The remainder in that unbalanced equation leads to the creation of the One.
There's a problem with the matrix. Not everyone is accepting their programming. If left in the matrix, these few will grow and eventually the matrix will crash.
The machines use Zion to weed out those who don't accept the programming. Zion, in effect, is keeping the matrix from crashing.
It is the job of the one to simply experience humanity from the side of those who live in Zion. He then takes this experience back into the source and it is combined with the existing code of the matrix in an attempt to make the matrix more suited to humanity. The idea is that eventually you're going to refine the code enough that anyone and everyone accepts the matrix and Zion is no longer needed.
This is a lot like genetic programming.
Part of this control manefests itself by giving the One a strong connection to humanity. In Neo's case, it was more specific - to one person, Trinity.
This is not neccessarily intended. If you listen to the Architect's speech the love for humanity is like error handling code in a program. If the One shows up at the source and doesn't care about humanity then it's probable he won't want to save humanity or Zion and will just head back into the matrix. That would lead to all of humanity to become extinct and life for the machines becomes bad.
Neo's programming to love humanity manifests himself in the love of a single person. Trinity. This is different from previous ones who loved humanity in general. This difference in love is important because that allows Neo to make the choice to go back into the Matrix rather than into the source. Neo has basically doomed humanity but his love for Trinity perhaps does not let him realize that. Thus the whole bit at the end where the architect is mentioning that Neo's judgement is being blurred.
Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.
Wrong. That's exactly what happens. Neo chooses door #2 and goes back into the matrix. That will lead to the end of the matrix as once Zion is destroyed by the machines, there will be a pile-up of those who don't accept the matrix living in the matrix. This will eventually lead to the matrix crashing. Thus, humanity dies.
Neo had two choices before him. He took one of the two. The one he took was to return to the matrix.
I assume that there will be another form of control that would make Neo 'want' to do it.
Neo's love for humanity, that which is built-into all Ones, is what is suppose to make him do it. That's the control. But Trinity ufcks the whole situation up and allows Neo to ignore that built-in control.
First off, copyrights should have nothing to do with this.
McCalls certainly has a right to protect their copyrights. However their copyrights are not what's being harmed or used illegally or being broken. If this website was selling illegal copies of the patterns (ie. a photocopy or a scanned image that could be printed out later) then yes, there's a violation.
But they are selling material that was produced by McCalls and etc... and as such this not a copyright violation.
This is just like a music store throwing away CDs. Someone comes along and takes a CD that was thrown away isn't going to involve any copyright violations.
Perhaps there's a trespassing charge involved here or maybe a some sort of EULA-like device associated with these patterns, but that's about it.
. Usually they don't sign these because the complainant isn't the RIAA. See what happens if you respond asking for a compliant letter.
This is exactly what the college I work for does. We receive dozens of e-mails a week from RIAA representatives or people working on their behalf. Not once has one of these e-mails contained an electronic signature. What we do is reply to the sender stating we can take no action because their letter is incomplete under the DMCA.
You've got two ends of the pipe where the data winds up as plaintext. If either end was compromised, as would seem to be the case, then there's no need to worry about cracking the ciphertext.
It's not the encryption algorithm or perhaps even the implementation that's weak. It's how the user manages his or her data.
Available here . Although it might be a bit old. Doesn't have an image of the actual gargoyle, just an image of Darth Vader's head and an idea on where it would go on the Cathedral.
The US could charge you with trafficing in illegal goods across the border.
The MP3s may be stored on a machine in Mexico, but if you're going to play them, you're going to have to bring them across the border via the wireless.
The college I work for has had to deal with requests to shut down users found pirating music. When it receives such a notice it usually starts up a process which is definied in the DMCA. This requires that the complaint include all of the following:
A physical or digital signature of the owner of an exclusive copyright right (i.e., the copyright owner himself or the owner's exclusive licensee of the right(s) to reproduce, distribute, display, perform or create derivatives) or the owner's authorized agent;
A description of the works claimed to be infringed;
A description of the allegedly infringing works, sufficient to enable the agent to find them;
Sufficient information to enable the agent to contact the complainer;
A statement that the complainer believes in good faith that the use of the material is not authorized by the owner, the owner's agent or the law; and
A statement that the information in the notice is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that the complainer is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of one or more exclusive copyright rights.
