It's annoying to have to make this comment all the time on DNS-related stories, but I feel it's worth it to keep this fresh in peoples' minds:
What authority does ICANN actually have? Sure, they run the defacto standard DNS network. But nothing significant is stopping anyone from creating an alternate DNS network (and thus, an alternate namespace, at least under the TLD level). Heck... AlterNic is the prime example of this. I feel that a DNS network that uses all of the existing TLDs, but with the addition of a.o domain (a previous post of mine for more info on my.o idea) or a (usenet-esque).alt domain is definitely in order.
Hi. Sorry for the loud title, but it is necessary to get my point across.
If the owner of the domain was looking for a resale of it, as the P. Ethical T. A. press release indicates, then I don't see what was wrong with the decision. If the owner didn't get the domain registration for commercial gain, then that's a different story. (But clearly, just the guy saying that PEthicalTA would probably make an offer to pay him to transfer the domain name registration doesn't mean that reselling it was his original intention or even that he would sell it if asked to.)
This whole thing is moot doctrinally, though. I don't really how you can violate someone else's trademark by using an acronym of your own name.
The contents of the website are irrelevant to the decision. After all, it's the domain registration that has been supposedly made in violation of trademark laws, not the website attached to it. The case isn't about any web pages that may exist.
The "must transfer" provision that keeps popping up in these cases just blows my mind. A domain name registration isn't a good, it's a service. Cancelling the registration should be sufficient to comply with trademark law.
Of course, these strange US Internet-related laws popping up are usually inconsistent with current and traditional practices, not to mention existing legal doctrine, are usually full of a) (un)intended side effects that are never discussed by legislators or the general public, and b) loopholes big enough to drive a planet through. =) The large body of Internet case law that seems to have appeared out of a doctinal void, pretty much at random, doesn't help either though. e.g.: Talking of someone providing a service like DNS as if individual domain names are "property", from a legal point of view, is a little bit f***ed up, if you ask me...
My usual example of the last point is the following:
Suppose I ask some guy on the street where the nearest McDonalds is, and he says "Well, there's a fast food place over there", and directs me to a Burger King. Suppose that he did that because Burger King is paying him to do that to everyone who asks for directions to McDonalds, does that mean McDonalds can sue Burger King for trademark dilution? I don't see why it would be illegal, unless Burger King (fraudulently) is claiming that they are McDonalds.
(If I had, at some point early in my past, lived in the US, I would have left long ago for saner pastures...
I especially like countries with an "existing laws" + "hands-off" approach to the Internet. )
I propose that (an interested segment of) the oss movement cook up a new top level domain. I don't really care if it must be operated unilaterally... It's relatively easy to graft support for a new one onto the typical configurations of nameservers on various platforms.
Yes, other indie TLD (top level domain) projects have been suggested, and some are currently underway (e.g. alternic, the grassroots TLD selector thingie.) But the specifics of my proposal are a bit different:
- A single open TLD be supported. I tend toward a simple ".o" because it's short, and not already used for any TLDs.
- The idea is that "registrars" would use the second level domains. (e.g. registrar Joe Schmoe Systems, Inc gets *.jss.o). Registrars can choose whatever they want for their second level domain. Though, I realise that this would quickly degenerate into wierdness, the openness is worth a lot of wierd names (consider the alt.* usenet tree). You might lessen this by imposing maximums and/or minimums on the number of letters in the registrar part of the domain name (or perhaps even a consistent number of letters, say four.)
- Avoid using existing TLDs as second level domains in.o, to make it easier for those who want to set up.o as a default search domain. (But suggest that the.o be left on in all site references -- html links, etc. -- for compatibility).
- Encourage those setting up ".o" on general-purpose nameservers to cache the whole.o zone listing, to save the non-profit groups running the.o zone money. This could be taken to extremes by not having.o nameservers at all, just serving the.o zone list from a central ftp server.
- Obviously, registrars would have to run nameservers for their own domains.
- No limitations should be imposed on the commercial reselling of 3rd+ level names.
- Registrar names are assigned on a fcfs basis. (To make it more interesting, you might want to force quarreling parties to come to a name-sharing agreement, under penalty of total domain revocation... But I wouldn't recommend this.)
- To avoid spurrious(sp?) litigation (and even legislation), you might want to set up shop in a trademark free zone.
(Here's my problem with even having to consider doing this: If I ask some person I run into on the street to point me toward the nearest McDonalds, and instead they point me towards a Burger King because Burger King is paying them to do that, can McDonalds sue him for diluting or otherwise misusing their trademark? No? But what if the street is the Internet, the person is a DNS server, and the bricks-and-mortar fast food restaurants are fast food restaurant web sites? Well? =) )
Sure, it's not the most practical idea. But it would at least be a cool experiment.
CTV produces more Canadian content? I didn't think that was the case, considering the amount of syndicated import stuff they carry. But what do I know? =)
What broadcast monopoly are you talking about? Obviously it isn't CBC (which is still a crown corporation, and which definitely isn't a monopoly unless you live in the middle of nowhere) or the CRTC (regulates spectrum usage and ostensibly my culture, but isn't a company). What does that leave?
Who is liable according to US law when a machine "commits" a crime? I don't know this, and it would be interesting (and useful!) to know. =)
I'd like to think that liability is based at least remotely on responsibility... But, some interesting issues come up when assigning responsibility for supposed illegal links and the "unauthorized derivative works created through framing", a case which is very similar.
I'll examine the frameset problem a bit further first (there are more comments that are specific to the linking problem below). Your PC, created by company A with hardware designed and manufactured by companies B, C, D, and E, is running instructions of a web browser made by company F, which is acquiring a frameset-containing-webpage written by person G from a server owned by H through networks owned by I, J, and K, all at your direction. The browser then assembles all the relevant data, passes it through to the display architecture of an operating system designed by L and distributed by M, to a monitor built by company N. I could add much more detail here, but this should suffice to demonstrate that there are a lot of people and objects involved.
Now, by general consensus, it is equally correct to speak at any level of abstraction when describing an event. That it, it is equally true to say, when picking up a penny with my hand, that "I am picking up the penny", or "My hand is picking up the penny", or "The force of friction produced on the penny by the atoms of my hand is picking up the penny".
So, in the case of the framing problem, the creator of the web page is producing the derivative work, your web browser is producing the derivative work, your computer is producing the derivative work, your monitor is producing the derivative work, you are producing the derivative work, etc. Who is responsible? All of the above? Some of the above? None of the above? Those on the highest level of abstraction? Those on the lowest? I believe that the assignment of responsibility in such cases is somewhat arbitrary.
So while the issue of who is responsible for creating a link is similarly hard to deal with, there is another issue that's more specific to unethical linking: If you ask those complaining about the links what part of the source code they are against, they'll probably tell you that it's not specifically the A tag or the URL, but both together in the order that they are in. So if you remove the A tag, for example, they will stop complaining, because the link that was formerly present is no longer present when the page is displayed in a normal web browser. That is to say, in the normal interpretation of the HTML code, a link is no longer present.
However, suppose someone writes a browser that automatically interprets text fragments starting with "http://" as URLs and presents them as hyperlinks. In other words, in this new interpretation of HTML code, any URL is a link. Does that mean that the forbidden URLs are now illegal links and need to be removed (and by the same token, if I write a browser which presents all occurences of the letter E as some forbidden link, the letter E be banned from the web)? Or, will the URLs be considered legal as long as the current W3C HTML standard or some other "normal" legal standard doesn't interpret them as links (leaving people free to write software which does)?
Godel comes to mind for some reason. Hmm... (Note: If you haven't read _Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid_, please buy / rent / borrow / steal a copy if you don't have one, and read it RIGHT NOW!)
Anyway, that's enough food for thought for one message. =)
Just my $0.02 [a conservative estimate given the amount of time that I blathered on for...].
