Slashdot Mirror
Palladium's Power To Deny
BrianWCarver writes "The Chronicle of Higher Education has the most detailed article I've yet seen on Microsoft's Palladium architecture. The article discusses the potential Palladium has to give publishers power to eliminate fair use and the potential for software manufacturers to use Palladium to enforce shrink-wrap licenses. Comments from several great sources including, Ed Felten (Freedom to Tinker), Eben Moglen (pro-bono counsel for the Free Software Foundation and recent Slashdot interviewee), and Seth Schoen (Electronic Frontier Foundation) among many others. Key quotations from article: Palladium could create 'a closed system, in which each piece of knowledge in the world is identified with a particular owner, and that owner has a right to resist its copying, modification, and redistribution. In such a scenario the very concept of fair use has been lost.' 'Palladium will "turn the clock back" to the days before online information was widely available.' and 'Microsoft could decide to lock everything up.'"
fp
leprkan...
get your gostse! Hot fresh goatse!
The mothership has sailed on that one a long time ago!
>And that's a process that they won't need to bother patenting...
They can't. Prior use. Why else do you think the UK is backing Bushes war in the middle east, against the wishes of the electorate?
Although I agree.
I wa sone of the million or so people marching through London. It was inspiring to see so many people but saddening that people don't use their energy for other stuff too. I've been on some lonely protests, even outnumbered by the police.
Still, maybe some will become radicalised by it, that usually happens.
Personally, I blame it on Flouridation. Nothing like mass administering a depressive without consent.
Don't be blinkered that it's Sep 11th that started the crackdown. It's my Parliament's responsibility to restrict freedom, that's why it exists: to administer power to the rich. The best trick is that these days they have a mandate from the poor.
Mind you, I'd rather not go back to the days when you would be hung for stealing one of the King's rabbits.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
that is being defended is the right for the citizens of a democracy to oppose, and even prevent, a war?
If not than it certainly hasn't occured to you that this freedom is exactly the *same* freedom that you think they aren't defending.
KFG
The goddess of the net has twisting fingers and her voice is like a javelin in the night, dude.
Just a guess: because the UK is not led by a Yank-bashing Euroninny, willing to turn a blind eye to a defiant, murderous dictator, in a pathetic play for political power motivated by distant memories of a glorious imperialist past?
Ja?
Because oil companies in his country don't continue to buy from that dictator, funding his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction -- not to mention building statues and palaces in his honour -- while he starves and abuses his people.
Oui?
Warmest regards.
...you ass-rape Microsoft!
According to the same people protesting against the war now, we're supposed to be stuck in Afghanistan fighting the wily Taliban who teach us the same lesson they dealt to the Soviets a decade ago as hundreds of thousands starve to death because of US indifference to their suffering.
Ooops.
The anti-war crowd is getting a record of chicken little exaggeration of casualties and of covering up how bad these regimes are.
No it is in fact really sad that the typical Joe is such a sheep and will follow anyone or anything with very little thought. These war protesters are mere sheep and are applying little thought to the actual situation. CNN shows some woman that claims that she is protesting because her son joined the marines to get a education and not to fight a war. Well hello world that is what marines are for, fighting wars. As a benefit to that you get a nice education bonus, freedom did not come for free in the US and it will not come for free for the Iraqi people. Saddam is one of the most evil of dictators, so much so that he feels it necessary to kill his own troops and people. This is about giving freedom to the iraqi people.
One thing evident with the anti-warring factions around the world is this: They are not protesting for President Bush or any of the Americans to see them when they are watching CNN, the news, or whatever way people get their news. Proof? Look at their signs. The signs are in their native tongues, not English. When they are protesting to communicate with their own rulers, they use their native language. When they want to communicate with the USA, UK, et alia, the posterboard is always in English.
B. Isn't smarter to protest before a war happens, than after?
Well, normally yes, but since Bush is going to do whatever he wants anyway...
Remember, he was the candidate with LESS votes.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Opposing evil does not make you good. many times evil entitites fight each other. This is a case when the evil united states (and evil george bush) are fighting evil saddam hussein. Sometimes it's up to the good people of the world to stop them from fighting each other.
"Because oil companies in his country don't continue to buy from that dictator, funding his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction -- not to mention building statues and palaces in his honour -- while he starves and abuses his people."
