Quite simply, AT&T wants prefers that people rent. AT&T is doing this for two reasons:
To guarantee a revenue stream from renting. Way back before the Justice department broke up AT&T, they didn't want anyone buying their own phone (or so I read in a Slashdot post).
They want control over the technology. They don't want anyone adding features to a cable modem, if they could charge for those features in the future.
Neil Armstrong wasn't chosen to be the first guy to walk on the moon because he was white. He was chosen because he busted his ass in training for several years, training that anyone could have undergone, and many did.
Astronauts for the moon mission were chosen back in the 1960's, while racism was rampant. In order to even be considered for the space program, potential astronauts had to have experience flying experimental aircraft for the military.
In the 1960's, every single American astronaut was a married, white male in his 30's or 40's. Do not delude yourself into thinking there was no racism, sexism, or other political factors influencing crew selection.
I really don't see what putting an ID code is going to do here. Sony music traces pirated CD key to Virgin records... what then?
If someone pays by check or credit card, or is recorded with facial recognition, the record company can trace the CD to its original owner.
When I was in college, people had CDs stolen from their cars all the time. I can easily picture someone stealing CDs and posting them on the internet. In this situation, the record company will track down and accuse an innocent person.
in 3com's (a supporter of DMCA) NBX 100 but they don't supply souce for thouse programs nor the stuff they are linked to
According to the GPL:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it 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, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
So, have you looked for the source code on their web site, or asked for a copy?
Well, here is the Mist-On FAQ. I can't seem to find a web site for Gilley's European Tan Spa.
I looks like the litigation-happy folks at Mist-On are patent-loving jerks. I hate them already.
life+70 = 1978, pre 1978 = 1923
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
I'm not 100% certain, but I believe congress created the life+50 year law back in 1976, which they extended to life+70 in 1998. Now that I look at this link again, I see that anything under copyright prior to 1978 simply has a flat 95 year copyright term. That means Stranger in a Strange Land will enter the public domain in 2056 instead of 2058. Ironically, it means his last book will enter the public domain several years before some of his older books (such as The Moon is a Harsh Mistress). It also means all works dating back to 1923 are covered and won't enter the public domain until 2018.
The first U.S. copyright law granted rights for 14 years, and could be renewed once for another 14 years. Stranger in a Strange Land was published in 1961. At that time, copyrights lasted 28 years and could be renewed once, for a total of 56 years.
Starting in 1962, congress had a bonanza with copyright extensions, even applying them ex post facto. Today, copyrights last the life of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for works for hire. Heinlein died in 1988. Under current law, Heinlein's work will remain under copyright until 2058, at which point it will all enter the public domain.
Plantiffs in the Eldred v. Reno case wrote a brief which chronicled the history of copyright lengths (the history starts at paragraph 61). Eric Eldred is challenging the retroactive extension to copyrights. The Supreme Court is planning to hear oral arguments in the case sometime soon. If the court declares retroactive extensions unconstitutional, Stranger in a Strang Land will enter the public domain in 2017.
I wholeheartedly agree with Eldred's case, but to be fair, Eldred's chances are slim. The district and appellate courts ruled against him (with a lone dissenting judge in the appellate court). At least four Supreme Court justices felt the arguments were compelling enough to hear the case. However, as the district and appellate courts pointed out, even the first copyright law applied retroactively (to works that were protected under state copyright laws).
The mechanism by which C# programs are transformed for use by a
data-processing system;
The mechanism by which C# applications are invoked for use by a
data-processing system;
The mechanism by which input data are transformed for use by a C#
application;
The mechanism by which output data are transformed after being produced
by a C# application;
The size or complexity of a program and its data that will exceed the
capacity of any specific data-processing system or the capacity of a
particular processor;
All minimal requirements of a data-processing system that is capable of
supporting a conforming implementation.
Most of these issues are critical to implementing ECMA-334. Thus the standard is not entirely open. Why did Microsoft leave these particular issues out of the standard? Microsoft may well have patented the only practicle means of implementing these aspects of the standard. Even if they did not, Microsoft certainly holds patents on other aspects of the.NET architechture.
Here is the EFF's en banc appeal. This is what the court read before it declined to hear the appeal. The first appeals court said they could censor DeCSS due to its functionality. My favorite quote from the EFF brief:
But what computer programs say cannot be separated from what they do. Banning computer programs for what they enable computer users to do necessarily bans what computer scientists and programmers may say.
...Thus, even if the
injunction targets only the nonspeech component, the effect on speech is
identical. To aim at one is to aim at both.
