This argument is certainly nothing new; at issue is whether merely linking to a library creates a derivative work. IME, it would be a really bad thing for open source and free software if this was the case, despite the short-term impact to proprietary software makers.
If linking DOES create a derivative work, this means that the very act of USING a library in the normal way is an act covered by the copyright code. This applies to everything -- including system libraries. Makers of computer systems could thus legally prevent anyone from writing programs for them by refusing to allow them to create derivative works. Want to write a program which links with the.NET APIs? Here, sign this contract, in blood if you please. And don't even think of GPLing your program.
If I didn't know better, I'd think the Washington Post was feeling threatened and was trying to create a bit of a chilling effect on their own.
Their first example was about a cease and desist order from a _former employer_ about violating a nondisclosure agreement for merely mentioning a project. If the facts are as presented, that's no threat to free speech. First of all, since we aren't talking classified information or even trade secrets, the nondisclosure probably wasn't even violated: a nondisclosure agreement doesn't mean you aren't allowed to talk about your work in public!
Second a threat about violating a nondisclosure from a FORMER employer isn't what I call compelling. Sure, as long as you work there they've got you by the short hairs, but once you're gone the only way they can deal with you is to sue, and that's going to be a lot of work for them and no guaranteed win.
Their next example of "Our server crashed today, and the idiot IT person at our company couldn't get the thing running." isn't likely to be actionable either, even if it isn't true. Calling someone an idiot is an opinion, not slander, unless their lawyers can twist it into making it look like you were actually claiming they were mentally defective rather than just delivering an insult.
Yeah, if you badmouth your own company in public, you might well get fired. That's as true in a web log as anywhere else. But the rest of it is mostly overblown threats.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on the net.
P.S Oh, and if anyone thinks I speak for any of the companies I have worked for or the company I now work for -- you're out of your mind.
The details of Apple's licenses with the MPEG consortiom are not really compelling issues to the end user.
If Apple ships a copy of iDVD with my machine (and they DO ship it on machines without the SuperDrive, claims otherwise notwithstanding), I have the right to use that copy. I don't need a license to use that copy. No piracy is involved with using that copy, regardless of what some claim; copyright does not cover use, and ephemeral copies made during use are specifically exempted.
What OWC had done is come up with a program that made iDVD think a SuperDrive was present. It didn't modify or make a copy of iDVD in any way. So there's no copyright interest involved. The only way the program would be illegal is under the DMCA.
However, it's also not clear whether Apple really invoked the DMCA, or whether they just sent a nasty letter and OWC said it was due to the DMCA. OWC being an authorized Apple dealer, Apple could shut them down without worrying about the DMCA. As far as I know, OWC never published the original nasty letter they got.
Now, as to that license: actually using that copy of iDVD without a Superdrive might be a PATENT infringement. And OWCs program might be considered contributory infringement. But that's another issue entirely.
They've tried this with audio before, notably in the Waco cases. The court rejected it then. Hopefully they will keep rejecting it.
Such digital enhancement might be useful for getting leads, but the result isn't evidence; it's just a computer-assisted guess.
OK, so the mice vote to bell the cat. What if the cat (that is, the "consumer") ain't buying? People are already not-buying digital TV in droves. The FCC is going to hate it, but even they are unlikely to be able to force the shutdown of analog TV under current conditions, and use-crippling technology isn't going to help at all.
Who on slashdot is really going to download a file called "clit.zip"? May as well just click on a goatse.cx link. Anyway, posting UUEncoded stuff on slashdot doesn't work, particularly not when you chose "HTML" for posting.
It doesn't matter whether they'd been printed or not. Being on digital media is 'fixation' in a tangible medium just as being printed is. There's no legal difference as far as eligibility for copyright is concerned. In either case, the underlying facts in the medium are NOT copyrighted. Yes, there might have been trade secret violations, but trade secret violations are not eligible for DMCA takedown nor the DMCA expedited subpoena process.
