| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"alvintchase" |
| Date: |
26 Jun 2003 06:22:43 PM |
| Object: |
SOME rules are meant to be broken |
I read the post from Jamal.I think you need to break some rules.It's
important to be a free spirit,and think unconventionally.For
example,when I was in High School(a boarding school)I didn't leave
campus in the middle of the night until the last week of my senior
year!!!(I got caught too.)I didn't smoke pot until I was 18.I can't
believe I waited that long.you kind of get a thrill when you break
rules sometimes,it just saddens me that when your an adult there are
not many rules to break...but I think if the rule makes sense,if other
people get hurt by it,it's not a good idea.but stupid copywright laws
and rules like clothing restrictions at work-those rules and laws
should be broken if possible.(if you won't get fired.)
.
|
|
| User: "Jamal Chapultapec" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
26 Jun 2003 06:48:53 PM |
|
|
(alvintchase) wrote in
news:c1029ba7.0306261522.49745217@posting.google.com:
I read the post from Jamal.I think you need to break some rules.It's
important to be a free spirit,and think unconventionally.For
example,when I was in High School(a boarding school)I didn't leave
campus in the middle of the night until the last week of my senior
year!!!(I got caught too.)I didn't smoke pot until I was 18.I can't
believe I waited that long.you kind of get a thrill when you break
rules sometimes,it just saddens me that when your an adult there are
not many rules to break...but I think if the rule makes sense,if other
people get hurt by it,it's not a good idea.but stupid copywright laws
and rules like clothing restrictions at work-those rules and laws
should be broken if possible.(if you won't get fired.)
Free Spirit = Break (insignificant) Rules
How banal!
You may as well write for movies. Y'know, how the always have the free
spirit dance in a fountain or skinny dip? Ooh, let's not forget the
rogue with a heart of gold. Or the smart guy who wears glasses. How
about those oh-so-sensitive gay guys? Can't get enough of those. Or the
little kid that is ALWAYS right! Then there's the insane guy who writes
on walls. (As you can tell, I've seen WAY too many movies and been
thoroughly irritated by all the character cliches.)
And, really, if you only find meaning in life by breaking rules just
because you can, it seems foolish to limit yourself to the seemingly
insignificant ones like copyright laws and dress codes. Go for broke!
Break into a house, steal all the valuables, kidnap the cute 5 year old
daughter, and rape her as her family burns inside the house after you
set it ablaze. All kinds of rules, morals, laws, commandments, and such
being broken there. Talk about a free spirit! Talk about a meaningful
life! Bask in your gloriousness, throw the girl in the fire, and
disappear into the night.
Y'know, an essentially random crime (that is, you have no connection to
the victims and no history of criminal acts) is damn near impossible to
solve, so you may very well get away with it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Heather" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
26 Jun 2003 06:55:37 PM |
|
|
In article <c1029ba7.0306261522.49745217@posting.google.com>,
(alvintchase) wrote:
I read the post from Jamal.I think you need to break some rules.It's
important to be a free spirit,and think unconventionally.For
example,when I was in High School(a boarding school)I didn't leave
campus in the middle of the night until the last week of my senior
year!!!(I got caught too.)I didn't smoke pot until I was 18.I can't
believe I waited that long.you kind of get a thrill when you break
rules sometimes,it just saddens me that when your an adult there are
not many rules to break...but I think if the rule makes sense,if other
people get hurt by it,it's not a good idea.but stupid copywright laws
and rules like clothing restrictions at work-those rules and laws
should be broken if possible.(if you won't get fired.)
I don't believe copyright laws are stupid. I design graphics and
educational material for a living and I wouldn't appreciate getting my
work ripped off and presented as someone else's work.
