Of course it does. You and I are free to enter into any legally valid contract. Whether a contract is enforceable or not has no legal bearing, nor is the question of whether the contract is reasonable, or fair, or just. All that matters is whether the contract is valid.
What the fuck are you talking about? If a contract is unenforceable, there is no legal recourse for a party to take when the other party violates the contract, so if it's legal but unenforceable, it makes little difference. But like I said, this is completely orthogonal to copyright.
Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything. Anybody can sue anybody else for anything. I can sue you for breach of contract right now, if I see fit. My case will have no merit and I'll probably end up paying your court costs and fees, but I can sue you. This condition is not unique to copyright law.
No kidding, but the DMCA has special provisions that make it even worse. You have read it, have you not?
Woop-de-do. Every new law makes things that were previously legal illegal. That's not unique to copyright law, either.
I should have been more clear. The DMCA not only makes things that were previously _protected_ by law(fair use, etc.) illegal in many circumstances, but also does so in total contradiction to other laws. Also, the constitutionality of the DMCA is very shaky, as the constitution is very clear on the ends copyright laws are allowed to promote, and the DMCA does not fit withing those end(ie. furthering creation of art and science for the benefit of the public). You have read the constitution, have you not?
If that's not unique, the DMCA makes it possible to be criminally charged, including possible arrest and jail time, for using your own property in a manner you see fit(eg. playing DVD's on your *nix box, or decrypting an ebook to read with your reading software for the blind, etc).
If that's fine and dandy with you, then we have irreconcilable differences.
Also, I would like to point out that it is the DMCA that is forcefully restricting freedoms of the people who are against it, not the other way around. Are you so quick to restrict freedom? Are you so quick to deal out punishment for those who disagree with yourself and other like-minded persons?
Of course you can. It's a free country. You can tell people that they are only allowed to view your works while wearing a fez. If you make them sign a piece of paper stipulating such, that becomes a contract, and you're both bound to it. If somebody reads your work while wearing a bowler instead-- or, god forbid, no hat at all-- you can sue for breach of contract.
That's a completely different subject and has nothing to do with copyright law. That would fall under contract law, and would require the buyer and seller to actually agree upon a contract. The country being free also has nothing to do with it, as you can agree to anything you wish, but if the law considers it unenforceable, then it won't be enforced.
"Another reason is that it puts the burden of proof on the accused."
In what way? I'm not sure I know what you mean.
In that a copyright holder can go around accusing people of DMCA violations and the accused is required to pull the supposedly offending material until they prove themselves innocent of violations, or they face further charges.
Another problem is that persons can be charged criminally and face jail time for simple violations of things that have always been legal and considered fair before, eg. this very case.
(I'll just ignore your personal remarks. If you don't want to talk with me, that's fine; you don't have to get all huffy.)
It also seems you'll ignore most of my posting, as you only responded to the smaller bits you thought you could defend!
Furthermore, my "asshole" statement was just as valid as your blanket statement of people who have spent a great deal of time and money working to defeat this horribly stupid law, which was a much more personal remark which you directed at a large group of people!
Did you know that copyright holders are not required to do anything at all in order to ensure that users of their works can exercise all-- or even any!-- of the possible fair uses of their works?
No kidding, but completely orhogonal to the point. I have plenty of copyrighted works still in my head, unpublished, of course I don't have to provide anyone the means of accessing it. However, If I publish it, I sure as hell shouldn't be able to tell people who legally purchased it how they can view it.
Copyright is another issue entirely, even though that's supposedly what the DMCA is supposed to protect.
Did you know that, under the DMCA, it is not illegal to circumvent copy protection mechanisms for the purpose of making fair use of a work? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(B)]
Yes, what's your point?
Did you know that this case rests on the DMCA's prohibition of the importation or sale of devices whose sole purpose is to circumvent copy protection? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2)]
Exactly, this is entirely contradictary to the previous statement, unless exceptions are allowed for devices that circumvent copy controls for the purpose of making fair use of a copyrighted work, eg. the software in question. This is a large part of what makes the DMCA such a bad law. Another reason is that it puts the burden of proof on the accused.
Did you know that most people who complain with zeal that the DMCA is a bad law have never actually read it, or indeed any part of Title 17?
Is that so? Does everyone here also know that you speak from your asshole, it's just as valid a statement. I myself have read most of the DMCA, further, the basics of the DMCA are easily compressed into a few sentences. So, really, it matters little if everyone has read the whole damn thing, pages upon pages of legalese.
