The only time reverse engineering is illegal under the DMCA is when it is used for making infringing copies.
Actually, reverse engineering is illegal under the DMCA when it is used for bypassing play control. Keep in mind that it is 100% legal to copy the encrypted information off of a DVD disc. You can do it in Windows Explorer, actually. What is illegal is to break the encryption scheme so that you can play the DVD. Therefore the DMCA does not outlaw copying, it outlaws playing. In this way copyright owners have control of how, when, how much, and in what format you play your media, granting them new rights.
...Martha Stewart is going to jail and Osama is still at large!
Now that we've gotten Bobby Fischer, that naughty chess player, we can move on to less dangerous criminals like Ken Lay and the entire accounting staffs of Tyco, Enron, Worldcom and Adelphia.
I love how in America we believe in free speech but we also believe in selective prosecution of people based on what they have to say. Sure, "Operation Pipe Dreams" got us mad because they busted Tommy Chong, but even here on Slashdot no one has sympathy for a Holocaust denier.
Anyway based on the CIA's track record of intelligence failures I'd be pretty surprised if their information on Fischer was accurate. These are the people who were completely wrong about Iraq having massive quantities of nuclear and biological weapons, I'm pretty sure they could have screwed up a chess game too.
If I were president I'd never trust the CIA again.
That this entire story feels off-topic to me. I'm not trying to "troll" here, so hear me out.
Slashdot is a technology site for nerds (upper left, "News for Nerds"). We've got this subsection "Your Rights Online". Ok. This story is not about technology, nerds, my rights online... it's about what Hollywood can do on television.
You know what I have to say to Hollywood about censorship? Regime change begins at home. These are the same people who rallied in support of the movie industry to help pass the DMCA to limit the speech of computer programmers. Now they're upset that Christians have rallied in support of Bush to limit the speech of Hollywood. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
I read that Richard Drewfus quote and I can't help but think "political grandstanding", from the lips of a man whose screen guild dues ingarguably went to promoting a law which makes my encryption research banned speech.
Has anyone been tracking Firefox/Mozilla in the User-Agent stats for a large site to see if it is truly pulling browsershare from IE? The last mention we had from the Slashdot admins was that Slashdot was 90% Internet Explorer, is this on the decline? Are these stats publicly available?
I never bought a Playstation 2 because I didn't want to support the thieves at Rambus by buying their memory. Any word on whether they've replaced that vendor for PS3? I think I've beaten "Gauntlet Legends Dreamcast" one time too many by now...
The Mozilla Foundation doesn't sell product, and therefore falls outside of capitalistic competition. Internet Explorer is being dumped for free into the market, and only Opera is actually competing in the marketplace.
Moz & i.e. may compete for mindshare, but when there's no product to sell, marketshare doesn't exist. The only people competing for browser marketshare are Opera, because only Opera takes money for browser software.
If the idea is to build a low-cost launch vehicle, then you must count the cost per space launch. That's the intended and stated goal, so I'm not sure what other metric you would use. This is the metric of the space industry right now: launch cost.
Furthermore Spaceplane One has only made it to space once, and the X-15 made it 199 times (merely "flying" doesn't quite cut it).
And finally, the X-15 program was a program built from scratch, whereas Scaled Composites was a pre-existing company whose resources could be leveraged for research, design, etc. Those resources are not free, and you are forgetting to include the market capitalization of Scaled Composites in the tally. Admittedly they are a private company but their annual revenue is 12 million dollars, so while they might be worth $100 million right now in IPO, all the publicity they're generating could make them worth considerably more.
In short, the Spaceplane One program has cost over a hundred million dollars for one nearly fatal flight. NASA's X-15 Spaceplane is still the market leader... for now.
What he doesn't understand is that he can't be the underdog because he's not competing. To compete you have to have a product to sell. Internet Explorer is not for sale. First person to find a link to a site selling Internet Explorer proves me wrong.
Yes, Spaceship One is not a Spaceship, it's a Spaceplane, true. NASA confirms this in their article on their own space plane, which bested spaceship one's mark forty years ago for roughly the same amount of money (adjusted for inflation) but without all the near-death control problems.
But you're missing the point. Yes, they still need orders of magnitude more power to reach orbit, and YES, they haven't solved any of the major problems relating to actual spaceflight. And yes, all they have to do to solve their engineering problems is call NASA, because it's all been done before.
