Patents ARE issued only to individual inventors. And non-discriminatory licensing is no panacea either. It lets the big players play free while pricing the little guy right out of the market.
Your school has a stupid policy. However, it does have some useful consequences. Namely, if you're in a fight, hit back and pound on the the other guy to the best of your ability. After all, you're going to get suspended either way.
To put your school's policy in persepctive: it's like if this scammer had tried to scam the powerbook out of the seller, the seller had sent him the powerbook, and then the law had punished the SELLER for being defrauded.
Sorry, but that's inaccurate. Fair Use started as judicial law; it was codified into statutes after the court decisions which created it. Congress did not giveth, so it's not so clear they can legally taketh away.
Anyway, the DMCA claims to have not taken away fair use -- it instead disingenuously explicitly protects fair use while making it practically impossible to engage in it without violating the new statutes.
I'm glad my WiFi network is 802.11a. If this goes into wide use there's going to be so much noise in 2.4Ghz that 2.4Ghz wireless is going to be really hard to continue using. (Heck, it already is)
As to the techno-babble, most 802.11a/b/g cards require a separate chip for the MAC (which handles the 802.11 level 2 protocol -- some chipsets do most of this on the host), the PHY (which handles the digital signal processing) and the RF section (which is black magic). Putting them all on one chip allows for smaller and hopefully less power-hungry devices.
The cracking of the iTunes encryption is more of an exercise than anything else; Apple allows you to put the tunes on warez-r-us simply by burning to CD and encoding to MP3 (and what warez-d00d would use unencrypted AAC anyway?) That's hardly a bolster for your case.
However, even if your arguments and implications were true, it wouldn't matter. If it's the choice between the entire publishing industry dying or getting sent to a Federal pound-me-in-ass-prison for flipping a bit, well, I'm sorry Jim (Baen), but it's time for you to die.
The DMCA did not remove the common carrier defense. See e.g. the Netcom case, which precedes the DMCA, and also see DMCA 512(l) -- Other Defenses Not Affected. If the RIAA, MPAA, and Harlan Ellison aren't careful and keep trying to cut holes in the DMCA-provided defenses, service providers may end up fighting for these pre-existing defenses leaving the DMCA moot.
Also note that a provider merely providing connectivity -- a 512(a) provider -- is not required to respond if a specific violation is pointed out. The Verizon case established this, at least for now. This was a miscalculation by the xxAAs, as they didn't forsee broadband and didn't expect people to be serving up the material from their own computers. They expected most people to be using ISP-provided servers thus subjecting the ISP to 512(c), which includes the takedown and subpoena conditions.
All a 512(a) service provider has to do to avoid liability is noted in 512(i)(1)
The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider -
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and
(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
The technical measures referred to do not exist yet. Note that the ISP is required to have and implement a policy of termination of repeat infringers. But nothing says they have to take the complaintant's word for it that infringement is taking place.
There won't be any import ban. If the arbitrator rules against Matsushita, and they run out of delaying tactics, they'll pay up rather than get banned from the country.
Most of the clicking on the ads on my pages is done by my hordes of zombied machines (too lazy to insert link to related story), when I'm not renting them out to spammers.
My own grandfather was imprisoned for handing out anti-war literature at a military induction center in Atlanta during WWI,
And in case there's any question about it, this sort of thing was endorsed by the United States Supreme Court. The famous "fire in a crowded theatre" decision concerned just such a case.
(At least most people admit Korematsu -- concerning internment of Japanese-Americans -- was a mistake. Though I suspect Ashcroft has been just itching to cite it, despite the tactical error that would be)
U-238 certainly doesn't decay into Pu-239 (atoms don't gain mass by decaying, though they can by neutron capture). Nor into Americium-241. Pu-239 was present in the core when all hell broke loose, though, as was Am-241.
U-238 decays into lead (Pb-206), with long stops at U-234, Thorium-230, and Radium-222 (and many shorter stops)
The 2600 court took a very narrow view of the interoperability clause, limiting it's applicability to direct program-to-program interoperability, not program-to-data interoperability.
That's right. The FSF has to take an unreasonable stance with respect to derivative works precisely because the GPL allows anyone to make proprietary derivative works without restriction, provided they don't distribute them.
So I could make a proprietary binary patch for a GPL program -- one that contains no code actually taken from that program -- and distribute it along with instructions on how to apply the patch to a GPL work. I could even distribute the GPL work complete with source along with the binary patch, because mere aggregation on the same distribution medium doesn't trigger the GPL. This is a hole in the GPL.
The FSF attempts to plug it by claiming that my patch is derivative, but this, IMO, is a major stretch -- my patch contains no GPL code, and merely referencing a copyrighted work does not create a derivative of it. A better case could be made for contributory copyright infringement -- that is, by claiming my patch is good only for making an unauthorized derivative work. However, there can be no contributory copyright infringement without direct infringement. And since it is permitted by the GPL for the end user to create a proprietary derivative of a GPL'd work, there's no direct infringement and that line of argument doesn't work either.