--
Heather
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
27 Jun 2003 02:51:16 AM |
|
|
In article <spam-56BC3A.18553726062003@news1.mts.net>, Heather
<spam@menot.com> writes
In article <c1029ba7.0306261522.49745217@posting.google.com>,
relayer211@yahoo.com (alvintchase) wrote:
I read the post from Jamal.I think you need to break some rules.It's
important to be a free spirit,and think unconventionally.For
example,when I was in High School(a boarding school)I didn't leave
campus in the middle of the night until the last week of my senior
year!!!(I got caught too.)I didn't smoke pot until I was 18.I can't
believe I waited that long.you kind of get a thrill when you break
rules sometimes,it just saddens me that when your an adult there are
not many rules to break...but I think if the rule makes sense,if other
people get hurt by it,it's not a good idea.but stupid copywright laws
and rules like clothing restrictions at work-those rules and laws
should be broken if possible.(if you won't get fired.)
I don't believe copyright laws are stupid. I design graphics and
educational material for a living and I wouldn't appreciate getting my
work ripped off and presented as someone else's work.
And there is the question of how many people would write, or record
music if they didn't get paid for their work. If we all stole it, what
would they do for a living? Of course, we don't all steal, but if it
were a rule to be broken...
Maybe it seems like a stupid rule because it's the rich people you hear
complaining about it being broken. You don't get a book which sells a
few thousand copies made available on the Internet, but I'll bet the
latest Harry Potter has been OCRed and put up somewhere. And most of the
fuss about copying music off the web is made by record companies, and
who likes them?
Sometimes rules are statements of principle; things we should do, or
should avoid doing. We should acknowledge people's work, and should pay
for it if it's for sale and we want to use it.
Principled lives seem less popular than they once were.
<Sermon OFF>
--
Alan@harding.demon.co.uk = Alan Harding =
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DOG" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
28 Jun 2003 01:40:17 PM |
|
|
Principled lives seem less popular than they once were.
A system, set of principles or rules, etc. by which to live life is
obviously only needed in the absense of knowing how.
Imagine if, in the physical world, we learnt to walk in accordance
with sets of principles and rules - 'John Cleese' (Monty Python) the
'Ministry of Funny Walks' would have become a reality!
A few disordered thoughts on rules:
A rule like most things (everything?) has what you (we) give it, i.e
it doesn't have any authority or power in its own right. Breaking a
rule in defiance is just a reaction to it i.e. you are still giving it
authority and power in some sense just the same as if you were obeying
or acting in accordance with it.
Rules have a kind of domain in which they are useful (i.e. health and
safety).
Getting a rule into your head in the 'superego' sense such that you
feel bad, sinful, guilty, ashamed of yourself, etc. if you don't
behave in accordance with it is something that needs attention.
I don't think record companies sell us music, they sell us a physical
medium which contains or carries the music. It is becomming
increasingly obvious that the physical medium will soon no longer be
required to transport music around. If these circumstances had always
existed then it would never have been a viable business proposition to
set up a record company in the first place. It is in their business
interests to make a fuss and drag it out in the courts for as long as
possible, much the same as the phone operators did over cheap access
to the internet. Since technology brings increasingly high quality
recording to musicians living rooms and easy distribution I am not
sure why we need the mostly teen and dreadful record company backed
mega-bands any way?
xs
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
27 Jun 2003 06:33:10 PM |
|
|
In alt.support.depression on Friday 27 Jun 2003 7:42 pm, Heather
<spam@menot.com> wrote:
snip
Sometimes rules are statements of principle; things we should do, or
should avoid doing. We should acknowledge people's work, and should pay
for it if it's for sale and we want to use it.
Principled lives seem less popular than they once were.
<Sermon OFF>
applause
Me too!
Another little hobby-horse of mine is urban parking restrictions; they are
there for a good reason, to make sure that service vehicles, ambulances,
and fire-engines, can get past. Pavements (sidewalks) should be left clear
too, so that wheel-chairs, baby-buggies, porter's trollies, etc, can get
past. Ever watched a blind person try to get past piles of rubbish, parked
cars, dog *****, overhanging branches, etc?
I did once see security-camera footage of some fire-fighters in London, give
up waiting for people to move their cars in a narrow street with people in
a burning building half-way down; a big lorry full of water can really
trash a Mercedes, given a little run-up :))
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^ Interested in Citroens?
