The price for enrolling a college group health plan for a year covering you, your spouse and your kids is probably equivalent in price to one month of a catastrophic high-deductible plan for you and your family.
Linux with your own BIN, PHP5, MySQL5, lots of bundled subdomains, high (or no) bandwidth caps, lots of email accounts and aliases, 24/7 support, guarantied 99.99% uptime, nightly backups, etc.
Yeah, yeah. Obvious, right?...
What most people forget to look for are a security certificate so you can securely check your web-mail and SFTP/SSH in to your site; secure email and IMAP....
Oh, and they should have a status page showing ongoing maintenance. That saves a lot of headaches.
I prefer making handwritten notes because I can write things out faster than I type; I add margin-notes, questions/issues to follow-up on and I make diagrams; I doodle during lulls; and most important: transcribing the notes to my computer gives me a second chance to go over it, thus increasing my absorption of the material by repetition.
Wait, so if I patent topological sorting, I also have a monopoly on the use of sorted lists?
Possibly.
Adobe got a patent on code for generating tabbed and docking windows and sued Macromedia for using completely different code that would not have in any way infringed copyright, but nevertheless produced similar tabbed and docking windows in a GUI.
I think you're deliberately misunderstanding a patented product produced by genetic manipulation so that you can introduce a completely unrelated topic.
Many of the farmers sued by Monsanto have never used Monsanto seed and never had Monsanto seeds end up in their fields.
Often, GE pollen crosses a few fields and contaminates neighboring farms. Monsanto's agents do (sometimes illegal) spot-checks and discover that a farmer's crop contains genes from the Monsanto seeds and then they sue to confiscate the entire crop or to force the farmer to incinerate his fields as an infringer.
It is not the presence of the original product (the Monsanto seeds) that they sue over. It is the presence of sequences of genes that they own the rights to. If the only thing that they had rights to were the original seeds then they would have no standing to sue over hybrids from pollen from their seeds.
The situation is getting worse as time goes on and courts get involved more often. When they sue, they try to cover as many broad arguments as they can. Companies patenting sequences of RNA are now even claiming rights over the proteins and DNA that the RNA codes for. As they usually sue poor agrarians who can't afford to put up a good defense, bad judgments are becoming strong precedents.
Patents on human genetic compositions of matter cover a broad array of chemicals and technologies. For example, human insulin, human growth hormone and many other proteins that can be isolated and purified from human blood or urine can be patented. Further, synthesized products can be covered by various patent claims, including (1) claims to the sequences used (both the sequence to be transcribed into RNA and proteins as well as promoter sequences); (2) the virus or other vectors containing the claimed sequence; (3) transfected cells, cell lines and nonhuman organisms created and used in these processes, and, perhaps most importantly, (4) the proteins or other therapeutic products made by these claimed processes. The last, called 'product by process' claims, allow patent owners to prohibit the use or sale of products made by the claimed processes, regardless of where the product is made.
Tell that to Monsanto. If the genes from their GE plants turn up in a farmer's soy crop, he's in for hell even if they just drifted over as pollen from neighboring fields.
In the United States, patents protect not just the device or technique, but also the product of it. Thus, those who patent techniques for isolating genes also have patent-protection for the genes, themselves. Patents do not ordinarily cover "products of nature," but when something exists in a lab in "purified" form, it's exempted from this limitation. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml
Under U.S. patent law, a farmer commits an offense even if they unknowingly plant Monsanto's seeds without purchasing them from the company. Other countries have similar laws.
In the well-known case of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, pollen from a neighbor's GE canola fields and seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a processing plant ended up contaminating his fields with Monsanto's genetics.
The trial court ruled that no matter how the GE plants got there, Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's legal rights when he harvested and sold his crop. After a six-year legal battle, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that while Schmeiser had technically infringed on Monsanto's patent, he did not have to pay any penalties.
Schmeiser, who spoke at last year's World Social Forum in India, says it cost 400,000 dollars to defend himself.
"Monsanto should held legally responsible for the contamination," he said.
Another North Dakota farmer, Tom Wiley, explains the situation this way: "Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell."
I have the feeling that if you showed up in a Speedo and refused to put on pants, you wouldn't have to resign.
