Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Friday July 22 2016, @01:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the currently-we-have-no-digital-rights dept.

From the EFF press release:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sued the U.S. government today on behalf of technology creators and researchers to overturn onerous provisions of copyright law that violate the First Amendment.
...
Ostensibly enacted to fight music and movie piracy, Section 1201 has long served to restrict people's ability to access, use, and even speak out about copyrighted materials—including the software that is increasingly embedded in everyday things. The law imposes a legal cloud over our rights to tinker with or repair the devices we own, to convert videos so that they can play on multiple platforms, remix a video, or conduct independent security research that would reveal dangerous security flaws in our computers, cars, and medical devices. It criminalizes the creation of tools to let people access and use those materials.

Copyright law is supposed to exist in harmony with the First Amendment. But the prospect of costly legal battles or criminal prosecution stymies creators, academics, inventors, and researchers. In the complaint filed today in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., EFF argues that this violates their First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

Section 1201 of the US Copyright act restricts the Circumvention of Technological Measures: more commonly known as Digital Restrictions Management.

I have always hated how DRM allows copyright holders to restrict what I do with my personal property: while being backed by the force of law.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday July 22 2016, @03:46PM

    by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday July 22 2016, @03:46PM (#378579)

    In Star Trek Voyager, I was always confused as to why the holographic doctor could not be copied. I just assumed hollywood propaganda.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday July 22 2016, @04:23PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday July 22 2016, @04:23PM (#378608) Journal

    Yes, and more. They're also pandering to our desire for individuality and uniqueness. The transporter is possibly the biggest underused and misunderstood magical technology in the show. If it's so easy to transform objects, including living beings, into a "beam", and rebuild them elsewhere, it is also easy to create copies. Easier in fact, as the step of destroying the original can be skipped. They skirt around the edges of that with episodes in which transporter accidents do create a copy of someone, but mostly they ignore those possibilities.

    • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Friday July 22 2016, @05:05PM

      by rts008 (3001) on Friday July 22 2016, @05:05PM (#378645)

      My understanding of Star Trek's transporter technology, it was related/based/dependent on the replicator technology.

      If my understanding is correct, then anytime the transporters are used, copies are made while the 'original[1]' is destroyed...regardless of what is being transported, including the 'can't be copied, holographic doctor. (at one point, he gained the ability to go on 'away missions' alongside the rest of the crew, using the armband, IIRC)

      [1] the 'original' could already be a copy...of a copy, of a copy(ad nauseum, depending on how many times they had used a transporter)

      Someone correct me if I have this wrong...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @05:37PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @05:37PM (#378673)

        Replicator tech was based on transporter technology, and transporter tech originally could only transport inanimate objects successfully.

        By the time of TNG however it could be used to 'accidentally clone' individuals given the proper atmospheric feedback, as discovered by Thomas Riker (William T. Riker's clone) who got trapped on a planet they left for... 10+ years as a result of it?

        He finally got killed off either in DS9/Voyager or in Star Trek Online sadly.

        As to the Doctor from voyager being un-replicatable. I believe it was stated that was due to the use of the neural fiber packs that made voyager special compared to the previous isolinear computing systems, and the fact that his 'safeties' has been turned off, allowing him to grow beyond his original programming in a way no other holographic simulation had the opportunity to.

        • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday July 23 2016, @03:36AM

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday July 23 2016, @03:36AM (#378903) Journal

          Yes, the Thomas Riker episode was the very one I was thinking of. There is also an Original Series episode in which a transporter malfunction creates two Captain Kirks, but with their minds split so that one is super nice but unable to be decisive, and the other is decisive but has no self-control or manners.

      • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday July 22 2016, @07:30PM

        by Pino P (4721) on Friday July 22 2016, @07:30PM (#378733) Journal

        Perhaps the replicator could copy dead things, but not living things, because of some treknobabble counterpart to the no-cloning theorem in quantum mechanics [wikipedia.org].

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Friday July 22 2016, @05:06PM

      by Arik (4543) on Friday July 22 2016, @05:06PM (#378646) Journal
      Think about the transporters in relation to the replicators, and the premise that it's a society without material want, without any known form of currency. This is Rodenberry's utopia and the technology that enables it, but some of the implications were just too uncomfortable and had to be waved away with nonsense about magical buffers that prevent duplication.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @05:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @05:07PM (#378647)

      And wasn't it the Game of Thrones people who said (originally) that pirating wasn't hurting them, it was actually helping spread the word and get them customers.

      Then someone got their hand slapped and the opposite was said.

      I pirated BSG (the new series) (posting anon, in order to protect myself, my wife and kids, the grand kids i don't have yet and all their off-spring for eternity) and liked it so much i started buying the sets (basically to say 'I LIKE this kind of shit.... give me more!!!).
      If i hadn't pirated it, i'd probably never have bought it and they'd have gotten no dinaro$ from me.

      I was forced to pirate a movie called "How to get ahead in business without even trying" because i couldn't find anywhere to buy it.

      THEY (the guys in the head office who 'know all') just don't get it: THEY know nothing, Jon Snow.

  • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 22 2016, @05:10PM

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday July 22 2016, @05:10PM (#378652) Journal

    I must be forgetting if that came up. Did it have to do with the mobile emitter?

    On the other hand, Riker can be copied [wikia.com].

    • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday July 22 2016, @08:50PM

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday July 22 2016, @08:50PM (#378770)

      They never really discussed it. But often the dilemma of the episode revolved around the Doctor doing something dangerous.

      The implication was that if something happened, whey would not have a doctor.