It should be illegal for the RIAA, et. al., to snoop into your computer system because they are attempting to access a computer system that is not theirs. Any "evidence" gathered in an illegal way would be inadmissable in court, just as if a police officer gathered evidence without a warrant*. Of course, as soon as someone brings this up as a defence to their flood of lawsuits, you know that they'll be whinning to Congress to get an exception to that too.
* IANAL (but I did take some law classes) but I believe that only the police can conduct a search without a warrant on the basis of probable cause. An private individual or organization would be guilty of breaking and entering.
Let's see where these 3 companies are coming from and their reasons for this...
IBM: looking to regain control of the non-processor componants and design of PCs. They tried this with PS/2's Microchannel and failed. No manufacturer was willing to license Microchannel when ISA was free and a lot more hardware available for it. Very few will be willing to license this.
Intel: seeing their market share being eroded by AMD and the clone chipsets. If they get a new "standard" CPU and chipset design, they can relive the "Intel Inside" glory days of early-mid 90s.
Microsoft: market dominance is their name, looking do dominate yet another one is their game. They got a dominance on consumer and corporate OSes and are looking to make even more money licensing this to Hollywood.
Result: pretty much the same as the DIVX fiasco, except with 3 companies pusing it instead of 1. Except for the PC companies that are just repackaging Intel parts in their boxes (Gateway, Dell) and IBM, forget about this going anywhere. Go buy youself some AMD stock.
If making "infringing" copies of music and videos will become technilogically impossible (SDMI, CSS, etc), can I get a refund on the royalties I indirectly paid on blank tapes and CDRs? Will the MPAA and RIAA tell Congress "Now that we made piracy and fair use impossible, you can drop the royalty on recording media."?
<br><br>
No, they won't. Despite the old saying that "you can't have your cake and eat it too" they're doing just that.
If individuals are convicted of fraud, it could mean more than a financial slap on the wrist, sources said.
"This means that people could go to jail. That's what this means," the source said.
And they should be thrown in jail. RAMBUS obviously committed fraud by going into the JEDEC standards meeting knowing that that the standard reached would infringe on their patents, not notifying JEDEC that they were patent pending on technoligies that were in the standard and then modifying their patent applications to cover even more of the agreed upon standard. Hell, RAMBUS management deserves more than jailtime; they deserve to be drawn and quarterd. Maybe this (throwing RAMBUS employees and lawyers) into jail would discourage others from attempting to follow RAMBUS's litigeous lead.
That's odd... I guess that all the software that makes the hardware that engineers (computer and electrical) is just nothing. I also suppose that hardware will rise up and work on its own, if it weren't for those nasty computer scientists...
Oh, wait. That's right... Electronics are just expensive useless boxes without the software to make them do something useful.
I wise person once said "engineers think they know everything but they don't know shit."
As for vanity coming before functionality, remember that all the porducts that they cited are just that...products. Consumers need a compelling reason to buy them. That's why "the computer for the rest of us" (the Macintosh, if you don't know the reference) used simple graphics as the user interface. A form of *nix (or other command line system) just wouldn't sell at all. All those in accidemia have their head in the clouds when they say that fashonable technology is foolish. Consumers will buy a shinny "cool" looking device with half the functionality or intuitiveness of something that looks like it should be in a lab. That's a fact.
It all depends on the supermarket in question (I work for one so my views might be a little biased, bet hey, here they are). From what I've read, Safeway is the worst-case senario when it comes to supermarkets. There aren't any in my area so I don't have any first-hand experience with it.
The supermarket I work for has a "shopper card" program (I believe it was the first supermarket to have one). On the application (which just asks for name and address) you have the choice not to receive any mailings or have your purchases tracked for marketing purposes. Yes, the store does track your purchases but that data isn't collected with your personal info. Any mailings are send out by the store; personal information and shopping records don't leave the company.
For example, let's say Brand "K" wants to increase sales of their cereals. They'll have the store send out coupons to customers who have been regularly purchasing Brand "G" or Brand "P" cereals as an incentive to get them to switch.
As I said, it all depends on the supermarket, so YMMV.
But, if you're so inclined to be anonymous, fill out the application to get the card and then (like you said) generate your own barcode for it. Go to this site http://www.milk.com/barcode and enter a fake number. This will work for most stores that use a standard UPC barcode (12 digit) and most do, especially if they have IBM registers (which most do). The first digit is a 4, the next 10 can be your random choosing, the the 12th is the check digit that will be calculated by the CGI script.
But, IMHO, the real problem right now is companies that store your personal information in internet-accessable databases that are full of security holes that almost any script kiddie could break into. THAT is the real privacy danger and that's probablly why Microsoft, Sun, and AOL say that its "too expensive" to protect privacy. Any legislation passes to protect provacy could make them liable for security holes in their software.
The DMCA requires a form of "protection", which could be encryption or something as rediculous as pig-latin (or Sweedish Chef, for that matter!). It doesn't mandate what type of protection or how strong. As the law stands, "decrypting" a pig-latin-protected work is illegal. This just shows how dumb the DMCA really is.
Everyone crys out foul whenever some scheme like this is hatched. But everyone always forgets that WE, the technology lovers, the ones who are the first in line to buy (or at least take a look at) new devices, are the ones that determine the success or failure of new technology. We adopt these new things early on and (if they are good), reccommend them to out non-technology-saavy friends are relatives. Where would DVD be if, back in 1997, we weren't first in line to buy both consumer and computer DVD players, drives, and other hardware? It would be a niche product that wouldn't have the sales volume it has today (sort of like laserdisc), despite all of Hollywood's hype.
So, the solution is not to buy new products that have restrictions on them. Pure and simple.
And, if by change, they work their way into existing products, BUG THE HELL OUT OF THE MANUFACTURERS with constant "It doesn't work" calls and letters. Make it no longer cost effective to produce them.
First, if you are under 18, there's nothing you can do in the courts. And even if you're over 18, you can guarantee that the school isn't going to take you seriously. They will listen to your parents, teachers, the public, and the press.
Here's what you do:
Talk to your fellow students and get them to talk with their parents about the censorware situation. Stress the collection of your surfing habits and the censorware company's porfiting for them. Parents (read: NIMBY mothers*) will probablly become outraged at this alone. Also mention that the censorware blocks legitimate sites and allows naughty sites through anyway.
Talk to some of the teachers at your school. You might find some that support you. Ask them to talk it over at faculty meetings.
Try and find out how much it costs your school to license the censorware. Write into your local newspaper(s) explaining how much of a waste of taxpayer dollars censorware is. Cite some examples of legitimate sites being blocked (leave the naughty ones out). The public HATES property taxes and a good chunk of them go to the local scools. If the public sees their peoperty taxes being wasted, the mayor will get a few calls about it.
Take your parents to school boards meetings and bring up the issue there. They are going to want a viable alternative to the censorware. Here's one: an acceptable use contract signed by the students and parents that says if you do bad stuff, you loose computer provliges perminantly and faculty supervision of computer use. Stress that only a real human can watch someone properly, no comptuer can replace that.
Now remember, all these steps need well thought out planning. When you write to your local paper, make sure that you sound professional and have a professional appearance. Don't make yourself look like a bratty kid. You must gain support by others and you're only going to do that through good arguments. This might be a good time to read up on debating skills which you might need to face off against the school board.
* NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard. These are the people who yack on their cell phones all day yet cry foul when someone wants to put a cell phone tower within a mile of them, and the like. Give NIMBY females kids and they turn into whinny pains in the butt that you can't get rid of. It sucks to face off against them, but if they're on your side, nothing between heaven and earth can move them.
The first case going to trial, according to the c|net article is in a German court. IANAL, but this case is important but not as important as the U.S. cases will be (Rambus' patents are from the U.S. and can only be totally invalidated in the U.S.). If Rambus looses in Germany the weight of their patents are dimished in the eyes of everyone else but they'd only not be enforcable in Germany. Rambus would still have the patents in the U.S. (and thanks to the WIPO, everywhere else in the world).
Now on to my rant...
There's no doubt in my mind (or should be in anyone's mind) that Rambus conspired to deceive the JEDEC and corner the memory market through illegal practices. Even if they did not propose the SDRAM standard, they were in attendance at the JEDEC meetings and knew damn well that the standards being proposed might be infringing on patents that they held. They knew that the standard set by the JEDEC would become the de-facto standard for memory in all computers and that all the memory makers worldwide would be producing SDRAM products. They set a trap for everyone else, led them right into that trap, and now are triggering that trap. Thank god that Micron and Hitachi are fighting Rambus' trap.
Ah, that felt better. Godspeed to Micron and Hitachi.
On the surface (especially through the looking glass created by MPAA/RIAA/etc), it would seem that we should be in favor of the crackers and against Hughes/DirecTV. But that isn't so...
The crackers (in that they cracked the smart card system)in this case have steped over the line into stealing. They are stealing something they did not pay for (the DirecTV service).
On the other hand, with DeCSS, the hackers (in that they wrote the DeCSS hack) are doing noting more than allowing a DVD that they paid for on a system or device that does not have a commercially available DVD player (or has one but they want to write their own).
If this was a story about a hack for a digital video out feed (or something to that effect), that would be different since you are still paying for the video signal. The difference is that the DirecTV card crack is just plaing stealing.
Well, one could argue that a program written in a computer language that is uncomplied would be akin to the instruction since, after all, instructions are what the source code is. And, the source alone isn't useful until after it has been compiled into a binary program (which is similar to taking the instructions and building the product).
And just to be nitpicky (IANAL, etc, etc) but you shouldn't say that the First Amendment protects your right to sell anything. Its better to say that it protects your right to express or distribute.
Home Depot's adpoting linux-based POS (point of sale, a/k/a cash register) systems isn't that big a suprise. They already run a *nix as their back end (if you go into a Home Depot, notice all those terminals with "TTY (some number)" stickered on top throughout the store. From observation, their current POS systems aparently run a Windows 3.x (or NT 3.51) system and moving to linux is just a smart move (make all your systems pretty much alike).
IBM, on the other hand, is a VERY big thing. A great many stores use IBM POS systems. Most run either IBM's 4690 OS (a DOS-like system) or Windows NT 4. I wouldn't mind seeing the next version of 4690 OS being more *nix-ey... I work for a large supermarket chain and we use all IBM systems: 4690 on the POS system and RS/6000s running AIX for the back end systems. They're both more than 99% reliable.
I write an original program that alows me to watch a DVD movie on my computer, let's call it DeCSS2. However, knowing the current situation with DeCSS, I decide not the spread it around. I do post it on my web page but encrypt it with a 40-bit key and only give the key to people I explicitlly trust. And lets also assume that these people do not give the key or the unencrypted program/source away. A few weeks later, the MPAA, DVDCCA, and all their cartel cronies are knocking on my door to sue me over my litthe DeCSS2 program.
Couldn't I be able to claim that, because the MPAA/DVDCCA/etc must have broken the "effective protection device" to know that DeCSS2 played a DVD movie, that their evidence against me was illegially obtained and that THEY were the ones violating the DMCA?
At the high school I graduated from, before students were able to use any computer in the school, both the students and parents were required to sign the acceptable use contract. It essencially said that students could not use the school's computers to access porn, illegial stuff, etc. But it went on to further say that while the computer use was monitored and it was agaist the policy to view such material, the school could not be held responsible for the students actions . It indemnified the school from being sued over what little Timmy was viewing on the computer. IMO, all schools should have a contract such as this.
I am personally split over whether or not parents should have access to the logs of what their children view on a school computer. While parents should be able to know what their children are doing at school, in some cases it could be difficult and expensive for the school to compile the data.
Fasten your seatbelts, here comes the rant...
Its is completely wrong for a school to be sued over something as stupid as this. Who is benefiting from taking up the school's time and money to fight a lawsuit in court? The students sure as hell aren't. They are being deprived of education becasue someone with an agenda decides that they want to get their way. James Knight wants to have censorware installed on the computers are he's trying to get the school and the law to prove his case for him. The lawsuit was a total waste of public funds. If he wants the log files then he's the one who should be required to pay for the expences involved with extracting and printing/copying the logs.
Ok, now that I got that out of my system... The logs can be used for good (good, according to many/.'ers), such as to point out flaws in censorware packages. Which, is a Good Thing. But I still stand behind my rant when I said that to obtain copies of the logs, the requestor should have to pay for them.
The problem with mirroring such sites is (obviously) copyright. If you don't tell the site's author that you're mirroring the site, you're (probablly) infringing on their copyright.
If you do tell the author, you're a target for a lawsuit as well (ala DeCSS and numberous "John Does") because why have a mirror if you keep it secret. If you do that, its not a mirror, its a backup which any intelligent site author should be doing anyway.
In order for mirroring to be successful, you've got to have an insame number of mirrors. DeCSS was small enough that it was possible for that code but I would assume that a large resource such as Mathworld is larger than the source to DeCSS.
I get around this by buying spare parts, not complete machines. I know a guy who bought a complete machine without a disk drive - and a spare drive. No ms os!
I guess I didn't make this clear enough originally. Most of the readers here are computer literate enough to build their own computers and not install a Microsoft OS. But, for John Q. Newbie who is buying a computer for the first time, their is no alternative. The readers here know about EULAs and that all commercial software has it but that same John Q. Newbie does not.
I see a lot of people complaining that many (Microsoft's in particular) EULAs are unfair, too restrictive, etc. "Taking away the rights of the consumer." But no EULA that I'm aware of takes away the right of the consumer not to buy the product. In my world, if I don't like an EULA, I don't use the software. MS doesn't force their software down the throats of consumers any more than any other company does. The write it, they put it on the market, and people buy it - EULA and all.
Microsoft does, in a way, force people to buy their software. Ever go into a (mass market) store and find a PC (non-Apple) with an OS that didn't come from Redmond? Didn't think so.
Anyway, I have never seen a software title that actually has the ELUA printed on the box. They do tell you that the software contained inside is licenced (how nice of them). I asked the sales drone at a CompUSA what the software license was and he looked at me and walked away.
My point is that it is completely unfair to consumers that you must agree to a EULA but don't have access to that until after you've opened the package. Most stores will not take back opened software so you're stuck with it if you don't like the EULA. If consumers knew that the software they were shelling out $600 for (MS Office, anyone?) came "AS-IS WITH NO WARRANTEES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED", they might think twice about opening their wallets.
Even if SDMI succeeds in launching a "working" format, no matter how crappy it may be, SDMI will ultimately fail. There won't be a lot of players. Why were records, tapes, and CDs so popular? Because, even though there was plenty of content, there were plenty of players. Anyone with enough engineering tallent could build a record, tape, or CD player because the spec, more or less, is open. You don't need licensed firmware to play a record. No one wants to build their own player because they can go into any Radio Shack and get one for around $40. MP3 is seeing lots of cheap, "no-name" players popping up now. Its going to take a lot to kill MP3, a lot more than the RIAA cartel.
SDMI will be a closed spec and a license is probablly going to cost a lot of scratch. After seeing what happened with DVD, do you think that SDMI is going to entrust the keys to the castle with just anyone? You're only going to see only the big name brand players (such as Sony, since they have both hardware and content intrests in this). You won't see any generic players for a very very long time and in that time, SDMI will get hacked again and be abandoned.
DISCLAIMER: IANAL, Do not pass Go, Do not remove that tag from your mattress under penalty of law...
If this is true, this could be the grounds for a class-action law suit against Time Warner, the MPAA, DVDCCA, and all those other evil acronyms.
Why? Because, Time Warner would be preventing owners of legally obtained DVD players (yes, there are some region-free players on the market) from playing their new DVDs.
If not, we could just spread some FUD of our own and make it widely known that Time Warner's (and Columbia Tri Star's) new DVD releases might not play on your DVD player...
I went to my local Radio Shack to get another Cue Cat yesterday and, when I got home, was very careful about opening the package.
The CueCat comes in a shrinkwrapped plastic bag. Inside is the CueCat device, a poster-like illustrated set-up guide, a piece of paper with the Radio Shack-used UPC on it, and the:C.R.Q. software CD folder. Unopened, only the CueCat device and the UPC paper is visable from the outside.
I opended the package and removed the contents. One the bottom back of the CD folder, in little type and not viewable from the outside of the package, reads "Opening this software constitutes acceptance of our License terms contained herein. Copies can also be found at www.digitalconvergence.com/ula.html. Hard copies can be mailed to you by contacting Digital Convergence.:Com in writing at this address: Attn: Licensee deaprtment, 9101 North Central Expressway, Suite 600, Dalas, Texas, 75231".
IANAL, but I read this one of the following ways:
1. Only the software, not the hardware is licensed. The hardware is mine. I did not remove the CD from the envelope, therefore the license does not apply to me.
2. Opening the shrinkwrapping is condidered to be accepting the license. The license applies to the hardware and software, but you only become aware of the license after you open the package. Therefore, you couldn't have known the terms of the license and couldn't have made an informed decision and the license is invalid.
3. Opening the software is removing the CD. However, since the license is on the CD and you must open the software and run it to read the license, you can't read the license until you aparently agree to it. The license is therefore invalid.
The license either doesn't apply to the hardware or the license is invalid. Any way you cut it, the hardware is yours.
Why is it that "my" community is always there when it comes to ruining legitimate businesses? As soon as some company comes up with a neat device and accompanying businessmodel (I-Opener, Cuecat), there's a whole bunch of geeks that are ready to ruin the company by finding all kinds of little loopholes in some law.
Why is "your" (and "my") community ruining their businesses? Remember, it wasn't the community that decided to give away the products for free (CueCat) or sell it at a loss (I-Opener). If their business model depends on selling the hardware at a loss, why should we feel sorry for them if it fails? A business isn't entitled to success. If the model is flawed, whose fault it that? The busiensses.
I'm not trying to ruin DC's business. If they're giving away a cheap (and crappy) barcode scanner to anyone, why shouldn't I take one?
What would you do if you were a company and saw your product ruined by a couple of kiddies who obviously never had anything to do with running a business before? Sit there and watch your dollars go down the drain?
I'm not going to say that I wouldn't be mad; that would be a lie. I would be pretty mad. However, if my business model was flawed, its my fault, not the fault of those who took advantage of my stupidity.
I'm not saying you are doing the wrong thing, after all, there's this subarticle in some subsection of some USPO law that says you're in your right, but imagine Amazon finding some loophole in some law that enables them to ruin other people's businesses, would you agree with Amazon? Or would you despise this company?
Again, I'm not going to say I wouldn't be mad at Amazon; I'm sure I would be. The law should definately be changed. The FTC might have some say in the matter though.
Why is it always that "we" are right and "them companies" are wrong when it comes to finding smart ways to do business or break other people's businesses.
Businesses fail. That's the nature of the game. They use "loss leaders" all the time to get consumers into their stores or to use their service. But if the business takes too much of a loss, who should be blamed? The business.
Companies don't have good will. Every move that they make is one that (they hope) will bring them more money.
<br><br>
Using the scanner for something other than what DC intended is just like throwing it out. DC must have realized that a good number of people who got a Cue Cat would just throw it out (or not use it). If they didn't, then they are stupid.
How about a television commercial or a newspaper ad?
A letter-writing campaign to the editors of newspapers areound the country would be nice, but the average Joe (who is the target audience for our message) probablly doesn't read the editorials (or the newspaper, for that matter).
A TV commercial would reach the most audience but would also be expensive. Does anyone know how much airtime goes for? If everyone who was intrested donated, say, $10...
Billboard ads and leaflets also come to mind. The MPAA and RIAA effectively control the mass media but we could use it against them.
Slashdot Mirror
Unauthorized use of a computer system.
Snooping your system = cracking your system.
It should be illegal for the RIAA, et. al., to snoop into your computer system because they are attempting to access a computer system that is not theirs. Any "evidence" gathered in an illegal way would be inadmissable in court, just as if a police officer gathered evidence without a warrant*. Of course, as soon as someone brings this up as a defence to their flood of lawsuits, you know that they'll be whinning to Congress to get an exception to that too.
* IANAL (but I did take some law classes) but I believe that only the police can conduct a search without a warrant on the basis of probable cause. An private individual or organization would be guilty of breaking and entering.
Let's see where these 3 companies are coming from and their reasons for this...
IBM: looking to regain control of the non-processor componants and design of PCs. They tried this with PS/2's Microchannel and failed. No manufacturer was willing to license Microchannel when ISA was free and a lot more hardware available for it. Very few will be willing to license this.
Intel: seeing their market share being eroded by AMD and the clone chipsets. If they get a new "standard" CPU and chipset design, they can relive the "Intel Inside" glory days of early-mid 90s.
Microsoft: market dominance is their name, looking do dominate yet another one is their game. They got a dominance on consumer and corporate OSes and are looking to make even more money licensing this to Hollywood.
Result: pretty much the same as the DIVX fiasco, except with 3 companies pusing it instead of 1. Except for the PC companies that are just repackaging Intel parts in their boxes (Gateway, Dell) and IBM, forget about this going anywhere. Go buy youself some AMD stock.
If making "infringing" copies of music and videos will become technilogically impossible (SDMI, CSS, etc), can I get a refund on the royalties I indirectly paid on blank tapes and CDRs? Will the MPAA and RIAA tell Congress "Now that we made piracy and fair use impossible, you can drop the royalty on recording media."?
<br><br>
No, they won't. Despite the old saying that "you can't have your cake and eat it too" they're doing just that.
From the article...
If individuals are convicted of fraud, it could mean more than a financial slap on the wrist, sources said.
"This means that people could go to jail. That's what this means," the source said.
And they should be thrown in jail. RAMBUS obviously committed fraud by going into the JEDEC standards meeting knowing that that the standard reached would infringe on their patents, not notifying JEDEC that they were patent pending on technoligies that were in the standard and then modifying their patent applications to cover even more of the agreed upon standard. Hell, RAMBUS management deserves more than jailtime; they deserve to be drawn and quarterd. Maybe this (throwing RAMBUS employees and lawyers) into jail would discourage others from attempting to follow RAMBUS's litigeous lead.
That's odd... I guess that all the software that makes the hardware that engineers (computer and electrical) is just nothing. I also suppose that hardware will rise up and work on its own, if it weren't for those nasty computer scientists...
Oh, wait. That's right... Electronics are just expensive useless boxes without the software to make them do something useful.
I wise person once said "engineers think they know everything but they don't know shit."
As for vanity coming before functionality, remember that all the porducts that they cited are just that...products. Consumers need a compelling reason to buy them. That's why "the computer for the rest of us" (the Macintosh, if you don't know the reference) used simple graphics as the user interface. A form of *nix (or other command line system) just wouldn't sell at all. All those in accidemia have their head in the clouds when they say that fashonable technology is foolish. Consumers will buy a shinny "cool" looking device with half the functionality or intuitiveness of something that looks like it should be in a lab. That's a fact.
It all depends on the supermarket in question (I work for one so my views might be a little biased, bet hey, here they are). From what I've read, Safeway is the worst-case senario when it comes to supermarkets. There aren't any in my area so I don't have any first-hand experience with it.
The supermarket I work for has a "shopper card" program (I believe it was the first supermarket to have one). On the application (which just asks for name and address) you have the choice not to receive any mailings or have your purchases tracked for marketing purposes. Yes, the store does track your purchases but that data isn't collected with your personal info. Any mailings are send out by the store; personal information and shopping records don't leave the company.
For example, let's say Brand "K" wants to increase sales of their cereals. They'll have the store send out coupons to customers who have been regularly purchasing Brand "G" or Brand "P" cereals as an incentive to get them to switch.
As I said, it all depends on the supermarket, so YMMV.
But, if you're so inclined to be anonymous, fill out the application to get the card and then (like you said) generate your own barcode for it. Go to this site http://www.milk.com/barcode and enter a fake number. This will work for most stores that use a standard UPC barcode (12 digit) and most do, especially if they have IBM registers (which most do). The first digit is a 4, the next 10 can be your random choosing, the the 12th is the check digit that will be calculated by the CGI script.
But, IMHO, the real problem right now is companies that store your personal information in internet-accessable databases that are full of security holes that almost any script kiddie could break into. THAT is the real privacy danger and that's probablly why Microsoft, Sun, and AOL say that its "too expensive" to protect privacy. Any legislation passes to protect provacy could make them liable for security holes in their software.
IANAL...
The DMCA requires a form of "protection", which could be encryption or something as rediculous as pig-latin (or Sweedish Chef, for that matter!). It doesn't mandate what type of protection or how strong. As the law stands, "decrypting" a pig-latin-protected work is illegal. This just shows how dumb the DMCA really is.
