'Battling Censorware' 253
Lawrence Lessig
has written a short and sweet essay,
Battling Censorware ,
explaining why the
DMCA
allows Mattel to claim the rights to
CPHack.
He hits the nail on the head. I found myself reading this sentence over and over:
"code that cracks a protection device is criminal under the DMCA
even if the use of the copyrighted material that the code enables
would be fair use."
Re:You Own What You Buy (Score:2)
Actually, arguably, it can be.
If I want to sell an album I own, in theory I should be able to convert it to mp3, send the files to whoever seeks to purchase them from me, and then destroy the original physical medium and any cached copies I might have made for myself in the mean time.
--Dan
Re:You Own What You Buy (Score:2)
> the "licensing loophole" which is "we've only
> sold you permission to use it in ways we see
> fit and at the same time disclaim anything we
> can get away with disclaiming."
I don't know how much I mind disclaimers. Bottom line, I view software as I view movies--sure, there may be some stinkers out there, but I don't think we should be able to sue the guys who made Wild Wild West--no matter *how* awful it was.
Art has the right to suck, but don't go off trying to patent the buddy movie!
> Also surely you should add "If i want to take
> it apart and tell other people what I find then
> I should be allowed to do so." (Tradmarks,
> patents and normal copyright protect the
> company from having their product "ripped off".
> Libel and slander protect them from untrue
> critisism.)
Untrue criticism is not enough. Benchmarks must be suppressed, because they contradict the GoodThink of the Marketry of Truth. Windows NT is stable. Windows NT has always been stable. Windows 2000 is stable. Windows NT is unstable. You must upgrade to Windows 2000 to get stable. Windows NT is stable. Windows NT has always been stable.
Of course, there's the point--given the choice between fair, balanced case law derived by well trained judges in a democratic society vs. a quick line in a license agreement which basically says "Fuck with us and we'll rip your balls off", guess which one many unscrupulous companies will choose?
"If we can't threaten to rip customers balls off, we're doomed!"
--AOL
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:You Own What You Buy (Score:2)
>rights??? Stealing cable is theft. The cable
>company owns the rights to distribute the signal
>and charge for it. The MPAA (or equivalent
>agency) owns the rights to distribute many
>movies and/or songs. We can claim to have rights
>while denying them theirs.
Cable is a continual service. I pay this month, I get to turn on the TV this month.
Purchased videos are not a continual service. They're mine. They don't change over time, they don't get anything new from the manufacturer showing up on my doorstep in two months...they're mine. Can I make a copy and sell it? Nope. Can I make no copy and sell *my* original? Yup. No different from a book--I can't copy my property and give it to anyone else, but I sure as hell can give my property away.
The MPAA got their payment when I bought the movie. From that point until when I sell or disavow ownership of that payment, the movie is mine.
Denying this perceived reality is meaningless. If the law says something else, people will ignore it until they get arrested for doing something that they could never imagine as being wrong.
--Dan
Re:You Own What You Buy (Score:2)
The claim is that you get a license to use the product.
Reality does not match the claim, because people--
A) Are not lawyers
B) Should not need to be lawyers
C) Should not need to hire lawyers
Just to buy software.
Software is little more than de facto data encased within physical media. You may be limited to the number of concurrent installations you may possess, but effectively, that's the only really widely accepted limit on software.
There's usually some question regarding the GPL at this point--people seem to forget that while most "software licenses" remove rights that common law grants without a second thought--hell, it's part of that whole "private property" thing that we *almost ended the world over*--the GPL adds rights by specifying conditions where duplication may be accepted. You're always allowed to give someone else more rights, more latitude, more freedom, particularly with you're own code. But unless you make a highly formal arrangement, you ain't getting less. I can swing my arm farther and farther away from you, but I'm not allowed to pummel your nose, your chest, and eventually worse without some pretty hardcore contracts--and no, a shrink wrap doesn't count.
--Dan
Investigative Journalism? Ahahahaha.... (Score:2)
Wish I could find that Eisner quote, something to the effect of "ABC News shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them" (in reference to critical coverage of Disney). That rare moment of candor pretty much confirms what we surely know to be true; that corporate media serves the corporate master first, and above all other priorities.
The reason I like this site is that while corporate flacks are free to post comments, so is anyone, and they all get the same exposure. Makes for a much broader range of opinions and insight than the pablum they're feeding us at CNN.
-Isaac
Be careful... (Score:2)
If Big Business thinks that we are going to "hack the raw output", then they will take every measure to ensure that you don't *get* the raw output.
Chilling, no?
Lenny,
Re:Same goes with CSS... (Score:2)
I can see it now. "This software is not licensed for use on non-Intel processors." Then add region coding... "This software is not licensed for use in the UK." Before you know, it'll be illegal to carry laptops on intercontinental flights, because of copyright issues.
Sometimes I wonder what customers of "high-tech products" can be reliably expected to put up with. I mean, who'd buy books that you could only read wearing the right glasses?
Re:Not the sharpest tack in the corkboard, are ya? (Score:2)
If I buy a copy of Cryptonomicon (which I have), I most certainly can chop it up into little bits. I can photocopy a page with a particularly interesting quote, blow it up very large, hilight it, and tape it to my wall. I can "edit" it by writing small notes in the margins with my ballpoint pen. I can consolodate those notes (and only those notes, possibly with select quotations to show context) into a web page, and post them for the world to see. I can review the book and publish my opinions about it anywhere that is willing to print it. If I want to, I can rewrite the story itself, the way I feel it should have been written.
So far I'm well within my rights as "fair use".
Now...that "rewrite" I mentioned...I'm pretty sure that without reference to the original work I might have a problem publishing it (IANAL, so I'm not sure exactly what is required for derivitive works).
Everything else mentioned though, is, was, and should always be "fair use".
In the case of DeCSS - I'f I've purchased the DVD, and I've purchased a "licensed" player (let's say my Creative Labs DVD drive) - I've already paid my money to the MPAA and the DVD-CCA. I *should* be able to play that DVD in that DVD drive, regardless of the operating system I run. According to the DMCA, evidently in addition to paying for the DVD, and the player, I should also have to pay for the PROGRAM I use to play the DVD (otherwise I'm in violation of the law, which says that unless I do I'm a criminal, even though were I running an "approved" OS, I could play the DVD without spending more $). Thus the DVD-CCA can regulate not only who can make DVDs, and who can make players, but also what OS the consumer can run to watch them. This is Wrong.
In the case of Censorware, if I am looking for a product to censor the web -- beit for the purpose of imposing my ethical standards on the public, or for imposing them on my children, or simply because I want to have a "clean" "web experience" -- I'm going to want to look at what each product does, and does not censor. If the company providing the censoring engine does not provide a *full* listing of the sites they block, correctly or incorrectly, I can't make that valuation of the software. Because the company saw fit to encrypt the list, I can't see it, even if I buy the product. Thus I have NO WAY to determine if the product simply fits my needs, or whether it is being overzealous, or if the company that wrote it is censoring any and all viewpoints that they do not agree with. SOme folks decide to write a piece of software that allows people to see the banned list. This gives the consumer valuable information about the product they are using, and points out more than a few "flaws". According to the DMCA, this is illegal, and in fact a criminal act. I wonder what the consumer rights groups have to say about that? The Better Business Bureau?
