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.
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."
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?
David
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: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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
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.
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.
I did nothing today too.
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.
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.
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.
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