Basic Books Inc v Kinko's Graphics Corp 1991, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York... I have a Fair Use right to copy, Kinko's does not.
I think your reading of the decision is overly broad. The details of the case figured prominently in the evaluation of the fair use claim.
But the DMCA makes the Kinko's issue moot anyway.
I agree, but it was already covered. Besides, when has a question being purely academic stopped a bunch of nerds from debating it?
When Apple disabled the functionality to "download from iPod" (iTunes 4.7) the actual file system became a part of the DRM scheme, and thus protected by the DMCA.
iPod Download was a third-party plugin; Apple never supported copying music from an iPod. (For expedience, I will refer to files intended to be played on the iPod as 'music' and files intended to be stored and retrieved as 'data'.) The status of the filesystem layout under the DMCA, whatever it may be, has been the same since day one--and to my knowledge, Apple has never contended that a hidden folder is DMCAworthy.
When a third party (Real Networks) allowed users to transfer files to their iPods, Apple sued under DMCA, claiming that any use of 3rd party software (including windows explorer, mind you!) was a violation of the DMCA.
The article you linked is consistent with my memory of events and not your explanation. Apple specifically objected to Real's reverse-engineering; they served up some legal FUD but no lawsuit.
And there's a whole bunch of "terms and agreements" you agree to when you purchase an iPod and install iTunes for the first time.
Purchasing an iPod, no. Installing iTunes (every time, not just the first) requires accepting a licensing agreement which does not even purport to govern the use of an iPod. Even if it did, one could still decline the agreement and use other software.
The legal notice included in both the iPod manual (at least the last one I had, which I admit is a few versions back. I stopped using iPods the first time my battery died and they told me it'd cost $160 to replace it) and in the iTunes install expressly forbid the use of non-Apple-approved software to interface with the iPod.
Not the original or Photo manuals. Normally I take people at their word, but at best you've garbled every other claim, so I can't reasonably assume this is any closer to the truth. I will assume the battery replacement price is a typo, since it was originally $106 including shipping.
While this isn't legally binding, it does allow them to sue. And sue they do.
Then cite you could.
Is THAT the company you're backing?
I'm challenging you to support your claims. If you see that as "backing" anyone, that's your problem.
There is no blanket exception, but "nonprofit educational purposes" are mentioned specifically in 17 USC 107 as part of the "purpose and character" test for fair use.
It's not even clear that you have the right to photocopy a chapter for your own use. Fair use generally means you can quote a portion of a text without explicit permission. But one of the key tests of fair use is whether the copied section is minimal -- i.e., explicitly, that you not wholesale copy passages.
Fair use is a balancing test. The doctrines of time-shifting and space-shifting, for example, explicitly allow copying the entire work for certain purposes. As I wrote in response to the grandparent, converting a bound book to loose-leaf for personal convenience has the character of space-shifting.
And also contrary to popular rumor, your intent to "profit" from it is entirely irrelevant as well. It doesn't matter if you intend to distribute the material free of charge to the needy. You, as purchaser of a text, do not get copyright to it.
The part about not getting copyright is correct, but "commercial nature" is the also part of the "purpose and character" test.
"Copyright" is the right of a person to copy something.
No, copyright is a bundle of limited monopoly powers. A copyright holder also has control over distribution, public performance, etc. The owner of a copyrighted work has a limited right to copy, but no copyright.
The "Kinko's Rule" demonstrates how copyright is not transferable, even under fair use. Let's say I have a book I bought. My fair use includes the copyright to photocopy pages, an entire chapter, for my personal consumption. If I'm a teacher, that even includes giving copies of a chapter (though not the whole book) to, say, 30 people in a class I teach. I go to Kinko's; I walk up to a photocopier; I set it to 30 copies; I turn the pages through the chapter on the machine; I collect the 30 copies of the chapter; I pass them out to each person in my class. No problem - I have the copyright to use the book's content fairly that way.
First, I can't find any reference to a legal doctrine by that name, so as far as I can tell you just mean Kinko's company policy, which is merely indicative of the legal climate. Second, copyright is indeed transferable, but that isn't relevant, because sale of a copyrighted work doesn't involve transfer of copyright. Third, a determination of fair use is made on the balance of four factors; copying and distributing an entire book can be fair use, and copying a single page can be infringement. Specifically, I submit that in your first example, photocopying the entire book would be fair use under the space-shifting doctrine.
