Thank you for posting that. It is nice to read another person who appreciates that participating in a capitalist economy is more than being a consumer. At the very least, one has an obligation to one's self to be a thoughtful consumer. Giving advantage to the producers in the economy by not pursuing one's own best interest is flushing money down the toilet.
They may not have those ICBMs now, but once we break the ABM treaty, they'll have no reason not to start accumulating them.
Of course, now that we've elected two Texans to the executive branch, it could be argued that we're a new nation and treaties the United States of America signed don't apply to us. Welcome to the Republic of Texas!
Uh, only in an ineffecient capitalist economy like the US.
If the economy were perfectly efficient, the price would fluctuate at each sale to maximize both social and producer benefit.
Not all economies are as wacky as the one the US has (and subsequently exports to "economic partners). In many economies, the individuals who sell their goods actually know the cost of their goods (!), and can make informed decisions about the sale price at any given time!
Do you think McDonalds employees have the same knowledge about their product, and the flexibility to adjust for waning demand in a given time period? No. Instead, fast food restaurants create a "different" and "new" product/atmosphere/image to fight waning demand macroscopically.
This, of course, harkens the soda machines that can to raise the price as the ambient temperature rises... but of course those machines usually have a local monopoly, thus are not good examples of the operation of a "free market."
Nobody will be standing on the roofs, because nobody gives a shit.
Don't shatter my illusions!
Wouldn't it be an interesting experiement to use a portion of federal tax dollars to fund an institute with the sole mandate to further democracy domestically? Americans do an awful lot of preaching abroad, but never take our own medicine (eg: Florida elections). A Federal Pro-Democracy Institute (despite the obvious temptation to create a double-speak agency) should be demanded by people who truly value democracy, because democracy is torn apart by the ignorance of the masses and the malice of the selfish. Both should be detected and corrected in organized, situation appropriate and well-funded campaigns.
I've only taken two economics courses, so maybe you can explain to me how having a dollar in my hand (in the short or long run) is a loan to the government for $1?
How can the government use the dollar that I have (assuming they don't print a replacement)?
Taking cash out of circulation has the opposite effect of counterfeiting. If I take a $1 and put it under my matress (or illegally destroy it) such that it is never spent again, the value that $1 is distributed in the economy, such that every $1 is worth ($1 +($1/(total cash in circulation)).
Maybe I'm just not understanding. I hope you can clear it up for me. You can understand my confusion; after all, I have the dollar, not the government.
Practically speaking, hoarding cash benefits nobody. The hoarder, by definition will never see the benefit of the hoarded cash and will lose due to inflation should she change her mind (which is why nobody does it), and the economic benefit conferred to the rest of the participants in the economy is so miniscule as to be unmeasureable, and would be easily surpassed by the social benefit of somehow investing the money and allowing it to "circulate," even in a risk-free, insured savings account.
Terms in a contract that violate public policy (repealing due process in small print, for example), are unenforcable. He has legitimate grounds for a suit. That's why he won.
Large campaign bribes are proferred by corporations. Corporate speech is restricted every day. Why should campaign contributions be any different?
If all that money came from individuals (Microsoft's donations to both the repubs and the dems coming instead from Bill G and Steve B), it would be a lot more obvious that these were quid pro quo and not generosity. The public, which has a hard time swallowing corporate involvement in the government as it is, would stand on their rooftops and revolt if the donor list came out and Bill Gates's contribution dwarfed theirs by tens of orders of magnitude.
The axiom that he who has the gold makes the rules would come and hit everyone like a ton of bricks.
It also raises the possibility that hideously wealthy would find something more worthy to put their money towards than influencing government--like altruism--if the alternative meant being hated by their countrymen because their *personal wealth* made them more equal than everyone else. This is harder to see behind the veil of corporate donations.
Ban corporate donations. Make every donation have a name attached (over a certain amount, pegged to inflation). Small donors may remain anonymous, large donors forfeit any claim to anonymity when they decide they want to run the country. Remove the corporate veil. Publish the list. The people have a right to know who government is actually protecting and profiting.
