I know it's probably not what he's referring to, but I'd love to see a rebirth of the original NES game glove. That was well ahead of its time, and given the advances in computer and gaming technology we should be able to implement it even better these days. Could add things like flex resistors to sense each finger as it bends, could add all sorts of force feedback. Anyone ever heard of electro- and magneostatic fluids? Essentially they are liquids that turn solid in the presence of electric or magnetic fields. I've always wanted someone to develop a glove filled with veins of the stuff so you can simulate pressure or resistance. There's a whole class of haptic interface that hasn't been touched in over a decade, when will next-gen controllers move into the realm of devices that work with people rather than forcing us to learn an arbitrary control scheme?
Everyone else is whining about free speech in a private institution, half the posts modded to 4+ are redundant. You my friend are one of the few who nailed the issue right on the head. I think this is a greater problem at universities (private and public) than most anyone is even aware of. In most cases the university only has itself to answer to, so if it breaks its own rules, there is no way to appeal a decision or punish the university.
As an example, when I attended college our university started finals early one fall semester in order to balance the number of days in the fall and spring semesters for its graduate students. Normally this wouldn't be an issue however it meant that finals started one day after the last day of classes, which was in clear violation of the university's own stated policy that no course could give a final earlier than 3 days after the end of classes. This was known as "Reading Day" and was put in place to ensure students had at least a little time to prepare for the gauntlet of finals. Students protested the breach of policy but the administration never gave any reasoning behind why it was appropriate, neccessary at that time, or even admitted that they had violated their own policy. The message given to students (as far as I'm concerned) was that the school was above its own rules, and that if the administration violated policy they were not accountable, but everyone else was. Now the case can be made that they make the rules so they can do whatever they damn well please, but why have a policy in the first place if it is not enforced or is overruled arbitrarily and without input from those who are affected the most?
If there is no accountability to policy then what chance does any student have of due process in the system? I agree that private universities have every right to set their educational rules on their terms and that a student agrees to those terms, but there should be measures in place to ensure that the university actually plays by those rules and there should be consequences for the university if it doesn't adhere to its own stated guidelines. In this case, the fact that the student was not given due process and the offense was determined to not be in violation of the school's policies by the school's own co-director of ethics shows that the school was only interested in its own politics and not in fairly applying their own rules. If students are expected to agree and abide by the rules, the university must as well, elsewise they are in breach of contract just as much as a student would be.
'Next generation games will combine unprecedented audio and visual experiences to create worlds that are beyond real and they'll deliver storylines and game play so compelling that it will feel like living a lucid dream.'
This should read: 'Next generation games could blahblahblah...' Fact of the matter is it will be a while before titles actually start looking and - more importantly - playing like true 'next generation' games most of us imagine. Is the power there in this next round of consoles? I think it is, there is definitely a lot of potential, but it's still a ways off. Developers will have to learn the platform and its nuances, and they will also have to create all that higher detailed art and better audio, just because you can render a bazillion pixels doesn't mean the pictures are automatically prettier, someone has to create all the high-res art first. Additionally gameplay itself, AI, multiple paths to completion etc are better supported with these consoles but it will take time for game designers to figure out how to take advantage of all that. And just as importantly, publishers are going to have to give those developers the leeway and the opportunity to take chances with new gaming experiences that push the boundaries of gameplay as well as the system. There's a lot of potential in this new round of consoles, but I think it will take a few years before it really feels like next-gen.
but if I have to pick between freedom and safety I will usually pick safety
And what proof are you given that you are, in fact, being made any safer in return for your freedoms? And I mean demonstrable proof, not just vague assurances. Most of the initiatives that have been put in place since 9-11 have made some systems/places slightly safer, but on the whole it is impossible to guarantee or even comes close to protecting everyone everytime everywhere. Why do people fail to do a basic cost-benefit analysis with something so important as the (illusion of) giving up freedom for "safety"? I think if you do the math you'll see that everytime you're getting the short end of the deal.
Also, if you're in the US, please leave or stop voting, this country was founded - and should be run - on principles of basic freedoms that are not and should not be transferable or relinquished. If you don't understand that or don't care then you're in the wrong place, please don't screw it up for the rest of us.
why this is an argument in favor of closed source voting machines? Security through obscurity my a$$. This simply highlights problems with high-security black box applications - not even they know what's in the code they're running. They have to trust the other vendor(s) (MS, whose track record on security is terrible and a matter of public record) that the code is secure but cannot prove it, yet they expect us to believe their code is secure.
And more suspiciously, why are they threatening to leave instead of complying as much as possible? The court (i.e. ruling judge) should be able to apply the law in such a way that Diebold discloses all of their code, and then any remaining proprietary code from other vendors can be handled with those other vendors. Or is it that Diebold has something to hide? If their code really is secure, and actually does what they claim then they should have no problem showing everything they legally own. There really isn't anything that should be a trade secret about vote tabulation. I, for one, think it's disgusting that any US company would actually do the country such a disservice by trying to obfuscate for profit a product which is meant to facilitate the practice of democracy. Honestly, the whole board should be deported for conspiring to commit vote fraud. It would trivial to prove their innocence, simply release the code. Any other excuse smacks of dishonesty. In matters of government the appearance of impropriety should be treated as impropriety until/unless demonstrated otherwise.
I'm not really up-to-speed on politics and laws in Germany but this seems rather draconian, especially in the context of the article quote: Scheuer added that parents must be responsible for what their children play, but that the German government could help less media-savvy parents by introducing a 'complete ban' on violent games.
So OK, let's pretend for a second that banning games would in fact help 'less media-savvy parents' as intended, have they even done any studies** to show that such parents are in the majority? Or is the German government just assuming that they know better than most parents and/or most German parents aren't media-aware enough to make these decisions themselves?
Let's face it, even if bans were the answer, no one has demonstrated that even a significant number of parents need this kind of help. And is it really helping society as a whole when the solution to help one set of people completely alienates another group, and leaves them with no choices? Let's hope this fails, and additionally (as unlikely as it is) our government pays attention and learns a lesson and so doesn't waste our time and money trying to implement something similar in the future as the violent games debate continues here in the US.
(Full disclosure: I tried to read the original article linked from the blog that the/. summary points to but it is blocked by websense, if I've made some wrong assumptions - particularly about ** - then please correct me.)
Using GAIM here at work and as of now these haven't shown up on my friends list.
What I wonder is what happens security-wise when some AIM virus (always new ones popping up) manages to infect these bots? When it's just a question of one person's buddy list being used by a virus to propagate, the infection is limited somewhat by the low number of contacts. What happens when the same contact appears in say 75% of people's lists? Granted, the bot is administrated by AOL directly and no doubt has better security in place than your average user or user's bot, but I wonder if perhaps such a wide-reaching target will prove irresistible for virus writers. Just musing, I'm sure some people more familiar with the inner workings of AIM can refute or corroborate this idea.
I'm a friggin robotics engineer man. I am rather intelligent, and already read/. too much. Couple things about reading the law as you suggest: 1) Not sure of where to find this information, copyright law is rather extensive and digging through it doesn't sound fun. 2) Have you ever read actual laws? I write complete system specifications that are Dr Suess simple compared to statements you find in most laws, hence the term "legalese" as in a totally different language. 3) I read the judge's opinion which included excerpts from the law as well as his interpretation of it. I understand his ruling in this case. What I don't understand is why then this shouldn't/couldn't be applied to any other case regarding DRM'd media* or progams as accessed/altered by your average Joe Programmer/Public. And if it can be then we should start applying it post-haste.
Also, simply stating that most click-through/shrink wrap EULAs are void in the US does little to undo the fact that you can't go a single day w/o having to agree to one. Claiming they are void is contrary to what I have gleaned over reading/. and similar case articles, not to mention that if they are all void then why the hell are they so prevalent? Clearly there is some legal basis for them elsewise they would have been phased out or explicitly forbidden by a court at some point.
I wrote my comment looking for clarification from someone who did know more about this than I so I wouldn't have to take the time to dig it up for myself. Granted you have to take what you get here with a grain of salt but every now and then you get someone who has correct information or even a good URL to it. The point of asking such questions on/. is not to then go out and do a thesis paper on them, but to hope that in the thralling mass of people reading this someone will know and answer.
*media was covered in the summary as not being applicable but I still think the case can be made (perhaps in its own suit) that cracking the DRM on a music file you legally own to use it on a different player would also fall under the utilization clause of copyright (if not outright fair use).
I know, I know, I'm setting records here for responding late to comments, but:
If you can see no other reason to support the Fair Tax, abolition of the IRS should be plenty of reason enough.
If you think about it you realize that there will have to be a government agency to coordinate the collection of all these various sales taxes, to punish businesses that do not apply them or fail to submit the money collected on time or at all, and to be in charge of calculating and mailing out all these government checks that households will receive every month. So maybe it won't be called the IRS, but it will still be a centralized tax collection and regulation agency, i.e. the IRS. Just food for thought. Personally I oppose the Fair Tax for a number of reasons, but the #1 is that it can be passed with a simple majority, but undoing the income tax will require repealing an amendment which requires (IIRC) 2/3rds majority vote plus ratification by 75% of the states. I have very little confidence that the government will pass the fair tax and then repeal the income tax. Repealing is harder, and by that point they will have two legal methods of taxing us, a proposition that has warhawk neocons and other government spendthrifts drooling. That and about 50 other objections to it. Also, I object to income tax. My solution is to scale back the federal government to what the constitution allows/dictates, and to what little government we actually need, thereby reducing spending enormously. Right now the federal behemoth already spends way too much when it's on-budget and has no real penalties in place to dissuade it from defecit spending for any reason it likes.
What pisses me off about the rediculous software and methods patents that are passed is that people are not patenting a specific invention, method, or implementation, they are patenting an entire concept. Usually these things are worded so vaguely that they cover the entire spectrum regardless of how one implements it. If previous patents on actual physical iinventions were allowed to be so broad we'd be missing entire industries!
