>That may be true, but new laws regarding aiding in copyright >infringement have been introduced in recent years
No note really. Swedish law has a general section dealing with various types of aiding, preparing and other similar activities realted to crimes. They are not specific to copyright. When new EU directives has come that include such issues the conclusion has always been that swedish law allready has such provisions in the form of those general paragraphs applying to all crimes.
You are aware that many countries allow for example copying for private use which includes giving the songs to friends or family. Those in turn might do the same and someone might eventually put it out to the public and so on. Even if you "play nice" and follw the law, you may not want that info about you in those files and it can indeed concern you.
>One is typically permitted to share/post small excerpts for >critical commentary. IANAL, but I highly doubt that sending >an entire song to a friend is within the letter of the law.
That might be perfectly true in your country, but completely different in other countries (including those were Apple sell songs through iTunes). For example in Sweden it is perfectly legal to make (a few) copies for private use which includes giving them to relatives and friends.
>It's hard to keep up with all these different users who, >purely out of coincidence, all happen to be using the exact >same roundabout logic, have the same hatred of companies protecting >their investment, and all make the same wild, baseless claims.
Exactly WHAT wild, baseles claim did I make in the post you replied to?
Were have I shown any hatred to "companies protecting their investment"?
I do however have the opinion that if the "protecting their investment" includes prevent me from for example re-selling something I bought, or preventing me from re-installing a program in the future or demanding that there is DRM installed on my computer especially one that will not be removed with the game, then it is ver bad acting by the company. Perhaps you are of the opinion that any and all critisim or complain equals hatred and should not be allowed and that consumers should just accept anything that companies do with the argument "we protect our investment"?
For the record, for me, buying a game is an investment, I I also protect that investment and want to make sure that I can use it in the same way anything else I buy without the maker interfering with that in ways I gave examples of above. You seem to not accept that. Sad.
>The answer to that, of course, is to not agree >to a license that explicitly states "this license >is not transferable".
Which only applies to a country were you would need such a license. In others the claim of preventing reselling is a valid one.
>Yes, because I'm sure DRM has nothing to do with piracy...
Only in part, it also affects normal use of the product, controling your installation and for example reselling which has nothing to do with piracy.
>And people who steal games are assholes and are ruining >the gaming industry,
I would say they might ruining whatever shope they are stolen from. It would not affect the game companies.
>Not to mention your hatred of companies protecting >their rights is solely cause by pirates, so you >too can only agree with that.
What rights are you talking about? Controling such things as how someone that buys a game can install or use the game? Controling how someone can re-sell a game? Controling what unremovable DRM products are put on customers computers? Strange rights you claim they should have.
You seems to use "piracy" as an excuse for adding any and all sorts of control to a product that in many cases has nothing to do with piracy or have severe effects not realted to piracy. Just scream "piracy" and everyone should accept anything and anything is excused appearantly.
If we disregard the fact that the specific Class-Action suit was in USA and look at the games, EA and their DRM one quickly see that there are problems.
>You have no right to install software.
Yes, you have in many countries that "right" without having to get any permission, licens or enter into a cotract.
>It's an act of making a copy (in fact even running off a >cd is because you are making a copy of the executable >imagine in RAM) and this what copyright is all about.
Many countries has specific exceptions for such copying making it a non infringing act. To avoid further confusion, no many countries does not have the "own" requirement USA has for this exceptions. Leaglly aquired the software is enough (which is what the WIPO treaty had, USA decided to make it own instead, other countries did not). This makes the whole "you don't own it you license it" meaningless is such countries.
So no, you don't need any license and no you don't need to enter into any EULA or other contract to run or install the software.
Of course, as has allready been pointed out by others, the EULA does in the end not mention the DRM in questions so it doesn't appearantly help, even in countries were EA can rely on their EULA.
>I recall from some study claiming, that identifying age cannot >be accurately estimated by carbon-dating beyond 40000 years or so.
Fortunately the rock was not made up of carbon and hence carbon-dating was not needed. The rock did contain neodymium and samarium though which could be used for dating it.
>If TPB gave a fuck about free speech, it >would remove all the Hollywood movies and >music and purely host documents from civil >rights groups.
They don't host ANY documents though, so that would be hard. besides, it is not them, but users, that post infomration what they (the users) have available for others. Similary they don't decide what end up on top 100, their users do. TPB doesn't take anything and doesn't reproduce anything as you seem to imply.
>Heck, without double checking I'd be the EULA lets >them ban you just because they feel like it (most >EULAs do, because no-one reads them and it helps >stop arguments over "fair" later).
Too bad many (most?) countries have laws that doesn't alow you to just terminate a service you sold "for no reason" and won't allow for such a contract term in a consumer sold service either.
On the other hand, most of the time when people (including slashdoters) write and talk about copy protection they actually mean access protection instead.
>I always wondered about if accepting the gpl is required.
Depends on what you want to do. If it is something the law doesn't allow you to do, then yes, you might need to agree to the GPL so that you get that permission/license.
>If I decline the gpl license, what right does I have to use the software?
Everything you can think of that isn't forbidden by the law. The same applies to rights to use your toaster in home or your sofa. You can use it in whatever way you want that is not forbidden in any law.
When it comes to software, copyright laws will restrict you in a few ways that won't apply for a sofa or a toaster though. Here it depends on what you mean by "use". Copyright doesn't restrict "use" and doesn't give "use" as an exclusive right to the copyright holder so you have to break up the "use" into actions that are relevant to copyright. Typically use or using software would probably to most people be the running the software on your computer. In the case of Firefox, browsing the net for example.
Again, copyright doesn't forbid that, copyright do however forbid copying. So if your use involves copying of the software, you might not be allowed to do so. Another thing that copyright forbids is distribution (which for most is not the same as use). To distribute the software you thus need to get permission from the copyright holder for example by agreeing to a GPL.
For the copying done when you use the software (for example installing the software on the hard disc or when running it and having copies on the memory of the computer, it depends a bit on what country you live in. Since ordinary use of for example software require various forms of copying to be usable at all, there are various exceptions to the exclusive right of copying that the copyright holder has. Others may under various situations be allowed to copy the software without special permission. The exact nature of those exceptions depends on what country you are in. In the USA the exception is tied to being an "owner" of a copy of the software which leads to the whole "licensed not sold". Other countries have other rules such as lawfully possessing a copy (making the whole licensed not sold argument pointless). Typically if you are such an owner or in possession, the copyright law will allow you to make necessary copies to use the software (installing it, loading it into memory and so on). Some countries has more general exceptions for any copy (not just software) that are just temporary (like when you load a program into memory while using it or copies made in a router/computer/whatever when you send it across the net.
>I mean I don't think I have any right to use any software, >unless that right is explicit given to me.
It is the other way around. You have any right you can think of unless it is specifically removed from you. Typically it is removed by the copyright law. Copyright law however only removes very specific things, like copying and distribution and usually there are exceptions for when you can do it anyway. TO get any of those specific rights taken away from you by the law, then yes, you need them explicitly given back to you through a contract for example.
>Or is the fact that I am in possession of the software >enough to also grant me right to run it?
In many countries, yes. Note that it will typically be the copying while running/using it that is given to you as an exception to the exclusive right to copy the law gives to the copyright holder. If one can run or use a program without making any copies there would be no issue at all.
>If possession is enough, then I can also conclude that any >software EULA is invalid, because I can just run the software >without accepting the EULA.
Yes (or rather, the EULA is not necessarily invalid, just not needed). One problem might be that most programs are made so that it is hard to install or run them without having to agree to the EULA. You are basically forced to agree to it to make the p
>I'd say registered with at least one of the members of the Berne Convention >would be fine, assuming that they share their catalogs. (which is the entire >purpose with saved DRM-free digital works anyways, IMHO).
Share with whom? What if some countries doesn't have any registration requirements or have a different system?
>I also wasn't concerned with all other countries operations, >just the US one with the huge downwind stink its policies are creating.
I think you would start to be concerned as soon as you realise that you end up with no protection in other countries because you didn't follow their requirements or that there was no easy way to check if a specific work was protected through some registration in another country that failed to check and so on.
The idea of registration of course has some good points but tend to not end up well due to the fact that the world is still split up with separate countries. If there was a global registration system it could work. I would say that the main problem is not if you register or not though but the insane time copyright lasts.
Any old idea can turn into a new patent simply by adding "with a computer" or "on the internet" to the old idea. I thought that was common knowledge...
This seems like one would in effect require anyone that has some "lock" on media to provide for more or less a backdoor to the software. As for keeping it private until needed, I just see far to big of a chance that it will end up as a "oops, we could not find it" or "sorry, seems it doesn't really work". Especially in case of someone buying out a company as it could be seen as a big cut in the value of what one buy.
