So the difference between Google and TPB is that Google indexes everything, and TPB indexes torrents? So the only difference is protocol? I fail to see why one protocol is legal, and the other not. Would TPB be in the clear if, in addition to indexing torrents, they also indexed web pages?
Imagine how bad they would feel if Linux took off on the desktop on the exact same year that the yay-sayers stopped saying "???? is the year of the Linux desktop!"? Come to think of it, that might actually happen. A self-negating prophecy.
They claim that there is a complex technical reason that they can't comply. They claim that they can't begin to explain it. Not having the logs requested in not complex, not really technical, and not difficult to explain.
there is no denying that their insane prices were in part due to not giving anything back to the artists/record companies.
As I understand it, the copyright has expired on all of the music that AllOfMP3 sells. Russia has (more) sane copyright terms than places like US and Europe. In other words, according to the terms of copyright, the artist has already got the money that they were owed, or at least given the chance to earn money from their work.
Slashdot... has informed us thoroughly how deep shit MS is in. Nobody wants their products anymore, everybody and their parents (literally) are switching to Mac or Linux... Vista is such a big P.O.S. and sales failure that we suspect it's not really running on any PC at all... And MS are obviously well down the road to bankruptcy.
So? It's a trojan, meaning that one has to willingly open it; more bluntly, it means that the police will need to trick people into opening them.
Here in the USA, the police will break into your house to install keyloggers and such. Hardware keyloggers, usually. They will only send something through email if they don't know who you are (such as virus writers) and they do it to find out who, and where you are, not to listen to your phone calls. The problem with sending software trojans is that it usually doesn't work, and might get noticed.
It's nice that Skype is at least smart enough not to use DES, or ROT-13. AES is good encryption.
Naturally, although AES is an excellent algorithm, it will fail if the implementation is weak, especially in the key handling.
I agree that the code is largely obfuscated, and without open source, it would be a nightmare to expect to rely on its security.
I couldn't agree with you more.
However, there was an "independent" review of Skype, which I understand was able to review the source code.
You put "independent" in quotes. After reading the pdf you linked to, I could see why. From the pdf:
You may imagine my delight when, in April 2005, Skype contacted me and invited me to compete for the job of performing an independent evaluation of Skype information security
Skype thinks they are hiring an independent evaluator? I wonder how many independent evaluators they had to go through before they found one who was confident in Skype's security, so that they could display how secure they are.
So to summarize, we have:
+ Skype uses a good, open, proven (no exploits yet) cryptographic algorithm
+ No security flaws have been found in Skype
+ Some guy who works for Skype testifies that Skype is good, solid code (it's worth something)
- The implementation is closed-source. Skype even goes so far as to obfuscate their code
- No independent evaluations have been done on Skype's source code
- Skype does not know what an independent evaluation is
I would recommend against using Skype if security is an issue.
Skype is not securely encrypted. The only client is closed source, and the protocol is not open, nor peer-reviewed. The developers themselves have said that security analysts would probably quickly find holes if they opened the source.
It is less likely that thieves and spies, etc, will be able to eavesdrop on your Skype conversations than with a plain old phone. But don't treat it as secure communications.
someone has made noises about suing him for having this software out there It's a terrible theory. If he is doing it under duress, there is no good reason for him to keep the duress a secret.
I wouldn't be so sure. Large corporations, and lawyers, can be pretty scary. And deceptive, and sometimes outright dishonest and threatening. Perhaps it is as the GP says, and this guy doesn't know his rights?
I am following up to my own post, after reading TFA.
It appears that the question I brought up above is exactly what this ruling is about. Apparently, the courts have decided to get between victims and their (random stranger) lawyers. Sickening. Perhaps this will get overturned.
If you can afford a real lawyer, it is probably better to consult one of those. But if you have no money, consulting random strangers might be your only option. It is a sad state of affairs which has just gotten worse.
There is good news. Using copyrighted works for court-type purposes has been deemed fair use by the courts, in the same way that you can use copyrighted works for parody. This means you can share copyrighted works with your lawyer, for example. Maybe, since so many people use random strangers from the internet as lawyers, people can still post cease-and-desist (C&D) letters on their blogs.