But, of course, this is The Law, so it must be right.
It's a shame that our society has come to this.
It's a shame that companies are more valuable in the eyes of the government than the people they are supposed to represent.
Unfortunately, we may be too far gone to change anything.
I need to get back to work...
(I also need more coffee...
Re:Oops, my mistake (Score:2)
Re:DeCSS & CPHack aren't illegal until October! (Score:2)
Is CPHack a device for circumventing a copyright protection system?
I think they've got this one right, according to the DMCA. The clause pertains to access control mechanisms, and the encryption prevents access (ie. acquisition). CSS, on the other hand, is a use control mechanism, rather than an acccess control mechanism. The two are distinct in copyright terms - "access" means "acquisition".
Anyway, none of this applies to me, 'cos I'm in the UK. Except for the fact that Skala sold his rights. Shame. He was under a lot of pressure though, I'm not sure if I could have handled it and kept my nerve.
Re:BTW, Mattel is getting rid of Learning Co. (Score:2)
We didn't reject it. We ran it. [slashdot.org] (And someone else submitted it before you - sorry.)
Most of our YRO stories run on the slashdot homepage, but not all of them.
Click on the YRO section box [slashdot.org] on the left side of every Slashdot page to see all the stories, including the ones that weren't important enough for the main homepage.
And/or, go to your user preferences [slashdot.org], scroll down to "Customized Slashboxes," check all the boldfaced sections, and then check "Your Rights Online" and any other slashboxes that strike your fancy. That'll keep a list of YRO stories handy.
Jamie McCarthy
Yeah, right (Score:2)
Actually, in a 'perfect' world (from the content producers point of view) if everybody DID honor the licensing, the producers wouldn't have to attempt to resort to fair use restricting, draconion techno-content control mechanisms (like having to have a licensed player) - but as it is, they feel that (even if it is wrong, there's that perception amongst publishers) hey, people are making and distributing unlicensed copies, we're losing money, we must do SOMETING. It the Gates "Open Letter to Hobbyists" all over again, whining about only 10% of BASIC users actually paid (which was TRUE), so NO MORE MR. NICE GUY, which gave us the Msft corp we know and loath today. QED: piracy ruins it for everybody, 'taint the producers fault! They're just protecting their own interests, even if they end up resorting to criminal means to do so.
How about Lib's designating terms for <16 (Score:2)
So, maybe what tax funded public Internet providers (pub libraries) should do is designate two areas: one for those under 16 to use with a list of approved or unapproved sites to browse (an 8 yr old probably isn't yet interested in researching therapy for breast cancer) - and an 'adult' section w/ unlimited browsing capability to research the psychology of deviant sexual practices if they so choose.
Re:Why choose a software maker as censor? (Score:2)
That said, the open framework for blocking lists would be cool. It's a trust thing - if I trust my church to dictate the morals of my childern (shudder) then I can use their blocking list. Any moral or social leader, individual or organisation, can publish their own blocking list and people can choose which sets to apply on their computer systems.
Blocking lists for libraries could be a bit trickier, but it could be part of each local politition's campain - a fairer and more comprehensive filter. Anyone found guilty of violating public trust with hidden agendas would be held accountable at the next elections...
Separate the programmers and the moral judgements. Cool idea.
Monitoring works great - proof (Score:2)
But that's not the point. The timing is unfortunate (another week would be nice), but I recently reminded staff that we can monitor web usage, nothing more. Here is a summary of traffic; (MB) Thu 55, Fri 42, Mon 65, Tue 64, Wed 73, Thu 71, (told staff Fri morning) Fri 38. Unforunately I don't have more than that one day yet - I will be getting updated logs on the weekend. The previous Friday to this summary was 79MB, so I don't think it's a DOTW effect.
If people think they can get away without judgement then they exercise none of their own...
Re:Try a different one (Score:2)
Basically the DMCA has managed to put a legal barrier around a technical barrier that simultaniously protects and restricts a "work of art" (or similar) from both legal and illegal use. It is obvious that there needs to be a serious change in copyright itself - the community needs to recover some rights from the individual in the name of progess. Mind you, that sentence seems a little silly when we're talking about things like illegal copies of "Titanic"...
Re:A point we've overlooked so far (Score:2)
Find a way to calm down the want and your outrage will drop back to something realistic.
Re:Anticircumvention and swimming pool fences (Score:2)
Re:America uber alles? (Score:2)
Re:Same goes with CSS... (Score:2)
All the unnecessary restrictions on trade and use are becoming so complex, or draconian, or stupid that the only responses left are to walk away, or ignore them. Luckily, much of the stuff being screwed by these restrictions is trivial, so the choice ultimately doesn't matter...
Re:One point (Score:2)
Re:Here we go again (Score:2)
Bullshit!!
"Fair use" is "Fair use" and is written into the copyright law for a purpose. As Lessig points out, the DCMA allows copyright holders to deny fair use by wrapping the work in technology.
The medium of copyrighted works should have no bearing on the interpretation of the copyright act or limit or enhance the rights of the copyright holder or the user of the copyrighted work.
Why US universities are screaming about this I don't know. As their libraries become increasingly digital, so will the difficulty of accessing and using texts for the purpose of teaching.
"Whats that? You want to copy an excerpt on OO concepts from Ivan Hutchinson's Beginning Java 2 for an introductory programming unit? Sorry - that text is only available on CD-ROM/DVD/"
The medium should be treated as irrelevant... not doing so will only create a massive legal and beaurocratic nightmare.
M@T
What happened to the people? (Score:2)
I remember Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Adress, presented during one of the most trying periods of our history, state "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
But that was long ago... back when we were just a federal republic.
Now, we are no longer such a republic. We have embraced capitalism and its love of one thing only: MONEY.
The government that Lincoln talked about is no more.
Our government is now of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, and the fucking people be DAMNED!
There was no revolution, not a single shot was fired. We lost.
And every American citizen has himself or herself to blame... they allowed it to happen. And now that the corporations are firmly entrenched, we have bugger-all chance of ever getting our liberties back.
So, sit back, watch your DVD's on your licensed players; allow little Johnny to surf the web knowing that Cyber Patrol will be preventing him from seeing such smutty sites as Peacefire.org (they hit positive for nudity, sexual acts, violence, etc.); and when you find yourself evicted from your house by a faceless corporation because "you purchased a spreadsheet program and neglected to read the fine print on their legally binding shrink-wrap license," do so happily, since this is indeed the fucking land of the free.
"Here come more homeless! God bless America!"
(Then again, you might want to consider doing something, like supporting the Electronic Freedom Foundation during those "must-watch" commercials on your DVD.)
--
Re:Mattel (Score:2)
The best part of the article is how Mattel is expecting to take a HUGE loss on the company.
Put another way, former CEO Jill Barad paid about $3.5 billion for The Learning Co. (TLC), which is now reportedly expected to fetch between $500 million and $1 billion.
And, as icing on the cake, Mattel has associated their company and name brand with repressive censorship. I won't be buying anything with the "Mattel" name on it ever again.
Nice job with the lawyers, guys.
Is CPHACK an original program, or a disassembly? (Score:2)
There is a difference
Of course, if the case were to be tried in court, a fair use defense could be raised, but that option disappeared when the programmers cut their deal with Mattel.
DeCSS/CPHack Mirrors send logs to /dev/null please (Score:2)
If you are mirroring software which is now illegal under the American DMCA, please consider redirecting your logs to
You cannot be forced to turn over information to lawyerly thugs if you do not possess it. As for those of us living in the United States, we need to begin comming to terms with the unpleasant fact that, for many intents and purposes, we now live in an extremely authoritarian, draconian state, and begin organizing our lives accordingly.
In short:
- Mirror sites: please send your logs to
/dev/null to protect the identity (and anonymouty) of your "customers" - i.e. those who download the files you are mirroring.
- Get involved politically - we have a moral duty to ourselves and our forfathers to make every effort to win our country back. While you can couch this obligation in whatever terms apply to whatever country you are in, I think it goes without saying that we all need to be involved, wherever we are, and fight these trends with all of the political weapons our democratic systems provide us, wherever we are. You can be certain the extremely well-financed opposition is doing so.
- Tell your friends and neighbors - Yes, you will be mocked by many of them. Thanks to the popular media apathy is very fashionable. Anyone expressing a passionate political view will be labelled a radical. Get over it, and express those views anyway. Peer pressure to remain silent and pretend not to care is one of the most insidious forms of censorship and social engineering, and we need to start standing up to it.
- Fight these trends on the grass-roots level (which most of us are doing anyway). In my case, I and a couple of friends are working on the open content [openflick.org] concept of a new, free culture [slashdot.org] mentioned earlier here on slashdot. In a very real sense, every open source project is a grass roots effort in this respect. Get involved.
- Have a way out. We have a moral duty to ourselves and our families to have a an escape route, if and when things degenerate further. The notion of an Amercian needing to seek political asylum in Canada or Europe may sound (and seem) absurd, but remember that it has happened before (remember Oppenheimer? Not to mention thousands of conscientious objectors during the Vietnam war) and will most certainly happen again. Quite possibly to us, given the current state of technical and IP legislation.
Thank god my airplane will get me to Canada on less than one tank of fuel.Re:How about Lib's designating terms for <16 (Score:2)
Maintaining thorough and fair block lists for censorware will prove to be the largest task undertaken by man. The internet is enormous. With the state of AI as it is, automatic rating of web sites with any sort of accuracy is years away. (Case in point-- there is a restaurant here called the XXX Steakhouse. If they had a website, I'm sure it would be blocked since most automatic censorware crawlers just pick up the keywords and mark it as bad.)
It's just too big to be reviewed by the employees of a tiny software company! They will always leave too many unchecked sites for their product to work well. If this was the only problem it might be worth buying for your kids. But I'm not interested in blocking only some bad AND some good sites as well. The tradeoff isn't worth it.
You can seperate the terminals, but the censorware still doesn't work. (A step in the right direction, though, at least preserving the rights of adults!)
Re:The problem of not caring... (Score:2)
Local logging offers parents the ability to see what their children are doing, and encourages a relational approach to parenting. Rather than install a blacklist in a box and unleashing the kids on the net, local logging can open the door to talking about important issues instead of pretending they dont exist. Which would you prefer as a parent?
A) Little Billy spends 4 hours trying to get around the censorware, checks out some T and A, and then does it all again tommorrow.
B) Little Billy cant get around the censorware, but it isnt installed on his friends computer. They stay up all night downloading movies from supergoldenhardcorekinkypornographypalace.com
C) Little Billy looks for some porn, and sees some T and A. When you get home, you check the logs and sit Billy down for a LONG discussion about your values. You have the opportunity to provide information and take disciplinary action.
Now, you cant do a whole lot about B. However if your kids do not know that you are logging at home, the need to go somewhere else to try to look at porn is diminished. The probability of catching them in the act is increased.
If my kids look at porn, hate, or build-your-own-boms.com I want to know about it. Actually restricting the information is playing Whack-A-Mole. Having the opportunity to talk about it, after they see it is much more valuable. It gets you involved in their lives and gives you another opportunity to shape their growth. Personally I think that this is the best solution.
Specs for the logger:
Strong encryption and validation of the logs. If log files are deleted, the administrator is notified. If Billy can crack TripleDES in an afternoon, you have bigger issues to deal with than a little bit of porn.
Adjustable levels of visibility. You can either make it unnoticable to prevent B above, or very public to encourage self policing. Public terminals should always be run in NOTICE- We _are_ logging mode.
Protocol versatility Take care of as many sources of inappropriate information as possible.
Difficult to Disable The implementation is an excercise for the reader...
Easy to use Well, Duh!
Make the log files easy to read Highlighting based on trigger words might be useful. Parsing search queries for the search terms would probably take care of a lot of it.
Anyone care to get started?
-BW
Phase One. (Score:2)
This would not make much difference in the short run, other than sending a message that the public is not going along with the game, but it is very important to get it started now as a sort of "injunction", to keep the censorware industry from presenting the public with a "done deal" that would be nigh impossible to reverse later.
--
Re:DeCSS & CPHack aren't illegal until October! (Score:2)
It's like you can still use a debugger (until October, at least -- grab your chance), but you cannot buy it, you cannot sell it, you cannot put it on your site.
Kaa
Re:You Own What You Buy (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the 'reality' you are talking about is nothing but perception, a generally held view of how things work. As such, it could be more or less easily changed, and there could (would?) be a lot of marketing dollars thrown at exactly this task.
To give an example, think about property-seizing laws. There is that general perception (what you would call a reality) that one must be guilty of some crime in order to be punished (mens rea, and all that). Bzzzt, wrong. You pick up a hitchiker, get stopped by cops, the cops find a bag of grass in the hitchiker's pocket -- your car will get confiscated. This is clearly contrary to what most people think should be just and proper, and still these laws are still on the books and I am unaware of any serious effort to repeal them.
the GPL adds rights by specifying conditions where duplication may be accepted. You're always allowed to give someone else more rights...
Sorry, you are wrong. It is impossible to add rights -- you cannot give more than you have. You can transfer all the rights that you have, but you cannot grant additional rights because you don't have them to grant. Giving somebody a subset of your rights is easy and standard, but giving more is impossible.