Mac OS X is not "more Unix than Linux", not by any stretch of the imagination. OS X is based on BSD, which no longer incorporates any code derived from original Unices. Therefore, they are both "clones". Mac OS X is a registered Unix, ie. they paid to be able to call it Unix. Linux probably meets the single unix specification more closely than OS X, but no one has paid to have Linux certified as a Unix.
if I inherited such a thing I would shut it down in a heartbeat. Just because perhaps you feel you wouldn't be able to, does not mean others are the same.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Bullshit. There is no "game", ever. Everything can be exploited and abused, the reason society almost functions is that enough people aren't willing to do it.
Re:Timeline to be released in 2003
on
Prey
·
· Score: 2
I read Timeline. Honestly, I wasn't impressed with it, but it was a fun read, not hard sci-fi though. I thought Andromeda strain was better sci-fi, and impressed me as I read some of Chrichton's less than stellar work first.
Timeline should make a great, fun movie though, and I look forward to it! Actually, considering the complete sh*t that's out now, I can't wait...
While his answers were mildly ammusing, I would have been more interested in more in depth answers. Oh well, at his age I'm sure he's tired of interviews and such.
How can you say "everyone who was a "good person" to Ender comes back to life in a perfect form"?
That was not the case at all! Ender created a physical replica of his sister and his brother, but they were most definately not his sister and brother. They were extensions of himself, and they did not help; they made things worse and more confusing, and led to Ender's death(sort of...).
On the other hand, the instant travel bit I agree with you about. That was technology for the sake of the plot, not plot based around new technology.
I guess I'm just nitpicking, as I agree that Children was the weakest of the Ender series.
Why not just state in the license that no politicians are allowed to use the product?
I'm sort of joking... sort of serious.
On the serious side, you cannot honestly argue that ANY government on this planet has not committed human rights abuses. People keep blathering on and on about what country did what, but that's folly, and simply reaks of agenda pushing.
And on that note, this whole discussion is ridiculous as this is so obviously an extremely stupid idea; every government has their own definition of "human rights", and this "license" will not be worth a damn.
I realize the parent post was simply a joke, but nonetheless...
Since sometime around Sep. 11, kuro5hin has devolved into a cesspool of terrorist sympathizers, conspiracy theorist nuts(you thought/. was bad?, heh...), etc.
It's a good site to participate in if you're intentionally trying to get an FBI file, and honestly with good reason IMO. And this, coming from me, a serious privacy nut/Libertarian/keep the f*ckin' govt' out of my life/etc.
Just recently there was a piece about how it's the fault of the Miss Universe Pageant people that Muslims are slaughtering people in whatever backasswards country the pageant was supposed to be held in. Sure, they were pretty stupid to cause such a culture clash, but that justifies Muslims slaughtering people? It got pretty torn up in the comments, but still, it made it to the front page...
Firefly, boring? You sir, have A.D.D.. I'm sorry, but you do. IMO, ADD is not a physical disease, it is a disease caused by the MTVification of teenage life. I'm guessing you're under 24?
And you think John Doe is good? I'm not saying it's bad, but it sure is extremely contrived. Every episode of late has made it appear as John Doe would find out the secrets surrounding his predicament... That's not suspenseful, it's stupid.
Your suggestion is ludicrous, "be careful where you browse"?
That is NOT a solution. People can't be careful where they browse because of the nature of how the web works. Suppose you are doing some research on something obscure, so you are googling along trying to find info on it. How the fuck are you to know whether you should trust any of the sites linked to by google? You can't! Your browser simply has to be secure and not do things it shouldn't do.
Inigo Montoya was the guy from "The Princess Bride", whose father was killed by a man with six fingers.
In another post, someone else mentioned his name is actually "Indigo Montoya", only knowable by reading the book as his name is never said clearly in the movie and sounds like "Inigo".
Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!
Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!
Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!
Guy With Six Fingers: STOP SAYING THAT!
Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!
Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!
Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!
No matter what they do, there will always be leads connecting to the speaker cones, and you'll always be able to get the audio from there. And if done properly with the right equipment, you will always be able to get a nearly perfect signal, which you can then digitize.
NVIDIA's drivers are NOT open source, the source tarball simplay contains a wrapper around their binary driver, which is just an interface to the kernel. The actual driver is binary only.
Why use partway open chutes? Why not use a bunch of smaller cutes, and deploy them one at a time. Each tiny chute alone wouldn't exert too much pressure.
a copyright law that was drafted a few hundred years ago cannot be relevant today without any change
Then you say...
as always, the rich and the powerful are just going to take advantage of the lucrative situation they have in their hands now
You completely contradict yourself. The situation today is that copyright law _HAS BEEN CHANGED_, and the "rich and powerful" are taking advantage of that.
Copyright law as it was a few hundred years ago would not allow the current situation, and would be much better for today than what we currently have.
Sorry about getting that confused. I agree, it would be helpful if NVIDIA would at least release some specs, at least enough to develop some basic drivers with, source even better.
Do you know why NVIDIA backtracked on their promise to deliver open source drivers? It was a couple years ago, at the time they released some initial drivers that worked with XFree86 3.x.
I think the issue with NVIDIA not releasing their drivers is complicated. I think they can't, legally, because of licensing issues. In fact, even if they could, the drivers would be less than great because some of the features are covered by patents, such as S3TC compression, so they would be very feature limited. Plus, they have invested a ton of resources into developing the best video drivers on the market, for any platform, so I'm sure they're really paranoid about open sourcing them. As of right now, their excellent drivers is the only think keeping them ahead of ATI. NVIDIA and ATI have very similar performing cards with similar feature sets, but NVIDIA has, hands down, the absolute driver support.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see open source drivers for NVIDIA hardware.
As far as instability, I'm guessing you have an AMD system with a VIA chipset? There are a lot of hardware bugs with VIA chipsets, especially the earlier Athlon chipsets. There are a bunch of workarounds, you should try them all before giving up.
Slashdot Mirror
What the fuck are you talking about? If a contract is unenforceable, there is no legal recourse for a party to take when the other party violates the contract, so if it's legal but unenforceable, it makes little difference. But like I said, this is completely orthogonal to copyright.
Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything. Anybody can sue anybody else for anything. I can sue you for breach of contract right now, if I see fit. My case will have no merit and I'll probably end up paying your court costs and fees, but I can sue you. This condition is not unique to copyright law.
No kidding, but the DMCA has special provisions that make it even worse. You have read it, have you not?
Woop-de-do. Every new law makes things that were previously legal illegal. That's not unique to copyright law, either.
I should have been more clear. The DMCA not only makes things that were previously _protected_ by law(fair use, etc.) illegal in many circumstances, but also does so in total contradiction to other laws. Also, the constitutionality of the DMCA is very shaky, as the constitution is very clear on the ends copyright laws are allowed to promote, and the DMCA does not fit withing those end(ie. furthering creation of art and science for the benefit of the public). You have read the constitution, have you not?
If that's not unique, the DMCA makes it possible to be criminally charged, including possible arrest and jail time, for using your own property in a manner you see fit(eg. playing DVD's on your *nix box, or decrypting an ebook to read with your reading software for the blind, etc).
If that's fine and dandy with you, then we have irreconcilable differences.
Also, I would like to point out that it is the DMCA that is forcefully restricting freedoms of the people who are against it, not the other way around. Are you so quick to restrict freedom? Are you so quick to deal out punishment for those who disagree with yourself and other like-minded persons?
That's a completely different subject and has nothing to do with copyright law. That would fall under contract law, and would require the buyer and seller to actually agree upon a contract. The country being free also has nothing to do with it, as you can agree to anything you wish, but if the law considers it unenforceable, then it won't be enforced.
"Another reason is that it puts the burden of proof on the accused."
In what way? I'm not sure I know what you mean.
In that a copyright holder can go around accusing people of DMCA violations and the accused is required to pull the supposedly offending material until they prove themselves innocent of violations, or they face further charges.
Another problem is that persons can be charged criminally and face jail time for simple violations of things that have always been legal and considered fair before, eg. this very case.
(I'll just ignore your personal remarks. If you don't want to talk with me, that's fine; you don't have to get all huffy.)
It also seems you'll ignore most of my posting, as you only responded to the smaller bits you thought you could defend!
Furthermore, my "asshole" statement was just as valid as your blanket statement of people who have spent a great deal of time and money working to defeat this horribly stupid law, which was a much more personal remark which you directed at a large group of people!
No kidding, but completely orhogonal to the point. I have plenty of copyrighted works still in my head, unpublished, of course I don't have to provide anyone the means of accessing it. However, If I publish it, I sure as hell shouldn't be able to tell people who legally purchased it how they can view it.
Copyright is another issue entirely, even though that's supposedly what the DMCA is supposed to protect.
Did you know that, under the DMCA, it is not illegal to circumvent copy protection mechanisms for the purpose of making fair use of a work? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(B)]
Yes, what's your point?
Did you know that this case rests on the DMCA's prohibition of the importation or sale of devices whose sole purpose is to circumvent copy protection? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2)]
Exactly, this is entirely contradictary to the previous statement, unless exceptions are allowed for devices that circumvent copy controls for the purpose of making fair use of a copyrighted work, eg. the software in question. This is a large part of what makes the DMCA such a bad law. Another reason is that it puts the burden of proof on the accused.