Heck, not even in cases were there is no bankrupcy or buyout companies simply close down such authetification systems. So far it seems to mostly be in the music business. But I think it shows that there will be many cases were they won't care about unlocking or helping out old customers. The idea is nice but I can't see how it will really work. And when one starts to think of it in a more international way, it will work even less I think.
>Nonsense. You are gaining utility without compensating the creators, and that's not right.
Are you saying one should never "gaining utility" without compensating the creator? That must mean you are of the opinion that giving something away is never ok by you? If I visit your house, I suppose I need to stand up as I can't sit in your sofa? Of course, on the other hand, I can't lend you the good book I read the other week since then you would "gain utility" reading it without compensating the creator. When you turn on the music, I should use my earplugs so I don't gain utility without paying the creators. The good thing is, only I can eat the food I brought with my car since otherwise you would gain utility wihtout compensating my car manufacturer. The story I heard the other day on the buss will of course stay with me, I can't chare that one with you since I don't know how to compensate the "creator" of it. To be honest, I will probably not even be allowed to enter your house since I gained utility of a whole bunch of stuff my brother gave me when he moved into his girlfriends house that he needed no more and I didn't pay anything to the creators, yet I gained tonds of utility.... I must be such a major offender to you. Problem solved with the sofa at least.
>Legislate that all authentication mechanisms like this be phased >out if the company is going under, or face serious consequences, >like full refunds to EVERYONE who bought the game, even if it >were ten years ago.
You seriously suggest that if a company for example goes bankrup they shoould be fined unless they first phase out their activation mechanism? That will work out great I am sure, because such companies has so much extra money they don't know what to do with.
>Exactly what bearing do the rest have on US >copyright?
I was asking about how the sugestion of registration would work internationally (compared to the automatic one now). Of course you can ignore what the rest of the world do, but then I assume someone from USA would probably like to have protection in other countries too (which is what the Bern convention for example handle).
So assume one introduce the sugested "registration required" that was proposed and that all countries do that, how would it work (that was my question and you don't seem to answer it).
>The only clause of real effect is that copyright >for international works must be treated the same >as those of internal works.
Exactly, which is what I ask about. How would it work in practise to get your work protected not only in your own country? Would you have to go arround registring in every country? Or would you have to go arround and check if a work is registered somewere in the world and thus be protected in yours as well? I can't see such a system that requires registration would work well in an international perspective and that was the reason I asked the question (which you by the way did not answer).
>By rejecting it and rolling back copyrights to >their original limited lifespan of 14 years >after registration.
And how do you propose to have that work internationally? Should each country have some registration and you have to go arround to each country registering (and perhaps failing in country 178 and be without protection)? Or should others have to go arround and check in all countries in the world to see if a work is still registered somewere and thus protected world wide? All this assuming of course that you actually get the same rules in each country so that it is not different in each country and it gets even more chaotic.
>As long as there is a switch to use/not use this >'manner enforcement', I doubt there is a problem.
You must have missed the new laws comming that will outlaw the circumvention of any such systems set up to add manners to digital devices. If you circumvent a system that was set up to protect the health and safety of the public, extra penalties will be added. In fact, just possessing such a tool with the intent to circumvent a "digital manner" system will carry harsh criminal penalties. This is needed since criminal organisations and drug dealers tends to use such devices and we need to combat them. There will also be a separate "digital manners enforcement police" set up as this is top priority for the goverment!
In other news, bank robbers cheers at their new tool to bring along that will disable all cameras when performing robberies.
Cell phone users are also wondering why their phones tend to stop working every other minute. Investigation shows one out of five person in the public carrying their own "no phone calls here" devices arround.
Finally paparazzis express no worries. They will just keep a slightly longer distance to their targets and thus avoid any "no photos here" devices carried arround by most celebrities.
Slashdot Mirror
>That may be true, but new laws regarding aiding in copyright
>infringement have been introduced in recent years
No note really. Swedish law has a general section dealing with various types of aiding, preparing and other similar activities realted to crimes. They are not specific to copyright. When new EU directives has come that include such issues the conclusion has always been that swedish law allready has such provisions in the form of those general paragraphs applying to all crimes.
