80bower writes "Looks like Microsoft is going to allow an MIT student to display security flaws in the XBOX and won't use the DMCA to stop him. Read about it at EFF via Politech." Microsoft deserves kudos for this. But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
No shit, man. I read the line "Microsoft deserves kudos for this" and I think "oh, thank jebus, they're finally growing up" and then I read the last line and my relief was ripped away.
6 months from now they'll post a story like "Bill Gates sacrifices self to save boat full of children and puppies" and the editors will find a way to make us hate him for it. Like his shoes weren't environmentally sound or some shit.
Oh, and the reason they don't care is because no ones purchased an Xbox in 4 months.
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Re:But...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Mao Tse-Tung: HALLO!
Desmund Tutu: pffft!
Mao Tse-Tung: why?
Desmund Tutu: french.
(check out the above for the greatest thing ever!)
I think this pretty much sums up the convo microsoft is having, and why the DMCA is way to restrictive. Why are we happy that people are doing the right thing? If an insurance company exposes a flaw
We don't have to hate _everything_ they do.. I mean, I dislike Windows for asthetic reasons. I dislike their business practices. That doesn't mean I have to hate everything about them, or disapprove of them when they are doing something good.
If we mock and hate them when they do good things, then they will feel that there is no pleasing us, and will thus ignore everything we have to say. I'd rather have a small voice than none at all.
I was going to commit mass murder, taunt cute little kittens with an open tin of tuna buy not let them have any, run around naked in public, and park on double yellow lines.
But I did none of that. So does this make me a saint? I hope not.
Microsoft decided not to use a totally OTT piece of legislation. They do not deserve kudos, but they don't deserve to be mocked (any more than usual).
If anyone deserves kudos it's the EFF for encouraging huge marketing machines like Microsoft to do the moral thing.
-- Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
6 months from now they'll post a story like "Bill Gates sacrifices self to save boat full of children and puppies" and the editors will find a way to make us hate him for it. Like his shoes weren't environmentally sound or some shit.
Yet today's headline is akin to "Bill Gates decides NOT to squeese trigger on gun aimed at puppy's head." A Slashdot editor points out that while this is all good of Bill, the real issue is the gun itself. You decide its further proof that Slashdot editors are out to get Bill.
...and the US government has been handing out those guns.
-- http://jesus.everdense.com/
Re:But...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah. We can thank the EFF for this fine victory.
Send them some more money. They want to produce more Macromedia Flash animation.
Re:But...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think it might be fair to consider how much value the Playstation has gained through piracy to achieve its dominant market position.
Microsoft were certainly not above expoliting piracy to achieve market share in the Win95 days.
Maybe too cynical but I suspect that any executive that claims to know about the console market and doesnt see the advantages to having a thriving underground for their machine, possibly doesnt know the business.
Even the most hardened of pirates buy *some* titles.
I recognize Apple user. Unix users dislike
it for technical reasons.
Re:But...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
6 months from now they'll post a story like "Bill Gates sacrifices self to save boat full of children and puppies" and the editors will find a way to make us hate him for it.
How do you get rated 5, insightful for not being able to extract the meaning from an English sentence? Inquiring trolls want to know.
I don't believe this comment was directed at Microsoft at all. It was just a comment on how every company and their mother is willing to go on witch hunts for anything that they can apply the DMCA to. Just because although Hemos happened to congratulate Microsoft on restraining themselves, but then goes on to complain about how terrible it is that we even need to bother congratulating someone in no way means that this attack was aimed towards Microsoft. Ex:
HEADLINE: Lady spills coffee on self in drive-thru, decides not to sue.
"Lady deserves kudos for this. But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things"
Everyone seems to misinterpret where the blame is trying to be placed.
My comment was just centered around the notion that they couldn't just make their compliment and leave well enough alone. They had every right to sue, and didn't, which was pretty nifty in my book.
I cannot express in words the great feeling I get knowing that I have the maturity, perspective, and humility to know that should the day come that the DMCA gets everything it wants, and my warez collection goes bye-bye and I can no longer burn cd's for any purpose, I'll shrug, think about some people in the world that are starving or getting shot at or watching their parents hauled off to some death camp and think "Well, if I bitch about this and call unfairness, I'll really be nothing but a whiny bitch that thinks his problems mean shit in this world". It's a really awesome feeling, you should try it.
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
My comment was just centered around the notion that they couldn't just make their compliment and leave well enough alone. They had every right to sue, and didn't, which was pretty nifty in my book.
Again - you miss the point. Its all good that Microsoft did The Right Thing but the issue at hand is that they had, as you put it, "every right to sue" in the first place. Its amazing how those with apparent pro-Microsoft leanings feel that this is some kind of dig against Microsoft. Re-read the comment. Its not.
I cannot express in words the great feeling I get knowing that I have the maturity, perspective, and humility to know that should the day come that the DMCA gets everything it wants, and my warez collection goes bye-bye and I can no longer burn cd's for any purpose, I'll shrug, think about some people in the world that are starving or getting shot at or watching their parents hauled off to some death camp and think "Well, if I bitch about this and call unfairness, I'll really be nothing but a whiny bitch that thinks his problems mean shit in this world". It's a really awesome feeling, you should try it.
I'm glad you feel great about it. Throughout history, there are always people who manage to justify the removal of theirs (or other's) rights. They come up with various justifications or label inaction as a kind of moral high ground. You can be rest assured that there has been a long history of your type logic. But don't kid yourself - its not maturity, perspective, NOR humility. It is the role of sycophant, apologist, or... at best... the tragicly passive.
The world's issues of human rights, hunger, and power struggles have little to do with the issues surrounding the DMCA. True. But then, giving up your right to copy a CD will not end world hunger. And the fact that there is civil war somewhere in the world does not detract from the importance of fair use - its still all about money, control, and power. Try to maintain some of that perspective you claim to hold.
Re:But...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Fucking linux whores, why don't you go suck Linus' dick and stop whinning about how microsoft rules the world and linux licks its own ass.
If Microsoft had sued, it would have been within the law, and they would have won. The DMCA is a law, you don't like that particular law but it is a law.
I personally think the whole murder law is a load of shit, if somebody pisses me off I should have the right to blow there head off. How come no one ever joins my protests against that?
Your statement is wrong too. You're ignoring what the current trend is amongst big software companies.
Agreed, we are commending them for inaction, but sometimes inaction is an action in and of itself. MS is indeed setting an good example, as the largest software vendor, that hopefully others will follow.
But if we really want to try to encapsulate this sentiment is some unfitting analogy, the best I can think of right now is if MS were the biggest coolest dude in high school. And all the other cool dudes were picking on some dork, but MS announced to them that he would not pick on the dork. Presumably, the others will follow in his path. The biggest cool dude just did what he was supposed to, but because it was he who did it, when no one else dared (or they surely wouldn't look cool anymore), it was laudible.
-- If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
I run a Sun workstation at work. It is running Solaris 9 on it, which is an implementation of SVR4 UNIX® (really licenced UNIX®).
I recently just loaded up the Sun implementation of GNOME 2.0 Beta 1 (meaning Sun's beta 1 of GNOME 2.0). I started metacity running the Gorilla theme.
Ironically most of the people that walk in my office and look at my screen comment off-handedly (and unsolicited), "hmm, looks like a mac." Of course not meaning that I have aqua running on it, just the look and feel of it is similar to that of a mac.
-- "Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese," Wallace.
Oh, and the reason they don't care is because no ones purchased an Xbox in 4 months.
Funny... I just bought four of them for my siblings and I.
-- If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Re:But...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Where you been, son? Mac OS X was released over a year ago!
They use a Unix which has Apples slick gui all stuck to it. That does not make them Unix users yet. When you stop hearing "What is that command again, the one that FINDs files, I can't FIND my files. I wish I knew what the FIND command was" then maybe they can start going out as Unix users (not operators, just users)
Re:But...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And I'll be you always put your panties on one leg at a time, am I right?
You fuckheads are exactly like the damn weak-minded tree-huggers, and those asshole vegans.
Give it up and go do your own thing. You advocate open-source software, so they affect you whatsoever. Buzz off!
All you need to do is appeal to the illiterate or guilty moderators. "oh! Social commentary after praising microsoft! That means they don't like microsoft, right?"
Illiterate moderators will assume that's what the article at the top said, and will mod it up.
Guilty moderators will look at this comment, examine their own anti-microsoft bias, and mod it up because they feel guilty that the oh-so important pro-microsoft faction is being underrepresented on slashdot.
Exactly right. MS aren't the best company out there. A lot of their practices suck, but if their wasn't a MS it would just be someone else. Every industry has their badboy(s).
-- "Go into the hall of mirrors and have a bloody hard look at yourself" - HG Nelson
The world's issues of human rights, hunger, and power struggles have little to do with the issues surrounding the DMCA. True. But then, giving up your right to copy a CD will not end world hunger. And the fact that there is civil war somewhere in the world does not detract from the importance of fair use - its still all about money, control, and power. Try to maintain some of that perspective you claim to hold.
Or, to put it a better way: What if the Congress had spent the time it took to pass the DMCA doing something useful instead, like trying to end hunger in the US (clean up your own home before trying to clean up the neighborhood), or finding a way to reduce prison populations without putting murderers on the street with early parole.
You have got to be kidding me. Please, repost, saying that you aren't this fucking stupid. No one who has the capacity to type could possibly associate Bill and Adolf.
Because most people like having murder laws. There's lots of people who don't like the DMCA. If you think about this for a while, you might realize something about the word "democracy".
Re:But...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And we dislike the grammar police for their assthetics.
If Sony had done the same thing, then they would've made the same comment about Sony, because on the one hand, it sounds like they're doing a good thing, but on the other hand, complimenting them for it is like walking up to everyone you see on the street that's bigger than you are and saying, "Thanks for not holding me down and raping me, because I know you could, but you're not!". It's just really, really sad when a situation gets to the point where you have to thank someone and point them out as a good example because they DIDN'T immorally abuse someone when they were given the opportunity to do so.
Please don't speak to me of the moral highground. 99.9% of these self-proclaimed slashdot freedom fighters who love to speak of the evils of the DMCA are so misguided it's sad. They, possibly you, love to ramble on about something boils down to something as pathetic and trivial as the inability or lack of desire to purchase their software and music. People, like me, who can afford to buy pretty much an cd or software package we desire(which isn't a lot, I maybe buy 1 game/software app and 1 cd a week) really don't care about the DMCA. I look at all these warez groups with their extremely clever and impressive tactics and then I see them get out-done by the DMCA they start bitching about unfairness. It's like watching 5 year olds throw dirt clods and then whining about sand in the eye.
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Re:But...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You should have saved your money for English lessons.
99.9% of these self-proclaimed slashdot freedom fighters who love to speak of the evils of the DMCA are so misguided it's sad. They, possibly you, love to ramble on about something boils down to something as pathetic and trivial as the inability or lack of desire to purchase their software and music. People, like me, who can afford to buy pretty much an cd or software package we desire(which isn't a lot, I maybe buy 1 game/software app and 1 cd a week) really don't care about the DMCA.
Sorry, you're the one who's misguided here.
The issue is NOT the ability to buy software, music, and other media. If you pay attention to posts (even this mythical 99.9% figure) you'll note that when price is mentioned, its often from someone who states that they are (or were) heavy music comsumers. They CAN afford it. Its whether they think the pricing structure and their fair use rights (which includes converting tracks to MP3 for their computer or burning a CD to keep in the car, etc) are being tampered with (which only begins to cover one's rights the DMCA removes).
I'm glad you can also afford the weekly purchase of these products. Though I find it sad that you don't care about your rights as a consumer. But then again, we've already established your level of apathy.
I look at all these warez groups with their extremely clever and impressive tactics and then I see them get out-done by the DMCA they start bitching about unfairness. It's like watching 5 year olds throw dirt clods and then whining about sand in the eye.
I'm curious as to how you think warez groups are being "out-done" by the DMCA. It reminds me of the old joke "stop crime; the Government hates competition" - is theft of copyrighted material being outdone by theft of personal rights?
The DMCA does little to curb warez group activity. Distributing copyrighted material was illegal well before the DMCA came in to existance. Yet it happened then and continues to happen even with the DMCA. Even after the somewhat recent and rather large-scale "chilling effect" busts in the warez scene... some of the game industry's most anticipated tittles show up as "zero day warez". Meanwhile music continues to be traded - the Eminem album had to be released early to compete with its brisk trade online and street counterfeits.
The tools, speech, and actions being prohibited affect law-abiding citizens, not warez groups and counterfeiters. Take a deeper look at the issue. Educate yourself. And get your facts straight.
Ahh. The infamous "trains running on time" bit. Yes, in extreme circumstances it leads to these situations. But one can hardly equate the DMCA to the ultimate evils of Hitler's administration.
At this point, I'm more or less done with this debate. We'll never see eye-to-eye, and we probably think some relatively negative things about each other. I honestly believe you've chosen this issue because it could possibly affect your ability to partake in illegal activites, and that alarms you. Maybe it doesn't directly affect you, and you've chosen it because it's a safe, trendy, and easy issue to be a part of.
Either way, I think you have nothing to worry about from this law, and should it ever directly affect you, I'm positive you will not have clean hands before the fact.
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
At this point, I'm more or less done with this debate. We'll never see eye-to-eye, and we probably think some relatively negative things about each other.
Perhapse we won't agree. But I don't take this personally and don't attribute any particularly negative things to you for the debate (beyond the belief that you're misguided:). Debate is good - thanks for taking the time.
I honestly believe you've chosen this issue because it could possibly affect your ability to partake in illegal activites, and that alarms you. Maybe it doesn't directly affect you, and you've chosen it because it's a safe, trendy, and easy issue to be a part of.
You're wrong on both accounts.
As I pointed out before, people involved in illegal activity have little to fear in this law. Illegal activity is continuing on undaunted by the DMCA. It is those who wish to remain on the legal path who will be restricted by it.
As an aside, I'd like to suggest that even law-abiding citizens will soon support those who perform illegal actions (either by paying or patronizing). The time is fast approaching where those who wish to exercise their fair use rights or safeguard their privacy will have to turn to illegal copies of the media they own. And once they begin to go through the trouble to do that... one has to wonder why they would also bother with the legal copies.
So why do I care about this issue?
Because I have been involved in the IT industry for years now. I've seen the raising importance of the digital medium and see the power and money involved in controlling it. And the remarkable change that happens when control is left in public hands and not select corporate or government entities. I also work with information security and am very used to dealing with issues that are largely overlooked by the public and other IT professionals but can lead to major issues down the line.
I also care about individual rights. I dedicated 8 years to, amoung other things, protect the rights of the citizens of my country. During that time period (and possibly still today), I legally gave up some of those same rights. My service also included other personal sacrifices. And during that time, I saw other countries and environments where the same individual rights enjoyed by citizens of my country did not exist.
In the end, I came away from that experience convinced that individual rights are a fundimental part of the positive growth of the United States and any free society. It is an important issue and an issue well worth fighting for. And the DMCA falls squarely in line with the issue of individual rights.
I may or may not be over reacting. But I am certainly not driven by some trivial motivation as petty theft or trendiness.
Actually... I have. And I tend to agree with a lot of it. Granted, sometimes it goes over the line (OK, I admit not paying attention to how often Michael goes over the line). But at the same time, I believe Microsoft deserves the majority of criticism it receives.
I've found a way to properly put my feelings into writing, so maybe the debate will continue.:)
My opinion was originally aimed at the average slashdotter, which you do not seem to be a part of. Their are some people that are educated on the DMCA facts, and I think you're on of them. However, the majority of slashdot readers that like to talk about the DMCA and how it affects them are little more than software pirates looking for a moral soapbox from which to sound their quasi-freedom fighter bullshit ideals. They've somehow got it into their mind that everytime they burn photoshop for their friends they elevate themselves to a modren day Che Guervas[sp?]. This is what I hate, and the people my opinions were directed at. I apologize if the message was lost, or worse yet, never effectively conveyed in the first place. I eagerly await your reply(seriously) and anytime to ever want to discuss this further, unicron@thcnet.net
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Most people don't like speeding laws, but they are there for a reason. I'm sure most people don't like piracy laws either, but they are there to keep the society flowing as smoothly as possible.
My opinion was originally aimed at the average slashdotter, which you do not seem to be a part of. Their are some people that are educated on the DMCA facts, and I think you're on of them. However, the majority of slashdot readers that like to talk about the DMCA and how it affects them are little more than software pirates looking for a moral soapbox from which to sound their quasi-freedom fighter bullshit ideals.
In any popular debate, there are individuals who take up one side or the other without really understanding or educating themselves on the issue. I would suggest that this is fine as long as both sides have a chance to make their point (whether this happens on Slashdot is a subject for another time). The point of the debate isn't to "win" but rather to put forth ideas and, hopefully, be exposed to ideas and information one wouldn't normally consider on one's own. Debate can be educational.
Yea, I have to agree there is a good amount of ignorance expressed on Slashdot from time to time. It might even be safe to call it a majority of readers if one wants to assume Slashdot exists because people wish to debate and learn. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say a majority harbor alterior motives behind their arguments.
They've somehow got it into their mind that everytime they burn photoshop for their friends they elevate themselves to a modren day Che Guervas[sp?]. This is what I hate, and the people my opinions were directed at.
I can agree on this point too. Call a spade a spade. If you're burning copies of Photoshop because you and your buddies don't wish to pay the (hefty) price and don't mind the legal and moral issues of doing so... admit that's why you're doing it.
If you're looking for a moral high-ground, buy software that does what you need for the price you can afford. Or support Free (beer/speech) software (The GIMP).
The "piracy is moral" bit does remind me of an old BBS text I read years ago by someone calling themselves Bugs Bunny. The overall concept was that hackers were destined to be the future's champions. When future communications medium are tightly controlled, one will see events such as the use of a virus to distribute an unauthorized news story. It will be illegal, but it will be moraly just.
Like I said... one concept I like to ponder over is that to protect our rights in the near future, we may have to turn to those who are used to commiting crimes; the dealers in warez and other illicit data. But that is then. This is now. Warez is most often traded for the thrill of dealing in illicit data itself or to get free stuff.
A spade is a spade.
I eagerly await your reply(seriously) and anytime to ever want to discuss this further, unicron@thcnet.net
Its been interesting. I'll keep your address in mind.
*bzzt* Speeding laws are a highway tax. They remain because they provide income for police departments;).
In any case, you're taking the unfortunate view that "somebody" out there knows what society needs to flow smoothly, and that your (and my) input is not only unneccsary, it's unwelcome, and may, in fact, be detrimental. This is unfortunate, because this is how democracy's transform into... well, almost anything else. People willing give away thier free thought, speech, and ideas to a nameless, formless "authority", who they assume knows what's best for them. It's a very dangerous viewpoint.
oh you mean you need a reason?
How about several...
From a Software User's Perspective
* Bloat
* Backward incompatibility
* Perpetual upgrading
* Vaporware
* Hostile treatment of customers
* Predatory practices
* Bundling of inferior products
* Bugs, bugs, and more bugs
* Insecurity
From a Technical Perspective
* Closed "standards"
* Mutilation of existing standards
* Lack of innovation
More information on all of these reasons and yes even more reasons you can visit http://www.windows-sucks.com/content/whatsbad.sh tml
Re:But...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I guess I just don't expect that level of illiteracy on slashdot... I mean, sure, almost noone can spell, punctuate, or grammatize correctly, but they ARE literate all the same... a coherent argument can often be extracted from even the most poorly written posts.
So I guess I just don't really know as much about the/. population as I thought...
Re:But...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You could at least explain the flaw so someone has a chance of learning what mistake they made...
If the sentence is not correct with only one part, it is not correct with two. These are correct:
John and I are going to the shop. John is going to the shop, I am going to the shop.
Would you like to come with John and me? Would you like to come with John? Would you like to come with me?
I just bought four X-boxes for me. I just bought four X-boxes for I. Which of these is correct?
Well... I suppose that by not attempting to sue this guy, the DMCA won't get struck down yet for being an unconscienable threat to legitimate study and free speech.
-- It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:What the?
by
uncoveror
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Microsoft gains some good PR, and avoids bringing the test case that could topple the DMCA in the Supreme Court, in case they do want to use the DMCA someday. They aren't stupid, like the RIAA.
They probably have been paying attention to the HP fiasco of a couple weeks ago. That was a marketing disaster for HP, and if Microsoft is anything they are good marketers.
If you want to be cynical about it, then you can guess that Microsoft wants to make some truly egregious use of the DMCA further down the road, and they don't want to risk getting the law overturned on a trivial use.
Once people see that they can hack the xbox and install other software/play games from the HD/play divx movies.. etc... they are going to want these things more for thier wide range of abilities.
Re:What the?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Or maybe they figure if hackers crack the copy protection, everyone and their brother will buy an xbox for the free games, which sort of happened with the original playstation.
Re:What the?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Free publicity's not free when it's public.
--Max Webster
Re:What the?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think that MS doesn't have a lot to lose because this requires hardware changes. They probably aren't worried about your average citizen opening the case and performing hardware mods. Now if it was entirely software driven, they'd probably be all over this.
If you want to be cynical about it, then you can guess that Microsoft wants to make some truly egregious use of the DMCA further down the road, and they don't want to risk getting the law overturned on a trivial use.
Except we all know that the case would never have gone to court, MS would have just bullied until Huang dropped it.
Also, I would assume it would be much easier to win on a "trivial" court case, thereby validating the law, than it would be to win in a larger case down the road--when no other cases support it.
I really do think MS deserves some praise for this. For MS to be one of the few major companies to get it...well, it's quite amazing, really.
an average citizen, the average x-box owner is not. the percentage of x-box owners who would open the case to perform hardware mods is much, much, much greater than the percentage of the average citizenry who would do the same.
This is bad. The only reason i can imagine that microsoft would do this is to solidify their argument for Palladium, or whatever the next incantation of it will be. By showing how the DMCA is ineffective in protecting against reverse-engineering and such, microsoft is trying to sneak their version of copyprotection in the "back door". Those guys (M$) don't do anything unless it will get them money. Never forget that, lest you be become assimilated. Remember....
You know I did just have a bad thought, perhaps I shouldn't mention it but MS probably thought of it anyway. I could see them adding keys to things like controllers, memory expansions, anything like that so you would have to buy microsoft approved game pads. Oh the horror of not being able to use a playstation adapter to use my dualshock(best freakin controller ever) on other systems. Once that is in place they may play the dmca card.
Re:bad juju
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Sorry, in my part of the world Microsoft is a corporation. Doesn't that mean that making money *is* the reason they are around? And besides, they've done plenty of stuff that doesn't make money, and slashdot is one of the first places to hear about them too! I will forget that, if I may.
If Microsoft had their way, you would not be
able to boot without a Microsoft mouse pad!
-- You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:bad juju
by
good-n-nappy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is precedent for that kind of behavior. In the past companies have used the patent system to do it. For example, several printer companies filed design patents on the shape of their ink cartridges so they could have a little monopoly.
When one of these cases came to trial, the court ruled against this kind of use of design patents. Here's a link to the case. The company in the case was Epson.
I think MS would eventually lose in court if they tried to use the DMCA like that (who knows how long it could take though). Plus it would be terrible PR for MS since everyone is already screaming monopoly.
I could see them adding keys to things like controllers, memory expansions, anything like that so you would have to buy microsoft approved game pads. Oh the horror of not being able to use a playstation adapter to use my dualshock(best freakin controller ever) on other systems.
Yeah, and? Welcome to the late 1980s, where Nintendo requires any game or peripheral sold to work with their Nintendo Entertainment System must be approved by Nintendo (okay, so they didn't have any way to prevent unauthorized games and periphs, but this is called "the advancement of technology over 15+ years"). In otherwords, big deal. It's old hat that game console manufacturers want to be able to control the peripherals and games made for their system, for a two-fold reason. Primarily, there's the licensing fees associated with getting authorized. This is good, because it gets money to the console maker, which means they have more money to work on the next version, and have an incentive to actually continue to support the console. (blah blah capitalism is bad blah blah blah socialism r00ls d00dnutz blah blah blah.) Second, it's a form of quality control. Okay, sure there are still bad games and peripherals that are released for consoles, but the quality of even the worst game or peripheral is astounding compared to the quality of a lot of games and such Back In The Day (tm) when Atari (will the real Atari please stand up? No, GT Interactive, sit back down, dammit) was still around and had no such approval system. (Check out ClassicGaming.com (a member of the Gamespy network) some time. I recall them doing at least one article on terrible old games.) I for one prefer that a console manufacturer require that they approve games and peripherals, so that I can be reasonably sure that at the very least, the game/periph will work with my console, even if it's not a great game or periph.
As far as using your Dual Shock on other systems (guh. Those controllers are two damned small and pointy to be comfortable. You must have tiny hands), wouldn't it stand to reason that if there were demand for such a thing (and apparently there is, though I can't fathom why), and Microsoft required that the peripheral transmit an authorized key to be allowed to work, then some entrepenuerial company would develop said adaptor (done) and get it approved by Microsoft so that they can transmit a valid key to the console. Contrary to popular opinion, Microsoft isn't vindictive. They wouldn't kill such a peripheral out of spite. In fact, if it helped them sell consoles and games, they'd authorize it immediately. It's called "good business".
Re:bad juju
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yep, that's right, when Bill Gates donated $6 billion in 1999, he said it was to fight tuberculosis and AIDS. But we here at slashdot see through his filthy schemes. Clearly the only he wants to reduce medical costs and save millions of lives is so that more people will be able to buy Windows in 2025! What a sneaky guy!!!
Those guys... don't do anything unless it will get them money
http://www.gatesfoundation.org
Ex cathedra as the big cheese of Microsoft, I imagine the parent is correct - that in that role, Bill Gates "do[es]n't do anything unless it will get [him] money." As a human being, on the other hand, he seems to know what money is really for. I'm not about to bitch about the guy giving $1B to pay for inoculations for kids in the third world.
Re:bad juju
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yep, sad thing - Everyone loves money, but I'd rather pimp than push Winders, it makes me sleep better. What has become of the world? lawyers turn Coders, Coders turn CEO's, CEO's turn Crooks, Crooks turn into senators, senators turn tricks, and over 40 000 000 000 000 copies of notepad have been sold to the unsuspected population.
Re:bad juju
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If I had my way, you wouldnt be allowed post without removing your head from your butthole.
Do you know how much taxes M$ pays a year. I am sure this is a tax write off (even if they are doing it for the right reasons). So in the end they get to keep more of their money. M$ didn't become BorgLike by giving away ALL thier money.
Cheers
Do you know how much taxes M$ pays a year. I am sure this is a tax write off (even if they are doing it for the right reasons). So in the end they get to keep more of their money. M$ didn't become BorgLike by giving away ALL thier money. Cheers
MS pays very little in taxes due to their heavy use of stock options as compensation. Besides that, Bill Gates (who is NOT synonymous with MS (a publically traded company)) is the man behind the charity giving. I am sure it helps his tax bill a bit.
I don't get this. Why do people always say this as if tax deductions were some magical way to make money? If I make a $1000 donation and pay 30% ($300) in taxes, I'm really out $1300 (since I paid the $1000, and still paid the $300 tax). In the best case, where the donation is 100% deductable, all that means is that I pay the $1000 and no taxes. I don't make a magical profit off of it. In fact, I have $700 less than I would if I had not made the donation.
Now, on the otherhand, if himself or his family (or the stockholders, or whoever) were the direct recipients (like parent's who "hire" and "pay" thier kids thousands of dollars a year to get a better tax rate), then yes it would be something to bitch about.
Apparently you're not familar with the practice of "laundering" money. See, Gates "donates" a few hundred million to some various charites whos chairperson owes him a favor or something (maybe good-ol Bill gave their kid a job), and then THAT person turns around, reinvests the money in the "gates foundation", and bingo, Bill gets tax-free income. Kinda like the trouble they've been having with the IRS regarding that little $900M that they "forgot" to claim on their taxes. OOPS!
Re:bad juju
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The population control thing isn't to help people, he probably just want more land to build a truly enormous house on.
I'm certainly nobody's idea of an accountant, but the way that I understand this to work (and why this is worthwhile for people to do) is this:
Say for the sake of example that people who make $100 or less pay 10% in taxes and people who make over $100 pay 20% in taxes. If I earn $101 then I would be on the hook for $20.02 in taxes. If I give a $2 donation to Worthy Cause, then my taxable income is $99 and I pay $9.90 in taxes. In the first case, without the charitable deduction I end up with $80.98 in my pocket after paying the tax on my money. In the second case I end up with $89.10 in my pocket after paying the tax on my money.
In real life the situations are a lot more complex than this example, of course, but this should illustrate the way that this works and how you really can, after all is said and done, end up with more money in your pocket by using "charitable deductions" and so on.
-- If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Besides that, Bill Gates (who is NOT synonymous with MS (a publically traded company)) is the man behind the charity giving. I am sure it helps his tax bill a bit.
Ok, we all understand M$ is pure concentrated evil. Fine, no argument. But if BillG is getting a break from Uncle Sam after dropping a billion dollars on getting kids inoculated against diseases, come on. Is that really such a huge deal? Think before you reply.
Money is a representation of value. People exchange money as way to trade the very best of their ability for the best of yours. If the trade is volutary and equitable for both parties, then those that are just out to make money should be commended for being able provide a valuable good or service that others are willing to pay good money for. Nothing wrong with that.
Re:bad juju
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
there is nothing wrong with it, but people should not pretend it was done with no reward in mind. Would he have done the same if there was no tax bonus?
Given the deciding vote, where would you have BillG put his money? Into child vaccinations, or the US Government?
I'm sorry, even though his evil corporate machine might be guilty of a lot of things, I think it's a stretch to believe that money's better off in treas.us.gov.
It doesn't work like that. You pay 10% on the first $100, then 20% on the remainder. Therefore you would pay $10.20 tax. And I think you meant $20.20, not $20.02.
Re:bad juju
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is really impressive, on the surface. There are numbers all over this site stating "Sacramento City Unified School District receives $4 million" and other such stuff. What Microsoft gives away the most is software. Does it hurt the company, or cost them anything at all to give away software? No. They set the price on the software too, so this headline could also have been "Sacramento City Unified School District receives $4."
When a monopoly like Microsoft gives stuff away, it's always got a hook in it. If they give away hardware, MS windows and other MS products are 100% going to be pre-installed. The catch is that there is also an agreement given and agreed to by the recipient that states that they will continue to use the MS products. Now, if someone gave me a computer with Windows on it that would be cool. I wouldn't complain at all...until I had to "upgrade" to the newest stuff...and then pay for it. For one computer, this isn't much...but when you receive 10,000 workstations, now you have to pay for 10,000 licenses as well. Two words..."White Elephant!"
Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
by
unsinged+int
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Flying pigs! Help! I'm being attacked by flying pigs!
Re:Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Cover your head, and don't look up.
Re:Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah, it's getting a little cold down here in hell too...
Re:Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
by
_Sprocket_
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Wiggle your mouse. Its just a screensaver.
Re:Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
by
daeley
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That would make a great bumpersticker. Somebody call Think Geek. LOL
-- I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Re:Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is that you Signal 11?
This sub-thread is total +8 for useless banter. I will mod you down.
Have a nice day.
Re:Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
by
Kredal
·
· Score: 1
I'm prtty sure thinkgeek email is routed to/dev/null. I've sent a product suggestion (a bumpersticker that says "Don't blame me, I voted for CowboyNeal", and a question asking about shipping to APO addresses, and never got any reply (even an autoreply) about either of them.
-- Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
Re:Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
by
_Sprocket_
·
· Score: 2
No. I'm not Signal 11 (is he still around?). Mod away. But hey... I thought it was funny.:P
As the saying (should) go...
by
Rachel+Ellis
·
· Score: 0
"One man's bug is another man's feature."
Microsoft often (I have a handful of friends over in Redmond) implements "cross-over" features into their devices which, while on the surface appear to be malevolent, are actually 100% benign and allow interfacing among non-similar devices.
--
- 26 year-old Web developer from Seattle. And yes, chicks do dig *nix;)
They must hate lawyers as much as we do
by
WildBeast
·
· Score: 2
I have noticed that MS rarely sues, my guess is that they hate lawyers and don't feel like getting involved in dumb lawsuits.
Hope that'll teach companies like HP, Apple, Adobe, etc. another lesson or two.
Re:They must hate lawyers as much as we do
by
edrugtrader
·
· Score: 1, Troll
or their lawyers are just too busy from GETTING sued...
Re:They must hate lawyers as much as we do
by
Zen+Mastuh
·
· Score: 2
They don't hate lawyers; they hire lawyers.
Maybe instead of rarely suing they are rarely noticed in courtrooms--all this takes is the bullying of several lawyers and strongly-worded cease & desist letters.
--
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Re:They must hate lawyers as much as we do
by
SN74S181
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Microsoft got sued by Apple Computer in the famous Look and Feel lawsuit.
Microsoft won. In effect, Microsoft set the legal precedent that prevents a company like Apple from suing anybody who makes a desktop theme that looks like an Apple desktop.
It's been said more than once that Microsoft paid the legal bill for everybody else to copy their GUI. Because they don't believe in competing in the courtroom. They're far better at competing in the marketplace. Esp. when they have the kind of control of that market that they presently hold.
It's a mixed bag, but believe me, if Apple had won the suit, you'd be lucky to be allowed to use the Tab Window Manager on your X desktop.
Re:They must hate lawyers as much as we do
by
r_j_prahad
·
· Score: 2
Just in case it may have escaped your attention, Microsoft's legal department has been somewhat busy with other issues for the past year and a half.
Also, communist Russia has fallen and there's now only two Beatles left.
insane insane insane insane.... salt in eye
by
metalhed77
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
i nearly fell of my chair when I first saw the Visual Studio.net ads on slashdot, but this, this is just crazy. Why do they deserve kudos for demonstrating security vulnerabilities to a standalone. They still suck where it counts, who cares if they help where it doesn't matter. MS sucks, and I doubt they'll earn anyone's respect through one small act.
Re:insane insane insane insane.... salt in eye
by
boomer_rehfield
·
· Score: 1
so you wouldn't attack them for going after the student? Maybe 'you' wouldn't, but how do you think slashdot would react?
If a child is consistently doing bad things and a group of other children do something bad, but he shows restraint, why would you NOT commend him? If you don't commend him for doing the 'right' thing, then next time he may figure that no one cares....
-- Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Dr.+Awktagon
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
in 1997: freedom of speech was understood by reading the following:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press;
in 2002: freedom of speech is understood by reading the following:
With the help of Boston College law professor Joe Liu, EFF worked with Huang, Abelson, and MIT administrators to analyze the legal issues and draft letters notifying Microsoft of Huang's research findings and intended publication...
Microsoft told Huang and Abelson that while it might prefer that the paper not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper.
"I was afraid to submit my research for peer review until after the EFF's efforts to clear potential legal restraints."
Welcome to America kids! If you're lucky, you'll get permission to publish your paper too!
Perhaps if you wear a colorful, fanciful hat, decorated with bells and chimes, and prance about most amusingly, the King will pity you and grant your wish.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
ehiris
·
· Score: 2
"if you wear a colorful, fanciful hat, decorated with bells and chimes, and prance about most amusingly"
Or more likely because MIT has better lawyers then Microsoft can dream of. I believe the word inappropriate meant illegal.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Planesdragon
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Welcome to America kids! If you're lucky, you'll get permission to publish your paper too!
Go back and read the first amendment. Note the subject.
CONGRESS--and by extension, the government--cannot abridge your freedom of speech, aside from military or criminal reasons. And for a lot of things, not even then.
PRIVATE PARTIES, like MIT and Microsoft, can do whatever the hell they please, up to the point where they're a goverment.
If Microsoft owns a town, they can't made a law abridging speech there. They can only let employees live there, and make the employees know that they're fired if they belittle MS (and deal with the PR backlash that does), but they can't make a law.
Think this is bad now? Try living under a real king, who can kill you just on a whim. Corporate politics are a light cold compared to the absolute void that we might find if the government wasn't restrained as it.
Private people--heck, if we make it so no one could tell anyone else to shut up, life would be like an early AOL chatroom that you could never log out of.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Or more likely because MIT has better lawyers then Microsoft can dream of.
Hardly. Microsoft could buy and sell MIT 20 times over if they wished. If MIT pissed Microsoft off they would cease to exist.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
garcia
·
· Score: 1
you mean Microsoft isn't the government?
Holy shit, they sure do like to make up their own punishments that the government is supposed to levy on them...
Odd.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Wolfier
·
· Score: 2
>Try living under a real king, who can kill you >just on a whim. Corporate politics are a light >cold compared to the absolute void that we might >find if the government wasn't restrained as it.
With soft money contributions still legal, I cannot see any difference, can you? I honestly belive if the RIAA wanted to make it a death penalty for breaking the DMCA they would have succeeded.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
kingkade
·
· Score: 1
I honestly belive if the RIAA wanted to make it a death penalty for breaking the DMCA they would have succeeded.
i refuse to believe that you honestly believe that
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
orulz
·
· Score: 1
In this case, the government is still at fault for abridging the right to free speech and press because they have passed a law, the DMCA, that gives companies who posess the IP protected by the content control mechanism more than just the right to sue over the publication of a paper like that, but also the right to press criminal charges. And even in a lawsuit, the DMCA, though still largely untested in higher courts, provides a solid and apparently uncompromisable foundation from which these companies can win their case. Before the advent of the DMCA, if a company were to sue about the publication of a paper, the person who published the paper would only have to prove they did not use any illegal means of reverse engineering, etc. to discover the security flaws. Then, this person could claim their first amendment right to free speech and press, publish their paper, and the case would be over, possibly before even going to trial.
I've never read the full text of the DMCA (It's convoluted legalese and it's boring), so if I've missed something, please correct me. But regardless, the DMCA is evil and unconstitutional, and most/. readers understand that already. The solution to the DMCA as it stands is for a case such as this to make its way to the Supreme Court, and for the law to be overturned or radically changed in spite of all the big business lobbying and threats of removing campaign dollars.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
dR.fuZZo
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
CONGRESS--and by extension, the government--cannot abridge your freedom of speech, aside from military or criminal reasons.
Uhm, well, something is considered criminal if the Congress passes a law saying it's against the law. So, in other words, what you're saying is: Congress can't abridge your freedom of speech, except for when they abridge your freedom of speech.
I wanted to mock your post, but, unfortunately, it seems to be dead on.
-- -- dR.fuZZo
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
HiThere
·
· Score: 2
The DMCA was passed by congress, therefore it is a law passed by congress that abridges freedom of speech. The fact that suits are initiated by private parties is irrelevant.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
possible
·
· Score: 2
I suggest YOU go read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The founders of the United States held that certain rights are God given or "natural", i.e. they cannot be abridged by anyone or anything -- unless you voluntarily enter into an agreement.
Since security researchers by and large have not entered into agreements with Microsoft (the EULA, a non-binding and probably invalid "contract" not withstanding), they can exercise their NATURAL rights to speak freely.
This is why the founding fathers were a bit more radical than they are given credit for. They would not have agreed with the statement "If Congress passes a law, then it stands as the law of the land no matter what." If the law attempts to abridge your God given rights, then your rights simply trump the law and you can and probably SHOULD actively disregard/disobey it.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
danny256
·
· Score: 1
Welcome to America kids! If you're lucky, you'll get permission to publish your paper too!
