 RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Never thought I would cheer the ACLU But in this case they are actually doing something good for the common people.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|  | TheXerox
join:2002-04-05
Iowa | Re: Never thought I would cheer the ACLU My thoughts exactly. For once they're doing something which actually makes sense. Lets hope they put this newfound intelligence to some good use. | |
| | 
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | In fact everything they do is for the good of the common people... their only goal is to uphold the Bill of Rights.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
| | | Anon00
Premium
join:2001-09-25
USA | Re: Never thought I would cheer the ACLU Or at least how they interpret the Bill of Rights... anyways, I'm glad they're doing this because some group needs to stand up to the Recording and Hollywood companies. | |
| | | 
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| said by ieolus:
In fact everything they do is for the good of the common people... their only goal is to uphold the Bill of Rights.
Unless it's the Second Amendment. The founding fathers were clear in their intent. Not flame bait...just an observation.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
| | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| said by ieolus:
In fact everything they do is for the good of the common people... their only goal is to uphold the Bill of Rights.
I don't know about that. The ACLU tends to be a lot more reactionary to insignificant details than the really serious problems around us. Sometimes they get on the right track like this time, but most of the time they are screaming about making the country politically correct.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
| | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA | Re: Never thought I would cheer the ACLU I agree but what is insignificant to you and me aren't to the people who's "rights" are supposedly being violated. | |
| | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Never thought I would cheer the ACLU I don't see how "In God We Trust" being posted in front of a county courthouse or kids playing cowboys and indians violating any rights, but those are the kinds of causes the ACLU have been grandstanding on. Are we a country of people so fragile in our beliefs that the very site of something we don't believe in makes us feel violated? To me a lot of these issues are so superficial that I am surprised the ACLU has made a full time job of it.
Don't get me wrong. Real rights are being violated in this country and somebody has to be there to make sure that doesn't happen. I just don't see the ACLU doing that as much as they should.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
| | | | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: Never thought I would cheer the ACLU I agree 100% In fact here's a new story today about the ACLU desicrating a land mark near my town. The landmark is a cross put on top of a rocky mountain to honor WWI dead. It has been there for decades but the ACLU is forcing the removal of the historic landmark.
»www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_···2d2.html
What's next, taking the Cross and Star of David out of Arlington? I mean...it's government land isn't it?
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
| | | | | | | 
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| Re: Never thought I would cheer the ACLU Don't take offense, but if I'm not mistaken, you live in the 9th Federal Court of Appeals Circuit, where a judge recently pronounced the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional (because of the words "Under God"), and if that wasn't funny enough, he stayed his own decision the following morning. Without trying to be cynical, I have come to expect nothing but outrageous inanity from CA on "soft" social issues, notwithstanding how CA excels in so many other areas.
Incidentally, it is government land, that's exactly their point, it goes straight to the "establishment" clause - Religious symbols on publicly funded property. That's why it's a crime to even mention to children in public schools that there is such a thing as the 10 commandments, let alone spell them out.
The ACLU is making the same mistake NOW/Feminist Majority and their ilk had made in the 80's and 90's - the more radical it is, the more outrageous it sounds, the more play it will get in the media, and the more visibility they will gain. Ultimately, like the feminists, they will end up marginalizing themselves. Not ot mention they are slowly but surely becoming next to useless when it comes to real civil rights violations. But I'm still glad to have them around.
[text was edited by author 2002-07-25 21:08:52] | |
| | | | | | | | Anon00
Premium
join:2001-09-25
USA
| Re: Never thought I would cheer the ACLU Establishment of Religion... isn't that a church (or cult =)? When did God (or Allah, Buddah, but come to think about it Public schools can teach about them) become a church or a cross become a church, or the Ten Commandments become a church? Aren't those just beliefs, ideals, symbols, religion, and/or philosophy... just something to think about =) Also, isn't the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the same Court (yeah it is) that killed Napster ? Interesting huh ? Oh and another thing about that Pledge of Allegiance thing and to prove how incompetent the 9th Circuit is (they do need to be broken up..). Now we find out that the guy's so called atheist daughter that was being harmed by saying "Under God" is a Christian and has no problem with it which makes his lawsuit illegal (and moot) seeing that he had no standing. You would think that they would ask the girl in question that was being harmed... | |
| | | | | | | | | randysavage0
join:2002-04-16
Fayetteville, AR | Re: Never thought I would cheer the ACLU Actually it is discriminatory against atheists and religions that believe in multiple gods...