You are aware that many countries allow for example copying for private use which includes giving the songs to friends or family. Those in turn might do the same and someone might eventually put it out to the public and so on. Even if you "play nice" and follw the law, you may not want that info about you in those files and it can indeed concern you.
>One is typically permitted to share/post small excerpts for
>critical commentary. IANAL, but I highly doubt that sending
>an entire song to a friend is within the letter of the law.
That might be perfectly true in your country, but completely different in other countries (including those were Apple sell songs through iTunes). For example in Sweden it is perfectly legal to make (a few) copies for private use which includes giving them to relatives and friends.
>It's hard to keep up with all these different users who,
>purely out of coincidence, all happen to be using the exact
>same roundabout logic, have the same hatred of companies protecting
>their investment, and all make the same wild, baseless claims.
Exactly WHAT wild, baseles claim did I make in the post you replied to?
Were have I shown any hatred to "companies protecting their investment"?
I do however have the opinion that if the "protecting their investment" includes prevent me from for example re-selling something I bought, or preventing me from re-installing a program in the future or demanding that there is DRM installed on my computer especially one that will not be removed with the game, then it is ver bad acting by the company. Perhaps you are of the opinion that any and all critisim or complain equals hatred and should not be allowed and that consumers should just accept anything that companies do with the argument "we protect our investment"?
For the record, for me, buying a game is an investment, I I also protect that investment and want to make sure that I can use it in the same way anything else I buy without the maker interfering with that in ways I gave examples of above. You seem to not accept that. Sad.
>The answer to that, of course, is to not agree
>to a license that explicitly states "this license
>is not transferable".
Which only applies to a country were you would need such a license. In others the claim of preventing reselling is a valid one.
>Yes, because I'm sure DRM has nothing to do with piracy...
Only in part, it also affects normal use of the product, controling your installation and for example reselling which has nothing to do with piracy.
>And people who steal games are assholes and are ruining
>the gaming industry,
I would say they might ruining whatever shope they are stolen from. It would not affect the game companies.
>Not to mention your hatred of companies protecting
>their rights is solely cause by pirates, so you
>too can only agree with that.
What rights are you talking about? Controling such things as how someone that buys a game can install or use the game? Controling how someone can re-sell a game? Controling what unremovable DRM products are put on customers computers? Strange rights you claim they should have.
You seems to use "piracy" as an excuse for adding any and all sorts of control to a product that in many cases has nothing to do with piracy or have severe effects not realted to piracy. Just scream "piracy" and everyone should accept anything and anything is excused appearantly.
If we disregard the fact that the specific Class-Action suit was in USA and look at the games, EA and their DRM one quickly see that there are problems.
>You have no right to install software.
Yes, you have in many countries that "right" without having to get any permission, licens or enter into a cotract.
>It's an act of making a copy (in fact even running off a
>cd is because you are making a copy of the executable
>imagine in RAM) and this what copyright is all about.
Many countries has specific exceptions for such copying making it a non infringing act. To avoid further confusion, no many countries does not have the "own" requirement USA has for this exceptions. Leaglly aquired the software is enough (which is what the WIPO treaty had, USA decided to make it own instead, other countries did not). This makes the whole "you don't own it you license it" meaningless is such countries.
So no, you don't need any license and no you don't need to enter into any EULA or other contract to run or install the software.
Of course, as has allready been pointed out by others, the EULA does in the end not mention the DRM in questions so it doesn't appearantly help, even in countries were EA can rely on their EULA.
>His point is that about 2 in 1000 people will actually ever hit this limit.
If that is the case, why would you even have to add the limit anyway then? It is then clearly not a problem.
>I recall from some study claiming, that identifying age cannot
>be accurately estimated by carbon-dating beyond 40000 years or so.
Fortunately the rock was not made up of carbon and hence carbon-dating was not needed. The rock did contain neodymium and samarium though which could be used for dating it.
>If TPB gave a fuck about free speech, it
>would remove all the Hollywood movies and
>music and purely host documents from civil
>rights groups.
They don't host ANY documents though, so that would be hard. besides, it is not them, but users, that post infomration what they (the users) have available for others. Similary they don't decide what end up on top 100, their users do. TPB doesn't take anything and doesn't reproduce anything as you seem to imply.
>Heck, without double checking I'd be the EULA lets
>them ban you just because they feel like it (most
>EULAs do, because no-one reads them and it helps
>stop arguments over "fair" later).
