How can you take a sentence fragment, in support of a part of the law that protects manufacturers and distributers, and turn it into " It's legal for consumers to make noncommercial recordings." That is not what that section of the law says.
See my post above - I agree that copying CD's is legal under fair use doctrines, but this particular passage has nothing to do with that.
No, it says they can't sue manufactures, distributer, etc. It is there to preclude claims of "contributory infringement. NOTHING in that passage precludes suing end users.
Don't get me wrong; I believe that copying CD's for personal use IS perfectly legal under fair use doctrines as set forth by the Supremes, etc. It's just not covered under this particlar statute.
That would preclude Sony suing, say, NEC for producing CD burners that can be used by people at home. Nothing in that sentence says that home recording is legal. It might be inferred, but it isn't explicit.
...And then they pissed it away. After the Islamic empires collapsed, that whole region would have wallowed in obscurity but for 3 little letters: o*i*l. Without oil thes regions would have little money, and without money there is little power. They might be able to live off their glorious history, but I doubt it.
My fear is that the US is following the same route - religious fundamentalism and political correctness driving down science and inquiry, leaving us the washed out has beens the Islamic world was before oil became so important. And I don't think we are going to dig anything out of the ground to rescue us.
Think of it this way - police get Mafia bosses on tape speaking in code. The speakers use words like "package" or whatever to describe their stolen goods. The "key" to that code is in the heads of the speakers in the conversation. By your reasoning, those bosses should be forced to divulge the "key", i.e explain what they were referring to when they used the word "package". But that isn't allowed - the tape is played in court, and the jury decides what they think is meant.
I can see it now - a law that states that refusing to explain the codewords used in conversations is obstructing justice and punishable by jail time. It wouldn't make it past the first District court judge who encountered it, much less the Supreme's.
"A court ordered warrant to search your house will have the police demanding you hand over the keys or they'll knock your door down"
And that's EXACTLY why the 2 situations are different. With a court order to search my premises, if I refuse to cooperate, the police have other means to gain entry. And if there is a safe that they want to get into, they can take it away and cut it open. And they are looking for a thing, which can be taken into their possesion and used as evidence. So it's in my best interest to alow physical entry, so as to avoid a broken door lock.
So if we wish to pretend that my computer is a house, fine - they are free to search it to their heart's content. And if they find an especially secure area (the "safe")? They can feel free to apply whatever methods they wish to get to the data. If they don't have the means or the time to gain entry, tough shit - they need to get better decryption methods. Not my problem.
Then there is the fact that, in "searching" a computer, they are not looking for anything physical - they are looking for data. A recording of my thoughts and actions. If a prosecutor is not allowed to force me onto the stand and tell the court why I did whatever they allege, why should they be allowed to force me to give them the means to get the same information.
Think of it another way - they get Mafia bosses on tape speaking in code. They use words like "package" or whatever to describe their stolen goods. The "key" to that code is in the heads of the speakers in the conversation. By your reasoning, those bosses should be forced to divulge the "key", i.e explain what they were referring to when they used the word "package". But that isn't allowed - the tape is played in court, and the jury decides what they think is meant.
I can see it now - a law that states that refusing to explain the codewords used in conversations is obstructing justice and punishable by jail time. It wouldn't make it past the first District court judge who encountered it, much less the Supreme's.
I'm not sure about that. IIRC, those types of laws state that, by applying for and receiving a driver's license, one subjects himself to BAC tests. If one refuses, the penalties include a suspension of your driver's license for a time equivalent to a conviction for DUI, and added penalties if you are convicted in spite of lack of breathalyzer evidence. (State onf MD law). The benefit is that it doesn't get marked down as a DUI, so it affects subsequent arrests/punishments.
I'm aware the particular law is from the UK; that's why I prefaced my response with "my opinion" and "such laws" - it was meant to be general, not specific.
As for the second point; the legality of one's actions and information is not the issue - it is the privacy of those matters. The protection against arbitrary search and seizure, besides preventing "fishing expeditions", is a recognition that those conducting the searches are part of the community along with the subject of the search. There are plenty of things that all of us think, say, and do that we don't want others to know about, regardless of legality.
"the parent company even more evil than the phone company."
If we are measuring gradations of evil, Ebay would only be on the 3rd or 4th ring of Hell, while traditional phone companies are nudging Judas and Brutus out of the way.
In reverse order: "Now what I don't get is how/why ebay is in the mix, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with what ebay does."
Ebay makes money, so...
"Skype is good. It works, it's easy, it supports your platform. Seems like there will be ways to make money from it, that doesn't seem like a really difficult problem to solve."
Ebay thought that was a good busines plan and staked $2B on it.
2 reasons I have a problem with laws such as this.
1) They violate your rights against self incrimination. Per the US constitution, I cannot be compelled to testify or offer evidence against myself. What this law says is that I MUST testify against myself, in the form of giving up *knowledge* that I have for the state to use against me.
2) While the warrant may be issued for a small piece of information, it has the potential to lay all your secrets bare. Let's say I am accused of child pornography, and that's what the police are "looking for" in the encrypted directory marked "Private". All of the data in that directory is subject to discovery. So if they find pictures of my infant daughter without her onesie, and figure out that this is simply a divorce case gone bad, the child porn investigation dies. But now they have also seen my financial records, and discover that I've made some questionable tax deductions, and the case now gets referred to the IRS. Or they find money that I've been hiding from my ex-wife, and hand her that info.
A terrorist/pedophile/whatever is arrested, and his computer is seized. The authorities demand the suspect hand over the key, or he will face obstruction of justice charges and a year in jail. Does he
a) Tell them to get bent, go to jail for a year as a symbol of government run rampant (face it, some "activist" will pick up his "cause")
or
b) Immediately hand over the key, which is then used to procure the evidence of his computer, putting him in jail for 20 years as an ACTUAL terrorist/pedophile.
That's not even getting into the situation if one is NOT an actual pedorist. Terrorphile?
"The proles will still get their foodstuffs and medicine."
Hardly. As long as the foodstuffs and medicine must go through the hands of the government, enough will "stick" to those hands to be sold, the proceeds to be used to smuggle in the banned items. That's pretty much what happened in Iraq in Oil for Food, with a lot of western governments consent and cooperation.
N. Korea is a little different - their only border for smuggling is with China and China is getting tired of N. Korea's bullshit. But I'm willing to bet that if Kim Jong Il [sp?] wasn't such a total whackjob, China would have no problems selling the North Koreans anything they want, sanctions or no.
Your post reminds me of arguments I used to hear in Intro to Ethics about Moral Relativism. It is an inescapable fact that actions viewed by a given society as immoral at any given time may not be viewed as immoral by another society, or by that same society at a different time. This invariably led to someone arguing that the morality of individual actions was also relative, and therefore an individual's action could not be judged as moral or immoral. Almost inevitably, the argument was trotted out by someone who wanted to justify their own questionable behavior.
Likewise, grammar and spelling are a set of arbitrary rules set forth by a society to allow easier interaction between those members. While there may not be a "One True English", the commonly accepted rules of grammar and spelling make it easier for English speakers to understand each other. To say that, since spelling and grammar are not cast in stone, therefore I can spell and speak any damned way I choose would be inconsiderate in the least. It is an insult to the people to whome you are speaking to force them to try to decipher your speech because you can't, or don't want to, follow the commonly accepted rules. And people will react to that insult by treating the speaker with disdain, derision, or pedantry. And the speaker is invariably outraged that someone would dare question their speaking and writing habits; after all "you can't really speak your native tongue in any way but the right one" .
"Why is it that so many people think that because something is in a digital format that it cannot be "real" property?"
The definition of "real property" means "land" - period. It is a part of the Earth, and you can't make any more of it (unless you are one of those crazy Bahrainians).