In otherwords, it promotes monotheism. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Never thought I would cheer the ACLU said by randysavage:
Actually it is discriminatory against atheists and religions that believe in multiple gods...
In otherwords, it promotes monotheism.
What discrimination? Just because someone has a sign in front of his store that says, "Jesus Loves You" it doesn't mean non-Christians are being discriminated. Discrimination comes when that store owner will not serve the Athiest or Budhist because they are not Christian. I think it's rediculous how the ACLU takes something as simple as a courthouse with the Ten Commandments (a historical document as well as religious by the way) on the wall and say it discriminates against people who are of other faiths.
If I went to a public library and saw something on the wall saying, "May Satan bestow power unto you", yet the friendly librarian lets me, a non-satanist, check out books with no trouble then I'm cool with that. Plaques, memorials, statues, posters, none of this stuff affects me in any way. Who are these people who are crying over being discriminated because the Pledge of Allegiance says "under God" in it? Is their belief system so fragile that any kind of opinion different from it threatens to destroy their faith?
Now separation of church and state is a good thing. We don't want the Vatican or anything like that holding any influence in national policy. We also don't want people forced into praying in schools. But it seems people have taken it so far that an individuals right to express their beliefs is hindered. Isn't one of the founding principals in America the freedom of religion? Sorry I don't see how any of this actually discriminates against the non-God fearing folk.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: Never thought I would cheer the ACLU Exactly...there are Churches in this country that are considered "historic landmarks" is that establishing a state religion?
Let us not forget...the first amendment also prohibits the free exercise of religion.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
| | | | | | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| said by ravital:
Incidentally, it is government land, that's exactly their point, it goes straight to the "establishment" clause - Religious symbols on publicly funded property. That's why it's a crime to even mention to children in public schools that there is such a thing as the 10 commandments, let alone spell them out.
So is Arlington...you want to remove the Cross from there too?
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
| | | | | | | | |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| Re: Never thought I would cheer the ACLU said by Count Hogula:
said by ravital:
Incidentally, it is government land....
So is Arlington...you want to remove the Cross from there too?
Absolutely not. I was trying to explain that this would be (and has been) the ACLU's argument all along, definitely not mine. Sorry if that wasn't clear. | |
| | 
Paladin
Sage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL | Yeah...if only the ACLU spent more time on this stuff as opposed to being a liberal front organization... | |
| | 
ROCINANTE 2112
Original Member 007
join:1999-06-29
Hartsdale, NY
clubs: | Yes, instead of defending Nambla and KKK creeps.
--
CRUNCH THIS!
| |
| | | Anon00
Premium
join:2001-09-25
USA
| Re: Never thought I would cheer the ACLU I was kinda hoping people would've picked up on Napster/9th court/Pledge of Allegiance incompetence point I was making... All well.
Oh and Randy, creating a State in which God cannot be mention is (if you take how the ACLU inteprets things) creating a state of Atheism... curious eh ? I don't want the state promoting a church either, but God is not a religion or church, it is a belief in a Higher Being-Jews and Christians refer to their Higher Being as God but they aren't exactly the same, most Christians when referring to God believe it encompasses Christ and the Holy Ghost. Sure maybe some people don't believe in it (but often they do believe in a higher entity, whether that be nature, chaos, etc), but the concept of God that has evolved from the founding is more of a all encompassing belief that a higher entity bestowed rights to man, which cannot and should not be taken away from Man because they didn't grant them. If a judge puts the Ten Commandments on his wall it is promoting a personal belief in guiding principals. If a child wants to pray in school and asks other students to join if they want to is not the state promoting a church (or religion). We have come so far left that we believe individuals should leave their personal beliefs on the steps of their school (which violates most religion's beliefs), the courtroom, and soon at Washington D.C. (man if you think Washington is bad now... imagine them without concrete moral values.. haha). What the Government is doing now is violating the Free exercise clause, but the idea of Separation of Church and State has been cramed down the throats of Children at Public schools that we seem to forget about the other Clause. The founding fathers weren't worried that people would express their Faith. What they were worried about is the State establishing a Church and forcing people to worship at that altar. It seems we were worried that the State would establish some Judiac-Christian church. But instead the State has established a Socialistic-Atheistic Church and we all worship at the feet of government and kiss their butts so we can get a grant for College or a refund on our taxes so maybe we won't have to be stressed to pay the rent or maybe prescription drugs when we get old because getting old is special cause only a few people can do that.... yeah... | |
| wah6
join:2002-06-06
Dallas, TX | Keep the challenges coming It might take a long time and a lot of cases but the more attention brought to this law, the betta. | |
| | 
grunteled
Puffy And Prickly
Premium
join:2001-06-13
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
| Re: Keep the challenges coming Actually in the current legal climate they may just be establishing president that will keep the DCMA solid for years to come. No appeals courts have been interested in this argument since it was passed. I'm just afraid the current case will be shot-down with the climate the way it is and that will be another case the RIAA and MPAA have n their side.
