Collateral damage is unavoidable in war but a nation is supposed to TRY to avoid it. Using collateral damage as a tactic (as MAPS does) comes under another heading. Begins with a T.
You'd be wrong. The oils in fingerprints accelerate corrosion on metals. Get a piece of steel (not stainless), clean it off, put your fingerprints on it, then leave it in a humid environment (to acclerate the process). You'll see your fingerprints outlined in rust.
Eventually, just to preserve their monopoly, Microsoft makes an offer they can't refuse -- computers with Windows for less than the price of the computers alone.
#1) A bit of a nitpick: There are no laws (that is, statutes) on contributory or vicarous infringement. These are both judge-created doctrines.
#2) Not a nitpick: Betamax IS exactly about contributory infringement. To claim that a device maker is guilty of same merely for making and distributing a device which has substantial noninfringing uses _is_ to challenge Betamax.
I believe the specific doctrine of vicarious infringement of copyright post-dates Betamax; Betamax refers to contributory infringement as a form of vicarious liability.
To make a gun's "finger print resistant" is to make it so it won't be damaged by fingerprints. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can pick up a latent print from the surface!
The Supreme Court cannot rule for MGM without vitiating half of Betamax. They probably won't say they are doing so, but they will. It is indisputable that there are substantial noninfringing uses for P2P technology; that is the test under Betamax, despite your claim that it isn't.
To rule for MGM the Supreme Court must decide that "substantial noninfringing use" isn't enough; they may decide as you've suggested that the "principle" use is what is important. Or more likely they'll apply some sort of fuzzy balancing test. But whatever they do, provided they rule for MGM, they'll be providing the MPAA with a tool which their lawyers can and will use to destroy _any_ non-MPAA technology which can be used for copying and/or distributing copyrighted works.
The other half of Betamax -- whether or not "space shifting" is fair use -- isn't at issue. But with all the devices for doing so controlled by the MPAA, it's pretty much moot.
Well, that pretty much confirms it's a scam. The game is to file a vague patent application, continue it by incorporating actual technologies brought into use between the two applications, and use the old application to establish priority.
What Nohbody's situation is. Student, dorm resident, instructor, professor?
Anyway, assuming he's a student: If you're at a big school the network IT department almost certainly doesn't actually have the authority to impose a punishment on you, though they have the power. The trick then is finding someone in the bureaucracy who can and will tell them to either back off or bring you before the disciplinary board.
This _IS_ your southern neighbors DMCA, with only minor changes. Here's your anti-circumvention:
In conformity with the WCT and WPPT, the circumvention, for infringing purposes, of technological measures (TPMs) applied to copyright material would itself constitute an infringement of copyright.
Here's the makings of your device provision:
Copyright would also be infringed by persons who, for infringing purposes, enable or facilitate circumvention
(nb: the "for infringing purposes doesn't help", as circumvention itself is infringment, unlike in the US DMCA where circumvention is a separate offense)
They don't have the hosting takedown provisions, which is a good thing. But other than that, it isn't so different. And they intend to take away the private copying exemption entirely, not just make it futile with the DMCA-like provisions:
The Act's private copying regime provides for an exception to copyright that permits the making of a copy of a sound recording for private use. It also provides for a levy to be paid by manufacturers and importers of blank audio recording media.
Questions have been raised regarding Canada's ability to ratify the WPPT in the absence of changes to the private copying regime. In this context and in light of Internet-related developments which have challenged the private copying regime since its introduction in 1997 (including in the courts), the Government proposes to release a consultation paper on this issue as soon as possible after introducing the bill.
Translated into English: We're taking away the private copying exemption, just not right now. Don't bet your last pair of shorts on the levy going away, though.
A brute force attack on a 128 bit cipher is completely impractical -- even if you made it 256 times easier to implement it in hardware, it would still be completely impractical.
What they said about computer skills on the job was
"Their report also noted that being able to use a computer at work - one of the justifications for devoting so much teaching time to ICT (information and communications technology) - had no greater impact on employability or wage levels than being able to use a telephone or a pencil."
Probably true. After all, if you can't use a telephone or a pencil, you're at a severe disadvantage when trying to get a job.
Schools take the joy out of reading, so of course kids don't pick up books much. That's not a computer problem at all. Want kids to read? Get them into it before the schools turn it into drudgery.
As for the article, it's rather self contradictory. First
"Once those influences were eliminated, the relationship between use of computers and performance in maths and literacy tests was reduced to zero"
Then, "The more access pupils had to computers at home, the lower they scored in tests, partly because they diverted attention from homework"
Well? Which is it, zero or negative correlation?
And, of course, the details of the correction for "family background" characteristics aren't listed in the article; it's quite possible the alleged negative results are a result of overcorrection.
Adding a few verses to a song doesn't make the new verses derivative. The modified song as a whole is, but you could sell the new verses separately without infringing on the original song's copyright.
Linking to a GPLed work -- dynamically or staticly -- does probably create a derivative work. But dynamic linking isn't done by the distributor of the code; it's done by the end user. And the GPL does not restrict the making of derivative works for private use, so there's no violation there (there can be no contributory infringement without direct infringement).
Including a header file doesn't necessarily make one's work derivative of the header file; the header file often doesn't actually cause any code to be generated. Rather, it sets out the APIs and layout of the data structures. This is unlikely to be copyrightable, and the FSF certainly doesn't want it to be copyrightable -- can you imagine the blow to interoperability if an API copyright was upheld?
He send a misrepresentation of a part of his distribution policy to FSF and FSF didn't have a problem with that. Out in the real world he's sent _DMCA Notices_ to ISPs hosting GPLed Sveasoft software. He's also now changed the license on the software (which was based on GPL software not his). And the bit about distribution canceling your paid-for support contract (which I feel quite sure he didn't tell FSF the whole story on) is an "additional restriction" forbidden by the GPL.
Added to that, he doesn't release the source of current versions, and when he releases the source it isn't complete (he leaves out the bit containing the part he uses to track people who distribute, for one thing). He's violating left and right.
If they transmit the AAC file in the clear and then encrypt and DRM it on the client side (which appears to be what the article says), they obviously weren't even slightly serious about DRM. Ordinary DRM is "Here's a locked file, here's a program containing a key. Don't pull the key out of the program.". This is "Here's a file, here's a lock, here's a program containing a key. Please lock the file and then don't pull the key out of the program". Even sillier.
Probably still violates DMCA 1201(a) to do evade the key, but what doesn't violate the DMCA?
Oh, wait, that was SGML, so it doesn't apply, according to the twisted logic of software-patent defenders.
Fancy anyone would use a Markup Language for storing Marked Up documents. I mean, that's totally novel and non-obvious. And putting it in just ONE file? Pure genius. Patent approved.
You can use GPL libraries in your proprietary code and sell your closed code, provided your distributed binary is not a derivative work of those libraries.
The LGPL allows you to do so even if your distributed binary IS a derivative work.
Whether something is or is not a derivative work is a subject for the law and not something which the license can set out (because if it's not a derivative work, the license doesn't apply).
Those opposing any changes have plenty of paid commenters to drown out comment from the rest of us. And even if they didn't, the copyright office doesn't have the authority to change the law; that's up to Congress, and you _know_ who owns them. Spend your effort elsewhere; commenting to the copyright office is about as productive as posting to Slashdot.
What I'm saying is that the _nondisclosure agreement_ only applies to first actors, and that applying such agreements by law to third parties violates the First Amendment.
The rest of your claims rest on the idea that trade secrets are property exactly analagous to tangible property, and they aren't. So I guess that puts me under 2).
If you come into possession of -- or even purchase -- my address and SSN (the former is rather easy to find, the latter only moderately harder -- and there are people who will sell it to you), you've committed no crime. If you order a few thousand dollars worth of goods by representing yourself as being associated with that address and SSN, you've committed a form of fraud; has nothing to do with ownership of the information.
Heck, by your argument trade secret law is unconstitutional, and "top secret" information should be legally publishable willy-nilly.
You've confused two issues here. First, freedom of speech has never covered the publication of stolen (or secret) documents; it is the freedom to say what you think and to communicate freely. That does not mean you're free to consipire to kill people; it means that you can express unpopular opinions (or at least it used to; today that's not so clear).
If the top secret information has made it to some random journalist, it's probably too late to keep the secret. And trade secret law IS unconstitutional if it gags those who have not agreed to the confidentiality agreements.
As for free speech not covering the publication of "stolen (or secret)" documents, you might want to get acquainted with New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), better known as the Pentagon Papers case.
