The relevant passage says:
Do you seek to enter the united States to engage in export control violations, subversive or
terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or representative of a
terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? Have you ever
participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever
participated in genocide?
Should the rest of the OS have to be GPLed? I would hope not!
Even if they're found guilty of copyright infringement most infringements are punished by fines. In that case Castle would need to pay up and stop distributing software with GPL code in it. For future releases they'd need to replace GPL'd parts with their own code.
That's if they're found guilty. Let's not pass judgement too fast.
You're way off. Slashdot has several thousand standards. This is not a fascist dictatorship, it's a discussion site, so please stop assuming everyone thinks the same way. Please.
If we all would've used our integrity a little more when it would've really counted, and said NO we wouldn't have to pull down our pants and pee in a jar to get a job today. Now its probably too late.
Why do you think there is such a thing as workers unions?
There is a
patent by walid.com on substituting national characters with ASCII in DNS systems. (So ærø.dk would be looked up as aro.dk etc.) IETF tried to build a standard but were
told (bottom mail) that they could use the patent based on "reciprocity" meaning that companies using internationalised domain names would grant walid license to all their patents.
The issue of proving 'due dilligence', to show that you're not a co-conspirator in providing said resources is an issue, but your comment blurs that distinction.
I fear it will be blurred in court. I'm not simply talking about the sysadmin taking no action against users that clearly use their account for piracy. What I'm worried about is p2p networks becoming illegal because they are also used for illegal purposes. Currently many of them are primarily used for illegal purposes, but that could change with recent actions where p2p users are targetted with lawsuits over their activities. P2P have many cool uses, but I fear we'll never get the chance to try them out.
It looks like the ITworld article has got two different proposals mixed up.
But how could they? This is a freshly drafted directive, and the other one was passed two years ago. I think it's more likely that the journalist misunderstood the FAQ as to filesharing (But again, how could he?) Then he heard the steaming comments from the music industry (who are trying to push this to get even more) and the wrong neurons fired. Whatever. Joris Evers and ITworld karma: excellent-> neutral.
40% of software in use worldwide is believed to be pirated, and 37% in the EU (= loss of revenue of 2.9 billion euros annually).(2)
Worldwide, 36% of all music CDs and cassettes sold are pirated (total sales of pirated goods is 5 billion units).
This directive ensures copyright/trademark holders a minimum toolbox of legal attacks on copyright infringers. National law is explicitly left alone in so far it is "more favourable for right holders". It is clear that the industry is lobbying to make sure that copyrights are very strictly enforceable all across the EU along the way sneaking in injunctions against services used for infringement by "third parties".
The proposal may very well still be amended on its way through the Euro-parliament.
The EU countries already have laws in place for punishing copyright infringement. (And the copyright laws are also harmonised by directives) What's new is that the enforcement of these laws is harmonised.
The directive does not legalise filesharing, or any other activity illegal under present copyright law. It deals solely with the enforcement of copyright law. A few highlights (or should i say lowlights?):
EU states must give anti-piracy alliances the right to apply for raids where they can seize infringing copies and related evidence. These raids can be granted without the presence or knowledge of the defendant, "in the event of an actually committed or imminent infringement"
It also demands that you must divulge information on the recievers and suppliers of "infringing goods" if you have yourself been pointed out as "a link in the network" of infringers.
Furthermore EU members must allow injunctions against "intermediar[ies] whose services are being used by a third party to infringe a right" (I wonder what exactly you'll have to do to prove that the resources you put the disposal of others will not be used for piracy...)
What if we had an open-source codec, which was capable of operating with or without DRM?
Yeah, and what if we had a perpetual motion machine?
I wonder how you'd make an open DRM standard. Assume you have some open source "secure music delivery system" transfering an encrypted file. Then I could just modify the decryption program so it wrote the cleartext file to disk instead of playing it.
What you could do is describe the actions allowed on the file in Open Digital Rights Language. In that way customers could easily respect your copyright - they should simply stick with applications implementing the ODRL spec. If they think copyright law allows actions not covered by the ODRL metadata they could use programs that ignored it (and incur the liability). Of course the RIAA won't back this solution since it doesn't really stop users from sharing the files on KaZaa. (Remember, the RIAA hallucinates that it's possible) This solution comes closest to the linguistic meaning of "Digital Rights Management" - it's about having the computer assist you in managing the rights you have acquired.
