What is Digg?95 Comments
- kaelyiesta, on 08/04/2008, -0/+81Is it really a constitutional republic when the rule of law is only upheld when its convenient for the government to do so? I would argue that when a government only obeys and enforces laws that its members want, no law is truly valid. It's like a jail cell that is only locked when an inmate isn't trying to get it open. It's not really locked at all.
Really, the only thing that truly keeps our government in check is the people; Not the law. It's that fear of reprisal that keeps us from a complete oligarchy. We need to raise that fear a bit more I think. - The_Wallbanger, on 08/04/2008, -4/+73DMCA aside, the main problem is Davenport tested the code at his work place. At that moment, it became a work product.. Just like scientists at 3M and engineers at Google, if you develop a product using your employer's resources while on the clock, the employer retains the ownership.
- inactive, on 08/04/2008, -2/+55So are P2P sharers considered a group or individuals?
- wexmajor, on 08/04/2008, -1/+45Probably the most ***** up law that's actually in effect as of right now. Why the hell would corporations have more rights than individuals? Furthermore, it EXPLICITLY states that the government is above the law. Doesn't that kind of undermine our entire cultural perception of what the law is?
- ProphetSix, on 08/04/2008, -1/+44So, does this mean all the Viacom vs. Google/YouTube DMCA fracas is moot, as everyone involved is a corporation, and not an individual?
(/me grabs some popcorn and sits back to watch the fallout) - dolemite01, on 08/04/2008, -0/+34So if the DMCA doesn't apply to the US Government, why should they spend billions of our tax dollars paying for software and the like?
- Moonkeeper, on 08/04/2008, -1/+27If that's how it works I'm incorporating tomorrow.
- solidcube, on 08/04/2008, -1/+24According to this precedent, the US government can no longer be sued AT ALL, unless it consents to be sued.
- Testiculese, on 08/04/2008, -1/+24If the government is allowed to do it, then by extension, since I *am* the government, so can I.
- darkstar949, on 08/04/2008, -0/+15Agreed, there is a reason that people always tell you not to work in personal projects that you hope to make money for at work. I'm actually a bit surprised that the DMCA ruling even came into play here due to the implied contractual issue of working on a personal project on government time.
- drmangrum, on 08/04/2008, -0/+12Having been in the Air Force, I can safely say that Sgt Davenport did NOT work on his program solely from home. You can bet he used government time to work on it. It's a common occurrence for someone to work on a side project with all the idle time desk dwellers typically have. If the commander was smart he would have had network support guys look for any files with common programming language extensions on his work box and network drive, including tape back ups from the last year.
If any files are found, the program is then property of the US government and the soon to be Mr. Davenport goes to jail. - makenshin, on 08/04/2008, -0/+12I don't know about that, but there are many cracker groups who crack software. Guess they are protected... or do they need to register as a group (doesn't matter in which country) for it to count?
- LANjackal, on 08/04/2008, -4/+16The real idiots in this case are Blueport, the company that bought Davenport's code, as there was no way they could claim ownership of it.
Speaking of which, it should be very possible for them to nail Davenport for fraud (selling something he didn't really own). If I were him, I'd be leaving the country right about now ... - bizkit00, on 08/04/2008, -0/+11Corporations are individuals and can be tried as such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation - Rodalli, on 08/04/2008, -0/+10"The United States, as [a] sovereign, 'is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.'"
Well, this is *****. One more example of how the law only applies to the government when it's convenient for the government to have it applied. Based on this, I can't be sued or charged for breaking the law unless I feel like being sued or charged...right?? - lonesomewolf, on 08/04/2008, -0/+9Corporations are generally treated as individuals under law. That is why corporations can own things, file tax returns, pay taxes, hire and fire employees, etc. There are limitations of course since a corporation can't get married but it can sue others, be sued, and even be convicted of a criminal offense. If you remember Enron, the accounting firm Arthur Anderson was convicted of obstruction of justice and immediately ceased operations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen - thecatcantalk, on 08/04/2008, -0/+9Mmmm...they'd have to prove intent to defraud, which would be difficult. Probably, the guy DIDN'T intend to defraud anyone, he just didn't want to reward the USAF for being greedy and stupid in demanding that he turn over a bunch of code that he'd written and developed at home in his own time. He saw an opportunity to get rewarded financially for intelligence and hard work, so he took it.
- m4ttGT, on 08/04/2008, -0/+9Two things:
1) I think that Congress, when they wrote this law, did not expect a branch of the military to hack and pirate software, so this law should be amended
2) However, since Davenport did work for the USAF AND eventually used his code on government property to develop his program, he should turn over the software and accept the promotion. - paradexes, on 08/04/2008, -0/+9AHEM..."Don't steal...The Government hates competition"....
- Cerebron, on 08/04/2008, -2/+10It's not clear whether he developed on 'company' time, it says he brought his software in, and allowed the 'company' to test a demo version.
- lonesomewolf, on 08/04/2008, -2/+10Actually it is not that clear in case law. Just because you use other machinery at point b doesn't mean that the work up to point b now belongs to others.
- dafragsta, on 08/04/2008, -0/+7Once we catch someone red handed retallying votes in a Diebold machine, there will be some ***** copout for that too, and it will get equal scrutiny from the government that made it happen.
- KaivenTor, on 08/04/2008, -0/+7The government shouldn't be immune to it's own laws, but this case was doomed from the start.
If I join the military and make something while employed by the military (keeping in mind there is a 24hr pay scale) then anything I do on my own time is property of the military. This is a little different than the private sector where my personal time cannot be dictated by the company without my permission. Beyond that, since he tested the code on military equipment and personnel, he probably should have just handed over the code, kept a copy for later on after he got out, and called it a day. - jhartvu, on 08/04/2008, -0/+7Why would you feel bad for him? The article says he sold his software to a separate company, so perhaps he came out okay in the end.
- ivanmarsh, on 08/04/2008, -0/+7This is nothing new. Back when I worked for (company name redacted) we had many military contracts and we had to put special stickers on the software packages that listed the statutes that pertained to the military to prevent them from making unlimited unlicensed copies of our software. Apparently if they didn't have to break a seal specifying that the law was binding it wan't binding. This was software that cost in the hunedreds of thousands to millions of dollars BTW.
Just goes to show the govenrment screws you any way they can. - bizkit00, on 08/04/2008, -0/+7The way I read it, it didn't come into play, but the judge wanted to clarify it for any cases that DMCA would have applied to.
"Given that Davenport used his position as part of the relevant Air Force office to get his peers to use his software, the case fails this test.
But the court also addressed the DMCA claims made by Blueport, and its decision here is quite striking." - Rndm_Tngnt, on 08/05/2008, -0/+7God made Freddy and Fannie, not Freddy and Indy!
Say no to Gay Mergers! - psyjoniz, on 08/04/2008, -0/+6man, every day it feels more and more like the ****ing twilight zone.
- griz, on 08/04/2008, -1/+7You guys should have a look at the news and question once again how much you have your government. The grass isn't always greener...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/i ... - inactive, on 08/04/2008, -0/+6Because under the law, corporations ARE INDIVIDUALS. They have the rights as a legal person. It's *****, but it has been that way forever. Couple that with benefit that no-one person at a company is ever responsible, you get a legal superentity that can avoid anything.
Just look no further than Enron, Fannie Mae (mostly a corp.), Blackwater, Diebold etc. etc. and you can see companies can pretty much do whatever they want. - mikelieman, on 08/04/2008, -1/+7Yeah, but apparently, Corporations are immune from the Death Penalty.
- psyjoniz, on 08/04/2008, -2/+7touchè
- sarge96, on 08/04/2008, -1/+6I hate the government. And I hate the DMCA. The only person I really feel bad for is that guy, but just a little, because he ***** up by testing his code at work.
- moulin1, on 08/05/2008, -0/+4It's not a new precedent. Its a legal principle that predates our own country or constitution and applies to every nation not just our own.
- lonesomewolf, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4Government is always immune to lawsuit. This is why you can't just sue the judge that sends you to jail for selling crack. It also provide immunity to the prosecutor, the jailer, the cops, etc. You can sue your own lawyer if you like. That's fine. He/she isn't protected. The concept is there so every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't just sue the government and jam up the legal system more than it is. Now, that said you can still file suit against individuals in the government for damages or whatever but only at the judge's discretion will it be allowed to proceed. Good luck with that. An example would be the Durham prosecutor with the Duke University boys on the lacrosse team. They sued the govt and I believe it was allowed to proceed.
Here is a little know fact that will spin your head. Government, including your local government, in most states is except from carrying auto insurance. So, if your car gets totaled by a police car in pursuit and you don't have uninsured motorist coverage, then you are out of a car my friend. And that sucks. Well run local governments will carry insurance anyway but cities like Atlanta don't have any. - Netrilix, on 08/04/2008, -1/+5Touché, actually.
- stevepr, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3drmangrun I can agree with you any more. I was in the Air Force not to long ago. I cant be certain of this but I would be willing to bet that this kid developed over 75% of his code at work. There is a lot of idle time and encouragement to work on things like this at work all the time. Any supervisor would indeed encourage his Airman to work on such project.( if there was no encouragement he would had never gotten the software on a government system the Air Force is very strict about that)
Sure they cant send you to school for programing because he was probably not in a programing career field and the Air Force is silly like that. Training budget is slim as well. - ackza, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3Cool
I (and many geeks) respect the utilitarian attitudes of the military. - techtvforever, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3Yeah our government is overrun with corruption. We really need some political reform to oust the power-mongers and elect officials who are servants, not enslavers.
- aheram, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3This article serves to prove what a complete farce the DMCA really is.
As for the government being immune from certain provisions of the DMCA, that is not necessarily a bad thing. The Library of Congress needs the exemption in order to carry out its mandate to archive the nation's cultural works. If the DMCA and the draconian copyfascist laws applied to everyone, the Library of Congress will not be able to do its archival duties. - inactive, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3Yah, large amounts of encrypted data scales well. And we all know encryption is never broken.
- cassaffousth, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3I saw an USA government's IP in my uTorrent. So I'll assume my downloads were legal. Sadly, I have no logs.
- Thuktun, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3Then why would they be implicitly excluded? I'm missing something here.
- KaivenTor, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3@Metasquares: It's based on a pay grade which is based on rank. Besides, a soldier gets free food, housing, and medical in addition to regular pay. And soldiers aren't classified as employees, they are public servants.
- MrWhite7, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3Thank goodness all of our government contractors are so open and honest, otherwise we'd all be screwed.
- stalefries, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4A corporation can get married, it's called a "merger"
- stevepr, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3I was in the Air Force not to long ago. I cant be certain of this but I would be willing to bet that this kid developed over 75% of his code at work. There is a lot of idle time and encouragement to work on things like this at work all the time. Any supervisor would indeed encourage his Airman to work on such project.( if there was no encouragement he would had never gotten the software on a government system the Air Force is very strict about that)
Sure they cant send you to school for programing because he was probably not in a programing career field and the Air Force is silly like that. Training budget is slim as well. - moulin1, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2The Air Force and the federal government are protected by the principle of sovereign immunity. But the software company that reverse engineered the software and circumvented his copyright protection is not. If Blueport's lawyers pursue a suit against the company, unless I miss my guess, the government cannot indemnify or defend the company because, under sovereign immunity, they are no longer party to the case.
- trollick, on 08/04/2008, -3/+5***** you. Two of my friends died carpet bombing DMCA
- sliksta, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2Big business is treated better than human beings in this country. Corporations do not deserve rights that human beings don't get half the time.
-
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is