All states but Mass DID settle eventually. While some settled later than others, they all decided to settle. Mostly because of the costs that they incurred, and MS made some cash available as part of the settlement (settle with us and we will cover your legal fees, keep going, and we will fight you tooth and nail). Of course the political pressure they put inside the states had some effect as well.
I don't believe you own the smart card that comes with the receiver. You can purchase the receiver, but the card is still property of dtv. I don't have one in front of me, but I think it even says it on there. And if they want, they can come and collect it, so modifying it and doing anything unauthorized with it breaches the contract you have with them and alters their property.
Phish has a system for this, and they have had it going for at least a year now. Plus, you can get it in either mp3 or lossless format (FLAC).
They do not tether DRM either, and still allow for audience to tape the shows with special taper tickets. Those can be freely traded, but the ones Phish provides is an honor system (what? a band that does not assume that their fans are out to rip them off? Someone call the RIAA)
You live on the Hill too? I wonder if this extends out to 4th street, where I am. If I was not moving in 2 weeks, this would be enough incentive to finally get a wireless card.
Except it is not an either or thing. IP violations can be for violations of ANY IP right. It does not need to be all IP rights. I can have someone steal my property even though I don't own a house. If someone steals my car, would you say, well that isn't property theft b/c they only stole one kind of property and not your house as well?
I am wondering why anyone would want to do this aside from the pure hacking coolness that this is.
I thought the X-boxes were sold at a loss, and that is in relation to the fact that MS already gets the hardware cheaper than we can due to their immense purchasing power. Can you really build a comparable box for $150 or even close to that? Seems to me that is better to take an x-box and mod it to a fully functioning computer (like linux) rather than take a fully functioning computer and mod it to an x-box at more $$.
In fact, I was even thinking of picking up an x-box, not to play games, but to use as a frontend for a mythbox as there is no way I could build one for anywhere close to $150, particulary with that form factor. I don't even play games, as my ability to do so ended after pitfall for atari 2600.
I know this might be best for Mike to answer, but to answer your question, probably not. Refer to the recent 321 studios case and deCSS cases. In the Federal deCSS case, the Court held that the IP infringment concerns that CSS mitigates outwieghs any interoperablity functions (i.e. playing a DVD on Linux) served by deCSS. Of course, they could have felt that interoperability was a fluff argument, and the only prupose of deCSS is piracy, but they were pretty explicit in saying the IP concerns outweighed the interoperability concerns. This was a huge finding, as they said there are other systems to play DVDs on, and ways to play DVDs on linux (even if we know this is unfeasable).
Likely, a court would take the same view here (esp if it is in a jurisdiction bound by the deCSS case), and hold that you can play these games under Windows so do not need to crack it to play with WINE. I believe the interoperability exceptions come more into play from rival manufactures trying to develop interoperable prgorams and needing device and interface specs (like cracking aspects of Windows to interoperate with servers or desktops).
To see this issue at full boil right now, look at the Lexmark/Static Control Componments where SCC had to circumvent Lexmarks controls on the toner carteridges to make interoperable products. Also see a the Chamberlain garage door case, which is very similar in arguments.
You are wrong. DirecTV is owned by Hughes (GM) and is being bought out by Murdoch (who owns NewsCorp). DishNetwork wanted to purchase DTV but the FCC (or pehaps DOJ or both) put the kibosh on that, as there would then only be 1 sat provider. Not sure I like Murdoch better owning my prefered form of TV delivery, but oh well.
It was reported out of the Commerce Committee today. 2 versions, one that codifies the HotNews case, and is very mild based on common law precedent (and pretty much how the courts currently interpret these issues), and the more onerous one which was reported unfavorably. So it looks like it may be stalled and not reach the floor.
Just to give a plug for OSAIA, and because it is mentioned in the article. We just added a "write your rep" section to our website. Check it out, it has some bullet points to include in a letter to Congress on OS in general and the SCO suit (responding to SCO's letter to Congress).
You can get your Congressperson's contact info on that site also. We recommend faxing your letter as well as sending it via post mail. The mail facilities at the capitol still are not 100% after the anthrax incidents of a few years ago. Fax and mail will guarantee it gets there.
