They don't need to actually circumvent a protection scheme. All thet need to do is provide information that makes it possible and that information cas be consided a circumvention device or whatever it was that HP was going to sue under the DMCA over.
You don't understand. I agree that the DMCA is a bad law. Skyralov did nothing wrong (unless you assume that breaking a technicality of a foreign law is in itself evil). But it doesn't
apply in this case.
Read your own post.
Skyralov did nothing wrong (in Russia), yet he was still prosecuted under the DMCA. How these other people safe? The DMCA applies, because security flaws in a system are being discussed. They are trying to protect themselves from what happened to Skyralov.
Except that posting the fix itself (with source) makes it possible for you to examine the new vs old code and figure out what the security flaws are. This means that even the patch itsel;f gives you information about how to break into an unpatched system. Thus, even posting the fix could be a violation of the DMCA.
What a stupid law.
Don't complain my ass!
And exactly how am I going to get anything changed without complaining?
And there's a big difference between my elected representatives actually listening to me and just pretending to.
As a citizen of the US it's my constitutional right to complain. Especially given the election rigging that's been going on lately.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin It's really idiotic to think that the only time we should talk about the gripes we have with our gov't is right before election day.
They should know that we're keeping an eye on what they're doing every day.
You're just wrong. As long as someone somewhere could possibly decide to use Linux file permissions as a copy protection scheme, then describing any way in which these permissions could be circumvented is illegal.
This law is not limited to things that are only used as a copy protection scheme, and has already been used against programs with legitimate uses (Ex: DeCSS).
I don't think you understand just how over-reaching this law is.
Any quick tips?
I run a course website or two on basically no budget.
I was just thinking about all this yesterday so I made sure all my pages were valid HTML and all the images had alt tags. Any quick tips? (The site has no forms)
I believe the mean "touched" as in affected. That seems to be they way the media usually uses this term. For instance: "This tradgedy has touched the lives of many."
The GPL is binding because it gives you rights beyond normal copyright law (redistribution, etc). If you don't agree to the GPL you can still use the software, but you only have the rights granted by normal copyright. Most other EULAs demand that you agree to them so that you have the rights that would normally be granted by copyright. This is in contradiction to the doctrine of first sale, and a few other legal norms. The GPL is not. If ANY EULA is binding it would be the GPL. This issue has really been discussed to death on slashdot already, just search around and you'll understand eventually.
Come on now. Some guy choosing to sit in front of a computer until he dies should not be compared to organized murder.
The atrocities committed by both sides in the middle east are truely tragic ongoing events.
See my other post for some enlightenment about this 'nobody has any compassion' thing.
Tragic problems arise when religous types think that because others do not believe as they do they are sub-human, emotionless animals, etc. Look to the tradgedies in the whole Isreal/Palestine conflict for an example. If you really want to make the most of your life try to understand others. Try to accept that others may view life differently and that those people are not necessarily bad. Try to promote understanding instead of jumping to conlusions and judging people.
For example: If you choose not to do all those things you listed in you post, fine. I don't consider you a lesser human being because of it. If I choose to drink and get laid, I should not be labeled an infidel. People who don't do certain things because they think it makes them a better human being don't usually brag about it. The people who brag are the ones who think not doing these things somehow makes them better than other people.
I'm not trying to accuse you of this specfically, but your statements about abstinance from whatever don't really tie into this discussion. And your assumption that we have no compassion doesn't make you look good either.
Some people don't believe that every death is a tradgedy. And no, that doesn't mean they don't care about anyone.
Everyone doesn't have to have the same philsophy as you. Show a little respect living by not berating those who don't share you view.
If I died playing videogames, I would expect and want people to joke about it. If there is an afterlife, you can bet I'd be laughing too.
Death happens. Get over it. No one tied him to the computer. Jokes are funny. They lighten our mood and help us deal with the lousier shit in life.
If everytime something lousy happend I couldn't joke about it, life would be even more lousy.
I've had my grades affected by lots of things. I accept that and take responsibility for doing those things. If I forgot about all my classes and just played games all day, I would fail out of school. I wouldn't be able to work as an engineer, but then I wouldn't be a resposible enough person to make important decisions anyway.
I don't really consider the way he died "pathetic". I think it's kinda funny and also kinda cool. It sure would beat dying of hunger or a belly wound. Hey, at least he died doing something he loved:)
Joking about death doesn't mean you don't give a shit whether people live or die. Being unable to handle jokes about death, suggests that they and therefore death itself makes you uncomfortable. Death is coming for you. There's nothing you can do to stop it. If you think that's sad, ok. Just don't try and act like that puts you on some sort of moral highground. People deal with death in different ways.
I'm not saying that death is great, just that people comfortable/uncomforable enough with the idea to joke about it, aren't necessarily uncaring, and that perhaps every death isn't tragic.
The Newton failed becuase it sucked, not because it was first.
The handwriting recognition was incredibly bad.
The handwriting recognition was basically unusable. I know, I have one of the original models. From what I hear people say online, the later models were much better. I guess they just couldn't recover their image after nelson made fun of them on The Simpsons:)
A friend of mine has a Tivo and aboslutely loves it. There's a big difference from being the first one to put out a shitty product and being to first one to put out a product that gets rave reviews from its owners.
Re:of course 15 coders makes for less bugs
on
Open Source Studies
·
· Score: 1
So you didn't make any generalizations?
Have you never heard anyone say "turnabout is fair play."
Do you really think that no one uses Apache?
Really why do you bother posting crap like this?
All your posts on this article seem to be a bunch of anti-open source B.S. and FUD.
Re:of course 15 coders makes for less bugs
on
Open Source Studies
·
· Score: 1
Not much of a rebuttal. He made silly generalizations. I slammed them.
I don't think that spin thing is true.
I think some people may have been successful getting normal PC DVD ROMS to work in an xbox (not sure though)
Re:of course 15 coders makes for less bugs
on
Open Source Studies
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, becuase no code resuse happens in the linux world.
Every heard of a library? Look into it. They exist on just about every OS. You'll find that they're used quite extensively on linux.
And what does the silly FUD about KDE and Gnome have to do with any of this? OMFG you a a choice about your desktop on linux! Do gas pumps with multiple nozzles freak you out too? Pepsi and Coke? Obsviously cola is in a sad state of affairs, because there is no standard brand, or standard container. Not to mention all these new drinks coming out. Some people like them, some don't....obviously the softdrink industy has entered some sort of death spiral.
I'd still snely object for a ton of reasons but I think I only need to give one:
Even if we could trust the gov't, what's to say no one else is going to figure out how to track our every move using the implants?
It appears that laser jamming of optical devices has some very interesting legal ambiguities.
Consider this situation:
My neighbor goes out and buys and X10 camera and puts it on the front of his house. My house is directly across the street. I don't want a camera contiuously looking at me so I buy a $10 tripod and a $10 laser pointer, and aim it right at his camera. I leave it on continuously, making the camera worthless.
Is this legal or is one of us doing something illegal? I'm sending unauthorized photons onto his propoerty. He's recieving photons from my property without authorization. Neither one seems to be explicitly ilegal.
Seems like a couple lawyers could have a lot of fun with this one. What who you do if you were either the neighbor or myself? What is instead of being a neighbor's camera it was a camera at a local park, across the street?
Of couse, in reality, they'd probably think the camera was broken, replace it a few times, and then give up.
Not in all situations.
I'm pretty damn sure it would be illegal to hang a parabolic microphone out your window pointed into someone else's window and record what goes on in their house.
It's probably a pretty safe bet that putting a camera in a public shower would be illegal too.
Besides the whole point of this article is that, while it is legal to put a carmera in public, it may also be legal to foil that camera.
By going out in public, I accept that others may see and record what I'm doing, but that doesn't mean I have to make it easy for them. If you don't want to be seen don't stand up from behind the bush. Please. Spend a week without going out in public and tell me how it works out. If I don't want to be seen, I get to do whatever I want (within the bounds of the law) to not be seen. If I don't want you recoding my voice, I can carry around a white noise generator or something. If you don't like that, too bad.
While reading the posts here I began to wonder something? Is it possible to demand prosecution for a crime?
