It's even legally risky to make such a program and not use it, and use such a program you neither made nor got. So making one you've used yourself wouldn't help.
However, the authors have one big defence here: the program is obviously intended to not be used to enable piracy, at least by itself. Leaving the ID of the purchaser in there essentially precludes distribution of any files that have not been processed further. Such an argument could concievably significantly help in a defence.
That's all well and good. I'm not saying that the TOS wouldn't be struck down in court. I'm just saying that, in the present discussion, your post is a red herring. Read what you quoted sec. 107 in response to:
By purchasing songs from the iTMS you have contractually agreed NOT to bypass their DRM system in anyway other than those provided (ie burning to cd and re-ripping). Any other means, such as this is a violation of said contract and you are liable for any and all damages, regardless of if they are actual (ie 10,000 people didn't buy a CD because they got the song from you instead) or imaginary (ie they think 10,000 didn't buy a CD because they had the remote ability to get the song from you).
Where does the above say anything about copyright law? Your response to me would have been an appropriate reply, but fair use, as I said, doesn't belong in the discussion, at least until you've dispensed with the TOS discussion. (And quoting the law would probably still be overkill at that point.)
The claim that this is not a legal method is not based off of copyright law and whether you are infringing there, it is based off of the agreement you... agree to when you buy music from iTunes. d34thm0nk3y hit it right in his post in that the question whether this is leagal lay in whether the terms of service are enforcable and whether violating them would be illegal.
This site purports to give an overview. I don't know much of anything about quantum physics, so I can't really summarize it. I didn't really even read it, though it looks okay.;-)
The problem with just doing that is it's a temporary solution. Once quantum computers are out, RSA encryption becomes worthless. So you have to find something else. Then when technology catches up, find something else.
Quantum cryptography, assuming a good implementation, theoretically unbreakable. (And I don't mean "theoretically" in the sense that it's often used, like "theoretically yes, that's true, but practically, that's false"; I mean it in the sense that our current theories of physics entail that it is unbreakable.)
The US even spies on it's own citizens. There was a bit of a scandal in the 1970s I believe about the CIA being caught at this, which is in strict violation of its charter.
(In fact, I believe the investigative reporter who broke this story was Seymour Hersh, the author of the article in the latest turn of events concerning Abu Ghraib, alleging that Rumsfeld effectively approved the abuses personally.)
I was trying to get Wine to work a while ago, and asked one of my friends "What do you know about Wine", who proceeded to launch into a discussion about how he hates the taste.
I think the poster is referring to the amendments Boucher et. al. are supporting to the DMCA that give freedoms to do things (make backups), not the DMCA.
Have you looked through case law? I have a suspicion that not many judges would rule in favor of the copyright holder, or at least not award more than a token settlement, is such a case.
Really? Than how 'come we need air traffic controllers? Or stop signs? Or street lights?
Care to explain why the analogy between radio frequencies and walking is the correct one, and radio and driving, or radio and flying are the incorrect ones?
"It's going to take longer than it should; that's bad, whichever way you look at it. If people didn't care about waiting a while for things to happen they wouldn't get broadband connections, multi-GHz CPU's and 40x+ CF cards."
While there is a point here, I also don't think it's a big deal if it takes a while to transfer. The difference between an MP3 player and these is that you don't have to sit there. It's the same reason that you don't really mind downloading a 500MB ISO from the internet, or transcoding a video file, or whatever; you can start it before you go to sleep and run it overnight, or while you're at work, or whatever. All of the examples you give are ones where you are essentially forced to wait. If you go to a website and it takes 10 seconds to load, you're essentially forced to sit there for those 10 sec because it isn't enough time to do other stuff. If you have a 40x CF card in your camera, you can take a higher rate of pictures; you don't have to wait a minute or so for it to finish writing out the buffer. But with the MP3 player, most of the time you're not gonna be in a hurry to use it and don't need to wait around.
Slashdot Mirror
It's even legally risky to make such a program and not use it, and use such a program you neither made nor got. So making one you've used yourself wouldn't help.
However, the authors have one big defence here: the program is obviously intended to not be used to enable piracy, at least by itself. Leaving the ID of the purchaser in there essentially precludes distribution of any files that have not been processed further. Such an argument could concievably significantly help in a defence.