Huh? Apple is open about its hardware? Ok, then develop and market a Mac clone box and call me back in the case that Apple doesn't file a suit against you within a month. =)
A tesing ground that hasn't been available up until now is being created by new anonymity and encryption technologies. Legislative bodies implementing a policy like the one above, where some intermediary is guilty if the end-user isn't or can't be found, make it quite clear that they aren't interested in actually punishing he/she who was responsible for the injustice, but are only looking for a political/media "fall guy" for it. It's important to realize that, if you value freedom of speech (including the freedom to speak anonymously), holding the middleman responsible only breaks away this freedom over time.
Your position in this area seems logical. However, there is a similar argument associated with the ability to pay that is often lumped together with the one you address and is not addressed directly. Here it is.
Take some album we'll call X.
Suppose I don't have enough money to buy X and I will never have enough money to buy X. If I decide to copy my friend's X, it would be incorrect to say that the industry had incurred a loss due to this, because I would not have been able to buy X in either case.
This leads us to a similar scenario: Suppose I do have enough money to buy X, but I do not buy it. Instead, I copy my friend's X. While some would claim that the industry had incurred a loss due to piracy, i.e. that the industry did not recieve the right amount of money from me because I pirated X, it is more correct to say that the industry lost the money when I chose not to buy X.
Clearly, one has the right to choose to buy or not buy X. Why should the fact that I also choose to pirate X affect this right?
Now, I don't mean to say that piracy doesn't break rights protected by copyright law; those rights rest on the doctrines that a) people should be fairly rewarded for the use of their work and b) people should have a certain amount of control over what happens to works they create.
However, it is important to consider these points when assessing damages for copyright violations. Pirates must make amends in the following two ways: they must pay a fee of a fair amount to the artist for the use of their work if they break a), and they must pay fair compensation for violating the author's wishes if they break b). Note that neither of these items necessarily have anything to do with what someone would normally pay for X in a store.
""Its like having a huge warez site, with a message at the front saying "You can only download these backups if you own the original software." Why does everyone suddenly change their stance when it becomes music rather than software?""
Why are attitudes different? You must run the beam-it software to submit samples for hashing to prove that you posess the CD before you can play tracks from it. If you had to submit similar samples for verification through a digest/hash mechanism to a warez "backup" website, the morality and legality would be similarly unclear.
Why shouldn't I be able to listen to their mp3 of the CD track when I can listen to an identical mp3 of an identical CD track legally? Does one of the identical mp3s cost the artist more? Obviously not.
"Mp3.com BLATENTLY ignored the copyrights on Mr. McCartney's works,"
If they wanted to blatently ignore the copyrights, why would they check that the user already possesses the album they want to listen to?
"You rob someone, you go to jail. Plain and simple. And don't give me the line about 'I download mp3s to see if I want to buy the album'. The same thing is said about software piracy, which is no less a crime. And it is still false. Do you think all the drunken college kids are going to pay for their 'Limp Bizkit' or 'Jay-Z' albums?"
Yes, but that's not at issue here. Your failure to bother even reading the article is obvious. What is at issue here is using other peoples copies of albums that you already own.
Man.... Will you people please stop seeding the discussion forums?
Well, no... Technically, the mp3s are created from the copies of the albums that mp3.com purchases. Uploading it to the listener who has demonstrated posession of the album is a grey area. But how is mp3.com encoding it from the copy they purchased in question?
+5 Cluebat of Enhanced Knowledge still too blunt?
on
Trying to Save Iridium
·
· Score: 1
You seem to like throwing around the word idiot... As I don't, I'll avoid returning the favour, no matter how appropriate it is. =)
"Its radio transmission so they can pick it up". How? Where? With what?
Even if the encyption is weak (which I'll admit is a possibility), unless the interlink bleed is really high or something, then the NSA would need an antenna in each footprint radius of the surface of the earth to pick up every signal. I assume that such a monitoring system, even if only for the parts on land, would be very difficult to assemble.
(8 kbps... sure, with 4 channels.) Ok, but who is going to pay thousands for hardware, and high service charges for data comms when most can get similar service for a lot less (e.g. a fraction for digital or analog cell, and an almost negligible amount for landline)? Granted, the intersection of the unserviced remote location and short text messaging markets is ideal, but it's also very small.
"They have DECADES of experience designing, launching and operating satelites for use by the amateur radio community (I've worked a couple of the OSCAR satellites, and the ham station on Mir)"... Yeah but nothing so complex and probably nothing so digital. =)
No offense, but, you obviously don't realize that signal strengths necessary for simple analog repeaters would be impractical under the circumstances (not to mention the complexity it would add to do circuit switching).
/me sharpens the +5 Cluebat of Enhanced Knowledge
on
Trying to Save Iridium
·
· Score: 1
[...]"involved (including Bill Gates) "[...]
Huh? Were you thinking of Teledesic? Iridium has nothing to do with Teledesic, except that Motorola is involved with both projects.
The annoying thing about the AHRA is that the RIAA likes to claim it gives consumers rights they would not otherwise have. But, because of the case law from the betamax case, it's pretty firmly established that a) manufacturers can't be charged with contributory infringement by producing a device that has one or more legitimate uses, and b) copying of content for "time-shifting" purposes is a fair use. And, as demonstrated in the eventually settled diamond rio case, courts seem inclined to feel similarly about "location-shifting". However, SCMS still prevents users from recording when it would not infringe, and the AHRA prevents manufacturers from producing devices which would otherwise be legal. This annoys me almost to death... =) As a non-US-citizen, I find it a little annoying that wierd US laws effectively enforce feature taboos on the world.
[It's just life, they say. =)]
To those who care about such things: Can the AHRA be considered a prior restraint on speech? e.g. Would banning or requiring licenses for all printing presses violate the first amendment to the US constitution?
Slashdot Mirror
It's annoying to have to make this comment all the time on DNS-related stories, but I feel it's worth it to keep this fresh in peoples' minds:
What authority does ICANN actually have? Sure, they run the defacto standard DNS network. But nothing significant is stopping anyone from creating an alternate DNS network (and thus, an alternate namespace, at least under the TLD level). Heck... AlterNic is the prime example of this. I feel that a DNS network that uses all of the existing TLDs, but with the addition of a .o domain (a previous post of mine for more info on my .o idea) or a (usenet-esque) .alt domain is definitely in order.
Hi. Sorry for the loud title, but it is necessary to get my point across.
If the owner of the domain was looking for a resale of it, as the P. Ethical T. A. press release indicates, then I don't see what was wrong with the decision. If the owner didn't get the domain registration for commercial gain, then that's a different story. (But clearly, just the guy saying that PEthicalTA would probably make an offer to pay him to transfer the domain name registration doesn't mean that reselling it was his original intention or even that he would sell it if asked to.)
This whole thing is moot doctrinally, though. I don't really how you can violate someone else's trademark by using an acronym of your own name.
The contents of the website are irrelevant to the decision. After all, it's the domain registration that has been supposedly made in violation of trademark laws, not the website attached to it. The case isn't about any web pages that may exist.
The "must transfer" provision that keeps popping up in these cases just blows my mind. A domain name registration isn't a good, it's a service. Cancelling the registration should be sufficient to comply with trademark law.
Of course, these strange US Internet-related laws popping up are usually inconsistent with current and traditional practices, not to mention existing legal doctrine, are usually full of a) (un)intended side effects that are never discussed by legislators or the general public, and b) loopholes big enough to drive a planet through. =) The large body of Internet case law that seems to have appeared out of a doctinal void, pretty much at random, doesn't help either though. e.g.: Talking of someone providing a service like DNS as if individual domain names are "property", from a legal point of view, is a little bit f***ed up, if you ask me...
