As such, they have now found a new way of stripping away our right to own and govern property using technology and the great constitutional end-run known as contract law.
Contract law? Where is the contract? You don't have to sign a contract to buy a DVD. You don't have to sign a contract to be bound by the DMCA.
If you DID have to sign a contract then these people saying "just don't buy DRMed stuff" might have an argument. But the DMCA is not a contract.
The fact is, the underlying purpose of all DRM is to make your very own property act against you and act for someone else. I really don't know why anyone except for the people profiting and gaining power from it can't see why it is bad.
Chocking everything up to individual responsibility has no explanatory power for social trends.
Sure it does. An idea was widely communicated and each member following that social trend individually decided it was a good idea. Each individual is responsible for their own decisions and actions. It doesn't matter where or how they got the idea or the nature of it. The decision to follow it was theirs and theirs alone.
So people start looking around and see what they've been missing. Color! Brightness! Good keyboards! STYLE.
Cheap cases that creak and flex whenever you pick the thing up! 400 obnoxious blue LEDs! Windows keys! Sending the thing in for repairs! 500 multimedia keys all over the thing! Tech support in third world countries! Horray for nice round fisher-price cases!
And I have no idea what you're talking about with "good keyboards" or these things being heavy.
Who says someone can't choose to communicate any way they want?
I bet you will if I start shouting advertisements into your house in the middle of the night with a megaphone.
If I find the address of a person online and send an email to the person with a question - technically I'm spammer: I sent an unsolicited email.
No, technically you're not a spammer unless that is a unsolicited commercial email you sent. That's the definition of spam.
Do the rules change if I send 10,000? If so, this is not consistent with the core of free speech.
No. The rules do change however if you try to force your message on people who do not want to hear it. Nothing in the "core of free speech" says I have to listen to you.
Sonar V4 is $149. However, if 1000 people download it using bit torrent, that's $149000 that the company hasn't made.
Not true. Just because 1000 people downloaded it does not mean all 1000 of them would have or even could have bought it if the download wasn't available.
Thus the reason why I think if a DRM type of system is really going to work (Steam for one example), the government needs involvement,
Well first of all, DRM is never really going to "work" the way its creators would love it to. So long as their software or content is running on hardware I control, I can break the DRM. And DRM is routinely broken...
Since DRM proponents realize that DRM in the end can have no technical teeth, they've presuaded the government to give DRM legal teeth (a la the DMCA). But by doing that the government has created all the problems with rights of first sale, fair use, free speech, private property being interfered with.
So to solve these problems the government has created, you propose we add more government.
I have a far more logical idea: solve the problem created by more government through less government. No more DMCA. No more broadcast flag enforcement. No more legal teeth to DRM.
If someone wants to sell discs full of encrypted stuff, no problem. Once you've removed the DRM's legal reinfocement, the technical problems can easily be solved through technical solutions. Technically clever people can and will break the DRM as they always have. Non technical people can readily more obtain software or products to solve their DRM problems also. Just like the old days when you could buy "video stabilizer" products that defeated the Macrovision on VHS tapes from any number of electronics stores and not be in a legal grey area.
For the beginner, learning C is the best thing. Get all that, and learn the functional paradigm,
C is a horrible way to learn functional programming. It doesn't make a very good language for that... If you want to teach functional programming, you teach LISP or something similar to that. Learning and understanding that language provides great insight into programming in general...
The OS was Slackware linux. All of the accounts were jailed, and all of the "best practice" measures were taken to harden the box (I can't comment on every detail as I am not a linux system admin).
Well no, obviously he missed something. It was a walk in the park because he left some well-known vulnerability on his system, possibly in the kernel. I don't think Slackware blows off local vulnerabilities and doesn't bother releasing fixes.
My point is that when a malicious user gains shell access to any *nix system, you're in deep trouble.
