I don't know. Most people I know already have digital cable. My household is the only one I know of that doesn't have cable at all, and by 2006 I'll have bought an HDTV tuner card for my PC (which is the only place in my house that I watch TV anyway). When Comcast (or whoever) tells my friends and family that they need to change converter boxes (for free), and by the way that their monthly bill is going up by $5, they'll complain, but then they'll do it.
I know I won't bother. Will you?
If the $400 HDTV tuners were only $200 or so, I'd do it. With the little TV I actually watch, I bet nearly 100% of it is available in HDTV. I bet I could get $100 or so on ebay for my all-in-wonder, and the $100 difference, for the greatly increased quality, is well worth it to me.
Stated otherwise, if you write software which allows access to your hard drive (etc) without DRM checking, you are creating a device which substantially circumvents the measure designed to insure that any data which is read is not copyrighted.
It doesn't matter. If the data you read is not copyrighted, or you have permission to circumvent that data, you haven't broken the law.
An example of this under the DMCA is the GBA programming cables which have been detained in custioms as being illegal.
Illegal to import, or distribute, but not illegal to use per se.
I hope you are right about the bill requiring the measures to be open-source.
It's written right in the bill, so I don't think it would be a good argument to use against the bill.
Remember Open-source != GPL.
Thank God. Hopefully the standard created wouldn't have the draconian restriction that anyone creating a derivitive work release the source code to that work.
Twisting arms and telling people what they can and can't buy isn't the way to solve a problem that belongs strictly to the broadcasters and their customers, not us.
Well, the FCC isn't directly forcing anyone to buy or not buy anything. You have every right to buy a non-HDTV television, the FCC won't stop you. But when you raise the antenna and try to get an NTSC signal, you're going to eventually find that there's no such thing still being broadcast.
Personally I say the whole current TV spectrum allocation should be very gradually switched to broadcast IP packets. Allocate a few gigs of it to unencrypted public broadcasting, a few gigs to non-commercial unencrypted broadcasting, a few gigs to a regulated-as-a-public-utility ISP, and sell the rest in no more than 1 year contracts to the highest bidders.
2006 is four years away. Do they really think they will get everyone who has a tv set to switch in four short years, when pretty much nobody has thus far?
No, of course they won't get everyone. Lower income families which can't afford cable television or HDTV sets or computers with HDTV tuner cards won't switch in time. But in a plutocracy it doesn't really matter what the common citizen deals with. Most congresscritters, as well as most of their voting constituents will have digital cable by 2006. And that's all that really matters.
Can microsoft stop someone from implementing the Technical Reference without signing the license agreement? Not unless they have a patent on the technology
Microsoft have indicated in at least one public forum that this is the case. The legalisms are there for the sole purpose of protecting their patent rights.
Then I don't see any problem with it. The GPL says "You can use our intellectual property (copyrighted work) - but if you create a derivitive you can't release it under the Microsoft EULA".
The Microsoft EULA says "You can use our intellectual property (patented process) - but if you create a derivitive you can't release it under the GPL".
What exactly is the problem the FCC is trying to solve?
The problem is limited bandwidth. The FCC gave the networks extra bandwidth to implement HDTV. The idea was that they'd eventually move completely over to HDTV, and be able to give back their analog bandwidth. That analog spectrum can then be used for new technologies.
If the networks don't want to move over to HDTV, fine, but then they should lose their rights to the additional bandwidth. Of course even that isn't really a possibility, because consumers have already bought $5000 TVs to use those HDTV broadcasts.
What solution would you propose? Should we just let the networks take up the HDTV and the NTSC spectra? Or should we try to free up the NTSC spectra for other uses, such as digital IP multicasting?
Of course, the MS license specifically excludes by name the GNU GPL and LGPL, but it seems to me you could write your own version of the GPL, call it "Fred's GPL" (or whatever), and license under that.
Yes, but you'd likely have to change the license at least in some non-trivial fashion in order for the court to accept it as more than just a name change.