This is false. You can rent out any movie that you own( whether on DVD or VHS) for profit (or not), regardless of what Hollywood thinks about it. The only thing Blockbuster does which requires permission is show the movies within the store -- and I seriously doubt they pay per-tape for that.
A self-proclaimed white-hat hacker is someone who decries as a 'cracker' those who perform now what used to be perfectly acceptable hacks, and accepts the current state of the law as a fair arbiter for hacker ethics. But the DMCA has made hacking security systems not just on others' computers, but on those completely owned (not oWn3d) by you, into a criminal act.
You can still be a hacker and not hack security systems. But then you're not a "white hat" -- you're just out of the "hat" picture entirely. If you're a hacker with a hat, like it or not, it's black. The DMCA didn't get rid of just the greys, it took out the whites as well.
But worst of all is the movie's macro plot. Exactly as in TPM, the completed plot arc of ATC (Attack of the Clones) comes down to an unalloyed bummer. Every member of civilization, and every institution, is shown acting in the most stupid possible way.
No systems of accountability function. The most outrageous political manipulation is made utterly obvious to us... while escaping notice even by the wisest Jedi. Above all, just as in TPM, every heroic action by brave characters serves no purpose at all. None.
This is, in fact, the most realistic part of the movie. But Brin is an optimist and refuses to recognize that. In any case, this pessimistic view is necessary to set the stage for the later movies, so complaining about it is futile, futile, futile.
It's actually worse than Brin thinks, though. Palpatine had things set up so no matter what happened, he won. What Palpatine is, is the opposite of the typical Evil Overlord -- he doesn't rely on one evil plan which can be upset by the meddlings of a hero. Instead, he sets up a situation such that the meddlings of the heroes actually advance his cause. ALL paths lead to his victory.
The question of "fair use" doesn't even come up for an edited _original_ videotape. By buying the videotape, Clean Flicks became the owner of a copy. They can do almost whatever they want to that copy; it's theirs. They can also sell or rent that copy -- that's part of the first sale doctrine. Nothing in copyright law says they can't sell or rent a copy after they've modified it. Their practices don't even enter the scope of copyright law.
For DVDs, since they have to make a copy, they are on shakier ground.
Re:Americans throw away freedom for capitalism
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
>Let's not throw the baby out with the bath >water, however. Limited patent and copyright >protections were very, very good for inventors >and the public for about 150 years in the US.
I really don't think Open Source or FSF would be very happy with the results if the FSFs idea of creating a derivative work by dynamic linking could hold. This would potentially make anything which used, e.g., the WIN32 API a derivative work of Windows.
Stallman/FSF appears to think that a work dynamically linked with a GPLed library is a derivative work of that library, but I honestly can't see how. A simple thought experiment: suppose I were to take the documentation for some GPLed library, and have a crack team of programmers in a clean room develop a non-GPL equivalent. I then develop my own program based on the non-GPL library. I distribute my program, but without the library, instead suggesting that people download the GPLed library. If Stallman's view is correct, either
1) I created a derivative work without ever working with the code my work is a derivative of. This is patently absurd.
2) The user created a derivative work when he ran my program with the GPLed library in place. This is NOT a view the FSF or anyone else who likes Open Source wants to become law -- making the ephemeral dynamic-linked copy count as a derivative work gives certain monopolistic copyright holders the total control over use of their work that they desire.
Since a patent granted by the USPTO is _presumed valid_ once it gets to court, it is essential that they DO filter out bad patents. The judicial branch is NOT for determining the validity of patents; they assume, unless the _defense_ proves otherwise, that the patent is valid.
The problem with software patents is that the more you look for, the more you will find; lots of basic techniques have been patented (often two or three times). If you look for and find these things, you either have to work around (very difficult or impossible in some cases), sue to invalidate the patent (expensive), or be subject to penalties for willful infringement. If you don't look, the patentholders have to slog through YOUR code looking for reasons to sue (and no willful infringement penalties). Why do their work for them?
