This law is just plain evil. There's no way it's going to pass as drafted. If it did, it would quickly be found unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there's a chance congress will manage to patch up the holes first.
To encourage the development and distribution of creative works by enhancing domestic and international enforcement of the copyright laws, and for other purposes.
OK, so they're going to be basing this law on their copyright clause powers. No surprise there.
There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2004, to the Department of Justice for investigation and prosecution of violations of title 17, United States Code, not less than $15,000,000.
$15 million dollars for the copyright police to enforce this. Not so much, in terms of real budget, but still a waste of taxpayer money in my humble opinion.
Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking `, United States Code'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of section 2319(b) of title 18, the placing of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of the copyright owner, on a computer network accessible to members of the public who are able to copy the work through such access shall be considered to be the distribution, during a 180-day period, of at least 10 copies of that work with a retail value of more than $2,500.'.
WOW. They've just made it a criminal offense to put someone else's Slashdot post on your Geocities page, without permission (and barring a fair use defense). That's going to have to be changed. They've completely eliminated the requirement that you be distributing something of actual value in order to be charged with criminal copyright infringement.
`(a) Whoever knowingly offers enabling software for download over the Internet and does not--
`(1) clearly and conspicuously warn any person downloading that software, before it is downloaded, that it is enabling software and could create a security and privacy risk for the user's computer; and
`(2) obtain that person's prior consent to the download after that warning;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.
`(b) As used in this section, the term `enabling software' means software that, when installed on the user's computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that computer, or use that computer to search other computers' contents over the Internet.'.
The definition of "enabling software" is written far too ambiguously to survive a Constitutional attack. Sure, this covers programs like Kazaa. It covers certain viruses. It also covers some spyware. But it also covers web browsers (think cookies and internet searches). It's unclear what qualifies as software, but presumably it would also cover Windows and Linux. FTP programs would have to be rewritten to pop up a security dialog before use (or you'd have to turn off automatic download through wget). Even if the ambiguities were closed up, this law goes way beyond copyright enforcement. And there's no language in it pertaining to interstate commerce, so even that argument wouldn't bear out.
`(a) OFFENSE- Whoever knowingly and with intent to defraud provides material and misleading false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering a domain name shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Oh boy. This one's been out there a long time. Looks like they're trying to get it passed once again, as a rider to this bill. I don't like it, personally, but most people I've talked to don't have a problem with it.
Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in para
No, only in very specific instances is copyright infringement an offense, above some thresholds. Most important of them is making profits off the sale of illegal copies.
Obviously you haven't heard of the No Electronic Theft Act. Profit is no longer a requirement.
Nothing like swaying the vote by projecting a landslide and then people not showing up because it doesn't matter any more.
You make the implication that it matters in the first place.
Should we make polling in general illegal? I already knew who was going to win my state (New York at the time) before going to the polls. A landslide was already projected. So by your rationale I shouldn't have bothered to show up, right?
What open source means in this case is that the public and maybe even more importantly the politicians can assure themselves the voting software doesn't favor one candidate over the others. It doesn't mean there is no mistakes it means anyone can go point them out.
In other words, it has absolutely nothing to do with Tuesday's Boone County election.
It was about an information technology law student obviously knowing when he's breaking copyright laws on a computer.
I wouldn't go that far. He may have believed he had fair use defenses. And he may not know anything about criminal copyright law, let alone that he was breaking it.
Hopefully he'll be able to make a nice deal with the prosecution, though. The evidence looks pretty bad from what I've seen.
How wrong can one be. What makes you think so? In my profession (medicine), knowledge is completely unlicensed. If you are interested in a particular piece of knowledge, like how to operate a hernia - I am happy to share this with you. No royalties, no licensing fees. You may have to pay for my time if you need me to teach you, buts that's all. After that, you can do whatever you like with your knowledge - share it, multiply it, APPLY it!
Apply it? Umm, don't you have to have a medical license to do that?
Anyway, I'd like to compare the amount of advanced medical care information available for free on the internet to the amount of advanced programming information available for free on the internet. I think you'll find that software is a lot more free than medical knowledge.
I don't know about Australia, but here in the US ignorance of copyright law is a defense against criminal copyright law. There is a mens rea element to every crime, and for criminal copyright law, that element is that the crime be committed "knowingly."
Oh well, there goes my defense, if they ever find this Slashdot post.
Did you buy the product AS IS? The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose overrides any store policy. Just tell them the product is defective. If they won't give you a refund, then you can worry about lawsuits.
Of course if it took you 31 days to figure out that the product does this, you might not actually win that lawsuit.
You're welcome to try and come up with a URL or form that will do so to my linksys routers (192.168.0.5-7,150) -- As soon as I see the password prompt, I'll know something isn't right.
Unless you already logged in to the router during that browser session, in which case no password prompt will show up.
There's no need for a class action lawsuit. Just return the damn thing. No one is going to stop you. If you don't like it, return it. What, you want punitive damages and compensation for pain and suffering, too?
What possible reason can SCO have for encouraging people to switch over to Windows (as the article indicates they might) unless they are in bed with Microsoft?
Maybe they want people to experience first-hand how much Windows sucks?
Slashdot Mirror
No, but we can assume that if congress passes a bill against killing people, Slashdot will report it as a bill against owning a gun.
I take everything I read on slashdot with a grain of salt until I read the actual bill. I suggest you do the same.
This law is just plain evil. There's no way it's going to pass as drafted. If it did, it would quickly be found unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there's a chance congress will manage to patch up the holes first.
OK, so they're going to be basing this law on their copyright clause powers. No surprise there.
