The reason the DMCA is particularly pernicious, however, is that it criminalizes the dissemination of "hacking tools", not just the act of hacking itself.
True, the DMCA is narrower than some of the other laws you cite because it is specific to security systems designed to protect copyright, and not security systems in general.
The article unfortunately confuses two gray hat actions: breaking into a system to report to the owner about its vulnerabilities without permission (which should be illegal in my opinion), and releasing exploit scripts to the public when vulnerabilities are found in commonly used operating systems or servers. I think the latter should definitely NOT be illegal for First Ammendment reasons if no other.
The DMCA stands apart from the other laws you cite, in that it criminalizes the latter activity (if the security system is primarily used to protect copyright.) The other laws only criminalize the former activity.
you still can't lawfully detain them based on information provided by such a system.
You can be lawfully detained for up to 24 hours without charges being laid. In practice, they need only detain you long enough to miss your flight, possibly forcing you to pay upwards of $100 to change your tickets, if you're lucky enough to get on another flight the same day.
And do you want to be stopped and searched each and every time you fly simply because you grew up in the wrong neighborhood?
You cannot claim someone is making a logic error by establishing a profile and trend.
Ah, but two things are required to establish this profile and trend:
A) Most child molesters have kiddy porn on their computers.
B) Most people who aren't child molesters don't have kiddy porn on their computers.
Simply demonstrating (A) isn't sufficient: you need a control group to establish a corelation. I think this is what the person who gave the air example was trying to point out.
Given how loose current legal definitions of "child pornography" are, and given the fact that in many states, 17 year olds can be considered minors, I think people would be shocked at just how large a percentage of the population actually has viewed child pornography on their computer.
For example, if a student purchases a CD and creates an MP3 copy on his or her hard drive, and then uses a P2P network to share that MP3 copy with others, both the student and those making copies are infringing the owners' copyright rights and violating federal copyright law.
While I agree that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion would seem to say that widely sharing copyrighted recordings over a P2P network is an infringing activity, I don't think the students doing the downloading are infringing, as I understand the opinion and the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), which seems to explicitly authorize people to make copies for their own personal use. The AHRA was invoked as a defence in the Napster case, and the court ruled that it doesn't protect widespread sharing over the Net. I don't think the opinion concluded the same for receiving such files.
IANAL, and I would welcome opinions from those more expert than me, but I think USC may be talking out of its *ss here.
Yes, but not on the arrangements. Bach performed by the Boston Philharmonic is copyrighted.
Actually, in this case it's the recorded performance that is copyrighted, not the arrangement generally. Performances of public domain works can be copyrighted. In cases where the work itself is still under copyright, generally both the composer and performer(s) receive royalties for record sales.
The "original" Bach composition is public domain, of course, if you can find it. But if it's written for a tromba marina with harpsichord accommpaniment then good luck playing it.
Actually there happen to be many "period instrument" ensembles recording music these days on intruments of the time, but that is beside the point. Simply playing a harpsichord score on a piano does not constitute a copyrightable "arrangement", but the recording of the performance is copyrightable.
There's nothing to stop me (legally) from getting a group of public-spirited musicians together to record Beethoven's Fifth Symphony and putting that recording in the public domain.
Also note:It seems that the XSL might break AES 256 bits, but it is not certain. There is little chance however that it will break the most used AES 128 bits.. Funny, i would have gone with bigger keys, but they seem to get less secure.
Recall that "breaking" an algorithm means finding a method of attack with a work factor less than 2^k where k is the key length in bits. "Breaking" in this context doesn't mean recovering plaintext of encrypted communications. Since they have demonstrated an attack with a work factor of 2^200, that means that 256-bit AES was "broken" but 128-bit AES was not.
I must confess, I don't fully understand the German article, but it didn't appear they included the MPC format in their comparisons.
Most people who have compared it to other codecs, including MP3 and Ogg, claim it is superior. You can read some of the discussions at Hydrogen Audio in the MPC forums.
I understand MPC, unlike Ogg, may be encumbered by some patents (as is MP3), but for a pure quality comparison, it should be included. Does anyone know why/if it was omitted from this comparison?
Not to be rude, but what the fuck are you talking about? How much trouble is it to download and install another plugin for their players?
Damn near impossible, if like most people, they don't listen to music only while sitting at their computers, and they don't have their computer wired to their home stereo.