-- Whiskers <http://www.aacit.net>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ <news:alt.autos.citroen>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Heather" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
27 Jun 2003 08:12:35 PM |
|
|
In article <oq0vs-4s2.ln1@ID-107770.user.dfncis.de>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
In alt.support.depression on Friday 27 Jun 2003 7:42 pm, Heather
<spam@menot.com> wrote:
snip
Sometimes rules are statements of principle; things we should do, or
should avoid doing. We should acknowledge people's work, and should pay
for it if it's for sale and we want to use it.
Principled lives seem less popular than they once were.
<Sermon OFF>
applause
Me too!
Another little hobby-horse of mine is urban parking restrictions; they are
there for a good reason, to make sure that service vehicles, ambulances,
and fire-engines, can get past. Pavements (sidewalks) should be left clear
too, so that wheel-chairs, baby-buggies, porter's trollies, etc, can get
past. Ever watched a blind person try to get past piles of rubbish, parked
cars, dog *****, overhanging branches, etc?
No :-(
I did once see security-camera footage of some fire-fighters in London, give
up waiting for people to move their cars in a narrow street with people in
a burning building half-way down; a big lorry full of water can really
trash a Mercedes, given a little run-up :))
Nothing like a little justice! ;-)
--
Heather
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
28 Jun 2003 10:06:36 AM |
|
|
In alt.support.depression on Saturday 28 Jun 2003 2:12 am, Heather
<spam@menot.com> wrote:
snip
Another little hobby-horse of mine is urban parking restrictions;
snip
Ever watched a blind person try to get past piles of rubbish,
parked cars, dog *****, overhanging branches, etc?
No :-(
I did once see security-camera footage of some fire-fighters in London,
give up waiting for people to move their cars in a narrow street with
people in a burning building half-way down; a big lorry full of water can
really trash a Mercedes, given a little run-up :))
Nothing like a little justice! ;-)
Yeah!
I have to confess that I've had a few parking tickets in my time; but of
course that was traffic-wardens being over zealous and unreasonable ;))
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^ Interested in Citroens?
-- Whiskers <http://www.aacit.net>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ <news:alt.autos.citroen>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Heather" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
28 Jun 2003 12:00:51 PM |
|
|
In article <tgn0t-mo7.ln1@ID-107770.user.dfncis.de>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
<snip>
I have to confess that I've had a few parking tickets in my time; but of
course that was traffic-wardens being over zealous and unreasonable ;))
Of course! (I have too.)
--
Heather
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
04 Jul 2003 02:35:12 AM |
|
|
In article <tgn0t-mo7.ln1@ID-107770.user.dfncis.de>, Whiskers
<catwheezel@operamail.com> writes
In alt.support.depression on Saturday 28 Jun 2003 2:12 am, Heather
<spam@menot.com> wrote:
snip
Another little hobby-horse of mine is urban parking restrictions;
snip
Ever watched a blind person try to get past piles of rubbish,
parked cars, dog *****, overhanging branches, etc?
No :-(
I did once see security-camera footage of some fire-fighters in London,
give up waiting for people to move their cars in a narrow street with
people in a burning building half-way down; a big lorry full of water can
really trash a Mercedes, given a little run-up :))
Nothing like a little justice! ;-)
Yeah!
I have to confess that I've had a few parking tickets in my time; but of
course that was traffic-wardens being over zealous and unreasonable ;))
I got a summons for non-payment of a parking offence once. My car was
seventy miles away and in for a major service at the time of the
offence, so I didn't get the ticket. The police computer had got the
number wrong. I was tempted to frame the letter I got explaining that,
as the only time I was ever likely to get an official apology for
anything.
--
Alan@harding.demon.co.uk = Alan Harding =
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
04 Jul 2003 04:28:56 PM |
|
|
In alt.support.depression on Friday 04 Jul 2003 8:35 am, Alan Harding
<Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I have to confess that I've had a few parking tickets in my time; but of
course that was traffic-wardens being over zealous and unreasonable ;))
I got a summons for non-payment of a parking offence once. My car was
seventy miles away and in for a major service at the time of the
offence, so I didn't get the ticket. The police computer had got the
number wrong. I was tempted to frame the letter I got explaining that,
as the only time I was ever likely to get an official apology for
anything.
