The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is hardly the first attempt to use obfuscation of writings as an attempt to control how the masses access works. The reasons why the supposed new right of access authorization must be facially rejected have not changed in the 600 years since its original use. In a nutshell, legal enforcement of access controls violates the "right to read", a principle that literally lead to the foundation of our country.
History records that in the year 1377, John Wycliffe was brought before the Roman Catholic Church to answer for his beliefs that the common man had the right to read the bible, which he had translated from the Church's sanctioned latin into English. The position of the Church on common vernacular translation was known from the time of the Spanish inquisition. Spanish bible translators were often beaten, tortured, and burned alive during the spanish inquisition by the Catholic Church that sponsored it. Spanish clergyman Alfonso de Castro gave the opinion of Church in these words: "the translation of the scriptures into the vernacular tongues, with the reading of them by the vulgar, is the true fountain of all heresies." The hypocracy in his statement is profound: the fountain of all heresy is, in fact, the attempt to restrict or limit the public's access to ideas.
Wycliffe was lucky to merely be arrested and excommunicated. His work survies, although the church did eventually dig him up from the grave and burn his bones. Because of John Wycliffe, the English Bible now exists.
In 2001, cryptography and computer code have replaced latin, while encrypted content like eBooks and DVD's are the container of choice for influential works of art and science. The "Copyright Industry" and their special interest driven politics have replaced the pre-reform Catholic Church as the organization that uses secret languages to maintain their self-maintaining control. Make no mistake, the DMCA is about thought control in its most base form: the copyright industry would like to control how you experience the works they sell, just as the medieval Church wanted to control how you experienced religeon.
After John Wycliffe asserted the right of the people to read, this principle became a central tenent of all church reformers. As people were able to have unfettered access to the information in the Bible, they came to understand that it was not the information itself, but the metering of its access that was the source of their oppression. It cannot be denied that direct access to the Bible and the correspond right to read was a cornerstone belief in the protestant groups that fled Europe seeking a new life in what eventually became the United States of America.
Copyright exists precisely to enhance this "right to read". Copyright inherently must increase public access to works. The abandonment of such control by authors is the quid-pro-quo of accepting reward in the marketplace, and it is completely irrational to believe that the public would empower Congress to grant commercial monopolies to authors without demanding as compensation that they forego all forms of use control on their products.
Today, as in medieval times, the right of the people to access the raw text of documents that affect the public psyche, without regard to "technological protection measures", such as latin, object code, cryptography, or obfuscation, is inherent in the First Amendment and the fundamental human rights which transcend government. It is also a simple property right, when copies of the work are purchased in the free market. To think and to examine and to decipher and to ponder the meaning, however cryptic, of raw data is the essence of the free mind and of liberty.
Conversely, the supposed right to control access to copyrighted works against circumvention, asserted by the DMCA is a false right and it must be facially rejected because it conflicts inescapably with the right to read. This "right" is completely distinct from the one it was supposedly created to protect, which is the right of authors to authorize the first sale of their works.
Citations for Bible Translation History:
http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/articles/johnwycl if fe.htm
http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/articles/spanishb ib le.htm
How did a system that was supposed to encourage innovation turn into a moneymaking machine for bottom-feeders?
Two factors loom large: 1) the creation of the Federal Circuit 2) ballooning impact of special interest money in politics
The Federal Circuit was created to handle trademark and patent law. Other Circuits do not play a role anymore. If you have a patent issue in your case, it will detour to the Federal Circuit. Because "IP specialists" fill the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court is hesitant to review their precedents. Basically a single point of failure has been created, and bad decisions do not go through the peer reveiw process at the Circuit level. On a normal issue, if the 3rd cirucit does something weird, the 4th isn't bound by it and if they create conflicting precedents, the Supreme Court will often examine the issue a third time. The other problem with the Federal Circuit is that it makes the process more susceptible to infiltration. Heavy lobbying behind the scenes can get a judge favorable to a special interest in. Since there are fewer judges deciding the issues (only one Circuit) the effect of this is much more profound.
The second reason affects everything in government. It's the surgeing influence of special interest money in Congress. A few key players who make money in the patent arena can agressively voice their views with big checks attached and they will be listened to. Small players have a lot more difficulty. This blocks reform and influences key position choices in the PTO and in the Courts, as above.
