They do that in CentOS because most of the people involved with that project are also involved in RHEL. They dont want people to get confused between the two.
Hit the nail on the head there. Too bad I'm out of mod points.
The only form of 'Intellectual Property' that has remained true to its original intent is Trademarks. Trademarks are about protecting business identity not a specific product or technology (copyright and patents).
As far as I've seen, most open source projects don't mind if you include a comment like 'based on X' if you made a new browser you'd have a different name like Iceweasel and can state 'based on Firefox'. Only the most anal projects like RedHat/CentOS comparison avoid even mentioning the original project they are taking things from.
Good Samaritan laws are a result of an overly litigious society. Not necessarily things that have gone 'badly wrong' in general but a few instances here and there. Usually they're greedy malcontent individuals who need a smack upside the head.
Like some guy who sued the person who did life-saving CPR for breaking his/her ribs and decides to sue the guy who administered CPR.
Or the burglar who fell onto a bunch of knives through the roof suing the owner of the house. Though I suppose laws that prevent you from profiting from criminal acts (IE. writing a book about it) would apply in that case.
That's why you always double check with a pen/pencil or calculator.
If you want to get your code certified for use in things like hospital equipment, airplanes (civilian or military), air traffic control, etc... The bar for coding things is so much more higher than for say writing a GMail Clone. If an email service goes down people typically arent going to die as a result.
Except this sort of DRM is Microsoft's wet dream. They'll buy this company out just to incorporate it into their Operating System.
PS: Network DRM doesnt work. Encrypting the signal = automatic win. Only thing it'll do is make the websites use https and what not instead of plaintext http.
Good point, although I suppose neither party would find any objection with one the court would appoint. After all they could make an objection like say if the judge appointed someone from say MediaSentry (or is it MediaDefender? I can never tell which)
PC walks onto the screen looking like frankenstein or something Mac: What's up with you? PC: Oh I've just been turned into a zombie computer now I'm being forced to give people emails to improve their length and sexual performance *throws bag of spam at Mac*
attorney's fees will far exceed any civil penalties that the RIAA is likely, on the average, to collect. And absent the threat of an unwinnable case with six-figure damages, the PR battle moves from Pyrrhic to simply pointless.
They don't necessarily want huge damages. They're willing to blow tons of cash on potentially precedence setting cases, provided the precedence will more than likely be set in their favor. After all if they get some precedence which says they can go on a fishing expedition of John/Jane Doe's hard drive whenever they please then they'll be more likely to blow money on it and quote precedence in later cases saying they should be able to do it and probably get away with it. BTW this particular case isnt likely but its an illustration of why they'd spend money on a case where they arent likely to see a financial ROI (Return on Investment) in exchange for a legal ROI by favorable precedence. Thankfully with the likes of NYCL and others they havent set very much useful precedence in their favor.
Because ultimately being forewarned is forearmed. If you are engaging in a legal battle with a large corporation (such as the MAFIAA companies) or the government then you are engaging an adversary with a ridiculous amount of resources at their disposal. In order for this to be a 'fair' fight you have to protect yourself as much as possible from them. In other words the more you know the better off you are. The less information that your adversaries have access to the better off you are.
So apparently people are doing something wrong because the MAFIAA says so? Do you know that you can get free music already? It's called *gasp* radio! Where they overplay that people probably pirate. The thing is the price and value are not necessarily the same. A crappy music CD has a price of $20-30. The value of the crappy music CD is probably more or less $5 to most people because theres maybe 1-2 good songs and 6-8 ones of 'filler' or 'crap'. This is why iTunes became so popular when songs were $0.99 a pop. I suspect as you see the price jump up to what is it now $1.39 you'll see some people go back to pirating music they would have otherwise bought at the $0.99 mark.
In short people are suggesting ways to hide things because of the inherent imbalances in the legal system that allow large multinational corporations to bully the little guy which is what the MAFIAA have been doing to broke/poor college students (and not after say the 30-40 something wealthy businessman who might have enough $$$ to throw at a legal case). All the big company needs to do is to be able to outspend you to win 99% of the time. The key is to give up as little information as possible in order to make their case as hard to prove as possible which means they're more likely to throw up their hands and walk away from it.
The real way to mess with forensics would be to have a shell script go through and randomly alter every single timestamp on the hard drive. Good luck to forensics on that! Very hard to establish a timeline when every single timestamp is invalid.
I would think the ideal solution would be to have a court-appointed (or as you say mutually agreeable) forensics expert to do it. Then you could be fairly sure the person would be impartial and fair. As well as not belonging to a company heavily associated with the Intellectual Property movement like say someone from MediaDefender (or is it MediaSentry now?) for them to perform a fishing expedition.
I think everyone these days should go for full disk encryption with TrueCrypt just to make it impossible for these jackasses to go 'Ok gimme your hard drive! I have your IP address in my files'.
Buy Soy ink because it's better, lasts longer, or is cheaper and don't delude yourself with false green.
The only green anyone will see is the manufacturer from stupidity of PHB's wanting to 'go green'. Just paint the toner cartridges green and tell your boss they're green. You wont technically be lying then.
I love how the bill starts with the classic, "for the children" clauses to rationalize the trampling of the bill of rights.
I agree... if it's that important to remove the right to free speech "for the children" then don't try to use back door methods and underhanded techniques. Go and suggest an amendment that removes the first amendment. If you cant pass that muster then you shouldn't be making the law.
Except a corporation has no feelings and thus cannot be 'Severely Emotionally Distressed'. Not that they wouldn't try to argue that in court but if that was the case the EFF or ACLU could be on that case so fast your head would spin.
They'll use this as an excuse to do it the first time and then it'll stay on come hell or high water. The only way to get rid of a tax is through revolution.
I know its a bit tacky to respond to your own post but looking at http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/ it seems like advertisers are already exploiting NoScript's implementation to let its ads slip by. Just visit it with ABP + Noscript then let the scripts run (for the damnsmalllinux.org and googlesyndication.com
Didnt take Google very long to exploit this now did they?
What message are we sending? We're sending the message that advertisers have to try harder to make money off of us.
The message I'm trying to send is I'M NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR GOD DAMN BONER PILLS, DATING SERVICES, PORN OR WHATEVER. IF I WANT SOMETHING FROM YOU THEN I WILL LOOK FOR YOU! IN OTHERWORDS DONT CALL ME I'LL CALL YOU!
If I could install AdBlock Plus on Real Life then I damn well would. 22 Minutes of Silence per hour of TV would be absolutely wonderful (thats about 1/3rd of your viewing time BTW and they're trying to sneak that up more). Not seeing billboards flashing and distracting drivers as they zip down the highway at 120km/h would be a nice bonus (now if only we could get them to get off their damn cell phones). Having a newspaper that doesnt have 20 flyers in it or a mailbox where 90% of the stuff coming in is junk mail (and the other 10% are bills).
Maybe just MAYBE Advertisers will have to target at the site-level rather than plastering their junk through google to every single damn webpage in the world. At least then I would know that such ads would be interesting, relevant (in some way) to what I'm looking at and most importantly HAND PICKED BY THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE SITE. Meaning you wont see annoying pop-ups or annoying flash ads which take up half the page for several moments.
The nice thing about AdBlock Plus is if one does get through you can always nail it with an exception.
PS: I leave ads on for sites that I believe worth while. Like Slashdot has earned an exception because they dont have annoying flash ads that take up half the screen.
It's really about the principle behind it. Although I suspect it's already been forked.
1) People trust the guy to be upfront and honest. 2) The program's intent is to kill all javascript and other crap that lets malware in. 3) The guy utilized methods very similar to what malware does (IE. Going into other programs and messing with them).
And last but not least...
4) If the guy is able to disable them for his own website. Who knows how he implemented it. It seems if you attach a given CSS file or something it treats it as ok? Well thats fine but what if random bullshit site out there starts using that thing and gets their adds through ABP + NoScript setup? Then we're all back to being bombarded with ads again.
Slashdot Mirror
They do that in CentOS because most of the people involved with that project are also involved in RHEL. They dont want people to get confused between the two.
Hit the nail on the head there. Too bad I'm out of mod points.
The only form of 'Intellectual Property' that has remained true to its original intent is Trademarks. Trademarks are about protecting business identity not a specific product or technology (copyright and patents).