Perhaps it is only infringement to use the copyrighted C&D letters for their intended purpose, without a license. I can't imagine a court would rule posting a C&D letter on the internet as infringement, because: a) it does not lessen the value of the letter. Most of those reading it would not have any intent of actually using it b) it is not for profit c) it is for critique purposes c) it is for legal advise (as mentioned above)
Of course, like so many things, whether or not posting a C&D letter is infringement or not is up to the mystical whims of the courts, and after the fact too.
I'm being serious when I say it's to check to see if anyone I know might need to be concerned some of their pictures are now in the wild.
I wouldn't bother. There is nothing positive you can do about it. Them knowing won't help. Unless of course you're just trying to give yourself an alibi.
If we could keep large piles of easily searchable garbage, and not have it take up space or stink up the place, and if deleting it was as simple as pressing a button, we would keep our trash around for weeks, just in case we accidentally threw something away. The janitor coming around and emptying our trash for us is just a hack, because real trash isn't as easy to deal with as email. There is no logical reason to empty someone's email trash for them. They will do it when they are ready. If space is a concern, there are better solutions. If you mess with the users trash folders, they will have to compensate by creating their own trash folder, and that's just inconvenient.
I agree that using the trash folder for archival purposes is dumb. However, it is a straw man argument. Obviously, the trash folder is a holding area for stuff that is probably trash, and not a place to archive email.
The United States has a corrupt government As opposed to what nation? North Korea? China?
This "corrupt government" nonsense really gets to me. The US government is quite possibly one of the least corrupt governments on the planet, yet you act as if you're currently under the boot of the Fourth Reich. Give your head a shake!
I agree that the USA is less corrupt than most countries. But shit doesn't get less stinky just because you bring it into a sulphur hot spring.
That partly depends on what you want to do. I'm just a regular guy, and the kernels in Debian Stable and Debian Testing work for me. I don't know what to say if you're trying to write a device driver or something. But one of the things that distros are for is a stable Linux kernel.
Your "a trash folder is like a trash can" analogy is flawed. The whole point of having a "trash folder" is so you can undo mistakes, and search through the trash folder before deleting it. A real life trash can is more synonymous with deleting your email. The trash folder is not supposed to be a permanent decision. If the trash folder was intended to be permanent, then what good is it? It would just be another way of deleting your email. You deserved to get yelled at. Bad IT contractor! Bad! Bad! Stay out of the trash you bad dog!
Slashdot Mirror
"And the father is ... Mrs. Cartman!"
So the difference between Google and TPB is that Google indexes everything, and TPB indexes torrents? So the only difference is protocol? I fail to see why one protocol is legal, and the other not. Would TPB be in the clear if, in addition to indexing torrents, they also indexed web pages?
Imagine how bad they would feel if Linux took off on the desktop on the exact same year that the yay-sayers stopped saying "???? is the year of the Linux desktop!"? Come to think of it, that might actually happen. A self-negating prophecy.
Not really. We have always been at war with Eastasia. It used to be called something else, though.
I started reading your comment, and asked myself, "What's Cloverfield?" Apparently, it's a movie.
They claim that there is a complex technical reason that they can't comply. They claim that they can't begin to explain it. Not having the logs requested in not complex, not really technical, and not difficult to explain.
Done forget loose/lose.
As I understand it, the copyright has expired on all of the music that AllOfMP3 sells. Russia has (more) sane copyright terms than places like US and Europe. In other words, according to the terms of copyright, the artist has already got the money that they were owed, or at least given the chance to earn money from their work.
Some people are just optimistic.
... though some AC said there was someone hit by Sky-LabCompensation? Such as court-ordered re-incarnation?
https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ They will allow you to pay in cash, anonymously.
Here in the USA, the police will break into your house to install keyloggers and such. Hardware keyloggers, usually. They will only send something through email if they don't know who you are (such as virus writers) and they do it to find out who, and where you are, not to listen to your phone calls. The problem with sending software trojans is that it usually doesn't work, and might get noticed.
It's nice that Skype is at least smart enough not to use DES, or ROT-13. AES is good encryption.
Naturally, although AES is an excellent algorithm, it will fail if the implementation is weak, especially in the key handling. I agree that the code is largely obfuscated, and without open source, it would be a nightmare to expect to rely on its security.I couldn't agree with you more.
