Move any of the proposed 'computer hacking' and 'copyright infringement' legislation out of those arenas and they're completely nuts, but they just keep proposing them.
Whoo...not only does he admit to the civil offense of copyright infringement, but also the federal offense of breaking the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA. Get ready for some prison time bud...oh wait, it's just us proles that the law applies to.
One thing I think this clip clearly shows is that the very people that we need to have advising on legislation like this do a very poor job translating all the technical details into terms the legislators--some of whom seem to have less of a grasp of technology than your average grade schooler--need to understand. Once you start throwing terms like "routing communications" and "IP address" out there, you've lost them. Kerr was confusing Rep. Gohmert rather than informing him.
This is something the lobbyists and "experts" for some other industries do very well. Their positions and statements may be utter crap--but at least it's understandable crap--and this is why we get crappy laws.
And can be none. It's too easy to conceal your identity on the internet--which is Kerr's whole point, although he describes it rather poorly in the clip. How can you police a massive group of essentially anonymous PC's many, if not most of which reside in other jurisdictions and countries?
The stupid...it hurts...Lets also make a law that says it's OK to kill someone that you think, maybe, might be, but you're not quite sure, trying to kill you.
I think we should pass a law that states "In order to pass legislation on a particular subject, you must first pass a college level test on that subject". Hell, even a high schooler with basic IT knowledge would know that's idiotic.
And many security companies do exactly that--break in and steal stuff (exploiting). You can tell some people and corporations that their security is crap (and explain why it is), but until you show them how crappy it is by breaking in and stealing stuff (exploiting), many won't do a thing to fix it--the head in the sand approach to security (most famously demonstrated by Sony with their crappy PSN security that they had been told about by the security people in their own company and did nothing to fix until they got hacked).
Hmm...I think you haven't hung around in the white hat hacking community much. This is a constant problem they run into with any major corporation--you can't just "get on the phone to AT&T's security department and disclose it"--the entire customer facing parts of their business are designed to not let you do this. And even if you did by some miracle get hold of someone with the authority to do something about it, or to forward the info to someone who does--what do you think the chances are that they will? The only way to get them to do anything about it is to expose it as publicly as possible, so it makes it into the mainstream news--then maybe something will get done to fix the problem--and the best way to do this is to actually use the exploit to prove it exists.
Bill Waterson has stated in the past (and in the "Calvin And Hobbes 10th Anniversary" compilation book) that he was always worried about bootleg products exploiting his works. In his defense, he was very afraid that something he meant for the world to enjoy would be exploited commercially without his permission.
This makes little sense. How does not giving any permission to use your works stop the bootleggers from profiting? It doesn't--they profit anyway, because they don't ask for permission.
It's very sad that he would see his work wither and die from neglect and forgetfulnesses in some vain attempt to stop bootleggers from profiting from his work--which they do anyway.
I think the big thing that all of the copyright maximalists are ignoring is the fact that copyright is supposed to be an incentive for new creation. How long has it been since Watterson produced something new concerning Calvin and Hobbes? Almost 20 years. Since He's not creating anything new, perhaps it should lapse into the public domain.
This is a classic example of what copyright should not be--welfare for artists. No artist--no matter how talented, influential, or awesome (and Watterson is all three), should be allowed to sit on their copyrights and do nothing with them. This is the big thing that needs to be change regarding copyright--it lasts too long. Almost everything else about copyright could stay the same for all I care, but reduce the term to something like five years with possible extensions if you can show proof of continuing works. In this case, as long as Watterson's making new works with Calvin and Hobbes he can keep the copyrights on the old stuff--if not, five years after the last new strip it all becomes public domain.
As an artist myself, if I were in Watterson's position I would be thrilled about what Michael Den Beste is doing and would give him permission to do it to all of the strips (and probably donate some money to him, and maybe work out a book deal with him too). Because as any artist knows, once your work drops out of the publics' consciousness--it may as well not even have existed. Unless I introduce them to it myself, I sincerely doubt my children will discover Watterson's work on their own--and that would be a shame.
The authors desires and views on copyright and the use of his works are irrelevant. Once you publish a work it becomes part of our common culture. This is why copyright law has limitations on it in the form of fair use (which have sadly been eroded over time). For a creator to say, "You can't build off of my works" destroys the very process that they relied upon to build their works in the first place (nothing is ever created in a vacuum).
As much as I respect the work of Watterson and other artists, they do not get to short circuit the creation of new cultural works based on their own whims. Being nice and polite about it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong and ultimately destructive to the art of our culture that they supposedly love.
And since when were libraries free? I pay my taxes which helps fund the public library system. I would rather my tax dollars go to the libraries than to the latest military or TSA white elephant.
Not quite. They sell themselves NOW, after years of free publicity from things like word of mouth, reviews, and GASP free copies available from your local library (and this includes the digital versions that were made available on the same day as the retail version).
I think we should give this idiot what he wants--pull all of his books out of the libraries, in a few years no-one will know who he is, or care about what he has to say.
Yar har, fiddle di dee,
Being a pirate is alright to be!
Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free,
You are a pirate!
Arr yarr, ahoy and avast,
dinky-dink-dink-a-dinkadefast!
Hang the black flag
At the end of the mast!
You are a pirate!
I went to my local court to look up some documents. They were in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'
No. Microsoft does not require Secure Boot in Windows 8. Secure Boot is only required for having the Windows 8 Certified logo. My PC runs Windows 8 just fine, an older system with no UEFI--no UEFI=no Secure Boot.
On the post: Rep. Gohmert Wants A Law That Allows Victims To Destroy The Computers Of People Who Hacked Them
Re: Re:
On the post: How Hollywood's Own Pirates Must Inform The Future Of Copyright
Re: Re: SHEESH! Lawyer redefines ripping a single DVD as "piracy"!
On the post: How Hollywood's Own Pirates Must Inform The Future Of Copyright
On the post: Rep. Gohmert Wants A Law That Allows Victims To Destroy The Computers Of People Who Hacked Them
This is something the lobbyists and "experts" for some other industries do very well. Their positions and statements may be utter crap--but at least it's understandable crap--and this is why we get crappy laws.
On the post: Rep. Gohmert Wants A Law That Allows Victims To Destroy The Computers Of People Who Hacked Them
Re:
On the post: Rep. Gohmert Wants A Law That Allows Victims To Destroy The Computers Of People Who Hacked Them
I think we should pass a law that states "In order to pass legislation on a particular subject, you must first pass a college level test on that subject". Hell, even a high schooler with basic IT knowledge would know that's idiotic.
On the post: Expose A Blatant Security Hole In AT&T's Servers, Get 3.5 Years In Jail
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Expose A Blatant Security Hole In AT&T's Servers, Get 3.5 Years In Jail
Re:
On the post: Copyright Strikes Again: 'Real Calvin And Hobbes' Shut Down By Copyright Claim
Re: Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
It's very sad that he would see his work wither and die from neglect and forgetfulnesses in some vain attempt to stop bootleggers from profiting from his work--which they do anyway.
On the post: Copyright Strikes Again: 'Real Calvin And Hobbes' Shut Down By Copyright Claim
Coppyright as an Incentive
This is a classic example of what copyright should not be--welfare for artists. No artist--no matter how talented, influential, or awesome (and Watterson is all three), should be allowed to sit on their copyrights and do nothing with them. This is the big thing that needs to be change regarding copyright--it lasts too long. Almost everything else about copyright could stay the same for all I care, but reduce the term to something like five years with possible extensions if you can show proof of continuing works. In this case, as long as Watterson's making new works with Calvin and Hobbes he can keep the copyrights on the old stuff--if not, five years after the last new strip it all becomes public domain.
As an artist myself, if I were in Watterson's position I would be thrilled about what Michael Den Beste is doing and would give him permission to do it to all of the strips (and probably donate some money to him, and maybe work out a book deal with him too). Because as any artist knows, once your work drops out of the publics' consciousness--it may as well not even have existed. Unless I introduce them to it myself, I sincerely doubt my children will discover Watterson's work on their own--and that would be a shame.
On the post: Copyright Strikes Again: 'Real Calvin And Hobbes' Shut Down By Copyright Claim
Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
As much as I respect the work of Watterson and other artists, they do not get to short circuit the creation of new cultural works based on their own whims. Being nice and polite about it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong and ultimately destructive to the art of our culture that they supposedly love.
On the post: Bestselling Author Of Children's Books Accuses Public Libraries Of Stealing His Paychecks
On the post: Bestselling Author Of Children's Books Accuses Public Libraries Of Stealing His Paychecks
Re:
On the post: Bestselling Author Of Children's Books Accuses Public Libraries Of Stealing His Paychecks
On the post: Microsoft Makes Retail Versions Of Office Single Install
Re: Re:
Being a pirate is alright to be!
Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free,
You are a pirate!
Arr yarr, ahoy and avast,
dinky-dink-dink-a-dinkadefast!
Hang the black flag
At the end of the mast!
You are a pirate!
On the post: Congress Apparently Uninterested In 'Aaron's Law' To Reform CFAA
Re:
On the post: Providing Electronic Access To Public Records Is 'Expensive' And Other Government Excuses For PACER Fees
On the post: Connecting With Fans In Unique Ways: Band Sets Up Treasure Hunt To Find Fan-Submitted Sounds In New Album
Re: That's Music?
On the post: Teri Buhl Threatens To Sue Us And Others; Still Seems Confused About The Law
Re:
On the post: How Unlocking Your Phone May Now Be A Crime: $500,000 Fines And 5 Years In Prison For First Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>