 "hi-res" colors, and 16 (I think) "lo-res" colors. I think I used an amber screen because it was cheap, and sharper than a TV -- color used to be $$$. We considered the "e" past prime. I used my Apple ][+ through college until upgrading to a Macintosh SE. In many ways, I could still be using the Apple ][.
What I was primarily trying to suggest -- sit down, this may stike you as crazy -- is this whole rights enforcement thing is OUR problem. The us v. them business is silly, both because for many of us the lines blur -- some of our living may wel be derived from protected IP -- and because we need a solution that wil protect the ability of the creative to create AND pay the rent.
The DRM doesn't have to change the nature of computers -- it can just be an optional feature, or something you have to choose to enable if you want to access a certain content. Secretly I believe many object to it because it will be too effective against piracy, and not because of its adverse impact on fair use. No one talks about the wonderful source of income piracy provides for criminal enterprises, which will persist so long as it is black market, which it will have to be because distributing music on the honor system will not work except in limited cases. The predominant attitude it why pay for it if you can get it for free, and I would love to be wrong on that, but I'm not..... People who steal cable offer remarkably similar excuses. Note how the thieves insist the victimes are the real thieves. Uh-huh.
Anyway, we've had DRM in the sense of difficult-to-manipulate media. Who ever though of copying a CD byte-for-byte a few years ago? What has changed is the technology. I've talked to artists who foresee losing their livelihood and doing something else. What progress for the arts -- this is the whole reason copyright was invented, from day 1 of the republic.
So the problem is our problem and would like a third option that poses muscular defense against piracy, something like the real key that makes sure only you use your car, but which is more convenient. (But doesn't your car "want to be free"?)
So, did you snip a diode before or after doing your taxes? :)
Funny, too, how machines like were considered minor miracles. I mean, a computer on your desktop! Imagine the incredulity if you'd told people what was in store 30 years down the pike. You wouldn't have been taken seriously, I think.
I still have one of the classic red-LED TI's from maybe 1980. Danged if I know where it is, but I bet it still works.
I see. I've always used Apple. So what's Commodore, anyway? What do they make? ;-)
For historical accuracy, I'm pretty sure it was written Apple ///. The Apple 3 IIRC was a spectacular failure, redeemed eventually by Macintosh.
I have my Apple ][+ downstairs, and it may even still work.... Note the strange characters there, too. There was only so much creativity possible in the days of ASCII.
My basement is continually collecting classic computers. And classic clothes, books, toys, baby furniture..... Any bids?
I went to a Smithsonian exhibit a dozen years ago with a very impressive array of vintage (aka "classic" or "old" or "junk") computers. They do collect almost anything after all, and can display only about 5% at any one time. The computers weren't on; I'd be interested in how many years we'll be able to save working Commodore and the like. After all, computers were never meant to be just looked at.
A computer part I'd really like to see old-fashioned magnetic core memory -- that still works! It just sounds so improbable.
I saw a lecture years ago by an MIT professor who worked on the Apollo mission designing an on-board guidance computer (AGC) described here (they planned to used ground-based telemetry but worried the Soviets might jam their signals out of pique or something -- nothing happened). He commented that when they delivered the unbelievably expensive core memory with its delicate wound wiring, they handled it with the utmost caution -- it was 2K (RAM) after all!
I would want the Statue of Liberty replaced. It's a historical symbol.
The WTC were big office buildings, and frankly not very attractive ones. It makes a lot of sense to update their appearance and functionality in the course of rebuilding. They will endure as symbols, in our memories.
Their goal is to create highly-accurate blueprints that can be used to reconstruct the monuments if they are damaged by a terrorist attack or other means.
I was thinking the project sounded cool until I read the reason. Sigh.
More on the Kinko's case and related problems. Especially lethal to fair use arguments is anyone making a profit off of it.
When this happened, the instructor distributed a half-dozen copies of the materials (mostly science journal studies) to different libraries where students could access them or, per our fair use rights, copy them for later consumption. Kind of silly. A unitary scheme as mentioned in the article where the copy shop coordiantes obtaining permissions sounds pretty good -- it could ba handled quickly electronically, and I hope at reasonable cost.
I'm glad I don't buy textbooks any more, the prices are horrifying, but this has a lot to do with inefficiency rather than gouging.
Funny you should mention Kinko's -- they got their butts kicked in a lawsuit and clamped down on the practice of copying books. They went so far that it inconvenienced fair use dupication. They literally wanted a letter from the copyright holder granting permission ... and you should have seen the clerk's face when I actually had one! (Which the publisher Elsevier granted for free, for the purposes of my thesis.)