Perhaps the best way to explain the DMCA to people who are unfamiliar with it is by comparison to historical abuses that are firmly accepted as wrong:
In 1377, John Wycliffe was brought before the Roman Catholic Church because he had the audacity to declare that the common man had the right to read the bible, which he had translated from the Church's sanctioned latin into English. The position of the Church on common vernacular translation was known from the time of the Spanish inquisition. Spanish bible translators were often beaten, tortured, and burned alive. Spanish clergyman Alfonso de Castro gave the opinion of Church in these words: "the translation of the scriptures into the vernacular tongues, with the reading of them by the vulgar, is the true fountain of all heresies." Wycliffe was lucky to merely be arrested and excommunicated. The church did eventually dig him up and burn his bones, however.
In 2001, cryptography and computer code have replaced latin, while eBooks take the role of the Bible. The "Copyright Industry" and the government agencies like the FBI that march to their drum have replaced the pre-reform Catholic Church as the organization that uses secret languages to control the thoughts of their "audience". After John Wycliffe asserted the right of the people to read, this principle became a central tenent of all church reformers and was strong in the protestant groups that eventually formed the United States of America.
Today, as then, the right of the people to access the thoughts contained in the media they obtain legally, without regard to "technological protection measures", such as latin, object code, cryptography or obfuscation, is inherent in the First Amendment and the fundamental human rights which transcend government.
Conversely, the supposed right to control access to copyrighted works against circumvention, asserted by the DMCA is a false right, and it must be facially rejected because it conflicts inescapably with the right to read. This "right" is completely distinct from the one it was supposedly created to protect, which is the right of authors to authorize the first sale of their works.
Citations:
http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/articles/johnwycl if fe.htm
http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/articles/spanishb ib le.htm
Sircam is a circumvention device that clearly is aimed at violating technological protection measures (your computer's filesystem secutiry) that control access to copyrighted works and that facilitate copyright infringement (unauthorized sending of files is copyright infringement).
The DMCA text bans distribution with no reference to whether this is knowing or intentional.
I would therefore argue that all victims of Sircam have violated the DMCA by sending the circumvention device in their outgoing mail.
Moreover, anyone who uses the TPM in question (Microsoft OS) and stores copyrighted documents (anything you author is copyrighted) in their "My Documents" folder has a cause of action.
As for trade secrets, misappropriation only occurs when the transfer occurs in violation of a duty of confidentiality. Since the receipiant did not aide and abet or even encourage the document's transfer, I don't see any way to attach such a duty to them. Additionally, since the document in question is essentially an attack, the doctrine of unclean hands should prevent the upstream party from suing the downstream party for what is essentially the upstream party's negligence. The virus author did misappropriate the trade secrets since there is a duty not to break into computers.
It would be worthless for them to try, unless they also made ssh illegal, since you can simply forward the illegal protocol over an encrypted connection. You can do the same thing over SSL, which all the e-commerce web sites depend on, so it won't happen.
The internet is a file sharing ecosystem. The addage is true: it sees censorship as damage and routes around it.
We should be taking names and then doing what we can come election time to bring havoc to their websites.
The best thing to do right now is to pressure the senate to REJECT Robert Mueller as FBI director. The FBI needs a director we can trust, especially after all the abuses. It's not Mueller.
It's exclusively the job of the court to interpret the laws and also to determine if they are unconstitutional.
No. Every government official has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That involves interpreting it and making decisions of which actions to take.
Additionally, if the government fails, the people have not only the right, but the obligation, to ignore an unjust law.
VALENTI, JACK
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
MOTION PICTURE ASSOC OF AMERICA
03/10/1999 $ 500 Lone Star Fund
03/24/2000 $1,000 Biden, Joseph R Jr
03/01/1999 $ 500 Lofgren, Zoe
03/10/1999 $ 500 Frost, Martin
12/20/1999 $1,000 Abraham, Spencer
08/04/1999 $1,000 Hatch, Orrin G
11/09/1999 $ 500 Coggins, Regina Montoya
02/08/2000 $1,000 Harman, Jane
02/08/2000 $1,000 Harman, Jane
02/24/2000 $ 500 Wu, David
08/17/1999 $1,000 Democratic Leader's Victory Fund 2000
09/07/1999 $ 250 Restore America PAC
09/15/1999 $1,000 Berman, Howard L
01/29/1999 $1,000 Gore, Al
11/17/1999 $ 500 Wareing, Peter Staub
08/17/1999 $1,000 Gephardt, Richard A
03/31/2000 $1,000 Dingell, John D
10/07/1999 $1,000 Hyde, Henry J
10/07/1999 $1,000 Hyde, Henry J
06/07/1999 $ 500 Casey, Patrick
04/02/1999 $ 500 Svornich, Rudolph Jr
06/23/1999 $ 500 Clyburn, James E
12/29/2000 $1,000 Baucus, Max
06/09/2000 $1,000 Lewis, John
06/10/1999 $ 500 Watts, J C Jr
03/25/1999 $1,000 Markey, Edward J
05/26/1999 $1,000 Conyers, John Jr
05/22/2000 $ 250 Lugar, Richard G
03/15/2000 $ 250 Lugar, Richard G
10/21/1999 $1,000 Bush, George W
04/11/2000 $1,000 McCain, John
09/14/1999 $1,000 Gore, Al
09/30/1999 $1,000 McCain, John
Thanks to your "law", taxpayer-funded agencies will be forced to buy Microsoft OSes for half their machines
That is not what I am proposing. I propose "less than" not "exactly equal to" half non-MS OS's. I commend you for your ability to identify the slight ambiguity in my comment and jump out the window with unfounded conclusions. I really got a good laugh at your expense.
Congratulations, you've just overturned the most basic tenets of contract law.
Contract law does not limit a judicial remedy for a proven violation of the Sherman Act. You might as well argue that getting a traffic fine violates basic tenents of property rights. Courts have great power to enforce remedies against law breakers. What are you, stupid?
Also, Coca-Cola must include one can of Pepsi in every six-pack it sells, and optionally a can of Mountain Dew if Pepsico desires.
I am aware of no antitrust claim against Coca-Cola, let alone one that unanimously survived appellate review. Due process of law prevents the Courts from applying a remedy before a Court upholds the cause of action. You really should get a clue.
And Mozilla and Lynx32 and Grail and Amaya and Cello and Winamp's mini-browser... I was thinking of Winamp's whole package. What is your point? If it's that someone has to draw a line, then you are really boring. Judges draw lines all the time. To get your browser included, you would have to go to the judge and show that the proven MS anticompetitive practices damaged you specifically in some way.
Representative Coble says "there have been very few complaints from intellectual property holders".
This is the sickest thing I have heard in a long time. Does this man care nothing for the public interest? We need to use him as the poster boy of a big media lapdog in Congress.
Mr. Coble: I am an intellectual property holder. I write copyrighted software. I detest the DMCA almost as much as I detest corrupt politician like you who sell government backed censorship to the big media special interests without even realizing or caring about the public interest. The fact that you equate "intellectual property holders" as someone different than the legions of citizens who are shocked by the draconian law is a testimony to what is wrong with copyright law. Copyright has become a joke because fools like you in power can only think about the interests of the large monied publishing companies that fund your reelection campaigns. The only good thing that will come out of the DMCA is some humor value at watching you learn how futile your pathetic law is.
Congress should pass a law that half of all future taxpayer funded PC purchases will come with a non Microsoft OS.
The Court should do several remedial steps, each tailored directly at undoing the harm caused by the specific anticompetive practices Microsoft has done:
1. OS Monopoly countermeasure: uniform licencing. MS may offer one version of its OS at one price. No sale may be refused. OEMs may make any noninfringing value added modification they choose. The Court should reassess every two years if this measure is still needed.
2. Java countermeasure: MS must bundle Sun's version of Java and any java related extras desired by Sun. Reassess every two years
3. Comingling of code: Mandate full disclosure of API's found to be involved. If Browser bundling is found to be anticompetitive on remand, force MS to distrubute Netscape and Opera. Similarly with other media programs. Reassess every two years.
The DMCA bans distribution of TPM circumvention devices absolutely, without regard to knowledge or intent. It treats circumvention devices on par with stolen property in this regard. Since Sircam forwards one file off of your computer it circumvents login and read permissions that control access to a copyrighted work.
Thus everyone who executes (falls victim) to the sircam virus is guilty of a 1201(b) violation for distributing circumvention devices.
Obviously anyone who receives the trojan email has a cause of action, but actually anyone who uses the TPM in questions does too. That is, everyone who uses a computer that is susceptible to sircam can sue anyone who fell victim to it (in addition to the person who wrote it).
Anybody know anyone at the MPAA, RIAA, or Adobe that got hit?
While Dimitry is certainly being treated unfairly, the criminal provisions of the DMCA cannot be thrown out as unconstitutional if it doesn't go to court.
It sounds like you are advocating keeping someone in jail while the court system figures out that what he did wasn't a crime! The only acceptable course of action is for him to be released immediately.
And for PR purposes, anything that gets him out of jail will allow us to cheer "FBI unable to enforce DMCA in Court".
