Slashdot Mirror

it infects your system with a rootkit. That alone is a reason you shouldn't buy it. Just Say No to DRM.

What else do you expect from Sony made DRM?

what this is basically doing, is reducing the value of the product to zero as now you cannot sell it on. Thus destroying the second hand game market

Shame on EA for using this anti-consumer DRM that gives you 3 installs then you have the joy of purchasing it again, sounds like MPAA/RIAA tactics to me.

Shame on you EA and shame on you Will Wright for not speaking out.

well is this Sony's second attempt to kill off the second hard game market after their patent they tried to keep very quiet!


http://itvibe.com/news/4063/
Sony to make it illegal to sell second hand PS3 games

FTA: At the start of the year Sony filed a patent that could threaten the second hand games market and independent retailers alike.

The patent would allow Sony to lock a game to the first console that it was played on, meaning that if you sold the game or lent it to a friend they would be unable to play it on their console.

Sony stated at the time that the aim is to protect itself from counterfeit software, but were aware that the same technology would also prevent the re-sale of used games.

At the time many people shrugged it off not really thinking Sony would go through with the idea as it would kill the second hand games market, the games rental market and seriously hurt independent retailers. All of which could damage PS3 console and games sales.

However retail sources have revealed to GamesRadar that "high street games shops have been told by Sony that there will be no PS3 pre-owned sections in their stores as it will be illegal for customers to sell any next-gen PlayStation games that they've bought"


What do you expect from the masters of rootkits other than anti-consumer propertarian bull shit.


RIAA:

# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI

MPAA:

# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom--(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)

Your right. I'm full of shit.
There is no smart phone virus threat.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,3918 2753,00.htm
http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/mobile/2005/04/20 /smartphone-viruses-52-and-counting
http://itvibe.com/news/3072/

Oh wait.. there is and it was trivially easy to find news about the threat.

An SDK makes it easy to write lots of cool stuff too. You have to weigh the benefits vs the risks.

Having an SDK makes it easy to develop software.
Viruses are software and are developed so having an SDK makes it easier to develop them.

It's simple logic man. Maybe you haven't gotten to that point in school yet.

Kihara could be very well the creator if the *Sony* walkman, but let's not forget who invented it : Andreas Pavel, who won a 20 year-long battle on the subject.
Article here : http://itvibe.com/news/2587/

"Sony stated at the time that the aim is to protect itself from counterfeit software, but were aware that the same technology would also prevent the re-sale of used games."

"However retail sources have revealed to GamesRadar that "high street games shops have been told by Sony that there will be no PS3 pre-owned sections in their stores as it will be illegal for customers to sell any next-gen PlayStation games that they've bought"

Sony to make it illegal to sell second hand PS3 games

Here's a quote from the end of the article:

Will Sony use their patent? Will Sony make it illegal to re-sell PS3 games?

At the moment no-one really knows, but lets hope not.

Sony have yet to comment on the rumours that they will make it illegal to re-sell PS3 games.

Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should.
My windows servers stay spyware/virus free due to constant vigilance and exhaustive maintanence. I don't have the time to do that with every computer, so without a magic bullet, I'm going to continue moving to Linux.
Even Bill gets the BSOD sometimes.

The way they've done it is interesting. They've basically said "it's illegal - but you go find the guy, then we'll prosecute.". Which, in the cases of companies like EBay, they might just do. Now of course, you're right, there's no way we can reach the Nigerians (etc) yet, but there are plenty of Americans out there doing it. And those that are stupid enough to defy laws within their own country where they can be easily pinned - well, at least you're getting some of them. http://www.silicon.com/research/specialreports/the spamreport/0,39025001,39125582,00.htm http://itvibe.com/news/2560/ Yes, there are stupid people out there. It's our duty to help protect them, not say that they deserve to be ripped off for being stupid and greedy. When Arnold makes California his own country and goes and invades Nigeria, then you'll be glad we have a law!

It would certainly be a rather uncharacteristic or bold move by Cisco as far as their track record of corporate acquisitions go. I touched on this very briefly in my own rejected submission (which imho was slightly more informative than the one posted, however it was probably submitted later, so I'm not complaining).

I'll just post it here too, since it includes a few more links for those interested:

According to today's Sunday Business newspaper, Cisco Systems Inc. is thinking of buying the finnish mobile handset giant Nokia in the aftermath of CEO Jorma Ollila's retirement announcement. In the past Cisco has concentrated more on buying smaller, niche tech companies. But this time its chief is believed to be interested in merging with a wireless infrastructure company, and Nokia would fit this bill. The paper says the merger would help Cisco create "intelligent wireless applications". Convergence is the buzz word of the day and this move would certainly combine the fixed-line and wireless networking capabilities of the companies. Cisco is currently valued at about $123 billion (25.5 times earnings) and Nokia at $71 billion (18.8 times earnings). Neither company has yet commented on the rumour.

Actually, this isn't unheard of. Albiet, Media Center BSODed, but the XBox got a system memory error..
At CES no less..


*snicker*

Now that Google's a publicly traded company flush with cash, many potential litigants are smelling blood.

Google is both suing and being sued by so many parties now it's hard to keep track, as a search on Google will show.

One of the cases involving images.google.com appears to me to be more of a publicity stunt by the plaintiff.

I think we can expect more such lawsuits.

They'll probably get sued over the name. Hopefully it'll find a home on Source Forge =)

In other news...XBox Firewire?

There is something very odd about all this. For a start, a court would not rule that the site was acting illegally so quickly. Therefore, the MPAA have no right to take over the website and state on it that LokiTorrent "facilitates the illegal downloading". By law, everyone is not guilty until proven so. Therefore, the MPAA cannot take over the website and state that they are guilty until a court has ruled so. And a court wouldn't rule that so quickly as this.
On http://itvibe.com/news/3282/ , in the comments bit, someone says LokiTorrent were involved. This wouldn't surprise me, because at the moment, this story just makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, according to Sophos (http://itvibe.com/default.aspx?NewsID=2846) 42% of spam comes from the USA, so any law passed by Congress would be able to knock out 42% of the world's spam.

It seems to me to be a good idea to start with the worst offender. Next on the list is South Korea with 15%, I'm sure the US government has some influence there.

If those two countries would take action then we'd be more than half way towards solving the problem.

The amount of spam from China is 15% by the way so I think we need to worry about the "Red, white and blue peril" before we worry about the "Red peril".

Back when SCO was claiming they were being DDoSed, many experts made claims that resulted in stories like the following:

The debate touches on more subjects than we could possibly cover here, but experts are claiming that SCO could have taken countless preventative measures to stop the attack affecting their services.

(see here)

Groklaw had a bunch of "experts" claiming it was easily stopped, as well, and suggested it was faked by SCO.

The truth is, as people here have pointed out, that it really doesn't matter what preventative action you take; if your pipe is full, your pipe is full, even if you drop all the packets when they hit your routers.

You can't easily beat a bandwidth saturating attack.

-Dan

One other thing that's come up more over the last 12 months is this notion of indemnification [against patent and copyright claims].

Yes I wonder who is making it an issue.

More and more customers are asking us, "Help me understand what you do from an indemnification perspective versus HP or IBM or Red Hat or Novell." That's weighing into decisions more and more. ...

Yes because again Microsoft are trying to tie people down with fear that what they will touch they will loose again because the big Microsoft guys will spoil thier fun.

Customers began introducing it and asking me about it more than I was introducing it to them. And I began to say, "Wow. We really stand behind our technology in a pretty aggressive way.

Hahahah yes you are plenty aggressive, like a cornered animal, even the Ministry of Truth could learn from you guys.

We should make sure that we get credit for that compared to Linux in many ways." And it's actually been something that tips the scales sometimes when people are on the fence.

Is that the barbed wire elecrified fence of 10 year supply deal, licensing terms, special backhanders, propriatary formats et al.

Lets all hug this guy. Anyone notice how Microsoft are finding security holes in its own software right when it wants you to upgrade?

Japanese police blame document leak on virus
Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 at 16:56 by Andy Holliday

Japanese police announced earlier this week that data stored on a private laptop relating to a crime has been unwittingly circulated on the internet.

The information was stored in 19 documents and even 'wanted' lists that had been compiled by a Police Officer and stored on his laptop.

According the police, 11 names of actual persons were contained in the documents.

The police suspect that a virus caused the leak and then the documents were circulated over the internet, probably over the Japanese Winny P2P network.

The officer in question claims that he received permission to use his own PC for the work but is currently being questioned over the security breach.

Detailed descriptions of the crimes were said to be included in the documents that were distributed.

The terms sold were "AXA" and "Direct Assurance". ... it appears to be the assertion of AXA (the company) that their trademarks were sold to AXA's direct competitors.

The company claims that the use of their words infringes on its trademarks, patents and copyrights, and wants to stop Google from selling them.

[Begin rant]

Google is not selling people's trademarks. The company still owns them.

Google is not selling people's copyrights. They are making fair use of published material, as an indexing service.

Google is not infringing on people's patents by linking to their pages, unless that patant was on linking to someone's pages through a search engine.

Google is not supporting the competitors, other than through paid advertizing.

Google is not making any statements about which product to use.

Google is not making any statements about which company to support.

Google is not transferring any legal rights or ownership of the rights.

Google is not stating that you have a criminal record, or that you are doing something illegal, not making libel claims about you, and not violating your privacy, even though they might offer that information if it is searched for.

What ARE they doing?

Google is saying "You just asked us about one or more word. We have been paid to show you these ads when you typed that word, and these web sites use that word or have a high correlation to that word."

I'm sick of lawsuits against them for indexing public sites.

There are billions of web sites. These sites are publically available. Since Google is doing nothing more than indexing publically available content using fair-use excerpts, THESE LAWSUITS SHOULD ALL BE THROWN OUT.

If somebody is to be sued, it is the company paying for the ads, and the people publishing the source sites, making the information available to the public. Not Google.

[End Rant]

Well, yeah. But there is this "update" on the story with a quote from Ballmer:

I can assure you that we know there has been no compromise of the integrity of the source code; that it has not been modified or tampered with in any way.

The problem is that the quote is soon four years old. So that statement is not relevant to this story at all.

Seems like a hoax.

Found this nothing to back it up on microsoft.com just yet though...

Quoth the Ballmer on this subject: "I can assure you that we know there has been no compromise of the integrity of the source code; that it has not been modified or tampered with in any way." Okay... it hasn't been modified... but is the source loose in the wild or not? Here's where I found it.

According to a report on ITVibe, Steve Ballmer, Chief Executive and President of Microsoft has said in a statement:

"I can assure you that we know there has been no compromise of the integrity of the source code; that it has not been modified or tampered with in any way."

In an article here Steve Ballmer is quoted as saying "I can assure you that we know there has been no compromise of the integrity of the source code; that it has not been modified or tampered with in any way."

Ah, spin control. What a lovely thing.