Free speech dosn't mean you can say anything you want. For example if a companies work is protected by a confidentiality agreement that you signed then they can sue you for talking about their stuff. I'm sure somewhere in the X-box EULA it says that you arn't allowed to hack for security flaws and then tell the world about it. Its their product, you "signed" the agreement when you bought that X-box. If you don't buy and X-box, I guess you can say anything you want about it, if you do, you have to follow their terms.
I will give kudos to Microsoft for overlooking the law (which is on their side) in this case in the interest of legitimate research because I can simpathize with someone from MIT.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It could be argued that the DMCA is wrong, and pretty easily, but that is definitely not the argument I would use. For example, you could publish a pro-nazi paper, it would be offensive, but not illegal. But you may not publish somebody elses paper without their permission, because it would be a violation of their rights. The specifications on the x-box are not owned by you. You can say "I think microsoft develops poor software and has lots of bugs." That's your opinion. But you'd be infringing on microsoft's rights to publish specs that are copyrighted by Microsoft.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
ajs
·
· Score: 2
You don't sue under the DMCA. You press charges. Different.
This is why Adobe could back out of the Skylorov (sp?) case, but the FBI still went ahead with it. Adobe was just the one that told the authorities.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Elwood+P+Dowd
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As two other respondents have noted, you are exactly wrong.
You are correct: private parties are not bound by the declaration of independence. You are incorrect: Microsoft really can't restrict your freedom of speech.
The reason for this apparent contradiction is that Microsoft cannot make laws. How would Microsoft limit your freedom of speech? By arresting you? All they could do would be to sue you if you damaged them, or make business arrangements to mess with your life. That's what AOL does. They kick you out of the chat room. They can't stop you from swearing on someone else's dime.
In this particular case, Microsoft is not the party accused of restricting freedom of speech. Since this student isn't using MS resources to make his speech, they would have no grounds at all. The DMCA is a law passed by the federal government. The federal government is restricting freedom of speech. Just like copyright. The constitution makes allowance for both the DMCA and regular copyright, however.
Article 1, section 8, clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
So I think it's pretty clear that the DMCA has grounds in the US Constitution. But it's not because MS can limit your freedom of speech. They can't. Of course, I don't think the DMCA has good enough grounds in the Constitution, given the absurd ramifications. Some day, we may see what the Supreme Court thinks.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
WNight
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Wouldn't be hard to do actually. Treason and likely other similar crimes have the death penalty.
Now, all they'd need to do was say that anyone who committed terrorism against his home nation is committing treason. And of course terrorism would be extended to disabling (or telling someone how to) a security system vital for the "education the nation's youth in the field of eye-hand coordination", or whatever.
There, hacking the XBox or a DVD player (both are protected and to break them would potentially hurt the nation's economy in a serious way) is now terrorism; a supposed attempt to bring the nation to economic ruin, after all MS and the MPAA collective both are a large part of the markets. This terrorism, if committed by a citizen or resident of the US would then be treason, and there's the theoretical death-penalty for it.
And you can see that these half-way laws are both fairly realistic (have they already passed them?) in today's post 9-11 world.
Would anyone actually get put to death? No. But they don't really care as long as you cooperate. Few people actually get charged for DMCA violation now, normally it's enough to threaten. Who would risk it?
I honestly believe that it'd be possible for them to pass laws making DVD hacking technically punishable by the death penatly (even if such that it would never be actually used) inside of a year, with the right campaign contributions.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
MulluskO
·
· Score: 2
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
I think the biggest problem is that there isn't really a limited Time on the DMCA. My understanding is that should the games or DVDs you are buying today ever reach the public domain, if the DMCA is still in force nobody will be able to legally distribute or modify the work, as it will still be illegal to produce devices capable of removing the decryption. Additionally it will be illegal to publish research on such topics that might lead to fair use of the works whose copyrights have expired.
That is why the DMCA is unconstitutional.
--
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2
Go back and read the first amendment. Note the subject.
What it actually says is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
CONGRESS--and by extension, the government--cannot abridge your freedom of speech, aside from military or criminal reasons. And for a lot of things, not even then.
Congress cannot pass a law which abridges freedom of speach. Which is a subtle, but very important, distinction. PRIVATE PARTIES, like MIT and Microsoft, can do whatever the hell they please, up to the point where they're a goverment.
Except that a private party cannot use any law passed through the US Congress in order to enforce this.
If Microsoft owns a town, they can't made a law abridging speech there.
Up until fairly recently any level of government other than federal, in the US, could make such a law.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2
The DMCA was passed by congress, therefore it is a law passed by congress that abridges freedom of speech. The fact that suits are initiated by private parties is irrelevant.
Is there a specific term for a lawsuit which involves bogus application of a law?
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2
This is why the founding fathers were a bit more radical than they are given credit for.
"A bit more" should probably read "a lot more". Were these people around today they would probably be called "communists", "anarchists" and even "terrorists".
They would not have agreed with the statement "If Congress passes a law, then it stands as the law of the land no matter what."
But might wonder exactly what was going on in both houses of Congress....
If the law attempts to abridge your God given rights,
Not all of these people were Christian, so they'd probably say "inate" rather than "God given".
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2
My understanding is that should the games or DVDs you are buying today ever reach the public domain,
The only way these are likely to have much chance of getting into the public domain is if someone had broken the DMCA at some point or other. Since the lifespan of the media is less than the current length of copyright. Also AFAIK there is no "copyright library" or obligation on the publisher to keep an archive copy when it comes to games and DVDs.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2
I've never read the full text of the DMCA (It's convoluted legalese and it's boring),
Apparenly the people who passed never actually read it all either.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
ProfKyne
·
· Score: 2
Think this is bad now? Try living under a real king, who can kill you just on a whim. Corporate politics are a light cold compared to the absolute void that we might find if the government wasn't restrained as it.
That's the whole point of all of this. If people fail to assert their rights and ensure that the government does its job of protecting them, things could go back to situations resembling what you have just described.
-- "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Rogerborg
·
· Score: 2
CONGRESS--and by extension, the government--cannot abridge your freedom of speech, aside from military or criminal reasons. And for a lot of things, not even then.
Shall we actually read the 1st Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What part of this says "Congress shall make no law allowing the government to abridg the freedom of speech"?
Could Congress make a law that allows me (me, not them) to beat the tar out of you because you're a Christian?
Then why is it acceptable for them to pass a law that lets Microsoft exercise prior restraint on someone pointing out how dumb they are?
This is quite apart from the issue that the DMCA contains criminal penalties. Ask Dmitri Sklyarov about the significance of that, if you're in any doubt.
Care to take another swing at it?
-- If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Under the first amendment does someone have the right to publish the combination to the safe at the neighborhood grocery store?
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hello record company executive! Welcome to slashdot!
No, you can't publish the combination to someone else's safe, but you sure as hell can publish the combination to the safe that you bought and put in your home.
Especially if you want to point out that the same combination is used in every safe of the same type, and especially if the manufacturer doesn't tell you the combination when you buy the safe!
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Zordak
·
· Score: 2
I honestly believe that it'd be possible for them to pass laws making DVD hacking technically punishable by the death penatly (even if such that it would never be actually used) inside of a year, with the right campaign contributions.
This is a major stretch. You forget that the reason politicians like campaign contributions is because it buys them exposure: Air time, posters, ads, etc. Ultimately, politicians are still accountable to the voters. The reason money is so important is that it gets your smiling face in front of enough voters that you have a shot at winning. Introducing a law that would introduce the death penalty for hacking DVDs would be political suicide (even in Texas, where we like the death penalty) for the congress person who introduces it, and voting for that law would be political suicide for every congress person who voted for it. While it's true that those with money can have a lot of influence over the political process, the laws have to be introduced in benign sounding ways. You can't rock the boat too much all at once, or the voters don't like it and you get voted out.
--
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Elwood+P+Dowd
·
· Score: 2
I thought the DMCA only made it illegal to circumvent encryption for the purpose of defeating copyright. In which case, once copyright is over, you'd have free reign on encryption circumvention.
Of course, at that point, if that type of encryption were still in use in copyrighted works, they might be able to argue that research into decryption of the public domain work would also be research into copyright circumvention.
*That* would make it unconstitutional.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Planesdragon
·
· Score: 1
Criminal reasons: As in, punishment for criminal activities.
"Freedom of Speech" won't get you out of a Conspiracy rap, or let you have complete freedom whent you're in jail.
In any case... the whole point of the first amendment was so that people's ideas could be free--so they could believe what they want, and critizize whomever they want, without being locked up just for thinking differently. Beyond that, any constraint on the government's activities to have you be civil is just gravy on your part.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
evilpenguin
·
· Score: 2
You are talking about the principle of state action. Well, we are not talking about lawsuits here. We are talking about violation of a criminal statute, the DMCA. The DMCA is state action.
Many organizations, from the EFF to the ACLU are working on striking down the DMCA. It is (IMHO) bad law.
Consider supporting the EFF and/or the ACLU. Whatever your politics, we need to support the people pushing back against these laws. For good or for ill, the Supreme Court has sent mized messages about the role of money in politics -- explicitly allowing limits on contributions, wile explicitly disallowing limits on party contributions (IANAL, IIRC, and other apprpriate disclaimers) in diecisions like Nixon v. Missouri PAC, Buckley v. Valeo, and Colorado v. Fed. Election Comission.
The political deck is stacked for corporate interests and against individual interests. I'm not anti-corporate: the fault is ours (individuals), not the corporations'. The EFF and the ACLU (and if you are inclined, the FSF) are a place where an individual can use the same tools the corporate interests use to push back the other way.
The days when technologists could innovate without paying any attention to politics and law are over.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Planesdragon
·
· Score: 2
The founders of the United States held that certain rights are God given or "natural", i.e. they cannot be abridged by anyone or anything -- unless you voluntarily enter into an agreement.
Are you referring to the following?:
We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inaliable rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
It's from the declaration of indipendance, which is nothing more than a nastygram sent to the King of England explaining why we were going to war. It is *NOT* a legal document, and aside from being an example of the proper mindset, it's hardly binding.
The rights included in the First Amendment are NOT aboslute, even in the absence of a contract. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. You cannot sacrafice another human beign no matter what your religion says. If you print slander, you can be held liable in civil court. If you print child pornography, you can be taken to criminal court. In some places, if you discuss how to get past security guards or open someone's car, you can be arrested.
The DMCA is many things, but a clear-cut violation of the first amendment it is not.
This is why the founding fathers were a bit more radical than they are given credit for. They would not have agreed with the statement "If Congress passes a law, then it stands as the law of the land no matter what." If the law attempts to abridge your God given rights, then your rights simply trump the law and you can and probably SHOULD actively disregard/disobey it.
That depends on the law. If people are really harmed, as they were with slavery, then you should stand agaisnt them. If people are merely inconvenienced, as during Prohibition or an unlawful incarceration in a time of war, you should work with the system to change the system, not discard it.
If you're going to try and get the law changed, then you're going to need to be accountable. Stand up, be proud for what you do, and don't hide behind "privacy."
"Those that value personal privacy over general liberty deserve neither."
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Planesdragon
·
· Score: 1
Could Congress make a law that allows me (me, not them) to beat the tar out of you because you're a Christian?
Yes. They could render a law wherein anyone proselytizing (trying to convert the unconverted) uninvited can be assumed to be tresspassing as if they had circumvented the most avaliable security measures even if said measures are not in place.
If you invade my home past my barbed wire, motion detector, and "no tresspassing" signs, I can certainly beat the tar out of you.
This hypothetical law, if it passed, would quickly kill door-to-door prostletyizing, which most people wouldn't worry about. It'd probably be brought to the SC by the Mormons, who do it as a matter of religion, and from there it could go etiher way--they might be told "the law's out," or they might be told "use direct mailings or shout from the public streets."
If you want to get rid of the DMCA, first take a good, long look at the community that it was created in response to. The 'net has grown to a level where it's integral to our functioning as a nation, which means that there has to be some way to police it. Either we give up anonymnity (so the copyright holders can just sue anyone who makes an illicit copy), or we make it illegal to create the tools that allow "hackers" and "file sharers" to wreak the havoc that they currently can.
If you want a rant on why copyright is a good thing, I'll be happy to supply one--but that'd be awfully off-topic.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
WNight
·
· Score: 2
Well, there are ways to get to keep your campaign money. Creative accounting and buying services from yourself. The benefit isn't just in getting elected, even politicians looking to leave can get rich from donations.
And yes, I know it'd be suicide to pass a law saying that if you crack CSS you get killed. But they're almost there now because they only need to declare terrorism to potentially have the death penalty (who would argue, it's TERRORISM!!) and to make cracking DRM terrorism when it stands to hurt a major corporation to the turn of (misrepresented accounting) billions of dollars.
Nobody would see it as a law punished hackers by death, and it'd be too dangerous for anyone to argue against because they'd be supporting terrorists. Just like McCarthy and his communism scare. (That man was evil incarnate and I'm sorry he didn't get shot for it by someone whose life was ruined by his lies.)
Don't forget that Bush has the highest popularity rating in history, people are idiots and only see that he's doing something, they don't care what as long as it involves bombing someone. Nobody scrutinizes what government does, at least nobody who would be listened to by the public.
They deserve kudos for allowing somone to post a security breach that they are patching (Remember that story about NVidia loosing money due to the chip changes MS were demanding..)
They don't need to waste money taking him down is all..
Re:Toooooo late..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Patching?!?! WTF?!?! This is a fucking console, patches are a huge no-no. I'm more happy now than ever that I didn't get suckered into buying an EXbox.
Was nVidia losing money, or just not gaining money as fast as before?
For such a powerful company, it would take a LOT to make them drop into the red. Half of all modern computers and about 1/3 to 1/4 of older ones have an nVidia chip in them...the other half have an ATI chip.
With that much of a market and user base, they've got no danger of financial difficulty.
Using DMCA would harm Microsoft
by
senfman
·
· Score: 1
There are several reasons for M$ not to use DMCA. One of the most important is a strategic one. Microsoft knows, that if they will start using DMCA other companies could follow their example and also start doing this. This would mean, that Bugs in Software used by other companies wouldn't become as quick known, as they are today, while having bugs in M$ based Software still become known fast. Because Microsoft has a larger user base, and more users means, that there are more people to break DMCA.;-)
If Microsoft would start to use DMCA, this could result in having the normal user think (some already do), that MS Software is the only vulnerable to security flaws.
Re:Using DMCA would harm Microsoft
by
torqer
·
· Score: 1
"if they will start using DMCA other companies could follow their example and also start doing this"
Carpe diem, sed, post hoc ergo proctor hoc.
Just like old times...
by
Loki_1929
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
In 800A.D., Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, which showed that the pope had the power to put Charlemagne in charge. Microsoft is simply saying, "you are able to publish this information only because we, the generous and wonderful empire of Microsoft allow it." For them to come out and openly state that they will allow it to be published serves only to make them appear ever more powerful to the general public, in that they make the subtle claim of having power over free speech.
Perhaps they would have won in court and silenced this person, but the flaws he speaks of would have still made it to the net pretty quickly. If they had lost the court battle, the flaws would have been released to the public in about the same amount of time. Either way, Microsoft comes off looking like free speech-killers (Read, bad PR) and the flaws are published. By not challenging release of the information, (and doing so about as publicly as possible), they appear powerful, yet merciful. (Read, good PR).
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft did something right here; at least something that's right for them - doesn't make a difference for us.
-- --
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Re:Just like old times...
by
Osty
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You said:
For them to come out and openly state that they will allow it to be published serves only to make them appear ever more powerful to the general public, in that they make the subtle claim of having power over free speech.
The article said:
Microsoft told Huang and Abelson that while it might prefer that the paper not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper.
It seems to me that "it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper" is quite a bit different than "we'll allow you to publish the paper". Microsoft did the Right Thing (tm), in that they recognized that Huang's paper can and should be published without restraint due to the principles of Free Speech. Is it so hard to give kudos where kudos are deserved, even when it's a company that you "hate" ("hate" is rather strong, don't you think? but oh well...)? Why must you try to make Microsoft look bad even when they've done good? If Redhat (for example. Or Sun, or any other Slashdot-favorite company) had done the same thing, you'd be lauding them for doing the Right Thing (tm) by saying it's "inappropriate" to block this, even though they could legally block the paper (hey, it's not just Microsoft that has that kind of power). Then again, if Redhat/Sun/Oracle/IBM/whoever had actually said, "We'll allow you to publish this, even though we could block it legally," I bet you'd still be crazy nuts happy about it without trying to say that they're doing so only to make themselves look stronger.
Re:Just like old times...
by
wfrp01
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If they had lost the court battle, the flaws would have been released to the public in about the same amount of time.
If they had lost the court battle, it may be because a court finds the DMCA unconstitutional. That would be much more harmful to MS than letting some insignificant techno-trifle out of the bag. When people openly defy the DMCA, they are challenging the law. Someone is picking a fight with an 800 pound gorilla, and the gorilla is sitting this one out. Microsoft's lawyers have decided to avert risk. That alone speaks volumes about the precariousness of the DMCA's standing.
Re:Just like old times...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I allow you to respond to this comment...
Re:Just like old times...
by
Loki_1929
·
· Score: 2
You've got to be kidding...
"it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper."
If they were doing the right thing, they'd simply say, "we don't feel it's appropriate" or "we do not believe we would be within our rights to.."
The language used assumes that Microsoft is the sole arbitor of what is or is not appropriate. Read between the lines; it's not supposed to jump out at you. This isn't something we usually don't see from Microsoft, in that it's subtle (unlike their new licensing).
-- --
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Re:Just like old times...
by
Loki_1929
·
· Score: 2
Another good point, and well stated. To more simply put things into perspective, Microsoft has nothing to gain and everything to lose by using the DMCA in this case. And they have nothing to lose, and a small bit to gain by publicly stating that they will in fact not use the DMCA in this case. Hey, if nothing else, it got them into a story on the front page of a website where a quarter of a million IT pro's read every day.
-- --
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Re:Just like old times...
by
fferreres
·
· Score: 2
Is it so hard to give kudos where kudos are deserved?
Not at all. But you need to deserve it first. What if this paper had been released by a russian hacker? Does it make any difference that MIT is involved? It seems so!
They don't want to fuck with the top univerities of the US, that's right. But i'll send my kudos to them when I hear:
"Microsoft told Vladimir Whatever that while it might prefer that the information not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask anyone to withhold any information.
Not at all. But you need to deserve it first. What if this paper had been released by a russian hacker? Does it make any difference that MIT is involved? It seems so!
Uh... huh? When did Microsoft buy Adobe? Oh yeah, that's right -- they didn't. Now you're judging Microsoft based on Adobe's actions. I don't think there's anything else to say, here.
Re:Just like old times...
by
fferreres
·
· Score: 2
Who mentioned Adobe? "Vladimir" could be any individual. The point is it looks like the important fact here was MIT involvement, not the guy.
-- unfinished: (adj.)
Re:Just like old times...
by
KinCross
·
· Score: 1
If they had taken this to court, it's likely the paper would have been entered into evidence. To my knowledge, it would then be part of the public record at that point.
Hey, look! It's been published (sorta)!
If some legal eagle reads this, would the paper be accessible during the trial? If the decision came down that the paper couldn't be published, would the evidence then be sealed such that the paper wouldn't be available for review afterward?
-- --
secret asIAN man (not Secret Asian Man)
Anything to do with the Australian MOD Chip case?
by
djbentle
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Just a shot in the dark, but could this have anything to do with the decision in Australia that mod chip makers don't violate the Australian equivalent of the DMCA? IIRC the court decided (among other things) that because the protections in the ps2 aren't meant to stop copying, only make it so you can't play copied/imported media, it didn't fall under protection of the law.