It's sometimes painful to watch the average user struggle with things that seem obvious, but this is exactly the kind of feedback that is difficult for a programmer to get.
For linux to succeed on the desktop, Gnome (or KDE or something equivalent) must do well at meeting the needs and expectations of this kind of user.
I hope people will see this report as a very valuable insight into what goes throught the minds of ordinary users. I did. Hell, I've even thought the same thing as in some of the comments (I shouldn't have to click on the login box to type my username!)
The DCMA was passed. True. So was the First Amendment.
He broke the law. The DMCA broke the law. He violated an illegal law.
Now, I personally think the law is stupid, and there are a great deal of other laws I think are stupid. However, the law is not unconstitutional (well, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet), and therefore he is a criminal.
As were the Bostonians who threw the tea into the harbor. As were the patriots who fired on the Redcoats at Bunker Hill. As were the blacks who wouldn't sit at the back of the bus. As am I.
Now, jurisdiction issues aside, what's left to do?
Violate the law. Openly. Loudly. Celebrate people who do it and get caught. Maximize the effort required to enforce the law - minimize the impact of getting caught. If you haven't noticed, there are many people doing this.
If the people who most clearly see and understand the injustice (us) are not willing to risk anything to oppose it, then we should just admit that we deserve no rights and that we will bend over and obey unjust laws.
Can you tell me exactly why we should obey a law that is a violation of our rights and a betrayel by Congress and the Courts of their Constitutional duty. Only a sheep would obey such a law. Are you a sheep?
I don't think he was arrested for the presentation. He was arrested for selling the program that the presentation is about. The presentation is just evidence.
He was literally arrested for his ability to read books!
Certainly doable but would be a significant effort for hobbyists, compared to the reasonable cost of just buying an Internet link.
Sounds like less work than, say, writing you own OS kernel. Seriously, every city has people out there in the work force doing this stuff. I bet a few of them are interested in linux and the open source movement. They could cooperate pretty easily , it seems.
This sounds like the kind of thing that a good LUG could easily organize.
What exactly stops people from setting up a router to talk to other radio routers? Isn't the possibility there to completely remove our dependence altogehter on big companies providing us bandwidth? If I want to talk to you and there are seven people in between us with radio-based routers, why do we need the big telco's at all?
This article just reminds me of the complete lack of direction the US has had for a long time in its energy policy. Bush has recognized this, but hasn't really proposed a solution.
Why on earth isn't US Energy Policy pushing hard for the development of fusion based technology? Isn't it obvious this should be the centerpiece of our effort? Unlike fission, fusion is clean, safe, sustainable, and environmentally friendly. It's just hard technically.
I believe the environmental movement has fallen into the trap of being against things, but not for anything. If you are worried about global warming, advocate fusion research.
Similarly, dependence on foreign oil is a great security risk and results in mideast leaders being a little to big for their britches. Iran, Iraq, etc... The mideast is extremely volatile and if it wasn't for oil, the US wouldn't have to care.
Isn't the answer obvious? They want to make the minimal token gesture that can be trumpted to the judge during the next antitrust hearing. "Look we've changed our ways" is what they want to say. It's the same reason they invested in Apple.
Even they realize they've got to make more of an effort to not be completely ruthless in exploiting their monopoly. Now they can hold their heads up, knowing they are only 99.999% ruthless.
Innovation is dead in music delivery?! Not by a long shot. The strongest statement that is true is the US based commercial innovation is dead for now. This leaves a big opening for a new player to step forward outside of this arena.
If a single nation is able to garner support for a more flexible copyright system, then that nation will likely be able to place itself in a dominant role in the music business.
It is also unclear that the "copyright is obsolete" mob -- who are willing to engage in civil disobedience in subversive or even open way -- have seen their strength diminished at all by the litigation. In fact, I think just the opposite has occured -- their convictions are only deepened now.
The music industry still has no effective response to the simple fact that millions of Americans don't like them and are willing to share their music despite judicial decrees that this violates the law. Until something occurs to moderate the mob, there will be tremendous innovation.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a great idea!
Essay on a Historical Perspective on the DMCA
l if fe.htm
b ib le.htm
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is hardly the first attempt to use obfuscation of writings as an attempt to control how the masses access works. The reasons why the supposed new right of access authorization must be facially rejected have not changed in the 600 years since its original use. In a nutshell, legal enforcement of access controls violates the "right to read", a principle that literally lead to the foundation of our country.