(OK, maybe Linus wasn't right about the hit man thing. A hit man might be cheaper than an IP lawyer, but murder really IS unethical, and besides, you'd have to wipe out the whole corporation, and that gets almost as expensive as a lawsuit. But I assume Linus was speaking tongue-in-cheek there)
Civil disobedience as a tactic is obselete. Governments have become immune to it. The answer was simple: longer sentences. Lock up some protestor for 30 days, and in 30 days he's back whining about his rights again. Lock him up for 5 yeas, and if even if he survives the experience, everyone has forgotten him.
DMCA 512(a) removes any liability (if there was any in the first place, which is not clear -- the Netcom decision says otherwise, in some cases) for ISPs which are merely carrying the content.
The RIAA has bludgeoned its way into a critical issue here. The subpoena provisions only apply to material covered by 17 US 512(c), material on a service provider's system or network at the direction of users. The question, then, is whether or not a system owned by the user of an ISP is on that ISP's network or not.
My take on it is that it's like the phone system; anything upstream of the NIB belongs to the phone company and is on their network, anything downstream is on the user's network. This works for DSL and dialup, and a similar line could be drawn for cable. Unfortunately, it's quite possible that a sufficently incentivized court could decide that by using an ISP, you are putting your computer on THEIR network, and thus 512(c) applies.
This would be very bad, not just because of the subpoena clause. This would allow 512(c) takedown notices of items stored on your own machine. Host your own website with material the RIAA doesn't like? If it's on YOUR network, 512(a) absolutely protects your ISP from any monetary liability regardless of any takedown notices, and against injunctions in most cases. They'd have to sue you directly to get results.
But if the courts rule that your website is on your ISPs network, they can send a 512(c)(3) takedown notice, and your ISP would have to either cut your website off immediately or risk liability.
Slashdot Mirror
Who needs double-entry bookkeeping when you can just keep two sets of books? (and yes, Slashdot filter, I can actually type out a reply in 19 seconds)
This argument is certainly nothing new; at issue is whether merely linking to a library creates a derivative work. IME, it would be a really bad thing for open source and free software if this was the case, despite the short-term impact to proprietary software makers.
.NET APIs? Here, sign this contract, in blood if you please. And don't even think of GPLing your program.
If linking DOES create a derivative work, this means that the very act of USING a library in the normal way is an act covered by the copyright code. This applies to everything -- including system libraries. Makers of computer systems could thus legally prevent anyone from writing programs for them by refusing to allow them to create derivative works. Want to write a program which links with the
If I didn't know better, I'd think the Washington Post was feeling threatened and was trying to create a bit of a chilling effect on their own.
Their first example was about a cease and desist order from a _former employer_ about violating a nondisclosure agreement for merely mentioning a project. If the facts are as presented, that's no threat to free speech. First of all, since we aren't talking classified information or even trade secrets, the nondisclosure probably wasn't even violated: a nondisclosure agreement doesn't mean you aren't allowed to talk about your work in public!
Second a threat about violating a nondisclosure from a FORMER employer isn't what I call compelling. Sure, as long as you work there they've got you by the short hairs, but once you're gone the only way they can deal with you is to sue, and that's going to be a lot of work for them and no guaranteed win.
Their next example of
"Our server crashed today, and the idiot IT person at our company couldn't get the thing running." isn't likely to be actionable either, even if it isn't true. Calling someone an idiot is an opinion, not slander, unless their lawyers can twist it into making it look like you were actually claiming they were mentally defective rather than just delivering an insult.
Yeah, if you badmouth your own company in public, you might well get fired. That's as true in a web log as anywhere else. But the rest of it is mostly overblown threats.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on the net.
P.S Oh, and if anyone thinks I speak for any of the companies I have worked for or the company I now work for -- you're out of your mind.
The details of Apple's licenses with the MPEG consortiom are not really compelling issues to the end user.