Usually #1, the physical or digital signature of the copyright holder, is never sent with the complaint. So the college responds with a request for the signature. Usually there is never a reply back.
A lot of the work in tracking down pirates is done by third-party companies which have to send the signature request back up to the people they are working for. This small but significant bit of red tape seems to become an annoyance enough that no signature is provided. Thus making the complaint more or less dead.
So one can be fully-cooperating with the MPAA but at the same time not cooperating in a way the MPAA would like, mainly to ignore the signature requirement and just shut off whoever is providing the pirated content.
IANAL but there are U.S. laws governing what can and can't be sent through the mail.
Is that ONLY the USPS or would that include FedEx, UPS, ect...?
Certainly the various laws governing trafficing of illegal materials across state lines would include any postal service such as FedEx. So couldn't that apply to child porn as well? Meaning that regardless of what the codes relating to the postal service apply to, there are other laws that this could be legal under.
Again, IANAL. Perhaps/. needs to get it's own band of lawyers who can comment on the laws relating to various/. posts such as this.
So how does one quote a search engine as a source in a term paper anyways?
I don't know about anyone else but Google certainly isn't the single source to define whatever topics I'm doing research into.
And by research I'm not talking specifically some kind of thesis or paper. I mean even the little stuff such as a definition of a word or phrase that I've come across in a book or an online article.
There are plenty of other search engines and plenty of other indexing algorithms to go with it. I can't let one "fuzzy logic" formula control my view of the world.
This is why when learning how to write a term paper in high school we're told to get at least X number of different sources. Perhaps a refresher course where we replace the concept of "term paper" with "internet".
And lastly, is this a trend that we need to worry about? Does Google really have that kind of influence that if it starts linking to one definition of a phrase instead of the other, the world is going to conform to what Google tells us?
Farked if I know. Or care.
[insert response noting reference to fark and its influence over me. TIC ppl.]
Duplicate bug reports happen even when the bug reporter tries to make sure her report is not a duplicate.
Differences of interpretation in the experince of a bug can lead to several very different descriptions of the same bug. So when a bug finder tries to do the dutiful thing and search for an existing report on the bug she's found, zero search results may be returned.
It's not the fault of the bug reporter. It's just an example of differing interpretations of the same bug.
As for submitting a bug report to 5+ email accounts, forums, ect... that's usually a product of someone whose submitted a bug in the past and received no feedback and/or the bug was never addressed. This lack of feedback can lead the bug reporter feeling she has not addressed it to the proper authorities. Thus she takes it upon herself to make sure, next time, that the bug report gets to people who might at least then direct it to the proper channel.
It's not a drive to make a programmer's life harder or more frustrated. Nor is it about being a lazy end user. It's about trying to get the attention of developers and be acknowledged that the report was, at the very least, received.
How about, instead of developers playing amateur lawyers, and worrying about their precious "free-but-not-REALLY-free" code being stolen, you...
You appear to be saying that programmers should just stick to programming and forget about any laws or rights that might apply to their work? To give up any and all rights to a piece of work they put their hard time and effort into?
That's the equivalent of me telling you to stop wasting time spending money and just give me access to your bank account.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
The GPL exists so that you can't take my work and claim it as your own. So that, at the very least, I will be given due credit for the work I've done, the code I've created. It also keeps you from selling my work to make a profit.
Lets go back 20 years in time. You just wrote a nifty little windows-based version of a solitare game. It's fun and a time waster and you put it out there for all to download and use. Then some guy comes along and thinks it's a pretty nifty little piece of fluff and tosses into his operating system.
Now back in the present, we have millions of Windows users spending hours out of their work week wasted on the game you built. A game that becomes the punch line for many jokes and a stable background fixture on television.
And you get jack squat for your work.
It's Bill Gates and the Windows team that gets the credit. Everytime that solitare game makes an appearence on television it's Windows that people associate with it and it becomes a very valuable commercial.
It's product placement at its best.
Even if it helps bring in even a fraction of a percentage of the money that Microsoft hauls in and we're talking millions a year.
And you get jack squat. Thanks for playing.
All because you decided to not worry about enforcing your rights as a programmer because a simple cut n paste is wasting your precious development time.
If I break the law I should be punished. Yes, absolutely!
However I haven't broken any laws. And as far as you or the RIAA or anyone else knows, John Doe (from the article) hasn't either.
He is assumed to be guilty by people who think mp3 == illegal and don't bother to actually ask if it is.
It's not about hiding from the law. It's about privacy! The RIAA can now ask Verizon to ID the owner of any IP address on their network at any time. This gives the RIAA the ability to enumerate users and create a giant database of who uses Verizon's service, what times they are generally online, and where they live. All because the RIAA says they THINK that you MIGHT be guilty of doing SOMETHING.
This type of abiguity in the law is something most people fight to stop. It grants powers that the authors of the law may not have originally intended. And those powers are then abused.
This is the case with the DMCA and how the RIAA is using it.
It's not about hiding illegal activity. It's about privacy and it's about keeping a single authority from being able to harass individuals regardless of innocence.
What in your opinion should be done to people who are obviously using the Internet to break copywrite laws?
It's NOT OBVIOUS that a copyright law is being broken.
That's my whole point.
Assumptions are being made and being treated as fact. For just being suspected of violating copyright law the RIAA now has the power to start collecting personal information about who you are.
That's equivalent to me going to your bank and telling them I suspect you of fraud and to give me your bank account number and contact information.
That's the kind of precedent that's being set here.
Do you want anyone with a suspicion to be able to gather sensitive, personal information about you like that?
Let's assume for the moment John Doe actually owns the CDs or tapes or records that these mp3s come from. This isn't so far fetched. Figure about 15 tracks per CD. That's 40 ripped CDs to get 600 mp3s. 40 CDs is not a large CD collection. And ripping 40 CDs, especially with today's faster drives, wouldn't take a 9-5 working person more than a week to accomplish.
So to legally have 600 mp3s on your machine is not far-fetched.
So assuming John Doe is in the clear in terms of ownership, how does just sharing the files make it illegal? For starters he could simply have a misconfigured p2p client. There's been a lot of discussion on various compsec boards about how this happens all the time and a person winds up sharing their entire hard drive's contents without knowing it. If this is the case with John Doe, should be be prosecuted? For having a misconfigured p2p client?
Let's say the p2p client is not misconfigured. John Doe has 600 mp3s out there for the sharing.
What legalities would be involved if John Doe were able to put up some sort of disclaimer before a user can connect to his machine. Something saying that "I legally own these mp3s. Only people who legally own the albums which contain these songs may download these files." Does that put John Doe in the clear now?
What about a simple "Authorized access only". I've been to a few security conferences and some sessions have talked about how offices should place even just those three simple words on the screen every time a user logs into a company machine. That way it becomes easier to prosecute crackers who get in. IANAL but from hearing several first-hand accounts something this simple does go a long way, legally. So couldn't it also be used to defend against someone illegally downloading mp3s off an open p2p share?
I don't know, just sharing mp3s doesn't seem like it should be a prosecutable offense.
The RIAA SHOULD be suing individuals for violating copyright by trafficking MP3's.
So how does the RIAA know that an individual is violating copyright just by downloading an mp3?
Why is there this assumption that every mp3 downloaded has been done so illegally?
Is it so far fetched for a person to download mp3s off a CD they already own? It certainly is a lot simpler to do that than to rip your own mp3s, especially if your CD is scratched badly right on the spot where your favorite track is on the CD.
Point is, the RIAA doesn't know if you're violating copyright law. They are assuming it.
What if instead of MP3s this guy was suspected of transferring 6000 kiddy porn images?
And what if some cracker has rooted your machine with some trojan and is doing the downloading of kiddy porn. But the FBI only sees your IP address and when they ask the owner of that IP address (the ISP) to identify the user using that IP at that specific time, they come to you. You "claim" you "don't know anything about this" but of course the FBI won't believe that. They take your computer, your fax, all your CDs, all your disks, your home movies, go through your closets, your drawers, ask you to open up that safety deposit box you have at the bank that your spouce doesn't know about, ect...
Far-fetched? Not at all.
And as far as I can tell from the parent post, the poster isn't claiming that the internet should be a place for actions without consequences.
What we're talking about is the loss of privacy. Now any organization can subpoena your ISP claiming they saw W.X.Y.Z IP address downloading or sharing copyrighted music. They don't stop to question whether or not it's legal. (Yes, downloading an mp3 off an album you own is very legal.) The ISP, after this court's ruling, will be far more inclined to give up that information outright and most likely without your knowledge.
So now the company can go and subpoena a thousand IP addresses a week to an ISP. From that they can start to keep track of who is online and when and what they're doing. Suddly there's a database that notes who you are, your typical online hours, and what FILES (not songs, remember p2p is more than just mp3s) you may have on your computer.
Sure you might be innocent.
But they've got all this personal information about you and they've done it legally.
Bought one of those little Brinks home security boxes that are usually found at your local mall or general purpose department store (Sears). About 30 bucks and it keeps its contents protected during fire.
Put your backups to CD and you don't have to worry about floods. I once left a CD case out in the rain for a while. Didn't have any trouble with the CDs. Either air dry them or get a special cleaning cloth as tissues/paper towels will scratch.
If you're using other media, go to a local hardware store and pickup some rubber sealing compound and mod the security box by placing a thin layer along the inside edge of the cover or the top edge of the box the cover goes over. Works pretty well. And it's cheap.
Fine and good for those of us that take an active interest in exactly what our PCs are doing.
But for the average family are they really going to want to see a pop-up window asking them if they trust a piece of software every time they run it?
This is where things are heading with Palladium. Every piece of software being digitally signed and those that aren't trusted will generate some kind of pop-up asking the user's permission to run it.
After a (no so long) while I'm sure many casual users will consider this a nuisance and simply checkmark the "Always trust software from company X".
Then something like this happens and the validity of the system should perhaps be called into question. But how do you still protect users from trojans and virii?
A PR move? I don't know about that. I guess it depends on how you look at it.
To me this shows how digitally signing software and perhaps TCPA itself can fail. It shows me that perhaps a system of trust based on digital signatures won't offer the protection that some may have assumed.
This adds doubts to the effectiveness of Palladium and it's comming from Microsoft itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Worm? Maybe not, but something just bad would be very simple to concoct.
All you need is the output from a traceroute and attack the IP addresses in reverse order. You'll take down router after router in no-time.
Identifying key routers on the Internet is probably trivial at best.
This all assumes Cicsco routers are in use. But it wouldn't be hard at all for a cracker to at least try and make life miserable.
The remainder in that unbalanced equation leads to the creation of the One.
There's a problem with the matrix. Not everyone is accepting their programming. If left in the matrix, these few will grow and eventually the matrix will crash.
The machines use Zion to weed out those who don't accept the programming. Zion, in effect, is keeping the matrix from crashing.
It is the job of the one to simply experience humanity from the side of those who live in Zion. He then takes this experience back into the source and it is combined with the existing code of the matrix in an attempt to make the matrix more suited to humanity. The idea is that eventually you're going to refine the code enough that anyone and everyone accepts the matrix and Zion is no longer needed.
This is a lot like genetic programming.
Part of this control manefests itself by giving the One a strong connection to humanity. In Neo's case, it was more specific - to one person, Trinity.
This is not neccessarily intended. If you listen to the Architect's speech the love for humanity is like error handling code in a program. If the One shows up at the source and doesn't care about humanity then it's probable he won't want to save humanity or Zion and will just head back into the matrix. That would lead to all of humanity to become extinct and life for the machines becomes bad.
Neo's programming to love humanity manifests himself in the love of a single person. Trinity. This is different from previous ones who loved humanity in general. This difference in love is important because that allows Neo to make the choice to go back into the Matrix rather than into the source. Neo has basically doomed humanity but his love for Trinity perhaps does not let him realize that. Thus the whole bit at the end where the architect is mentioning that Neo's judgement is being blurred.
Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.
Wrong. That's exactly what happens. Neo chooses door #2 and goes back into the matrix. That will lead to the end of the matrix as once Zion is destroyed by the machines, there will be a pile-up of those who don't accept the matrix living in the matrix. This will eventually lead to the matrix crashing. Thus, humanity dies.
Neo had two choices before him. He took one of the two. The one he took was to return to the matrix.
I assume that there will be another form of control that would make Neo 'want' to do it.
Neo's love for humanity, that which is built-into all Ones, is what is suppose to make him do it. That's the control. But Trinity ufcks the whole situation up and allows Neo to ignore that built-in control.
First off, copyrights should have nothing to do with this.
McCalls certainly has a right to protect their copyrights. However their copyrights are not what's being harmed or used illegally or being broken. If this website was selling illegal copies of the patterns (ie. a photocopy or a scanned image that could be printed out later) then yes, there's a violation.
