#boycottnovell on irc.freenode.net

2009 Sep 20 03:41:30 UTC<fewa> zlg, is it right to sue someone just cause they share people can sync their iPod with other programs? http://www.eff.org/cases/odioworks-v-apple
<zlg> I can buy "driveless" Lt's everywhere
<ThistleWeb> any machine you build can be OS's less, the HD is just a blank HS until YOU install an OS on it
<fewa> Will, I was alluding to _1984_ if you didn't notice
<ThistleWeb> thats different from buying a pre-built laptop
<zlg> fewa, it's someone's right to sue if they feel the other party is breaking the law, it's everyones right
<zlg> even yours
<ThistleWeb> there;s breaking the law, and breaing the eula, which may or may not be legal
<fewa> zlg, but is it not wrong to claim copyright over  sharing ways to sync their iPod with other programs?
<ThistleWeb> even then, the big corps rely on being the big guy, and the lil guy cant afford to fight it, even if they're in the right
<fewa> zlg, to claim that those people can no longer publish those findings?
<fewa> zlg, that they have to censor themselves from helping out their fellow man?
<zlg> I dont know who has copyright of what with ipods, so I dont know, nor do I care.
<ThistleWeb> scaring the lil guy with a potentially business destroying legal bill
<Will> fewa:  Somehow I still haven't gotten around to reading that.  Don't ask why.  I don't know either.
<fewa> or else they will be sued into the ground
<zlg> but you have a right to sue if you feel you've been agreived
<fewa> That sounds like a prior restraint on speech if you ask me.
<ThistleWeb> when you throw your weight around enough, and people bend to your will, you get used to it, and expect it to happen every time
<Will> ThistleWeb:  I had a Dell phone sales rep grill me one time when I asked for a Windows refund prior to buying.  He asked me what OS I was going to use instead.  Guy had never heard of Debian, Ubuntu, or Red Hat, Was absolutely convinced that I was trying to pirate an OS.
<Will> This was before Dell offered Ubuntu.
<ThistleWeb> small coprs who say "no" tend to be like the lil nail sticking out of the wood, they get hammered
<fewa> Will, just another example of Apple asserting that the DMCA gives them unlimited right to erect a walled garden and shoot intruders
<fewa> ...intruders that will ever take a seed from their garden
<zlg> fewa it's certainly not a restraint on your legal rights.
<fewa> zlg, its an attempt to impose restrictions on free speech
<fewa> restricted before that person has said anything
<zlg> why ? by allowing you to sue if you feel you need to, ?
<zlg> fewa, explain how that works ?
<fewa> zlg, by claiming that saying something is a copyright infringement
<fewa> zlg, you need to read the events of the case
<fewa> "Late last year, after BluWiki users began a discussion about making some Apple iPods and iPhones interoperate with software other than Apple�s own iTunes, Apple lawyers demanded removal of the content. In a letter to OdioWorks, the attorneys alleged that the discussions constituted copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act�s (DMCA's) prohibition on circumventing copy protection measures. Fearing legal action
<fewa>  by Apple, OdioWorks took down the discussions from the Bluwiki site. "
<zlg> are you saying, someone is being sued for "saying something is a copyright" ?
<fewa> zlg, Apple demanded that original discussion be taken down from a website.
<fewa> citing copyright, but there was nothing that apple produced on the entire site
<zlg> and what was the outcome of the court case ?
<fewa> Apple claimed that free speech was "a effective circumvention technique of digital restrictions management"
<Will> fewa:  well, that is kinda true...
<fewa> Will, no its not
<fewa> cause Apple had no copyright interest in the meta database of songs
<fewa> and the hash value contained in it
* Will was being facetious
<fewa> that was the product of the user, and was random from the songs the user had on the device
* fewa takes people too seriously
<Will> because free speech does tend to overthrow arbitrary restrictions.
<fewa> this whole case and circumstance raises some public policy questions
<fewa> should it be illegal to report the results of research you have done on devices you own?
<Will> You can't just use the DMCA as a wide spectrum gag to silence anything you don't like being said.
<ThistleWeb> fewa: here we get to the heart of it, you dont own them, you only licence them. They are however "sold" which is wrong
<fewa> Will, well a fascial take of the DMCA does leave real restrictions
<ThistleWeb> IMO anything that the makers assert any conditions of use over means they still own it
<zlg> it's not "sold" it's licensed
<fewa> zlg, AutoCAD v Vernor
<fewa> and the _many_ cases that case cites
<ThistleWeb> which means that Apple stores etc should not be allowed to list things "for sale"
<fewa> some involving Microsoft even
<fewa> *AutoDesk v Vernor
<fewa> But in this case Apple had absolutely no copyright interest
<ThistleWeb> music / video stores that sell region coded DVDs (which they all are, excpet the porn industry, porn is all region 0, playable anywhere) etc should not be allowed to class it as a sale
<fewa> and was trying to protect a manufactured monopoly on players that work with its media player
<fewa> ThistleWeb, because it does not fallow the first sale doctrine
<fewa> Actually, I think they can, and fallowing the first sale doctrine
<fewa> but there needs to be a clear disclaimer on the Cover of the case that states the limitations of the medium
<Will> fewa:  I don't know about this case, so I'm not talking about it specifically.  I'm just saying that, in a situation where there is no legit copyright claim on what is being said, the DMCA shouldn't be used to take something down.  "I don't like that" doesn't qualify as a copywrite claim.
