Now that I got that addlepated post on the screen, I can take a little time and bring some details.
-I meant to say "post-hearing replies"
-Take a close look at the comments submitted. I encourage everyone to even just skim them, if they have the time. There were a total of 28.
-9 were clearly against any exemptions to the anti-circumvention provision, all submitted by big media (one co-signed by ASCAP, Association of American University Presses [ironically in direct opposition with the comments of the Association of American Universities, The American Council on Education, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges], the BSA, The McGraw-Hill Companies, the MPAA, and the RIAA.
-One has an informative illustration of the flawed nature of CSS and how it inhibits non-infringing use of copyrighted materials.
-Most of the arguments against exemption lean on the fact that nobody "adequately" testified to current hinderance of fair use... totally ignoring the arguments of CSS and misdirecting the purpose of the rulemaking (to prevent hinderance).
-I didn't notice a single comment by a self-proclaimed artist. You know, the people that copyright is supposed to protect? Sure, there were a few clearinghouses that represent the copyright interests of artists--but that's a bit disconnected from what the artist actually wants. After all, these clearinghouses have their own financial stake in the DMCA, separate from the interests of the artists they represent. Of course, let's not forget that we are all protected by copyright, self-proclaimed artist or not. Yet the overwhelming majority of us copyright holders are for exemptions to 1201(a)! Why is that?
-On to the trial: The final depositions are wrapping up. The judge has consolidated the motion to expand the preliminary injunction, as well as the motion to vacate the PI, with the trial itself. He moved the trial date up because of the first amendment implications of banning the distribution of DeCSS on a 1201(a) case, rather than on a pure copyright basis, among various other reasons.
-The DVD-discuss list is preparing an amicus brief... hopefully it will address basic flaws in the MPAAs pursuit of the lawsuit over circumvention, my favorite being that circumvention does not exist under 1201 if the copyright owner's authorization scheme to access the material is not well defined. There are many more, so review the archive, take note in particular of the proposed outlines for the brief, and see exactly why the MPAA will lose before it actually happens. The list is generally the best place to catch wind of current developments, as most filings and transcripts don't make it to wide distribution and those that do might just make it to 2600 and cryptome.
-Don't forget to donate to the EFF (I haven't sent my check either, yet), because they're footing the bill for this.
The copyright office has posted the post-reply hearings regarding the DMCA circumvention rulemaking. Have you hugged your Librarian of Congress recently? I hope so, because his office is going to decide the fate of publication and fair use as we know it... Unless Orrin Hatch gets entirely fed up with the RIAA and fixes the DMCA singlehandedly.
Also, 2600, the EFF, the MPAA, and the Harvard Open Law discussion list prepare for the trial over the publication of DeCSS, in which a preliminary injunction that constitutes a prior restraint on the defendant's speech will be decided simultaneously with the merits of the trial on July 17th.
Of course, it's not offical unless it happens at the airport (MSP, for you travellers).
I've noticed our own version of this every time tornado weather approaches the cores. As the storm tracks to the east, they pretty consistently are driven northeast through Forest Lake or further.
This week, when 40,000 eastern suburbanites lost power, we in downtown St. Paul just had a nice (loud) rainstorm. Guess that big number one is good for something.
Try netgear FA310TX. It's a 10/100 nic that is tested on linux, comes with a tweaked tulip driver, instructions for linux installation and my personal endorsement.
I'm sorry, but we rent computer time where I work, and you could fucking install a voice-activated, psychic "Hotmail Access Unit" and most morons who rent time would still not be able to manage to sign up for a Hotmail account.
My prediction? Computers will never be "user friendly" because the more that you can do with a thing, the more complex it is. With complexity comes indimidation, with intimidation comes fear, hatred, and ignorance that manifests itself as stupidity.
Joe Luser will never be able to sit down at a multi-purpose computing device and be able to divine how to operate it through finesse or design. Windows 98, X, MacOS, Bob, it doesn't matter. User friendliness is a pipe dream.
So call me Jim Pessimist, but you will never see a computer user interface worth using more intuitive or user friendly than your common nuclear power plant.
I pointed out to John that the same feat could be accomplished using a plugin for Acrobat called Pitstop.