"Personal property" is an object. A thing. One can control that thing via physical means - locks, guard dogs. Also, if someone else takes my personal property, I am deprived of it's use.
"Intellectual property" has none of these characteristics. It is information and ideas. It can be copied ad infinitum with little or no effort - it's very NATURE is to be copied (in my memory, on a computer's memory, in a musician's memory). And, to borrow Heinlein's views on sex, it can be given away in any amount and theoriginal owner will never run out (he was speacking of women). Likewise, someone else's use of my idea doesn't preclude my use. I just made up a little joke for my son, and "gave" it to him. Does that mean that I don't have that joke anymore?
If real property and personal property is apples and oranges, then intellectual property is a fart - it "exists" in some sense (of smell, likely), but it has nothing to do with the other things implied by the conventional term property. So I would say that the people who "think that because something is in a digital format that it cannot be "real" property" are absolutely correct - it isn't, and it never will be. Just because ideas have a legal status doesn't mean they are comparable to actual property.
As for those poor folks who may be deprived of their living due to revolutionary change in how information is conveyed and presented, I'm sorry their lives are going to suck. I'm also sorry that the former steelworkers of the US have lives that suck because times changes. But guess what - things are still going to change.
Although I agree that the nuclear angle is probably flamebait, your example is a it simplistic. In BWR's, the nuclear coolant drives the turbine directly, and if a turbine sheds blades they will slice through the condenser tubes. It happened at Fermi a while back. And dropping the genset onto the grid would be a great way to make that happen. Fortunately, the controls at nuke plants are NOT remote controlled, and I can't think of a way by which an out of phase start could be made to happen from outside sources.
My father works in startup and commissioning at powerplants and large industrial plants, and has for over 30 years. On a recent job, a piece of large rotating equipment needed to be brought on line, which meant synchronizing to the grid. Unfortunately, the computerized synchronization gear was down, so everyone had resigned themselved to a schedule delay. Dad suggested he gear be synchronized manualy, which was met with astonishment - not only had no one ever done it, they hadn't heard of anyone doing it. Dad volunteered, and aside from a bit of a pucker when the switch was thrown, no kaboom. People were amazed that it could even be done without automatic gear.
Dad may be one of the few people left in the country who has the knowledge and the experience to do that manually with large equipment, and he is about to retire. If the computerized gear goes down in a big way, who is going to do it manually? I mean, Dad's got big balls, but synchronizing a 1250 MW steam turbien at a nuke plant? Don't think so.
"the internet is FULL of corrupt cops doing this to peaceful people because they are lazy."
The internet is FULL of electrons. Or maybe bits, if you are a CsE and not an EE.
Perhaps more precise to say "Sites on the internet are full of videos placed there by people who select them to be posted".
The internet is not representative of ANYTHING, especially volume of content vs. Real Life. For instance, the internet is full of porn filmed in public places, but I didn't see a film crew with a naked chick on the was in to work this morning.
My coworker tells the same story, but with a different ending. His father made his sister promise NOT to pinch him (sharpened fingernails, drawing blood), and told Larry, in her presence, that he was never to hit his sister, because she was a girl. The penalty would be a whipping with a peach switch.
15 minutes later, she struck again, and Larry punched her in the afce as hard as he could, knocking her down and bloodying her nose. His father, as he was preparing to whip him, ebmoaned Larry's lack of control. Larry responded that he hadn't lost conrol; on the contrary, he had considered it in depth and decided that the punisment was worth it. His Dad said he respected his decision, even though he believed it was the wrong one, and proceeded to whip his ass soundly.
Slashdot Mirror
How can you take a sentence fragment, in support of a part of the law that protects manufacturers and distributers, and turn it into " It's legal for consumers to make noncommercial recordings." That is not what that section of the law says.
See my post above - I agree that copying CD's is legal under fair use doctrines, but this particular passage has nothing to do with that.
No, it says they can't sue manufactures, distributer, etc. It is there to preclude claims of "contributory infringement. NOTHING in that passage precludes suing end users.
Don't get me wrong; I believe that copying CD's for personal use IS perfectly legal under fair use doctrines as set forth by the Supremes, etc. It's just not covered under this particlar statute.
That would preclude Sony suing, say, NEC for producing CD burners that can be used by people at home. Nothing in that sentence says that home recording is legal. It might be inferred, but it isn't explicit.
...And then they pissed it away. After the Islamic empires collapsed, that whole region would have wallowed in obscurity but for 3 little letters: o*i*l. Without oil thes regions would have little money, and without money there is little power. They might be able to live off their glorious history, but I doubt it.
My fear is that the US is following the same route - religious fundamentalism and political correctness driving down science and inquiry, leaving us the washed out has beens the Islamic world was before oil became so important. And I don't think we are going to dig anything out of the ground to rescue us.
Think of it this way - police get Mafia bosses on tape speaking in code. The speakers use words like "package" or whatever to describe their stolen goods. The "key" to that code is in the heads of the speakers in the conversation. By your reasoning, those bosses should be forced to divulge the "key", i.e explain what they were referring to when they used the word "package". But that isn't allowed - the tape is played in court, and the jury decides what they think is meant.
I can see it now - a law that states that refusing to explain the codewords used in conversations is obstructing justice and punishable by jail time. It wouldn't make it past the first District court judge who encountered it, much less the Supreme's.
"A court ordered warrant to search your house will have the police demanding you hand over the keys or they'll knock your door down"
And that's EXACTLY why the 2 situations are different. With a court order to search my premises, if I refuse to cooperate, the police have other means to gain entry. And if there is a safe that they want to get into, they can take it away and cut it open. And they are looking for a thing, which can be taken into their possesion and used as evidence. So it's in my best interest to alow physical entry, so as to avoid a broken door lock.
So if we wish to pretend that my computer is a house, fine - they are free to search it to their heart's content. And if they find an especially secure area (the "safe")? They can feel free to apply whatever methods they wish to get to the data. If they don't have the means or the time to gain entry, tough shit - they need to get better decryption methods. Not my problem.
Then there is the fact that, in "searching" a computer, they are not looking for anything physical - they are looking for data. A recording of my thoughts and actions. If a prosecutor is not allowed to force me onto the stand and tell the court why I did whatever they allege, why should they be allowed to force me to give them the means to get the same information.
Think of it another way - they get Mafia bosses on tape speaking in code. They use words like "package" or whatever to describe their stolen goods. The "key" to that code is in the heads of the speakers in the conversation. By your reasoning, those bosses should be forced to divulge the "key", i.e explain what they were referring to when they used the word "package". But that isn't allowed - the tape is played in court, and the jury decides what they think is meant.
I can see it now - a law that states that refusing to explain the codewords used in conversations is obstructing justice and punishable by jail time. It wouldn't make it past the first District court judge who encountered it, much less the Supreme's.
I'm not sure about that. IIRC, those types of laws state that, by applying for and receiving a driver's license, one subjects himself to BAC tests. If one refuses, the penalties include a suspension of your driver's license for a time equivalent to a conviction for DUI, and added penalties if you are convicted in spite of lack of breathalyzer evidence. (State onf MD law). The benefit is that it doesn't get marked down as a DUI, so it affects subsequent arrests/punishments.
I'm aware the particular law is from the UK; that's why I prefaced my response with "my opinion" and "such laws" - it was meant to be general, not specific.
As for the second point; the legality of one's actions and information is not the issue - it is the privacy of those matters. The protection against arbitrary search and seizure, besides preventing "fishing expeditions", is a recognition that those conducting the searches are part of the community along with the subject of the search. There are plenty of things that all of us think, say, and do that we don't want others to know about, regardless of legality.
"the parent company even more evil than the phone company."