Slashdot Mirror
Collateral damage is unavoidable in war but a nation is supposed to TRY to avoid it. Using collateral damage as a tactic (as MAPS does) comes under another heading. Begins with a T.
Tyranny, tempered by incompetence.
You'd be wrong. The oils in fingerprints accelerate corrosion on metals. Get a piece of steel (not stainless), clean it off, put your fingerprints on it, then leave it in a humid environment (to acclerate the process). You'll see your fingerprints outlined in rust.
Eventually, just to preserve their monopoly, Microsoft makes an offer they can't refuse -- computers with Windows for less than the price of the computers alone.
Hey mods! Misinformative is not informative
#1) A bit of a nitpick: There are no laws (that is, statutes) on contributory or vicarous infringement. These are both judge-created doctrines.
#2) Not a nitpick: Betamax IS exactly about contributory infringement. To claim that a device maker is guilty of same merely for making and distributing a device which has substantial noninfringing uses _is_ to challenge Betamax.
I believe the specific doctrine of vicarious infringement of copyright post-dates Betamax; Betamax refers to contributory infringement as a form of vicarious liability.
To make a gun's "finger print resistant" is to make it so it won't be damaged by fingerprints. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can pick up a latent print from the surface!
The Supreme Court cannot rule for MGM without vitiating half of Betamax. They probably won't say they are doing so, but they will. It is indisputable that there are substantial noninfringing uses for P2P technology; that is the test under Betamax, despite your claim that it isn't.
To rule for MGM the Supreme Court must decide that "substantial noninfringing use" isn't enough; they may decide as you've suggested that the "principle" use is what is important. Or more likely they'll apply some sort of fuzzy balancing test. But whatever they do, provided they rule for MGM, they'll be providing the MPAA with a tool which their lawyers can and will use to destroy _any_ non-MPAA technology which can be used for copying and/or distributing copyrighted works.
The other half of Betamax -- whether or not "space shifting" is fair use -- isn't at issue. But with all the devices for doing so controlled by the MPAA, it's pretty much moot.
Well, that pretty much confirms it's a scam. The game is to file a vague patent application, continue it by incorporating actual technologies brought into use between the two applications, and use the old application to establish priority.
What Nohbody's situation is. Student, dorm resident, instructor, professor? Anyway, assuming he's a student: If you're at a big school the network IT department almost certainly doesn't actually have the authority to impose a punishment on you, though they have the power. The trick then is finding someone in the bureaucracy who can and will tell them to either back off or bring you before the disciplinary board.
This _IS_ your southern neighbors DMCA, with only minor changes. Here's your anti-circumvention:
In conformity with the WCT and WPPT, the circumvention, for infringing purposes, of technological measures (TPMs) applied to copyright material would itself constitute an infringement of copyright.
Here's the makings of your device provision:
Copyright would also be infringed by persons who, for infringing purposes, enable or facilitate circumvention
(nb: the "for infringing purposes doesn't help", as circumvention itself is infringment, unlike in the US DMCA where circumvention is a separate offense)
They don't have the hosting takedown provisions, which is a good thing. But other than that, it isn't so different. And they intend to take away the private copying exemption entirely, not just make it futile with the DMCA-like provisions:
The Act's private copying regime provides for an exception to copyright that permits the making of a copy of a sound recording for private use. It also provides for a levy to be paid by manufacturers and importers of blank audio recording media.
Questions have been raised regarding Canada's ability to ratify the WPPT in the absence of changes to the private copying regime. In this context and in light of Internet-related developments which have challenged the private copying regime since its introduction in 1997 (including in the courts), the Government proposes to release a consultation paper on this issue as soon as possible after introducing the bill.
Translated into English: We're taking away the private copying exemption, just not right now. Don't bet your last pair of shorts on the levy going away, though.
A brute force attack on a 128 bit cipher is completely impractical -- even if you made it 256 times easier to implement it in hardware, it would still be completely impractical.
Skip the supplements, then, and just eat pennies. A balanced diet of copper-clad zinc.
I tried to read it (in PDF) only to find that every other page was upside down. Guess those computer skills would have come in handy after all.
Apparently because I pushed the wrong reply button, then didn't notice I had the wrong post. Thread drift happens.
What they said about computer skills on the job was
"Their report also noted that being able to use a computer at work - one of the justifications for devoting so much teaching time to ICT (information and communications technology) - had no greater impact on employability or wage levels than being able to use a telephone or a pencil."