History records that in the year 1377, John Wycliffe was brought before the Roman Catholic Church to answer for his beliefs that the common man had the right to read the bible, which he had translated from the Church's sanctioned latin into English. The position of the Church on common vernacular translation was known from the time of the Spanish inquisition. Spanish bible translators were often beaten, tortured, and burned alive during the spanish inquisition by the Catholic Church that sponsored it. Spanish clergyman Alfonso de Castro gave the opinion of Church in these words: "the translation of the scriptures into the vernacular tongues, with the reading of them by the vulgar, is the true fountain of all heresies." The hypocracy in his statement is profound: the fountain of all heresy is, in fact, the attempt to restrict or limit the public's access to ideas.
Wycliffe was lucky to merely be arrested and excommunicated. His work survies, although the church did eventually dig him up from the grave and burn his bones. Because of John Wycliffe, the English Bible now exists.
In 2001, cryptography and computer code have replaced latin, while encrypted content like eBooks and DVD's are the container of choice for influential works of art and science. The "Copyright Industry" and their special interest driven politics have replaced the pre-reform Catholic Church as the organization that uses secret languages to maintain their self-maintaining control. Make no mistake, the DMCA is about thought control in its most base form: the copyright industry would like to control how you experience the works they sell, just as the medieval Church wanted to control how you experienced religeon.
After John Wycliffe asserted the right of the people to read, this principle became a central tenent of all church reformers. As people were able to have unfettered access to the information in the Bible, they came to understand that it was not the information itself, but the metering of its access that was the source of their oppression. It cannot be denied that direct access to the Bible and the correspond right to read was a cornerstone belief in the protestant groups that fled Europe seeking a new life in what eventually became the United States of America.
Copyright exists precisely to enhance this "right to read". Copyright inherently must increase public access to works. The abandonment of such control by authors is the quid-pro-quo of accepting reward in the marketplace, and it is completely irrational to believe that the public would empower Congress to grant commercial monopolies to authors without demanding as compensation that they forego all forms of use control on their products.
Today, as in medieval times, the right of the people to access the raw text of documents that affect the public psyche, without regard to "technological protection measures", such as latin, object code, cryptography, or obfuscation, is inherent in the First Amendment and the fundamental human rights which transcend government. It is also a simple property right, when copies of the work are purchased in the free market. To think and to examine and to decipher and to ponder the meaning, however cryptic, of raw data is the essence of the free mind and of liberty.
Conversely, the supposed right to control access to copyrighted works against circumvention, asserted by the DMCA is a false right and it must be facially rejected because it conflicts inescapably with the right to read. This "right" is completely distinct from the one it was supposedly created to protect, which is the right of authors to authorize the first sale of their works.
Citations for Bible Translation History:
http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/articles/johnwyc
http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/articles/spanish
How did a system that was supposed to encourage innovation turn into a moneymaking machine for bottom-feeders?
Two factors loom large: 1) the creation of the Federal Circuit 2) ballooning impact of special interest money in politics
The Federal Circuit was created to handle trademark and patent law. Other Circuits do not play a role anymore. If you have a patent issue in your case, it will detour to the Federal Circuit. Because "IP specialists" fill the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court is hesitant to review their precedents. Basically a single point of failure has been created, and bad decisions do not go through the peer reveiw process at the Circuit level. On a normal issue, if the 3rd cirucit does something weird, the 4th isn't bound by it and if they create conflicting precedents, the Supreme Court will often examine the issue a third time. The other problem with the Federal Circuit is that it makes the process more susceptible to infiltration. Heavy lobbying behind the scenes can get a judge favorable to a special interest in. Since there are fewer judges deciding the issues (only one Circuit) the effect of this is much more profound.
The second reason affects everything in government. It's the surgeing influence of special interest money in Congress. A few key players who make money in the patent arena can agressively voice their views with big checks attached and they will be listened to. Small players have a lot more difficulty. This blocks reform and influences key position choices in the PTO and in the Courts, as above.
Perhaps the best way to explain the DMCA to people who are unfamiliar with it is by comparison to historical abuses that are firmly accepted as wrong:
l if fe.htm
b ib le.htm
In 1377, John Wycliffe was brought before the Roman Catholic Church because he had the audacity to declare that the common man had the right to read the bible, which he had translated from the Church's sanctioned latin into English. The position of the Church on common vernacular translation was known from the time of the Spanish inquisition. Spanish bible translators were often beaten, tortured, and burned alive. Spanish clergyman Alfonso de Castro gave the opinion of Church in these words: "the translation of the scriptures into the vernacular tongues, with the reading of them by the vulgar, is the true fountain of all heresies." Wycliffe was lucky to merely be arrested and excommunicated. The church did eventually dig him up and burn his bones, however.