Keep it with the hens' teeth :))
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^ Interested in Citroens?
-- Whiskers <http://www.aacit.net>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ <news:alt.autos.citroen>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
27 Jun 2003 10:08:51 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
In article <c1029ba7.0306261522.49745217@posting.google.com>,
relayer211@yahoo.com (alvintchase) wrote:
but stupid copywright laws
and rules like clothing restrictions at work-those rules and laws
should be broken if possible.(if you won't get fired.)
I don't believe copyright laws are stupid. I design graphics and
educational material for a living and I wouldn't appreciate getting my
work ripped off and presented as someone else's work.
I don't see how your second sentence implies your
first one. Laws such as the DMCA which deny me my
right to read an e-book I legally purchased, and
to listen to a CD I also paid for, are stupid.
I am waiting for a virus programmer to sue the
anti-virus software vendors for DMCA violations, and for
M$ to sue the person who finds M$ security bug #234627.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Heather" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
28 Jun 2003 12:07:55 AM |
|
|
In article <bdj0ob$tcuds$3@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>,
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
In article <c1029ba7.0306261522.49745217@posting.google.com>,
relayer211@yahoo.com (alvintchase) wrote:
but stupid copywright laws
and rules like clothing restrictions at work-those rules and laws
should be broken if possible.(if you won't get fired.)
I don't believe copyright laws are stupid. I design graphics and
educational material for a living and I wouldn't appreciate getting my
work ripped off and presented as someone else's work.
I don't see how your second sentence implies your
first one.
I don't see how you don't see it!
Laws such as the DMCA which deny me my
right to read an e-book I legally purchased, and
to listen to a CD I also paid for, are stupid.
I am waiting for a virus programmer to sue the
anti-virus software vendors for DMCA violations, and for
M$ to sue the person who finds M$ security bug #234627.
I'm not familiar with either of those issues.
--
Heather
.
|
|
|
| User: "Platypus Rex" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
28 Jun 2003 06:16:37 AM |
|
|
Heather coughed this up:
In article <bdj0ob$tcuds$3@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>,
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
I don't believe copyright laws are stupid. I design graphics and
educational material for a living and I wouldn't appreciate getting my
work ripped off and presented as someone else's work.
I don't see how your second sentence implies your
first one.
I don't see how you don't see it!
Your first sentence is a statement about copyright law. Your
second is about plagiarism. Your second sentence doesn't imply
the first one because not all copyright law is meant to prevent
plagiarism, and not all violations of copyright law *are*
plagiarism. Thomas gave some examples of this in his next
paragraph:
Laws such as the DMCA which deny me my
right to read an e-book I legally purchased, and
to listen to a CD I also paid for, are stupid.
I am waiting for a virus programmer to sue the
anti-virus software vendors for DMCA violations, and for
M$ to sue the person who finds M$ security bug #234627.
I'm not familiar with either of those issues.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a law passed by the
U.S. several years ago that expands the definition of what copyright
is in the digital realm, and also criminalizes all sorts of things
that previously would have been called "fair use" or "free speech"
under existing copyright statutes. It has had all sorts of
implications which almost certainly have gone way beyond what the
legislators that blindly voted for them realized at the time. Sadly,
the EU is about to adopt a similar act, under pressure from media
conglomerates. It is bad copyright law. There's other bad copyright
law on the books here in the U.S. as well, and we're unfortunately
working very hard to get the rest of the world to go along.
I believe very strongly in copyright (I have a fair amount of work
covered under copyright). But that doesn't mean I think all copyright
law is good. Some of it *is* stupid.