All rental IBMs at Kinkos have this plugin, so basically the Times PDF was vulnerable from the word Go. I'm sure that uber-intelligence agenices has already figured out how to remove the redaction long before Mr. Young posted his revelations.
Just open the file in Acrobat, click, click, delete... full disclosure.
This op-ed was reprinted in my local paper (www.startribune.com), so I wrote a response.
Even if it is obvious from his testimony that he did not write this and does not have the knowledge or experience to make the claims he makes, it is of limited usefulness to point out that the words are not his. They are the words of the MPAA, and of the motion picture studios.
I think they see their case against Corley is weakening, and they are moving back to the public manipulation through fearmongering tactic that has worked for them for so long. We'll see if the strib publishes my reply.
It's really too bad, because I can't imagine something better to do with my next ten minutes.
The copy part is a subfunction.
What you classify is a subfunction is irrelevant. It, as well as bashing regional control, remain functions of DeCSS, and as such a defense to 1201(2).
Visit the crop of new MPEG4/DivX sites that give very specific instructions with screen shots on how to use DeCSS (or newer, better iterations based on the same stolen technology) to rip a DVD, including menus and special features and how to compress them and how to make VCDs or standalone MPEGS/AVIs from them.
Have you actually downloaded and used any of these to determine their nature? Neither have the plaintiffs.
1. DeCSS is not a requirement to make VCD/AVIs of movies on DVDs any more than it is a requirement to make them out of a VHS tape.
2. You cannot put DVD menus or "special features" into a VCD.
3. This is not a copyright violation trial. The plaintiffs have not accused Eric Corley of violating copyright, so your point is moot. Eric Corley is not responsible for what is possible for other people to do with DeCSS.
When I can find for you dozens upon dozens of full lenght DVDs posted to alt.binaries.movies that proudly list "DeCSS" in their subject line your "for educational purposes only" reverse engineering claim goes no where.
I have never mentioned reverse-engineering or education, so your repeated mention of this does not help your argument. These are not my areas of expertise, though despite your sharp argumentation to the contrary, a defense can be made of these issues, too.
However, all significant rulings have gone their way, I expect this to continue.
All one of them?
He gave the defense NOTHING
The "nothing" he gave them was exactly what the defense was looking for. Besides, did you notice there were maybe 25 pages of confidential "nothing" that he testified to? Must have been some pretty hot-and-heavy "nothing."
I'm sure you didn't mention unconstitutional because you must realize it's not - and the judge has ruled and ruled again and again that it's not.
Falsehoods of this nature lead me to the if-then statement in my subjectline. The judge has ruled no such thing. The judge has not had an opportunity to do so, as the case is not at trial; and he would not even consider doing so until the defense pressed the issue given the plaintiffs inevitable position.
If DeCSS is found to violate 1201 and the defendant is found to violate the anti-trafficking elements of 1201, the defense will argue that those elements of 1201 are unconstitutional (or at least vague and internally inconsistant) because of the necessary conclusions that 1201 prohibits fair use, violates the first amendment, etc. The plaintiffs may also be in violation of anti-trust law as a result of their testimony in their depositions.
I just am not a hypocrite and don't pretend that I expect everything in life to be free and given to me on a silver platter and every time someone running an alternate OS gets something I whine like a baby that Linux should have it for free!
While I assume you're attempting to characterize my arguments with that statement, you're pretty far off (again).
I have not mentioned linux. I have not mentioned "free(beer) software." I have argued that the trial is a test case for the media conglomerate's pet law to see how much their money in Washington bought them. Unfortunately, it bought them an overbroad statute that sits in an uncomfortable position between the first amendment and anti-trust statutes that will necessarily be resolved by the judicial system; and I do not suspect they will be rewarded for their duplicity.
So, if you're not "trolling," which really, by definition, you are at this point, you really ought to take the time to educate yourself rather than lashing out at things you don't understand. It really makes you a pitiful character.
And you haven't clearly addressed my original premises, by which the plaintiffs are likely to lose their case.
It also makes copies. This is a use of DeCSS that is not deencryption. Rectify this fact with your statement.
Bypassing the region code is a byproduct.
But a use of DeCSS nonetheless.
Oh, your point #4 is completely inaccurate, try actually reading the law, I have.
I did, too, specifically:
"1201(2): No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof."
