Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Blaster, Sabers, Canada
Art of the Saber Jagaast writes "As a counterpoint to all the hype about the Star Wars kid, here's a Star Wars fan film that's actually very well done. Art of the Saber is 'a light saber fight sequence with the flavor of a Hong Kong martial arts action movie.' Well worth watching." Update by J : I've made torrents available.
Vote early, often, and reversably. An anonymous reader writes "As a follow up to a previous story here on Slashdot on electronic voting, Excite has a story on the same subject with a bit more information including this amazing quote from Deborah Seiler, Diebold's West Coast sales representative: '"These activists don't understand what they're looking at," Seiler said.'"
GSM-crack paper online morcheeba writes "Copies of the GSM-crack paper described in last week's Slashdot article are now available online (PDF) thanks to John Young's Cryptome"
Mandrake ads...take 2 *no comment* writes "Apparently there has been some controversy over the ads in the upcoming Mandrake 9.2. I thought it was pretty cut & dried, but apparently Mandrake thought it was enough of a controversy to to release a written statement about it. I wonder how many flames were posted in the slashdot forum using the download version of Opera."
Blaster Worm still alive and well on MIT campus fwc writes "MIT still has 900 network drops disabled due to the Blaster worm infection. Of particular interest is that MIT network security requires users to reformat their hard drive and re-install their operating system before they get back on the network. Sounds like a good excuse to reinstall something other than a Microsoft operating system."
A big AWOOOGAH for Canadian file sharers.
Rumor writes in response to a recent story suggesting that Canadian users could swap files scot-free: "Listen, Canadians, don't go using your p2p apps and thinking you are immune from lawsuit, you are liable for copyright infringement if you share files on p2p apps.
To wit: a fellow law student and I have written an
analysis of s. 80 of the Copyright Act and we've
concluded that one can download music safely under the Private Copying provision, but no one can share or upload files without infringing on copyright.
In a nutshell, Private Copying allows anyone to make a
copy of a song purely for their own use. As you
probably know, when you share files and someone
downloads from you, what actually happens is that
their computer makes a request and your computer
actually sends the file to them. Thus, you're copying
for someone else's use and infringing. It doesn't
matter if you didn't realize that's what happens,
either... intent is not required for infringement.
The upside is that you can accept copies from other
people (ie. download) all you want. Although there
might be an issue of contributory infringement to
worry about... I won't go into analyzing that, since
so far the record companies are only suing uploaders.
The article can be found on greplaw.
I've recently confirmed this analysis with an IP law professor at my university, so I'm pretty damn sure of it. So, please, be aware of this danger. Downloading cool, uploading/sharing not. I
guess the situation still better than nothing."
Why not ask for your money back? zaaj writes "There are several articles out about a newly found/fixed(openssh.org) buffer management bug in OpenSSH and some derivatives. Cisco's Advisory only mentions DoS attacks against certain of their SSH-enabled devices, but ZDNet's article hints at rumors of long-existing root exploits. Regardless, RedHat's got their typical list of updated packages with the patch back-ported. A few other distro's have info in the vendor section of Cert's advisory CA-2003-24"
Canada's in Star Wars?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Any reason this is in the Apache section?
GSM-crack paper online morcheeba writes "Copies of the GSM-crack paper described in last week's Slashdot article are now available online (PDF) thanks to John Young's Cryptome"
I dunno what's the world coming to?
You can buy crack rock on the street and get crack paper online so what's next, crack scissors from your local hardware store?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I think I have a way of sharing music while avoiding legal action. The client should work like this:
1) Request a file
2) Ask "Is bit #0 a 1"
3) Get a response, write the appropriate bit to a disk (or buffer).
4) Repeat for the other 9238472093847 bits.
Now, here we're not copying anything. We're just asking about it in a way that lets us make an educated guess about the contents of the file. How can that be illegal!?
My other car is first.
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN- 2003-0682
may I suggest a nice bottle of '01 -fstack-protector?
That's a draconian policy if I've ever heard of one!
To reformat you need to backup - and if you have more data to backup than some puny CDRs? and you can't get on the network to backup onto your friend's gigantic file server that he has kindly carved out a nice chunk for you for a week? and I have a laptop so it's not exactly a good idea to be pulling drives out?
all practical concerns I'd face if I was part of the MIT network - but glad that I am not on the MIT network, and that blaster didn't come my way. heh...
poor suckers who'd have similar problems with me, though - maybe that kind of explains why there are still so many people un-connected... they are all looking for used tape drives...
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Cause I don't have any money.
The file's has a .mov extension, but neither file nor xine seems able to recognize it. Does anyone know what format it is, and how to play it?
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
PS. Don't feed the trolls! Given the recent DCOM fiasco, it's fairly obvious where this thread goes...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
"MIT still has 900 network drops disabled due to the Blaster worm infection. Of particular interest is that MIT network security requires users to reformat their hard drive and re-install their operating system before they get back on the network. Sounds like a good excuse to reinstall something other than a Microsoft operating system."
Reformat? That's pretty dumb
B. Clear your computer of the Blaster worm
1.On the taskbar at the bottom of your screen, click Start, and then click Run. Type in services.msc and click on OK.
2. The Services window will appear. Enlarge it, if small, so you can see things. Click on the Name heading so the list is in alphabetical order. Look down the list for Remote Procedure Call (RPC) which Provides the endpoint mapper, etc. Do not choose Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Locator, which Manages things. Right click on Remote Procedure Call (RPC) and left click on Properties.
3. Click on the Recovery tab, and change first, second and subsequent failures to Restart the service, not Restart the computer. Click on Apply then OK. Close the Services window.
4. Hold down Ctrl and Alt keys and press the Delete key. The Windows Task Manager window will appear. Click on Processes. Click on Image Name to put the list into alphabetical order. Look down the list for msblast. There it is. Right click on it and click on End Process. Close all windows.
Total time to find this info: less than 30 seconds on Google cache... Interested in SoBigF? Check out my psychotic rants on it.
As for so called security team of whatever, I don't know why they would tell their users to format their machines... Seems a bit irresponsible, and makes me think their too lazy to read something like the DOC I just linked (Google cache link)... Hell they don't have to if you think about it... Print it out and throw it on every damn door. Come on if MIT can hang cars off bridges, place cars on roofs for pranks don't tell me they cant ctrl-p a damn doc...
MoFscker
Anyone managed to download the postscript version? The PDF version is horrible.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
No, if it was a microsoft bug it would have been swept under the carpet, a MS only patch would have been released late giving everyone time to exploit to their heart's content, leaving those who want to patch it no option but to use MS's patch and any other little extras they may (as they do) slip in at the same time, no chance to just recompile and fix the one single problem, and then due to Microsoft's half assed nature they would have STILL left the problem only half fixed, and a worm would pop up in a couple of weeks that brings the internet to it's knees. Again.
That's what would happpen if it were a Microsoft bug.
Um, I don't get that, if I let someone else use my cassette deck to record one of my cd's, how is it that I'm the one doing the copying? And if I let them use my computer to do the same thing, what's different? Why does it matter if the computer is remotely operated over the net?
You need a quicktime player. There is the official one from Apple, and for some reason my WMP Classic shell is playing it...
I'm not too suprised to see that Blaster is still running around, even at MIT. I work in an office that's behind a firewall, but it wasn't until yesterday that somebody discovered one of the Blater variants in our internal network. Most likely it was introduced by somebody taking their laptop home, and then back to the office. So what's the big deal? We're a small software house with reasonably intelligent folks working here, but that didn't stop people from a) avoiding the install of Microsoft patches on their office machines, even though these are internal machines and thus "immune" from external traffic, and b) from taking a laptop computer home and using it on a non-firewall protected environment. That we're seeing stuff like this still happening on MIT campus doesn't suprise me. Sure, a good number of /. readers will scoff at this, but there are plenty of intelligent people out there who still think that a firewall will protect them from everything. And that's just the reasonably intelligent people. What about the average, non-technical folks who don't even know what a firewall is? What the heck has to change (other than Microsoft cleaning up Windows, and shutting down all of its stoopid ports) for this kind of things to stop?
This is assuming they don't say "this bug can't be fixed without multiple architectural changes to the underlying OS, just have your firewall block all packets on this port kthxbye [slams door]."
OK, so the student reformats the drive and reinstalls windows. Whee! Network access is turned back on.
Of course, no patches have been installed, since they are available as downloads unless MIT is distributing service packs and patches to the students via CD.
So now you have completely unpatched machines on the network, at least for the time it takes to repatch.
I've had rebuilt machines reinfected during that short time (yes, I should have thought of that first).
Maybe they have something in place to prevent this from happening, but that isn't indicated one way or another.
Besides, given the ease of fixing problems like these without reinstalling the OS, why bother forcing a drive wipe?
Just wondering if they're forcing everyone with the SSH hole to reformat and reinstall? (Yes, not as serious since it isn't a worm, but still)
I don't use Mandrake, but I have to respect any company that knows enough to number points in a press release starting with zero.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
I thought when the story was posted the other day it smelled off. Copyright law here as I understand it says you can LEND a CD to someone and they can copy it, that's legal. If you copy it for THEM though, that's illegal.
The loophole? Okay, on a P2P app, when someone downloads a file from you it is REMOVED from your hard drive. Translation: You've lent it to them. Then you get sent the file back. They've made their copy by "borrowing" yours, and then given it back.
Probably not viable since there'd be wankers who'd download and then kill the software so you don't get your song back (the RIAA would love to abuse that I bet!) but still, there has to be some loophole as the law doesn't take P2P into account.
Why are the MIT sysadmins being so draconian as to require infected computers to be reformatted, without solving the cause of the problem by *requiring* the windows bug to be patched? The article says "Reinfection rates are very high". Unbelievable!
Isnt that a just bit extreme?
Proper patching and de-infecting should be enough.. until the next round.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Seriously though, from what I saw in an election on September 9 here, we have an even bigger problem that doesn't involve connectivity. Anybody could just go in and punch their votes as many times as they want, as long as the total number of votes doesn't exceed the number of registered voters in that district. This would have to be done by a voting official though, which could easily be arranged. This could also be done by anybody who just wants to screw around as long as they aren't being watched by the monitoring officials.
Things like this, along with the issues with Diebold, are putting the rights of the people to vote at stake, and something (what I don't know) needs to be done.
C:\>
Good intentions by themselves are not a sound business model. Income is. Mandrake has been a progressive and remarkably loyal supporter of the open source movement. Ads? Good, because I want to see Mandrake survive for another couple of years.
;-)
I didn't see too much complaining myself (maybe I ignored some of it) but I'm sure some got hysterical about it (it wouldn't be a internet-age community without someone getting hysterical).
Anyhow, I wish them best of luck. Good idea whoever decided on this. Programmers need to get paid and I *want* my Mandrake.
