Well, one way to hold Obama's feet to the fire is to say that you will vote for McCain if Obama doesn't say that he will reform the DCMA.
Any candidate can say whatever they like. It makes no difference. What matters is what they DO when they are in office. Seeing the voting record of both "major" candidates should tell everyone that it is pure stupidity to vote for either of them.
~350 million Americans. About 200 million adults. Let's say half are online, so 100 million online users. Let's significantly underestimate the percentage of pirates at 1%. So that's 1 million pirates. At $0 a year (since these people wouldn't pay for the crap anyway), that's $0 a year!!
Not only that, but Ray's specialty is in a certain area of law, not necessarily constitutional, as I would deem this matter may be within the realm of constitutional and procedural law. To me, at least, bringing litigation against an opposing attorney who is representing in multiple cases against you is highly questionable. Ray needs to be able to focus on his current litigations for his clients, and this act seems to me to simply be an attempt to violate the constitutional rights of Ray's clients through malicious litigation and a disruption and interference with due process.
I have not read the article, and the article probably does not even give enough information to make an educated statement and opinion anyway, but if the RIAA has a beef with Ray, and Ray has truly done something wrong, there are procedural rules to take in order to remedy the situation. Anything outside those rules, in my opinion, is an attempt to disrupt justice and due process, and is unconstitutional as it interferes with the rights of Ray's clients to be properly represented ("fair trial") without harassment and duress by the opposing party against the representing attorney.
I would also assume that we will not hear from Ray on this subject matter, as he should say nothing, until this situation has been alleviated. But good luck to him, and if every/.er sent him even $10 (lunch money), he should be able to gain some pretty good representation on this matter.
I can see how it may be unconstitutional but only because it could be seen as the state interfering with interstate commerce. But that has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Better yet, instead of barking at every instance of the appearance of a "rights violation", let's raise our voices even louder and bark at every law that is passed that does not appear to have any authority in the constitutions of this country? Every law must have its authority based on the Federal or States' constitutions...period. Everything that is not expressly reserved to the government is reserved to the People, and as such, any law that does not have its foundation expressly in a constitution is inherently a violation of the People's Rights.
Let's stop asking how a law is a violation of a Right, and start asking where the authority to pass such a law exists. Where there is no authority, there is an inherent violation.
Article 1, section 8 of the New York State Constitution also guarantees free speech.
Read it:
"Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or bridge the liberty of speech or of the press. "
I quoted it only because/.'ers have such a hard time following links, for the most part.
Notwithstanding anything that may be contained in either the State Constitutions or the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
I think that is more than plain and clear language for the matter. To put it in one sentence: The U.S. Constitution, and any amendments or laws created thereof under its authority, shall be the supreme law of this country which every judge, great and small, shall be bound by.
Plain and simple, every right reserved to the People by the U.S. Constitution may NOT be abridged by any State or local government...period!
As well, Article VI paragraph 3 states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution
Plainly put, every representative as well as the governor of the State of New York have violated their oath under the U.S. Constitution, and should therefore be removed from office.
Of course, that's an extreme.
But if this extreme occurred much more often, then we would end up with so many fewer laws overall, and the lay person will be able to even start to understand them all, and there would certainly be very little, if any, stupid laws like the one referenced here.
What, exactly, was wrong with those warnings that parents were already ignoring, and what's new that parents won't ignore in future?
That's exactly the point here. The ESRB ratings are an industry controlled and self-inflicted system. The government does not control nor regulate this system. To do so is inherently censorship of rights. This law is simply yet another attempt to see if people are willing to sit down and shut up like good little sheeple while the government continues to lay the foundation for even more intrusive laws and behavior.
People who sit back and "see nothing wrong with it" are most certainly not looking at the ramification of such laws, nor the probable intent of such laws.
Rights are supposed to flow in this manner: Restrictions on power to the federal government via a Constitution; Restrictions on power, not reserved by the federal Constitution, to the State government via a Constitution; all Rights not restricted within the Federal or State constitutions reserved to the People.
There is no place in the Federal or State constitutions that allow for the government to place any legal restrictions or requirements on game content except for possibly the "general welfare" clauses of the Federal and State constitutions.
Even that is stretching things way too far, as content is inherently a moral matter, and thus should be protected under freedom of religion rights as well as rights of free speech and publication, as well as the unenumerated rights of family and parenting.
Plain and simple, this law is only a foundation on which to build more laws whose sole intent is to "punish" those that do not have the same moral views as those currently in power, and to violate inherent rights of the People.
Poor parenting is very much a social problem, it's your problem as much as anyone else's.
And who exactly is to decide what is and what is not "good parenting"? Is the current "majority" moral going to dictate? Is the ethic view with the most money going to win the bid?
Freedom of speech, assembly, religion, press, petition, the bearing of arms, fair and speedy trial, non-self-incrimination, jury, retribution, and equality are by far NOT the only rights we have as U.S. citizens, those are just the most widely violated, as well as those enumerated in the Amendments.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Why does it seem that most people are either oblivious or willfully ignorant of the fact of the sheer vastness of our rights? We have a right to not only live as a family unit without interference nor disruption by government forces without due cause, as well we also have the right to upbring our children under the same morals and ethics that we as parents uphold without interference by either the government or other human beings!
If you do not like the way I or anyone else raises our children, and that upbringing in and of itself DOES NOT violate your right to Life or Liberty (the right of our Pursuit of Happiness is too subjective to include), then mind your own damned business and stay out of my life.
That is what this all boils down to. The government continually passes laws of restriction and control where such power is never vested to it. Reasons can range from anywhere from supporting and/or reviving failing or dead industries, to field testing how far the Sheeple can be pushed.
The only time "parenting" can be said to be "poor" is when it does in actuality affect the common welfare of the People. This only occurs when the rights to Life and Liberty are violated through the practice of the upbringing, not the POSSIBLE result of such.
Psystar is a company, not some geek in mom's basement selling bought copies of Mac OS X and bundling it with old computer equipment for some cash.
Psystar is making money "Hacking" a computer to redistribute the Mac OS software and updates provided by Apple...That should be illegally for a company of any kind, regardless of the current laws...If they have permission then fine...But we all know they don't.
And why exactly should this be illegal, irregardless of the current laws? Why should they have permission?