They'd cut you loose pretty quickly.
'Point is, you conform to a dress code even if you don't know it. The only way around it is to work out of your home... with the drapes closed. (Please.)
I don't think an interior wall-mount is going to cut it. I not only had to place the antenna in front of a window, but also had to play with the spires quite a bit to get all of my local channels in. For awhile, I actually had it stuck to the window with double-sided tape, but condensation made that iffy and I found a creative way to prop it.
I use a Phlips SDV2740 amplified antenna. There may be better ones out there, but this was the one with the widest spectrum that I could find in local stores.
It's wired via 50-feet of coax to my tv, where it's split so that both my tv and the digital tuner for my PVR can use it.
When I peruse the "must carry" reg's I do not see anything about whether the signals have to be rebroadcast without obfuscation. Also, I think "local" is one of those unique legal terms of art that has only a tenuous relation to the real world. You can't count on local broadcasts remaining unscrambled.
This is the relevant language regarding local noncommercial broadcasters from the FCC Fact Sheet:
Cable systems with more than 36 channels must carry all local noncommercial educational television stations requesting carriage with some exceptions for duplication of signals. Local television stations choosing the must-carry option and those that have negotiated agreements for retransmission with the cable system count towards this quota.
With that in mind, it's interesting to note that Comcast moved one of my local PBS stations to the scrambled digital tier from the basic lineup. I suspect that Comcast got away with it because the broadcaster's business offices are (a mile away) just a nudge over the state line and they broadcast to more than one state. The circumstances may be rare, but the result is that Comcast felt free to make them part of a premium subscription. I think the intention is to exploit every legal loophole and take every opportunity to charge premium prices for any and all content. Even local broadcasts.
I canceled cable a couple of months ago because Comcast moved a bunch of basic channels to the scrambled digital lineup. Thanks to the digital tuner on my tv, I had previously received the expanded basic package with digital broadcasts and no cable box.
They offered me 6 months of discounted service when I called to cancel, but thereafter it would be $100+/month for the upgraded subscription and $14.95/month for the box to receive those previously very-very-basic cable channels. Comcast is offering free converter boxes in other markets so there may be more options for some people.
OTA digital is superb. It was a bit of a PITA to run an amplified antenna to my window for decent reception, but I'm getting almost 40 channels where OTA analog could barely pull in 2 before, so I'm feeling pretty good about it.
Hulu and various other sites are filling in the gap very nicely.
I wonder, tho, how those cable channels are dealing with the loss of viewers. I'm not going to kid myself and pretend that all of us who cancel cable because of this are more than a drop in the bucket, but there's got to be an impact from the channels disappearing from basic cable lineups. Cartoon Network, History Channel, etc. are now on a scrambled digital tier that fewer people can watch. What's their response to that? And how are advertisers reacting to the drop in viewers on those channels? 'Anybody know?
"I'm worried that these steps are being taken without any overall public discussion about whether we want to go down that road. We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings," says Dr David King, from the group Human Genetics Alert. "'Slippery slope' is a quite inadequate description of the process, because it doesn't happen passively. People push it forward."
This research may some day influence the manipulation of the human genome, but the same reasoning would apply to the current generation of fluorescent fish and bunnies. If your concern runs that deep, you might as well ban animal husbandry.
What bugs me about messing with primate genes is that they're already so close to us genetically that turning a few genes on or off would make them anthropomorphic analogues. In other words, we're making them men, but they lack the legal capacity, rights and protections that we take for granted.
For those of you with refined literary tastes, yes. I'm thinking of that Heinlein story, "Jerry Was a Man."
An airline conducted a study by emailing a tiny subset of their frequent fliers and inviting them to get online to take a survey...
The results showed that of those users who got online and took the survey a clear majority thought that being able to get online was very important.
Oh, and incidentally, AA has upgraded their infrastructure and while it's almost too trivial to mention, WiFi is being deployed at their hubs, in-flight Internet is being trialled on their international flights and power-jacks for laptops are available in business-class and first-class... but those people who authorized those projects don't need to justify it with some bogus study.
First of all, it's the 14th Amendment that you'd be concerned with, not the 5th. The 5th Amendment relates to action undertaken by the federal government. The 14th amendment extends due process to the states.
'Same thing in this context.
To suppose that 'due process of law' meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection.
Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 415 (1945), F. Frankfurter, concurring.
Procedural due process relates to procedure - like a trial.
Or... say... a warrant? Yep. Warrants, too. Procedural due process applies to any and all statutes, regulations and enforcement of the law. Failing to get a warrant if one was required was a violation of procedural due process.
You can say that the decision was wrong, but as is - you're missing the mark.
The decision was probably correct as to the defense that was raised.
"Substantive due process" doesn't mean much without some context. How exactly does this violate SDP?
Insofar as it represents an invasion of his private life and a trespass upon his property, the police were required to give notice to him and if they wanted to avoid such notification then they needed either an enabling law, a court's approval (a warrant) or in some jurisdictions an information or indictment from a state-attorney.
Most importantly, though, where the hell is your argument about "using his property for a public purpose" coming from? Got any sort of backing for that?
Yes. There are many substantive due process cases on point, in particular as relate to the police appropriating property outside of a hot pursuit and going onto private residential property without permission and without probable cause. You might take note of the fact that the police in this case did trespass upon private property to place the tracker. You might want to read Arizona v. Gant and consider the implications of the heightened privacy standard when applied to other situations that might require probable cause. I invite you to go ahead and do your own Lexis searches on the subject.
Really, this seems like its already a well-settled question.
Since the police are using his own property (the vehicle) for a public purpose (the tracking/investigation), they need at least probable cause and more likely a warrant to satisfy both procedural and substantive due process. If you read the article, you should take notice that this was essentially the argument that the ACLU spokesperson made without explicitly mentioning the 5th Amendment.
There's also an "unreasonable interference" due process argument.
Unfortunately, failing to raise the appropriate argument in the lower court may be construed as a waiver unless the defendant can demonstrate incompetent council.
They are called implied warranties of fitness and merchantability.
In most states in the U.S., these warranties can only be waived under certain conditions so software licenses don't necessarily absolve mfrs and merchants of responsibility.
> Funny thing: almost 20 years ago, CD stores in Germany all > seemed to be full of bootleg concert CDs pressed in Italy.
In fact, it was perfectly legal to record a live concert and sell the recording from Italy if the bootlegger opened a bank account and deposited a royalty for the artist.
There was even an official stamp issued to those bootleggers who registered with the Italian Authors Society.
That's almost exactly why/how I stopped subscribing to F&SF.
I don't know whether it was the frequent change of editors screwing up the submission-process or a lack of quality submissions or an inability to pay better authors for their good stuff, but there came a point where I didn't enjoy reading it anymore. The columns were inane and rambling. The stories were shallow and mostly just character-sketches of fantasy characters. The only reliably good writing in the magazine was satirical or an excerpt from a larger work.
When I let my subscription lapse, I wrote them a letter explaining that I'd keep checking it out on the newsstand. I did for awhile, but excepting the occasional excerpt from a new novel I didn't see much to entertain me and eventually gave up on it.
I don't find a heck of decent Sci-Fi at bookstores anymore. I wonder if our collective imaginations are failing under the onslaught of the information-age.
Under U.S. copyright law, she's the creator and you are acting under her direction so your writing is her work, fixed in a tangible form.
NO.
Yes.
"[A] party can be considered an author when his or her expression of an idea is transposed by mechanical or rote transcription into tangible form under the authority of the party."
The iTunes DRM -- with the glaring exception of vidseo content -- is at least a fairly decent compromise between oppressive rights-holders and consumers....but we should still boycott Apple.
We should boycott Apple for the HDCP DRM in the new Mini DisplayPort implementation.
Also for abandoning FireWire and ditching the Macworld Expo.
(It's almost as if Apple is deliberately punishing their most loyal customers these days. Maybe it's a Pavlovian social experiment.)
Slashdot Mirror
Wake me when computers write original, meaningful and compelling lyrics to their music.
Enroll in college. Seriously.
The price for enrolling a college group health plan for a year covering you, your spouse and your kids is probably equivalent in price to one month of a catastrophic high-deductible plan for you and your family.
And quite a few college plans throw in dental.