For example, Edison's lightbulb patent written in these terms would have patented "A method for using electric current to produce visible light in a small self-enclosed casing." Which would cover and preclude from legal invention the LED, neon lights, and electroluminescent wire. It's pretty easy to see/demonstrate that all of those items produce light in vastly different ways than a standard filament bulb, yet all would infringe on the vague method-style patent I used.
Method and software patents are completely broken, by allowing the patenting of an entire concept, rather than a unique implementation of that concept, the USPTO is clearly stifling innovation and competition. Essentially making it impossible for others to legally explore similar inventions/products that may have fundamental differences from a method patent they supposedly infringe.
IANAL, I have read a fair amount about patents but am certainly no expert, please someone point out any flaws in my reasoning, but it seems to me the overarching vagueness of these patents is what's causing problems.
To the mods who can't tell time: I posted this 7 minutes after the story went up, there are no other posts of this nature before mine. How am *I* redundant?
And for the internet's sake, stop modding down posts that are only at 2! If you want to mod something down, start at 3+, an awful lot of crap gets that high that shouldn't. Honestly, who other than mods are reading every comment at 2? Here I put this at 2 so you can have a field day with it.
Hey, thanks for replying with basically what I was going to say, that was an excellent bit of writing, and you pointed out this person's main argument flaw which is the false association between money spent on ChildsPlay and money spent on other charities. The only thing I would add is that ChildsPlay more likely increases the total amount of funds going to charities simply by bringing in a new demographic of donors. Whereas before gamers - who are mostly in the 18 to 34 male demographic - might not have contributed anything to charity, now they see one they can relate to and it encourages them to make a charitable donation they might otherwise have never made to ANY fund. (Full disclosure, I'm in this group.) So already you have people donating who never would have, increasing charitable funds. I also submit that because of this other people who were already giving funds/time/gifts to fill this need are now free to move their donations to another place since ChildsPlay is filling this niche in a large way. OK, so it only really affects a few hospitals, and the donors who are being augmented by ChildsPlay may not actually choose to move their donations elsewhere, but I claim that this scenario is at least as likely and just as unprovable as the nasty AC's scenario of ChildsPlay reducing funds for other "more worthy" charities.
And as you also stated (parent AC), if we all operated only by the rules of triage, then not much would get accomplished. Like I said in my post, who are any of us to tell some kid with malaria that they're not on our traige list yet and they have to wait because AIDS/TB/whatever has been deemed more important. That's not how the real world works. And if the fact that you didn't do enough to save every single person in the world who needs aid keeps you up at night then you will never sleep. A realist does in fact understand that one can't save everyone, however this does not imply that triage is the only possible (or even best) course of action.
Also kudos to you, parent AC, for pledging more funds, I hope that you truly meant that. I will increase my donation by $100 to match you. Take that Triage-AC, your only possible moral recourse can be to match us by donating more to your ultra-worthy fund of choice. (And I now submit that you will have proven yourself wrong if you do so since together we three will have increased charitable donations because of ChildsPlay, instead of reducing them. QED)
my understanding of the DMCA is that it doesn't forbid actually circumventing DRM or other protections, but forbids disseminating information to others on how to do so.
IANAL either but in my readings of DMCA applications in the courts I think you're incorrect. There may in fact be a clause that prohibits disseminating such information as well, but the brunt of the law is that you may not circumvent a digital encryption mechanism for any reason (more or less). The case with which I am most familiar is the Lexmark printer cartriges case which actually ruled in favor of the people circumventing the encryption - an arbitrary digital lock on printer ink cartriges soley to prevent 3rd party products. In that case the defendents were taken to court because they reverse engineered the lock and included it in their own product to circumvent the protection mechanism, but they didn't actually tell anyone else how to do it. The court found that there wasn't a legit reason for the lock in the first place and that it was only being used to prevent competition, and not to protect any actual IP (other than the IP of being the only people to know how to make an ink cartrige for lexmark printers).
But don't take my word for it - my word is sometimes hazy - in general I think your basic assumption about how the DMCA works is flawed and you should take a little time to read up on it. In fact, I probably should too.;)
You have a right to be pissed that this money is not going for education, but your complaint should be with the school administrators who caused the lawsuit rather than the victim of their actions. [...]
Is it possible for courts to order a school to fire a particular employee such as a principal or teacher?
Let me clarify quickly, I have no issues with the defendents in this case, I'm not sure how much say they had in the award amount but in the end it was the court which picked a number, so I'm not blaming them.
Your last point I think is more the direction I was leaning when thinking about what other solutions were available. Instead of fining in essence the entire community by taking the money from the school, the courts should instead focus on the administrators who made the bad decision. Now whether they are punished by fines, suspension, loss of their job, or other would have to be debated. (note: I don't think jail time should be an option, at least not in this case. It's one thing to make a bad decision but prison is a very serious punishment and a FOS infringement would have to be grave indeed to merit prison in my opinion.) In cases such as these it's not so much the (school) system breaking down, as it is over-reactive administrators who are the cause of the problem. I know that many of these admins prefer to err on the side of caution when punishing offences because responding too weakly can cause them just as many problems with parents and the community, but when the issue is one that pertains to a basic right granted by our constitution, a little more care should be taken. Perhaps the school board needs to adopt a review policy for punishments that involve such sensitive topics. Perhaps they already do? After all, given the Kansas school board's recent display of ignorance it's clear that even having a committee you can still get critical decisions wrong! (ID is not science, it doesn't belong in science class! One school cannot redefine the definition of an entire field of study on a whim! Sorry for the minirant.) In that case perhaps the whole board needs to be punished by the court to remind them how the laws of the land trump their own sense of what is and isn't ok behavior/speech by students. Just food for thought, and thanks for your response.:)
As other people have pointed out, the alleged violations happened before the DMCA existed. And no law is retroactive (or rather: no law should be retroactive)
Thank you for the informative response. I posted my comment early and had not yet seen any posts about the timing RE the DMCA.