There's a "Holiday Inn" in Niagara Falls that's not a Holiday Inn franchise. There is a long, bizarre history that basically forces Bass Hotels (The Holiday Inn you're familiar with) not to sue the HI Niagara Falls, probably because HI Niagara Falls existed first and they settled the trademark issue. As a result, they have similar phone numbers and similar domain names, too. I suspect that if either took serious court action against the other, the judge would have to refer to their original settlement to share the trademark.
I worked for Bass Hotels HI guest relations, and this was a training issue: "I booked a reservation at your Niagara Location..."
I'm no history major, but I seem to remember the labor unions opposing a great deal of international dealings for a long time now. As such, it has been a liberal issue for at least as long as the unions have been around.
That brownian motion is rectified, not "retified."
I was afraid I wouldn't be able to understand the article because it contained organic-chemistry vocab words, but it's not as complex as the writeup led me to believe.
I'm no molecular researcher, but I'm glad to hear of these discoveries being made on the boundary where quantum mechanics and classical physics meet--I think it is where we'll finally come to understand the fundamental interconnectedness of all things.
Propaganda "news" programs whitewashing or glorifying hate crimes?
Fox News.
p.s. I went to their website to researd this post, and their disclaimer says "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."
I like Jaime's notion, despite the ripple of revulsion that slides down my spine at suggesting an economy of cool (no fault of his).
What he's pinpointed is the value of market research that is available to the sellers of the products we greedily consume that they use to base their decisions on every day.
What they say is "Wow, Green Day is hot. We need a band just like them!" or "I have enough money to make En Vogue hot, to keep that other label on the run chasing after us for another five weeks."
The value of the information on how people are affected by advertising and who is buying what is increased by keeping the subjects of the psychological/sociological experiment in the dark about the results. Do we really know Green Day or En Vogue were hot? Or was it just protrayed that way? They have the scantron data in their hands, and they'll let us see it once they make it true.
What Jaime's basically declaring is war on the limited-information culture that surrounds marketing and popularity. If we actually knew who was popular and what was just marketing lies, we might stand a chance. Having the information available to everyone that is currently only available to a select few spreads the value of that information around to everyone.
Capitalism is based on equality of information. Decision makers need reliable and timely information, and consumers are currently only presented with information that is unreliable and often deceitful. As a result, our decisions are manipulated. By taking the information distribution out of the hands of the marketers and into our own, we stand the chance of actually making informed decisions. What a concept--clearly one that marketers and record labels fear because their well rehearsed disinformation tactics will become useless.
Now, do I think this will put an end to tripe like Destiny's Child or those Green Day-a-likes? No. There is tripe, I believe, because at least 50% of Americans are trite. When we can self-select our "culture" database, however, we have a reliable source of information where we can glean "actual" preferences, instead of the artificial ones we are presently fed. Perfect information doesn't solve all of our problems as consumers, but it eliminates the worst of them.
Re:Functional != unprotected
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 1
A sculpture can be speech.
I said it many times, but I'll say it again. Text is always speech. Physical objects and actions CAN BE speech, but aren't always.
What part aren't you understanding?
A phrase that's batted about on the Open Law discussion list is "You can call a tail a leg, but a dog still only has four legs." Calling text a device does not change that it is text, and is protected by the First Amendment.
Computer software is a list of instructions, and lists of instructions in any language, readable or not, are protected. There are no exceptions.
The court of public opinion is where the battle against such laws will be won or lost, and it will be swayed by consequences, not technicalities of law.
Why was the DMCA passed, then? If congress had asked anyone, would we have said "sure! eliminate fair use, that's OK by me!"?
Public opinion matters not a whit, and the prohibition of computer software is the consequense we're talking about. This isn't fiction or supposition, this is real life. You're the one who's out to lunch, thinking it is about technicalities. There is an acutal software program banned by an actual law. How much more real do you want it to be?
Sure it's just fair use decryption software today... But next week it will be "circumventing" peer-to-peer software devices, or "hazardous" unauthorized HTTP server software devices.
Calling software a device just so it can be regulated is contrary to the First Amendment, and that amendment is there for a reason, not just to give it lip service. Dismiss the argument all you want, it's still valid.
Your "the gov't *always* violates the constitution" argument is hardly convincing. Why should I debate with someone who's given up?
