So what? This doesn't make decrypting it any more or less legal.
>However, it must be decrypted in order to be played.
Yes.
>Therefore, the purpose of cracking the encryption scheme was to facilitate playing, not copying
This doesn't really matter. As you say, playing is still decrypting, and unauthorized decrypting is still illegal, even if you're just playing the output.
By "Congress has resolved this clash [...]", I assume he means that this issue is addressed in the legislative history.
Anyway, the first amendment has specific exceptions relating to copyright law that probably take out any first amendment challenges.
Did you have something else in mind?
>why does the court insist on saying DeCSS is used for copying DVDs when that is possible without DeCSS?
Because that's what would make it illegal. Duh.
>How do you intend to prove that DeCSS is used for positive means?
What would that do? It wouldn't make it any less illegal.
In the idea you describe, Sony's DVD player still wouldn't be breaking the act, because it still wouldn't fall to one of the three categories (primary purpose is circumbention, limited commercially significant non-circumvention purpose, or marketed for circumvention).
People who scream "FUD" without reading the article really annoy me. Mind the allcaps, please; But I feel it is necessary, so that this actually gets through some of the skulls out there.
"THE TWO INDUSTRY LEADERS CANNOT BE MENTIONED BY NAME BECAUSE THEIR RESTRICTIVE LICENSING AGREEMENTS PROHIBIT ANYONE WHO BUYS THEIR CLOSED SOURCE PRODUCTS FROM PUBLISHING THEIR COMPANY NAMES IN BENCHMARK TESTING RESULTS WITHOUT THE COMPANIES' PRIOR APPROVAL."
Well, considering that they couldn't mention Oracle by name even if it was involved in performance testing (because of its draconian no-reviews license agreement) I don't see how you can rule it out.
Do any other RDBMS' license agreements have such clauses?
Any monitoring they could possibley do is really to get around; just use a vpn tunnel over non-tunneling ipsec, or something similar. Or over an ssh connection, or something similar.
Really, they can't really prevent vpn usage without banning the use of encryption. This would not look pretty, and would likely anger the EFF, the EPIC, etc.
Since the ISP's costs are the same whether you use encryption or not, they are completely unjustified in charging different amounts for them.
Wow.... NT can do 10Gbps over a 1Gbps connection? Amazing. Those Microsoft employees really can defy the laws of physics! (Or, was it consumer protection laws?:)
Your post really disturbs a lot of people here. In order to facilitate the efficient termination of the public disturbance that you are creating, please leave your name and number so I can have you arrested. Thank you, and have a nice day. =)
>Neither of which is hateful... I just said I
thought the protesters are wasting their time.
Dude has a point.
>That's funny, I thought they were protesting at the Republican convention. Obviously, the protesters don't belive people should have opinions that differ with their own.
I don't see how that follows. Just because I don't agree with you about an issue and state my position on it publicly doesn't mean I don't believe that you're entitled to your own opinion. Protesting at the republican convention is not necessarily the same as protesting the republican convention.
>No, I think I understand their purpose, I just think they are misguided. So I don't support them. What's wrong with that?
Nothing.
>Again, none of this is hatefull.
Right, as I said.
>I'm sure the word intollerent will get thrown out here pretty soon as well.
Thrown out? Removed because it is misspelled? =)
>That's typical for the left... Their big on tolerance for everything but people who disagree with them.
I don't think that the left is generally more intolerant towards dissenters than anyone else.
As to your original post: Regardless of the questionable motives of the article writer in planning to get arrested, does that justify his arrest by the state on suspicion of, well, nothing in particular (maybe being shabby looking and defensive)?
Protesters are misguided: protestors for which cause?
"There is no excuse for treating other human beings without respect." Funny, the "no excuse" in that sentence doesn't seem to include cursing and wearing clothing you don't like.
Now, hold on here! While we're on the subject of "according with established standards of good form or taste" (m-w.com): Cursing is ignorant, is it? Your accidental personification of cursing implies about you what you were apparently trying to attribute to the curser (cursor?).
Let's continue.
"and just generally doesn't present you as a justifiably supportable individual." Wow. And the same can be said of making stupid grammatical mistakes. However, putting forward an argument could present one as a justifiably supportable individual (or an individual with a justifiably supportable position, even). You should try it sometime. =)
1) Apache is under the ASL, not the BSD license. However, the ASL is a BSD-style license. Is that what you meant?
2) "no need to respond to this," Screw you, Mr. Bigot.
3)" any opposing view is a
view for the squandering of freedom" If the freedom you are referring to is access to source and ability to modify it, and you are in support of this freedom, how does ensuring access to source in perpetuity (thus ensuring this freedom) squander the original freedom?
What, you mean more voltage regulators in addition to the regulators (and perhaps frequency conversion stuff) you'd normally have to use for 115v/60Hz?
Slashdot Mirror
>A DVD may be copied without decrypting it.
So what? This doesn't make decrypting it any more or less legal.
>However, it must be decrypted in order to be played.
Yes.
>Therefore, the purpose of cracking the encryption scheme was to facilitate playing, not copying
This doesn't really matter. As you say, playing is still decrypting, and unauthorized decrypting is still illegal, even if you're just playing the output.
Did you even skim the DMCA?
If by blame, you mean not only for killing some people, but also for stealing a gun, then you'd probably be right. =)
By "Congress has resolved this clash [...]", I assume he means that this issue is addressed in the legislative history.
Anyway, the first amendment has specific exceptions relating to copyright law that probably take out any first amendment challenges.
Did you have something else in mind?
The fact that you can already make a bit-for-bit copy doesn't make DeCSS any more or less legal.
>I have seen the argument made that code is speech and therefore protected by the first amendment which, apperantly the judge disagreed with.
There's an exception in the first amendment for speech that violates copyright law.
>Isn't there an iherent contradiction between DMCA and previous copyright law? How would/could this be argued in a higher court.
Well, the DMCA does amend the previous position, if that's what you mean. But there's no contradiction.
>why does the court insist on saying DeCSS is used for copying DVDs when that is possible without DeCSS?
Because that's what would make it illegal. Duh.
>How do you intend to prove that DeCSS is used for positive means?
What would that do? It wouldn't make it any less illegal.
Have you ever even looked at the DMCA!?
In the idea you describe, Sony's DVD player still wouldn't be breaking the act, because it still wouldn't fall to one of the three categories (primary purpose is circumbention, limited commercially significant non-circumvention purpose, or marketed for circumvention).
People who scream "FUD" without reading the article really annoy me. Mind the allcaps, please; But I feel it is necessary, so that this actually gets through some of the skulls out there.
"THE TWO INDUSTRY LEADERS CANNOT BE MENTIONED BY NAME BECAUSE THEIR RESTRICTIVE LICENSING AGREEMENTS PROHIBIT ANYONE WHO BUYS THEIR CLOSED SOURCE PRODUCTS FROM PUBLISHING THEIR COMPANY NAMES IN BENCHMARK TESTING RESULTS WITHOUT THE COMPANIES' PRIOR APPROVAL."
Well, considering that they couldn't mention Oracle by name even if it was involved in performance testing (because of its draconian no-reviews license agreement) I don't see how you can rule it out.
Do any other RDBMS' license agreements have such clauses?
What does that have to do anything?
Do you mean to imply that /. is running solaris? That's untrue. See this.
Huh? When did anyone mention Windows? AFAIK, people were just talking about anti-aliasing and more general alpha channel support.
Any monitoring they could possibley do is really to get around; just use a vpn tunnel over non-tunneling ipsec, or something similar. Or over an ssh connection, or something similar.
Really, they can't really prevent vpn usage without banning the use of encryption. This would not look pretty, and would likely anger the EFF, the EPIC, etc.
Since the ISP's costs are the same whether you use encryption or not, they are completely unjustified in charging different amounts for them.
Wow.... NT can do 10Gbps over a 1Gbps connection? Amazing. Those Microsoft employees really can defy the laws of physics! (Or, was it consumer protection laws? :)
Two Words: Habeas Corpus
>The media, imo, sells itself to the highest bidder, they are not inherently "right-" or "left-wing".
/. :)
How would that be possible, in this case? Something tells me that PBS is inherently left-wing. =)
>I get all my news from
Well, that explains it! =) (j/k)
Your post really disturbs a lot of people here. In order to facilitate the efficient termination of the public disturbance that you are creating, please leave your name and number so I can have you arrested. Thank you, and have a nice day. =)
>Neither of which is hateful... I just said I
thought the protesters are wasting their time.
Dude has a point.
>That's funny, I thought they were protesting at the Republican convention. Obviously, the protesters don't belive people should have opinions that differ with their own.
I don't see how that follows. Just because I don't agree with you about an issue and state my position on it publicly doesn't mean I don't believe that you're entitled to your own opinion. Protesting at the republican convention is not necessarily the same as protesting the republican convention.
>No, I think I understand their purpose, I just think they are misguided. So I don't support them. What's wrong with that?
Nothing.
>Again, none of this is hatefull.
Right, as I said.
>I'm sure the word intollerent will get thrown out here pretty soon as well.
Thrown out? Removed because it is misspelled? =)
>That's typical for the left... Their big on tolerance for everything but people who disagree with them.
I don't think that the left is generally more intolerant towards dissenters than anyone else.
As to your original post: Regardless of the questionable motives of the article writer in planning to get arrested, does that justify his arrest by the state on suspicion of, well, nothing in particular (maybe being shabby looking and defensive)?
Protesters are misguided: protestors for which cause?
Oh yeah... One more thing:
"There is no excuse for treating other human beings without respect." Funny, the "no excuse" in that sentence doesn't seem to include cursing and wearing clothing you don't like.
"it's vulgar, ignorant, [...]"
Now, hold on here! While we're on the subject of "according with established standards of good form or taste" (m-w.com): Cursing is ignorant, is it? Your accidental personification of cursing implies about you what you were apparently trying to attribute to the curser (cursor?).
Let's continue.
"and just generally doesn't present you as a justifiably supportable individual." Wow. And the same can be said of making stupid grammatical mistakes. However, putting forward an argument could present one as a justifiably supportable individual (or an individual with a justifiably supportable position, even). You should try it sometime. =)
There's nothing like a 100% genuine fresh high-quality troll post (such as that one), ground up and percolated, to get the day started! =)
1) Apache is under the ASL, not the BSD license. However, the ASL is a BSD-style license. Is that what you meant?
2) "no need to respond to this," Screw you, Mr. Bigot.
3)" any opposing view is a
view for the squandering of freedom" If the freedom you are referring to is access to source and ability to modify it, and you are in support of this freedom, how does ensuring access to source in perpetuity (thus ensuring this freedom) squander the original freedom?
What, you mean more voltage regulators in addition to the regulators (and perhaps frequency conversion stuff) you'd normally have to use for 115v/60Hz?
Was that sarcasm?
I assume that, since you appear to have left a valid e-mail address, that post wasn't a troll, so:
It's javascript, not HTML. See the script tags? Next time, get a clue before posting.
Maybe I missed something, but when was he selling something?