The last part is what makes the least sense to me: "The system works only in situations where the car can continuously back up into a space -- not for those tight spots where you must inch your way into a space by going back and forth, wrestling with the wheel." But it is being touted as great for Japan b/c of the limited and tight parking spots, moreso than in the states. So why is it being offered primarily to Japanese drivers who have difficulty with the tight spots if it specifically can't handle those spots?
I don't know the law in canada, but in the states, you can not use settlement negotiations as evidence. If this can be proved that his counter-offer was for purposes of settlement and the law on evidence is similar in canada, then his "bad faith" act may get thrown out.
I would be interested to hear the actual number of cases the SCOTUS heard from each of those circuits. Yes, 100% overturn sounds more then 75% overturn, but if they heard just 1 case and overturned it from the 100% district and heard 20 cases and overturned 15 of them from the 9th Circuit, I would say the ninth circuit was overturned more. Given the article does not give these numbers (and the general biased tone of it), I would suspect that the numbers paint a different picture.
What's that, manipulating numbers to give misleading stats? Never.
Oh and the SCOTUS grants cert to review many cases they might agree with, or when there is a split in the circuit, or for other reasons. No one knows how the court will wind up voting until the decision is released.
Hardly...from a legal standpoint I doubt there is anything wrong with their actions. This is NOT a raid in terms of a criminal bust, this is legal self help.
I assume the agents announce themselves as agents of RIAA enforcement bureau, or something like that. To a layman, that may seem like an official person, but they have not made any sort of reference to being an agent of the government. Remember, people also thought during the subpeona craze that a 12 year old was arrested, when in fact she was sued in a civil action; huge difference. The RIAA has no police power, and likely, they did not assert that they did. If someone assumes they do, that is their mistake.
These agents next likely told them what they are doing is both illegal and subject to civil suit. Likely, they told them that they could be charged with a felony. I even guess that they threatened to report them to the FBI if they do not immediatly confiscate the material. Then they are issued an incident report which they signed. I would love to see a copy, but I suspect that it is very similar to amnesty agreement they have, and that has been covered here. Meaning, if they catch them again, they will report them or do sue. But given that they are likely judgement proof (poor as dirt), it will probably be report to authorities and hope for publicity on this.
Now you can make a moral argument that the RIAA should not be going after poor immigrant (perhaps illegals) workers who speak next to no english, are confused by the situation, and maybe dont even know the criminality of their actions. But if you are going to say that, then really what course of action does the RIAA have? Their policy of going after individual file traders is stupid on so many levels, but why should they not go after those who are actually profiting from their work? And you really think the feds will not plea out their case for legitimate information leading to the top dogs in the distribution channel? Please, I would love to hear a/. defense of those guys!
I hope you are not a lawyer, because you certainly would get in trouble for addmitting that you are a drug dealer on your tax forms. This would be an admission against interest and fully allowed to be evidence in a court. If you were tried, you could not be compelled to take the stand and testify against yourself, but this certainly would be evidence against you.
It may be a small circuit, but RIAA has used that area to issue most of its subpeonas, and if they had their way (and were not stopped by other rulings), would use the DC District courts to issue ALL their subpeonas. They can't do that now.
And yes, other jurisdictions are not bound by this ruling, but it is persuasive and they may choose to follow it. At the very least, it will be cited heavily in other jurisdictions. And the court really did what they should have, they followed the words of the statute without going beyond the Act to see intent or something like that. If other circuits split, then it becomes a ripe issue for the Supreme Court to take on, and given their penchant for first following the plain language of the law, I would be suprised to see a decision that does not mirror todays.
In short, good news for Verizon, and better news for Internet users!
The 14th amendment incorporates the other amendments to the States. So prior to its passage, the States had greater latitude in what they could do (for example, they could set up a State religion as was done in Maryland). However, the 14th amendment required the states to provide due process to the citizens, and that is why all levels of government legislatures are bound by the protections granted under the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment (along with the voting rights amendments which specify states in their wording).
Also, the fourth amendment does not apply to private actors. I may not be able to search and seize items in your house, but that is due to the particular laws, not the commandments of the Constitution - which applies to state actors.
I may be missing some other parts of the Constitution, but the first thing that pops into my head that regulates private actors is prohibittion, which of course was repealed. In general, the constitution sets up the structure of the US government, and provides limits on governments ability to restrict the citizenry. The first 10 amendments (bill of rights) ennunciates a variety of the rights to the people as protections or safeguards from (then) Federal power and (now) state power. And the only part (that I can think of) that takes away rights is prohibbition, which quickly was reversed.