But what you're missing is, everyone has to start somewhere. And this is capitalism's first, impressive start.
Mod me down as troll, but I'm about to speak the truth. Ubiquitous surveillance? There are cameras covering every inch of the city I walk in. Massive government analysis? A huge database called MATRIX contains all my financial and medical records, searchable by federal agents. I have to give my SSN, despite the law, to every two-bit huckster who asks for it, to buy a house, a car, a plane ticket, you name it.
And you know what? I don't care. Because I've made a choice to deal with this stuff. If you don't want to live with modern society's "privacy invasion", then don't bitch that you can't take part in all the luxuries and services it provides for you. Don't own a house. Don't own a car. Don't have a credit card. You know there are millions of people living in America who are completely in the Black, off the radar, invisible. I know people who call them "illegals" but they're just good people, most of them Mexican, making a decent living. If privacy is important to you, get off your god damned yuppie ass, stop bitching, and go get a real education from someone who actually knows something about privacy: the "illegals" who mop your shit off the linoleum floor. You want to know what their "social security number" is? 123-Fuck-You-Charlie-Bravo.
You can give it all up, check out of the system, dissapear. If you have balls. On the other hand, if you're a coward and you want your cake: the house, the car, the job, the credit rating, the phone number and static IP address - but you don't want to accept the "privacy invasion" that comes part and parcel with modern society - do us all a favor and drink up a nice cup of Shut The Fuck Up.
/pre-emptive rant against every knee-jerk EPIC-spouting idiot who will soapbox this thread.
I'm a huge 'pedia fan, and this is amazing - especially given all the naysers and doubters. You know back in 2002 I was talking online with two leading figures in Open Source. I've crossed out their names to protect them, but take a look at this IRC log:
<XxxxXxxx> Wiki is silly. Not scalalble. <xxxxx> Wiki's make me want to guage my eyes out. <xxxxx> gouge, even. <XxxxXxxx> They're fun for small groups. <xxxxx> No, I like the idea. <XxxxXxxx> XXXXXXX [our site] is for millions. <xxxxx> And yeah, for smaller groups [Wiki] is great.
Can you believe that? I'm happy to report that Wikipedia has proved them clueless. Happy scaling, Wikipedia! Rock on to a million articles!!
She's 11 years old. You were too at that age. This is the nature of childhood. If we lock an infant in a room full of cyanide pills, and it eats one, did the baby die because it was "stupid^Wignorant"? Or because you put it in a harmful situation?
Judging by the moderator reaction to my original post, my viewpoint is not wanted here. I certainly wasn't trying to upset anyone. It may be true, as you point out, that the Internet must be, by nature, a harmful situation, unfit for children, with bear traps and spike pits at every turn. Your viewpoint is certainly valid.
I believe, however, that my viewpoint is valid as well, however many people say that I am "Flamebait^WTroll". They used to say the same sort of thing about Martin Luther King, but like him I believe in my ideals and the consequences they bring. The point is that the Internet is a worldwide public resource, and I don't believe that we must give up on making it safe to use. Yes, this law was hastily written and needed to go.
But what was wrong with waiting for a suitable replacement?
Despite the first amendment, there are restrictions on what you can say in America. Now, I understand that this bill is not worded as well as it could have been. A sensible restriction would be self-classification of pornographers into a.XXX TLD, with jail time and other punishments only for those who attempt to sneak into.COM and others. This would allow respectable ISPs such as AOL to block all pornographers simply by blocking.XXX, and put those silly and ineffective filter software vendors out of business for good.
However it is completely irresponsible of the court to have struck down the only law protecting America's nearly forty million Internet-savvy children from the horrors (and yes, there are HORRORS on the Internet... child pornography, sadomasochism, rape, anything Satan can imagine...) being peddled at sites with otherwise innocuous names.
Let me tell you a story. My aunt's niece Dorothy got a file in email from me called "reunion_photos.zip", a bundle of photos from our family reunion. She asked her aunt what to do with a.zip file, and was told she needed to "unzip the file". So of course Dorothy opened up Internet Explorer and typed "www.unzip.com"*. I won't even describe what happened that day- the shock, the screaming, the tears... but it was horrible. Children should be given some warning before seeing grown women stripped and tied to walls. And this law was all we had.
Typical liberal court. Thinking only of their legacy, never of the children.
*Unzip.com is no longer a bondage site, though you can see what it was using a site called the "waybackmachine". Be warned.
