sledgehammer the sumbuck into dust and buy a new computer. no problem.
Nope, you misunderstand what the loophole was. It's utterly irrelevant whether or not it's easy to copy the music out.
You need to forget "plain English" and what "makes sense". We're dealing with the law and legalese. You need to think like a computer running into odd code. If a programmer writes "int Two=3;" then you'll get "Two+2=5". You need to obey the definition you're given, even if it clashes with what you think it should mean. You can't just assume Two+2 is supposed to be 4 when the code (or the law) says something different.
This law has a definitions section, and we are concerned with with three key pieces. I'll trim it to the critical bits.
A "digital musical recording" is a material object [...blah blah...]
A "digital musical recording" does not include a material object [...blah blah blah..] in which one or more computer programs are fixed
Therefore, according to the law, MP3 files on a computer hard drive are not "digital musical recordings".
A "digital audio copied recording" is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording [...blah blah...]
Therefore, according to the law, an MP3 player that copies an MP3 off of a computer is not creating a "digital audio copied recording".
A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device [...blah blah...] making a digital audio copied recording
Therefore an MP3 player copying MP3's off a computer is not a "digital audio recording device".
The law only applies to "digital audio recording devices", therefore nothing in the law applies to MP3 players. Unfortunately this shitty law does seem to apply to a car audio system copying music off of CDs. Unless the judge gets "creative" in interpreting the law, it seems to me that car manufacturers are going to have to pay damages for every unit produced so far, are going to have to implement DRM on these car audio systems (preventing them from loading any song that's flagged as already being a copy), and are going to have to pay royalties to the RIAA for each future unit sold.
and we don't keep logfiles, so we don't have to worry about checking for breakins and cooptions. hey, we don't comment or document our code, either, it's just us two guys. that way, we get to keep all the millions.
hang on, the phone just started melting and my screens went blue...
that thing gets in my way as a user all the time anyway. I do NOT want to see the stacks of pre-teen games, I am looking for a specific app almost all the time. just blow the sucker away, and if somebody wants to see downloads by counts, sell them an app to pull in the data.
The Audio Home Recording Act makes it illegal to manufacture or sell "Audio Recording Devices" unless they implement the Serial Copy Management System (a form of DRM).
The Audio Home Recording Act has a clause explicitly excluding computers from being "an Audio Recording Device", and excluding computer hard drives from being "Audio Recording Media". So when MP3 players copy music from a computer they basically slide through a loophole in the law. The music industry fought a court case over MP3 players and lost on this exact point. According to that court ruling, MP3 players do NOT fall within the law's explicit definition of "Audio Recording Device". Therefore MP3 players are not required to implement the idiot DRM system.
It looks like the system installed in these cars does fall within the law's definition of Audio Recording Device. It looks like the music industry has a solid case here, unless an "activist" judge sees how stupid this all is and comes up with some creative way to avoid applying this idiot law.
The Audio Home Recording Act is a horrid law mandating DRM in any digital audio recording device. This law is directly responsible for the extermination of all technological innovation in the field, up until MP3 players essentially slipped through a loophole. Digital Audio Tape (DAT) failed in the consumer market because of this DRM crap. Minidisc failed even harder. And god-knows how many other technologies were killed by this law and I can't name them because they never got far enough to be named.
That said.... you are looking at the wrong part of the law. I'll post the correct sections below. I sure as hell hope the music industry loses this case, but based on this asinine law I don't see how they'd lose.
Section 1001. Definitions
(3) A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for -
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.
Section 1002. Incorporation of copying controls
(a) Prohibition on Importation, Manufacture, and Distribution. - No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to -
(1) the Serial Copy Management System;
(2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the systemâ(TM)s method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System; or
(3) any other system certified by the Secretary of Commerce as prohibiting unauthorized serial copying.
Section 1009. Civil remedies
(a) Civil Actions. - Any interested copyright party injured by a violation of section 1002 or 1003 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court against any person for such violation.
The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.
