Well, as far as the analogy goes, yes...if the source code and modifications get lost, then that restricts everyone else's ability to use them. I was using the analogy of freedom in software as freedom of people, and the analogy of murder as the removal of those freedoms.
It isn't about having rights for the originator. Those are preserved by his first ownership of the copyrighted work. It's about preserving the freedoms for everyone that uses the software. If the source code and modifications get closed, then that restricts everyone else's ability to use them, so they have to be restricted to stay in the open.
Well, as far as the analogy goes, yes...if the source code and modifications get lost, then that restricts everyone else's ability to use them. I was using the analogy of freedom in software as freedom of people, and the analogy of murder as the removal of those freedoms. Of course, What I am not condemning is anyone for their choice of license, or anyone for respecting that license, just pointing out what the GPL and simliar licenses were about.
It goes something like this: The USA, UK, European Countries, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and so on, are all free countries, right? But you can't go out and kill someone...in fact there are huge bodies of law restricting people's actions; but they're still free countries...
This is what the GPL is about; it's about preserving everybody's freedoms by placing some restrictions on the use of the code.
Does this work on PowerPC? On *BSD? On The HURD (well, admittedly, not much works on The Hurd;)? Was that the issue at hand?
Well, no, it wasn't really the issue at hand; the issue was that the MPAA and their lobbyists have created an artificial restrictions on how one uses his lawfully obtained copyright work.
When copyright was founded in the USA, congress decided that they could only restrict the public performance and public copying of a work; once a person had a copy, he could do whatever he liked with it as long as he didn't pass on a copy (ie. he could still sell on the original). They felt that further restrictions in law were infringing on rights. That is the issue here.
I don't want a DVD player for Linux; I have one of those now. I can watch DVDs (which I bought and own) in plenty of legal and illegal ways on and off Linux. What I want is the law to stop infringing on my rights to protect the corporate (who have no inherent human standing) interests of America.
I think the point here is that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on dektop OSs. This is fine as long as they don't abuse the monopoly...which...well...they do. For instance, they have leveraged there dominant OS to propagate their browser, Internet Explorer. Additionally, they have used their dominant OS to propagate their media player, WMP. In this case they go on to use this to propagate their own media CODEC, which then places them in a position to license it to media companies wanting to serve media, as it has the largest market share. Unfortunately, this is an abuse of a monopoly; and that's the problem.
I have a 'managed cabling' system where I work that handles the telephone system as well as data networking. All the distribution cables come into one set of (RJ45) patch panels in a rack; the incoming telephony copper pairs also come into one (RJ45) patch panel. We can patch through the phone lines to any distribution drop and plug in the phone using a PABX Master RJ45 to BT Adapter. Note that these act as a 'master' socket, so we don't have to have them lined up on the wall next to the rack. Of course, these are for the British Telecom system; I'm not what you would need where you are. When we put in a PBX, we will either get a rack mounted one with patch panels on the front or mount it on the wall and wire it to a patch panel in the rack.
In the British Telecom system, extension sockets are just placed in bus topology on the incoming pair plus the 'ringer' output from the master socket, so you could do this by terminating a three wires runnning down the back of a patch panel on each socket or some such.
Oh Dear, I seem to have been labouring under the assumption that the only people who can decide on matters of law are the judiciary, not our new corporate overlords.
Until such time as suit is brought against AllofMP3.com and it is decided against them; I will continue to believe that it is legal.
Bah! I call FUD. 'Intellectual Property'? Do you mean patents? There are no patents on the DVD-CSS. Do you mean trademarks? Those don't cover the actual implementation. Do you mean copyright? Reverse Engineering and Clean-room implementations of algorithms/interfaces are legal in the USA and, indeed, considered a fair use right. Do you mean 'Trade Secrets'? Trade Secrets are only protected in the manner that those who try to steal or acquire them by illegal means and those who give them when bound by duty of confidentiality are liable; I do not know of trade secrets being obtained illegaly and, indeed, the DVD-CCA have recently admitted that DVD-CSS is no longer a trade secret.