My question now becomes - how is this compatable/handled with the DMCA currently? If this same case were to come up now would the company be prosecutable under the DMCA or would the copyright utilization clause still overrule it? I had some time to read a bit of the judge's opinion and some other comments and the answer seems to hinge on whether the company can claim ownership of the code. For personal examples of such behavior then we must split hairs over the issue of whether we own or license software or media we wish to alter w/o the creator's permission. I submit that in some cases (e.g. CDs) it is not entirely clear what is owned and what is licensed. Of course the "handy" shrinkwrap EULA on your software says that by opening it you agree that you are only licensing the code. But in a real way you do own the physical CD, so which is it? And if you in fact bought a right to license the software on the CD then why won't manufacturers replace said CD when it breaks? Afterall you didn't break the licensed code, you broke the physical medium but still have paid for the license. There's still a bit of a grey area for such things that may be pertinent given this ruling. In addition I personally believe that the legality of shrinkwrap EULAS need to be revisted in the courts. I know they have been demonstrated to be binding in precident, but they differ from other contracts in that you can modify and otherwise annotate and sign off on changes to a normal contract, whereas most EULAS offer the 'my way or the highway' approach. I think that there needs to be another legal option for a consumer to use a product without being unilaterally forced to agree to anything the company can fit in pt 2 font on a sticker on the cd case.
Regards, ~J
Insightful? How much is *your* freedom of speech worth?
The problem with this case is that the penalty is very high for what amounted to inconveniences on the part of the student. Don't get me wrong, I think the school was clearly in the wrong and when I was a student I had similar "inconveniences" inflicted on me by overactive school admins, and it is disruptive to a student and can be problematic. However to argue that $117,000 worth of damages were done seems overly harsh. Of course that figure probably is also intended to cover lawyer fees and time lost by the family due to the court case, but it is still a very high figure.
The bigger problem though is that this (it appears from the article) is a public school. This is not some huge corporation or individual being fined, this is the school board. This money is coming from the taxes collected from citizens of that county, NJ state, as well as every other American (thanks to federal subsidies). So when you ask me how much is my freedom of speech worth I can tell you it's worth a helluva lot, and I should be recompensated for my time/money lost defending it, but by taking money away from the public school system you're punishing every student and taxpayer for the infringement of my rights, and are really in the end only hurting me again. Repay them for their lost time and court costs, repay them a little for the indignity of the case, but keep the figure lower than if it were against a private entity because you're onyl draining the school's resources. If it were me I'd turn around and donate any cash left over after costs right back to the school because otherwise it's just going to be taken from me (and my family and friends) many times over again as taxes are raised to cover this loss in the school budget.
OK, usually I don't muck about with responding to mods but I really am curious why this was modded as flamebait? Yes, I wrote it in a hurry but all the questions I asked seem pretty valid and were definitely not addressed in the article or summary. It seems as though this judgement flies in the face of other laws and precidents that apply to similar cases with digital media and protection measures. I'm not bashing anything I'm looking for clarification!
And to note that this looks like corporate favoritism is qualified by "at first glance" as well as the fact that it looks like corporate favoritism at first glance. Seriously, how else does one explain the previously noted oddities in this judgement that seems to be letting a company off the hook while private citizens are prosecuted for extremely similar offenses that seem just as likely to fall under this vague "utilization right" of copyright?
I'm sure there's a legal explanation, but I think we need more information. Next time mod, think about whether the poster is in fact being flammatory and just spewing insults or if perhaps they're making relevant remarks and clarifying questions that are totally relevent and deserve to be answered. I'll even post this at '1' so you feel better about it.
So is there any reason why this programmer can't turn around and start another suit claiming that the company violated the DMCA when they "picked the lock" and circumvented his digital security measure without his permission?
How is this any different than when I remove the DRM from an iTunes song as "an essential step in the utilization" of that song in my other digital music player(s)? Afterall, I own a physical copy of the software - the encoded song.
Maybe that's not the best example but there are lots of others that I'm sure slashdotters can some up with.
How is it that copyright law allows a holder's utilization to trump the agreement they had in place to run but not alter the software, yet pretty much any shrinkwrap/click-thru EULA isn't overruled by this same copyright utilization clause? Article was very light on details. Stinks of corporate favoritism at first glance.
Triage.
Why on earth would anyone be giving video games to hospitals when there are SO many more useful things they could be spending money on?