No you aren't. There are plenty of companies out there that will grant shell accounts. I grant shells to friends and friends of friends on my own server. There are even places places out there that will give them to the public for free. The key is the system administrator has to know what they're doing and you have to be running an operating system whose designers and maintainers take local security seriously.
Oh, so YOU'RE the asshole who comes in and demands the world of everyone for no decent reason, and doesn't shut the hell up until they've made everyone who works there feel like shit.
No decent reason? Well lets see, they sell him a defective product (not advertised as such, of course) and then lie and say it was supposed to be defective. Sounds like a pretty decent reason to me.
First of all, I'm not equating copyright violation with stealing. Stealing was part of an analagous example.
I know you weren't, but the original poster was and that is why my original rebuttal said their acts weren't copyright violation.
Secondly, I maintain that violation of a copyright act, whether the act has the words "digital millenium" on the front of it or not, is a copyright violation. It's a tautology.
Well, so be it. I still maintain that giving out copies of something and publishing information on how to make modifications to one's own copy are totally different acts that (may) violate different laws with different names.
You can blather on about "fair use" all you want, but you're unlikely to be using it in a manner that has anything to do with parody or scholarly review, I imagine.
No - even better, I'd be using it in the manner it was obviously meant to be used. If I buy computer software, it is obviously meant to be loaded onto a computer and ran and do all of the things that are advertised on the back of the box. And I don't necessarily need to make additional copies to hack the one I installed normally.
Good thing the copyright owner is willing to grant you a license that allows you to make additional copies under certain terms.
Oh yeah, so they intentionally sold me a product that by your argument is legally incapable of doing what the manufacturer themselves said it would do for the advertised and agreed upon price. Not to worry though - out of the kindness of their hearts they're willing to let me actually use the product I just paid for IF I pay an additional price (a bunch of my rights) which wasn't disclosed at the time of purchase. How so very nice of them!
To claim that a violation of the DMCA isn't a violation of copyright is completely nonsensical,
No it isn't, because violating the DMCA does not necessarily entail violating a copyright. They are different laws and completely different acts. And strecthing what these guys did to be defined as "stealing" is complete nonsense. Saying that distributing copyrighted works without the right is "stealing" is one thing, saying that reverse engineering software and telling people what you did is "stealing" is plain wrong, no matter how far you stretch it.
It's like saying "he didn't steal anything, that store's just using the Retail Theft Act to go after him" or "he's not charged with killing someone, he's charged with criminal homicide".
Well that depends. Did he in fact steal something or not? Did he kill someone or not? It is a pretty clear cut thing, just like violating copyright or merely violating the DMCA.
What I (hypothetically) bought was a copy of a copyrighted work. I can buy the copyright of the work, or I can just buy a copy of the work. The license is something that was presented after I already bought the copy. I can choose to reject the license and thus not be bound by its terms yet still own that copy.
If you rip the engine out of your lexus and drop it into your VW Bug you shouldn't expect to go back to the lexus dealer and get much sympathy when it stops working
Do you expect a DMCA cease & desist letter telling you to stop hacking your car up?
the fact you don't like it does not authorize you to use a component of their platforms with different hardware.
Why on earth would I need someone else's authorization to use something I paid for in whatever manner I choose? Do you not believe in private property ownership anymore?
What? Did you even read the article? This is about people making OS X available for download. Of course Apple's copyright was violated. The OSx86 people do not have the right to redistribute the product to others.
Yes, I did. Did YOU even read the article? I don't see anything at all about the projects making OS X available for download anywhere... please quote the relevant portions that say that.
If they were, it would be simple copyright violation, no need for a DMCA threat.
What do you mean? If I download a GPL program, modify it, sell it, but don't redistribute the source, I've just violated the GPL
By "violating" the GPL none of the conditional rights to redistribute the copyrighted work it would have granted you apply. So now you're redistributing copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder. It is in effect the copyright that you are violating, not the GPL.
in the same way that someone buys an iMac, modifies OS X, and installs it on a Dell has violated the Apple license.