What you are inferring here is that the Sole Right of Distribution (a bestowed right) should belong to Apple, the "creator" of the software. This, my friend is called Copyright.
However, infringement of this right is a contractual issue, and permission, or better a contractual agreement, should be sought in order to modify and redistribute the copyrighted work. To not have such an agreement is not "illegal" in the sense that I am assuming you mean (and never should be), but is a contractual violation which any court of law of proper jurisdiction may hear and adjudicate for monetary award.
They should have sold the shit for free and sold support instead!!
Then you go and say that! Obviously, you did not care one bit about Copyright, or you would understand that the issue has little to do with the fact that the product was sold for profit. The issue has nothing to do with how much the modified "software" was sold for. Monetary damage does not occur only through another company profiting from a sale. Damage may also occur through the fact of the existence of the unauthorized derivative work.
Copyright covers the rights of distribution, both of the original and derivatives. If you feel that the problem is only because the other company sold for profit rather than gave away for free, then you have a much misconstrued view of copyright and what it is meant to accomplish.
You already have purchased a license to play your music,
What kind of crap nonsense are you talking about? I have NEVER "purchased a license" to play my music. I PURCHASED the media that the music was stored on and I have every right to listen to it any damned way I feel, even through my computer, which incidentally places it into RAM to play. I do not ask for nor do I require someone's permission to ever play what I bought for my own personal pleasure.
Copyright has NOTHING to do with restriction of USE...EVER! Copyright deals with restriction of DISTRIBUTION. It is the constant and widespread spewing of nonsense like "purchasing a license to listen" over the past decades that has made people forget what copyright is all about.
You are allowed to listen to your music.
Damned right I am...WITHOUT any need to seek anyone's consent, so long as it is not being distributed. I do not ever need anybody's authorization to personally listen to what I have purchased.
The rest of the comment was pretty straight forward and on the spot. But, be very wary of misinforming of the true purpose of copyright. The misinformed masses who eventually end up on jury duty may very well find you guilty of a crime in the future where no true crime exists.
What has been disabled is the loopback, which lets you record the music that the computer is playing.
Youtube for example.
Yeah, or even your own LEGALLY COPYRIGHTED drum/beat/synthesizer loops. Or even the audio off your home videos to use for your own LEGAL reuse in your own LEGAL compilation home videos. Or even your own LEGAL automated answering service that may need to record messages. Or any of a plethora of other LEGAL uses.
As a poster has already stated, do NOT tell me how I should/can or shouldn't/cannot use MY hardware.
There is a difference between the theory of evolution and the principle of natural selection.
I cannot believe your comment was modded *troll* when I first read it. I would agree with you 90% on the above comment, except, natural selection is not a principle, it is a scientifically observable and provable mechanism.
I see now at least one mod has balls enough to jump your comment to "(Score:0, Insightful)".
the recent news of E. Coli evolving to metabolise citrate
It seems unfortunate that most people seem to be willingly ignorant of what evolution and Intelligent Design actually are. The only fundamental difference between the two is Intelligent input.
To oversimplify the situation, evolution can be said to be the development of life over a period of time, utilizing the materials available in the sustained environment, given a particular amount of energy to catalyze the process.
Thus, mathematically, we would represent evolution as L=T+M+E, where all are variable.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, simply means that life developed over a period of time (whether longer or shorter than that needed for evolution is moot), utilizing the materials available in the sustained environment, given a particular amount of energy to catalyze the process, through the mechanism of intelligent input. Nowhere in Intelligent design does it mandate the entrance of a god. The only mandate is the input of intelligence.
Mathematically, we would represent intelligent design as L=T+M+E+I, where all are variable.
Intelligent design has been proven over and over again, just as natural selection has been. However, you will not ever find intelligent design proven in nature. The very definition and requirement of intelligent design, that of intelligent input, immediately takes it out of the realm of nature.
Intelligent design is thus what would be considered supernatural, that is beyond what is naturally observed and explained. This, however, does not automatically disqualify it as unscientific. If intelligent design holds up to the scientific method, then most certainly, it is scientific.
Intelligent design is shown throughout history, all the way from Mendel and his plants, to the research of Richard Lenski with e. coli modifications. Natural selection is only one of many mechanisms by which intelligent design may be used to "evolve" an organism. And not all natural selection results in "evolution".
In the same respect, not all intelligent design results in a form of "evolution" either. If an human embryo is modified to be naturally resistant to varied forms of diseases, is the resulting "child" no longer human? Of course not. This is not evolution, though through intelligent design, such a thing could very well be possible.
Also, intelligent design is most definitely NOT creation! Again, intelligent design is represented by the equation L=T+M+E+I. Creation is an act that would have to deal with physics, not biology. Thus, creation would deal directly with the variables of M and E. The basic premise that neither matter nor energy may be created nor destroyed, yet simply transformed, begs the question of the origin of mass and energy to begin with. This is the question of creation.
Genetically engineering life does not make any man "God". Intelligent design has nothing to do with any god unless that is your absolute belief of the origin of the intelligence used to "create" the life we see today. Intelligent design is simply the proof that man can play "God" and use intelligent input to "create" life. If there are those who believe that "God" was the intelligence behind this act in the beginning, then that's their prerogative. The origin of the original intelligence used to form life is something that cannot ever be proven, and is thus forever in the realm of belief and religion.
Just because you cannot prove it, however, does not make it false. Else, evolution would have to be labeled "false", without the mechanism of intelligent design.
The extremism between the evolution/creation debate has blurred common sense in many, in my opinion. Calling theory as fact is contemptible to anyone who truly holds to the tenants of scientific method. The same, so is ignoring factual experimentation. Interpretation of data to "prove" a theory is just as contemptible as creating "tr
There are plenty of well-documented examples of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. That, in the context the bacteria are in, is beneficial and passed on.
Yes, evidence of natural selection are found abundant in nature. Unfortunately, this is not evolution, just a mechanism for it.
Actually, from what I read I was fairly impressed with what the judge had to say and the rulings on some of the other issues involved (Viacom didn't get nearly as much as they were hoping for- source code), but it sounds like Google/YouTube did not do a very good job of demonstrating the privacy concerns.
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that we insist that an IP address is not sufficient for the RIAA but now we're terrified about YouTube giving out IP addresses?
I do not see how you can possibly be impressed by what this judge had to say, unless you are complimenting the serpentine way of claiming that 1+1 is still 1. Why are people so upset about IP Addresses being given out? I think the fact is more than clear. Did Google fail to demonstrate its privacy concerns? In no way, the concerns were quite clear and valid.
There are two things the judge had stated on:
Defendants do not refute that the "login ID is an anonymous pseudonym that users create for themselves when they sign up with YouTube" which without more "cannot identify specific individuals"
Read again: LOGIN ID! The judge has stated that the logs would reveal the login ID of "Individual X" as it pertains to each video viewed. True, this in and of itself "cannot identify specific individuals". So the judge was absolutely right! 1=1!
"We [Google]. . . are strong supporters of the idea that data protection laws should apply to any data that could identify you. The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot."
Read again: IP ADDRESS! Again, Google themselves, as well as many/.'ers maintain that the IP Address alone is not a sufficient individually identifying factor. Thus, once again, the judge is right. Google is to furnish Viacomm with the IP Address of each user that has viewed each file. So, the judge was right. 1=1! Again!
But, the Judge did not say "A OR B". In such case, ONLY the IP Address OR the login name would not have individually identified anybody. Instead, the judge said "A AND B"! Not Login ID OR IP Address, but Login ID AND IP Address. Folkls, 1+1=2, NOT 1!
The judge maintains that the information being handed over is insufficient to individually identify somebody in and of itself, but requires more qualifying data/information in order to do so. As data SEPARATE from any other data, this is true. But the judge has ordered additional supporting data (IP AND ID), which together DOES individually identify a person!
How? Simple. It doesn't take a CS major to figure this one out, though it seems there are some that just can't grasp it.
The *IAAs cannot sufficiently say that certain violations were made based only upon IP Address, because the IP Address identifies a connected NIC or similar device, not an individual. In order to prove the individual, more information would be needed, especially since more than one or two individuals may utilize that device. The same is true with the Login ID. Crackers do get bored, and anybody is fair game in their world. Who is to say that someone did not crack the Login and gain access to your account?
This is why these two items alone cannot be used to prove an individual's identity on the net. However, with both the USE of a Login ID alongside a specific IP Address, an individual may be identified, through a preponderance of the evidence. These two TOGETHER DO IDENTIFY an individual.
This is where the problem is, and where the judge has erred.
However, notwithstanding any of the previous, private consumption is not what copyright is meant to protect. In fact, it does not protect against private consumption. What copyright does and is meant to protect against is distribution, with few exceptions known as "Fair Use".
This plain fact alone should show the judge in further err, as the case re
...should become a central doctrine that every Constitution-loving individual should be touting to their representatives. When items of fact can be controlled through the premise of copyright protection, the *IAAs' will look like a child's prank compared to the censorship of thought and ideas that will arise by extending monopolies to cover facts.
Irregardless of ANY form of creativeness, press is a protection of the People that may neither be hindered nor prohibited by the State, and this includes Congress. Congress is granted the power to extend copyrights, or temporal monopolies on ideas and expression. Press, on the other hand, is a power of the People, which Congress has NO power to hinder.
Copyright in and of itself hinders the natural dissemination of an idea by restricting the distribution of that idea. Press was expressly included in the first Amendment as an exclusion to the powers of Congress in extending copyrights, that the dissemination of current and historic fact may not be controlled and censored.
If we continue to allow works of the Press to be treated as works protected under Copyright, than eventually we will no longer be allowed to claim the sky to be blue, for a fact to be true, or for 1+1 to equal 2, without infringing copyright and becoming enemies of the State.
...for proper communications between federal agencies. Obviously, these laptops were searched and confiscated at the border by customs officers for child pr0n.
You are a fool! Parenting has nothing to do with prohibition and restriction of a child's actions and activities. Parenting involves instilling proper values, ethics, and morals into the character of the young one, so that when faced with situations throughout life, the child will be able to make good and proper decisions based upon the values that you, as the parent, instilled.
These morals and ethics will not part from the individual's character as he/she grows up and lives their life to the end. The problem with today's societies is that the government has become more and more involved in interfering with the inalienable right of the parent to bring up their child in accordance with their religious and philosophical beliefs.
In place of upbringing the child with proper moral and ethic to not only be a productive member of society, but also to know not to interfere with the inalienable rights of others to act and believe in the manner that they see fit, not interfering with your own rights, our governments are forcing children to be herded into institutes called schools and indoctrinated with the philosophies of those then in power.
Children are taught to unquestionably obey and that anything out of the "norm" is obviously an "obstruction" to the general good of the public.
There is no more a burden in parenting than there is in maintaining your $50k SUV. Government totalitarianism is not a replacement for parenting just because there are those who are too immature to raise their children to make their own decisions properly.
"Arbitrary and absolute power does not exist in a Republic." That statement is held within the Constitution of the Republic of Wyoming. Any law, no matter for whom it is, does not belong in our society if it enacts arbitrary or absolute powers. Any form of censorship of any work protected as an inalienable right falls in this category.
You may find subjects like rape and incest offensive and want such materials prohibited, restricted, and/or banned altogether, but, you better start with the Bible first, because it is full of it! I personally find idiots to be offensive, and if sexual materials should be prohibited, restricted, and/or banned from society, so should idiots.
...but doesn't obtaining a certificate from the CA require you to send them a copy of the private key? The purpose of the certificate is to ensure that your site is properly identified, and who it states to be. Excuse me, but don't I need absolute trust with the party I am doing business with in order to reveal ANY private key on my server? I don't know about you, but I absolutely do NOT trust any third parties with my business, let alone my customers' information, trends, activities, etc.
Encryption is not my cup of tea, but, as I understand it, is the CA and ISP in collaboration able to impersonate your site by redirecting it and falsifying validation? And barring that fact, with the ISP and CA in collaboration with a government agency, will they not be able to not only capture the encrypted data, but also DECRYPT it because they have a copy of your private key for the site?
Barring the ISP's involvement, wouldn't "spying" on the backbone itself be good enough, with the CAs collaborating, to decrypt ANY and ALL encrypted data that traverses this country's networks?
