There's very little software that once you purchase the CDROM you actually "own".
Well, that's the opinion of the publishers. My opinion is that attempts to modify the terms of an already completed sale by means of a EULA have exactly as much validity as me saying "by reading this post you agree to pay me $100". If publishers were honest, they would require all their customers to sign a contract before the sale agreeing that they give up their fair use rights.
So it seems to me that you do not 'own' the music on the CD.
Of course you don't own the music, any more than you own the text of a book. The issue is that publishers are trying to convert your purchase into a license, which they believe gives them the ability to control how you use the product, which is far more restrictive than copyright limitations.
I should point out that this would imply that the GPL removes rights as well
No. You don't have to accept the terms of the GPL in order to use GPLed software. The GPL only comes into play when you wish to redistribute the software. Under standard copyright law you can't do at all, but the GPL allows you to do so as long as you abide by certain conditions. The GPL only grants rights, it doesn't remove any.
Only for federally funds are used. If you get private funding, you can do all the stem cell research you want. I have no problem with this; for example I'm pro-choice, but I don't believe the government has any business funding abortions.
Irresponsibly cutting taxes and using it to blatently curry favor with the Nascar sect of American society.
Just a tad bit elitist. And the DNC talking points are that it's a "handout to the rich"; you might want to get your stories straight. I see no reason for the tax burden for US workers to be the highest it has been since WWII, but since you do, I assume you returned your refund to the IRS? (No, donating to the DNC doesn't count, you're just proving Bush's point that you can spend your money better than the government can). Also, was it "irresponsible" for Gore to propose new spending far in excess of the amount of Bush's tax cuts?
Environmental destruction in favor of short-term corporate gains
Drilling in Alaska would require the use of 2000 acres out of 15 million in ANWR, and previous drilling operations there have proved that it can be done without significant damage. Like it or not, our civilization needs energy. Nuclear power is an obvious solution, but you guys aren't too happy about that either.
The fact that Bush disagrees with you does not make him evil, corrupt, or stupid.
This is a very good point. More broadly, the socially conservative wing of the GOP has traditionally been opposed to the entertainment industry, claiming that they are debasing public morality by airing too much sex and violence. I personally think that view is silly (the public is getting exactly what it wants), but it should be possible to use that perception to build Republican opposition to the DMCA, since it was passed at the behest of the alleged moral polluters.
Although this goes back to the ancient paranoia of big government of any kind. although originally this was ancient Rome.
Look at the number of people murdered by their own governments in the last century, and then explain why being concerned about excessive government power is "paranoid".
Re:DMCA Does Not Depend on the Copyright Clause!
on
ACM vs. RIAA
·
· Score: 2
But I took that sentence to mean that there is a DMCA exemption for fair use. Do you read it a different way?
IANAL, but I believe that means I can exercise fair use for material that I own. However, I cannot sell, give away, or describe techniques for doing so if it involves circumventing access controls. So I could legally write a DeCSS clone and use it myself, but couldn't distribute it or even talk about it. Of course the practical effect of this is to destroy fair use (while also ripping a large chunk out of the 1st Amendment), but that doesn't seem to bother wise and impartial judges such as Kaplan.
Seems to me if Skylarov was only interested in promoting better security he wouldn't have tried to sell his product.
So what? Nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say that your rights can only be exercised for nonprofit purposes.
I can assure you, that if anyone tries to market a key that will unlock any Ford, that person will get thrown in jail if caught.
As usual, most real-world analogies don't work well here. Dmitry's program doesn't allow users to "unlock" any ebook, only ones that they actually own. The MPAA's description of DeCSS as a "digital crowbar" is actually more accurate. Crowbars have both legal and illegal uses, and it is not illegal to sell, possess, or describe how to make one.
Why not give police complete freedom to pick up people that are engaged in unsavory activities according to their judgement, give prosecutors complete freedom to craft punishments, and give judges complete freedom to impose whatever they see fit for whatever action they see as illegal or detrimental to society?
We're at least halfway there. See "civil asset forfeiture". Punishment is no longer just for the guilty.
Re:Sigh - of course it is Adobe's fault
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 2
Adobe intended to slap his wrist and instead dropped him into the meat grinder. He is suffering more hardship than they intended.
Why do you say that? Aside from Adobe's meaningless "oh, we didn't mean it" statement after their meeting with the EFF, they have shown no indication that they give a damn about Sklyarov. Until Adobe takes an affirmative step toward defending him, we can assume that his arrest and imprisonment is exactly what they want.
Re:No, ADOBE should be paying his legal fees.
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 2
Well, Congress and Bill Clinton share a bit of responsibility as well. But you're right, we should absolutely not let Adobe off the hook. Their "change of heart" after Sklyarov had been arrested is transparently self-serving and meaningless. I'd actually have some degree of respect for Adobe if they had said to the EFF "no, he broke the law, and we want him in prison". At least that would demonstrate some honesty.