And to whet your appetite, here is the introduction:
2600 Magazine hereby petitions for en banc review of the panel decision on
the grounds that the decision makes new law that conflicts with governing
United States Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent in a case of
exceptional importance.
The question in this case, one of first impression, is whether the Free
Speech Clause of the First Amendment permits a district court to enjoin
the publication on an Internet web site of a computer program ("DeCSS")
that can be used to unscramble the content of digitally recorded movies,
or the publication of hyperlinks to other web sites that publish that
program, under the purported authority of a provision of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") that bars "trafficking" in devices
designed to circumvent technologies aimed at controlling access to
copyrighted works. 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2). The panel upheld such an
injunction based on the mere speculation that Internet distribution of
DeCSS would cause copyright infringement, even though it is undisputed
that there was no demonstration of actual harm.
In reaching this conclusion, the panel made two novel and unprecedented
rulings regarding computer code and Internet publication that warrant this
court's en banc review. The panel held that, although computer code is
"speech" within the meaning of the First Amendment, it is subject to
greater regulation than other speech because of its "functional
capability" to be executed by a computer as well as read by a human eye.
Slip op. 7515-16. The panel further opined that, although not a single
incident of copyright infringement using DeCSS had been demonstrated in
the district court, the injunction was adequately narrowly tailored to
satisfy the First Amendment because the speed and scope of the Internet
create the potential for such harm: "Posting DeCSS on the Appellants' web
site makes it instantly available at the click of a mouse to any person in
the world with access to the Internet." Slip op. 7522.
The panel decision conflicts with governing First Amendment precedent.
Even assuming that the government interest furthered by such an injunction
(preventing theft of intellectual property) is content-neutral, the
injunction fails the heightened scrutiny required of content-neutral
speech restrictions under Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512
U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I); and Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180
(1997) (Turner II). A fortiori, the order below fails the especially
heightened scrutiny required of content-neutral injunctions of speech
under the Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994).
The panel decision further conflicts with governing precedent by treating
the publication of computer code on the Internet as "functional" speech
subject to diminished First Amendment protection. This creation of a new
subcategory of less protected speech conflicts with Reno v. American Civil
Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 970 (1997)(ACLU I), which held that the
Internet is a fully protected medium of speech and that regulation of
speech on the Internet is subject to ordinary standards of First Amendment
scrutiny. It likewise conflicts with City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43,
55 (1994), which held that content-neutral prohibitions foreclosing the
use of entire media "can suppress too much speech."
Even if the panel correctly upheld the ban on posting DeCSS, its decision
upholding the ban on merely posting hyperlinks to other web sites posting
DeCSS should be held independently unconstitutional under settled First
Amendment principles of intent and causation set forth in Brandenburg v.
Ohio, 395 U.S. 44 (1969), and Bartnicki v. Vopper, 121 S. Ct. 1753 (2001).
Because of these plain conflicts with governing precedent, the panel
decision requires correction by this Court sitting en banc. The
exceptional importance of the questions in this case is plain: computer
code is a crucial part of our scientific and political discourse.
Scientists, programmers and hobbyists publish computer code in textbooks,
journals, popular magazines, and discussion groups Ñ both on the Internet
and in print. Hyperlinks are one of the most easily understood and widely
used form of computer code and, are, quite literally, the lifeblood of the
Internet. As one court observed, "the ability to link from one computer to
another, from one document to another across the Internet regardless of
its status or physical location, is what makes the Web unique." ACLU v.
Reno, 31 F.Supp. 2d 473, 483 (E.D. Pa. 1999), cert. granted 121 S.Ct. 1997
(U.S. May 21, 2001)(No. 00-1293) (ACLU II). The panel's unprecedented
decision to relegate Internet transmission of computer code to
second-class First Amendment citizenship plainly warrants the scrutiny of
this entire Court.
The court is wrong on many counts
on
2600 Appeal Rejected
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I have to question the first appeals court's competence in this case.
They claimed that fair use remained intact because someone could use a
video camera to copy part of a DVD. The court failed to realize that the
image quality would be horrible, unless you used a tool to adjust
the TV's frame rate. Such a tool would circumvent Macrovision. In other
words, the court's recommended solution would require violating the
exact same law!
Outlawing DeCSS today, would be like outlawing the photocopier in the
1970's, or outlawing home movie projectors at the turn of the 19th/20th
century.
I am very disappointed that the court never addressed
whether or not congress had the power to enact the anti-device
provision in the first place. Forty-six law professors who specialize
in intellectual property, claim that the anti-device provision is
exactly the sort of thing that the constitution sought to avoid. The
appeals court
Misinterpreted the brief as only applying to time limits, and
claimed that they did not have to rule on it because it was only
mentioned in a footnote on the plantiff's appeal.