<fewa> as the Obama --> Gorden Brown incidence prooves abundentally clear, consumers are not made aware of the restriction on the products they buy, they are instead mislead and defrauded
<fewa> Will, absolutely, a copyright claim is essential to make a DMCA anti-circumcision claim
<zlg> most if not all consumers understand that there are restrictions of use on all their products they buy.
<fewa> I was also pointing out that in many cases enforcement of the DMCA anti-circumcision  provisions would be violations of free speech, and the government enforcement of monopolies
<fewa> Monopolies of trade, in addition to the monopolies of copyright
<fewa> zlg, no, most users have no idea
<fewa> when a DVD doesn't work in another country they just assume its broken
<zlg> fewa, no, most used have every idea, just because you say it does not make it true.
<zlg> you buy a car, yo uknow you are not allowed to speed, or drive on the wrong side of the road.
<zlg> you know you are not allowed to remove the breaks, or drop a supercharger on it.
<fewa> zlg, thats obviously totally wrong
<zlg> you have to comply with the rules of the land, everyone knows that
<fewa> and that conflation is completely misrepresentative
<zlg> fewa, again, just because you say it, does not make it gospell
<fewa> zlg, what wrong did blu-wiki do by discussing how to use another program to sync a iPod
<fewa> ????
<fewa> answer that
<fewa> Who could that action hurt?
<zlg> WTF, who cares, I dont even know what your talkihn about, im not sure you do either. please, be a little less abstract
<fewa> zlg, you made the argument that changes to a vehicle that could cause a crash should be compared to figuring out how to sync a iPod with a program that is not iTunes
-BNc/#boycottnovell- [anivar] RT @fish_pond Life after #secularism -- By Nizar Ahmed http://bit.ly/f5smg
<fewa> the difference is that noone can get injured in publishing information on how to sync a iPod with an alternative media program
<zlg> um, fewa, no I did not, I said consumers are generally aware of the restrictions on the products they buy.
<fewa> <zlg> you know you are not allowed to remove the breaks, or drop a supercharger on it.
<zlg> and you fire off about dlue wicki and iPods, WTF, ?
<fewa> zlg, because that is the exact comparison you are making
<zlg> yes, thats right, you are not allowed to do that, and maintain the care legally on the road.
<Will> Easy way out is just don't buy an ipod or use itunes.
<zlg> sure you can do what you like and bash around your backyard, but to comply with the law, to LEGALLY use your car for it's intended purpose you cannot _CANNOT_ do such modifications
<fewa> you think that breaking the DMCA by publishing information on how to use differn't programs, or make a DVD work on another operating system, is somehow comparable to doing dangerous alterations to an automobile
<Will> automotive laws are there to keep motorists safe.  This has nothing to do with safety
<fewa> But this is simply not true
<zlg> you can buy a knife, but you know that you are not allowed to do what you like with that knife becaseu you paid for it. there are laws (and morals) to stop you.,
<Will> zlg: again, you are trying to take it into an argument about personal safety
<fewa> zlg, is it against your morals to publish information on how you can sync a iPod with a program other than iTunes?
<fewa> cause it seems to me that you are making a highly tenacious argument
<zlg> If a product does not do what I want it to do, I do not buy that product.
<fewa> zlg, but is it against your morals?
<fewa> zlg, as in: should the Government step in and prevent people that are not you, from doing it?
<zlg> so I could not give a flying figleaf about ipods or whatever else you're talking about, and I wonder i fyou dont like them, do you use them ? or just complain about them.,
<fewa> zlg, you didn't answer my question
<zlg> yes, I did, it was "I DONT CARE" about some weard abstract thing about iPods, I dont have an iPod so why the F#$@ would I care about them ?
<fewa> zlg, should the Government prevent others from publishing research on a file structure in the iPod?
<Will> (correct me if I'm wrong) things an ipod does not have that some players 1/3 the price do have:  voice recording, radio, ability to sync with programs besides itunes, ogg and flac support, ability to delete songs from the player without syncing to a music program.
<zlg> again, I would really love to want to help you fewa
<fewa> zlg, what are you talking about?
<Will> Oh, one more thing:  SD card expansion
<zlg> think about it
<fewa> zlg, you clearly stated a position, and now you are sulking away from it
<zlg> im not sulking away from anying, I just dont give a fU%K about iPods
<zlg> never had one,
<zlg> never want one
<zlg> will never own one
<zlg> so dont ask me about them because I just dont care.
<fewa> zlg, well you obviously care alot about trying to make it seem reasonable that the Government has a legitimate reason to regulate your study of one.
<zlg> again, do you understand what "I dont care" means ?
<fewa> zlg, if you didn't care you wouldn't have made that long arduous argument
<zlg> my government has not done that, if you're has get a new one then
<zlg> I dont care about ipods is what I said.
<fewa> zlg, your government does
<fewa> or at least the United States government has
<zlg> what government is tha t?
* Will doesn't really care about ipods either.
<zlg> well you'll be surprised that the US government is not the world government
<fewa> zlg, Microsoft seems to think it is
<fewa> just look at the letter they write people
<zlg> I dont give a flying figleaf about microsoft either
<fewa> https://static.thepiratebay.org/ms-loveletter.txt
<fewa> personally I don't see why people use the things at all
<fewa> mobile music players
<Will> jogging is one good use for them
<fewa> but I don't see why the government should step in and say how I can use my device
<Will> or just gym in general sometimes
<fewa> or anybodies device
<zlg> thats what I would have said, it's probably good for people who like to listen to things when they are you  know ... mobile :)