There's a little thing called Title 17 of the US Code. It is entitled "Copyrights." The DMCA is under it.
Take a look at the DeCSS situation. You can copy the entire disc, CSS and all. And this is exactly what people do when they sell illegal copies.
So?
Decrypting the disc has absolutly nothing to do with copying the disc.
So?
Isn't it a bit odd that after a massive search the MPAA still got up in court and said they couldn't find a single example of DeCSS being used toviolate copyright?
They should have asked me. I've used DeCSS to violate copyright.
And isn't it a bit odd that they reported the same thing in the Elcomsoft case? A major search and not a single case found where it was used to violate copyright.
No. Elcomsoft wasn't guilty.
I don't know how many copies of the software they sold, but apparently the people who bought it had some use for it other than violating copyright.
Or maybe the people just didn't get caught. That's why the DMCA exists in the first place. It's really hard to catch copyright infringers.
Dual problem. Not only is the "primary reason for creation" subjective, but the law becomes worthless if you DON'T interpret it horribly.
Of course it's subjective. So is "justifiable homicide." That's what judges and juries are for.
If someone had written DeCSS and Elcomsoft's E-book software for "legal purposes" then the result is exactly the same, the DRM is worthless.
Well, for one thing there's no mens rea, which is what we found in the Elcomsoft case. If someone kills someone accidentally the result is exactly the same, but the legality is quite different. But beyond that, the law protects copyright holders from devices created for a certain purpose, it also protects them from devices which have limited purpose other than circumvention.
DMCA "protects" DRM from Eeevil people like students and librarians and their Eeevil legal activities like fair use.
If the DMCA "protects" it, it isn't legal, is it?
DRM is unenforcible, with or without the DMCA. And attempting to enforce DRM stomps on people doing nothing wrong.
It's not completely enforcible, but I've found it a lot harder to get VMWare cracks since the DMCA was passed. I'm sure it makes it harder to use the products of others without paying for them, and that's all it's supposed to do, not make it impossible.
FBI: if it's less than 10,000 in damages (and they ASK for documnetation) they don't get involved.
That's interesting since I've once had them get involved with a simple stereo system was that was stolen using my credit card number.
Credit Checks: These things cost US money, are inaccurate and would rule out a lot of our good subscribers.
Tough shit. If you don't want to pay for the credit check, give a deposit or don't get an email account. Alternatively, limit emails sent to 4 or 5 a day if you refuse the credit check.
It costs one more to pursue the claim in small claims court in time, effort, cash outlay AND you have no guarantee of collection even after you win.
If the person has good credit you're probably going to collect triple damages. As long as 1 in three pay (or you get at least 33% from a credit agency) you'll do fine.
All your ideas sound really great but you obviously have never had to actually do it, especially on a large scale when you have 50,000 subscribers.
It only gets easier when you have 50,000 subscribers.
Your "sue'em" comment is especially farcical.
Fuck it then. If you're going to be a haven for spammers then I'm blocking your ISP. Please let me know the netblocks.
No the solution is simple
on
ISP Chief on Spam
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Require a cleared deposit or a credit check. If they don't have good credit, don't let them have an account. When they chargeback, sue 'em. Call the FBI, too, cause they are engaging in criminal wire fraud.
You're free to accept whatever connections you want to receive. If you don't like how other ISPs handle spammers, don't accept email from them.
We need to take the George Bush approach to spammers. "We will make no distinction between
the spammers who send us the spam and the ISPs which harbor them."
That's right, when your ISP gets a bunch of spam from another ISP, contact that ISP and demand either remuneration or cooperation in identifying the spammer, suing for damages, and getting a permanent injunction. If the ISP balks, blacklist 'em.
Oh, you mean like photocopiers and faxes and VCR's and PVR's and tape recorders and modems and FTP programs and web browsers and photoshop and camcorders and cameras and e-mail and magic markers and telephones and scanners and printers and CDR drives and and and...
No, I mean devices primarily created for breaking the law.
We had copyright protection before the DCMA [sic], all the law you need to prosecute crime.
I disagree. When you have cracks and serial numbers being distributed all over the internet with no basis for prosecuting the people who profit off their distribution, you have to admit that copyright law has become unenforcible.
Unavailability as a witness" includes situations in which the declarant [...] is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement
Don't make comments about the law when you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I'm not about to hold your hand and teach you about the DMCA. I don't need to back up shit.
No. My argument is don't be a hypocrite. If you don't like copyright law, don't profit off copyright law. If you do like copyright law, don't make devices which help people break copyright law.
You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it false.
Doesn't make it true either.
The DMCA has nothing to do with copyright law.
The DMCA is copyright law. And presumably you mean the circumvention parts of the DMCA have nothing to do with copyright law. But even that is untrue.
Unauthorized reproduction of an existing work is already protected BY Copyright, if you copy something for a purpose other than archival backup or fair use, you are already in violation of the law.
So?
OTOH, the DMCA makes it a crime to build a tool which might allow you to copy (or access) copyrighted material.
No, it makes it a crime to manufacture a tool which is primarily designed to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work.
Under the DMCA, a web browser could be considered illegal, as it translates an encrypted (HTML) data source which might be copyrighted, into a readable (plain text) format.
So why don't you initiate a lawsuit against Microsoft then? Is it maybe because you're wrong, and a web browser couldn't be considered illegal?
An equivalent would be if you were to spend years carving an intricate wooden statuette, and then someone threw you in jail because somebody *MIGHT* come along and use it to club someone over the head.
That would be a great law. I think statuettes should be illegal.
For every problem technology introduces, two other problems are fixed
I'm sorry, I don't agree. You can teleport the expanding nuclear fireball into outer space, but that doesn't bring back to life all the people who were killed with it. If we ever did have a teleporter, it would either be extremely highly regulated (more than nukes), or it would be the end of civilization. Possibly both.
Don't make statements when what you really want to do is ask questions. I'm not about to debate with such stupidity. But I'm sick of hearing this nonsense over and over. Back up your fucking statement. Read the fucking indictment. You'll learn as you try that you are wrong.
If anyone ever invented a teleporter, that would be the most dangerous thing ever invented, and would probably mark the end of civilization. Just imagine a how much trouble a terrorist could cause, teleporting nukes and radioactive waste without worrying about silly border checkpoints.
A man devotes his life's work to studying the fine intracacies of computer science. He obtains a doctoral degree through years of work mastering cryptographic algorithms.
Then he uses his skills to exploit the copyrighted works of others, while at the same time claiming copyright on that work itself and forcing people to pay for it!
He then gets sued unjustly [sic] and is ripped away from his children for months and months and months.
Where's the justice here?
It's really simple. Don't be a hypocrit. If you're going to ignore the copyrights of others, don't copyright your own stuff. Release it anonymously for all to use.
Why do folks keep misrepresenting what actually happened here? The bottom line is, he was in this country, giving a talk and selling a product which was thought to violate the DMCA.
Umm, first of all, he was not in this country selling anything. He sold the product from his home. Secondly, his talk was not illegal, and was not in the indictment. You are the one who is misrepresenting what actually happened. Read the fucking indictment.
Slashdot Mirror
DMCA is copyright law. Period.
There's a little thing called Title 17 of the US Code. It is entitled "Copyrights." The DMCA is under it.
Take a look at the DeCSS situation. You can copy the entire disc, CSS and all. And this is exactly what people do when they sell illegal copies.
So?
Decrypting the disc has absolutly nothing to do with copying the disc.
So?
Isn't it a bit odd that after a massive search the MPAA still got up in court and said they couldn't find a single example of DeCSS being used toviolate copyright?
They should have asked me. I've used DeCSS to violate copyright.
And isn't it a bit odd that they reported the same thing in the Elcomsoft case? A major search and not a single case found where it was used to violate copyright.
No. Elcomsoft wasn't guilty.
I don't know how many copies of the software they sold, but apparently the people who bought it had some use for it other than violating copyright.
Or maybe the people just didn't get caught. That's why the DMCA exists in the first place. It's really hard to catch copyright infringers.
Dual problem. Not only is the "primary reason for creation" subjective, but the law becomes worthless if you DON'T interpret it horribly.
Of course it's subjective. So is "justifiable homicide." That's what judges and juries are for.
If someone had written DeCSS and Elcomsoft's E-book software for "legal purposes" then the result is exactly the same, the DRM is worthless.
Well, for one thing there's no mens rea, which is what we found in the Elcomsoft case. If someone kills someone accidentally the result is exactly the same, but the legality is quite different. But beyond that, the law protects copyright holders from devices created for a certain purpose, it also protects them from devices which have limited purpose other than circumvention.
DMCA "protects" DRM from Eeevil people like students and librarians and their Eeevil legal activities like fair use.
If the DMCA "protects" it, it isn't legal, is it?
DRM is unenforcible, with or without the DMCA. And attempting to enforce DRM stomps on people doing nothing wrong.
It's not completely enforcible, but I've found it a lot harder to get VMWare cracks since the DMCA was passed. I'm sure it makes it harder to use the products of others without paying for them, and that's all it's supposed to do, not make it impossible.
FBI: if it's less than 10,000 in damages (and they ASK for documnetation) they don't get involved.
That's interesting since I've once had them get involved with a simple stereo system was that was stolen using my credit card number.
Credit Checks: These things cost US money, are inaccurate and would rule out a lot of our good subscribers.
Tough shit. If you don't want to pay for the credit check, give a deposit or don't get an email account. Alternatively, limit emails sent to 4 or 5 a day if you refuse the credit check.
It costs one more to pursue the claim in small claims court in time, effort, cash outlay AND you have no guarantee of collection even after you win.
If the person has good credit you're probably going to collect triple damages. As long as 1 in three pay (or you get at least 33% from a credit agency) you'll do fine.
All your ideas sound really great but you obviously have never had to actually do it, especially on a large scale when you have 50,000 subscribers.
It only gets easier when you have 50,000 subscribers.
Your "sue'em" comment is especially farcical.
Fuck it then. If you're going to be a haven for spammers then I'm blocking your ISP. Please let me know the netblocks.
Require a cleared deposit or a credit check. If they don't have good credit, don't let them have an account. When they chargeback, sue 'em. Call the FBI, too, cause they are engaging in criminal wire fraud.
You're free to accept whatever connections you want to receive. If you don't like how other ISPs handle spammers, don't accept email from them.
We need to take the George Bush approach to spammers. "We will make no distinction between the spammers who send us the spam and the ISPs which harbor them."
That's right, when your ISP gets a bunch of spam from another ISP, contact that ISP and demand either remuneration or cooperation in identifying the spammer, suing for damages, and getting a permanent injunction. If the ISP balks, blacklist 'em.
Oh, you mean like photocopiers and faxes and VCR's and PVR's and tape recorders and modems and FTP programs and web browsers and photoshop and camcorders and cameras and e-mail and magic markers and telephones and scanners and printers and CDR drives and and and...
No, I mean devices primarily created for breaking the law.
We had copyright protection before the DCMA [sic], all the law you need to prosecute crime.
I disagree. When you have cracks and serial numbers being distributed all over the internet with no basis for prosecuting the people who profit off their distribution, you have to admit that copyright law has become unenforcible.
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/20010707 _complaint.html
You've said that already.
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/f re/query=[jump!3A!27rule804!27]/doc/{@257}?
By the way, the reason you can't use videotaped depositions generally is because they are hearsay.
It was evidence
But it was hearsay evidence.
Don't make comments about the law when you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I'm not about to hold your hand and teach you about the DMCA. I don't need to back up shit.
No. My argument is don't be a hypocrite. If you don't like copyright law, don't profit off copyright law. If you do like copyright law, don't make devices which help people break copyright law.
You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it false.
Doesn't make it true either.
The DMCA has nothing to do with copyright law.
The DMCA is copyright law. And presumably you mean the circumvention parts of the DMCA have nothing to do with copyright law. But even that is untrue.
Unauthorized reproduction of an existing work is already protected BY Copyright, if you copy something for a purpose other than archival backup or fair use, you are already in violation of the law.
So?
OTOH, the DMCA makes it a crime to build a tool which might allow you to copy (or access) copyrighted material.
No, it makes it a crime to manufacture a tool which is primarily designed to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work.
Under the DMCA, a web browser could be considered illegal, as it translates an encrypted (HTML) data source which might be copyrighted, into a readable (plain text) format.
So why don't you initiate a lawsuit against Microsoft then? Is it maybe because you're wrong, and a web browser couldn't be considered illegal?
An equivalent would be if you were to spend years carving an intricate wooden statuette, and then someone threw you in jail because somebody *MIGHT* come along and use it to club someone over the head.
That would be a great law. I think statuettes should be illegal.
Fuckin' idiot.
For every problem technology introduces, two other problems are fixed
I'm sorry, I don't agree. You can teleport the expanding nuclear fireball into outer space, but that doesn't bring back to life all the people who were killed with it. If we ever did have a teleporter, it would either be extremely highly regulated (more than nukes), or it would be the end of civilization. Possibly both.
Ah... Makes sense now why people are so stupid. Talk about shitty sensationalistic journalism.
He didn't ignore the copyrights of others.
He profited off the copyright infringements of others.
And unlike the Napster guys, this guy's tool's primary purpose and most common use, wasn't copyright infringement.
According to the ruling, it was.
This was purely a circumventing-technological-measures case, with virtually no bearing on real copyright issues at all.
So you're saying the DMCA isn't a real copyright issue? I can't really agree with that.
Don't make statements when what you really want to do is ask questions. I'm not about to debate with such stupidity. But I'm sick of hearing this nonsense over and over. Back up your fucking statement. Read the fucking indictment. You'll learn as you try that you are wrong.
Sklyarov wasn't arrested for talking.
You'd think it'd be an easy choice: save the ecosystem, or ban a tool because it might have illegal uses.
Heh, sounds like the same choice we have about whether or not to regulate nuclear power plants.
If anyone ever invented a teleporter, that would be the most dangerous thing ever invented, and would probably mark the end of civilization. Just imagine a how much trouble a terrorist could cause, teleporting nukes and radioactive waste without worrying about silly border checkpoints.
A man devotes his life's work to studying the fine intracacies of computer science. He obtains a doctoral degree through years of work mastering cryptographic algorithms.
Then he uses his skills to exploit the copyrighted works of others, while at the same time claiming copyright on that work itself and forcing people to pay for it!
He then gets sued unjustly [sic] and is ripped away from his children for months and months and months.
Where's the justice here?
It's really simple. Don't be a hypocrit. If you're going to ignore the copyrights of others, don't copyright your own stuff. Release it anonymously for all to use.
Well, depending on how liberally you interpret the DMCA, his talk at DefCon could be construed as a crime.
Yeah, but no matter how you read the indictment, that's not why he was arrested.
yupp so this means swedish police can arrest americans because americans have firearms?
Only if those americans sell those firearms in Sweeden.
Why do folks keep misrepresenting what actually happened here? The bottom line is, he was in this country, giving a talk and selling a product which was thought to violate the DMCA.
Umm, first of all, he was not in this country selling anything. He sold the product from his home. Secondly, his talk was not illegal, and was not in the indictment. You are the one who is misrepresenting what actually happened. Read the fucking indictment.
Sklyarov came to the US to give a talk on breaking Adobe e-Book encryption, which was a violation of the DMCA.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
And by the way, you're wrong.
Video someone before the trial, edit the tape, and play that back in court...and with no intention of letting him stand up and defend himself?
He wasn't the one on trial, though, so he didn't need to defend himself.