In 2001, cryptography and computer code have replaced latin, while eBooks take the role of the Bible. The "Copyright Industry" and the government agencies like the FBI that march to their drum have replaced the pre-reform Catholic Church as the organization that uses secret languages to control the thoughts of their "audience". After John Wycliffe asserted the right of the people to read, this principle became a central tenent of all church reformers and was strong in the protestant groups that eventually formed the United States of America.
Today, as then, the right of the people to access the thoughts contained in the media they obtain legally, without regard to "technological protection measures", such as latin, object code, cryptography or obfuscation, is inherent in the First Amendment and the fundamental human rights which transcend government.
Conversely, the supposed right to control access to copyrighted works against circumvention, asserted by the DMCA is a false right, and it must be facially rejected because it conflicts inescapably with the right to read. This "right" is completely distinct from the one it was supposedly created to protect, which is the right of authors to authorize the first sale of their works.
Citations:
http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/articles/johnwyc
http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/articles/spanish
Sircam is a circumvention device that clearly is aimed at violating technological protection measures (your computer's filesystem secutiry) that control access to copyrighted works and that facilitate copyright infringement (unauthorized sending of files is copyright infringement).
The DMCA text bans distribution with no reference to whether this is knowing or intentional.
I would therefore argue that all victims of Sircam have violated the DMCA by sending the circumvention device in their outgoing mail.
Moreover, anyone who uses the TPM in question (Microsoft OS) and stores copyrighted documents (anything you author is copyrighted) in their "My Documents" folder has a cause of action.
As for trade secrets, misappropriation only occurs when the transfer occurs in violation of a duty of confidentiality. Since the receipiant did not aide and abet or even encourage the document's transfer, I don't see any way to attach such a duty to them. Additionally, since the document in question is essentially an attack, the doctrine of unclean hands should prevent the upstream party from suing the downstream party for what is essentially the upstream party's negligence. The virus author did misappropriate the trade secrets since there is a duty not to break into computers.
It would be worthless for them to try, unless they also made ssh illegal, since you can simply forward the illegal protocol over an encrypted connection. You can do the same thing over SSL, which all the e-commerce web sites depend on, so it won't happen.
The internet is a file sharing ecosystem. The addage is true: it sees censorship as damage and routes around it.
We should be taking names and then doing what we can come election time to bring havoc to their websites.
The best thing to do right now is to pressure the senate to REJECT Robert Mueller as FBI director. The FBI needs a director we can trust, especially after all the abuses. It's not Mueller.
Then at election time....
Good guys: Boucher
Bad guys: Coble, Feinstein
It's exclusively the job of the court to interpret the laws and also to determine if they are unconstitutional.
No. Every government official has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That involves interpreting it and making decisions of which actions to take.
Additionally, if the government fails, the people have not only the right, but the obligation, to ignore an unjust law.
So where's the quality control in these 'open' encyclopaedias?
Where is the quality control in linux kernel development, in apache web server development, in the development of gcc?
Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow.
More great stuff from http://www.opensecrets.org/
Individual Donor:
VALENTI, JACK
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
MOTION PICTURE ASSOC OF AMERICA
03/10/1999 $ 500 Lone Star Fund
03/24/2000 $1,000 Biden, Joseph R Jr
03/01/1999 $ 500 Lofgren, Zoe
03/10/1999 $ 500 Frost, Martin
12/20/1999 $1,000 Abraham, Spencer
08/04/1999 $1,000 Hatch, Orrin G
11/09/1999 $ 500 Coggins, Regina Montoya
02/08/2000 $1,000 Harman, Jane
02/08/2000 $1,000 Harman, Jane
02/24/2000 $ 500 Wu, David
08/17/1999 $1,000 Democratic Leader's Victory Fund 2000
09/07/1999 $ 250 Restore America PAC
09/15/1999 $1,000 Berman, Howard L
01/29/1999 $1,000 Gore, Al
11/17/1999 $ 500 Wareing, Peter Staub
08/17/1999 $1,000 Gephardt, Richard A
03/31/2000 $1,000 Dingell, John D
10/07/1999 $1,000 Hyde, Henry J
10/07/1999 $1,000 Hyde, Henry J
06/07/1999 $ 500 Casey, Patrick
04/02/1999 $ 500 Svornich, Rudolph Jr
06/23/1999 $ 500 Clyburn, James E
12/29/2000 $1,000 Baucus, Max
06/09/2000 $1,000 Lewis, John
06/10/1999 $ 500 Watts, J C Jr
03/25/1999 $1,000 Markey, Edward J
05/26/1999 $1,000 Conyers, John Jr
05/22/2000 $ 250 Lugar, Richard G
03/15/2000 $ 250 Lugar, Richard G
10/21/1999 $1,000 Bush, George W
04/11/2000 $1,000 McCain, John
09/14/1999 $1,000 Gore, Al
09/30/1999 $1,000 McCain, John
That is a GREAT resource!! My Congressman (Lamar Smith R-TX) got only 18% PAC contributions, with a good mix of big and small individual contributors.