Could it be that Microsft just doesn't want to fight it in court, and lose. Thus setting the precedent that such hardware protections are not protected under the DMCA?
Does anyone else remember back when the x-box was being previewed/released? It was far and above what other companies were producing for gaming systems, as far as hardware went.. There was talk of M$ selling these cheap to get one into everyone's house so that later on down the line they could implement a new OS/software whatever for the box. Since people would already have the boxes, they would naturally go with whatever M$ decided to add onto/change..
Having someone hack the box ties into this paranoid theory.. it only makes sense for them.. they are going to need that info in the future if they ever want to develop any changes for the xbox.. why not let someone else do the legwork and then incorporate a "fix" for whatever flaw(s) are found, and tote that as one of the new "features" of whatever it is they decide to go with...
Ha!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I find it extremely funny watching all the anti-Microsoft, anti-DMCA people try to work out the details. It's a good thing that Microsoft didn't support the DMCA, so stop trying to villify them just because of the name of their company.
If the same thing came out about Sun or Apple, they'd be praised, and there would be no "but" line at the end.
If the same thing came out about Sun or Apple, they'd be praised, and there would be no "but" line at the end.
Baloney. I don't follow Sun religiously in these forums but I do read the Apple section daily. I can tell you for a fact that Apple does not by any means get a free (or even fair!) ride in these forums. Far from it. They take more than a fair share of abuse and FUD and just plain ridiculousness. Microsoft isn't the only company that gets dragged through the dirt here, even if (IMO) they do deserve it more than most.
Microsoft didn't support the DMCA, so stop trying to villify them
Maybe not, but aren't they the one's "cooperating" with major content providers to develop and stuff down everyone's throats all that great DRM technology?
-- You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Re:Ha!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're only proving my point... Regardless of what Microsoft does, people like you will still find a way to turn it into a Microsoft-bashing party...
Is it for real that M$ is really putting some serious efforts in softening its image in public.
For e.g. they dont totally favor the "chip-in-all-hardware-to-prevent-copying" strategy. They are in favor to an extent, but they have carefully removed themselves from going all out in support of this approach.
Then this. They know that this doesnt amount to all that much, but coming from them, it would clearly garner a lot of public attention.
I for one would like M$ to wisen up a bit and learn to co-exist with the rest of the world.
Remember the explosion of the psx popularity after all the mods and hacks came out? Perhaps they are hoping for something like that to happen with the xbox. When I saw how easy it was to install the mods it made me wonder if they made it this easy on purpose.
Microsoft is conducting a campaign to actively reach out to the Linux-using geek crowd. This may be designed to make us take a second look at them in a more positive light.
The real test will be whether they use DMCA to clamp down on vulnerability research on their.NET and XP technologies. If they don't, then it's good evidence that they're dedicated to becoming good citizens.
"Microsoft is conducting a campaign to actively reach out to the Linux-using geek crowd. This may be designed to make us take a second look at them in a more positive light. "
doubtfull for 2 reasons. where still small, and since they are using legislation to implement there millenium plan, we don't matter. we will have to accept them, or not use any computers.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
will have to accept them, or not use any computers.
Either way - they win.:(
-- Pixels keep you awake!
Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
Especially things that they can't legally do anyway. The DMCA does not outlaw displaying security holes.
If it's sad to give kudos, why put someone who gives them on the front page? I guess it passes the "grep Microsoft story.txt" test.
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
jpmorgan
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The DMCA outlaws the circumenvtion of copyright protection mechanisms, which is what the MIT hacker did. So the DMCA outlaws exactly that.
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The DMCA outlaws the circumenvtion of copyright protection mechanisms, which is what the MIT hacker did. So the DMCA outlaws exactly that.
There is an exception for research, and besides there is no evidence that the hacker circumvented copyright protection mechanisms. In any case, Microsoft has only agreed to let the hacker present his paper, which is not a violation of the DMCA. They haven't agreed to not sue him for circumventing the copyright protection mechanisms in the first place.
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
gsfprez
·
· Score: 2
uh... I'm think that after Ed Felten, to believe that one SHOULDN'T check with a lawyer before putting something like this out there woud make one a ignorant fool.
-- guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
gilroy
·
· Score: 2
Blockquoth the poster:
Excepting serious research; a student from MIT is about a serious as they come.
Oh, yes, the sort of students who would do this or this is the very paragon of seriousness...
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 2
uh... I'm think that after Ed Felten, to believe that one SHOULDN'T check with a lawyer before putting something like this out there woud make one a ignorant fool.
Really? The Felton case is exactly an example of how presenting a paper is not covered by the DMCA.
Check a lawyer if you want, but I certainly wouldn't call someone an ignorant fool for not doing so.
Don't cheer yet...
by
KenCrandall
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I wouldn't quite start cheering yet. I'd be awfully wary of what comes out of this. MS gets a FREE security check of XBOX, and look what they can do with all this:
They can see where all the holes that hackers/modders are exploiting in the console are.
They can "slipstream" secutity updates into future games and break the above.
They get some PR karma for not going after an academic/researcher who is doing benefit for the "public good" (i.e. fixing security holes that could "JEAPORDIZE NATIONAL SECURITY"
They know what works and what doesn't for security in future products.
On the plus side, since they are chosing NOT to invoke the DMCA, they prove that the law is subject to the whim of the very corporations who claimed to be harmed and sponsored the bill in congress (proxied by our loyal Senators, of course!) This kind of ruins the legitimacy of the law, as it transforms the DMCA from "reverse-engineering decryption schemes is always harmful (and hence, illegal) and is a copyright and security threat" to "reverse-engineering decryption schemes is only harmful (and hence illegal) when I SAY it is a copyright and security threat". This is a subtle, but quite big difference. Hopefully, the EFF and ALCU (or other socially-responsible organizations) will pick up on that fact...
With this in mind, I like the fact that MS is doing this. However, I'd hate it to kill the mod-chip business. I'm fully in-favor of us being able to do ANYTHING with ANYTHING we buy (and dammit, if I pay $300 for the XBOX, I own it!) -- Imagine if you couldn't hop-up your car if you wanted to? The DMCA just sucks, in-general, and it sucks even more if companies can just CHOOSE when things are illegal and when they are not.
I wouldn't quite start cheering yet. I'd be awfully wary of what comes out of this. MS gets a FREE security check of XBOX, and look what they can do with all this:
* They can see where all the holes that hackers/modders are exploiting in the console are.
* They can "slipstream" secutity updates into future games and break the above.
* They get some PR karma for not going after an academic/researcher who is doing benefit for the "public good" (i.e. fixing security holes that could "JEAPORDIZE NATIONAL SECURITY"
* They know what works and what doesn't for security in future products.
Y'know, all of these points are some of the reasons why a lot of companies like the OSS model.
Could it be that Microsoft is recognising some of the benefits to sharing info with hackers? Have they got a "cancerous" tumour of OSS ethics, that can start spreading ??
Nahhhhh...
Soko
-- "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Imagine if you couldn't hop-up your car if you wanted to?
Well, actually, you can only legally hop-up your car to the point that it doesn't fail state/federal emissions and crash safety standards. Of course, you can violate those rules, there's nothing physically stopping you, but if you get caught, you will get fined. Where's the difference again?
Not that I advocate Microsoft doing anything in this case -- it's quite a difference scenario. The vehicle mods mentioned are a public hazard, whereas the XBOX mods hurt no-one except (possibly) Microsoft and the game vendor...
...fixing security holes that could "JEAPORDIZE NATIONAL SECURITY...
Actually, I just toured Columbia University's Augmented Reality
lab... They're actually using an xbox in their studies for the Department of Defense.
They assure me it's strictly for research purposes though.
-- "Brevity is the soul of wit." -Polonius, Hamlet.
Re:Don't cheer yet...
by
Vulture_
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They can see where all the holes that hackers/modders are exploiting in the console are.
What's wrong with that? That's a lot like how Open Source security works -- people find bugs in your code, they publish the bugs, you get to fix them.
They can "slipstream" secutity updates into future games and break the above.
Fine. Let them. After enough iterations they'll figure out that it's futile. Anyway, isn't it their right to do so?
They get some PR karma for not going after an academic/researcher who is doing benefit for the "public good" (i.e. fixing security holes that could "JEAPORDIZE NATIONAL SECURITY"
That PR karma seems deserved to me.
They know what works and what doesn't for security in future products.
Yeah -- nothing and everything, respectively.
--
The only way the typical/.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
Thanks, EFF
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Ok, that's it. I just donated 25 bucks to the EFF (took about 1 minute). Maybe that's a drop in the bucket, but I wanted to say "thanks" to the folks who actually DO something that everyone else is just talking about.
Re:Thanks, EFF
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ok, that's it. I just bought a copy of OfficeXP and a new Xbox (took about 1 minute). Maybe that's a drop in the bucket, but I wanted to say "thanks" to the folks who actually DO something that everyone else is just talking about.
Re:Thanks, EFF
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I just bought a copy of OfficeXP and a new Xbox
HAHA, the FOOL!! It wont even play on the Xbox!!!
How sad it is!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I know, how sad it is that that KKK members deserves kudos for not killing a black man!
Sheesh, the sad times!
How about a non-borg icon today?
by
MongooseCN
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Perhaps MS deserves a non-bill-the-borg icon for this story today?
Re:How about a non-borg icon today?
by
MalleusEBHC
·
· Score: 1
Taco told Bill to send him a new icon of his choice to replace bill-the-borg for today, but Bill unfortunately got a BSOD while trying to send the email.
Re:How about a non-borg icon today?
by
Stephen+VanDahm
·
· Score: 2
"Perhaps MS deserves a non-bill-the-borg icon for this story today?"
Perhaps, but an image of Bill Gates on the bridge of a Romulan Warbird is too large for a Slashdot icon.
Felten Shockwave
by
limekiller4
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence.
Suppose someone dies and you know where they stashed $1,000 in cash. You might take that money, but later return it. Why? Did you return it because stealing it was wrong, and you came to this realization? Did you return it because you were afraid of being caught? Maybe you returned it out of guilt. The point is that honor and "good behavior" comes in many flavors which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell. Do I think they did the "smart thing?" You bet. I think they took one look at the Felten debacle and knew to not play with the academics. I think they know the power of public relations, especially this year.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell.
What, then, would the 'right thing' to do be?
Should they ship a source tarball for Windows and all of their products on DVD-ROM to their entire customer base? Maybe they should give their entire cash reserves to the EFF?
No, I think that probably wouldn't be enough.
Hatred consumes the one who hates. There are a lot of Microsoft haters who need a nice long break from their preoccupation.
SN74S181 writes: "What, then, would the 'right thing' to do be? Should they ship a source tarball for Windows and all of their products on DVD-ROM to their entire customer base? Maybe they should give their entire cash reserves to the EFF? No, I think that probably wouldn't be enough. Hatred consumes the one who hates. There are a lot of Microsoft haters who need a nice long break from their preoccupation."
Without sounding like I'm trying to torch you, I don't know how you read my message and came away with this conclusion. Perhaps you're so used to a knee-jerk anti-Microsoft reaction (justified) on Slash, I don't know. But I'll take it from different angle.
Microsoft never does the "right thing." Sun never does the "right thing." Walmart never does the "right thing." Sears never does the "right thing."
Corporations do what is -- or what they think is -- in the best interest in the bottom line and by extension their shareholders. This is not anti-Microsoft. In fact I despise the fact that you can't say a pro-MS thing on Slashdot without getting modded into oblivion.
But to repeat myself, the morality (ie, the "correctness") of an action cannot be determined by the the action itself. Motives determine such nebulous concepts as morality and ethics. It is with this distinction that I proposed that Microsoft wasn't doing anything so desirable as getting a conscience.
Perhaps you mean to say Microsoft did the right thing, but not necessarily for the right reason.
Of course you can say that about anyone, except for maybe Jebus, but even he may have acted as he did just to promote his father's views. Who's to say?
Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence.
Why is obligation to shareholders bad? It's a delicate economical system that works fine. If the Enron execs had felt the obligation to shareholders, instead of themselves, than the company would have continued to grow in a reasonable, time tested manner.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell. Do I think they did the "smart thing?" You bet. I think they took one look at the Felten debacle [eff.org] and knew to not play with the academics. I think they know the power of public relations, especially this year.
Look, with the recent usage of the DMCA by HP and others, it's obvious "M$" could have used it. The question was raised by the student, not M$, when he went to the EFF. M$ responded, and gave a fine reason. I'm against their business practices too, but they clearly responded to this in a clear, rational way. Average Joe does that, it's good thinking. M$ does it, it's conspiring to control everyone.
The point is that honor and "good behavior" comes in many flavors which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
Allright, there ya go. Apply this idea to what M$ did. Please, please, please, get your (general public who shares this view) mind off autopilot and find real reasons why M$ is bad--there's abounding evidence as to why they're a very good thing, lets focus on how M$ is an out-of-control exception and the benefits of competition are gone because of monopolization. It makes more sense, and is more likely to gain success.
-- Don't cross him; don't boss him; he's ridin' and hidin' his pain.
Don't fight him; don't spite him; just wait till tomo
I wrote: " Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence. "
ThanatosNL replied: "Why is obligation to shareholders bad? It's a delicate economical system that works fine. If the Enron execs had felt the obligation to shareholders, instead of themselves, than the company would have continued to grow in a reasonable, time tested manner. "
Well, you've kinda answered the question with your first two sentences here. A company's responsibility to the shareholder does not have any boundaries except for law, and even that doesn't work. As I type this, WorldCom is reporting and additional 3.3B in fudged figures. Corporations look at ethics the same way that science looks at ethics, which is to say that they don't at all (this is not a dig vs. science in even the slightest way, I'm a big fan). Science is not concerned with whether a thing is good or bad but merely -- and solely -- whether it is true or false. Similarly, a company has no thought but profit. These range from the obvious (Enron) to the notorious (Union Carbide) to the devastating (Exxon).
That having been said, I see your point and I do agree with you more than this post might let on. I simply feel that MS did what it felt was in it's own best interest, and the concept of fair use and where the boundaries lie wasn't one of them.
-- My.02,
Limekiller
Re:Felten Shockwave
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's much easier to mod me down than to post an intelligent reply.
Good point! I guess I'll just mod you down in future to save time...
I was really hinting at a larger concept outlined in Milton Friedman's essay regarding the social and ethical responsibility of corporate exectives. The idea that companies should be directed by their shareholders, and the CEO's and boards should act in their interests, keeping everything open. Like any other economic model, it's idealistic to the point of being somewhat of a theoretical extreme. However, the point that I was trying to apply to M$ is that trying to work to benefit shareholders and also customers can coincide with "the right thing." We shouldn't automatically suspect them of foul play. (I'm certainly not accusing you of not sort of "getting my wonderful point that was so rudely rebutted" like many do on/.) I just felt the need to clarify my original post.
-- Don't cross him; don't boss him; he's ridin' and hidin' his pain.
Don't fight him; don't spite him; just wait till tomo
ThanatosNL wrote: "We shouldn't automatically suspect them of foul play."
This part I disagree with.
The collective known as "the media", the "5th branch" of government, the watchdog as it were, has the responsibility to cast an immediate suspicious eye at everyone and everything. They have failed us miserably. Look at the news. The problem is it's not. It's entertainment. Two babies joined at the head affects two babies and two extended families, perhaps some doctors. This is not news. The latest state of Angelina's love life is not news. A firefight in Afghanistan that kills 15 is not really news either. Wars that kill thousands, even tens or hundreds of thousands are news. A critical examination of the laws that are being passed to stop corruption (which cost many thousands to lose, in some cases, everything they had) qualify as news. We are being given just enough to think we're being informed when it amounts to nothing. Nothing.
It is with this in mind, the idea that the media no longer is, that I disagree that we should not cast a suspicious eye toward Microsoft (or indeed, virtually any company) when they take some action that impacts our freedom.
Well said, and I agree with you about the media. However, my claim is that there is a double standard, i.e. no matter what M$ does, they're doing something bad, but we don't place others under the same level scrutiny. We should scrutinize them when they do wrong--just not make it an automatic process. Many have lost their capacity to think *critically* and analyze situations. Instead of getting down on M$ for _not_ using the DMCA, we should attack all instances of the DMCA, because it truly is a horrible bill.
-- Don't cross him; don't boss him; he's ridin' and hidin' his pain.
Don't fight him; don't spite him; just wait till tomo
ThanatosNL writes: " Well said, and I agree with you about the media. However, my claim is that there is a double standard, i.e. no matter what M$ does, they're doing something bad, but we don't place others under the same level scrutiny. We should scrutinize them when they do wrong--just not make it an automatic process. Many have lost their capacity to think *critically* and analyze situations. Instead of getting down on M$ for _not_ using the DMCA, we should attack all instances of the DMCA, because it truly is a horrible bill."
I'm not suggesting we make Microsoft a special case, I'm suggesting that we cast a skeptical eye toward all corporations. This is not a "guilty until proven innocent" issue, but I don't think we should wait for malice to rear it's head before we start digging. I think all corporate actions should be suspect and only when evidence is found should we accuse. They, like the government, have not proven themselves capable of restraining themselves in even the slightest regard.
Fair enough. Skepticism on the part of the courts system could have actually broken up MS instead of giving them hundreds of new (albeit younger) customers and a fine that can be paid easily by Microsoft's Custodial department.
-- Don't cross him; don't boss him; he's ridin' and hidin' his pain.
Don't fight him; don't spite him; just wait till tomo
Re:Hey, didn't you get your training manual?
by
C0LDFusion
·
· Score: 1
Making funny from code...Those who do, you men are Gods.
-- Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Re:Hey, didn't you get your training manual?
by
kubrick
·
· Score: 2
But what about Sony? Don't they own members of the RIAA *and* MPAA? And they make a cool games console, that runs Linux... but then they sue modchippers? Oh, I'm so confused!?!:)
Besides, the new Apple mice aren't bad. Damn sight better than the iMac hockey pucks.
-- deus does not exist but if he does
Re:Hey, didn't you get your training manual?
by
ichimunki
·
· Score: 1
I think this code could be refactored so that you aren't repeating yourself and possibly introducing errors. For instance, the RIAA.setEmotion(), MPAA.setEmotion(), etc, calls look like they are essentially booleans, so why not start with constant declaration where HATE = 1 and LOVE = 0, then instead of calling each one separately in two separate lists, you can simply have:
if(( day_of_week... { RIAA.setEmotion( RIAA.emotion ^ LOVE ); MPAA.setEmotion( MPAA.emotion ^ HATE ); ... }
That way you don't run the risk of accidentally missing an entity in the else cluase or accidentally setting an entity's emotion to the same thing in both the if clause and the else clause.
Even this isn't perfect and it would be better to simply write a method like RIAA.flipEmotion, since if you ever need to switch from binary to multiple levels of hate, love, and indifference, you can modify flipEmotion to simply work around an axis (like if your scale is 0 for love and 10 for hate, then mild distaste might be a 6 which would *.flipEmotion to 3, for mild attraction).
-- I do not have a signature
Strategic cowardice
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Suppose it's clear enough even to Microsoft that the DMCA wouldn't stand up in court...
heh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They don't sue people... they just buy them out.
"Buy him out boys. What - you don't think I got this rich by writing checks, did you?"
Simpsons? anyone? ahh - nevermind.
Microsoft doesn't make this decision....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
DMCA criminal violations are just that: criminal. Microsoft has the option of reporting a crime or not reporting a crime, but it is the role of law enforcement to decide whether to investigate a crime or not. Microsoft saying "it's ok for you to commit this crime" meaningless, whether the crime is criminal DMCA violation or murder. A criminal prosecution is not someething like a civil suit which the plaintif can just drop when he decides it's not in his best interest.
Obviously, judges and law enforcement take into account the feelings of the victims (Microsoft, in this case) but they make the final decision.
