Nope. Still can't use O2 at 3psia. No quench or blanketting effect from Nitrogen. Metals (esp aluminum) burns in 3 psia almost as fast as 14.7 .
Plastics become similarly combustible.
Combustion reaction kinetics aren't very pressure sensitive. Oxidant density is not controlling.
Sure, but you paid for 25 games. How many would you have bought if you had a modchip? All 25? I suspect not. Five or less would justify the $1000 loss evaluation. It doesn't much matter how many dead copies are made to evaluate loss.
Ah, the old elasticity rationalization: I only have a copy because it was free. While this undoubtedly is true perhaps for half the games in a collection of copies, I wouldn't be surprised that some of those would have been paid for. 20 over the 2-4 year life of a system doesn't seem unreasonable.
Your argument is particularly weak in the case of games, which successful attract and retain many devotees. The inelasticity of demand pushes the profit-maximizing price higher. Frankly, I'm surprised at $50/game. But I don't doubt mfrs have carefully studied their demand curves.
Not only is space vast, but so is time. There is no reason to suppose multiple simultaneous development (a la StarTrek). A thousand years from now we will either have totally different technology or lost patience with EM scanning/bcast.
This inserts a factor of 1000years/16 billion into the probability calcs.
I was thinking more of Sony & 'tendo modchips. Of course some like XBox are pretty easy to do RE. Even if Cromwell is not clean RE, patching the XBox ROM for a legitimate copy holder might be a legal service under the rubrick of making it run. Generally you can add notes or tear out pages from a book you own without violating copyright.
After considerable reading and thinking, I've changed my mind on the DMCA. While I'm always in favor of avoiding new laws and letting traditional laws and precedents expand to cover new technology, there are times when they cannot and new laws are required to stop undesireable activities that new technolgy has created.
Prohibitions against wiretap are an early example. You can bet the FBI was none too pleased to lose their technological capability. The DMCA appears to be another example. Different people are annoyed at having their technological capabilities restricted. But a balance must be struck, and swords cut both ways.
Agreed correct cleanroom RE can avoid derivative copyright findings. Compaq did it for their clones of the original IBM PC. But I don't think the modchips have been made this way. Too uncertain a market to justify the massive investment. Most likely modchips are just patched OEM ROMs.
Yes, I suspect the relatively few people with modchips use them heavily. 20 games doesn't seem unlikely.
Are you claiming the modchips are "cleanroom" REd? I very much doubt that's worth the effort or even feasible given the lack of documentation. Most likely, the modchips are patched OEM ROM code. Much easier to identify and bypass the security checks. However, this is easy to prove one way or the other.
No, it only applies to "reasonably believed to be outside the US". In essence, these are border searches needing no warrent. The language is probably to cover roaming and the email equivalents.
Like it or not, the US (and most nations) have always exerted strong jurisdiction over what crosses their borders. Information isn't exempt.
Excuse me, but these seem rather polemic rants. I do not see any perspective or defense of the raids.
There _is_ a case to be made: modchips are probably the rate-limiting step in unauthorized gamecopyings. Gaming is a very big industry (more revenue than movies), so the losses are likely substantial. Perhaps ~$1000 per modchip. Going after the copiers is far more difficult and more invasive since anyone with a burner could copy. Far fewer can burn modchips.
I also see no discussion of how modchips are a blantant violation of copyright (derivative works) as well as being against the DMCA. Instead there is a smoke-scream of "fair use" that quite probably will undermine true "fair use".
... and not just with CCTV but the whole law enforcement system, cops through courts to jail. Punishment is a grossly net-negative payoff exercise. Stopping crime in progress not only requires CCTV and many operators, but a large ready-reaction [idle] police force. Expensive and more likely to get into mischief.
Privacy is a right based on defending yourself against prejudice and [info]predators. It is not any right to break the law. There is no right to break the law if you won't get caught.
In a public place, a reasonable person has no expectation of privacy and ought to conduct themselves to public standards. There might be an expectation of anonymity in our modern big cities. Historically unusual and decried. While anonymous writing is protected (but can be pierced), anonymous actions cannot be without lawlessness.
IANAL guess is not. Not because the recording is illegal, but its' broadcast is. The recorded person still owns copyright on his words and voice. The recorder has a right to her recording, but no right to publish it further (ie, make derivative works). There are exemptions for newsworthy items and individuals.
Why else does TV & the Press want people to sign publication releases?
You are welcome. Note particularly Note 16 from the Appellate decision on DeCSS:
16 Even if the Defendants had been able to offer such evidence, and even if they could have demonstrated that DeCSS was "primarily designed for the purpose of" playing DVDs on multiple platforms (and therefore not for the purpose of "circumventing a technological measure"), a proposition questioned by Judge Kaplan, see Universal I, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 311 n.79, the Defendants would defeat liability only under subsection 1201(a)(2)(A). They would still be vulnerable to liability under subsection 1201(a)(2)(C), because they "marketed" DeCSS for the copying of DVDs, not just for the playing of DVDs on multiple platforms. See, e.g., Tria1 Tr. at 82.0.
Quite a remarkable, yet non-ultra vires statement. DeCSS was recidivistly _named_ as a circumvention device. Red flag. Nothing to prove. Had it been designed LxDVD and coded/marketted accordingly this court says it would "defeat liability".
DeCSS. Sure. Bad facts won't give good rulings. In particular, note the intent found and narrowness mentioned. From the wiki:
The particular facts and litigation posture of the defendants was pivotal in this case. The district court found that the "primary purpose" of the defendants' actions was to promote redistribution of DVDs in violation of copyright laws, because the defendants admitted as much. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). The finding was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the specific facts of the case, but the appellate court left open the possibility that different facts could change the result. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001), at footnotes 5 and 16.
The defendant's strategy narrowed the issues before the judiciary. Although the validity of the statute was upheld, application of the specific provisions of the Act was not squarely addressed. Both courts took pains to consider facts of the specific case as presented. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court considered First Amendment issues
No, the DMCA specifically says at 17 USC 1201 (b)(2)(C) that it does not diminish "fair use".
As for your (2), of course the elimination of unauthorized copying is the idea. That the law. But unauthorized copying is not fair use, and if fair use is to survive, it must be pristine. Design the modchips for "fair use", not everything including unauthorized copying. If there's no market, then maybe fair use (running backups) is not important!
So perhaps modchip designers/producers should advertise their product prominently with the warning "In compliance with US DMCA, this product has been designed and produced to enable legally authorized "fair use" rights of creating and operating from backup media. No other purpose is intended. Any other use is a violation of Federal Law."
The sincerity of this intent could be demonstrated if the modchips were _not_ interoperable and/or refused to make copies of copies (AFAIK, not fair use).
Manufacturers of specialized burglar tools have some responsibility to ensure those tools are not misused. Like product liability requires designing in safety features. Responsibility cannot be evaded. Fly-by-night tactics merely justify more vigorous persuit.
If you don't have tight physical security on the the media, how is it unalterable? Just take a disk and burn an identical replacement copy with your desired alterations. You need some way of making sure disks aren't swapped.
"Clearsigning" is a cryptomethod to verify the authenticity of information without rendering it unreadable. This might meet your requirement if any software can.
For truly unalterable logs, a hardware solution like a printer in a locked room or signed, registered CDROMs is necessary. But even they can be subverted by sufficiently funded opponents.
After many years of dismissing emoticons as silly frippery, I have reluctantly concluded they can serve a function as important as punctuation: to convey intend tone in electronic messages which are often highly abbreviated and telegraphic.
Many flamewars have raged because someone missed
humor or sarcasm.
OTOH, it is easy to overdo emoticons and they should only be used to clarify meaning. I can see use for smilies, but my imagination doesn't stretch so far as to conceive a situation that needs a frownie or others. When used redundantly, emoticons can be insulting: how else am I supposed to feel?
Yes, I believe decryption codes can be compelled during Discovery or Deposition even for paper documents. Opposing consel can ask what the marks on the paper mean, and answers must be given to the standard of not merely what is admissible evidence but also for what might lead to admissible evidence.
The basic idea is Courts really want to avoid making bad decisions. Good decisions require evidence. The more, the better. More evidence probably also promotes settlements, which is the best possible outcome from the Courts' PoV. They are only criticised for decisions.
I have no problem with any of this, but I would like to see strong protections on non-admitted discovery material. Discovery should not be a fishing expedition nor a method to winkle out trade secrets. It is to expose/evidence alleged wrongdoing (tort or contract) and any other use is contemptuous.
AFAIK, warrents do not require positive cooperation. They merely entitle the police to legally and with impunity break anything in the way of their authorized search. In criminal procedings, I do not believe you can be required to disclose keys.
However, in civil procedings the Discovery Process may require you (under pain of contempt) to produce all requested documents. Perhaps including keys if it can be proven you still retain them. Lawyers can argue whether a plaintiff has a right to the keys independant of the documents. Not that they have any right to seize the machine.
A truly maniacal police/DA might seize a machine then start a civil suit. But there are usually ways to stop this.
TFA specifically mentioned "Discovery" which is a court procedure totally separate from search warrents and seizures. Civil discovery is a very frightening process: you can be compelled (under pain of contempt punishments) to produce anything the opposing lawyers ask for that is remotely relevant (might lead to evidence). Encryption is useless, you have to produce plaintext.
My bigger concern is what happens to the excess (not admitted into evidence) data. IE, almost all of it. That really needs to be kept confidential. I'm not sure how it can be protected? Something like "fruit of the poisoned vine" for criminal cases is probably too extreme.
Slashdot Mirror
Combustion reaction kinetics aren't very pressure sensitive. Oxidant density is not controlling.
Your argument is particularly weak in the case of games, which successful attract and retain many devotees. The inelasticity of demand pushes the profit-maximizing price higher. Frankly, I'm surprised at $50/game. But I don't doubt mfrs have carefully studied their demand curves.
This inserts a factor of 1000years/16 billion into the probability calcs.
Prohibitions against wiretap are an early example. You can bet the FBI was none too pleased to lose their technological capability. The DMCA appears to be another example. Different people are annoyed at having their technological capabilities restricted. But a balance must be struck, and swords cut both ways.
Are you claiming the modchips are "cleanroom" REd? I very much doubt that's worth the effort or even feasible given the lack of documentation. Most likely, the modchips are patched OEM ROM code. Much easier to identify and bypass the security checks. However, this is easy to prove one way or the other.
Like it or not, the US (and most nations) have always exerted strong jurisdiction over what crosses their borders. Information isn't exempt.
There _is_ a case to be made: modchips are probably the rate-limiting step in unauthorized gamecopyings. Gaming is a very big industry (more revenue than movies), so the losses are likely substantial. Perhaps ~$1000 per modchip. Going after the copiers is far more difficult and more invasive since anyone with a burner could copy. Far fewer can burn modchips.
I also see no discussion of how modchips are a blantant violation of copyright (derivative works) as well as being against the DMCA. Instead there is a smoke-scream of "fair use" that quite probably will undermine true "fair use".
... whew, that's a relief. I won't need to tell my sister to watch out for the printer at her nail polishing salon :)
Privacy is a right based on defending yourself against prejudice and [info]predators. It is not any right to break the law. There is no right to break the law if you won't get caught.
In a public place, a reasonable person has no expectation of privacy and ought to conduct themselves to public standards. There might be an expectation of anonymity in our modern big cities. Historically unusual and decried. While anonymous writing is protected (but can be pierced), anonymous actions cannot be without lawlessness.