When I'm at home, I listen to my original CDs. When I'm in my car, or travelling, I listen primarily to MP3 CDs on my Riovolt, or car player. This enables me to bring far more music with me when I travel.
When and if firmware exists to enable people to play Ogg on all their hardware, then your question might have more rhetorical impact.
I mean, LAME has managed to get arround patent issues by completely reimplementing the encoder.
No, LAME got around the patent by releasing source code only. Patent law explicitly allows descriptions of inventions (which source code falls under) to be distributed free of patent retrictions. Hence the name LAME (LAME Ain't an Mp3 Encoder), it is just a description of one. If you compile and use LAME for any commercial gain, you are probably supposed to pay a license fee.
The difference between the two is only ~2%, in Gnomes favor. This out of of a group of a little over 2200, I don't know if I would consider that a large enough percentage to consider it to be anything other then a margin of error.
Well, the statistical uncertainty on a sample of 2200 is sqrt(2200) which is approximately 47, and 2% of 2200 is 44, so we are talking about slightly less than a 1 sigma effect. So you're right, it's not statistically significant.
At the moment, this takes more electricity than the hydrogen would ultimately generate.
Actually, it's the First law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) that would be violated if you could electrolyze water with less energy than you get from burning the hydrogen, but you make a good point, and the second law sets a limit on the maximum mechanical energy you can extract by burning a fuel, either by combustion or indirectly by using a fuel cell.
Actually, I'm as annoyed at all the silly airline restrictions now as the next guy, but one thing which always surprised me, even before September 11, is why they allow cameras with electronic flash in carry-on luggage at all.
It takes just one flash capacitor to act as a detonator for plastic explosives. I'm frankly amazed (and somewhat relieved) than no one has done this up to now.
If it were up to me, we'd stop x-raying people's shoes, throwing away their nail clippers and plastic cutlery, and require any flash equipment, including those on disposable cameras to be in checked luggage.
Yes, but if the only way to run the code you're releasing is to do something illegal, then I think a case could be made that you are inciting a crime, which is in itself criminal. Even speech loses First Amendment protection if its purpose is to cause "imminent lawless action." If you must do something illegal to run software then I really can't see how the software could be considered "legal".
Hmm. I've heard of the Webster Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary, but never the Princeton Dictionary. I guess it just never really caught on. I wonder why...
That's right. A good strategy in this case might be to post DeCSS code on a website in a difference Circuit, one whose judges are more favorable to First Amendment issues. (Possibly the Ninth?) Then if they decide differently than the 2nd Circuit, the Supreme Court is almost sure to hear the case.
Despite what the makers of Freenet say, they don't have to prove that you were the one who initially put up the file in order to sue you. By uploading the file (even indirectly), you are breaking the law
Only if you know what it is that you're uploading. In Freenet, the intermedaries only see encrypted versions of the files and have no idea what they're storing/transmitting. That's the whole point.
That's exactly what commerce is.
**ANY** exchange of goods and services.
Whoa! What exactly constitutes goods and services? If I send a love letter to my girlfriend in another state, is that a "good"? Can the contents be regulated by the FTC? More to the point, if I run a newspaper, and have subscribers in multiple states, is the FTC immune from the First Amendment in its ability to regulate the content of my newspaper?
First Amendment implications? Sheesh. Do you think Land'O'Lakes _enjoys_ disclosing the number of calories in a butter stick? Or that RJ Reynolds puts "Surgeon General" warnings on its cigarettes
Ah, but in those cases they are selling a product, not just information. In the case of search engines, the product is information, rather like a newspaper. That's why I asked if there might be First Amendment implications. When selling food, you are required to disclose the ingredients, but food isn't speech. That's the distinction.
Actually I wish the entire idea of a forced Pledge of Allegiance would be done away with.
It has been. It was noted in the decision that for some time now, the pledge of allegiance is voluntary. This court, however, took rather astonishing step that declares that simply being around other students who are reciting the pledge implies that you are somehow "protesting" by not reciting it, and this puts undue pressure on students to conform by reciting it.
Although I disagree strongly with that analysis, they are, I think taking their cue from the Supreme Court which used similary reasoning in banning voluntary prayer in public schools, another decision I disagree with.
I do however agree with all who believe that no student in a public school should be forced to recite any pledge or prayer, if for no other reason than the fact that pledges really become meaningless when they are coerced.
They can have that right if I can have the right to DoS the RIAA for infringing on my fair use rights.
Sigh. How many times does it have to be repeated? Fair use is a defence not an offence.
