dorbie

You were close, it's actually a fuck of lawyers, not a flock.

I have access to my pics so here's one of my favorites. I'm the one on the right.

The situation is worse than that for many users. Merely playing a DVD requires decryption. The DMCA makes that decryption an illegal act circumventing copy protection (it would previously have been deemed bog standard reverse engineering). A key component of Open Source code to play DVDs is therefore illegal. This source code of course has been readily available to 'criminals' and widely disseminated for 8 years. As I mentioned much earlier you cannot currently make an Open Source distro with a DVD player. Of course many distros ship with a player kinda lilke windows media player, but all those 'criminals' out there need to patch their OS with libdvdcss2 to be able to play DVDs they legally purchased. At last check you cannot purchase a closed source proprietary DVD player to make your free OS functional (you know the OS that is the product of the intellectual endeavors of thousands of engineers worldwide). And why should you have to, someone wants to give you the free one they legitimately and fairly wrote and they are called criminals for doing so. This idiotic state of affairs keeps the movie industry's comfort blanket intact. Meantime the DMCA is being abused in insidious ways to encrypt and construct artificial barriers to legitimate engineering activities. I think reasonable people will agree with my earlier observation that if the DMCA had been around when IBM was defending their BIOS, the PC industry would have turned out very differently.

I have no pic handy but my face is in this video at the start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEZRvZCC14U

I have, you have ignored massive signposts in single sentence replies like "fair use" only to pretend at the end that you knew exactly what you were talking about all along. You cannot get more concise. He deserved it as anyone else would who did as much to undermine our rights as he did. I would no more praise Valenti's lich than I would Joseph Goebbels. A few more pricks like Valenti and we'd truly be in the shit. He did immense harm and I hope the greedy bastard is dancing on a pitchfork. He lived his life unmolested (unlike some of his victims) and the least I can do is heap some much deserved scorn on his legacy. What self indulgent tripe. Parroting a mantra for 20 posts while ignoring the obvious is not a cogent argument. You calling PA does not make it so, get off your moral high horse, you're the one advocating the wholesale removal of rights while you "enjoy pushing my buttons" not the other way around. That's the third time you've said you were leaving in boredom or the huff.

I have already mentioned several. If someone 'debating' does not understand what I have written then they should learn enough about the issues so that they can at least PRETEND to recognise the terms of art before the very end of the thread. Look for T-shirt in this thread, go look up DVD Jon. Understand what this meant for Linux players I have a large DVD collection, fair use is eviscerated for encrypted media and I shouldn't have to explain to anyone posting what this means. I'm a software engineer the broader ramifications and chilling effects of the DMCA through both SLAPP lawsuits and other abusive annoyances has been pervasive. Finally the founding fathers and revolutionaries did not have to be tea drinkers to oppose an injustice.

Good of you to finally recognize the existence of fair use, but these are not privileges granted by copyright holders. They are rights established in law. It is simply not the case that copyright holders can unilaterally establish any contract they like and impose it upon consumers and say take it or leave it. The law recognizes that this would be grossly unfair. Moreover it has recognized that these rights extend to copying and portability through doctrines like first-use. DMCA has already undermined this in a power grab by copyright holders who deliver using encrypted media and now the same guys who admitted first-use as fair use while shutting down various websites through the supreme court now want to extend the evisceration of fair use to non copy protected media. i.e. in addition to making free and open DVD players illegal the digital media power grab now for example would make iTunes CD reading illegal, ultimately outlawing simple and legal functionality that exists today and is enjoyed by law abiding iPod users everywhere. We're in the midst of a massive opportunity for media creators VIDEO and now DVD sales are a great example of a market that never existed but is now huge, and all they can think to do is throttle the goose in the hope that it will lay a bigger golden egg for them.

There you go again. You repeating page after page of the same twaddle while contradicting yourself and ignoring pages of posts on fair use which encompasses concepts like first-sale just highlights your ignorance. And this is just as the DMCA related to fucking DVDs, frankly I barely give a shit about DVDs, the ramifications of the DMCA are broader as you'd know if you had a clue. But you breezed past those posts and the points the raised just as you breeze past all points made by repeating your dogmatic mantra.

Even while I was typing.

...... then sold to consumers for money that those consumers labored so hard to earn. You want to simultaneously place rights in quotations to imply that they are fictitious while pretending that they are not being erroded which implies they exist. This is an ongoing struggle to retain rights we enjoy and the pigopolists will take as much as we let them. There is an ongoing attempt to move the goalposts despite their own remarks before the supreme court. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060215-6190.html

Tillman?