If you want to take your populist argument to the people and rally the rabble, by all means, go for it. Don't think I'm not doing the same thing. However, it won't make a difference if there isn't a solid legal argument based on the constitution in front of the Supreme Court when they issue their ruling. They're the ones who decide whether or not populist decrypters like yourself will be criminals or will have their rights to fair use protected. Technicality or not.
Re:Functional != unprotected
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 1
The computer's creators did not have DeCSS in mind when they built it, it could host any number of different programs.
What does that matter? I don't see where you're going with this. It is often said that the best tools are those which have uses beyond those imagined by their creator. This "purpose of the creator" argument is interesting metaphysically, but has no bearing on what is speech and what isn't.
DeCSS can be treated as a "black box" and used without understanding what it says. [...] If you really want to stretch your definitions, a VCR is speech
Um, but I don't. A VCR is a physical device. You can't print a VCR out and carry it around. You can't save it to a floppy disk. A VCR is a machine. I never claimed my argument was transitive. In fact, I said the opposite: Calling functional speech a device doesn't make it Not Speech, and calling a physical device speech likewise fails (though not always!). All text is protected speech, and there are actions and objects that are protected, too! DeCSS is neither object nor action. It is text. The First Amendment applies, "device" moniker notwithstanding.
You better bet that the controller code for a VCR is speech, 'cause its protected by copyright. Every time I start my Xerox 4025 laser printer at work, it says "Copyright Xerox 1999." The printer isn't copyrighted, but the controller code is. You can't upload the printer to a web page, but you can upload the operating system. It is protected text.
People perform actions to "send a message" but that doesn't mean freedom of speech allows you to "tell" someone you don't like them by punching them.
You and I agree. Didn't you read my post?
Computer programs are devices first, and speech second, if at all.
Computers are devices. Programs are instructions. Instructions, last time I checked, are speech. Or is telling you to "Clean your room" a device because it is an instruction? How about x=(-b +/- sqrt(b^2-4ac))/2a? 'rm -rf/'?
The manner in which I constructed the sentance, emphasizing functionality over readability proves nothing. Speech that is meant to be used and not just read is still speech. Call it a device if you want, but, boy I can still look at it, print it out, read it, understand what it "says." It even still smells like speech. I don't care what you call it. You can't prohibit speech.
DeCSS is a complex series of instructions. Text. Protected.
Fair use is common to countries without such constitutional guarantees. It originated under British common law, and was retained after the colonies seperated. It predates the first amendment.
Clever but irrelevant. We're talking about what's illegal in the US. The constitution is paramount. If it weren't in the constitution I wouldn't be arguing with you, regardless of when fair use originated or where else it is found.
There are plenty of laws prohibiting distribution of information
Name one. And it can't be a copyright case, or be justified by compelling state interest--because those are constitutional justifications. Even NDAs are limited by the first amendment. I can contract away my right to speech and still exercise it!
Grow up and face reality. "Shouldn't" is a more realistic word to apply to government than "can't."
Right. I'll remember to look the other way when you are trying to give me instructions some day and the government hauls you off for trafficking in an illegal "device." After all, I have to face reality that the government will violate the constitution. How pathetic.
Re:Functional != unprotected
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 1
Take a look at Dr. Touretzky's Gallery of CSS descramblers. It's got DeCSS in nearly every way you can imagine.
Re:Functional != unprotected
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 1
What if I write bridge software that will accept as input the text of the physics book, and outputs a decrypted DVD? And if the software in all other instances was a screen saver?
'rm -rf/' has only one purpose, and oh! sometimes it can be used to break the law! That's some potent functional speech right there! BAN IT!
Calling functional speech a device is a rhetorical trick, it is not genuine. The only reason the word "device" is being used is because it is what can banned from trafficking by 1201.
The MPAA would call DeCSS a "frosty lager" if they thought it would help the courts close their eyes to what they were really banning. They've alreay called it biological warfare and a crowbar. Calling this post "fecal matter" doesn't make it any less speech or any less protected by the first amendment, just like calling a brutal murder "speech" doesn't make it any less an action.
Re:Functional != unprotected
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 2
Wrong. They describe an action which can activate a specific device's intended function, they do not work together with another device to produce a new behavior not envisioned by the other device's creator
What is a padlock's intended function? To lock, and unlock when the right combination is applied. Wow, that's just what CSS does. Or are you claiming that CSS's creator didn't envision that CSS encoded movies would be descrambled?