But they are selling material that was produced by McCalls and etc... and as such this not a copyright violation.
This is just like a music store throwing away CDs. Someone comes along and takes a CD that was thrown away isn't going to involve any copyright violations.
Perhaps there's a trespassing charge involved here or maybe a some sort of EULA-like device associated with these patterns, but that's about it.
. Usually they don't sign these because the complainant isn't the RIAA. See what happens if you respond asking for a compliant letter.
This is exactly what the college I work for does. We receive dozens of e-mails a week from RIAA representatives or people working on their behalf. Not once has one of these e-mails contained an electronic signature. What we do is reply to the sender stating we can take no action because their letter is incomplete under the DMCA.
This has been going on for over a year now.
We have yet to get a single response back.
You've got two ends of the pipe where the data winds up as plaintext. If either end was compromised, as would seem to be the case, then there's no need to worry about cracking the ciphertext.
It's not the encryption algorithm or perhaps even the implementation that's weak. It's how the user manages his or her data.
Available here . Although it might be a bit old. Doesn't have an image of the actual gargoyle, just an image of Darth Vader's head and an idea on where it would go on the Cathedral.
IANAL
The US could charge you with trafficing in illegal goods across the border.
The MP3s may be stored on a machine in Mexico, but if you're going to play them, you're going to have to bring them across the border via the wireless.
A physical or digital signature of the owner of an exclusive copyright right (i.e., the copyright owner himself or the owner's exclusive licensee of the right(s) to reproduce, distribute, display, perform or create derivatives) or the owner's authorized agent;
A description of the works claimed to be infringed;
A description of the allegedly infringing works, sufficient to enable the agent to find them;
Sufficient information to enable the agent to contact the complainer;
A statement that the complainer believes in good faith that the use of the material is not authorized by the owner, the owner's agent or the law; and
A statement that the information in the notice is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that the complainer is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of one or more exclusive copyright rights.
Usually #1, the physical or digital signature of the copyright holder, is never sent with the complaint. So the college responds with a request for the signature. Usually there is never a reply back.
A lot of the work in tracking down pirates is done by third-party companies which have to send the signature request back up to the people they are working for. This small but significant bit of red tape seems to become an annoyance enough that no signature is provided. Thus making the complaint more or less dead.
So one can be fully-cooperating with the MPAA but at the same time not cooperating in a way the MPAA would like, mainly to ignore the signature requirement and just shut off whoever is providing the pirated content.
IANAL but there are U.S. laws governing what can and can't be sent through the mail.
/. needs to get it's own band of lawyers who can comment on the laws relating to various /. posts such as this.
Is that ONLY the USPS or would that include FedEx, UPS, ect...?
Certainly the various laws governing trafficing of illegal materials across state lines would include any postal service such as FedEx. So couldn't that apply to child porn as well? Meaning that regardless of what the codes relating to the postal service apply to, there are other laws that this could be legal under.
Again, IANAL. Perhaps
So if we're suppose to push source code as freedom of speech then this article would basically be saying "shut up everbody except these few".
So how does one quote a search engine as a source in a term paper anyways?
I don't know about anyone else but Google certainly isn't the single source to define whatever topics I'm doing research into.
And by research I'm not talking specifically some kind of thesis or paper. I mean even the little stuff such as a definition of a word or phrase that I've come across in a book or an online article.
There are plenty of other search engines and plenty of other indexing algorithms to go with it. I can't let one "fuzzy logic" formula control my view of the world.
This is why when learning how to write a term paper in high school we're told to get at least X number of different sources. Perhaps a refresher course where we replace the concept of "term paper" with "internet".
And lastly, is this a trend that we need to worry about? Does Google really have that kind of influence that if it starts linking to one definition of a phrase instead of the other, the world is going to conform to what Google tells us?
Farked if I know. Or care.
[insert response noting reference to fark and its influence over me. TIC ppl.]
Post a dupe and get away with it by posting another and chalk it up to April Fool's day.
Very clever.
And you would have gotten away with it too! Had it not been for those meddlesome kids.
Duplicate bug reports happen even when the bug reporter tries to make sure her report is not a duplicate.
Differences of interpretation in the experince of a bug can lead to several very different descriptions of the same bug. So when a bug finder tries to do the dutiful thing and search for an existing report on the bug she's found, zero search results may be returned.
