Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: DRM, Eldred, Aridity
Looking sharp in their suits. Declan McCullagh writes: "Here are some photos from after the arguments, including activists who slept on the courthouse steps, an exhausted but optimistic Larry Lessig, and the Internet Archive bookmobile, which visited Washington DC for the event."
A new meaning for 'decimation.' Martin writes "Here is a good write-up on what happened with the whole sendmail hack a week or so back. Apparently every 10th copy of the source that was downloaded from sendmail.org received the trojan'd version. Nice to see a linux hack getting some attention for a change, instead of the usual MS bashing. Here is the write-up."
I won't be charging entrance fees to Shangri La, either. After a report posted the other day indicating that Microsoft was considering charging customers more for certain security features, Software writes "According to a little snippet from Yahoo News (look towards the bottom), Microsoft won't be charging for security updates after all. As Yahoo puts it, 'Microsoft, however, said Mundie was referring to an internal proposal to begin offering stand-alone security software in the future.' No confirmation of this on Microsoft's site for the press"
As denials go, that seems like a weak one.
Where is Deep Fritz's deep game? screenbert writes "In an exciting best-of-eight chess match-up, the human is leading the computer 2 1/2 to 1/2. I find the fractions of winning amusing, almost as amusing as seeing that the best-of-eight series will take at least nine games since one of those games was a draw. For a general overview there is a good review here(1) or here(2) or here(3). And to save the 38 mandatory karma whoring comments I'll say it: Imagine if Deep Fritz ran on a beowolf cluster."
So it's back to BYOB. gnarly writes "An earlier report of detection of water masers on extrasolar planets has been debunked."
Workaround: Get your congresspuppet hooked on Free software. Several readers wondered why (complained that) the post offering a link to the place where you can submit your comments on DRM technology to the Senate Judiciary Committee was posted section-only. So here's a reminder; if you live near D.C. (or get a chance to stop by a local office), perhaps you'll be able to stop to chat a bit about how you determine who gets your vote. (Maybe you should check out the sections, too.)
From what I've read about the hearing, it seems that Lessig's approach to go back to the copyright clause and not focus on the first amendment issues was not the right approach. However, IANAL, especially a scholarly constitutional one, so my opinion means squat.
This was an interesting analysis that summed this up.
so you're saying microsoft is going to start paying attention to security now? seriously though, there may be some good in paying for something you *know* is secure. after all, you pay more for a good safe to put your money in than under the mattress... of course, do you trust microsoft when it proclaims something as "secure"?
I'm very glad you believe each and every one of us is a thief. The fact is DRM will curtail a lot of fair-use applications for technology. In the 80s we were allowed to make copies of media for personal use, so why not now? Because the technology has improved and the Industries are losing their ability to peddle their overrated drivel to the masses at a bloated price. If anything DRM will oppress innovation as each new technological advancement that interferes with the profits of the Industries is proclaimed illegal. Instead of spending their money on lobbying for laws against piracy why not make a better, more reasonably priced product that people will buy to save the inconvenience of piracy. I know I'm more likely to buy many $10 CDs that any $20 CD.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell
Olson gained ground when he invoked another clause of the Constitution, the "necessary and proper" clause, as a justification for the legislation as a matter of equity.
I am appalled that this guy invoked the necessary and proper clause on an issue that the Constitution already addresses. That is NOT what the clause was intended to do. I don't know why we even bother paying lip service to the Constitution anymore.IIRC, jupiter and saturn both have trace water in their atmosphere. If these extrasolar planets (with masses similar to our gas giants) have no water, they must have something different going on. Is their star too young? not enough impacts from the right comets? Or is it just that if we were that far from jupiter the water content would be too small to detect?
So I guess I'll have to buy 3 copies of an artist's work to satisfy the RIAA if I would like to have a copy on CD, one on MD, and one on my computer, hmmm... That doesn't seem right. I'd like to see a copying ring that would bite into the RIAA profits. The decline of profits for the RIAA is IMHO because the new acts suck.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell
Really? IIS now runs on a platform other than windows?
I counter that "windows != IIS" and yet "IIS == windows". Windows can exist without IIS (even if it's installed and you don't know it), but IIS cannot exist without Windows.
To be sure, the majority of the flaws in IIS have done little more than reveal flaws in the OS upon which it runs.
I've already told my rep what I think of DRM, though I don't suppose it would hurt to tell him again. I believe DRM is 21st century solution to a 21st century problem. We need to have some way of protecting innovation from those, like the inhabitants of Slashdot, that choose to steal rather than create. If this means that I lose a little convience in the pursuit of a larger good, well then so be it.
