Re: (Kinda O.T.) Digital Millennium Copyright Act used to censor hardware specifications
Steve Shockley [steve.shock...@shockley.net] wrote: We Americans have to enjoy the bars, there's not much left to do besides drink. There's always bath salts and eating off homeless people's faces.
Re: (Kinda O.T.) Digital Millennium Copyright Act used to censor hardware specifications
On 5/31/2012 12:25 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: Shame on you. Don't you know that linking to links that link to links that have DCMA'd is a crime? Enjoy the bars. We Americans have to enjoy the bars, there's not much left to do besides drink.
Re: (Kinda O.T.) Digital Millennium Copyright Act used to censor hardware specifications
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:11, Brett wrote: Pursuant to a rights owner notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Wikimedia Foundation acted under the law and took down and restricted the content in question. A copy of the received notice can be Reverse engineering necessary to have open source in the brave new world? PCI spec docs (and many others) are copyrighted. Maybe they should be, maybe they shouldn't, but they are. As far as I know, the actual specs cannot be copyrighted (or it's murky), but knowing wikipedia, somebody probably copied an entire table from the doc and dropped it into the article. that's a no-no, and not something I'd find nearly as alarming as censorship.
Re: (Kinda O.T.) Digital Millennium Copyright Act used to censor hardware specifications
On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:12:58 +0200, Ted Unangst wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:11, Brett wrote: Pursuant to a rights owner notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Wikimedia Foundation acted under the law and took down and restricted the content in question. A copy of the received notice can be Reverse engineering necessary to have open source in the brave new world? PCI spec docs (and many others) are copyrighted. Maybe they should be, maybe they shouldn't, but they are. As far as I know, the actual specs cannot be copyrighted (or it's murky), but knowing wikipedia, somebody probably copied an entire table from the doc and dropped it into the article. that's a no-no, and not something I'd find nearly as alarming as censorship. Actually, the crime consisted in linking to a few PDFs located elsewhere. The last revision of the article to contain the links is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conventional_PCIoldid=405114605
Re: (Kinda O.T.) Digital Millennium Copyright Act used to censor hardware specifications
Shame on you. Don't you know that linking to links that link to links that have DCMA'd is a crime? Enjoy the bars. On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:12:58 +0200, Ted Unangst wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:11, Brett wrote: Pursuant to a rights owner notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Wikimedia Foundation acted under the law and took down and restricted the content in question. A copy of the received notice can be Reverse engineering necessary to have open source in the brave new world? PCI spec docs (and many others) are copyrighted. Maybe they should be, maybe they shouldn't, but they are. As far as I know, the actual specs cannot be copyrighted (or it's murky), but knowing wikipedia, somebody probably copied an entire table from the doc and dropped it into the article. that's a no-no, and not something I'd find nearly as alarming as censorship. Actually, the crime consisted in linking to a few PDFs located elsewhere. The last revision of the article to contain the links is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conventional_PCIoldid=405114605
Re: (Kinda O.T.) Digital Millennium Copyright Act used to censor hardware specifications
On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:25:14 +0200, Theo de Raadt wrote: Shame on you. Don't you know that linking to links that link to links that have DCMA'd is a crime? Enjoy the bars. I'm sure quoting mails that link to links that link to DCMA'd links is a felony, too. Perhaps we'll be sharing a cell. On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:12:58 +0200, Ted Unangst wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:11, Brett wrote: Pursuant to a rights owner notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Wikimedia Foundation acted under the law and took down and restricted the content in question. A copy of the received notice can be Reverse engineering necessary to have open source in the brave new world? PCI spec docs (and many others) are copyrighted. Maybe they should be, maybe they shouldn't, but they are. As far as I know, the actual specs cannot be copyrighted (or it's murky), but knowing wikipedia, somebody probably copied an entire table from the doc and dropped it into the article. that's a no-no, and not something I'd find nearly as alarming as censorship. Actually, the crime consisted in linking to a few PDFs located elsewhere. The last revision of the article to contain the links is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conventional_PCIoldid=405114605
Re: (Kinda O.T.) Digital Millennium Copyright Act used to censor hardware specifications