You could do open source DRM on the TCPA platform, but then your app must be certified by a vendor trusted by the music shop. That solution has lost several important characteristics of open source, and I refuse to call it an open standard.
I'd say the only way putting "ADV:" in the subject header would cut back on the volume is if the SMTP servers were able to scan e-mail subject lines before sending the mail
You forget that spammers will simply stop sending messages if none of them get through. Filtering "ADV:" subjects is so easy that it would be done instantly by all ISPs, putting spammers out of business. The question is whether spams will really be tagged.
Otherwise, all you're doing is making it easier to delete by the end-user instead of actually freeing up expensive bandwidth.
No, you'd make sure the end-user will never see the spam. Today it wastes both human time and network bandwidth. The first is easily the most expensive (or will be soon).
There does not (yet) seem to be a prohibition against intermediate mail relays stripping the "ADV:" (or "ADULTADV:") tag from the subject line.
I think that would make a pretty bad defense. Citing the
proposal:
No person or entity conducting business in the United States may electronically mail, or cause to be electronically mailed [...] unsolicited advertising material [...] unless the subject line of each and every electronic document or message includes ''ADV:'' (My emphasis)
You could hardly have used a tag-stripping relay by accident, and so you have consciously "caused" tagless mailing.
Also note that the clause permitting normal internet routing applies only "to the extent that the tele-communications utility or Internet service provider merely carries that transmission over its network."
A relay that actively modifies subjects would hardly be able to use that defense...
If you make it too short, though, people may simply wait for works to become public. (It seems silly, but it might happen.)
The first order effects of short copyright terms are the ones we have discussed:
1. The works entering the public domain (good for the public)
2. The authors loss of revenue after N years (lessens incentive, bad for the public)
You've started discussing 2nd order effects, and I believe there are two:
1. New works face stronger competition from works already in the public domain. (lessens incentive, bad for the public)
2. New works are cheaper to produce, since you're free to build on "old" stuff.(obviously good)
I have no idea of the relative strength of these two effects. It probably depends on the type of work considered.
I think 20-40 years is too long for this balance. The vast majority of published works brings in nearly all their revenue in less than 10 years.[*] I don't think freeing works after that period would significantly harm production.
[*]I have no numbers to back this up, it's just a hunch I have. If you've got any links, please do.
debating the appropriate LENGTH of protection is to engage in a loaded debate.
You're completely right. Thanks for pointing it out:-)
A healthier approach would worry less about duration than about the way protection is structured.
What alternative structures do you suggest? Lately I've been thinking a lot about possible copyright structures (better word?), and I can't envision realistic structures other than the current. (I'd keep the basic system intact, but demand source code escrow (for programs), shorter terms, compulsory licenses in certain areas etc.) If you've got any ideas, spread the meme! You don't even have to consider them realistic, just fir'em off!
While I'm at it, I consider it a major victory that a mainstream magazine like the Economist openly suggests 14 year terms. Too bad they got the DRM stuff wrong.
Piracy can only be halted by popular respect for copyright law. This respect is born in people when they see how copyright benefits society. Century-long copyright is clearly harming society, so to convince people to stop pirating we need shorter terms.
DRM won't get us anywhere, what with darknet and all. On the contrary, DRM degrades the value of legally purchased products as compared to pirated. (Not to mention fair use, open source etc.)
I have no illusion that we can stop piracy altogether, but if copyright actually had obvious benefits piracy could become socially stigmatized. Piracy would only be acceptable in situations where it didn't hurt - like "How am I supposed to pay for the vic20 games i downloaded in a fit of nostalgia?". Of course, this would also need a bit of propaganda on the benefits of copyright, but I think the ??AA's could fix that once they've painted themselves out of the corner again...
Slashdot Mirror
Read it, it's hilarious
The relevant passage says:
Do you seek to enter the united States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide?
Should the rest of the OS have to be GPLed? I would hope not!
Even if they're found guilty of copyright infringement most infringements are punished by fines. In that case Castle would need to pay up and stop distributing software with GPL code in it. For future releases they'd need to replace GPL'd parts with their own code.
That's if they're found guilty. Let's not pass judgement too fast.
You get to do the Digital Millenium Copyright Reform single-handedly. What does it look like?