You sure are right! Coble got 80%. No wonder he's their lapdog.
By the way, here is a breakdown of big media campaign spending. Soft money galore.
Thanks to your "law", taxpayer-funded agencies will be forced to buy Microsoft OSes for half their machines
That is not what I am proposing. I propose "less than" not "exactly equal to" half non-MS OS's. I commend you for your ability to identify the slight ambiguity in my comment and jump out the window with unfounded conclusions. I really got a good laugh at your expense.
Congratulations, you've just overturned the most basic tenets of contract law.
Contract law does not limit a judicial remedy for a proven violation of the Sherman Act. You might as well argue that getting a traffic fine violates basic tenents of property rights. Courts have great power to enforce remedies against law breakers. What are you, stupid?
Also, Coca-Cola must include one can of Pepsi in every six-pack it sells, and optionally a can of Mountain Dew if Pepsico desires.
I am aware of no antitrust claim against Coca-Cola, let alone one that unanimously survived appellate review. Due process of law prevents the Courts from applying a remedy before a Court upholds the cause of action. You really should get a clue.
And Mozilla and Lynx32 and Grail and Amaya and Cello and Winamp's mini-browser...
I was thinking of Winamp's whole package. What is your point? If it's that someone has to draw a line, then you are really boring. Judges draw lines all the time. To get your browser included, you would have to go to the judge and show that the proven MS anticompetitive practices damaged you specifically in some way.
Representative Coble says "there have been very few complaints from intellectual property holders".
This is the sickest thing I have heard in a long time. Does this man care nothing for the public interest? We need to use him as the poster boy of a big media lapdog in Congress.
Mr. Coble: I am an intellectual property holder. I write copyrighted software. I detest the DMCA almost as much as I detest corrupt politician like you who sell government backed censorship to the big media special interests without even realizing or caring about the public interest. The fact that you equate "intellectual property holders" as someone different than the legions of citizens who are shocked by the draconian law is a testimony to what is wrong with copyright law. Copyright has become a joke because fools like you in power can only think about the interests of the large monied publishing companies that fund your reelection campaigns. The only good thing that will come out of the DMCA is some humor value at watching you learn how futile your pathetic law is.
Congress should pass a law that half of all future taxpayer funded PC purchases will come with a non Microsoft OS.
The Court should do several remedial steps, each tailored directly at undoing the harm caused by the specific anticompetive practices Microsoft has done:
1. OS Monopoly countermeasure: uniform licencing. MS may offer one version of its OS at one price. No sale may be refused. OEMs may make any noninfringing value added modification they choose. The Court should reassess every two years if this measure is still needed.
2. Java countermeasure: MS must bundle Sun's version of Java and any java related extras desired by Sun. Reassess every two years
3. Comingling of code: Mandate full disclosure of API's found to be involved. If Browser bundling is found to be anticompetitive on remand, force MS to distrubute Netscape and Opera. Similarly with other media programs. Reassess every two years.
Simple.
The DMCA bans distribution of TPM circumvention devices absolutely, without regard to knowledge or intent. It treats circumvention devices on par with stolen property in this regard. Since Sircam forwards one file off of your computer it circumvents login and read permissions that control access to a copyrighted work.
Thus everyone who executes (falls victim) to the sircam virus is guilty of a 1201(b) violation for distributing circumvention devices.
Obviously anyone who receives the trojan email has a cause of action, but actually anyone who uses the TPM in questions does too. That is, everyone who uses a computer that is susceptible to sircam can sue anyone who fell victim to it (in addition to the person who wrote it).
Anybody know anyone at the MPAA, RIAA, or Adobe that got hit?
While Dimitry is certainly being treated unfairly, the criminal provisions of the DMCA cannot be thrown out as unconstitutional if it doesn't go to court.