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:11, Brett wrote: Pursuant to a rights owner notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Wikimedia Foundation acted under the law and took down and restricted the content in question. A copy of the received notice can be Reverse engineering necessary to have open source in the brave new world? PCI spec docs (and many others) are copyrighted. Maybe they should be, maybe they shouldn't, but they are. As far as I know, the actual specs cannot be copyrighted (or it's murky), but knowing wikipedia, somebody probably copied an entire table from the doc and dropped it into the article. that's a no-no, and not something I'd find nearly as alarming as censorship. A DCMA notice is an improvement over the furious clean-up happening behind the scenes. For example: search for CIPSO, a NetLabel protocol with an IETF RFC, the word appears 1263 times in Linux kernel 3.3. No Wikipedia entry but Linux_Security_Modules links to an ex-entry... without deletion log. Try the Multi ADM link on the same page: dead again, no deletion log. Hmm, the page was last edited yesterday. Date of its most recent reference? June 2010. Second most recent? 2006. If you're lucky you can come across time travel pages: a days-old edit using future tense to refer to events years in the past. Entrusting the very definition of reality to a bunch of LSD-dropping hippies is JUST NOT RESPONSIBLE :) -- p
Re: (Kinda O.T.) Digital Millennium Copyright Act used to censor hardware specifications
On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:25:14 +0200, Theo de Raadt wrote: Shame on you. Don't you know that linking to links that link to links that have DCMA'd is a crime? Enjoy the bars. I'm sure quoting mails that link to links that link to DCMA'd links is a felony, too. Perhaps we'll be sharing a cell. Probably. But you'll be serving two terms, and I only one. On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:12:58 +0200, Ted Unangst wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:11, Brett wrote: Pursuant to a rights owner notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Wikimedia Foundation acted under the law and took down and restricted the content in question. A copy of the received notice can be Reverse engineering necessary to have open source in the brave new world? PCI spec docs (and many others) are copyrighted. Maybe they should be, maybe they shouldn't, but they are. As far as I know, the actual specs cannot be copyrighted (or it's murky), but knowing wikipedia, somebody probably copied an entire table from the doc and dropped it into the article. that's a no-no, and not something I'd find nearly as alarming as censorship. Actually, the crime consisted in linking to a few PDFs located elsewhere. The last revision of the article to contain the links is: [LINK DELETED]
Re: (Kinda O.T.) Digital Millennium Copyright Act used to censor hardware specifications
On Thu, 31 May 2012 21:19:23 +0200, Theo de Raadt wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:25:14 +0200, Theo de Raadt wrote: Shame on you. Don't you know that linking to links that link to links that have DCMA'd is a crime? Enjoy the bars. I'm sure quoting mails that link to links that link to DCMA'd links is a felony, too. Perhaps we'll be sharing a cell. Probably. But you'll be serving two terms, and I only one. Very clever. But those who give up their right to link to DCMA'd links for a little more liberty deserve neither. Or something very close to that. On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:12:58 +0200, Ted Unangst wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:11, Brett wrote: Pursuant to a rights owner notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Wikimedia Foundation acted under the law and took down and restricted the content in question. A copy of the received notice can be Reverse engineering necessary to have open source in the brave new world? PCI spec docs (and many others) are copyrighted. Maybe they should be, maybe they shouldn't, but they are. As far as I know, the actual specs cannot be copyrighted (or it's murky), but knowing wikipedia, somebody probably copied an entire table from the doc and dropped it into the article. that's a no-no, and not something I'd find nearly as alarming as censorship. Actually, the crime consisted in linking to a few PDFs located elsewhere. The last revision of the article to contain the links is: [LINK DELETED]
Re: (Kinda O.T.) Digital Millennium Copyright Act used to censor hardware specifications
Very clever. But those who give up their right to link to DCMA'd links for a little more liberty deserve neither. Or something very close to that. Most of those falling into that trap are Americans, so they don't know where you are coming from.
(Kinda O.T.) Digital Millennium Copyright Act used to censor hardware specifications
Hi misc, While looking up motherboard connections on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_Component_Interconnect I found this ominous notice: === Pursuant to a rights owner notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Wikimedia Foundation acted under the law and took down and restricted the content in question. A copy of the received notice can be found here: DMCA takedown notice. For more information, including websites discussing how to file a counter-notice, please see Wikipedia: Office actions and the article's talk page. Do not remove this template from the article until the restrictions are withdrawn. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you can edit this page, please discuss all changes and additions on the talk page first. Do not remove protection from this page unless you are authorized by the Wikimedia Foundation to do so. === Reverse engineering necessary to have open source in the brave new world? Brett.