$15 million dollars for the copyright police to enforce this. Not so much, in terms of real budget, but still a waste of taxpayer money in my humble opinion.
WOW. They've just made it a criminal offense to put someone else's Slashdot post on your Geocities page, without permission (and barring a fair use defense). That's going to have to be changed. They've completely eliminated the requirement that you be distributing something of actual value in order to be charged with criminal copyright infringement.
The definition of "enabling software" is written far too ambiguously to survive a Constitutional attack. Sure, this covers programs like Kazaa. It covers certain viruses. It also covers some spyware. But it also covers web browsers (think cookies and internet searches). It's unclear what qualifies as software, but presumably it would also cover Windows and Linux. FTP programs would have to be rewritten to pop up a security dialog before use (or you'd have to turn off automatic download through wget). Even if the ambiguities were closed up, this law goes way beyond copyright enforcement. And there's no language in it pertaining to interstate commerce, so even that argument wouldn't bear out.
Oh boy. This one's been out there a long time. Looks like they're trying to get it passed once again, as a rider to this bill. I don't like it, personally, but most people I've talked to don't have a problem with it.
Here's the best part: you don't have to infringe on copyright to be found guilty!
Umm. Violating this law is committing copyright infringement.
No, only in very specific instances is copyright infringement an offense, above some thresholds. Most important of them is making profits off the sale of illegal copies.
Obviously you haven't heard of the No Electronic Theft Act. Profit is no longer a requirement.
It's more than that, though. Money is power. You give me an offer, $1,000,000 or to be President of the United States. I'll take the $1,000,000.
And your post cries out for -1 Without content.
If it's so obvious why vote selling is wrong, then why don't you explain it, hot shot?
Nothing like swaying the vote by projecting a landslide and then people not showing up because it doesn't matter any more.
You make the implication that it matters in the first place.
Should we make polling in general illegal? I already knew who was going to win my state (New York at the time) before going to the polls. A landslide was already projected. So by your rationale I shouldn't have bothered to show up, right?
What open source means in this case is that the public and maybe even more importantly the politicians can assure themselves the voting software doesn't favor one candidate over the others. It doesn't mean there is no mistakes it means anyone can go point them out.
In other words, it has absolutely nothing to do with Tuesday's Boone County election.
It's just not possible to allow voters to check their vote after the election and prevent vote selling.
Sure it is. Just have a serial number on each ballot. If the mob asks you for your serial number, just give them a different serial number.
I think what you mean is that it's not possible to have proof that you voted a certain way and prevent vote selling. Well, that's obvious.
Personally, I don't see what's wrong with vote selling in the first place.
This would allow the mob or some other coercive organization to pay for your vote, you give them your slip, and then they check the result.
If the mob has that much power over you, why do you care who wins the election anyway?
Currently, it's pointless to try and influence voters this way since you can't proove you voted with the mob.
Two words: absentee ballot.
No he doesn't, he sits on it and accrues interest.
And someone borrows that money that he sits on and spends it on goods and services.
It was about an information technology law student obviously knowing when he's breaking copyright laws on a computer.
I wouldn't go that far. He may have believed he had fair use defenses. And he may not know anything about criminal copyright law, let alone that he was breaking it.
Hopefully he'll be able to make a nice deal with the prosecution, though. The evidence looks pretty bad from what I've seen.
How wrong can one be. What makes you think so? In my profession (medicine), knowledge is completely unlicensed. If you are interested in a particular piece of knowledge, like how to operate a hernia - I am happy to share this with you. No royalties, no licensing fees. You may have to pay for my time if you need me to teach you, buts that's all. After that, you can do whatever you like with your knowledge - share it, multiply it, APPLY it!
Apply it? Umm, don't you have to have a medical license to do that?
Anyway, I'd like to compare the amount of advanced medical care information available for free on the internet to the amount of advanced programming information available for free on the internet. I think you'll find that software is a lot more free than medical knowledge.
I don't know about Australia, but here in the US ignorance of copyright law is a defense against criminal copyright law. There is a mens rea element to every crime, and for criminal copyright law, that element is that the crime be committed "knowingly."
Oh well, there goes my defense, if they ever find this Slashdot post.
Oops. Good point. I just changed my password on my Linksys.
I'd be more worried about people that leave the default password though, this might become a real issue at some point.
How so? They'd still have to be logged in, or a password dialog is going to pop up.
Yeah, I guess the best mitigation at that point is to get new firmware.
Oh, by the way, all they have to do is give you new firmware. If they do that, no refund.
Did you buy the product AS IS? The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose overrides any store policy. Just tell them the product is defective. If they won't give you a refund, then you can worry about lawsuits.
Of course if it took you 31 days to figure out that the product does this, you might not actually win that lawsuit.
You're welcome to try and come up with a URL or form that will do so to my linksys routers (192.168.0.5-7,150) -- As soon as I see the password prompt, I'll know something isn't right.
Unless you already logged in to the router during that browser session, in which case no password prompt will show up.
the only reason you want blue lights on your car is because it is illegal.
Actually, it's legal. I'm a volunteer firefighter.
There's no need for a class action lawsuit. Just return the damn thing. No one is going to stop you. If you don't like it, return it. What, you want punitive damages and compensation for pain and suffering, too?
Interesting. Don't all routers with web-based configuration suffer from this problem?
yeah, exactly!
What possible reason can SCO have for encouraging people to switch over to Windows (as the article indicates they might) unless they are in bed with Microsoft?
Maybe they want people to experience first-hand how much Windows sucks?