My usual example of the last point is the following:
Suppose I ask some guy on the street where the nearest McDonalds is, and he says "Well, there's a fast food place over there", and directs me to a Burger King. Suppose that he did that because Burger King is paying him to do that to everyone who asks for directions to McDonalds, does that mean McDonalds can sue Burger King for trademark dilution? I don't see why it would be illegal, unless Burger King (fraudulently) is claiming that they are McDonalds.
(If I had, at some point early in my past, lived in the US, I would have left long ago for saner pastures...
I especially like countries with an "existing laws" + "hands-off" approach to the Internet. )
Perhaps it's because the US has signed (and even spearheaded) so many international intellectual property agreements? Big duh there, guy.
See the title.
Read the title.
I propose that (an interested segment of) the oss movement cook up a new top level domain. I don't really care if it must be operated unilaterally... It's relatively easy to graft support for a new one onto the typical configurations of nameservers on various platforms.
.o, to make it easier for those who want to set up .o as a default search domain. (But suggest that the .o be left on in all site references -- html links, etc. -- for compatibility).
.o zone listing, to save the non-profit groups running the .o zone money. This could be taken to extremes by not having .o nameservers at all, just serving the .o zone list from a central ftp server.
Yes, other indie TLD (top level domain) projects have been suggested, and some are currently underway (e.g. alternic, the grassroots TLD selector thingie.) But the specifics of my proposal are a bit different:
- A single open TLD be supported. I tend toward a simple ".o" because it's short, and not already used for any TLDs.
- The idea is that "registrars" would use the second level domains. (e.g. registrar Joe Schmoe Systems, Inc gets *.jss.o). Registrars can choose whatever they want for their second level domain. Though, I realise that this would quickly degenerate into wierdness, the openness is worth a lot of wierd names (consider the alt.* usenet tree). You might lessen this by imposing maximums and/or minimums on the number of letters in the registrar part of the domain name (or perhaps even a consistent number of letters, say four.)
- Avoid using existing TLDs as second level domains in
- Encourage those setting up ".o" on general-purpose nameservers to cache the whole
- Obviously, registrars would have to run nameservers for their own domains.
- No limitations should be imposed on the commercial reselling of 3rd+ level names.
- Registrar names are assigned on a fcfs basis. (To make it more interesting, you might want to force quarreling parties to come to a name-sharing agreement, under penalty of total domain revocation... But I wouldn't recommend this.)
- To avoid spurrious(sp?) litigation (and even legislation), you might want to set up shop in a trademark free zone.
(Here's my problem with even having to consider doing this: If I ask some person I run into on the street to point me toward the nearest McDonalds, and instead they point me towards a Burger King because Burger King is paying them to do that, can McDonalds sue him for diluting or otherwise misusing their trademark? No? But what if the street is the Internet, the person is a DNS server, and the bricks-and-mortar fast food restaurants are fast food restaurant web sites? Well? =) )
Sure, it's not the most practical idea. But it would at least be a cool experiment.
CTV produces more Canadian content? I didn't think that was the case, considering the amount of syndicated import stuff they carry. But what do I know? =)
What broadcast monopoly are you talking about? Obviously it isn't CBC (which is still a crown corporation, and which definitely isn't a monopoly unless you live in the middle of nowhere) or the CRTC (regulates spectrum usage and ostensibly my culture, but isn't a company). What does that leave?
GIMP is no Photoshop? What does Photoshop do that GIMP doesn't (besides devour cash)?
Who is liable according to US law when a machine "commits" a crime? I don't know this, and it would be interesting (and useful!) to know. =)
I'd like to think that liability is based at least remotely on responsibility... But, some interesting issues come up when assigning responsibility for supposed illegal links and the "unauthorized derivative works created through framing", a case which is very similar.
I'll examine the frameset problem a bit further first (there are more comments that are specific to the linking problem below). Your PC, created by company A with hardware designed and manufactured by companies B, C, D, and E, is running instructions of a web browser made by company F, which is acquiring a frameset-containing-webpage written by person G from a server owned by H through networks owned by I, J, and K, all at your direction. The browser then assembles all the relevant data, passes it through to the display architecture of an operating system designed by L and distributed by M, to a monitor built by company N. I could add much more detail here, but this should suffice to demonstrate that there are a lot of people and objects involved.
