🚀 go-pugleaf

<telford@xenon.triode.net.au> wrote in message news:10i9779gd6p8qfc@corp.supernews.com...
> In aus.computers.linux Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>
>> Bill Unruh wrote:
>
>>> The other case is Lexmark vs the toner recycler, who cloned the chip on the
>>> Lexmark cartridges, and was brought to court under DCMA since Lexmark
>>> argued that they must have evaded copy control devices in order to copy the
>>> chip.
>
>> Not however a case that justifies the claim that the expression "results
>> in" had been given a wide intepretation, which was the issue of
>> relevance being discussed.

> But you are missing the overall trend here...

There is no 'overall trend', just your pathetic little conspiracy theorys.

> these laws are built for a particular purpose,

Pity it aint the one you pathetic little conspiracy theory claims.

> they aren't just collections of words that need study in abstract
> detachment. The various cases we have seen in the USA are
> exactly what we would expect to happen right here.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that we
never ever see the sillier aspects of the US legal system here.

Have a look at the Sony judgement for example.

>>> The DCMA is just a very very bad law, which the US
>>> companies are trying to get adopted around the world.

And that aint gunna happen here, you watch.

We've already adopted the bits of that that make sense for us.

And binned the bits that dont.

Most obviously with region coding of DVDs etc.

>> The Lexmark case is an example of one where a company is using a
>> technological approach to support a particular business model (cheap
>> printers, but expensive catridges, I presume).

> Yes, there is a lot of market competition in the price of printers but
> once someone has a printer, they have to keep buying cartridges.

>> They're using the DCMA to
>> protect their technology which stands up only because as current
>> expressed, it protects technologies whose purpose is to prevent
>> examination of software code rather than to prevent copying of it.

> Mostly it stands up because the US courts (especially
> the lower courts) have a very pro-big-business attitude.

And ours aint, so you can stop hyperventilating now.

> The higher courts will sway as the government can push them

Doesnt happen here either.

> but the current governments of both US
> and Australia are also supporting big business

Irrelevant to what our courts do.

> so it is only sensible to expect some similar sentiment in the courts.

Only for pig ignorant fools like you.

Our highest courts have a VERY long history of doing whatever
they like, and not giving a damn about what the govt would like.

>> However, the DMCA is not always required. Microsoft's XBox
>> requires that software be signed using a private key known only
>> to Microsoft, thus again protecting a business model that probably
>> subsidises the price of the XBox by having a higher price for the
>> software. This mechanism can only defeated either by modchipping
>> (which is probably legal still, but not something most people want to do)

> Certainly, it is illegal to distribute mod
> chips or provide a service of installing them.

Nope. Thats just what Sony claim.

> Maybe you are right that it is legal to own one and install it yourself

No maybe about it.

> but what would you be willing to bet on the outcome?

Yep, just like I am willing to flout the copyright law when it suits me too.

> If the Microsoft Palladium initiative gets into full swing
> then most computers will have similar lockdown.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed dreamworld, child.

>> or by factorising the private key (which is being attempted, but they've
>> Buckley's hope of success with the current mathematical framework).

> More commonly, people find some game that has a buffer-overrun
> bug which can be exploited as a way to get additional software to run.
> Fortunately, with the X-box it is easy because Microsoft reliably writes
> buggy software and there are several weaknesses in the standard
> system software that comes along with the machine. However as bugs
> are found they get fixed so various generations of X-box have various
> mechanisms for getting around the market monopoly. In addition, some
> people noted that an X-box connected to the network would automatically
> seek to update itself and even delete software that it detected as
> foreign (e.g. xbox-linux partitions). I have not seen this first hand
> but I've heard reports of it. Someone else might have more info...

Just another pathetic little conspiracy theory.

>> These tethering mechanisms would almost certainly be
>> unlawful if  achieved by means of contractual conditions rather
>> than technology. This needs to be addressed directly by the
>> legislatures. Attacking the DMCA only addresses part of that problem.

> Quite right, any DMCA equivalent also needs to be attacked,

Nope, we just ignore it.

> or at very least, a lot of additional "fair-use" provisions have to
> en enshrined such as the ability to have a competitive marketplace.

We've already got strong trade practice legislation, fool.

> We really do not need more laws to mess things up even
> worse, what we need is less laws, a clarification of existing
> laws and strict limits on the application of those laws.

Pathetic, really.

> Remeber that the less freedom you have, the less capable
> you are of gaining freedom so waiting until things get bad
> before taking action is a losing strategy.

Pathetic, really.

There is no bogeyman, child.