Quack, quack.
The furore about Mandrake placing one commercial ad tarnishes the Open Source users' image. Here is a financially struggling firm trying to make some money through ethical means, and we feel violated having to view it? As mentioned in the press article, they have had ads before, and none of the intrusive, irrelevant shit found on the web. Why shouldn't they try every ethical, non-invasive means to stay afloat?
I've always held Mandrake in high esteem as they are the [possibly only] commercial entity that adheres closest to the principles of Free Software, listens to community feedback, and, if you read the press release about the ad, very polite in their communication - even when lesser people would've ignored us or told us to fuck off. Do you imagine slagging them off for being French makes you look intelligent? Hell, if they are typical of France, I would hold them with deep respect.
Remember - we all have our favourite distros, preferences, and so on. But until the day we realise that a loss for our [Mandrake-loving] peers is a loss for the entire community, we are not living by, and upholding, the principles of freedom, choice and tolerance.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
With all the neat technical things I learn on Slashdot about hacking, viruses and Canadia, I have to ask the question: is there a chance I can get an SSH shell on Tom Green's cellphone to plant the Blaster worm on it? Then I'll chop his head off with a Mandrake-enabled light saber.
...
I really can't stand Tom Green
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
You still have to delete the value from the HKLM/Software/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/Run registry key. Thanks for playing.
I don't think there's anything wrong with asking these people to wipe the hard drive. It's a clean sweep. There's two types of people in the world, people who never get a virus on their computer (because they protect themselves properly) and people who have THOUSANDS of viruses. If you're in the second category, I've got little sympathy.
Usually when I am installing an operating system, I leave the room or do something else when I am done with any user interaction. Why should I care if the show an ad while the OS is being copied to my hard drive and I am not looking?
As for the bookmarks who cares if I can delete them. Microsoft does this, Netscape did this(and now AOL does this.) You have to pay for Microsoft's OS (In more ways than one), and with AOL's version of Netscape they have things like Net2Phone that you can't remove. (I admit when AOL posted its ad links that could not be removed, I switched to Mozilla.)
As long as Mandrake sticks to their words from their press release, "ads won't be intrusive (no pop-up windows) and can be removed easily;" I will not mind if they make a few bucks to stay afloat financially.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
Art of the Saber is one of legions of "lightsaber effect" videos made by fans.
TFN Fanfilms has a huge library of Star Wars home movies. Many of them have excellent stories, and do much more than display the rotoscoping skills of the creators.
Duality is one of the most visually impressive, but because of conflicts between the two guys who made it it's not available on TFN anymore.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
If you reinstall your OS, it won't have all the patches and it can get re-infected. If you're not on the network, how do you get the patches. Also, I wouldn't want to copy the patches onto a CDR because that might be copyright infringement. Many schools have honor policies where they could kick you out for breaking the law, especially when using University property to help you do it. Though, I can understand the school wanting "compromised" systems to be formatted and re-installed. Once your system is compromised you can't be sure what's on the system anymore.
What brings you to my sweet town of Omaha?
I better go read up on the local conferences...
Reformat and reinstall is a pretty standard response to a root-level system compromise. It also serves as a rather effective deterrent to users who might want to delay installing patches in the future.
The command-line exploit for the hole was available several weeks before the Blaster worm came out. I demo'd it in the office by breaking into my Boss's workstation (Yes, while he was watching over my shoulder). Compile the exploit on a Linux box, run it against a remote NT host, up comes a nice command-shell with Administrator access.
While the Blaster worm itself is pretty easy to get rid of, the RPC/DCOM bug is a remotely-compromiseable hole that gives you Administrator privileges. As such, it's quite possible that vulnerable machines could have been backdoored by something other than the worm (or by some rare variant of the worm) in the process.
A Blaster-infected machine was wide open for long enough for the virus to catch it. At that point, you have no idea what malware could have be installed. You're pretty sure it's "just" the regular worm, and the standard removal instructions are all you need, but how sure is that? Network security want to be completely sure that their network doesn't become a home of a few thousand more DDOS drones.
In my judgement MIT security may be being a little paranoid, but if you work in network security, you're paranoid by definition anyway.
Charles Miller
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
That was the best laugh I've had all week. I salute you, sir.
... because it's a heap buffer. Furthermore, it's not a simple buffer overrun, but an error in reallocation. As far as I've seen, there are no known exploits of it either. If there are, please link.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Um. Soap Opera?
YOU FAIL IT.
According to Canada's laws its OK to make a copy for your OWN use, so the problem with sharing is you make a copy for someone else's use.
What if instead we did this:
Person A MOVES the file to Person B, who then makes a copy. Person B then MOVES the original back to person A. Hmm...
Is it possible in this case, Jim March (love how it's the March 2002 incident, and his name is March, but I digress) doesn't know what he was looking at?
What does the time stamp mean? Is it necessarily the time it was uploaded to the server where he was looking at it, or could it just be the time the original file (or directory, or whatever it was exactly that was time-stamped) was created on the client machine, and the creation time was retained when it was transferred at some later time to the server where March found it?
"In a nutshell, Private Copying allows anyone to make a copy of a song purely for their own use. As you probably know, when you share files and someone downloads from you, what actually happens is that their computer makes a request and your computer actually sends the file to them. Thus, you're copying for someone else's use and infringing. It doesn't matter if you didn't realize that's what happens, either... intent is not required for infringement. "
:-)
I said essentially the same thing yesterday when the original article came out and I got modded up 1 for insightful and modded down 1 for overrated. Where's the justice?
