fudd 0 #1 January 7, 2003 Thank god! This gives me a little trust in the system again. http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=466519 There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #2 January 7, 2003 At least there some sense left in the Far North... I'm sure he wouldn't have had a chance in an american courtroom. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #3 January 7, 2003 QuoteAt least there some sense left in the Far North... I'm sure he wouldn't have had a chance in an american courtroom. I wouldn't go that far. Yeah, we have some screwy civil lawsuit verdicts, but they're the exception. You don't hear about the thousands a day that get thrown out of court, only the shocking ones make the news. And if anything, the biggest complaint regarding criminal proceedings in the US is that it is too lenient on the accused. Lets not forget that the US championed the rights of people who purchase media (vhs/cd's/cassettes) to be able to make legal copies for their own personal use. Hell, if it wasn't for US courts, VCR's would be illegal. The television industry tried to get them banned when they came out because they said the only use of them was to "pirate" broadcast television. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #4 January 7, 2003 This is good news, but there are still 14 days for an appeal. Once again I am amazed at the /. - fark - dropzone overlap -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #5 January 7, 2003 >>I'm sure he wouldn't have had a chance in an american courtroom. > >I wouldn't go that far. Fair enough. But the lawsuit would be far from over now, with the entertainment corporations pushing millions of dollars to an army of lawyers... I'm sure Jon had a better chance against Norwegian public prosecutors in a Norwegian courtroom, than he would've had against the army of suits in an American court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #6 January 7, 2003 That is true, Sony tried the same BS back in the 80s, when they sued over video cassettes saying would ruin the movie industry. Guess Blockbuster disagreed. But in the more recent past, remember Dimitri Skylarov?-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #7 January 7, 2003 "But in the more recent past, remember Dimitri Skylarov?" Yup. I do. Also, another tale of hackers making life better for us all. In Europe, the tax system for cameras and recorders is different. So a little while back, Sony would only import DV cameras that had their DV in ports disabled. Which kinda sucks, because at the time if you wanted to edit in DV you had to either smuggle in a PAL camera from the far east or Russia, or fork out 1500 pounds for a DV deck. Then Arik Drori published the firmware codes to convert Sony cams thereby re-enabling their DV inputs. Yay for Arik. This forced Sony to start importing cameras with their DV inputs enabled, allowing us to direct firewire cam to cam like everyone else in the civilised world.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #8 January 7, 2003 Nice...I was unaware of this. It is really all a matter of what the corporations think we will tolerate. Unfortunately a lot of people these days, fail to even recognize the possibility of complaint and protest as an action. On a related note, updated firmware is now available for most DVD roms to remove region encoding. I figure before long you will also be able to remove the block that disables all digital outputs when playing DVD audio.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #9 January 7, 2003 Actually, there's case law on this topic. If the recording device (VCR, Tape, DVD, etc) has any legitimate personal use the court will not find for copyright infringement. Quote THE AUDIO HOME RECORDING ACT OF 1992 In 1992, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) (17 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1010). This legislation was enacted at least partly in response to pressure from the recording industry, which was concerned about the introduction of DAT recording devices (the first commercial distribution of a device which allowed for serial copying of music digitally, without quality degradation in successive copies). The new law also clarified the status of home audio copying, an issue left unresolved by the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), which proclaimed the legality of home video copying for "time-shifting" purposes (taping a broadcast program to watch at a later time, then erasing the copy so as not to build a "library" of copyrighted works). Under the AHRA, one is not liable for copyright infringement for making, importing, or distributing a "digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium" or for using any of these devices or media for personal, noncommercial recording. (17 U.S.C. § 1008) It is the interpretation of this chapter of the Copyright Act which has caused the most consternation and speculation in the recent MP3 player case, Recording Industry Association of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. June 15, 1999). The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), filed suit against Diamond to enjoin its manufacture and distribution of the Rio, a Walkman-like device which allows a user to store and play downloaded MP3s without having to sit in front of the computer to listen. This new portability makes MP3s more accessible and attractive to the average music fan. The RIAA contended that the Rio was a digital audio recording device within the meaning of the AHRA and thus violated the Act by not incorporating a SCMS to prevent piracy. On June 15, 1999, the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that the Rio was not a digital audio recording device, since it is incapable of recording (users download MP3 files from their computer hard drive, also rule to not be a digital audio recording device), thus the Act did not apply. Further, the court stated that, since MP3s as they exist are not coded for SCMS or other copyright management schemes, requiring the RIO to incorporate SCMS would be moot. (Read the opinion.) This decision is being hailed as a victory by manufacturers of digital electronics, who are eager to cash in on the current MP3 craze. The RIAA, as is to be expected, is not happy about the decision. Ken"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #10 January 7, 2003 HAHAHA! Suck on that, Jack Valenti!!!"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #11 January 7, 2003 Good point...however there are also some little gems hidden in a piece of legislation...I think it is called Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. Cannot find the reference I want right now. But the MPAA/RIAA had some lobbyists stick in some hidden provisions at the last minute that had almost nothing to do with Satellite viewers.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZBone 0 #12 January 7, 2003 QuoteAt least there some sense left in the Far North... I'm sure he wouldn't have had a chance in an american courtroom. This might be a piece of urban legend, but I heard once that the UN made a list of the most "free" countries, based on a reasonable set of criteria, personal liberty, civil rights, etc. The US didn't even make the top ten! _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #13 January 7, 2003 I suppose Cuba made the list, and North Korea. The UN Commission on Human Rights voted to remove the United States (recently returned), but kept countries like China and Cuba on it. I wouldn't place much credence in anything the UN says."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #14 January 8, 2003 QuoteI suppose Cuba made the list, and North Korea. You suppose wrong.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
