What you're really saying is that I can't have a good on terms that are acceptable to me and that it is just fine if the market is not allowed to provide it.
Huh? The market is allowed to provide players which don't require watermarked content. The artists are allowed to provide content which is not watermarked. What's unfair or unfree?
Now explain to me why the RIAA should have this kind of complete control over what does and doesn't get released?
First explain to me what control is given to the RIAA by this law. The RIAA can already implement these watermarking systems, and it's already illegal to distribute illicit copies.
The solution is simple. If you don't like the player, don't buy it.
You should stamp it with your OWN raised seal if you want to verify its authenticity for anyone looking at it.
I see no reason not to believe that you could stamp it with your own raised seal which is compatible with the players you want to use.
I think it should be illegal to forge a digital watermark.. but only if digital watermark writers are available to anyone and everyone for a reasonable price (which obviously would make this legislative move a moot point in the anti-piracy game as anyone could write a digital watermark to their pirated Britney Spears MP3s) or players should not require a digital watermark to access the data.
I don't think the government should get into legislating private businesses in such ways. If you don't like the player, don't buy it.
I guess you make a good point though that this technology would be pretty much useless for stopping piracy. Similar to the way that CSS is useless for stopping DVD piracy.
Who determines the format for the watermark and how is it licensed?
Nowhere does it say that the watermark must be licensed. It only says that it must be "genuine". I would assume genuine would be interpreted as "not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright." If you own the copyright, then the watermark is genuine.
"the term `illicit authentication feature' means an authentication feature, that [...] (B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the respective copyright owner."
How much you want to bet that this is used to stop people from legally exercising their right to first sale on ebay.
The article gives the example of a garage band wanting to distribute their music via MP3 and having to fake a watermark to make it playable on certain MP3 players.
And I see no reason to believe that that example is correct. The purpose of a watermark is to "verify that a phonorecord, a copy of a computer program, a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or documentation or packaging is not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright." If the copy is not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright, as in, you own the copyright, then the watermark is genuine, and you havne't broken the law.
call a business of 6-7 people a corporation is a bit eccessive. I'd say rathery they are like a dad-and-mom shop.
They're the ones who choose to use that entity. If they want protection from personal liability then they lose personal sympathy from me. You can't have it both ways. Either you are a partnership, or you're a corporation.
You should not pay out of general good will. But if you in the past used their site and rekon that they delivered you a good service - as I do - you may well pay what you think their service was worth - as I did.
That's paying out of good will. The bottom line is you will receive the same benefits regardless of whether or not you pay. If the mandate of the corporation is to maximize profits, then my mandate with dealing with corporation is to minimize their profits. I'm sorry, if you want to do good for society, it's really simple to form a nonprofit instead of a for-profit corporation. Instead of making your mission statement on your application something to the effect of "to make as much money as we can while still following the law," you actually write down what your mission is, and then you follow it. Yes, 501(c)(3) is much harder, which is why I will consider donating to a nonprofit which isn't a 501(c)(3).
Is what they provide worth $12K/month? If it is, they should go subscription only, and the money problems would go away. If not, it should die, and these people should spend their time doing something more useful.
When I saw the original story (LWN.net Closing Down), and read "next weeks issue will be the last" I knew it was just a threat to try to raise money. If you really need to shut down, just shut down.
All this donating to for-profit corporations sickens me. If you want donations from me, you need to be at least a nonprofit, and preferably a 501(c)(3).
If you can't afford to run your website, allow mirrors to do it for you.
Let's do the prudent thing and reduce them first; even if the world still gets hotter, at least it'll be a mite bit cleaner.
It's a question of cost and benefit. Time spent figuring out ways to limit CO2 emissions is time not spent on other things, like figuring out the cure for cancer. Nothing is free, everything has positive and negative effects.
Personally, I think yes, we should tax products which generate CO2 emissions and tax cutting down trees which also increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Spend the money researching the problem, fixing it, and planting trees. But the jury is still out on whether or not there even is a problem in the first place.
And sit back and relax at your current one in the mean time. Y'all are screwed, and when the project doesn't get done it's doubtful you're going to be spared.
Shoving Big Fucking Ads in peoples' faces doesn't work, but allowing them to voluntarily view ads for things which they actually want does. Who would've thunk it? Certainly not Slashdot.
Besides, the warming trend [difficult as it is to measure] seems to be consistent with CO2 emissions, linked through climate models in which we have [some, of not great] confidence.
Hollywood is winning the ability to use the DMCA to coerce individuals and corporations to bend to their will...
So don't buy their products. It's really not that difficult.
and we are losing the ability to have freedom with the information that we've legally paid to have access to (e.g. the information on a region-encoded DVD)...
We've already lost that ability. That's what copyright law is all about. Also, see above. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
that is why people better start caring... because the day may not be distant when your CD player, your PC, your DVD player, even your car stereo will have to ask permission from the MPAA or RIAA before being able to play a piece of media, even if it's legally obtained...
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
freedom is at risk... I @!$#ing care about that...
Very little actual freedom is at risk, unless you mean the freedom to profit off the copyright infringement of others. How has the DMCA affected your life? It hasn't affected mine one bit. But then again, I'm not profiting off the copyright infringement of others. Go figure.
Hollywood is winning, folks. You are losing. And you'd better start caring.
Losing what? The ability to play DVDs from another country? It seems to me that the only one losing anything is Hollywood, since I won't buy DVDs which I can't play. Not that it would be a problem if I really needed to play them anyway. I have DeCSS.
I don't think it should be legal to tear down "slanderous" signs at your own discretion either (assuming the signs are legally placed).
In my opinion it is no different from stopping a man who is attacking your dog. You shouldn't have to wait until your dog is dead before you can defend your property. Notice also that I only said that it was legal to tear down slanderous signs, not signs which you merely believe are slanderous. This mirrors the DoS law.
Lowtax has people threatening libel lawsuits almost daily because he says their website sucks. Should those people be able to DOS SomethingAwful just because *they* don't like Lowtax?
According to this law they wouldn't. Should they? Well, yes, because there shouldn't be laws against DoS attacks at all.
As long as you're making up BS analagies
I suggest you actually read the bill before making such accusations
this is more akin to "You think someone might have copied a piece of artwork you had on display
If you had read the bill, you would notice that this protection only exists if the person being attacked actually is engaging in "the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network"
so you break into their home, and search the entire place making a complete wreck of it.
No, this immunity doesn't apply if it "causes economic loss of more than $50.00 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contain works in which the owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106"
What, you didn't actually copy their artwork? Tough cookies, artists can now legally break into people's houses at their own discretion and tear the place apart.
Wrong. This immunity also doesn't apply if it "impairs the availability within a pub-
licly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network of a computer file or data that does not contain a work, or portion thereof, in which the copyright owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106, except as may be reasonably necessary to impair the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of such a work, or portion thereof, in violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under section 106" Further, the immunity specifically only extends to "disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network"
So my analogy is much better. You post a slanderous sign on a public bulletin board, and the person you're slandering tears it down. I see that as an act of self-defense, not an act offense, and think the law should properly reflect that.
Someone could probably break into your computer given enough motivation also. Firewalls aren't foolproof.
They're not foolproof, but properly installed most of them are hackproof. On top of that, anything which you aren't willing to have hacked probably shouldn't be stored online anyway. At least not unless you really know a whole lot about security, and only then on a private machine which doesn't allow incoming connections.
As for credit cards and other data stored on servers, it's not that big of a deal if that gets stolen. Besides, my original statement was only about DoS attacks, though I do believe that anything occuring solely over the internet should be legal.
Slashdot Mirror
What you're really saying is that I can't have a good on terms that are acceptable to me and that it is just fine if the market is not allowed to provide it.
Huh? The market is allowed to provide players which don't require watermarked content. The artists are allowed to provide content which is not watermarked. What's unfair or unfree?
Assuming, of course, that you can even generate a watermark.
If you can't generate a watermark, it's kind of a moot point whether or not it's legal to.
But maybe the only legal watermarks will have to come from "approved" sources, and that the price to get one may be high.
I don't think that's what this law is saying, and at least one other person, but I think Robert Heverly explains that more eloquently than I.
So what precisely am I going to do when the only players allowed by law are the ones with watermarks in them, eh, smart boy?
I don't know. What precisely am I going to do when Jesus comes down from heaven to destroy evil?
Now explain to me why the RIAA should have this kind of complete control over what does and doesn't get released?
First explain to me what control is given to the RIAA by this law. The RIAA can already implement these watermarking systems, and it's already illegal to distribute illicit copies.
The solution is simple. If you don't like the player, don't buy it.
You should stamp it with your OWN raised seal if you want to verify its authenticity for anyone looking at it.
I see no reason not to believe that you could stamp it with your own raised seal which is compatible with the players you want to use.
I think it should be illegal to forge a digital watermark.. but only if digital watermark writers are available to anyone and everyone for a reasonable price (which obviously would make this legislative move a moot point in the anti-piracy game as anyone could write a digital watermark to their pirated Britney Spears MP3s) or players should not require a digital watermark to access the data.
I don't think the government should get into legislating private businesses in such ways. If you don't like the player, don't buy it.
I guess you make a good point though that this technology would be pretty much useless for stopping piracy. Similar to the way that CSS is useless for stopping DVD piracy.
Who determines the format for the watermark and how is it licensed?
Nowhere does it say that the watermark must be licensed. It only says that it must be "genuine". I would assume genuine would be interpreted as "not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright." If you own the copyright, then the watermark is genuine.
"the term `illicit authentication feature' means an authentication feature, that [...] (B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the respective copyright owner."
How much you want to bet that this is used to stop people from legally exercising their right to first sale on ebay.
The article gives the example of a garage band wanting to distribute their music via MP3 and having to fake a watermark to make it playable on certain MP3 players.
And I see no reason to believe that that example is correct. The purpose of a watermark is to "verify that a phonorecord, a copy of a computer program, a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or documentation or packaging is not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright." If the copy is not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright, as in, you own the copyright, then the watermark is genuine, and you havne't broken the law.
Just more FUD from zdnet.
$12k/month barely pays two IT salaries
Or feeds 1000 starving children.
I say let the IT employees fend for themselves.
call a business of 6-7 people a corporation is a bit eccessive. I'd say rathery they are like a dad-and-mom shop.
They're the ones who choose to use that entity. If they want protection from personal liability then they lose personal sympathy from me. You can't have it both ways. Either you are a partnership, or you're a corporation.
You should not pay out of general good will. But if you in the past used their site and rekon that they delivered you a good service - as I do - you may well pay what you think their service was worth - as I did.
That's paying out of good will. The bottom line is you will receive the same benefits regardless of whether or not you pay. If the mandate of the corporation is to maximize profits, then my mandate with dealing with corporation is to minimize their profits. I'm sorry, if you want to do good for society, it's really simple to form a nonprofit instead of a for-profit corporation. Instead of making your mission statement on your application something to the effect of "to make as much money as we can while still following the law," you actually write down what your mission is, and then you follow it. Yes, 501(c)(3) is much harder, which is why I will consider donating to a nonprofit which isn't a 501(c)(3).
Is what they provide worth $12K/month? If it is, they should go subscription only, and the money problems would go away. If not, it should die, and these people should spend their time doing something more useful.
When I saw the original story (LWN.net Closing Down), and read "next weeks issue will be the last" I knew it was just a threat to try to raise money. If you really need to shut down, just shut down.
All this donating to for-profit corporations sickens me. If you want donations from me, you need to be at least a nonprofit, and preferably a 501(c)(3).
If you can't afford to run your website, allow mirrors to do it for you.
The world is getting hotter.
So?
Let's do the prudent thing and reduce them first; even if the world still gets hotter, at least it'll be a mite bit cleaner.
It's a question of cost and benefit. Time spent figuring out ways to limit CO2 emissions is time not spent on other things, like figuring out the cure for cancer. Nothing is free, everything has positive and negative effects.
Personally, I think yes, we should tax products which generate CO2 emissions and tax cutting down trees which also increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Spend the money researching the problem, fixing it, and planting trees. But the jury is still out on whether or not there even is a problem in the first place.
And sit back and relax at your current one in the mean time. Y'all are screwed, and when the project doesn't get done it's doubtful you're going to be spared.
Shoving Big Fucking Ads in peoples' faces doesn't work, but allowing them to voluntarily view ads for things which they actually want does. Who would've thunk it? Certainly not Slashdot.
Besides, the warming trend [difficult as it is to measure] seems to be consistent with CO2 emissions, linked through climate models in which we have [some, of not great] confidence.
It is also consistent with changes in the magnetic flux of the sun.
The question of global warming is still out.
nonsense.
Thanks for all the reasons you just gave for your opinion that anyone should be able to hack anyone elses computer.
I don't need a reason. If the world can do without a law, it should. If you don't like my bits, don't download them.
Hollywood is winning the ability to use the DMCA to coerce individuals and corporations to bend to their will...
So don't buy their products. It's really not that difficult.
and we are losing the ability to have freedom with the information that we've legally paid to have access to (e.g. the information on a region-encoded DVD)...
We've already lost that ability. That's what copyright law is all about. Also, see above. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
that is why people better start caring... because the day may not be distant when your CD player, your PC, your DVD player, even your car stereo will have to ask permission from the MPAA or RIAA before being able to play a piece of media, even if it's legally obtained...
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
freedom is at risk... I @!$#ing care about that...
Very little actual freedom is at risk, unless you mean the freedom to profit off the copyright infringement of others. How has the DMCA affected your life? It hasn't affected mine one bit. But then again, I'm not profiting off the copyright infringement of others. Go figure.
Hollywood is winning, folks. You are losing. And you'd better start caring.
Losing what? The ability to play DVDs from another country? It seems to me that the only one losing anything is Hollywood, since I won't buy DVDs which I can't play. Not that it would be a problem if I really needed to play them anyway. I have DeCSS.
Heh, I don't know what it was... It was more a veiled threat of defense, as in, don't try anything I know who you are :). Sorry 'bout that.
I don't think it should be legal to tear down "slanderous" signs at your own discretion either (assuming the signs are legally placed).
In my opinion it is no different from stopping a man who is attacking your dog. You shouldn't have to wait until your dog is dead before you can defend your property. Notice also that I only said that it was legal to tear down slanderous signs, not signs which you merely believe are slanderous. This mirrors the DoS law.
Lowtax has people threatening libel lawsuits almost daily because he says their website sucks. Should those people be able to DOS SomethingAwful just because *they* don't like Lowtax?
According to this law they wouldn't. Should they? Well, yes, because there shouldn't be laws against DoS attacks at all.
As long as you're making up BS analagies
I suggest you actually read the bill before making such accusations
this is more akin to "You think someone might have copied a piece of artwork you had on display
If you had read the bill, you would notice that this protection only exists if the person being attacked actually is engaging in "the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network"
so you break into their home, and search the entire place making a complete wreck of it.
No, this immunity doesn't apply if it "causes economic loss of more than $50.00 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contain works in which the owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106"
What, you didn't actually copy their artwork? Tough cookies, artists can now legally break into people's houses at their own discretion and tear the place apart.
Wrong. This immunity also doesn't apply if it "impairs the availability within a pub- licly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network of a computer file or data that does not contain a work, or portion thereof, in which the copyright owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106, except as may be reasonably necessary to impair the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of such a work, or portion thereof, in violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under section 106" Further, the immunity specifically only extends to "disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network"
So my analogy is much better. You post a slanderous sign on a public bulletin board, and the person you're slandering tears it down. I see that as an act of self-defense, not an act offense, and think the law should properly reflect that.
How does this analogy apply?
It allows the victim to defend himself from being slandered.
Currently, you do not have the right to tear down signs you consider slanderous.
Right, but if there were such a law, then you would.
A bill exactly like you describe should cause a similiar uproar.
I guess our disagreement runs much deeper than I had thought.
is it any wonder that tech companies are dying left and right?
Someone could probably break into your computer given enough motivation also. Firewalls aren't foolproof.
They're not foolproof, but properly installed most of them are hackproof. On top of that, anything which you aren't willing to have hacked probably shouldn't be stored online anyway. At least not unless you really know a whole lot about security, and only then on a private machine which doesn't allow incoming connections.
As for credit cards and other data stored on servers, it's not that big of a deal if that gets stolen. Besides, my original statement was only about DoS attacks, though I do believe that anything occuring solely over the internet should be legal.