My understanding was he meant casing in the sense of wanting to break in while he was gone, since to some extent once you give up physical security all bets are off.
Two relevant anecdotes from when I was in college:
1) In an artificial life course we got to propose our own semester project. One guy wanted to write a worm, but the professor was afraid that his tenure would not be enough to protect his job if the worm got out of hand.
2) One faculty member that taught a computer security course used to make the offer that anybody who could successfully access his gradebook and change their grade could have the higher grade. He stopped doing this after students switched from trying to electronically break in to just casing his house.
That's a good question that I don't really have an answer for. I don't know know where the line is drawn for reverse engineering -- just dumping the entry points or actively inspecting the internals to figure out what it's doing. Or they could claim that they discovered an undocumented API when testing a random application that failed.
I don't know if angry ninjas were actively involved, but I remember a few years ago they basically froze development to do a code audit. Something about making sure they were able to prove there was nothing in the code base that had been reverse engineered and that all the code was either freshly written or had been copied from publicly-available sources. http://www.reactos.org/wiki/Audit
I had the same experience with ReactOS as several other posters... I installed it on a VM, saw all of the screenshots on the site of "look what we can run!" and tried to replicate some of those, and basically had one crash after another
Ah, glad to see somebody beat me to saying this. One of my buddies in undergrad had the same "I don't want to pirate" mentality, but he wanted to play Super Metroid sometime in that period between a real SNES being readily available and the knockoffs you can buy for $30 being available. His solution, of course, was to get ZSNES and the ROM, but he also went out to a GameStop or something and bought a used copy of the cart.
A patent covers the method, not the implementation. If the patent is expired and the code is not covered under copyright, you can use it. If there are other patents that cover it that aren't expired, then you'd still be exposed to trolling.
Let the Microsoft bashing and the Facebook bashing continue for no good reason!
FTFY
FTFY. At least, in this case. I mean, sure, bash Facebook's privacy debacles, and bash Microsoft's patent strong-arming, but there's no real reason to bash them in the context of this article.
And now I will get modded down for daring to disagree without posting as AC.
This is covered a bit in TFA. They reference a case that does remote DVR storage and make the distinction that having one copy that you send to multiple people becomes a broadcast, whereas keeping an individual copy for each person that uploads it is actually streaming the individual their own copy. So essentially, for your work case, you would have to have an individual disc, file, whatever medium stored the content you were streaming, and make sure that you were demonstrably sending a different copy of the same bits to different members. (This article What Colour are your bits seems relevant.) The implication appears to be that Google and Amazon will not be able to use any sort of duplication-based compression to save space when multiple people upload the same track, if they don't want to run afoul of broadcast licensing restrictions.
That's what happened for me with Wave. Eventually I got my wife on it and we used it to plan some travel, but none of my other friends really used it. (Of course, the bigger problem with Wave was nobody really knew what to use it for, even once it opened and they had people to use it with.)
Plus has worked out much better for my social network, though: one of my friends got an invite and the majority of our network got added in the ~12 hour period that invites were open. One of our friends remarked that we're clearly not the norm and that while most of her computer science grad student friends had gotten full networks, all of her non-computer science friends on Plus basically only had her in their circles.
I guess it depends on what the states do, then. Removing it from federal schedules just pushes down to the states. Some states will probably legalize it, but some states that were relying on the federal categorization will probably locally criminalize it. (This is based on the fact that salvia is currently not listed on any federal schedule but has been individually criminalized in several states.)
There was some other post in this thread about ripping jitter, but I can't really say anything about that. But what does whether the intermediate wav matches have to with anything? Even if every copy of a CD ripped to the same wav before encoding to MP3, there's no way to reverse from the MP3 to the wav to somehow get the "original" MD5 to check the match. Unless the MP3 for some reason already stores an MD5 of its "parent" wav.
Interesting. I'd used mp3.com a lot back then, but always to listen to independent music. (Also, it's a nice reminder that "cloud" music services/music lockers have existed for a long time).
But the way that summary reads, the court decision was that mp3.com was outside of fair use and was infringing for making available. ("However, it was MP3.com doing the copying from the CDs onto their servers, and the court found this copying not a fair use.") It doesn't really say anything about whether a user listening to or downloading a track that they own would be an unauthorized copy.
Depending on the (original) source of your pirated tunes, and how particular you are about your file naming scheme, you could probably just do a find on files named with common scene release groups. If your files didn't come straight from scene releases, or if you renamed them to fit your regular naming scheme, I think most groups also put their name in the ID3 tags.
Through an Md5 database hosted on the RIAA website or funded by the RIAA. Every legal file could be known. And then every illegal file would be among those not in the official database.
Won't work. From an article about whether iCloud's match could be used as a honeypot, that I thought was posted on/. a few days ago:
Then there will be MP3s that individuals created themselves from, for example, ârippingâ(TM) their CD collections. While these are not watermarked to the individual, they appear to be unique for each âripâ(TM). To confirm this, I ran a test with fresh installations of the exact same CD ripping software on two different computers. I then had them rip the same track from the exact same CD using the unchanged system default settings on both computers. The MD5 hashes did not match.
I don't think that idea has actually been tested. It's not entirely clear what constitutes an "unauthorized copy." We can throw away the ridiculous old RIAA argument that ripping from your own CD is unauthorized and not fair use. But is it an authorized copy to copy somebody else's fair-use rip because it's easier than making your own rip? And can you prove that you owned the CD before you made that copy? I think at that point you get into the highly-paid lawyer version of "he said, she said."
Well of course that's a much better solution, and I wouldn't be that surprised if somebody reverse-engineered the PC version at least to replace that. I was just pointing out the problem with the summary's suggested solution.
The problem is that set number of years will always be too short for some group of gamers, and in fact the ones who are still playing in the long tail are the ones most likely to be vocally upset about support being dropped.
TFA doesn't say where the server was hosted, except that explicitly wasn't in the US. My assumption though is that the domain registrar was based in the US, which is how ICE seized the domain.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding was he meant casing in the sense of wanting to break in while he was gone, since to some extent once you give up physical security all bets are off.
Two relevant anecdotes from when I was in college:
1) In an artificial life course we got to propose our own semester project. One guy wanted to write a worm, but the professor was afraid that his tenure would not be enough to protect his job if the worm got out of hand.
2) One faculty member that taught a computer security course used to make the offer that anybody who could successfully access his gradebook and change their grade could have the higher grade. He stopped doing this after students switched from trying to electronically break in to just casing his house.
That's a good question that I don't really have an answer for. I don't know know where the line is drawn for reverse engineering -- just dumping the entry points or actively inspecting the internals to figure out what it's doing. Or they could claim that they discovered an undocumented API when testing a random application that failed.
I don't know if angry ninjas were actively involved, but I remember a few years ago they basically froze development to do a code audit. Something about making sure they were able to prove there was nothing in the code base that had been reverse engineered and that all the code was either freshly written or had been copied from publicly-available sources. http://www.reactos.org/wiki/Audit
I had the same experience with ReactOS as several other posters... I installed it on a VM, saw all of the screenshots on the site of "look what we can run!" and tried to replicate some of those, and basically had one crash after another
Ah, glad to see somebody beat me to saying this. One of my buddies in undergrad had the same "I don't want to pirate" mentality, but he wanted to play Super Metroid sometime in that period between a real SNES being readily available and the knockoffs you can buy for $30 being available. His solution, of course, was to get ZSNES and the ROM, but he also went out to a GameStop or something and bought a used copy of the cart.
A patent covers the method, not the implementation. If the patent is expired and the code is not covered under copyright, you can use it. If there are other patents that cover it that aren't expired, then you'd still be exposed to trolling.
(IANAL)
I'm waiting for the email from Defective By Design demanding that we boycott emacs and/or send large amounts of some token object to Stallman.
They've actually started posting signs around Charlottesville to alert both bicyclists and drivers when a cyclist can use the full lane.
Let the Microsoft bashing and the Facebook bashing continue for no good reason!
FTFY
FTFY. At least, in this case. I mean, sure, bash Facebook's privacy debacles, and bash Microsoft's patent strong-arming, but there's no real reason to bash them in the context of this article.
And now I will get modded down for daring to disagree without posting as AC.
This is covered a bit in TFA. They reference a case that does remote DVR storage and make the distinction that having one copy that you send to multiple people becomes a broadcast, whereas keeping an individual copy for each person that uploads it is actually streaming the individual their own copy. So essentially, for your work case, you would have to have an individual disc, file, whatever medium stored the content you were streaming, and make sure that you were demonstrably sending a different copy of the same bits to different members. (This article What Colour are your bits seems relevant.) The implication appears to be that Google and Amazon will not be able to use any sort of duplication-based compression to save space when multiple people upload the same track, if they don't want to run afoul of broadcast licensing restrictions.
That's what happened for me with Wave. Eventually I got my wife on it and we used it to plan some travel, but none of my other friends really used it. (Of course, the bigger problem with Wave was nobody really knew what to use it for, even once it opened and they had people to use it with.)
Plus has worked out much better for my social network, though: one of my friends got an invite and the majority of our network got added in the ~12 hour period that invites were open. One of our friends remarked that we're clearly not the norm and that while most of her computer science grad student friends had gotten full networks, all of her non-computer science friends on Plus basically only had her in their circles.
I'd originally created this to use as a 404 page on my website, but I never actually implemented it as such.
I see what you did there.
I'd never even heard of it until there was announcement that Virginia was criminalizing it.
I guess it depends on what the states do, then. Removing it from federal schedules just pushes down to the states. Some states will probably legalize it, but some states that were relying on the federal categorization will probably locally criminalize it. (This is based on the fact that salvia is currently not listed on any federal schedule but has been individually criminalized in several states.)
There was some other post in this thread about ripping jitter, but I can't really say anything about that. But what does whether the intermediate wav matches have to with anything? Even if every copy of a CD ripped to the same wav before encoding to MP3, there's no way to reverse from the MP3 to the wav to somehow get the "original" MD5 to check the match. Unless the MP3 for some reason already stores an MD5 of its "parent" wav.
Interesting. I'd used mp3.com a lot back then, but always to listen to independent music. (Also, it's a nice reminder that "cloud" music services/music lockers have existed for a long time).
But the way that summary reads, the court decision was that mp3.com was outside of fair use and was infringing for making available. ("However, it was MP3.com doing the copying from the CDs onto their servers, and the court found this copying not a fair use.") It doesn't really say anything about whether a user listening to or downloading a track that they own would be an unauthorized copy.
Depending on the (original) source of your pirated tunes, and how particular you are about your file naming scheme, you could probably just do a find on files named with common scene release groups. If your files didn't come straight from scene releases, or if you renamed them to fit your regular naming scheme, I think most groups also put their name in the ID3 tags.
Through an Md5 database hosted on the RIAA website or funded by the RIAA. Every legal file could be known. And then every illegal file would be among those not in the official database.
Won't work. From an article about whether iCloud's match could be used as a honeypot, that I thought was posted on /. a few days ago:
Then there will be MP3s that individuals created themselves from, for example, ârippingâ(TM) their CD collections. While these are not watermarked to the individual, they appear to be unique for each âripâ(TM). To confirm this, I ran a test with fresh installations of the exact same CD ripping software on two different computers. I then had them rip the same track from the exact same CD using the unchanged system default settings on both computers. The MD5 hashes did not match.
( http://betweenthenumbers.net/2011/06/is-apples-icloud-music-match-a-possible-honeypot/ )
I don't think that idea has actually been tested. It's not entirely clear what constitutes an "unauthorized copy." We can throw away the ridiculous old RIAA argument that ripping from your own CD is unauthorized and not fair use. But is it an authorized copy to copy somebody else's fair-use rip because it's easier than making your own rip? And can you prove that you owned the CD before you made that copy? I think at that point you get into the highly-paid lawyer version of "he said, she said."
Although this is the first time I've seen him post without spouting any chiropractic terminology.
Not saying he's not a troll, or even that he's not trolling in this case... but could this be the advent of a kinder, subtler "Dr." Bob troll?
Well of course that's a much better solution, and I wouldn't be that surprised if somebody reverse-engineered the PC version at least to replace that. I was just pointing out the problem with the summary's suggested solution.
The problem is that set number of years will always be too short for some group of gamers, and in fact the ones who are still playing in the long tail are the ones most likely to be vocally upset about support being dropped.
Come on, an article about an ice age would've been the only appropriate time to refer to a first post at frosty piss.
TFA doesn't say where the server was hosted, except that explicitly wasn't in the US. My assumption though is that the domain registrar was based in the US, which is how ICE seized the domain.