However, there was an "independent" review of Skype, which I understand was able to review the source code.You put "independent" in quotes. After reading the pdf you linked to, I could see why. From the pdf:
You may imagine my delight when, in April 2005, Skype contacted me and invited me to compete for the job of performing an independent evaluation of Skype information securitySkype thinks they are hiring an independent evaluator? I wonder how many independent evaluators they had to go through before they found one who was confident in Skype's security, so that they could display how secure they are.
So to summarize, we have:
+ Skype uses a good, open, proven (no exploits yet) cryptographic algorithm
+ No security flaws have been found in Skype
+ Some guy who works for Skype testifies that Skype is good, solid code (it's worth something)
- The implementation is closed-source. Skype even goes so far as to obfuscate their code
- No independent evaluations have been done on Skype's source code
- Skype does not know what an independent evaluation is
I would recommend against using Skype if security is an issue.
Skype is not securely encrypted. The only client is closed source, and the protocol is not open, nor peer-reviewed. The developers themselves have said that security analysts would probably quickly find holes if they opened the source.
It is less likely that thieves and spies, etc, will be able to eavesdrop on your Skype conversations than with a plain old phone. But don't treat it as secure communications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype
I wouldn't be so sure. Large corporations, and lawyers, can be pretty scary. And deceptive, and sometimes outright dishonest and threatening. Perhaps it is as the GP says, and this guy doesn't know his rights?
I am following up to my own post, after reading TFA.
It appears that the question I brought up above is exactly what this ruling is about. Apparently, the courts have decided to get between victims and their (random stranger) lawyers. Sickening. Perhaps this will get overturned.
If you can afford a real lawyer, it is probably better to consult one of those. But if you have no money, consulting random strangers might be your only option. It is a sad state of affairs which has just gotten worse.
There is good news. Using copyrighted works for court-type purposes has been deemed fair use by the courts, in the same way that you can use copyrighted works for parody. This means you can share copyrighted works with your lawyer, for example. Maybe, since so many people use random strangers from the internet as lawyers, people can still post cease-and-desist (C&D) letters on their blogs.
Perhaps it is only infringement to use the copyrighted C&D letters for their intended purpose, without a license. I can't imagine a court would rule posting a C&D letter on the internet as infringement, because:
a) it does not lessen the value of the letter. Most of those reading it would not have any intent of actually using it
b) it is not for profit
c) it is for critique purposes
c) it is for legal advise (as mentioned above)
Of course, like so many things, whether or not posting a C&D letter is infringement or not is up to the mystical whims of the courts, and after the fact too.
I wouldn't bother. There is nothing positive you can do about it. Them knowing won't help. Unless of course you're just trying to give yourself an alibi.
I want to grab it myself actually.There is no shame in that. Have fun!
If we could keep large piles of easily searchable garbage, and not have it take up space or stink up the place, and if deleting it was as simple as pressing a button, we would keep our trash around for weeks, just in case we accidentally threw something away. The janitor coming around and emptying our trash for us is just a hack, because real trash isn't as easy to deal with as email. There is no logical reason to empty someone's email trash for them. They will do it when they are ready. If space is a concern, there are better solutions. If you mess with the users trash folders, they will have to compensate by creating their own trash folder, and that's just inconvenient.
I agree that using the trash folder for archival purposes is dumb. However, it is a straw man argument. Obviously, the trash folder is a holding area for stuff that is probably trash, and not a place to archive email.
Maybe. It is an interesting commentary on the times, when you can't tell the difference between reality and parody.
I didn't see any mention of BSD.
I agree that the USA is less corrupt than most countries. But shit doesn't get less stinky just because you bring it into a sulphur hot spring.
That partly depends on what you want to do. I'm just a regular guy, and the kernels in Debian Stable and Debian Testing work for me. I don't know what to say if you're trying to write a device driver or something. But one of the things that distros are for is a stable Linux kernel.
Your "a trash folder is like a trash can" analogy is flawed. The whole point of having a "trash folder" is so you can undo mistakes, and search through the trash folder before deleting it. A real life trash can is more synonymous with deleting your email. The trash folder is not supposed to be a permanent decision. If the trash folder was intended to be permanent, then what good is it? It would just be another way of deleting your email. You deserved to get yelled at. Bad IT contractor! Bad! Bad! Stay out of the trash you bad dog!
and kill people...