You may have missed, in your prior readings, the words "primarily designed" or "limited...purpose."
Then there is the issue that the right to prevent fair use propter hoc is not a right granted to the copyright holder, yet the studios' TPM does this.
There is also the issue that non-copyrightable or expired-copyright material may be behind a CSS controlled system.
The list goes on and on. The defense will demonstrate this when the time comes.
they've won every filing they've made and the defense has lost every one.
Does that include the motion to have Garbus' firm removed from the defense? Or the motion to have every deposition confidential?
You are terribly misled.
You did not address my points 1-3, or 5-7. You failed on point four. All of these are supported by depositions, court filings, self-evident facts or the DMCA. Your response was mere rhetoric.
I haven't even mentioned how certain elements of 1201 may be unconstitutional, though certain of the plaintiffs arguments would entail such a conclusion. In this sense they're digging their own grave before they've even taken it to trial.
Besides trolling, I'm confused why you would waste your time defending doomed arguments and speaking about the case as if you actually understand what is going on. You clearly don't. Or maybe you work for that DVDCCA thing that MPAA President Jack Valenti has never heard of.
1. You can make screenshots of movies on DVD through many means.
2. DeCSS does not help the process. The means of taking screenshots do not require the use of DeCSS.
3. The current case against Eric Corley is not about copyright infringement, but is a test case for the MPAA's pet anit-circumvention law, the DMCA (aka 1201).
4. It is not illegal to traffic in a circumvention device that has non-circumvention uses.
5. DeCSS has non-circumvention uses, such as copying files and bashing region protection. (but that is a copyright violation you say? Unfortunately for you, that's for a court to decide.)
6. The MPAA has not established how a person gets or is denied authorization to access a movie.
7. Until they do, DeCSS may not be circumvention at all.
Care to address these points? You might have a hard time, because the MPAA sure can't.
I'm not insulted because I only work to make money. As long as I am paid well, treated with respect and left alone in my private life to enjoy myself as I will, I don't have any compuntions about making copies.
Meanwhile, I can work from the inside of a large corporation to fight for the right of consumers to make copies of things.
Maybe you don't know, but Kinko's ability to make copies for people was hampered by a lawsuit from textbook makers. Kinko's can't make copies of copyrighted things, and are expected to make every effort to prevent customers from doing the same. In spite of the fact that what they want to do might be fair use.
Because we are not legally permitted to make the distinction, we are not allowed to do anything that could possibly infringe.
That, and they give me plenty of vacation, holiday and sick time; schedule around my education; and pay for me to go to school.
I am not certain about this, but I would presume that OCR software designed to recognize form elements will retain picture elements that do not OCR to text.
Software like Omni Form will let you designate areas on the page to ignore. This should retain picture elements and will put OCRd text in a layout that resembles the original. This, of course, most likely requires user input, at least for each different page layout.
I am asked to do this all the time as a computer services employee of Kinkos.
The short answer is using OCR to create a text file, proof reading the text file, and then printing to a postscript file.
The long answer is, you need to find quality OCR software that does not choke on things like forms. You also *MUST* proof read every OCRd document. No OCR is perfect, and drawn elements will almost certainly trip the software into embedding odd characters or pipes into your text. Different fot sizes will cause the software to choke. Thin fonts will cause the software to choke.
If you are OCRing forms, I recommend Omni Form (it's the only software I know of that recognizes forms, but I have never used it personally).
Batch processing of OCR pages is likely easy to set up with professional OCR software (Omni Page does it), but it does not excuse you from proofreading the results. After that, the PDF part is a snap, and can be accomplished with any OCR software you choose to use.
If you are asking which OCR software is, I can't help you directly. OCR software is a niche software market, and you either get free, dissapointing software with your scanner, or you pay big money for something that does a decent job. Just like everything else in life. Have you read any OCR software reviews?
Obviously if the purpose of the educational demonstration had to do with the playback of DVD, DVD quality, DVD encryption, etc, then fair use of the DVD movie would be a requirement.
You don't want to blow your whole wad in the depositions.
"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."
