I recently bought an Intel (or AMD) computer with a DVD drive that can run the Windows XP operating system from a business that is in your district. However, I chose not to buy/install Windows XP but chose to install a free operating system known as Linux. I also recently bought a DVD movie entitled "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" from a store located in your district.
Unfortunately, I discovered that the software needed to view the DVD on my DVD player on my Linux computer is illegal under the DCMA. On the other hand, if I were to buy the Windows operating system, (or if I use the windows portion of my hard drive) it would be completely lawful. This is strange because the DVD player for the computer I bought contains windows software which would allow me to watch the DVDs under windows, but doesn't work under linux.
It is only fair that I should be allowed to watch DVDs on my computer without being beholden to Microsoft. It is fair use, but is unlawful under the DCMA.
I guess I am going to have to return my computer and my DVDs to the store now, and put another business in your district out of business...
"I guess they don't have Interlibrary loans in your country. In America we do."
Very valid point. In my state, it is very easy to interlibrary loan materials within the COUNTY. Trying to get materials from outside of the county is difficult, but not impossible. Trying to get materials from another public library in another state? Unthinkable/Impossible. Granted, if I was at a university, it would be easier. But there is still the time delay. And not every book is available as an inter-library loan. I can't even begin to count the number of times I requested a book, and two weeks later was told that the book could not be found...or was in storage and couldn't be retreived.
"Plus people have been going to libraries to do research for decades. What makes you think you're special?"
I actually LIKE going to libraries.
"Look. Don't insult our intelligence. You said "every single" and you [meant] "every single"."
Yea, you got me there. Guess I was being a bit unreasonable. But I was upset. Mea Culpa.
""Knowledge should be a public good. It should not be the domain of a few. This is not the middle ages.""
"Then you don't understand what copyright is then. I suggest you get all the books you can on copyright and READ THEM! Don't get your information from Slashdot."
I'll do you one better. I'll read the copyright law itself.
The U.S. Constitution says that: "The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Hmmm....limited times...promoting useful arts...allowing authors to benefit...sounds like a philosophy promoting knowledge as a common good.
And...ooo...wait, there is more. 108 of the Copyright Code says that it is ok for libraries and archives to make reproductions or distributions so long as it isn't for a commercial purpose and that the archive is open to the public and that a copyright notice is displayed. This also sounds like a philosophy of knowledge being a public good to be shared and not taken advantage of! Not to mention the doctrine of fair use too.
So...isn't Google trying to create an archive? In conjunction with a library. So long as they only keep one copy on their server, they should be ok. If someone pirates and downloads an entire book permenently onto their computer, the sin is on their head, not Google's.
Problems with OpenOffice. Solution? Fork It.
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 1
I am happy the OpenSource community is talking about what a horrid mess OpenOffice is. I like and use OpenOffice. But I have noticed that OpenOffice takes a LONG time to launch the application. And I have noticed that it takes a very long time to open documents. And OpenOffice tends to crash on occassion. On the other hand, it is free to use. So, like the article says, I have to choose between time and price. Shelling out $300 per computer is just not an option for me...so, there ya go.
I think the solution to the problem is the forking of the OpenOffice project. Personally, I use only the word processing and the spreadsheet programs. I think that most people only use these two parts of the program...so why not focus on these two? Make them the best. Make each program functional apart from the other. Make each of them lean and mean.
The problem with OpenOffice is that Sun is providing the code. Thus, the openness of OpenOffice is tied to Star Office.
As an end-user, I hope the developers of OpenOffice make it the industry leader, not the industry's Yugo.
I think you all are missing the point: If I want to research a topic...lets say, books about clockwork...I would have to go to numerous large research libraries and spend countless hours finding materials. This is assuming that I can get access to those libraries. I might not be able to afford to travel from NJ to CA to go to the free university library. Not to mention that it might be extraordinarily difficult for me to get access to rare delicate ancient manuscripts. Even if I could get access, it probably wouldn't be more than an hour. So, what could be better than a downloadable copy from the internet?
Look, I am all for protecting author's rights. I think author's should be paid for their work. But I don't understand why books that are no longer published, even though still protected by copyright, can't be available, for a nominal or no fee, on the internet. It just makes sense to me.
Your example of having a right to use your neihbors swimming pool is like comparing oranges to apples. And the fact of the matter is, lots of communities have community swimming pools because lots of people can't afford or maintain their own. It is a public good. Knowledge should be a public good. It should not be the domain of a few. This is not the middle ages.
I have one simple demand. I want every single book, magazine, and recording available on the internet. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of books and periodicals that are unread and unsearchable right now because they are rotting away in some library or private collection. Human knowledge needs to be preserved and expanded. Is it unreasonable for me to be able to have access to every single textbook on C++? Forget the legal issues. We'll get some country to pass a law that it is ok to archive information like this...but it needs to be done. Too much knowledge is being lost.
Shouldn't the real measure of price and performance be what the marginal utility of buying one processor over another is? Simply, is paying an additional $X for a performance increase worth it? I don't understand why people get excited over a 20 second increase in launching photoshop when it will cost them $2000 more. Or getting 20 more frames per second. It doesn't really matter...and it doesn't make sense to me.
Most people want to maximize how well their computer runs and spend a reasonable amount to make their computer experience worthwhile. This isn't rocket science.
Where it gets confusing is that this is an individual preference. So, if you are used to working on a slow computer, all of the newer computers are going to appear much faster to you. Imagine going from a PII 300 computer to an Athlon 64 FX 55. Do you really wanna shell out the extra money for a FX-57 which is 10% faster but costs much more?
Oh the joys of imprecise and historic legal terminology. The term trespass can mean a number of things depending on its context. Historically, certain types of unlawful interferences with another person's property or rights was considered a trespass. So, if someone smacked you upside the head in 1790, that would be a battery and you would bring an action for Trespass. If your drycleaner wouldn't return your suit, you would bring an action for replevlin. If someone breached a contract, you would bring an action for assumpsit. These distinctions are moot in most of the U.S., but sometimes become important. For instance, I did a quick poll of 10 lawyers, and we all thought that an action for a breach of a license in 1780 would have been brought as an action for trespass...but we were not quite sure.
So, if your question is whether or not breach of a license agreement could result in an action for trespass...its possible...depending on the jurisdiction...and what year it is.
More likely, you meant trespass as an unlawful entry on another person's land or property. I am pretty sure that if you went to a baseball game, did something that violated the license on back of your ticket, and were asked to leave, and you did not, you could be arrested for criminal trespassing and also sued...unlikely though...for the tort of trespass to land.
Licenses, as the term is used now, is some sort of agreement, written or not, that grants some sort of right for you to do something with someone elses property. It doesn't give you as many rights as a normal contract or give you distict ownership rights to a person's property. A nice modern example of a license is getting a fishing or hunting license. Technically, all fish and game belong to the government. They give you permission to take wildlife, so long as you follow rules.
Licenses are tricky to understand. So, don't feel bad. Most lawyers don't even understand the difference between a license and a profit. Like me.
The sad part is, I think your response was a joke and I took it way too seriously.
This is a perfect example of the Bush Administration having no clue. Give me a break. Not only does this suit make no political sense, it doesn't even have a legal or factual basis. This type of suit is typical of the hysterical right-wing zealots who want to protect the president at all costs without regard to our civil liberties
First of all, this is a freedom of speech issue. There is definately a little nitch carved out for satirical and comedic speech in the first amendment. It is clear that the Onion is satirical. Ok, they have a good movie section, but the whole paper is clearly a joke. For example, when Bill O'Reilley sued Al Franken for libeling him for Franken's book, Lying Liars, the whole case was tossed because, while the statements would have been libelous in other circumstances, it was clearly a joke mocking a public figure, which is ok. I can't see how this would be any different.
Seconly, if you read the law, posted below, especially the bolded portion, you will notice that in order for the Onion to be guilty, they would have had to have used the seal "for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States". I don't think anyone thinks that they were using the seal to do this.
This is a perfect example of government overreaching. It is also an example of a frivolous lawsuit.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 33 > 713
713. Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
I found your comment to be very funny...and reminds me of an apocrophal story that a law school professor used to trash a student with one day in class:
"I was in court one day and the defense lawyer, fresh out of lawschool, was arguing that his client was not guilty because he only committed unlawful behavior, not illegal behavior.
The judge said, "What is the difference between illegal and unlawful?" The defense lawyer spouted off some sort of garbage about illegal implying a violation of criminal law and unlawful implying a violation of civil law.
The judge responded, "One is a sick bird". After a pause and a collective groan from the court room...(ill eagle - get it?) the judge explained that they mean the same thing and that the argument wasn't going to wash."
Oh, and by the way, a license is a legal document which a gives an individual the right to go onto someone else's property to do something that would otherwise been considered an illegal trespass. So a license can also be a contract, an easement, or even a bailment. And it is usually revokable at will.
What the article fails to mention is that most of these lawsuits are business to business. One of the huge fallacies of the tort reform movement is that most lawsuits come from individuals. It is simply not the case. Most lawsuits against a company are from another company. Most companies have more contacts with other businesses than with individuals. A consumer isn't going to sue your company over the $20 that you screwed him out of. However, another business will sue your ass if you fail to take delivery of $10,000 worth of computer parts that you ordered.
I am not saying that there aren't abusive lawsuits by individuals against businesses. They are just few and far between. Nor am I saying that huge class action lawsuits aren't damaging to corporations. Nor am I downplaying the cost for compliance for numerous industry regulations. But for your average business, the owners have more problems coming from vendors rather than their customers.
So, you want to reduce the costs of business litigation? Pass tough laws against companies that abuse the corporate lawsuit system.
The fact of the matter is that the ability of congress to pass laws under the commerce clause has lessened to a degree under the Renquist court. For example, the violence against women act and the gun free school zone act were found to be unconstitional because the court found that there was only a very loose connection between interstate commerce and the subject matter of the legislation.
However, the commerce clause is moot in today's political environment, IMHO. If the Congress wants to pass a law that won't pass muster under the Commerce Clause (or whatever else), it will simply pass an appropriations bill that says "if your state wants to get money for federal highways, you must adopt legislation that says your state's DWI laws kick in at.08 blood alcohol, not.1". Or connecting federal spending to a 21 year old drinking age. Or whatever Congress can't regulate constitutionally under a delegated power.
So, I imagine that if Congress wanted cheap subsidized broadband for everyone, they could get it done using this sort of funding trick.
A nice feature to have on electronic paper is the ability to fold, bend or crush the material without it being destroyed. After RFTA, it seems this material is so thin and brittle that it would fail this test.
>2. The US Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government >from participating in such a plan.
I disagree. Establishing a communications infrastructure via the Internet seems to fall within the broad category of allowing the Congress to legislate about things doing with "Inter-state Commerce". There is a very strong argument, even using a very narrow definition of the Commerce Clause, that the internet allows people to engage in commerce between the states.
I think similar programs have passed constitutional muster, such as Rural Electrification, the laying of telephone lines, and the federal regulation of radio frequencies.
Yes, there is a 64 bit Linux version of Java for AMD64. The problem is that there isn't a 64 bit Linux version of the browser plug-in! And you have to do some magical hocus pocus to link the plug-in to firefox. Not to mention that both Java versions are 1.4 and NOT 1.5 . However, if you do a websearch, there are older versions of 64 bit java that do support the browser plug-in. Too bad they don't work on 80% of the sites that I use.
This is a result of Sun not supporting the 64 bit plug-in because of some sort of bug issue. Supposedly, the issue is being resolved.
It pisses me off though, because I had to uninstall my 64bit install of Ubuntu 5.10 yesterday and install the x86 version because too much stuff didn't "just work".
This wouldn't be a problem if Mircosoft didn't have a monopoly and these companies didnt feel that they would be penalized by Microsoft later. Computer companies must get off their fat asses and start supporting linux, or I will stop buying or recommending their stuff. Period. We gotta hit 'em where it hurts...in the wallet. Return items that aren't compatable. Etc.
I found myself somewhat annoyed that Breezy was released on Yom Kippur, the most holy jewish holiday of the year. Many orthodox jewish ubuntu users won't be able to install Breezy until tomorrow. How rude!
Honestly, I don't think there was any sort of ill-will or anti-semetic overtones...just a lack of forethought. But if ubuntu prides itself on being a community of humans who respects each other...then releasing a distro on a major jewish holiday where members of that faith can't work...is sorta...unthoughtful.
...that the author is alluding to "products liability" for software. This is lawyer talk for a concept called "strict liability". Strict liability makes you responsible for damages when your products are faulty or defective, regardless of any fault or negligence on your part. Anyone "in the stream of commence" from the manufacturer to the wholesaler to the retailer can be held liable if the product was defective and caused damages. Disclamers are usually held to be ineffective as a matter of public policy. That being said, strict liability is usually reserved for very hazardous activities such as blasting, keeping wild animals, and other ultra-hazardous activity.
So, the real question becomes, when software is used in a situation where there are extreme hazards, should EULAs be ignored and strict liabilty be found? A la using firefox at a nuclear facility which causes a meltdown?
I also tried running this on linux and got the same message. However, if you go to the website http://www.vividas.com/support/, and look under system requirements, it says that Vividas will run under Linux using WINE emulation if you have 192MB RAM, Pentium III or better CPU 450MHz or better CPU clock speed and an Accelerated Graphics card, with at least 4MB of memory. Its still in testing, however.
This isn't an example of a company ignoring the linux community. This is an example of a company trying to control distribution by using a proprietary format. It took over my entire desktop while playing...couldn't quit out of it until it finished...must be some sort of DRM scheme.
This is a great piece of legislation. It provides the consumer with a warning that the CD is copy-protected and it fixes the current catch-22 dilemma in current law by allowing the fair-use copying of copyprotected music for non-infriging purposes without violating the DCMA. Too bad this will never become law...I guess I am too cynical:
H. R. 1201 To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the advertising or sale of a mislabeled copy-protected music disc is an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 9, 2005 Mr. BOUCHER (for himself, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mr. BARTON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the advertising or sale of a mislabeled copy-protected music disc is an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The limited introduction into commerce of `copy-protected compact discs' has caused consumer confusion and placed increased, unwarranted burdens on retailers, consumer electronics manufacturers, and personal computer manufacturers responding to consumer complaints, conditions which will worsen as larger numbers of such discs are introduced into commerce.
(2) Recording companies introducing new forms of copy protection should have the freedom to innovate, but should also be responsible for providing adequate notice to consumers about restrictions on the playability and recordability of `copy-protected compact discs'.
(3) The Federal Trade Commission should be empowered and directed to ensure the adequate labeling of prerecorded digital music disc products.
SEC. 3. INADEQUATELY LABELED COPY-PROTECTED COMPACT DISCS.
The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 24 the following new section:
SEC. 24A. INADEQUATELY LABELED COPY-PROTECTED COMPACT DISCS.
(a) Definitions- In this section:
(1) The term `Commission' means the Federal Trade Commission.
(2) The term `audio compact disc' means a substrate packaged as a commercial prerecorded audio product, containing a sound recording or recordings, that conforms to all specifications and requirements for Red Book Audio and bears a duly licensed and authorized `Compact disc Digital Audio' logo.
(3) The term `prerecorded digital music disc product' means a commercial audio product comprised of a substrate in the form of a disc in which is recorded a sound recording or sound recordings generally in accordance with Red Book Audio specifications but that does not conform to all licensed requirements for Red Book Audio: Provided, That a substrate containing a prerecorded sound recording that conforms to the licensing requirements applicable to a DVD-Audio disc or a Super Audio Compact Disc is not a prerecorded digital music disc product.
(4) The term `Red Book Audio' means audio data digitized at 44,100 samples per second (44.1 kHz) with a range of 65,536 possible values as defined in the `Compact Disc-Digital Audio System Description' (first published in 1980 by Philips N.V. and Sony Corporation, as updated from time to time).
(b) Prohibited Acts-
(1) The introduction into commerce, sale, offering for sale, or advertising for sale of a prerecorded digital music disc product which is mislabeled or falsely or d
Come on, who really has a problem with Iran, Mexico, Swaziland and China having control over the Internet? Whats the worst that can happen? *sarcasm*
Seriously, this is a real political issue. This is a matter of national security of the utmost importance to the United States. Contrary to popular belief aruond the world, the U.S. is not an evil place. George Bush might be a moron, but most Americans believe in free internet access for all.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Congressman:
I recently bought an Intel (or AMD) computer with a DVD drive that can run the Windows XP operating system from a business that is in your district. However, I chose not to buy/install Windows XP but chose to install a free operating system known as Linux. I also recently bought a DVD movie entitled "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" from a store located in your district.
Unfortunately, I discovered that the software needed to view the DVD on my DVD player on my Linux computer is illegal under the DCMA. On the other hand, if I were to buy the Windows operating system, (or if I use the windows portion of my hard drive) it would be completely lawful. This is strange because the DVD player for the computer I bought contains windows software which would allow me to watch the DVDs under windows, but doesn't work under linux.
It is only fair that I should be allowed to watch DVDs on my computer without being beholden to Microsoft. It is fair use, but is unlawful under the DCMA.
I guess I am going to have to return my computer and my DVDs to the store now, and put another business in your district out of business...
"I guess they don't have Interlibrary loans in your country. In America we do."
... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Hmmm....limited times...promoting useful arts...allowing authors to benefit...sounds like a philosophy promoting knowledge as a common good.
Very valid point. In my state, it is very easy to interlibrary loan materials within the COUNTY. Trying to get materials from outside of the county is difficult, but not impossible. Trying to get materials from another public library in another state? Unthinkable/Impossible. Granted, if I was at a university, it would be easier. But there is still the time delay. And not every book is available as an inter-library loan. I can't even begin to count the number of times I requested a book, and two weeks later was told that the book could not be found...or was in storage and couldn't be retreived.
"Plus people have been going to libraries to do research for decades. What makes you think you're special?"
I actually LIKE going to libraries.
"Look. Don't insult our intelligence. You said "every single" and you [meant] "every single"."
Yea, you got me there. Guess I was being a bit unreasonable. But I was upset. Mea Culpa.
""Knowledge should be a public good. It should not be the domain of a few. This is not the middle ages.""
"Then you don't understand what copyright is then. I suggest you get all the books you can on copyright and READ THEM! Don't get your information from Slashdot."
I'll do you one better. I'll read the copyright law itself.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
The U.S. Constitution says that: "The Congress shall have Power
And...ooo...wait, there is more. 108 of the Copyright Code says that it is ok for libraries and archives to make reproductions or distributions so long as it isn't for a commercial purpose and that the archive is open to the public and that a copyright notice is displayed. This also sounds like a philosophy of knowledge being a public good to be shared and not taken advantage of! Not to mention the doctrine of fair use too.
So...isn't Google trying to create an archive? In conjunction with a library. So long as they only keep one copy on their server, they should be ok. If someone pirates and downloads an entire book permenently onto their computer, the sin is on their head, not Google's.
I am happy the OpenSource community is talking about what a horrid mess OpenOffice is. I like and use OpenOffice. But I have noticed that OpenOffice takes a LONG time to launch the application. And I have noticed that it takes a very long time to open documents. And OpenOffice tends to crash on occassion. On the other hand, it is free to use. So, like the article says, I have to choose between time and price. Shelling out $300 per computer is just not an option for me...so, there ya go.
I think the solution to the problem is the forking of the OpenOffice project. Personally, I use only the word processing and the spreadsheet programs. I think that most people only use these two parts of the program...so why not focus on these two? Make them the best. Make each program functional apart from the other. Make each of them lean and mean.
The problem with OpenOffice is that Sun is providing the code. Thus, the openness of OpenOffice is tied to Star Office.
As an end-user, I hope the developers of OpenOffice make it the industry leader, not the industry's Yugo.
I think you all are missing the point: If I want to research a topic...lets say, books about clockwork...I would have to go to numerous large research libraries and spend countless hours finding materials. This is assuming that I can get access to those libraries. I might not be able to afford to travel from NJ to CA to go to the free university library. Not to mention that it might be extraordinarily difficult for me to get access to rare delicate ancient manuscripts. Even if I could get access, it probably wouldn't be more than an hour. So, what could be better than a downloadable copy from the internet?
Look, I am all for protecting author's rights. I think author's should be paid for their work. But I don't understand why books that are no longer published, even though still protected by copyright, can't be available, for a nominal or no fee, on the internet. It just makes sense to me.
Your example of having a right to use your neihbors swimming pool is like comparing oranges to apples. And the fact of the matter is, lots of communities have community swimming pools because lots of people can't afford or maintain their own. It is a public good. Knowledge should be a public good. It should not be the domain of a few. This is not the middle ages.
I have one simple demand. I want every single book, magazine, and recording available on the internet. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of books and periodicals that are unread and unsearchable right now because they are rotting away in some library or private collection. Human knowledge needs to be preserved and expanded. Is it unreasonable for me to be able to have access to every single textbook on C++? Forget the legal issues. We'll get some country to pass a law that it is ok to archive information like this...but it needs to be done. Too much knowledge is being lost.
Shouldn't the real measure of price and performance be what the marginal utility of buying one processor over another is? Simply, is paying an additional $X for a performance increase worth it? I don't understand why people get excited over a 20 second increase in launching photoshop when it will cost them $2000 more. Or getting 20 more frames per second. It doesn't really matter...and it doesn't make sense to me.
Most people want to maximize how well their computer runs and spend a reasonable amount to make their computer experience worthwhile. This isn't rocket science.
Where it gets confusing is that this is an individual preference. So, if you are used to working on a slow computer, all of the newer computers are going to appear much faster to you. Imagine going from a PII 300 computer to an Athlon 64 FX 55. Do you really wanna shell out the extra money for a FX-57 which is 10% faster but costs much more?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility
So, if your question is whether or not breach of a license agreement could result in an action for trespass...its possible...depending on the jurisdiction...and what year it is.
More likely, you meant trespass as an unlawful entry on another person's land or property. I am pretty sure that if you went to a baseball game, did something that violated the license on back of your ticket, and were asked to leave, and you did not, you could be arrested for criminal trespassing and also sued...unlikely though...for the tort of trespass to land.
Licenses, as the term is used now, is some sort of agreement, written or not, that grants some sort of right for you to do something with someone elses property. It doesn't give you as many rights as a normal contract or give you distict ownership rights to a person's property. A nice modern example of a license is getting a fishing or hunting license. Technically, all fish and game belong to the government. They give you permission to take wildlife, so long as you follow rules.
Licenses are tricky to understand. So, don't feel bad. Most lawyers don't even understand the difference between a license and a profit. Like me.
The sad part is, I think your response was a joke and I took it way too seriously.
First of all, this is a freedom of speech issue. There is definately a little nitch carved out for satirical and comedic speech in the first amendment. It is clear that the Onion is satirical. Ok, they have a good movie section, but the whole paper is clearly a joke. For example, when Bill O'Reilley sued Al Franken for libeling him for Franken's book, Lying Liars, the whole case was tossed because, while the statements would have been libelous in other circumstances, it was clearly a joke mocking a public figure, which is ok. I can't see how this would be any different.
Seconly, if you read the law, posted below, especially the bolded portion, you will notice that in order for the Onion to be guilty, they would have had to have used the seal "for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States". I don't think anyone thinks that they were using the seal to do this.
This is a perfect example of government overreaching. It is also an example of a frivolous lawsuit.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 33 > 713
713. Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
I found your comment to be very funny...and reminds me of an apocrophal story that a law school professor used to trash a student with one day in class:
"I was in court one day and the defense lawyer, fresh out of lawschool, was arguing that his client was not guilty because he only committed unlawful behavior, not illegal behavior.
The judge said, "What is the difference between illegal and unlawful?" The defense lawyer spouted off some sort of garbage about illegal implying a violation of criminal law and unlawful implying a violation of civil law.
The judge responded, "One is a sick bird". After a pause and a collective groan from the court room...(ill eagle - get it?) the judge explained that they mean the same thing and that the argument wasn't going to wash."
Oh, and by the way, a license is a legal document which a gives an individual the right to go onto someone else's property to do something that would otherwise been considered an illegal trespass. So a license can also be a contract, an easement, or even a bailment. And it is usually revokable at will.
I, for one, do not welcome and will boycott our wikipedia/1-click overlords if they start advertising. Way to kill the project guys.
What the article fails to mention is that most of these lawsuits are business to business. One of the huge fallacies of the tort reform movement is that most lawsuits come from individuals. It is simply not the case. Most lawsuits against a company are from another company. Most companies have more contacts with other businesses than with individuals. A consumer isn't going to sue your company over the $20 that you screwed him out of. However, another business will sue your ass if you fail to take delivery of $10,000 worth of computer parts that you ordered.
I am not saying that there aren't abusive lawsuits by individuals against businesses. They are just few and far between. Nor am I saying that huge class action lawsuits aren't damaging to corporations. Nor am I downplaying the cost for compliance for numerous industry regulations. But for your average business, the owners have more problems coming from vendors rather than their customers.
So, you want to reduce the costs of business litigation? Pass tough laws against companies that abuse the corporate lawsuit system.
The fact of the matter is that the ability of congress to pass laws under the commerce clause has lessened to a degree under the Renquist court. For example, the violence against women act and the gun free school zone act were found to be unconstitional because the court found that there was only a very loose connection between interstate commerce and the subject matter of the legislation.
.08 blood alcohol, not .1". Or connecting federal spending to a 21 year old drinking age. Or whatever Congress can't regulate constitutionally under a delegated power.
However, the commerce clause is moot in today's political environment, IMHO. If the Congress wants to pass a law that won't pass muster under the Commerce Clause (or whatever else), it will simply pass an appropriations bill that says "if your state wants to get money for federal highways, you must adopt legislation that says your state's DWI laws kick in at
So, I imagine that if Congress wanted cheap subsidized broadband for everyone, they could get it done using this sort of funding trick.
A nice feature to have on electronic paper is the ability to fold, bend or crush the material without it being destroyed. After RFTA, it seems this material is so thin and brittle that it would fail this test.
>2. The US Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government >from participating in such a plan.
I disagree. Establishing a communications infrastructure via the Internet seems to fall within the broad category of allowing the Congress to legislate about things doing with "Inter-state Commerce". There is a very strong argument, even using a very narrow definition of the Commerce Clause, that the internet allows people to engage in commerce between the states.
I think similar programs have passed constitutional muster, such as Rural Electrification, the laying of telephone lines, and the federal regulation of radio frequencies.
I thought the U.S.A. bought Canada after the Terrance and Philip War of '01.
*sings* Blame Canada...Blame Canada (about pollution!)
Yes, there is a 64 bit Linux version of Java for AMD64. The problem is that there isn't a 64 bit Linux version of the browser plug-in! And you have to do some magical hocus pocus to link the plug-in to firefox. Not to mention that both Java versions are 1.4 and NOT 1.5 . However, if you do a websearch, there are older versions of 64 bit java that do support the browser plug-in. Too bad they don't work on 80% of the sites that I use.
This is a result of Sun not supporting the 64 bit plug-in because of some sort of bug issue. Supposedly, the issue is being resolved.
It pisses me off though, because I had to uninstall my 64bit install of Ubuntu 5.10 yesterday and install the x86 version because too much stuff didn't "just work".
This wouldn't be a problem if Mircosoft didn't have a monopoly and these companies didnt feel that they would be penalized by Microsoft later. Computer companies must get off their fat asses and start supporting linux, or I will stop buying or recommending their stuff. Period. We gotta hit 'em where it hurts...in the wallet. Return items that aren't compatable. Etc.
I found myself somewhat annoyed that Breezy was released on Yom Kippur, the most holy jewish holiday of the year. Many orthodox jewish ubuntu users won't be able to install Breezy until tomorrow. How rude!
Honestly, I don't think there was any sort of ill-will or anti-semetic overtones...just a lack of forethought. But if ubuntu prides itself on being a community of humans who respects each other...then releasing a distro on a major jewish holiday where members of that faith can't work...is sorta...unthoughtful.
I use gaim-vv on my ubuntu linux box. It works well.
However, it was a pain to compile and install.
Furthermore, while I can watch a webcam, after about 5 minutes, my entire linux system comes to an entire halt.
Can't get out of it even using cntrl-alt-backspace or by trying to kill the process. Have to kill the power...which sucks.
Webcam support on Linux must be improved and it must be a priority!
...that the author is alluding to "products liability" for software. This is lawyer talk for a concept called "strict liability". Strict liability makes you responsible for damages when your products are faulty or defective, regardless of any fault or negligence on your part. Anyone "in the stream of commence" from the manufacturer to the wholesaler to the retailer can be held liable if the product was defective and caused damages. Disclamers are usually held to be ineffective as a matter of public policy. That being said, strict liability is usually reserved for very hazardous activities such as blasting, keeping wild animals, and other ultra-hazardous activity.
So, the real question becomes, when software is used in a situation where there are extreme hazards, should EULAs be ignored and strict liabilty be found? A la using firefox at a nuclear facility which causes a meltdown?
...finding a motherboard that will support booting from USB. My Asus board won't let me boot from my USB stick. :-(
I also tried running this on linux and got the same message. However, if you go to the website http://www.vividas.com/support/, and look under system requirements, it says that Vividas will run under Linux using WINE emulation if you have 192MB RAM, Pentium III or better CPU 450MHz or better CPU clock speed and an Accelerated Graphics card, with at least 4MB of memory. Its still in testing, however.
8 .html for more details.
This isn't an example of a company ignoring the linux community. This is an example of a company trying to control distribution by using a proprietary format. It took over my entire desktop while playing...couldn't quit out of it until it finished...must be some sort of DRM scheme.
I think they would have been better off using a normal format...but this appears to be an industry format: http://www.akamai.com/en/html/about/press/press51
You can take off your tin-foil hat now.
This is a great piece of legislation. It provides the consumer with a warning that the CD is copy-protected and it fixes the current catch-22 dilemma in current law by allowing the fair-use copying of copyprotected music for non-infriging purposes without violating the DCMA. Too bad this will never become law...I guess I am too cynical:
H. R. 1201
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the advertising or sale of a mislabeled copy-protected music disc is an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 9, 2005
Mr. BOUCHER (for himself, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mr. BARTON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the advertising or sale of a mislabeled copy-protected music disc is an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The limited introduction into commerce of `copy-protected compact discs' has caused consumer confusion and placed increased, unwarranted burdens on retailers, consumer electronics manufacturers, and personal computer manufacturers responding to consumer complaints, conditions which will worsen as larger numbers of such discs are introduced into commerce.
(2) Recording companies introducing new forms of copy protection should have the freedom to innovate, but should also be responsible for providing adequate notice to consumers about restrictions on the playability and recordability of `copy-protected compact discs'.
(3) The Federal Trade Commission should be empowered and directed to ensure the adequate labeling of prerecorded digital music disc products.
SEC. 3. INADEQUATELY LABELED COPY-PROTECTED COMPACT DISCS.
The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 24 the following new section:
SEC. 24A. INADEQUATELY LABELED COPY-PROTECTED COMPACT DISCS.
(a) Definitions- In this section:
(1) The term `Commission' means the Federal Trade Commission.
(2) The term `audio compact disc' means a substrate packaged as a commercial prerecorded audio product, containing a sound recording or recordings, that conforms to all specifications and requirements for Red Book Audio and bears a duly licensed and authorized `Compact disc Digital Audio' logo.
(3) The term `prerecorded digital music disc product' means a commercial audio product comprised of a substrate in the form of a disc in which is recorded a sound recording or sound recordings generally in accordance with Red Book Audio specifications but that does not conform to all licensed requirements for Red Book Audio: Provided, That a substrate containing a prerecorded sound recording that conforms to the licensing requirements applicable to a DVD-Audio disc or a Super Audio Compact Disc is not a prerecorded digital music disc product.
(4) The term `Red Book Audio' means audio data digitized at 44,100 samples per second (44.1 kHz) with a range of 65,536 possible values as defined in the `Compact Disc-Digital Audio System Description' (first published in 1980 by Philips N.V. and Sony Corporation, as updated from time to time).
(b) Prohibited Acts-
(1) The introduction into commerce, sale, offering for sale, or advertising for sale of a prerecorded digital music disc product which is mislabeled or falsely or d
All your internets are belong to U.S. :-)
Come on, who really has a problem with Iran, Mexico, Swaziland and China having control over the Internet? Whats the worst that can happen? *sarcasm*
Seriously, this is a real political issue. This is a matter of national security of the utmost importance to the United States. Contrary to popular belief aruond the world, the U.S. is not an evil place. George Bush might be a moron, but most Americans believe in free internet access for all.
...and the site is already slashdotted...any mirrors?
I didn't realize he was arrested and thrown in jail for copyright infringement.
*ducks*