The dissemination of a private key of ANY kind is what has kept me from using ANY CA at all.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the power you give the CA when you send your Certificate Request in?
Don't assume just because "something" was found on a hard drive, the owner was the one that put it there. You have absolutely no way of proving that any data on your hard drive was planted. Once anybody has free, unfettered access to your storage device, they can do whatever they please with it and you have absolutely no way to PROVE that the data had been deleted, revised, planted, etc.
This is why it is absolutely imperative that your right to be secure on your effects be absolutely and undeniably PROTECTED at ALL costs! YOU are the one who must prove you are innocent in our country. Innocent until proven guilty is the feel good catch phrase of our legal system. It is a fallacy that does not exist in the real world.
The only protection you have from corruption is to keep the corrupted out of your personal effects. It is an inalienable right that must be fought for tooth and nail to keep protected.
Nobody here is practicing law, they are practicing their First Amendment Rights to freely express themselves including their opinions, commentary, and beliefs with regards to matters of law. I do not need a license nor even permission to do so in my country, only the permission of the website's owner to publish my opinion here.
If I want to disseminate and share factual information regarding our laws or legal system, I may do so.
If I want to make commentary and inject my opinion of such information, I may do so.
If I want to interact (right of assembly) and give my personal advice (free speech) to another regarding any issue public or private, I may do so.
If I want to give such advice for any form of compensation or attempt to represent them in litigation or trial, and am not excluded by the courts rules or laws of the jurisdiction, then there will be problems.
Nobody has a need nor right to know if I am a lawyer or not if I so choose not to disseminate that information to you. I have absolutely no contracts, written nor implied, with anybody here, and for anybody to believe that any such contract exists, even implicitly, is nothing short of an idiot.
It is so amazing to read on sites like this where people bitch and complain how the government is creating a country filled with sheeple who do as they are told, and do nothing when their rights are taken away, because of the fear and terror instilled by that very government. Well, you've all bought into your own form of that same case. So damned afraid of the strawman that you refuse to be civilly disobedient because of the possible consequences.
Say what you want to say without fear and take on "the Man". You have no freedom nor rights if you are not willing to stand up and wrest them out of the hands of tyrants and idiots.
DRM is a Bad Thing, IMO. It restricts your choice and prevents you from playing the media you bought in the way you want to.
But watermarking? Eh. I don't care.
I personally cannot understand how a comment that starts off like this could ever obtain a "+5, Insightful" when such a statement only shows ignorance of how DRM truly works. That statement would be akin to: "Taxes are a Bad thing, IMO. It restricts your choice and prevents you from spending the money your earned in the way you want to. But pecuniary rewards for the government? Eh. I don't care."
Wake up and start thinking on both sides of the argument a bit more. Taxes and "pecuniary rewards for the government" are the same thing! Just termed differently. More specifically, taxes are a specific form of "pecuniary reward" for their "services". In the same way, the implementations of DRM we have seen thus far are only specific "forms" of DRM. Watermarking is no different. Watermarking, especially if personally identifying the "purchaser", is simply another form of DRM.
In any implementation of DRM, you have the client-side and the server-side. The server-side may reside in the hardware, on a network (such as the internet), or inside the program application used to play the DRM'd content. Implementation of DRM is solely dependent upon the server-side. It is the server-side that implements the restrictions. The client-side is the part that identifies the content. When the server queries the client to identify it, the server will either deny or allow the content to be accessed.
The server may very well be programmed to deny any content that cannot properly identify or validate itself. The server could also have the capability of identifying the hardware used by querying if the hardware is DRM aware and request its identity. As the information is obtained by the server, the server (whether hardware, network, or program-based) very well would have the capability of recording the content identification in relation to the server/hardware/program identification. this combination would very easily leaves footprints as to who, what, where, how, and when that content had been accessed!
Watermarking as a unique identifier IS DRM! Your watermarked content will be tracked, recorded, and used against you anyway the industry can do so to extort as much of your money from you as possible. Which brings us to another issue that the industries have been trying to do away with: secondary market sales. Copyright gives the content creators the right to restrict distribution of their content by rights of first sale. However, historically, the copyright holder has not had a right (outside of enforceable, signed contracts) to restrict secondary market sales (used items sales).
Watermarking will most definitely restrict your right to secondary sales. As secondary sales of watermarked content occur, and the DRM implementation shows "evidence" that someone who was not the original purchaser of, say a CD with it's CD-specific watermark, will be used as "evidence" of piracy, and the lobbying will begin to restrict your rights even further legislatively.
Anytime the industries want to make any form of restrictions, identifications, or complications in your using and/or accessing the content that you bought from them, they have already overstepped the intended powers vested from copyright. Their power and rights with regards to any individual end the moment they receive any form of compensation for their content from that individual. At that point, their control ends. That is not to say that they do not have rights with regards to that content if it is copied AND distributed. However, copying for personal use OR distributing on the second market are outside their rights and powers vested under copyright.
DRM and the watermarking implementation seen proposed here are an attempt to change the AND to OR, and it's sickening to see people slump down in apathy because "at least it's not DRM."
Not to mention, there's deniability at every stage....Nobody's going to prosecute on the strength of watermarks alone
All it will take is for the Judge to order the jury to consider the watermark to be positive identification of the file owner. Since the file owner is responsible for the distribution of said file, case closed...you lose!
Yet, the most frightening aspect of it all is when such a landmark is made, imagine the "power" anybody will now have over you. You remark that watermarks can be easily reverse-engineered. Well, if that were true, then not only would you be able to remove said watermark, but, you would be able to determine exactly how the watermark identifies an individual. You would then be able to forge a watermark into a file, distribute it on the internet, and effectively frame anybody you desire for criminal "infringement". And if you are one of the content creators to begin with, this power becomes inherent and available for your use unhindered.
Why would somebody even do something like this? Because they can. What is there to gain from forged watermarks? Get the Congresscritters to further infringe on the privacy and rights of the sheeple to better "protect" them. We already know what the industries desire. It's not a facist State, it's a corporate State, and criminalizing a breech of contract is more than just a giant step in that direction. And we are already there.
DRM, watermarking, callback verification, it's all the same and they're all simply different parts and stages in their ultimate goal, which is absolute and unchallenged power over everything you think and do.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, one way to hold Obama's feet to the fire is to say that you will vote for McCain if Obama doesn't say that he will reform the DCMA.