I know you're just a trolling AC but a lot of people seem to have this opinion and it's quite backward. Instead of saying "ok maybe not how I'd choose to spend my charity $$, but good job guys" you actually take offense at something that in the end is still a charity helping children. Look, you can disagree with the best way to help people but please don't get angry just because the organization's solution doesn't cure cancer/AIDS/hunger/war.
The fact of the matter is that there are millions of people suffering from thousands of different problems in the world, and it's more or less impossible to save everyone from everything. In addition who are you to prioritize the worlds' problems? OK, so maybe starvation trumps childrens' boredom, but what about AIDS vs cancer? Starvation vs TB? How are we supposed to determine which charity/goal is the most decent/most needed? And how is it that we're supposed to tell people dying from any of those other problems "sorry little girl, but we're committed to curing world hunger before we can get you those malaria meds."
Look, there's a lot of charity resources in the world, and there's a lot of needs to be met, the only distribution system that is really fair is to let people decide how they want to give and how they want to help - and many times this is influenced by a personal experience with that problem. If a need becomes more pressing, the charities will advertise that need and money will tend to flow there. Sick children that have nothing to do in the hospital but feel miserable is not the worst thing in the world, no, but that doesn't make it any less real or depressing for that child. Can you honestly tell me that little Billy or Sally will be at all comforted when you tell them that no, you didn't buy them a game to take their mind off their cancer, but you did donate to starving kids in Africa? A single person only has so much they can give, but it is up to them to choose how to give it, and the fact is they are still doing good and helping a child. That child will appreciate it, and most likely in the future it will affect their decision to donate or volunteer and help others.
You can choose any charity you feel helps the world best, but don't disparage others for helping in a different way, we're all working for good, and this way every problem is helped a little instead of some not being helped at all.
If Xboxes were only available in bundles, maybe you should have, oh, perhaps gotten a PS2 instead?
Although the comparison is apples to apples, some people still prefer green apples over red ones, PS2 was never my cup o' tea. Plus I wanted to play Halo, and no I didn't have a PC that could play it well.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's probably not what he's referring to, but I'd love to see a rebirth of the original NES game glove. That was well ahead of its time, and given the advances in computer and gaming technology we should be able to implement it even better these days. Could add things like flex resistors to sense each finger as it bends, could add all sorts of force feedback. Anyone ever heard of electro- and magneostatic fluids? Essentially they are liquids that turn solid in the presence of electric or magnetic fields. I've always wanted someone to develop a glove filled with veins of the stuff so you can simulate pressure or resistance. There's a whole class of haptic interface that hasn't been touched in over a decade, when will next-gen controllers move into the realm of devices that work with people rather than forcing us to learn an arbitrary control scheme?
As an example, when I attended college our university started finals early one fall semester in order to balance the number of days in the fall and spring semesters for its graduate students. Normally this wouldn't be an issue however it meant that finals started one day after the last day of classes, which was in clear violation of the university's own stated policy that no course could give a final earlier than 3 days after the end of classes. This was known as "Reading Day" and was put in place to ensure students had at least a little time to prepare for the gauntlet of finals. Students protested the breach of policy but the administration never gave any reasoning behind why it was appropriate, neccessary at that time, or even admitted that they had violated their own policy. The message given to students (as far as I'm concerned) was that the school was above its own rules, and that if the administration violated policy they were not accountable, but everyone else was. Now the case can be made that they make the rules so they can do whatever they damn well please, but why have a policy in the first place if it is not enforced or is overruled arbitrarily and without input from those who are affected the most?
If there is no accountability to policy then what chance does any student have of due process in the system? I agree that private universities have every right to set their educational rules on their terms and that a student agrees to those terms, but there should be measures in place to ensure that the university actually plays by those rules and there should be consequences for the university if it doesn't adhere to its own stated guidelines. In this case, the fact that the student was not given due process and the offense was determined to not be in violation of the school's policies by the school's own co-director of ethics shows that the school was only interested in its own politics and not in fairly applying their own rules. If students are expected to agree and abide by the rules, the university must as well, elsewise they are in breach of contract just as much as a student would be.
This should read: 'Next generation games could blahblahblah...'
Fact of the matter is it will be a while before titles actually start looking and - more importantly - playing like true 'next generation' games most of us imagine. Is the power there in this next round of consoles? I think it is, there is definitely a lot of potential, but it's still a ways off. Developers will have to learn the platform and its nuances, and they will also have to create all that higher detailed art and better audio, just because you can render a bazillion pixels doesn't mean the pictures are automatically prettier, someone has to create all the high-res art first. Additionally gameplay itself, AI, multiple paths to completion etc are better supported with these consoles but it will take time for game designers to figure out how to take advantage of all that. And just as importantly, publishers are going to have to give those developers the leeway and the opportunity to take chances with new gaming experiences that push the boundaries of gameplay as well as the system. There's a lot of potential in this new round of consoles, but I think it will take a few years before it really feels like next-gen.
If I had mod points you'd get some. Good list.
Victorias Secret.
And what proof are you given that you are, in fact, being made any safer in return for your freedoms? And I mean demonstrable proof, not just vague assurances. Most of the initiatives that have been put in place since 9-11 have made some systems/places slightly safer, but on the whole it is impossible to guarantee or even comes close to protecting everyone everytime everywhere. Why do people fail to do a basic cost-benefit analysis with something so important as the (illusion of) giving up freedom for "safety"? I think if you do the math you'll see that everytime you're getting the short end of the deal.
Also, if you're in the US, please leave or stop voting, this country was founded - and should be run - on principles of basic freedoms that are not and should not be transferable or relinquished. If you don't understand that or don't care then you're in the wrong place, please don't screw it up for the rest of us.
And more suspiciously, why are they threatening to leave instead of complying as much as possible? The court (i.e. ruling judge) should be able to apply the law in such a way that Diebold discloses all of their code, and then any remaining proprietary code from other vendors can be handled with those other vendors. Or is it that Diebold has something to hide? If their code really is secure, and actually does what they claim then they should have no problem showing everything they legally own. There really isn't anything that should be a trade secret about vote tabulation. I, for one, think it's disgusting that any US company would actually do the country such a disservice by trying to obfuscate for profit a product which is meant to facilitate the practice of democracy. Honestly, the whole board should be deported for conspiring to commit vote fraud. It would trivial to prove their innocence, simply release the code. Any other excuse smacks of dishonesty. In matters of government the appearance of impropriety should be treated as impropriety until/unless demonstrated otherwise.
So OK, let's pretend for a second that banning games would in fact help 'less media-savvy parents' as intended, have they even done any studies** to show that such parents are in the majority? Or is the German government just assuming that they know better than most parents and/or most German parents aren't media-aware enough to make these decisions themselves?
Let's face it, even if bans were the answer, no one has demonstrated that even a significant number of parents need this kind of help. And is it really helping society as a whole when the solution to help one set of people completely alienates another group, and leaves them with no choices? Let's hope this fails, and additionally (as unlikely as it is) our government pays attention and learns a lesson and so doesn't waste our time and money trying to implement something similar in the future as the violent games debate continues here in the US.
(Full disclosure: I tried to read the original article linked from the blog that the /. summary points to but it is blocked by websense, if I've made some wrong assumptions - particularly about ** - then please correct me.)
What I wonder is what happens security-wise when some AIM virus (always new ones popping up) manages to infect these bots? When it's just a question of one person's buddy list being used by a virus to propagate, the infection is limited somewhat by the low number of contacts. What happens when the same contact appears in say 75% of people's lists? Granted, the bot is administrated by AOL directly and no doubt has better security in place than your average user or user's bot, but I wonder if perhaps such a wide-reaching target will prove irresistible for virus writers. Just musing, I'm sure some people more familiar with the inner workings of AIM can refute or corroborate this idea.
Also, simply stating that most click-through/shrink wrap EULAs are void in the US does little to undo the fact that you can't go a single day w/o having to agree to one. Claiming they are void is contrary to what I have gleaned over reading /. and similar case articles, not to mention that if they are all void then why the hell are they so prevalent? Clearly there is some legal basis for them elsewise they would have been phased out or explicitly forbidden by a court at some point.
I wrote my comment looking for clarification from someone who did know more about this than I so I wouldn't have to take the time to dig it up for myself. Granted you have to take what you get here with a grain of salt but every now and then you get someone who has correct information or even a good URL to it. The point of asking such questions on /. is not to then go out and do a thesis paper on them, but to hope that in the thralling mass of people reading this someone will know and answer.
*media was covered in the summary as not being applicable but I still think the case can be made (perhaps in its own suit) that cracking the DRM on a music file you legally own to use it on a different player would also fall under the utilization clause of copyright (if not outright fair use).
If you can see no other reason to support the Fair Tax, abolition of the IRS should be plenty of reason enough.
If you think about it you realize that there will have to be a government agency to coordinate the collection of all these various sales taxes, to punish businesses that do not apply them or fail to submit the money collected on time or at all, and to be in charge of calculating and mailing out all these government checks that households will receive every month. So maybe it won't be called the IRS, but it will still be a centralized tax collection and regulation agency, i.e. the IRS. Just food for thought. Personally I oppose the Fair Tax for a number of reasons, but the #1 is that it can be passed with a simple majority, but undoing the income tax will require repealing an amendment which requires (IIRC) 2/3rds majority vote plus ratification by 75% of the states. I have very little confidence that the government will pass the fair tax and then repeal the income tax. Repealing is harder, and by that point they will have two legal methods of taxing us, a proposition that has warhawk neocons and other government spendthrifts drooling. That and about 50 other objections to it. Also, I object to income tax. My solution is to scale back the federal government to what the constitution allows/dictates, and to what little government we actually need, thereby reducing spending enormously. Right now the federal behemoth already spends way too much when it's on-budget and has no real penalties in place to dissuade it from defecit spending for any reason it likes.
For example, Edison's lightbulb patent written in these terms would have patented "A method for using electric current to produce visible light in a small self-enclosed casing." Which would cover and preclude from legal invention the LED, neon lights, and electroluminescent wire. It's pretty easy to see/demonstrate that all of those items produce light in vastly different ways than a standard filament bulb, yet all would infringe on the vague method-style patent I used.
Method and software patents are completely broken, by allowing the patenting of an entire concept, rather than a unique implementation of that concept, the USPTO is clearly stifling innovation and competition. Essentially making it impossible for others to legally explore similar inventions/products that may have fundamental differences from a method patent they supposedly infringe.
IANAL, I have read a fair amount about patents but am certainly no expert, please someone point out any flaws in my reasoning, but it seems to me the overarching vagueness of these patents is what's causing problems.
I'm sorry, I had something crazy in my ear, did you just say 'ideations'?? The rest of your comment was going so well too....
And for the internet's sake, stop modding down posts that are only at 2! If you want to mod something down, start at 3+, an awful lot of crap gets that high that shouldn't. Honestly, who other than mods are reading every comment at 2? Here I put this at 2 so you can have a field day with it.
Told ya so.
And as you also stated (parent AC), if we all operated only by the rules of triage, then not much would get accomplished. Like I said in my post, who are any of us to tell some kid with malaria that they're not on our traige list yet and they have to wait because AIDS/TB/whatever has been deemed more important. That's not how the real world works. And if the fact that you didn't do enough to save every single person in the world who needs aid keeps you up at night then you will never sleep. A realist does in fact understand that one can't save everyone, however this does not imply that triage is the only possible (or even best) course of action.
Also kudos to you, parent AC, for pledging more funds, I hope that you truly meant that. I will increase my donation by $100 to match you. Take that Triage-AC, your only possible moral recourse can be to match us by donating more to your ultra-worthy fund of choice. (And I now submit that you will have proven yourself wrong if you do so since together we three will have increased charitable donations because of ChildsPlay, instead of reducing them. QED)
IANAL either but in my readings of DMCA applications in the courts I think you're incorrect.
There may in fact be a clause that prohibits disseminating such information as well, but the brunt of the law is that you may not circumvent a digital encryption mechanism for any reason (more or less). The case with which I am most familiar is the Lexmark printer cartriges case which actually ruled in favor of the people circumventing the encryption - an arbitrary digital lock on printer ink cartriges soley to prevent 3rd party products. In that case the defendents were taken to court because they reverse engineered the lock and included it in their own product to circumvent the protection mechanism, but they didn't actually tell anyone else how to do it. The court found that there wasn't a legit reason for the lock in the first place and that it was only being used to prevent competition, and not to protect any actual IP (other than the IP of being the only people to know how to make an ink cartrige for lexmark printers).
But don't take my word for it - my word is sometimes hazy - in general I think your basic assumption about how the DMCA works is flawed and you should take a little time to read up on it. In fact, I probably should too. ;)
Is it possible for courts to order a school to fire a particular employee such as a principal or teacher?
Let me clarify quickly, I have no issues with the defendents in this case, I'm not sure how much say they had in the award amount but in the end it was the court which picked a number, so I'm not blaming them.
Your last point I think is more the direction I was leaning when thinking about what other solutions were available. Instead of fining in essence the entire community by taking the money from the school, the courts should instead focus on the administrators who made the bad decision. Now whether they are punished by fines, suspension, loss of their job, or other would have to be debated. (note: I don't think jail time should be an option, at least not in this case. It's one thing to make a bad decision but prison is a very serious punishment and a FOS infringement would have to be grave indeed to merit prison in my opinion.) :)
In cases such as these it's not so much the (school) system breaking down, as it is over-reactive administrators who are the cause of the problem. I know that many of these admins prefer to err on the side of caution when punishing offences because responding too weakly can cause them just as many problems with parents and the community, but when the issue is one that pertains to a basic right granted by our constitution, a little more care should be taken. Perhaps the school board needs to adopt a review policy for punishments that involve such sensitive topics. Perhaps they already do? After all, given the Kansas school board's recent display of ignorance it's clear that even having a committee you can still get critical decisions wrong!
(ID is not science, it doesn't belong in science class! One school cannot redefine the definition of an entire field of study on a whim! Sorry for the minirant.)
In that case perhaps the whole board needs to be punished by the court to remind them how the laws of the land trump their own sense of what is and isn't ok behavior/speech by students. Just food for thought, and thanks for your response.
Thank you for the informative response. I posted my comment early and had not yet seen any posts about the timing RE the DMCA.
My question now becomes - how is this compatable/handled with the DMCA currently? If this same case were to come up now would the company be prosecutable under the DMCA or would the copyright utilization clause still overrule it? I had some time to read a bit of the judge's opinion and some other comments and the answer seems to hinge on whether the company can claim ownership of the code. For personal examples of such behavior then we must split hairs over the issue of whether we own or license software or media we wish to alter w/o the creator's permission. I submit that in some cases (e.g. CDs) it is not entirely clear what is owned and what is licensed. Of course the "handy" shrinkwrap EULA on your software says that by opening it you agree that you are only licensing the code. But in a real way you do own the physical CD, so which is it? And if you in fact bought a right to license the software on the CD then why won't manufacturers replace said CD when it breaks? Afterall you didn't break the licensed code, you broke the physical medium but still have paid for the license. There's still a bit of a grey area for such things that may be pertinent given this ruling. In addition I personally believe that the legality of shrinkwrap EULAS need to be revisted in the courts. I know they have been demonstrated to be binding in precident, but they differ from other contracts in that you can modify and otherwise annotate and sign off on changes to a normal contract, whereas most EULAS offer the 'my way or the highway' approach. I think that there needs to be another legal option for a consumer to use a product without being unilaterally forced to agree to anything the company can fit in pt 2 font on a sticker on the cd case. Regards, ~J
The problem with this case is that the penalty is very high for what amounted to inconveniences on the part of the student. Don't get me wrong, I think the school was clearly in the wrong and when I was a student I had similar "inconveniences" inflicted on me by overactive school admins, and it is disruptive to a student and can be problematic. However to argue that $117,000 worth of damages were done seems overly harsh. Of course that figure probably is also intended to cover lawyer fees and time lost by the family due to the court case, but it is still a very high figure.
The bigger problem though is that this (it appears from the article) is a public school. This is not some huge corporation or individual being fined, this is the school board. This money is coming from the taxes collected from citizens of that county, NJ state, as well as every other American (thanks to federal subsidies). So when you ask me how much is my freedom of speech worth I can tell you it's worth a helluva lot, and I should be recompensated for my time/money lost defending it, but by taking money away from the public school system you're punishing every student and taxpayer for the infringement of my rights, and are really in the end only hurting me again. Repay them for their lost time and court costs, repay them a little for the indignity of the case, but keep the figure lower than if it were against a private entity because you're onyl draining the school's resources. If it were me I'd turn around and donate any cash left over after costs right back to the school because otherwise it's just going to be taken from me (and my family and friends) many times over again as taxes are raised to cover this loss in the school budget.
Just my $0.02.
And to note that this looks like corporate favoritism is qualified by "at first glance" as well as the fact that it looks like corporate favoritism at first glance. Seriously, how else does one explain the previously noted oddities in this judgement that seems to be letting a company off the hook while private citizens are prosecuted for extremely similar offenses that seem just as likely to fall under this vague "utilization right" of copyright?
I'm sure there's a legal explanation, but I think we need more information. Next time mod, think about whether the poster is in fact being flammatory and just spewing insults or if perhaps they're making relevant remarks and clarifying questions that are totally relevent and deserve to be answered. I'll even post this at '1' so you feel better about it.
How is this any different than when I remove the DRM from an iTunes song as "an essential step in the utilization" of that song in my other digital music player(s)? Afterall, I own a physical copy of the software - the encoded song.
Maybe that's not the best example but there are lots of others that I'm sure slashdotters can some up with.
How is it that copyright law allows a holder's utilization to trump the agreement they had in place to run but not alter the software, yet pretty much any shrinkwrap/click-thru EULA isn't overruled by this same copyright utilization clause? Article was very light on details. Stinks of corporate favoritism at first glance.
Why on earth would anyone be giving video games to hospitals when there are SO many more useful things they could be spending money on?
I know you're just a trolling AC but a lot of people seem to have this opinion and it's quite backward. Instead of saying "ok maybe not how I'd choose to spend my charity $$, but good job guys" you actually take offense at something that in the end is still a charity helping children. Look, you can disagree with the best way to help people but please don't get angry just because the organization's solution doesn't cure cancer/AIDS/hunger/war.
The fact of the matter is that there are millions of people suffering from thousands of different problems in the world, and it's more or less impossible to save everyone from everything. In addition who are you to prioritize the worlds' problems? OK, so maybe starvation trumps childrens' boredom, but what about AIDS vs cancer? Starvation vs TB? How are we supposed to determine which charity/goal is the most decent/most needed? And how is it that we're supposed to tell people dying from any of those other problems "sorry little girl, but we're committed to curing world hunger before we can get you those malaria meds."
Look, there's a lot of charity resources in the world, and there's a lot of needs to be met, the only distribution system that is really fair is to let people decide how they want to give and how they want to help - and many times this is influenced by a personal experience with that problem. If a need becomes more pressing, the charities will advertise that need and money will tend to flow there. Sick children that have nothing to do in the hospital but feel miserable is not the worst thing in the world, no, but that doesn't make it any less real or depressing for that child. Can you honestly tell me that little Billy or Sally will be at all comforted when you tell them that no, you didn't buy them a game to take their mind off their cancer, but you did donate to starving kids in Africa? A single person only has so much they can give, but it is up to them to choose how to give it, and the fact is they are still doing good and helping a child. That child will appreciate it, and most likely in the future it will affect their decision to donate or volunteer and help others.
You can choose any charity you feel helps the world best, but don't disparage others for helping in a different way, we're all working for good, and this way every problem is helped a little instead of some not being helped at all.
Although the comparison is apples to apples, some people still prefer green apples over red ones, PS2 was never my cup o' tea. Plus I wanted to play Halo, and no I didn't have a PC that could play it well.
Damn, once again I find myself wanting a moderation option for +1 Funny-because-it's-terrifying-that-it's-true.