Easy. No one should ever have to pay money to find out what laws/rules/edicts they have to obey. Given that, you can either remove the copyright from the standard or grant a free-to-publish license to that standard. Done (unless you feel that charging for access to laws is valid).
They didn't say anything about what emulators in general were created for. They said emulators created for the purpose of playing illegally copied Nintendo software is blah blah blah. They don't say anything about emulators in general, nor do they say anything about emulators created to play non Nintendo software, and nor do they say anything about emulators created to emulate Nintendo hardware for the purpose of running custom software that runs on Nintendo hardware. Also of note: they aren't saying anything about emulators created to play legally copied Nintendo software.
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. I'd prefer copyright law to be scrapped. None of these people will offer reasons for why it ought to be scrapped. They all have jobs that rely on copyright existing in some form or another. While some of their arguments might include why people are angry, none of their arguments will actually look at the whole of the system.
If you aren't willing to look at reasons for scrapping the whole copyright system, then you really aren't looking at the right thing. You have to look at all of the data and question the reason for it's existence to begin with. I fully concede that others may come to different conclusions than me. I'm just saying that if they aren't even willing to look at the core, then anything else is just window dressing to keep their jobs while placating the populace.
Where's the representation of people who will actually consider all possibilities? I don't see anyone on that list who would argue that the whole concept ought to be scrapped. Instead, I see a bunch of people who will make arguments for why their job needs to stay. Changed? Sure, but none of them will be willing to accept that maybe it's not necessary anymore (if it ever was).
Yes, but if you know that what you have done is illegal, and that it's being referred to the authorities, then why don't they just leave. They're not on bail. That I know of, nothing is stopping them from taking a vacation to France and once there asking for asylum a la Roman Polanski.
I've never done this (nor felt the need to) so I don't know how hard it would actually be.
While I enjoy watching these guys get put to the fire, I can't help but wonder why they haven't left the country. There are several decent countries that probably wouldn't extradite them for the things they could be charged with. Either they are really stupid, or extremely confident that they will be exonerated. It's not likely they're going to be getting a lot of business as lawyers after this anyway, so having to learn a new skill set in a different country isn't much different than staying here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Bit Upset With Netflix Here
It's not DRM if the customer can decrypt at will (besides playing the content through the approved player). If the consumer knows, or even can know, one of the keys, then it's not DRM. The only way I know of to hide the key from the consumer without hiding it from the player is to obfuscate the key. Open source prevents that. Partly because you can read the code, and partly you can also compile your own version that just prints out the key.
I don't think it's a matter of simplicity, but rather feasibility. Stack overflow seems to be in agreement. Open source DRM is probably not possible.
I don't think it's possible (though I admit this is not my area of expertise). Public/Private works by someone using your public key to encrypt something that only you can decrypt with your private key. In the case of DRM, the content owners would use their private key to encrypt so other's could use their public key to decrypt. But if the key is public, then the DRM is effectively dead.
They could try encrypting the content with their customer's public keys, so the customers can then decrypt it with their private keys, but then you have to re-encrypt the content for every purchaser, and you still haven't solved the main problem: the consumer can decrypt the content at will.
The problem with DRM is that it tries to hide those keys from the same people being shown the content. It has to do this so that they can't get the keys to decrypt the content at will. So far, that's been done by having closed-source, proprietary and obfuscated solutions. With an open source solution, it would be trivial to find where the keys are hidden by reading the source code, or even easier, compile your own version that just prints the key out. Once you have the keys, you decrypt the content once, and now it's decrypted for always.
Cops have never been about preventing crime. Law enforcement has always been about dealing with people after they've committed a crime. Occasionally they might stop a crime in progress, or just their presence might be enough to deter a crime from starting or escalating.
In other words, law enforcement's responsibility in terms of the Boston bombers was to catch them after the crime occurred and then to deal with them. And look, law enforcement did just that. So why is there a need for more cameras? Why is there a need to reduce privacy?
I say let's make a deal. The only way privacy is off the table is if absolute security from crime is provided. If they can provide that, then maybe we can allow a loss in privacy. And I mean absolute security. No Boston-like bombers can ever occur again. No homicides, 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter. No robbing, stealing, thieving, or any of the like any more. I should be able to leave buckets of money in plain view on my front lawn and not have to worry at all about any of it going missing.
If that's not the level of security that can be provided, then privacy is not off the table.
That is what Franklin meant by his famous quote. You don't deserve safety if you give up liberty, because you can't get safety by giving up liberty. Thus, if you're willing to trade liberty for nothing (which is what you get from the trade) then you don't deserve liberty.
The innovations being made here are innovations in communication. Copyright is an attempt to incentivize publishing works. People will create whether copyright exists or not. People will communicate whether future innovations occur or not. But creation becomes easier when communication is easy. Publishing is easier when communication is easy. Life gets better, wrongs get righted, and people are happier (in general) when communication is easier.
If I had to choose either incentives to innovate on communication or incentives to publish creative works, I'd choose innovation in communication every single time. That's partly because communication is important on so many other levels than creative works, but also because communication breeds creative works. So the one (communication) improves both, while the other (copyright) impedes one and may not be improving the other. That means if copyright hinders innovation in communication in even the least degree, it should be abolished. And it does, so abolish it.
 Show me proof that copyright is necessary for creative works.
No, it's true. There is a button that will make porn disappear. It's on the back of the WiFi access point. If it's not there, there is probably a little switch on the surge protector it's plugged into. If a surge protector isn't being used, you might find the switch in a box with a lot of other switches that look similar (only some of those switches turn off the lights in the kitchen).
My guess is that at some point the government will require one or more of these buttons be employed. For the children of course.
Right now if you go to the trouble of trying to hide your bittorrent activities you are seen as a copyright infringer and nothing else. As more and more movie studios (and labels, game studios, publishers, etc) start using bittorrent to distribute promotional material like this, hiding your bittorrent activity will be seen the same as blocking tracking cookies. It'll be interesting to see how long privacy advocates are lumped in with piracy advocates.
1-800-CONTACTS is suing in Utah because it's convenient for them. I know they used to have a huge presence in the south Salt Lake area (that might be their HQ, but I'm not sure). Suing in California would have been inconvenient for 1-800-CONTACTS, suing in Utah is inconvenient for Ditto, suing anywhere else would have been inconvenient for both parties. So it makes sense that the suing party would choose a location that is most convenient to themselves. At least it wasn't East Texas.
It's despicable what they're doing, but I thought I'd just explain why they're suing where they are.
To be fair, there is a difference between the state publishing the information and an employer using the information to never hire someone for some minor infraction of the law. I also recognize, however, that it's much easier for the state to just not publish the information then it is to change the attitudes of every hiring manager.
I'm not convinced the photo even deserves a copyright. I don't see much in the photo that is "creative" on the part of Masck. He didn't choose where to be sitting in relation to Howard, he didn't choose the lighting, he didn't choose the pose, he didn't choose the relative position of other players. The only thing Masck chose was when to take the picture, of what, and the framing. The framing is easily dropped by someone taking his photo and changing the framing (zooming in or whatever). Everything creative in this picture comes from Howard or sheer luck on Masck's part.
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about photography will prove me wrong. But as of now, if I were the judge, I'd be asking Masck why this photograph deserves copyright status at all.