:)
Now, picture those textbooks in digital form, which will happen at some point. Without copy protection, how many college students will pick a free copy over paying for it? Too many, IMHO.
The shame of it is that switching to electronic format with bring down the cost of those outrageous $50 textbooks, but the publishers are going resist that step if it means a collape of revenues. Producing a technical book costs serious money. You should see how much law books cost, and they are rarely useful later or for resale. And they don't even have pictures!
A minor comment -- I think it's cool that you buy your music and boycott the major labels. I wasted a bunch of time looking for sneakers that weren't made in China for similar reasons -- I bought from one of those minor label countries. :)
Yes, I agree and am sympathetic. I am very concerned about things like identity theft that result largely because of the irresponsibility of the financial institutions. But there are better cures than going easy on Mitnicks, like meaningful civil penalties against outfits that don't protect client privacy. There have been other useful laws, such as the one limiting your credit card liability if you report the loss promptly, that encourage the big guys to take the problem of con artists seriously.
:)
Mitnick just blows me away for his attitude. He could act as a big bank's personality any day!
But wait a few minutes and you'll see a gadget that lets you put in a DVD and a blank, then press a big red button to record. $199 at Walmart. :)
You see my point I hope -- e.g., it used to be really inconvenient to make a good analog recording -- at least 45 minutes, and you had to get the level right and use Dolby and on and on -- and the copy still would wear out. Thinsg have changed for audio, and soon very much so for video. Think how easy it would be for you to set up a dedicated CD copying service for your friend sin the 'hood. I don't think they're being all that paranoid. What I don't like is not the death of piracy, but the death of fair use, and other inconveniences that are apprent side effects of most every copy-protection scheme.
Whoa, don't get all thoughtful on me. :)
Yes, there are excellent reasons to resent DRM. And the alternatives are...?
This isn't a rhetorical question meant to say "DRM is the only answer." It's a good old-fashioned real Q. (I'm sentimental.)
Take the artist's perspective. They don't like piracy, they want a non-fascist solution, so they....
The thing is that it has gotten so easy to copy stuff that a lot of people don't even think it could be illegal.
Problems:
... that's been bugging me.
(1) what the heck is a quid anyway (literally) or a pound (literally)
(2) I'm not worried about the labels' "business model". What about the artists' business model? How are they any less susceptible to piracy in exactly the same way? They might see DRM as the only alternative to getting ripped off -- unless offered better alternatives.
I agree that the DRM'd product is inferior, and like fair use, and don't want to pay a lot for an inferior product.
Nope, I said it right. People have due process rights, not forums. The lawsuit was about private rights, not California's, except to vindicate the rights of its citizens.
In this case, CA was home to the plaintiffs. The forum Q here was simply which forums are constitutionally appropriate, and Calif. did not believe they were one of them. The Constitution gives them no choice. Had they rules the other way and been wrong, the Supreme Court might have overruled them. (There are secondary nonconstitutional elements that influence forum choice, too.) There is no reason the dispute has to be in federal court (in which Calif. would probably still be the wrong forum); Texas sounds fine.
Justice O'Connor didn't make any call other than not referring the Q to the full Court. The Court doesn't care about outcomes in individual cases so much as resolving broad legal controversies, and this difficult Q of personal jurisdiction will be before them soon enough, when they find the right case.
Thanks. We have one policy with State Farm that Allstate couldn't write for some reason, and I am getting strange signals from SF. It's a weird business, whether you're insuring a house or your health.
Hadn't heard about Geico's policy. Hmm. We live in a residential "island" between several major roads and have had a lot of trouble with commuters whipping through at barely sublight speed to trim ten seconds off of their commute. The solutions have been traffic islands, speed bumps, dead-end streets, etc. -- expensive and irritating. It's especially irritating because it is a minority of the drivers who really abuse the speed (and I been really, like 60 in a 25 zone).
Hollywood and the music labels DO have a piracy problem and it IS growing. Napster, CD burners, and the like simply didn't exist a few years ago. Moreover, we're going in circles, this same essential battle has been fought before, over cassette tapes andf DAT (remember that? :) and the VCR. It's just a question of degree.
My question is that if you object to DRM because of the way its is done, what should be done? Please don't say "lower prices" because that's just a rationalization that they're somehow forcing pirates to do it. A boycott is a well-proven means of protext.
If you're against intellectual property in general, just skip this, because the industry is never going to work for free, nor accept your suggestion, nor IMHO should they. Folks who create intangibles are as entitled to compensation as people who build bridges.