Did you know that most people who complain with zeal that the DMCA is a bad law have never actually read it, or indeed any part of Title 17?
Is that so? Does everyone here also know that you speak from your asshole, it's just as valid a statement. I myself have read most of the DMCA, further, the basics of the DMCA are easily compressed into a few sentences. So, really, it matters little if everyone has read the whole damn thing, pages upon pages of legalese.
Just some legal trivia for y'all to chew on
Trivia? Taste more like shit...
And furthermore, *BSD, which OS X is based on(!), is also _NOT_ certified.
So this whole "OS X is more Unix than Linux" is total BS.
Cheers.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Bullshit. There is no "game", ever. Everything can be exploited and abused, the reason society almost functions is that enough people aren't willing to do it.
Timeline should make a great, fun movie though, and I look forward to it! Actually, considering the complete sh*t that's out now, I can't wait...
Jurassic Park, on the other hand, was interesting and fun, and I recommend anyone who hasn't to read it to do so.
But for the most part, Chriton is sort of a "let down".
He has potential though, so it's worth reading reviews to see if something of his could be worth reading.
Cheers.
sorry, couldn't resist...
BTW, what psychological problem makes someone choose a self-deprecating nick?
ok, only kidding...
That was not the case at all! Ender created a physical replica of his sister and his brother, but they were most definately not his sister and brother. They were extensions of himself, and they did not help; they made things worse and more confusing, and led to Ender's death(sort of...).
On the other hand, the instant travel bit I agree with you about. That was technology for the sake of the plot, not plot based around new technology.
I guess I'm just nitpicking, as I agree that Children was the weakest of the Ender series.
I'm sort of joking... sort of serious.
On the serious side, you cannot honestly argue that ANY government on this planet has not committed human rights abuses. People keep blathering on and on about what country did what, but that's folly, and simply reaks of agenda pushing.
And on that note, this whole discussion is ridiculous as this is so obviously an extremely stupid idea; every government has their own definition of "human rights", and this "license" will not be worth a damn.
Since sometime around Sep. 11, kuro5hin has devolved into a cesspool of terrorist sympathizers, conspiracy theorist nuts(you thought /. was bad?, heh...), etc.
It's a good site to participate in if you're intentionally trying to get an FBI file, and honestly with good reason IMO. And this, coming from me, a serious privacy nut/Libertarian/keep the f*ckin' govt' out of my life/etc.
Just recently there was a piece about how it's the fault of the Miss Universe Pageant people that Muslims are slaughtering people in whatever backasswards country the pageant was supposed to be held in. Sure, they were pretty stupid to cause such a culture clash, but that justifies Muslims slaughtering people? It got pretty torn up in the comments, but still, it made it to the front page...
Bleh... Sorry for the rant.
And you think John Doe is good? I'm not saying it's bad, but it sure is extremely contrived. Every episode of late has made it appear as John Doe would find out the secrets surrounding his predicament... That's not suspenseful, it's stupid.
Your suggestion is ludicrous, "be careful where you browse"?
That is NOT a solution. People can't be careful where they browse because of the nature of how the web works. Suppose you are doing some research on something obscure, so you are googling along trying to find info on it. How the fuck are you to know whether you should trust any of the sites linked to by google? You can't! Your browser simply has to be secure and not do things it shouldn't do.
Duh!
In another post, someone else mentioned his name is actually "Indigo Montoya", only knowable by reading the book as his name is never said clearly in the movie and sounds like "Inigo".
Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!
Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!
Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!
Guy With Six Fingers: STOP SAYING THAT!
Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!
Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!
Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya: My name is Inigo Montoya, you put windows on my computer, prepare to die.
Then you say...
as always, the rich and the powerful are just going to take advantage of the lucrative situation they have in their hands now
You completely contradict yourself. The situation today is that copyright law _HAS BEEN CHANGED_, and the "rich and powerful" are taking advantage of that.
Copyright law as it was a few hundred years ago would not allow the current situation, and would be much better for today than what we currently have.
Do you know why NVIDIA backtracked on their promise to deliver open source drivers? It was a couple years ago, at the time they released some initial drivers that worked with XFree86 3.x.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see open source drivers for NVIDIA hardware.
As far as instability, I'm guessing you have an AMD system with a VIA chipset? There are a lot of hardware bugs with VIA chipsets, especially the earlier Athlon chipsets. There are a bunch of workarounds, you should try them all before giving up.
Cheers.