Of course, in this case, (We hope) government regulation will make the transition required.
I certainly don't hope that. I was all for HDTV at first, but since the vendors seem far more concerned with trying to destroy time and space-shifting than actually making a quality product at a reasonable price, I wouldn't mind at all if they went down in flames.
Heck, most of the bill of rights isn't granting the government powers the way the 18th did, it's limiting the extent of it.
An excellent point, and that's why many of the framers of the Constitution didn't want a Bill of Rights. Their reasoning was that if the Bill of Rights said that the government could not infringe certain rights, then it could be argued that any rights not listed didn't exist. The 9th and 10th amendments were intended to prevent this from happening, but they too have been ignored.
Because according to your interpretation there is no guarentee that you'll have any privacy what so ever. It isn't in the constitution, so why would you expect it?
Because the Constitution does not grant rights. Instead, it enumerates the specific powers of the government. In theory, the government can exercise only those powers specifically named in the Constitution; all others are delegated to the states or the people. Of course this has not been the case for some time now.
Don't be so strict, you'll really lose a lot of your freedoms.
I'd argue that the "living document" view of the Constitution is responsible for far more damage to our freedoms. Look at how many laws and regulations have been passed using a bogus interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. Or consider the war on drugs; alcohol Prohibition correctly required a Constitutional amendment, yet somehow the federal government just asserted that it can throw people in prison for smoking pot.
You're assuming that what the Constitution says has any relevance toward what the government does, which has not been the case for many decades. The Constitution clearly requires that an accused person be able to confront his accusers, which means that no secret evidence is permitted. It also prevents abridging freedom of speech or punishing people who have not been charged or convicted of a crime, but that didn't stop them from passing the CDA, DMCA, and asset forfeiture. The government no longer recognizes any limit on its power, and the voters have let them get away with it.
He makes up the term "flerbage" which no one has agreed to
He makes up that term because the word "free" has become overloaded. He then proceeds to argue, that if "flerbage" is a good thing, then Tim's position is superior to Richard's. It's entirely acceptable to disagree with his premise, in which case you have to show why flerbage is not a good thing.
You have the freedom to do what you want, but you don't have the freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
That principle would invalidate every employment contract ever signed.
he seems overly concerned with hypothetical laws beating, shooting, and imprisoning him.
I doubt Dmitri Sklyarov considers government intervention in software development "hypothetical".
After all, why create software, if not for the users? Oh yes... for the cash. I find that position distasteful indeed.
Um, how do you think a large percentage of/. readers make their living? There would be much less free/open source software if its authors weren't able to get paid writing code for their day jobs.
then in the world of today this would be illegal with proprietary programms: the police might come to your house and arrest you.
Correct, and ESR opposes the DMCA for that and other reasons.
so you had do spend a lot of money even if you would have prevered to write the code yourself... so that also affectes your "flerbage"
No it doesn't. You voluntarily chose to use the proprietary hardware. You have the option of building your own hardware or reverse engineering it (ignoring the DMCA for now), so your time or property is not being taken forcibly.
I think the confusion is the line between "proprietary software is immoral" and "proprietary software should be prohibited by law". I don't agree with either position, but I have no problem with Free Software advocates who believe the first. However I will oppose those who take the second position, as Bradley Kuhn implied that he did, because that is directly opposed to freedom.
Without government-created copyright and patent law, people wouldn't be able to create proprietary software.
Not true. All that is needed are enforceable contracts. Imagine a world without copyright. I want a piece of software that Bob has written. Bob will sell it to me, but only under the condition that I don't redistribute it. Bob and I sign a contract to that effect, and I pay Bob and get the software. Now if I make copies of the software and start selling them, Bob sues me on the grounds of contract violation. Copyright never enters into the picture.
I do think we should reevaluate all copyright and patent laws to see if they do what the constitution says they should: "promote Science and the Useful Arts".
I agree completely. Extending copyrights to life+75 years was not done for the purpose of promoting the arts, but protecting Disney's profits.
WE NEED TO FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS POLITICALLY, NOT JUST TECHNICALLY.
I agree completely. I'm not saying that "the net is virtually uncontrollable" should be our main political argument, only that it's true. Furthermore, it is in our best interests to persuade our adversaries that it's true. The MPAA believed that CSS could stop all "unauthorized" use, and they're probably now hard at work on a "secure" successor. If they realized that their goal is impossible, they might start offering features that increased value rather than removing it. Until that happens however, we definitely need to oppose government assaults on freedom. Write your congresscritters, donate to the EFF, and spread the word about consumer-hostile laws like the DMCA.
Are we a police state now for enforcing laws against illegal drugs?
