the DMCA simply intimidates people from doing research (legal or non) and what not.
You're joking, right? DeCSS was not used for research. Neither was AEBEX. They were both products created with the primary purpose of circumventing copyright protection systems.
So I guess I would rather see hysteria over the the possibility of our rights being taken away than the blithe, indifferent ignorance that usually accompanies it.
I'd rather see calm, rational arguments than hysteria. I think the proper way to fight lies is with truth, not with more lies.
He shouldn't. He didn't violate our laws within out sovereign territories.
That's certainly an interesting viewpoint, one that I respect, but not one that I agree with.
What he did do was violate a whole cart load of international law, and he should be held responsible in the appropriate venue for those violations.
What is the appropriate venue, and what was the international law he violated? Don't you have to be a recognized country to be bound by international law?
Actually, if you view condoms/diaphragms as an "anti-copy protection" the DMCA may make tampering with them (such as intentional improper use or intentional sabotage) illegal.:)
I'm surprised the EFF hasn't filed for an injunction on that basis.
The DMCA really is being used to intimidate people doing legitimate research like Prof. Felten's group and providing information necessary for compatibility purposes(decss etc).
Laws don't intimidate people. People intimidate people.
On the other hand any exaggeration by the EFF pales into insignificance when compared to the exaggeration by the entertainment industry (and others) of their new rights under the law. We've seen many people threatened with dumb lawsuits which have no merit or takedown orders used to stifle free speech (scientology anyone ?).
The problem is that the EFF are helping the entertainment industry spread fear. If they get their way, and the DMCA is repealed, then perhaps the ends justify the means, but what's more likely is that the DMCA will not be repealed, and it will not be found unconstitutional, and the EFF has just shot itself in the foot by giving credence to a ridiculous interpretation of the law.
I'm no lawyer, but there are laws against causing "malicious interference" to any radio service, particularly licensed ones, such as cellular networks.
Does that include blocking the signals as well as actively jamming them, then? The reason I wanted to see the actual law was to see if it necessarily included private property. Also, the proper way to introduce the exception would be to put it into the original law, not to make a new one.
A law should be passed to allow active jamming of cellphone signals by property owners on their property, rather than outlawing the use of cellphones in certain areas.
Seems to me that that is already legal. Can you site a law which makes it illegal?
Slashdot Mirror
The USS Jimmy Carter is being retrofitted just for the purpose of tapping fiber optic cable.
Yeah, what is that supposed to contradict? That fiber is "pretty secure", or that it's "harder to tap than copper"?
To reproduce a light polarization you have to modify it, so the one who receives the signal knows that it has been intercepted.
Why can't you just use a beamsplitter?
DeCSS was created to allow DVDs to play under Linux.
Then why is it software which only runs on Windows?
Thank you very much Don Valenti. You are preventing me from enjoying DVDs I paid fair and square for.
No he's not. http://membres.lycos.fr/sxpert/decss/DeCSS.zip
DeCSS was written for watching DVDs on Linux.
A court has found otherwise.
AEBEX was written for reading books on PDAs, etc.
A court will find otherwise.
Both scenarios fall well within the bounds of fair use.
If you believe that the devices were actually created for those purposes, maybe.
If you think I'm wrong, could you tell me what legitimate purpose the DMCA serves?
It makes it harder to obtain software cracks off the internet, which decreases copyright infringement.
the DMCA simply intimidates people from doing research (legal or non) and what not.
You're joking, right? DeCSS was not used for research. Neither was AEBEX. They were both products created with the primary purpose of circumventing copyright protection systems.
Why should Osama Bin Laden be charged with a crime he did not commit while in the USA? Go on, answer that one?
Because his crime affected people who live in the USA. Same reason as Dmitry.
There is a difference between international law, and US law.
Right, and bin Ladin was charged with violating US law.
So I guess I would rather see hysteria over the the possibility of our rights being taken away than the blithe, indifferent ignorance that usually accompanies it.
I'd rather see calm, rational arguments than hysteria. I think the proper way to fight lies is with truth, not with more lies.
He shouldn't. He didn't violate our laws within out sovereign territories.
That's certainly an interesting viewpoint, one that I respect, but not one that I agree with.
What he did do was violate a whole cart load of international law, and he should be held responsible in the appropriate venue for those violations.
What is the appropriate venue, and what was the international law he violated? Don't you have to be a recognized country to be bound by international law?
Actually, if you view condoms/diaphragms as an "anti-copy protection" the DMCA may make tampering with them (such as intentional improper use or intentional sabotage) illegal. :)
I'm surprised the EFF hasn't filed for an injunction on that basis.
NO, he said it was being USED to intimidate people.
Butter knives can be USED to intimidate people. That doesn't mean that butter knives are bad.
Tell that to Dmitry or Bruce Perens' employer HP.
Why? They both already know that.
The DMCA really is being used to intimidate people doing legitimate research like Prof. Felten's group and providing information necessary for compatibility purposes(decss etc).
Laws don't intimidate people. People intimidate people.
No, the crimes are quite different, and so are the sentences.
On the other hand any exaggeration by the EFF pales into insignificance when compared to the exaggeration by the entertainment industry (and others) of their new rights under the law. We've seen many people threatened with dumb lawsuits which have no merit or takedown orders used to stifle free speech (scientology anyone ?).
The problem is that the EFF are helping the entertainment industry spread fear. If they get their way, and the DMCA is repealed, then perhaps the ends justify the means, but what's more likely is that the DMCA will not be repealed, and it will not be found unconstitutional, and the EFF has just shot itself in the foot by giving credence to a ridiculous interpretation of the law.
Why should Dimitri be arrested for something he did not do in the USA?
Why should Osama bin Ladin be charged with a crime he did not commit while in the USA?
Yeah, cause if you oppose the DMCA, you have to agree with every argument against it, no matter how ridiculous.
The DMCA makes sex illegal! Repeal the DMCA!
That is the danger of the DMCA.
But it has nothing to do with the DMCA. Repeal the DMCA, and Felton could still be sued.
The risk that a researcher could go to jail for giving a speech is essentially zero.
So if a known murderer is arrested while he happens to be giving a speech about how to shoot guns, we should repeals murder laws?
But what was he arrested for?
Entering the country.
Thank God some semi-mainstream media have grown the balls to come right out and oppose the FUD.
like sourceforge.net
Warning: MySQL Connection Failed: Too many connections in /var/www/html/pgp/conn.php on line 7
Error: Could not connect to MySql
I'm no lawyer, but there are laws against causing "malicious interference" to any radio service, particularly licensed ones, such as cellular networks.
Does that include blocking the signals as well as actively jamming them, then? The reason I wanted to see the actual law was to see if it necessarily included private property. Also, the proper way to introduce the exception would be to put it into the original law, not to make a new one.
A law should be passed to allow active jamming of cellphone signals by property owners on their property, rather than outlawing the use of cellphones in certain areas.
Seems to me that that is already legal. Can you site a law which makes it illegal?
Cell phone use is a constitutionally protected exercise of free speech.