But, I guess we will just have to see how it shakes out. | |
| russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Summary dismissal "No case or controversy. Get out of my courtroom, geekboy; when we want to hear from you, we'll send the jackbooted thugs for you." | |
|
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
|  Change the law...no complaints from me
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson
[text was edited by author 2002-07-25 13:43:46] | |
| | | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: Change the law...no complaints from me said by Ericthorn:
"Portions of the act restrict people from sharing information about devices that could be used to circumvent copyrights. However, some exemptions exist for academic research."--
All I wanted was a Pepsi
[text was edited by author 2002-07-25 14:16:26]
I don't see that as free speech. I don't believe disclosure of how to defeat theft deterrents is protected speech. We'll see what happens.
BTW, I'll make whatever comments I feel like making. You aren't in a position to determine what is acceptable or not.
Your open hostility is a prime example of the hypocrisy in your statements.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
| | | | | | | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: Change the law...no complaints from me said by Ericthorn:
Hostility?
Please.....
Hey you started with the "troll" crap.
I made no mention in this thread about indy labels THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE IN THAT FORUM BTW.
Here I even supported the position of the attempt to change the law...just don't agree with the premise that it's free speech and even when supporting your position in support of the ACLU...you still have to bitch.
"keep my troll comments to a minimum here".
Take some of your own advice..LOL, anyone who disagrees with you is trolling...sure guy. You are just quick to jump all over anyone who doesn't 100% agree with you. Sorry, I'm not going to censor my comments for the likes of you.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson
[text was edited by author 2002-07-25 14:57:07] | |
| | | | | | randysavage0
join:2002-04-16
Fayetteville, AR
| Re: Change the law...no complaints from me I think you guys are caught in the realist/idealist web...
Ok, we understand one of you thinks that this is the law and is interpreted as ok....
The other, may not be focusing on the law... maybe it is more of a post on the way things should be rather than they are....
Each of your comments may be correct if they are viewed in this manner...
I just don't want this to be like the troll thread about small labels using p2p... or how it got turned into a conversation on piracy  | |
| | | | | | 
Spego
Ack
join:2000-11-07
Eastpointe, MI
| said by Count Hogula:
..so all you left wing nuts who enjoy labeling me as a Nazi, racist and a Communist can rest your panties.
This is trolling.
Why can't you leave that last sentence out of the post? It serves no purpose other than to incite another flame war.
The rest of your post makes a valid point... | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: Change the law...no complaints from me No, I don't believe a researcher just has has the blanket rights to share findings with others. I certainly don't suspect that private industries be permitting to research, say, weapons of mass destruction without government supervision and censorship.
My comments about Nazi's and free stuff are DIRECT responses to OTHER POSTS IN THE THREAD accusing me of being a Nazi. I'm sure you would like to have the vile name calling go unresponded but sorry...doesn't work that way.
And sorry...you aren't in a position to censor me. LOL, coming from the Free Speech guy.
Of course you see anyone who disagrees with you as trolling...you respond to nearly every comment with some label completely ignoring the substance of my post.
And let's not forget I started this particular thread agreeing with the ACLU's right to go after the DCMA although I didn't agree it was free speech.
Then YOU came in RESPONDING TO THAT post with non sequiturs about some other posts in other threads in other forums saying I shouldn't be trolling. My post was completely civil clear and to the point...and you accused me again of trolling which in itself is hostile.
And you spoke of my posting habits...