Probably true. After all, if you can't use a telephone or a pencil, you're at a severe disadvantage when trying to get a job.
Schools take the joy out of reading, so of course kids don't pick up books much. That's not a computer problem at all. Want kids to read? Get them into it before the schools turn it into drudgery.
As for the article, it's rather self contradictory. First
"Once those influences were eliminated, the relationship between use of computers and performance in maths and literacy tests was reduced to zero"
Then,
"The more access pupils had to computers at home, the lower they scored in tests, partly because they diverted attention from homework"
Well? Which is it, zero or negative correlation?
And, of course, the details of the correction for
"family background" characteristics aren't listed in the article; it's quite possible the alleged negative results are a result of overcorrection.
Adding a few verses to a song doesn't make the new verses derivative. The modified song as a whole is, but you could sell the new verses separately without infringing on the original song's copyright.
Linking to a GPLed work -- dynamically or staticly -- does probably create a derivative work. But dynamic linking isn't done by the distributor of the code; it's done by the end user. And the GPL does not restrict the making of derivative works for private use, so there's no violation there (there can be no contributory infringement without direct infringement).
Including a header file doesn't necessarily make one's work derivative of the header file; the header file often doesn't actually cause any code to be generated. Rather, it sets out the APIs and layout of the data structures. This is unlikely to be copyrightable, and the FSF certainly doesn't want it to be copyrightable -- can you imagine the blow to interoperability if an API copyright was upheld?
He send a misrepresentation of a part of his distribution policy to FSF and FSF didn't have a problem with that. Out in the real world he's sent _DMCA Notices_ to ISPs hosting GPLed Sveasoft software. He's also now changed the license on the software (which was based on GPL software not his). And the bit about distribution canceling your paid-for support contract (which I feel quite sure he didn't tell FSF the whole story on) is an "additional restriction" forbidden by the GPL.
Added to that, he doesn't release the source of current versions, and when he releases the source it isn't complete (he leaves out the bit containing the part he uses to track people who distribute, for one thing). He's violating left and right.
If they transmit the AAC file in the clear and then encrypt and DRM it on the client side (which appears to be what the article says), they obviously weren't even slightly serious about DRM. Ordinary DRM is "Here's a locked file, here's a program containing a key. Don't pull the key out of the program.". This is "Here's a file, here's a lock, here's a program containing a key. Please lock the file and then don't pull the key out of the program". Even sillier.
Probably still violates DMCA 1201(a) to do evade the key, but what doesn't violate the DMCA?
Anyone ever heard of Interleaf?
Oh, wait, that was SGML, so it doesn't apply, according to the twisted logic of software-patent defenders.
Fancy anyone would use a Markup Language for storing Marked Up documents. I mean, that's totally novel and non-obvious. And putting it in just ONE file? Pure genius. Patent approved.
You can use GPL libraries in your proprietary code and sell your closed code, provided your distributed binary is not a derivative work of those libraries.
The LGPL allows you to do so even if your distributed binary IS a derivative work.
Whether something is or is not a derivative work is a subject for the law and not something which the license can set out (because if it's not a derivative work, the license doesn't apply).
sveasoft (gpl-violations is slashdotted, so maybe they are listed)
Those opposing any changes have plenty of paid commenters to drown out comment from the rest of us. And even if they didn't, the copyright office doesn't have the authority to change the law; that's up to Congress, and you _know_ who owns them. Spend your effort elsewhere; commenting to the copyright office is about as productive as posting to Slashdot.
What I'm saying is that the _nondisclosure agreement_ only applies to first actors, and that applying such agreements by law to third parties violates the First Amendment.
The rest of your claims rest on the idea that trade secrets are property exactly analagous to tangible property, and they aren't. So I guess that puts me under 2).
If you come into possession of -- or even purchase -- my address and SSN (the former is rather easy to find, the latter only moderately harder -- and there are people who will sell it to you), you've committed no crime. If you order a few thousand dollars worth of goods by representing yourself as being associated with that address and SSN, you've committed a form of fraud; has nothing to do with ownership of the information.
If the top secret information has made it to some random journalist, it's probably too late to keep the secret. And trade secret law IS unconstitutional if it gags those who have not agreed to the confidentiality agreements.
As for free speech not covering the publication of "stolen (or secret)" documents, you might want to get acquainted with New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), better known as the Pentagon Papers case.