If we are measuring gradations of evil, Ebay would only be on the 3rd or 4th ring of Hell, while traditional phone companies are nudging Judas and Brutus out of the way.
In reverse order:
"Now what I don't get is how/why ebay is in the mix, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with what ebay does."
Ebay makes money, so...
"Skype is good. It works, it's easy, it supports your platform. Seems like there will be ways to make money from it, that doesn't seem like a really difficult problem to solve."
Ebay thought that was a good busines plan and staked $2B on it.
2 reasons I have a problem with laws such as this.
1) They violate your rights against self incrimination. Per the US constitution, I cannot be compelled to testify or offer evidence against myself. What this law says is that I MUST testify against myself, in the form of giving up *knowledge* that I have for the state to use against me.
2) While the warrant may be issued for a small piece of information, it has the potential to lay all your secrets bare. Let's say I am accused of child pornography, and that's what the police are "looking for" in the encrypted directory marked "Private". All of the data in that directory is subject to discovery. So if they find pictures of my infant daughter without her onesie, and figure out that this is simply a divorce case gone bad, the child porn investigation dies. But now they have also seen my financial records, and discover that I've made some questionable tax deductions, and the case now gets referred to the IRS. Or they find money that I've been hiding from my ex-wife, and hand her that info.
A terrorist/pedophile/whatever is arrested, and his computer is seized. The authorities demand the suspect hand over the key, or he will face obstruction of justice charges and a year in jail. Does he
a) Tell them to get bent, go to jail for a year as a symbol of government run rampant (face it, some "activist" will pick up his "cause")
or
b) Immediately hand over the key, which is then used to procure the evidence of his computer, putting him in jail for 20 years as an ACTUAL terrorist/pedophile.
That's not even getting into the situation if one is NOT an actual pedorist. Terrorphile?
I would think that environmental problems of the batteries are trivial compared to when one of them comes back loking for its creator.
Oh, and it's not a "satellite", fer chrissake.
I thought I was fond of run-on sentences, but that was pretty silly.
"The proles will still get their foodstuffs and medicine."
Hardly. As long as the foodstuffs and medicine must go through the hands of the government, enough will "stick" to those hands to be sold, the proceeds to be used to smuggle in the banned items. That's pretty much what happened in Iraq in Oil for Food, with a lot of western governments consent and cooperation.
N. Korea is a little different - their only border for smuggling is with China and China is getting tired of N. Korea's bullshit. But I'm willing to bet that if Kim Jong Il [sp?] wasn't such a total whackjob, China would have no problems selling the North Koreans anything they want, sanctions or no.
Did an editor ACTUALLY CHECK on the facts of a story before posting?
Cue the porcine aviators...
Your post reminds me of arguments I used to hear in Intro to Ethics about Moral Relativism. It is an inescapable fact that actions viewed by a given society as immoral at any given time may not be viewed as immoral by another society, or by that same society at a different time. This invariably led to someone arguing that the morality of individual actions was also relative, and therefore an individual's action could not be judged as moral or immoral. Almost inevitably, the argument was trotted out by someone who wanted to justify their own questionable behavior.
Likewise, grammar and spelling are a set of arbitrary rules set forth by a society to allow easier interaction between those members. While there may not be a "One True English", the commonly accepted rules of grammar and spelling make it easier for English speakers to understand each other. To say that, since spelling and grammar are not cast in stone, therefore I can spell and speak any damned way I choose would be inconsiderate in the least. It is an insult to the people to whome you are speaking to force them to try to decipher your speech because you can't, or don't want to, follow the commonly accepted rules. And people will react to that insult by treating the speaker with disdain, derision, or pedantry. And the speaker is invariably outraged that someone would dare question their speaking and writing habits; after all "you can't really speak your native tongue in any way but the right one"
.
"Why is it that so many people think that because something is in a digital format that it cannot be "real" property?"
The definition of "real property" means "land" - period. It is a part of the Earth, and you can't make any more of it (unless you are one of those crazy Bahrainians).
