Hooray for the DMCA! A Princeton grad student is being sued for publicising the uselessness of a recently deployed CD copy protection scheme.

Reuters: "Three days after a Princeton graduate student posted a paper on his Web site detailing how to defeat the copy-protection software on a new music CD by pressing a single computer key, the maker of the software said on Thursday it would sue him. In a statement, SunnComm Technologies Inc. said it would sue Alex Halderman over the paper, which said SunnComm's MediaMax CD-3 software could be blocked by holding down the 'Shift' key on a computer keyboard as a CD using the software was inserted into a disc drive. 'SunnComm believes that by making erroneous assumptions in putting together his critical review of the MediaMax CD-3 technology, Halderman came to false conclusions concerning the robustness and efficacy of SunnComm's MediaMax technology,' it said. SunnComm, which trades on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board, said it has lost more than $10 million of its market value since Halderman published his report. The software was used on a CD, Anthony Hamilton's 'Comin' From Where I'm From,' released last month. Halderman, who has done research in the past on other CD protection technologies, said the software could also be disabled by stopping a driver the software loads on the computer when the CD is played. SunnComm alleged Halderman violated criminal provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in disclosing the existence of those driver files. Halderman -- who received an undergraduate degree from Princeton earlier this year and is now pursuing a doctorate in computer science with an emphasis on computer security -- said he had not yet heard directly from SunnComm in regards to litigation but was unconcerned. 'I'm still not very worried about litigation under the DMCA, I don't think there's any case,' he told Reuters. 'I don't think telling people to press the 'Shift' key is a violation of the DMCA.'

Ah, its becoming more clear. Pete Wilson, the former California governor who introduced the car tax bill -- which had the tax hike provision which came into effect recently which doomed Davis' campaign even though he had no control over it -- anyway, Pete Wilson was chairman of Schwarzenegger's campaign. Nobody would have been as familiar with the car tax as Wilson -- he was responsible for it. So, naturally, they made it into a major campaign issue at the expense of Davis. I've heard Republicans say many times that "Davis raised the car tax and we won't put up with that." Actually, the car tax was raised by a law signed by Wilson. The Schwarzenegger/Wilson team managed to win in part on a platform of repealing that awful car tax. Neat. Watching CNN, I noticed that they mentioned (once or twice) that the car tax law was created by Wilson. But then they repeatedly interviewed people who said, "Davis created this car tax," and no one from CNN offered any correction. Is the liberal media so spineless that they cannot confront interview subjects with hard facts? As James pointed out to me in conversation, this is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of public record. CNN, fully aware of the facts, nonetheless allows their interview subjects to use CNN as a forum for the spread of misinformation.

Well, it looks like Schwarzenegger is going to be the governor of California. He may have even obtained more votes than Davis, giving him a "clear mandate," as they say on CNN. The newscasters do occasionally point out that some 2 million absentee ballotts have yet to be counted. The recall vote was passed by a margin of 1 million votes. The result is not likely to be upset by the absentee ballots, but I plan to be amused if that happens. It looks like the margin between Davis and Schwarzenegger is around 200,000 votes. So it looks like the Republicans pulled the rug out from under the Davis administration -- a sort of coup-by-numbers. It leads one to ask whether Davis would have been retained if Bustamante weren't there. This is impossible to know. Truly this is a strange universe indeed. Having said that, I think California could do worse than Arnold. Anyone who has been lambasted by a Limbaugh gets extra points in my book. His views are described as "socially liberal," which is all right with me. Not that I'm a Californian. In any case, this isn't a slam dunk for Republicans, because Arnold seems to have genuinely bipartisan interests. I don't think he's going to shake things up as much as he likes. One of his first planned moves is to "repeal the car tax." I don't think he can do that. James sent me this lovely article which summarizes the history of the car tax:

One such reform was Proposition 47, a constitutional amendment put before voters in 1986. Sacramento had begun in budget crunches to dip into the automobile license revenues, and so advocates of the local governments thought it wise to stop future raids by setting in constitutional stone the long-standing arrangement with the state. The title of the initiative was banal: "Allocation of Vehicle License Fee Taxes to Counties and Cities." It passed, 3,487,604 to 775,437. Jump now to the late 1990s. Gov. Pete Wilson, looking to his legacy, decided he liked the sound of Champion Tax-Cutter. The tax he chose to cut? Yes, the vehicle license fee — never mind that it wasn't, technically, the state's money to begin with. Counties and cities were told not to worry. There would be, by statute, something called "backfill." They would receive the same amount of money as generated through the vehicle license formula, only it would come from the (then) flush state general fund. And there would be a "trigger" — if the state didn't have the dough to pay the locals their due, vehicle license fees could be brought back to their previous levels. [LA Times]

So, Arnold wants to "repeal" a tax which is -- by the state constitution -- not under state jurisdiction. At best he will be able to institute a suplement, a pay-out to the cities and counties in order to offset the actual amount of the tax. That doesn't sound likely to balance the state budget. Oh well. Have fun down the rabbit hole, boys and girls.

As of right now, about 1:30 AM, with 87 percent of precincts reporting, more people voted to retain Davis (3,076,863) than voted for Schwarzenegger (3,049,590).

As long as I'm being pessimistic and inflammatory, I might as well come to the logical conclusion, the one that most of those who read this blog will already have arrived at long ago: representive democracy doesn't work. The problem runs deeper than the bizarre and technical tyranny-of-the-minority stuff that's embodied in this recall election. The problem is the ignorance of the populace. I'm not equating ignorance with disagreement with my personal views. I'm talking about ignorance in it's most real sense, in the fact that those voting have no substantial knowledge or grasp of the complexities of the candidates and/or issues. Representative democracy is predicated on the idea that those being represented, having a very real stake in the decisions made for the electorate as a whole, will remain informed of and knowledgeable about the issues affecting them. The electorate is not informed. An uniformed electorate leads directly to decisions being made based on incomplete knowledge, and, hence, count as poor decisions. The only way to escape from poor decisions is to inform the electorate. The electorate does not even seem to be interested in being informed. Failure.

At the time of this writing, with 30 percent or so of the precincts reporting, it appears that 44 percent of voters voted to retain Gray Davis as Governor. It also appears that 45 percent voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace him. If you know nothing about margins of error for voting methods and machines, then the above will mean nothing to you. The NYTimes is running an article with some of the best quotes from Californians that I have yet seen. Please observe the logic and reason in the following:

"Gray Davis really made a mess out of California, so I was definitely yes on the recall," said Robin Cruse, 45, a stay-at-home mother from San Clemente. "Arnold, I'm not 100 percent on him, but I thought he was still my best choice."

Marc Vasquez, 58, said after casting his ballot in Fresno: "The recall is something that we're privileged to have in this state. It's high time we have officials realize that they can be held accountable."

Skip McCown, 56, a Republican from San Diego, voted for the recall and for Mr. Schwarzenegger. "It's curious that this spate of accusations came out three or four days before the election," Mr. McCown said. "If anything, it makes me want to vote for him more. This is a Davis ploy. He's the king of dirty tricks."

Deborah Gittes, 42, a school administrator in Coronado, Calif., is a registered Democrat who voted to oust Mr. Davis and replace him with Mr. Schwarzenegger. "Davis just messed things up," Ms. Gittes said. "It's good to see Californians empowered themselves." As for the charges of sexual misconduct against Mr. Schwarzenegger, she said, "There's all this debauchery in the film industry, and it's all brought up at the last minute when he's ahead in the polls."

Gray Davis is the king of dirty tricks. Californians are empowered and privileged. The film industry is debauched, not Arnold. I have another conclusion. While mystery and intrigue may compel me to leave it unsaid, I choose not to: California is the stupidest state in the Union.

stu·pid ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stpd, sty-) adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. 5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.