The point being that many of these things are handled in a completely subjective manner. If the cop is having a bad day, look out!
Cops don't find people guilty of laws, juries do. "Indecent exposure" is a much different charge from child pornography. To say any more, I'd have to know the specifics of the law and the case. Local jurisdictions have a constitutional right to ban public nudity. The federal government doesn't have that right, and state governments may or may not have that right (depending on their state constitutions).
Now, what if someone else in the neighborhood sees this and gets sexual gratification from it? Are the parents guilty of proliferating child pornography?
No, because the nudity was not depicted for the purpose of sexual gratification.
The law is not a computer program. You can't set definate black and white principles for every single possible scenario. That's why we have judges and juries who determine these issues such as intent. Computer programs can't do that.
Nearly all laws work this way. If you give someone a pencil for the purpose of killing someone, you've committed conspiracy to commit murder. OTOH, if you give someone a pencil for the purpose of writing a note, and they use that pencil to kill someone, you haven't committed a crime at all.
If they know of a site that has child porn on it, why in the hell are they not going after the site instead of just blocking it?
Jurisdiction
But to require ALL ISP's to block sites seems like a band-aid approach to the problem.
You're probably right. But at least this law puts the onus on the government to maintain the list of blocked sites. What's most likely going to happen here is that a small number of major sites outside the U.S. will be blocked, and most will be ignored. Maybe this will help, or maybe it won't, but if it doesn't the government will now see first hand exactly why it is impossible to use this type of blocking technology.
I am a little unclear on the standards of child pornography.
Example. You're doing research on rain jungle aboriginies and there are pictures of children unclothed as they frequently are.
Definition - As used in this section, "prohibited sexual act" means sexual intercourse as defined in section 3101 (relating to definitions), masturbation, sadism, masochism, bestiality, fellatio, cunnilingus, lewd exhibition of the genitals or nudity if such nudity is depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who might view such depiction.
Is the ISP supposed to just carte blanche kill off anything that even resembles child porn?
Please retract knee from jerked position.
NOTHING IN THIS SECTION MAY BE CONSTRUED AS IMPOSING A DUTY ON AN INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER TO ACTIVELY MONITOR ITS SERVICE OR AFFIRMATIVELY SEEK EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY ON ITS SERVICE.
It's really simple. If the government notifies you that you're distributing child pornography, and you don't take it down within 5 business days, you get fined. If you do it three times, you go to jail.
And before you suggest that the bitmap is a derived work, you're right.
Of course I am, but do you know why I'm right? It's not because the bitmap is output of a copyrighted work, because output is not, in itself, a derivitive work.
But the license clearly says Program, not derivative work.
Huh? Where? If the license does not mention derivative works, then you have no right whatsoever to create derivitive works.
A.bmp is not a program by any sane programmer's definition, and therefore doesn't count.
But it is a "Program", by the definition of the GPL:
This License applies to any program
or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".)
If you don't agree to the GPL you can continue to use the software with the usual copyright restrictions: Not to copy it to others, Not to put your name on it.
Not to create derivitive works and copy them across the internet...
So where were we? Oh yeah, you can't use VNC because GNOME is GPL. Well, then simply choose not the accept the GPL license and (according to your interpretation) your rights are "restored".
Ditto with the Windows EULA.
I could understand this misunderstanding if the GPL was wrapped up in legalese like most MS licences, but it isn't. It's an easy read for most adults.
The GPL can't be understood at all without reading title 17 of the U.S. Code, and that most certainly is not an easy read for most adults. Even after reading title 17 and the GPL you still can't completely understand it, without also knowing how courts have interpreted these documents. And since courts haven't interpreted the GPL, it's actually impossible to understand exactly what it means legally.
To my knowledge, the same could be said of the Windows EULA. I don't know of any
In that case ANY non-Microsoft tool such as pcAnywhere would be illegal.
Barring fair use exceptions, it is. You took me out of context by not including my line about fair use.
Better yet, viewing copyrighted material in a web browser would be illegal even if you had hte right to read it cause it was being 'copied' to your desktop (say in cache)
Fair use, and implicit license.
Thats insane.
Yep, when you ignore fair use you get insane results, like "Microsoft XP License Prohibits VNC".
they are yours to do with as you please unless you were specificially forbidden from doing it by the license of the creator
Wrong. That's not how copyright works. When a bitmap is created (for instance the foot icon of gnome), it is automatically copyrighted. Without permission from the copyright holder, you do not have permission to copy that work. Copyright law is not opt-in. In the absence of a license to copy, you have no right to copy.
Since the screenshot isn't of the GNOME source, it's not covered by the GPL.
The screenshot contains copyrighted icons. If those icons are not covered by the GPL, then you have no right to copy them.
The GPL only mandates that you release source to people whom you have given binaries, and that only if they requested it
Wrong. "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License". The GPL does not expressly allow you to copy bitmaps, so you are not specifically forbidden from copying them.
If you do not release the source, you must "Accompany [the derivitive work] with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code" [empasis mine].
Even putting aside the question of whether ANY clickwrap EULA license is valid, I don't think users should be afraid of enforcement of this.
In reality, yes, but legally, I think it is possible. Microsoft does not need to rely on the EULA. By copying bitmaps of Microsoft icons, you are violating copyright law. Now you very well may have a fair use defense, if you are using VNC for non-profit purposes, but if you are using VNC for profit purposes, you might be liable (the same could be said of many EULAs, including the GPL).
Screenshots are derived works (they contain copyrighted bitmaps). Under the GPL you cannot copy derived works without distributing the source code to those derived works. Therefore you cannot use VNC with Gnome (for example) without sending the source code of Gnome (or a written offer) to the receiving computer.
But I would argue that javascript downloaded from Joe Random's geocities page is not trusted code
That's what "View Source" is for, if you're really that paranoid. Then again, if you're that paranoid you haven't turned off "Warn me before submitting information to a third party site" anyway. It's easy to check and make sure nothing is being submitted. To check the algorithm, just check the output against a "trusted" md5 algorithm, or only use the javascript version to log into old sites, and create new passwords from your home computer. Personally I've copied the source onto my own private server, but that's mainly because I wanted to change the "text" field into a "password" one. I also have a copy of the javascript page on my PDA. But unlike most PDA password savers, there's nothing to lose if my batteries happen to run out, if my PDA gets stolen, or if I just happen to not have my PDA with me at the time. Because I know that I'll never lose my password, I can set my "password reminder" question/answer to gobbledygook, and eliminate that particular security hole altogether.
Finally, remember the alternative. This person was using 3 passwords for all of his online accounts.
You can get at least a little bit more secure by using MD5. Pick a master password - a really good master password. Something relatively long, that you've never used before. Something that you'll never forget. Now, find a javascript MD5 site. here's one. Type your master password in, and then type in the name of the site (all into the "Enter your message:"). Hit "run MD5". There's your password. Use the first 8 characters, or the last 8 characters, or something like that. The two advantages of this solution is that 1) you only have to memorize one password and 2) no one has your master password except you (and anyone looking over your shoulder). I wouldn't suggest using this technique for your really important passwords, but it's good enough for the medium important ones.
Yes, absolutely, that's the whole point. Apparently this judge has ruled that email satisfies the legal requirements of "in writing" - which is the way it should be.
Perhaps the judge wouldn't feel so certain of the ruling if someone had sent a nastygram from his email addr, with his name typewritten to prez@whitehouse.gov
No, according to the story the home seller is not disputing the fact that he was the one who actually sent the email.
But, on the other hand, you are paying for a right to store whatever you want on there (mainly copyrighted music).
This would be fine (and I'd support the tax) if there was an AHRA-ish clause exempting users of this media from copyright infringement suits. But I looked at the proposal, and I couldn't find such a clause.
Legalized napster for 13 USD/gig (storage, not download space)? I'd take it in a second.
The right to privacy is not mentioned directly in the constitution, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the combination of several ammendments, including the 4th ammendment, creates this right. Of course, this particular law is not about privacy, it's about free speech.
The only media taxed is media "that is intended for use primarily to record and play music". So if Apple wants to avoid the tax on the iPod, for instance, all they have to do is remove all the anti-circumvention software which disallows use of the iPod for non-music storage.
Slashdot Mirror
The point being that many of these things are handled in a completely subjective manner. If the cop is having a bad day, look out!
Cops don't find people guilty of laws, juries do. "Indecent exposure" is a much different charge from child pornography. To say any more, I'd have to know the specifics of the law and the case. Local jurisdictions have a constitutional right to ban public nudity. The federal government doesn't have that right, and state governments may or may not have that right (depending on their state constitutions).
Now, what if someone else in the neighborhood sees this and gets sexual gratification from it? Are the parents guilty of proliferating child pornography?
No, because the nudity was not depicted for the purpose of sexual gratification.
The law is not a computer program. You can't set definate black and white principles for every single possible scenario. That's why we have judges and juries who determine these issues such as intent. Computer programs can't do that.
Nearly all laws work this way. If you give someone a pencil for the purpose of killing someone, you've committed conspiracy to commit murder. OTOH, if you give someone a pencil for the purpose of writing a note, and they use that pencil to kill someone, you haven't committed a crime at all.
If they know of a site that has child porn on it, why in the hell are they not going after the site instead of just blocking it?
Jurisdiction
But to require ALL ISP's to block sites seems like a band-aid approach to the problem.
You're probably right. But at least this law puts the onus on the government to maintain the list of blocked sites. What's most likely going to happen here is that a small number of major sites outside the U.S. will be blocked, and most will be ignored. Maybe this will help, or maybe it won't, but if it doesn't the government will now see first hand exactly why it is impossible to use this type of blocking technology.
I am a little unclear on the standards of child pornography.
Example. You're doing research on rain jungle aboriginies and there are pictures of children unclothed as they frequently are.
Is the ISP supposed to just carte blanche kill off anything that even resembles child porn?
Please retract knee from jerked position.
It's really simple. If the government notifies you that you're distributing child pornography, and you don't take it down within 5 business days, you get fined. If you do it three times, you go to jail.
A .bmp does _not_ contain source code, which is what the program is comprised of.
Copyright applies to more than just source code. It also applies to graphics.
If you are insistent on considering a .bmp a section of source code
Copyright applies to more than just source code. It also applies to graphics.
And before you suggest that the bitmap is a derived work, you're right.
Of course I am, but do you know why I'm right? It's not because the bitmap is output of a copyrighted work, because output is not, in itself, a derivitive work.
But the license clearly says Program, not derivative work.
Huh? Where? If the license does not mention derivative works, then you have no right whatsoever to create derivitive works.
A .bmp is not a program by any sane programmer's definition, and therefore doesn't count.
But it is a "Program", by the definition of the GPL:
If you don't agree to the GPL you can continue to use the software with the usual copyright restrictions: Not to copy it to others, Not to put your name on it.
Not to create derivitive works and copy them across the internet...
So where were we? Oh yeah, you can't use VNC because GNOME is GPL. Well, then simply choose not the accept the GPL license and (according to your interpretation) your rights are "restored".
Ditto with the Windows EULA.
I could understand this misunderstanding if the GPL was wrapped up in legalese like most MS licences, but it isn't. It's an easy read for most adults.
The GPL can't be understood at all without reading title 17 of the U.S. Code, and that most certainly is not an easy read for most adults. Even after reading title 17 and the GPL you still can't completely understand it, without also knowing how courts have interpreted these documents. And since courts haven't interpreted the GPL, it's actually impossible to understand exactly what it means legally.
To my knowledge, the same could be said of the Windows EULA. I don't know of any
Being able to defend yourself would be rather easy since what you are doing here is "remote viewing" also known as "television".
Last time I checked it was illegal to transmit television over the internet.
In that case ANY non-Microsoft tool such as pcAnywhere would be illegal.
Barring fair use exceptions, it is. You took me out of context by not including my line about fair use.
Better yet, viewing copyrighted material in a web browser would be illegal even if you had hte right to read it cause it was being 'copied' to your desktop (say in cache)
Fair use, and implicit license.
Thats insane.
Yep, when you ignore fair use you get insane results, like "Microsoft XP License Prohibits VNC".
they are yours to do with as you please unless you were specificially forbidden from doing it by the license of the creator
Wrong. That's not how copyright works. When a bitmap is created (for instance the foot icon of gnome), it is automatically copyrighted. Without permission from the copyright holder, you do not have permission to copy that work. Copyright law is not opt-in. In the absence of a license to copy, you have no right to copy.
Since the screenshot isn't of the GNOME source, it's not covered by the GPL.
The screenshot contains copyrighted icons. If those icons are not covered by the GPL, then you have no right to copy them.
