As someone with both a recliner and a herniated disc, I say don't do it. A recliner forces your back into the worst possible posture. Your back is too important, so protect it.
You forgot to include the value of the items stolen by TSA employees, and items confiscated because they are alleged security hazards. Also, if you value the time of travelers as anything greater than zero, the needless delays imposed by TSA practices should be included.
I think the record companies will walk away. They have lots of cases pending, and they seem to back off when any case does not go their way. I think they do not want any judgments that are not in their favor. This judge has researched weaknesses in their claims on her own, and shown herself not to be inclined to see things the record companies' way, so they probably don't want to take their chances with this case.
Also, they will probably offer a settlement to Mr Brennan, but they have probably tried this before without success. I don't think Mr Brennan will settle. Mr Brennan, if he even exists, seems to be quite good at ignoring the record companies' legal departments.
But if Simson Garfinkel gets his way, you and I will not be able to own RFID decoders, even to verify that everything we wear and own do not have RFID tags in them. Only distributors, retailers, etc. will be able to own them; we will just have to take their word about how they are being used, and whether they are active or inactive in the items we own.
Whenever the question of the enforceability of the GPL comes up, the usual answer is
something like 'If someone is distributing GPL software under terms other than the GPL,
standard copyright certainly applies; the distributor might not be forced to comply
with the GPL, but other copyright remedies would be applicable.'
This answers only one side of the question. The other side is interesting and I have
never seen it addressed. That is, is the GPL binding on the grantor?
I doubt that the FSF is going to change its mind about Free Software, but what if some
commercial vendor who has contributed substantial amounts of software licensed under
the GPL and that software has become widely available through sources other than
the vendor. The vendor then gets purchased, goes into liquidation, or simply decides
that Free Software is not such a good business plan, and makes the claim that their
previous grants under the GPL are not binding on them, at least not to those who have
not purchased the software directly from the vendor. Since the vendor has received
no consideration from such people, the agreement is invalid, and the vendor can
enforce its copyrights against anyone distributing the software under the GPL unless
they have purchased a license directly from the vendor.
There are some commercial entities who could cause substantial problems for the
if they were to try this so it is more than just a hypothetical question. One could
certainly imagine a large, non-Free software vendor trying to buy out certain Free
software vendors just to make the Free Software legally unavailable.
It is interesting that when the Library of Congress uses the word 'protected' in regards to a sound recording they mean exactly the opposite of what the RIAA means when they use the same word.
I like the LOC's meaning better.
Actually, Disney wants both DRM and broadband.
The agenda of the Mouseketeer senators is clear; they want to convert the internet into a content delivery system for the entertainment cartel. For this, they need two things: ubiquitous, affordable broadband and DRM. This way the current internet infrastructure can be used to deliver media content to recipients with reduced capabilities for copies to be made and saved.
Remember the CBPTHTHT? The first part of this is 'Consumer Broadband Promotion'. The Mouseketeer senators actually are trying to promote broadband, rather than prevent it, because it is part of their agenda to convert the internet from its current, relativelly free state to a glorified pay-per-view delivery system for the entertainment cartel.
Actually, CRAP imposes onerous record-keeping requirements on all webcasters, even ones who do not use RIAA-controlled material. Additionally, all webcasters are required to pay a minimum of $500 (US) per year, even if they use only their own material.
I believe that if I were to webcast only myself talking into a microphone I would have to pay $500 per year to the RIAA and keep records of who listened for how long. This does seriously hinder the distribution of material outside the control of the RIAA, even when done with the permission of the creator.
If this law is passed, it will be a felony even to try to produce works in this format without a license, and there will be no obligation for a license to be made available to your small label at any price. Small labels and independent artists lose.
We need to activate, but not just directly at our congresscritters. We need to activate at the non-hackish people in our lives, and it is hard.
Blurting out "source code is free speech" to people who have no clue what source code is is totally ineffective. We must try to explain why the ability to understand and control the technology we use in our daily lives is important.
Most people are politically apethetic, and the ones who are not have other concerns. I have found it to be difficult to explain issues such as the DMCA, DRM, etc., to these people. How can someone be concerned with (playing DVDs on computers|some gibberish about "source code"|privacy|whatever) when there are people (getting bombed|getting thrown in prison|starving|whatever). I often end up feeling shallow for what I believe, but I get over it.
The combination of the personal computer and the internet has created the most important communication tool ever (second to the invention of writing). Large corporations which have thriven on the artificial scarcity of more primitive communication technologies are threatened by this, and are trying to get severe restrictions placed on the use of this technology. The various governments of the world are also threatened by the freedom of communication it permits, and are looking for excuses to limit it as well. Most people are getting their all of their information from one or both of these sources, and are unaware of the real issues behind the hyperbole of 'piracy'.
We have to make the non-hackish people of the world understand why preventing technologists from understanding the functions of the technology we use in daily lives is harmful, and why severely restricting the use of communication technology on the grounds that it might be used to infringe copyrights is harmful.
The letter to Ashcroft states that '[t]he copyright industries account for 5% of our gross domestic product.' Anyone have any thoughts on where this figure might have come from? My BS detecter is beeping.
We will get a lot of variations on 'if you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about,' and 'I am just a random nobody, why would anyone even care about my records.'
Here is an issue: there is someone out there who could be an important leader for some important change. Maybe ending the insane war on drugs, maybe protecting the freedom of communications made possible by the internet, maybe something else.
There are government agencies, especially law enforcement, whose existence is threatened by this person. They have full access to the complete records of this persons life: medical problems, personal purchases, friends, lovers (including unmarried ones), etc. To silence this person, they will have the ability to make any embarrassing information public (none of which may even have been illegal). Even if the person has the strength of character to withstand this, the persons message will be lost under the media coverage of the scandalous aspects of this person's life: his pr0n preferences, former friends who turned out to be bad guys, extramarital affairs, etc.
This type of this has serious implications for free speech. Even if you are a nobody who will never have anything important to say and who has nothing to hide anyway, there are people to have something to say and have the right to keep the private aspects of their lives private while saying it.
Unfortunately, the problem for small, independent artists is not that the major RIAA materials prevents people finding their works.
With the current P2P clients, there is no to find something unless you know specifically what to search for. If you already know the artist's name and someone happens to be sharing the works of that artist, with the permission of the copyright holder, you will be able to find it; the fact that most of the P2P users are sharing Eminem does not prevent this now.
I really wish there were a good way to find the independent artists who want to be heard. I will no longer buy or download anything produced or promoted by the RIAA, and I know there must be lots of good independent work available. The problem is how to find it.
I think that generally, noncommercial copyright infringment is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
If members of the copyright cartel believe that users of file sharing networks are infringing on their copyrights, they should file civil lawsuits against the alleged infringers. The federal government should not be involved in disputes between private parties, except as a neutral arbiter if one of the parties brings a lawsuit.
Instead, the copyright cartel has convinced a group of senators to try to convince Ashcroft to bring criminal charges against alleged infringers. This means that the entire cost of litigation in this matter where there is no clear public interest will be borne by the public. The investigation and the prosecution will be publically funded, as will the defense of any accused alleged infringers who choose to use a public defender. In the event that file sharing is found to be a criminal matter, the public will bear the cost of the penalty as well; we will have to pay for the incarceration of a large number of people. Further, we will lose the positive contributions to society those people would have made if their lives had not been ruined by the criminal convictions they received.
If you are a constituent of one of these offending senators, please write or call and express your outrage. I have done this already. Make the copyright cartels fight their own battles. And do not help fund their battles; do not buy any products of the MPAA or the RIAA.
I think it would be great if the MPAA members refused to let their works be broadcast on digital television. It would leave all the bandwidth available for filmmakers who actually want their productions to be viewed.
I no longer watch anything produced or distributed by MPAA members anyway, so this greatly improve the availability of acceptible material on television.
The last thing that the entertainment cartel wants to do is to force a large, respectable corporation with deep pockets into a position of having to defend itself against a DCMA violation. A well-funded legal effort by a respectable defendant could possibly result in the DCMA being found unconstitutional. The entertainment cartel will continue to hand-pick its legal challenges to be sure they do not take on any they might lose.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone with both a recliner and a herniated disc, I say don't do it. A recliner forces your back into the worst possible posture. Your back is too important, so protect it.
You forgot to include the value of the items stolen by TSA employees, and items confiscated because they are alleged security hazards. Also, if you value the time of travelers as anything greater than zero, the needless delays imposed by TSA practices should be included.
I think the record companies will walk away. They have lots of cases pending, and they seem to back off when any case does not go their way. I think they do not want any judgments that are not in their favor. This judge has researched weaknesses in their claims on her own, and shown herself not to be inclined to see things the record companies' way, so they probably don't want to take their chances with this case. Also, they will probably offer a settlement to Mr Brennan, but they have probably tried this before without success. I don't think Mr Brennan will settle. Mr Brennan, if he even exists, seems to be quite good at ignoring the record companies' legal departments.
But if Simson Garfinkel gets his way, you and I will not be able to own RFID decoders, even to verify that everything we wear and own do not have RFID tags in them. Only distributors, retailers, etc. will be able to own them; we will just have to take their word about how they are being used, and whether they are active or inactive in the items we own.
Something tells me GNU/RMS is not going to like Microsoft's choice of acronyms.
Also, EMusic astroturfers may bugger off.
I use /dev/urandom. Given sufficient time, I can retrieve any resume; from it.
This is in the US where we still use Fahrenheit. The boiling point of pure water is 212 degrees, and is even higher with something dissolved in it.
This answers only one side of the question. The other side is interesting and I have never seen it addressed. That is, is the GPL binding on the grantor?
I doubt that the FSF is going to change its mind about Free Software, but what if some commercial vendor who has contributed substantial amounts of software licensed under the GPL and that software has become widely available through sources other than the vendor. The vendor then gets purchased, goes into liquidation, or simply decides that Free Software is not such a good business plan, and makes the claim that their previous grants under the GPL are not binding on them, at least not to those who have not purchased the software directly from the vendor. Since the vendor has received no consideration from such people, the agreement is invalid, and the vendor can enforce its copyrights against anyone distributing the software under the GPL unless they have purchased a license directly from the vendor.
There are some commercial entities who could cause substantial problems for the if they were to try this so it is more than just a hypothetical question. One could certainly imagine a large, non-Free software vendor trying to buy out certain Free software vendors just to make the Free Software legally unavailable.
It is interesting that when the Library of Congress uses the word 'protected' in regards to a sound recording they mean exactly the opposite of what the RIAA means when they use the same word.
I like the LOC's meaning better.
Actually, Disney wants both DRM and broadband.
The agenda of the Mouseketeer senators is clear; they want to convert the internet into a content delivery system for the entertainment cartel. For this, they need two things: ubiquitous, affordable broadband and DRM. This way the current internet infrastructure can be used to deliver media content to recipients with reduced capabilities for copies to be made and saved.
Remember the CBPTHTHT? The first part of this is 'Consumer Broadband Promotion'. The Mouseketeer senators actually are trying to promote broadband, rather than prevent it, because it is part of their agenda to convert the internet from its current, relativelly free state to a glorified pay-per-view delivery system for the entertainment cartel.
Actually, CRAP imposes onerous record-keeping requirements on all webcasters, even ones who do not use RIAA-controlled material. Additionally, all webcasters are required to pay a minimum of $500 (US) per year, even if they use only their own material.
I believe that if I were to webcast only myself talking into a microphone I would have to pay $500 per year to the RIAA and keep records of who listened for how long. This does seriously hinder the distribution of material outside the control of the RIAA, even when done with the permission of the creator.
Don't worry. Like all slashdot stories this will repeat every week or so.
Keep your unimpaired CD players, people.
Blurting out "source code is free speech" to people who have no clue what source code is is totally ineffective. We must try to explain why the ability to understand and control the technology we use in our daily lives is important.
Most people are politically apethetic, and the ones who are not have other concerns. I have found it to be difficult to explain issues such as the DMCA, DRM, etc., to these people. How can someone be concerned with (playing DVDs on computers|some gibberish about "source code"|privacy|whatever) when there are people (getting bombed|getting thrown in prison|starving|whatever). I often end up feeling shallow for what I believe, but I get over it.
The combination of the personal computer and the internet has created the most important communication tool ever (second to the invention of writing). Large corporations which have thriven on the artificial scarcity of more primitive communication technologies are threatened by this, and are trying to get severe restrictions placed on the use of this technology. The various governments of the world are also threatened by the freedom of communication it permits, and are looking for excuses to limit it as well. Most people are getting their all of their information from one or both of these sources, and are unaware of the real issues behind the hyperbole of 'piracy'.
We have to make the non-hackish people of the world understand why preventing technologists from understanding the functions of the technology we use in daily lives is harmful, and why severely restricting the use of communication technology on the grounds that it might be used to infringe copyrights is harmful.
Actually, the feds are going to pick him up for using Linux to produce videos without a license from the MPAA.
The letter to Ashcroft states that '[t]he copyright industries account for 5% of our gross domestic product.' Anyone have any thoughts on where this figure might have come from? My BS detecter is beeping.
There are government agencies, especially law enforcement, whose existence is threatened by this person. They have full access to the complete records of this persons life: medical problems, personal purchases, friends, lovers (including unmarried ones), etc. To silence this person, they will have the ability to make any embarrassing information public (none of which may even have been illegal). Even if the person has the strength of character to withstand this, the persons message will be lost under the media coverage of the scandalous aspects of this person's life: his pr0n preferences, former friends who turned out to be bad guys, extramarital affairs, etc.
This type of this has serious implications for free speech. Even if you are a nobody who will never have anything important to say and who has nothing to hide anyway, there are people to have something to say and have the right to keep the private aspects of their lives private while saying it.
With the current P2P clients, there is no to find something unless you know specifically what to search for. If you already know the artist's name and someone happens to be sharing the works of that artist, with the permission of the copyright holder, you will be able to find it; the fact that most of the P2P users are sharing Eminem does not prevent this now.
I really wish there were a good way to find the independent artists who want to be heard. I will no longer buy or download anything produced or promoted by the RIAA, and I know there must be lots of good independent work available. The problem is how to find it.
If members of the copyright cartel believe that users of file sharing networks are infringing on their copyrights, they should file civil lawsuits against the alleged infringers. The federal government should not be involved in disputes between private parties, except as a neutral arbiter if one of the parties brings a lawsuit.
Instead, the copyright cartel has convinced a group of senators to try to convince Ashcroft to bring criminal charges against alleged infringers. This means that the entire cost of litigation in this matter where there is no clear public interest will be borne by the public. The investigation and the prosecution will be publically funded, as will the defense of any accused alleged infringers who choose to use a public defender. In the event that file sharing is found to be a criminal matter, the public will bear the cost of the penalty as well; we will have to pay for the incarceration of a large number of people. Further, we will lose the positive contributions to society those people would have made if their lives had not been ruined by the criminal convictions they received.
If you are a constituent of one of these offending senators, please write or call and express your outrage. I have done this already. Make the copyright cartels fight their own battles. And do not help fund their battles; do not buy any products of the MPAA or the RIAA.
I think it would be great if the MPAA members refused to let their works be broadcast on digital television. It would leave all the bandwidth available for filmmakers who actually want their productions to be viewed.
I no longer watch anything produced or distributed by MPAA members anyway, so this greatly improve the availability of acceptible material on television.
Why would someone simply abandon 600 acres of land in western Pennsylvania? Perhaps because it has been strip mined?
The robots should have fun in that terrain.
The last thing that the entertainment cartel wants to do is to force a large, respectable corporation with deep pockets into a position of having to defend itself against a DCMA violation. A well-funded legal effort by a respectable defendant could possibly result in the DCMA being found unconstitutional. The entertainment cartel will continue to hand-pick its legal challenges to be sure they do not take on any they might lose.