Thanks for the correction, it took me a couple of links to find that, but you're right; this is a crack. Cisco should have known better than to use MS crypto....
It's still a dictionary attack, in that the 45M passwords/sec depends on having a precomputed dictionary... but it's probably practical nowadays to precompute some pretty decent lists.
This is an offline dictionary attack, not a cryptographic break as has been done to WEP. If you use a strong password (one not in the dictionary), this won't break it. I don't know if preventing offline attacks was a goal of LEAP; if it was, it's fair to describe this as a crack, but if not, this is really just a tool to automate what was already known to be possible.
If you were selling a piece of artwork with (danger, technical term ahead) boobies in it, and I were to sell a mask for that piece of artwork which would fit over it and hide the boobies, how could that possibly implicate copyright. Are you going to claim my boobie-masks are derivative works?
The DMCA does not forbid creation of derivative works, nor does this player bypass any TPMs (RCA has a CSS license), so the DMCA is not involved.
What might get them is contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, for the creation of derivative works.
However, I don't think this is very likely. The lack of fixation of the supposed "work" would probably weigh heavily on RCAs side.
And while there's law on the issue of whether running a computer program is a copyright-implicating event, it is not settled whether that applies to other digital media -- there's even the (slight) possibility that if the courts were to reconsider that issue, they'd overturn the current law on computer programs.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, don't play one on Slashdot. (uhh, who do I think I'm kidding on the second part there?)
All well and good, but if you really want to sell the system, you need warnings for more common dangers. For instance, you could add radar and lidar detectors, and enhance the optical scanning to detect police cars. The system could then indicate the location of these dangers on the screen, using the optical scanning to help filter out store security systems and such from real threats, as well as detecting cops using passive techniques. Oh, and you'd not put this in Volvos but rather Mustangs.
Yeah, and the nature of spam makes steganography EASY. Exactly which mis-spelling is used for a word could encode several bits. Those HTML comments used to obscure could hide entire words, in both content and placement. So could the lists of nonsense words used to defeat SPAM filters.
Slashdot Mirror
Patents ARE issued only to individual inventors. And non-discriminatory licensing is no panacea either. It lets the big players play free while pricing the little guy right out of the market.
Your school has a stupid policy. However, it does have some useful consequences. Namely, if you're in a fight, hit back and pound on the the other guy to the best of your ability. After all, you're going to get suspended either way. To put your school's policy in persepctive: it's like if this scammer had tried to scam the powerbook out of the seller, the seller had sent him the powerbook, and then the law had punished the SELLER for being defrauded.
Sorry, but that's inaccurate. Fair Use started as judicial law; it was codified into statutes after the court decisions which created it. Congress did not giveth, so it's not so clear they can legally taketh away.
Anyway, the DMCA claims to have not taken away fair use -- it instead disingenuously explicitly protects fair use while making it practically impossible to engage in it without violating the new statutes.
I'm glad my WiFi network is 802.11a. If this goes into wide use there's going to be so much noise in 2.4Ghz that 2.4Ghz wireless is going to be really hard to continue using. (Heck, it already is)
As to the techno-babble, most 802.11a/b/g cards require a separate chip for the MAC (which handles the 802.11 level 2 protocol -- some chipsets do most of this on the host), the PHY (which handles the digital signal processing) and the RF section (which is black magic). Putting them all on one chip allows for smaller and hopefully less power-hungry devices.
Oddly enough, though, the DMCA explicitly allows removal of personally identifying information such as userid, name, and email address.
The cracking of the iTunes encryption is more of an exercise than anything else; Apple allows you to put the tunes on warez-r-us simply by burning to CD and encoding to MP3 (and what warez-d00d would use unencrypted AAC anyway?) That's hardly a bolster for your case.
However, even if your arguments and implications were true, it wouldn't matter. If it's the choice between the entire publishing industry dying or getting sent to a Federal pound-me-in-ass-prison for flipping a bit, well, I'm sorry Jim (Baen), but it's time for you to die.
The DMCA did not remove the common carrier defense. See e.g. the Netcom case, which precedes the DMCA, and also see DMCA 512(l) -- Other Defenses Not Affected. If the RIAA, MPAA, and Harlan Ellison aren't careful and keep trying to cut holes in the DMCA-provided defenses, service providers may end up fighting for these pre-existing defenses leaving the DMCA moot.
Also note that a provider merely providing connectivity -- a 512(a) provider -- is not required to respond if a specific violation is pointed out. The Verizon case established this, at least for now. This was a miscalculation by the xxAAs, as they didn't forsee broadband and didn't expect people to be serving up the material from their own computers. They expected most people to be using ISP-provided servers thus subjecting the ISP to 512(c), which includes the takedown and subpoena conditions.