Where does the above say anything about copyright law? Your response to me would have been an appropriate reply, but fair use, as I said, doesn't belong in the discussion, at least until you've dispensed with the TOS discussion. (And quoting the law would probably still be overkill at that point.)
Then you're wasting space instead.
The claim that this is not a legal method is not based off of copyright law and whether you are infringing there, it is based off of the agreement you... agree to when you buy music from iTunes. d34thm0nk3y hit it right in his post in that the question whether this is leagal lay in whether the terms of service are enforcable and whether violating them would be illegal.
Fair use does not enter into this discussion.
Really, is there any difference between libel and slander, besides one is print and one is spoken?
I ask this as a serious question...
This site purports to give an overview. I don't know much of anything about quantum physics, so I can't really summarize it. I didn't really even read it, though it looks okay. ;-)
These would be exceptions. In fact, the USPS has a written monopoly into the law.
It's called a followup story (see sense 3 in the definition there).
The problem with just doing that is it's a temporary solution. Once quantum computers are out, RSA encryption becomes worthless. So you have to find something else. Then when technology catches up, find something else.
Quantum cryptography, assuming a good implementation, theoretically unbreakable. (And I don't mean "theoretically" in the sense that it's often used, like "theoretically yes, that's true, but practically, that's false"; I mean it in the sense that our current theories of physics entail that it is unbreakable.)
The US even spies on it's own citizens. There was a bit of a scandal in the 1970s I believe about the CIA being caught at this, which is in strict violation of its charter.
(In fact, I believe the investigative reporter who broke this story was Seymour Hersh, the author of the article in the latest turn of events concerning Abu Ghraib, alleging that Rumsfeld effectively approved the abuses personally.)
This is probably good enough
I was trying to get Wine to work a while ago, and asked one of my friends "What do you know about Wine", who proceeded to launch into a discussion about how he hates the taste.
"What is the alternative to doing this? Ask every person who pirates a copy if they would have bought it and take them at their word?"
Ask a representative sample and extrapolate? Maybe increase the numbers a bit to compensate for lying.
I think the poster is referring to the amendments Boucher et. al. are supporting to the DMCA that give freedoms to do things (make backups), not the DMCA.
http://satirewire.com/news/0011/nader_wins.shtml
"BTW, whatever the courts and the law said fair use was before the DMCA, if the DMCA says otherwise, doesn't the DMCA rule?"
Presuming that the DMCA is held to be consistent with the US Constitution in the particular case at hand, yes.
Have you looked through case law? I have a suspicion that not many judges would rule in favor of the copyright holder, or at least not award more than a token settlement, is such a case.
So is there documentation for it?
I can... Jewlrey companies, Sony, Dell, etc. for making stuff to rob people of.
Test
/., spiffy! :-p
If that's a link to
or
tags around the paragraphs so the breaks are preserved and remembering to chose HTML from the format menu.
Really? Than how 'come we need air traffic controllers? Or stop signs? Or street lights?
Care to explain why the analogy between radio frequencies and walking is the correct one, and radio and driving, or radio and flying are the incorrect ones?
"It's going to take longer than it should; that's bad, whichever way you look at it. If people didn't care about waiting a while for things to happen they wouldn't get broadband connections, multi-GHz CPU's and 40x+ CF cards."
While there is a point here, I also don't think it's a big deal if it takes a while to transfer. The difference between an MP3 player and these is that you don't have to sit there. It's the same reason that you don't really mind downloading a 500MB ISO from the internet, or transcoding a video file, or whatever; you can start it before you go to sleep and run it overnight, or while you're at work, or whatever. All of the examples you give are ones where you are essentially forced to wait. If you go to a website and it takes 10 seconds to load, you're essentially forced to sit there for those 10 sec because it isn't enough time to do other stuff. If you have a 40x CF card in your camera, you can take a higher rate of pictures; you don't have to wait a minute or so for it to finish writing out the buffer. But with the MP3 player, most of the time you're not gonna be in a hurry to use it and don't need to wait around.
No, 2.0 doesn't mean faster than 1.1. Remember the name change? USB 2.0 High Speed is just USB 1.1. You need USB 2.0 Full Speed.
Most sleazy thing I've seen in computer marketing IMO... (even above most of what MS does)
What if you're just editing movies in your spare time? Are you gonna run right out and get an Apple? Or even go to the "trouble" to install Linux?