Everyone crys out foul whenever some scheme like this is hatched. But everyone always forgets that WE, the technology lovers, the ones who are the first in line to buy (or at least take a look at) new devices, are the ones that determine the success or failure of new technology. We adopt these new things early on and (if they are good), reccommend them to out non-technology-saavy friends are relatives. Where would DVD be if, back in 1997, we weren't first in line to buy both consumer and computer DVD players, drives, and other hardware? It would be a niche product that wouldn't have the sales volume it has today (sort of like laserdisc), despite all of Hollywood's hype.
So, the solution is not to buy new products that have restrictions on them. Pure and simple.
And, if by change, they work their way into existing products, BUG THE HELL OUT OF THE MANUFACTURERS with constant "It doesn't work" calls and letters. Make it no longer cost effective to produce them.
Here's what you do:
Talk to your fellow students and get them to talk with their parents about the censorware situation. Stress the collection of your surfing habits and the censorware company's porfiting for them. Parents (read: NIMBY mothers*) will probablly become outraged at this alone. Also mention that the censorware blocks legitimate sites and allows naughty sites through anyway.
Talk to some of the teachers at your school. You might find some that support you. Ask them to talk it over at faculty meetings.
Try and find out how much it costs your school to license the censorware. Write into your local newspaper(s) explaining how much of a waste of taxpayer dollars censorware is. Cite some examples of legitimate sites being blocked (leave the naughty ones out). The public HATES property taxes and a good chunk of them go to the local scools. If the public sees their peoperty taxes being wasted, the mayor will get a few calls about it.
Take your parents to school boards meetings and bring up the issue there. They are going to want a viable alternative to the censorware. Here's one: an acceptable use contract signed by the students and parents that says if you do bad stuff, you loose computer provliges perminantly and faculty supervision of computer use. Stress that only a real human can watch someone properly, no comptuer can replace that.
Now remember, all these steps need well thought out planning. When you write to your local paper, make sure that you sound professional and have a professional appearance. Don't make yourself look like a bratty kid. You must gain support by others and you're only going to do that through good arguments. This might be a good time to read up on debating skills which you might need to face off against the school board.
* NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard. These are the people who yack on their cell phones all day yet cry foul when someone wants to put a cell phone tower within a mile of them, and the like. Give NIMBY females kids and they turn into whinny pains in the butt that you can't get rid of. It sucks to face off against them, but if they're on your side, nothing between heaven and earth can move them.
The first case going to trial, according to the c|net article is in a German court. IANAL, but this case is important but not as important as the U.S. cases will be (Rambus' patents are from the U.S. and can only be totally invalidated in the U.S.). If Rambus looses in Germany the weight of their patents are dimished in the eyes of everyone else but they'd only not be enforcable in Germany. Rambus would still have the patents in the U.S. (and thanks to the WIPO, everywhere else in the world).
Now on to my rant...
There's no doubt in my mind (or should be in anyone's mind) that Rambus conspired to deceive the JEDEC and corner the memory market through illegal practices. Even if they did not propose the SDRAM standard, they were in attendance at the JEDEC meetings and knew damn well that the standards being proposed might be infringing on patents that they held. They knew that the standard set by the JEDEC would become the de-facto standard for memory in all computers and that all the memory makers worldwide would be producing SDRAM products. They set a trap for everyone else, led them right into that trap, and now are triggering that trap. Thank god that Micron and Hitachi are fighting Rambus' trap.
Ah, that felt better. Godspeed to Micron and Hitachi.
On the surface (especially through the looking glass created by MPAA/RIAA/etc), it would seem that we should be in favor of the crackers and against Hughes/DirecTV. But that isn't so...
The crackers (in that they cracked the smart card system)in this case have steped over the line into stealing. They are stealing something they did not pay for (the DirecTV service).
On the other hand, with DeCSS, the hackers (in that they wrote the DeCSS hack) are doing noting more than allowing a DVD that they paid for on a system or device that does not have a commercially available DVD player (or has one but they want to write their own).
If this was a story about a hack for a digital video out feed (or something to that effect), that would be different since you are still paying for the video signal. The difference is that the DirecTV card crack is just plaing stealing.
Well, one could argue that a program written in a computer language that is uncomplied would be akin to the instruction since, after all, instructions are what the source code is. And, the source alone isn't useful until after it has been compiled into a binary program (which is similar to taking the instructions and building the product).
And just to be nitpicky (IANAL, etc, etc) but you shouldn't say that the First Amendment protects your right to sell anything. Its better to say that it protects your right to express or distribute.
Home Depot's adpoting linux-based POS (point of sale, a/k/a cash register) systems isn't that big a suprise. They already run a *nix as their back end (if you go into a Home Depot, notice all those terminals with "TTY (some number)" stickered on top throughout the store. From observation, their current POS systems aparently run a Windows 3.x (or NT 3.51) system and moving to linux is just a smart move (make all your systems pretty much alike).
IBM, on the other hand, is a VERY big thing. A great many stores use IBM POS systems. Most run either IBM's 4690 OS (a DOS-like system) or Windows NT 4. I wouldn't mind seeing the next version of 4690 OS being more *nix-ey... I work for a large supermarket chain and we use all IBM systems: 4690 on the POS system and RS/6000s running AIX for the back end systems. They're both more than 99% reliable.
Couldn't the DMCA be used against the MPAA?
Take this hypothetical:
I write an original program that alows me to watch a DVD movie on my computer, let's call it DeCSS2. However, knowing the current situation with DeCSS, I decide not the spread it around. I do post it on my web page but encrypt it with a 40-bit key and only give the key to people I explicitlly trust. And lets also assume that these people do not give the key or the unencrypted program/source away. A few weeks later, the MPAA, DVDCCA, and all their cartel cronies are knocking on my door to sue me over my litthe DeCSS2 program.
Couldn't I be able to claim that, because the MPAA/DVDCCA/etc must have broken the "effective protection device" to know that DeCSS2 played a DVD movie, that their evidence against me was illegially obtained and that THEY were the ones violating the DMCA?
At the high school I graduated from, before students were able to use any computer in the school, both the students and parents were required to sign the acceptable use contract. It essencially said that students could not use the school's computers to access porn, illegial stuff, etc. But it went on to further say that while the computer use was monitored and it was agaist the policy to view such material, the school could not be held responsible for the students actions . It indemnified the school from being sued over what little Timmy was viewing on the computer. IMO, all schools should have a contract such as this.
/.'ers), such as to point out flaws in censorware packages. Which, is a Good Thing. But I still stand behind my rant when I said that to obtain copies of the logs, the requestor should have to pay for them.
I am personally split over whether or not parents should have access to the logs of what their children view on a school computer. While parents should be able to know what their children are doing at school, in some cases it could be difficult and expensive for the school to compile the data.
Fasten your seatbelts, here comes the rant...
Its is completely wrong for a school to be sued over something as stupid as this. Who is benefiting from taking up the school's time and money to fight a lawsuit in court? The students sure as hell aren't. They are being deprived of education becasue someone with an agenda decides that they want to get their way. James Knight wants to have censorware installed on the computers are he's trying to get the school and the law to prove his case for him. The lawsuit was a total waste of public funds. If he wants the log files then he's the one who should be required to pay for the expences involved with extracting and printing/copying the logs.
Ok, now that I got that out of my system... The logs can be used for good (good, according to many
The problem with mirroring such sites is (obviously) copyright. If you don't tell the site's author that you're mirroring the site, you're (probablly) infringing on their copyright.
If you do tell the author, you're a target for a lawsuit as well (ala DeCSS and numberous "John Does") because why have a mirror if you keep it secret. If you do that, its not a mirror, its a backup which any intelligent site author should be doing anyway.
In order for mirroring to be successful, you've got to have an insame number of mirrors. DeCSS was small enough that it was possible for that code but I would assume that a large resource such as Mathworld is larger than the source to DeCSS.
I get around this by buying spare parts, not complete machines. I know a guy who bought a complete machine without a disk drive - and a spare drive. No ms os!
I guess I didn't make this clear enough originally. Most of the readers here are computer literate enough to build their own computers and not install a Microsoft OS. But, for John Q. Newbie who is buying a computer for the first time, their is no alternative. The readers here know about EULAs and that all commercial software has it but that same John Q. Newbie does not.
I see a lot of people complaining that many (Microsoft's in particular) EULAs are unfair, too restrictive, etc. "Taking away the rights of the consumer." But no EULA that I'm aware of takes away the right of the consumer not to buy the product. In my world, if I don't like an EULA, I don't use the software. MS doesn't force their software down the throats of consumers any more than any other company does. The write it, they put it on the market, and people buy it - EULA and all.
Microsoft does, in a way, force people to buy their software. Ever go into a (mass market) store and find a PC (non-Apple) with an OS that didn't come from Redmond? Didn't think so.
Anyway, I have never seen a software title that actually has the ELUA printed on the box. They do tell you that the software contained inside is licenced (how nice of them). I asked the sales drone at a CompUSA what the software license was and he looked at me and walked away.
My point is that it is completely unfair to consumers that you must agree to a EULA but don't have access to that until after you've opened the package. Most stores will not take back opened software so you're stuck with it if you don't like the EULA. If consumers knew that the software they were shelling out $600 for (MS Office, anyone?) came "AS-IS WITH NO WARRANTEES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED", they might think twice about opening their wallets.
Even if SDMI succeeds in launching a "working" format, no matter how crappy it may be, SDMI will ultimately fail. There won't be a lot of players. Why were records, tapes, and CDs so popular? Because, even though there was plenty of content, there were plenty of players. Anyone with enough engineering tallent could build a record, tape, or CD player because the spec, more or less, is open. You don't need licensed firmware to play a record. No one wants to build their own player because they can go into any Radio Shack and get one for around $40. MP3 is seeing lots of cheap, "no-name" players popping up now. Its going to take a lot to kill MP3, a lot more than the RIAA cartel.
SDMI will be a closed spec and a license is probablly going to cost a lot of scratch. After seeing what happened with DVD, do you think that SDMI is going to entrust the keys to the castle with just anyone? You're only going to see only the big name brand players (such as Sony, since they have both hardware and content intrests in this). You won't see any generic players for a very very long time and in that time, SDMI will get hacked again and be abandoned.
I'd like to see Jack Vallenti's head on a stick...
DISCLAIMER: IANAL, Do not pass Go, Do not remove that tag from your mattress under penalty of law...
If this is true, this could be the grounds for a class-action law suit against Time Warner, the MPAA, DVDCCA, and all those other evil acronyms.
Why? Because, Time Warner would be preventing owners of legally obtained DVD players (yes, there are some region-free players on the market) from playing their new DVDs.
If not, we could just spread some FUD of our own and make it widely known that Time Warner's (and Columbia Tri Star's) new DVD releases might not play on your DVD player...
I went to my local Radio Shack to get another Cue Cat yesterday and, when I got home, was very careful about opening the package.
:C.R.Q. software CD folder. Unopened, only the CueCat device and the UPC paper is visable from the outside.
The CueCat comes in a shrinkwrapped plastic bag. Inside is the CueCat device, a poster-like illustrated set-up guide, a piece of paper with the Radio Shack-used UPC on it, and the
I opended the package and removed the contents. One the bottom back of the CD folder, in little type and not viewable from the outside of the package, reads "Opening this software constitutes acceptance of our License terms contained herein. Copies can also be found at www.digitalconvergence.com/ula.html. Hard copies can be mailed to you by contacting Digital Convergence.:Com in writing at this address: Attn: Licensee deaprtment, 9101 North Central Expressway, Suite 600, Dalas, Texas, 75231".
IANAL, but I read this one of the following ways:
1. Only the software, not the hardware is licensed. The hardware is mine. I did not remove the CD from the envelope, therefore the license does not apply to me.
2. Opening the shrinkwrapping is condidered to be accepting the license. The license applies to the hardware and software, but you only become aware of the license after you open the package. Therefore, you couldn't have known the terms of the license and couldn't have made an informed decision and the license is invalid.
3. Opening the software is removing the CD. However, since the license is on the CD and you must open the software and run it to read the license, you can't read the license until you aparently agree to it. The license is therefore invalid.
The license either doesn't apply to the hardware or the license is invalid. Any way you cut it, the hardware is yours.
Why is it that "my" community is always there when it comes to ruining legitimate businesses? As soon as some company comes up with a neat device and accompanying businessmodel (I-Opener, Cuecat), there's a whole bunch of geeks that are ready to ruin the company by finding all kinds of little loopholes in some law.
Why is "your" (and "my") community ruining their businesses? Remember, it wasn't the community that decided to give away the products for free (CueCat) or sell it at a loss (I-Opener). If their business model depends on selling the hardware at a loss, why should we feel sorry for them if it fails? A business isn't entitled to success. If the model is flawed, whose fault it that? The busiensses.
I'm not trying to ruin DC's business. If they're giving away a cheap (and crappy) barcode scanner to anyone, why shouldn't I take one?
What would you do if you were a company and saw your product ruined by a couple of kiddies who obviously never had anything to do with running a business before? Sit there and watch your dollars go down the drain?
I'm not going to say that I wouldn't be mad; that would be a lie. I would be pretty mad. However, if my business model was flawed, its my fault, not the fault of those who took advantage of my stupidity.
I'm not saying you are doing the wrong thing, after all, there's this subarticle in some subsection of some USPO law that says you're in your right, but imagine Amazon finding some loophole in some law that enables them to ruin other people's businesses, would you agree with Amazon? Or would you despise this company?
Again, I'm not going to say I wouldn't be mad at Amazon; I'm sure I would be. The law should definately be changed. The FTC might have some say in the matter though.
Why is it always that "we" are right and "them companies" are wrong when it comes to finding smart ways to do business or break other people's businesses.
Businesses fail. That's the nature of the game. They use "loss leaders" all the time to get consumers into their stores or to use their service. But if the business takes too much of a loss, who should be blamed? The business.
Companies don't have good will. Every move that they make is one that (they hope) will bring them more money.
<br><br>
Using the scanner for something other than what DC intended is just like throwing it out. DC must have realized that a good number of people who got a Cue Cat would just throw it out (or not use it). If they didn't, then they are stupid.
How about a television commercial or a newspaper ad?
A letter-writing campaign to the editors of newspapers areound the country would be nice, but the average Joe (who is the target audience for our message) probablly doesn't read the editorials (or the newspaper, for that matter).
A TV commercial would reach the most audience but would also be expensive. Does anyone know how much airtime goes for? If everyone who was intrested donated, say, $10...
Billboard ads and leaflets also come to mind. The MPAA and RIAA effectively control the mass media but we could use it against them.