The RIAA and the courts wanted nothing of Professor Felten, of Princeton, but have no trouble squashing the "eevilll" hackers of 2600, despite the fact that the DeCSS case was far stronger.
Far stronger? Try 2600 broke the law. Felton did not. Sheesh.
Our government is owned by the highest bidder. The DeCSS case proves it.
No, the DMCA proves it. The DeCSS case simply proves that the constitution does not protect against government being owned by the highest bidder.
See, this is how capitalism works - people and companies that provide goods and services are given money in exchange for the use of those goods and services.
NO. Capitilism does not work by government granted monopolies. If this were true capitalism, I would be allowed to do anything I want with the property I own, not restricted by law against copying and even interpreting my property.
Not necessarily. A conservative judicial nominee is more likely to be a strict constructionist, one who interprets the Constitution without an (overt) activist agenda. Such a jurist would be more likely to take a dim view of Hollywood's lawmaking-by-payola activities.
Why? There's nothing unconstitutional about lawmaking-by-payola. The DMCA will never be overturned by the Supreme Court, because it is not unconstitutional. Despite what many slashdotters may be led to believe Bad Law != Unconstitutional Law. At best the DMCA will be narrowly constructed to allow circumvention in certain fair use situations.
Not in Europe [eu.int], and I doubt this is true in the US either (otherwise Google [google.com] would be illegal.
Google is legal because they are protected by the DMCA. The freenet user presumably would not likely have applied as an ISP under the DMCA protection clause. If the user did, the user would then be subject to DMCA takedown notices.
"According to this scenario," cautions Escudero, "it would not appear that you would be criminally liable, but it's always case by case."
The RIAA is not suing criminally. Civil law has a much lesser standard. Yes, you can prove that you are not the copyright infringer (actually, you can't prove that), but you are still guilty of contributory copyright infringement.
This is true. But all that means is that the peer you are directly downloading from cached the content for you in response to a request. The content most likely wasn't there prior to the request being made.
Yep, and the person who cached the content can then be sued for copyright infringement.
The protocol is designed such that the "upstream" peers have no control whatsover over whats on them. What's more, how is intent to be proved against the admin of a node? If I understand correctly node contents are encrypted such that only node to node communications suffice to decrypt them. A node admin would have to make every possible query and analyse response times to actually determine what he is cacheing.
Or he could just not set up the system in the first place. ISPs are only protected from contributory copyright infringement if they register as an ISP under the DMCA.
If the protocol doesn't work this way then it sorely needs to be added. The network would have to provide plausible deniability to EVERYONE.
This is the way it works, but plausible deniability is not enough to get yourself out of a civil contributory copyright suit.
By uploading the file (even indirectly), you are breaking the law.
Only if you know what it is that you're uploading.
I don't think that's true. You don't have to have direct knowledge that the file you're uploading is copyrighted in order to be charged with copyright infringement.
You can't anonymizer the peer you're uploading from directly. Freenet claims that that peer is not responsible, because it doesn't have direct knowledge of the infringement, however, that claim has not yet been tested in court (and is likely false).
Unlike prohibition, these people are easy to catch. Programs which do not allow the tracking of IPs are impossible to make, because IP does not allow it.
Sure, you won't get everyone, but it will be possible to set pirates back to the days of trading files over usenet, and even that can be stopped to a large extent by DMCA takedown notices.
Despite what the makers of Freenet say, they don't have to prove that you were the one who initially put up the file in order to sue you. By uploading the file (even indirectly), you are breaking the law, and unless you're registered as an ISP under the DMCA, ignorance is no excuse.
Only if you use AHRA material. If your mp3 collection is stored on Audio CD-R (for which a portion of the sale price goes to the RIAA), then you're legal. Otherwise, you're not.
If all goes right, eventually the only way the RIAA can lose out is if a really large number of penniless students get the pants sued off of them, elect to defend themselves, stall in court for a really long time, and then when the judgement is passed, file for bankruptcy.
Even then, you're going to scare most of the friends of those penniless students, who don't want bankruptcy on their records for the next 7 (I think it's 7) years.
This is what they should have done in the first place- go after the people who are actually doing it instead of making P2P seemingly illegal.
First you tell us to play nice with Microsoft, then you come out publically against copyright infringement. Taco, you rock (even if I don't agree with you).
Could they distribute their servers geographically, through several server farms in widely distributed points, to increase redundancy in case Al Queda decided to target their server farm?
Since it's almost entirely relatively static data, of course they could.
Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA and the courts wanted nothing of Professor Felten, of Princeton, but have no trouble squashing the "eevilll" hackers of 2600, despite the fact that the DeCSS case was far stronger.
Far stronger? Try 2600 broke the law. Felton did not. Sheesh.
Our government is owned by the highest bidder. The DeCSS case proves it.
No, the DMCA proves it. The DeCSS case simply proves that the constitution does not protect against government being owned by the highest bidder.
See, this is how capitalism works - people and companies that provide goods and services are given money in exchange for the use of those goods and services.
NO. Capitilism does not work by government granted monopolies. If this were true capitalism, I would be allowed to do anything I want with the property I own, not restricted by law against copying and even interpreting my property.
That's capitalism. Capitalism works.
Not when there's a monopoly product.
Not necessarily. A conservative judicial nominee is more likely to be a strict constructionist, one who interprets the Constitution without an (overt) activist agenda. Such a jurist would be more likely to take a dim view of Hollywood's lawmaking-by-payola activities.
Why? There's nothing unconstitutional about lawmaking-by-payola. The DMCA will never be overturned by the Supreme Court, because it is not unconstitutional. Despite what many slashdotters may be led to believe Bad Law != Unconstitutional Law. At best the DMCA will be narrowly constructed to allow circumvention in certain fair use situations.
It's much easier to whine about how the DMCA is unconstitutional when you don't have a supreme court ruling proving you wrong.
Not in Europe [eu.int], and I doubt this is true in the US either (otherwise Google [google.com] would be illegal.
Google is legal because they are protected by the DMCA. The freenet user presumably would not likely have applied as an ISP under the DMCA protection clause. If the user did, the user would then be subject to DMCA takedown notices.
"According to this scenario," cautions Escudero, "it would not appear that you would be criminally liable, but it's always case by case."
The RIAA is not suing criminally. Civil law has a much lesser standard. Yes, you can prove that you are not the copyright infringer (actually, you can't prove that), but you are still guilty of contributory copyright infringement.
This is true. But all that means is that the peer you are directly downloading from cached the content for you in response to a request. The content most likely wasn't there prior to the request being made.
Yep, and the person who cached the content can then be sued for copyright infringement.
The protocol is designed such that the "upstream" peers have no control whatsover over whats on them. What's more, how is intent to be proved against the admin of a node? If I understand correctly node contents are encrypted such that only node to node communications suffice to decrypt them. A node admin would have to make every possible query and analyse response times to actually determine what he is cacheing.
Or he could just not set up the system in the first place. ISPs are only protected from contributory copyright infringement if they register as an ISP under the DMCA.
If the protocol doesn't work this way then it sorely needs to be added. The network would have to provide plausible deniability to EVERYONE.
This is the way it works, but plausible deniability is not enough to get yourself out of a civil contributory copyright suit.
Same way as the collapse of @home. I.E., pretty much not at all.
Only if you know what it is that you're uploading.
I don't think that's true. You don't have to have direct knowledge that the file you're uploading is copyrighted in order to be charged with copyright infringement.
Freenet also anonymizes uploads.
You can't anonymizer the peer you're uploading from directly. Freenet claims that that peer is not responsible, because it doesn't have direct knowledge of the infringement, however, that claim has not yet been tested in court (and is likely false).
Unlike prohibition, these people are easy to catch. Programs which do not allow the tracking of IPs are impossible to make, because IP does not allow it.
Sure, you won't get everyone, but it will be possible to set pirates back to the days of trading files over usenet, and even that can be stopped to a large extent by DMCA takedown notices.
Whenever you purchase (legally) a CD, DVD, VHS, etc., you have a right to make one copy for backup purposes.
Wrong. You only have a right to make a backup for software unless you are a libarary.
Despite what the makers of Freenet say, they don't have to prove that you were the one who initially put up the file in order to sue you. By uploading the file (even indirectly), you are breaking the law, and unless you're registered as an ISP under the DMCA, ignorance is no excuse.
How is offering them over napster servers any more illegal then what a library does?
Libraries distribute, napster sharers copy and distribute.
Only if you use AHRA material. If your mp3 collection is stored on Audio CD-R (for which a portion of the sale price goes to the RIAA), then you're legal. Otherwise, you're not.
They only learn of what files you have when they do a specific search for them.
Presumably record companies will only be suing over songs they actually own the copyright to anyway, so I don't see how this is any advantage.
If all goes right, eventually the only way the RIAA can lose out is if a really large number of penniless students get the pants sued off of them, elect to defend themselves, stall in court for a really long time, and then when the judgement is passed, file for bankruptcy.
Even then, you're going to scare most of the friends of those penniless students, who don't want bankruptcy on their records for the next 7 (I think it's 7) years.
This is what they should have done in the first place- go after the people who are actually doing it instead of making P2P seemingly illegal.
First you tell us to play nice with Microsoft, then you come out publically against copyright infringement. Taco, you rock (even if I don't agree with you).
Wow. That's probably the most reasonable statement I've ever read from Taco. Maybe I have him pegged wrong after all.
If slashdot sucks, why did you dupe their look and color scheme?
To try to get people to make accounts.
Secondly, why did you do such a bad job at it?
Because I suck.
SlashdotSucks sucks.
Most definately.
Is this like an alcoholics anonymous booth at a beer convention?
More like a Miller Lite booth at an AA convention.
Or do you think MS is going to actually give in to Linux?
The first part of the phrase is "embrace", right?
No doubt this means that the more childish among us will make us all look bad.
Can anyone please explain to me what that comment is supposed to mean? Who is "us", and to whom are we looking bad?
This isn't a rhetorical question. I really want to know what the hell Taco is talking about, so I can post a witty retort making fun of him.
Could they distribute their servers geographically, through several server farms in widely distributed points, to increase redundancy in case Al Queda decided to target their server farm?
Since it's almost entirely relatively static data, of course they could.
It lets me know when my postwoman has arrived.
Junk email, on the other hand, merely lets me know when my mail server has crashed, which is much less often.
Mod the parent up.