Fair use right protects you from copyright violation charges in certain very specific instances. It is not a "right" so much as a safe harbor under the law for certain activities. By definition, the only party that can infringe on your fair use rights is a judge or jury who convicts you or awards damages to your opponent when you quote a brief segment of copyrighted works for review, criticism, academic use, etc.
I know this is a very unpopular view on Slashdot, but it happens to be the truth.
But both trade secret agreements and non-compete clauses are parts of a potential contract between the employee and his previous employer.
The person asking the question is thus not a party to such a contract. So his employee could conceivably be sued, but I don't see how the new employer could.
Copyright and/or patent violation is another matter altogether, but I don't think non-compete clauses and trade secret agreements are binding on third parties.
I am not a lawyer and it would be nice to hear from some real lawyers on these matters. I know you're hiding out there somewhere.
Anyone who has knowledge of a Federal Felony in the U.S. is required by law to report it to the proper law enforcement authorities ( U.S. Attorney, FBI etc.). Failure to do so makes that person an indictable co-conspirator.
This is a new one to me! Care to cite a reference in the U.S.C. or some relevent precedents?
Slashdot Mirror
Explain that to Dmitri Sklyarov, who spent more than a month in jail for releasing a hacking tool, which unlocks Adobe e-books.
True, the DMCA is narrower than some of the other laws you cite because it is specific to security systems designed to protect copyright, and not security systems in general.
The article unfortunately confuses two gray hat actions: breaking into a system to report to the owner about its vulnerabilities without permission (which should be illegal in my opinion), and releasing exploit scripts to the public when vulnerabilities are found in commonly used operating systems or servers. I think the latter should definitely NOT be illegal for First Ammendment reasons if no other.
The DMCA stands apart from the other laws you cite, in that it criminalizes the latter activity (if the security system is primarily used to protect copyright.) The other laws only criminalize the former activity.
You can be lawfully detained for up to 24 hours without charges being laid. In practice, they need only detain you long enough to miss your flight, possibly forcing you to pay upwards of $100 to change your tickets, if you're lucky enough to get on another flight the same day.
And do you want to be stopped and searched each and every time you fly simply because you grew up in the wrong neighborhood?
Ah, but two things are required to establish this profile and trend:
- A) Most child molesters have kiddy porn on their computers.
- B) Most people who aren't child molesters don't have kiddy porn on their computers.
Simply demonstrating (A) isn't sufficient: you need a control group to establish a corelation. I think this is what the person who gave the air example was trying to point out.Given how loose current legal definitions of "child pornography" are, and given the fact that in many states, 17 year olds can be considered minors, I think people would be shocked at just how large a percentage of the population actually has viewed child pornography on their computer.
While I agree that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion would seem to say that widely sharing copyrighted recordings over a P2P network is an infringing activity, I don't think the students doing the downloading are infringing, as I understand the opinion and the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), which seems to explicitly authorize people to make copies for their own personal use. The AHRA was invoked as a defence in the Napster case, and the court ruled that it doesn't protect widespread sharing over the Net. I don't think the opinion concluded the same for receiving such files.
IANAL, and I would welcome opinions from those more expert than me, but I think USC may be talking out of its *ss here.
Actually, in this case it's the recorded performance that is copyrighted, not the arrangement generally. Performances of public domain works can be copyrighted. In cases where the work itself is still under copyright, generally both the composer and performer(s) receive royalties for record sales.
The "original" Bach composition is public domain, of course, if you can find it. But if it's written for a tromba marina with harpsichord accommpaniment then good luck playing it.
Actually there happen to be many "period instrument" ensembles recording music these days on intruments of the time, but that is beside the point. Simply playing a harpsichord score on a piano does not constitute a copyrightable "arrangement", but the recording of the performance is copyrightable.
There's nothing to stop me (legally) from getting a group of public-spirited musicians together to record Beethoven's Fifth Symphony and putting that recording in the public domain.
Recall that "breaking" an algorithm means finding a method of attack with a work factor less than 2^k where k is the key length in bits. "Breaking" in this context doesn't mean recovering plaintext of encrypted communications. Since they have demonstrated an attack with a work factor of 2^200, that means that 256-bit AES was "broken" but 128-bit AES was not.
Most people who have compared it to other codecs, including MP3 and Ogg, claim it is superior. You can read some of the discussions at Hydrogen Audio in the MPC forums.