Vote for Pedro
Very cool saber fight, but:
Only siths have red sabers.
You can't take the sky from me...
All i can say is, Lucas had better be taking notes -- lightsaber fights never looked this good in any of the movies.
filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
Here is how:
Break up any mp3 files into say 10 RAR and calculate MD5 for each part plus total.
Name the 10 parts equal to their MD5 number
Make small Identity file that contains above plus all of the normal mp3 ID's like Name, artist etc.
Make small plug in that disallows for any more than 3 or so of the parts to be made available for up load and obviously never the total mp3 file.
Make small script that takes Identity file as input and as output automatic tries to find and download all MD5 pieces.
Once retrieved combine and play.
If real fancy you could make the "Encryption" / "decryption" function DMCA proof, so RIAA can not legally tamper with it.
I am sure we can elaborate but you get the idea.
Help fight continental drift.
Love the sunglasses from Walmart, dude
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
The University of Minnesota has a similar policy for using it's network, except for the whole reformat thing. They were actually nice enough to provide each student with a CD that had all the necessary patches and removal tools on it. Your ethernet jack was disabled until you proved to them that you had been patched.
Seems like a much more reasonable way of dealing with it than MIT's policy.
Wow..looks like someone needs to go back to troll school. Completely ineffective, much like your other attempts.
FYI. Looks like the Star Wars Kid didn't get into Episode 3. It was announced on the radio today that principal photography on the film has finished at Fox Studios here in Sydney.
From the zdnet article "It's not uncommon for vulnerabilities in Unix-style systems to be exploited for months by the underground community, Maiffret said."
I guess thats in contrast to windoze vulnerabilities which go for years exploited by the underground community (whoever they are- any-one want to own up?) and then more years exploited by who-ever wants to.
--Murray Barton
The problem with law school is that while you learn the theory of law, you don't learn much about the practice of law. That comes only after law school.
All the potential copyright actions in the world aren't going to matter when you don't know who to name as a party defendant.
The DMCA has a subpoena provision which has been interpreted to require an ISP to provide the identity of the Kazaa user (say) in the USA.
No such similar provision exists under Canadian law and the DMCA has no applicability in Canada in a civil suit. The closest you could get to it is a Bill of Discovery for an intended action.
While you might get such a discovery right against the ISP, this area of the law is wholly unexplored in the context of file sharing in Canada.
Getting a Bill of Discovery granted for a novel action is also problematic.
And most of all - it would be extremely expensive. You can't just do all your Bills of Discovery in one motion either. To do them all at once would amount to a Class Proceeding, which in this context, would first require a certification motion and motions to strike before you ever got a single user name. And then it's appeals to the Divisional Court, Court of Appeal, motion for Leave to Appeal to the SCC and maybe even leave granted...
Four years later...your Kazaa user isn't even with the ISP anymore and Kazaa is yesterday's news. What now Mr. Bronfman?
Theory is fine - but $$$ and delay are the essence of the practice of litigation.
Robert Trifts
Barrister & Solicitor (Ontario)
.Robert
what actually happens is that their computer makes a request and your computer actually sends the file to them. Thus, you're copying for someone else's use and infringing.
The Crux of this argument revolves around a simple question: Who is operating the computer?
Possible Answer #1: The owner of the computer is operating it. Even if he does not explicitly review and authorize each operation that the computer performs, the owner still dictated the paramaters under which the computer would make those decisions. As a result, the computer copying and sending the music file is identical in every respect to the owner copying and sending the file... a clear copyright violation.
The parallel to this notion is that you go to a friend's house, point to a CD on his shelf and say, "I want that one." The friend then burns you a copy of the CD and gives it to you, a clear violation.
Possible Answer #2: The remote individual is teleoperating the computer. The owner has permitted some limited form of teleoperation, but each action the computer takes is at the behest of that remote individual. Since the non-owner individual is running the remote computer, its actions in making a copy for that individual's personal use are reasonable and completely legal.
The parallel to this notion is that you go to a friend's house, point to a CD on his shelf and say, "I want that one." You then take it off the shelf and copy it using your friend's computer while he stands by and watches. Legal in Canada.
Possible Answer #3: The computer is operating itself. Soon it will take over the world. Muahaha. We'll relegate this answer to science fiction where it belongs.
The current caselaw is varied and confusing. Generally though, the following theme has developed: INTENT. If the owner knew and expected the computer to be used for a specific purpose, then when the computer does its as if the owner did that same action himself, regardless of who actually instigated the action. If the owner did not know and should not reasonably have known that the computer could perform such an action, then whoever actually induced it to perform that action is the guilty party.
Lets set up exteme hypotheticals to illustrate that theme:
Example #1: You rig an electric chair to a computer and a modem so that the next time a telemarketer calls, the chair will electrocute its occupant. A telemarketer calls. Who is guilty of murder, you or the telemarketer? Duh. You of course.
Example #2: Your Windows laptop gets a worm on it. You don't know it. You carry it to work behind the corporate firewall where it runs rampant, deletes everything and ruins the company. Are you guilty of destroying the company or is it entirely the worm author's fault? You're absolved; its entirely the worm author's fault.