Why else does TV & the Press want people to sign publication releases?
And I rather doubt DEFCON can impose any boilerplate contractual terms on its' attendees. Most would revolt! Few would agree the sky is blue.
16 Even if the Defendants had been able to offer such evidence, and even if they could have demonstrated that DeCSS was "primarily designed for the purpose of" playing DVDs on multiple platforms (and therefore not for the purpose of "circumventing a technological measure"), a proposition questioned by Judge Kaplan, see Universal I, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 311 n.79, the Defendants would defeat liability only under subsection 1201(a)(2)(A). They would still be vulnerable to liability under subsection 1201(a)(2)(C), because they "marketed" DeCSS for the copying of DVDs, not just for the playing of DVDs on multiple platforms. See, e.g., Tria1 Tr. at 82.0.
Quite a remarkable, yet non-ultra vires statement. DeCSS was recidivistly _named_ as a circumvention device. Red flag. Nothing to prove. Had it been designed LxDVD and coded/marketted accordingly this court says it would "defeat liability".
The particular facts and litigation posture of the defendants was pivotal in this case. The district court found that the "primary purpose" of the defendants' actions was to promote redistribution of DVDs in violation of copyright laws, because the defendants admitted as much. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). The finding was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the specific facts of the case, but the appellate court left open the possibility that different facts could change the result. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001), at footnotes 5 and 16.
The defendant's strategy narrowed the issues before the judiciary. Although the validity of the statute was upheld, application of the specific provisions of the Act was not squarely addressed. Both courts took pains to consider facts of the specific case as presented. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court considered First Amendment issues
As for your (2), of course the elimination of unauthorized copying is the idea. That the law. But unauthorized copying is not fair use, and if fair use is to survive, it must be pristine. Design the modchips for "fair use", not everything including unauthorized copying. If there's no market, then maybe fair use (running backups) is not important!
The sincerity of this intent could be demonstrated if the modchips were _not_ interoperable and/or refused to make copies of copies (AFAIK, not fair use).
Manufacturers of specialized burglar tools have some responsibility to ensure those tools are not misused. Like product liability requires designing in safety features. Responsibility cannot be evaded. Fly-by-night tactics merely justify more vigorous persuit.
However, you have a good point that data retention has to be considered. But the OP only asked for alteration.
For truly unalterable logs, a hardware solution like a printer in a locked room or signed, registered CDROMs is necessary. But even they can be subverted by sufficiently funded opponents.
Ultimately, nothing is unalterable.
Many flamewars have raged because someone missed humor or sarcasm.
OTOH, it is easy to overdo emoticons and they should only be used to clarify meaning. I can see use for smilies, but my imagination doesn't stretch so far as to conceive a situation that needs a frownie or others. When used redundantly, emoticons can be insulting: how else am I supposed to feel?
The basic idea is Courts really want to avoid making bad decisions. Good decisions require evidence. The more, the better. More evidence probably also promotes settlements, which is the best possible outcome from the Courts' PoV. They are only criticised for decisions.
I have no problem with any of this, but I would like to see strong protections on non-admitted discovery material. Discovery should not be a fishing expedition nor a method to winkle out trade secrets. It is to expose/evidence alleged wrongdoing (tort or contract) and any other use is contemptuous.
However, in civil procedings the Discovery Process may require you (under pain of contempt) to produce all requested documents. Perhaps including keys if it can be proven you still retain them. Lawyers can argue whether a plaintiff has a right to the keys independant of the documents. Not that they have any right to seize the machine.
A truly maniacal police/DA might seize a machine then start a civil suit. But there are usually ways to stop this.
My bigger concern is what happens to the excess (not admitted into evidence) data. IE, almost all of it. That really needs to be kept confidential. I'm not sure how it can be protected? Something like "fruit of the poisoned vine" for criminal cases is probably too extreme.