couldn't agree more
EFF would prefer to see the entire DMCA rulemaking process burn to the ground
A year late, the US Librarian of Congress on Friday published an updated list of exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's prohibition on circumventing digital access controls. These exemptions to Section 1201 of the DMCA describe the circumstances under which – until the rules get revisited in two years time – …
the problem with 'rulemaking' is that it's at the WHIM of some gummint official(s) who "feel" instead of think. And that's the problem with a tin-horn dictatorship, in lieu of a society ruled by law. All of those "grey areas" that enrich attorneys, empower gummint control freaks, and make our [the average Joe's] status 'uncertain' and/or 'uneasy'.
clear-cut laws WITHOUT need for this kind of 'interpretation' are more sane. What Con-Grab excreted from their collective rectums is what we have. dammit.
(DMCA should NEVER have been done in the first place - existing copyright laws were sufficient, especially when interpreted in the realm of 'fair use')
The article mentions "Security researchers still have to abide by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."
And as you mention copyright law already existed.
So what is the point of the DMCA? Yes, I'm being rhetorical.. It;s for big businesses to have unfair control . It's so they can stifle competition, or embaresiing revelations they want kept secret.
It's wishy washy so that if it goes to trial, they can get their top lawyers to drag things out for years, which most people wouldn't be able to afford.
"It's wishy washy so that if it goes to trial, they can get their top lawyers to drag things out for years, which most people wouldn't be able to afford."
And with "some of the more recent" wikileaks 'reveals', it seems that these guys have been in bed with 'certain politicians' for a VERY! LONG! TIME! indeed...
yeah, no WONDER it's a fsck'd-up law, interpreted by the various gummint entities via whatever 'whim' they have at the moment... [read: whoever PAYS them the most money]
But sticking your dick in a hornets nest is so primative. Toaster based knob masochism is totally post-neo-modernist and isn't mainstream yet. It's still considered to be hardcore and is very much underground.
It's cool if you don't do it, I'd tell you why you should but you probably wouldn't understand.
If I did explain by the time you understand I would have moved onto coffee grinders anyway.
>One hacks a toaster in order to gain its help in persuading the Smart-Fridge(tm) to order four cases of Budweiser delivered to the home of a Real Ale fan.
And then take over his PVR and his doorbell, so that the doorbell rings throughout his favourite shows.
That's Big Data for you!
Strange that you consider Budweiser "real ale" I know for a fact that there are many small brewers in America making "real ale". It will never come from a mega corp like Budweiser (not that i mind a bottle or three!).
Here in Enlgand we have thousands of micro breweries serving all kinds of "real" ale, some yu will like some you will hate!. Nothing like the Mega brewery stuff you get served and always an interesting experience.
You're a bigoted idiot.
I'm not a fan of Budweiser, nor is most of the USA; however, it's amazing at how well Budweiser does in Europe. It's one of the highest selling major beer brands there.
You're also closed minded, and not well versed in critical thinking.
Sure, England has thousands of micro-breweries, but this concept isn't unique to England. Imagine how many micro-breweries there are in the USA. There are probably 30 individual states in the US which have more micro-breweries in them than in England.
And finally... and biggest fact. You're not a beer miser, guru or expert. In fact, you're a beer idiot and should never bring up anything related to beer or brewing.
..as Budweiser is a "LAGER" not an "ALE". Pretty big difference there.
The denial of liberty represented by the DMCA should be overturned, preferably by an amendment to the US Constitution that elevated the rights of the public over that of copyright owners in matters of public interest or personal privacy. This security research exemption should have been part of the original statute's text from the beginning, and its absence continues to be one of the key failings of the statutory scheme's constitutionality.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020