Too bad many (most?) countries have laws that doesn't alow you to just terminate a service you sold "for no reason" and won't allow for such a contract term in a consumer sold service either.
On the other hand, most of the time when people (including slashdoters) write and talk about copy protection they actually mean access protection instead.
>I always wondered about if accepting the gpl is required.
Depends on what you want to do. If it is something the law doesn't allow you to do, then yes, you might need to agree to the GPL so that you get that permission/license.
>If I decline the gpl license, what right does I have to use the software?
Everything you can think of that isn't forbidden by the law. The same applies to rights to use your toaster in home or your sofa. You can use it in whatever way you want that is not forbidden in any law.
When it comes to software, copyright laws will restrict you in a few ways that won't apply for a sofa or a toaster though. Here it depends on what you mean by "use". Copyright doesn't restrict "use" and doesn't give "use" as an exclusive right to the copyright holder so you have to break up the "use" into actions that are relevant to copyright. Typically use or using software would probably to most people be the running the software on your computer. In the case of Firefox, browsing the net for example.
Again, copyright doesn't forbid that, copyright do however forbid copying. So if your use involves copying of the software, you might not be allowed to do so. Another thing that copyright forbids is distribution (which for most is not the same as use). To distribute the software you thus need to get permission from the copyright holder for example by agreeing to a GPL.
For the copying done when you use the software (for example installing the software on the hard disc or when running it and having copies on the memory of the computer, it depends a bit on what country you live in. Since ordinary use of for example software require various forms of copying to be usable at all, there are various exceptions to the exclusive right of copying that the copyright holder has. Others may under various situations be allowed to copy the software without special permission. The exact nature of those exceptions depends on what country you are in. In the USA the exception is tied to being an "owner" of a copy of the software which leads to the whole "licensed not sold". Other countries have other rules such as lawfully possessing a copy (making the whole licensed not sold argument pointless). Typically if you are such an owner or in possession, the copyright law will allow you to make necessary copies to use the software (installing it, loading it into memory and so on). Some countries has more general exceptions for any copy (not just software) that are just temporary (like when you load a program into memory while using it or copies made in a router/computer/whatever when you send it across the net.
>I mean I don't think I have any right to use any software,
>unless that right is explicit given to me.
It is the other way around. You have any right you can think of unless it is specifically removed from you. Typically it is removed by the copyright law. Copyright law however only removes very specific things, like copying and distribution and usually there are exceptions for when you can do it anyway. TO get any of those specific rights taken away from you by the law, then yes, you need them explicitly given back to you through a contract for example.
>Or is the fact that I am in possession of the software
>enough to also grant me right to run it?
In many countries, yes. Note that it will typically be the copying while running/using it that is given to you as an exception to the exclusive right to copy the law gives to the copyright holder. If one can run or use a program without making any copies there would be no issue at all.
>If possession is enough, then I can also conclude that any
>software EULA is invalid, because I can just run the software
>without accepting the EULA.
Yes (or rather, the EULA is not necessarily invalid, just not needed). One problem might be that most programs are made so that it is hard to install or run them without having to agree to the EULA. You are basically forced to agree to it to make the p
>For it not to apply the work in question must explicitally
>have been declared to be "public domain".
Many countries doesn't have the concept declaring something to be "public domain". You are basically stuck with the copyright until it expires.
>I'd say registered with at least one of the members of the Berne Convention
>would be fine, assuming that they share their catalogs. (which is the entire
>purpose with saved DRM-free digital works anyways, IMHO).
Share with whom? What if some countries doesn't have any registration requirements or have a different system?
>I also wasn't concerned with all other countries operations,
>just the US one with the huge downwind stink its policies are creating.
I think you would start to be concerned as soon as you realise that you end up with no protection in other countries because you didn't follow their requirements or that there was no easy way to check if a specific work was protected through some registration in another country that failed to check and so on.
The idea of registration of course has some good points but tend to not end up well due to the fact that the world is still split up with separate countries. If there was a global registration system it could work. I would say that the main problem is not if you register or not though but the insane time copyright lasts.
Any old idea can turn into a new patent simply by adding "with a computer" or "on the internet" to the old idea. I thought that was common knowledge...
This seems like one would in effect require anyone that has some "lock" on media to provide for more or less a backdoor to the software. As for keeping it private until needed, I just see far to big of a chance that it will end up as a "oops, we could not find it" or "sorry, seems it doesn't really work". Especially in case of someone buying out a company as it could be seen as a big cut in the value of what one buy.