Any candidate can say whatever they like. It makes no difference. What matters is what they DO when they are in office. Seeing the voting record of both "major" candidates should tell everyone that it is pure stupidity to vote for either of them.
Yes, and who can we blame for the fact that most of them still sit in the senate, the house, and Pennsylvania Avenue?
Diebold, maybe?
~350 million Americans. About 200 million adults. Let's say half are online, so 100 million online users. Let's significantly underestimate the percentage of pirates at 1%. So that's 1 million pirates. At $0 a year (since these people wouldn't pay for the crap anyway), that's $0 a year!!
There! Fixed it for you!
Not only that, but Ray's specialty is in a certain area of law, not necessarily constitutional, as I would deem this matter may be within the realm of constitutional and procedural law. To me, at least, bringing litigation against an opposing attorney who is representing in multiple cases against you is highly questionable. Ray needs to be able to focus on his current litigations for his clients, and this act seems to me to simply be an attempt to violate the constitutional rights of Ray's clients through malicious litigation and a disruption and interference with due process.
I have not read the article, and the article probably does not even give enough information to make an educated statement and opinion anyway, but if the RIAA has a beef with Ray, and Ray has truly done something wrong, there are procedural rules to take in order to remedy the situation. Anything outside those rules, in my opinion, is an attempt to disrupt justice and due process, and is unconstitutional as it interferes with the rights of Ray's clients to be properly represented ("fair trial") without harassment and duress by the opposing party against the representing attorney.
I would also assume that we will not hear from Ray on this subject matter, as he should say nothing, until this situation has been alleviated. But good luck to him, and if every /.er sent him even $10 (lunch money), he should be able to gain some pretty good representation on this matter.
I can see how it may be unconstitutional but only because it could be seen as the state interfering with interstate commerce. But that has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Better yet, instead of barking at every instance of the appearance of a "rights violation", let's raise our voices even louder and bark at every law that is passed that does not appear to have any authority in the constitutions of this country? Every law must have its authority based on the Federal or States' constitutions...period. Everything that is not expressly reserved to the government is reserved to the People, and as such, any law that does not have its foundation expressly in a constitution is inherently a violation of the People's Rights.
Let's stop asking how a law is a violation of a Right, and start asking where the authority to pass such a law exists. Where there is no authority, there is an inherent violation.
Article 1, section 8 of the New York State Constitution also guarantees free speech. Read it:
"Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or bridge the liberty of speech or of the press. "
I quoted it only because /.'ers have such a hard time following links, for the most part.
Notwithstanding anything that may be contained in either the State Constitutions or the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
I think that is more than plain and clear language for the matter. To put it in one sentence: The U.S. Constitution, and any amendments or laws created thereof under its authority, shall be the supreme law of this country which every judge, great and small, shall be bound by.
Plain and simple, every right reserved to the People by the U.S. Constitution may NOT be abridged by any State or local government...period!
As well, Article VI paragraph 3 states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution
Plainly put, every representative as well as the governor of the State of New York have violated their oath under the U.S. Constitution, and should therefore be removed from office.
Of course, that's an extreme.
But if this extreme occurred much more often, then we would end up with so many fewer laws overall, and the lay person will be able to even start to understand them all, and there would certainly be very little, if any, stupid laws like the one referenced here.
What, exactly, was wrong with those warnings that parents were already ignoring, and what's new that parents won't ignore in future?
That's exactly the point here. The ESRB ratings are an industry controlled and self-inflicted system. The government does not control nor regulate this system. To do so is inherently censorship of rights. This law is simply yet another attempt to see if people are willing to sit down and shut up like good little sheeple while the government continues to lay the foundation for even more intrusive laws and behavior.
People who sit back and "see nothing wrong with it" are most certainly not looking at the ramification of such laws, nor the probable intent of such laws.
Rights are supposed to flow in this manner: Restrictions on power to the federal government via a Constitution; Restrictions on power, not reserved by the federal Constitution, to the State government via a Constitution; all Rights not restricted within the Federal or State constitutions reserved to the People. There is no place in the Federal or State constitutions that allow for the government to place any legal restrictions or requirements on game content except for possibly the "general welfare" clauses of the Federal and State constitutions.
Even that is stretching things way too far, as content is inherently a moral matter, and thus should be protected under freedom of religion rights as well as rights of free speech and publication, as well as the unenumerated rights of family and parenting.
Plain and simple, this law is only a foundation on which to build more laws whose sole intent is to "punish" those that do not have the same moral views as those currently in power, and to violate inherent rights of the People.
Poor parenting is very much a social problem, it's your problem as much as anyone else's.
And who exactly is to decide what is and what is not "good parenting"? Is the current "majority" moral going to dictate? Is the ethic view with the most money going to win the bid?
Freedom of speech, assembly, religion, press, petition, the bearing of arms, fair and speedy trial, non-self-incrimination, jury, retribution, and equality are by far NOT the only rights we have as U.S. citizens, those are just the most widely violated, as well as those enumerated in the Amendments.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Why does it seem that most people are either oblivious or willfully ignorant of the fact of the sheer vastness of our rights? We have a right to not only live as a family unit without interference nor disruption by government forces without due cause, as well we also have the right to upbring our children under the same morals and ethics that we as parents uphold without interference by either the government or other human beings!
If you do not like the way I or anyone else raises our children, and that upbringing in and of itself DOES NOT violate your right to Life or Liberty (the right of our Pursuit of Happiness is too subjective to include), then mind your own damned business and stay out of my life.
That is what this all boils down to. The government continually passes laws of restriction and control where such power is never vested to it. Reasons can range from anywhere from supporting and/or reviving failing or dead industries, to field testing how far the Sheeple can be pushed.
The only time "parenting" can be said to be "poor" is when it does in actuality affect the common welfare of the People. This only occurs when the rights to Life and Liberty are violated through the practice of the upbringing, not the POSSIBLE result of such.
Psystar is a company, not some geek in mom's basement selling bought copies of Mac OS X and bundling it with old computer equipment for some cash.
Psystar is making money "Hacking" a computer to redistribute the Mac OS software and updates provided by Apple...That should be illegally for a company of any kind, regardless of the current laws...If they have permission then fine...But we all know they don't.