DeCSS is an implementation of the CSS unlocking algorithm. It operates as intended. Your argument is not clear.
Regardless, your argument is a tar baby. I can use a newspaper to light a fire that burns down someone's house. You don't (can't) outlaw newspaper publishing because someone can use it to start a fire, whether intended by the publisher or not. Even if the newspaper contained a How-To on arson. The use of information is prohibitable, the distribution of information is not. Actions are illegal, not data. It's in the constitution.
Like most information, combinations serve a purpose, but do not perform a function.
Like all information, DeCSS does not perform a function. People who use it do. Padlocks don't unlock themselves, and neither do DVDs. All functional speech has an intention behind it. 'rm -rf/' is functional, but it only functions in a certain context--some unlawful, others not. In either case, somone (read: a legal entity) caused the function to occur. The use of information is prohibitable, the distribution of information is not.
The constitution does not require fair use, only that IP restrictions be temporary.
Wrong. The copyright clause is self-limiting in duration, but the first amendment is the reason fair use exists. The First Amendment is why copyrights are limited in scope (to distribution, public performance) as well as in time. The first amendment controls the copyright clause. You don't have to be a lawyer to know this stuff, but you should probably read about it before spouting off.
I don't agree with banning DeCSS, but I don't like to blow it out of proportion or talk about it in unrelated stories. I certainly don't like weaselly claims that it's not primarily a device for decrypting DVDs.
Well, it is bad etiquette to post offtopic commentary, but it wasn't really off topic to begin with. Your glib, imprecise response didn't help, though.
I never said DeCSS isn't primarily for decrypting DVDs, I don't think anyone on this thread did. I am saying that all speech can be functional, and that calling such functional speech a device does not exempt it from first amendment protections (which is what the studios are attempting to do). Congress has the power to control distribution of physical devices--but speech is right out. Functional or not.
The use of information is prohibitable, the distribution of information is not.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for posting that. It is nice to read another person who appreciates that participating in a capitalist economy is more than being a consumer. At the very least, one has an obligation to one's self to be a thoughtful consumer. Giving advantage to the producers in the economy by not pursuing one's own best interest is flushing money down the toilet.
They may not have those ICBMs now, but once we break the ABM treaty, they'll have no reason not to start accumulating them.
Of course, now that we've elected two Texans to the executive branch, it could be argued that we're a new nation and treaties the United States of America signed don't apply to us. Welcome to the Republic of Texas!
Don't laugh.
Uh, only in an ineffecient capitalist economy like the US.
If the economy were perfectly efficient, the price would fluctuate at each sale to maximize both social and producer benefit.
Not all economies are as wacky as the one the US has (and subsequently exports to "economic partners). In many economies, the individuals who sell their goods actually know the cost of their goods (!), and can make informed decisions about the sale price at any given time!
Do you think McDonalds employees have the same knowledge about their product, and the flexibility to adjust for waning demand in a given time period? No. Instead, fast food restaurants create a "different" and "new" product/atmosphere/image to fight waning demand macroscopically.
This, of course, harkens the soda machines that can to raise the price as the ambient temperature rises... but of course those machines usually have a local monopoly, thus are not good examples of the operation of a "free market."
My apartment has countless devices in it that are patented, but none of the patent holders have any claim to them.
Once a patent holder/licensee sells a device protected by patent, they surrender control of that unit to the purchaser.
Nobody will be standing on the roofs, because nobody gives a shit.
Don't shatter my illusions!
Wouldn't it be an interesting experiement to use a portion of federal tax dollars to fund an institute with the sole mandate to further democracy domestically? Americans do an awful lot of preaching abroad, but never take our own medicine (eg: Florida elections). A Federal Pro-Democracy Institute (despite the obvious temptation to create a double-speak agency) should be demanded by people who truly value democracy, because democracy is torn apart by the ignorance of the masses and the malice of the selfish. Both should be detected and corrected in organized, situation appropriate and well-funded campaigns.
Well, that the Tea Party happened is not dependant on your country of residence; example stands regardless.
Point taken, though.
Total Counties won by Gore: 677
Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000
Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000
"But what does it matter? It isn't not the land, it's the people who make the country."
