I used to think this way once, when I held a very simplistic kind of "natural rights" view. In fact, back then I could have been halfway convinced that by beaming their signals onto my property without my permission they were trespassing. But I've become a lot more utilitarian since then. What property rights people have should be settled on the basis of what system of rights is best for society overall. And a system of rights that says you DON'T have the right to intercept and decrypt properly authorized transmissions, even when you can do so on your own property, is for the social good.
I don't see how you could be sued for distributing the code, at least until AOL has contacted you to tell you to cease and desist. If you DLed it from an official Nullsoft server and it said it was under the GPL then you are acting in good faith if you distribute it. They may have put up a page now that says the distribution was unauthorized. But surely you are not responsible for periodically going back to every site from which you DL software to see what kinds of notices have been posted---and presumably they can't prove that you have read the notice.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a lwayer. But I watched the first several seasons of The Practice.)
Taking the Idea and Running With It
on
Biofeedback Gaming
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Can we mate the controller with a FPS? Players could be forced to get into a "somewhat meditative" state into order to use their flamethrower. How about a controller that measures additional biometric parameters? It could incorporate an anal probe, for example, and players could be required to bring their sphincter tension within a certain range to circumnavigate obstacles.
I was interviewed a few months ago by a local newspaper (this is in the USA) for a story about cameras placed at toll booths that would take a picture of the plates of people who didn't pay the tolls. He wanted my take on whether this violated privacy rights. I had a hard time not laughing---with the Patriot Act and TIA to talk about, he was worried about cameras at toll booths? I couldn't see how there was any reasonable expectation of privacy. But if you have a camera on every block, and if they keep a record of every car that goes past, that is different. Maybe we need to distinguish between observing and recording information. If I drive down the street, I cannot reasonably expect that my plate will be unobserved. But I can reasonably expect that it will not be recorded, unless there is a particular reason to do so (i.e., I am a criminal on the loose, the car has been reported stolen, etc.).
'Article' was actually right, but 'exactly' takes an 'e.' Anyway, I was disappointed with the article myself. The real question is whether companies should be allowed to refuse to sell material to consumers who refuse to give up their fair use rights. The point that Lessig hammers home is that they should not. I'm not saying that it doesn't make any difference whether companies try enforce agreements that include the sacrifice of fair use rights by contract or by code, as Lessig would put it---building the enforcement mechanism into code means that enforcement of lousy contracts will be much stricter. But even though this is of some importance, it is still really secondary.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to think this way once, when I held a very simplistic kind of "natural rights" view. In fact, back then I could have been halfway convinced that by beaming their signals onto my property without my permission they were trespassing. But I've become a lot more utilitarian since then. What property rights people have should be settled on the basis of what system of rights is best for society overall. And a system of rights that says you DON'T have the right to intercept and decrypt properly authorized transmissions, even when you can do so on your own property, is for the social good.
Now you've done it. If this site had any chance at all of avoiding being /.ed, mention of a hot girl surely made this inevitable.
I don't see how you could be sued for distributing the code, at least until AOL has contacted you to tell you to cease and desist. If you DLed it from an official Nullsoft server and it said it was under the GPL then you are acting in good faith if you distribute it. They may have put up a page now that says the distribution was unauthorized. But surely you are not responsible for periodically going back to every site from which you DL software to see what kinds of notices have been posted---and presumably they can't prove that you have read the notice. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lwayer. But I watched the first several seasons of The Practice.)
Can we mate the controller with a FPS? Players could be forced to get into a "somewhat meditative" state into order to use their flamethrower. How about a controller that measures additional biometric parameters? It could incorporate an anal probe, for example, and players could be required to bring their sphincter tension within a certain range to circumnavigate obstacles.
I was interviewed a few months ago by a local newspaper (this is in the USA) for a story about cameras placed at toll booths that would take a picture of the plates of people who didn't pay the tolls. He wanted my take on whether this violated privacy rights. I had a hard time not laughing---with the Patriot Act and TIA to talk about, he was worried about cameras at toll booths? I couldn't see how there was any reasonable expectation of privacy. But if you have a camera on every block, and if they keep a record of every car that goes past, that is different. Maybe we need to distinguish between observing and recording information. If I drive down the street, I cannot reasonably expect that my plate will be unobserved. But I can reasonably expect that it will not be recorded, unless there is a particular reason to do so (i.e., I am a criminal on the loose, the car has been reported stolen, etc.).
Maybe the "female anatomy" should come with the same warning label.
'Article' was actually right, but 'exactly' takes an 'e.' Anyway, I was disappointed with the article myself. The real question is whether companies should be allowed to refuse to sell material to consumers who refuse to give up their fair use rights. The point that Lessig hammers home is that they should not. I'm not saying that it doesn't make any difference whether companies try enforce agreements that include the sacrifice of fair use rights by contract or by code, as Lessig would put it---building the enforcement mechanism into code means that enforcement of lousy contracts will be much stricter. But even though this is of some importance, it is still really secondary.