"Personal property" is an object. A thing. One can control that thing via physical means - locks, guard dogs. Also, if someone else takes my personal property, I am deprived of it's use.
"Intellectual property" has none of these characteristics. It is information and ideas. It can be copied ad infinitum with little or no effort - it's very NATURE is to be copied (in my memory, on a computer's memory, in a musician's memory). And, to borrow Heinlein's views on sex, it can be given away in any amount and theoriginal owner will never run out (he was speacking of women). Likewise, someone else's use of my idea doesn't preclude my use. I just made up a little joke for my son, and "gave" it to him. Does that mean that I don't have that joke anymore?
If real property and personal property is apples and oranges, then intellectual property is a fart - it "exists" in some sense (of smell, likely), but it has nothing to do with the other things implied by the conventional term property. So I would say that the people who "think that because something is in a digital format that it cannot be "real" property" are absolutely correct - it isn't, and it never will be. Just because ideas have a legal status doesn't mean they are comparable to actual property.
As for those poor folks who may be deprived of their living due to revolutionary change in how information is conveyed and presented, I'm sorry their lives are going to suck. I'm also sorry that the former steelworkers of the US have lives that suck because times changes. But guess what - things are still going to change.
Wow, I'm impressed. Way to milk it, guys!
Although I agree that the nuclear angle is probably flamebait, your example is a it simplistic. In BWR's, the nuclear coolant drives the turbine directly, and if a turbine sheds blades they will slice through the condenser tubes. It happened at Fermi a while back. And dropping the genset onto the grid would be a great way to make that happen. Fortunately, the controls at nuke plants are NOT remote controlled, and I can't think of a way by which an out of phase start could be made to happen from outside sources.
Synchronization...he he...can you say BOOM!?
My father works in startup and commissioning at powerplants and large industrial plants, and has for over 30 years. On a recent job, a piece of large rotating equipment needed to be brought on line, which meant synchronizing to the grid. Unfortunately, the computerized synchronization gear was down, so everyone had resigned themselved to a schedule delay. Dad suggested he gear be synchronized manualy, which was met with astonishment - not only had no one ever done it, they hadn't heard of anyone doing it. Dad volunteered, and aside from a bit of a pucker when the switch was thrown, no kaboom. People were amazed that it could even be done without automatic gear.
Dad may be one of the few people left in the country who has the knowledge and the experience to do that manually with large equipment, and he is about to retire. If the computerized gear goes down in a big way, who is going to do it manually? I mean, Dad's got big balls, but synchronizing a 1250 MW steam turbien at a nuke plant? Don't think so.
"He minus well get paid by Take two and Microsoft."
That one's right up there with "walla".
"Unlike the near emeadeate death from the fire."
Or the more immediate "emeadeate" death from crashing into the ground.
"the internet is FULL of corrupt cops doing this to peaceful people because they are lazy."
The internet is FULL of electrons. Or maybe bits, if you are a CsE and not an EE.
Perhaps more precise to say "Sites on the internet are full of videos placed there by people who select them to be posted".
The internet is not representative of ANYTHING, especially volume of content vs. Real Life. For instance, the internet is full of porn filmed in public places, but I didn't see a film crew with a naked chick on the was in to work this morning.
My coworker tells the same story, but with a different ending. His father made his sister promise NOT to pinch him (sharpened fingernails, drawing blood), and told Larry, in her presence, that he was never to hit his sister, because she was a girl. The penalty would be a whipping with a peach switch.
15 minutes later, she struck again, and Larry punched her in the afce as hard as he could, knocking her down and bloodying her nose. His father, as he was preparing to whip him, ebmoaned Larry's lack of control. Larry responded that he hadn't lost conrol; on the contrary, he had considered it in depth and decided that the punisment was worth it. His Dad said he respected his decision, even though he believed it was the wrong one, and proceeded to whip his ass soundly.
But his sister never went near him again.