Now, by general consensus, it is equally correct to speak at any level of abstraction when describing an event. That it, it is equally true to say, when picking up a penny with my hand, that "I am picking up the penny", or "My hand is picking up the penny", or "The force of friction produced on the penny by the atoms of my hand is picking up the penny".
So, in the case of the framing problem, the creator of the web page is producing the derivative work, your web browser is producing the derivative work, your computer is producing the derivative work, your monitor is producing the derivative work, you are producing the derivative work, etc. Who is responsible? All of the above? Some of the above? None of the above? Those on the highest level of abstraction? Those on the lowest? I believe that the assignment of responsibility in such cases is somewhat arbitrary.
So while the issue of who is responsible for creating a link is similarly hard to deal with, there is another issue that's more specific to unethical linking: If you ask those complaining about the links what part of the source code they are against, they'll probably tell you that it's not specifically the A tag or the URL, but both together in the order that they are in. So if you remove the A tag, for example, they will stop complaining, because the link that was formerly present is no longer present when the page is displayed in a normal web browser. That is to say, in the normal interpretation of the HTML code, a link is no longer present.
However, suppose someone writes a browser that automatically interprets text fragments starting with "http://" as URLs and presents them as hyperlinks. In other words, in this new interpretation of HTML code, any URL is a link. Does that mean that the forbidden URLs are now illegal links and need to be removed (and by the same token, if I write a browser which presents all occurences of the letter E as some forbidden link, the letter E be banned from the web)? Or, will the URLs be considered legal as long as the current W3C HTML standard or some other "normal" legal standard doesn't interpret them as links (leaving people free to write software which does)?
Godel comes to mind for some reason. Hmm... (Note: If you haven't read _Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid_, please buy / rent / borrow / steal a copy if you don't have one, and read it RIGHT NOW!)
Anyway, that's enough food for thought for one message. =)
Just my $0.02 [a conservative estimate given the amount of time that I blathered on for...].
-rak
Huh? Apple is open about its hardware? Ok, then develop and market a Mac clone box and call me back in the case that Apple doesn't file a suit against you within a month. =)
A tesing ground that hasn't been available up until now is being created by new anonymity and encryption technologies. Legislative bodies implementing a policy like the one above, where some intermediary is guilty if the end-user isn't or can't be found, make it quite clear that they aren't interested in actually punishing he/she who was responsible for the injustice, but are only looking for a political/media "fall guy" for it. It's important to realize that, if you value freedom of speech (including the freedom to speak anonymously), holding the middleman responsible only breaks away this freedom over time.
Arrgh! That isn't at issue here. Read the @%!#ing article before posting!
Regarding IV:
Your position in this area seems logical. However, there is a similar argument associated with the ability to pay that is often lumped together with the one you address and is not addressed directly. Here it is.
Take some album we'll call X.
Suppose I don't have enough money to buy X and I will never have enough money to buy X. If I decide to copy my friend's X, it would be incorrect to say that the industry had incurred a loss due to this, because I would not have been able to buy X in either case.
This leads us to a similar scenario: Suppose I do have enough money to buy X, but I do not buy it. Instead, I copy my friend's X. While some would claim that the industry had incurred a loss due to piracy, i.e. that the industry did not recieve the right amount of money from me because I pirated X, it is more correct to say that the industry lost the money when I chose not to buy X.
Clearly, one has the right to choose to buy or not buy X. Why should the fact that I also choose to pirate X affect this right?
Now, I don't mean to say that piracy doesn't break rights protected by copyright law; those rights rest on the doctrines that a) people should be fairly rewarded for the use of their work and b) people should have a certain amount of control over what happens to works they create.
However, it is important to consider these points when assessing damages for copyright violations. Pirates must make amends in the following two ways: they must pay a fee of a fair amount to the artist for the use of their work if they break a), and they must pay fair compensation for violating the author's wishes if they break b). Note that neither of these items necessarily have anything to do with what someone would normally pay for X in a store.