In an age when it is orders of magnitude easier to copy, what should the rights holders do to protect their work? Think positive! Frankly, I don't know.
Yes and no. Obviously when they set out to "make an example" of someone, that someone gets treated somewhat harshly. But so far as I know Mitnick was not convited of anything he did commit (helpfully, he pleaded guilty), nor were his prison terms in excess of what was allowed by statute. One sticky point is whether and how much his terms were inflated by the inflated estimates of loss furnished by the victims, but I think in the end his punishment was proportional, esp. considering his record of repeating the same basic offenses over and over. The plea agreement watered down the gov't demands substantially, and his order of restitution was a piddly $4100. Frankly, I thought he should have been dealt with severly not at all because he was some fearsome hacker, but because his pattern of recidivism meant he just wasn't getting deterred or reformed.
So far as I can tell, Mitnick still shows no signs of remorse. His rationalization are stunningly shallow. He may be preoccupied with his alleged mistreatment by the gov't, but he still has to come to grips with the wrongfulness of his conduct. I don't care whether he goes to heaven or hell, but I do hope he has finally learned not to break into people's machines.
The factor that troubles me here is this extraordinary detention. I'm doubt Mitnick was deprived of anything of value -- a bail hearing would not have led to bail, and an actual trial would not have given him much less time in the slammer, probably much more -- but I don't think the system should be allowed to work that way, or else the speedy trial right means nothing. Note that most defendants would have spent that time out on bail, then served a sentence, but Mitnick himself screwed any chance of bail by going fugitive for an extraordinary 2 1/2 years.
the real problems were being caused by improperly trained employees following inadequate proceedures.
I don't buy into blame-the-victim. So maybe I leave my house unlocked sometimes, and that's foolish -- you still don't get to break in. Mitnick was out for kicks, and he chose vulnerable victims, just like some muggers prefer senior citizens.
Just a few thoughts ...
(1) in US gov't, the fed does have powers of preemption, but they are enumerated, limited powers -- see "federalism";
(2) I don't remember the rules for airspace, but the old rule for property rights were that you owner everything to the heavans. Obviously modern times have cut back on that a bit. In a sense the gov't seized an easement through that airspace, which is what your Citibank probably purchased over its neighbor;
(3) The falling rock example was just a blunt quickie, really it wouldn't matter whether you were overhead or standing in the next state when you threw the rock. The rock landing in the forum state would be enough for them to have jurisdiction over you. (Imagine firing a rifle at people on the other side of the line and you'll see why.);
(4) As to space, I think they haven't really developed the topic, eventually there will be an international treaty of some sort. Obviously states and localites will not have jurisdiction for reasons of both due process and federal preemption; the possibility is just amusing to think about. In the tax-the-satellites cases, I think the deal was that Hughes was physical within their jurisdiction and the satellites were not, but Hughes had the value of the satellites listed as assets in its books. Localities sometimes tax assets like cars and boats, so they wanted to tax the satellites worth millions. Not at all as exotic as taxing the skies, but that's how the media reported it, carelessly, as usual.
I read the decision and I just don't see it; please quote whatever I've missed. The court repeatedly acknowledges to the breadth of its decision, and concludes that "the spectre which Dow Jones sought to conjure up in the present appeal, of a publisher forced to consider every article it publishes on the World Wide Web against the defamation laws of every country from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe is seen to be unreal when it is recalled that in all except the most unusual of cases, identifying the person about whom material is to be published will readily identify the defamation law to which that person may resort."
So, if you write about enough different people -- "the most unusual of cases" -- you may indeed face "the defamation laws of every country from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe." Those potential plaintiffs don't have to live in whatever country; all they need is a reputation there and access to the courts.
That's a peculiar point of view, since the only thing the GPL does (and it does it very thoroughly) is require that the code and ALL DERIVATIONS remain out there and accessible in a practical sense. That is ALL that is being required. It, and anything you do with it, cannot be bottled up. All the things done with it must remain not merely accessible but AVAILABLE.
:)
Yes, there's just one basic requirement. Now, a requirement, restriction, licensing term, whatever you want to call it, is why it is not free is the sense of public domain. Free software imposes its own sense of copyright, but it is still copyright, and they will sue you for infringing on it. I only understood this when I realize copyleft is just a politicized synonym for copyright.
See GNU license. (" To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights." -- mild doublespeak, no? To protect your freedom we must limit it by requiring you to acquiesce to this license.) Notice that the document invokes that hoary old term "copyright" more than a dozen times.