Ok, how my comment that was possibly responding to a troll with usefull info got modded by anyone as a troll itself is beyond me. I guess I am new here.
I am not sure if this is a troll, but will respond anyway.
There is MAME for Win-32. Requires DOS commands to run the ROMs, but there are also plenty of MAME frontends for windows that are very GUI and let you adjust all your settings and organize your ROMs and point and click to run a game.
Go here to get it, and look for the FAQ on finding frontends. I have used a few, and they vary. Forgot which I liked best.
This was not a court ruling, and actually does not even put to bed the Advers ruling SCC has already received. This is not the ruling of an administrative agency either. It is the ruling of the Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress, which is under the Legislative branch (Congress). As part of the DMCA, they are obligated to conduct these triennial rules to determine if there are any uses that should be permitted that are not under the 1201 excemptions, and they have the power to add these. What they ruled is that they believe that what SCC was asking for was unnecesary to spell out as the 1201 excemptions in the Copyright Office's opinion already cover SCC's use.
Practically speaking, this is powerful evidence of Congressional intent in the ongoing appeal, and SCC will likely prevail based on this ruling, but it is not a slam dunk.
Now where is the justified moaning about the Copyright Offices refusal to add an exception to decrypt DVDs to play on the Linux OS (which currently contains 0 licensed DVD player software that an average user can obtain and be in compliance with the DMCA). "The balancing of the incremental benefit of allowing circumvention for the purposes of watching a movie on a Linux-based computer is outweighted by the threat of increased piracy that undrlies Congress' motivation for enacting section 1201." SHEESH, oh well, didn't really expect to get that one!
Slashdot Mirror
All states but Mass DID settle eventually. While some settled later than others, they all decided to settle. Mostly because of the costs that they incurred, and MS made some cash available as part of the settlement (settle with us and we will cover your legal fees, keep going, and we will fight you tooth and nail). Of course the political pressure they put inside the states had some effect as well.
I don't believe you own the smart card that comes with the receiver. You can purchase the receiver, but the card is still property of dtv. I don't have one in front of me, but I think it even says it on there. And if they want, they can come and collect it, so modifying it and doing anything unauthorized with it breaches the contract you have with them and alters their property.
Ahh, thats BS, I am 2 blocks behind the SC, so that is out of range i guess.
Too bad GU law school encrypts their wi-fi or you could snag theirs. I unfortunatly will be there later tonite taking a final
Phish has a system for this, and they have had it going for at least a year now. Plus, you can get it in either mp3 or lossless format (FLAC).
They do not tether DRM either, and still allow for audience to tape the shows with special taper tickets. Those can be freely traded, but the ones Phish provides is an honor system (what? a band that does not assume that their fans are out to rip them off? Someone call the RIAA)
You live on the Hill too? I wonder if this extends out to 4th street, where I am. If I was not moving in 2 weeks, this would be enough incentive to finally get a wireless card.
Except it is not an either or thing. IP violations can be for violations of ANY IP right. It does not need to be all IP rights. I can have someone steal my property even though I don't own a house. If someone steals my car, would you say, well that isn't property theft b/c they only stole one kind of property and not your house as well?
I am wondering why anyone would want to do this aside from the pure hacking coolness that this is.
I thought the X-boxes were sold at a loss, and that is in relation to the fact that MS already gets the hardware cheaper than we can due to their immense purchasing power. Can you really build a comparable box for $150 or even close to that? Seems to me that is better to take an x-box and mod it to a fully functioning computer (like linux) rather than take a fully functioning computer and mod it to an x-box at more $$.
In fact, I was even thinking of picking up an x-box, not to play games, but to use as a frontend for a mythbox as there is no way I could build one for anywhere close to $150, particulary with that form factor. I don't even play games, as my ability to do so ended after pitfall for atari 2600.
and how my post got modded to a 4 while the parent post with the actual information stays at a 1 is beyond me ;)
Damn you, would I just believe you and be on my merry way??? No, and yes I can confirm, this does crash moz in XP as well.