Here's a good summary of 4 years under the DMCA:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030102_dmca_unintended_consequences.html
Here's a collection of links on how it's affected research, libraries,
etc.:
http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/dmca.html
Here's a general set of gripes about it:
http://www.tuxers.net/dmca/dmca-guide.html
Tons more, about the DMCA, the CTEA, etc. etc., if you want it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Heather" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
28 Jun 2003 10:47:29 AM |
|
|
In article <XNKdnX6nLK-L5GCjRTvU2Q@speakeasy.net>,
"Platypus Rex" <duckbill@ovoviviparous.mammals.org> wrote:
Heather coughed this up:
In article <bdj0ob$tcuds$3@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>,
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
I don't believe copyright laws are stupid. I design graphics and
educational material for a living and I wouldn't appreciate getting my
work ripped off and presented as someone else's work.
I don't see how your second sentence implies your
first one.
I don't see how you don't see it!
Your first sentence is a statement about copyright law. Your
second is about plagiarism. Your second sentence doesn't imply
the first one because not all copyright law is meant to prevent
plagiarism, and not all violations of copyright law *are*
plagiarism. Thomas gave some examples of this in his next
paragraph:
Gotcha. Thank you.
Laws such as the DMCA which deny me my
right to read an e-book I legally purchased, and
to listen to a CD I also paid for, are stupid.
I am waiting for a virus programmer to sue the
anti-virus software vendors for DMCA violations, and for
M$ to sue the person who finds M$ security bug #234627.
I'm not familiar with either of those issues.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a law passed by the
U.S. several years ago that expands the definition of what copyright
is in the digital realm, and also criminalizes all sorts of things
that previously would have been called "fair use" or "free speech"
under existing copyright statutes. It has had all sorts of
implications which almost certainly have gone way beyond what the
legislators that blindly voted for them realized at the time. Sadly,
the EU is about to adopt a similar act, under pressure from media
conglomerates. It is bad copyright law. There's other bad copyright
law on the books here in the U.S. as well, and we're unfortunately
working very hard to get the rest of the world to go along.
I believe very strongly in copyright (I have a fair amount of work
covered under copyright). But that doesn't mean I think all copyright
law is good. Some of it *is* stupid.
Here's a good summary of 4 years under the DMCA:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030102_dmca_unintended_consequences.html
Here's a collection of links on how it's affected research, libraries,
etc.:
http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/dmca.html
Here's a general set of gripes about it:
http://www.tuxers.net/dmca/dmca-guide.html
Tons more, about the DMCA, the CTEA, etc. etc., if you want it.
I can't wrap my brain around the legalese this morning but I bookmarked
them. Thank you.
--
Heather
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
28 Jun 2003 04:59:30 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
In article <bdj0ob$tcuds$3@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>,
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
In article <c1029ba7.0306261522.49745217@posting.google.com>,
relayer211@yahoo.com (alvintchase) wrote:
but stupid copywright laws
and rules like clothing restrictions at work-those rules and laws
should be broken if possible.(if you won't get fired.)
I don't believe copyright laws are stupid. I design graphics and
educational material for a living and I wouldn't appreciate getting my
work ripped off and presented as someone else's work.
I don't see how your second sentence implies your
first one.
I don't see how you don't see it!
The fact that you need copyright laws does not
imply that the existing copyright laws are are good.
Laws such as the DMCA which deny me my
right to read an e-book I legally purchased, and
to listen to a CD I also paid for, are stupid.
I am waiting for a virus programmer to sue the
anti-virus software vendors for DMCA violations, and for
M$ to sue the person who finds M$ security bug #234627.
I'm not familiar with either of those issues.
The DMCA is a copyright law.
The simplest example is the one with the CDs.
The music industry has added broken anti-copy
functionality to CDs. This broken anti-copy
functionality causes tens of thousands of newly produced
original CDs to become unreadable
in various normal CD players. Thus, if I happen to buy
such a CD which does not play in my own CD player,
much less in my PC's CD player, I'm totally stuck, because
I am no longer allowed to make a copy of the
CD I bought and paid for, not even for the (absolutely legal) purpose
of getting a copy of my broken CD which works at all.
With respect to e-books, that was a reference to the ElcomSoft trial.