So a researcher fears that a law might restrain him from making a speech, he contacts Microsoft who says that they'd prefer he doesn't make the speech but can't stop him, and somehow this means the law is unconstitutional?
Re:WTF kind of logic is that?
by
Arandir
·
· Score: 2
It makes perfect sense if you look at it from the Slashdot perspective: everything Microsoft does is Evil, and free speech means anything I want it to mean.
-- A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:WTF kind of logic is that?
by
FauxPasIII
·
· Score: 2
>> Microsoft who says that they'd prefer he doesn't make the speech but can't stop him
That's just it. Microsoft perfectly well can stop him, using the DMCA. They just choose not to in this instance, for whatever reason. The law that gives them the ability to make that choice (Let's see, do I or do I not feel like abridging the freedom of speech today...) is obviously unconstitutional.
Microsoft perfectly well can stop him, using the DMCA.
No they can't.
They just choose not to in this instance, for whatever reason.
"Microsoft told Huang and Abelson that while it might prefer that the paper not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper." "Inappropriate" is Microsoft's way of saying "we're not allowed by law". Otherwise why wouldn't they stop Huang and Abelson, since they clearly want to.
The law that gives them the ability to make that choice (Let's see, do I or do I not feel like abridging the freedom of speech today...) is obviously unconstitutional.
Agreed. But the DMCA is not such a law.
Re:WTF kind of logic is that?
by
FauxPasIII
·
· Score: 2
>> Agreed. But the DMCA is not such a law.
In the strictest sense, I see the point you're trying to make, and in the strictest sense you're right. However, I don't think that that will come as much comfort to Jon Johansen, SnoSoft, the BnetD developers, or Prof. Felten.
The DMCA doesn't technically grant corporations the right to abridge free speech. However, it does give them means to drag just about anyone into court and keep them there long enough to rack up a couple hundred million dollars in legal fees if needs be to make them comply, so the effect is much the same.
The DMCA doesn't technically grant corporations the right to abridge free speech. However, it does give them means to drag just about anyone into court and keep them there long enough to rack up a couple hundred million dollars in legal fees if needs be to make them comply, so the effect is much the same.
Hmm, let's see... In the Felton case Felton was the one who initiated the lawsuit. The Johansen case was not over the DMCA, it was over Norwegian Criminal Code 145(2). Further, Johansen was distributing code, not making a speech. AFAIK the bnetd lawsuit is over copyright infringement, not DMCA violations. Further, they were distributing code, not making a speech.
A rose by any other name... the new "anti-counterfeiting" bill provides another avenue for the same sort of legal attacks. The DMCA is one of many holes to be closed, pending a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that this kind of bullshit is to be stopped once and for all.
>> Further, they were distributing code, not making a speech
If you don't accept that code is protected speech, then I can see why your opinion differs. I respectfully disagree... censorship is censorship, speech is speech, regardless of the language.
Re:WTF kind of logic is that?
by
FauxPasIII
·
· Score: 2
>> HP didn't sue, probably because snosoft wasn't breaking the DMCA.
Sure they didn't sue, but that's not the point. They could have sued if they'd felt like it, and that puts SnoSoft (and everyone else in the security community) in a tenuous position. It doesn't really matter whether Snosoft was breaking the law or not, either, not until this country moves to a loser-pays system of civil litigation anyway.
My point is, if HP had half a mind to, they could employ the DMCA (or any number of similar laws, some of which you pointed out above) to bury SnoSoft or anybody else who can't match them lawyer for lawyer. They don't have to be right to win.
And anyway, companies like HP, Vivendi, RIAA and Microsoft don't even have to prosecute (successfully or un) supposed DMCA offenders to scare the beejesus out of anybody who might try to publish any presentations, code, etc that said corporations don't like. It's called a "chilling effect", yo.
If you don't accept that code is protected speech, then I can see why your opinion differs.
Even if code is protected, it's not protected without limitation. If it were then all copyright law would be unconstitutional, because all copyright law restricts speech. I don't really feel like getting into the nitty gritty details, the arguments for both sides were already addressed in the DeCSS case. So I'll assume you feel that regulation of code deserves strict scrutiny, or that the DMCA does not pass intermediate scrutiny.
In any case, my point here is that pointing out flaws is not distributing code. It doesn't fall under the DMCA at all.
Re:WTF kind of logic is that?
by
FauxPasIII
·
· Score: 2
>> It doesn't fall under the DMCA at all
Agreed. You, however, seem to believe that that matters, that that simple fact could keep Microsoft from invoking the DMCA to crush the presentation, and that's dangerously naive. The Bnetd case was about reimplementing a network protocol by reverse engineering, for compatibility purposes. It doesn't fall under the DMCA at all either. That didn't stop vivendi from wielding the DMCA to force their compliance from somebody they didn't like.
The simple fact is, no matter how right you are on the matter that none of this is within the legal scope of the DMCA (and you ARE right), it just doesn't make a lick of difference. Being right doesn't mean you win. Being rich does.
They could have sued if they'd felt like it, and that puts SnoSoft (and everyone else in the security community) in a tenuous position. It doesn't really matter whether Snosoft was breaking the law or not, either, not until this country moves to a loser-pays system of civil litigation anyway.
Well, that's a completely separate issue then. Because I can sue anyone I want for violating any civil law I choose. That doesn't mean the law I sue them over is bad. It means the legal system is bad. Loser pays won't exactly solve the problem, though, it'll just up the stakes. And personally I really am not all that concerned about civil lawsuits. Yes, you have a lot more money than I do, but that means you're taking a lot bigger risk. The lowest we can go is zero here in the US. I'd be willing to defend myself in a civil lawsuit. For a criminal one I wouldn't, but the DMCA isn't criminal law unless you're breaking it for profit.
And anyway, companies like HP, Vivendi, RIAA and Microsoft don't even have to prosecute (successfully or un) supposed DMCA offenders to scare the beejesus out of anybody who might try to publish any presentations, code, etc that said corporations don't like. It's called a "chilling effect", yo.
Yeah, and it's called "ignore and/or counter-sue". Yes, in the United States you're responsible for knowing the law or hiring a lawyer to advise you on it. And yes, that's arguably a bad thing. But it has nothing to do with the DMCA.
We're pretty much completely off topic at this point, but I just wanted to add that it's really important that people living in the US know the law. It's absolutely amazing the number of people who get busted for stupid things like drug possession just because they voluntarily let the police in their house or dorm room without a search warrant (which the police generally don't enough evidence to obtain in the first place). Know the law, and that means not only what is illegal, but what is legal.
Agreed. You, however, seem to believe that that matters, that that simple fact could keep Microsoft from invoking the DMCA to crush the presentation, and that's dangerously naive.
I can only speak for myself, and personally, I would go and give the presentation anyway, and I'd hope that Microsoft had the balls to sue me. Civil laws don't scare me one bit.
The Bnetd case was about reimplementing a network protocol by reverse engineering, for compatibility purposes. It doesn't fall under the DMCA at all either. That didn't stop vivendi from wielding the DMCA to force their compliance from somebody they didn't like.
A DMCA shutdown letter is notice that you are infringing copyright law, not the DMCA. That part of the DMCA only protects ISPs from lawsuits.
The simple fact is, no matter how right you are on the matter that none of this is within the legal scope of the DMCA (and you ARE right), it just doesn't make a lick of difference. Being right doesn't mean you win. Being rich does.
Being poor does too. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. Give me an example of something which I agree doesn't violate the DMCA, and which is not for commercial purposes, and I'll do it, just to prove to you that I won't lose any lawsuits. Preferably something which I can do with my measely website, otherwise you're going to have to pay for any of the costs I have in performing this act of defiance.
Re:WTF kind of logic is that?
by
arkanes
·
· Score: 2
Pointing out flaws in sufficent detail often DOES fall under the DMCA - although not in this case, granted.
Microsoft definitely doesn't want a "chip-in-all-hardware-to-prevent-copying" scheme. They want a "microsoft-chip-in-the-hardware-to-prevent-copying " scheme (see: palladium). Yes, I'm aware that the TCPA and Palladium are two different things, but they have nearly identical goals and the technology goes hand in hard.
So what is the significance of this latest decision? Well, a couple of things. First, as far as I know, every major company to use the DMCA to stifle research has had to backpeddle fairly quickly. The public may not know what "DRM" or "CBTDDTTDBDBTCDBTCDDPTCBPA" mean but a significant portion of the tech community understands "stifling research," which is why we'll end up with Palladium but we'll probably only have to put up a modest fight every so often to be able to freely publish research. We could have a world free of both if slashdotters weren't so utterly pathetic politically, but I seriously doubt there'll be any change before it's too late. Second, the more "unjust" a company's actions seem, the more publicity they get in the geek community. Since Microsoft was "nice" this time, comparatively few people will hear about it and as a consequence comparatively few people will understand the critical flaw in the X-Box, CSS, etc...
From MS's point of view, the fewer people that hear about it, the better. This is how they deal with things that are Really Evil (TM). Anyone remember Windows Whistler, recently known as Windows XP, now known as Windows DRM (a la forced updates to the OS and media player)? How about HailStorm? You didn't see a lot of publicity on that until it was being launched. Sure, there was.Net this and.Net that, but, for a very long time, people had a lot of different and mixed up ideas about what.Net was. Some people still don't understand what it is. What about Palladium? I remember reading an article linked to from a slashdot story a while back that was a reporter's view of Palladium. The article, written after a viewing a Microsoft confidential presentation on palladium, said something to the effect of,"I can't reveal to you very much about the details about Palladium - Microsoft has been very strict about this. However, I can tell you that I was shocked." It then went on to give a rough outline of DRM-related possible hardware and software components. See what I mean? It's their M.O.
Re:what microsoft wants
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes.
It's all a big complex conspiracy. Microsoft is being more evile in doing this than any of us could ever imagine.
Clearly, unless they provide uncomplex small-word-only descriptions of every action they take, they're covering something up.
God, I wish I had your insight.
Re:Dude!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I consider them well spent. Your mileage may vary.
Picked the wrong court
by
craw
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Maybe Microsoft did try to use the DMCA to stop this via the DMCA, but they picked the wrong venue.
"All rise! The US District Court is now in session. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson presiding!"
MS: "Oh shit!"
Give credit where credit is due
by
jpmorgan
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So, Microsoft does something half-decent - they don't try to exert any legal force to prevent the disclosure of information they don't want to see public, and pretty much every/. post is digging to find some sort of evil ulterior motive.
Why should this surprise me? This is the only place where the population can try to portray someone as being evil for donating a few billion dollars to charity....
Come on, people. Give credit where credit is due. If you can't do it to be fair, then do it because it ruins your credibility for when something bad does happen.
Re:Give credit where credit is due
by
FuzzyDaddy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I agree that they this was a decent thing to do. I also agree that, as business villians go, MS is not the worst of the bunch. (Just see "The Insider" for a look at real corporate evil.)
But as the article said, despite Microsoft's restraint, the effect of the DMCA on this research was still chilling. Credit to Microsoft for not going after this, but the net score is still negative . I mean, look at the basic absurdity. This guy was worried about getting in trouble for figuring out a flaw in a game console. It's not as if he was publishing a way to launch nuclear missiles.
-- It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Re:Give credit where credit is due
by
jpmorgan
·
· Score: 2
This guy was worried about getting in trouble for figuring out a flaw in a game console. It's not as if he was publishing a way to launch nuclear missiles.
Would you like to play a game?
Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.
=P
Re:Give credit where credit is due
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You believe lying about the health risks of tobacco is worse than an attempted monopolization of computing? We have language, pen and paper, the printing press, and now computers. MS wants to control every aspect of the most important advance we have ever made, and you want to worry about drug dealers who lie? Phillip Morris' lies were defeated by communication of information. Think about it.
Re:Anything to do with the Australian MOD Chip cas
by
JebusIsLord
·
· Score: 1
There is no equivalent to the DMCA in Australia or pretty much any other country to my knowledge. I'm glad i live in Canada.
"Those damn hack3rs just don't stop. Now they've focused their attention on our XBox. What should we do?"
"Hmmm... let's see... To hack XBox they have to buy it from us, and then they'll be busy on it playing video games instead of hacking our products... is that correct?"
"That's correct sir."
"Okie dokie then... give 'em the greenlight so I can take that vacation I've been wanting to take for the longest time..."
--
eTrade SUCKS
HP's name is forever tainted
by
David+Gerard
·
· Score: 2
Notice how the EFF press release names HP as a company that issued threats under the DMCA.
Having retracted it after the shitstorm doesn't change the fact that HP will be on the list of DMCA-wielding thugs from now until the end of time.
-- http://rocknerd.co.uk
MS has its reasons... and they could be right.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So... Some smart (REALLY smart) guy figured out how to extract the code from an Xbox. And presumably, how to get around the security system.
Did anyone notice the equipment required to do it? Sure, I know how to design Verilog chips -- I've even worked with Xilinx chips before. However... I don't have a high enough speed component sitting around, and I doubt most people do.
So what does this Bunnie information? Tells you how to take apart an Xbox. Where things are. How to decrypt code, etc. Really neat stuff, overall. But your "normal user" isn't going to have the time or energy to do all the work himself. So MS allows the guy to publish the paper -- no big deal. If you notice, the actual binary of his BIOS is NOT downloadable -- that I could see MS fight to have kept secret.
So the only "risk" to MS interests is those people who try to make a business out of this information. And is that a problem?
I refer to the recent n including how they needed to take a hit when MS changed something in the Xbox.
Perhaps a bit of security change?
MS had nothing to lose by allowing Bunnie to publish the paper. Why not allow the paper to be published?
MS deserves kudos for a lot of things. Legally speaking, they really show a LOT of restraint, especially considering the intellectual property they own. "Freedom to Innovate" is more than just a tag line, it really is the way they work, at least from my experience.
I'm sure people have had problems with them in the past, but nobody is perfect. MS is a corporation made of thousands of people, just like every other corporation. Im sure they hired quite a few assholes. The trick is just to make sure they arent in charge.
--
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
has to be said...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
1. allow an MIT student to display security flaws in the XBOX 2. ??? 3. Profit!
Re:has to be said...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
not that anyone will read down this far but forgot one thing on the previous post::D
Re:Anything to do with the Australian MOD Chip cas
by
plugger
·
· Score: 1
If the Australian court decided that their law did not apply to mechanisms designed to control importation of software, that would also encompass DVD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the encryption keys on DVD films designed to stop free international trade of software rather than hinder copying?
Microsoft has done some good in the past....
by
NetSerf2000
·
· Score: 1
Personally I dont like Micro$oft... Their business practices suck, their operating systems (except for dos 3.3) blows the proverbial goat. However looking at the situation from a logical point of view, the desktop as most IT workers know it wouldnt exist if it wasnt for them.
They brought out a lot of good applications and back in the days of Dos didnt discourage people like Mr Norton from designing tools that worked with their operating systems.
These days you have to sign half a million disclaimers and NDA's just to be able to work on something that will integrate with the Windows OS.
In the past they have tried to stifle all possible hazardous security flaws within their products. But now someone comes out with a paper on their new console product and everyone expects that they are going to jump on the poor guy. In the past when they introduce something new, they never used to bother about people releasing security problems... Why should they bother now?
Isn't in their best interests to let other people bugtest their products, just like they used to do, and then incorperate the fixes into the next version of it.
Isn't it rather silly for us to take Micro$oft to task over something that in the end benefits the general public who doesnt know any better? Personally I would rather see M$ do something by not doing something rather than seeing them destroy reputations and our basic freedom to comment on things...
Just my opinion of things and Kudos to all involved for getting this issue out into the open rather than seeing disappear into the ether...
-- *** I had a.sig, but then I got a life ***
Re:Microsoft has done some good in the past....
by
Luke-Jr
·
· Score: 1
What is it with DOS 3.3? Why not DOS 2.2 or DOS 6.0?? WHY 3.3?!?!
-- Luke-Jr
Re:Microsoft has done some good in the past....
by
NetSerf2000
·
· Score: 1
It was the first version I used and it was relatively good compared to Dos 4.0, 4.1, 5.0, 6.0, 6.2, 6.22 all of which have had their days in court and have been deemed crap
-- *** I had a.sig, but then I got a life ***
It's all double plus plus good for MS.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
From what I can tell, the X-Box is just an experiment to find out how people will crack it's 'security'. Then they can take what they learn and apply it to Palladium. It's Microsoft's 'Big Plan'. Do you really think they give a shit about "dominating the console world"? They're one of the wealthiest companies on the planet. This guy isn't being sued because he's doing exactly what MS wants: he's practically an unpaid employee.;D
Before I start, I agree that Microsoft deserves credit for not -threatening- to use the DMCA or dragging Bunnie/the EFF through a lawsuit.
That being said, they -couldn't- win the case using the DMCA. The research Bunnie did was legal, even though it was reverse engineering, because it was published through MIT, which legally defines it as academic research.
What would have been illegal, as it goes beyond reverse engineering and IS illegal by the DMCA in -any- circumstance, is if he had actually published the encryption key he discovered. That information was never released/published by Bunnie.
So, yes, M$ still deserves credit for sitting back and not being assholes. They could have started a lawsuit and it wouldn't have been thrown outmeaning either Bunnie, or the EFF who agreed to represent him, would have had to dish out a lot of money fighting the case. However, many people in this forum are talking as if M$ could have barred the paper and milked Bunnie for all he's worth and more, but they couldn't have (and if you read the article carefully, it doesn't suggest that M$ could have done this)
Re:Clarification
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What would have been illegal, as it goes beyond reverse engineering and IS illegal by the DMCA in -any- circumstance, is if he had actually published the encryption key he discovered. That information was never released/published by Bunnie.
Really? Why, then, does his page say 'If you are looking for the FLASH ROM contents of the Xbox, you won't be able to download them even though I've extracted them. I got a call [recording edited to protect sensitive info] from Microsoft within 12 hours of posting this page regarding the binaries...I fear...'?
If you actually read my post, I pointed out that actually releasing data that is stored within the XBox is against the DMCA (see the part about the encryption key). However, part of the DMCA and legal cases in general is sending out a warning when someone is doing something illegal... it is a necessary part of the process.
4 miles underground at redmond...
by
tabby
·
· Score: 1
#2: your spies at MIT report that someone has found a way to by pass our XBOX security #1: excellent. Now that they can mod them, perhaps someone will buy one.
-- I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
Looks like Mad Dog McCree is going to allow an MIT student to announce the fact that he's impotence and won't use the GUN to stop him. " Mad Dog deserves kudos for this. But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT shooting people.
"Microsoft deserves praise for making no attempt to control publication," said Abelson. "Their response shows that they value academic freedom, and that they appreciate the critical role of unfettered research and publication in advancing technology."
what a complete load of dogs bollocks. have they forgotten forcing lots of US schools who were already under pressure of exams and with severe lack of funds into self-auditing their MS software licenses and forcing them to buy licenses within weeks???
I don't know about you, but that's not valuing academic freedom. They do things for money. nothing else. I reckon it's more likely that all their lawyers are already tied up at the moment and they can't be bothered taking the effort to hire one to attack someone they can't sue for money.
Kudos to those not following the norm
by
Nikkos
·
· Score: 1
Like,
California not prosecuting medical marijuana users
Politicians not accepting special-interest money
Tech companies switching to low-cost solutions like Linux
Professors grading on performance instead of attendance (pet peeve)
Too many of the "normal" ways of doing things are questionable. It's not a sad state of affairs when people do what's right instead of what's normal.
So the guy using the ATM that you're lined up for drops a $50 bill: "Hey buddy, you dropped 50 bucks." Is this deserving of kudos? Well maybe it is, especially if the alternative is slapping him with a lawsuit for littering...
Absolutely not. Only the ignorant and naive would think so.