It sounds like you are advocating keeping someone in jail while the court system figures out that what he did wasn't a crime! The only acceptable course of action is for him to be released immediately.
And for PR purposes, anything that gets him out of jail will allow us to cheer "FBI unable to enforce DMCA in Court".
This is really great work. Bravo.
It's sometimes painful to watch the average user struggle with things that seem obvious, but this is exactly the kind of feedback that is difficult for a programmer to get.
For linux to succeed on the desktop, Gnome (or KDE or something equivalent) must do well at meeting the needs and expectations of this kind of user.
I hope people will see this report as a very valuable insight into what goes throught the minds of ordinary users. I did. Hell, I've even thought the same thing as in some of the comments (I shouldn't have to click on the login box to type my username!)
The DCMA was passed.
True. So was the First Amendment.
He broke the law.
The DMCA broke the law. He violated an illegal law.
Now, I personally think the law is stupid, and there are a great deal of other laws I think are stupid. However, the law is not unconstitutional (well, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet), and therefore he is a criminal.
As were the Bostonians who threw the tea into the harbor. As were the patriots who fired on the Redcoats at Bunker Hill. As were the blacks who wouldn't sit at the back of the bus. As am I.
Now, jurisdiction issues aside, what's left to do?
Violate the law. Openly. Loudly. Celebrate people who do it and get caught. Maximize the effort required to enforce the law - minimize the impact of getting caught. If you haven't noticed, there are many people doing this.
If the people who most clearly see and understand the injustice (us) are not willing to risk anything to oppose it, then we should just admit that we deserve no rights and that we will bend over and obey unjust laws.
Can you tell me exactly why we should obey a law that is a violation of our rights and a betrayel by Congress and the Courts of their Constitutional duty. Only a sheep would obey such a law. Are you a sheep?
I don't think he was arrested for the presentation. He was arrested for selling the program that the presentation is about. The presentation is just evidence.
He was literally arrested for his ability to read books!
Certainly doable but would be a significant effort for hobbyists, compared to the reasonable cost of just buying an Internet link.
Sounds like less work than, say, writing you own OS kernel. Seriously, every city has people out there in the work force doing this stuff. I bet a few of them are interested in linux and the open source movement. They could cooperate pretty easily , it seems.
This sounds like the kind of thing that a good LUG could easily organize.
Yeah, yeah. Sorry.
I previewed my post, decided I wanted to put some of it in bold: "This is extremely cool!" and flubbed it. I feel stupid.
This is extremely cool!
What exactly stops people from setting up a router to talk to other radio routers? Isn't the possibility there to completely remove our dependence altogehter on big companies providing us bandwidth? If I want to talk to you and there are seven people in between us with radio-based routers, why do we need the big telco's at all?
This article just reminds me of the complete lack of direction the US has had for a long time in its energy policy. Bush has recognized this, but hasn't really proposed a solution.
Why on earth isn't US Energy Policy pushing hard for the development of fusion based technology? Isn't it obvious this should be the centerpiece of our effort? Unlike fission, fusion is clean, safe, sustainable, and environmentally friendly. It's just hard technically.
I believe the environmental movement has fallen into the trap of being against things, but not for anything. If you are worried about global warming, advocate fusion research.
Similarly, dependence on foreign oil is a great security risk and results in mideast leaders being a little to big for their britches. Iran, Iraq, etc... The mideast is extremely volatile and if it wasn't for oil, the US wouldn't have to care.
What possible reason could M$ have to do this?
Isn't the answer obvious? They want to make the minimal token gesture that can be trumpted to the judge during the next antitrust hearing. "Look we've changed our ways" is what they want to say. It's the same reason they invested in Apple.
Even they realize they've got to make more of an effort to not be completely ruthless in exploiting their monopoly. Now they can hold their heads up, knowing they are only 99.999% ruthless.
Innovation is dead in music delivery?! Not by a long shot. The strongest statement that is true is the US based commercial innovation is dead for now. This leaves a big opening for a new player to step forward outside of this arena.
If a single nation is able to garner support for a more flexible copyright system, then that nation will likely be able to place itself in a dominant role in the music business.
It is also unclear that the "copyright is obsolete" mob -- who are willing to engage in civil disobedience in subversive or even open way -- have seen their strength diminished at all by the litigation. In fact, I think just the opposite has occured -- their convictions are only deepened now.
The music industry still has no effective response to the simple fact that millions of Americans don't like them and are willing to share their music despite judicial decrees that this violates the law. Until something occurs to moderate the mob, there will be tremendous innovation.