[hurriedly pulling on asbestos underwear] That's why the most free code is public domain code. Yes, its derivatives can be made non-free, but the code itself is as free as it gets. GPL most certainly does impose restrictions on its licensees and for all the talk about these restrictions being for the greater good, they are restrictions nonetheless.
Kaa
Re:The problem of not caring... (Score:2)
I am of rather low opinion of American public (there is a very good description of it in Gibson's Idoru) and don't think we'll be able to make it care.
However, a campaign on the basis of "Even when you buy it, it's not yours" could push the button of a lot of people. There is a strong feeling that if you bought something, it's yours to do with anything you please -- and DMCA breaks this.
Kaa
Re:DeCSS & CPHack aren't illegal until October! (Score:2)
This is the part of the law concerning use of circumventing programs, and or circumventing thing manually.
There is a seperate part of the law that has to do with the trafficing of such devices/programs, which has already gone into effect
Re:A Small Bit On Freedom (Score:2)
Re:DeCSS & CPHack aren't illegal until October! (Score:2)
So they probably just want to keep people from using their list... this IMHO would be better served by using sentinel websites. They could setup a porn site, without any links to it, and block it in their software. If their competitors' products start to block it, they just show a judge that the only way their competitors could have found that site would be to have read their list. Much like a map maker including fake culdesacs in rural areas to try to catch companies who would just copy their map instead of doing their own research.
Re:You Own What You Buy (Score:2)
If you believe otherwise, post a link to the trial info, I'd be interested in seeing.
Re:You Own What You Buy (Score:2)
Just because something is intangible doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A law is intangible - it's just words on paper. But if you break a law, police officers, who carry very tangible guns and clubs, will come to haul you away.
That's because the law is reality, even if you can't see it.
Here's where you go wrong. You don't need a license to use a program any more than you need a license to read a book. They're exactly the same from the point of view of copyright law.
No more illegal than buy a book and reading it. Anything not forbidden by copyright law is allowed. You only need to look at the license if you want to do more with it (copy it, etc) than is usually allowed or if you were informed beforehand that usage is limited.
Good. Your slamming the other guy over his correct usage of the word 'rights' was silly and didn't accomplish anything except to make you look ignorant.
Re:You Own What You Buy (Score:2)
The problem with the DMCA is that any anti-copy protection measure is prohibited, even if required to exercise your rights.
Re:You Own What You Buy (Score:2)
And shrinkwrap licenses have never (not once, not even for a second) been found to be valid. The only time there was even a chance was when the company sued a pirate, and based the claim on the shrinkwrap prohibition of piracy, not the statute. This was upheld, but only because the basic action was illegal, not because the shrinkwrap said so. In no other case has a shrinkwrap been uphelp.
You're also wrong, the GPL imposes no more restrictions that an unlicensed program. It is assumed that all distribution is prohibited, except in the case of transfering ownership, or fair use of samples. The GPL simply gives the user more rights than the default (barely any). It's not as free as saying "Here, do *anything* you want with it" but it's a hell of a lot more free than not putting a license on it at all, in which case the assumption is that everything which can be forbidden is forbidden.
If you don't like my word usage, don't waste my time telling me so. My terms are correct and if you disagree, you're just proving that you're either wrong, or pedantic.
Re:You Own What You Buy (Score:2)
The reality is what happens. That things will remain this way forever because it's the only right way is the perception.
If I punch a police officer, I will get arrested, that's reality. My perception that this will always be the way it works, or should be the way it works, is just a perception. I could believe differently but if I punched the cop again, the result would be the same.
The contract doesn't have to hit the courts to be invalid. If I draw up a contract, never show you, yet try to sue you for violation of this contract, do you have to take it to court to know it's bogus?
If the buyer doesn't know there are additional restrictions imposed before the purchase, then those restrictions have no force. There was a similar case with a car rental agency. They had a list of what you couldn't do with the car, but they gave this 'contract' to you on the back of the receipt, which you didn't see until the transaction was finalized. It doesn't matter if they offered your money back if you read the contract and didn't agree, because the contract had no force. So anyways, someone did something that was on the list, the company sued them for damages (from a reasonable use of the car, not something stupid like lighting it on fire.) and lost, because the customer had no way of knowing, at the time of agreement, about these clauses, thus they were irrelevant.
It's not hard to extrapolate from that to showing that all cases where you have a contract that one party doesn't know about are void. It doesn't have to go to trial each time.
A shrinkwrap license, of EULA clickthrough, that you only see after purchasing the program and weren't specifically told the contents of before, is invalid. This is why the software companies want to push through a law to make these binding, because under current law, they aren't.
If shrinkwrap licenses were valid, do you think they'd waste millions lobbying for a redundant law?
Nope. Buying something gives you the right to use it in all ways that aren't prohibited by law or pre-existing (before or as part of the purchase) contracts.
It's the old argument of, I can buy a book and burn it, or laugh at it, or read it, etc. The seller has no control over my actions. Copyright law does limit some things I can do with it, but those restrictions have nothing to do with the specific book or seller.
Software is exactly the same way, except that it's more functional than a book, so some wise guy decided to try click-through licenses. But the software can't offer you anything of value (consideration in legal terms) to sign the contract, so it's void. They could offer you usage of the software, in trade for money, but you've already paid for, and have the right to use the software, so what they offer you has no value.
They *could* offer extras, like a service contract, in trade for you agreeing to the EULA. But there'd have to be a way for you to use the software fully without agreeing, or they'd be using coercion (illegally withholding your rights) to force you to sign.
There is *no* way under current law that a shrinkwrap or click-through license is valid.
The GPL is a different animal because it allows you the usage you're entitled to, but if you agree to a further contract, it lets you do more.
The GPL has more restrictions that freeware, but less than a book or un-GPLed program, because there's no way to legally distribute a changed copy of the book, without specifically contacting the author/publisher and asking. The GPL removes a step, offering you a contract, that you may choose to accept.
Re:The problem of not caring... (Score:2)
Re:Same old, same old (Score:2)
Re:The Problem is (Score:2)
People routinely make fair copies of copyrighted materials for private use. I tape shows on my VCR for later viewing. I also audiotape some CDs to listen in the car. This is considered fair use, and as the article points out is why copyright does not conflict with the first amendment. What DMCA's anti TPM measures do, in effect, is to make it it illegal to own the equivalents of VCRs and tape recorders for future media. This cover the DVD case.
In the CyberPatrol case, suppose that Ford shipped a defective car, and Consumer Reports analyzed this and published their results and testing procedure. What DMCA makes illegal is the equivalent for electronic products. You could still discuss things in generalities, but you couldn't give enough details for users of the product to verify your conclusions independently.
Of course, it isn't that simple. What DMCA does is insidious. It does not ostensibly remove any of these rights. What it does is allow manufacturers to limit these rights by making the means to excercise them illegal.
Analogies are almost always imperfect, but I think these cover the facts better than the proDMCA's assertion that without DMCA the electronic equivalent of breaking into a store and stealing books was legal..
Re:AI (Score:2)
I know this is a privacy issue but it would be private citizens installing it on private computers for monitoring their children. It could also be a way of keeping enployees in check. Just display the logs of all the employees internet browsing, including the boss, in an easily accessable site. The system becomes self regulating.
I've had experience with this. To stop somone from going to porn sites all I told them was that I could get on the computer and see every where they went. They never did it again. It has worked supprisingly well. If they were to have done it I would find out then the internet would be unpluged. Fear of being cought held them in check.
Re:Your analogy is false (Score:2)
No, there isn't.
If you fail to make a profit then it sucks to be you, but your rights have not been violated in any way.
This point was made very neatly in Robert Heinlein's first published story, "Life-Line". The protagonist builds a machine that accurately predicts when someone will die. Naturally, the insurance companies are upset, and respond by filing a frivolous lawsuit (just like Mattel). I wish I had the story handy to quote the judge's decision blasting the plaintiff for trying to sell the notion that he has a "right" to make a profit despite the fact that changing circumstances have made his product obsolete.
/.
Re:Try this sentence (Score:2)
Is there another clause that says otherwise?
Re:Try a different one (Score:2)
Maybe "a work protected under this title" does not include such works to which the fair use exception applies? It's a stretch, but I can't imagine the law was really intended to say what it seems to be saying.
Are there any legal types out there who could offer a better interpretation?
The Problem is (Score:2)
My father isn't a dolt either, he has a doctorate in Audiology & Speech pathology, and has a couple patents and inventions to his name. We need a simple analogy so that regular people can understand this issue!
Re:Your analogy is false (Score:2)
Re:Your analogy is false (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:DeCSS is stealing of the worst kind (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:one can only hope... (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:What's wrong with hamsters? (Score:2)
nuff said....
//rdj
Re:Here we go again (Score:2)
//rdj
rot13 and the Halloween documents (Score:2)
If an employee uses authorized software like his e-mail reader to decrypt a memo, then print it, it could still be illegal. He was using the software in an unauthorized manner; to wit, decrypting proprietary copyrighted material to deliver it to someone outside the company.
Don't forget that it was the press, not the government, that got the first evidence of astroturfing, nicotine doping, the Love Canal coverup, mercury dumping, "embrace and extend", Unsafe at Any Speed, planned automobile obsolescence, and countless other example of unconscionable behavior on the part of American and international corporations. And it was the press that exposed Nixon's illegal bombing campaigns and the Watergate coverup. Could he have used parts of the DMCA to fight them off, by handing them an encrypted tape then, having them arrested as soon as they broke it?
Unless the courts strike down these specious restrictions on "fair use", US citizens are badly, badly screwed, by their own government, on behalf of monied corporate interests.
--
Re:Investigative Journalism? Ahahahaha.... (Score:2)
The suit claimed in part that a researcher for Brown & Williamson tobacco, Jeffrey Wigland, would be in violation of his severance contract's non-disclosure clause. The whole thing is well covered at the story's web page [pbs.org].
If you read Cryptonomicon [cryptonomicon.com], you heard a lot about tactical litigation. The way Philip Morris and RJR engaged in "tortious interference" against the corporation attempting to run a news story is another real-world example.
The biggest problem with the 60 Minutes debacle was that the decision to pull the story is that the network was up for sale at the time it was made, and that it was made on the recommendation of corporate executives, not news directors. The chairman of CBS received $12M, the general counsel, who recommended to kill the story, received $1.2M. They would not have made that money if Westinghouse didn't buy CBS at $5.6B, and Westinghouse would not have bought the company if it had a $15B lawsuit hanging over it's head.
Ironically, the story did end up making the news, not directly, but in stories by other news agencies, discussing not the spiking allegation itself, but the tobacco industry's litigious efforts to supress it.
--
Paradigm Shear (Score:2)
Let me see if I have this straight. Some folks who got very rich by exploiting old school control and scarcity economics bought themselves a law that protects their gravy train. The folks who comprise the courts were appointed by the same politicians who sold themselves in the form of the DMCA and only considered candidates for said courts that have gone through the "classic education" system and therefore don't understand the new paradigm. All these folks live in the vacuum known as "The Belt", go to the same cocktail parties, and rehash the same old school concepts as if doing so makes these ideas new and fresh. Now . . . what was the question again?
I think, therefore, ken_i_m
Re:Same goes with CSS... (Score:2)
--
Re:Same goes with CSS... (Score:2)
Read the DMCA (know your enemy).
--
Re:A point we've overlooked so far (Score:2)
This is right on the money except for the part where you think it will only by illegal in the US. If it happens here it will spread.
The idea is to make everyone pay every single time they watch something. No more going out and buying that movie your kids want to watch 500 times. If they want to watch it 500 times, you pay 500 times. No more 5 day video rentals. If mom, pop, bro, and sis all want to watch the movie but can't on the same schedule, too bad--pay 4X. You get an important phone call or are called out on an emergency, too bad you can pay again to watch the rest later (2X)... theoretically. But perhaps they don't intend to rip us off that bad. who knows...
By the way, this part is very important: If you must pay each time you watch something, then there will need to be a way to track each thing you watch. And circumventing the tracking will be illegal as well. Privacy concerns anyone?
I hope I'm wrong, but I think this is where their heading with this whole DMCA thing.
numb
one can only hope... (Score:2)
And the big guys aren't as stupid or short-sighted as they'd like us to believe. They know that most power and money will be derived from information now. This is why they're all fighting for control of the flow of imformation be it through controlling distribution, controlling production, censorship. Businesses and government have plenty of people that are all about power and money and understand the new way to get it. Control of information and/or it's distribution in any way automatically gives you power and as I said the money will follow. This is not a new idea, nor is it my own. It just happens to be truer than ever these days.
One can only hope that the aggressive bullying going on by Mattel, the RIAA, the MPAA, etc will backfire on them. Maybe eventually people will see what's going on and get pissed off about it. Getting the word out is the hard part. The sad thing is that the major news outlets probably have more to gain by being able to stake a claim on their area of distribution so they're unlikely to go out of their way to encourage freedom of information distribution for the small guys.
How about lobbying for laws to protect our freedom? It seems like all the laws I hear of are all about taking away freedoms. Are we too free or something? Is that why? I'd personally like to see some new laws protecting the free flow of information. There's just way too much incentive to control the flow of information these days. And how do you convince the average person that information is that important? Sorry for the rheotoric but I'm a little aggravated right now.
numb
A point we've overlooked so far (Score:2)
Re:Your analogy is false (Score:2)
Fine just this once...really the slashdot comments box needs to be much larger. Personally, I prefer narrow collumns of text, easier to read.
> Secondly, our economy is already strangled by
> the slew of so-called "consumer rights"
> which are basically ways for the government to
> exert its control
I am not asking for any "government control" in
fact I am arguing AGAINST government control.
Capitalist ideas (which I do fundamentally
disagree with) say that you should be able to
sell your product. Fine. What I am arguing is
NOT that they should not be able to sell a
product, it is that they should NOT be allowed
to lie about it.