Fair use is not a right, but a defense to someone claiming infringed copyright. Fair use is decided by the judge by considering:
"1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commer-cial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Basically, the copyright holder retains certian exclusive rights through the copyright's duration; that of public performance, distribution, blah, blah. If the judge feels you've infringed on those rights, you're guilty. However, if your work does not infringe on those rights, your fair use defense may succeed.
Incidentally, I agree. I see a future, though, with two options, similar in form and reason to the way people listen to music at home now. Ordinary Janes will purchase asinine products like the Bose Wave Digital Media Center and other tightly integrated, "easy to use, easy to install" all-in-one mind cleansing machines--while people interested in quality of parts, ease of maintenance and upgrades, distributed reliance on multiple specialized parts and vendors (basically, people who spend more than two seconds to think about it) will have the opportunity to purchase Conformo-Socializer separates.
Rational actors can do far more damage to MPAA in the courtroom than abusive e-mail and knives can ever hope to accomplish.
Not to mention, of course, that knives have nothing to do with this case. No DeCSS/Free speech activist, Malaysian or otherwise, has used a knife on anyone.
Let's not give credence to the MPAA's bizarre and unfounded relation of this case to an attack in Malaysia.
Good luck, Mr. Bunner. Stay calm and think carefully about what you say.
Incidentally, do you know where more information can be read about your trial? 2600 does a fine job posting trial related documents, which are a facinating read, but I haven't heard a word about the California case since it started.
Is it because it is a weaker case? Or just because it has fewer 1st amendment implications?
If your slashdot report isn't posted, I'd still be interested to read it on any web site.
It seems to me like MS intends to baffle the court with bullshit, in this case it is financial bullshit.
They play a lot of semantic games in their filing, replacing DOJ words with economically loaded terms. To me this indicates that their plan is to either win in the court of public opinion: "The DOJ wants to DIVEST them!! They have to REISSUE shares!" or their plan is to turn the plan into something that sounds far more harsh so it is more easily defeated on appeal, while at the same time softening the meaningful remedies. This way, if they can't get it overturned because it is a "radical" remedy, the actual remedies will be ineffectual.
For instance, the difference between reorganization and divestiture is unimportant external to the final remedy, because no matter what word is used its meaning will be defined explicitly in the actual ruling.
Microsoft's "management, sales, products, and operations" are all tightly integrated, reflecting the fact that Microsoft is--and always has been--a unitary company.
From testimony in the trial:
"I will be honest with you," answered Schmalensee, an important witness for the company. "The state of Microsoft's internal accounting systems do not always rise to the level of sophistication one might expect from a firm as successful as it is."
When Boies pressed him, Schmalensee added: "They record operating system sales by hand on sheets of paper."
The funny thing is that his statement is analogous to saying "I could care less."
Saying that people know more about making ice than the law is unimpressive because there is little to know about making ice and because making ice is a common practice. The only reasonable response is "well, duh."
There's probably a word for that sort of misintention, but I don't know what it is.
I was pretty unimpressed with Apogee's responses to Slashdot posters in the previous thread, but what intrigued me was the claim that the lay people don't understand the law, and that's why lawyers exist.
Well, each of my subsequent thoughts were well addressed in the previous thread and still remain:
A contract is meant to be understood by the bound parties. If Apogee believes their contract to be inscrutable by the people they expect to be bound by the license, they should make the meaning more explicit. This make for not just good contracts but good relations.
The wording of the license is overbroad and certainly attempts to stomp on copyrighted works' fair use and the legal use of Apogee's trademarks by parties other than Apogee which are well defined (but different. Fair use applies to copyright, while trademark law is even less restrictive than copyright)
Here is the stumper: Apogee obviously pays lawyers to draft these licenses so... do they not understand how their licenses are overbroad, threatening and unenforceable? Why does Apogee hire lawyers that imply the ability to give Apogee rights that the company does not have? It seems that even Apogee's lawyers need to learn a little something about the law because they either believe the license is entirely enforceable or the entire contract is in bad faith.
This is doubly true, now that Apogee has stated that they will not pursue the full extent that the license seems to grant them. Oh, how benevolent. How about, instead, taking the disputed language out??
A license to use copyrighted works is bad enough, but one that has implications beyond the use of the copyrighted work is simply out of line. Anyone who claims otherwise, lawyer or not, needs to be sent to their room to think about what they've done.
Slashdot Mirror
-I meant to say "post-hearing replies"
-Take a close look at the comments submitted. I encourage everyone to even just skim them, if they have the time. There were a total of 28.
-9 were clearly against any exemptions to the anti-circumvention provision, all submitted by big media (one co-signed by ASCAP, Association of American University Presses [ironically in direct opposition with the comments of the Association of American Universities, The American Council on Education, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges], the BSA, The McGraw-Hill Companies, the MPAA, and the RIAA.
-One has an informative illustration of the flawed nature of CSS and how it inhibits non-infringing use of copyrighted materials.
-Most of the arguments against exemption lean on the fact that nobody "adequately" testified to current hinderance of fair use... totally ignoring the arguments of CSS and misdirecting the purpose of the rulemaking (to prevent hinderance).
-I didn't notice a single comment by a self-proclaimed artist. You know, the people that copyright is supposed to protect? Sure, there were a few clearinghouses that represent the copyright interests of artists--but that's a bit disconnected from what the artist actually wants. After all, these clearinghouses have their own financial stake in the DMCA, separate from the interests of the artists they represent. Of course, let's not forget that we are all protected by copyright, self-proclaimed artist or not. Yet the overwhelming majority of us copyright holders are for exemptions to 1201(a)! Why is that?
-On to the trial: The final depositions are wrapping up. The judge has consolidated the motion to expand the preliminary injunction, as well as the motion to vacate the PI, with the trial itself. He moved the trial date up because of the first amendment implications of banning the distribution of DeCSS on a 1201(a) case, rather than on a pure copyright basis, among various other reasons.
-The DVD-discuss list is preparing an amicus brief... hopefully it will address basic flaws in the MPAAs pursuit of the lawsuit over circumvention, my favorite being that circumvention does not exist under 1201 if the copyright owner's authorization scheme to access the material is not well defined. There are many more, so review the archive, take note in particular of the proposed outlines for the brief, and see exactly why the MPAA will lose before it actually happens. The list is generally the best place to catch wind of current developments, as most filings and transcripts don't make it to wide distribution and those that do might just make it to 2600 and cryptome.
-Don't forget to donate to the EFF (I haven't sent my check either, yet), because they're footing the bill for this.
The copyright office has posted the post-reply hearings regarding the DMCA circumvention rulemaking. Have you hugged your Librarian of Congress recently? I hope so, because his office is going to decide the fate of publication and fair use as we know it... Unless Orrin Hatch gets entirely fed up with the RIAA and fixes the DMCA singlehandedly.
Also, 2600, the EFF, the MPAA, and the Harvard Open Law discussion list prepare for the trial over the publication of DeCSS, in which a preliminary injunction that constitutes a prior restraint on the defendant's speech will be decided simultaneously with the merits of the trial on July 17th.
Of course, it's not offical unless it happens at the airport (MSP, for you travellers).
I've noticed our own version of this every time tornado weather approaches the cores. As the storm tracks to the east, they pretty consistently are driven northeast through Forest Lake or further.
This week, when 40,000 eastern suburbanites lost power, we in downtown St. Paul just had a nice (loud) rainstorm. Guess that big number one is good for something.
Very sharp.
Derivative works is an ambiguous definition and is open for abuse. GPL leverages copyright law to keep people honest.
If something is in the public domain, derivative works are equally public.
That's what public domain means.
Try netgear FA310TX. It's a 10/100 nic that is tested on linux, comes with a tweaked tulip driver, instructions for linux installation and my personal endorsement.
Netgear did it right.
I'm sorry, but we rent computer time where I work, and you could fucking install a voice-activated, psychic "Hotmail Access Unit" and most morons who rent time would still not be able to manage to sign up for a Hotmail account.
My prediction? Computers will never be "user friendly" because the more that you can do with a thing, the more complex it is. With complexity comes indimidation, with intimidation comes fear, hatred, and ignorance that manifests itself as stupidity.
Joe Luser will never be able to sit down at a multi-purpose computing device and be able to divine how to operate it through finesse or design. Windows 98, X, MacOS, Bob, it doesn't matter. User friendliness is a pipe dream.
So call me Jim Pessimist, but you will never see a computer user interface worth using more intuitive or user friendly than your common nuclear power plant.
