- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Court Backs Dismissal of Digital Copyright Claim
|
|
|
Comments (21)
1 earlier comment in the full thread.
> I guess we'll get no help from Barack when it comes to open source.
Absolutely not! No campaign contributions.
Absolutely not! No campaign contributions.
I remember something about Joe Biden, and after I read that I lost most hope.
Perhaps someone can quote the part of the article that says anything about Obama or Joe Biden.
@bigg, yeah I see nothing in the article about that either. Not saying that it would shock me in the least bit, just that I dont see anything that would support that statement.
> ...to breach the protection measures on OSX in order to install it on a white box would not be a DMCA breach unless to install OSX on a white box was itself a breach of copyright...
It's still a breach of the license, but I agree that based on this ruling it's not a DMCA violation. Of course, we don't have GE's money, so guess how the courts would rule for us. :(
It's still a breach of the license, but I agree that based on this ruling it's not a DMCA violation. Of course, we don't have GE's money, so guess how the courts would rule for us. :(
@ bigg & azerthoth
It's not in the article,... It's in the related CNN.com story about the same ruling... I just did more research before I commented...
It's not in the article,... It's in the related CNN.com story about the same ruling... I just did more research before I commented...
Jasep not to put too fine a point on it, yes we could go do homework, however in this case, there was an unsubstantiated related claim made. It was questioned, and instead of information the tweety and sylvester show kicks in 'Its twue its twue, dat putty tat ovah dere'.
Pardon the analogy, it popped into my head while I was writing, I acknowledge that it is over the top. As I also said, it wouldn't surprise me one bit, just that there was nothing to corroborate the statement against.
Pardon the analogy, it popped into my head while I was writing, I acknowledge that it is over the top. As I also said, it wouldn't surprise me one bit, just that there was nothing to corroborate the statement against.
Sorry, I was not speaking about the article.
It was even before Obama became president, I read about Joe Biden.
Content like:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html
But because this isn't a political forum, I thought it was wise to keep my comment as short as possible.
So when JaseP says in his first line:
I'd say: Not as long as Joe Biden is the vice president (supported by the Reims region it seems?)
It was even before Obama became president, I read about Joe Biden.
Content like:
Quoting:All of which meant that nobody in Washington was surprised when Biden was one of only four U.S. senators invited to a champagne reception in celebration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hosted by the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the RIAA, and the Business Software Alliance. (Photos are here.)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html
But because this isn't a political forum, I thought it was wise to keep my comment as short as possible.
So when JaseP says in his first line:
Quoting:Lets just see if we can keep it up
I'd say: Not as long as Joe Biden is the vice president (supported by the Reims region it seems?)
Hk,
Biden was gnawing at the Whitehouse gate for decades, prior to Obama showing up.
During that time I'm pretty sure that he's taken money from everyone at least once.
Biden was gnawing at the Whitehouse gate for decades, prior to Obama showing up.
During that time I'm pretty sure that he's taken money from everyone at least once.
> During that time I'm pretty sure that he's taken money from everyone at least once.
Just a guess, but probably not from you.
Just a guess, but probably not from you.
> Just a guess, but probably not from you.
He takes money from Bob and me every paycheck, whether we approve or not. :(
He takes money from Bob and me every paycheck, whether we approve or not. :(
@jdixon,
You should send Biden a bill for your $0.005 that he got of your money this year.
You should send Biden a bill for your $0.005 that he got of your money this year.
In Soviet USSA, the government bills YOU!
wait, that's not funny.
wait, that's not funny.
> You should send Biden a bill for your $0.005 that he got of your money this year.
Actually, purely on a salary basis, assuming everyone pays taxes, and not allowing for percentage of taxes paid, it's only like $0.0007 ($220K/300M). But besides the afore mentioned caveats; that doesn't count his staff, his pension, or any of the numerous government services he utilizes. As a pure guess, he probably costs about .01% of my federal tax money. So it's probably more like $1.00 or so per year.
However, that doesn't change either the fact that he does take it or that it's non-voluntary. That was a statement of fact, not political opinion. The frown may be considered political opinion if you want.
Actually, purely on a salary basis, assuming everyone pays taxes, and not allowing for percentage of taxes paid, it's only like $0.0007 ($220K/300M). But besides the afore mentioned caveats; that doesn't count his staff, his pension, or any of the numerous government services he utilizes. As a pure guess, he probably costs about .01% of my federal tax money. So it's probably more like $1.00 or so per year.
However, that doesn't change either the fact that he does take it or that it's non-voluntary. That was a statement of fact, not political opinion. The frown may be considered political opinion if you want.
Hear, that's what I said!
I started elaborating on my 'oneliner' - which indeed wasn't about TFA - and now the discussion is about taxes, communists and democrats!
Man, I like this forum!
Apart from that, I wonder about this sentence.
Would that include the Pirate Party?
Man, I like this forum!
Apart from that, I wonder about this sentence.
Quoting:During that time I'm pretty sure that he's taken money from everyone at least once.
Would that include the Pirate Party?
> Would that include the Pirate Party?
I don't think they were in the US until year before last or so, so probably not. At least, not yet.
I don't think they were in the US until year before last or so, so probably not. At least, not yet.
> and now the discussion is about taxes, communists and democrats!
Not to worry, I'm sure we can add regulations, fascists and republicans somehow.
Equal Opportunity Oppression.
> Would that include the Pirate Party?
Doubt it, for JD's reason. RIAA and MPAA for certain. What would be really interesting to me would be to know how much he's gotten from the drug cartels to prolong and expand the War on Some Drugs. (even if 0, that too would be interesting)
Not to worry, I'm sure we can add regulations, fascists and republicans somehow.
Equal Opportunity Oppression.
> Would that include the Pirate Party?
Doubt it, for JD's reason. RIAA and MPAA for certain. What would be really interesting to me would be to know how much he's gotten from the drug cartels to prolong and expand the War on Some Drugs. (even if 0, that too would be interesting)
Bob_...,
Oh, you cynic. You know as well as I that the officialdom of the RIAA and MPAA supports with a clean heart all efforts to destroy the drug culture. The small amounts they spend is absolutely on the retail scale (albeit with bulk discounts) merely as a necessary, business expense to keep their talent sufficiently lubricated to produce salable product. Since you make up the difference covering those business expenses, I suggest you too are culpable supporting such dastardly trade.
Go repent.
YBT
Oh, you cynic. You know as well as I that the officialdom of the RIAA and MPAA supports with a clean heart all efforts to destroy the drug culture. The small amounts they spend is absolutely on the retail scale (albeit with bulk discounts) merely as a necessary, business expense to keep their talent sufficiently lubricated to produce salable product. Since you make up the difference covering those business expenses, I suggest you too are culpable supporting such dastardly trade.
Go repent.
YBT
@MBT Its not just the artists they need to be 'lubricated'. They have had to use some form of mind control to convince the public that those artists really have talent and their product really qualifies as music/movie.
@Eminem, from one talentless white boy to another, we can spot our own.
@Eminem, from one talentless white boy to another, we can spot our own.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
If this is correct, then it would imply that, for instance, to breach the protection measures on OSX in order to install it on a white box would not be a DMCA breach unless to install OSX on a white box was itself a breach of copyright. The effect would be that you would first have to prove a breach of copyright without having recourse to the DMCA provisions on circumvention. If the act done were to be a breach of copyright, then you might be liable under the DMCA provisions because you had circumvented as part of that act which was a breach of copyright.
So if we take the DVD case, which I know nothing about, if the DVD is computer software, and if you take advantage of and are covered by the exemptions under section 117 which allow you to make adaptations to purchased software in order to enable use of it with a machine, then you would be entitled to circumvent protection measures in order to do that. Similarly, if you are the owner of a copy of OSX, and if OSX were unprotected, you would be entitled under 117 to make only those adaptations to it which are essential to permit you to use it with a machine [note that it is A MACHINE, not the machine of the supplier's choice], then you will be permitted to circumvent any protection measures that OSX in fact ships with.
Apple has also failed in its efforts to make jailbreaking iPhones a criminal offence under the DMCA. So things are getting quite interesting. Sanity seems to be arriving here a bit at a time.