I am further disturbed by the court's ban on electronic footnotes. I still
have the right to put a URL in a print publication, but if I put it on a
web site, I can be thrown in jail. What's so special about the internet
that my free speech rights don't apply?
Finally, the appeals court's
prophecy that the internet will result in the viral spreading of movies and
destruction of the movie industry is without merit. These predictions
have been made with every single advancement in media technology, and with
every single advancement they have been proven wrong. Even at the height
of Napster, with a slumping economy, the record companies were making more
money than the did before Napster started.
With this court ruling, it is illegal to make an open source DVD player.
And it is impracticle for ordinary citizens to make their own improvements
to a closed source DVD player. Why can't churches distribute a script that only plays an edited version
of rated R movies? Answer: because I can't make a DVD player that
supports this feature. This clearly does the exact opposite of promoting
usefulness in the arts and sciences.
I live in a country where I have a constitutional right to publish
directions on building a nuclear bomb, or publish a book on how to kill
someone and get away with it. But I can be thrown in jail for telling someone how to make a
tool that helps blind people read electronic books.
Someone suggested that DeCSS may not exist if there were a DVD player available for Linux. The MPAA guy argued that all programs written for Linux must be open-sourced, which would compromise what is essentially their security-through-obscurity scheme of handling CSS. And Siva AGREED! Now correct me if I'm wrong - isnt it possible to write programs for Linux that are closed-source?
That wouldn't matter. Anybody can make an ISO of a DVD and store it on their hard drive. DeCSS has nothing to do with copying the movie. The purpose of CSS is to prevent the unauthorized use of a DVD.
If there were a closed source Linux DVD player, someone could still hack the kernel and make the ISO look like a DVD. The fact that Linux is open sourced and well documented makes the hacking an order of magnitude easier. I believe developers already do this to test their file systems. Once you hack the kernel, the closed source player will go ahead and play the copied ISO.
If there is open source software anywhere between the hardware and the DVD player, the MPAA's security-through-obscurity scheme will be an order of magnitude weaker. Note that even with a completely closed system, someone can still break the security. It is just a question of how hard it will be. Indeed, this is exactly how DeCSS was created.
In the DeCSS case, the evidence clearly showed that creating an unprotected DVD was much, much harder than simply digitizing the VHS version of a movie. The judge concluded that the difficulty was irrelavent because someone could incorporate DeCSS into a more efficient tool designed specifically for pirating DVDs.
Slashdotters have a tendency to whine about losing their "fair use rights". The whiners have lost sight of the more important issue, that Disney et al, do not want open source platforms reading mainstream content. Open source software, in itself, threatens the established media's control of distribution channels.
You should understand that under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if you ignore this notice, your company/institution may be liable for any resulting infringement.
IANAL, but as a university, it is possible that you are immune from liability. According to the FAQ at Chilling Effects (last question), educational institutions have broader safe harbor provisions than ordinary ISPs.
On the other hand, if you're dealing with a typical p2p user, that safe harbor provision probably won't apply.
Slashdot Mirror
Gotta make sure they can claim copyright. AOL/Time-Warner wouldn't want someone else to benefit from their expensive writing talent.
Astronauts for the moon mission were chosen back in the 1960's, while racism was rampant. In order to even be considered for the space program, potential astronauts had to have experience flying experimental aircraft for the military.
In the 1960's, every single American astronaut was a married, white male in his 30's or 40's. Do not delude yourself into thinking there was no racism, sexism, or other political factors influencing crew selection.
If someone pays by check or credit card, or is recorded with facial recognition, the record company can trace the CD to its original owner.
When I was in college, people had CDs stolen from their cars all the time. I can easily picture someone stealing CDs and posting them on the internet. In this situation, the record company will track down and accuse an innocent person.
According to the GPL:
So, have you looked for the source code on their web site, or asked for a copy?
I looks like the litigation-happy folks at Mist-On are patent-loving jerks. I hate them already.
I'm not 100% certain, but I believe congress created the life+50 year law back in 1976, which they extended to life+70 in 1998. Now that I look at this link again, I see that anything under copyright prior to 1978 simply has a flat 95 year copyright term. That means Stranger in a Strange Land will enter the public domain in 2056 instead of 2058. Ironically, it means his last book will enter the public domain several years before some of his older books (such as The Moon is a Harsh Mistress). It also means all works dating back to 1923 are covered and won't enter the public domain until 2018.
Starting in 1962, congress had a bonanza with copyright extensions, even applying them ex post facto. Today, copyrights last the life of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for works for hire. Heinlein died in 1988. Under current law, Heinlein's work will remain under copyright until 2058, at which point it will all enter the public domain.
Plantiffs in the Eldred v. Reno case wrote a brief which chronicled the history of copyright lengths (the history starts at paragraph 61). Eric Eldred is challenging the retroactive extension to copyrights. The Supreme Court is planning to hear oral arguments in the case sometime soon. If the court declares retroactive extensions unconstitutional, Stranger in a Strang Land will enter the public domain in 2017.
I wholeheartedly agree with Eldred's case, but to be fair, Eldred's chances are slim. The district and appellate courts ruled against him (with a lone dissenting judge in the appellate court). At least four Supreme Court justices felt the arguments were compelling enough to hear the case. However, as the district and appellate courts pointed out, even the first copyright law applied retroactively (to works that were protected under state copyright laws).
Furthermore, the ECMA-334 Standard does not specify:
Most of these issues are critical to implementing ECMA-334. Thus the standard is not entirely open. Why did Microsoft leave these particular issues out of the standard? Microsoft may well have patented the only practicle means of implementing these aspects of the standard. Even if they did not, Microsoft certainly holds patents on other aspects of the .NET architechture.
Finally, if Microsoft does hold patents on the ECMA-334&5 standards, the only penalty for not disclosing them, is that they will have to license their patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, which effectively closes out open source.
Sure, the judge won't mind that you've encoded a criminal tool into the U.S. Flag.
And to whet your appetite, here is the introduction:
Outlawing DeCSS today, would be like outlawing the photocopier in the 1970's, or outlawing home movie projectors at the turn of the 19th/20th century.
I am very disappointed that the court never addressed whether or not congress had the power to enact the anti-device provision in the first place. Forty-six law professors who specialize in intellectual property, claim that the anti-device provision is exactly the sort of thing that the constitution sought to avoid. The appeals court
I am further disturbed by the court's ban on electronic footnotes. I still have the right to put a URL in a print publication, but if I put it on a web site, I can be thrown in jail. What's so special about the internet that my free speech rights don't apply?
Finally, the appeals court's prophecy that the internet will result in the viral spreading of movies and destruction of the movie industry is without merit. These predictions have been made with every single advancement in media technology, and with every single advancement they have been proven wrong. Even at the height of Napster, with a slumping economy, the record companies were making more money than the did before Napster started.
With this court ruling, it is illegal to make an open source DVD player. And it is impracticle for ordinary citizens to make their own improvements to a closed source DVD player. Why can't churches distribute a script that only plays an edited version of rated R movies? Answer: because I can't make a DVD player that supports this feature. This clearly does the exact opposite of promoting usefulness in the arts and sciences.
I live in a country where I have a constitutional right to publish directions on building a nuclear bomb, or publish a book on how to kill someone and get away with it. But I can be thrown in jail for telling someone how to make a tool that helps blind people read electronic books.
That wouldn't matter. Anybody can make an ISO of a DVD and store it on their hard drive. DeCSS has nothing to do with copying the movie. The purpose of CSS is to prevent the unauthorized use of a DVD.
If there were a closed source Linux DVD player, someone could still hack the kernel and make the ISO look like a DVD. The fact that Linux is open sourced and well documented makes the hacking an order of magnitude easier. I believe developers already do this to test their file systems. Once you hack the kernel, the closed source player will go ahead and play the copied ISO.
If there is open source software anywhere between the hardware and the DVD player, the MPAA's security-through-obscurity scheme will be an order of magnitude weaker. Note that even with a completely closed system, someone can still break the security. It is just a question of how hard it will be. Indeed, this is exactly how DeCSS was created.
In the DeCSS case, the evidence clearly showed that creating an unprotected DVD was much, much harder than simply digitizing the VHS version of a movie. The judge concluded that the difficulty was irrelavent because someone could incorporate DeCSS into a more efficient tool designed specifically for pirating DVDs.
Slashdotters have a tendency to whine about losing their "fair use rights". The whiners have lost sight of the more important issue, that Disney et al, do not want open source platforms reading mainstream content. Open source software, in itself, threatens the established media's control of distribution channels.
The Seattle Weekly has the story here.
IANAL, but as a university, it is possible that you are immune from liability. According to the FAQ at Chilling Effects (last question), educational institutions have broader safe harbor provisions than ordinary ISPs.
On the other hand, if you're dealing with a typical p2p user, that safe harbor provision probably won't apply.
The EFF should have argued that congress does not have the power to enact the DMCA. The constitution intentionally limited congress's power to grant copyrights. Why doesn't the EFF argue this point?