-John Banner as Bavaro, Crash of the Moons
I've only taken two economics courses, so maybe you can explain to me how having a dollar in my hand (in the short or long run) is a loan to the government for $1?
How can the government use the dollar that I have (assuming they don't print a replacement)?
Taking cash out of circulation has the opposite effect of counterfeiting. If I take a $1 and put it under my matress (or illegally destroy it) such that it is never spent again, the value that $1 is distributed in the economy, such that every $1 is worth ($1 +($1/(total cash in circulation)).
Maybe I'm just not understanding. I hope you can clear it up for me. You can understand my confusion; after all, I have the dollar, not the government.
Practically speaking, hoarding cash benefits nobody. The hoarder, by definition will never see the benefit of the hoarded cash and will lose due to inflation should she change her mind (which is why nobody does it), and the economic benefit conferred to the rest of the participants in the economy is so miniscule as to be unmeasureable, and would be easily surpassed by the social benefit of somehow investing the money and allowing it to "circulate," even in a risk-free, insured savings account.
Pretty stupid.
Terms in a contract that violate public policy (repealing due process in small print, for example), are unenforcable. He has legitimate grounds for a suit. That's why he won.
"Terrorism" is just another word for "counter-propaganda propaganda."
If all that money came from individuals (Microsoft's donations to both the repubs and the dems coming instead from Bill G and Steve B), it would be a lot more obvious that these were quid pro quo and not generosity. The public, which has a hard time swallowing corporate involvement in the government as it is, would stand on their rooftops and revolt if the donor list came out and Bill Gates's contribution dwarfed theirs by tens of orders of magnitude.
The axiom that he who has the gold makes the rules would come and hit everyone like a ton of bricks.
It also raises the possibility that hideously wealthy would find something more worthy to put their money towards than influencing government--like altruism--if the alternative meant being hated by their countrymen because their *personal wealth* made them more equal than everyone else. This is harder to see behind the veil of corporate donations.
Ban corporate donations. Make every donation have a name attached (over a certain amount, pegged to inflation). Small donors may remain anonymous, large donors forfeit any claim to anonymity when they decide they want to run the country. Remove the corporate veil. Publish the list. The people have a right to know who government is actually protecting and profiting.
Surely they have a right to see a return on their investment?
I don't remember seeing that in the declaration of independence, so no.
I just invested several hundred dollars in recording equipment, do I have a right to a return on my investment? No.
There is no right to profit. There may be a kernel of truth in what you say, somewhere, but the way you say it ruins your argument.
I worked for Bass Hotels HI guest relations, and this was a training issue: "I booked a reservation at your Niagara Location..."
Besides, adding it embiggens the english language.
Haven't you learned that security through obscurity doesn't work?
I'm no history major, but I seem to remember the labor unions opposing a great deal of international dealings for a long time now. As such, it has been a liberal issue for at least as long as the unions have been around.
I was afraid I wouldn't be able to understand the article because it contained organic-chemistry vocab words, but it's not as complex as the writeup led me to believe.
I'm no molecular researcher, but I'm glad to hear of these discoveries being made on the boundary where quantum mechanics and classical physics meet--I think it is where we'll finally come to understand the fundamental interconnectedness of all things.
Propaganda "news" programs whitewashing or glorifying hate crimes?
Fox News.
p.s. I went to their website to researd this post, and their disclaimer says "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."
Abuse of copyright much?
I like Jaime's notion, despite the ripple of revulsion that slides down my spine at suggesting an economy of cool (no fault of his).
What he's pinpointed is the value of market research that is available to the sellers of the products we greedily consume that they use to base their decisions on every day.
What they say is "Wow, Green Day is hot. We need a band just like them!" or "I have enough money to make En Vogue hot, to keep that other label on the run chasing after us for another five weeks."
The value of the information on how people are affected by advertising and who is buying what is increased by keeping the subjects of the psychological/sociological experiment in the dark about the results. Do we really know Green Day or En Vogue were hot? Or was it just protrayed that way? They have the scantron data in their hands, and they'll let us see it once they make it true.
What Jaime's basically declaring is war on the limited-information culture that surrounds marketing and popularity. If we actually knew who was popular and what was just marketing lies, we might stand a chance. Having the information available to everyone that is currently only available to a select few spreads the value of that information around to everyone.