So, how does all this help with the question of who's running the computer as it makes and sends the copy of the song? Well, it doesn't really. You could make a powerful argument that running a P2P server is no different than inviting the public at large to use your computer. You could strongly counter that by specifically setting up the computer to copy those particular songs, you and not the stranger are the agent of its copying. You could argue that its no different than radio, deliberately putting specific songs into the ether where any stranger can record them.
In fact, you can argue the issue back and forth through a lot of permutations. Before the matter is settled, you can expect the courts to argue the issue back and forth through a lot of permutations, ruling both ways while they seek the right balance.
So basically, the short answer is:
If you want to try to prove a point, go ahead but beware: Folks who want to live don't jump in front of trucks and epect them to stop, and the courts are behaving like a drunk drivers. Your best bet for longevity is not to play in the street.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Have you got any 0s?
;-)
Although there might be an issue of contributory infringement to worry about
how do i know the person im dowloading from lives in canada or somewhere else where sharing is illegal? a typical user wouldn't know this information or how to find it, they would just download
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
Its just a joke, sheesh.
The unofficial
Lets say I record Justin Timberlake off the radio. Then I make a copy of it and start handing them out. Whats the difference between this, and if those other people recorded it off the radio too. End result is the same, multiple people with copies of the same song.
:)
Hell FOX even says you can copy broadcasted shows from friends. So why is copying from one broadcast medium ok and another not?
Now before anyone says, "Oh, but if you copy the CD and share it, you are sharing songs that were not broadcasted", let me respond...
If you look at the music shared on Kazaa, most of it is the stuff that gets airplay. I have yet to see any songs from CDs that I own being shared by other users on Kazaa that did not get airtime. Besides, I heard that most of the "popular" songs on P2P are the radio-mix version anyways, which you can only get from the radio most of the time.
Heck, I could even say, "I didn't make multiple copies, I just recorded the same song off the radio on multiple occasions..."
Of course, I'm not saying I condone piracy or anything, just saying....
I don't mean to bitch unnecessarily, but Art of the Saber has been online for some time now. Ho hum.
The artist must be compensated in the end.
Can I help you with something?
How could some people be smart enough to crack GSM and not smart enough together a PDF that does not look like ass?
I don't know shit about dot products but I do know a shitty looking PDF when I see one.
Somebody give these folks some fonts!
Now here's a random thought: In Canada, your friend is allowed to lend you a CD, and once in possession of it you're allowed to make a copy for personal enjoyment. But are you allowed to lend that copy to a different friend? Does that second-hand lending still constitute "private use," or is lending a copied CD infringement?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Most of us patched the first time.
Copycats don't bother us.
You see, due to the nature of the original "benign" version, as you call it, you had to patch systems in order to not get re-infected in a hurry....
"virii" is not a word.
It's the same under certain conditions only.
In the scenario you described, it would make no difference.
Let's look at another one now...
Let's say we have
a) A guy who goes out, spends lots of time, and over a year manages to borrow and make copies of 1000 cds, either by taking them from the library, friends, strangers, etc.
b) A guy who makes 1000 copies of commercial CDs, and gives them away on the sidewalk.
Guy A took personal time and effort, and how much he got was directly related to his time and effort.
Guy B let a whole bunch of people get copies of music with NO effort.. they just had to walk by his booth.
A distributor can cause a lot of damage in a hurry.
An individual making personal copies really isn't.. he's only affecting his own habits.
The point of the law is, more or less, that if YOU take on the effort to acquire temporarily, and copy, whatever music you want, it's okay.. but if you set it up to distribute to others, it's not.
This makes sense. The fact that we want to split hairs about what digital music sharing is all about just confuses things.
So I can chop me up some FUNNY PEOPLE and make a FUNNY PEOPLE STEW.
Not so funny now, Star Wars joke man, inside my gut, eh?
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
I think Microsoft should have a 'rolling' security pack going, every update would be added to one big cumulative package that was kept current on windowsupdate. Imagine how great it would be to only have to apply ONE big patch after a clean install, instead of install, update IE, service pack, critical updates, repeat until clean.
Also, products like IE6, DirectX, and WindowsMedia could be rolled into another 'rolling upgrades' patch that would be similar in nature.
I'm getting REALLY sick of supporting Windows 98 and 2000 machines, it's beginning to take several hours to manually apply all the updates. XP isn't any better.
I understand that a lot of sysadmins would want to take things 'piecemeal', and the current methods should be kept as well for them.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
But with P2P networks, doesn't the receiver still have to make some sort of effort to try and find the stuff, and then download it? It's not like it takes 2 seconds to download it. Oftentimes it could take a few hours, even days or weeks to find and download something particular.
accomplice
n : someone who helps another person commit a crime [syn: accessory, accessary]
crime
n : Unlawful activity
And the "copyright infringement!=stealing" bot can stay out because, for today at least, copying without permission and outside of the scope of fair use is still unlawful. Don't fool yourself into thinking you are untouchable. Clear enough?
It would be legal in Saudi Arabia to both download and upload. Since the downloading is legal in Canada there would be no liability under section 80 for a Canadian in Canada to download whatever she wants if she can ascertain the source can legally upload. In fact it would be a real streatch to go after any Canadian who uploads from anyone out of the country.
However, since the communication actually does involve one machine copying from another it would seem the ISP the downloader is connecting to might well be liable for anything downloaded as well as the telecomunications industry. Yet, there are provisions in place so that the telecommunications indusrty has a legal right to copy and cache anything that is put on the net so perhaps they are off the hook too.
It seems the laws with respect to internet content have been designed so that the creators of the work lose the right to control or otherwise profit from the distribution of their content the moment it hits the net. The opportunity to profit transfers to the telecomunications industry.