I know this might be best for Mike to answer, but to answer your question, probably not. Refer to the recent 321 studios case and deCSS cases. In the Federal deCSS case, the Court held that the IP infringment concerns that CSS mitigates outwieghs any interoperablity functions (i.e. playing a DVD on Linux) served by deCSS. Of course, they could have felt that interoperability was a fluff argument, and the only prupose of deCSS is piracy, but they were pretty explicit in saying the IP concerns outweighed the interoperability concerns. This was a huge finding, as they said there are other systems to play DVDs on, and ways to play DVDs on linux (even if we know this is unfeasable).
Likely, a court would take the same view here (esp if it is in a jurisdiction bound by the deCSS case), and hold that you can play these games under Windows so do not need to crack it to play with WINE. I believe the interoperability exceptions come more into play from rival manufactures trying to develop interoperable prgorams and needing device and interface specs (like cracking aspects of Windows to interoperate with servers or desktops).
To see this issue at full boil right now, look at the Lexmark/Static Control Componments where SCC had to circumvent Lexmarks controls on the toner carteridges to make interoperable products. Also see a the Chamberlain garage door case, which is very similar in arguments.
You are wrong. DirecTV is owned by Hughes (GM) and is being bought out by Murdoch (who owns NewsCorp). DishNetwork wanted to purchase DTV but the FCC (or pehaps DOJ or both) put the kibosh on that, as there would then only be 1 sat provider. Not sure I like Murdoch better owning my prefered form of TV delivery, but oh well.
It was reported out of the Commerce Committee today. 2 versions, one that codifies the HotNews case, and is very mild based on common law precedent (and pretty much how the courts currently interpret these issues), and the more onerous one which was reported unfavorably. So it looks like it may be stalled and not reach the floor.
This is a good thing!
Mogrify is your friend for cases like this. I mean, you are using linux to take and post those screenshots, right?
Just to give a plug for OSAIA, and because it is mentioned in the article. We just added a "write your rep" section to our website. Check it out, it has some bullet points to include in a letter to Congress on OS in general and the SCO suit (responding to SCO's letter to Congress).
You can get your Congressperson's contact info on that site also. We recommend faxing your letter as well as sending it via post mail. The mail facilities at the capitol still are not 100% after the anthrax incidents of a few years ago. Fax and mail will guarantee it gets there.
The last part is what makes the least sense to me:
"The system works only in situations where the car can continuously back up into a space -- not for those tight spots where you must inch your way into a space by going back and forth, wrestling with the wheel."
But it is being touted as great for Japan b/c of the limited and tight parking spots, moreso than in the states. So why is it being offered primarily to Japanese drivers who have difficulty with the tight spots if it specifically can't handle those spots?
I don't know the law in canada, but in the states, you can not use settlement negotiations as evidence. If this can be proved that his counter-offer was for purposes of settlement and the law on evidence is similar in canada, then his "bad faith" act may get thrown out.
But I am no expert on the laws of evidence.
I would be interested to hear the actual number of cases the SCOTUS heard from each of those circuits. Yes, 100% overturn sounds more then 75% overturn, but if they heard just 1 case and overturned it from the 100% district and heard 20 cases and overturned 15 of them from the 9th Circuit, I would say the ninth circuit was overturned more. Given the article does not give these numbers (and the general biased tone of it), I would suspect that the numbers paint a different picture.
What's that, manipulating numbers to give misleading stats? Never.
Oh and the SCOTUS grants cert to review many cases they might agree with, or when there is a split in the circuit, or for other reasons. No one knows how the court will wind up voting until the decision is released.
Hardly...from a legal standpoint I doubt there is anything wrong with their actions. This is NOT a raid in terms of a criminal bust, this is legal self help.
/. defense of those guys!
I assume the agents announce themselves as agents of RIAA enforcement bureau, or something like that. To a layman, that may seem like an official person, but they have not made any sort of reference to being an agent of the government. Remember, people also thought during the subpeona craze that a 12 year old was arrested, when in fact she was sued in a civil action; huge difference. The RIAA has no police power, and likely, they did not assert that they did. If someone assumes they do, that is their mistake.
These agents next likely told them what they are doing is both illegal and subject to civil suit. Likely, they told them that they could be charged with a felony. I even guess that they threatened to report them to the FBI if they do not immediatly confiscate the material. Then they are issued an incident report which they signed. I would love to see a copy, but I suspect that it is very similar to amnesty agreement they have, and that has been covered here. Meaning, if they catch them again, they will report them or do sue. But given that they are likely judgement proof (poor as dirt), it will probably be report to authorities and hope for publicity on this.