Well, that's slightly different because in that case I bought the property in question; I own it and I should be allowed to do with it what I want...It would be a different question if I, say, leased the the XBox from Microsoft or rented the car from Honda. But how many people would rent/lease the item instead of buying a competitor's product? The same would be true if I bought your code and owned it (First Ownership); then, of course, I could do anything I want with it, because I own it. If however, I have only licensed/bought a copy, then I should only be able to do what I want with it privately...I have no right to publicly display or distribute the property. Some wiser person than me has said: 'Defend everything and you defend nothing' and 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance'. I feel this applies to the GPL; it removes some freedoms in order to perpetuate others. Of course, you are under no obligation to use GPL'ed code; you can happily use something else, relicense or write your own.
Does this add to the non-linear and chaotic nature of the atmosphere? In particular, does it cause the earth to swing between states where it is cold and the generated ice is storing CO2, stopping any greenhouse effect and keeping the earth cold, and vice versa?
DRM and Free Speech
on
Linux and DRM?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
For a community that is based on the concept of 'free speech' and open systems, I doubt there will be much interest or support on a Digital Restriction Management system. Due to the nature of any DRM system, it has to act as a black box which is contrary to the beliefs of the community. We will not want to support it, or, probably, even install it. Due to the nature of free software, we rely on people to do the right thing just as much as other copyright holders; this will not change although some notable companies have abused this. If your company doesn't want to respect us, we are not interested. Copyrighted works are protected by law and to the extent permitted by the law only, anything further, like stopping non-restricted copies, starts stepping on our rights and we will not be interested in letting that fly.
Er...actually, if you read their downloads page, this text is present: "GPL Sources of applications/libraries which are distributed under the GPL or modified LGPL sources are available by CD order. This CD will ship for 12 (including shipping cost) to the entire world. Small sources (5MB) are available by email order too." That seems compliant.
Well, I appear to have missed the boat on this one, but anyway: Does anybody else have a problem with Internet or Technology specific laws? Does the technological revolution raise any actual, new issues that require new legislation? It is my opinionv that most percieved problems can be equated to equivalent problems in 'real' life with appropriately fast and/or large communication system. Perhaps all that is needed is to establish how the 'old' system relates to the new and how we should move forward in enforcing it, without removing or negating any of the considered rights, checks and balances.
For instance, I do not see bulk/direct messaging as a problem specific to the Internet; junk mail, junk faxes and direct telemarketing seem to be found just as much a problem. Wouldn't it be more sensible if we created a system that addressed all of hteses problems and hopefully may cover future communications environments? As someone suggested most spam is already criminal under fraud laws.
Beating a dead horse here: DRM and TPM are a problem too, because in most countries, people can make non-infringing copies to non DRM enabled platforms; the infringing copies are already criminal by existing copyreight laws. Instead of creating a government mandated monopoly on information perhaps it would be a wiser idea to seriously fund, investigate, and run a program to expand the enforcement of laws on the new platform?
Other examples I won't go into include Import and Export, Wireless Networks and property, Trespass; I welcome any conter arguments to any of these, so hopefully I can smack them down.:P Here's hoping for replies.
I think Spammers and Telemarketeers are one category because they have the same function with a different medium (but maybe one often has more fraud). Making the distinction makes the internet 'special' and leads to the concept that it needs regulation. Restrictive laws follow close behind.
For those too lazy to use a search engine, here's a working link to download the last movie: How Not To Be Seen. If that doesn't work here's a direct link to the search query: Google: "How Not To Be Seen" Halo.
As much as I hate providing a compromise in this situation: Do as Trolltech: Release freely under an OpenSource license. Release under a commercial license for a fee. Make contributions back to your code repository can be relicensed. (n) Profit!!!?!?!?!?.
ahem...