(And if necessary, I'm sure you could get FSF's permission to make a "derivative work" of the GNU GPL in order to create Fred's GPL for this purpose.)
Screw the FSF. I'll copy from their stupid document all I want, and I dare them to sue me for it.
Microsoft is well within their rights under Copyright law here.
No they aren't.
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Microsoft may be within their rights here, but if so it's due to patent law, not copyright law.
The CIFS Technical Reference (as defined below) is available for You to reference, but if You want to implement the Technical Reference, You must sign and return this Agreement AS IS.
If you are stupid enough to sign and return it, it most certainly is legally binding.
Can microsoft stop someone from implementing the Technical Reference without signing the license agreement? Not unless they have a patent on the technology.
If that's the case, then why do they keep going after people like cancer patients who grow marijuana for their own personal use? Or would that be a state-level thing?
I don't believe the federal government has ever gone after a cancer patient who grows marijuana for eir own personal use.
I don't see any exceptions made for possession without it changing hands. "Possess with intent to manufacture" seems to me to mean to "Have with intent to use". But IANAL and if you can explain why I'm wrong, feel free to do so.
The word manufacture means create, not use. If you possess marijuana seeds with the intent to grow pot, that would be illegal, but if you merely possess marijuana (with some seeds attached) with the intent to smoke, that's not illegal (under federal law).
Regardless, how long do you think it would take before making a device that prevents you from having to buy a movie (i.e., by ripping a DVD rental) and thus 'depriving an author of income', is deemed to affect interstate commerce?
I don't think that will ever happen. But you have to understand that I don't agree with the interpretation of the Supreme Court that wholly intrastate commerce falls under the commerce clause. Personally I support a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that "regulation of wholly intrastate commerce shall not be deemed to be regulation of commerce among the several states". I also support repeal of at least some if not all laws against the non-fraudulent commerce of drugs. I also support the repeal of most if not all copyright law. But as it stands I can only hope to help chip at the law in certain places.
Also, I think it is clear that using such a device on a copyrighted work can be restricted by congress. But that's due to the copyright clause, not the commerce clause.
Lots of people will do exactly that and some of them will make the fruits of their work public, thus drawing the ire of Hollings' friends.
Wait a second now. Making the fruits of your work public does affect interstate commerce. It may be subject to free speech restrictions, but there is some leeway for the government to regulate it.
I figure the CBDTPA is the technological equivalent to the Drug War.
I agree with you completely. But my focus is on how to attack such a law in a way which is most likely to succeed. Personally I think the achilles heel of the CBDTPA is section (3) part (d). Not only is it hopelessly ambiguous, it is technologically impossible. If it were possible and not cost prohibitive to do, trust me, it would already be done.
As soon as devices are produced with copy control, it becomes illegal to interface with that device in a way that doesn't implement the copy control.
No, it is illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title". If you're not accessing a copyrighted work, you're not liable under the DMCA.
If the API for that copy control mechanism is itself controlled (ie, propritary or even just a "non-open" standard) then it becomes illegal to distribute source code to access the device.
The copy control mechanisms are required by law to be open source.
If assault rifles are built primarily for crime, it seems as if people aren't using them as you claim they're primarily intended.
You obviously know much more about assault rifles than I do (I know very little). If it turns out that they have a useful purpose which exceeds their probably use for harm, then I'll agree with you that they shouldn't be banned. But frankly it's not an issue with which I am very concerned. I don't know anyone who has an assault rifle, wants an assault rifle, was ever killed or threatened by an assault rifle, etc. So it's really a waste of my time to get into the nitty gritty of the law.
First to argue the semantics: the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely recognizes our inalienable rights.
Agreed.
Second, in answering your strawman nuclear missle question, it's "keep and bear arms". Arms means weaponry. Nuclear missles are weaponry, so yes, they're included.
How is that a strawman? There is a law against personal possession of nuclear weaponry. You think there shouldn't be. I should add another question: Do you think the right to "freedom of speech" includes the right to yell fire in a crowded building, to enter into fraudulent contracts, to infringe the copyright of others, and to make terroristic threats?
Personally I don't think you can look at the letter of the constitution an apply it exactly. To do so it would contradict itself. The second amendment qualifies that its purpose is to maintain a well regulated militia. I think you have to look to that purpose when you determine whether the right to keep and bear arms is being infringed.
As for the probable response of "But missles are so big and nasty, they only meant weapons one person could carry"
Nope, that is a strawman. The constitution clearly prohibits congress from stopping a state government from allowing a national guardsman to keep and bear a tank, for example.
But honestly, if there was no law banning ownership of nuclear weaponry, would that really matter?
I think it most certainly would. There are a whole lot of people and corporations (remember the constitution has been ruled to apply to them too) that can afford a nuclear weapon. Remember that when you make it illegal the cost will drop tremendously. Hell, given a lack of laws on the matter there are a whole lot of people who could make a nuke. The opportunity to acquire is mainly a question of the law, and sadly I know a lot of people who would have the will to have nuked Afghanistan. Perhaps Afghanistan is a bad example, because the cost to actually launch a nuclear weapon is probably vastly greater than the cost to build one, but there are plenty of crazies out there that would be willing to use them on U.S. targets.
Finally, if it did become a problem, the solution would be a Constitutional amendment saying "no privately owned nukes".
In the mean time the country would likely be destroyed. No, the solution would be to ban nuclear weapons, enforce the ban, and in the mean time try to get a Constitutional Amendment passed. Yep, in the case of arbitrary private citizens owning nukes I say F the constitution.
Please explain how the Bill of Rights are not privileges or immunities.
That one's going to be way too long of a discussion for me right now. Look up "selective incorporation" on google.
Isn't this a wonderful clause? One would think that this means that you simply can't sell across state lines, right? Wrong. By selling to someone in your state, you are affecting commerce in that state which in turn affects commerce with other states.
Yes, sadly, the supreme court has ruled that.
Therefore, everything you do can be considered to affect interstate commerce.
Not everything you do - all commerce.
Merely transporting it in a way that affects interstate commerce is an offense.
I assert that transportation without a change of posession, and without intent to distribute, does not affect interstate commerce, nor would the supreme court rule that it does.
We've already established that everything I do affects interstate commerce
No, you've falsely asserted that everything you do affects interstate commerce.
And before you say "But that's fscking stupid, they'd never do that", they already have. The federal government's control over the War on Drugs is based almost entirely on the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.
Right, and there is no federal law against posession without intent to distribute. Or against intrastate transportation for personal consumption.
If assault rifles are only created to commit crimes
Don't put words in my mouth. Nothing is created only to commit crimes.
Having just finished the Revolutionary War, they wanted to make sure that in the future, if need be, citizens would have the ability to do the same again.
No they didn't. At the time the second amendment was written, the fourteenth wasn't even thought of, let alone construed to incorporate the bill of rights. But let me ask this. Do you believe that the second amendment gives individual citizens the right to keep and bear nuclear missles?
Simply put, states can't make laws that contradict the Bill of Rights.
No, states can't make laws that "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
In any case, when I suggested that a federal ban on the possession of assault rifles may be unconstitutional, I was referring to the 10th amendment, not the 2nd. I don't believe that assault rifles enhance the security of a free state.
How does the hobbyist purchase a microprocessor? Hard disk? Ethernet interface?
This law doesn't prohibit microprocessors, hard disks, or ethernet interfaces, it merely requires that those which are transported as to affect interstate commerce have open source copyright protections. Unless you're a driver manufacturer, you're going to be dealing with APIs which are already written for you. What particular hobbiest activity do you think this law would restrict?
I discussed the idea that DRM (Digital Rights Management) imposes what I call a "technical copyright" on a protected work, that is, a copyright that never expires.
No more than printing a copyrighted work in a book imposes a "technical copyright". The book can still be hand copied, at great expense, or scanned in, with some positive loss of data.
This is clearly contrary to what the founding fathers meant when said "limited time" in the Constitution, it circumvents the power of Congress to control the length of copyright protection, and it does nothing to "promote progress of science and the useful arts."
If you read the law, it seems clear that congress is relying on the interstate commerce clause of the constitution, not the copyright clause.
Actually this law would probably be the greatest thing for open source. Now all those people who use gnutella et. al. will be forced to use linux. Old versions of linux will still be able to be sold, and new versions will still be created, in other countries, and anonymously, distributed underground through encrypted internet connections.
3) This would KILL hobbiest efforts (I learned by building computers).
My (admittedly quick) examination of the law couldn't find anything dealing with building computers for hobbiest purposes. In fact, the only restriction is on a "manufacturer, importer, or seller of digital media devices" who "(1) sell[s], or offer for sale, in interstate commerce, or (2) cause[s] to be transported in, or in a manner affecting, interstate commerce" such a device. So a hobbiest likely won't fall under the definition of "manufacturer", and even so, is only breaking the law when s/he sells or gives away the device.
Murdering someone is already a crime, why do we need laws to ban assault rifles?
That's a fine argument for the DMCA (and I'm not particularly opposed to the DMCA any more than any other copyright law), but the CBDTPA proposes to restrict possession of items which merely are capable of being used to commit crimes, rather than ones which are created for the primary purpose of committing crimes.
The other point is that the DMCA does not ban mere possession of certain devices. While the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 does ban mere possession of assault rifles, I would argue that such a ban should be left to the states. It is however arguable that such a ban falls under congressional power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States", whereas the CBDTPA is limited to the scope of "[promoting] the progress of science and the useful arts", and "[regulating] commerce...amoung the several states".
In a related story, congress announced a new copyright extension act, retroactively extending all copyright until 2881. When asked whether the bill would be constitutional, the bill's main proponent responded "The constitution only says that copyright must be 'for limited times'. It says nothing about whether or not humans must still be alive when those limited times expire."
The New York Times can sell a newspaper subscription to someone in Dallas and send them the paper through the mail.
Not if they carry a cartoon (or AP story) and the copyright holder of the cartoon (or AP story) gives them permission to distribute only in New York (this wouldn't restrict others from buying a single copy of the newspaper and reselling it outside New York, but it would restrict others from copying and distributing such a newspaper).
The New York NBC affiliate is prohibited by law from selling access to that same person is dallas and distributing it via satillite.
What law? I was under the impression the satellite company was sued under copyright law.
The New York NBC affiliate is prohibited by law from selling access to that same person is dallas and distributing it via satillite.
The copyright holder of a television show can sell access to anyone anywhere for any reason. The local NBC affiliate doesn't own the copyright on the entire program. They are merely given a non-transferrable license to broadcast that program in those particular areas. That's why the local NBC affiliate isn't allowed to sell access to that program to the satellite company.
NBC (the parent company) is required by law to license rebroadcast of its program to satellite companies, but only for rebroadcast in certain local areas.
If the local TV station didn't want its content shown outside its normal viewing area then just make that a condition of the contract with the sat co.
The local TV station does not have that choice. Even for the content completely created and produced by the local station, they still are at the mercy of the parent company, because they are under contract with that parent company (which can also threaten to revoke licenses and basically put the local station out of business). Even the local news likely contains jingles, logos, etc., both copyrighted and trademarked by the parent company.
If you can show me a particular law banning the copyright holder of a work to restrict broadcast of it's own work, I'll concede. But the law being referred to is more likely U.S Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 119 et. al.
Slashdot Mirror
USC 17, Chapter 1, Section 117(a)(1) has nothing whatsoever to do with backup purposes.
No, my point is that people won't bother.
I don't know. Most people I know already have digital cable. My household is the only one I know of that doesn't have cable at all, and by 2006 I'll have bought an HDTV tuner card for my PC (which is the only place in my house that I watch TV anyway). When Comcast (or whoever) tells my friends and family that they need to change converter boxes (for free), and by the way that their monthly bill is going up by $5, they'll complain, but then they'll do it.
I know I won't bother. Will you?
If the $400 HDTV tuners were only $200 or so, I'd do it. With the little TV I actually watch, I bet nearly 100% of it is available in HDTV. I bet I could get $100 or so on ebay for my all-in-wonder, and the $100 difference, for the greatly increased quality, is well worth it to me.
Stated otherwise, if you write software which allows access to your hard drive (etc) without DRM checking, you are creating a device which substantially circumvents the measure designed to insure that any data which is read is not copyrighted.
It doesn't matter. If the data you read is not copyrighted, or you have permission to circumvent that data, you haven't broken the law.
An example of this under the DMCA is the GBA programming cables which have been detained in custioms as being illegal.
Illegal to import, or distribute, but not illegal to use per se.
I hope you are right about the bill requiring the measures to be open-source.
It's written right in the bill, so I don't think it would be a good argument to use against the bill.
Remember Open-source != GPL.
Thank God. Hopefully the standard created wouldn't have the draconian restriction that anyone creating a derivitive work release the source code to that work.
Twisting arms and telling people what they can and can't buy isn't the way to solve a problem that belongs strictly to the broadcasters and their customers, not us.
Well, the FCC isn't directly forcing anyone to buy or not buy anything. You have every right to buy a non-HDTV television, the FCC won't stop you. But when you raise the antenna and try to get an NTSC signal, you're going to eventually find that there's no such thing still being broadcast.
Personally I say the whole current TV spectrum allocation should be very gradually switched to broadcast IP packets. Allocate a few gigs of it to unencrypted public broadcasting, a few gigs to non-commercial unencrypted broadcasting, a few gigs to a regulated-as-a-public-utility ISP, and sell the rest in no more than 1 year contracts to the highest bidders.
2006 is four years away. Do they really think they will get everyone who has a tv set to switch in four short years, when pretty much nobody has thus far?
No, of course they won't get everyone. Lower income families which can't afford cable television or HDTV sets or computers with HDTV tuner cards won't switch in time. But in a plutocracy it doesn't really matter what the common citizen deals with. Most congresscritters, as well as most of their voting constituents will have digital cable by 2006. And that's all that really matters.
Can microsoft stop someone from implementing the Technical Reference without signing the license agreement? Not unless they have a patent on the technology
Microsoft have indicated in at least one public forum that this is the case. The legalisms are there for the sole purpose of protecting their patent rights.
Then I don't see any problem with it. The GPL says "You can use our intellectual property (copyrighted work) - but if you create a derivitive you can't release it under the Microsoft EULA".
The Microsoft EULA says "You can use our intellectual property (patented process) - but if you create a derivitive you can't release it under the GPL".
To be honest, I think that's pretty funny.
What exactly is the problem the FCC is trying to solve?
The problem is limited bandwidth. The FCC gave the networks extra bandwidth to implement HDTV. The idea was that they'd eventually move completely over to HDTV, and be able to give back their analog bandwidth. That analog spectrum can then be used for new technologies.
If the networks don't want to move over to HDTV, fine, but then they should lose their rights to the additional bandwidth. Of course even that isn't really a possibility, because consumers have already bought $5000 TVs to use those HDTV broadcasts.
What solution would you propose? Should we just let the networks take up the HDTV and the NTSC spectra? Or should we try to free up the NTSC spectra for other uses, such as digital IP multicasting?
Of course, the MS license specifically excludes by name the GNU GPL and LGPL, but it seems to me you could write your own version of the GPL, call it "Fred's GPL" (or whatever), and license under that.
Yes, but you'd likely have to change the license at least in some non-trivial fashion in order for the court to accept it as more than just a name change.
(And if necessary, I'm sure you could get FSF's permission to make a "derivative work" of the GNU GPL in order to create Fred's GPL for this purpose.)
Screw the FSF. I'll copy from their stupid document all I want, and I dare them to sue me for it.
Microsoft is well within their rights under Copyright law here.
No they aren't.
Microsoft may be within their rights here, but if so it's due to patent law, not copyright law.
How can the license be legally binding?
If you are stupid enough to sign and return it, it most certainly is legally binding.
Can microsoft stop someone from implementing the Technical Reference without signing the license agreement? Not unless they have a patent on the technology.
Usually you have to accept the license, because nothing else gives you right to use or copy the software.
Umm, nothing except USC 17, Chapter 1, Section 117
If that's the case, then why do they keep going after people like cancer patients who grow marijuana for their own personal use? Or would that be a state-level thing?
I don't believe the federal government has ever gone after a cancer patient who grows marijuana for eir own personal use.
I don't see any exceptions made for possession without it changing hands. "Possess with intent to manufacture" seems to me to mean to "Have with intent to use". But IANAL and if you can explain why I'm wrong, feel free to do so.
The word manufacture means create, not use. If you possess marijuana seeds with the intent to grow pot, that would be illegal, but if you merely possess marijuana (with some seeds attached) with the intent to smoke, that's not illegal (under federal law).
Regardless, how long do you think it would take before making a device that prevents you from having to buy a movie (i.e., by ripping a DVD rental) and thus 'depriving an author of income', is deemed to affect interstate commerce?
I don't think that will ever happen. But you have to understand that I don't agree with the interpretation of the Supreme Court that wholly intrastate commerce falls under the commerce clause. Personally I support a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that "regulation of wholly intrastate commerce shall not be deemed to be regulation of commerce among the several states". I also support repeal of at least some if not all laws against the non-fraudulent commerce of drugs. I also support the repeal of most if not all copyright law. But as it stands I can only hope to help chip at the law in certain places.
Also, I think it is clear that using such a device on a copyrighted work can be restricted by congress. But that's due to the copyright clause, not the commerce clause.
Lots of people will do exactly that and some of them will make the fruits of their work public, thus drawing the ire of Hollings' friends.
Wait a second now. Making the fruits of your work public does affect interstate commerce. It may be subject to free speech restrictions, but there is some leeway for the government to regulate it.
I figure the CBDTPA is the technological equivalent to the Drug War.
I agree with you completely. But my focus is on how to attack such a law in a way which is most likely to succeed. Personally I think the achilles heel of the CBDTPA is section (3) part (d). Not only is it hopelessly ambiguous, it is technologically impossible. If it were possible and not cost prohibitive to do, trust me, it would already be done.
As soon as devices are produced with copy control, it becomes illegal to interface with that device in a way that doesn't implement the copy control.
No, it is illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title". If you're not accessing a copyrighted work, you're not liable under the DMCA.
If the API for that copy control mechanism is itself controlled (ie, propritary or even just a "non-open" standard) then it becomes illegal to distribute source code to access the device.
The copy control mechanisms are required by law to be open source.
If assault rifles are built primarily for crime, it seems as if people aren't using them as you claim they're primarily intended.
You obviously know much more about assault rifles than I do (I know very little). If it turns out that they have a useful purpose which exceeds their probably use for harm, then I'll agree with you that they shouldn't be banned. But frankly it's not an issue with which I am very concerned. I don't know anyone who has an assault rifle, wants an assault rifle, was ever killed or threatened by an assault rifle, etc. So it's really a waste of my time to get into the nitty gritty of the law.
First to argue the semantics: the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely recognizes our inalienable rights.
Agreed.
Second, in answering your strawman nuclear missle question, it's "keep and bear arms". Arms means weaponry. Nuclear missles are weaponry, so yes, they're included.
How is that a strawman? There is a law against personal possession of nuclear weaponry. You think there shouldn't be. I should add another question: Do you think the right to "freedom of speech" includes the right to yell fire in a crowded building, to enter into fraudulent contracts, to infringe the copyright of others, and to make terroristic threats?
Personally I don't think you can look at the letter of the constitution an apply it exactly. To do so it would contradict itself. The second amendment qualifies that its purpose is to maintain a well regulated militia. I think you have to look to that purpose when you determine whether the right to keep and bear arms is being infringed.
As for the probable response of "But missles are so big and nasty, they only meant weapons one person could carry"
Nope, that is a strawman. The constitution clearly prohibits congress from stopping a state government from allowing a national guardsman to keep and bear a tank, for example.
But honestly, if there was no law banning ownership of nuclear weaponry, would that really matter?
I think it most certainly would. There are a whole lot of people and corporations (remember the constitution has been ruled to apply to them too) that can afford a nuclear weapon. Remember that when you make it illegal the cost will drop tremendously. Hell, given a lack of laws on the matter there are a whole lot of people who could make a nuke. The opportunity to acquire is mainly a question of the law, and sadly I know a lot of people who would have the will to have nuked Afghanistan. Perhaps Afghanistan is a bad example, because the cost to actually launch a nuclear weapon is probably vastly greater than the cost to build one, but there are plenty of crazies out there that would be willing to use them on U.S. targets.
Finally, if it did become a problem, the solution would be a Constitutional amendment saying "no privately owned nukes".
In the mean time the country would likely be destroyed. No, the solution would be to ban nuclear weapons, enforce the ban, and in the mean time try to get a Constitutional Amendment passed. Yep, in the case of arbitrary private citizens owning nukes I say F the constitution.
Please explain how the Bill of Rights are not privileges or immunities.
That one's going to be way too long of a discussion for me right now. Look up "selective incorporation" on google.
Isn't this a wonderful clause? One would think that this means that you simply can't sell across state lines, right? Wrong. By selling to someone in your state, you are affecting commerce in that state which in turn affects commerce with other states.
Yes, sadly, the supreme court has ruled that.
Therefore, everything you do can be considered to affect interstate commerce.
Not everything you do - all commerce.
Merely transporting it in a way that affects interstate commerce is an offense.
I assert that transportation without a change of posession, and without intent to distribute, does not affect interstate commerce, nor would the supreme court rule that it does.
We've already established that everything I do affects interstate commerce
No, you've falsely asserted that everything you do affects interstate commerce.
And before you say "But that's fscking stupid, they'd never do that", they already have. The federal government's control over the War on Drugs is based almost entirely on the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.
Right, and there is no federal law against posession without intent to distribute. Or against intrastate transportation for personal consumption.
If assault rifles are only created to commit crimes
Don't put words in my mouth. Nothing is created only to commit crimes.
Having just finished the Revolutionary War, they wanted to make sure that in the future, if need be, citizens would have the ability to do the same again.
No they didn't. At the time the second amendment was written, the fourteenth wasn't even thought of, let alone construed to incorporate the bill of rights. But let me ask this. Do you believe that the second amendment gives individual citizens the right to keep and bear nuclear missles?
Simply put, states can't make laws that contradict the Bill of Rights.
No, states can't make laws that "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
In any case, when I suggested that a federal ban on the possession of assault rifles may be unconstitutional, I was referring to the 10th amendment, not the 2nd. I don't believe that assault rifles enhance the security of a free state.
How does the hobbyist purchase a microprocessor? Hard disk? Ethernet interface?
This law doesn't prohibit microprocessors, hard disks, or ethernet interfaces, it merely requires that those which are transported as to affect interstate commerce have open source copyright protections. Unless you're a driver manufacturer, you're going to be dealing with APIs which are already written for you. What particular hobbiest activity do you think this law would restrict?
I discussed the idea that DRM (Digital Rights Management) imposes what I call a "technical copyright" on a protected work, that is, a copyright that never expires.
No more than printing a copyrighted work in a book imposes a "technical copyright". The book can still be hand copied, at great expense, or scanned in, with some positive loss of data.