I whole heartedly agree. I will gladly give up a little convenience in order to help out artists - or Physicists that write important papers.
I will not, however, give up my personal freedoms in order to help out artists. This is a "larger good" than making sure artists get paid. There is a subtle but important difference, Mr. PhysicsGenius. DRM must accomodate what I want to do within the confines of the Law as well, or it is worthless.
I'm a computer guy, so my future is in (for lack of a better term) cyberspace. DRM must not package up the keys to the digital future solely for the use of those already in power. To just stand idly by and let my personal freedoms be trampled on just to ensure the status quo in a market segment would be an insult to all those who have fought for my freedom in the past will have done so for naught. If you feel that your right to money exceeds my right to freedom, so be it - we will have to agree to be at odds then.
Soko
P.S. - No, I'm not a hypocrite. I own the CD to every MP3 on my computers, paid for the licenses of the software that requires doing so and P2P networking is nowhere to be seen on my systems.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Imho it's much better to count stalemate for 0.25-0.75 to mark that player who trick other monster with all figures that easily could have make a mate to stalemate
Microsoft won't charge for security updates or patches, that just seems a bit too audacious even for Mr. Gates.
However, there is a new niche for Microsoft.
Earlier today I was helping a buddy update and clean his Win2k box - And no, he wouldn't let me clean it with Gentoo... He thought he was infected by a virus (he wasn't) so he bought a 'subscription' to McAfee virus scanner. After we ran that, I downloaded AdAlert (free), to remove the spyware... Found lots of that. Then I downloaded ZoneAlarm (free) and set him up a personal firewall.
We've seen MS, in the past, include options like then in the OS... WinXP already includes a personal firewall but there are lots of 'extra' services that MS could add... And why bother including them for free in the OS - expecially when they get sued for it?
I'll bet we see a MS virus scanner/privacy guard/whatever utility sometime soon. With MS's advantage of having OS and Apps in house it could, at least in theory, be faster and better integrated than the competition... And the MS name would go a long way to having the masses buy it over Norton or McAfee... A product like that has to be what Mundie was referring to.
I don't know if this is entirely related to DRM. But I was wondering if anyone had info on the legalities of buying used CD's, records, books, etc... (I'm interested in Canadian law in specific, but I would assume that it is the same as the States law)
I recall a few years back that some artists and the big record companies were upset at the idea of reselling their music without recieving the royalties (I remember that the dude with the Kentucky Waterfall that did 'Aceky Breaky Heart' was whining about royalties). I was wondering if there is still a push for this, or if it has been implimented. If it has then the companies and artists that fall under the Mickey Mouse law would still be able to recieve payments on used items sold until the products fall apart...
Any rebroadcasts of the pro-DRM statements of the establishment are prohibited without the express written consent of the establishment.
That being said, I think a well-developed argument against the insanely long extended copyrights based exclusively on the idea that they are detrimental to the free and open exchange of ideas (read: free speech), and that the costs outweigh whatever benefits are derived from the latest extension to copyrights would have at least as much of a chance in court as does the current arguement.
The problem with that kind of argument is that it's not very objective. It's about weighing the available evidence/research/etc and deciding what the rights of various groups (with different interests) should be. That seems to be about identical to the job description of congress members. I don't see how the supreme court could make such a decision instead.
Lessig's argument makes a lot more sense IMHO. First of all, it's much more difficult to argue that retrospectively extended copyright will have even a mildly reasonable influence on promoting arts. In fact, if one sees the public domain as promoting arts, it's highly questionable whether congress should be allowed to destroy all kinds of interests and business models that are based on the public domain (see the publisher that wanted to publish an out of print, about to expire book). Those people had reasonable expectations that the works they were after wouldn't suddenly be locked up for another x years. An artist/publisher sh/wouldn't expect the copyright term to be extended for works that were created in the past (especially since the constitution uses the words 'limited term' which conflicts (in theory) with a gratuitous extension).
Furthermore, a copyrighted work is never guaranteed to be added to the public domain if its copyright term can be extended again and again. I don't think it's far-fetched to say that this breaks the 'limited duration' as specified by the constitution. If only prospective extensions are allowed, you will at least have a guarantee that the copyrighted work will expire into the public domain at a known date. It might take 1 billion years, but I'm afraid that the only way Americans can prevent that is by voting differently (in theory*).
*See [Two party system] & [bribes]
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi