|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 162 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 35 of 162:
| 
Jul 15 00:39 UTC 2003 |
If I borrow a copy of the book from my next door neighbor, would that be a
crime too? So many of the things have been printed, that I suspect that
anyone who wants to read it could pretty easily borrow it someplace. Where
is the line?
|
slynne
|
|
response 36 of 162:
|
Jul 15 16:17 UTC 2003 |
I have a feeling that if publishers thought they could prevent the
borrowing of books (or the resale of books), they would certainly try
to do that.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 37 of 162:
|
Jul 15 18:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 38 of 162:
|
Jul 15 19:08 UTC 2003 |
OH man, I sold my text books back after writing "fuck you" in them.
While I thought that significantly added to the text, I suppose the
authors might disagree. HAW!
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 39 of 162:
|
Jul 15 20:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 40 of 162:
|
Jul 15 20:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 41 of 162:
|
Jul 16 14:07 UTC 2003 |
If books were a more recent invention, borrowing them probably would be
restricted. Video rental stores pay a *lot* more to buy movies than you
pay for your own copy.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 42 of 162:
|
Jul 16 22:45 UTC 2003 |
Reading about Columba, patron saint of Scotland, was it? people had
some stiff feelings about books in ancient times-- they didn't like
folks copying them.
|
gull
|
|
response 43 of 162:
|
Jul 17 13:38 UTC 2003 |
DirecTV is taking an anti-piracy stand that borders on extortion.
There's a good article about it here:
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/6402
Basically, if you've bought a smart card reader in the past from one of
the businesses they've busted, they assume you're pirating their signal
without any other evidence. They send you a letter demanding that you
send them the reader along with $3500, or they'll file criminal charges
against you. If you ignore the letter, they file the charges and then
offer to settle again for $10,000 -- a lot of money, but still less than
defending yourself in court against a behemoth like DirecTV.
So far pretty much everyone has paid up. A class action suit in Los
Angeles accusing them of extortion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs
were ordered to pay $100,000 in legal fees to DirecTV in addition to the
money DirecTV had already asked for. Only a handful of cases have gone
against them; one case in Michigan ended in a summary judgement against
DirecTV when it was discovered that the defendent didn't own a satellite
dish, for example. But of course the trick here is that the money
they're asking for isn't quite enough to make defending yourself worth
it -- it's cheaper to just pay up.
|
gull
|
|
response 44 of 162:
|
Jul 17 14:09 UTC 2003 |
A brief news item. Apparently Rep. Howard Berman is sponsoring
legislation that could result in jail time for trading as little as one
MP3 on the Internet. Details are pretty sketchy and it's unlikely that
this will go anywhere.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31800.html
|
slynne
|
|
response 45 of 162:
|
Jul 17 15:26 UTC 2003 |
So the moral of the story is to pay cash!
|
goose
|
|
response 46 of 162:
|
Jul 18 03:57 UTC 2003 |
RE#43 -- That's a Smartcard *Programmer*, not a reader that DirecTV is going
mad over.
|
gull
|
|
response 47 of 162:
|
Jul 18 13:39 UTC 2003 |
Yes, you're right. That was my mistake when typing my summary.
|
krj
|
|
response 48 of 162:
|
Jul 19 15:49 UTC 2003 |
"The music industry has won at least 871 federal subpoenas against
computer users suspected of illegally sharing music files on the
Internet, with roughly 75 new subpoenas being approved each day,
U.S. court officials said Friday."
...
"The RIAA's subpoenas are so prolific that the U.S. District Court
in Washington, already suffering staff shortages, has been forced
to reassign employees from elsewhere in the clerk's office to
help process paperwork..."
From the associated press via Slashdot:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92351,00.html
|
krj
|
|
response 49 of 162:
|
Jul 21 18:30 UTC 2003 |
This afternoon I stumbled across some late June - early July reports
of European copy-protected CDs causing physical damage to consumer
equipment. Everything is very rumorish. Mike Oldfield's
"Tubular Bells 2003" album has been singled out for particular
concern. I dunno, see what you think:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/7/10/181528/569
http://ukcdr.org/issues/cd/docs/damage.shtml
http://www.rcarter.34sp.com/oldfield/tubularbells2003.html
|
gregb
|
|
response 50 of 162:
|
Jul 22 17:22 UTC 2003 |
Whoa, good thing I have the original Bells CD.
|
russ
|
|
response 51 of 162:
|
Jul 23 03:06 UTC 2003 |
Word on Slashdot is that Boston College, among others, has refused
DMCA subpoenas on the grounds that release of student records requires
notification and other procedures also mandated by Federal law.
|
gull
|
|
response 52 of 162:
|
Jul 23 14:34 UTC 2003 |
The Register is reporting that MIT is fighting a DMCA subpoena by the RIAA:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31891.html
They're claiming the RIAA didn't give them enough time to meet their
FERPA (Family Education Rights and Privacy Act) notification requirements.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 53 of 162:
|
Jul 24 03:10 UTC 2003 |
I just found buymusic.com, which is the Windows version of the "official"
music buying service. I even bought a song from it, for .99. It has
restrictions (can only be on 1 computer, and burned on 3 cds) which they say
are enforced by coding. It's rather interesting, although I don't think I'll
be using it very much. (Not much folk, although they DO have Great Big Sea.
I will probably pick up a few of my still-un-gotten 80s songs that I can't
find on compilation CDs.)
|
krj
|
|
response 54 of 162:
|
Jul 24 21:20 UTC 2003 |
The Associated Press claims to have tracked down some of the RIAA's
subpoena targets. At least one, unnamed in the story, is located in
Ann Arbor. (via slashdot)
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DOWNLOADING_MUSIC?SITE=OHCLE&SEC
TION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
|
tod
|
|
response 55 of 162:
|
Jul 24 22:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 56 of 162:
|
Jul 25 01:17 UTC 2003 |
Y'know, with the proliferation of cable modems and Windows
viruses, it's only a matter of time until someone hides their
shared stuff on somebody else's computer. The subpoena goes
to someone without any idea what's going on, and while the
perp is going to be mighty hard to find, the RIAA won't be.
It's a good bet that the letter to the congresscritter is
not going to have nice things to say about them (or M$).
|
krj
|
|
response 57 of 162:
|
Jul 25 05:28 UTC 2003 |
Russ, that idea is old news.
This spring I was doing first-level clerical routing of DMCA complaints,
and we regularly saw complaints about a common IRC file-sharing bot which
would be installed on unwilling Win2K machines with weak admin passwords.
|
gull
|
|
response 58 of 162:
|
Jul 25 13:03 UTC 2003 |
Re #56: There's a virus going around right now that uses victims'
machines as proxies to hide the actual addresses of porn servers. It's
an all-in-one package; it also spews out spam emails advertising itself
as a porn site.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 59 of 162:
|
Jul 27 02:24 UTC 2003 |
I don't know that my copy of Tubular Bells is an 'original' cd, but I have
had it for a couple of years. Now I've an excuse other than price to stop
buying discs with music on them.
|