Pr0nSpam!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
i went to fix my little niece's computer, and she is a bisexual female, cute, sexy 23 year old woman, she has a live-in female with her that is a hot hot hot hottie, i wanted to do her, well when i fixed her computer she had several gay female pr0n mpeg files that were such a turn on. i did not have the heart to delete her pr0n so i left it on her harddrive...
OH Yeah, fuck microsoft who cares about their vulnerable kludegeware anyway...
this guy did this in march... techtv had him on the show screensavers even. they looked at all the game consoles in the same way (people in his phd program).
-- members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
Maybe the horse paid off 20-to-1, and now you want to "Give Back To The Community"...
-- Terry
Any correlation with recent Microsoft Ads?
by
danpbrowning
·
· Score: 2
Does the fact that Slashdot is now running MS Ads (for Visual Dev Studio) bear any significance on the timing of an editor's "kudos to MS" remark? A thought to ponder.
-- Daniel
this doesn't really affect microsoft
by
rogueuk
·
· Score: 2
according to this, microsoft has already changed the security keys so this is really a nonissue. The details of it would most likely have leaked regardless of whether the paper was published, so microsoft saves some face and decides to stay out of it whilst fixing the problem so it can't work in the future. i don't see what the big deal of microsoft not using some law is anyway.
Hey Perens, how can you stand to work for a fascist company like HP when even MICROSOFT has taken a higher ground than them when it comes to information publication?
Yeah that's what I thought tubby!
Microsoft is not responsible
by
sklib
·
· Score: 1
It is not Microsoft's responsibility to file any charges here. All they did was manufacture a box where if you don't screw around with it, it behaves properly in terms of DVD-playing.
However, when "Bunnie" decides to play his Lord of the Rings DVD at a public demonstration, Sony (or newline or whoever owns the rights to that DVD) can charge him with unlawfully playing a DVD, just as if he were using deCSS on a linux machine. Then he will go to jail. Microsoft is as much to blame for this as Xing does in the deCSS case, and I don't really remember them (I could be wrong) suing anybody.
It really just shows that if you have a flock of MIT and BU and EFF lawyers on your side, Microsoft might back off. Otherwise, well, how much money do you have to spend on defense?
Also, it might be worth pointing out that MIT has a long history of defending the right to publish. They've gone up against various parts of the US government on various occasions, and they have a record of winning. Microsoft probably understands that MIT *will* fight it in the courts, with the explicit aim of getting the DMCA and other such laws thrown out.
The way to win DMCA fights is to pick on people who don't have the wherewithall to fight it in court. It's not so much a legal tool as it is an intimidation tool. If your opponent can't be intimidated, you stand a very real chance of losing not just the court case but your intimidation tool.
-- Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Where you been, son? Mac OS X was released over a year ago!
Yes, but Mac® OS X is not a UNIX® brand system. FreeBSD's not UNIX. NetBSD's not UNIX. GNU's not UNIX. (This trademark confusion almost makes me want to put together a distribution of GNU/Linux software and call it KLEENIX.)
OK, now what UNIX® system has a GUI as pretty as Mac OS X's?
And just to confuse the issue, IBM's OS/390 (now z/OS) is a UNIX® brand system.
Probably the only UNIX® system whose native character set is EBCDIC.
-- -- Alastair
Re:Mac OS X is not UNIX�
by
C0LDFusion
·
· Score: 1
Just a question for a guy who seems to know about odd IBM OS's...I have a AS/400 Mainframe. WTF is the deal with OS/400? I just need to know what it's based on.
-- Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Re:Mac OS X is not UNIX�
by
Sir+Tristam
·
· Score: 1
Just a question for a guy who seems to know about odd IBM OS's...I have a AS/400 Mainframe. WTF is the deal with OS/400? I just need to know what it's based on.
Well, the AS/400 (now the iSeries) is actually classified as a minicomputer, not a mainframe. If you're running one of the RISC boxes (OS/400 version greater than 3.4) then it's a 64-bit PowerPC based computer.
The actual OS traces its roots back to the IBM System/38, which eventually traces back to the S/3. I'm not really sure of the lineage before that, but that takes you back into the 60s. The primary programming languages of the System/38 were RPG and CL, and those are essentially the main languages of the AS/400 (although C and COBOL have always been available for it, and IBM's been putting out a lot of effort on Java for the AS/400).
So basically, OS/400 is based on nothing that any other OS out currently is.
Chris Beckenbach
Why are you so anti Microsoft?
by
danny256
·
· Score: 1
But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
I think its getting really old, that comments like that still get through. The poll I want to see is:
What category are you in...
a) I blindly hate Microsoft and love Linux b) I'm an intelligent person who looks at each issue by itself and makes a judgment, holding no long term grudges or prejudices.
I see a lot of intelligent people on here who don't just blindly hate MS and I swear that they outnumber all the linux loving drones that I see. I'm not going to post this as AC because I really believe in what I'm saying, unfortunately the "trolls" can't moderate so I don't expect anyone to see this for long. Please remember, this isn't a "linux lovers fan club", its supposed to be news and forums about technology and I hate to see it getting corrupted.
Re:Why are you so anti Microsoft?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Reember, you are posting on a site that uses that evil Bill borg image to talk about microsoft. Slashdot has been known for it's dull witted linux punks (We Iz L33t hAX0rz!) who would talk bad about microsoft, yet have no idea why, just spomeone else said to hate them
Re:Why are you so anti Microsoft?
by
Chris+Johnson
·
· Score: 2
It isn't possible to intelligently hate Microsoft in your world?
The trouble with what you propose is this: in the event that Microsoft is genuinely worthy of hatred and resistance, you are tuning out everyone who understands the truth, and refusing to listen to them simply because they are not taking a moderate position.
Truth includes extreme positions. Microsoft excels at creating extreme positions. The only historically justifiable approach to dealing with Microsoft IS an extreme position, and this is why you are seeing so many people taking an extreme position on Microsoft.
You do them a grave disservice by lumping them all into the category of 'blindly hate Microsoft', because you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that these people know better than you, and have reason to hate Microsoft.
So if MS files a complaint against someone else in the future, can *that* person use this decision in a defense, since MS would then be applying their policies in a biased manner?
--
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Re:Anything to do with the Australian MOD Chip cas
by
Doctor-T
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Down here in Australia, our consumer protection board are investigating region-encoding to determine whether its legal. If they decide its not, all Aust. DVD players will have to be region-free.
The good PR, I mean. MS has been a little short on good PR lately, so this is a good thing for them. They could stand another couple of PR boosts, but this is at least something. Really, to get their PR up to a decent level, they could stand to do something that seems truly magnanimous, like announce an across-the-board discount (say, ten percent) on all of their products sold during the month of September, or release the source code for Notepad and offer a prize (say, a free copy of a compiler or something) for the best enhancement, or announce that IE7 will ship with Sun's JRE, or release a patch for a bug that hasn't been exploited yet, or something. Really, Microsoft needs a new PR manager badly. But this is _something_.
-- Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I am big M$ basher, however quite possibly the only thing worse than M$ is boneheaded legislation passed by dumbass congressmen whose only motivation is who is paying them off. (like that uberass Senator Orrin Hatch).
There's always a chance that market forces, when they get tired of M$ and their bad products, will send people to Linux.
DMCA is the one area where OSS folks and Redmond disciples can both agree. Cut M$ some slack on this one. They are choosing not be jerks about it. They aren't THAT evil (pretty close though)
You can't hop up cars most places..
by
xtal
·
· Score: 1
Although I am unencumbered here in backwoods Canada, most places you are VERY restricted in what you can do to a car you buy if you want to use it on public roads (public internet, hrmmm?). You can't do much that isn't emissions certified with the infamous CARB being the evil culprit. Governments have gone after quick fixes (legislating emissions) rather than potentially more efficient fixes like reducing the number of cars on the road.
So, while mildly off topic, you can't do whatever you want to a car you buy if you feel like driving it. Grandfathered in cars, classics, etc are exceptions, but, you get my point.
Steve
-- ..don't panic
We should be a little thankful sometimes
by
eyeball
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft should get more props for not going after 'the little guy' as much as *ahem* some other companies. I've never seen Microsoft go after anyone for creating a windows look-and-feel unix theme. Not to mention all the patents they hold in different OS technologies that they've never threatened other (i.e.: open sourced) OS's with.
--
_______ 2B1ASK1
Re:We should be a little thankful sometimes
by
aftk2
·
· Score: 1
There are Windows look-and-feel UNIX themes?
-- concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
I think/. is being foul at pretty much all companies, not specifically MS this time. Hemos was saying that he thought MS was being more respectful (this time) than most other companies. Sounds like a compliment to me.
Is it possible for MS to not use DMCA?
by
unoengborg
·
· Score: 1
If you know that somebody committed a murder, you could fail to report it. But the police would try to find the murderer just the same if they suspect that the the crime has bin commited.
So wouldn't the police investigate DMCA violations regardless what MS chose to do, or not to do? The only thing they could do would be to fail to report the crime. Or am I wrong?
-- God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
The monopoly they do have is only for Operating Systems on the Intel x86 architecture. It seems absurd that MS can have a monopoly on a microprocessor which itself is not a monopoly.
Microsoft deserves kudos for this
Never! All they can expect from me is a kick in the ass. They keep stepping on my toes for fifteen years now. They won't make any points by doing something that I expect as a matter of course.
-- He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
MS has been very responsive recently in issuing patches and updates to fix holes that other have discovered and published. Sure you would rather that the holes weren't there in the first place, but this is the real world and MS is not alone in having holes found in their security.
Far more that just 'doing the right thing' I think MS realizes that they want people to come forth with their findings without fear, to say 'hey look I found a hole in this' so that they can fix it rather than have it published only on some obscure hacker bbs in eastern europe.
XBox is XCrappy. MS did it again, NCAA 2003 crash!
by
BoomerSooner
·
· Score: 0
The first console video game I can ever remember crashing in the middle of a game. My little brother said "damn I guess I shouldn't try to move that way again." Lol. Leave it to MS to crap out a completely new market.
However I will say I'm a big fan of EA Sports and this NCAA football 2003 does not disappoint (except the fatal error, at least there was no confusing blue screen).
if it was.NET he was poking holes in, Microsoft might suddenly consider it totally "appropriate" to ask MIT to quash the publication...
Hmm
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's rather funny to read the paranoid stories here isn't? Funny how people come up with such wild stories, and they belive it!
Hmm the Linux FUD against ms seems to be working eh?
Re:Dude!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Where can I donate to Steve Ballmer? His cause is much more just!
MSFT doesn't care because they have a fix.
by
AJWM
·
· Score: 2
Didn't we read in these pages (or linked to these pages) about nVidia taking a write-off on a bunch of inventory they had to scrap because Microsoft changed some requirement in response to the MIT hack?
Seems to me MSFT has figured a hardware/firmware workaround so the disclosure is no longer a big deal, and dropping the DMCA thing saves them a little negative publicity. (And, depending on the specifics of the case, if they thought they'd lose it avoids putting the DMCA to a test that might weaken it.)
Microsoft isn't as stupid as Sony/Sega/Nintendo, realising that if they sell an import title in another country, that despite a mod chip, it still equals more $$$ in Microsoft's wallet licensing wise... That's what's always struck me as moronic in the gamin industry, that they're afraid of some guy who, paying $65 for a game from another country, that, the importer paid $30-40 USD and another $10 in taxes in...
Neither Sega, Sony, or Nintendo made ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY by putting in region blocking, since allegedly they charge the same development licensing fees for every company writing software for their systems... So what's the big deal?
-- Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right.
Shoes for industry!
Re:XBox is XCrappy. MS did it again, NCAA 2003 cra
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
It's not just the Xbox, it's been crashing on all three systems. And this is the first game for you to crash? Did you have a NES? No game out is crash proof, don't blame it on M$.
They're not using the DMCA because it wouldnt work
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Can you imagine the precedent set if a DMCA case fell through? Be realistic.
Aaaww for pity's sake...
by
sevenatis
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Bill Gates could walk across the water of the Pacific Ocean from Seattle to frailin' Tokyo and the SlashDot head line would read: "Bill Gates can't Swim"
-- ++ Jesus loves you as you are; ++ Cuthulhu thinks you need barbeque sauce!
I think some troll out there probably shit himself after seeing one of the editors give credit where credit is due. What next, believing in something more important than microsoft?!
-- It's been a long time.
Parliamentary Privilege
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Now there's an idea,
Have your local member read and table it in Parliament under parliametary privilege to hansard - where there is NO LEGAL recourse as they have full immunity, even under international treaty's.
I can see it. order in the house, member will retract that remark Correct, the software key is NOT 73875984548...... Pity they only actually work about 50 days a year....
you know, it doesn't hurt to have the ridiculously inadequate, but-still-going-strong-as-head-of-iCampus (MIT/Microsoft alliance), Hal Abelson as your advisor when you have a problem with the great Evil.
Hal probably had to bend over quite a bit to get this past the MS ppl.
or perhaps this was why the woefully pitiful SQL Server 2000 was nearly forced upon me in a web/DB class he co-"taught". blech.
--
----
i do not use drugs, i AM drugs -- Dali
I don't see the problem here...
by
Yuioup
·
· Score: 1
I really don't think Microsoft should have a problem with this. Say people are able to mod the X-box. What will it do? It could potentially raise the sales of the X-box because all of a sudden you have hobbyists turning X-boxes into, say, relatively cheap servers, or install modded versions of their favorite games. Basically it would make the X-box a "cool" machine supported by the "underground", a group of "cool" individuals who mod the machine to death. Microsoft will catch on to this, and the X-Box 2 will be a more moddable machine.
Hey it's happened before. Doom->Quake.
Yuioup
Re:I don't see the problem here...
by
PDHoss
·
· Score: 2
Except that there is little money to be made on the hardware. If you are buying the Xbox and not the games, MS isn't making much money.
PDHoss
-- ======================================
Writers get in shape by pumping irony.
Does it really matter?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I have yet to find someone that actually believes that MicroSoft will make money this Chrismas season from the Xbox. During 2003, either another console price war or a PS3 release will force MS to cut their loses.
MS lack of action to "protect" the Xbox security seems simlar to Sega's actions during the last year of Dreamcast. Maybe this is just a sign that MS has accepted that the Xbox days are numbered. Either they buy-out Nintendo to have something to go with the Xbox network or they cut their loses and call game over.
people would say "i cant research the security in this MSFT solution so we better go with free one that we can audit"
that and the risk of losing the DMCA in court is too high. notice how good cases against the DMCA get dropped? corporate assholes know its BS. they came up with it.
uh?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I thought it was the UCITA that allowed software developers to restrict people's right to talk about security vulnerabilities, not the DMCA.
;-/
to use or not to use DMCA
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
http://slashdot.org/users.pl
Create Account
why for some security flaw DMCA should be used like for the Tru64
issue
(see http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/26468.html)
and for others not,
like in this case. would this means that for some type of device, user or some type
of
utilization, disclosure is allowed, when for others it's not.
giving the compagnies the ability to judge either to use or not to
use DMCA
is somehow giving to those people the ability to control information security which is to my
opinion
a very bad idea.
Have you not seen the pictures
by
pommiekiwifruit
·
· Score: 1
of Bill and Melissa with groups of happy newly immunised children in Africa? Remember that bill gates has given $24 billion just to the main one of his charities. Have you given that proportion of your net worth to charity?
Re:Have you not seen the pictures
by
um...+Lucas
·
· Score: 1
No... but when you're talking the scales that we're talking about with BillG, that amout is still a drop in the bucket. Say i'm worth 100,000 - i'll miss $40,000 much more than he misses his 24 billion. The whole "percentage" thing gets horribly skewed when at the top. It's just not a fair comparison.
But yes, it is nice that he's done that...
Re:Have you not seen the pictures
by
ichimunki
·
· Score: 2
Yes, thanks to Mr. Gates you've been charged way too much for your software for the last 25 years so that he can donate to charity for you and then he's the hero, while you're just a whiner. BTW, get it straight. He did not donate $24 billion to anything. $24 billion is the total endowment of the Foundation. That's money the Foundation keeps in investments, using the interest to pay directors, staff, pay for programs and make grants/donations. Furthermore, Bill's net worth is only around $30 billion, so I doubt he just gave away 80% of his net worth.
According to this Guardian article Gates is also on record investing large portions of that money into multinational pharmaceutical corporations... and Gates supports there so-called "intellectual property" rights to the medicines they develop (and which "rights" are the drivers behind their double-digit profits, and the primary reason vaccinations aren't already more widely available in places like Africa).
So i tell you what, I'll set up a similar endowment for charity (split 50/50 between Free Software and medical/social causes) using my own money-- and I'll do it in proportion to what Gates has contributed (personally, money funneled from MS into the Foundation doesn't count). I expect I'll have to keep the endowment in a private account though (since I hardly want to spend the entire endowment principal on lawyers fees setting up the endowment), which erases the enormous tax/legal benefits that someone like Gates gets from these activities.
So for those of you still paying attention. If I set up a private endowment of $1000 (assumes 5% return on either EE Bonds or bank CDS, since equity or bond investment accounts would have fees and transaction costs that would wipe out gains), I can probably donate $50 a year to charity. But I've done much, much better than that already this year without an endowment.
Please get back to me with Bill Gates average annual income (net, after tax) for the last five years, his donations history over that same period, and I'll detail the results of my own charitable program on my web site, proving that us little guys giving small amounts are actually doing more than rich leeches like Bill Gates.
-- I do not have a signature
Re:Have you not seen the pictures
by
pommiekiwifruit
·
· Score: 1
If it's in the endowment, it's not in Bills personal account. It may well be that much of that remains invested in Microsoft, but it is separate.
I agree that for small amounts of money an endowment is probably not worth the hassle; for non-millionaires such as most of us, simply choose some charities and set up standing orders (they appreciate the predicatability and lack of overheads of standing orders). Legacies are useful though (especially if you are on a 4 year*final salary life insurance package).
However, rich people usually do not get most of their income through taxable income, they get it via capital gains etc. so for them an endowment obviously makes sense, which is why they use them.
I do not want to strenuously defend bill gates (i.e. do any work in serious research!), except to say that he could behave much worse than he does.
As for vaccines, there are many older treatments that are out of patent. Leaving aside drugs-resistant strains, there is much more that could be done before the patents become the most pressing issue. For a start not bombing Sudan's (vet.) vaccine factory just because some white house intern was in the US newpapers.
Admittedly AZT only comes out in 2005 and other AIDS drugs after that. I understand that "condoms" are already out of patent, and when used correctly are more effective than AZT or other drugs in preventing death.
Obviously I disagree with the US patent office allowing anyone to patent random strings of DNA without even knowing what they do, as I disagree with them patenting obvious algorithms and business methods. I guess they don't know the difference between a "discovery" and an "invention". But the drug companies obviously spend a lot of money developing and especially testing drugs which is worthy of taking into account. I don't classify bottom-feeding lawyer companies as drugs companies (or computer companies). However, judging by the job adverts in New Scientist they don't spend it on individual researcher's salaries. I guess whether you consider an drugs company moral should depend on the individual company.
Oh please!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Those guys... don't do anything unless it will get them money
http://www.gatesfoundation.org
Yes, its very interesting how this foundation funds educational projects and humanitarian projects in places that are customers of Microsoft and there is the implicit threat that the foundation won't fund stuff when the country forsakes Microsoft. Further, this foundation is a piddly squat amount of Bill Gates's wealth. A few million here and there is very cheap publicity.;(
That wealth is not just 'cash sitting around'. It's the accumulate of numerous investments and stocks. His money probably keeps more people in a job and stimulates more industries and economies than you can fathom.
[The Open Group's web site lists] Apple as a vendor complaint to the UNIX specification
In that case, the proper adjective is not "UNIX" but "conforming to the Single UNIX Specification". The term "UNIX" means "both conforming to the Single UNIX Specification and having taken the step of licensing the UNIX Mark and paying royalties". I couldn't find Apple's name in the Catalog of Registered Products.