How on earth is that the same? In the first instance, you're redistributing copyrighted material. In this second example, you're not redistributing anything. In the first example, you're violating a copyright. Since privately modifying your own copy of a copyrighted work is not against copyright law, you're not violating a copyright in the second example.
Either you agree licenses have power, or they don't.
Sure I can agree that licenses have power - the question is what kind of power. There's a fundamental difference between the GPL and Apple's license. Open source licenses such as the GPL (should you choose to accept them) grant you additional rights that copyright law has taken away. Commerical licenses attempt to revoke additional rights from you that copyright law did not.
So, when the next story comes out about someone legally downloading GPL code, but using it in a way that is not allowed by the GPL(icense), which side will YOU be on?
The exact same side, since there never was and never will be such a story, since it is not possible to to USE GPLed code in a way that violates the GPL since the GPL has absolutely nothing to do with use. It only affects redistribution, and it does so by granting conditional exceptions to the copyright on the code.
"for the computer it came with only" is a term of the license. Since licenses aren't laws, in order for the license to have any effect, I'd have to agree to be bound by it first. If I buy the computer+the software and don't agree to the license, I still bought and own that copy of the software.
Slashdot Mirror
Contract law? Where is the contract? You don't have to sign a contract to buy a DVD. You don't have to sign a contract to be bound by the DMCA.
If you DID have to sign a contract then these people saying "just don't buy DRMed stuff" might have an argument. But the DMCA is not a contract.
The fact is, the underlying purpose of all DRM is to make your very own property act against you and act for someone else. I really don't know why anyone except for the people profiting and gaining power from it can't see why it is bad.
Are you a WoW subscriber?
Could you be more specific...
Sure it does. An idea was widely communicated and each member following that social trend individually decided it was a good idea. Each individual is responsible for their own decisions and actions. It doesn't matter where or how they got the idea or the nature of it. The decision to follow it was theirs and theirs alone.
Cheap cases that creak and flex whenever you pick the thing up! 400 obnoxious blue LEDs! Windows keys! Sending the thing in for repairs! 500 multimedia keys all over the thing! Tech support in third world countries! Horray for nice round fisher-price cases!
And I have no idea what you're talking about with "good keyboards" or these things being heavy.
I bet you will if I start shouting advertisements into your house in the middle of the night with a megaphone.
No, technically you're not a spammer unless that is a unsolicited commercial email you sent. That's the definition of spam.
No. The rules do change however if you try to force your message on people who do not want to hear it. Nothing in the "core of free speech" says I have to listen to you.
Not true. Just because 1000 people downloaded it does not mean all 1000 of them would have or even could have bought it if the download wasn't available.
Well first of all, DRM is never really going to "work" the way its creators would love it to. So long as their software or content is running on hardware I control, I can break the DRM. And DRM is routinely broken...
Since DRM proponents realize that DRM in the end can have no technical teeth, they've presuaded the government to give DRM legal teeth (a la the DMCA). But by doing that the government has created all the problems with rights of first sale, fair use, free speech, private property being interfered with.
So to solve these problems the government has created, you propose we add more government.
I have a far more logical idea: solve the problem created by more government through less government. No more DMCA. No more broadcast flag enforcement. No more legal teeth to DRM.
If someone wants to sell discs full of encrypted stuff, no problem. Once you've removed the DRM's legal reinfocement, the technical problems can easily be solved through technical solutions. Technically clever people can and will break the DRM as they always have. Non technical people can readily more obtain software or products to solve their DRM problems also. Just like the old days when you could buy "video stabilizer" products that defeated the Macrovision on VHS tapes from any number of electronics stores and not be in a legal grey area.
example cited.
C is a horrible way to learn functional programming. It doesn't make a very good language for that... If you want to teach functional programming, you teach LISP or something similar to that. Learning and understanding that language provides great insight into programming in general...