Slashdot has a double standard.
You're way off. Slashdot has several thousand standards. This is not a fascist dictatorship, it's a discussion site, so please stop assuming everyone thinks the same way. Please.
If we all would've used our integrity a little more when it would've really counted, and said NO we wouldn't have to pull down our pants and pee in a jar to get a job today. Now its probably too late.
Why do you think there is such a thing as workers unions?
There is a patent by walid.com on substituting national characters with ASCII in DNS systems. (So ærø.dk would be looked up as aro.dk etc.) IETF tried to build a standard but were told (bottom mail) that they could use the patent based on "reciprocity" meaning that companies using internationalised domain names would grant walid license to all their patents.
The issue of proving 'due dilligence', to show that you're not a co-conspirator in providing said resources is an issue, but your comment blurs that distinction.
I fear it will be blurred in court. I'm not simply talking about the sysadmin taking no action against users that clearly use their account for piracy. What I'm worried about is p2p networks becoming illegal because they are also used for illegal purposes. Currently many of them are primarily used for illegal purposes, but that could change with recent actions where p2p users are targetted with lawsuits over their activities. P2P have many cool uses, but I fear we'll never get the chance to try them out.
- subject
It looks like the ITworld article has got two different proposals mixed up.
But how could they? This is a freshly drafted directive, and the other one was passed two years ago. I think it's more likely that the journalist misunderstood the FAQ as to filesharing (But again, how could he?) Then he heard the steaming comments from the music industry (who are trying to push this to get even more) and the wrong neurons fired. Whatever.
Joris Evers and ITworld karma: excellent-> neutral.
40% of software in use worldwide is believed to be pirated, and 37% in the EU (= loss of revenue of 2.9 billion euros annually).(2)
Worldwide, 36% of all music CDs and cassettes sold are pirated (total sales of pirated goods is 5 billion units).
Can this be debunked?
The same should be asked of the numbers on p. 10 of the directive (pdf)
This directive ensures copyright/trademark holders a minimum toolbox of legal attacks on copyright infringers. National law is explicitly left alone in so far it is "more favourable for right holders". It is clear that the industry is lobbying to make sure that copyrights are very strictly enforceable all across the EU along the way sneaking in injunctions against services used for infringement by "third parties".
The proposal may very well still be amended on its way through the Euro-parliament.
The EU countries already have laws in place for punishing copyright infringement. (And the copyright laws are also harmonised by directives) What's new is that the enforcement of these laws is harmonised.
I have actually (Oh horror!) read the directive.
The directive does not legalise filesharing, or any other activity illegal under present copyright law. It deals solely with the enforcement of copyright law. A few highlights (or should i say lowlights?):
EU states must give anti-piracy alliances the right to apply for raids where they can seize infringing copies and related evidence. These raids can be granted without the presence or knowledge of the defendant, "in the event of an actually committed or imminent infringement"
It also demands that you must divulge information on the recievers and suppliers of "infringing goods" if you have yourself been pointed out as "a link in the network" of infringers.
Furthermore EU members must allow injunctions against "intermediar[ies] whose services are being used by a third party to infringe a right" (I wonder what exactly you'll have to do to prove that the resources you put the disposal of others will not be used for piracy...)
Here (Realmedia)
14 minutes with pre-launch shots of crew, launch, space views and landing.
Very bad sound unfortunately.
Get the full text here.
The Commission also put up an FAQ
What if we had an open-source codec, which was capable of operating with or without DRM?
Yeah, and what if we had a perpetual motion machine?
I wonder how you'd make an open DRM standard. Assume you have some open source "secure music delivery system" transfering an encrypted file. Then I could just modify the decryption program so it wrote the cleartext file to disk instead of playing it.
What you could do is describe the actions allowed on the file in Open Digital Rights Language. In that way customers could easily respect your copyright - they should simply stick with applications implementing the ODRL spec. If they think copyright law allows actions not covered by the ODRL metadata they could use programs that ignored it (and incur the liability). Of course the RIAA won't back this solution since it doesn't really stop users from sharing the files on KaZaa. (Remember, the RIAA hallucinates that it's possible)
This solution comes closest to the linguistic meaning of "Digital Rights Management" - it's about having the computer assist you in managing the rights you have acquired.