This will help sales
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wont this in the long run help sales of the xbox ( so this is free addvertising for them ) . I mean by the box then the install the chip and play anybody games.
Microsoft CANNOT Use the DMCA
by
dbretton
·
· Score: 2
MS cannot use the DMCA, because the DMCA has explicit clauses which preclude persecution of individuals who are circumventing copyright protection schemes in the name of academia.
Re:Microsoft CANNOT Use the DMCA
by
SuiteSisterMary
·
· Score: 2
Incorrect.
Microsoft probably could not WIN using the DMCA, on the merits of the case, were the entire thing to play out in court.
What Microsoft COULD do would be to launch the lawsuit anyway, and bankrupt the poor fellow in legal fees and the like.
-- Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:Microsoft CANNOT Use the DMCA
by
dbretton
·
· Score: 2
I'm afraid you are the one who is incorrect.
Microsoft could TRY to USE the DMCA, but it would not apply. Microsoft would most likely bring forth several charges, such as violation of the DMCA, IP theft, patent infringement, etc. etc.
However, the DMCA charge would be dismissed at pre-trial, as it does not apply research performed in the name of academia.
Therefore, Microsoft CANNOT use the DMCA, as stated prior.
Wow! M$ in the good-guy role. Congrats.
by
FlyerFanNC
·
· Score: 1
I am an avid M$-basher, and I've always thought their products were crap (except perhaps for their keyboards, mice, etc.) and their policies were crap. But I must give them credit for taking the high road on this one. Kinda makes those other litigious companies look like assholes. HP, Apple, are you listening?
Microsoft says your welcome.
by
smaart
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure all the boys in Redmond are especially happy with the backhanded kudos expressed at Slashdot despite there being stated along with the sad times disclaimer.
Sheesh!
Is it any wonder I spend waaaayy more time on FARK.com than I do here any more.
Re:XBox is XCrappy. MS did it again, NCAA 2003 cra
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Its not xbox, I havn't had a crash yet, As far as EA sports, good company but there games are ps2 ports so they lack in game play, and severly lack in graphics. Look for a MS game or another made for xbox. As far as games remember Gamday 2001 for ps2.. When your lineman would dissapear for 5 seconds then reapper and make the play? Also make sure disc is clean, only time its ever crashed on me and the disc was filthy.
Also Every one I know that has and xbox there ps2 is a paper weight. 75% of peeps with a xbox have a PS2. Thus Sure sony has 30mil units sold xbox has 4mil. but you cant change the fack it will take another $200 charge to take the ps2 online with HD , and E-net card. and the graphics are still a pretty Dreamcast.
Perhaps Microsoft *IS* learning...
by
nurb432
·
· Score: 1
Dont bite the hand that feeds ya..
So many others are doing that, perhaps MS is actually paying attention and realizes its a bad move...
Nah?
-- ---- Booth was a patriot ----
just a mod chip
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"The Xbox security system is intended to allow people to play only videogames authorized by Microsoft. Huang's paper "shows how a person could defeat that system with a small hardware investment,"
Big Deal right? Mod chips have been around for ever. I don't understand what's so academic about it.
Re:XBox is XCrappy. MS did it again, NCAA 2003 cra
by
aivic
·
· Score: 1
I really wish people were more open minded. I too had a old console (Sega Master System) and I remember Alex Kidd in freezing on me within the later stages. Maybe thats why the Sega Master System reset buttons were designed that big during the design phase.
Re:Anything to do with the Australian MOD Chip cas
by
plugger
·
· Score: 1
Superb. If that happens, just set yourself up as an exporter of DVD players, you'll make a fortune:-)
This is just more proof that...
by
hage
·
· Score: 1
The folks at Microsoft are nothing more than typically greedy and corrupt human beings.
They're not blood-sucking vampires seeking to establish a global technocracy.
I was initially impressed with how M$ was handling this case...that is until I happened along this post on the www.xboxhacker.net news:
Nvidia Comments on MCPX - SiliconIce @ 10:12 CST
We never blamed Xbox.
What we said about Xbox was that we reached a volume discount milestone, further reducing the margins. And that we will be taking an inventory write off in Q2 related to the amount of Xbox MCPs that were made obsolete when MSFT transitioned to a new security code (by way of the MIT hacker) and excess in nForce chipsets that we built in anticipation of higher demand of Athlon-based PCs.
Derek Perez
PR Director
Nvidia
Would seem to me that Bunnie's hard work is being exploited by the dark side...
On the plus side, since they are chosing NOT to invoke the DMCA, they prove that the law is subject to the whim of the very corporations who claimed to be harmed
If someone robs my apartment or beats me up in a bar, and I choose not to press charges for any reason, then they won't be charged. It's not the government's job to chase down every last criminal in the country if the affected party doesn't especially want them to. This is normal, and will have no effect on the DMCA's enforcability whatsoever.
Microsoft didn't sue that guy because now they can "acquire his resources" to fix the Xbox.
Um
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"If Microsoft owns a town,......"
What do you mean if? Last time I checked, they owened the WHOLE District of Columbia!
--Motheius
I've never seen a console crash.
by
BoomerSooner
·
· Score: 0
Neither had my two younger brother in-laws (and they keep up with it more than I do).
The disk was brand new out of the case clean.
No big deal i just found it to be funny. Although in all likelihood it was an ea problem not ms.
If you don't like it, don't use it
by
Syth
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand. So many people blindly hate Microsoft, yet they just can't shut up about it. Here's an idea. If you don't like them, don't use their software. If you don't use their software, then shut the hell up about it. You're sick of computer companies shipping with MS OS's? Don't order from them. You want to see Linux or Unix offered? Start your own damn company. It makes no sense for you people to constantly bitch about something that you don't like or don't use. If you don't pay for it, you don't have any right to complain about it, so stay out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
roofles indeed.
^_^ o_O
Joseph?
He's the man. His research has lead to a huge amount of advancements in the homebrew software/application field for the xbox.
...are we pissed at MS today or not?
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
What the hey? why is this before the one before it? I'm stuck in a paradox. (And maybe first Post If I could only type faster)
Ok, what does microsoft have to gain from this? Surely not the sympathy of the slashdot crowd... that's impossible!
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
This is bad. The only reason i can imagine that microsoft would do this is to solidify their argument for Palladium, or whatever the next incantation of it will be. By showing how the DMCA is ineffective in protecting against reverse-engineering and such, microsoft is trying to sneak their version of copyprotection in the "back door". Those guys (M$) don't do anything unless it will get them money. Never forget that, lest you be become assimilated. Remember....
Resistance is futile
Flying pigs! Help! I'm being attacked by flying pigs!
"One man's bug is another man's feature."
Microsoft often (I have a handful of friends over in Redmond) implements "cross-over" features into their devices which, while on the surface appear to be malevolent, are actually 100% benign and allow interfacing among non-similar devices.
-
26 year-old Web developer from Seattle. And yes, chicks do dig *nix
I have noticed that MS rarely sues, my guess is that they hate lawyers and don't feel like getting involved in dumb lawsuits.
Hope that'll teach companies like HP, Apple, Adobe, etc. another lesson or two.
i nearly fell of my chair when I first saw the Visual Studio.net ads on slashdot, but this, this is just crazy. Why do they deserve kudos for demonstrating security vulnerabilities to a standalone. They still suck where it counts, who cares if they help where it doesn't matter. MS sucks, and I doubt they'll earn anyone's respect through one small act.
Photos.
in 1997: freedom of speech was understood by reading the following:
in 2002: freedom of speech is understood by reading the following:
Welcome to America kids! If you're lucky, you'll get permission to publish your paper too!
Perhaps if you wear a colorful, fanciful hat, decorated with bells and chimes, and prance about most amusingly, the King will pity you and grant your wish.
They deserve kudos for allowing somone to post a security breach that they are patching (Remember that story about NVidia loosing money due to the chip changes MS were demanding..) They don't need to waste money taking him down is all..
There are several reasons for M$ not to use DMCA. One of the most important is a strategic one. ;-)
Microsoft knows, that if they will start using DMCA other companies could follow their example and also start doing this.
This would mean, that Bugs in Software used by other companies wouldn't become as quick known, as they are today, while having bugs in M$ based Software still become known fast. Because Microsoft has a larger user base, and more users means, that there are more people to break DMCA.
If Microsoft would start to use DMCA, this could result in having the normal user think (some already do), that MS Software is the only vulnerable to security flaws.
In 800A.D., Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, which showed that the pope had the power to put Charlemagne in charge. Microsoft is simply saying, "you are able to publish this information only because we, the generous and wonderful empire of Microsoft allow it." For them to come out and openly state that they will allow it to be published serves only to make them appear ever more powerful to the general public, in that they make the subtle claim of having power over free speech.
Perhaps they would have won in court and silenced this person, but the flaws he speaks of would have still made it to the net pretty quickly. If they had lost the court battle, the flaws would have been released to the public in about the same amount of time. Either way, Microsoft comes off looking like free speech-killers (Read, bad PR) and the flaws are published. By not challenging release of the information, (and doing so about as publicly as possible), they appear powerful, yet merciful. (Read, good PR).
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft did something right here; at least something that's right for them - doesn't make a difference for us.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Just a shot in the dark, but could this have anything to do with the decision in Australia that mod chip makers don't violate the Australian equivalent of the DMCA? IIRC the court decided (among other things) that because the protections in the ps2 aren't meant to stop copying, only make it so you can't play copied/imported media, it didn't fall under protection of the law.
Could it be that Microsft just doesn't want to fight it in court, and lose. Thus setting the precedent that such hardware protections are not protected under the DMCA?
David
Does anyone else remember back when the x-box was being previewed/released? It was far and above what other companies were producing for gaming systems, as far as hardware went.. There was talk of M$ selling these cheap to get one into everyone's house so that later on down the line they could implement a new OS/software whatever for the box. Since people would already have the boxes, they would naturally go with whatever M$ decided to add onto/change.. Having someone hack the box ties into this paranoid theory.. it only makes sense for them.. they are going to need that info in the future if they ever want to develop any changes for the xbox.. why not let someone else do the legwork and then incorporate a "fix" for whatever flaw(s) are found, and tote that as one of the new "features" of whatever it is they decide to go with...
I find it extremely funny watching all the anti-Microsoft, anti-DMCA people try to work out the details. It's a good thing that Microsoft didn't support the DMCA, so stop trying to villify them just because of the name of their company.
If the same thing came out about Sun or Apple, they'd be praised, and there would be no "but" line at the end.
Is it for real that M$ is really putting some serious efforts in softening its image in public.
For e.g. they dont totally favor the "chip-in-all-hardware-to-prevent-copying" strategy. They are in favor to an extent, but they have carefully removed themselves from going all out in support of this approach.
Then this. They know that this doesnt amount to all that much, but coming from them, it would clearly garner a lot of public attention.
I for one would like M$ to wisen up a bit and learn to co-exist with the rest of the world.
Rapid Nirvana
Remember the explosion of the psx popularity after all the mods and hacks came out? Perhaps they are hoping for something like that to happen with the xbox. When I saw how easy it was to install the mods it made me wonder if they made it this easy on purpose.
The real test will be whether they use DMCA to clamp down on vulnerability research on their .NET and XP technologies. If they don't, then it's good evidence that they're dedicated to becoming good citizens.
Finding God in a Dog
But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
Especially things that they can't legally do anyway. The DMCA does not outlaw displaying security holes.
If it's sad to give kudos, why put someone who gives them on the front page? I guess it passes the "grep Microsoft story.txt" test.
- They can see where all the holes that hackers/modders are exploiting in the console are.
- They can "slipstream" secutity updates into future games and break the above.
- They get some PR karma for not going after an academic/researcher who is doing benefit for the "public good" (i.e. fixing security holes that could "JEAPORDIZE NATIONAL SECURITY"
- They know what works and what doesn't for security in future products.
On the plus side, since they are chosing NOT to invoke the DMCA, they prove that the law is subject to the whim of the very corporations who claimed to be harmed and sponsored the bill in congress (proxied by our loyal Senators, of course!) This kind of ruins the legitimacy of the law, as it transforms the DMCA from "reverse-engineering decryption schemes is always harmful (and hence, illegal) and is a copyright and security threat" to "reverse-engineering decryption schemes is only harmful (and hence illegal) when I SAY it is a copyright and security threat". This is a subtle, but quite big difference. Hopefully, the EFF and ALCU (or other socially-responsible organizations) will pick up on that fact...With this in mind, I like the fact that MS is doing this. However, I'd hate it to kill the mod-chip business. I'm fully in-favor of us being able to do ANYTHING with ANYTHING we buy (and dammit, if I pay $300 for the XBOX, I own it!) -- Imagine if you couldn't hop-up your car if you wanted to? The DMCA just sucks, in-general, and it sucks even more if companies can just CHOOSE when things are illegal and when they are not.
Cheers,
Ken
Ok, that's it. I just donated 25 bucks to the EFF (took about 1 minute). Maybe that's a drop in the bucket, but I wanted to say "thanks" to the folks who actually DO something that everyone else is just talking about.
I know, how sad it is that that KKK members deserves kudos for not killing a black man!
Sheesh, the sad times!
Perhaps MS deserves a non-bill-the-borg icon for this story today?
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence.
Suppose someone dies and you know where they stashed $1,000 in cash. You might take that money, but later return it. Why? Did you return it because stealing it was wrong, and you came to this realization? Did you return it because you were afraid of being caught? Maybe you returned it out of guilt. The point is that honor and "good behavior" comes in many flavors which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell. Do I think they did the "smart thing?" You bet. I think they took one look at the Felten debacle and knew to not play with the academics. I think they know the power of public relations, especially this year.
My
Limekiller
What's the DMCA? :)
if( (day_of_week == monday || day_of_week == wednesday) ||
(day_of_week == friday || day_of_week == saturday) ){
RIAA.setEmotion(hate);
MPAA.setEmotion(love);
telcos.setEmotion(hate);
MicroSoft.setEmotion(hate);
for(int i=0; i<666; i++){
attemptSpoof("www.microsoft.com",
"www.goatse.cx");
}
} else {
RIAA.setEmotion(love);
MPAA.setEmotion(hate);
telcos.setEmotion(love);
MicroSoft.setEmotion(hate);
if(MicroSoft.getTopic() == "input_devices"){
cout << "Oh, yeah, but those are good";
Apple.mice->setEmotion(hate);
}
}
Your mind is squeezed by a blast of pain!
Suppose it's clear enough even to Microsoft that the DMCA wouldn't stand up in court...
They don't sue people... they just buy them out.
"Buy him out boys. What - you don't think I got this rich by writing checks, did you?"
Simpsons? anyone? ahh - nevermind.
Obviously, judges and law enforcement take into account the feelings of the victims (Microsoft, in this case) but they make the final decision.
So a researcher fears that a law might restrain him from making a speech, he contacts Microsoft who says that they'd prefer he doesn't make the speech but can't stop him, and somehow this means the law is unconstitutional?
Microsoft definitely doesn't want a "chip-in-all-hardware-to-prevent-copying" scheme. They want a "microsoft-chip-in-the-hardware-to-prevent-copying " scheme (see: palladium). Yes, I'm aware that the TCPA and Palladium are two different things, but they have nearly identical goals and the technology goes hand in hard.
.Net this and .Net that, but, for a very long time, people had a lot of different and mixed up ideas about what .Net was. Some people still don't understand what it is. What about Palladium? I remember reading an article linked to from a slashdot story a while back that was a reporter's view of Palladium. The article, written after a viewing a Microsoft confidential presentation on palladium, said something to the effect of,"I can't reveal to you very much about the details about Palladium - Microsoft has been very strict about this. However, I can tell you that I was shocked." It then went on to give a rough outline of DRM-related possible hardware and software components. See what I mean? It's their M.O.
So what is the significance of this latest decision? Well, a couple of things. First, as far as I know, every major company to use the DMCA to stifle research has had to backpeddle fairly quickly. The public may not know what "DRM" or "CBTDDTTDBDBTCDBTCDDPTCBPA" mean but a significant portion of the tech community understands "stifling research," which is why we'll end up with Palladium but we'll probably only have to put up a modest fight every so often to be able to freely publish research. We could have a world free of both if slashdotters weren't so utterly pathetic politically, but I seriously doubt there'll be any change before it's too late. Second, the more "unjust" a company's actions seem, the more publicity they get in the geek community. Since Microsoft was "nice" this time, comparatively few people will hear about it and as a consequence comparatively few people will understand the critical flaw in the X-Box, CSS, etc...
From MS's point of view, the fewer people that hear about it, the better. This is how they deal with things that are Really Evil (TM). Anyone remember Windows Whistler, recently known as Windows XP, now known as Windows DRM (a la forced updates to the OS and media player)? How about HailStorm? You didn't see a lot of publicity on that until it was being launched. Sure, there was
I consider them well spent. Your mileage may vary.
Maybe Microsoft did try to use the DMCA to stop this via the DMCA, but they picked the wrong venue.
"All rise! The US District Court is now in session. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson presiding!"
MS: "Oh shit!"
So, Microsoft does something half-decent - they don't try to exert any legal force to prevent the disclosure of information they don't want to see public, and pretty much every /. post is digging to find some sort of evil ulterior motive.
Why should this surprise me? This is the only place where the population can try to portray someone as being evil for donating a few billion dollars to charity....
Come on, people. Give credit where credit is due. If you can't do it to be fair, then do it because it ruins your credibility for when something bad does happen.
There is no equivalent to the DMCA in Australia or pretty much any other country to my knowledge. I'm glad i live in Canada.
Jeremy
"Those damn hack3rs just don't stop. Now they've focused their attention on our XBox. What should we do?"
"Hmmm... let's see... To hack XBox they have to buy it from us, and then they'll be busy on it playing video games instead of hacking our products... is that correct?"
"That's correct sir."
"Okie dokie then... give 'em the greenlight so I can take that vacation I've been wanting to take for the longest time..."
eTrade SUCKS
Having retracted it after the shitstorm doesn't change the fact that HP will be on the list of DMCA-wielding thugs from now until the end of time.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
So... Some smart (REALLY smart) guy figured out how to extract the code from an Xbox. And presumably, how to get around the security system.
Did anyone notice the equipment required to do it? Sure, I know how to design Verilog chips -- I've even worked with Xilinx chips before. However... I don't have a high enough speed component sitting around, and I doubt most people do.
So what does this Bunnie information? Tells you how to take apart an Xbox. Where things are. How to decrypt code, etc. Really neat stuff, overall. But your "normal user" isn't going to have the time or energy to do all the work himself. So MS allows the guy to publish the paper -- no big deal. If you notice, the actual binary of his BIOS is NOT downloadable -- that I could see MS fight to have kept secret.
So the only "risk" to MS interests is those people who try to make a business out of this information. And is that a problem?
I refer to the recent n including how they needed to take a hit when MS changed something in the Xbox.
Perhaps a bit of security change?
MS had nothing to lose by allowing Bunnie to publish the paper. Why not allow the paper to be published?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"WTF!? XP requires 64mb! SAVE MY EMPIRE JEBUS!", bill gates 2002
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
MS deserves kudos for a lot of things. Legally speaking, they really show a LOT of restraint, especially considering the intellectual property they own. "Freedom to Innovate" is more than just a tag line, it really is the way they work, at least from my experience.
I'm sure people have had problems with them in the past, but nobody is perfect. MS is a corporation made of thousands of people, just like every other corporation. Im sure they hired quite a few assholes. The trick is just to make sure they arent in charge.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
1. allow an MIT student to display security flaws in the XBOX
2. ???
3. Profit!
If the Australian court decided that their law did not apply to mechanisms designed to control importation of software, that would also encompass DVD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the encryption keys on DVD films designed to stop free international trade of software rather than hinder copying?