As far as I've seen, most open source projects don't mind if you include a comment like 'based on X' if you made a new browser you'd have a different name like Iceweasel and can state 'based on Firefox'. Only the most anal projects like RedHat/CentOS comparison avoid even mentioning the original project they are taking things from.
Good Samaritan laws are a result of an overly litigious society. Not necessarily things that have gone 'badly wrong' in general but a few instances here and there. Usually they're greedy malcontent individuals who need a smack upside the head.
Like some guy who sued the person who did life-saving CPR for breaking his/her ribs and decides to sue the guy who administered CPR.
Or the burglar who fell onto a bunch of knives through the roof suing the owner of the house. Though I suppose laws that prevent you from profiting from criminal acts (IE. writing a book about it) would apply in that case.
That's why you always double check with a pen/pencil or calculator.
If you want to get your code certified for use in things like hospital equipment, airplanes (civilian or military), air traffic control, etc... The bar for coding things is so much more higher than for say writing a GMail Clone. If an email service goes down people typically arent going to die as a result.
Bah they never will. Microsoft wants you to upgrade from Word 1.1 or something to Word 15.2
Except this sort of DRM is Microsoft's wet dream. They'll buy this company out just to incorporate it into their Operating System.
PS: Network DRM doesnt work. Encrypting the signal = automatic win. Only thing it'll do is make the websites use https and what not instead of plaintext http.
Good point, although I suppose neither party would find any objection with one the court would appoint. After all they could make an objection like say if the judge appointed someone from say MediaSentry (or is it MediaDefender? I can never tell which)
Yeah...
PC walks onto the screen looking like frankenstein or something
Mac: What's up with you?
PC: Oh I've just been turned into a zombie computer now I'm being forced to give people emails to improve their length and sexual performance *throws bag of spam at Mac*
Too bad as President he had Sovereign Immunity to fall back on. You dont.
attorney's fees will far exceed any civil penalties that the RIAA is likely, on the average, to collect. And absent the threat of an unwinnable case with six-figure damages, the PR battle moves from Pyrrhic to simply pointless.
They don't necessarily want huge damages. They're willing to blow tons of cash on potentially precedence setting cases, provided the precedence will more than likely be set in their favor. After all if they get some precedence which says they can go on a fishing expedition of John/Jane Doe's hard drive whenever they please then they'll be more likely to blow money on it and quote precedence in later cases saying they should be able to do it and probably get away with it. BTW this particular case isnt likely but its an illustration of why they'd spend money on a case where they arent likely to see a financial ROI (Return on Investment) in exchange for a legal ROI by favorable precedence. Thankfully with the likes of NYCL and others they havent set very much useful precedence in their favor.
Because ultimately being forewarned is forearmed. If you are engaging in a legal battle with a large corporation (such as the MAFIAA companies) or the government then you are engaging an adversary with a ridiculous amount of resources at their disposal. In order for this to be a 'fair' fight you have to protect yourself as much as possible from them. In other words the more you know the better off you are. The less information that your adversaries have access to the better off you are.
So apparently people are doing something wrong because the MAFIAA says so? Do you know that you can get free music already? It's called *gasp* radio! Where they overplay that people probably pirate. The thing is the price and value are not necessarily the same. A crappy music CD has a price of $20-30. The value of the crappy music CD is probably more or less $5 to most people because theres maybe 1-2 good songs and 6-8 ones of 'filler' or 'crap'. This is why iTunes became so popular when songs were $0.99 a pop. I suspect as you see the price jump up to what is it now $1.39 you'll see some people go back to pirating music they would have otherwise bought at the $0.99 mark.
In short people are suggesting ways to hide things because of the inherent imbalances in the legal system that allow large multinational corporations to bully the little guy which is what the MAFIAA have been doing to broke/poor college students (and not after say the 30-40 something wealthy businessman who might have enough $$$ to throw at a legal case). All the big company needs to do is to be able to outspend you to win 99% of the time. The key is to give up as little information as possible in order to make their case as hard to prove as possible which means they're more likely to throw up their hands and walk away from it.
They rip out their hair, scream and cry and tell the judge that you're hiding something because they cant establish a timeline.
The real way to mess with forensics would be to have a shell script go through and randomly alter every single timestamp on the hard drive. Good luck to forensics on that! Very hard to establish a timeline when every single timestamp is invalid.
