Of course computers won't be made illegal, but general-purpose computers might. They'll point out that terrorists, the mafia, child pornographers, virus writers, pirates and hackers sometimes use encryption, so computers capable of encryption should be licensed. Banks will buy licenses, but you won't be able to show a legitimate need. Oh you'll still be able to buy a little TV-with-a-keyboard web appliance that can set up an HTTPS connection after checking that the server has a government certificate -- e-commerce is why the internet was invented, after all. And of course the appliance will be sealed and there will be draconian laws to stop you even talking about prising it open and trying to make it useful.
Effectively, yes. They can add a "broadcast flag" to the signal and then sell authorized recorders which will record and play back the program, but won't copy the program or skip commercials if they see the broadcast flag. Then they can classify any recorder which doesn't honour the broadcast flag as a circumvention device under the DMCA, since it defeats an effective technical measure designed to control copying. In fact the broadcast flag can have any number of meanings - do not skip, erase after 7 days, only allow 12 viewings - and as long as one of the meanings is "do not copy", any recorder which ignores the flag will be a circumvention device.
The publisher does own the copyright to a particular edition of a book, even if the text is in the public domain. That's one of the reasons publishers release new editions of old books rather than endlessly reprinting old editions - the duration of publisher's copyright is quite short compared to author's copyright (25 years in the UK, I believe).
The reason these books are so cheap is that there's competition between publishers selling different editions of the same text.
If I record something from the radio then rebroadcast it, it isn't their particular transmission of the work anymore.
The treaty also gives the broadcaster rights over "fixations" of the broadcast, and their reproduction and retransmission by any means (not just rebroadcasting, but private copying too).
The treaty applies to all material, not just what's in the public domain. In my opinion the public domain angle misses the point, which is that copyright law will apply to all broadcasts, regardless of the content of the broadcast. The broadcaster, as well as the producer of the content, will have rights over how the broadcast is used. This will allow broadcasters to use the DMCA and other laws to prevent unauthorized access, recording and retransmission of their signals.
Implications:
Unauthorized cable/satellite decoders will become circumvention devices.
It will be illegal to play a radio or TV program in a public place (eg a bar or a TV shop window) without the permission of the broadcaster.
It will be illegal to record a broadcast without the permission of the broadcaster - see Article 8 of the treaty.
Any recording device which ignores the "broadcast flag" will become a circumvention device.
It will apply to all content, not just what's in the public domain. But it's perfectly possible for the broadcaster and the filmmaker both to have rights with respect to a broadcast. This is already the case with books: the author's copyright and the publisher's copyright are distinct and last for different terms. The publisher's copyright applies to a specific edition of the book, including typesetting, layout etc, while the author's copyright applies to the text. In cases where the author's copyright has expired, the publisher's copyright still applies to new editions (you can't legally copy a recent edition of the complete works of Shakespeare, for example, even though the text is in the public domain). Naturally most publishers insist on a contract that prevents the author from selling the same book to several publishers, eg by classifying the book as a "work for hire" so that the author's copyright belongs to the publisher. The same thing happens in the music industry. However, the point is that although these rights are often owned by the same person, they are legally distinct.
If the OS is burned onto a ROM chip inside the router it doesn't really matter whether you have the source.
Re:Oh, the toys you will be forbidden to mod by DM
on
Old Toy Modding?
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for setting me straight, it's a relief to know that the world is slightly less insane than I thought.:-)
Re:Oh, the toys you will mod...
on
Old Toy Modding?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Believe it or not it's illegal to play non-Teddy-Ruxpin tapes in a Teddy Ruxpin bear, because by doing so you're creating a derivative "audiovisual work comprising animated plush toy bear with unique voice." And that was before the DMCA. Those lovable, zany copyright lawyers, what ever will they think of next?
If a "Gray Ooze" were possible it would very likely have appeared on its own.
It did. Once all the easy pickings were gone and the world was covered with grey ooze, the ooze started to compete with itself. A few billion years later, the descendents of the ooze are wonderfully diverse and complex creatures. Some of them turn milk into yoghurt, others push balls of dung around the desert or argue on Slashdot. Maybe we'll accidentally create nanotechnological grey ooze that out-competes every existing life form, but give it a couple of billion years and it'll sort itself out. And what a great story it'll be for the ooze's descendents - they'll probably make a religion out of it!
If you think giving 5 or 6 billion dollars to your friend's company, and having nothing to show for it at the end of the project, and still getting re-elected is a sign of incompetence, you have a pretty strange idea of what competence means in politics.;-)
Yes, it's different because you can fix it yourself: you have free access to the source code and the same compilers, debuggers and profilers used by the developers.
Same is true for whites supremacists and other various hate groups; when the views expressed by someone are universally, irrefutably, unquestionably harmful to other people, that person should not have the right to speak.
The Bible says that homosexuals should be stoned to death. Should it be banned as hate speech?
The test provided by this act for obscenity status is that the material, in the opinion of the prosecuting authority, is likely to deprave and corrupt.
Thank goodness we have superhuman judges who can watch and assess allegedly obscene material without falling prey to its corrupting influence as a normal human might. It makes me feel warm and secure to know they're out there, calmly watching Farmyard Fuckers 5 with their fingers steepled in front of them and an expression of unruffled concentration on their wise old faces.
I'm also thinking about building ad hoc public networks using a mixture of wired and wireless links. Check out my home page, maybe we could share some ideas?
Ironically, the way to stop leeches and attackers from overloading the network might be to charge for every packet - not in currency, but in kind: everyone must do as much work for the network as they request from the network.
USB WiFi adapter with a 20' cable, attached to a balloon? Remember to unplug it when you hear thunder.:-)
To use a directional antenna you'd have to add extra tethers to the balloon to keep it pointed in the right direction...
Actually if all you need to lift is a little USB gadget and a sieve, a (plastic) pole with a couple of (plastic) tethers to stop it swaying would probably do the trick.
I do believe that the Bush administration wants to see us move from oil (you can stop laughing now). But they want the oil companies to lead the way.
I imagine the thought process went something like this:
We have a lot of money in the treasury (well OK never mind we can borrow some more).
We have a lot of friends in the oil industry.
If only there was some way to bring the two together...
But the public would never accept subsidies for the oil industry. Unless...
Please, for fuck's sake, will you parrots just be honest about your motivations? I like sunflower seeds as much as the next Norwegian Blue, but pretending that sunflowers are some kind of "miraculous alternative energy source" just makes all seed-eating birds look shady and dishonest.
Photovoltaic cells don't breed. And IANAMeteorologist, but would the lower albedo of the algae cause updrafts that would attract rain clouds (desertification in reverse)?
The Verichip website doesn't say anything about the ID number changing each time it's read - as far as I can tell, encryption is only featured in their (larger, non-implanted) Veritag ID badges. In any case, couldn't I walk around the club with an RFID reader, reading everyone's chip and advancing the sequence, thus making it impossible for anyone to buy drinks?
ID badges might work that way, but I find it hard to believe that a 1cm long radio-powered implant can perform public key cryptography. Public key crypto is very computationally expensive. Challenge/response authentication using a shared secret would be more feasible, but I'd still be surprised to see it implemented in such a small, unpowered device.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course computers won't be made illegal, but general-purpose computers might. They'll point out that terrorists, the mafia, child pornographers, virus writers, pirates and hackers sometimes use encryption, so computers capable of encryption should be licensed. Banks will buy licenses, but you won't be able to show a legitimate need. Oh you'll still be able to buy a little TV-with-a-keyboard web appliance that can set up an HTTPS connection after checking that the server has a government certificate -- e-commerce is why the internet was invented, after all. And of course the appliance will be sealed and there will be draconian laws to stop you even talking about prising it open and trying to make it useful.
Yeah, but they didn't say of which people, by which people or for which people. I'm thinking the three sets aren't exactly the same.
Effectively, yes. They can add a "broadcast flag" to the signal and then sell authorized recorders which will record and play back the program, but won't copy the program or skip commercials if they see the broadcast flag. Then they can classify any recorder which doesn't honour the broadcast flag as a circumvention device under the DMCA, since it defeats an effective technical measure designed to control copying. In fact the broadcast flag can have any number of meanings - do not skip, erase after 7 days, only allow 12 viewings - and as long as one of the meanings is "do not copy", any recorder which ignores the flag will be a circumvention device.
It will be illegal to record a broadcast without the broadcaster's permission (article 8).
It will be illegal to retransmit a broadcast without the broadcaster's permission (article 6).
It will be illegal to distribute or retransmit recordings of a broadcast, including private copying (articles 9-12).
An exclusive "right of communication", broader than copyright, will apply to anything shown in cinemas (article 7).
Webcasts may or may not count as broadcasts. On-demand services (reception occurs at time and place of receiver's choosing) will not count.