Now you can make a moral argument that the RIAA should not be going after poor immigrant (perhaps illegals) workers who speak next to no english, are confused by the situation, and maybe dont even know the criminality of their actions. But if you are going to say that, then really what course of action does the RIAA have? Their policy of going after individual file traders is stupid on so many levels, but why should they not go after those who are actually profiting from their work? And you really think the feds will not plea out their case for legitimate information leading to the top dogs in the distribution channel? Please, I would love to hear a
I hope you are not a lawyer, because you certainly would get in trouble for addmitting that you are a drug dealer on your tax forms. This would be an admission against interest and fully allowed to be evidence in a court. If you were tried, you could not be compelled to take the stand and testify against yourself, but this certainly would be evidence against you.
Why do you think confessions are used in trials?
It may be a small circuit, but RIAA has used that area to issue most of its subpeonas, and if they had their way (and were not stopped by other rulings), would use the DC District courts to issue ALL their subpeonas. They can't do that now.
And yes, other jurisdictions are not bound by this ruling, but it is persuasive and they may choose to follow it. At the very least, it will be cited heavily in other jurisdictions. And the court really did what they should have, they followed the words of the statute without going beyond the Act to see intent or something like that. If other circuits split, then it becomes a ripe issue for the Supreme Court to take on, and given their penchant for first following the plain language of the law, I would be suprised to see a decision that does not mirror todays.
In short, good news for Verizon, and better news for Internet users!
Your argument was good until you mead me question your sanity with this:
.. think of ... Celine Dion"
"And those Canadian artists who have actual talent
C'mon now, Celine Dion, actual talent...These words do not go together!
The 14th amendment incorporates the other amendments to the States. So prior to its passage, the States had greater latitude in what they could do (for example, they could set up a State religion as was done in Maryland). However, the 14th amendment required the states to provide due process to the citizens, and that is why all levels of government legislatures are bound by the protections granted under the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment (along with the voting rights amendments which specify states in their wording).
Also, the fourth amendment does not apply to private actors. I may not be able to search and seize items in your house, but that is due to the particular laws, not the commandments of the Constitution - which applies to state actors.
I may be missing some other parts of the Constitution, but the first thing that pops into my head that regulates private actors is prohibittion, which of course was repealed. In general, the constitution sets up the structure of the US government, and provides limits on governments ability to restrict the citizenry. The first 10 amendments (bill of rights) ennunciates a variety of the rights to the people as protections or safeguards from (then) Federal power and (now) state power. And the only part (that I can think of) that takes away rights is prohibbition, which quickly was reversed.
Ok, how my comment that was possibly responding to a troll with usefull info got modded by anyone as a troll itself is beyond me. I guess I am new here.
I am not sure if this is a troll, but will respond anyway.
There is MAME for Win-32. Requires DOS commands to run the ROMs, but there are also plenty of MAME frontends for windows that are very GUI and let you adjust all your settings and organize your ROMs and point and click to run a game.
Go here to get it, and look for the FAQ on finding frontends. I have used a few, and they vary. Forgot which I liked best.
This was not a court ruling, and actually does not even put to bed the Advers ruling SCC has already received. This is not the ruling of an administrative agency either. It is the ruling of the Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress, which is under the Legislative branch (Congress). As part of the DMCA, they are obligated to conduct these triennial rules to determine if there are any uses that should be permitted that are not under the 1201 excemptions, and they have the power to add these. What they ruled is that they believe that what SCC was asking for was unnecesary to spell out as the 1201 excemptions in the Copyright Office's opinion already cover SCC's use.
Practically speaking, this is powerful evidence of Congressional intent in the ongoing appeal, and SCC will likely prevail based on this ruling, but it is not a slam dunk.
Now where is the justified moaning about the Copyright Offices refusal to add an exception to decrypt DVDs to play on the Linux OS (which currently contains 0 licensed DVD player software that an average user can obtain and be in compliance with the DMCA). "The balancing of the incremental benefit of allowing circumvention for the purposes of watching a movie on a Linux-based computer is outweighted by the threat of increased piracy that undrlies Congress' motivation for enacting section 1201." SHEESH, oh well, didn't really expect to get that one!