I pointed out to John that the same feat could be accomplished using a plugin for Acrobat called Pitstop.
All rental IBMs at Kinkos have this plugin, so basically the Times PDF was vulnerable from the word Go. I'm sure that uber-intelligence agenices has already figured out how to remove the redaction long before Mr. Young posted his revelations.
Just open the file in Acrobat, click, click, delete... full disclosure.
Even if it is obvious from his testimony that he did not write this and does not have the knowledge or experience to make the claims he makes, it is of limited usefulness to point out that the words are not his. They are the words of the MPAA, and of the motion picture studios.
I think they see their case against Corley is weakening, and they are moving back to the public manipulation through fearmongering tactic that has worked for them for so long. We'll see if the strib publishes my reply.
The copy part is a subfunction.
What you classify is a subfunction is irrelevant. It, as well as bashing regional control, remain functions of DeCSS, and as such a defense to 1201(2).
Visit the crop of new MPEG4/DivX sites that give very specific instructions with screen shots on how to use DeCSS (or newer, better iterations based on the same stolen technology) to rip a DVD, including menus and special features and how to compress them and how to make VCDs or standalone MPEGS/AVIs from them.
Have you actually downloaded and used any of these to determine their nature? Neither have the plaintiffs.
1. DeCSS is not a requirement to make VCD/AVIs of movies on DVDs any more than it is a requirement to make them out of a VHS tape.
2. You cannot put DVD menus or "special features" into a VCD.
3. This is not a copyright violation trial. The plaintiffs have not accused Eric Corley of violating copyright, so your point is moot. Eric Corley is not responsible for what is possible for other people to do with DeCSS.
When I can find for you dozens upon dozens of full lenght DVDs posted to alt.binaries.movies that proudly list "DeCSS" in their subject line your "for educational purposes only" reverse engineering claim goes no where.
I have never mentioned reverse-engineering or education, so your repeated mention of this does not help your argument. These are not my areas of expertise, though despite your sharp argumentation to the contrary, a defense can be made of these issues, too.
However, all significant rulings have gone their way, I expect this to continue.
All one of them?
He gave the defense NOTHING
The "nothing" he gave them was exactly what the defense was looking for. Besides, did you notice there were maybe 25 pages of confidential "nothing" that he testified to? Must have been some pretty hot-and-heavy "nothing."
I'm sure you didn't mention unconstitutional because you must realize it's not - and the judge has ruled and ruled again and again that it's not.
Falsehoods of this nature lead me to the if-then statement in my subjectline. The judge has ruled no such thing. The judge has not had an opportunity to do so, as the case is not at trial; and he would not even consider doing so until the defense pressed the issue given the plaintiffs inevitable position.
If DeCSS is found to violate 1201 and the defendant is found to violate the anti-trafficking elements of 1201, the defense will argue that those elements of 1201 are unconstitutional (or at least vague and internally inconsistant) because of the necessary conclusions that 1201 prohibits fair use, violates the first amendment, etc. The plaintiffs may also be in violation of anti-trust law as a result of their testimony in their depositions.
I just am not a hypocrite and don't pretend that I expect everything in life to be free and given to me on a silver platter and every time someone running an alternate OS gets something I whine like a baby that Linux should have it for free!
While I assume you're attempting to characterize my arguments with that statement, you're pretty far off (again).
I have not mentioned linux. I have not mentioned "free(beer) software." I have argued that the trial is a test case for the media conglomerate's pet law to see how much their money in Washington bought them. Unfortunately, it bought them an overbroad statute that sits in an uncomfortable position between the first amendment and anti-trust statutes that will necessarily be resolved by the judicial system; and I do not suspect they will be rewarded for their duplicity.
So, if you're not "trolling," which really, by definition, you are at this point, you really ought to take the time to educate yourself rather than lashing out at things you don't understand. It really makes you a pitiful character.
And you haven't clearly addressed my original premises, by which the plaintiffs are likely to lose their case.
It also makes copies. This is a use of DeCSS that is not deencryption. Rectify this fact with your statement.
Bypassing the region code is a byproduct.
But a use of DeCSS nonetheless.
Oh, your point #4 is completely inaccurate, try actually reading the law, I have.
I did, too, specifically:
"1201(2): No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof."