You still have no clue what fair use encompasses and insist on ignoring the plain English words I have written around that phrase. I refer you to my previous post, that is all. You saying I have not answered like a demented parrot does not mean I have not answered numerous times.

That has been demonstrated to be absolutely false, but you showed such ignorance at the start of your contribution that you probably didn't realize it. I'm sure this thread has been a useful learning experience for you but now even faced with the reality you're still pretending that you're right. Are you really under the impression that anyone will be misled by your dance? You STILL ignore the fact (and are probably ignorant of it) that fair use encompassed an array of rights including making copies, not just Kallend's physics tutorial. I mentioned much earlier in this thread that the DMCA contains a catch 22 but you breezed on by. I used the term fair use about a half dozen times in direct response to your question but you breezed on by. Just admit that you had no idea what you were talking about when you jumped into this thread, that you've thoroughly embarrassed yourself and that your insistence that no rights have been lost even in the face of clear explanations is disingenuous window dressing. You're struggling under the delusion that you're wielding a fig leaf, give it up and save yourself further embarrassment. And it's Dorbie, get it right.

Some judges need special pants: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-18-judge-sentenced_x.htm

Yippie kayay mother-lover!

You added a comma and two words there. Saying he is the commander guy is in reference to the two opposing viewpoints he had just stated, he's trying to draw a distinction between his opponents and himself w.r.t. decision making on Iraq strategy specifically as it relates to setting a deadline. But carry on, if you feel it is advantageous to interpret it as such I don't much care.

I will concede that functional illiteracy is a definite possibility, but I am right. Bill is reading what he wants to into this. Which is fun and all, but .... Technically he IS the commander guy, it's in his title, it's even a noun, heck it's a word, I mean this is REAL progress. Alas he is trying to say that he is the guy saying the commanders should be heeded ..... it is reasonably clear from the context.

P.S. with commentary: http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/media.html

That's not small, THIS is small: http://aimediaserver.com/studiodaily/videoplayer/?src=harvard/harvard.swf&width=640&height=520

It's funny, but he was actually saying that he advocates letting commanders on the ground decide the strategy in Iraq and not congress, in his own inarticulate way.

Nobody has advocated that. Your concern over copyright violations does not mean society should let your trade organizations impose changes in the laws that cause widespread damage to people just because they're not on your radar, to name just one issue. The laws aren't even effective but we've covered that already.

That's what "Other (please explain)" is for. The main malfunctioning (total or otherwise) is obviously the first step in the "double malfunction" scenario. The nature of the reserve malfunction required for the "double malfunction" label is the point of my poll, not how the main malfunctions. That's what I did WITH the explanation you solicited. I better understand your poll with your explanation, and FWIW I think Tonto nailed it, with the nit that you might have a nuisance mal or a low pull and not have time for a check after it clears, so 'would not pass' rather than 'does not pass', but that's pedantic I guess.

How does one get "accidentally" beaten to death? I feel confident that the Canadian didn't indend to be beaten to death.

Meanwhile the legitimate customers suffer. Look at DRM on iTunes store songs. Can you imagine anything more asinine? Everyone else has a legitimate CD copy they can RIP. But the one person they can absolutely guarantee has bought it legally is DRM encumbered by these idiots. DVDs are not much better. Casual pirates can casually rip, you'd have to be living in a cave to miss the cornucopia of software out there, mean time you can't actually get a DVD player on a distro, heck Windows can't play DVDs out the box thanks to CSS key licensing bullshit. It's not enough they protect the content they want to sell you the key to play your own stuff. A key to a lock you never wanted in the first place.

I think that about sums it up. Contrary to your characterization I'm not a leftie and don't subscribe to any of that "down with da man" nonsense. Valenti's actions earned my contempt, and the name calling is to disrespect the mouldering corpse of a fucking bastard who has done more than most to undermine our rights and freedoms. Take it more as a celebration of the asshole's death, may he burn in hell. The PC I'm using would not have been possible without the reverse engineering of the BIOS that IBM fought in court and lost. Reflect on that once you learn more about what the DMCA did. I don't expect you to understand, your response is a knee-jerk political one rather than an informed one and ignorance is not a crime, not even under the DMCA. ........ and you said you weren't a troll.