Connect with us

"Analog hole" legislation introduced

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Winfield Hill, Dec 19, 2005.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. John  Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

    And the time you spend in jail is called "vacation"?

  2. John  Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

    I don't follow that at all. If Disney elects to protect or encrypt or
    whatever their cartoons, from whom does that take away rights? If you
    don't like the package they offer, shop around for other cartoons and
    buy the best deal you can find, or stick with free stuff, or draw your
    own. You have no basic right to copy their IP if they don't want it

    The government provides laws and cops and courts to protect your
    physical property; what's inherently different about intellectual

  3. Keith

    Keith Guest

    Geez, you better tell that to ASCAP and BMI. These folks beat up
    businesses for playing the radio or having a dance floor.
  4. Keith

    Keith Guest

    Wrong. There is nothign preventing you from giving you "music" away. You
    can publish it freely, if you choose. However, if you like your TV set
    and computer, yes, the government will try to prosecute those who steal
    Nonsense. It is in the purview of the state to enforce property rights,
    intellectual or real. Without property rights we have no rights at all.
  5. Mac

    Mac Guest

    Probably if the feds caught a group of "pirates" they would charge them
    with operating a criminal conspiracy and the RICO act and who knows what

    Other than that, I think copyright infringement suits tend to be civil.
    For example, the RIAA's recent legal efforts have all been lawsuits
    against alleged copyright violators. I think there are criminal statutes
    related to copyright in the DMCA.

    Trademark and patent cases seem to usually take the form of lawsuits, but
    maybe there are some criminal statutes involved. I am not a lawyer.

    I am not trying to defend copyright infringement here. I am just pointing
    out that the statutes which forbid theft of real property are different
    from the statutes which regulate the hodge-podge of things we call
    intellectual property. Also, the forms of intellectual property are very
    different from each other, and serve different purposes.

    The patent and trademark laws are not fundamentally broken, although the
    patent system awards too many patents for things which are not novel or
    have no business being patented in the first place. IMO business method
    patents are questionable, and software patents are stupid.

    Copyright law is fundamentally broken in the USA. No further works will
    fall out of copyright protection in our lifetimes.


  6. Yes, I was without TV or the internet for a year and it didn't kill
  7. You said it very well.
    You could be right, it's been a long time since I checked.

    I do believe though that GPL, as such, fully allows stealing and
    borrowing the code, as long as the result is made public.

  8. Guest

    That's wrong. GPL specifically protects ownership. It is illegal to
    take GPLed software and claim it as your own or borrow code etc.
    without also making your code GPL. Unless you don't distribute your
    code, in which case GPL doesn't even need you to provide source (for
    example a modified version of Apache used ONLY by your employees).

    If you really, really want to completely bypass copyright then release
    your code as Public Domain. No copyright needed, no license needed. And
    anyone including Bill Gates can freely use your code without
    restriction. By copyright law, materials released as public domain are
    not owned by anyone (materials created by the US government are
    specifically defined by copyright law as being in the public domain -
    so the US government can't GPL their source code).

    The GPL depends on copyright to protect ownership of code. Then, since
    certain rights are granted by copyright law to the owner, you may
    impose licensing terms and restirctions. By choosing GPL as the license
    you ensure that nobody may use your code in their project without
    acknowledging you and distributing the source. You also ensure that
    nobody may use your code without also making their code GPL and
    distribute their source.
  9. Ian Bell wrote...
    If it hasn't been said elsewhere in this thread, the non-USA
    needs to remember that they also have a dog in this fight,
    because they're next. If consumers lose fair-use rights here
    and hardware locks are mandated, the entertainment industry
    will quickly work to see this extended to the EU, etc., which
    could result in most, if not all, of the world's interesting
    affordable mass-produced products bearing the same locks. By
    contrast, if we win this little fight, it's not likely the EU
    would give hardware locks serious consideration.
  10. GPL depends on copyright to protect the code being in the free

  11. Guest

    Actually, it is true. You may not remove copyright notices of the
    original owner of the code. Which is what I consider claiming the code
    as your own (not acknowledging the original author). Otherwise everyone
    would know that that portion of the code belongs to someone else. This
    is specifically covered in term 1 of GPL:

    "...keep intact all the notices that refer to this License..."

    Copyright law specifically states that materials in the public domain
    remains in the public domain. No GPL needed. This is not what GPL was
    designed to do. GPL is designed to protect derivative code (not merely
    'the code') from being hidden.
  12. On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:49:14 -0800,
    Linux might not "always" be there. If hardware-locking is 100% in place,
    only per-machine certified software will be able to run on such
    computers. But open source projects won't get licensed, much as
    there is no legal open-source player for encrypted DVDs.

  13. Nope. Ten years in Club Fed sounds a lot like "criminal" to me.

    18 U.S.C. 2319 "Criminal Infringement of a Copyright"

    <snipped the rest - already shown to be false>
  14. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    For what reason? Rowdiness or IP infringement ?:)

    ...Jim Thompson
  15. Engineers, rowdy, at lunch with beers and stuff? Whodathunkit?

    No, it is copyrighted, and enforced by AOL Time Warner.
  16. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    Then the manager is an ignoramus... infringing a copyright requires
    "for gain or profit".

    ...Jim Thompson
  17. John  Larkin

    John Larkin Guest,aid,123934,pg,1,00.asp

  18. John  Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

    What would be the legal basis for forbidding the sale of computers
    that can boot Linux? Realistically, that's not going to happen, for a
    number of political and technical and legal reasons.

  19. It *is* inherently different.

    If I steal or destroy your physical property, you lose it. You are
    worse off as a result of my actions.

    If I "steal" your intellectual "property", you still have it. You have
    not lost anything.
  20. The term "intellectual property" is misleading and was invented to
    make government sponsored monopolies more attractive.

    "Intellectual property" is very much unlike any property and is much
    better described as "intellectual monopoly".

    Some differences are:

    1. Physical property cannot be easily duplicated.

    2. Ownership of physical property gives the owner almost complete
    rights to it. Not so with intellectual property artifacts like CDs
    with software or VCR tapes, which can only be used in limited ways.

    3. Ownership of physical property existed for a long time. The term
    intellectual property and its modern day use is a very recent

Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day