But if I take that book to the Kinko's service desk, ask the Kinko's employee (or even just another customer with extra time on their hands) to copy the book for an otherwise identical usage scenario, I'm not allowed. Because the employee does not have the copyright to fairly use that book for anything (except maybe reading it as borrowed by a "friend"), because they did not obtain any copyrights by buying the book. The fair use copyrights I have on the book I bought are not transferable to another person - they are not contained in the book I physically pass to the employee, they are contained in the transaction of buying (and thereby owning) the book.
Again, your use of the terms "copyright" and "fair use" are inconsistent with their legal definitions. Do you have case law to support this theory?
Just transfering unencrypted files to and from an iPod constitutes a crime (according to Apple legal) if you aren't using iTunes.//technically// using the Windows Explorer to do so is a violation of the "terms and agreements" you apparently agree to when you buy an iPod.
You can cite that, right? Because there aren't any "terms and agreements" governing the use of an iPod, disk mode is an advertised feature, and breach of contract is usually a civil offense.
The South had huge populations, but incredibly small populations of eligible voters (White Land owning men).
Eligible voters were whoever each state said they were. Apportionment of representatives (and thus electors) was based not on voters but on the free population plus 3/5 of the slave population. In 1790, the greatest proportion of slaves was 43%, in South Carolina, before the 2/5 discount. In total, slaves accounted for 12% of the population for purposes of apportionment.
Now, let's look at states that really did have small populations. In 1790 there were 15 states. The smallest third (Delaware, Rhode Island, Kentucky, Georgia, and Vermont) accounted for 9% of the population and 21 of 135 electors. Delaware, Kentucky, and Georgia had significant slave populations, but Delaware had the minimum three electors anyway. I think Kentucky's fourth elector was probably deserved on the basis of free population alone, but I'll throw it out along with Georgia's. That leaves 19/135, or 14%--a 48% bonus.
Don't take my word for it; check the census data for yourself.
Ironically, the electoral college is one of the last vestiges of Slavery with any weight in the Constitutions.
It's no more a vestige of slavery than the bicameral legislature; the apportionment of electors was based on the apportionment of representatives. If the EC is a vestige of anything, it's federalism... like the bicameral legislature.
In fact, Jefferson wouldn't have gotten elected if not for the Electoral College.
Practically meaningless, since most states appointed electors back then.
My largest concern for the Electoral college is the sense of "my vote doesn't count", and the fact that we've devolved into two parties and that's it.
Plurality voting inherently encourages a two-party system; if anything, the EC should increase support for third parties in 'safe' states.
In this respect, I would assume DeCSS is no different than your standard DVD player.
Your standard DVD player is authorized by the DVD Copy Control Association to decrypt CSS. However, since my last post, someone has reminded me of Chamberlain v. Skylink. The Federal Circuit found that the owner of a product containing embedded software has an inherent right to use that copy of the software as they choose (in this case, the software in a garage door opener in conjunction with an 'unauthorized' remote). If this finding is correct, I see no good reason why the doctrine of implicit authorization would not extend to all copyrighted works. Unfortunately, I think the court got it wrong; they held that Congress did not intend the DMCA to alter the balance of copyright. I think they did, for the reasons I gave above.
Is it illegal for me to copy my DVDs that I purchased to my laptop for viewing on an airplane?
Making an image of an encrypted disc is legal, since the access control measures remain in place. The usual rip-decrypt-transcode process violates 1201(a), by my reading.
Fair use absolutely is a defense for DMCA violations. This is a factual dispute and can be easily resolved by reading the actual law.
You've made the typical error in your reading. Copyright infringement is not an element of the offenses defined in 1201(a) and (b), so 1201(c)(1) is totally irrelevant to those offenses. Those two sections direct the Librarian of Congress to assess the chilling effect and grant exemptions for specific noninfringing uses, which would be unnecessary if infringement were a prerequisite for those offenses. Members of Congress have introduced bills which would extend the fair use defense to DMCA violations, which also would be superfluous if it already implicitly applied.
"Some" may so assert, but no coherent argument can be made for it. Nature has seen that whatever I say can be repeated, whatever I write can be transcribed, whatever I sing or play or paint or sculpt or otherwise reveal to another person can be reproduced.
"While donations are not US tax deductible as charitable contribution" is what their website says. I guess they don't want to become a true non-profit org for some reason.
While OpenBSD apparently has no legal organization (the website says to write checks to Theo), not all NPOs are charitable.
Who said anything about file permissions?
on
Sudo vs. Root
·
· Score: 1
The point of visudo is two-fold. One is syntax check, the other is to ensure proper permissions are used on the file.
The person in question changed the contents of/etc/sudoers to a syntactically valid configuration denying him sudo privs. visudo doesn't do anything to prevent that.
...most DO have effects that impair judgement beyond just a few hours. If you believe otherwise you're deceiving yourself.
Do you understand the difference between intoxication and addiction? You must, to have written this:
I don't think it will ever be possible to legalize drugs the way you suggest for one reason and one reason only. The amount of time strong mind/behaviour altering drugs like cocaine, crack and heroin stay in your system. Most people can regulate the amount of alcohol they consume so they're only affected from 6-12 hours.
I didn't bother to mention this earlier, but alcohol is somewhat unusual among recreational drugs. The body metabolizes most substances at a rate proportional to the concentration of the substance; taking a double dose might heighten the effects, but it won't do much to prolong them. The body has limits, though, and above a certain concentration the rate of metabolism remains constant. For alcohol, this concentration is lower than typical doses.
So, you got one part right: cocaine users can't regulate the duration of effects by adjusting the amount they consume. Unfortunately for your argument, that's because any dose that would keep them high for "days after they've consumed" would kill them first. One way or another, they're coming down within a few hours of their last hit.
Now, you haven't said exactly what you consider "affected" by alcohol, but "6-12 hours" covers the acute effects and maybe a bit of a hangover. If you want to talk about addiction, we'll talk about addiction, but if I wanted tortured justifications for bad biochemistry I'd find a creationism debate.
You've obviously never seen anyone experience a flashback. Its more than just reliving a vivid memory, its like tripping out all over again.
"vivid memory" are your words, not mine. I'm talking about recurrence of the emotional state, dissociation, hallucination... a flashback to a bad acid trip looks a lot like a flashback to physical abuse.
...my mates ex-girlfriend...was as fucked up between fixes as she was when she got them.
No, she was a fuckup. Again, there's a difference.
Gambling doesn't come into this as its a mental illness and not artificially induced. You can't pop a pill to become a gambler.
Gambling is a recreational activity enjoyed responsibly by many; gambling addiction is a mental illness, as is alcoholism, as is addiction to drugs we don't have special words for addiction to. Addiction isn't just physical dependence; a person can be physically dependent on painkillers without exhibiting impaired judgment, or addicted to an activity like gambling. Also, physical dependence doesn't make sense of current drug laws; several Class A drugs are acknowledged not to be physically addictive.
I don't think it will ever be possible to legalize drugs the way you suggest for one reason and one reason only. The amount of time strong mind/behaviour altering drugs like cocaine, crack and heroin stay in your system.... The last thing we as a society needs is a pandemic of people driving cars and working in sensitive jobs that are still experiencing judgment impairing effects of drugs, days after they've consumed them, with no recourse to stop them because they're not doing anything illegal.
The psychoactive effects of most recreational drugs last for minutes or hours, not days; the body breaks them down into other compounds, and drug tests look for those. Of course, impaired judgment is a defining feature of psychological addiction, but that doesn't explain why nicotine and alcohol are legal while THC and LSD are not. Also, we have laws against driving while intoxicated and malpractice of sensitive jobs, while (over here, at least) simply being intoxicated is generally not an offense.
Windows: The OS runs an arbitrary executable specified by the author of the disc, which can write to C:\WINDOWS without any further user interaction. This behavior is by design.
Mac: The OS recognizes a CD-DA, Photo CD, Picture CD, or DVD Video filesystem and starts a previously installed application. If the filesystem is "flawed", the OS won't launch the application, the application will throw an error, or the application will crash. Assuming for the sake of argument an arbitrary execution vulnerability in one of these applications and a disc maliciously crafted to exploit it, an attacker still wouldn't have privileges to write to/System without prompting the user for their password or discovering and exploiting a privilege escalation vulnerability.
Good on you for being cautious, but the two scenarios aren't equivalent.
Well since copyright is alos used to prevent the unauthorized copying of banknotes, copyright is actually quite powerful. But copyright will not prevent you from studyding bank notes, it might prevent you from creating machines that can help you to duplicate bank-notes (try scanning in a bank note into photoshop and you get the point.)
The designs of US currency, like other works of the US government, are public domain. Depiction of currency is restricted by the Counterfeit Detection Act. Adobe have, at the request of the Secret Service, restricted certain legal uses of their software.
...and you're still not getting the point. I don't care how many hoops Microsoft had to jump through to get the 'IsNot' patent; the claimed invention is fundamentally unworthy.
Code which targets OpenStep will work on both Cocoa and GNUstep - however from thereon there are divergences...GNUstep has classes which Cocoa lacks and vice versa. It would be possible to reimplement the missing classes on the other system, just it hasn't been done.
I doubt they've implemented 100% of Apple's classes, but the GNUstep developers have made Cocoa compatibility an explicit goal.
I think you are misunderstanding, and probably your friends on/. and groklaw are misunderstanding the use of 35 USC 112,1st paragraph.
I think you are misunderstanding the point of the grandparent's post. The merits of the patent process are in the results, not a selected paragraph from the patent code, and so it is precisely "as easy to get a patent as many people here on/. seem to think". The great-grandparent's mention of 35 USC 112 really doesn't address that in any way.
You say there is no cost except for time to write and debug code. Yes let us ignore the fact said code still needs a computer or some piece of hardware to interpret said code, so during the design at least there is that cost as well.
A few hundred dollars will buy a stupidly powerful personal computer; slower but generally adequate models can be had for far less. Over 60% of American households and the overwhelming majority of American businesses already have at least one PC for reasons other than software development. Labor is by far the largest marginal cost in the development process.
I like to use the following argument: say you can implement process one as a solely hardware only device, with digital logic or other passive/non-passive electronic devices or you can implement the process on a microprocessor or computer using software and get the same effects, speed differences being negligible. So under the no software patents idea, I can patent the hardware implementation but not the software one. This is somewhat troublesome because if you invent the process and implement it both ways you deserve the right to own a patent on it. Copyrights do not provide enough protection, because as many of us know there are several ways to write code to perform the same process sometimes.
There may be some patentworthy element in your implementation of the process, but the abstract process itself isn't it. Copyright, aside from details like term length and perversions like the DMCA, is an entirely appropriate level of control over a work of authorship.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your reading of the decision is overly broad. The details of the case figured prominently in the evaluation of the fair use claim.
I agree, but it was already covered. Besides, when has a question being purely academic stopped a bunch of nerds from debating it?
iPod Download was a third-party plugin; Apple never supported copying music from an iPod. (For expedience, I will refer to files intended to be played on the iPod as 'music' and files intended to be stored and retrieved as 'data'.) The status of the filesystem layout under the DMCA, whatever it may be, has been the same since day one--and to my knowledge, Apple has never contended that a hidden folder is DMCAworthy.
The article you linked is consistent with my memory of events and not your explanation. Apple specifically objected to Real's reverse-engineering; they served up some legal FUD but no lawsuit.
Purchasing an iPod, no. Installing iTunes (every time, not just the first) requires accepting a licensing agreement which does not even purport to govern the use of an iPod. Even if it did, one could still decline the agreement and use other software.
Not the original or Photo manuals. Normally I take people at their word, but at best you've garbled every other claim, so I can't reasonably assume this is any closer to the truth. I will assume the battery replacement price is a typo, since it was originally $106 including shipping.
Then cite you could.
I'm challenging you to support your claims. If you see that as "backing" anyone, that's your problem.
There is no blanket exception, but "nonprofit educational purposes" are mentioned specifically in 17 USC 107 as part of the "purpose and character" test for fair use.
Fair use is a balancing test. The doctrines of time-shifting and space-shifting, for example, explicitly allow copying the entire work for certain purposes. As I wrote in response to the grandparent, converting a bound book to loose-leaf for personal convenience has the character of space-shifting.
The part about not getting copyright is correct, but "commercial nature" is the also part of the "purpose and character" test.
No, copyright is a bundle of limited monopoly powers. A copyright holder also has control over distribution, public performance, etc. The owner of a copyrighted work has a limited right to copy, but no copyright.
First, I can't find any reference to a legal doctrine by that name, so as far as I can tell you just mean Kinko's company policy, which is merely indicative of the legal climate. Second, copyright is indeed transferable, but that isn't relevant, because sale of a copyrighted work doesn't involve transfer of copyright. Third, a determination of fair use is made on the balance of four factors; copying and distributing an entire book can be fair use, and copying a single page can be infringement. Specifically, I submit that in your first example, photocopying the entire book would be fair use under the space-shifting doctrine.
Again, your use of the terms "copyright" and "fair use" are inconsistent with their legal definitions. Do you have case law to support this theory?
Pentiums were designated 80501-80503. Subsequent chips have been 8052x-8055x.
You can cite that, right? Because there aren't any "terms and agreements" governing the use of an iPod, disk mode is an advertised feature, and breach of contract is usually a civil offense.
Eligible voters were whoever each state said they were. Apportionment of representatives (and thus electors) was based not on voters but on the free population plus 3/5 of the slave population. In 1790, the greatest proportion of slaves was 43%, in South Carolina, before the 2/5 discount. In total, slaves accounted for 12% of the population for purposes of apportionment.
Now, let's look at states that really did have small populations. In 1790 there were 15 states. The smallest third (Delaware, Rhode Island, Kentucky, Georgia, and Vermont) accounted for 9% of the population and 21 of 135 electors. Delaware, Kentucky, and Georgia had significant slave populations, but Delaware had the minimum three electors anyway. I think Kentucky's fourth elector was probably deserved on the basis of free population alone, but I'll throw it out along with Georgia's. That leaves 19/135, or 14%--a 48% bonus.
Don't take my word for it; check the census data for yourself.
It's no more a vestige of slavery than the bicameral legislature; the apportionment of electors was based on the apportionment of representatives. If the EC is a vestige of anything, it's federalism... like the bicameral legislature.
Practically meaningless, since most states appointed electors back then.
Plurality voting inherently encourages a two-party system; if anything, the EC should increase support for third parties in 'safe' states.
They don't care what's on it as long as they can use it as a unique identifier.
So, you got one part right: cocaine users can't regulate the duration of effects by adjusting the amount they consume. Unfortunately for your argument, that's because any dose that would keep them high for "days after they've consumed" would kill them first. One way or another, they're coming down within a few hours of their last hit.
Now, you haven't said exactly what you consider "affected" by alcohol, but "6-12 hours" covers the acute effects and maybe a bit of a hangover. If you want to talk about addiction, we'll talk about addiction, but if I wanted tortured justifications for bad biochemistry I'd find a creationism debate.
"vivid memory" are your words, not mine. I'm talking about recurrence of the emotional state, dissociation, hallucination... a flashback to a bad acid trip looks a lot like a flashback to physical abuse. No, she was a fuckup. Again, there's a difference. Gambling is a recreational activity enjoyed responsibly by many; gambling addiction is a mental illness, as is alcoholism, as is addiction to drugs we don't have special words for addiction to. Addiction isn't just physical dependence; a person can be physically dependent on painkillers without exhibiting impaired judgment, or addicted to an activity like gambling. Also, physical dependence doesn't make sense of current drug laws; several Class A drugs are acknowledged not to be physically addictive.Windows: The OS runs an arbitrary executable specified by the author of the disc, which can write to C:\WINDOWS without any further user interaction. This behavior is by design.
/System without prompting the user for their password or discovering and exploiting a privilege escalation vulnerability.
Mac: The OS recognizes a CD-DA, Photo CD, Picture CD, or DVD Video filesystem and starts a previously installed application. If the filesystem is "flawed", the OS won't launch the application, the application will throw an error, or the application will crash. Assuming for the sake of argument an arbitrary execution vulnerability in one of these applications and a disc maliciously crafted to exploit it, an attacker still wouldn't have privileges to write to
Good on you for being cautious, but the two scenarios aren't equivalent.
...and you're still not getting the point. I don't care how many hoops Microsoft had to jump through to get the 'IsNot' patent; the claimed invention is fundamentally unworthy.