Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I’m Suing the US Government

bunniestudios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 327 posts

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#121

Post by desireco42 »

ProAm wrote: post #101
DoubleGlazing wrote: post #94

Good. My wife is a speech therapist and uses a system that is designed to help people who have had strokes regain their voice. It comprises a piece of software that comes with a "specially calibrated USB microphone". The microphone is actually a Samson laptop USB mic that had the voice improvement systems logo stuck on it. The system came with lots of legal warnings about not copying, not telling unqualified people a…

How much does your wife charge as a therapist? Everyone needs to make money. HN is a weird place to bemoan prices when many here are seeking unicorn valuations while disrupting industry. Everyone hates laws until its in their best interest to have said laws.

I usually feel for people getting downvoted because they speak their mind, but... No people don't have to make money this way. There are plenty of ways to make money and it is not important that she doesn't happen to make a lot, even if she made a lot, I don't think this makes any difference.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#123

Post by jacalata »

sneak wrote: post #106
mtgx wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about using the same tactic many smartphone makers use: "We're allowing you to unlock your bootloader, but if you do, you're voiding your warranty." Similarly car makers could say as soon as the user unlocks the car's systems for modification, the company is no longer responsible for any accident that might happen. It seems like a rather good compromise to me.

The car company is already not responsible for any accident that might happen. The operator of the vehicle is responsible for safe operation, period.

Yea, that's why nobody blamed Toyota for any crashes caused by faulty brakes and they didn't have to spend millions recalling all those cars at all.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#124

Post by dhimes »

sneak wrote: post #106
mtgx wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about using the same tactic many smartphone makers use: "We're allowing you to unlock your bootloader, but if you do, you're voiding your warranty." Similarly car makers could say as soon as the user unlocks the car's systems for modification, the company is no longer responsible for any accident that might happen. It seems like a rather good compromise to me.

The car company is already not responsible for any accident that might happen. The operator of the vehicle is responsible for safe operation, period.

No, car companies are sued when defective equipment causes an accident. They would have to take measures to ensure that consumer-modified equipment that causes an accident is not blamed on them.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#125

Post by pyre »

ryanswapp wrote: post #28

I studied section 1201 thoroughly during law school and I think this post doesn't give a fair characterization of it. The reason this statute exists is because companies were unable to devise protection for copyrighted works that hackers were not able to immediately circumvent. As a result, the government stepped in and created 1201 to make it illegal for someone to circumvent some form of access control that a compa…

You're missing things like (e.g.):

- Tractors that have technical measures to prevent 3rd party repairs or replacement parts. Circumventing those measures is a DMCA violation, even if all you're trying to do is repair a tractor that you own without paying an arm and a leg to the manufacturer for a repair person.

- Printer makers that use technical measures to prevent their printers from using 3rd party inkjet cartridges. It's not my fault that they want to use the "give away the razor, sell the blades" business model.

- Basically any company that wants everything relating to their product to go through them, and to prevent 3rd party companies from creating replacement parts or performing repairs.

The government shouldn't be making laws just to make certain business models viable (that are otherwise not viable). (e.g.) If you can't sell cheap printers without gouging people by selling expensive ink, then charge more for your printers. If printers are too expensive for everyone to have one at home, then so be it. They will do their printing at Kinko's (or the local equivalent).

This works in other industries. Car manufacturers have had a 3rd party parts market for a long time (though they are definitely suckling at the teat of the DMCA and trying to make newer cars as locked down as possible).

Do you really think that the US government should be making laws to shut down the 3rd party inkjet cartridge industry in order to protect HP's consumer printer business? Should the US government pass laws to make it illegal for a farmer to install a non-John Deere part on his John Deere tractor? Is this the kind of thing that the government needs to be doing?

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#126

Post by theandrewbailey »

ryanswapp wrote: post #28

I studied section 1201 thoroughly during law school and I think this post doesn't give a fair characterization of it. The reason this statute exists is because companies were unable to devise protection for copyrighted works that hackers were not able to immediately circumvent. As a result, the government stepped in and created 1201 to make it illegal for someone to circumvent some form of access control that a compa…

The first amendment of the US Constitution states that Congress (later interpreted as the entire federal government) cannot restrict free speech. Congress passed the DMCA, part of which said that you can't tell anyone about how to bypass DRM. Therefore, Congress restricted free speech, which is contrary to established law.

Do you see the problem?

Of course, the question is does this invalidate the entire DMCA or only that specific part?

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#127

Post by Dylan16807 »

6stringmerc wrote: post #22
zekevermillion wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is well-planned activism. Bunnie and EFF team certainly know more about free speech and copyright than you or I do. Perhaps you don't likr the press release, but that necessarily simplifies and reduces the detailed arguments they will have to brief before the court.

We'll see about that. We can revisit this case when it goes further down the line, because I study copyright extensively and follow these cases often. It's not that I don't like the press release, it's that it contains factual errors and if you want to believe them, then that's not constructive.

Your entire last paragraph is the opposite of reality. So you should stop accusing people of factual errors.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#128

Post by soperj »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #110
DoubleGlazing wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She barely takes home minimum wage and she is self-employed. Most of her peers are in a similar position. It is not a vocation you get in to for the money. Edit: A common problem in her sector, and other therapy sectors, is that all the recognised diagnosis and treatment systems get bought by the likes of Pearson and other big technical publishers who will demand recurring payments to use the system. For example Owls…

How much do you think it'd cost to replicate the software as an open source tool? I've written grants before for funding open source projects, and this anecdote boils my blood.

Yeah, this is just plain thievery from people who can least afford it.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#129

Post by jedberg »

onetwotree wrote: post #98
Svenskunganka wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if this suit is successful, it would mean that Section 1201 violates your First Amendment rights which in turn means that EULA also violates your First Amendment rights.

Under American contract law you can sign away any of your constitutional rights. Be careful what you put your magic squiggles on.

Sort of. We can't make a contract to do something that would otherwise be illegal. A very simple example is that I cannot put into a rental lease that I can evict a tenant in 5 days. That would be in conflict with the law that says I must go through a 30 day process. Even if I put it in a contract and you sign it, you can still sue me for not going through the 30 day process.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#130

Post by japhyr »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #110
DoubleGlazing wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She barely takes home minimum wage and she is self-employed. Most of her peers are in a similar position. It is not a vocation you get in to for the money. Edit: A common problem in her sector, and other therapy sectors, is that all the recognised diagnosis and treatment systems get bought by the likes of Pearson and other big technical publishers who will demand recurring payments to use the system. For example Owls…

How much do you think it'd cost to replicate the software as an open source tool? I've written grants before for funding open source projects, and this anecdote boils my blood.

Can you say a bit more about the process of writing grants for open source projects? I have some long-term education related projects that I'm considering grant funding to support. I have some ideas how to go about it, but I'd love to hear what you've done.
Post reply on HN