"Tinkering" shouldn't be universally allowed, perhaps unless it doesn't affect anyone but yourself (even then, suicide is illegal). With mobile phones, just like cable TV, internet service, etc. you are on a network, and your actions impact that network.
As for your other examples, I don't think anyone is going to get too mad if you change the IMEI number but never turn your phone on (thus accessing the network, just like 'accessing' the road without a VIN plate is illegal).
Not exactly, because the fight isn't directly between the alleged infringer and the copyright holder. Usually, the copyright holder, citing the DMCA, asks the ISP to remove the alleged infringing material. If they willingly comply, then the legal spotlight shifts from the copyright holder onto the service provider, with whom the user must first contact before ever approaching the copyright holder.
Now, the DMCA does provide specific exclusions for service providers, but the unfortunate reality is that the majority of ISPs prefer to simply comply with the copyright holders rather than wage a lengthy, costly legal battle.
Thus, the DMCA (at best) adds an extra level of complexity to digital copyright and obscures the user's right to due process, by adding an additional party between the copyright holder and the copyright infringer. It is also important to note that this additional party is not trained in copyright law nor does it exist to protect intellectual property; it exists to provide internet-related services to customers. It is composed of technicians -- not lawyers, not police.
The purpose is to make digital copyright realistically enforceable, and, to a large degree, the DMCA is successful in this regard. But at what price? By shifting the burden from the copyright holder to the service provider and end user, it is now easier to prohibit actual violations, but it is also easier to suppress free speech and other usage forms protected by traditional copyright laws, such as the oft-cited fair use.
So, someone could make and distribute a watermark-adder program, which everyone could then personally apply to unwatermarked media. Thus only the people who created the watermark-adder program would be breaking the law (DMCA and possibly this new one), as the end-users were not "trafficking" in watermark-protected media.
Of course, if the end users are "trafficking" in unwatermark-protected - but copyrighted -material, then they are still breaking the law (just like they are today). It isn't enforced now, it's not going to be enforced later, so what's the point! How many ways do we need to make one crime, IP theft, illegal?!?
While open source is a subset of open computing, the two are in no way synonyms. The idea Microsoft is trying to convey is that business models are finally beginning to catch up to modern technology. Open computing could be taken to cover everything from internet access (where business models are already beginning to evolve from unlimited monthly access to capped transfer/bandwidth or pay-by-MB) to P2P file sharing systems (no explanation necessary).
Personally, I still believe technologically open solutions are evolving faster than traditional business models, but certainly the industry is now actively aware of this open computing -- not "problem" -- but "opportunity" to make more money. (Or, after the latest string of quarterly losses, make ANY money). I've always found it interesting how gargantuan companies can lose millions (or billions) of dollars each year, yet the CEO's of said companies still manage to turn a profit of hundreds of millions of dollars and live in houses with six hot tubs and three pools (at least one indoor) and other such ludicrously excessive luxuries.
Slashdot Mirror
"Tinkering" shouldn't be universally allowed, perhaps unless it doesn't affect anyone but yourself (even then, suicide is illegal). With mobile phones, just like cable TV, internet service, etc. you are on a network, and your actions impact that network.
As for your other examples, I don't think anyone is going to get too mad if you change the IMEI number but never turn your phone on (thus accessing the network, just like 'accessing' the road without a VIN plate is illegal).
Not exactly, because the fight isn't directly between the alleged infringer and the copyright holder. Usually, the copyright holder, citing the DMCA, asks the ISP to remove the alleged infringing material. If they willingly comply, then the legal spotlight shifts from the copyright holder onto the service provider, with whom the user must first contact before ever approaching the copyright holder.
Now, the DMCA does provide specific exclusions for service providers, but the unfortunate reality is that the majority of ISPs prefer to simply comply with the copyright holders rather than wage a lengthy, costly legal battle.
Thus, the DMCA (at best) adds an extra level of complexity to digital copyright and obscures the user's right to due process, by adding an additional party between the copyright holder and the copyright infringer. It is also important to note that this additional party is not trained in copyright law nor does it exist to protect intellectual property; it exists to provide internet-related services to customers. It is composed of technicians -- not lawyers, not police.
The purpose is to make digital copyright realistically enforceable, and, to a large degree, the DMCA is successful in this regard. But at what price? By shifting the burden from the copyright holder to the service provider and end user, it is now easier to prohibit actual violations, but it is also easier to suppress free speech and other usage forms protected by traditional copyright laws, such as the oft-cited fair use.
So, someone could make and distribute a watermark-adder program, which everyone could then personally apply to unwatermarked media. Thus only the people who created the watermark-adder program would be breaking the law (DMCA and possibly this new one), as the end-users were not "trafficking" in watermark-protected media.
Of course, if the end users are "trafficking" in unwatermark-protected - but copyrighted -material, then they are still breaking the law (just like they are today). It isn't enforced now, it's not going to be enforced later, so what's the point! How many ways do we need to make one crime, IP theft, illegal?!?
While open source is a subset of open computing, the two are in no way synonyms. The idea Microsoft is trying to convey is that business models are finally beginning to catch up to modern technology. Open computing could be taken to cover everything from internet access (where business models are already beginning to evolve from unlimited monthly access to capped transfer/bandwidth or pay-by-MB) to P2P file sharing systems (no explanation necessary). Personally, I still believe technologically open solutions are evolving faster than traditional business models, but certainly the industry is now actively aware of this open computing -- not "problem" -- but "opportunity" to make more money. (Or, after the latest string of quarterly losses, make ANY money). I've always found it interesting how gargantuan companies can lose millions (or billions) of dollars each year, yet the CEO's of said companies still manage to turn a profit of hundreds of millions of dollars and live in houses with six hot tubs and three pools (at least one indoor) and other such ludicrously excessive luxuries.