The reason these books are so cheap is that there's competition between publishers selling different editions of the same text.
The treaty also gives the broadcaster rights over "fixations" of the broadcast, and their reproduction and retransmission by any means (not just rebroadcasting, but private copying too).
It will apply to all content, not just what's in the public domain. But it's perfectly possible for the broadcaster and the filmmaker both to have rights with respect to a broadcast. This is already the case with books: the author's copyright and the publisher's copyright are distinct and last for different terms. The publisher's copyright applies to a specific edition of the book, including typesetting, layout etc, while the author's copyright applies to the text. In cases where the author's copyright has expired, the publisher's copyright still applies to new editions (you can't legally copy a recent edition of the complete works of Shakespeare, for example, even though the text is in the public domain). Naturally most publishers insist on a contract that prevents the author from selling the same book to several publishers, eg by classifying the book as a "work for hire" so that the author's copyright belongs to the publisher. The same thing happens in the music industry. However, the point is that although these rights are often owned by the same person, they are legally distinct.
If the OS is burned onto a ROM chip inside the router it doesn't really matter whether you have the source.
Thanks for setting me straight, it's a relief to know that the world is slightly less insane than I thought. :-)
Believe it or not it's illegal to play non-Teddy-Ruxpin tapes in a Teddy Ruxpin bear, because by doing so you're creating a derivative "audiovisual work comprising animated plush toy bear with unique voice." And that was before the DMCA. Those lovable, zany copyright lawyers, what ever will they think of next?
It did. Once all the easy pickings were gone and the world was covered with grey ooze, the ooze started to compete with itself. A few billion years later, the descendents of the ooze are wonderfully diverse and complex creatures. Some of them turn milk into yoghurt, others push balls of dung around the desert or argue on Slashdot. Maybe we'll accidentally create nanotechnological grey ooze that out-competes every existing life form, but give it a couple of billion years and it'll sort itself out. And what a great story it'll be for the ooze's descendents - they'll probably make a religion out of it!
If you think giving 5 or 6 billion dollars to your friend's company, and having nothing to show for it at the end of the project, and still getting re-elected is a sign of incompetence, you have a pretty strange idea of what competence means in politics. ;-)
Yes, it's different because you can fix it yourself: you have free access to the source code and the same compilers, debuggers and profilers used by the developers.
If you'd learned anything from the past, you wouldn't think that.
The Bible says that homosexuals should be stoned to death. Should it be banned as hate speech?
Do you apply that principle to all documentation of human rights abuses?
Thank goodness we have superhuman judges who can watch and assess allegedly obscene material without falling prey to its corrupting influence as a normal human might. It makes me feel warm and secure to know they're out there, calmly watching Farmyard Fuckers 5 with their fingers steepled in front of them and an expression of unruffled concentration on their wise old faces.
Ironically, the way to stop leeches and attackers from overloading the network might be to charge for every packet - not in currency, but in kind: everyone must do as much work for the network as they request from the network.
To use a directional antenna you'd have to add extra tethers to the balloon to keep it pointed in the right direction...
Actually if all you need to lift is a little USB gadget and a sieve, a (plastic) pole with a couple of (plastic) tethers to stop it swaying would probably do the trick.
I imagine the thought process went something like this:
We have a lot of money in the treasury (well OK never mind we can borrow some more).
We have a lot of friends in the oil industry.
If only there was some way to bring the two together...
But the public would never accept subsidies for the oil industry. Unless...
Please, for fuck's sake, will you parrots just be honest about your motivations? I like sunflower seeds as much as the next Norwegian Blue, but pretending that sunflowers are some kind of "miraculous alternative energy source" just makes all seed-eating birds look shady and dishonest.
Photovoltaic cells don't breed. And IANAMeteorologist, but would the lower albedo of the algae cause updrafts that would attract rain clouds (desertification in reverse)?
The Verichip website doesn't say anything about the ID number changing each time it's read - as far as I can tell, encryption is only featured in their (larger, non-implanted) Veritag ID badges. In any case, couldn't I walk around the club with an RFID reader, reading everyone's chip and advancing the sequence, thus making it impossible for anyone to buy drinks?
ID badges might work that way, but I find it hard to believe that a 1cm long radio-powered implant can perform public key cryptography. Public key crypto is very computationally expensive. Challenge/response authentication using a shared secret would be more feasible, but I'd still be surprised to see it implemented in such a small, unpowered device.