On Tuesday 22 October 2002 19:27, Curtis Rey wrote:

Too late, I'm a criminal. I don't have any pirated DVD's, mp3's, etc. If I want to patch my kernel with a security patch, set up the full featured Broodcast-2000 package, or block DRM on my system I will. It's my machine. I built it, I own it, I don't let others use it, and outside of the present DMCA/DRM lunacy, I obey the laws. Civil disobedience is what it's call. Just as Ghandi (or read his thoughts) in regards to it's effects.

Cheers, Curtis

On Tuesday 22 October 2002 09:37, zentara wrote:

...

What do you think of this? http://www.thefreeworld.net/non-US/

Can I really be fined just for reading something on the net? This is scary. Is this for real?

My question : how much of this lunacy will affect us outside of US ? Mike

All this hipocracy reminds me of a law passed in California more than a decade ago. The law was sponsered by the automobile insurance companies and when passed madated that every driver in California carry a proof of insurance card to be presented on demand by law enforcement. My father was a police officer for over 30 years in San Diego and when asked about the subject stated that the law was a scam to force people to buy car insurance and boost profits for them (thouugh it's wise to carry it not eveyone can afford it). He said that the unofficial stance was to not enforce it. I was pulled over shortly after this went into law and was asked to present my insurance card along with my license and registration. I didn't have one and was given the opportunity to acquire it and present it in court to have the case dismissed - I did and it was. Shortly after that I was pulled over again (yes, I liked to use the skinny pedel to the left alot). and this time the officer did not ask for my proof of insurance (remember 1 in 6 in the US live in Calif = a lot of people). Seems that the amount of non-compliant people was so large that the courts were getting bogged down handling case involving people appearing of secondary violation related to traffic citations. Even the judges were getting fed up with trying cases related to insurance issues. The law enforcement agencies also voiced their displeasure regarding being quasi insurance compliance agents. Well, after a few the law in it's present state was repealled and having to provide proof of insurance was not mandatory, though getting into an accident without insurance took on a new face. So, civil disobedeince and the ability to comply had a dramatic effect on standing legislation and existing statutes. Regarding the DMCA and deCSS, and all those present and forecoming bills in the house and senate are more a real threat to professionals and providers (aka Napster, Kazaa, etc....). Otherwise the courts (both juvinial and adult) will become bogged down with cases involving people busted for little more that listening to music or watching a movie. This is bad press for the entertainment and computer industries in the long run. And the potential backlash for them IMHO is substantial. Those fools in the entertainment industry and at M$ are too arrogant for their own good as far as I'm concerned. Ya, good ahead and bust my mom or daughter for watching Steel Magnolias or listening to Brittney Spears on their PC. Right...! There's positive industry promotive behavior for the RIAA and Jack Valente. I don't have the slightest problem with artists and agents getting paid for their work, I have been a guitar player of professional ability for 29 years (I'm 42 and started playing at 13). I know all to well about not getting paided for my efforts. However, that particular argument is a smoke screen. It's about locking down and locking out markets. Let's face it, most of the leaked before releases stuff from Hollywood comes from privy industry insiders., They can't figure out a new market strategy so they want to use the law and a heavy hand to force people to stick with it's present form rather than adapt. I'm not really worried about Joe and Jane Q. Public but more over about the state of research and development that will suffer from these laws. This of course only effects those in the U.S. and frankly it will go the way of other RIAA copy protection schemes. And as far as hardware and copy protection. I can't see Seagate, IBM, or any other OEM selling this crap overseas to Europe, Asia, South America, etc.. If they try I see overseas OEM making big headway into thier own and other non-U.S. markets in a very big way. Once again not smart. Just MHO, Curtis. On Wednesday 23 October 2002 03:20, jfweber@eternal.net wrote:

** This email message from michael norman on Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:27:53 +0000 Will be delivered via Owl Services Dept

**My question : how much of this lunacy will affect us outside of US ? ** **Mike

well, not at all, unless you make the mistake of coming here AND trying to publish somehting that has been declared"off limits" Looks like we are turning into GB and perhaps a little china thrown in <SIGH>

IT really is time for the US citizenry to make certain their representatives in congress know they ae seriously displeased and wont vote for them ever again for anything ... At least join the EFF .. they are fghting this stuff tooth and nail , but need help , in the form of members who will write elected officials , and perhaps every now and then throw a few dollars their way .. ( they don't do the usual begging serenade each time you access the web site .. )

Right now, it's our only hope as they are at least semi orgaised , speak for a pretty goonly number of people , AND have their own lawyer staff ( hence the need for cash every now and again.. even lawyers gotta eat <g>)

On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 06:28:04PM -0400, Bryan Tyson wrote:

On Thursday 24 October 2002 13:28, Curtis Rey wrote:

...

stated that the law was a scam to force people to buy car insurance and boost profits for them

That's not a scam. That is forcing people to be responsible.

No one has the right to smash someone else's car to bits, then say, "good luck coming up with all those thousands to get your car fixed, I don't care enough about my fellow citizens to carry insurance."

Coming from Denmark, where insurance is mandatory to get a car registered, I was amazed to learn that that's not the case in the US... The way I found out was on my first trip to the states, when I needed to get this car registered, and they asked me at the insurance office whether I wanted to buy insurance against someone uninsured crashing into me... I was completely baffled as to what she meant... something like "you mean to tell me that insurance is *OPTIONAL* ????!!!". IMHO, you guys are crazy. Not wanting to potentially end up in hospital and having to pay for treatment, not to mention having my car wrecked and having to pay for that myself as well, I bought the extra insurance. Jon Clausen

California is also mandatory for registration, but that does not keep people from getting the insurance, register the car, then cancel the insurance. There is no communication between the insurance companies and DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) as in most european countries. Art On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 11:44, Bruce Marshall wrote:

On Saturday 26 October 2002 14:28 pm, Jon Clausen wrote:

...

On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 06:28:04PM -0400, Bryan Tyson wrote:

...

On Thursday 24 October 2002 13:28, Curtis Rey wrote:

...

stated that the law was a scam to force people to buy car insurance and boost profits for them

That's not a scam. That is forcing people to be responsible.

No one has the right to smash someone else's car to bits, then say, "good luck coming up with all those thousands to get your car fixed, I don't care enough about my fellow citizens to carry insurance."

Coming from Denmark, where insurance is mandatory to get a car registered, I was amazed to learn that that's not the case in the US...

The way I found out was on my first trip to the states, when I needed to get this car registered, and they asked me at the insurance office whether I wanted to buy insurance against someone uninsured crashing into me... I was completely baffled as to what she meant... something like "you mean to tell me that insurance is *OPTIONAL* ????!!!".

IMHO, you guys are crazy.

Not wanting to potentially end up in hospital and having to pay for treatment, not to mention having my car wrecked and having to pay for that myself as well, I bought the extra insurance.

Jon Clausen

I think you'll find it is mandatory in most states of the U.S. as well.

In Michigan where I live, you need to have insurance to register a car, but you can also buy the uninsured motorist insurance as well. It is pretty cheap (because of the mandatory requirement) but it insures against some nut who might take his hot rod/off-road/whatever vehicle for a spin when he's not insured.

When I lived in CT, I saw a man who drove his uninsured car around the block as a test get fined $500 for not having insurance... and given jail time when he couldn't come up with the money.

-- +----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 10/26/02 14:41 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----+ "Tell me to "stuff it" - I'm a taxidermist."

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com