This means that there is perhaps a business opportunity. If we set up a company in say Saudi Arabia to serve copyrighted material for say a small subscription and legally buy one copy of each CD then any Canadian should be able to rip off the musicians legally. As for Americans, well perhaps we can legally ship pirated music out of Saudia Arabia... I don't know... it is an open question in my mind but I do think it is legal for any American to purchase a legally created CD even if it arrives from Saudi Arabia.
Another way out for Americans might be for each to claim they are offering telecommunications services because under the DMCA they would then gain the right to "cache" any music placed on the net. They might not have the right to listen to it mind you - but then they would have to be caught in the act so to speak.
There is already another business opportunity which is well underway now... this is the resale of used CD's. For about $12 bux I can buy a used CD in the mall near here and then copy it for my personal use and then take it back an hour later for a refund of $6 bux.
Personally I think the spread is too great mindyou. But I suspect the prices will come down with more competition.
If I ever bother to buy a cd burner perhaps I will make some copies but only of material I presently own as albums. I personally consider this fair use. I do not think ripping off artists is morally acceptable but then it was a stoopid liberal politition named Sheila Copps who organised the changes to the copyright act. Thus, WHY the present laws are written the way they are is perfectly understandable.
On the other hand, what this change has accomplished is basically to remove the opportunity to profit from the distribution of copyrighted material away from the recording industry and transfer it without compensation to the retailers who set up little cd exchange shops. In a twist of fate it would seem however that the RIAA effectivly managed to do that to the artistic community because as Janic Ian pointed out, she has never received a royalty cheque where they did not claim she owed them money!
One could argue that this puts recording artists into the same boat as webmasters because webmasters also lose the opportunity to make money from the distribution of their copyrighted materials as soon as they are placed on the net.
Oh well, artists should expect to be poor and die broke!
Arent you allowed to make a 'backup copy' of software in the US without being in violation of copyright laws?
... there's little real difference between that and the arguement over canadian file sharing. Anyone who thinks different is just making a new ignorant EXCUSE to copy music.
On the otherhand the fact that we pay a levy on blank media to compensate the music industry, even on media that is not used for pirating music is a great REASON to copy music.
Drop the excuses, no need for them when there are great reasons out there.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
The situation is analogous to two casette tape machines hooked together through an analogue cable, one set to "play" and the other to "record". Clearly the "copy" is being made on the machine set to record. So long as the owner of the blank tape is the one to press record, his actions are legal. It shouldn't matter who presses play, since if there was no recording machine on the other end of the line no recording would be made.
The only difference with p2p is that the playback/recording machines are more sophisticated and the analogue cable is replaced by a set of connected digital cables (i.e. the internet). The end result is the same, and is exactly what the lawmakers had in mind when the law was enacted.
If true, that doesn't mean you can't be spanked for violations. But music organizations have to go through all the legal hoops to get there and ISPs can't rat you out even if they wanted to.
The situation is analogous to two casette tape machines hooked together through an analogue cable, one set to "play" and the other to "record". Clearly the "copy" is being made on the machine set to record. So long as the owner of the blank tape is the one to press record, his actions are legal. It shouldn't matter who presses play, since if there was no recording machine on the other end of the line no recording would be made.
The only difference with p2p is that the playback/recording machines are more sophisticated and the analogue cable is replaced by a set of connected digital cables (i.e. the internet). The end result is the same, and is exactly what the lawmakers had in mind when the law was enacted.
The question isn't how much the other party downloads from you. It's how much you make available. You're making the whole available for download; you are therefore subject to action on copyright infringement. Maybe it was serious, maybe not, but there's enough evidence to shift the burden of proof onto you.
Now, if you have logs of what was transferred, you may be able to say to the judge, "Only 100 kB of this file was ever transferred, therefore my crime is not great," and have your punishment reduced -- provided you never again infringe in this manner. If the other party can demonstrate that you knowingly made copyright material available illegally, this argument flies right out the window.
being able to download legally, but not upload even if you didn't know you were because intent is not needed means that you are now infringing upon someone's copyright when a person looks over your shoulder and reads the book that you're reading.
Those didn't look very good at all, at least compared to the movies. This was more a obviously student kung fu flick, with lightsabers.
Have the moderators even seen star wars?
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
First, I realize that any action's legality can only -truly- be tested in the courts and we're playing theoretical/law-school games here. But how about this protocol...
:-)
1) Server receives HTTP GET for file.
2) Recognize that (for example) a 3 megabyte file can be described by a 24 million bit long number in base 2, or even shorter numbers in other bases you might prefer.
3) Recognize that numbers are free and can't be copyrighted. Every number can and is used for a multitude of purposes.
4) Respond with HTTP code 401 Unauthorized or a 403 Forbidden or whatever is applicable. Heck, create a new code that informs the client that you can't give them the file requested, since copying a digital work -may- infringe on copyright law.
5) In the body of the response, give an extended error code number as per 2) above. It's up to the client how they interpret or use that number. You're giving them a freely available and multi-purpose number.
Nothing in my response to the client was a copyrighted work, just a free number that is not and cannot be copyrighted.
Okay, my tongue is out of my cheek now...
What exactly is the purpose of a TV license ?