They brought out a lot of good applications and back in the days of Dos didnt discourage people like Mr Norton from designing tools that worked with their operating systems.
These days you have to sign half a million disclaimers and NDA's just to be able to work on something that will integrate with the Windows OS.
In the past they have tried to stifle all possible hazardous security flaws within their products. But now someone comes out with a paper on their new console product and everyone expects that they are going to jump on the poor guy. In the past when they introduce something new, they never used to bother about people releasing security problems... Why should they bother now?
Isn't in their best interests to let other people bugtest their products, just like they used to do, and then incorperate the fixes into the next version of it.
Isn't it rather silly for us to take Micro$oft to task over something that in the end benefits the general public who doesnt know any better? Personally I would rather see M$ do something by not doing something rather than seeing them destroy reputations and our basic freedom to comment on things...
Just my opinion of things and Kudos to all involved for getting this issue out into the open rather than seeing disappear into the ether...
*** I had a
From what I can tell, the X-Box is just an experiment to find out how people will crack it's 'security'. Then they can take what they learn and apply it to Palladium. It's Microsoft's 'Big Plan'. Do you really think they give a shit about "dominating the console world"? They're one of the wealthiest companies on the planet. This guy isn't being sued because he's doing exactly what MS wants: he's practically an unpaid employee. ;D
Hell freezes over. News at 11.
Before I start, I agree that Microsoft deserves credit for not -threatening- to use the DMCA or dragging Bunnie/the EFF through a lawsuit.
That being said, they -couldn't- win the case using the DMCA. The research Bunnie did was legal, even though it was reverse engineering, because it was published through MIT, which legally defines it as academic research.
What would have been illegal, as it goes beyond reverse engineering and IS illegal by the DMCA in -any- circumstance, is if he had actually published the encryption key he discovered. That information was never released/published by Bunnie.
So, yes, M$ still deserves credit for sitting back and not being assholes. They could have started a lawsuit and it wouldn't have been thrown outmeaning either Bunnie, or the EFF who agreed to represent him, would have had to dish out a lot of money fighting the case. However, many people in this forum are talking as if M$ could have barred the paper and milked Bunnie for all he's worth and more, but they couldn't have (and if you read the article carefully, it doesn't suggest that M$ could have done this)
#2: your spies at MIT report that someone has found a way to by pass our XBOX security
#1: excellent. Now that they can mod them, perhaps someone will buy one.
I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
Looks like Mad Dog McCree is going to allow an MIT student to announce the fact that he's impotence and won't use the GUN to stop him. " Mad Dog deserves kudos for this. But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT shooting people.
what a complete load of dogs bollocks. have they forgotten forcing lots of US schools who were already under pressure of exams and with severe lack of funds into self-auditing their MS software licenses and forcing them to buy licenses within weeks???
I don't know about you, but that's not valuing academic freedom. They do things for money. nothing else. I reckon it's more likely that all their lawyers are already tied up at the moment and they can't be bothered taking the effort to hire one to attack someone they can't sue for money.
Like,
California not prosecuting medical marijuana users
Politicians not accepting special-interest money
Tech companies switching to low-cost solutions like Linux
Professors grading on performance instead of attendance (pet peeve)
Too many of the "normal" ways of doing things are questionable. It's not a sad state of affairs when people do what's right instead of what's normal.
-Nikkos
So the guy using the ATM that you're lined up for drops a $50 bill:
"Hey buddy, you dropped 50 bucks."
Is this deserving of kudos? Well maybe it is, especially if the alternative is slapping him with a lawsuit for littering...
My thoughts exactly. For shouldn't we give "Kudos" to those who DO the right thing rather than those who DON'T do the wrong thing?
i went to fix my little niece's computer, and she is a bisexual female, cute, sexy 23 year old woman, she has a live-in female with her that is a hot hot hot hottie, i wanted to do her, well when i fixed her computer she had several gay female pr0n mpeg files that were such a turn on. i did not have the heart to delete her pr0n so i left it on her harddrive...
OH Yeah, fuck microsoft who cares about their vulnerable kludegeware anyway...
this guy did this in march ... techtv had him on the show screensavers even. they looked at all the game consoles in the same way (people in his phd program).
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
Maybe the horse paid off 20-to-1, and now you want to "Give Back To The Community"...
-- Terry
Does the fact that Slashdot is now running MS Ads (for Visual Dev Studio) bear any significance on the timing of an editor's "kudos to MS" remark? A thought to ponder.
Daniel
according to this, microsoft has already changed the security keys so this is really a nonissue. The details of it would most likely have leaked regardless of whether the paper was published, so microsoft saves some face and decides to stay out of it whilst fixing the problem so it can't work in the future. i don't see what the big deal of microsoft not using some law is anyway.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
look at it from microsofts view point
snotty kid "look, this is easy to defeat"
microshaft "(hrm, we didnt see that.. how do we fix it?)" "Go ahead and post the letter, just this once though hummm k?" "can we hire you shortly?"
-- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount}
Yeah that's what I thought tubby!
It is not Microsoft's responsibility to file any charges here. All they did was manufacture a box where if you don't screw around with it, it behaves properly in terms of DVD-playing.
However, when "Bunnie" decides to play his Lord of the Rings DVD at a public demonstration, Sony (or newline or whoever owns the rights to that DVD) can charge him with unlawfully playing a DVD, just as if he were using deCSS on a linux machine. Then he will go to jail. Microsoft is as much to blame for this as Xing does in the deCSS case, and I don't really remember them (I could be wrong) suing anybody.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
-S
It really just shows that if you have a flock of MIT and BU and EFF lawyers on your side, Microsoft might back off. Otherwise, well, how much money do you have to spend on defense?
Also, it might be worth pointing out that MIT has a long history of defending the right to publish. They've gone up against various parts of the US government on various occasions, and they have a record of winning. Microsoft probably understands that MIT *will* fight it in the courts, with the explicit aim of getting the DMCA and other such laws thrown out.
The way to win DMCA fights is to pick on people who don't have the wherewithall to fight it in court. It's not so much a legal tool as it is an intimidation tool. If your opponent can't be intimidated, you stand a very real chance of losing not just the court case but your intimidation tool.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Where you been, son? Mac OS X was released over a year ago!
Yes, but Mac® OS X is not a UNIX® brand system. FreeBSD's not UNIX. NetBSD's not UNIX. GNU's not UNIX. (This trademark confusion almost makes me want to put together a distribution of GNU/Linux software and call it KLEENIX.)
OK, now what UNIX® system has a GUI as pretty as Mac OS X's?
Will I retire or break 10K?
But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
:
I think its getting really old, that comments like that still get through. The poll I want to see is
What category are you in...
a) I blindly hate Microsoft and love Linux
b) I'm an intelligent person who looks at each issue by itself and makes a judgment, holding no long term grudges or prejudices.
I see a lot of intelligent people on here who don't just blindly hate MS and I swear that they outnumber all the linux loving drones that I see. I'm not going to post this as AC because I really believe in what I'm saying, unfortunately the "trolls" can't moderate so I don't expect anyone to see this for long. Please remember, this isn't a "linux lovers fan club", its supposed to be news and forums about technology and I hate to see it getting corrupted.
So if MS files a complaint against someone else in the future, can *that* person use this decision in a defense, since MS would then be applying their policies in a biased manner?
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Down here in Australia, our consumer protection board are investigating region-encoding to determine whether its legal. If they decide its not, all Aust. DVD players will have to be region-free.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The good PR, I mean. MS has been a little short on good PR lately,
so this is a good thing for them. They could stand another couple
of PR boosts, but this is at least something. Really, to get their
PR up to a decent level, they could stand to do something that
seems truly magnanimous, like announce an across-the-board discount
(say, ten percent) on all of their products sold during the month
of September, or release the source code for Notepad and offer a
prize (say, a free copy of a compiler or something) for the best
enhancement, or announce that IE7 will ship with Sun's JRE, or
release a patch for a bug that hasn't been exploited yet, or
something. Really, Microsoft needs a new PR manager badly. But
this is _something_.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I am big M$ basher, however quite possibly the only thing worse than M$ is boneheaded legislation passed by dumbass congressmen whose only motivation is who is paying them off. (like that uberass Senator Orrin Hatch).
There's always a chance that market forces, when they get tired of M$ and their bad products, will send people to Linux.
DMCA is the one area where OSS folks and Redmond disciples can both agree. Cut M$ some slack on this one. They are choosing not be jerks about it. They aren't THAT evil (pretty close though)
Although I am unencumbered here in backwoods Canada, most places you are VERY restricted in what you can do to a car you buy if you want to use it on public roads (public internet, hrmmm?). You can't do much that isn't emissions certified with the infamous CARB being the evil culprit. Governments have gone after quick fixes (legislating emissions) rather than potentially more efficient fixes like reducing the number of cars on the road.
So, while mildly off topic, you can't do whatever you want to a car you buy if you feel like driving it. Grandfathered in cars, classics, etc are exceptions, but, you get my point.
Steve
..don't panic
Microsoft should get more props for not going after 'the little guy' as much as *ahem* some other companies. I've never seen Microsoft go after anyone for creating a windows look-and-feel unix theme. Not to mention all the patents they hold in different OS technologies that they've never threatened other (i.e.: open sourced) OS's with.
_______
2B1ASK1
I think /. is being foul at pretty much all companies, not specifically MS this time. Hemos was saying that he thought MS was being more respectful (this time) than most other companies. Sounds like a compliment to me.
If you know that somebody committed a murder,
you could fail to report it. But the police would try
to find the murderer just the same if they suspect
that the the crime has bin commited.
So wouldn't the police investigate DMCA violations
regardless what MS chose to do, or not to do?
The only thing they could do would be to fail
to report the crime. Or am I wrong?
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
When did MS become a game console monopoly?
The monopoly they do have is only for Operating Systems on the Intel x86 architecture. It seems absurd that MS can have a monopoly on a microprocessor which itself is not a monopoly.
Microsoft deserves kudos for this Never! All they can expect from me is a kick in the ass. They keep stepping on my toes for fifteen years now. They won't make any points by doing something that I expect as a matter of course.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
MS has been very responsive recently in issuing patches and updates to fix holes that other have discovered and published. Sure you would rather that the holes weren't there in the first place, but this is the real world and MS is not alone in having holes found in their security. Far more that just 'doing the right thing' I think MS realizes that they want people to come forth with their findings without fear, to say 'hey look I found a hole in this' so that they can fix it rather than have it published only on some obscure hacker bbs in eastern europe.
The first console video game I can ever remember crashing in the middle of a game. My little brother said "damn I guess I shouldn't try to move that way again." Lol. Leave it to MS to crap out a completely new market.
However I will say I'm a big fan of EA Sports and this NCAA football 2003 does not disappoint (except the fatal error, at least there was no confusing blue screen).
Boomer Sooner
if it was .NET he was poking holes in, Microsoft might suddenly consider it totally "appropriate" to ask MIT to quash the publication...
It's rather funny to read the paranoid stories here isn't? Funny how people come up with such wild stories, and they belive it!
Hmm the Linux FUD against ms seems to be working eh?
Where can I donate to Steve Ballmer? His cause is much more just!
Didn't we read in these pages (or linked to these pages) about nVidia taking a write-off on a bunch of inventory they had to scrap because Microsoft changed some requirement in response to the MIT hack?
Seems to me MSFT has figured a hardware/firmware workaround so the disclosure is no longer a big deal, and dropping the DMCA thing saves them a little negative publicity. (And, depending on the specifics of the case, if they thought they'd lose it avoids putting the DMCA to a test that might weaken it.)
-- Alastair
Microsoft isn't as stupid as Sony/Sega/Nintendo, realising that if they sell an import title in another country, that despite a mod chip, it still equals more $$$ in Microsoft's wallet licensing wise... That's what's always struck me as moronic in the gamin industry, that they're afraid of some guy who, paying $65 for a game from another country, that, the importer paid $30-40 USD and another $10 in taxes in...
Neither Sega, Sony, or Nintendo made ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY by putting in region blocking, since allegedly they charge the same development licensing fees for every company writing software for their systems... So what's the big deal?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
It's not just the Xbox, it's been crashing on all three systems. And this is the first game for you to crash? Did you have a NES? No game out is crash proof, don't blame it on M$.
Can you imagine the precedent set if a DMCA case fell through? Be realistic.
Bill Gates could walk across the water of the Pacific Ocean from Seattle to frailin' Tokyo and the SlashDot head line would read:
"Bill Gates can't Swim"
++ Jesus loves you as you are;
++ Cuthulhu thinks you need barbeque sauce!
Microsoft deserves kudos for this.
I think some troll out there probably shit himself after seeing one of the editors give credit where credit is due. What next, believing in something more important than microsoft?!
It's been a long time.
Now there's an idea,
Have your local member read and table it in Parliament under parliametary privilege to hansard - where there is NO LEGAL recourse as they have full immunity, even under international treaty's.
I can see it.
order in the house, member will retract that remark
Correct, the software key is NOT 73875984548......
Pity they only actually work about 50 days a year....
you know, it doesn't hurt to have the ridiculously inadequate, but-still-going-strong-as-head-of-iCampus (MIT/Microsoft alliance), Hal Abelson as your advisor when you have a problem with the great Evil.
Hal probably had to bend over quite a bit to get this past the MS ppl.
or perhaps this was why the woefully pitiful SQL Server 2000 was nearly forced upon me in a web/DB class he co-"taught". blech.
----
i do not use drugs, i AM drugs -- Dali
I really don't think Microsoft should have a problem with this. Say people are able to mod the X-box. What will it do? It could potentially raise the sales of the X-box because all of a sudden you have hobbyists turning X-boxes into, say, relatively cheap servers, or install modded versions of their favorite games.
Basically it would make the X-box a "cool" machine supported by the "underground", a group of "cool" individuals who mod the machine to death. Microsoft will catch on to this, and the X-Box 2 will be a more moddable machine.
Hey it's happened before. Doom->Quake.
Yuioup
I have yet to find someone that actually believes that MicroSoft will make money this Chrismas season from the Xbox. During 2003, either another console price war or a PS3 release will force MS to cut their loses.
MS lack of action to "protect" the Xbox security seems simlar to Sega's actions during the last year of Dreamcast. Maybe this is just a sign that MS has accepted that the Xbox days are numbered. Either they buy-out Nintendo to have something to go with the Xbox network or they cut their loses and call game over.
people would say "i cant research the security in this MSFT solution so we better go with free one that we can audit"
that and the risk of losing the DMCA in court is too high. notice how good cases against the DMCA get dropped? corporate assholes know its BS. they came up with it.
I thought it was the UCITA that allowed software developers to restrict people's right to talk about security vulnerabilities, not the DMCA.
;-/
http://slashdot.org/users.pl Create Account why for some security flaw DMCA should be used like for the Tru64 issuel )
(see http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/26468.htm
and for others not, like in this case. would this means that for some type of
device, user or some type of utilization, disclosure is allowed, when for others
it's not. giving the compagnies the ability to judge either to use or not to use
DMCA is somehow giving to those people the ability to control information
security which is to my opinion a very bad idea.
of Bill and Melissa with groups of happy newly immunised children in Africa? Remember that bill gates has given $24 billion just to the main one of his charities. Have you given that proportion of your net worth to charity?
Those guys ... don't do anything unless it will get them money
;(
http://www.gatesfoundation.org
Yes, its very interesting how this foundation funds educational projects and humanitarian projects in places that are customers of Microsoft and there is the implicit threat that the foundation won't fund stuff when the country forsakes Microsoft. Further, this foundation is a piddly squat amount of Bill Gates's wealth. A few million here and there is very cheap publicity.
[The Open Group's web site lists] Apple as a vendor complaint to the UNIX specification
In that case, the proper adjective is not "UNIX" but "conforming to the Single UNIX Specification". The term "UNIX" means "both conforming to the Single UNIX Specification and having taken the step of licensing the UNIX Mark and paying royalties". I couldn't find Apple's name in the Catalog of Registered Products.
Yes, the UNIX Mark requires a royalty. Here's the fee schedule.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Wont this in the long run help sales of the xbox ( so this is free addvertising for them ) . I mean by the box then the install the chip and play anybody games.
MS cannot use the DMCA, because the DMCA has explicit clauses which preclude persecution of individuals who are circumventing copyright protection schemes in the name of academia.
I am an avid M$-basher, and I've always thought their products were crap (except perhaps for their keyboards, mice, etc.) and their policies were crap. But I must give them credit for taking the high road on this one. Kinda makes those other litigious companies look like assholes. HP, Apple, are you listening?
Sheesh!
Is it any wonder I spend waaaayy more time on FARK.com than I do here any more.
Its not xbox, I havn't had a crash yet, As far as EA sports, good company but there games are ps2 ports so they lack in game play, and severly lack in graphics. Look for a MS game or another made for xbox. As far as games remember Gamday 2001 for ps2.. When your lineman would dissapear for 5 seconds then reapper and make the play? Also make sure disc is clean, only time its ever crashed on me and the disc was filthy.
Also Every one I know that has and xbox there ps2 is a paper weight. 75% of peeps with a xbox have a PS2. Thus Sure sony has 30mil units sold xbox has 4mil. but you cant change the fack it will take another $200 charge to take the ps2 online with HD , and E-net card. and the graphics are still a pretty Dreamcast.
Dont bite the hand that feeds ya..
So many others are doing that, perhaps MS is actually paying attention and realizes its a bad move...
Nah?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"The Xbox security system is intended to allow people to play only videogames authorized by Microsoft. Huang's paper "shows how a person could defeat that system with a small hardware investment,"
Big Deal right? Mod chips have been around for ever. I don't understand what's so academic about it.
I really wish people were more open minded. I too had a old console (Sega Master System) and I remember Alex Kidd in freezing on me within the later stages. Maybe thats why the Sega Master System reset buttons were designed that big during the design phase.
Superb. If that happens, just set yourself up as an exporter of DVD players, you'll make a fortune :-)
The folks at Microsoft are nothing more than typically greedy and corrupt human beings.
They're not blood-sucking vampires seeking to establish a global technocracy.
I was initially impressed with how M$ was handling this case...that is until I happened along this post on the www.xboxhacker.net news: Nvidia Comments on MCPX - SiliconIce @ 10:12 CST We never blamed Xbox. What we said about Xbox was that we reached a volume discount milestone, further reducing the margins. And that we will be taking an inventory write off in Q2 related to the amount of Xbox MCPs that were made obsolete when MSFT transitioned to a new security code (by way of the MIT hacker) and excess in nForce chipsets that we built in anticipation of higher demand of Athlon-based PCs. Derek Perez PR Director Nvidia Would seem to me that Bunnie's hard work is being exploited by the dark side...
On the plus side, since they are chosing NOT to invoke the DMCA, they prove that the law is subject to the whim of the very corporations who claimed to be harmed
If someone robs my apartment or beats me up in a bar, and I choose not to press charges for any reason, then they won't be charged. It's not the government's job to chase down every last criminal in the country if the affected party doesn't especially want them to. This is normal, and will have no effect on the DMCA's enforcability whatsoever.
Microsoft didn't sue that guy because now they can "acquire his resources" to fix the Xbox.
--Motheius
Neither had my two younger brother in-laws (and they keep up with it more than I do).
The disk was brand new out of the case clean.
No big deal i just found it to be funny. Although in all likelihood it was an ea problem not ms.
I don't understand. So many people blindly hate Microsoft, yet they just can't shut up about it. Here's an idea. If you don't like them, don't use their software. If you don't use their software, then shut the hell up about it. You're sick of computer companies shipping with MS OS's? Don't order from them. You want to see Linux or Unix offered? Start your own damn company. It makes no sense for you people to constantly bitch about something that you don't like or don't use. If you don't pay for it, you don't have any right to complain about it, so stay out of it.