7 of your last 8 posts are about me...you should move along to another topic -nuff said.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson
[text was edited by author 2002-07-25 19:09:19] | |
| | | | | | | 
sharkbyte0
join:2000-09-07
Lansdale, PA
| said by Count Hogula:
7 of your last 8 posts are about me...you should move along to another topic -nuff said
Agreed!!...I think Count had a bad day yesterday, lets move on to good debate & dialogue, I think he has and so should you  ...
Regards
Shark...
[text was edited by author 2002-07-25 20:37:28] | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| said by Count Hogula:
I don't see that as free speech. I don't believe disclosure of how to defeat theft deterrents is protected speech. We'll see what happens.
BTW, I'll make whatever comments I feel like making. You aren't in a position to determine what is acceptable or not.
Your open hostility is a prime example of the hypocrisy in your statements.
Hypocrisy? Your first paragraph makes your second paragraph extremely hypocritical.
[text was edited by author 2002-07-25 16:27:53] | |
| | | | |
See 17 replies to this post | |
| | | 
ClosedMinded
@earthlink.net
| From the Count H
Your open hostility is a prime example of the hypocrisy in your statements.
Sadly if you read your own previous postings your hostile attitude to people pro P2P
States your own hypocrisy in your statements!! | |
| | | | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | | 
Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
 ·Bright House
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by Count Hogula:
I don't see that as free speech. I don't believe disclosure of how to defeat theft deterrents is protected speech. We'll see what happens.
BTW, I'll make whatever comments I feel like making. You aren't in a position to determine what is acceptable or not.
Your open hostility is a prime example of the hypocrisy in your statements.
-- Personal comments started from begining of posts --
Okay, while some people think you are a troll and some of your comments have floated to troll, non-troll, sometimes you challenge others to think beyond your points...I'll probbly get flamed for this...but such as life. Causeing others to truely think beyond what they consdier logical is always good. But...onto your statement.
While you don't think of it as free speech, others do. Under free speech you have the right to freely discuss and question, not to mention freely exchange information on whatever you want. The abiltiy to discuss the inherent weakness and strengths in a copy protection scheme, or the ability to simply by pass them using a 3M magic marker. Or perhaps a Post-It(TM) note, should not be stopped because some corperation has that they have the right to protect their property. They do ofcourse have the right to protect their copyrights and protection schemes but I also have the right to publicly discuss their weakness and strengths in a public setting. I also have the right to discuss whatever I want that is in the public domain. Or would you stop me from saying that the latest songs by 3 doors down, suck?
But actually, he is in the right to determine what is acceptable or not. After all, he is protected by free speech and that allows him to comment to his hearts desire, as much as you do. Even tho other hate it. | |
| | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA | said by Count Hogula:
But I don't see how the DMCA infringes on first amendment rights.
Of course you don't. In your eyes, the RIAA is always right. | |
| | |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: Change the law...no complaints from me They're far out analogies but analogies nonetheless.
Would you support the freedom to post detailed plans on how to defeat a particular banks security systems?
Publish top secret weapon plans that would defeat American armaments?
Publish a document on the best way to assassinate an American political leader?
BTW: Here is a link to the DMCA if anyone is interested
»lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf
There is no doubt that all these band-aids led to confusion and abuse on both sides. There needs to be plain clear as a bell laws that protect Fair Use while properly protecting copyright holders.
The fact that the DCMA has such far reaching, open ended, some would call vague powers to restrict activities that have little or nothing to do with copyright law...I just disagree that it should be permissible for people to openly "teach" how to violate the law. IMHO its "contributary" to the crime...like being the wheelman.
But hey...if the ACLU can convince them, more power to 'em. I'll be the first on the new law bandwagon. I'm certainly not to keen on buying software and "HOPING" it works on my PC and having zero recourse if it doesn't. I would like to "TRY" before I buy but under current statue that's not legal.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
| | | | solo01
Lurking Inc.
Premium
join:2000-10-07
Cleveland, OH
clubs: | Re: Change the law...no complaints from me I think it would be a good idea if people knew this kind of information. I think our government would like to know if there was a way to defeat their armament.
I think the bank would like to know how good there security system is. | |
| | | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: Change the law...no complaints from me said by solo01:
I think it would be a good idea if people knew this kind of information. I think our government would like to know if there was a way to defeat their armament.
I think the bank would like to know how good there security system is.
The thing is, there is ALWAYS a way to defeat armament but only a few people know it and perhaps our enemies don't. As for the bank...they would rather find that out internally...not from a bank robber after the fact.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson
[text was edited by author 2002-07-25 17:54:35] | |
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| The anti-speech parts of the DMCA refer to the parts of the law that ban the dissemination of information about how to circumvent copy protection--- irregardless of the reason (research, to advance technology, for fair use purposes, etc etc)
Under the DMCA "circumvention" is illegal as well as infringment.
Let me give you an example. Westwood recently released a title called C&C Renegade. I bought this title. For some reason, the copy protection refuses to run on my machine. I can install the game, but not load it. Sucks. Westwood won't fix it.
The solution was to use third party "cracks" to remove the copy protection. Then the game would play. Note I have not committed copyright infringement in anyway. I still need the CD in the drive to use it; I haven't made a "Backup" or distributed it in any way.
... and yet, under the DMCA I am in violation of the law, because I circumvented a copy protection scheme.
Well, all I can say is DEATH TO THE DMCA!.
Go, Go, Go, ACLU. | |
| | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: Change the law...no complaints from me See, I agree with you, in that instand the DCMA infringes on your FAIR USE of the product YOU BOUGHT. It was brought up in another thread...
»Why is it a long shot?
...the poster said that actually the text of the DCMA refers to mechanical copy protection technologies...and may not apply to stuff you do.
If what you say is true...what about »www.gamecopyworld.com
That whole site is about NO CD cracks and the like.
Another thing about your story...it also urks me that you have no recourse. You can't take the software back because it's opened and the EULA (which is an amendment to the sale after the fact without due consideration BTW...the courts just don't agree with me) says there is no warranty for fitness of use.
IT'S CRAP.
F the DCMA, F the EULA, F all of it. What's next, if I lose my car key I can't get another one...gotta go buy a new car?
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson
[text was edited by author 2002-07-25 19:21:18] | |
| | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Change the law...no complaints from me said by Count Hogula:
Another thing about your story...it also urks me that you have no recourse. You can't take the software back because it's opened and the EULA (which is an amendment to the sale after the fact without due consideration BTW...the courts just don't agree with me) says there is no warranty for fitness of use.
IT'S CRAP.
F the DCMA, F the EULA, F all of it. What's next, if I lose my car key I can't get another one...gotta go buy a new car?
I agree completely! The argument is "We cannot accept any open returns because then people will pirate stuff and return it..." That is the basis for the law, they CLAIM. However, the way the law REALLY works is, they can market the software in any way they wish with zero accountability. One of the famous examples is the "System requirements" listings. Ok, that software may RUN on that system meeting those requirements, but it may run so badly or poorly as to be completely useless! And what about a program that doesn't live up to the marketing or hype, and doesn't work as the buyer expected? Tough. What about a program full of bugs that waste the user's time and resources? So sorry, too bad... and finally, what about programs that just plain SUCK? Oh well.
It's totally lame. If I walk into a store, and purchase any other consumer product, and it turns out to be defective, not operate as promised, or I plain just don't like it, why I can return it. Not so with Software/Music/Movies etc. Once you buy it, it's SOLD. They scammed you... ha ha!
No accountability to the consumers. Sure, you can boycott their other products. Like they'll care. They already got your money.
Bah!
We need a Consumer's reform bill here somewhere... | |
| | |
sharkbyte0
join:2000-09-07
Lansdale, PA
| said by KrK:
Let me give you an example. Westwood recently released a title called C&C Renegade. I bought this title. For some reason, the copy protection refuses to run on my machine. I can install the game, but not load it. Sucks. Westwood won't fix it
Yeah, one of these is called "safe disk", i think it works by queing the application every few minutes or so, to make sure the disk is in the drive, It causes bad & choppy performance in some games because it constantly runs in the background queing, & like you said causes the application to not run @ all in some cases (Max Payne & Morrowind come to mind also)
Regards
Shark... | |
| | | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: Change the law...no complaints from me said by KrK:
In this case, the "CD Check" is done right after you click on the Icon. The "Splash Screen" comes up, and you can hear the CD drive do a double take., The light flashes, and then, normally, the splash screen disappears and the game loads... but on mine, the splash screen closes and the game stops loading. Ie, failed the check.
My machine has both an HP and a Teac drive in it. It works with neither.