Market forces alone are IN THEORY enough to
stop these things. The fact is, IN PRACTICE ,
they are not. Companies have found that it is
more profitable to make shoddy product and
hide the fact that its shoddy than to actually
compete and make a good product.
> And of course their is such a thing as the
> "Right to make a profit".
No you have the right to TRY and make a profit.
Whether you make one or not is completly a
differnt story.
What you are defending is the right of a company
to stop consumers from looking at their products
and making informed decisions.
Why is it that the only recognized "individual
liberties" are the "right to be profitable"?
Should I not have the right to speak out?
If you make a car that is unsafe, shouldn't I
be able to tell people why it is unsafe? Should
you be allowed to make untrue claims about your
product?
Now, I am not asking for government control. I am asking for the removal of a government control. The removal of a control that serves NO purpose except to allow companies to hide the defects of their products from the public.
Just because we are "capitalist" doesn't mean that
profit can be our only motivation. What is wrong
with a person publishing information to help
people make informed decisions?
There are some things that are just more
important than a companies "ability to profit"
and if they violate these things, then they
deserve what they get.
Re:Here we go again (Score:2)
> which, translated into
> Not Pay For Anything", which admittedly isn'
> quite as snappy.
Not only is it not as snappy, its not an argument
that anyone has actually made, except you in your
straw man.
Do you have no concept of the fact that other
people think differently then you? Is your view
on the way things "should be" the only possible
"correct viewpoint"?
I am sorry, I don't agree. I recognize, yes. If
you create something, you have the right to do
whatever you want with it. However, I do not
recognize your claimed "right" to tell other
people what they are allowed to do with their
copies of it (assuming you allowed them to have
copies).
I can't really speak about this in a legal sense
because I am no lawyer and the body of law on
the subject is (as usual with law) much more
large and convoluted than even some of the more
interested people, like myself, have time to
actually read.
What you are asking for is the "Right to restrict
what other people can do". That is not a right
that I recognize. (unfortunaly my government may
in some circumstances recognize this suposed
right, however, my government has never actually
represented my interests...but thats ok...I don't
represent their interests either. (they don't
recognize my rights to do what I want, I don't
recognize their right to tell me what to do...its
a weird relationship...we just ignore eachother
mostly...)
Anyway,...noone is arguing for the "Right to have
everything for free". Just simply arguing that
just because you worked on something, doesn't
give you the right to bully other people around.
As a matter of fact, I have read a small bit of
copyright law, and some descriptions of it by
people who have law degrees and actually understan
the legal mumbo jumbo.
Even copyright law doesn't say you "own what
you make". It says you "hold copyright". Its
a limited time thing. it is not "property".
Is there any concept in real physical property
that says "75 years after the person who claims
the propery (or builds it, makes it) dies, it
becomes public domain for anyone who wants it,
even if the builder has living relatives who are
using it at the time"?
Talking in terms of "theft" and "property" is
just plain wrong. Its not.
Oh, but you missed the point (Score:2)
I may, however, make copies for my *personal* use.
The copy that I use in my car stereo is legal.
The backup copy of my software is legal.
The review (including small quotes) I publish about the book I read is legal.
The warning I publish about documented unwanted side effects of a product is legal. (if my claims are true)
Teaching others what I have learned at a course is legal (as long as I do not copy any material)
Your mileage may vary depending on jurisdiction, but these are examples of *legal* copies. aka fair use.
"They" want the legal means to restrict our rights, so that we can only do what we are explicitly allowed by "them". Not what we want to do, not what the law otherwise allows, not what we migt need to do in the future (after the company holding my keys has gone under).
Only what they explicitly allow.
Nothing else.
Re:The problem of not caring... (Score:2)
Here's the real problem with not caring:
but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Unionist.
but I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
there was no-one left to speak up for me.
This is a quote from Rev. Martin Niemoller, commenting on events in Germany 1933-1939
BTW, Mattel is getting rid of Learning Co. (Score:2)
I tried to submit the story but it got rejected, I guess there's been too much Mattel pounding already :)
America uber alles? (Score:2)
Re:One point (Score:2)
kwsNI
Re:Same goes with CSS... (Score:2)
What the DMCA refers to is the unauthorized decryption of protected materials. Everyone who builds an MPAA authorized DVD player pays the MPAA a fee to allow them to use the MPAA's version of DeCSS. This is one of the biggest reasons the MPAA hates DeCSS so much. Everyone that used it rather than an MPAA approved player costs the MPAA money (liscensing fees).
kwsNI
Controll == Money (Score:2)
And why does the MPAA want control. To make more money. Yes, I know it's a little circular, but in the end, everything the MPAA is doing is for more profit on their end.
kwsNI
Anticircumvention and swimming pool fences (Score:2)
For insurance purposes, the swimming pool has to have a fence, it has to be a non-trivial fence, and it has to be locked. You have to have demonstrated not just intent, but reasonable measures to prevent accidental drowning by unauthorized swimmers.
Now apply it to the anticircumvention measures of the DMCA. They haven't said how hard the electronic publishers have to try to protect their art. Can they encrypt the data by XORing with "DMCARulz" and call the data 'protected'?
From what I see, they can. One could argue that the CSS key used to develop deCSS was 'trivially' protected, almost as bad as the XOR encryption example.
One could also argue that the owner of a swimming pool that lightly protected would be readily open to lawsuit.
There, I've just Rot13'ed my data. Now I consider it encrypted and protected. By pressing the Rot13 button on your newsreader after October, you're breaking the law. Those who write and distribute newsreaders are breaking the law, now.
Re:Try a different one (Score:2)
The answer to this is the Sony Betamax case (sorry, I don't have a proper citation) in it the Supreme Court held that if there are non-infringing uses to a technology, it can not be held to violate copyright to distribute it. Essentially, the EFF needs to get someone to declare at least this paragraph of the DMCA unconstitutional.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Re:Try a different one (Score:2)
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Lessig for Supreme Court! (Score:2)
Lessig: He Gets It.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
A Small Bit On Freedom (Score:3)
Andy Walton wrote this, many years back.
======
> Right. Freedom without responsibility is no freedom at all.
And responsibility without freedom is not responsibility at all.
Totalitarian control of human beings means the death of responsibility,
as everyone is "just following orders."
<engage rant mode>
I would rather be a brain-dead junkie in a gutter with a sticky copy of
Hustler as a result of my OWN stupidity than a clean and well-fed
automaton in a tiki-taki house with my actions dictated by you or
another self-anointed earthly representative of God's Will ((C), All
Rights Reserved). I want to run through parking lots like a lunatic,
fall and scrape my knees. I want to color outside the lines. I want to
cover myself with lime Jello and run down the street shouting random
lines from Finnegan's Wake (are there any non-random lines in Finnegan's
Wake?). If I want to smack my skull against the wall, damn it, it's my
skull and my wall. If I want to sing the Leave it to Beaver theme in
Esperanto while whacking off with topless pictures of Sandra Bernhart
and standing ankle-deep in a galvanized steel tub full of Kraft Honey
Dijon salad dressing, that's none of your business.