Bit Torrent download - 45ish meg art of the sabre movie in 4 minutes 6 seconds via cable modem. My hardware firewall is making it difficult for me to serve back more than one or two uploads at a time, but this is so cool I'll probably leave BT running another hour or so. I have it set for unlimited upload, but for some reason it seems to top out at around 30kB/s and 2 or 3 connections. Download speed was in the neighborhood of 300kB/s. Just amazing, it's like the slashdot effect in reverse.
I wonder - Could something like BT be used for web sites? That way the more people hit a site, the faster it loads? A browser plugin for entire web pages instead of one file like the current BT?
Uh.... someone patent it quick before MS or SCO reads this!
The computer is operated by Mr. William Gates III, as indicated by the notion of 'My Computer'.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
"Given that the audio encoding algorithms used in perceptual codecs, by definition don't reproduce the actual sounds, but rather the composition of a series of sinusoidal or similar functions (which, by definition, are distinct sounds unto themselves) that imitate those of the original sound... I think you can see where I'm going with this line of reasoning."
Yes, I can, and I can see the flaws in it. You are misinterpreting the words "imitate" and "simulate". A simulation is where I record myself playing exactly the same notes on exactly the same equipment as, say, Jimi Hendrix (yeah, right...). An imitation is where I play something that sounds like it could be written by Hendrix, but wasn't. What this part of the law says is that the owner of the original recording has no claim to my version, no matter how close to the original it sounds. Read again, this time referring to the definitions: "...the making or duplication of another [not the same] sound recording [recorded performance] that consists entirely of an independent fixation [not from the same recorded performance] of other sounds"; is an MP3 a recording of a different performance? No, it isn't. It is a copy (albeit modified) of a recording of the same performance.
To properly burst your bubble, ALL sounds are a composition of sinusoidal functions, whether encoded or not (a square wave, for example, is a fundamental sine wave plus every harmonic sine wave. This was established long before the electronic computer was invented; try googling for "fourier transform"). Perceptual codecs merely remove sinusoidal components below a certain threshold (hence the "tweeting" sound from low-bandwidth MP3s) based on psychoacoustic priorities; it is, however, the same performance as the original by the same artist. Conversion to MP3 does not change the identity of the performers, the instrumentation used, or the arrangement of notes, so it does not change nature of the recording, only it's quality. So in the case of MP3s, the clause quoted does not apply any more than it would for the same recording passed through an analog multi-band noise gate.
Filesharing (which 95% of the time = copyright infringement) is not going away. Media copyright owners need to understand that and work with it, because there's no way to fight against it and win. But they are going to win against anyone they drag into a court of law who childishly justifies copying content with some loophole.
No one likes weasels.
"Cast
Sith Warrior CALVIN HO
Jedi Knight CARY HO
Crew
Directors CLARENCE HO
CALVIN HO
CARY HO
Martial Arts Choreography CALVIN HO
Editor CALVIN HO
Titles/Credits CLARENCE HO
Rotoscoping CLARENCE HO
CALVIN HO
Special Effects CLARENCE HO "
Lot of ho's in this film...
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
you could at least be right.
Copyright violation _is_ illegal (ie prohibited by law).
The word you were probably looking for is "criminal".
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I appreciate your opinion, and tip my hat to you for pointing out practicalities of copyright infringement lawsuits against Canadians.
It was beyond the scope of our analysis to consider those issues. We're concerned, in this article at least, purely with a legal analysis of liability of file-sharers.
So, I think the term "flawed" is not particuarly accurate. That aside, we appreciate your enlightening perspective, Robert.
As for Americans, well perhaps we can legally ship pirated music out of Saudia Arabia...
One call from the RIAA later the Saudi anti-terror police descends on you. You wouldn't want that.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
If all the users of the world used linux and this bug came out, it would probably remain unpached until they installed a new version of the OS because linux isn't user friendly enough. All of the virus/worm proliferation would be just as bad out there if the average jo computer user was using linux.
The end of the Art of the Saber: "This film is dedicated to our parents for their undying love and support, and for always putting their children first."
So that's why I never got a light sabre from my parents.
OK, here's something to think about:
When you go to college, you already have to make several purchases (books and such). Why not require students to buy one of the current crop of broadband routers (e.g. Linksys) that provide a layer of firewalling?
Granted, this won't protect the student's computer from local exploits - the worst security exploit of any computer lies between the keyboard and the chair. But for Blaster/Nimda, this would provide another layer of protection - ideally, enough to allow a student to connect their uninfected machine to the network and download the required patches.
In fact, were the routers available in the bookstore, already configured with the appropriate policies by the university, that would greatly simplify the deployment - as the student is buying their books they could also buy a router.
www.eFax.com are spammers
That Mandrake Controversy link was available a while back, and I've already copy/pasted it in my post, the last time this was mentioned.
...?). Somehow, they do have to generate money from somewhere to keep on going.
And as I said before, I don't think this is going to be that big of a deal. These are not pop up, in your face ads. During the install, there will be a few non intruding ads that are displayed. These are not full screen ads. And these ads are from companies that Mandrake thinks are relevant, and geared towards the Mandrake user. Also the other ads are basically just links in your browser, which can be easily removed.
And like i've said before, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Companies and Programmers/Developers can't survive on giving things out for free (yes, you can buy the box set, but what % of people who have linux at home actually paid for it
I personally welcome these ads, if it means a "free" high quality linux (compared to Lindows, and a few others where you have to pay, and there is no free downloads).