Sometime you just have to say to yourself "it's wrong to kill people and take away their stuff no matter how evil they are or how much you need that stuff". It's just wrong.
BTW Israel takes american tax payers money and funds weapons of mass destruction and are headed by an evil war criminal, when are we going to invade them?
Funny you say that, when G.W. has effectively sidestepped congress (read: the elected representatives) in his pursuit of the war.
Give with the left hand, take with the right....
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
One well-placed source said: "It changes nothing at all. The quicker it is done, the better. To back down now would be the worst result possible. We would have no credibility if Saddam Hussein was still in place."
Last I heard, Isreal has been attacked/invaded about 4 or 5 times in the last 60 years. Of course, that's not counting the suicide bombers or the Scuds during the Gulf War.
At what point did it become our duty to free the people like the french or the germans. Or when did it become our duty to free the jews from the nazi concentration camps. I fought in the gulf war and I would do it again if I was asked to. I fought so that you can keep your freedom. I fought so that the kuwait people could keep there freedom. You do not have to agree with me, I was in the military for ten years so that you could keep that freedome of disagreement also. The only thing I find common against protestors is selfishness.
I'll also take a karma hit, it's non-existant anyway :)
The question is, why is Bush so interested in taking on iraq all of a sudden ? And not 2 or 5 years ago when the people in iraq were also suffering ? Are iraq hiding terrorists ? Not according to what we've been told.
And of course Saddam have or have had weapons of mass-destruction, Bush sr sold them to him ! Well that's what I've heard. How's that for hypocrisy ?
And not speaking up against a war because it might "empower" Saddam must be the most silly reason ever, it's not the "peaceniks" who will pull the triggers.
However I do agree that the people of iraq deserve a better leader than Saddam.
I don't know why. Like I (think) I said before, I'm not pro-war. I'm just 100% against the antiwar people that are counterproductive. They wave their signs, flags, and dream of the 60's when their very actions will probably increase the chance of the conflict they supposedly want to avoid.
As for why, I would have to assume that there is information that we don't know about. Bush is burning a ton of political capital on this and I truly believe that politicians only burn capital this quickly when it is absolultely necessary. And I don't buy the whole "Bush wants more oil for his companies or his friends' companies." I don't realistically think Bush (or any president) would start a war just to improve their business position. And even if they were to consider it, I don't think they'd burn this much domestic and international political capital on it.
I believe there is more information than what we, the public, knows. That's generally the case on any international issue.
And of course Saddam have or have had weapons of mass-destruction, Bush sr sold them to him ! Well that's what I've heard. How's that for hypocrisy ?
I've also heard we didn't land on the moon and that the Israelis were the true masterminds of 9/11.
And not speaking up against a war because it might "empower" Saddam must be the most silly reason ever, it's not the "peaceniks" who will pull the triggers.
Wrong, my dear sir. Just check the news on Saturday and Sunday. Saturday: Nice, photo-op marches. Sunday: Those same marches broadcast on Iraqi TV with the slogan "World against America" or something like that. This sort of thing certainly doesn't turn the heat up on Saddam--the only possible effect it can have is for Saddam to think, "Oh, look at that. There's no way they can attack with so much public opinion against it" (never mind that less than 1% of the population of the U.S., Europe, Canada, Russia, and Australia actually marched).
You can argue that Saddam might not read anything into the marches. However, you can't argue that Saddam is now more likely to cooperate. If there is any effect, the only effect those marches can have on Saddam is to embolden him under the false assumption that the protests make him safe. Saddam, thus, continues to resist--making a war more likely.
Speaking up against war is fine. It's clear that many don't agree. I'm not even sure I agree. But street protests such as these show countries and allies divided, and that only helps Iraq.
Saddam will be gone in two months, probably one. I expect it to be messier than the last war but by in large I expect that the war will be won quickly and the peaceniks will be made to look like fools for making so much noise about it. And France will look like idiots. Of course, both of these are already true. 1960's peaceniks are now viewed pretty much as utopian drug-using hippies. France is looked upon as an old world power that was grandfathered into the "new masters of the world" even though they had to be saved in WWII from the Germans and really have no business being on the U.N. Security Council as a veto-wielding member. What did they do to deserve THAT position?
...YOU veto the DMCA.
Wouldn't that be nice?
(Ugh...I feel vile for attempting to make a funny ISR joke.)
What's this Submit thingy do?