I suppose technically it isn't, but practically, it probably is. If you do something in front of a police station and tell them it's illegal, I don't think they can really resfuse to prosecute you. This makes me think of a pretty winnable (IANAL) DMCA case: Joe sixpack gets a linux laptop, and uses DeCSS to watch a DVD on the step of his local police headquarters. He tells the first cop that goes by, and if they don't do anything, at the end of the movie, he goes inside and turns himself in.
It's pretty obvious that legal defense and a fair amount of publicity should be arranged before pulling this stunt, but if he's got a reciept for the DVD and lots of witnesses, the case will have to focus on the DMCA. I suppose judges can be hardasses sometimes, but who's going to send this guy to jail for watching his own DVD? But the judge won't have that much of a choice but to convict him, since the law is pretty clear that DeCSS is a circumvention device, but this sure seems like a case that could be appealed to the sureme court and won.
A case like this might just be able to demonstrate to the ridiculousness of the DMCA.
Their case could be made using very simple arguments the would be hard for the MPAA to prove wrong:
He legally purchased the DVD
The use of DeCSS or a similar decoding program is required to watch a DVD.
He should be able to use DeCSS for the non-infringing purpose of watching his DVD.
The DMCA interferes with his rights under copyright law.
The only point it seems the MPAA could argue with is #3. They might try to argue that he should just use another method to view DVDs, that DeCSS is not necessary, because alternatives exist (although not on linux).
But I think point #3 would probably be very defendable. One could argue that the combination of the DMCA and the DVDCCA creates a situation where fair use rights can be/are elimated. If a situation exists where an orgainzation can dictate what you can and can't do with your DVD then the rights given to a purchased of copyrighted media have basically been elimated. An industry group could decide that you may only view each DVD you buy once (or for 1 minute for that matter) and defeating their copy protecting would be a violation of the DMCA. Since DVDs are straight-up purchased, no EULAs, no rental agreements, this puts the DMCA in direct conflict with the doctrine of first sale.
So what do you guys think? Is it do-able? Could this (using a guy with a nice clean background and a lot fo money) topple the DMCA?
I just bought a DVD player (lasonic band) that is barely even listed on the manufacturer's website (which sucks horribly) but it's still a pretty good dvd player (progressive scan, dolby digital decoder).
The problem arises when the manufactuer's website is the only place to see the thing, but if that's not the case or if they fix up their site by the time they actually have something to sell, it should be all good.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't need to actually circumvent a protection scheme. All thet need to do is provide information that makes it possible and that information cas be consided a circumvention device or whatever it was that HP was going to sue under the DMCA over.
You don't understand. I agree that the DMCA is a bad law. Skyralov did nothing wrong (unless you assume that breaking a technicality of a foreign law is in itself evil). But it doesn't apply in this case.
Read your own post.
Skyralov did nothing wrong (in Russia), yet he was still prosecuted under the DMCA. How these other people safe? The DMCA applies, because security flaws in a system are being discussed. They are trying to protect themselves from what happened to Skyralov.
Except that posting the fix itself (with source) makes it possible for you to examine the new vs old code and figure out what the security flaws are. This means that even the patch itsel;f gives you information about how to break into an unpatched system. Thus, even posting the fix could be a violation of the DMCA.
What a stupid law.
Don't complain my ass!
And exactly how am I going to get anything changed without complaining?
And there's a big difference between my elected representatives actually listening to me and just pretending to.
As a citizen of the US it's my constitutional right to complain. Especially given the election rigging that's been going on lately.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
It's really idiotic to think that the only time we should talk about the gripes we have with our gov't is right before election day.
They should know that we're keeping an eye on what they're doing every day.
You're just wrong.
As long as someone somewhere could possibly decide to use Linux file permissions as a copy protection scheme, then describing any way in which these permissions could be circumvented is illegal.
This law is not limited to things that are only used as a copy protection scheme, and has already been used against programs with legitimate uses (Ex: DeCSS).
I don't think you understand just how over-reaching this law is.
Any quick tips?
I run a course website or two on basically no budget.
I was just thinking about all this yesterday so I made sure all my pages were valid HTML and all the images had alt tags. Any quick tips? (The site has no forms)
I believe the mean "touched" as in affected. That seems to be they way the media usually uses this term. For instance: "This tradgedy has touched the lives of many."