In many ways, yes. We've got asset forfeiture, loss of privacy, roadblocks, warrantless searches, profiling, and a host of other abuses of power. Yet they have all failed to stop either the supply or demand of drugs. They have also created substantial opposition to the drug war, as more and more people start to realize that it cannot be prosecuted without violating the rights of the law-abiding. A "war on hackers" fought along similar lines would be even less effective, since information is easier to conceal and deliver than narcotics.
I think you underestimate the opponents of our opponents. Let's say the **AAs make a pact with Satan and get all server-type inbound TCP connections blocked for nearly all users. That still leaves mail and IM, either of which can form the basis of a p2p network. If ISPs start monitoring those channels for content, we can encrypt. If they somehow prohibit encryption, we can use steganography.
Short of establishing a police state, the bad guys will not win. And if we do become a police state, we have much bigger problems than DVD regions and overpriced CDs.
The only people who don't want this are 1) criminals, and 2) people who cheat on their spouses and don't want to get caught.
I am a counterexample to your theory. My reasoning is the same as Carnivore; maybe it would catch a few criminals faster, but the large potential for abuse outweighs that benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's the opinion of the publishers. My opinion is that attempts to modify the terms of an already completed sale by means of a EULA have exactly as much validity as me saying "by reading this post you agree to pay me $100". If publishers were honest, they would require all their customers to sign a contract before the sale agreeing that they give up their fair use rights.
Of course you don't own the music, any more than you own the text of a book. The issue is that publishers are trying to convert your purchase into a license, which they believe gives them the ability to control how you use the product, which is far more restrictive than copyright limitations.
I should point out that this would imply that the GPL removes rights as well
No. You don't have to accept the terms of the GPL in order to use GPLed software. The GPL only comes into play when you wish to redistribute the software. Under standard copyright law you can't do at all, but the GPL allows you to do so as long as you abide by certain conditions. The GPL only grants rights, it doesn't remove any.
Only for federally funds are used. If you get private funding, you can do all the stem cell research you want. I have no problem with this; for example I'm pro-choice, but I don't believe the government has any business funding abortions.
Irresponsibly cutting taxes and using it to blatently curry favor with the Nascar sect of American society.
Just a tad bit elitist. And the DNC talking points are that it's a "handout to the rich"; you might want to get your stories straight. I see no reason for the tax burden for US workers to be the highest it has been since WWII, but since you do, I assume you returned your refund to the IRS? (No, donating to the DNC doesn't count, you're just proving Bush's point that you can spend your money better than the government can). Also, was it "irresponsible" for Gore to propose new spending far in excess of the amount of Bush's tax cuts?
Environmental destruction in favor of short-term corporate gains
Drilling in Alaska would require the use of 2000 acres out of 15 million in ANWR, and previous drilling operations there have proved that it can be done without significant damage. Like it or not, our civilization needs energy. Nuclear power is an obvious solution, but you guys aren't too happy about that either.
The fact that Bush disagrees with you does not make him evil, corrupt, or stupid.
This is a very good point. More broadly, the socially conservative wing of the GOP has traditionally been opposed to the entertainment industry, claiming that they are debasing public morality by airing too much sex and violence. I personally think that view is silly (the public is getting exactly what it wants), but it should be possible to use that perception to build Republican opposition to the DMCA, since it was passed at the behest of the alleged moral polluters.
Look at the number of people murdered by their own governments in the last century, and then explain why being concerned about excessive government power is "paranoid".
IANAL, but I believe that means I can exercise fair use for material that I own. However, I cannot sell, give away, or describe techniques for doing so if it involves circumventing access controls. So I could legally write a DeCSS clone and use it myself, but couldn't distribute it or even talk about it. Of course the practical effect of this is to destroy fair use (while also ripping a large chunk out of the 1st Amendment), but that doesn't seem to bother wise and impartial judges such as Kaplan.
So what? Nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say that your rights can only be exercised for nonprofit purposes.
I can assure you, that if anyone tries to market a key that will unlock any Ford, that person will get thrown in jail if caught.
As usual, most real-world analogies don't work well here. Dmitry's program doesn't allow users to "unlock" any ebook, only ones that they actually own. The MPAA's description of DeCSS as a "digital crowbar" is actually more accurate. Crowbars have both legal and illegal uses, and it is not illegal to sell, possess, or describe how to make one.
We're at least halfway there. See "civil asset forfeiture". Punishment is no longer just for the guilty.
Why do you say that? Aside from Adobe's meaningless "oh, we didn't mean it" statement after their meeting with the EFF, they have shown no indication that they give a damn about Sklyarov. Until Adobe takes an affirmative step toward defending him, we can assume that his arrest and imprisonment is exactly what they want.
Well, Congress and Bill Clinton share a bit of responsibility as well. But you're right, we should absolutely not let Adobe off the hook. Their "change of heart" after Sklyarov had been arrested is transparently self-serving and meaningless. I'd actually have some degree of respect for Adobe if they had said to the EFF "no, he broke the law, and we want him in prison". At least that would demonstrate some honesty.
I certainly don't hope that. I was all for HDTV at first, but since the vendors seem far more concerned with trying to destroy time and space-shifting than actually making a quality product at a reasonable price, I wouldn't mind at all if they went down in flames.
An excellent point, and that's why many of the framers of the Constitution didn't want a Bill of Rights. Their reasoning was that if the Bill of Rights said that the government could not infringe certain rights, then it could be argued that any rights not listed didn't exist. The 9th and 10th amendments were intended to prevent this from happening, but they too have been ignored.
Because the Constitution does not grant rights. Instead, it enumerates the specific powers of the government. In theory, the government can exercise only those powers specifically named in the Constitution; all others are delegated to the states or the people. Of course this has not been the case for some time now.
Don't be so strict, you'll really lose a lot of your freedoms.
I'd argue that the "living document" view of the Constitution is responsible for far more damage to our freedoms. Look at how many laws and regulations have been passed using a bogus interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. Or consider the war on drugs; alcohol Prohibition correctly required a Constitutional amendment, yet somehow the federal government just asserted that it can throw people in prison for smoking pot.
You're assuming that what the Constitution says has any relevance toward what the government does, which has not been the case for many decades. The Constitution clearly requires that an accused person be able to confront his accusers, which means that no secret evidence is permitted. It also prevents abridging freedom of speech or punishing people who have not been charged or convicted of a crime, but that didn't stop them from passing the CDA, DMCA, and asset forfeiture. The government no longer recognizes any limit on its power, and the voters have let them get away with it.
He makes up that term because the word "free" has become overloaded. He then proceeds to argue, that if "flerbage" is a good thing, then Tim's position is superior to Richard's. It's entirely acceptable to disagree with his premise, in which case you have to show why flerbage is not a good thing.
You have the freedom to do what you want, but you don't have the freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
That principle would invalidate every employment contract ever signed.
he seems overly concerned with hypothetical laws beating, shooting, and imprisoning him.
I doubt Dmitri Sklyarov considers government intervention in software development "hypothetical".
Um, how do you think a large percentage of
Correct, and ESR opposes the DMCA for that and other reasons.
so you had do spend a lot of money even if you would have prevered to write the code yourself... so that also affectes your "flerbage"
No it doesn't. You voluntarily chose to use the proprietary hardware. You have the option of building your own hardware or reverse engineering it (ignoring the DMCA for now), so your time or property is not being taken forcibly.
The article is here, and it's a very good read. I too would be interested in the answer from Bradley or RMS.
I think the confusion is the line between "proprietary software is immoral" and "proprietary software should be prohibited by law". I don't agree with either position, but I have no problem with Free Software advocates who believe the first. However I will oppose those who take the second position, as Bradley Kuhn implied that he did, because that is directly opposed to freedom.
Not true. All that is needed are enforceable contracts. Imagine a world without copyright. I want a piece of software that Bob has written. Bob will sell it to me, but only under the condition that I don't redistribute it. Bob and I sign a contract to that effect, and I pay Bob and get the software. Now if I make copies of the software and start selling them, Bob sues me on the grounds of contract violation. Copyright never enters into the picture.
I do think we should reevaluate all copyright and patent laws to see if they do what the constitution says they should: "promote Science and the Useful Arts".
I agree completely. Extending copyrights to life+75 years was not done for the purpose of promoting the arts, but protecting Disney's profits.
I agree completely. I'm not saying that "the net is virtually uncontrollable" should be our main political argument, only that it's true. Furthermore, it is in our best interests to persuade our adversaries that it's true. The MPAA believed that CSS could stop all "unauthorized" use, and they're probably now hard at work on a "secure" successor. If they realized that their goal is impossible, they might start offering features that increased value rather than removing it. Until that happens however, we definitely need to oppose government assaults on freedom. Write your congresscritters, donate to the EFF, and spread the word about consumer-hostile laws like the DMCA.
In many ways, yes. We've got asset forfeiture, loss of privacy, roadblocks, warrantless searches, profiling, and a host of other abuses of power. Yet they have all failed to stop either the supply or demand of drugs. They have also created substantial opposition to the drug war, as more and more people start to realize that it cannot be prosecuted without violating the rights of the law-abiding. A "war on hackers" fought along similar lines would be even less effective, since information is easier to conceal and deliver than narcotics.
Short of establishing a police state, the bad guys will not win. And if we do become a police state, we have much bigger problems than DVD regions and overpriced CDs.
That is freaking hilarious. Thanks for ruining my productivity for at least a half hour.
I am a counterexample to your theory. My reasoning is the same as Carnivore; maybe it would catch a few criminals faster, but the large potential for abuse outweighs that benefit.