I understand MPC, unlike Ogg, may be encumbered by some patents (as is MP3), but for a pure quality comparison, it should be included. Does anyone know why/if it was omitted from this comparison?
Damn near impossible, if like most people, they don't listen to music only while sitting at their computers, and they don't have their computer wired to their home stereo.
When I'm at home, I listen to my original CDs. When I'm in my car, or travelling, I listen primarily to MP3 CDs on my Riovolt, or car player. This enables me to bring far more music with me when I travel.
When and if firmware exists to enable people to play Ogg on all their hardware, then your question might have more rhetorical impact.
No, LAME got around the patent by releasing source code only. Patent law explicitly allows descriptions of inventions (which source code falls under) to be distributed free of patent retrictions. Hence the name LAME (LAME Ain't an Mp3 Encoder), it is just a description of one. If you compile and use LAME for any commercial gain, you are probably supposed to pay a license fee.
Well, the statistical uncertainty on a sample of 2200 is sqrt(2200) which is approximately 47, and 2% of 2200 is 44, so we are talking about slightly less than a 1 sigma effect. So you're right, it's not statistically significant.
Actually, it's the First law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) that would be violated if you could electrolyze water with less energy than you get from burning the hydrogen, but you make a good point, and the second law sets a limit on the maximum mechanical energy you can extract by burning a fuel, either by combustion or indirectly by using a fuel cell.
It takes just one flash capacitor to act as a detonator for plastic explosives. I'm frankly amazed (and somewhat relieved) than no one has done this up to now.
If it were up to me, we'd stop x-raying people's shoes, throwing away their nail clippers and plastic cutlery, and require any flash equipment, including those on disposable cameras to be in checked luggage.
Yes, but if the only way to run the code you're releasing is to do something illegal, then I think a case could be made that you are inciting a crime, which is in itself criminal. Even speech loses First Amendment protection if its purpose is to cause "imminent lawless action." If you must do something illegal to run software then I really can't see how the software could be considered "legal".
So, any Californians want to give it a try?
Only if you know what it is that you're uploading. In Freenet, the intermedaries only see encrypted versions of the files and have no idea what they're storing/transmitting. That's the whole point.
Whoa! What exactly constitutes goods and services? If I send a love letter to my girlfriend in another state, is that a "good"? Can the contents be regulated by the FTC? More to the point, if I run a newspaper, and have subscribers in multiple states, is the FTC immune from the First Amendment in its ability to regulate the content of my newspaper?
Ah, but in those cases they are selling a product, not just information. In the case of search engines, the product is information, rather like a newspaper. That's why I asked if there might be First Amendment implications. When selling food, you are required to disclose the ingredients, but food isn't speech. That's the distinction.
If I accept advertising on a personal website, am I required to disclose the fact?
Perhaps the reason the FTC is not taking legal action here is there is no legal basis for them to. Under which law would they sue?
I'm not a lawyer, but I am genuinely curious about the legalities here. Any lawyers or other experts care to respond?
It has been. It was noted in the decision that for some time now, the pledge of allegiance is voluntary. This court, however, took rather astonishing step that declares that simply being around other students who are reciting the pledge implies that you are somehow "protesting" by not reciting it, and this puts undue pressure on students to conform by reciting it.
Although I disagree strongly with that analysis, they are, I think taking their cue from the Supreme Court which used similary reasoning in banning voluntary prayer in public schools, another decision I disagree with.
I do however agree with all who believe that no student in a public school should be forced to recite any pledge or prayer, if for no other reason than the fact that pledges really become meaningless when they are coerced.
Sigh. How many times does it have to be repeated? Fair use is a defence not an offence.
Fair use right protects you from copyright violation charges in certain very specific instances. It is not a "right" so much as a safe harbor under the law for certain activities. By definition, the only party that can infringe on your fair use rights is a judge or jury who convicts you or awards damages to your opponent when you quote a brief segment of copyrighted works for review, criticism, academic use, etc.
I know this is a very unpopular view on Slashdot, but it happens to be the truth.
The person asking the question is thus not a party to such a contract. So his employee could conceivably be sued, but I don't see how the new employer could.
Copyright and/or patent violation is another matter altogether, but I don't think non-compete clauses and trade secret agreements are binding on third parties.
I am not a lawyer and it would be nice to hear from some real lawyers on these matters. I know you're hiding out there somewhere.
This is a new one to me! Care to cite a reference in the U.S.C. or some relevent precedents?