1. One who designs and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.
2. One that plans or devises: a country considered to be the chief architect of war in the Middle East.
I mean, it's not even a second meaning. It's just plain English abuse. I hope this Zdziarski guy's paper is decent, since he's pretty tripped my spam filter from the gate.
I wonder if they have plans to move this into other, higher quality vehicles in the future? While I admit that BMW's are very expensive and prestigous, independent car reviews like Consumer Reports always give them the lowest possible marks for reliability, a key indicator of quality. Any chance they're going to port this to high quality makes such as Nissan, Honda or (the king of reliability) Toyota?
Before anyone flames me -1 Troll or something, here's a link to the Consumer Reports review of the BMW 3-series. Consumer Reports does not accept advertising dollars and has been independent and objective for decades (you need a subscription). Their electrical systems and power equipment get the absolute worst rating and they managed the bare minimum "reliability check-mark" only three years out of eight studied. And that's the best of the bunch! Their SUV line gets some of the worst quality marks in automobile history.
God, why would the quality leader in portable music hook up with a quality sinkhole like BMW? People who pay the premium for iPods pay for their stuff to just work. People who buy BMW's pay a premium for prestige, and don't mind if the car breaks down twenty times a year. These are two totally separate markets.
BMW parts are much harder to fence, as car thieves steal cars for their parts, and the market is entirely an economy of scale. The more popular a car, the more the car is worth. Which is why BMW has never made the "most stolen car list". The parts to a Honda Accord, for instance, are worth a lot more and are easier to sell.
Of course, stealing an iPod from a BMW doesn't mean you have to steal the whole car, just smash the window. This will be a huge boon to radio thieves, as the iPod's white case is easily spotted even through tinted windows.
It's probably a much easier route than the current approach of mugging people with white headphones or an externally displayed iPod.
All in all the iPod's high profile and distinctive white case helps thieves identify and target their owners. This has the advantage of increasing the risk to consumers who are willing to pay good money for DRM'd music.
"Kazaa is designed specifically to be capable of sharing copyrighted material, with the intent to share or proliferate. If you downnload a copyrighted song with it, you are using it for exactly what it was made for. "
Right? Or does Kazaa have non-infringing uses? Does a gun have non-killing uses? The question is one and the same: do you ban the item for its controversial use.
In one post you've dismissed America's millions of sport shooters, while I have dismissed the four or five bands trying to use Kazaa as a distribution mechanism. Think about it.
My reading of the bill is that the law would not overturn Betamax so much as explicitly prevent Betamax from being applied to digital media. Betamax and VHS were both analog formats with cumulative degradation, that is, a copy of a copy was degraded, and at enough generations the quality would be unusable. Perfect digital copies, however, do not have this limitation, and it is merely common sense that they should be covered by a different law. Betamax was a Supreme Court decision, and it cannot be overturned by an Act of Congress unless Congress retracts the right of Judicial Review. Rather, this law extends stronger protections to the more powerful (and therefore dangerous) process of digital copying.
Screaming and histrionics aside, I don't know how else you could prevent digital theft. For years, Democrats have argued that to stop gun crime, we must outlaw guns. This is common sense. Why now do we reverse our logic? To stop digital copying crimes, we must outlaw digital copying.
All you people making jokes about your own wildy unrealistic lesbian fantasies probably never had to spend four hours lying on your kitchen floor trying to get back into wheelchair because you fucked up trying to open a jar of pickles, let alone spend the day typing a letter to your family with your tongue till it was so sore you couldn't eat.
Ah, the priveleged illuminati! Let's queue up another outsourcing story so we can mock the handicapped and act like bigots in the same day.
Definitely a book for the ages. We live in a strange era, where human powered transport rides alongside modern transport on the same roadways. The air-car denizens of the future will certainly look back with wonder on a day when these crude machines were pedalled alongside wildly powerful steel-plated transportation.
Even though the day of the bicycle is past, they're certainly far from dead. I've noticed a strong collectors community of these outdated machines often out mosying about in the sun on weekends. I do wish they would confine themselves to the law however and stay on the sidewalks as it is wildly annoying to motorists and they are certainly taking their lives in their hands.
The MPAA tries to use the DMCA to suppress source code as free speech, spawns a million Slashdot stories and a T-shirt, and the concept of the "digital crowbar" is born. They're suppressing fair use! We can't excerpt or time-shift!