""Its like having a huge warez site, with a message at the front saying "You can only download these backups if you own the original software." Why does everyone suddenly change their stance when it becomes music rather than software?""
Why are attitudes different? You must run the beam-it software to submit samples for hashing to prove that you posess the CD before you can play tracks from it. If you had to submit similar samples for verification through a digest/hash mechanism to a warez "backup" website, the morality and legality would be similarly unclear.
Huh? Of course. That's how they get them. The beam-it program doesn't upload the music.
No, but that's not at issue here.
Why shouldn't I be able to listen to their mp3 of the CD track when I can listen to an identical mp3 of an identical CD track legally? Does one of the identical mp3s cost the artist more? Obviously not.
"Mp3.com BLATENTLY ignored the copyrights on Mr. McCartney's works,"
If they wanted to blatently ignore the copyrights, why would they check that the user already possesses the album they want to listen to?
"You rob someone, you go to jail. Plain and simple. And don't give me the line about 'I download mp3s to see if I want to buy the album'. The same thing is said about software piracy, which is no less a crime. And it is still false. Do you think all the drunken college kids are going to pay for their 'Limp Bizkit' or 'Jay-Z' albums?"
Yes, but that's not at issue here. Your failure to bother even reading the article is obvious. What is at issue here is using other peoples copies of albums that you already own.
Man.... Will you people please stop seeding the discussion forums?
Well, no... Technically, the mp3s are created from the copies of the albums that mp3.com purchases. Uploading it to the listener who has demonstrated posession of the album is a grey area. But how is mp3.com encoding it from the copy they purchased in question?
You seem to like throwing around the word idiot... As I don't, I'll avoid returning the favour, no matter how appropriate it is. =)
"Its radio transmission so they can pick it up". How? Where? With what?
Even if the encyption is weak (which I'll admit is a possibility), unless the interlink bleed is really high or something, then the NSA would need an antenna in each footprint radius of the surface of the earth to pick up every signal. I assume that such a monitoring system, even if only for the parts on land, would be very difficult to assemble.
(8 kbps... sure, with 4 channels.) Ok, but who is going to pay thousands for hardware, and high service charges for data comms when most can get similar service for a lot less (e.g. a fraction for digital or analog cell, and an almost negligible amount for landline)? Granted, the intersection of the unserviced remote location and short text messaging markets is ideal, but it's also very small.
"They have DECADES of experience designing, launching and operating satelites for use by the amateur radio community (I've worked a couple of the OSCAR satellites, and the ham station on Mir)" ... Yeah but nothing so complex and probably nothing so digital. =)
No offense, but, you obviously don't realize that signal strengths necessary for simple analog repeaters would be impractical under the circumstances (not to mention the complexity it would add to do circuit switching).
[...]"involved (including Bill Gates) "[...]
Huh? Were you thinking of Teledesic? Iridium has nothing to do with Teledesic, except that Motorola is involved with both projects.
Discl. Abbrs.: IANL, IMHO
The annoying thing about the AHRA is that the RIAA likes to claim it gives consumers rights they would not otherwise have. But, because of the case law from the betamax case, it's pretty firmly established that a) manufacturers can't be charged with contributory infringement by producing a device that has one or more legitimate uses, and b) copying of content for "time-shifting" purposes is a fair use. And, as demonstrated in the eventually settled diamond rio case, courts seem inclined to feel similarly about "location-shifting". However, SCMS still prevents users from recording when it would not infringe, and the AHRA prevents manufacturers from producing devices which would otherwise be legal. This annoys me almost to death... =) As a non-US-citizen, I find it a little annoying that wierd US laws effectively enforce feature taboos on the world.
[It's just life, they say. =)]
To those who care about such things: Can the AHRA be considered a prior restraint on speech? e.g. Would banning or requiring licenses for all printing presses violate the first amendment to the US constitution?