You may have missed, in your prior readings, the words "primarily designed" or "limited...purpose."
Then there is the issue that the right to prevent fair use propter hoc is not a right granted to the copyright holder, yet the studios' TPM does this.
There is also the issue that non-copyrightable or expired-copyright material may be behind a CSS controlled system.
The list goes on and on. The defense will demonstrate this when the time comes.
Right now, though, they are involved in depositions that reveal that the studios cannot tell you how or when you are entitled to use the stuff on a DVD. They're also fighting the preliminary injunction, and in the process they're severly hampering the credibility of the studios' expert witnesses.
they've won every filing they've made and the defense has lost every one.
Does that include the motion to have Garbus' firm removed from the defense? Or the motion to have every deposition confidential?
You are terribly misled.
You did not address my points 1-3, or 5-7. You failed on point four. All of these are supported by depositions, court filings, self-evident facts or the DMCA. Your response was mere rhetoric.
I haven't even mentioned how certain elements of 1201 may be unconstitutional, though certain of the plaintiffs arguments would entail such a conclusion. In this sense they're digging their own grave before they've even taken it to trial.
Besides trolling, I'm confused why you would waste your time defending doomed arguments and speaking about the case as if you actually understand what is going on. You clearly don't. Or maybe you work for that DVDCCA thing that MPAA President Jack Valenti has never heard of.
1. You can make screenshots of movies on DVD through many means.
2. DeCSS does not help the process. The means of taking screenshots do not require the use of DeCSS.
3. The current case against Eric Corley is not about copyright infringement, but is a test case for the MPAA's pet anit-circumvention law, the DMCA (aka 1201).
4. It is not illegal to traffic in a circumvention device that has non-circumvention uses.
5. DeCSS has non-circumvention uses, such as copying files and bashing region protection. (but that is a copyright violation you say? Unfortunately for you, that's for a court to decide.)
6. The MPAA has not established how a person gets or is denied authorization to access a movie.
7. Until they do, DeCSS may not be circumvention at all.
Care to address these points? You might have a hard time, because the MPAA sure can't.
Shut the hell up.
:)
You make copies.
I'm not insulted because I only work to make money. As long as I am paid well, treated with respect and left alone in my private life to enjoy myself as I will, I don't have any compuntions about making copies.
Meanwhile, I can work from the inside of a large corporation to fight for the right of consumers to make copies of things.
Maybe you don't know, but Kinko's ability to make copies for people was hampered by a lawsuit from textbook makers. Kinko's can't make copies of copyrighted things, and are expected to make every effort to prevent customers from doing the same. In spite of the fact that what they want to do might be fair use.
Because we are not legally permitted to make the distinction, we are not allowed to do anything that could possibly infringe.
That, and they give me plenty of vacation, holiday and sick time; schedule around my education; and pay for me to go to school.
Not so bad for just making copies.
I am not certain about this, but I would presume that OCR software designed to recognize form elements will retain picture elements that do not OCR to text.
Software like Omni Form will let you designate areas on the page to ignore. This should retain picture elements and will put OCRd text in a layout that resembles the original. This, of course, most likely requires user input, at least for each different page layout.
I am asked to do this all the time as a computer services employee of Kinkos.
The short answer is using OCR to create a text file, proof reading the text file, and then printing to a postscript file.
The long answer is, you need to find quality OCR software that does not choke on things like forms. You also *MUST* proof read every OCRd document. No OCR is perfect, and drawn elements will almost certainly trip the software into embedding odd characters or pipes into your text. Different fot sizes will cause the software to choke. Thin fonts will cause the software to choke.
If you are OCRing forms, I recommend Omni Form (it's the only software I know of that recognizes forms, but I have never used it personally).
Batch processing of OCR pages is likely easy to set up with professional OCR software (Omni Page does it), but it does not excuse you from proofreading the results. After that, the PDF part is a snap, and can be accomplished with any OCR software you choose to use.
If you are asking which OCR software is, I can't help you directly. OCR software is a niche software market, and you either get free, dissapointing software with your scanner, or you pay big money for something that does a decent job. Just like everything else in life. Have you read any OCR software reviews?
Obviously if the purpose of the educational demonstration had to do with the playback of DVD, DVD quality, DVD encryption, etc, then fair use of the DVD movie would be a requirement.
You don't want to blow your whole wad in the depositions.
They're providing the defense.
From the library of congress copyright office:
"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."
Fair use is not a right, but a defense to someone claiming infringed copyright. Fair use is decided by the judge by considering:
"1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commer-cial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Basically, the copyright holder retains certian exclusive rights through the copyright's duration; that of public performance, distribution, blah, blah. If the judge feels you've infringed on those rights, you're guilty. However, if your work does not infringe on those rights, your fair use defense may succeed.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/fls/fl102.pdf
It has a nice poetry.
Incidentally, I agree. I see a future, though, with two options, similar in form and reason to the way people listen to music at home now. Ordinary Janes will purchase asinine products like the Bose Wave Digital Media Center and other tightly integrated, "easy to use, easy to install" all-in-one mind cleansing machines--while people interested in quality of parts, ease of maintenance and upgrades, distributed reliance on multiple specialized parts and vendors (basically, people who spend more than two seconds to think about it) will have the opportunity to purchase Conformo-Socializer separates.
Choose your poison.
Not to mention, of course, that knives have nothing to do with this case. No DeCSS/Free speech activist, Malaysian or otherwise, has used a knife on anyone.
Let's not give credence to the MPAA's bizarre and unfounded relation of this case to an attack in Malaysia.
Good luck, Mr. Bunner. Stay calm and think carefully about what you say.
Incidentally, do you know where more information can be read about your trial? 2600 does a fine job posting trial related documents, which are a facinating read, but I haven't heard a word about the California case since it started.
Is it because it is a weaker case? Or just because it has fewer 1st amendment implications?
If your slashdot report isn't posted, I'd still be interested to read it on any web site.
They play a lot of semantic games in their filing, replacing DOJ words with economically loaded terms. To me this indicates that their plan is to either win in the court of public opinion: "The DOJ wants to DIVEST them!! They have to REISSUE shares!" or their plan is to turn the plan into something that sounds far more harsh so it is more easily defeated on appeal, while at the same time softening the meaningful remedies. This way, if they can't get it overturned because it is a "radical" remedy, the actual remedies will be ineffectual.
For instance, the difference between reorganization and divestiture is unimportant external to the final remedy, because no matter what word is used its meaning will be defined explicitly in the actual ruling.
Microsoft's "management, sales, products, and operations" are all tightly integrated, reflecting the fact that Microsoft is--and always has been--a unitary company.
From testimony in the trial:
"I will be honest with you," answered Schmalensee, an important witness for the company. "The state of Microsoft's internal accounting systems do not always rise to the level of sophistication one might expect from a firm as successful as it is."
When Boies pressed him, Schmalensee added: "They record operating system sales by hand on sheets of paper."
(source: zdnet)
The funny thing is that his statement is analogous to saying "I could care less."
Saying that people know more about making ice than the law is unimpressive because there is little to know about making ice and because making ice is a common practice. The only reasonable response is "well, duh."
There's probably a word for that sort of misintention, but I don't know what it is.
Well, each of my subsequent thoughts were well addressed in the previous thread and still remain:
A contract is meant to be understood by the bound parties. If Apogee believes their contract to be inscrutable by the people they expect to be bound by the license, they should make the meaning more explicit. This make for not just good contracts but good relations.
The wording of the license is overbroad and certainly attempts to stomp on copyrighted works' fair use and the legal use of Apogee's trademarks by parties other than Apogee which are well defined (but different. Fair use applies to copyright, while trademark law is even less restrictive than copyright)
Here is the stumper: Apogee obviously pays lawyers to draft these licenses so... do they not understand how their licenses are overbroad, threatening and unenforceable? Why does Apogee hire lawyers that imply the ability to give Apogee rights that the company does not have? It seems that even Apogee's lawyers need to learn a little something about the law because they either believe the license is entirely enforceable or the entire contract is in bad faith.
This is doubly true, now that Apogee has stated that they will not pursue the full extent that the license seems to grant them. Oh, how benevolent. How about, instead, taking the disputed language out??
A license to use copyrighted works is bad enough, but one that has implications beyond the use of the copyrighted work is simply out of line. Anyone who claims otherwise, lawyer or not, needs to be sent to their room to think about what they've done.