Well no, obviously he missed something. It was a walk in the park because he left some well-known vulnerability on his system, possibly in the kernel. I don't think Slackware blows off local vulnerabilities and doesn't bother releasing fixes.
No you aren't. There are plenty of companies out there that will grant shell accounts. I grant shells to friends and friends of friends on my own server. There are even places places out there that will give them to the public for free. The key is the system administrator has to know what they're doing and you have to be running an operating system whose designers and maintainers take local security seriously.
It IS doable.
No decent reason? Well lets see, they sell him a defective product (not advertised as such, of course) and then lie and say it was supposed to be defective. Sounds like a pretty decent reason to me.
postgres and mysql both have time types...
I know you weren't, but the original poster was and that is why my original rebuttal said their acts weren't copyright violation.
Well, so be it. I still maintain that giving out copies of something and publishing information on how to make modifications to one's own copy are totally different acts that (may) violate different laws with different names.
No - even better, I'd be using it in the manner it was obviously meant to be used. If I buy computer software, it is obviously meant to be loaded onto a computer and ran and do all of the things that are advertised on the back of the box. And I don't necessarily need to make additional copies to hack the one I installed normally.
Oh yeah, so they intentionally sold me a product that by your argument is legally incapable of doing what the manufacturer themselves said it would do for the advertised and agreed upon price. Not to worry though - out of the kindness of their hearts they're willing to let me actually use the product I just paid for IF I pay an additional price (a bunch of my rights) which wasn't disclosed at the time of purchase. How so very nice of them!
No it isn't, because violating the DMCA does not necessarily entail violating a copyright. They are different laws and completely different acts. And strecthing what these guys did to be defined as "stealing" is complete nonsense. Saying that distributing copyrighted works without the right is "stealing" is one thing, saying that reverse engineering software and telling people what you did is "stealing" is plain wrong, no matter how far you stretch it.
Well that depends. Did he in fact steal something or not? Did he kill someone or not? It is a pretty clear cut thing, just like violating copyright or merely violating the DMCA.
What I (hypothetically) bought was a copy of a copyrighted work. I can buy the copyright of the work, or I can just buy a copy of the work. The license is something that was presented after I already bought the copy. I can choose to reject the license and thus not be bound by its terms yet still own that copy.
Yes, that's what I said, they're trying to use the DMCA to shut them down....
Do you expect a DMCA cease & desist letter telling you to stop hacking your car up?
Why on earth would I need someone else's authorization to use something I paid for in whatever manner I choose? Do you not believe in private property ownership anymore?
Yes, I did. Did YOU even read the article? I don't see anything at all about the projects making OS X available for download anywhere... please quote the relevant portions that say that.
If they were, it would be simple copyright violation, no need for a DMCA threat.
By "violating" the GPL none of the conditional rights to redistribute the copyrighted work it would have granted you apply. So now you're redistributing copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder. It is in effect the copyright that you are violating, not the GPL.
How on earth is that the same? In the first instance, you're redistributing copyrighted material. In this second example, you're not redistributing anything. In the first example, you're violating a copyright. Since privately modifying your own copy of a copyrighted work is not against copyright law, you're not violating a copyright in the second example.
Sure I can agree that licenses have power - the question is what kind of power. There's a fundamental difference between the GPL and Apple's license. Open source licenses such as the GPL (should you choose to accept them) grant you additional rights that copyright law has taken away. Commerical licenses attempt to revoke additional rights from you that copyright law did not.
The exact same side, since there never was and never will be such a story, since it is not possible to to USE GPLed code in a way that violates the GPL since the GPL has absolutely nothing to do with use. It only affects redistribution, and it does so by granting conditional exceptions to the copyright on the code.
"for the computer it came with only" is a term of the license. Since licenses aren't laws, in order for the license to have any effect, I'd have to agree to be bound by it first. If I buy the computer+the software and don't agree to the license, I still bought and own that copy of the software.