Because the rebels themselves are saying so, FSA included?

A recent example. An earlier one.

Or are you saying that al-Nusra is not radical Islamist?

Exactly. This is why I've never signed up for any streaming music service and why I buy DVDs of shows that are available on Netflix (I do usually wait for bargains/used copies, though). The advantage of streaming services was the "play-anywhere" ability, meaning you didn't need to worry about having a (backed up) iPod with you all the time, but Google Music (and to a lesser extent the Apple and Amazon competitors) has made that issue moot.

They'd probably prefer to outlaw CDs and tapes and go back to the days when music was released on vinyl records which weren't easily duplicated.

> Some folks need a paycheck

Yes. But there's no obligation on Mozilla to give everyone paychecks. If someone doesn't want to write free software for a competition, then don't enter the competition.

Mozilla should impose conditions and fund something useful.

(The values Mozilla should be following are already described in the Mozilla Manifesto. It just has to be put into practice more thoroughly.)

True, although that's not the default. Extradition, mostly for computer crimes, is based on the somewhat dumb theory that if something happens to an American computer, the perpetrator was "in" the USA for legal purposes, even if he or she has never actually visited the USA and has nothing to do with the country. There is also a small category of explicitly extraterritorial laws; for example, it's illegal, under U.S. law, for an American to travel to another country for the purpose of underage sex, as defined in the U.S. statute. Most laws aren't extraterritorial, though. If you murder someone in Germany, you won't be prosecuted under American homicide law, but German law. And if you smoke pot in a coffee shop in Amsterdam, you aren't violating U.S. drug laws.

Paul Rand is dead, though.

I don't particularly like the Tories. I think they're greedy and selfish, but one thing they have is economic competence and credibility.

You can read the newspaper and you still believe this? "Competence and credibility"?

If that is the case, then why is it considered common knowledge by now that the core of the actual armed resistance are jihadists?

What makes you think this is "common knowledge"?

Everything I've read shows the opposite. Maybe your common knowledge and my common knowledge are different.

> In which way a bad move?

No one can reuse this code.

They're encouraging people to install and use non-free software, which doesn't help the campaigns for free drivers, video codecs, file formats, etc.

Mozilla could have used the money to encourage people to write free software.

Awful move.

Here is how you get around it. Once you reverse engineer their effective device, create an app that uses the effective device and register the copright. Then expose how to defeate your effective device and their effective device will cease to be effective. Their device or measure will likely not be registered or protected as it is a trade secrete. Just don't advertise it breaks yheir stuff.

The law is a direct result of the WCT or WIPO Copyright Treaty. The judge is likely interpreting "effective" within respect to that. It is under article 11 I think but i'm on my phone right now and it is a bit hard to check.

Anyways, i believe effective would mean anything non trivial or ancillary at the time of creation. So if a cipher is so easy to break that they teach doing so as part of security lessons, using that couldn't be effective. But requiring something that isn't known or readily done could be if it isn't blatently obvious.

With the exception of the "amateur" category, the games don't have to be free software. So Mozilla is paying people to write proprietary games.

Bad move.

I don't see what's so novel about that, cash doesn't serve a function either. You might say it's to pay taxes but kings and lords knew how to take payment in real world goods. It's just a value token, there's no intrinsic value to small bits of paper in a post-collapse economy. If the price of something I like doubles, did it get more expensive or did my money become less worth? Potayto, potahto. Your money is only worth what it buys you.

Except that value is entirely independent of the value of bitcoins themselves. It doesn't matter if I need to buy 1 BTC @ $10M or 1 billion BTC @ $0.01 and if you argue there's not actually 1 billion BTC, we could do it $100 at the time. It's a money scheme where it pays to get in early, which usually means it's bloody stupid to get in late. It's just not clear when "late" is just yet.

A book written in Greek and a book written in English using a cipher are both gibberish to me, but understanding one depends on a parser and the other on a decryption key. In short the understanding of "effective technological measure" seem to be that the protocol is trying to use a secret (CSS key, AACS key, HDMI key etc.) to protect the content. So if you took any file format and wrapped it in AES with a static key with no memory protection whatsoever then decrypting it in any other program would be a DMCA violation, geeks all get caught up in "effective" but in context it just means a measure intended to have that effect specifically to exclude all other attempts at interpreting a protocol as "cracking" it.