You could do open source DRM on the TCPA platform, but then your app must be certified by a vendor trusted by the music shop. That solution has lost several important characteristics of open source, and I refuse to call it an open standard.
I'd say the only way putting "ADV:" in the subject header would cut back on the volume is if the SMTP servers were able to scan e-mail subject lines before sending the mail
You forget that spammers will simply stop sending messages if none of them get through. Filtering "ADV:" subjects is so easy that it would be done instantly by all ISPs, putting spammers out of business. The question is whether spams will really be tagged.
Otherwise, all you're doing is making it easier to delete by the end-user instead of actually freeing up expensive bandwidth.
No, you'd make sure the end-user will never see the spam. Today it wastes both human time and network bandwidth. The first is easily the most expensive (or will be soon).
There does not (yet) seem to be a prohibition against intermediate mail relays stripping the "ADV:" (or "ADULTADV:") tag from the subject line.
I think that would make a pretty bad defense. Citing the proposal:
No person or entity conducting business in the United States may electronically mail, or cause to be electronically mailed [...] unsolicited advertising material [...] unless the subject line of each and every electronic document or message includes ''ADV:'' (My emphasis)
You could hardly have used a tag-stripping relay by accident, and so you have consciously "caused" tagless mailing.
Also note that the clause permitting normal internet routing applies only "to the extent that the tele-communications utility or Internet service provider merely carries that transmission over its network."
A relay that actively modifies subjects would hardly be able to use that defense...
If you make it too short, though, people may simply wait for works to become public. (It seems silly, but it might happen.)
The first order effects of short copyright terms are the ones we have discussed:
1. The works entering the public domain (good for the public)
2. The authors loss of revenue after N years (lessens incentive, bad for the public)
You've started discussing 2nd order effects, and I believe there are two:
1. New works face stronger competition from works already in the public domain. (lessens incentive, bad for the public)
2. New works are cheaper to produce, since you're free to build on "old" stuff.(obviously good)
I have no idea of the relative strength of these two effects. It probably depends on the type of work considered.
Audio works are also included in the exhibit but I have not had the time to sample the wares.
It's warez! Really! Isn't that the point?
These two considerations should be balanced.
I think 20-40 years is too long for this balance. The vast majority of published works brings in nearly all their revenue in less than 10 years.[*] I don't think freeing works after that period would significantly harm production.
[*]I have no numbers to back this up, it's just a hunch I have. If you've got any links, please do.
You get copyright protection for only as long as you use it.
Yeah, and Bachs "Jesus bleibet meine Freude" is still in use today. Why should the government forbid that I played it? What do we get from it?
Don't the same arguments apply to Steamboat Willie?
Reduce the term of copyrights to somewhere between 20 and 40 years. (Basically, the working lifetime of an author.)
Why exactly this length?
debating the appropriate LENGTH of protection is to engage in a loaded debate.
:-)
You're completely right. Thanks for pointing it out
A healthier approach would worry less about duration than about the way protection is structured.
What alternative structures do you suggest? Lately I've been thinking a lot about possible copyright structures (better word?), and I can't envision realistic structures other than the current. (I'd keep the basic system intact, but demand source code escrow (for programs), shorter terms, compulsory licenses in certain areas etc.) If you've got any ideas, spread the meme! You don't even have to consider them realistic, just fir'em off!
While I'm at it, I consider it a major victory that a mainstream magazine like the Economist openly suggests 14 year terms. Too bad they got the DRM stuff wrong.
Piracy can only be halted by popular respect for copyright law. This respect is born in people when they see how copyright benefits society. Century-long copyright is clearly harming society, so to convince people to stop pirating we need shorter terms.
DRM won't get us anywhere, what with darknet and all. On the contrary, DRM degrades the value of legally purchased products as compared to pirated. (Not to mention fair use, open source etc.)
I have no illusion that we can stop piracy altogether, but if copyright actually had obvious benefits piracy could become socially stigmatized. Piracy would only be acceptable in situations where it didn't hurt - like "How am I supposed to pay for the vic20 games i downloaded in a fit of nostalgia?". Of course, this would also need a bit of propaganda on the benefits of copyright, but I think the ??AA's could fix that once they've painted themselves out of the corner again...
If you want copyright term reform, join the infoanarchy wiki. (Yeah, anarchy isn't the best association, but this is where stuff's happening)
This is only started, good suggestions welcome!