ElcomSoft is a Russian software company which had broken
Adobe's copy protection in order to allow Russian
customers to read the e-books they had purchased, by converting
the e-books into a different format. Again,
converting an e-book you have bought legally into a format
which allows you to read the e-book at all is legal. In the "rest
of the world", in any case.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
28 Jun 2003 11:19:25 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
In article <bdjopv$tm8d4$2@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>,
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
In article <bdj0ob$tcuds$3@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>,
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
Laws such as the DMCA which deny me my
right to read an e-book I legally purchased, and
to listen to a CD I also paid for, are stupid.
I am waiting for a virus programmer to sue the
anti-virus software vendors for DMCA violations, and for
M$ to sue the person who finds M$ security bug #234627.
I'm not familiar with either of those issues.
The DMCA is a copyright law.
The simplest example is the one with the CDs.
The music industry has added broken anti-copy
functionality to CDs. This broken anti-copy
functionality causes tens of thousands of newly produced
original CDs to become unreadable
in various normal CD players. Thus, if I happen to buy
such a CD which does not play in my own CD player,
much less in my PC's CD player, I'm totally stuck, because
I am no longer allowed to make a copy of the
CD I bought and paid for, not even for the (absolutely legal) purpose
of getting a copy of my broken CD which works at all.
Sheesh! Is it the MS security bug that causes this broken functionality
or was that in reference to what you describe below?
No. The broken CD anti-copy functionality is, basically,
caused by the simple fact that reading a CD to play
it is not essentially different from reading a CD to copy
it. There exists is an industry standard for CDs, and
any CD which adheres to that existing standard can be copied.
If a CD is designed to be difficult to copy, it must
violate the industry standard for CDs, and there will
inevitably be various devices which then cannot play
that CD any more.
M$ is a different issue. M$'s software is poorly
designed and thus contains lots of highly critical security bugs.
Or, to word it differently: windoze never was designed
to be secure. All these reports about yet another M$
security bug, plus the horrible costs caused by all
these viruses and worms, have created a lot of
bad publicity for M$. Naturally, M$ want to avoid
that bad publicity. As they cannot possibly completely
redesign windoze to be a reasonably secure OS,
the only thing they can do is prevent known security
bugs from becoming public knowledge, or, even better for M$,
from being detected at all. The DMCA seems to give
M$ the legal right to sue people who search for security
bugs in M$ software for damages. Thus far, M$ has not
done such a thing, but they could.
With respect to e-books, that was a reference to the ElcomSoft trial.
ElcomSoft is a Russian software company which had broken
Adobe's copy protection in order to allow Russian
customers to read the e-books they had purchased, by converting
the e-books into a different format. Again,
converting an e-book you have bought legally into a format
which allows you to read the e-book at all is legal. In the "rest
of the world", in any case.
Sorry, you lost me here, especially your second-last sentence.
Outside the US, when you buy software, you get the full
rights on that CD, and you can do with your copy
of the software as you see fit. Especially, if you buy an e-book,
you may legally convert it to a different format which
is easier to read.
Why couldn't the Russian customers
read the e-books in the first place?
To get full use of the e-book, it must be converted
into a more prtable format, such as pdf.
Adobe's software would not allow copying the e-book
to a notebook, and neither would it allow printing
the e-book. Adobe's software also does not provide
any access to the e-book for blind people.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Heather" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
28 Jun 2003 11:46:57 AM |
|
|
In article <bdkf2k$tke9b$2@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>,
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
In article <bdjopv$tm8d4$2@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>,
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
In article <bdj0ob$tcuds$3@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>,
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
Laws such as the DMCA which deny me my
right to read an e-book I legally purchased, and
to listen to a CD I also paid for, are stupid.
I am waiting for a virus programmer to sue the
anti-virus software vendors for DMCA violations, and for
M$ to sue the person who finds M$ security bug #234627.
I'm not familiar with either of those issues.
The DMCA is a copyright law.
The simplest example is the one with the CDs.
The music industry has added broken anti-copy
functionality to CDs. This broken anti-copy
functionality causes tens of thousands of newly produced
original CDs to become unreadable
in various normal CD players. Thus, if I happen to buy
such a CD which does not play in my own CD player,
much less in my PC's CD player, I'm totally stuck, because
I am no longer allowed to make a copy of the
CD I bought and paid for, not even for the (absolutely legal) purpose
of getting a copy of my broken CD which works at all.