In that case I think you should be permitted to
-cough-
REPAIR
-cough-
your legally purchased product. What, if you buy a vcr that won't play tapes...you can run a head cleaner?
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
| | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
MrBradTX
join:2001-05-23
Carrollton, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| so what's the big deal? I'm interested in why the manufacturers of filtering software feel threatened by having their list of banned sites made public.
Could it be that they have some hidden agenda? For example, a few years ago it was revealed that at least one filtering tool had blacklisted sites based solely on their political views.
Asking consumers to fork over their money to purchase your filter, at the same time refusing to disclose just what kinds of sites are blocked, is ludicrous. The two most frightening words in the English language are "trust me." | |
| | 
Klendathu
join:2002-02-24
Studio City, CA
clubs:
| Re: so what's the big deal? My only take on why they don't disclose the sites they specifically block is to prevent their business competitors and the average joe from just copying their web addresses (which they spent time to collect and compile)without paying them. Of course this would be a good challenge for a cracker to reverse engineer and post all of the sites anonymously for all to see. | |
| 
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Why is it a long shot? It should be pretty easy to demonstrate what is wrong with the DMCA (which stands for Digital MILLENNIUM copyright act), coupled with what the MPAA and RIAA are trying to do.
The legislation introduced into Congress in the last few days that would allow these associations to hack people's computers and such LEGALLY goes against all that we have sought to discourage.
I can count three amendments that this would potentially violate if it were to be passed.
Let the ACLU step up....also, the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
I would agree that I don't support everything the ACLU has done, but occasionally, they take on a cause that is legitimate.
--
The only human truth is that we live and we die. Everything in between those events is open to interpretation. | |
| |
See 48 replies to this post | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Hooray for the ACLU The ACLU does some messed up stuff sometimes, but, sometimes, they also do what is right.
I give 'em two thumbs up on this one... | |
|
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| Definition of a Bully The summary above had a link to an article about the EFF legal efforts to get the DMCA overturned. An interesting quote:
"Last year, the Motion Picture Association of America sued online hacker publication 2600 magazine, charging that posting and linking to code that could be used to crack DVDs violated copyright law. A judge agreed, but the case is on appeal. "
Well. The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), doesn't give anyone the right to make a copy, but it clearly states that "no one may be prosecuted" for making a copy of copyrighted works for personal or other fair use purposes. And it doesn't care one bit about the means used by anyone who manages to make the copy.
Doesn't take a legal genius to see the bully or bullies who had a hand in the weak language of the AHRA - a clear statement of a right to make a personal copy, would make all copy protection efforts illegal.
But it also doesn't take a genius to see that hacking a DVD player, if it enables an individual to take advantage of the AHRA, should also be protected, on the same logical grounds.
And it's a complete no-brainer to see that the MPAA was targeting the distribution of information, not copyrighted works, in this case. No legal, moral, or logical leg to stand on.
Conclusion: It's not about what's legal or illegal, what's moral or immoral, what's logical or illogical. It's about clout, muscle, and campaign money. Let's not forget that judges get appointed and confirmed by people who run for office. The pendulum will swing this way or that, The First One Now Will Later Be Last, and what's illegal today may be perfectly legal next year, and/or vice-versa. It's muscle, nothing else. | |
| kdroop
join:2001-08-26
Morgan City, LA
·AT&T Southeast
| Get help where you can
I have to say this Hogula you have set yourself out as the Grand Tory.The one who takes names and reports them to the teacher.I think you would stand on the law no matter what.That maybe admirable but you sre defending laws and industries that frankly are doomed to fail due to the mini revolution caused by those who are fighting with their wallets and bandwidth. | |
| 
phathead296
Got Slack?
join:2001-11-09
Charleston, SC
| The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend While I'm glad someone is challenging the DMCA this does not increase my respect for the ACLU. They are still a far-left organization who "defends" the Bill of Rights as they would like it to have been written.
The biggest peeve I have with them is that they bend the First Amendment to their purposes. They will be perfectly happy if a pro-life activist (non-violent) is arrested for speaking out or someone who speaks out in support of the Second Amendment is silenced.
They also twist the anti-establishment clause. The First Amendment reads, in part: quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
What this means is that you can worship as you choose, but what the ACLU wants it to mean is that you have freedom FROM religion. The founding fathers were religious people. They reference the Creator in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. They never intended this to be a country free from religion, they just knew that government has no place establishing a state religion. The ACLU wants it to mean that there should be no religion in this country. Of course, I guess that's normal for a socialist organization!