I always got the impression that MIT was on linux / *nix / BSD, eg the protest when Bill Gates came to visit them. Why would a school for the technically advanced use the technically sucky "we designed it so that a tellytubby could use it" OS over a more appropriate technically advanced one?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Okay, I'll admit it, I have a thing against these upper-crust schools. But a school like MIT should employ people who know better, less destructive ways of dealing with worms and viruses! It is after all, perhaps the most highly respected technology school in the country. If they are requiring this, they are teaching their students to always use heavy handed overkill.
It would be like Harvard teaching it's doctors to always amputate a foot to treat an ingrown toe nail. Sure it fixed the complaint but look how many other problems you introduce!
In my case, I guess I'll continue to look at these schools like I always have. But I hope that it has caused a few others to wake up and see that an education from a "good" school is not much better than an education from the school down the street. It just has more "snob" appeal.
You could... just send them a file with only the 1 bits through the whole file. They can fill in the rest! That's not illegal is it? You're not sending the 0's.......
In a nutshell, Private Copying allows anyone to make a copy of a song purely for their own use. As you probably know, when you share files and someone downloads from you, what actually happens is that their computer makes a request and your computer actually sends the file to them. Thus, you're copying for someone else's use and infringing. It doesn't matter if you didn't realize that's what happens, either... intent is not required for infringement.
How is this any different then physically copying. I go to a friend and as to borrow a CD to copy. The friend get's it and gives it to me.
In the case of the computer, the computer get's a copy from the disk and gives me the copy. But is the copy an exact copy of what was on disk? No! The copy is broken up into chunks that are sent over the net.
copyright allows a different representation of a work. The copy being recieved is different then the original work. The computer recieving this takes this different work and put's it together in a differnet way which exactly matches the original work that was on the original computers disk.
My question is, If someone makes a derived work from a work that is significantly different, and in no way could be confused with the original work, and then someone else takes this derived work and combines it with other derived works to recreate the original, where does the copyright law fit in?
If the law is by intent, then machines do not have intent, only users, so the argument that one machine asks for the file and the other gives it is bogus. It is the users who are doing the asking and giving, the machines are just the tools that they are using.
Nice tying of the topic together, but no.
There is no uploading involved in P2P. You don't upload to a server which then shares your data; your machine is your server, and it doesn't move. Everything is downloaded.
Remember that to upload is to push data to another machine and to download is to pull data from another machine. Upload/download isn't just direction of transfer; it also involves who is the actor causing the transfer and where he is in relation to that transfer (not physical location).
(Aside: FTP allows someone to transfer files from one system to another from a system which is neither source or destination. Either this is still considered uploading or it is neither uploading nor downloading.)
So, back to the thought of backing up your system with KaZaA: you have your original system, the whole system shared on the network. Then you wait for the rest of the world to pull it from your system (download). Only then do you have your backup stored on a myriad of servers on the net. (This will take a very long time as some files are not as interesting as others.) Then reformat, reinstall, (hope you can actually enable the firewall if the system doesn't detect an Internet connection,) reconnect to the net, download the P2P client, and then hope that everyone that pulled bits of your system is still online and sharing long enough for you to get everything back.
And there's the problem that they won't let you put your system on the net to do this sharing anyway.
Drives are cheap these days. Just get a new one (probably bigger) and do a fresh install on it. Then after all necessary precautions are taken, copy the disinfected files from the (???)-hazard drive to the new one.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Because this is a valid use of the technology, and because certain sections could be representative of other things, we'd have the curious situation of the burden of guilt possibly switching to the downloader. You're uploading a real math answer, and they're downloading only the chunks that can be turned into music. The storage does seem wildly impractical, but still... it's an interesting idea...
On the other hand, it's been demonstrated that valid alternate-use technology has a tough time in the courts, no matter how useful and valuable it is. The same P2P that makes the RIAA unhappy can be used to share research, genealogy info, all manner of very useful and legal things.
just my 3.14&ct..... cents...
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
If you share files, you're not copying for someone else. Your computer may be making a temporary copy in memory to facilitate sending the file to the downloader. But if this is considered copying, then so would playing an MP3 file on your computer, since it must be copied to memory first.
Now, playing an MP3 could be considered private copying if no one else could hear the song. But if someone else is in the room (and you're not using headphones), then it's no longer private copying. So, if file sharing is illegal in Canada, then so is playing music on your computer.
This would also make playing music on any device that uses a buffer illegal (e.g. a cd player with anti-skip).
I was just in Canada last week, and I can tell you it's nothing like Hoth! I did not see a Tauntaun anywhere, nor was I captured by a single Wampa during the time I was there. Please try to be more sensitive in the future!
Thank You,
P.S. The Probots in Canada are the friendly sort, nothing like shown in the movie.
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Suppose your Guy A spends years collecting those 1000 CD's and compressing them to his hard drive (they make about 60 GB of Ogg files). Now he invites me to his house. His computer is powered off. With his permission, I sit in front of his computer, power it up, and use his DVD burner to copy those 60 GB of Ogg files to a handful of DVD-R media that I brought with me. I power his computer back down and take the DVD-R copies back to my own home.
Is there some bizarre stretch of the imagination through which it can be claimed that he rather than I made those DVD copies? If not, what I've done is legal in Canada since I made the copies for myself, even though it was 1000 CD's with very little effort.
So I don't think effort has anything to do with the legality.
That light sabre duel (note correct spelling of SABRE) was really something. I really enjoyed watching it. Kudos to Cary Ho and Calvin Ho for their efforts.
... with a couple of Hos ...
But then again, I guess you're always guaranteed a good time