Right..... because when Verizon customer's pay for internet connection service, and Verizon customers request pages and media from Wikipedia.... Wikipedia should pay Verizon. That totally makes sense. On crack.
packets originating on their network
Everything is originating on Verizon's network..... Verizon customer's are the ones wanting to open a connection to Netfix and request the data.
When I make a phonecall to someone, and I spend 99% of the call listening to what that person has to say, NO ONE is going to buy that my local phone company can SEND A BILL TO THE PERSON I CALLED.
Level3 is trying to charge Verizon an exorbitant rate for enough bandwidth to handle that peer. Verizon said "No"
No. Level3 offered to upgrade the connection FOR FREE. Level3 offered to pay 100% of the cost of the extra hardware to upgrade the link and GIFT it to Verizon.
The second part of your comment was correct.... the part about Verizon saying "No". Verizon doesn't want the problem fixed for free - Verizon wants to use their monopoly position to bottleneck their customer's datastreams, to try to extort a slice of the content-revenue-stream pie.
Verizon has plenty of bandwidth, Netflix has plenty of bandwidth
Yep. Verizon themselves put out a graphic showing that there's abundant bandwidth, and that the entire problem is the one chokepoint where they're linked to Level3. Which Level3 offered to foot 100% of the bill of fixing.
a small step away from saying that Verizon should provide free internet services for every service their customers request.
Screw "a small step away".
Verizon should provide free internet services for every service their customers request.
The customer is paying for internet service, and the ISP goddamn well needs to round-trip delivery of the customer's internet data, up to the quantity and speed THAT THE CUSTOMER PAYED FOR.
The truly insane thing here is that Level3 has gone to the absurd length of offering to pay 100% of the cost GIFTING Verizon with the additional network cards and cables to expand the link and fix the problem. Verizon refused. Verizon isn't happy being a network provider - they see the revenue Netflix and others gets being a content providers, and Verizon doesn't want the connection problem fixed for free.... Verizon wants to extort Netflix to give them a permanent revenue stream from the content pie. Verizon is abusing their monopoly power to bottleneck customer's data.... trying to force Netflix to raise prices and pay that extra money as a KICKBACK to Verizon. Verizon is abusing their monopoly position to try to gouge their own customers - and trying to force Verizon's price-gouging to show up on customer's Netflix bills rather than appearing on Verizon's own bills.
you have multiple electric entrance points, you have circulating currents among the grounds. every neutral/ground has to be bonded to the capacity of ALL the building current sourcing to prevent this. last one I visited with a camera, a paint store almost burned down. last one I visited on a data equipment field trip, the staff electrician almost got killed with a hand on one building wall and a hand on the next building's wall.
requires very careful engineering. you're better off to have a standby generator plant and screw trying to get multiple feeds in the first place. that kind of thing requires you to be in very precise locations between serving companies.
If there are any other government agencies out there looking for a new IT system, I can fail to deliver for $100 million.
Not a bad analogy, but Engineering follows the rules of Physics and Chemistry, which were built on layers and layers of scientific thought and experiment. Hardly anyone writing code these days understands what's happening under the hood.
Disclaimer: I've been programming since 1965. I'm proud of the fact that I can create logic gates that will do medium to complex mathematics.
Programmers have become like lawyers: They are sometimes competent technicians but are not required to engage in original thought. We are long past the time when we should really need "coders" anymore for application production. We need thinkers who can define requirements precisely, designers who can describe processes to produce those results, and then turn the design (UML. Warnier-Orr, Flowchart, etc.) over to a generator that produces reliable, proven object code. The inventiveness is in the design, not the coding (usually...some exceptions apply).
In a society where we are faced with self-driving cars and machines that care for sick, young and elderly, the type of "coding" (based on layers of algorithms developed back in the 60's..including errors) will not be sufficient. Committee-work will not make it better.
Goedel? Who cares? Somewhere there is an original thinker who can traverse the wall of logical abstraction that will allow us to prove programs correct in multiple domains. When that happens, "coding" will be demonstrated in craft fairs instead of professional offices.