And if this means that I'll be shot as an anarchist when the revolution
comes, so be it; I'd rather have the worm-eaten stench of a private tomb
than the prim, sterile, chrome-lined common tomb which people like you
want to make of the Earth. And when they decide that you're not quite
orthodox enough, I'll save you the next spot over up against the wall.
<rant mode off>
Clear enough?
Re:You Own What You Buy (Score:3)
> copyright protection, you have violated the DCMA.
This ain't nothing new, actually. Copier manufacturers, cable stealers, etc. have been getting this for years. But cable is an ongoing service; DVD's are a product you buy. The idea that you're only allowed to use a product you buy in ways that the manufacturer has deemed profitable to them--and that you're not allowed to give the manufacturer the finger--yeah, that's new.
--Dan
AI (Score:3)
All the censorware really has to do is read through each page and look at each picture before putting it on screen to figure out whether it is porn or not. It takes some skill to know the difference between an artistic nude and a XXX pix.
Personally I like the whole human supervision thing. Let your kids know that mom or dad or the made or big sis could just walk in and see what he is viewing before s/he has a chance to react. More importantly provide that strong moral base that lets a child not really care about porn.
This reminds me of the situation with Alcohol. In the west liqueur is restricted from the kids. Mom and pop drink but they don't dare let the child near the stuff. The result is that he sneaks off to sip a little while nobody is looking and grows up into a drunk lying across the barroom door. Jewish kids on the other hand get wine at major feasts ( Passover, Wedding etc... ). The result is that they get to see this as something they can have if they want to but which has a foul taste. The result is fewer drunks.
Anybody want to take bets as to the relationship between censorship and the higher rates of all sexual dysfunction in the US? If not for America, it wouldn't have occurred to me that there is a link between sex and chains.
Re:really? (Score:3)
We have our own bill of weirdness here, the RIP bill which is designed to allow aceess by the authorities of encrypted data - it's supposed to help catch rapists and child molesters etc. The out come of it is such that they can force you to hand over your keys etc or they will chuck you in gaol for a coupel of years - if you've lost or forgotten the key, you have to prove it (how does one prove they've forgotten a key?).
Problem here is that 2 years is less that a sentence for child molesting etc.......
For more information, go here [stand.org.uk]
Erm, my point was that this bill will hopefully be ruled against the EU human rights acts
So there you go - it's not just the States that puts out stupid, short sighted bills!!
Troc
Re:"Effective" access control (Score:3)
Re:The problem of not caring... (Score:3)
-jwb
Mattel (Score:3)
Great public relations, ignore the problem and it'l go away....
-=Bob
Is the government also restricted by DMCA? (Score:3)
Re:Try this sentence (Score:3)
Lessig is right. DMCA does not prohibit fair use. But (and this is a really big BUT) DMCA does prohibit unauthorized access for whatever purpose, be it fair use or not.
Think about some beer in a fridge. You can drink the beer -- no problem, it's legal. However, opening the fridge happens to be illegal. No, nobody is trying to keep you from drinking that beer, no, no, you have full rights to this beer, it's all yours -- you just can't open the fridge.
Kaa
Non Americans: The DMCA comes soon to your door! (Score:3)
As you can see, the DMCA is the result of a World treaty on intellectual property. It is not an only-American thing. It's just that America implemented it first, but soon everybody in the World will be hit by it.
Be prepared, and don't laugh at Americans.
Same old, same old (Score:3)
This argument suffers from the same problem that every other pro-DMCA argument I've seen has.
If these activities were <i>illegal</i>, then why why were <i>new</i> laws necessary?
This is like the argument that without DMCA, it was legal to do the equivalent of breaking into a bookstore to steal the books. It fundamentally misrepresents what DMCA is about. DMCA is not about making piracy illegal. Piracy was illegal before DMCA, and it is no <i>more</i> illegal after. DMCA is about giving the copyright holders' lawyers more powerful tools to combat piracy.
So far so good, but there's an old Chinese proverb: many laws make many criminals. When you hand somebody a powerful legal weapon, you have to ask how purpose specific is it? The problem with DMCA is that the tools it gives the copyright holders aren't particularly beneficial to preventing piracy, but are very powerful in restricting the normal, non-infringing and heretofore legal use by consumers. Of course, this is economically beneficial to the producers of copyrighted materials. Otherwise they would not want it so badly. However, just because it increases the profits of copyright holders is not sufficient to make it a good law.
Re:The problem of not caring... (Score:3)
However what is actually being taken away is the right of people to examine such products and tell people if they actually work. As I have said before I'm sure the US motor industry is wishing they had though of lobbying for the same kind of laws in the 1960's.
Maybe in needs explaining that an absolute right to examine and critque any product is an essential part of any free society. With the only people who benefit from silencing of critical examination of any product, be it a car, a piece of software or a pen are those who produce shoddy products and falsely advertise them.
Try this sentence (Score:3)
Of course, it goes on to say that it's up to the Librarian of Congress (?!) to decide, in advance, what constitutes circumvention for the purpose of fair use. That hasn't happened yet. But then again, as others have pointed out, the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA haven't taken effect yet anyway -- not until October.
Glad I don't live in the states (Score:3)
American law has always bent the way of the corparation and ensures that they make as much money as possible, at the expense of the rights of the individual.
The only real case hear has nothing to do with "protecting the morals of our youth"... It was a huge embaressment that a couple of programmers made a tool to render the software useless. Would you as a parent or an institution buy software that was easy to circumvent?
I offer my congrats to the authors of CPHack on GLPing it and then seeling your "rights" to the program to Mattel, that has to be the funnyest legal hack I have ever heard of.
Frankly what we need to protect the morals of our children are parents that actually spend time with their kids, not plop them down infront of a TV or computer as an e-babysitter. If we take the time to teach our children right from wrong in the first place, such big-brother-esque software as CyberPatrol would not be neccessary.
If mattel wanted to "protect the morals of our children" They should pull their entire barbie line of products, for those give young girls a wrong idea of beauty, that will eventually lead to problems such as Anorexia and Bulemia. Mattel and it's group of companies sell many toys that espouse violence... Mattel has never cared about morals in the first place, only the bottom line.
Re:The Problem is (Score:3)
Now the car manufacturer puts a little lock on the lightbulb compartment, and gives keys only to authorized shops. You say "Screw them" -- and rightly so! -- and break the lock.
Now the car manufacturer puts a little digital lock on the lightbulb compartment. You say "Screw them"...but it's you who gets screwed. Why? Because they wrote a little haiku inside the lightbulb compartment. And you've circumvented a technological measure in order to gain access to the copyrighted work.
Ok maybe you can prove in the court that you didn't really want to access their copyrighted work. All you wanted is to change a lightbulb. Maybe. But the lawyer will cost you much more than the lifetime supply of original lightbulbs.