This is clearly contrary to what the founding fathers meant when said "limited time" in the Constitution, it circumvents the power of Congress to control the length of copyright protection, and it does nothing to "promote progress of science and the useful arts."
If you read the law, it seems clear that congress is relying on the interstate commerce clause of the constitution, not the copyright clause.
Actually this law would probably be the greatest thing for open source. Now all those people who use gnutella et. al. will be forced to use linux. Old versions of linux will still be able to be sold, and new versions will still be created, in other countries, and anonymously, distributed underground through encrypted internet connections.
3) This would KILL hobbiest efforts (I learned by building computers).
My (admittedly quick) examination of the law couldn't find anything dealing with building computers for hobbiest purposes. In fact, the only restriction is on a "manufacturer, importer, or seller of digital media devices" who "(1) sell[s], or offer for sale, in interstate commerce, or (2) cause[s] to be transported in, or in a manner affecting, interstate commerce" such a device. So a hobbiest likely won't fall under the definition of "manufacturer", and even so, is only breaking the law when s/he sells or gives away the device.
Murdering someone is already a crime, why do we need laws to ban assault rifles?
That's a fine argument for the DMCA (and I'm not particularly opposed to the DMCA any more than any other copyright law), but the CBDTPA proposes to restrict possession of items which merely are capable of being used to commit crimes, rather than ones which are created for the primary purpose of committing crimes.
The other point is that the DMCA does not ban mere possession of certain devices. While the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 does ban mere possession of assault rifles, I would argue that such a ban should be left to the states. It is however arguable that such a ban falls under congressional power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States", whereas the CBDTPA is limited to the scope of "[promoting] the progress of science and the useful arts", and "[regulating] commerce...amoung the several states".
In a related story, congress announced a new copyright extension act, retroactively extending all copyright until 2881. When asked whether the bill would be constitutional, the bill's main proponent responded "The constitution only says that copyright must be 'for limited times'. It says nothing about whether or not humans must still be alive when those limited times expire."
The New York Times can sell a newspaper subscription to someone in Dallas and send them the paper through the mail.
Not if they carry a cartoon (or AP story) and the copyright holder of the cartoon (or AP story) gives them permission to distribute only in New York (this wouldn't restrict others from buying a single copy of the newspaper and reselling it outside New York, but it would restrict others from copying and distributing such a newspaper).
The New York NBC affiliate is prohibited by law from selling access to that same person is dallas and distributing it via satillite.
What law? I was under the impression the satellite company was sued under copyright law.
The New York NBC affiliate is prohibited by law from selling access to that same person is dallas and distributing it via satillite.
The copyright holder of a television show can sell access to anyone anywhere for any reason. The local NBC affiliate doesn't own the copyright on the entire program. They are merely given a non-transferrable license to broadcast that program in those particular areas. That's why the local NBC affiliate isn't allowed to sell access to that program to the satellite company.
NBC (the parent company) is required by law to license rebroadcast of its program to satellite companies, but only for rebroadcast in certain local areas.
If the local TV station didn't want its content shown outside its normal viewing area then just make that a condition of the contract with the sat co.
The local TV station does not have that choice. Even for the content completely created and produced by the local station, they still are at the mercy of the parent company, because they are under contract with that parent company (which can also threaten to revoke licenses and basically put the local station out of business). Even the local news likely contains jingles, logos, etc., both copyrighted and trademarked by the parent company.
If you can show me a particular law banning the copyright holder of a work to restrict broadcast of it's own work, I'll concede. But the law being referred to is more likely U.S Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 119 et. al.
I think Microsoft is going to sue all of us who say there software is poor.
Truth is a defense to a libel lawsuit.
But what about when you get the "mozilla-syndrome", where updates don't come around as fast as the timebomb interval?
N.B.: The Mozilla build you are using was made more than three weeks ago. If you are going to report bugs, please download and use a newer build.
Umm, yeah, it's more than three weeks old, but it's also the newest version...