Sheesh! Is it the MS security bug that causes this broken functionality
or was that in reference to what you describe below?
No. The broken CD anti-copy functionality is, basically,
caused by the simple fact that reading a CD to play
it is not essentially different from reading a CD to copy
it. There exists is an industry standard for CDs, and
any CD which adheres to that existing standard can be copied.
If a CD is designed to be difficult to copy, it must
violate the industry standard for CDs, and there will
inevitably be various devices which then cannot play
that CD any more.
I see. Thank you for explaining.
M$ is a different issue. M$'s software is poorly
designed and thus contains lots of highly critical security bugs.
Or, to word it differently: windoze never was designed
to be secure. All these reports about yet another M$
security bug, plus the horrible costs caused by all
these viruses and worms, have created a lot of
bad publicity for M$. Naturally, M$ want to avoid
that bad publicity. As they cannot possibly completely
redesign windoze to be a reasonably secure OS,
the only thing they can do is prevent known security
bugs from becoming public knowledge, or, even better for M$,
from being detected at all. The DMCA seems to give
M$ the legal right to sue people who search for security
bugs in M$ software for damages. Thus far, M$ has not
done such a thing, but they could.
Hmph. I *heart* my Mac!
With respect to e-books, that was a reference to the ElcomSoft trial.
ElcomSoft is a Russian software company which had broken
Adobe's copy protection in order to allow Russian
customers to read the e-books they had purchased, by converting
the e-books into a different format. Again,
converting an e-book you have bought legally into a format
which allows you to read the e-book at all is legal. In the "rest
of the world", in any case.
Sorry, you lost me here, especially your second-last sentence.
Outside the US, when you buy software, you get the full
rights on that CD, and you can do with your copy
of the software as you see fit. Especially, if you buy an e-book,
you may legally convert it to a different format which
is easier to read.
Why couldn't the Russian customers
read the e-books in the first place?
To get full use of the e-book, it must be converted
into a more prtable format, such as pdf.
Adobe's software would not allow copying the e-book
to a notebook, and neither would it allow printing
the e-book.
Thanks. I understand now. What I don't get (and never did) was the whole
point of e-books. I personally can't stand to read lengthy material
online. I'll print it off to read it. So why not just buy a traditional
book if people are going to print it off anyway?
Adobe's software also does not provide
any access to the e-book for blind people.
Hm.
--
Heather
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
28 Jun 2003 01:24:07 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Heather" <spam@menot.com> wrote:
In article <bdkf2k$tke9b$2@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>,
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
[...]
Outside the US, when you buy software, you get the full
rights on that CD, and you can do with your copy
of the software as you see fit. Especially, if you buy an e-book,
you may legally convert it to a different format which
is easier to read.
Why couldn't the Russian customers
read the e-books in the first place?
To get full use of the e-book, it must be converted
into a more prtable format, such as pdf.
Adobe's software would not allow copying the e-book
to a notebook, and neither would it allow printing
the e-book.
Thanks. I understand now. What I don't get (and never did) was the whole
point of e-books. I personally can't stand to read lengthy material
online. I'll print it off to read it. So why not just buy a traditional
book if people are going to print it off anyway?
I don't read books online either, but some people do.
From the vendor's perspective, e-books are a very attractive
market, because they do not have printing costs.
As for printing: you could, for example, just print
one of the illustrations in the book. Being able to
print the book does not imply that one wants to
print the whole book.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Heather" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME rules are meant to be broken |
28 Jun 2003 02:18:23 PM |
|
|
In article <bdkmer$tl3p6$2@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>,
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
I don't read books online either, but some people do.
From the vendor's perspective, e-books are a very attractive
market, because they do not have printing costs.
I'm sure.
As for printing: you could, for example, just print
one of the illustrations in the book. Being able to
print the book does not imply that one wants to
print the whole book.
True enough.
--
Heather
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