You sir are a moron. Firstly, I believe that violating the MPAA and RIAA is wrong, wrong, wrong; both legally and morally; there is nothing you can say that will make it right. The problem I have with the MPAA, RIAA, and BSA is that they use strongarm tactics from purely _civilian_ organisations to _police_ you; they also use their wealth and influence in polical arenas to try and make legal their tactics to give themselves power to _police_ you from civilian organisations, to form vigilante mobs to take down internet services, and to give them the right decide on your copyright infringement on them (an impartial third party is reall a _must_ in theis situation); do not forget that P2P is a valid technology and _can_ be used for non-illegal purposes (P2P News? P2P Radio?), and some dubious uses in _your_ country may not be illegal over here; can you see the RIAA and MPAA discriminating on geogrphical locations? (On a side note, what would you say if China, for instance, tried to start shutting down _your_ news sites because they were against the law in _China_? They also try to mandate laws that will restrict _your_ _rights_ (?) that have already been established and laid down in law (fair use laws). I have no sympathy for the RIAA and MPAA, (and to some extent the BSA either).
As a final note, their are some mitigating circumstances towards copyright infringement against the RIAA and MPAA; this does not make it any less wrong; it's just somehting that should be bore (?) in mind. Firstly, they are mostly monopolies, and artists are forced to contract with them for conventional means (whether the artists get a raw deal is beyond the scope of this comment); this can possibly be attributed to the whims of the mass-market, but, hey, OSS seems to have a different system working. Secondly, there doesn't actually seem to be any evidence suggesting that these copyright infringements harm business (well, maybe in RIAA and MPAA mathematics); this does not give a carte blanche to copy whatever you want, but it is worth bearing in mind.
er...Key Gun (Rakes the pins automatically)? Lock Picks? Sure, the general public can't get those. For a start, copyrighting the encyrption algorithm effectively gives the company controlling the door openers a monopoly on the remotes, once you have installed the actual door opener in your garage; does this sound similar to anything at all (Hint: starts with an 'M')? Secondly, as cryptoanalysts well know, the security of a message should not depend on the secrecy of the algorithm, only on the secrecy of the keys involved; copyright is no protection, because obviously the criminals that try to break it will abide by that.
If you do agree, you are just not thinking hard enough; this is a stupid law; don't be convinced otherwise
Slashdot Mirror
I clicked Insightful damnit. Post to remove moderation.
Thanks for 'letting' us do what we have the right to do and what makes us a criminal (unjustly) anyway.
Well, as far as the analogy goes, yes...if the source code and modifications get lost, then that restricts everyone else's ability to use them. I was using the analogy of freedom in software as freedom of people, and the analogy of murder as the removal of those freedoms.
It isn't about having rights for the originator. Those are preserved by his first ownership of the copyrighted work. It's about preserving the freedoms for everyone that uses the software. If the source code and modifications get closed, then that restricts everyone else's ability to use them, so they have to be restricted to stay in the open.
Well, as far as the analogy goes, yes...if the source code and modifications get lost, then that restricts everyone else's ability to use them. I was using the analogy of freedom in software as freedom of people, and the analogy of murder as the removal of those freedoms. Of course, What I am not condemning is anyone for their choice of license, or anyone for respecting that license, just pointing out what the GPL and simliar licenses were about.
Like the constitution and bill of human rights is hypocritical: "everyone is free, but not that free"?
It goes something like this: The USA, UK, European Countries, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and so on, are all free countries, right? But you can't go out and kill someone...in fact there are huge bodies of law restricting people's actions; but they're still free countries...
This is what the GPL is about; it's about preserving everybody's freedoms by placing some restrictions on the use of the code.
Does this work on PowerPC? On *BSD? On The HURD (well, admittedly, not much works on The Hurd ;)? Was that the issue at hand?
Well, no, it wasn't really the issue at hand; the issue was that the MPAA and their lobbyists have created an artificial restrictions on how one uses his lawfully obtained copyright work.
When copyright was founded in the USA, congress decided that they could only restrict the public performance and public copying of a work; once a person had a copy, he could do whatever he liked with it as long as he didn't pass on a copy (ie. he could still sell on the original). They felt that further restrictions in law were infringing on rights. That is the issue here.
I don't want a DVD player for Linux; I have one of those now. I can watch DVDs (which I bought and own) in plenty of legal and illegal ways on and off Linux. What I want is the law to stop infringing on my rights to protect the corporate (who have no inherent human standing) interests of America.