Capitalism is based on equality of information. Decision makers need reliable and timely information, and consumers are currently only presented with information that is unreliable and often deceitful. As a result, our decisions are manipulated. By taking the information distribution out of the hands of the marketers and into our own, we stand the chance of actually making informed decisions. What a concept--clearly one that marketers and record labels fear because their well rehearsed disinformation tactics will become useless.
Now, do I think this will put an end to tripe like Destiny's Child or those Green Day-a-likes? No. There is tripe, I believe, because at least 50% of Americans are trite. When we can self-select our "culture" database, however, we have a reliable source of information where we can glean "actual" preferences, instead of the artificial ones we are presently fed. Perfect information doesn't solve all of our problems as consumers, but it eliminates the worst of them.
A sculpture can be speech.
I said it many times, but I'll say it again. Text is always speech. Physical objects and actions CAN BE speech, but aren't always.
What part aren't you understanding?
A phrase that's batted about on the Open Law discussion list is "You can call a tail a leg, but a dog still only has four legs." Calling text a device does not change that it is text, and is protected by the First Amendment.
Computer software is a list of instructions, and lists of instructions in any language, readable or not, are protected. There are no exceptions.
The court of public opinion is where the battle against such laws will be won or lost, and it will be swayed by consequences, not technicalities of law.
Why was the DMCA passed, then? If congress had asked anyone, would we have said "sure! eliminate fair use, that's OK by me!"?
Public opinion matters not a whit, and the prohibition of computer software is the consequense we're talking about. This isn't fiction or supposition, this is real life. You're the one who's out to lunch, thinking it is about technicalities. There is an acutal software program banned by an actual law. How much more real do you want it to be?
Sure it's just fair use decryption software today... But next week it will be "circumventing" peer-to-peer software devices, or "hazardous" unauthorized HTTP server software devices.
Calling software a device just so it can be regulated is contrary to the First Amendment, and that amendment is there for a reason, not just to give it lip service. Dismiss the argument all you want, it's still valid.
Your "the gov't *always* violates the constitution" argument is hardly convincing. Why should I debate with someone who's given up?
If you want to take your populist argument to the people and rally the rabble, by all means, go for it. Don't think I'm not doing the same thing. However, it won't make a difference if there isn't a solid legal argument based on the constitution in front of the Supreme Court when they issue their ruling. They're the ones who decide whether or not populist decrypters like yourself will be criminals or will have their rights to fair use protected. Technicality or not.
The computer's creators did not have DeCSS in mind when they built it, it could host any number of different programs.
What does that matter? I don't see where you're going with this. It is often said that the best tools are those which have uses beyond those imagined by their creator. This "purpose of the creator" argument is interesting metaphysically, but has no bearing on what is speech and what isn't.
DeCSS can be treated as a "black box" and used without understanding what it says. [...] If you really want to stretch your definitions, a VCR is speech
Um, but I don't. A VCR is a physical device. You can't print a VCR out and carry it around. You can't save it to a floppy disk. A VCR is a machine. I never claimed my argument was transitive. In fact, I said the opposite: Calling functional speech a device doesn't make it Not Speech, and calling a physical device speech likewise fails (though not always!). All text is protected speech, and there are actions and objects that are protected, too! DeCSS is neither object nor action. It is text. The First Amendment applies, "device" moniker notwithstanding.
You better bet that the controller code for a VCR is speech, 'cause its protected by copyright. Every time I start my Xerox 4025 laser printer at work, it says "Copyright Xerox 1999." The printer isn't copyrighted, but the controller code is. You can't upload the printer to a web page, but you can upload the operating system. It is protected text.
People perform actions to "send a message" but that doesn't mean freedom of speech allows you to "tell" someone you don't like them by punching them.
You and I agree. Didn't you read my post?
Computer programs are devices first, and speech second, if at all.
Computers are devices. Programs are instructions. Instructions, last time I checked, are speech. Or is telling you to "Clean your room" a device because it is an instruction? How about x=(-b +/- sqrt(b^2-4ac))/2a? 'rm -rf /'?