And why exactly should this be illegal, irregardless of the current laws? Why should they have permission?
What you are inferring here is that the Sole Right of Distribution (a bestowed right) should belong to Apple, the "creator" of the software. This, my friend is called Copyright.
However, infringement of this right is a contractual issue, and permission, or better a contractual agreement, should be sought in order to modify and redistribute the copyrighted work. To not have such an agreement is not "illegal" in the sense that I am assuming you mean (and never should be), but is a contractual violation which any court of law of proper jurisdiction may hear and adjudicate for monetary award.
They should have sold the shit for free and sold support instead!!
Then you go and say that! Obviously, you did not care one bit about Copyright, or you would understand that the issue has little to do with the fact that the product was sold for profit. The issue has nothing to do with how much the modified "software" was sold for. Monetary damage does not occur only through another company profiting from a sale. Damage may also occur through the fact of the existence of the unauthorized derivative work.
Copyright covers the rights of distribution, both of the original and derivatives. If you feel that the problem is only because the other company sold for profit rather than gave away for free, then you have a much misconstrued view of copyright and what it is meant to accomplish.
You already have purchased a license to play your music,
What kind of crap nonsense are you talking about? I have NEVER "purchased a license" to play my music. I PURCHASED the media that the music was stored on and I have every right to listen to it any damned way I feel, even through my computer, which incidentally places it into RAM to play. I do not ask for nor do I require someone's permission to ever play what I bought for my own personal pleasure.
Copyright has NOTHING to do with restriction of USE...EVER! Copyright deals with restriction of DISTRIBUTION. It is the constant and widespread spewing of nonsense like "purchasing a license to listen" over the past decades that has made people forget what copyright is all about.
You are allowed to listen to your music.
Damned right I am...WITHOUT any need to seek anyone's consent, so long as it is not being distributed. I do not ever need anybody's authorization to personally listen to what I have purchased.
The rest of the comment was pretty straight forward and on the spot. But, be very wary of misinforming of the true purpose of copyright. The misinformed masses who eventually end up on jury duty may very well find you guilty of a crime in the future where no true crime exists.
What has been disabled is the loopback, which lets you record the music that the computer is playing. Youtube for example.
Yeah, or even your own LEGALLY COPYRIGHTED drum/beat/synthesizer loops. Or even the audio off your home videos to use for your own LEGAL reuse in your own LEGAL compilation home videos. Or even your own LEGAL automated answering service that may need to record messages. Or any of a plethora of other LEGAL uses.
As a poster has already stated, do NOT tell me how I should/can or shouldn't/cannot use MY hardware.
There is a difference between the theory of evolution and the principle of natural selection.
I cannot believe your comment was modded *troll* when I first read it. I would agree with you 90% on the above comment, except, natural selection is not a principle, it is a scientifically observable and provable mechanism.
I see now at least one mod has balls enough to jump your comment to "(Score:0, Insightful)".
MOD PARENT UP!!!! +1 FACTUAL!
the recent news of E. Coli evolving to metabolise citrate
It seems unfortunate that most people seem to be willingly ignorant of what evolution and Intelligent Design actually are. The only fundamental difference between the two is Intelligent input.
To oversimplify the situation, evolution can be said to be the development of life over a period of time, utilizing the materials available in the sustained environment, given a particular amount of energy to catalyze the process.
Thus, mathematically, we would represent evolution as L=T+M+E, where all are variable.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, simply means that life developed over a period of time (whether longer or shorter than that needed for evolution is moot), utilizing the materials available in the sustained environment, given a particular amount of energy to catalyze the process, through the mechanism of intelligent input. Nowhere in Intelligent design does it mandate the entrance of a god. The only mandate is the input of intelligence.
Mathematically, we would represent intelligent design as L=T+M+E+I, where all are variable.
Intelligent design has been proven over and over again, just as natural selection has been. However, you will not ever find intelligent design proven in nature. The very definition and requirement of intelligent design, that of intelligent input, immediately takes it out of the realm of nature.
Intelligent design is thus what would be considered supernatural, that is beyond what is naturally observed and explained. This, however, does not automatically disqualify it as unscientific. If intelligent design holds up to the scientific method, then most certainly, it is scientific.
Intelligent design is shown throughout history, all the way from Mendel and his plants, to the research of Richard Lenski with e. coli modifications. Natural selection is only one of many mechanisms by which intelligent design may be used to "evolve" an organism. And not all natural selection results in "evolution".
In the same respect, not all intelligent design results in a form of "evolution" either. If an human embryo is modified to be naturally resistant to varied forms of diseases, is the resulting "child" no longer human? Of course not. This is not evolution, though through intelligent design, such a thing could very well be possible.
Also, intelligent design is most definitely NOT creation! Again, intelligent design is represented by the equation L=T+M+E+I. Creation is an act that would have to deal with physics, not biology. Thus, creation would deal directly with the variables of M and E. The basic premise that neither matter nor energy may be created nor destroyed, yet simply transformed, begs the question of the origin of mass and energy to begin with. This is the question of creation.
Genetically engineering life does not make any man "God". Intelligent design has nothing to do with any god unless that is your absolute belief of the origin of the intelligence used to "create" the life we see today. Intelligent design is simply the proof that man can play "God" and use intelligent input to "create" life. If there are those who believe that "God" was the intelligence behind this act in the beginning, then that's their prerogative. The origin of the original intelligence used to form life is something that cannot ever be proven, and is thus forever in the realm of belief and religion.
Just because you cannot prove it, however, does not make it false. Else, evolution would have to be labeled "false", without the mechanism of intelligent design.
The extremism between the evolution/creation debate has blurred common sense in many, in my opinion. Calling theory as fact is contemptible to anyone who truly holds to the tenants of scientific method. The same, so is ignoring factual experimentation. Interpretation of data to "prove" a theory is just as contemptible as creating "tr
There are plenty of well-documented examples of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. That, in the context the bacteria are in, is beneficial and passed on.
Yes, evidence of natural selection are found abundant in nature. Unfortunately, this is not evolution, just a mechanism for it.
