Yes, he used the client; yes, the EULA had a no-reverse-engineering provision. However, it's not clear that that is binding. There have been several conflicting decisions in US District Courts; at different times different courts have decided that shrink-wrap (e.g. EULA) licenses are, or are not, binding. This sort of provision may in fact run afoul of the entire basis for the Intellectual Property scheme based in the Constitution and federal law. Reverse engineering is fairly well protected; in fact, when I studied the topic, I don't recall hearing of very many cases at all where reverse engineering a product was illegal. (I am not speaking of patent cases here; a patented product/technology/whatever cannot legally be reverse-engineered.) It's fairly standard boilerplate to have a no-rev-eng proviso in the EULA, but it's not clear at all, barring some sort of Supreme Court ruling or specific (and possibly unconstitutional:) ) legislation, that reverse engineering even in the case of a shrink-wrap agreement not to is illegal.
-- "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
Oh, I don't know that I'd say the Virge cards are total crap. I've had my Virge 4MB since I bought my PC (circa two years ago) and it's held up pretty well. Anything that'll run Half-life acceptably can't be all bad.
...on the other hand, I just bought an STB Velocity 4400 cheap and I can't wait for it to get here.:)
-- "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
What if you have users doing development (either in an educational environment, or otherwise)? If you mount/home noexec, how are they supposed to test, run, etc? This is a great fix -- for whatever percentage of boxes have zero percent development by users.
-- "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
Somehow I doubt this would ever hold up under judicial review. The whole intellectual property set-up, as explicitly set forth in the Constitution and federal copyright law, is an exchange. On the one hand, the owner of a copyright is given exclusive rights to copy, redistribute, etc. On the other hand, they voluntarily cede rights to the founding ideas to the public. Reverse engineering is therefore legal, since copyright confers absolutely no rights to any founding ideas behind a copyrighted work. I think the Supreme Court would overturn this in a heartbeat. The only sticking point is that (technically, at least), a EULA is a voluntary contract, and it is possible to voluntarily refuse to exercise one's rights under a contract. That would be legally enforceable, if the SC took the view of EULAs as full contracts. However, currently, it's more likely that extreme provisions of EULAs will be looked upon as unenforceable (at least two federal district court decisions have come down this way).
I guess the simplest way to put it is that the proposed law directly contradicts both federal copyright law and the underlying (constitutional) motives behind IP law. In that light, I fail to see how it could survive judicial review.
-- "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
Except that the watermark would survive no matter who rips the music. If I rip the music, it's supposed to let me play the music. If someone else rips it, it's not supposed to let me. The only way this would work is if they owned the only ripper and encoder software and the only player software. Misfortunately for them, it's an open standard. I really don't see how this scheme will work.
-- "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
The article states that users will still be able to rip copies of CDs that they own, even after the "phase two" upgrade. However, it also states that the "phase two" software will recognize newly pirated stuff and refuse to play it. How is the software supposed to tell the difference?? The software gets presented a digital file; it can't know whether you ripped the track yourself or copied it from a friend, as far as I can tell. So how is it supposed to distinguish??
-- "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
Actually, no, phone books cannot be copyrighted. I know of at least two actual U.S. District Court cases in which phone book data was copied and reused -- in both cases, the use was considered "fair use" under U.S. law. Basically it comes down to the idea that you cannot copyright ideas or data -- only the expression of the ideas/data. And a phoen book does not contain enough originality and expression (since the data is always organized in logical but uncopyrightable alphabetical "Last, First" etc. order) to be copyrightable. So if the courts take the view that NSI's database is analagous to a phone listing, they have no case. Big if, though.
-- "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
The automotive engineer, the farmer, the baker -- do you think they work for some nebulous "good"? Do you think they "cooperate" with some intention of bringing you their products? Hell, no -- they work in the expectation that they will receive fair compensation for that work. As for how useful a person alone is -- you dodged the question useful to whom?? I don't care if anyone is useful to me. I don't demand that someone produce on my demand, for my benefit. A person's life and effort is an end in itself, and not merely a means to your -- or anyone else's -- ends. Why should people be useful? Who says they have to share their work and their effort with anyone?
-- "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
I think you've confused yourself. Reverse engineering isn't much different from duplicating through analysis. Reverse engineering means you analyze the results of a process/algorithm and write your own process to recreate it. Sounds like duplicating through analysis to me.
Another thing: it's perfectly legal. So long as you can prove you developed your process independently of the other, there is no patent issue involved. This is why, among other things, MS can't stop SMB's being ported to Linux.
-- "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
Slashdot Mirror
--
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
...on the other hand, I just bought an STB Velocity 4400 cheap and I can't wait for it to get here.
--
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
--
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
I guess the simplest way to put it is that the proposed law directly contradicts both federal copyright law and the underlying (constitutional) motives behind IP law. In that light, I fail to see how it could survive judicial review.
--
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
--
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
--
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
--
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
The automotive engineer, the farmer, the baker -- do you think they work for some nebulous "good"? Do you think they "cooperate" with some intention of bringing you their products? Hell, no -- they work in the expectation that they will receive fair compensation for that work.
As for how useful a person alone is -- you dodged the question useful to whom ?? I don't care if anyone is useful to me. I don't demand that someone produce on my demand, for my benefit. A person's life and effort is an end in itself, and not merely a means to your -- or anyone else's -- ends. Why should people be useful? Who says they have to share their work and their effort with anyone?
--
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
Another thing: it's perfectly legal. So long as you can prove you developed your process independently of the other, there is no patent issue involved. This is why, among other things, MS can't stop SMB's being ported to Linux.
--
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "