This could only work for annoyance and not for security purposes. The servers cannot practically reencode video on the fly for each client, causing the limited captcha randomness you suggested. Sending down a smaller overlay for the client to render would make it easy to actually find a frame where the important letters in the captcha are clearly distinguishable.
A plugin with database looks like it would be the way to go to combat this. From the samples on the nucaptcha website, the message is bright red moving text embedded in the mp4 encoded video. They may just have a hard-coded demonstration, but since it wasn't actually overlayed, it should be easy to look up the ID (or URL) of the video file, or even a hash of some small amount of the video sequence itself.
The samples I saw were each over 1.5 megabytes. I would be glad to to fight this waste of bandwidth.
positive for Microsoft, negative for those who want to own the rights to view the contents of their data. I am a MS hater as much as the next guy, but this is complete nonsense.
Yes, this is a PR stunt. Yes, it is intended to influence people by making them believe that MS has changed and is more open when it is not likely to happen. No, providing information about an older format that a user may still be using can not in any way be taken as a way to strip people of their rights to view the contents of their data.
That said, the article made me feel a little ill. I'll paraphrase it in much shorter terms:
The data was already available by sending off a request by email, MS is just making it easier to get.
There are many implementations of OOXML out there. [The provided list is questionable as far as completeness of implementation. I suspect most of the implementations are provided for document type detection or simple text conversion and not much else.]
MS claims to be going above and beyond their duties to open a sourceforge document translator project.
The whole brief is an interesting read. It came across to me not only as an attack on RIAA motion for summary judgement but also as an attack on the practice of bringing lawsuits against noncommercial copying where there is little proof of actual infringement.
I really like this paragraph:
To reiterate, it is not Defendants' fault that Plaintiffs are unable to produce evidence of actual distributions beyond the 11 authorized downloads performed by MediaSentry, nor is it their burden to prove Plaintiffs' case. Plaintiffs include some of the largest companies in the recording industry, with nearly limitless resources when compared to Defendants. It is Plaintiffs who have opted to file more than 20,000 lawsuits against individuals, many whom are unprepared for the unfamiliar (to a layperson) demands of discovery. It is Plaintiffs who have chosen to target noncommercial activities that occur in the privacy of the home, thereby injecting themselves "behind closed doors" where factual investigation can be difficult. Having put themselves in this position, Plaintiffs ought not be heard to complain that proving their distribution claims poses evidentiary challenges.
I don't think they could have worded that particular face-slapping better.
I had to fight them for a long time to use it, but now even my parents (in their 60s) suffer from internet withdrawal if they go without for a few days.
52.7. (a) A person shall not require, coerce, or compel any other
individual to undergo the subcutaneous implanting of an
identification device....
(h) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Identification device" means any item, application, or
product that is passively or actively capable of transmitting
personal information, including, but not limited to, devices using
radio frequency technology.
And "personal information" includes:
(L) Photograph.
(O) Any unique personal identifier.
Seems to me that tattoos are already covered, so long as it is unique to an individual. If however, they use a generic logo which is not unique to a single person, someone could argue that is not a photograph and thus not covered.
How can somebody be expected to write a relevant and fair review of a game (or movie for that fact) without experiencing the whole thing. That's not hard to do with a 1.5 hour movie, but with a game that could take 24 or (depending on the game) 40+ hours to play, there is no way any reviewer can get through it all and keep a decent schedule.
When was the last time an art critic spent 40+ hours staring at a painting before making a review? I'll bet they had their general impression of it within the first 10 seconds of looking.
Playing a demo/sample will tell you a little but its like reveiwing an entire movie after you have only watched the trailer, 9 times out of 10 the trailer looks awesome but the movie is crap. There is a major difference here. If you watch a 5 minute trailer of a 1.5 hour movie, you are taking in roughly 5.5 percent of the show. Unfortunately, that 5.5 percent is completely chosen by the people who want you to watch it. It will lose all context and in many cases be the only 5 minutes of the movie that would be worth watching.
For games, on the other hand, playing for 15 minutes out of a 24 hour game you will take in only 1% of the game. Since most games involve some repetition, that 1% may well show 60% of what happens in the game (most people will never see 100% of a game). With playable demos, you can also drive the game where you want it and get a feel for how it works and you can know within a reasonable doubt if the game is worth playing or not. That's something a force-fed video stream will never give you.
If they really want someone to give a proper review of the game should they limit the content to two hours or less? Somehow I don't think they would sell many copies if they did.
Slashdot Mirror
This could only work for annoyance and not for security purposes. The servers cannot practically reencode video on the fly for each client, causing the limited captcha randomness you suggested. Sending down a smaller overlay for the client to render would make it easy to actually find a frame where the important letters in the captcha are clearly distinguishable.
A plugin with database looks like it would be the way to go to combat this. From the samples on the nucaptcha website, the message is bright red moving text embedded in the mp4 encoded video. They may just have a hard-coded demonstration, but since it wasn't actually overlayed, it should be easy to look up the ID (or URL) of the video file, or even a hash of some small amount of the video sequence itself.
The samples I saw were each over 1.5 megabytes. I would be glad to to fight this waste of bandwidth.
Here's a sample video (warning: large) link
Yes, this is a PR stunt. Yes, it is intended to influence people by making them believe that MS has changed and is more open when it is not likely to happen. No, providing information about an older format that a user may still be using can not in any way be taken as a way to strip people of their rights to view the contents of their data.
That said, the article made me feel a little ill. I'll paraphrase it in much shorter terms:
I really like this paragraph: I don't think they could have worded that particular face-slapping better.
They just normally prefer not to do so.
I had to fight them for a long time to use it, but now even my parents (in their 60s) suffer from internet withdrawal if they go without for a few days.
When was the last time an art critic spent 40+ hours staring at a painting before making a review? I'll bet they had their general impression of it within the first 10 seconds of looking. Playing a demo/sample will tell you a little but its like reveiwing an entire movie after you have only watched the trailer, 9 times out of 10 the trailer looks awesome but the movie is crap. There is a major difference here. If you watch a 5 minute trailer of a 1.5 hour movie, you are taking in roughly 5.5 percent of the show. Unfortunately, that 5.5 percent is completely chosen by the people who want you to watch it. It will lose all context and in many cases be the only 5 minutes of the movie that would be worth watching.
For games, on the other hand, playing for 15 minutes out of a 24 hour game you will take in only 1% of the game. Since most games involve some repetition, that 1% may well show 60% of what happens in the game (most people will never see 100% of a game). With playable demos, you can also drive the game where you want it and get a feel for how it works and you can know within a reasonable doubt if the game is worth playing or not. That's something a force-fed video stream will never give you.
If they really want someone to give a proper review of the game should they limit the content to two hours or less? Somehow I don't think they would sell many copies if they did.