I'm not critizing free software -- really I think it's quite clever, inspired even -- but I believe it is merely a form of licensed software with really liberal "fair use" provisions. The copyright's holder's right to force you to comply persists throughout, so I think the political pitch is slightly misleading. I don't think it's some gross violation of freedom, but then neither is "closed" software -- if you don't like it, write your own "free" or even (gasp) public domain software.
The Australian decision did not turn on local presence. Rather, it held that a posting in one place is publication anywhere the internet may be accessed. (some commentary)
On the face of it, the Australian court made a strictly logical decision, as defamation law to the present has had no limiting principle except place of publication. The internet renders place of publication an anachronism. The court declined to develop a new limiting principle. As one of the concurrences reasoned:
The Australian decision isn't obviously "wrong" but its implications are very disturbing. I don't know the structure of Australian gov't; perhaps there these problems are expected to be taken up by the legislature. In the United States, unlike most countries I know of, the courts can in certain cases overrule the legislature ("judicial review"), and are in a sense its co-equal.
The upshot is that a website operator not wishing to publish in Australia will have to find some clever way of preventing access, though the structure of the Web makes that all but impossible. Alternatively, any publisher not wanting to roll the dice of international litigation will have to publish to the lowest common dominator of all internet-connected countries, or avoid referring to anyone in countries it wishes to elude. So much for free speech.
"One world government" huh? :)
Countries do have jurisdiction over things that happen within their borders, things that happen elsewhere with effects within their borders, and acts of their citizens wherever they are. Those are the broad strokes, the devil is in the details. But the basic reality of jurisdiction is neither novel nor oppressive. A group of hackers, or anybody, with the power to "rule the web" could haev terrible consequences not because hackers aren't up to it (necessarily) but because no one is that wise. there is also the problem of bias, which intelligence by no means abolishes.
I honestly believe that these new problems can be dealt with through the existing framework, and have faith in human intelligence. The internet is really an incremental step in publishing and data transfer, not a whole new game. The real challenge is to harmonize or coordinate all law, not just internet law. Hence things like the Berne Convention with respect to copyright law; and the same law applies regardless of the countries involved or the means used to commit a violation.
It already has. Many years ago, a dry state, IIRC OK, banned the serving of drinks on any flights that passed over their boundries. It was eventually overturned; but, I don't recall on which grounds.
Good cite, wrong generalization. I don't know how that was decided either, perhaps interstate commerce. But I was referring to jurisdiction over person, not application of law to that person.
The Q again turns on contacts and fairness. If that overflying plane dropped a rock on Oklahoma, we wouldn't question jurisdiction over the perpetrators. Mere overflight, without some connection, is probably not minimum contacts. But if something happens, whose law applies, and where is the case tried?
So you look at what the person did, and what they intended, and the impact in the forum state.
I would like to know why O'Connor acted. Perhaps she wanted some research done, or perhaps she floated the case by other Justices without getting a bite. It takes four Justices to grant certiorari and hear the full case.
:)
To label personal jurisdiction a procedural question is misleading. Things like filing dates for briefs are classically procedural. But personal jurisdiction goes to constitutional due process and the very life or death of entire classes of cases. PJ over Web disputes will prove to be as critical issue as the free speech question at the heart of this DMCA case. What good is free speech in the U.S. if you can be charged in some country antagonistic to the concept (Singapore, China, others).
Here, PJ appears decides the case for now. PJ is not a question of the rights of the CA court, but its power, and fundamental fairness to the defendant ("traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"). If the party has not had or consented to contact with the forum, it is a violation of substantive due process to impose jurisidiction. You don't have to visit the state to get into trouble there. Yet it is important also to consider fairness to the plaintiff, who may have been injured by something really foul done by the defendant -- they're not all as sympathetic as Pavlovich.
Already, the U.S. is already indirectly disagreeing with Australia over this point, a recent Fourth Circuit case. Note the heavy hitters who participated in that appeal --- NYT, WP, DJ, and others. It's not just little website operators who are worried.
The questions can become quite difficult and are the sort of stuff law professors use to torture their students now that thumbscrews are banned. How much "contact" is enough? Is passing over California in the Space Shuttle or ISS enough for them to nail you court? (Don't laugh, I bet this will comes up some day: picture astronaut Francine is on break sitting at his console typing away decryption codes while zipping over dozens of states and countries... for that matter, who has jurisdiction and whose laws apply the first time two pieces of space stuff whack into each other? The first fender bender will be messy.)
Anyway, I'm skeptical whether California got PJ right here -- in an analytical sense that will carry the day for eventual federal standards -- but for all intents it appears the CA aspect of the litigation is dead. Sooner or later, this jurisdictional question will land squarely in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Just thinking out loud...