The manner in which I constructed the sentance, emphasizing functionality over readability proves nothing. Speech that is meant to be used and not just read is still speech. Call it a device if you want, but, boy I can still look at it, print it out, read it, understand what it "says." It even still smells like speech. I don't care what you call it. You can't prohibit speech. DeCSS is a complex series of instructions. Text. Protected.
Fair use is common to countries without such constitutional guarantees. It originated under British common law, and was retained after the colonies seperated. It predates the first amendment.
Clever but irrelevant. We're talking about what's illegal in the US. The constitution is paramount. If it weren't in the constitution I wouldn't be arguing with you, regardless of when fair use originated or where else it is found.
There are plenty of laws prohibiting distribution of information
Name one. And it can't be a copyright case, or be justified by compelling state interest--because those are constitutional justifications. Even NDAs are limited by the first amendment. I can contract away my right to speech and still exercise it!
Grow up and face reality. "Shouldn't" is a more realistic word to apply to government than "can't."
Right. I'll remember to look the other way when you are trying to give me instructions some day and the government hauls you off for trafficking in an illegal "device." After all, I have to face reality that the government will violate the constitution. How pathetic.
Take a look at Dr. Touretzky's Gallery of CSS descramblers. It's got DeCSS in nearly every way you can imagine.
What if I write bridge software that will accept as input the text of the physics book, and outputs a decrypted DVD? And if the software in all other instances was a screen saver?
Suppose I wrote a shell script that took Jack Valenti speaking the CSS_Descramble code, piped it into a text-to-speech converter, compiled it and used it? Which would you ban?
/' has only one purpose, and oh! sometimes it can be used to break the law! That's some potent functional speech right there! BAN IT!
'rm -rf
Calling functional speech a device is a rhetorical trick, it is not genuine. The only reason the word "device" is being used is because it is what can banned from trafficking by 1201.
The MPAA would call DeCSS a "frosty lager" if they thought it would help the courts close their eyes to what they were really banning. They've alreay called it biological warfare and a crowbar. Calling this post "fecal matter" doesn't make it any less speech or any less protected by the first amendment, just like calling a brutal murder "speech" doesn't make it any less an action.
Wrong. They describe an action which can activate a specific device's intended function, they do not work together with another device to produce a new behavior not envisioned by the other device's creator
What is a padlock's intended function? To lock, and unlock when the right combination is applied. Wow, that's just what CSS does. Or are you claiming that CSS's creator didn't envision that CSS encoded movies would be descrambled?
DeCSS is an implementation of the CSS unlocking algorithm. It operates as intended. Your argument is not clear.
Regardless, your argument is a tar baby. I can use a newspaper to light a fire that burns down someone's house. You don't (can't) outlaw newspaper publishing because someone can use it to start a fire, whether intended by the publisher or not. Even if the newspaper contained a How-To on arson. The use of information is prohibitable, the distribution of information is not. Actions are illegal, not data. It's in the constitution.
Like most information, combinations serve a purpose, but do not perform a function.
Like all information, DeCSS does not perform a function. People who use it do. Padlocks don't unlock themselves, and neither do DVDs. All functional speech has an intention behind it. 'rm -rf /' is functional, but it only functions in a certain context--some unlawful, others not. In either case, somone (read: a legal entity) caused the function to occur. The use of information is prohibitable, the distribution of information is not.
The constitution does not require fair use, only that IP restrictions be temporary.
Wrong. The copyright clause is self-limiting in duration, but the first amendment is the reason fair use exists. The First Amendment is why copyrights are limited in scope (to distribution, public performance) as well as in time. The first amendment controls the copyright clause. You don't have to be a lawyer to know this stuff, but you should probably read about it before spouting off.
I don't agree with banning DeCSS, but I don't like to blow it out of proportion or talk about it in unrelated stories. I certainly don't like weaselly claims that it's not primarily a device for decrypting DVDs.
Well, it is bad etiquette to post offtopic commentary, but it wasn't really off topic to begin with. Your glib, imprecise response didn't help, though.
I never said DeCSS isn't primarily for decrypting DVDs, I don't think anyone on this thread did. I am saying that all speech can be functional, and that calling such functional speech a device does not exempt it from first amendment protections (which is what the studios are attempting to do). Congress has the power to control distribution of physical devices--but speech is right out. Functional or not.
The use of information is prohibitable, the distribution of information is not.