Martin Garbus Lecture/Interview Responses 45
plasmaj pointed us to this nugget: "Martin Garbus, the lawyer for the EFF in the DeCSS case, will deliver a lecture at Columbia University on Dec. 12 [ed. note: we held this submission until the Webcast was online] entitled The New Digital World: Hackers, Napster, Free Speech, and Piracy: How it Will Change the Entire Communications World Including Entertainment and Education." Garbus is an excellent speaker, discussing DeCSS, SDMI, and a host of other issues familiar to Slashdot readers. Plus, below are Mr. Garbus' responses to our long-ago interview.
1.) Timeline (Score:5, Interesting)
by Walter on 08-17-00 13:55 EST (#7)
"What kind of timeframe can be expected before coming up for review by the Supreme Court? Also, for those that continue to use the software after the Usage portion of the DMCA goes into effect be liable for arrest and prosecution?"
Garbus:
1. We filed yesterday a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit. After a decision by the Federal Appeals Court, there is an opportunity to go to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can review the Federal Appeals Court and District Court decisions. If we moved it as quickly as possible, we could probably be before the U.S. Supreme Court by the end of this term, which is next summer.
2.) Fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Blue Weirdo on 08-17-00 13:56 EST (#9)
"I have seen the argument made that code is speech and therefore protected by the first amendment which, apparently the judge disagreed with. Around here we have discussed how the DMCA effectively limits or eliminates the concept of "fair use" of digital works by allowing corporations to dictate and restrict exactly how one can access use a copyrighted work. It seems that the only way to make fair use of such a protected work is to break that protection. Doesn't this mean that software like DeCSS is necessary? Isn't there an inherent contradiction between DMCA and previous copyright law? How would/could this be argued in a higher court?"
Garbus:
2. "Fair use" has been with us since the beginning of the 19th century. Judge Kaplan has ruled that Congress could intend to ban fair use, did intend to ban fair use, and that the courts must defer to Congress on this issue. He balanced the value of copyright against the value of the First Amendment, and he found that the copyright holder should prevail. He also found that Eric Corley, a journalist, did not have the right to "report" the DeCSS code.
There is an inherent contradiction between the DMCA and previous copyright law. Judge Kaplan stated that the DMCA, with respect to digital materials, is paramount.
3.) Legislators and Technology (Score:5, Interesting)
by FatouDust on 08-17-00 15:47 EST (#157)
"There are an increasing number of cases in today's courts that deal with technically complex issues, where code is intrinsically a part of the subject matter. Do you feel that the existing legislative and judicial system in the United states is currently capable of dealing with these 'geek' issues? Is there sufficient technical expertise available to be able to create laws and make judgements on issues that require the understanding of intricate lines of code and the nature of the Internet and digital distribution? Or, if laws are being made and upheld by Congress and the courts while lacking technical understanding, what can be done to remedy this?"
Garbus:
3. Traditionally, the law framed the legal status of technology. The law moves slowly, is based on precedent, and seemed able to move either ahead of technologies or at least along with technologies. That is no longer true. It is not just the question of whether there is sufficient expertise to make Congress aware of new realities. Congress acts here and in other cases on behalf of the holders of property, or in this case the copyright holders, against those who advocate fair use or the First Amendment. Copyright holders (the MPAA and RIAA) spent extraordinary sums of money, created false consumer groups that allegedly spoke on behalf of the public but were paid for by the copyright holders' interests. Until such time as Congress is responsive to other interests, the only place where any redress can conceivably be had is in the courts.
4.) Kaplan's view of the defense and its arguments (Score:5, Interesting)
by aiken_d (aiken666@hotmail.com) on 08-17-00 14:00 EST (#26)
"What do you think of Judge Kaplan's characterization of the defendants as "adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located."
I'm assuming that you'd take issue with that view of the defense's arguments.
In hindsight, do you see any errors in judgment on the defense that might have caused this (in my opinion) wildly off-base view of the defense?
Going forward, what impact will this characterization have on the appeals process? By my reading (and many others'), the DMCA specifically allows DeCSS by virtue of the interoperability clause. Is there any hope of the case returning to this focus, or has it wandered irretrievably into the socio-political arena?"
Garbus:
4. Kaplan simplified the characterization of the defendants. You should read the testimony of the defense experts. The characterization of Kaplan will, I hope, be changed by the Court of Appeals. When you ask whether a case has "wandered irretrievably into the socio-political arena", the answer is that Congress and the courts are both responsive (but it's difficult) for social movements for change.
5.) Why should I care about this care? (Score:5, Interesting)
by vertical-limit on 08-17-00 14:03 EST (#32)
"This isn't flamebait -- it's a honest question. Why should I, John Q. Public, care about this case? What's in it for me? What would I lose if the MPAA were to ultimately win? What would I gain from a 2600 victory? In other words, please explain why this case should matter to the average American citizen."
Garbus:
5. The case should matter if you are interested in the expansion of creativity. The case should matter if you believe that in an open society, people, with or without degrees, with or without official titles, can make a contribution in the various areas of our lives. Traditionally, people do not care about this. Any survey on the question of whether or not the people feel the First Amendment is important generally shows that most people can live without it; they want to have the right to express their own views, but don't respect the right of other people to express theirs. Translating that value into this case is difficult.
6.) The Defense Team and Openlaw (Score:5, Interesting)
by Jim Tyre (jstyre@jstyre.com) on 08-17-00 14:07 EST (#43)
"As you know, the Openlaw/DVD mail list was a direct outgrowth of continuing discussions on slashdot about the DVD/DeCSS cases.
As someone who has been a practicing First Amendment lawyer for a very long time (22 years), though not as long as you (this is directed to Martin Garbus), I was, at first, highly skeptical of the idea that a group of mostly programmers could make any meaningful contribution to an actual court case.
But as time went on, the discussions became more focused, my view on that, borne of my own traditional way of doing legal briefs, came to change considerably. I saw arguments being developed (and trashed, where appropriate) that likely would not have happened but for the massive input into that list. Your colleague Ed Hernstadt posted there occasionally, my understanding is that your team was getting good information from there, and even one of your expert witnesses (Ole Craig) seems to have come to your attention as a result of his contributions to that list.
So my question, primarily for Martin, is how much did you really gain from that list? Was the Openlaw/DVD forum really of meaningful help to your efforts, or, at least in the context of providing specific help to the trial lawyers, was it a waste of time for those who participated?
I know, of course, that Kaplan ruled against the defense today, but I'm really looking at the broader implications of something like that forum. Do you see it as something which, in the appropriate circumstances, can have real value to a case?"
Garbus:
6. The Openlaw/DVD mail list made a significant contribution. Sometimes the material is excellent, sometimes the material is off the mark. One of the great values of it is that it keeps you focused and makes you receptive to new concepts. It serves an educational value beyond its relevance to this or any particular case. It is not going to create a new "point" - that is something the trial lawyers should be able to do, or they're the wrong lawyers - but it gives perspective. At the end of the day, all I am is a lawyer, and it's great to get contributions from the larger universe.
7.) Re:The Defense Team and Openlaw (Score:3, Interesting)
by bwt on 08-17-00 17:16 EST (#201)
"As a non-lawyer who spent A LOT of time participating in the Openlaw list, I must second Jim's question: Did we help you?
Kaplan, given his prior connection to Time Warner, was surely a lost cause from the outset, so I'm not concerned about the result at this stage. But the coming appeal to the 2nd Circuit will obviously be very important.
To follow up Jim's question, I have another for Marty and/or Robin: What actions could we take that would most positively impact the future activity in this case.
This will certainly not be the last legal case where the open source community's interests are challenged: What can the community do proactivlely to become more effective at influencing judicial and/or political outcomes?"
Garbus:
7. Courts are the places where people like me go for "justice." In large part, it's hard to get justice elsewhere. The Open Source community must act politically and through education and leadership, must create an atmosphere where there is an understanding of the need for Open Source. As I said in the previous answer, Congress and even judges are influenced by the atmosphere. We succeeded in large part before Judge Kaplan in changing the atmosphere and the decision reflects a substantial advancement from his previous decision. That atmospheric change, which is very significant, will have an effect in the appellate court. It had an effect on the media coverage of this case, which changed from a prosecution of "pirates" to a respect for the issues raised. The coverage in the New York Times and other media reflects this.
This case recalls for me the first beginnings of many other movements: at first derision, losses in the legislature, and early losses by unsympathetic courts. It took years, many years, for various movements to start, get established, and then get protection. This, too, will take time. The interests on the other side are substantial and must be recognized as powerful.
I hope this is a responsive answer. Here and in other questions asked of me I am trying to respond to very complex questions in a very short space. My answer is always inadequate or barely adequate.
8.) What Is Desire? or, should the NYT get involved? (Score:5, Interesting)
by jamiemccarthy (jamie@slashdot.org) on 08-17-00 15:19 EST (#130)
"The judge finds it acceptable to ban linking to DeCSS, as long as the "desire" is present to disseminate the illegal source code:
"The other concern -- that a liability based on a link to another site simply because the other site happened to contain DeCSS or some other circumvention technology in the midst of other perfectly appropriate content could be overkill -- also is readily dealt with. The offense under the DMCA is offering, providing or otherwise trafficking in circumvention technology. An essential ingredient, as explained above, is a desire to bring about the dissemination. Hence, a strong requirement of that forbidden purpose is an essential prerequisite to any liability for linking."
He explains that this is OK by analogy of defamation law: if you say something bad about a public figure, part of what they have to prove to convict you is that you knew it was false when you said it. So, your state of mind at the time of the alleged crime becomes legally significant.
The judge is looking for a way to uphold the DMCA without creating a chilling effect that will prevent webmasters everywhere from having to worry "am I going to get in trouble for linking to the wrong thing?" But the act of deliberately linking to a URL cannot be distinguished from desiring to disseminate the information at that URL. That is the whole point of linking: disseminating the information at the other end.
Do you think the judge has noticed that the New York Times -- the same newspaper he frequently references in the titles of precedent-setting legal decisions -- has linked to the DeCSS links on at least three occasions -- April 28, June 16, and July 14? Most reasonable people would conclude that the Times had "a desire to bring about the dissemination" [of DeCSS] in so doing. What else could it have had in mind?
The Times obviously has a vested interest in keeping it legal to link. In the June 16 article, titled "Is Linking Illegal?", the opening sentence is: "A crucial aspect of online journalism is the ability to garnish articles with hyperlinks that instantly refer readers to Web sites related to newsworthy issues."
Do you think the Times will get more involved in this issue? How about if 2600 replaces its links with meta-links (links to links) -- exactly as the Times did -- and gets re-sued?"
Garbus:
8. The New York Times submitted an affidavit in this case in support of our position that linking should not be interfered with. It was significant. I hope that on the appeal, we will get good amicus briefs from a variety of "interest groups" - librarians, newspapers, academics and lawyers. It's worth remembering that most newspapers, along with their commitment to free speech, are often owned by entities that have substantial interest in the position that the plaintiff, the MPAA, is urging. On the previous motions, we got some of the press (but not all) to come in as amici. We'll see.
9.) Code Under the First Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
by ATKeiper on 08-17-00 15:55 EST (#161)
"Dear Mr. Garbus and Ms. Gross -
Judge Kaplan argued that computer code is "a matter of First Amendment concern. But computer code is not purely expressive." He goes further: "society must be able to regulate the use and dissemination of code in appropriate circumstances."
In other words, computer code is more than just speech, and as the courts have ruled since 1968, when laws "are limited to the noncommunicative aspect" of some form of conduct, they do not violate First Amendment protections.
This is a theme explored somewhat in a recent article in Salon (for which Mr. Garbus was interviewed, incidentally):
"...there is still no formalized legal definition for software. Is it a product subject to the same Uniform Commercial Code that would hold Maytag responsible if a washing machine electrocuted its user? Or because it can be repeatedly upgraded and changed, is it more like an ISP -- a service that's governed by the terms of a contract between its operator and user? Or is it speech, worthy of protection for its contribution to "an open exchange of ideas?" No single statute or decision spells this out."
While code certainly has an aspect that could be deemed speech worthy of protection (as Professor Touretsky movingly testified), it has nonexpressive aspects as well. That seems to be at the heart of Judge Kaplan's decision, and you will have to work hard to get around that on appeal.
Hence my questions to you:
1. What level of Constitutional protection does software or computer code deserve? Will you continue, in appeal, to take the hard line that computer code is purely speech?
2. I know this may be somewhat out of your purview as lawyers, but do you hold out any hope for legislative remedy? If so, how would you want Congress [to] alter the DMCA?
3. And, finally, what possible implications does Judge Kaplan's ruling have for other cases relating to the legal status of software, such as the storm brewing over business method patents on software?
Thanks for your time.
Yours,
Adam Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C."
Garbus:
9. Mr. Keiper's question requires a many-paged response. I'll try to be brief and specific.
a. We will take the "hard" line that computer code is purely speech.
b. The legislature acts if the people force it to act. It is clear that the present laws cannot harness the technology. It is clear that whoever wins the DVD case or the Napster case, that file sharing is here today and will be with us for many tomorrows. The law that tries to ban that which is unbannable is a foolish law and I suspect in time Congress and the courts will recognize that. In our case, a journalist is being punished for reporting a story and for taking a position. I can't believe Congress intended that and I think when the rest of the press recognizes their shared interest with 2600.com, they will play a role in shaping the laws that Congress passes.
I would want Congress to alter the DMCA so that "fair use" is part of any digital control act. Judge Kaplan rendered a decision on "access", not copyright. I think that was wrong. The consumer, the audience for films and music and the artist should be able to work out, with distributors, a new business plan. That business plan must include space for creativity and the expansion of ideas. In the end, technology rules; it will have the last word and the Congress will probably move to that position only when it is totally obvious and only when the voters demand it.
A common problem (Score:4)
Truth of the matter is that the good, true innovation, security, trying to improve by challenging, sharing knowledge, etc.. need to be seen. There are the knee-jerk reactionaries out there, and truth is that there are too many out there. TOo many who will do as the bad might do, tear down websites, or as some of the good might do: write nasty letters and do things in an angry light.
Somehow, the country, not just politicians, need to see what this is really all about and why it affects John Q. Public. We need to support lawyers like this, by not trying to interpret the law, but by supporting the better half of the whole situation. So when he goes up there and says, "No, you are wrong. Look at all of these people as proof otherwise. Look at all of the good that has come of it." He won't be smacked with, "Well look how angry/malicious the community (the bad and the good not clearly stated) IS!"
---
Can Mr. Garbus pull it off? (Score:1)
Also, here's Mr. Garbus' [fgks.com] personal page about the whole DVD issue, and how he relates to various aspects of it.
Best of luck to the EFF and Mr. Garbus; if they can pull this off, it'll send a message to the MPAA that the world has had enough of their strongarm tactics. Please consider joining the EFF [eff.org] to support the cause!
--
My head hurts. (Score:2)
All that aside, it looks like the justices of the supreme court are going to have to try to be impartial and come up with a way to resolve the contradictions.
I haven't had enough coffee yet to comment intelligently on the matter this morning, but I am reminded of the old Vorlon saying: Understanding is a three edged sword. (This was explained as My view, My Opponents view, and the Truth).
Unfortunately, I do not think we will get all of the details of the various vested interests in this anytime real soon.
The crystal is blurry, and there are too many shadows.
Re:Can Mr. Garbus pull it off? (Score:2)
After the DMCA, I think the next targets should be longevity of copyright (95 years) and software patents (17-20 years?). There's not much dispute both need to exist, but the length of the timeframe is equally beyond dispute.
Still, one hurdle at a time....
Potentally good challenge case for copyrights (Score:4)
Re:Thanks a lot. (Score:1)
--
The ripples spread far... (Score:2)
DeCSS has nothing to do with piracy.
What I want to know is how the a court in the US saying "fair use is wrong" (in effect) will affect us in Europe.
I dont do .ram files (Score:1)
gee, it would have been nice (Score:3)
interesting title (Score:1)
That title would be really, really funny if it weren't real. /. account and watch him become the penultimate karma whore!
You've all seen the jokes about how a news site makes up a story using every buzzword mentioned on slashdot just to get the story posted? Well here's a real life example!
I mean, GODDAMN! Give that man a
Don't get me wrong, it should still be interesting, but whatever happened to the powers of understatedness and subtlety?
-the wunderhorn
The Napster case ends up hurting this case... (Score:2)
Then along comes a case like this, and indeed the future of fair use hangs in the balance. But those who are going the make the final decision, the Supreme Court, see fair use statutes being badly abused.
Even if DeCSS is a perfectly legitmate way for an individual to exercise their fair use rights, the feeling of the courts is bound to be "enough is enough."
My biggest complaint about Napster, their users, and others who openly copy/share/steal copyrighted materials is that their actions are bound to force the hand of the copyright holders, congress, and the courts. And that seems to be happening.
-S
Code == Speech? (Score:2)
have tools that map between a programming language
and a natural language? This may have been done
already, in which case I'd appreciate a pointer.
The idea would be to define an injective mapping
(one-to-one function if you prefer) from a
programming language (say C) to a natural language
(say English). The mapping should have two properties:
The result of converting a program to natural
language should be an accurate, human readable
description of the code.
The mapping should be invertible, i.e., there
should be a tool to convert from natural language
representations of programs to the original
programs. Obviously the tool would only work
on a subset of natural language strings (the image
of the original mapping).
Could Kaplan have banned a natural language
description of DeCSS?
Re:The Napster case ends up hurting this case... (Score:3)
Napster involves taking a somewhat weaken fair use clause ('sharing of music is ok as long as it's not for commercial benefit'), and tried to apply it to something that, in the real world, is obviously questionable (allowing for the mass distribution of someone else's content without permission).
Decss involves taking a strong fair use statement, and tried to apply it to something that is normally granted in the real world (the ability to tinker with a purchased item to understand how it works).
While I think Napster was originally a bad idea, it has forced any content distributer to realize the net is here, it's not going away, and they need to adopt or die. But as the above poster puts it, any negative images of hackers will affect any other case involving hackers even if it's a different area of computing altogether.
Godspeed, Mr. Garbus (Score:5)
Also, here's Mr. Garbus' [fgks.com] personal page about the whole DVD issue, and how he relates to various aspects of it.
Best of luck to the EFF and Mr. Garbus; if they can pull this off, it'll send a message to the MPAA that the world has had enough of their strongarm tactics. Please consider joining the EFF [eff.org] to support the cause!
--
First question (Score:1)
Re:Potentally good challenge case for copyrights (Score:2)
20 questions (Score:1)
Thinking of "Martin Garbus":
1. Is it classified as? Animal
2. Can it be used in remote areas? Irrelevant
3. Is it a carnivore? Partly
4. Can it run fast? Doubtful
5. Is it a place? No
6. Can it scratch? Yes
7. Does it have whiskers? No
8. Does it live in the forest? No
9. Can it climb? Maybe
10. Does it perform? Yes
11. Is it multicolored? No
12. Is it helpful in the learning process? Yes
13. Is it worth a lot of money? Probably
14. Does it bite? Doubtful
15. Do you use it in public? Depends
16. Does it come from an animal? Yes
17. Would you find it in an office? Yes
18. Would you find it on a farm? Doubtful
19. Do you know any songs about it? No
20. I guess that it is a human? Yes
Re:gee, it would have been nice (Score:2)
Use part of your Christmas bonus to help the EFF (Score:2)
The work they are doing will set technical foundations for decades to come. In a way, you can think of it as a patriotic act to help fight laws like the DMCA.
Re:I'm lazy (Score:1)
DeCSS, the difficulty of being able to have a technological solution to stop copyright infringement and at the same time be able to continue the practice of fair use. and the fact that in the DMCA the government made a choice that meant fair use was sacrificied in an attempt to maintain copyright by use of technology such as CSS.
Napster et al, which was contrasted with the library system where in a library the people who have access to a work do so in a serial manner as opposed to Napster and other sharing systems that allow parallel consumption of a work.
Business models, the fact that business models for copyright works are likely to change and no one yet knows what business models might be, and in the meantime copyright expiration is being pushed ever further into the future by the government responding to the interests of the large copyright holders such as movie studios.
Thats just a quick overview of the 1hr16min webcast, I've already seen these items covered on
What I think the US legal system needs... (Score:2)
When there is an ill-defined law made by Congress (or the State of Florida to pick a non-random example) why the hell can't the judges go and ask the people who wrote the damn thing, rather than cast about at random for a way to apply a vague sentence to a situation it was never intended for. If a law is vague, why isn't it the responsiblity of the legislature to fix it? Wouldn't it make more sense if Judge Kaplan could have boiled this case down to a simple "did you mean to overrule free speech or not?" question, got congress to vote, and acted on the answer, rather than being swayed by 'atmosphere' or past employers.
Of course, this would create more work for congressmen and less work for lawyers, so it will never happen, but it's a nice dream.
Re:gee, it would have been nice (Score:1)
Thanks for your work on YRO, BTW! Perhaps you can help enact what the one of the other responses suggested: an "events" section. Magazines do this, why not /.?
The law that tries to ban that which is unbannable (Score:2)
Burris
(to be fair, Gore is just as much of a prohibitionist as Dubya)
Re:The Napster case ends up hurting this case... (Score:2)
DeCSS is far more than being able to tinker with something to understand how it works. It involves the ability to USE a legally bought player and legally bought media, and just happens to screw up all the carefully set-up control structures created by the MPAA. Although the MPAA claims that you don't really own either the DVD or the player...
-RickHunter
Anarchy (Score:1)
-Elendale (i happen to like anarchy)
Re:What I think the US legal system needs... (Score:1)
The reason the law is so vague is that the lawmakers had no single intent as to its meaning. Therefore they negotiated some ambiguous weasel words that could mean different things to different factions. This is the fallacy of the whole "original intent" argument. The result of this is that the courts end up making the law after the fact, based on their own prejudices. Of course, in these situations, the party with the deepest pockets -> slickest lawyers usually wins.
Re:What I think the US legal system needs... (Score:1)
Re:Code == Speech? (Score:2)
From the MPAA's point of view, DeCSS is illegal because it can be used as a cracking tool. Even if DeCSS were translated to a computer language that looked more like English, the MPAA would have the same objection to it. The issue is not what it looks like to you, but what it looks like to the computer.
On the other hand, if you described DVD encryption in plain English, in a way that a computer can't use as code, then even Judge Kaplan couldn't object to your posting that description on the Web. Another person could read the description and use it to re-invent DeCSS, but because that other person had to apply his or her own brain to composing the code, your description is not a circumvention tool.
The First Amendment protects your right to sell a description of how a gun works. It does not protect your right to sell a gun. The question before the appeals court is: should DeCSS be treated like a description of a gun, or like a gun? Where do you draw the line between giving someone education and giving them a tool?