The GPL only mandates that you release source to people whom you have given binaries, and that only if they requested it
Wrong. "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License". The GPL does not expressly allow you to copy bitmaps, so you are not specifically forbidden from copying them.
If you do not release the source, you must "Accompany [the derivitive work] with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code" [empasis mine].
Even putting aside the question of whether ANY clickwrap EULA license is valid, I don't think users should be afraid of enforcement of this.
In reality, yes, but legally, I think it is possible. Microsoft does not need to rely on the EULA. By copying bitmaps of Microsoft icons, you are violating copyright law. Now you very well may have a fair use defense, if you are using VNC for non-profit purposes, but if you are using VNC for profit purposes, you might be liable (the same could be said of many EULAs, including the GPL).
Screenshots are derived works (they contain copyrighted bitmaps). Under the GPL you cannot copy derived works without distributing the source code to those derived works. Therefore you cannot use VNC with Gnome (for example) without sending the source code of Gnome (or a written offer) to the receiving computer.
But I would argue that javascript downloaded from Joe Random's geocities page is not trusted code
That's what "View Source" is for, if you're really that paranoid. Then again, if you're that paranoid you haven't turned off "Warn me before submitting information to a third party site" anyway. It's easy to check and make sure nothing is being submitted. To check the algorithm, just check the output against a "trusted" md5 algorithm, or only use the javascript version to log into old sites, and create new passwords from your home computer. Personally I've copied the source onto my own private server, but that's mainly because I wanted to change the "text" field into a "password" one. I also have a copy of the javascript page on my PDA. But unlike most PDA password savers, there's nothing to lose if my batteries happen to run out, if my PDA gets stolen, or if I just happen to not have my PDA with me at the time. Because I know that I'll never lose my password, I can set my "password reminder" question/answer to gobbledygook, and eliminate that particular security hole altogether.
Finally, remember the alternative. This person was using 3 passwords for all of his online accounts.
Um, yeah, no one except the random geocities site you just submitted it to.
JAVASCRIPT
You never submitted anything. Your crypto was done with trusted tools on a trusted OS on trusted hardware.
Change the license. When someone sues, you've found them.
You can get at least a little bit more secure by using MD5. Pick a master password - a really good master password. Something relatively long, that you've never used before. Something that you'll never forget. Now, find a javascript MD5 site. here's one. Type your master password in, and then type in the name of the site (all into the "Enter your message:"). Hit "run MD5". There's your password. Use the first 8 characters, or the last 8 characters, or something like that. The two advantages of this solution is that 1) you only have to memorize one password and 2) no one has your master password except you (and anyone looking over your shoulder). I wouldn't suggest using this technique for your really important passwords, but it's good enough for the medium important ones.
Yes, absolutely, that's the whole point. Apparently this judge has ruled that email satisfies the legal requirements of "in writing" - which is the way it should be.
Instead of "Click here to agree to the Microsoft EULA", I guess we'll start seeing "Type your full name here to agree to the Microsoft EULA".
IANAL, but I always thought any agreement could be enforced, whether it was in writing or not.
Most agreements, but not all. Real estate contracts generally are required by law to be in writing.
Perhaps the judge wouldn't feel so certain of the ruling if someone had sent a nastygram from his email addr, with his name typewritten to prez@whitehouse.gov
No, according to the story the home seller is not disputing the fact that he was the one who actually sent the email.
But, on the other hand, you are paying for a right to store whatever you want on there (mainly copyrighted music).
This would be fine (and I'd support the tax) if there was an AHRA-ish clause exempting users of this media from copyright infringement suits. But I looked at the proposal, and I couldn't find such a clause.
Legalized napster for 13 USD/gig (storage, not download space)? I'd take it in a second.
My question was how can the explorer warn the user (visually) that the file they're double-clicking is an executable.
The right to privacy is not mentioned directly in the constitution, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the combination of several ammendments, including the 4th ammendment, creates this right. Of course, this particular law is not about privacy, it's about free speech.
The only media taxed is media "that is intended for use primarily to record and play music". So if Apple wants to avoid the tax on the iPod, for instance, all they have to do is remove all the anti-circumvention software which disallows use of the iPod for non-music storage.
I hope any changes that happen to the file system also include the removal of the antiquated concept of file extensions for type association.
Then how do you warn people about executing "ILOVEYOU.mp3"?