If Apple ships a copy of iDVD with my machine (and they DO ship it on machines without the SuperDrive, claims otherwise notwithstanding), I have the right to use that copy. I don't need a license to use that copy. No piracy is involved with using that copy, regardless of what some claim; copyright does not cover use, and ephemeral copies made during use are specifically exempted.
What OWC had done is come up with a program that made iDVD think a SuperDrive was present. It didn't modify or make a copy of iDVD in any way. So there's no copyright interest involved. The only way the program would be illegal is under the DMCA.
However, it's also not clear whether Apple really invoked the DMCA, or whether they just sent a nasty letter and OWC said it was due to the DMCA. OWC being an authorized Apple dealer, Apple could shut them down without worrying about the DMCA. As far as I know, OWC never published the original nasty letter they got.
Now, as to that license: actually using that copy of iDVD without a Superdrive might be a PATENT infringement. And OWCs program might be considered contributory infringement. But that's another issue entirely.
Claim 2: The system in claim one, in which the weapon is loaded before taking the steps listed
Claim 3: The system in claim 2, in which the ammunition is jacketed hollowpoint
Claim 4: The system in claim 2 in which the ammunition is a frangible round
They've tried this with audio before, notably in the Waco cases. The court rejected it then. Hopefully they will keep rejecting it. Such digital enhancement might be useful for getting leads, but the result isn't evidence; it's just a computer-assisted guess.
OK, so the mice vote to bell the cat. What if the cat (that is, the "consumer") ain't buying? People are already not-buying digital TV in droves. The FCC is going to hate it, but even they are unlikely to be able to force the shutdown of analog TV under current conditions, and use-crippling technology isn't going to help at all.
Who on slashdot is really going to download a file called "clit.zip"? May as well just click on a goatse.cx link. Anyway, posting UUEncoded stuff on slashdot doesn't work, particularly not when you chose "HTML" for posting.
It doesn't matter whether they'd been printed or not. Being on digital media is 'fixation' in a tangible medium just as being printed is. There's no legal difference as far as eligibility for copyright is concerned. In either case, the underlying facts in the medium are NOT copyrighted. Yes, there might have been trade secret violations, but trade secret violations are not eligible for DMCA takedown nor the DMCA expedited subpoena process.
Err, you don't need to wait. HP already did it, search the archives or google a bit.
I'd be interested in knowing how many people _didn't_ appear or present papers at this workshop due to the DMCA.
This is false. You can rent out any movie that you own( whether on DVD or VHS) for profit (or not), regardless of what Hollywood thinks about it. The only thing Blockbuster does which requires permission is show the movies within the store -- and I seriously doubt they pay per-tape for that.
A self-proclaimed white-hat hacker is someone who decries as a 'cracker' those who perform now what used to be perfectly acceptable hacks, and accepts the current state of the law as a fair arbiter for hacker ethics. But the DMCA has made hacking security systems not just on others' computers, but on those completely owned (not oWn3d) by you, into a criminal act.
You can still be a hacker and not hack security systems. But then you're not a "white hat" -- you're just out of the "hat" picture entirely. If you're a hacker with a hat, like it or not, it's black. The DMCA didn't get rid of just the greys, it took out the whites as well.
This is, in fact, the most realistic part of the movie. But Brin is an optimist and refuses to recognize that. In any case, this pessimistic view is necessary to set the stage for the later movies, so complaining about it is futile, futile, futile.
It's actually worse than Brin thinks, though. Palpatine had things set up so no matter what happened, he won. What Palpatine is, is the opposite of the typical Evil Overlord -- he doesn't rely on one evil plan which can be upset by the meddlings of a hero. Instead, he sets up a situation such that the meddlings of the heroes actually advance his cause. ALL paths lead to his victory.
I noticed Tru64 is shown to be insecure... can HPCompaq invent a reason to sue the authors?
The question of "fair use" doesn't even come up for an edited _original_ videotape. By buying the videotape, Clean Flicks became the owner of a copy. They can do almost whatever they want to that copy; it's theirs. They can also sell or rent that copy -- that's part of the first sale doctrine. Nothing in copyright law says they can't sell or rent a copy after they've modified it. Their practices don't even enter the scope of copyright law. For DVDs, since they have to make a copy, they are on shakier ground.