Dont buy anything with a credit card. Use cash for small purchases (under $200) like drives instead.
And that's all that's necessary: for an expert to have an opinion, not rock solid proof. This is civil court baby, not criminal.
Obligatory quote: Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but they're usually full of crap.
I would think the ideal solution would be to have a court-appointed (or as you say mutually agreeable) forensics expert to do it. Then you could be fairly sure the person would be impartial and fair. As well as not belonging to a company heavily associated with the Intellectual Property movement like say someone from MediaDefender (or is it MediaSentry now?) for them to perform a fishing expedition.
I think everyone these days should go for full disk encryption with TrueCrypt just to make it impossible for these jackasses to go 'Ok gimme your hard drive! I have your IP address in my files'.
Buy Soy ink because it's better, lasts longer, or is cheaper and don't delude yourself with false green.
The only green anyone will see is the manufacturer from stupidity of PHB's wanting to 'go green'. Just paint the toner cartridges green and tell your boss they're green. You wont technically be lying then.
I love how the bill starts with the classic, "for the children" clauses to rationalize the trampling of the bill of rights.
I agree... if it's that important to remove the right to free speech "for the children" then don't try to use back door methods and underhanded techniques. Go and suggest an amendment that removes the first amendment. If you cant pass that muster then you shouldn't be making the law.
Except a corporation has no feelings and thus cannot be 'Severely Emotionally Distressed'. Not that they wouldn't try to argue that in court but if that was the case the EFF or ACLU could be on that case so fast your head would spin.
Now look at it.. you have both sales tax AND income tax. Way to redistribute the burden to the taxpayers.
Say NO to Tax.
They'll use this as an excuse to do it the first time and then it'll stay on come hell or high water. The only way to get rid of a tax is through revolution.
I know its a bit tacky to respond to your own post but looking at http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/ it seems like advertisers are already exploiting NoScript's implementation to let its ads slip by. Just visit it with ABP + Noscript then let the scripts run (for the damnsmalllinux.org and googlesyndication.com
Didnt take Google very long to exploit this now did they?
Ad Blockers suck, plain and simple.
No Advertisers suck plain and simple.
What message are we sending? We're sending the message that advertisers have to try harder to make money off of us.
The message I'm trying to send is I'M NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR GOD DAMN BONER PILLS, DATING SERVICES, PORN OR WHATEVER. IF I WANT SOMETHING FROM YOU THEN I WILL LOOK FOR YOU! IN OTHERWORDS DONT CALL ME I'LL CALL YOU!
If I could install AdBlock Plus on Real Life then I damn well would. 22 Minutes of Silence per hour of TV would be absolutely wonderful (thats about 1/3rd of your viewing time BTW and they're trying to sneak that up more). Not seeing billboards flashing and distracting drivers as they zip down the highway at 120km/h would be a nice bonus (now if only we could get them to get off their damn cell phones). Having a newspaper that doesnt have 20 flyers in it or a mailbox where 90% of the stuff coming in is junk mail (and the other 10% are bills).
Maybe just MAYBE Advertisers will have to target at the site-level rather than plastering their junk through google to every single damn webpage in the world. At least then I would know that such ads would be interesting, relevant (in some way) to what I'm looking at and most importantly HAND PICKED BY THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE SITE. Meaning you wont see annoying pop-ups or annoying flash ads which take up half the page for several moments.
The nice thing about AdBlock Plus is if one does get through you can always nail it with an exception.
PS: I leave ads on for sites that I believe worth while. Like Slashdot has earned an exception because they dont have annoying flash ads that take up half the screen.
It's really about the principle behind it. Although I suspect it's already been forked.
1) People trust the guy to be upfront and honest.
2) The program's intent is to kill all javascript and other crap that lets malware in.
3) The guy utilized methods very similar to what malware does (IE. Going into other programs and messing with them).
And last but not least...
4) If the guy is able to disable them for his own website. Who knows how he implemented it. It seems if you attach a given CSS file or something it treats it as ok? Well thats fine but what if random bullshit site out there starts using that thing and gets their adds through ABP + NoScript setup? Then we're all back to being bombarded with ads again.
It's called diplomacy. You tell them we don't give a fuck in some nice flowery words.