Listen to what you are saying now. In a collaborative effort, you listen to what people want. Perhaps the developer in question was just did not understand what open collaboration means?
Perhaps it will surprise you, but the GPL is independent of GNU. You can slap the GPL on your own software products, and GNU would have nothing to do with it, apart from the fact that you used the same one from FSF.
And interestingly, the GPL does not grant RMS the control you think it does. Since it does not, and the GPL is the only relevant bit of information about GNU's control,everything else - that RMS is kinda extreme - is quite beside the point.
I think RMS has to sound extreme to some people, simply becuase the ideas he advocates are radical. Given the fact that the average moderate can't even defend his own opinions, why then is the judgement of 'extremist' in any way a good argument. These kind of personal attacks has got to stop.
Suppose one gets caught with such an image. According to him, the technique has a 90% chance of success. So what about the 10%, wherein, one has no message encoded in an image, but triggers tha alarms anyway? If you get caught by the FBI, what can you say?
You might say that 90% is no pretty significant. But considering how many actual images are there out there with actually no steganographic message, I think you'll actually end up persecuting more innocent people.
I just more more eveidence than this is required for a warrant to be issued.
No, I am pointing out that it is technically possible for him to demostrate that he has broken the encryption, without actually revealing how he did it. If the DMCA crowd tries to persecute him, he can claim that he was not the one who did it.
That would be a sneaky way to make an end-run areound the DMCA. This interesting piece of law actually allows for all sorts of stupid claims all across the board. It does not grant the copyright holders the protectioo that they think they might have. To actually win a case therefore has nothing to with the legality of the situation, but how much money you have.
I think the distinction is crucial in the MORALITY of the situation, not the legality.
The MORALITY of the situation is therefore that some law gets broken. Which law? The law that says content producers get to profit from works for a limiet time.
So - has any of these works passed into the public domain? Does anyone producing content have a fair shot at the market? Once you remove the immorality equating the crime to theft, the immorality of the entire situation surfaces.
So, while this is not a defense of the copyright infringement, you can see what exactly the inequities the system preserves. That should give anyone perspective, I think.
I will agree with everything you say, except that you should not equate the act of COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT as THEFT.
So let's deal. OK?
Code Red Cannot Be Stopped
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 2
Kyle Reese: This code red virus, It's out there, looking for your IIS server. It feels no passion, no sympathy or remorse. It can't be bargained or reasoned with. It's just going to come for you, unless you can stop it yourself.
It is quite silly to interpret this so literally. Is an X server a serever now? What about a personal webserver? A caching proxy server that onlly you and your roomates use?
It is not a crime to host a small webpage so that a few family members and friends can share photos. No commerce is being done, so what is wrong? Now these guys will just have to shut down or move to another port.
If there is any real victim of Code Red, it is these people who run a small Linux or BSD without ever causing or wanting more.
I am disappointed. Here I was, only using one example to illustrate one simple point. The fact that the example as holes does not mean that the point of the law is broken. If you want to argue that, please go collect a whole series of examples and organize that systematically. Then you come back and tell me SysAdmins have the abosolute right to make such choices for the consumer, based wholly upon what is merely expedient for them.
It is presumptious to assume that the person blocking port 80 is the legitimate authority. You work to serve a client right? Diod you consider his wishes?
Just a minor correction here. There is no law in the US saying the content ownership resides with the producer and not the author. It is simply industry practice. That is all.
Thus, in the book-publishing industry, you will see them having standard contracts wherein the author owns the rights to the book after some time, that the publisher only has a right to publish in North America. But in other industries like the music record industry, pracitices are different.
Sorry, but PAL and NTSC broadcast formats, and were not invented along with VHS. The fact that VHS recorders can produce PAL, or NTSC signals, that TV's can display both formats have rendered this issue irrelevant. Neither is it illegal to produce multiformat TVs and VCRs. There is no industry consortium enforcing this allows for competition amongst VCR manufacteres.
You are really confusing the issue. Maybe there is no need for a German language version of "Dude where's my car", but a German in Germany may want to view this movie in English when his friend from the US visits him and bring his region 1 DVD of it along. Oops - private, shared viewing of DVD's is NOT ALLOWED.
What if the ISP had signed a contract specifically guaranteeing a certain quality of service?
Re:W e didn't loose anything, look at what we gain
on
The End of Innovation?
·
· Score: 2
I think you have that exactly backwards. Precisely becuase I own the DVD, I should be entitle dto do whatever I wish with it. I should be able to play that forwards, backwards, do tricks with the sound, etc. The only thing I should not be doing is to copy the movie whole to give to someone else so that they can watch it in lieu of not paying the movie producers.
That's the whole point. You believe that you can accept and reject packets as you like. While nobody is arguing with your rights to this, there is an issue - are you filtering accurately and justly? The reason why he calls it vigilante is exactly that - is there a role for regulation of your actions? If you believe that you can do no wrong, then that is precisely a point of law that you've failed to grasp.
For example, ISP's may want to reject incoming port 80 connections. becuase of the Code Red worm. Is this action so legally clear cut? What about the home user who needs to run a server now?
Re:W e didn't loose anything, look at what we gain
on
The End of Innovation?