The GPL is binding because it gives you rights beyond normal copyright law (redistribution, etc). If you don't agree to the GPL you can still use the software, but you only have the rights granted by normal copyright.
Most other EULAs demand that you agree to them so that you have the rights that would normally be granted by copyright. This is in contradiction to the doctrine of first sale, and a few other legal norms. The GPL is not. If ANY EULA is binding it would be the GPL. This issue has really been discussed to death on slashdot already, just search around and you'll understand eventually.
Come on now. Some guy choosing to sit in front of a computer until he dies should not be compared to organized murder.
The atrocities committed by both sides in the middle east are truely tragic ongoing events.
See my other post for some enlightenment about this 'nobody has any compassion' thing.
Tragic problems arise when religous types think that because others do not believe as they do they are sub-human, emotionless animals, etc. Look to the tradgedies in the whole Isreal/Palestine conflict for an example.
If you really want to make the most of your life try to understand others. Try to accept that others may view life differently and that those people are not necessarily bad. Try to promote understanding instead of jumping to conlusions and judging people.
For example: If you choose not to do all those things you listed in you post, fine. I don't consider you a lesser human being because of it. If I choose to drink and get laid, I should not be labeled an infidel. People who don't do certain things because they think it makes them a better human being don't usually brag about it. The people who brag are the ones who think not doing these things somehow makes them better than other people.
I'm not trying to accuse you of this specfically, but your statements about abstinance from whatever don't really tie into this discussion. And your assumption that we have no compassion doesn't make you look good either.
Some people don't believe that every death is a tradgedy. And no, that doesn't mean they don't care about anyone.
Everyone doesn't have to have the same philsophy as you. Show a little respect living by not berating those who don't share you view.
If I died playing videogames, I would expect and want people to joke about it. If there is an afterlife, you can bet I'd be laughing too.
Death happens. Get over it. No one tied him to the computer. :)
Jokes are funny. They lighten our mood and help us deal with the lousier shit in life.
If everytime something lousy happend I couldn't joke about it, life would be even more lousy.
I've had my grades affected by lots of things. I accept that and take responsibility for doing those things. If I forgot about all my classes and just played games all day, I would fail out of school. I wouldn't be able to work as an engineer, but then I wouldn't be a resposible enough person to make important decisions anyway.
I don't really consider the way he died "pathetic". I think it's kinda funny and also kinda cool. It sure would beat dying of hunger or a belly wound.
Hey, at least he died doing something he loved
Joking about death doesn't mean you don't give a shit whether people live or die. Being unable to handle jokes about death, suggests that they and therefore death itself makes you uncomfortable. Death is coming for you. There's nothing you can do to stop it. If you think that's sad, ok. Just don't try and act like that puts you on some sort of moral highground. People deal with death in different ways.
I'm not saying that death is great, just that people comfortable/uncomforable enough with the idea to joke about it, aren't necessarily uncaring, and that perhaps every death isn't tragic.
I just found this link: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_383454.html
Game over man!
The Newton failed becuase it sucked, not because it was first. :)
The handwriting recognition was incredibly bad.
The handwriting recognition was basically unusable. I know, I have one of the original models. From what I hear people say online, the later models were much better. I guess they just couldn't recover their image after nelson made fun of them on The Simpsons
A friend of mine has a Tivo and aboslutely loves it. There's a big difference from being the first one to put out a shitty product and being to first one to put out a product that gets rave reviews from its owners.
Who wants to bet Bill Gates is on a plane right now to go give them some "free" software?
So you didn't make any generalizations?
Have you never heard anyone say "turnabout is fair play."
Do you really think that no one uses Apache?
Really why do you bother posting crap like this?
All your posts on this article seem to be a bunch of anti-open source B.S. and FUD.
Not much of a rebuttal. He made silly generalizations. I slammed them.
I don't think that spin thing is true.
I think some people may have been successful getting normal PC DVD ROMS to work in an xbox (not sure though)
Yeah, becuase no code resuse happens in the linux world.
Every heard of a library? Look into it. They exist on just about every OS. You'll find that they're used quite extensively on linux.
And what does the silly FUD about KDE and Gnome have to do with any of this? OMFG you a a choice about your desktop on linux! Do gas pumps with multiple nozzles freak you out too? Pepsi and Coke? Obsviously cola is in a sad state of affairs, because there is no standard brand, or standard container. Not to mention all these new drinks coming out. Some people like them, some don't....obviously the softdrink industy has entered some sort of death spiral.
I'd still snely object for a ton of reasons but I think I only need to give one: Even if we could trust the gov't, what's to say no one else is going to figure out how to track our every move using the implants?
It appears that laser jamming of optical devices has some very interesting legal ambiguities.
Consider this situation:
My neighbor goes out and buys and X10 camera and puts it on the front of his house. My house is directly across the street. I don't want a camera contiuously looking at me so I buy a $10 tripod and a $10 laser pointer, and aim it right at his camera. I leave it on continuously, making the camera worthless.
Is this legal or is one of us doing something illegal? I'm sending unauthorized photons onto his propoerty. He's recieving photons from my property without authorization. Neither one seems to be explicitly ilegal.
Seems like a couple lawyers could have a lot of fun with this one. What who you do if you were either the neighbor or myself? What is instead of being a neighbor's camera it was a camera at a local park, across the street?
Of couse, in reality, they'd probably think the camera was broken, replace it a few times, and then give up.
Not in all situations.
I'm pretty damn sure it would be illegal to hang a parabolic microphone out your window pointed into someone else's window and record what goes on in their house.
It's probably a pretty safe bet that putting a camera in a public shower would be illegal too.
Besides the whole point of this article is that, while it is legal to put a carmera in public, it may also be legal to foil that camera.
By going out in public, I accept that others may see and record what I'm doing, but that doesn't mean I have to make it easy for them.
If you don't want to be seen don't stand up from behind the bush.
Please. Spend a week without going out in public and tell me how it works out. If I don't want to be seen, I get to do whatever I want (within the bounds of the law) to not be seen. If I don't want you recoding my voice, I can carry around a white noise generator or something. If you don't like that, too bad.
Woah! I didn't eve n know I had this installed on my machine. :)
Damn redhat's menu's suck.
I am now very amused
I suppose technically it isn't, but practically, it probably is. If you do something in front of a police station and tell them it's illegal, I don't think they can really resfuse to prosecute you.
This makes me think of a pretty winnable (IANAL) DMCA case:
Joe sixpack gets a linux laptop, and uses DeCSS to watch a DVD on the step of his local police headquarters. He tells the first cop that goes by, and if they don't do anything, at the end of the movie, he goes inside and turns himself in.
It's pretty obvious that legal defense and a fair amount of publicity should be arranged before pulling this stunt, but if he's got a reciept for the DVD and lots of witnesses, the case will have to focus on the DMCA. I suppose judges can be hardasses sometimes, but who's going to send this guy to jail for watching his own DVD? But the judge won't have that much of a choice but to convict him, since the law is pretty clear that DeCSS is a circumvention device, but this sure seems like a case that could be appealed to the sureme court and won.
A case like this might just be able to demonstrate to the ridiculousness of the DMCA.
Their case could be made using very simple arguments the would be hard for the MPAA to prove wrong:
The only point it seems the MPAA could argue with is #3. They might try to argue that he should just use another method to view DVDs, that DeCSS is not necessary, because alternatives exist (although not on linux).
But I think point #3 would probably be very defendable. One could argue that the combination of the DMCA and the DVDCCA creates a situation where fair use rights can be/are elimated. If a situation exists where an orgainzation can dictate what you can and can't do with your DVD then the rights given to a purchased of copyrighted media have basically been elimated. An industry group could decide that you may only view each DVD you buy once (or for 1 minute for that matter) and defeating their copy protecting would be a violation of the DMCA. Since DVDs are straight-up purchased, no EULAs, no rental agreements, this puts the DMCA in direct conflict with the doctrine of first sale.
So what do you guys think? Is it do-able? Could this (using a guy with a nice clean background and a lot fo money) topple the DMCA?
I just bought a DVD player (lasonic band) that is barely even listed on the manufacturer's website (which sucks horribly) but it's still a pretty good dvd player (progressive scan, dolby digital decoder).
The problem arises when the manufactuer's website is the only place to see the thing, but if that's not the case or if they fix up their site by the time they actually have something to sell, it should be all good.