I'm glad the DMCA might go down. Since the courts are afraid of the ACLU, they will probably win, but every time I hear ACLU, my blood boils and I can't help myself.
Phathead
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 | |
| |
sharkbyte0
join:2000-09-07
Lansdale, PA
| Re: The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend Agreed!...some of the tatic's of the ACLU are "questionable" @ best.
Rep. Rick Boucher(dem.) has made statements awhile back to try and dismantle key parts of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
I have to hand it to Boucher, he has really been championing the voice of the tech industry and for consumers rights. You know the RIAA, MPAA and others are going to try to attack any dismanteling of the DMCA.
Hopefully he gets enough support, he may be our best friend in this struggle, we shall see...
Regards
Shark...
| |
| |
grunteled
Puffy And Prickly
Premium
join:2001-06-13
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
| said by phathead296:
They also twist the anti-establishment clause. The First Amendment reads, in part: quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
What this means is that you can worship as you choose, but what the ACLU wants it to mean is that you have freedom FROM religion.
I agree on most of your post however, the ACLU is not fighting religious reference in state institutions based on the the amendment. They are using the appeals court definition of "Excessive Entanglement". That is a much more broad and sweeping test, making it practically impossible to legally display any religious icons or images in a government, or gov funded establishment.
While I do not really support the construction of new religious displays in government buildings or property, I do see us heading down a road where public celebration of religious holidays is impossible. I always wonder though... Would the guy who screams bloody murder when the city can't put up the Manger Scene in front of City Hall, feel the same if a primarily Islamic county wanted to erect a giant statue of Mohammed in front of the county courthouse?
I do agree with you in whole on the ACLU though, they clearly pick-and-choose what and who's "rights" they defend.
[text was edited by author 2002-07-26 11:11:57] | |
| dboyle
Fair Is Cotton Candy And Pink Elephants
Premium
join:2002-06-06
San Diego, CA
| Digital Millennium Copyright Act Isn't the DMCA the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and not the Digital Management Copyright Act? I've always known it as Millennium not Management.
--
Problems with Adelphia in VA?Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA) 1-804-786-2042, then 1, then 0 | |
| | FrustratedInSFL6
join:2001-02-05
Fort Lauderdale, FL
| Re: DMCA - right on the money :) No, you're right, D.
The DMCA is called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998, signe into law October of 1998 by President Clinton.
Do me a favor and read my post on the ACLU's proposed action aainst the DMCA and tell what you think. Did I leave anything important out??
Thanks,
Patrick | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Digital Millennium Copyright Act Yes. My bad. Misprint on my part. Fixed. | |
| FrustratedInSFL6
join:2001-02-05
Fort Lauderdale, FL
| LOL; where the hell was ACLU all this time huh?? OK, I'm going to get A LOT of this off my chest, being as I'm a digital media fan for life and I'm looking to get into this business (media/TV/radio/film, etc.). Now I know this is a REALLY outright thing to say, but I want to know why the ACLU didn't step up when this stupid bill was signed into law back in 10/1998, but I'm glad they're doing something about it now. As a student working with digital equipment and learning from some of the best people in the business, eventhough noone's come right out and said it, but I'm thinking this law could affect anything even remotely electronic or digital you may own: from that 20 year old LED display alarm clock to that brand new MiniDV camcorder you just bought for $1500, the IEEE1394 firewire card and that copy of Final Cut Pro video editing software your uncle got you for Christmas. Especially ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT NEW MINIDV CAMCORDER AND FIREWIRE CARD; you can make your own streaming media with that stuff, and the DMCA can either help you or harm you; I haven't heard anything about this sector of the digital equipment chain, and now I'm getting very curious about it. It IS a violation of first-amendment rights, and it will be proven and action will be taken.
But I think a lot of people will agree that a lot of this crap could've been avoided if they had jumped on this sooner; we, being the actual consumers and other players in the digital media ballpark, pardon the 'player pun' (terrestrial radio stations, Internet-only outlets, etc.) wouldn't have heard and taken so much oddjita from the infamous Recording Industry Association of America, its NOW-president Hillary Rosen, its members screaming about streaming/digital media taking away from sales (INCLUDING but not limited to BMG, Sony/CBS, Universal Music Group) and God knows who else!!
