Yes, you're right, section F4 does say that section 108 does not affect fair use. However, I have already shown that the fair use clauses in 107 do not cover making a copy of a copyrighted work available for download over the Internet.
I never said that you could. You on the other hand said that I can't make any sort of copy for personal use.
Um, I thought that was why we were quoting US Code in the first place. You (I assume) are not a library or educational facility, and therefore cannot copy any of your copyrighted works.
Personal copies fall under 106. The purpose is non-commercial and there is no effect on the market.
Besides, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 further protects my rights to make a backup copy.
it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program
Furthermore, Section 117 makes it legal for me to transfer an exact copy of the software so long as I transfer all rights. So, wouldn't it be legal for me to transfer a copy of a game to someone so long as I got rid of my original copy?
If my video game breaks, I would try to fix it (blowing on the contacts, cleaning the cart, etc). If it didn't work, I would throw the cartridge away and either get a new game (Super Mario Sunshine, a terrific game) or try to find another LEGAL copy of the original.
So remind me again why it's not legal for you to download the contents of the cartridge onto your own personal computer so that you could continue to enjoy it?
I don't understand your position here. You keep saying that it's illegal for you to make a backup copy for personal use. Why is that?
So you're saying that it should be legal for you to steal a copy of Super Mario Brothers to make up for your loss? You're honestly defending the idea that "I bought product X 20 years ago, and even though it wasn't supposed to last 20 years, I should be entitled to have product X now?"
So what you're saying is that it would be legal for automobile manufacturers to require you to only install their parts. A few years down the road, your car breaks down and the manufacturer is no longer supporting that model. So rather than get it fixed, you'll just let it go to the junkyard?
Exactly where in there does it say "You're allowed to make a copy and make it available for all the world to copy at their leisure"?
It doesn't. Copyright law is intentionally vague on what constitutes fair use, and what does not. The four factors of what does constitute fair use are:
- The purpose and character of the use. - The nature of the copyrighted work. - The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. - The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
All four of these factors have to be considered, and depending on the courtroom, some are considered more highly than others.
Take for instance if I am preparing a report for school, and I quote from sources. This would fall under the fair use provisions of copyright law, and I could publish this report on the Internet including the quotes. However, this gets tricky. Commercial publishers restrict the amount of text that authors quote from in order to steer clear of factor 3.
In the current case that we are referring to, these guys are likely going to have a hard time with 3 out of the 4 factors. The fourth is likely the easiest for them to represent because all they have to do is make certain that they aren't allowing games that are still being marketed.
I eagerly await your reply to this explicit statement that digital copies made available to the public are illegal.
Section 107 trumps Section 108 because of paragraph F4.
Besides, you still can't tell me why it's illegal for me to make a personal copy of something. Or why it's illegal for me to share a game with my friends. Those are, afterall, the original arguments that you made that I objected to.
You people have to be kidding. "Sounds reasonable"? "Borrow" ROMS? "I wonder if this will allow an end-run around some of the questionable legality of file-sharing"? Here's a hint - NO!!!
So what you are saying is that it's illegal for me to loan my game cartridge to my friend for a couple of weeks. That the only way I can buy something and loan it to my buddy is to have him come over and play it on my game console?
Dispite what you may read on the Internet, it is not legal to make a "backup" copy of any modern media.
Care to tell me why I can't? Maybe you could cite some legal statute? Maybe a court case that backs up your point?
BTW, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of the U.S. Code allows for backup copies of media if they are non-commercial in nature and don't affect the marketability of the copyrighted work.
IANAL, but it seems to me that this backs up both sides arguments. First of all, it's technically a commercial use since there's a company behind this. Second, it affects the marketability of the games. However, on the other hand, it doesn't affect the games that are currently no longer on the market. Seems to me there really should be some place that I could go buy/play games that I can't get any other way.
This is one of the F***ed up arguments made by IP apologists. Once someone makes something and sells it, that it should be that persons property forever. That was never the intention of copyright, nor should it be. Nowadays we have great novels that are out of print, and nobody is allowed to print new copies of them because the current copyright holders won't let them. The same goes for video games and movies. If you're going to let this stuff just sit in a vault somewhere tell your copyright expires, then you should lose the copyright to it. It's far too valuable to waste like that.
for 1, yes it is. simply because they had to "cheat" to do it. quite frankly, if it was reverse engineered, its bound to have flaws. flaws are the primary concern for actual AOL users in that they could be comprimised.
1. Reverse Engineering is not cheating. Quite frankly, there are likely flaws in the AIM client when they implemented their own protocol. I don't understand what compromise AOL users fear in this regard. Do they fear that the Trillian client is going to send their username and password in email to some cracker somewhere?
for 2, they aren't part of the issue so move on.
2. Wrong. They are part of the issue. They tried to interoperate years ago and were filtered out.
for 3, "They do not..." who is they? clear this up. i can't respond to this sort of ambiguity.
3. "They" = "AOL". As in "*AOL* does not have to have their users passwords floating around for them to develop some sort of gateway so that their users can chat with MSN, YIM, ICQ, or Jabber users."
for 4, we are talking about chat here. if you have some serious fetish with buddy icons, i'm sorry. but they are a waste of animation most of the time.
4. Actually, TOC doesn't allow any of the RVOUS actions. Buddy icons and FILE TRANSFER are just the first two that come to mind. There are more out there. Maybe you should look them up. Plenty of people have reversed engineered Oscar and published the specs out there.
for 5, yes it has limitations, but i'm willing to bet that if you really wanted to put in the effort you could create your own version of direct connect and what not yourself.
5. My '5' had to do with usernames and passwords. I don't know what crack you're smoking, but you really should share.
BTW, while we're on the subject, direct connect is an Oscar RVOUS action. To develop your own TOC version would make your client unable to connect with other AIM clients.
for 6, this is remarkably unfounded. thats cute that you can come up with this remark on your own, but my bet lies on that if you obey the lisence its released under, you'll be fine.
6. Remarkably unfounded? You are smoking crack! Look at the list of services that they've already denied access to their servers.
As far as the license is concerned. On August 13 1999, PCWeek published a story talking about how AOL had pulled the TOC protocol and libraries, and was stonewalling the open source community. At that time Yahoo's instant messenger stopped working, they were using TOC.
"We did not intend to allow anyone to take this code to run instant messaging services over AOL's network," said Tricia Primrose, an AOL spokeswoman in Dulles, Va.
this can actually be summed up rather simply. if you need all the features, use aim or aol. quit crying because you want to use their toys for free.
It's a shame that I want AOL to get on the ball and play fair with everybody else, isn't it? That I should expect Jabber users to be able to IM AOL users, and MSN users to be able to IM YIM users. A shame...
why would they want their customers' (AOL in particular) passwords and usernames floating around and being messed with by (mostly) second rate software? Its not in their best interests. They gain nothing by having programs like trillian and gaim use their protocols. If you are peeved by not being able to chat with your buddies, write your own chat program using AOLs OPEN SOURCE protocol, TOC!!! They have provided the tools. Now back off.
1. Trillian is not second rate. 2. YIM and MSN are not second rate either. 3. They do not have to have their users passwords floating around for them to develop some sort of gateway so that their users can chat with MSN, YIM, ICQ, or Jabber users. 4. There are major limitations to TOC. That's why everybody gravitates towards using OSCAR. You can't write a client in TOC and take advantage of buddy icons, file transfer, and several other RVOUS actions. 5. TOC still requires a username and password, so that further invalidates your username and password argument. 6. I highly doubt that if someone wrote a popular IM client that used the TOC protocol to connect to AOL's servers, that AOL still wouldn't do something to block it.
I remember a documentary from the gulf war that showed a huge spool of explosive cable shot from the back of the truck. When the cable exploded, it took the mines with it. Other than having to carry the cable with you, I wonder why that isn't sufficient.
It's called a MICLIC, stands for Mine Clearing Line Charge. 100 meters of C-4. One problem with it is that it only clears a lane 8 meters wide and 100 meters long. Another problem is that the mines that don't explode just fly off for someone else to detonate later.
This stupid laser is an idiotic idea meant to fatten some stupid colonel's budget. A much cheaper solution has been designed by Dr. Bill Wattenburg and can be seen by going to this page.
R&D-wise you are correct, it's cheaper. However, in use I think a laser would be less expensive resources wise because it would divert two or three soldiers, and a humvee. Having a helicopter fly back and forth over a minefield on the other hand would require a flight crew, alot more fuel, and probably people on the ground directing the operation.
c) is presumably 1,000,000 less efficient than a tank mounted flail
With tank mounted plows, rakes, and rollers each can only hit mines so many times before they are considered inneffective. How many mines can a flail destroy before it's inneffective? I'm certain that a laser fired from a distance is much more effective in this regard.
The MICLIC does just that. Fires a rocket that tows behind it 350 feet of C-4 at 5 lbs per foot (line charge). The line charge goes off, and whatever doesn't detonate gets thrown aside.
Even better, the Mongoose, which fires a rocket that tows behind it a net of explosives.
From what I know, most anti-personel (and I'd assume, anti-vehicle mines) are burried a few inches underground for concealment. If at all, the only part that is above the ground is the pressure plate that activates the mine. Perhaps adding focused sound waves or other suitable technology can distrupt the ground nearby enough to allow the laser to reach the entire mine. This device is therefor only suitable for mines strewn about by helicopters or low-flying aircraft.
But that's the type of minefield that the U.S. is concerned about quickly defeating. An enemy force can use a surface-laid expedient minefield in order to protect their flank during a retreat. U.S. forces train to use the Volcano Mine Dispenser in such a situation. While the MICLIC can quickly clear a lane through such a minefield, a system like this laser makes it possible to quickly and safely clear the majority of the minefield without putting soldiers at risk. There are other devices in development like Mine Flails for quickly clearing buried minefields. But even these take a while to clear a large area, and usually require dismounted soldiers with metal detectors sweeping the area locating the mines.
"If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? This point is of considerable concern to software companies that value their secrets, design and architecture strategies. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange is benefiting equally, but without a means to properly make this evaluation, this position at best is over-assuming."
If you don't want your app to be GPL, and you've already spent 5000 hours coding it, might as well spend another 100 writing that piece instead of cutting and pasting.
You can't use some prior-restraint against a company that might become a monopoly because it would be "unfair" to a convicted abusive monopolist. At best that's being an apologist for abusive monopolies.
No. It's leveling the playing field. You give everybody the ability to produce interoperable products, and let the market sort out who produces the most valuable products.
Since MS never commited a crime by not publishing the specs for it's file formats, it doesn't make much sense to me why they should be punished for it. However, I truly believe that they should publish their file specs, and I think that almost every piece of commercial software sold on the open market should have it's file specs published. Would make my job a heck of a lot easier.
Companies with virtual monopolies, like Microsoft, should be required to place their file formats in the public domain (make them public and free). Otherwise, monopolies can use file formats to compete unfairly.
I really believe that if you are going to impose a restriction like this against MS then you should impose it industry-wide. Otherwise, future virtual monopolies will use file formats to compete unfairly.
The issue of better identification of people comes up again and again, but I always have to wonder - what criminal acts are these guys planning that they protest so loudly to being able to be identified by the authorities?
I dunno about you, but if I was planning on committing a crime and I knew that my photo/fingerprints were on record, which they are, then I would just wear a mask and gloves to get past those obstacles.
While I understand your point of view, I don't think that the question should be "what criminal acts are these guys planning that they protest so loudly to being able to be identified by the authorities?" I think the question should be, "what crime did I commit to warrant being treated like a criminal?"
However, for those that do enjoy the occasional snatch & grab, if the police really had everyones fingerprints and pictures in a big database, don't you think that would reduce a lot of crime? And I don't mean just because they'd catch a lot more people - it would serve as an effective deterrent to crime, which seems to be in short supply nowadays.
It would also reduce alot of crime if the government implanted chips in our skin that relayed our exact location to a police computer at all times. That way they'd have no problem pinpointing who committed the crime. For some odd reason I believe that's a bad idea too.
It'd be great if information could always be free, but unless we restrict dangerous forms of it, we are simply giving up our safe way of life. Although one might *want* to give arbitrary individuals access to all information, you're essentially allowing arbitrary individuals the power to do anything they desire. This system will eventually lead to catastrophe, because you cannot make the entire world's population obey an honor system.
The biggest problem with this line of thinking is that without the research being done on this stuff, there's no way to develop defenses. Someone is going to develop it eventually, and without the necessary defenses then everybody will be vulnerable. It's like you said, "because you cannot make the entire world's population obey an honor system."
My drinking habits...are my own. Any bar that is scanning my ID and keeping a record or pulling other data is not getting my business. Then again, when I buy beer at the grocery store and put it on my debit card, it is doing the same thing.
Not in the state of Utah. Out here bars are 'Private Clubs for Members'. They have to maintain a membership roster, and keep records of who visits the club. You have to provide an ID to get in, not to prove you're of age, but for record-keeping.
But applying this law to proxies in another state is regulation of interstate trade, a power specifically reserved for the federal government. This part (if it is in the law) would probably be declared unconstitutional on appeal.
I would suspect that it would fall under the same category as anti-spam laws. IANAL, but if they were attempting to regulate every packet that travels through the state or all companies that have packets that travel through the state, then that would probably be ruled an unconstitutional regulation of interstate trade. In this case they are trying to regulate business within their own state. Just because some of the businesses are located outside of the state does not mean that they are not exempt. Same as the anti-spam laws that have been passed in several states.
then again.. would it be illegal to encrypt your data you send out? or would you have to give up the encription to whom ever gets to monitor your data going in/out of penn?
My interpretation of what I read in the article says that you wouldn't be committing a crime by encrypting your packets and sending them out, but that whoever was allowing you to use encryption to somehow get around the filters and stuff that your ISP has set up would be the entity breaking this law.
It all seems overly redundant. I assume that Pennsylvania already has a law that makes child porn illegal. It seems to me that they are just trying to make it illegal to provide someone with a service that allows them to access child porn.
Slashdot Mirror
So this is the real reason HP didn't want Bruce Perens to demonstrate against the DMCA?
Yes, you're right, section F4 does say that section 108 does not affect fair use. However, I have already shown that the fair use clauses in 107 do not cover making a copy of a copyrighted work available for download over the Internet.
I never said that you could. You on the other hand said that I can't make any sort of copy for personal use.
Um, I thought that was why we were quoting US Code in the first place. You (I assume) are not a library or educational facility, and therefore cannot copy any of your copyrighted works.
Personal copies fall under 106. The purpose is non-commercial and there is no effect on the market.
Besides, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 further protects my rights to make a backup copy.
it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program
Furthermore, Section 117 makes it legal for me to transfer an exact copy of the software so long as I transfer all rights. So, wouldn't it be legal for me to transfer a copy of a game to someone so long as I got rid of my original copy?
If my video game breaks, I would try to fix it (blowing on the contacts, cleaning the cart, etc). If it didn't work, I would throw the cartridge away and either get a new game (Super Mario Sunshine, a terrific game) or try to find another LEGAL copy of the original.
So remind me again why it's not legal for you to download the contents of the cartridge onto your own personal computer so that you could continue to enjoy it?
I don't understand your position here. You keep saying that it's illegal for you to make a backup copy for personal use. Why is that?
So you're saying that it should be legal for you to steal a copy of Super Mario Brothers to make up for your loss? You're honestly defending the idea that "I bought product X 20 years ago, and even though it wasn't supposed to last 20 years, I should be entitled to have product X now?"
So what you're saying is that it would be legal for automobile manufacturers to require you to only install their parts. A few years down the road, your car breaks down and the manufacturer is no longer supporting that model. So rather than get it fixed, you'll just let it go to the junkyard?
Exactly where in there does it say "You're allowed to make a copy and make it available for all the world to copy at their leisure"?
It doesn't. Copyright law is intentionally vague on what constitutes fair use, and what does not. The four factors of what does constitute fair use are:
- The purpose and character of the use.
- The nature of the copyrighted work.
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
- The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
All four of these factors have to be considered, and depending on the courtroom, some are considered more highly than others.
Take for instance if I am preparing a report for school, and I quote from sources. This would fall under the fair use provisions of copyright law, and I could publish this report on the Internet including the quotes. However, this gets tricky. Commercial publishers restrict the amount of text that authors quote from in order to steer clear of factor 3.
In the current case that we are referring to, these guys are likely going to have a hard time with 3 out of the 4 factors. The fourth is likely the easiest for them to represent because all they have to do is make certain that they aren't allowing games that are still being marketed.
I eagerly await your reply to this explicit statement that digital copies made available to the public are illegal.
Section 107 trumps Section 108 because of paragraph F4.
Besides, you still can't tell me why it's illegal for me to make a personal copy of something. Or why it's illegal for me to share a game with my friends. Those are, afterall, the original arguments that you made that I objected to.
You people have to be kidding. "Sounds reasonable"? "Borrow" ROMS? "I wonder if this will allow an end-run around some of the questionable legality of file-sharing"? Here's a hint - NO!!!
So what you are saying is that it's illegal for me to loan my game cartridge to my friend for a couple of weeks. That the only way I can buy something and loan it to my buddy is to have him come over and play it on my game console?
Dispite what you may read on the Internet, it is not legal to make a "backup" copy of any modern media.
Care to tell me why I can't? Maybe you could cite some legal statute? Maybe a court case that backs up your point?
BTW, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of the U.S. Code allows for backup copies of media if they are non-commercial in nature and don't affect the marketability of the copyrighted work.
IANAL, but it seems to me that this backs up both sides arguments. First of all, it's technically a commercial use since there's a company behind this. Second, it affects the marketability of the games. However, on the other hand, it doesn't affect the games that are currently no longer on the market. Seems to me there really should be some place that I could go buy/play games that I can't get any other way.
This is one of the F***ed up arguments made by IP apologists. Once someone makes something and sells it, that it should be that persons property forever. That was never the intention of copyright, nor should it be. Nowadays we have great novels that are out of print, and nobody is allowed to print new copies of them because the current copyright holders won't let them. The same goes for video games and movies. If you're going to let this stuff just sit in a vault somewhere tell your copyright expires, then you should lose the copyright to it. It's far too valuable to waste like that.
for 1, yes it is. simply because they had to "cheat" to do it. quite frankly, if it was reverse engineered, its bound to have flaws. flaws are the primary concern for actual AOL users in that they could be comprimised.
...
1. Reverse Engineering is not cheating. Quite frankly, there are likely flaws in the AIM client when they implemented their own protocol. I don't understand what compromise AOL users fear in this regard. Do they fear that the Trillian client is going to send their username and password in email to some cracker somewhere?
for 2, they aren't part of the issue so move on.
2. Wrong. They are part of the issue. They tried to interoperate years ago and were filtered out.
for 3, "They do not..." who is they? clear this up. i can't respond to this sort of ambiguity.
3. "They" = "AOL". As in "*AOL* does not have to have their users passwords floating around for them to develop some sort of gateway so that their users can chat with MSN, YIM, ICQ, or Jabber users."
for 4, we are talking about chat here. if you have some serious fetish with buddy icons, i'm sorry. but they are a waste of animation most of the time.
4. Actually, TOC doesn't allow any of the RVOUS actions. Buddy icons and FILE TRANSFER are just the first two that come to mind. There are more out there. Maybe you should look them up. Plenty of people have reversed engineered Oscar and published the specs out there.
for 5, yes it has limitations, but i'm willing to bet that if you really wanted to put in the effort you could create your own version of direct connect and what not yourself.
5. My '5' had to do with usernames and passwords. I don't know what crack you're smoking, but you really should share.
BTW, while we're on the subject, direct connect is an Oscar RVOUS action. To develop your own TOC version would make your client unable to connect with other AIM clients.
for 6, this is remarkably unfounded. thats cute that you can come up with this remark on your own, but my bet lies on that if you obey the lisence its released under, you'll be fine.
6. Remarkably unfounded? You are smoking crack! Look at the list of services that they've already denied access to their servers.
As far as the license is concerned. On August 13 1999, PCWeek published a story talking about how AOL had pulled the TOC protocol and libraries, and was stonewalling the open source community. At that time Yahoo's instant messenger stopped working, they were using TOC.
"We did not intend to allow anyone to take this code to run instant messaging services over AOL's network," said Tricia Primrose, an AOL spokeswoman in Dulles, Va.
this can actually be summed up rather simply. if you need all the features, use aim or aol. quit crying because you want to use their toys for free.
It's a shame that I want AOL to get on the ball and play fair with everybody else, isn't it? That I should expect Jabber users to be able to IM AOL users, and MSN users to be able to IM YIM users. A shame
why would they want their customers' (AOL in particular) passwords and usernames floating around and being messed with by (mostly) second rate software? Its not in their best interests. They gain nothing by having programs like trillian and gaim use their protocols. If you are peeved by not being able to chat with your buddies, write your own chat program using AOLs OPEN SOURCE protocol, TOC!!! They have provided the tools. Now back off.
1. Trillian is not second rate.
2. YIM and MSN are not second rate either.
3. They do not have to have their users passwords floating around for them to develop some sort of gateway so that their users can chat with MSN, YIM, ICQ, or Jabber users.
4. There are major limitations to TOC. That's why everybody gravitates towards using OSCAR. You can't write a client in TOC and take advantage of buddy icons, file transfer, and several other RVOUS actions.
5. TOC still requires a username and password, so that further invalidates your username and password argument.
6. I highly doubt that if someone wrote a popular IM client that used the TOC protocol to connect to AOL's servers, that AOL still wouldn't do something to block it.
I remember a documentary from the gulf war that showed a huge spool of explosive cable shot from the back of the truck. When the cable exploded, it took the mines with it. Other than having to carry the cable with you, I wonder why that isn't sufficient.
It's called a MICLIC, stands for Mine Clearing Line Charge. 100 meters of C-4. One problem with it is that it only clears a lane 8 meters wide and 100 meters long. Another problem is that the mines that don't explode just fly off for someone else to detonate later.
This stupid laser is an idiotic idea meant to fatten some stupid colonel's budget. A much cheaper solution has been designed by Dr. Bill Wattenburg and can be seen by going to this page.
R&D-wise you are correct, it's cheaper. However, in use I think a laser would be less expensive resources wise because it would divert two or three soldiers, and a humvee. Having a helicopter fly back and forth over a minefield on the other hand would require a flight crew, alot more fuel, and probably people on the ground directing the operation.
c) is presumably 1,000,000 less efficient than a tank mounted flail
With tank mounted plows, rakes, and rollers each can only hit mines so many times before they are considered inneffective. How many mines can a flail destroy before it's inneffective? I'm certain that a laser fired from a distance is much more effective in this regard.
Throw another bomb, it's a hell of a lot easier!
The MICLIC does just that. Fires a rocket that tows behind it 350 feet of C-4 at 5 lbs per foot (line charge). The line charge goes off, and whatever doesn't detonate gets thrown aside.
Even better, the Mongoose, which fires a rocket that tows behind it a net of explosives.
From what I know, most anti-personel (and I'd assume, anti-vehicle mines) are burried a few inches underground for concealment. If at all, the only part that is above the ground is the pressure plate that activates the mine. Perhaps adding focused sound waves or other suitable technology can distrupt the ground nearby enough to allow the laser to reach the entire mine. This device is therefor only suitable for mines strewn about by helicopters or low-flying aircraft.
But that's the type of minefield that the U.S. is concerned about quickly defeating. An enemy force can use a surface-laid expedient minefield in order to protect their flank during a retreat. U.S. forces train to use the Volcano Mine Dispenser in such a situation. While the MICLIC can quickly clear a lane through such a minefield, a system like this laser makes it possible to quickly and safely clear the majority of the minefield without putting soldiers at risk. There are other devices in development like Mine Flails for quickly clearing buried minefields. But even these take a while to clear a large area, and usually require dismounted soldiers with metal detectors sweeping the area locating the mines.
just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. what if they budgeted for exactly 5000 hours? not 5001, not 5002, but 5000.
...
- On Time
- Under Budget
- Bug-Free
If you're lucky you get one
"If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? This point is of considerable concern to software companies that value their secrets, design and architecture strategies. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange is benefiting equally, but without a means to properly make this evaluation, this position at best is over-assuming."
If you don't want your app to be GPL, and you've already spent 5000 hours coding it, might as well spend another 100 writing that piece instead of cutting and pasting.
You can't use some prior-restraint against a company that might become a monopoly because it would be "unfair" to a convicted abusive monopolist. At best that's being an apologist for abusive monopolies.
No. It's leveling the playing field. You give everybody the ability to produce interoperable products, and let the market sort out who produces the most valuable products.
Since MS never commited a crime by not publishing the specs for it's file formats, it doesn't make much sense to me why they should be punished for it. However, I truly believe that they should publish their file specs, and I think that almost every piece of commercial software sold on the open market should have it's file specs published. Would make my job a heck of a lot easier.
Companies with virtual monopolies, like Microsoft, should be required to place their file formats in the public domain (make them public and free). Otherwise, monopolies can use file formats to compete unfairly.
I really believe that if you are going to impose a restriction like this against MS then you should impose it industry-wide. Otherwise, future virtual monopolies will use file formats to compete unfairly.
Ahem....and one non-math, non-MIT degree...
...
I kinda figured
I've got four college degrees, one in math and two from MIT, and bottom line - this sucker's gonna take a while to digest.
1 + 2 = 4?
You mean, they can't just issue a ROLLBACK?
It's too late. They already commited.
The issue of better identification of people comes up again and again, but I always have to wonder - what criminal acts are these guys planning that they protest so loudly to being able to be identified by the authorities?
I dunno about you, but if I was planning on committing a crime and I knew that my photo/fingerprints were on record, which they are, then I would just wear a mask and gloves to get past those obstacles.
While I understand your point of view, I don't think that the question should be "what criminal acts are these guys planning that they protest so loudly to being able to be identified by the authorities?" I think the question should be, "what crime did I commit to warrant being treated like a criminal?"
However, for those that do enjoy the occasional snatch & grab, if the police really had everyones fingerprints and pictures in a big database, don't you think that would reduce a lot of crime? And I don't mean just because they'd catch a lot more people - it would serve as an effective deterrent to crime, which seems to be in short supply nowadays.
It would also reduce alot of crime if the government implanted chips in our skin that relayed our exact location to a police computer at all times. That way they'd have no problem pinpointing who committed the crime. For some odd reason I believe that's a bad idea too.
It'd be great if information could always be free, but unless we restrict dangerous forms of it, we are simply giving up our safe way of life. Although one might *want* to give arbitrary individuals access to all information, you're essentially allowing arbitrary individuals the power to do anything they desire. This system will eventually lead to catastrophe, because you cannot make the entire world's population obey an honor system.
The biggest problem with this line of thinking is that without the research being done on this stuff, there's no way to develop defenses. Someone is going to develop it eventually, and without the necessary defenses then everybody will be vulnerable. It's like you said, "because you cannot make the entire world's population obey an honor system."
My drinking habits...are my own. Any bar that is scanning my ID and keeping a record or pulling other data is not getting my business. Then again, when I buy beer at the grocery store and put it on my debit card, it is doing the same thing.
Not in the state of Utah. Out here bars are 'Private Clubs for Members'. They have to maintain a membership roster, and keep records of who visits the club. You have to provide an ID to get in, not to prove you're of age, but for record-keeping.
But applying this law to proxies in another state is regulation of interstate trade, a power specifically reserved for the federal government. This part (if it is in the law) would probably be declared unconstitutional on appeal.
I would suspect that it would fall under the same category as anti-spam laws. IANAL, but if they were attempting to regulate every packet that travels through the state or all companies that have packets that travel through the state, then that would probably be ruled an unconstitutional regulation of interstate trade. In this case they are trying to regulate business within their own state. Just because some of the businesses are located outside of the state does not mean that they are not exempt. Same as the anti-spam laws that have been passed in several states.
then again.. would it be illegal to encrypt your data you send out? or would you have to give up the encription to whom ever gets to monitor your data going in/out of penn?
My interpretation of what I read in the article says that you wouldn't be committing a crime by encrypting your packets and sending them out, but that whoever was allowing you to use encryption to somehow get around the filters and stuff that your ISP has set up would be the entity breaking this law.
It all seems overly redundant. I assume that Pennsylvania already has a law that makes child porn illegal. It seems to me that they are just trying to make it illegal to provide someone with a service that allows them to access child porn.