I think the point here is that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on dektop OSs. This is fine as long as they don't abuse the monopoly...which...well...they do. For instance, they have leveraged there dominant OS to propagate their browser, Internet Explorer. Additionally, they have used their dominant OS to propagate their media player, WMP. In this case they go on to use this to propagate their own media CODEC, which then places them in a position to license it to media companies wanting to serve media, as it has the largest market share. Unfortunately, this is an abuse of a monopoly; and that's the problem.
I have a 'managed cabling' system where I work that handles the telephone system as well as data networking. All the distribution cables come into one set of (RJ45) patch panels in a rack; the incoming telephony copper pairs also come into one (RJ45) patch panel. We can patch through the phone lines to any distribution drop and plug in the phone using a PABX Master RJ45 to BT Adapter. Note that these act as a 'master' socket, so we don't have to have them lined up on the wall next to the rack. Of course, these are for the British Telecom system; I'm not what you would need where you are. When we put in a PBX, we will either get a rack mounted one with patch panels on the front or mount it on the wall and wire it to a patch panel in the rack.
In the British Telecom system, extension sockets are just placed in bus topology on the incoming pair plus the 'ringer' output from the master socket, so you could do this by terminating a three wires runnning down the back of a patch panel on each socket or some such.
Oh Dear, I seem to have been labouring under the assumption that the only people who can decide on matters of law are the judiciary, not our new corporate overlords.
Until such time as suit is brought against AllofMP3.com and it is decided against them; I will continue to believe that it is legal.
At the very least it gives one plausible deniability. I don't know if that counts for anything in copyright cases though.
'nuff said.
Bah! I call FUD. 'Intellectual Property'? Do you mean patents? There are no patents on the DVD-CSS. Do you mean trademarks? Those don't cover the actual implementation. Do you mean copyright? Reverse Engineering and Clean-room implementations of algorithms/interfaces are legal in the USA and, indeed, considered a fair use right. Do you mean 'Trade Secrets'? Trade Secrets are only protected in the manner that those who try to steal or acquire them by illegal means and those who give them when bound by duty of confidentiality are liable; I do not know of trade secrets being obtained illegaly and, indeed, the DVD-CCA have recently admitted that DVD-CSS is no longer a trade secret.
Well, that's slightly different because in that case I bought the property in question; I own it and I should be allowed to do with it what I want...It would be a different question if I, say, leased the the XBox from Microsoft or rented the car from Honda. But how many people would rent/lease the item instead of buying a competitor's product?
The same would be true if I bought your code and owned it (First Ownership); then, of course, I could do anything I want with it, because I own it. If however, I have only licensed/bought a copy, then I should only be able to do what I want with it privately...I have no right to publicly display or distribute the property.
Some wiser person than me has said: 'Defend everything and you defend nothing' and 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance'. I feel this applies to the GPL; it removes some freedoms in order to perpetuate others. Of course, you are under no obligation to use GPL'ed code; you can happily use something else, relicense or write your own.
Does this add to the non-linear and chaotic nature of the atmosphere? In particular, does it cause the earth to swing between states where it is cold and the generated ice is storing CO2, stopping any greenhouse effect and keeping the earth cold, and vice versa?
For a community that is based on the concept of 'free speech' and open systems, I doubt there will be much interest or support on a Digital Restriction Management system.
Due to the nature of any DRM system, it has to act as a black box which is contrary to the beliefs of the community. We will not want to support it, or, probably, even install it.
Due to the nature of free software, we rely on people to do the right thing just as much as other copyright holders; this will not change although some notable companies have abused this. If your company doesn't want to respect us, we are not interested.
Copyrighted works are protected by law and to the extent permitted by the law only, anything further, like stopping non-restricted copies, starts stepping on our rights and we will not be interested in letting that fly.
Er...actually, if you read their downloads page, this text is present: "GPL Sources of applications/libraries which are distributed under the GPL or modified LGPL sources are available by CD order.
This CD will ship for 12 (including shipping cost) to the entire world.
Small sources (5MB) are available by email order too." That seems compliant.
Well, I appear to have missed the boat on this one, but anyway: Does anybody else have a problem with Internet or Technology specific laws? Does the technological revolution raise any actual, new issues that require new legislation? It is my opinionv that most percieved problems can be equated to equivalent problems in 'real' life with appropriately fast and/or large communication system. Perhaps all that is needed is to establish how the 'old' system relates to the new and how we should move forward in enforcing it, without removing or negating any of the considered rights, checks and balances.
For instance, I do not see bulk/direct messaging as a problem specific to the Internet; junk mail, junk faxes and direct telemarketing seem to be found just as much a problem. Wouldn't it be more sensible if we created a system that addressed all of hteses problems and hopefully may cover future communications environments? As someone suggested most spam is already criminal under fraud laws.
Beating a dead horse here: DRM and TPM are a problem too, because in most countries, people can make non-infringing copies to non DRM enabled platforms; the infringing copies are already criminal by existing copyreight laws. Instead of creating a government mandated monopoly on information perhaps it would be a wiser idea to seriously fund, investigate, and run a program to expand the enforcement of laws on the new platform?
Other examples I won't go into include Import and Export, Wireless Networks and property, Trespass; I welcome any conter arguments to any of these, so hopefully I can smack them down. :P Here's hoping for replies.
I think Spammers and Telemarketeers are one category because they have the same function with a different medium (but maybe one often has more fraud). Making the distinction makes the internet 'special' and leads to the concept that it needs regulation. Restrictive laws follow close behind.
For those too lazy to use a search engine, here's a working link to download the last movie: How Not To Be Seen. If that doesn't work here's a direct link to the search query: Google: "How Not To Be Seen" Halo.
Did anyone else read that and think of the humble Acorn and games made by 'Armed and Dangerous'?
Come to think of it...Did anyone else read that?
As much as I hate providing a compromise in this situation: Do as Trolltech: Release freely under an OpenSource license. Release under a commercial license for a fee. Make contributions back to your code repository can be relicensed. (n) Profit!!!?!?!?!?. ahem...
You sir are a moron. Firstly, I believe that violating the MPAA and RIAA is wrong, wrong, wrong; both legally and morally; there is nothing you can say that will make it right. The problem I have with the MPAA, RIAA, and BSA is that they use strongarm tactics from purely _civilian_ organisations to _police_ you; they also use their wealth and influence in polical arenas to try and make legal their tactics to give themselves power to _police_ you from civilian organisations, to form vigilante mobs to take down internet services, and to give them the right decide on your copyright infringement on them (an impartial third party is reall a _must_ in theis situation); do not forget that P2P is a valid technology and _can_ be used for non-illegal purposes (P2P News? P2P Radio?), and some dubious uses in _your_ country may not be illegal over here; can you see the RIAA and MPAA discriminating on geogrphical locations? (On a side note, what would you say if China, for instance, tried to start shutting down _your_ news sites because they were against the law in _China_? They also try to mandate laws that will restrict _your_ _rights_ (?) that have already been established and laid down in law (fair use laws). I have no sympathy for the RIAA and MPAA, (and to some extent the BSA either).
As a final note, their are some mitigating circumstances towards copyright infringement against the RIAA and MPAA; this does not make it any less wrong; it's just somehting that should be bore (?) in mind. Firstly, they are mostly monopolies, and artists are forced to contract with them for conventional means (whether the artists get a raw deal is beyond the scope of this comment); this can possibly be attributed to the whims of the mass-market, but, hey, OSS seems to have a different system working. Secondly, there doesn't actually seem to be any evidence suggesting that these copyright infringements harm business (well, maybe in RIAA and MPAA mathematics); this does not give a carte blanche to copy whatever you want, but it is worth bearing in mind.
er...Key Gun (Rakes the pins automatically)? Lock Picks? Sure, the general public can't get those. For a start, copyrighting the encyrption algorithm effectively gives the company controlling the door openers a monopoly on the remotes, once you have installed the actual door opener in your garage; does this sound similar to anything at all (Hint: starts with an 'M')? Secondly, as cryptoanalysts well know, the security of a message should not depend on the secrecy of the algorithm, only on the secrecy of the keys involved; copyright is no protection, because obviously the criminals that try to break it will abide by that.
If you do agree, you are just not thinking hard enough; this is a stupid law; don't be convinced otherwise
Yeah! Why does the government have to be open, if hte military can keep secrets!