It's not the fault of the bug reporter. It's just an example of differing interpretations of the same bug.
As for submitting a bug report to 5+ email accounts, forums, ect... that's usually a product of someone whose submitted a bug in the past and received no feedback and/or the bug was never addressed. This lack of feedback can lead the bug reporter feeling she has not addressed it to the proper authorities. Thus she takes it upon herself to make sure, next time, that the bug report gets to people who might at least then direct it to the proper channel.
It's not a drive to make a programmer's life harder or more frustrated. Nor is it about being a lazy end user. It's about trying to get the attention of developers and be acknowledged that the report was, at the very least, received.
See here. The evildoers were Brilliant Digital Entertainment.
This time around its Honest Theif.
When will the naming of companies with oxymorons end?!
How about, instead of developers playing amateur lawyers, and worrying about their precious "free-but-not-REALLY-free" code being stolen, you...
You appear to be saying that programmers should just stick to programming and forget about any laws or rights that might apply to their work? To give up any and all rights to a piece of work they put their hard time and effort into?
That's the equivalent of me telling you to stop wasting time spending money and just give me access to your bank account.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
The GPL exists so that you can't take my work and claim it as your own. So that, at the very least, I will be given due credit for the work I've done, the code I've created. It also keeps you from selling my work to make a profit.
Lets go back 20 years in time. You just wrote a nifty little windows-based version of a solitare game. It's fun and a time waster and you put it out there for all to download and use. Then some guy comes along and thinks it's a pretty nifty little piece of fluff and tosses into his operating system.
Now back in the present, we have millions of Windows users spending hours out of their work week wasted on the game you built. A game that becomes the punch line for many jokes and a stable background fixture on television.
And you get jack squat for your work.
It's Bill Gates and the Windows team that gets the credit. Everytime that solitare game makes an appearence on television it's Windows that people associate with it and it becomes a very valuable commercial.
It's product placement at its best.
Even if it helps bring in even a fraction of a percentage of the money that Microsoft hauls in and we're talking millions a year.
And you get jack squat. Thanks for playing.
All because you decided to not worry about enforcing your rights as a programmer because a simple cut n paste is wasting your precious development time.
Baka.
If I break the law I should be punished. Yes, absolutely!
However I haven't broken any laws. And as far as you or the RIAA or anyone else knows, John Doe (from the article) hasn't either.
He is assumed to be guilty by people who think mp3 == illegal and don't bother to actually ask if it is.
It's not about hiding from the law. It's about privacy! The RIAA can now ask Verizon to ID the owner of any IP address on their network at any time. This gives the RIAA the ability to enumerate users and create a giant database of who uses Verizon's service, what times they are generally online, and where they live. All because the RIAA says they THINK that you MIGHT be guilty of doing SOMETHING.
This type of abiguity in the law is something most people fight to stop. It grants powers that the authors of the law may not have originally intended. And those powers are then abused.
This is the case with the DMCA and how the RIAA is using it.
It's not about hiding illegal activity. It's about privacy and it's about keeping a single authority from being able to harass individuals regardless of innocence.
What in your opinion should be done to people who are obviously using the Internet to break copywrite laws?
It's NOT OBVIOUS that a copyright law is being broken.
That's my whole point.
Assumptions are being made and being treated as fact. For just being suspected of violating copyright law the RIAA now has the power to start collecting personal information about who you are.
That's equivalent to me going to your bank and telling them I suspect you of fraud and to give me your bank account number and contact information.
That's the kind of precedent that's being set here.
Do you want anyone with a suspicion to be able to gather sensitive, personal information about you like that?
So John Doe was sharing over 600 mp3s.
Let's assume for the moment John Doe actually owns the CDs or tapes or records that these mp3s come from. This isn't so far fetched. Figure about 15 tracks per CD. That's 40 ripped CDs to get 600 mp3s. 40 CDs is not a large CD collection. And ripping 40 CDs, especially with today's faster drives, wouldn't take a 9-5 working person more than a week to accomplish.
So to legally have 600 mp3s on your machine is not far-fetched.
So assuming John Doe is in the clear in terms of ownership, how does just sharing the files make it illegal? For starters he could simply have a misconfigured p2p client. There's been a lot of discussion on various compsec boards about how this happens all the time and a person winds up sharing their entire hard drive's contents without knowing it. If this is the case with John Doe, should be be prosecuted? For having a misconfigured p2p client?