--
Re:Mattel (Score:3)
Let's hope that whoever buys The Learning Company has a better understanding of the value of opening the blocked sites list than Mattel did. Anybody know if the CPHack settlement was with Mattel or The Learning Company (or both)? I wonder if the terms of the settlement will pass to the company buying The Learning Company.
Re:Slightly Offtopic . . . (Score:3)
moments that I had last summer.
I was walking through Harvard Square (Cambridge
MA). I saw a man dressed up vageuly like "Uncle
Sam" with a big pot and a sign about legalizing
marijuana.
I went over and threw a dollar in his pot to
show my support, then he turned to me and said
"good but thats not going to help much. If
you really want to help, save up and buy us
a Senator or two, thats how you get
things done"
Re:THIS IS STUPID!!!! (Score:3)
> this shit pisses me off.
You thought this was america? Well thats what
you are suposed to think. Big money buys legal
force. Thats the way things have worked for
several centuries, all over the globe. Where
have you been?
There are basically 2 ways anything gets done in
a republic like ours.
1) Someone throws a shitload of money at congress
and gets themselves what they want (common)
or
2) Enough people get together that the people in
congress realise that if they do not ignore #1 and
do what these people want, they will not be
re-elected. (very rare)
Barring those two, its a crapshoot of mostly
doubletalk and bullshit to make people think
they are making a difference.
As RMS said in his recent interview (no I am not
a blind RMS follower, I just happen to think he
hit the nail right on the head) there is a big
tendancy of people in power to ignore "individual
rights" unless its the "right to do something
profitable"
(if you don't believe this...look at the absolute
beating that Free Speech has taken in congress the
past 5 years or so... CDA I, CDAII, Methamphetamin
Anti-proliferation act, DMCA. The people in power
are very willing to disregard individual
freedom if it meets their political agenda.)
Re:Your analogy is false (Score:3)
If a consumer decides, based on information that
you give them, not to buy a product. Then you have
not "stolen" from the company.
The company did not "lose money" they simply did
not "make more". No company has a right to any
money that they do not already have.
Under you rlogic any sort of consumer protection
advisories should be outlawed.
I am sorry, but a consumer has a RIGHT to know
about a product before they buy it. They have a
RIGHT to be able to make sure that it doesn't do
nasty things. Furthermore, they have a RIGHT to
NOT buy it, if they find that it does something
other than what it is advertised as doing.
If the company loses money because people find
out what it REALLY does, then it is their own
fault for making a bad product. Consumers have
a right to know about these things.
There is no such thing as a "Right to make a
profit". If they want profit, they should have
to work for it, and make something worth buying,
not just make a bad product and supress any
dissenting opionions.
Just like the movies. (Score:3)
Let's hope it takes them a little less than 20 years to realize they're making the same mistake
I think there's a simple technical solution (Score:4)
What is needed is a programming language that closely resembles English (or other natural language). Not like COBOL, much closer. So closely that programs in that language would be (mostly) correct English texts. It is not necessary that this language will be easy to program in. OTOH it should be very easy to read what is written in it, even for non-programmers.
Here's how it should look like:
- Let X be content of file "censorware.exe"
- Let Y be byte number 2745 of X
- Let Z be Y added with 73091
- Let T be byte number Z of X
Publish that in an (hypothetical) Online Journal of Applied Cryptology (a refined version of sci.crypt [sci.crypt]).Now that's speech, isn't it?
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even an American.
--
You Own What You Buy (Score:5)
You know, the more I think about this, the more I'm beginning to realize this is really the argument we need to start making.
There are lots of complicated arguments I could make, but I think I'd rather just leave it at--
If I bought it, it's mine. If I want to sell it, it's mine to sell. If I want break it into little tiny pieces, if I want to put it in the microwave, if I want to worship it as a proclaimation that God himself is going to touch down in a UFO on Main Street at 2:48PM, damnit, I don't need whoever sold it to me's permission to believe in whatever the heck I want to in their product!
See, that's the nice thing about capitalism. There's no central planner to say that you have to sit here, or go there, or be nice. There's no excessive transmission of executable context, to speak in geek terms. You pay the cash, you get the product.
Without passing judgement on the rightness or wrongness of communism, there's some delicious irony in that while Open Sourcers are supposedly the biggest backers of communism, we're the ones screaming our brains out over software freedom while the biggest companies in the world lick their chops on the concept of being The Central Planner.
After all, what are these newfangled "circumvention-resistent" devices but a yoke against which our core freedoms as consumers are jerked away? Imagine, for a moment, that Master(a fine purveyor of padlocks) was powerful enough to extract a licensing fee from any makers of lockers, safes, and doors. Imagine you needed to prove, *to the lock*, that the object it was being placed on was licensed before you'd get your key.
Lemme tell you what'd happen, real quick: People would figure out how to bust the key--which they bought, when they bought that lock--out, so they could go about their business of doing whatever they damn well pleased with *their* *property*.
The only reason these laws are getting passed is because people seem to think this is limited to just tech stuff.
We're talking about *basic* *freedoms*, here. We're talking about *the right to private property*. When I buy a master lock, I buy the lock, and I buy the key.
When I buy a DVD, I buy the lock, and I buy the key. They're right there on the disc. Sure, they're made difficult to get to, but I've got 80 head screwdrivers for the reasons of custom screw designs *BUILT* to make it difficult for me to get to things. But ya know what?
If I wanna break my car, it's my car to break. If I wanna throw my DVDs in the Microwave, it's my aluminum to fry. If I wanna use the keys on that disc for something The Manufacturer Just Wouldn't Approve of, damnit, it's my disc, they sold it to me, they took my money, they can go away. If I steal the keys off of some DVD I haven't bought, then I'm a thief. If I use the keys on some DVD I bought...
THOSE.
WERE.
MY.
KEYS.
I'm going to sleep. Maybe when I wake up this nightmare of idiocy will be over.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
DeCSS & CPHack aren't illegal until October! (Score:5)
`Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
Full text:http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DMCA/ hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-30 4.html [eff.org]
The problem of not caring... (Score:5)
I'd really like to know how we can get a clear, concise, understandable explanation out to the public that will motivate them! I've tried explaining the DVD issue to people, and mostly they don't care one way or the other. When it comes to censoreware, they are a little more concerned, but it always comes back to "I'm not affected, and it's probably good for my kids."
Ideas are welcome! If you've had success getting these points across, let me know!
Don't just complain (Score:5)
Now that we've done all the complaining about the law and the DCMA, next step is to get involved.Here's how, Constructive communication to the folks who can make a difference beats whining every time.
Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org]
US House of Representatives [house.gov]
US Senate [senate.gov]
Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC) [gilc.org]
Internet Free Expression Alliance (IFEA) [ifea.net]
Digital Future Coalition (DFC) [dfc.org]
TRUSTe Privacy Policy Certification Program [truste.org]