Apple tries to use the DMCA to suppress source code as free speech, a million Slashdot users get in line to support their right to do it because hey, "They're Apple!!".
Maybe Jack Valenti was right after all - it's all about who you know.
Slashdot Mirror
The Department of Homeland Security told me not to use closed source Internet Explorer, or else I'd be leaving my computer open to terrorists. Now Green Hills is telling me that by using open source Mozilla, I'm leaving my computer open to terrorists!!!!
WHAT CAN I DO!
It seems like everywhere I go people are using the politics of the moment as a crutch.
Actually, reverse engineering is illegal under the DMCA when it is used for bypassing play control. Keep in mind that it is 100% legal to copy the encrypted information off of a DVD disc. You can do it in Windows Explorer, actually. What is illegal is to break the encryption scheme so that you can play the DVD. Therefore the DMCA does not outlaw copying, it outlaws playing. In this way copyright owners have control of how, when, how much, and in what format you play your media, granting them new rights.
Don't feed the trolls, people.
He's looking to become the first person to join the Mile High Club... singlehandedly.
...Martha Stewart is going to jail and Osama is still at large!
Now that we've gotten Bobby Fischer, that naughty chess player, we can move on to less dangerous criminals like Ken Lay and the entire accounting staffs of Tyco, Enron, Worldcom and Adelphia.
I love how in America we believe in free speech but we also believe in selective prosecution of people based on what they have to say. Sure, "Operation Pipe Dreams" got us mad because they busted Tommy Chong, but even here on Slashdot no one has sympathy for a Holocaust denier.
Anyway based on the CIA's track record of intelligence failures I'd be pretty surprised if their information on Fischer was accurate. These are the people who were completely wrong about Iraq having massive quantities of nuclear and biological weapons, I'm pretty sure they could have screwed up a chess game too.
If I were president I'd never trust the CIA again.
That this entire story feels off-topic to me. I'm not trying to "troll" here, so hear me out.
Slashdot is a technology site for nerds (upper left, "News for Nerds"). We've got this subsection "Your Rights Online". Ok. This story is not about technology, nerds, my rights online... it's about what Hollywood can do on television.
You know what I have to say to Hollywood about censorship? Regime change begins at home. These are the same people who rallied in support of the movie industry to help pass the DMCA to limit the speech of computer programmers. Now they're upset that Christians have rallied in support of Bush to limit the speech of Hollywood. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
I read that Richard Drewfus quote and I can't help but think "political grandstanding", from the lips of a man whose screen guild dues ingarguably went to promoting a law which makes my encryption research banned speech.
It's not right when anyone does it. Bah, humbug.
Has anyone been tracking Firefox/Mozilla in the User-Agent stats for a large site to see if it is truly pulling browsershare from IE? The last mention we had from the Slashdot admins was that Slashdot was 90% Internet Explorer, is this on the decline? Are these stats publicly available?
I never bought a Playstation 2 because I didn't want to support the thieves at Rambus by buying their memory. Any word on whether they've replaced that vendor for PS3? I think I've beaten "Gauntlet Legends Dreamcast" one time too many by now...
The Mozilla Foundation doesn't sell product, and therefore falls outside of capitalistic competition. Internet Explorer is being dumped for free into the market, and only Opera is actually competing in the marketplace.
Moz & i.e. may compete for mindshare, but when there's no product to sell, marketshare doesn't exist. The only people competing for browser marketshare are Opera, because only Opera takes money for browser software.
If the idea is to build a low-cost launch vehicle, then you must count the cost per space launch. That's the intended and stated goal, so I'm not sure what other metric you would use. This is the metric of the space industry right now: launch cost.
Furthermore Spaceplane One has only made it to space once, and the X-15 made it 199 times (merely "flying" doesn't quite cut it).
And finally, the X-15 program was a program built from scratch, whereas Scaled Composites was a pre-existing company whose resources could be leveraged for research, design, etc. Those resources are not free, and you are forgetting to include the market capitalization of Scaled Composites in the tally. Admittedly they are a private company but their annual revenue is 12 million dollars, so while they might be worth $100 million right now in IPO, all the publicity they're generating could make them worth considerably more.
In short, the Spaceplane One program has cost over a hundred million dollars for one nearly fatal flight. NASA's X-15 Spaceplane is still the market leader... for now.
X-15 flew 199 times, Spaceship One flew once. You have to divide the cost by the flight count.
What he doesn't understand is that he can't be the underdog because he's not competing. To compete you have to have a product to sell. Internet Explorer is not for sale. First person to find a link to a site selling Internet Explorer proves me wrong.
Illegal product dumping is not competition.
Yes, Spaceship One is not a Spaceship, it's a Spaceplane, true. NASA confirms this in their article on their own space plane, which bested spaceship one's mark forty years ago for roughly the same amount of money (adjusted for inflation) but without all the near-death control problems.
But you're missing the point. Yes, they still need orders of magnitude more power to reach orbit, and YES, they haven't solved any of the major problems relating to actual spaceflight. And yes, all they have to do to solve their engineering problems is call NASA, because it's all been done before.
But what you're missing is, everyone has to start somewhere. And this is capitalism's first, impressive start.
Get a grip!
Mod me down as troll, but I'm about to speak the truth. Ubiquitous surveillance? There are cameras covering every inch of the city I walk in. Massive government analysis? A huge database called MATRIX contains all my financial and medical records, searchable by federal agents. I have to give my SSN, despite the law, to every two-bit huckster who asks for it, to buy a house, a car, a plane ticket, you name it.
/pre-emptive rant against every knee-jerk EPIC-spouting idiot who will soapbox this thread.
And you know what? I don't care. Because I've made a choice to deal with this stuff. If you don't want to live with modern society's "privacy invasion", then don't bitch that you can't take part in all the luxuries and services it provides for you. Don't own a house. Don't own a car. Don't have a credit card. You know there are millions of people living in America who are completely in the Black, off the radar, invisible. I know people who call them "illegals" but they're just good people, most of them Mexican, making a decent living. If privacy is important to you, get off your god damned yuppie ass, stop bitching, and go get a real education from someone who actually knows something about privacy: the "illegals" who mop your shit off the linoleum floor. You want to know what their "social security number" is? 123-Fuck-You-Charlie-Bravo.
You can give it all up, check out of the system, dissapear. If you have balls. On the other hand, if you're a coward and you want your cake: the house, the car, the job, the credit rating, the phone number and static IP address - but you don't want to accept the "privacy invasion" that comes part and parcel with modern society - do us all a favor and drink up a nice cup of Shut The Fuck Up.
I'm a huge 'pedia fan, and this is amazing - especially given all the naysers and doubters. You know back in 2002 I was talking online with two leading figures in Open Source. I've crossed out their names to protect them, but take a look at this IRC log:
<XxxxXxxx> Wiki is silly. Not scalalble.
<xxxxx> Wiki's make me want to guage my eyes out.
<xxxxx> gouge, even.
<XxxxXxxx> They're fun for small groups.
<xxxxx> No, I like the idea.
<XxxxXxxx> XXXXXXX [our site] is for millions.
<xxxxx> And yeah, for smaller groups [Wiki] is great.
Can you believe that? I'm happy to report that Wikipedia has proved them clueless. Happy scaling, Wikipedia! Rock on to a million articles!!
She's 11 years old. You were too at that age. This is the nature of childhood.
If we lock an infant in a room full of cyanide pills, and it eats one, did the baby die because it was "stupid^Wignorant"? Or because you put it in a harmful situation?
Judging by the moderator reaction to my original post, my viewpoint is not wanted here. I certainly wasn't trying to upset anyone. It may be true, as you point out, that the Internet must be, by nature, a harmful situation, unfit for children, with bear traps and spike pits at every turn. Your viewpoint is certainly valid.
I believe, however, that my viewpoint is valid as well, however many people say that I am "Flamebait^WTroll". They used to say the same sort of thing about Martin Luther King, but like him I believe in my ideals and the consequences they bring. The point is that the Internet is a worldwide public resource, and I don't believe that we must give up on making it safe to use. Yes, this law was hastily written and needed to go.
But what was wrong with waiting for a suitable replacement?
Typical liberal court. Thinking only of their legacy, never of the children.
*Unzip.com is no longer a bondage site, though you can see what it was using a site called the "waybackmachine". Be warned.
I mean, it's not even a second meaning. It's just plain English abuse. I hope this Zdziarski guy's paper is decent, since he's pretty tripped my spam filter from the gate.
I wonder if they have plans to move this into other, higher quality vehicles in the future? While I admit that BMW's are very expensive and prestigous, independent car reviews like Consumer Reports always give them the lowest possible marks for reliability, a key indicator of quality. Any chance they're going to port this to high quality makes such as Nissan, Honda or (the king of reliability) Toyota?
Before anyone flames me -1 Troll or something, here's a link to the Consumer Reports review of the BMW 3-series. Consumer Reports does not accept advertising dollars and has been independent and objective for decades (you need a subscription). Their electrical systems and power equipment get the absolute worst rating and they managed the bare minimum "reliability check-mark" only three years out of eight studied. And that's the best of the bunch! Their SUV line gets some of the worst quality marks in automobile history.
God, why would the quality leader in portable music hook up with a quality sinkhole like BMW? People who pay the premium for iPods pay for their stuff to just work. People who buy BMW's pay a premium for prestige, and don't mind if the car breaks down twenty times a year. These are two totally separate markets.
BMW parts are much harder to fence, as car thieves steal cars for their parts, and the market is entirely an economy of scale. The more popular a car, the more the car is worth. Which is why BMW has never made the "most stolen car list". The parts to a Honda Accord, for instance, are worth a lot more and are easier to sell.
Of course, stealing an iPod from a BMW doesn't mean you have to steal the whole car, just smash the window. This will be a huge boon to radio thieves, as the iPod's white case is easily spotted even through tinted windows.
It's probably a much easier route than the current approach of mugging people with white headphones or an externally displayed iPod.
All in all the iPod's high profile and distinctive white case helps thieves identify and target their owners. This has the advantage of increasing the risk to consumers who are willing to pay good money for DRM'd music.
"Kazaa is designed specifically to be capable of sharing copyrighted material, with the intent to share or proliferate. If you downnload a copyrighted song with it, you are using it for exactly what it was made for. "
Right? Or does Kazaa have non-infringing uses? Does a gun have non-killing uses? The question is one and the same: do you ban the item for its controversial use.
Here is a gun that was not designed specifically to be capable of destroying flesh - quite the opposite. With this counterexample I have refuted your argument in its totality.
In one post you've dismissed America's millions of sport shooters, while I have dismissed the four or five bands trying to use Kazaa as a distribution mechanism. Think about it.
My reading of the bill is that the law would not overturn Betamax so much as explicitly prevent Betamax from being applied to digital media. Betamax and VHS were both analog formats with cumulative degradation, that is, a copy of a copy was degraded, and at enough generations the quality would be unusable. Perfect digital copies, however, do not have this limitation, and it is merely common sense that they should be covered by a different law. Betamax was a Supreme Court decision, and it cannot be overturned by an Act of Congress unless Congress retracts the right of Judicial Review. Rather, this law extends stronger protections to the more powerful (and therefore dangerous) process of digital copying.
Screaming and histrionics aside, I don't know how else you could prevent digital theft. For years, Democrats have argued that to stop gun crime, we must outlaw guns. This is common sense. Why now do we reverse our logic? To stop digital copying crimes, we must outlaw digital copying.
All you people making jokes about your own wildy unrealistic lesbian fantasies probably never had to spend four hours lying on your kitchen floor trying to get back into wheelchair because you fucked up trying to open a jar of pickles, let alone spend the day typing a letter to your family with your tongue till it was so sore you couldn't eat.
Ah, the priveleged illuminati! Let's queue up another outsourcing story so we can mock the handicapped and act like bigots in the same day.
Definitely a book for the ages. We live in a strange era, where human powered transport rides alongside modern transport on the same roadways. The air-car denizens of the future will certainly look back with wonder on a day when these crude machines were pedalled alongside wildly powerful steel-plated transportation.
Even though the day of the bicycle is past, they're certainly far from dead. I've noticed a strong collectors community of these outdated machines often out mosying about in the sun on weekends. I do wish they would confine themselves to the law however and stay on the sidewalks as it is wildly annoying to motorists and they are certainly taking their lives in their hands.
You have to wonder, though, what this has to do with tying up women and making their eyes really big.
The MPAA tries to use the DMCA to suppress source code as free speech, spawns a million Slashdot stories and a T-shirt, and the concept of the "digital crowbar" is born. They're suppressing fair use! We can't excerpt or time-shift!
Apple tries to use the DMCA to suppress source code as free speech, a million Slashdot users get in line to support their right to do it because hey, "They're Apple!!".
Maybe Jack Valenti was right after all - it's all about who you know.
Now get in line and drink the cool-aid.