>Let's not throw the baby out with the bath >water, however. Limited patent and copyright >protections were very, very good for inventors >and the public for about 150 years in the US.
The baby has DROWNED.
I really don't think Open Source or FSF would be very happy with the results if the FSFs idea of creating a derivative work by dynamic linking could hold. This would potentially make anything which used, e.g., the WIN32 API a derivative work of Windows.
Stallman/FSF appears to think that a work dynamically linked with a GPLed library is a derivative work of that library, but I honestly can't see how. A simple thought experiment: suppose I were to take the documentation for some GPLed library, and have a crack team of programmers in a clean room develop a non-GPL equivalent. I then develop my own program based on the non-GPL library. I distribute my program, but without the library, instead suggesting that people download the GPLed library. If Stallman's view is correct, either
1) I created a derivative work without ever working with the code my work is a derivative of. This is patently absurd.
2) The user created a derivative work when he ran my program with the GPLed library in place. This is NOT a view the FSF or anyone else who likes Open Source wants to become law -- making the ephemeral dynamic-linked copy count as a derivative work gives certain monopolistic copyright holders the total control over use of their work that they desire.
Since a patent granted by the USPTO is _presumed valid_ once it gets to court, it is essential that they DO filter out bad patents. The judicial branch is NOT for determining the validity of patents; they assume, unless the _defense_ proves otherwise, that the patent is valid.
The problem with software patents is that the more you look for, the more you will find; lots of basic techniques have been patented (often two or three times). If you look for and find these things, you either have to work around (very difficult or impossible in some cases), sue to invalidate the patent (expensive), or be subject to penalties for willful infringement. If you don't look, the patentholders have to slog through YOUR code looking for reasons to sue (and no willful infringement penalties). Why do their work for them?
(OK, maybe Linus wasn't right about the hit man thing. A hit man might be cheaper than an IP lawyer, but murder really IS unethical, and besides, you'd have to wipe out the whole corporation, and that gets almost as expensive as a lawsuit. But I assume Linus was speaking tongue-in-cheek there)
Civil disobedience as a tactic is obselete. Governments have become immune to it. The answer was simple: longer sentences. Lock up some protestor for 30 days, and in 30 days he's back whining about his rights again. Lock him up for 5 yeas, and if even if he survives the experience, everyone has forgotten him.
DMCA 512(a) removes any liability (if there was any in the first place, which is not clear -- the Netcom decision says otherwise, in some cases) for ISPs which are merely carrying the content.
The RIAA has bludgeoned its way into a critical issue here. The subpoena provisions only apply to material covered by 17 US 512(c), material on a service provider's system or network at the direction of users. The question, then, is whether or not a system owned by the user of an ISP is on that ISP's network or not.
My take on it is that it's like the phone system; anything upstream of the NIB belongs to the phone company and is on their network, anything downstream is on the user's network. This works for DSL and dialup, and a similar line could be drawn for cable. Unfortunately, it's quite possible that a sufficently incentivized court could decide that by using an ISP, you are putting your computer on THEIR network, and thus 512(c) applies.
This would be very bad, not just because of the subpoena clause. This would allow 512(c) takedown notices of items stored on your own machine. Host your own website with material the RIAA doesn't like? If it's on YOUR network, 512(a) absolutely protects your ISP from any monetary liability regardless of any takedown notices, and against injunctions in most cases. They'd have to sue you directly to get results.
But if the courts rule that your website is on your ISPs network, they can send a 512(c)(3) takedown notice, and your ISP would have to either cut your website off immediately or risk liability.
There's only one link policy which makes sense. It is reproduced in its entirety between the two rows of dashes below
------
------
-1 Inaccurate -- it's "...moderation in pursuit of justice..."
.sig, before my current overlong anti-DMCA rant)
(used to be my Usenet