·
· Score: 2
This is bullshit. If I wanted to produce my own digital content and obtain the protections afforded to me by DVDs, there is no way out for me, unless I also join the MPAA cartel. This is ridiculous. I am an independent - I may not care about the economic division that affect MPAA. What if I was only interested in the US and China markets, but don't want to bother with the other markets? There is no way to enforce my copyrght in this case.
Everything about region encoding is about enforcing the status quo. These visionless MPAA executive snever think that one day, through diplomacy, we may persuade China, say, to enforce copyright. Or if one day, a favored trading partner may turn rogue. And when that happens, what will they do about this obsolete encoding?
Re:W e didn't loose anything, look at what we gain
on
The End of Innovation?
·
· Score: 2
The problem with DVD's is not the technological achievements part. It ths deliberate action by a few to bundle one some benefits with some poorly thought out compromises. Why was there not some public debate to inform and educate? Why was region encoding (you think this is a fair thing?) introduced in such a sneaky fashion?
The advance of DVDs certainly did not have to include these features. Are consumers supposed to play dead and simply vote yes or no to the things presented to them?
It seems that under your vision, consumers aren't even allowed to vote yes or no.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen to what you are saying now. In a collaborative effort, you listen to what people want. Perhaps the developer in question was just did not understand what open collaboration means?
And interestingly, the GPL does not grant RMS the control you think it does. Since it does not, and the GPL is the only relevant bit of information about GNU's control,everything else - that RMS is kinda extreme - is quite beside the point.
I think RMS has to sound extreme to some people, simply becuase the ideas he advocates are radical. Given the fact that the average moderate can't even defend his own opinions, why then is the judgement of 'extremist' in any way a good argument. These kind of personal attacks has got to stop.
What is so hard about typing GNU/Linux now? Such simple effort expended towards acknowledging so many people. Why not?
But my observation stands. Since the population of nonencoded images is presumably very high, the false alram rate must be higher than 10%.
You might say that 90% is no pretty significant. But considering how many actual images are there out there with actually no steganographic message, I think you'll actually end up persecuting more innocent people.
I just more more eveidence than this is required for a warrant to be issued.
That would be a sneaky way to make an end-run areound the DMCA. This interesting piece of law actually allows for all sorts of stupid claims all across the board. It does not grant the copyright holders the protectioo that they think they might have. To actually win a case therefore has nothing to with the legality of the situation, but how much money you have.
Good luck trying to lock up an infinite number of Ferrari's. You'd have to pruchase and infinite number of locks.
That's the great about assymetric key encryption.
The MORALITY of the situation is therefore that some law gets broken. Which law? The law that says content producers get to profit from works for a limiet time.
So - has any of these works passed into the public domain? Does anyone producing content have a fair shot at the market? Once you remove the immorality equating the crime to theft, the immorality of the entire situation surfaces.
So, while this is not a defense of the copyright infringement, you can see what exactly the inequities the system preserves. That should give anyone perspective, I think.
So let's deal. OK?
Kyle Reese: This code red virus, It's out there, looking for your IIS server. It feels no passion, no sympathy or remorse. It can't be bargained or reasoned with. It's just going to come for you, unless you can stop it yourself.
Agreed.
It is not a crime to host a small webpage so that a few family members and friends can share photos. No commerce is being done, so what is wrong? Now these guys will just have to shut down or move to another port.
If there is any real victim of Code Red, it is these people who run a small Linux or BSD without ever causing or wanting more.
It is presumptious to assume that the person blocking port 80 is the legitimate authority. You work to serve a client right? Diod you consider his wishes?
How can it be impossible if all you have to do is to change a single byte after CSS is removed?
Thus, in the book-publishing industry, you will see them having standard contracts wherein the author owns the rights to the book after some time, that the publisher only has a right to publish in North America. But in other industries like the music record industry, pracitices are different.
It is not a crime to make a VHS player that can play both formats. It is a crime to use DeCSS to remove region encoding.
You are really confusing the issue. Maybe there is no need for a German language version of "Dude where's my car", but a German in Germany may want to view this movie in English when his friend from the US visits him and bring his region 1 DVD of it along. Oops - private, shared viewing of DVD's is NOT ALLOWED.
What if the ISP had signed a contract specifically guaranteeing a certain quality of service?
I think you have that exactly backwards. Precisely becuase I own the DVD, I should be entitle dto do whatever I wish with it. I should be able to play that forwards, backwards, do tricks with the sound, etc. The only thing I should not be doing is to copy the movie whole to give to someone else so that they can watch it in lieu of not paying the movie producers.
And thus, becuase of these peripheral issue, the next generation of startups may never see the light of day.
When men of no vision rule the future world, that future will not be worth envisioning.
For example, ISP's may want to reject incoming port 80 connections. becuase of the Code Red worm. Is this action so legally clear cut? What about the home user who needs to run a server now?
Everything about region encoding is about enforcing the status quo. These visionless MPAA executive snever think that one day, through diplomacy, we may persuade China, say, to enforce copyright. Or if one day, a favored trading partner may turn rogue. And when that happens, what will they do about this obsolete encoding?
The advance of DVDs certainly did not have to include these features. Are consumers supposed to play dead and simply vote yes or no to the things presented to them?
It seems that under your vision, consumers aren't even allowed to vote yes or no.