Let's say the p2p client is not misconfigured. John Doe has 600 mp3s out there for the sharing.
What legalities would be involved if John Doe were able to put up some sort of disclaimer before a user can connect to his machine. Something saying that "I legally own these mp3s. Only people who legally own the albums which contain these songs may download these files." Does that put John Doe in the clear now?
What about a simple "Authorized access only". I've been to a few security conferences and some sessions have talked about how offices should place even just those three simple words on the screen every time a user logs into a company machine. That way it becomes easier to prosecute crackers who get in. IANAL but from hearing several first-hand accounts something this simple does go a long way, legally. So couldn't it also be used to defend against someone illegally downloading mp3s off an open p2p share?
I don't know, just sharing mp3s doesn't seem like it should be a prosecutable offense.
Is this just a naive view?
The RIAA SHOULD be suing individuals for violating copyright by trafficking MP3's.
So how does the RIAA know that an individual is violating copyright just by downloading an mp3?
Why is there this assumption that every mp3 downloaded has been done so illegally?
Is it so far fetched for a person to download mp3s off a CD they already own? It certainly is a lot simpler to do that than to rip your own mp3s, especially if your CD is scratched badly right on the spot where your favorite track is on the CD.
Point is, the RIAA doesn't know if you're violating copyright law. They are assuming it.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Good luck with that.
What if instead of MP3s this guy was suspected of transferring 6000 kiddy porn images?
And what if some cracker has rooted your machine with some trojan and is doing the downloading of kiddy porn. But the FBI only sees your IP address and when they ask the owner of that IP address (the ISP) to identify the user using that IP at that specific time, they come to you. You "claim" you "don't know anything about this" but of course the FBI won't believe that. They take your computer, your fax, all your CDs, all your disks, your home movies, go through your closets, your drawers, ask you to open up that safety deposit box you have at the bank that your spouce doesn't know about, ect...
Far-fetched? Not at all.
And as far as I can tell from the parent post, the poster isn't claiming that the internet should be a place for actions without consequences.
What we're talking about is the loss of privacy. Now any organization can subpoena your ISP claiming they saw W.X.Y.Z IP address downloading or sharing copyrighted music. They don't stop to question whether or not it's legal. (Yes, downloading an mp3 off an album you own is very legal.) The ISP, after this court's ruling, will be far more inclined to give up that information outright and most likely without your knowledge.
So now the company can go and subpoena a thousand IP addresses a week to an ISP. From that they can start to keep track of who is online and when and what they're doing. Suddly there's a database that notes who you are, your typical online hours, and what FILES (not songs, remember p2p is more than just mp3s) you may have on your computer.
Sure you might be innocent.
But they've got all this personal information about you and they've done it legally.
Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
'Cause that's where we are.
anyone who posted a link to goatse.cx
Curious you think only "old people" have a need for resizing the text on a web page. I guess there are no "young" people with vision problems, eh?
Bought one of those little Brinks home security boxes that are usually found at your local mall or general purpose department store (Sears). About 30 bucks and it keeps its contents protected during fire.
Put your backups to CD and you don't have to worry about floods. I once left a CD case out in the rain for a while. Didn't have any trouble with the CDs. Either air dry them or get a special cleaning cloth as tissues/paper towels will scratch.
If you're using other media, go to a local hardware store and pickup some rubber sealing compound and mod the security box by placing a thin layer along the inside edge of the cover or the top edge of the box the cover goes over. Works pretty well. And it's cheap.
Fine and good for those of us that take an active interest in exactly what our PCs are doing.
But for the average family are they really going to want to see a pop-up window asking them if they trust a piece of software every time they run it?
This is where things are heading with Palladium. Every piece of software being digitally signed and those that aren't trusted will generate some kind of pop-up asking the user's permission to run it.
After a (no so long) while I'm sure many casual users will consider this a nuisance and simply checkmark the "Always trust software from company X".
Then something like this happens and the validity of the system should perhaps be called into question. But how do you still protect users from trojans and virii?
A PR move? I don't know about that. I guess it depends on how you look at it.
To me this shows how digitally signing software and perhaps TCPA itself can fail. It shows me that perhaps a system of trust based on digital signatures won't offer the protection that some may have assumed.
This adds doubts to the effectiveness of Palladium and it's comming from Microsoft itself.
I don't think that would make good PR.