![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"I admit it seems cowardly to keep quiet. When I read about the harassment to which the Scientologists subject their critics, or that pro-Israel groups are 'compiling dossiers' on those who speak out against Israeli human rights abuses, or about people being sued for violating the DMCA, part of me wants to say, 'All right, you bastards, bring it on.' The problem is, there are so many things you can't say. If you said them all you'd have no time left for your real work. You'd have to turn into Noam Chomsky." -- Paul Graham, "What You Can't Say"
That ought to get a response from Interrobang...
DMCA
We both know I can say anything to anyone not wielding a lethal weapon. Except around my Grandma. (I've got her convinced you're a girl.) Sometimes to my detriment. But I can take most of the flak without flinching. Retail does that to one.
Silence is not my way of life, and does not particularly become me. (Moderation, Annie)
"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution"--Emma Goldman
Re: DMCA
Re: DMCA
in particular, reverse engineering for the purposes of breaking anti-copy protection is illegal, even if your purpose for copying (making a backup copy for your own use) is fully legal under your fair rights laws.
its the reason many dvd-copy programs have been made illegal and those companys are now out of business because they couldn't afford the lawsuit to get this crap thrown out as unconstitutional.
similarly, its the reason its technically illegal to write open-source programs that can read windows media or itunes files (or quicktime, or ...).
its the reason that a PC dvd-rom player can not legally be made to be "all-region", but restricts itself to your own region after a fixed number of uses.
there are even more restictions embedded in this document, all of which were unnecessary because ordinary copyright law was clear enough on these issues except for where the anti-copy protection racket got involved. rather than work with the growing digital global market, they opted to go straight to congress through lobbying and bypass the needs of their customers.
they then started the trend of lawsuits that you can read about pretty much weekly.
assuming your customers are criminals before they've even bought your product is no way to run a business.
Re: DMCA
Diebold is the first company to be held liable for violating section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which makes it unlawful to use DMCA takedown threats when the copyright holder knows that infringement has not actually occurred.
If you got it, flaunt it. :D
If you doubt me, screw reading his political stuff and take a gander at Chomksy swinging the big hammer at B.F. Skinner back in 1959, when Skinner was God and Chomsky was B.F. Nobody. :D