Actually, from what I read I was fairly impressed with what the judge had to say and the rulings on some of the other issues involved (Viacom didn't get nearly as much as they were hoping for- source code), but it sounds like Google/YouTube did not do a very good job of demonstrating the privacy concerns. Am I the only one that finds it ironic that we insist that an IP address is not sufficient for the RIAA but now we're terrified about YouTube giving out IP addresses?
I do not see how you can possibly be impressed by what this judge had to say, unless you are complimenting the serpentine way of claiming that 1+1 is still 1. Why are people so upset about IP Addresses being given out? I think the fact is more than clear. Did Google fail to demonstrate its privacy concerns? In no way, the concerns were quite clear and valid.
There are two things the judge had stated on:
Defendants do not refute that the "login ID is an anonymous pseudonym that users create for themselves when they sign up with YouTube" which without more "cannot identify specific individuals"
Read again: LOGIN ID! The judge has stated that the logs would reveal the login ID of "Individual X" as it pertains to each video viewed. True, this in and of itself "cannot identify specific individuals". So the judge was absolutely right! 1=1!
"We [Google]. . . are strong supporters of the idea that data protection laws should apply to any data that could identify you. The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot."
Read again: IP ADDRESS! Again, Google themselves, as well as many /.'ers maintain that the IP Address alone is not a sufficient individually identifying factor. Thus, once again, the judge is right. Google is to furnish Viacomm with the IP Address of each user that has viewed each file. So, the judge was right. 1=1! Again!
But, the Judge did not say "A OR B". In such case, ONLY the IP Address OR the login name would not have individually identified anybody. Instead, the judge said "A AND B"! Not Login ID OR IP Address, but Login ID AND IP Address. Folkls, 1+1=2, NOT 1!
The judge maintains that the information being handed over is insufficient to individually identify somebody in and of itself, but requires more qualifying data/information in order to do so. As data SEPARATE from any other data, this is true. But the judge has ordered additional supporting data (IP AND ID), which together DOES individually identify a person!
How? Simple. It doesn't take a CS major to figure this one out, though it seems there are some that just can't grasp it.
The *IAAs cannot sufficiently say that certain violations were made based only upon IP Address, because the IP Address identifies a connected NIC or similar device, not an individual. In order to prove the individual, more information would be needed, especially since more than one or two individuals may utilize that device. The same is true with the Login ID. Crackers do get bored, and anybody is fair game in their world. Who is to say that someone did not crack the Login and gain access to your account?
This is why these two items alone cannot be used to prove an individual's identity on the net. However, with both the USE of a Login ID alongside a specific IP Address, an individual may be identified, through a preponderance of the evidence. These two TOGETHER DO IDENTIFY an individual.
This is where the problem is, and where the judge has erred.
However, notwithstanding any of the previous, private consumption is not what copyright is meant to protect. In fact, it does not protect against private consumption. What copyright does and is meant to protect against is distribution, with few exceptions known as "Fair Use".
This plain fact alone should show the judge in further err, as the case re
...should become a central doctrine that every Constitution-loving individual should be touting to their representatives. When items of fact can be controlled through the premise of copyright protection, the *IAAs' will look like a child's prank compared to the censorship of thought and ideas that will arise by extending monopolies to cover facts.
Irregardless of ANY form of creativeness, press is a protection of the People that may neither be hindered nor prohibited by the State, and this includes Congress. Congress is granted the power to extend copyrights, or temporal monopolies on ideas and expression. Press, on the other hand, is a power of the People, which Congress has NO power to hinder.
Copyright in and of itself hinders the natural dissemination of an idea by restricting the distribution of that idea. Press was expressly included in the first Amendment as an exclusion to the powers of Congress in extending copyrights, that the dissemination of current and historic fact may not be controlled and censored.
If we continue to allow works of the Press to be treated as works protected under Copyright, than eventually we will no longer be allowed to claim the sky to be blue, for a fact to be true, or for 1+1 to equal 2, without infringing copyright and becoming enemies of the State.
...for proper communications between federal agencies. Obviously, these laptops were searched and confiscated at the border by customs officers for child pr0n.
You are a fool! Parenting has nothing to do with prohibition and restriction of a child's actions and activities. Parenting involves instilling proper values, ethics, and morals into the character of the young one, so that when faced with situations throughout life, the child will be able to make good and proper decisions based upon the values that you, as the parent, instilled.
These morals and ethics will not part from the individual's character as he/she grows up and lives their life to the end. The problem with today's societies is that the government has become more and more involved in interfering with the inalienable right of the parent to bring up their child in accordance with their religious and philosophical beliefs.
In place of upbringing the child with proper moral and ethic to not only be a productive member of society, but also to know not to interfere with the inalienable rights of others to act and believe in the manner that they see fit, not interfering with your own rights, our governments are forcing children to be herded into institutes called schools and indoctrinated with the philosophies of those then in power.
Children are taught to unquestionably obey and that anything out of the "norm" is obviously an "obstruction" to the general good of the public.
There is no more a burden in parenting than there is in maintaining your $50k SUV. Government totalitarianism is not a replacement for parenting just because there are those who are too immature to raise their children to make their own decisions properly.
"Arbitrary and absolute power does not exist in a Republic." That statement is held within the Constitution of the Republic of Wyoming. Any law, no matter for whom it is, does not belong in our society if it enacts arbitrary or absolute powers. Any form of censorship of any work protected as an inalienable right falls in this category.
You may find subjects like rape and incest offensive and want such materials prohibited, restricted, and/or banned altogether, but, you better start with the Bible first, because it is full of it! I personally find idiots to be offensive, and if sexual materials should be prohibited, restricted, and/or banned from society, so should idiots.
...but doesn't obtaining a certificate from the CA require you to send them a copy of the private key? The purpose of the certificate is to ensure that your site is properly identified, and who it states to be. Excuse me, but don't I need absolute trust with the party I am doing business with in order to reveal ANY private key on my server? I don't know about you, but I absolutely do NOT trust any third parties with my business, let alone my customers' information, trends, activities, etc.
Encryption is not my cup of tea, but, as I understand it, is the CA and ISP in collaboration able to impersonate your site by redirecting it and falsifying validation? And barring that fact, with the ISP and CA in collaboration with a government agency, will they not be able to not only capture the encrypted data, but also DECRYPT it because they have a copy of your private key for the site?
