Eh, I think the image in that story was licensed under cc-by which doesn't prohibit commercial use, unlike the submitter. The family in that case is suing for a whole variety of reasons that have nothing to do with copyright. What this article reminds me of is this
If you don't want to read some guys blog, no less an authority than boing boing covered it. I wonder if they have permission to use those photos?
(This post is brought to you by the office of the commissioner of slashdot. Any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the post without the AndersOSU's express written consent is prohibited.)
Is DMCA the right tool? My understanding is that the safeharbor provision/take down procedure was designed to protect hosts from being liable for user generated content. If a commercial website is using violating copyright, that's something else entierly, and I would think you'd have to look elsewhere. On the other hand, it's not as if the take down procedure hasn't been streached mightily already, so it might fit this too.
(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos.
First you have to fulfill the conditions under (1), i.e that you're breaking DRM "solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment". Then, once you've met that hurdle, you still have to fulfill any one of the three conditions under i-iii. Hence this clause, "and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:"
It doesn't say noncommercial videos are ok, it says that if you break DRM solely to incorporate short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, AND it's non-commercial, it's ok.
Yes you are. If you circumvent a copy protection measure, you're violating the DMCA irrespective of whether or not you have a right to copy the protected work.
The DMCA helpfully defines "effective" as "well, we gave it a shot."
(B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see anti-circumvention struck down entirely; but barring a constitutional problem that would have to come from the legislature, not the courts.
Not necessarily, fair-use is codified, and where the law conflicts, it's up to the judiciary to sort it out. I wouldn't hold my breath for SCOTUS to overturn the anti-circumvention statute, but it doesn't have to raise a constitutional issue to be brought up.
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
The question is, first, whether the DVD or the cell phone is still "protected under this title." You could probably make the case that cell phone OSs no longer are, so if you're distributing jailbreak tools you're off the hook. So you're probably right on that count.
On the other hand, it's not so clear with DVDs, which is odd since the tools are so much more readily available. The LOC's exemption for DVDs is pretty narrow, so you'd have to argue that DeCSS, for example, is primarily designed to crack exempt DVDs. This, I think, is a harder case to make, not least of all because DeCSS was developed long before any exemptions were granted. If you work at a store specializing in preparing educational films, you're probably in good shape giving educators a copy of DeCSS. If, on the other hand, you are a guy with a mirror on the internet that says: this code can crack the protection on any DVD for any purpose, you're probably still in hot water.
Finally, if you're working on cracking AACS and the MPAA gets a hold of you you're definitely SOL.
Unless you're putting together movie clips for commentary, you're still not allowed to break CSS. The library of Congress didn't say you're allowed to break DRM for any fair-use purpose, they said you can break it in order to accomplish the following activities
the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos.
You'll note that backing up your movies or shifting the media of your movies is conspicuously absent.
It's stupid is what it is, and they know that it's stupid. They're basically saying that we know there's a good reason that consumers want to break DRM, ans what's more we agree that it's a good reason and you should be able to break the DRM, but we're still only going to let you do it on outdated tech.
While you have a right to jailbreak your phone, or break CSS on your movie (for certain purposes), it is not clear that you have the right to distribute tools to allow others to do the same. If you do this openly you might ultimately prevail in court, but you should definitely plan on being sued, because this issue has not been settled.
IANAP, and this is all way, way out of my league, but it seems like he's saying that this is a surface or interface phenomenon, which could be why crystal purity isn't that important. If all you need is the right interface, the substrate might not be that important.
Although in totality, I agree this is likely too good to be true - but then again everything revolutionary seemed that way at one point.
Well, if you really want to be pedantic (and this is/., so who doesn't?), the 95% upper confidence interval of 0 events out of 109 is 2.7%. This does not compare favorably to the average risk of car theft of ~0.25%. I'd need more data to calculate the confidence intervals for risk of theft for black or average cars, but it's likely to be much tighter than +/- 2.5% given the total number of car sold.
So the only think you can say from this study is that there's insufficient data to determine whether pink cars are more or less at risk than cars of another color.
Really? Did you take the AP calc exam? Did you pass? I went to Ohio State and tested into calc 3 (sequences and series) which we had covered in high school, I could have opted into a more advanced math, but I'm not sure that the increased difficulty and rigor would have been worth it.
As for the GP. I was taught fourier transforms no less than 3 times in college, in the math department (diff eqs), in the comp sci department (numerical methods), and in the mechanical engineering department (dynamic systems). I didn't understand them until the third time - and not because I'm dumb, but because "Complete the fourier transform for the following wave form by hand it was never really clear to me why I'd want to do such a thing. OTOH, when I had to process actual signals, I was glad that this wasn't the first time I had heard of FFTs.
It wouldn't surprise me if some sophisticated organized crime organizations employed fairly sophisticated anti-surveillance countermeasures. A Mafia don might think it's worth his while to sweep visitors with a non-linear junction detector, in which case a button cam might very well get you killed.
These situations are always going to be much more the exception than the norm, but legislation would have to consider it and not make recording a blanket requirement.
FWIW, you generally have a right to photograph, but there's more than a little ambiguity in whether or not you have a right to record audio, hence this case.
In most states, it's already legal to record anything or anyone that you can see from from your property or a public vantage point, as long as the subject doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Basically this means if your neighbors leave their blinds on their bedroom picture window open, you're allowed to photograph them, but if you use a telescopic lens to get a peak through their Venetian blinds, they probably have cause for an action against you.
The cop is brandishing his gun. What do you think he's going to do when the motorcyclist reaches for his gun? I'll tell you what he's not going to do, and that's wait to be shot in the face.
First, he's being facetious. But even if he weren't you don't have any expectation of privacy in public. Try getting video evidence of your arrest getting thrown out because it violated your privacy. It'll give the judge a good laugh, just as this case ought to - right before he reams the DA and the state police.
It's not hard to put safeguards on such a measure.
All police officers shall be recorded while in the field and performing their official duties, except in certain undercover situations.
In the event of a complaint of police abuse or misconduct, the recordings of the incident and the 20 minutes immediately prior to the incident shall be released to the public. All recordings not capturing a crime or arrest shall be destroyed after sixty days.
This way you don't have to worry about some skeezy lawyer sifting through an entire cops career looking for one off-color joke or inappropriate action, but if the cop does something wrong, it's documented. As we've granted the police a monopoly on the legal use of force, I don't think this is asking too much.
All recording of police officers acting in their official capacity and interacting with the public is hereby explicitly protected.
Young earth creationism isn't philosophy, it's jugs plain wrong. However, there are plenty of formulations of creationism that would qualify as philosophy, the most obvious of which is god as the watchmaker. There's nothing wrong with creationism as long as you acknowledge that it is not science and therefore a matter of faith.
Slashdot Mirror
sorry it reminds me of this: http://www.sweetney.com/sweetney/2007/12/all-i-want-for.html
Eh, I think the image in that story was licensed under cc-by which doesn't prohibit commercial use, unlike the submitter. The family in that case is suing for a whole variety of reasons that have nothing to do with copyright. What this article reminds me of is this
If you don't want to read some guys blog, no less an authority than boing boing covered it. I wonder if they have permission to use those photos?
(This post is brought to you by the office of the commissioner of slashdot. Any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the post without the AndersOSU's express written consent is prohibited.)
Is DMCA the right tool? My understanding is that the safeharbor provision/take down procedure was designed to protect hosts from being liable for user generated content. If a commercial website is using violating copyright, that's something else entierly, and I would think you'd have to look elsewhere. On the other hand, it's not as if the take down procedure hasn't been streached mightily already, so it might fit this too.
no.
here let me paste the whole thing in:
First you have to fulfill the conditions under (1), i.e that you're breaking DRM "solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment". Then, once you've met that hurdle, you still have to fulfill any one of the three conditions under i-iii. Hence this clause, "and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:"
read it again.
It doesn't say noncommercial videos are ok, it says that if you break DRM solely to incorporate short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, AND it's non-commercial, it's ok.
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
Yes you are. If you circumvent a copy protection measure, you're violating the DMCA irrespective of whether or not you have a right to copy the protected work.
The DMCA helpfully defines "effective" as "well, we gave it a shot."
Not necessarily, fair-use is codified, and where the law conflicts, it's up to the judiciary to sort it out. I wouldn't hold my breath for SCOTUS to overturn the anti-circumvention statute, but it doesn't have to raise a constitutional issue to be brought up.
According to the DMCA;
The question is, first, whether the DVD or the cell phone is still "protected under this title." You could probably make the case that cell phone OSs no longer are, so if you're distributing jailbreak tools you're off the hook. So you're probably right on that count.
On the other hand, it's not so clear with DVDs, which is odd since the tools are so much more readily available. The LOC's exemption for DVDs is pretty narrow, so you'd have to argue that DeCSS, for example, is primarily designed to crack exempt DVDs. This, I think, is a harder case to make, not least of all because DeCSS was developed long before any exemptions were granted. If you work at a store specializing in preparing educational films, you're probably in good shape giving educators a copy of DeCSS. If, on the other hand, you are a guy with a mirror on the internet that says: this code can crack the protection on any DVD for any purpose, you're probably still in hot water.
Finally, if you're working on cracking AACS and the MPAA gets a hold of you you're definitely SOL.
Unless you're putting together movie clips for commentary, you're still not allowed to break CSS. The library of Congress didn't say you're allowed to break DRM for any fair-use purpose, they said you can break it in order to accomplish the following activities
You'll note that backing up your movies or shifting the media of your movies is conspicuously absent.
It's stupid is what it is, and they know that it's stupid. They're basically saying that we know there's a good reason that consumers want to break DRM, ans what's more we agree that it's a good reason and you should be able to break the DRM, but we're still only going to let you do it on outdated tech.
Um, no.
While you have a right to jailbreak your phone, or break CSS on your movie (for certain purposes), it is not clear that you have the right to distribute tools to allow others to do the same. If you do this openly you might ultimately prevail in court, but you should definitely plan on being sued, because this issue has not been settled.
IANAP, and this is all way, way out of my league, but it seems like he's saying that this is a surface or interface phenomenon, which could be why crystal purity isn't that important. If all you need is the right interface, the substrate might not be that important.
Although in totality, I agree this is likely too good to be true - but then again everything revolutionary seemed that way at one point.
Well, if you really want to be pedantic (and this is /., so who doesn't?), the 95% upper confidence interval of 0 events out of 109 is 2.7%. This does not compare favorably to the average risk of car theft of ~0.25%. I'd need more data to calculate the confidence intervals for risk of theft for black or average cars, but it's likely to be much tighter than +/- 2.5% given the total number of car sold.
So the only think you can say from this study is that there's insufficient data to determine whether pink cars are more or less at risk than cars of another color.
Really? Did you take the AP calc exam? Did you pass? I went to Ohio State and tested into calc 3 (sequences and series) which we had covered in high school, I could have opted into a more advanced math, but I'm not sure that the increased difficulty and rigor would have been worth it.
As for the GP. I was taught fourier transforms no less than 3 times in college, in the math department (diff eqs), in the comp sci department (numerical methods), and in the mechanical engineering department (dynamic systems). I didn't understand them until the third time - and not because I'm dumb, but because "Complete the fourier transform for the following wave form by hand it was never really clear to me why I'd want to do such a thing. OTOH, when I had to process actual signals, I was glad that this wasn't the first time I had heard of FFTs.
It wouldn't surprise me if some sophisticated organized crime organizations employed fairly sophisticated anti-surveillance countermeasures. A Mafia don might think it's worth his while to sweep visitors with a non-linear junction detector, in which case a button cam might very well get you killed.
These situations are always going to be much more the exception than the norm, but legislation would have to consider it and not make recording a blanket requirement.
FWIW, you generally have a right to photograph, but there's more than a little ambiguity in whether or not you have a right to record audio, hence this case.
In most states, it's already legal to record anything or anyone that you can see from from your property or a public vantage point, as long as the subject doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Basically this means if your neighbors leave their blinds on their bedroom picture window open, you're allowed to photograph them, but if you use a telescopic lens to get a peak through their Venetian blinds, they probably have cause for an action against you.
The cop is brandishing his gun. What do you think he's going to do when the motorcyclist reaches for his gun? I'll tell you what he's not going to do, and that's wait to be shot in the face.
First, he's being facetious. But even if he weren't you don't have any expectation of privacy in public. Try getting video evidence of your arrest getting thrown out because it violated your privacy. It'll give the judge a good laugh, just as this case ought to - right before he reams the DA and the state police.
It's not hard to put safeguards on such a measure.
All police officers shall be recorded while in the field and performing their official duties, except in certain undercover situations.
In the event of a complaint of police abuse or misconduct, the recordings of the incident and the 20 minutes immediately prior to the incident shall be released to the public. All recordings not capturing a crime or arrest shall be destroyed after sixty days.
This way you don't have to worry about some skeezy lawyer sifting through an entire cops career looking for one off-color joke or inappropriate action, but if the cop does something wrong, it's documented. As we've granted the police a monopoly on the legal use of force, I don't think this is asking too much.
All recording of police officers acting in their official capacity and interacting with the public is hereby explicitly protected.
There is no other way to interpret the establishment clause.
What is this, civics class on /.? Refer to the fourteenth amendment and Everson V. Board of Education.
That was basically my experience in Catholic School in the United States.
Young earth creationism isn't philosophy, it's jugs plain wrong. However, there are plenty of formulations of creationism that would qualify as philosophy, the most obvious of which is god as the watchmaker. There's nothing wrong with creationism as long as you acknowledge that it is not science and therefore a matter of faith.