Heck, not even in cases were there is no bankrupcy or buyout companies simply close down such authetification systems. So far it seems to mostly be in the music business. But I think it shows that there will be many cases were they won't care about unlocking or helping out old customers. The idea is nice but I can't see how it will really work. And when one starts to think of it in a more international way, it will work even less I think.
>Nonsense. You are gaining utility without compensating the creators, and that's not right.
Are you saying one should never "gaining utility" without compensating the creator? That must mean you are of the opinion that giving something away is never ok by you? If I visit your house, I suppose I need to stand up as I can't sit in your sofa? Of course, on the other hand, I can't lend you the good book I read the other week since then you would "gain utility" reading it without compensating the creator. When you turn on the music, I should use my earplugs so I don't gain utility without paying the creators. The good thing is, only I can eat the food I brought with my car since otherwise you would gain utility wihtout compensating my car manufacturer. The story I heard the other day on the buss will of course stay with me, I can't chare that one with you since I don't know how to compensate the "creator" of it. To be honest, I will probably not even be allowed to enter your house since I gained utility of a whole bunch of stuff my brother gave me when he moved into his girlfriends house that he needed no more and I didn't pay anything to the creators, yet I gained tonds of utility.... I must be such a major offender to you. Problem solved with the sofa at least.
>Legislate that all authentication mechanisms like this be phased
>out if the company is going under, or face serious consequences,
>like full refunds to EVERYONE who bought the game, even if it
>were ten years ago.
You seriously suggest that if a company for example goes bankrup they shoould be fined unless they first phase out their activation mechanism? That will work out great I am sure, because such companies has so much extra money they don't know what to do with.
>DVDs have copy protection,
What would that "copy protection" you are talking about be?
>Exactly what bearing do the rest have on US
>copyright?
I was asking about how the sugestion of registration would work internationally (compared to the automatic one now). Of course you can ignore what the rest of the world do, but then I assume someone from USA would probably like to have protection in other countries too (which is what the Bern convention for example handle).
So assume one introduce the sugested "registration required" that was proposed and that all countries do that, how would it work (that was my question and you don't seem to answer it).
>The only clause of real effect is that copyright
>for international works must be treated the same
>as those of internal works.
Exactly, which is what I ask about. How would it work in practise to get your work protected not only in your own country? Would you have to go arround registring in every country? Or would you have to go arround and check if a work is registered somewere in the world and thus be protected in yours as well? I can't see such a system that requires registration would work well in an international perspective and that was the reason I asked the question (which you by the way did not answer).
>By rejecting it and rolling back copyrights to
>their original limited lifespan of 14 years
>after registration.
And how do you propose to have that work internationally? Should each country have some registration and you have to go arround to each country registering (and perhaps failing in country 178 and be without protection)? Or should others have to go arround and check in all countries in the world to see if a work is still registered somewere and thus protected world wide? All this assuming of course that you actually get the same rules in each country so that it is not different in each country and it gets even more chaotic.
>The can have dozens of them and as long as you
>accept the terms of any one of them, you can
>legally use the product.
And, depending on what country you live in appearantly, you can legally use the product even if you don't agree to any of them.
>Why does it need "terms of service" at all? It's
>supposedly Open Source.
Even if it was not open source (and it appears it is not), why would it need "terms of service"?
>As long as there is a switch to use/not use this
>'manner enforcement', I doubt there is a problem.
You must have missed the new laws comming that will outlaw the circumvention of any such systems set up to add manners to digital devices. If you circumvent a system that was set up to protect the health and safety of the public, extra penalties will be added. In fact, just possessing such a tool with the intent to circumvent a "digital manner" system will carry harsh criminal penalties. This is needed since criminal organisations and drug dealers tends to use such devices and we need to combat them. There will also be a separate "digital manners enforcement police" set up as this is top priority for the goverment!
In other news, bank robbers cheers at their new tool to bring along that will disable all cameras when performing robberies.
Cell phone users are also wondering why their phones tend to stop working every other minute. Investigation shows one out of five person in the public carrying their own "no phone calls here" devices arround.
Finally paparazzis express no worries. They will just keep a slightly longer distance to their targets and thus avoid any "no photos here" devices carried arround by most celebrities.