Linux with your own BIN, PHP5, MySQL5, lots of bundled subdomains, high (or no) bandwidth caps, lots of email accounts and aliases, 24/7 support, guarantied 99.99% uptime, nightly backups, etc.
Yeah, yeah. Obvious, right? ...
What most people forget to look for are a security certificate so you can securely check your web-mail and SFTP/SSH in to your site; secure email and IMAP. ...
Oh, and they should have a status page showing ongoing maintenance. That saves a lot of headaches.
There's a lot of flowcharting and formulas in law school.
Especially in Torts, Property, Con-Law, Trusts & Estates, IP and Retirement Benefits Law.
If your teachers aren't using flow-charts to show you how to analyze a case, you're not getting the education that you're paying for.
I prefer making handwritten notes because I can write things out faster than I type; I add margin-notes, questions/issues to follow-up on and I make diagrams; I doodle during lulls; and most important: transcribing the notes to my computer gives me a second chance to go over it, thus increasing my absorption of the material by repetition.
My grades are consistently high.
Wait, so if I patent topological sorting, I also have a monopoly on the use of sorted lists?
Possibly.
Adobe got a patent on code for generating tabbed and docking windows and sued Macromedia for using completely different code that would not have in any way infringed copyright, but nevertheless produced similar tabbed and docking windows in a GUI.
Adobe won.
I think you're deliberately misunderstanding a patented product produced by genetic manipulation so that you can introduce a completely unrelated topic.
Genes are not patentable.
Sequences of genes are patentable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent
Many of the farmers sued by Monsanto have never used Monsanto seed and never had Monsanto seeds end up in their fields.
Often, GE pollen crosses a few fields and contaminates neighboring farms. Monsanto's agents do (sometimes illegal) spot-checks and discover that a farmer's crop contains genes from the Monsanto seeds and then they sue to confiscate the entire crop or to force the farmer to incinerate his fields as an infringer.
It is not the presence of the original product (the Monsanto seeds) that they sue over. It is the presence of sequences of genes that they own the rights to. If the only thing that they had rights to were the original seeds then they would have no standing to sue over hybrids from pollen from their seeds.
The situation is getting worse as time goes on and courts get involved more often. When they sue, they try to cover as many broad arguments as they can. Companies patenting sequences of RNA are now even claiming rights over the proteins and DNA that the RNA codes for. As they usually sue poor agrarians who can't afford to put up a good defense, bad judgments are becoming strong precedents.
Look up "product by process" for more info.
Here's a start for you:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2220018/
> The genes aren't patentable.
Tell that to Monsanto. If the genes from their GE plants turn up in a farmer's soy crop, he's in for hell even if they just drifted over as pollen from neighboring fields.
In the United States, patents protect not just the device or technique, but also the product of it. Thus, those who patent techniques for isolating genes also have patent-protection for the genes, themselves. Patents do not ordinarily cover "products of nature," but when something exists in a lab in "purified" form, it's exempted from this limitation. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml
Here's what Monsanto does with their patents:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0115-04.htm
Under U.S. patent law, a farmer commits an offense even if they unknowingly plant Monsanto's seeds without purchasing them from the company. Other countries have similar laws.
In the well-known case of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, pollen from a neighbor's GE canola fields and seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a processing plant ended up contaminating his fields with Monsanto's genetics.
The trial court ruled that no matter how the GE plants got there, Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's legal rights when he harvested and sold his crop. After a six-year legal battle, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that while Schmeiser had technically infringed on Monsanto's patent, he did not have to pay any penalties.
Schmeiser, who spoke at last year's World Social Forum in India, says it cost 400,000 dollars to defend himself.
"Monsanto should held legally responsible for the contamination," he said.
Another North Dakota farmer, Tom Wiley, explains the situation this way: "Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell."
> it was edited in Photoshop. I can now confirm this.
Perhaps that image was.
What about these?
http://images.google.com/images?q=undulatus%20asperatus&hl=en&safe=off
I have the feeling that if you showed up in a Speedo and refused to put on pants, you wouldn't have to resign.
They'd cut you loose pretty quickly.
'Point is, you conform to a dress code even if you don't know it. The only way around it is to work out of your home... with the drapes closed. (Please.)
That's about right. If the core game sucks, it sucks more with a friend present and online-play can't fix it.
I don't think an interior wall-mount is going to cut it. I not only had to place the antenna in front of a window, but also had to play with the spires quite a bit to get all of my local channels in. For awhile, I actually had it stuck to the window with double-sided tape, but condensation made that iffy and I found a creative way to prop it.
I use a Phlips SDV2740 amplified antenna. There may be better ones out there, but this was the one with the widest spectrum that I could find in local stores.
It's wired via 50-feet of coax to my tv, where it's split so that both my tv and the digital tuner for my PVR can use it.
With that in mind, it's interesting to note that Comcast moved one of my local PBS stations to the scrambled digital tier from the basic lineup. I suspect that Comcast got away with it because the broadcaster's business offices are (a mile away) just a nudge over the state line and they broadcast to more than one state. The circumstances may be rare, but the result is that Comcast felt free to make them part of a premium subscription. I think the intention is to exploit every legal loophole and take every opportunity to charge premium prices for any and all content. Even local broadcasts.
I canceled cable a couple of months ago because Comcast moved a bunch of basic channels to the scrambled digital lineup. Thanks to the digital tuner on my tv, I had previously received the expanded basic package with digital broadcasts and no cable box.
They offered me 6 months of discounted service when I called to cancel, but thereafter it would be $100+/month for the upgraded subscription and $14.95/month for the box to receive those previously very-very-basic cable channels. Comcast is offering free converter boxes in other markets so there may be more options for some people.
OTA digital is superb. It was a bit of a PITA to run an amplified antenna to my window for decent reception, but I'm getting almost 40 channels where OTA analog could barely pull in 2 before, so I'm feeling pretty good about it.
Hulu and various other sites are filling in the gap very nicely.
I wonder, tho, how those cable channels are dealing with the loss of viewers. I'm not going to kid myself and pretend that all of us who cancel cable because of this are more than a drop in the bucket, but there's got to be an impact from the channels disappearing from basic cable lineups. Cartoon Network, History Channel, etc. are now on a scrambled digital tier that fewer people can watch. What's their response to that? And how are advertisers reacting to the drop in viewers on those channels? 'Anybody know?
"I'm worried that these steps are being taken without any overall public discussion about whether we want to go down that road. We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings," says Dr David King, from the group Human Genetics Alert. "'Slippery slope' is a quite inadequate description of the process, because it doesn't happen passively. People push it forward."
This research may some day influence the manipulation of the human genome, but the same reasoning would apply to the current generation of fluorescent fish and bunnies. If your concern runs that deep, you might as well ban animal husbandry.
What bugs me about messing with primate genes is that they're already so close to us genetically that turning a few genes on or off would make them anthropomorphic analogues. In other words, we're making them men, but they lack the legal capacity, rights and protections that we take for granted.
For those of you with refined literary tastes, yes. I'm thinking of that Heinlein story, "Jerry Was a Man."
An airline conducted a study by emailing a tiny subset of their frequent fliers and inviting them to get online to take a survey...
The results showed that of those users who got online and took the survey a clear majority thought that being able to get online was very important.
Oh, and incidentally, AA has upgraded their infrastructure and while it's almost too trivial to mention, WiFi is being deployed at their hubs, in-flight Internet is being trialled on their international flights and power-jacks for laptops are available in business-class and first-class... but those people who authorized those projects don't need to justify it with some bogus study.
Really. This is hard science.
Really.
(^_^)
First of all, it's the 14th Amendment that you'd be concerned with, not the 5th. The 5th Amendment relates to action undertaken by the federal government. The 14th amendment extends due process to the states.
'Same thing in this context.
To suppose that 'due process of law' meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection.
Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 415 (1945), F. Frankfurter, concurring.
Procedural due process relates to procedure - like a trial.
Or... say... a warrant? Yep. Warrants, too. Procedural due process applies to any and all statutes, regulations and enforcement of the law. Failing to get a warrant if one was required was a violation of procedural due process.
You can say that the decision was wrong, but as is - you're missing the mark.
The decision was probably correct as to the defense that was raised.
"Substantive due process" doesn't mean much without some context. How exactly does this violate SDP?
Insofar as it represents an invasion of his private life and a trespass upon his property, the police were required to give notice to him and if they wanted to avoid such notification then they needed either an enabling law, a court's approval (a warrant) or in some jurisdictions an information or indictment from a state-attorney.
Most importantly, though, where the hell is your argument about "using his property for a public purpose" coming from? Got any sort of backing for that?
Yes. There are many substantive due process cases on point, in particular as relate to the police appropriating property outside of a hot pursuit and going onto private residential property without permission and without probable cause. You might take note of the fact that the police in this case did trespass upon private property to place the tracker. You might want to read Arizona v. Gant and consider the implications of the heightened privacy standard when applied to other situations that might require probable cause. I invite you to go ahead and do your own Lexis searches on the subject.
Really, this seems like its already a well-settled question.
Nope. Different from state to state.
I can't believe this makes the news...
Don't blame others for your own deficiencies.
Since the police are using his own property (the vehicle) for a public purpose (the tracking/investigation), they need at least probable cause and more likely a warrant to satisfy both procedural and substantive due process. If you read the article, you should take notice that this was essentially the argument that the ACLU spokesperson made without explicitly mentioning the 5th Amendment.
There's also an "unreasonable interference" due process argument.
Unfortunately, failing to raise the appropriate argument in the lower court may be construed as a waiver unless the defendant can demonstrate incompetent council.
'Poor (evil stalker) guy is probably screwed.
There are laws on the books for this already.
They are called implied warranties of fitness and merchantability.
In most states in the U.S., these warranties can only be waived under certain conditions so software licenses don't necessarily absolve mfrs and merchants of responsibility.
Basic info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty
I guess that the reason this is newsworthy is that EU directives harmonize European laws, which are presently quite diverse on the matter.
If the government imposed a flat tax, Mac and Linux users would end up taking up a disproportionate amount of the burden for the risks that they pose.
Let's just tax Windows.
Take a third of the proceeds to subsidize antivirus software and awareness ads and use the rest to pay people to switch to a better OS.
It could work!
> Funny thing: almost 20 years ago, CD stores in Germany all
> seemed to be full of bootleg concert CDs pressed in Italy.
In fact, it was perfectly legal to record a live concert and sell the recording from Italy if the bootlegger opened a bank account and deposited a royalty for the artist.
There was even an official stamp issued to those bootleggers who registered with the Italian Authors Society.
That's almost exactly why/how I stopped subscribing to F&SF.
I don't know whether it was the frequent change of editors screwing up the submission-process or a lack of quality submissions or an inability to pay better authors for their good stuff, but there came a point where I didn't enjoy reading it anymore. The columns were inane and rambling. The stories were shallow and mostly just character-sketches of fantasy characters. The only reliably good writing in the magazine was satirical or an excerpt from a larger work.
When I let my subscription lapse, I wrote them a letter explaining that I'd keep checking it out on the newsstand. I did for awhile, but excepting the occasional excerpt from a new novel I didn't see much to entertain me and eventually gave up on it.
I don't find a heck of decent Sci-Fi at bookstores anymore. I wonder if our collective imaginations are failing under the onslaught of the information-age.
Under U.S. copyright law, she's the creator and you are acting under her direction so your writing is her work, fixed in a tangible form.
NO.
Yes.
"[A] party can be considered an author when his or her expression of an idea is transposed by mechanical or rote transcription into tangible form under the authority of the party."
Andrien v. Southern Ocean County Chamber of Commerce, 927 F.2d 132 (3d Cir. 1991).
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/545582
Lindsay v. R.M.S. Titanic, 97 Civ. 9248 (SDNY 1999).
http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/lindsaytitanictext.htm
Relying on popular knowledge of copyright law is a nice way to make someone else rich.
The iTunes DRM -- with the glaring exception of vidseo content -- is at least a fairly decent compromise between oppressive rights-holders and consumers. ...but we should still boycott Apple.
We should boycott Apple for the HDCP DRM in the new Mini DisplayPort implementation.
Also for abandoning FireWire and ditching the Macworld Expo.
(It's almost as if Apple is deliberately punishing their most loyal customers these days. Maybe it's a Pavlovian social experiment.)
...So I'm safe, right? ;-)