In that it is a breach of a contract, of course. But that doesn't mean anything to third parties.. to prevent them from making copies you need copyright, and that's the problem. Honestly, most of the injustice of copyright could be remedied by a few simple changes:
opt-in instead of opt-out. At the moment, even doodles you make on a cocktail napkin and leave at the bar are covered by copyright.
compulsory registration. At the moment, if I want to find the owner of a copyrighted work I almost have to hire a private detective.
compulsory royalties. At the moment, people can use copyright to suppress and bury works by refusing to make copies for people who want them. I should be free to copy anything I want, and just pay a fee to my local royalty collector who passes it onto the copyright owner.
regular registration fees. At the moment, it costs nothing to copyright something.. you don't even have to register it. If there was a nominal fee due anually people would actually have to choose if their work was worth the fee. If it wasn't, it should enter into the public domain immediately.
reduced terms. Life + 70 years is just absurd.. it does nothing to encourage people to create more works.
In regards to who is forcing me... the many laws that are on the cards to force DRM into products remove my ability to choose a product that doesn't have DRM. As such, I am unable to vote with my feet, as there's soon to be no free options available. Oh and "prosecuted" is the wrong term.. this is all a civil matter, the correct term is "sued".
How does that entitle you to put shit into my player which I don't want? And, worse yet, how does that give you the right to pass laws which force me to buy a player that does this shit that I don't want? Finally, what gives you the right to dictate the terms to me which you and someone else agreed upon and I didn't? If your customer gives me a copy of your work after promising they wouldn't, take it up with them.
Re:Would some one please explain...
on
The Day Against DRM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ok, it's really easy, the devices that I own should do what I want even if what I want to do is violate copyright. That simple: my device, my choice.
The firmware could be useful to many people, we just have no idea what they could do with it because we're not given enough documentation for the device. There's either two possibilities, the firmware contains code, can contain bugs and can therefore be hacked to make the device work better or it is "just data" and is therefore not a "creative work" protected by copyright. If anyone had any balls these days we'd know which it was because they'd just distribute the damn binary blob anyway they liked and when Intel decided to sue they'd have to disclose what is in these binary blobs when they present their case in court. If it was just unimportant data the courts would throw it out. If it was code or otherwise "creative" data then their disclosure would be a good starting point for reverse engineering the blob, in which case we'd likely be free to create a clean room implementation of the blob and distribute that.
Sure, you can charge anything you want.. for services that *you* offer.. but I'm the one making the copy here. Copyright gives you the power to discourage me from making that copy, forcing people to come to you to get copies. That's the bullshit.
I've found it a LOT easier to use than Second Life. Hell, if you're going to use external editors, you want something more powerful not something easier to use.. that's why most people use Blender or 3ds Max. Of course, if you're going to use an external editor, what point is there importing the stuff into Second Life? Develop an Open platform.
Yeah, you can get extradited from Australia for crimes in the US that are not crimes here.. even if you didn't commit them while on US soil. Some warez dudes got extradited this year, never been to the US in his life.
I went to the US the other week. After a 14 hour flight from Australia the nice border patrol man took my passport, asked me some standard questions then had me look into a webcam and put my index fingers on a scanner one at a time. Of course, I could have refused, at which point I would have been promptly placed on a plane back to Australia. That's pretty much all the rights you have at someone else's border: to go home.
Well, no. A 'zero day' exploit is one that targets a vulnerability that has not been disclosed. Period. In this case, all they've done is show people that they can take over a browser.. they havn't told anyone what the vulnerability is, so their exploit is still zero day.
See, what you don't understand is that we, the developers of this software, do care that you can't modify it. Therefore we're using the power of copyright law to prohibit people from preventing you from being able to modify it. Maybe you don't appreciate us looking out for you. That's ok, you can go use some software written by people who don't give a shit about your ability to modify it, but if you're using a device that includes our software, you can rest assured that we're doing our best to ensure you'll be able to modify it.
I love that line of reasoning. Allow me to summarise:
1. Not doing something which could prevent a death is just as bad as doing something which causes a death. 2. Giving just $1 (or something equally trivial) to person X will prevent their death. 3. Therefore any time you spend even $1 more for some random item you're contributing to person X's death.
Personally I think the whole idea of a governing body for volunteer work is absurd. They only have the power to do this stuff because of arcane centralised revision control concepts.. it's not like they have a trademark on "debian".
Slashdot Mirror
In regards to who is forcing me... the many laws that are on the cards to force DRM into products remove my ability to choose a product that doesn't have DRM. As such, I am unable to vote with my feet, as there's soon to be no free options available. Oh and "prosecuted" is the wrong term.. this is all a civil matter, the correct term is "sued".
How does that entitle you to put shit into my player which I don't want? And, worse yet, how does that give you the right to pass laws which force me to buy a player that does this shit that I don't want? Finally, what gives you the right to dictate the terms to me which you and someone else agreed upon and I didn't? If your customer gives me a copy of your work after promising they wouldn't, take it up with them.
Ok, it's really easy, the devices that I own should do what I want even if what I want to do is violate copyright. That simple: my device, my choice.
The other alternative is to just reverse engineer the blobs, it really aint that hard.
The firmware could be useful to many people, we just have no idea what they could do with it because we're not given enough documentation for the device. There's either two possibilities, the firmware contains code, can contain bugs and can therefore be hacked to make the device work better or it is "just data" and is therefore not a "creative work" protected by copyright. If anyone had any balls these days we'd know which it was because they'd just distribute the damn binary blob anyway they liked and when Intel decided to sue they'd have to disclose what is in these binary blobs when they present their case in court. If it was just unimportant data the courts would throw it out. If it was code or otherwise "creative" data then their disclosure would be a good starting point for reverse engineering the blob, in which case we'd likely be free to create a clean room implementation of the blob and distribute that.
Sure, you can charge anything you want.. for services that *you* offer.. but I'm the one making the copy here. Copyright gives you the power to discourage me from making that copy, forcing people to come to you to get copies. That's the bullshit.
And as such is the only cost you need cover, so what gives you the right to charge $29.95 per copy?
I've found it a LOT easier to use than Second Life. Hell, if you're going to use external editors, you want something more powerful not something easier to use.. that's why most people use Blender or 3ds Max. Of course, if you're going to use an external editor, what point is there importing the stuff into Second Life? Develop an Open platform.
How is that not treason?
I'm sorry, but wtf is up with you people screwing around with your polls? Don't you people have any respect for the democratic process?
Yeah, you can get extradited from Australia for crimes in the US that are not crimes here.. even if you didn't commit them while on US soil. Some warez dudes got extradited this year, never been to the US in his life.
the process is over. It doesn't matter who votes for who, it only matters who counts the votes.
I went to the US the other week. After a 14 hour flight from Australia the nice border patrol man took my passport, asked me some standard questions then had me look into a webcam and put my index fingers on a scanner one at a time. Of course, I could have refused, at which point I would have been promptly placed on a plane back to Australia. That's pretty much all the rights you have at someone else's border: to go home.
Well, no. A 'zero day' exploit is one that targets a vulnerability that has not been disclosed. Period. In this case, all they've done is show people that they can take over a browser.. they havn't told anyone what the vulnerability is, so their exploit is still zero day.
See, what you don't understand is that we, the developers of this software, do care that you can't modify it. Therefore we're using the power of copyright law to prohibit people from preventing you from being able to modify it. Maybe you don't appreciate us looking out for you. That's ok, you can go use some software written by people who don't give a shit about your ability to modify it, but if you're using a device that includes our software, you can rest assured that we're doing our best to ensure you'll be able to modify it.
Yeah, I remember the shit we had to go through to get that room booked every month. Beauracracy breeds beauracracy.
Oh yeah.. I forgot:
4. Therefore you might as well just kill people at random, because you are anyway.
Which, of course, is an illogical conclusion, therefore proving, by contradiction, that helping others is pointless.
I love that line of reasoning. Allow me to summarise:
1. Not doing something which could prevent a death is just as bad as doing something which causes a death.
2. Giving just $1 (or something equally trivial) to person X will prevent their death.
3. Therefore any time you spend even $1 more for some random item you're contributing to person X's death.
Yep, exactly.
What can't you understand? This isn't about technology. This is about building a market.
1. It's lapsed.
2. It's not defended, and therefore unenforcable.
Personally I think the whole idea of a governing body for volunteer work is absurd. They only have the power to do this stuff because of arcane centralised revision control concepts.. it's not like they have a trademark on "debian".
If that were the case they'd be introducing new tax laws. No, this is a "my mother lost a fortune betting online, it must be banned!" reaction.
The players are adequately warned. They know the risks and they still want to play. It's not for the government to make their decision for them.
Surely that's a big bloody hole in the legislative system.. why don't they patch it?
It's just crazy.