All a 512(a) service provider has to do to avoid liability is noted in 512(i)(1)
The technical measures referred to do not exist yet. Note that the ISP is required to have and implement a policy of termination of repeat infringers. But nothing says they have to take the complaintant's word for it that infringement is taking place.There won't be any import ban. If the arbitrator rules against Matsushita, and they run out of delaying tactics, they'll pay up rather than get banned from the country.
Most of the clicking on the ads on my pages is done by my hordes of zombied machines (too lazy to insert link to related story), when I'm not renting them out to spammers.
And in case there's any question about it, this sort of thing was endorsed by the United States Supreme Court. The famous "fire in a crowded theatre" decision concerned just such a case.
(At least most people admit Korematsu -- concerning internment of Japanese-Americans -- was a mistake. Though I suspect Ashcroft has been just itching to cite it, despite the tactical error that would be)
Copyright is not a basic right, it is an artificial monopoly manufactured by government. Therefore libertarians need not support it.
U-238 certainly doesn't decay into Pu-239 (atoms don't gain mass by decaying, though they can by neutron capture). Nor into Americium-241. Pu-239 was present in the core when all hell broke loose, though, as was Am-241. U-238 decays into lead (Pb-206), with long stops at U-234, Thorium-230, and Radium-222 (and many shorter stops)
Brand name for your #1 is Percocet.
Quicktime?
Of course, Macs start at $799, not $1500.
The 2600 court took a very narrow view of the interoperability clause, limiting it's applicability to direct program-to-program interoperability, not program-to-data interoperability.
That's right. The FSF has to take an unreasonable stance with respect to derivative works precisely because the GPL allows anyone to make proprietary derivative works without restriction, provided they don't distribute them.
So I could make a proprietary binary patch for a GPL program -- one that contains no code actually taken from that program -- and distribute it along with instructions on how to apply the patch to a GPL work. I could even distribute the GPL work complete with source along with the binary patch, because mere aggregation on the same distribution medium doesn't trigger the GPL. This is a hole in the GPL.
The FSF attempts to plug it by claiming that my patch is derivative, but this, IMO, is a major stretch -- my patch contains no GPL code, and merely referencing a copyrighted work does not create a derivative of it. A better case could be made for contributory copyright infringement -- that is, by claiming my patch is good only for making an unauthorized derivative work. However, there can be no contributory copyright infringement without direct infringement. And since it is permitted by the GPL for the end user to create a proprietary derivative of a GPL'd work, there's no direct infringement and that line of argument doesn't work either.
Right. In Florida, they export a lot of their water. Most people call it "oranges" and "orange juice".
Thanks for the correction, it took me a couple of links to find that, but you're right; this is a crack. Cisco should have known better than to use MS crypto.... It's still a dictionary attack, in that the 45M passwords/sec depends on having a precomputed dictionary... but it's probably practical nowadays to precompute some pretty decent lists.
This is an offline dictionary attack, not a cryptographic break as has been done to WEP. If you use a strong password (one not in the dictionary), this won't break it. I don't know if preventing offline attacks was a goal of LEAP; if it was, it's fair to describe this as a crack, but if not, this is really just a tool to automate what was already known to be possible.
It's a travesty of justice that you weren't modded +5, Funny
If you were selling a piece of artwork with (danger, technical term ahead) boobies in it, and I were to sell a mask for that piece of artwork which would fit over it and hide the boobies, how could that possibly implicate copyright. Are you going to claim my boobie-masks are derivative works?
This is the same thing, only higher tech.
The DMCA does not forbid creation of derivative works, nor does this player bypass any TPMs (RCA has a CSS license), so the DMCA is not involved.
What might get them is contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, for the creation of derivative works.
However, I don't think this is very likely. The lack of fixation of the supposed "work" would probably weigh heavily on RCAs side.
And while there's law on the issue of whether running a computer program is a copyright-implicating event, it is not settled whether that applies to other digital media -- there's even the (slight) possibility that if the courts were to reconsider that issue, they'd overturn the current law on computer programs.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, don't play one on Slashdot. (uhh, who do I think I'm kidding on the second part there?)
All well and good, but if you really want to sell the system, you need warnings for more common dangers. For instance, you could add radar and lidar detectors, and enhance the optical scanning to detect police cars. The system could then indicate the location of these dangers on the screen, using the optical scanning to help filter out store security systems and such from real threats, as well as detecting cops using passive techniques. Oh, and you'd not put this in Volvos but rather Mustangs.
Yeah, and the nature of spam makes steganography EASY. Exactly which mis-spelling is used for a word could encode several bits. Those HTML comments used to obscure could hide entire words, in both content and placement. So could the lists of nonsense words used to defeat SPAM filters.