Barring the ISP's involvement, wouldn't "spying" on the backbone itself be good enough, with the CAs collaborating, to decrypt ANY and ALL encrypted data that traverses this country's networks?
The dissemination of a private key of ANY kind is what has kept me from using ANY CA at all.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the power you give the CA when you send your Certificate Request in?
...what matters is what they decide to put on it.
Don't assume just because "something" was found on a hard drive, the owner was the one that put it there. You have absolutely no way of proving that any data on your hard drive was planted. Once anybody has free, unfettered access to your storage device, they can do whatever they please with it and you have absolutely no way to PROVE that the data had been deleted, revised, planted, etc.
This is why it is absolutely imperative that your right to be secure on your effects be absolutely and undeniably PROTECTED at ALL costs! YOU are the one who must prove you are innocent in our country. Innocent until proven guilty is the feel good catch phrase of our legal system. It is a fallacy that does not exist in the real world.
The only protection you have from corruption is to keep the corrupted out of your personal effects. It is an inalienable right that must be fought for tooth and nail to keep protected.
Nobody here is practicing law, they are practicing their First Amendment Rights to freely express themselves including their opinions, commentary, and beliefs with regards to matters of law. I do not need a license nor even permission to do so in my country, only the permission of the website's owner to publish my opinion here.
If I want to disseminate and share factual information regarding our laws or legal system, I may do so.
If I want to make commentary and inject my opinion of such information, I may do so.
If I want to interact (right of assembly) and give my personal advice (free speech) to another regarding any issue public or private, I may do so.
If I want to give such advice for any form of compensation or attempt to represent them in litigation or trial, and am not excluded by the courts rules or laws of the jurisdiction, then there will be problems.
Nobody has a need nor right to know if I am a lawyer or not if I so choose not to disseminate that information to you. I have absolutely no contracts, written nor implied, with anybody here, and for anybody to believe that any such contract exists, even implicitly, is nothing short of an idiot.
It is so amazing to read on sites like this where people bitch and complain how the government is creating a country filled with sheeple who do as they are told, and do nothing when their rights are taken away, because of the fear and terror instilled by that very government. Well, you've all bought into your own form of that same case. So damned afraid of the strawman that you refuse to be civilly disobedient because of the possible consequences.
Say what you want to say without fear and take on "the Man". You have no freedom nor rights if you are not willing to stand up and wrest them out of the hands of tyrants and idiots.
I personally cannot understand how a comment that starts off like this could ever obtain a "+5, Insightful" when such a statement only shows ignorance of how DRM truly works. That statement would be akin to: "Taxes are a Bad thing, IMO. It restricts your choice and prevents you from spending the money your earned in the way you want to. But pecuniary rewards for the government? Eh. I don't care."
Wake up and start thinking on both sides of the argument a bit more. Taxes and "pecuniary rewards for the government" are the same thing! Just termed differently. More specifically, taxes are a specific form of "pecuniary reward" for their "services". In the same way, the implementations of DRM we have seen thus far are only specific "forms" of DRM. Watermarking is no different. Watermarking, especially if personally identifying the "purchaser", is simply another form of DRM.
In any implementation of DRM, you have the client-side and the server-side. The server-side may reside in the hardware, on a network (such as the internet), or inside the program application used to play the DRM'd content. Implementation of DRM is solely dependent upon the server-side. It is the server-side that implements the restrictions. The client-side is the part that identifies the content. When the server queries the client to identify it, the server will either deny or allow the content to be accessed.
The server may very well be programmed to deny any content that cannot properly identify or validate itself. The server could also have the capability of identifying the hardware used by querying if the hardware is DRM aware and request its identity. As the information is obtained by the server, the server (whether hardware, network, or program-based) very well would have the capability of recording the content identification in relation to the server/hardware/program identification. this combination would very easily leaves footprints as to who, what, where, how, and when that content had been accessed!
Watermarking as a unique identifier IS DRM! Your watermarked content will be tracked, recorded, and used against you anyway the industry can do so to extort as much of your money from you as possible. Which brings us to another issue that the industries have been trying to do away with: secondary market sales. Copyright gives the content creators the right to restrict distribution of their content by rights of first sale. However, historically, the copyright holder has not had a right (outside of enforceable, signed contracts) to restrict secondary market sales (used items sales).
Watermarking will most definitely restrict your right to secondary sales. As secondary sales of watermarked content occur, and the DRM implementation shows "evidence" that someone who was not the original purchaser of, say a CD with it's CD-specific watermark, will be used as "evidence" of piracy, and the lobbying will begin to restrict your rights even further legislatively.
Anytime the industries want to make any form of restrictions, identifications, or complications in your using and/or accessing the content that you bought from them, they have already overstepped the intended powers vested from copyright. Their power and rights with regards to any individual end the moment they receive any form of compensation for their content from that individual. At that point, their control ends. That is not to say that they do not have rights with regards to that content if it is copied AND distributed. However, copying for personal use OR distributing on the second market are outside their rights and powers vested under copyright.
DRM and the watermarking implementation seen proposed here are an attempt to change the AND to OR, and it's sickening to see people slump down in apathy because "at least it's not DRM."
All it will take is for the Judge to order the jury to consider the watermark to be positive identification of the file owner. Since the file owner is responsible for the distribution of said file, case closed...you lose!
Yet, the most frightening aspect of it all is when such a landmark is made, imagine the "power" anybody will now have over you. You remark that watermarks can be easily reverse-engineered. Well, if that were true, then not only would you be able to remove said watermark, but, you would be able to determine exactly how the watermark identifies an individual. You would then be able to forge a watermark into a file, distribute it on the internet, and effectively frame anybody you desire for criminal "infringement". And if you are one of the content creators to begin with, this power becomes inherent and available for your use unhindered.
Why would somebody even do something like this? Because they can. What is there to gain from forged watermarks? Get the Congresscritters to further infringe on the privacy and rights of the sheeple to better "protect" them. We already know what the industries desire. It's not a facist State, it's a corporate State, and criminalizing a breech of contract is more than just a giant step in that direction. And we are already there.
DRM, watermarking, callback verification, it's all the same and they're all simply different parts and stages in their ultimate goal, which is absolute and unchallenged power over everything you think and do.