--
EFF Donations (Score:2)
I mentioned this in a previous article so I hope I don't get marked redundant.
We live in a pop/tv culture. Most people who understand this DMCA case's potential impact are already out of touch with that culture. While this is honorable in some respects, it makes it difficult to communicate those risks to others.
Go See that movie! Buy that CD! Keep in touch with the RIAA/MPAA dominated buzzwords/phrases/ideas! After each purchase, make a note of every dollar you spend on these things. Every few months wipe the slate clean and send matching funds to the EFF.
My paper on why the DMCA isn't the problem, but a symptom [warcloud.net]
Re:Godspeed, Mr. Garbus (Score:1)
Re:interesting title (Score:1)
Moderators should definately be modding the bad down, and not wasting their precious points on promoting the good!
I apologise for my lapse of judgement. It won't happen again. Next time I will simply ignore anyone who asks me a question that could be contrued as offtopic.
I shall devote the remainder of my day to figuring out why Netscape 6 running under Windows 2000 (it's my work machine, no flames, please) turns periods. into copyright signs.
.........
-the wunderhorn
Re:Code == Speech? (Score:1)
"Yields falsehood when appended to its quotation." yields falsehood when appended to its quotation.
So, does it yield falsehood (i.e. is it false) or not? Is it a program, a logical statement, or speech? Or something else?
I would *love* to see a court try to deal with these issues! I think what we will find is that the courts will become ever more concerned with intent and context, where before they were concerned with facts, and that this is one of the looming dangers we should be keenly aware of.
Re:What I think the US legal system needs... (Score:1)
The various interpretations of a law by individual courts in particular cases set precedents of argument and conclusion, which future jurists are semi-officially bound to pay attention to in so far as they represent considered interpretations of the intent of Parliament.
What is good about this is that nobody even pretends (well, except politicians...) that laws are rigid things. I for one feel that this is for the best.
Joining the EFF (Score:1)
2. Gives you a real feeling of well being
3. Gets you a cool t-shirt if you give $65 or more when you join
4. Is very *effective*
So do it. I did, and I'm told I'm a better person now
Use DCMA against them (Score:2)
To me it seems the most effective way of dealing this, if it can be done easily. Any ideas?
Could someone please mirror this as an mp3? (Score:1)
Re:Anarchy (Score:2)
In other words, it isn't. If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair color.
OT (like the parent post) (Score:1)
Atheism is a religion. The firm and unproven/undisproven belief that god does not exist.
Idontcareism isn't a religion.
Re:Godspeed, Mr. Garbus (Score:2)
You can still join by other methods; see the link in the parent for details.
--
Re:Code == Speech? (Score:3)
Prof. Touretzky has such a tool, written by Omri Schwarz in October, in his Gallery [cmu.edu]
Re:Code == Speech? (Score:1)
And just to be nitpicky (IANAL, etc, etc) but you shouldn't say that the First Amendment protects your right to sell anything. Its better to say that it protects your right to express or distribute.
Re:OT (like the parent post) (Score:2)
"I-don't-care-ism" is not mutually exclusive with atheism. One can be an apathetic atheist.
Re:What I think the US legal system needs... (Score:1)
I had the pleasure of living in London for many years, and was quite entertained by by learning the differences between legal systems that are designed and those that are grown. There are a number of features of the English system (and even more the Scottish) that are excellent. But I recall a lot of concern that the senior judges were out of touch with people's lives, and this sometimes led to bizarre judgements. Also, prior to the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, some judges were quite prone to authoriarian rulings. That might still be so. But the English courts seem less accessible to "money wars" than the US courts. And there are more disincentives to frivolous lawsuits and excessive jury awards of damages. I'd certainly like to see some of the excesses of our system brought under control, and it wouldn't be the first time we've borrowed from the British system.
Access vs Use (Score:2)
Re:The ripples spread far... (Score:2)