BUT, I'm not an irrational person, and I KNOW for a fact on the other hand, we wouldn't have heard about the former CEO of broadcast.com, Mark Cuban, and his little quest to dominate the streaming media market altogether BEFORE he sold off to Yahoo! for $5+ billion...how about the Federal Government check HIM out?? Add him to the Enron/WorldCOM scum pile, and leave the honest folks he screwed over to gawk and laugh at him while he either files for Chapter 7 or gets thrown in the pen for 10 years and has all his assets seized...
I'll be 110% honest with you. When I actually sat down and read the whole DMCA of 1998, I smelled a rat within the first page and a half...especially the subsections about the drawing of the line between retransmissions of AM/FM radio and Internet-only stations and the actual use of the word STREAMING. The part that bothers me most is that people don't know the difference between STREAMING MEDIA and DOWNLOADABLE MEDIA.
I'm sure a lot fo you folks know streaming is when packets of information come into a user's computer via Internet connection, it plays in its respective player (RealAudio, Windows Media, etc.), and it is gone, NEVER to be retrieved again. Period. Simply disble the recording function on the Encoders, people can't capture the audio, and the problem is averted without the muss and fuss.
DOWNLOADABLE MEDIA is the self-explanatory term, and people are getting them screwed up. I've seen that more than once, and I've heard newsanchors doing the same thing, and these are TV stations who STREAM their newscasts, audio and video LIVE ONLINE!!
Streaming media is SAME as when you listen to any given radio station. You tune your AM or FM scanner to a certain station, and that's it. That part of the broadcast day is gone, never to be duplicated, not even once. If you were listening to, let's say, 98.5FM (just for example) on 2/12/1988 from 3:45AM until the top of the hour, you'll never hear that same 15 minutes of programming ever again. It's gone, only to be saved in the memory of your own brain if you're into that kind of thing. You will never even hear the same TWO minutes of radio programming ever again (unless if you record it on a tape, which is a different story and I know is trhe big argument with digital media - JUST DISABLE the capturing function on the Encoder and all is well in the world of digitality). What's the difference between listening to the actual radio or the same signal from the same station on the web?? What's the big deal?!?!?!
I hope the DMCA gets repealed, the RIAA and its members get busted for obstruction of justice, monopolizing the market, and whatever else they can be nailed with.
Singer/songwriter/producer Janis Ian hit the subject right on the money with her editorial in Songwriters Magazine which is still on her website, the Captain from the Captain and Tennielle also had a lot to say about it, and let's get some people to sit down and write a decent law that everyone involved IN the industry can get in a word edgewise to, and not the games that were played when the DMCA was written; VERY one-sided and discriminating.
Long live digital media, and that was my $20.00. Sorry for the long past, but I had to say all of this.
This is my point-of-view, and I'd like to hear other folks and their feelings on the subject.
Thanks,
Patrick | |
| | 
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Re: LOL; where the hell was ACLU all this time huh?? To challenge a bill I think you need an actual case. I'm sure the ACLU and many others objected, but the thing went through into law in record time and companies behind it have a lot more washington leverage than people do. (funny, that, seeing that companies can't vote).
The main problem with DMCA seems to be that it makes if a crime to even discuss encryption/decryption of something protected by the act.. the unstated assumption is that ONLY people who WILL commit a crime (cracking then copying then distributing and optionally, charging) are those discussing the subject.
The whole idea of criminalising thought is something the ACLU should be fighting. Join as a member! $35 gets you a t-shirt as well! | |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Does anyone here fully SUPPORT the DMCA? it seems like anyone who knows how to operate a PC enough to crawl online and get onto message boards does not like the idea of the DMCA ..
Does anyone who can push a post button, think the DMCA should stand and is a positive thing? perhaps they can explain themselves? | |
| Phydeaux1
join:2002-04-29
Vancouver, WA
| The plot thickens... I claim no more than a slight comprehension of this entire affair, but haven't the SDMA essentially conspired in breaking the DMCA by issuing this hacking challenge last year, asking participants to try to break copyright protected software?
It seems as if this fulfills several of the acts criteria as illegal.
ref. article here.
does the DMCA forward exceptions to industry that i'm not aware of? | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·