"Nooooo, I complain that other people don't read the post."
Which is ironic, since you apparently didn't read mine. If you had, you'd have noticed that I wasn't disagreeing with your post, but rather I was disagreeing with timmarhy's post (you know, the one to which I replied).
You might also note that "you" doesn't always mean you. It means "person whose post I'm replying to". Again, I was replying to timmarhy's post... and look at that, timmarhy did complain about "poor maths".
Get the chip off your shoulder (and this time I do mean you), twit.
Let's imagine, for a moment, that he had said what you think he said.
And your complaint was: "your(sic) assuming 100% efficent conversion. you are flatout getting 15%"
That would mean his error is less than a factor of ten, and we could address your concern by rewriting his statement as: "the Sun can give us all the energy we will need for one year in ten days". That, to you, sounds like a bad deal?
And you complain about other people's "poor maths".
It might be more efficient to collect a fund, but would anyone contribute if it were done that way? By asking people to just get the ad run, they (1) eliminate any costs to administrate such a fund (so they can claim, if they like, that 100% of the money you put in goes to the mission), and (2) also eliminate any perception that they could commit fraud and walk away with your money.
Consider that running a protest ad when it's constitutionally too late to do anything about it is bound to draw skepticism, including possibly questioning of motives. If I say "send me $X and I'll put it toward a cause that can't possibly succeed", you wouldn't be off base to think I just wanted you to send me $X so I could have your $X. How would you notice I'd scammed you? Lack of results -- on a project that was already doomed to fail?
Done this way, we still might debate about quixotic gestures, but at least the organizer's motives aren't so easily questioned.
I'm aware of what the attack mentioned in "my" link is called. That doesn't make it a non-threat.
The picture system does not defeat a man-in-the-middle if the page where you log in isn't SSL'd. (Your bank probably knows this, and it's why they SSL the pages.) Unless, of course, you think attackers can't be patient.
Once your man is in the middle, he can watch one login session, capture your picture, and present it to you the next time. Yes, the attacker can be that smart -- "pick the picture" is becoming incredibly common, and it only takes one attacker to think it's worth the trouble to defeat it.
You can add another wrinkle, and another, making it harder and harder on the user until you convince yourself that the man-in-the-middle won't work (but you'll probably be wrong)...
Yes, if I'm going to lose some money, I at least want to have been in physical danger to boot. </sarcasm>
This debate was tiresome before it started. Short of providing statistics on the risk of loss in each scenario (no, I don't have them), nobody has anything interesting to say on the topic.
A small percentage of grid electricity comes from oil-burning plants, sure. Coal-burning plants are far more common, though; so if you're going to single out one "fuel" used by electric cars, it should be coal rather than oil.
Now, I don't know how eGold operates, so there may be a valid point here that I'm not getting...
But I'm rather confused by what you say. Yes, the gold standard is dead -- that is, gold is not the underpinning of federal currency. However, it remains legal to trade in gold. You can even go to the bank and buy a gold coin (or several) if you care to. (Well, you can if you have that much money sitting around...)
So it's not clear to me what you're saying is wrong with eGold. They (claim to) hold assets in gold, and use that gold to back transactions... so what?
The analogy to sportscasting breaks down because the game itself (events that occured; raw facts) is not protected by copyright. The broadcast is protected (and the broadcaster will be sure to over-state its rights, including trying to imply that an amateur play-by-play would require permission), but a play-by-play isn't a representation of the (protected) broadcast -- it's a representation of the (not protected) game (which happens to also be depicted by the broadcast). Of course, as the reason the broadcast is protected should be because of added content beyond the raw facts of the game -- commentary, maybe camera angles and editing work, etc. -- if your "play by play" describes those added elements as opposed to just the game, there might actually be a copyright issue (depending on whether your commentary on their commentary constitutes fair use).
By contrast, with a musical recording, it is the music itself that is protected by copyright. That's why sheet music is covered by the music's copyright. (The publisher of the sheet music may claim additional copyright on the notation, independent of that on the music; but the notation is still subject to the copyright on the music itself if there is one.) Tab would be the same.
I guess to the other angle -- You can get from tab to the music. You just need a complex device (called a musician) to get from point A to point B.
Of course, all of that is my personal understanding and interpretation. While I've researched the subject a number of times, IANAL.
In that there are "legal fake books" full of notation for slightly-altered songs, where the original is copyrighted, you may have a point.
Of course, that just creates another blurry line -- What really is the difference between a low-fidellity copy (which is not protected) vs. an "interpretation" or other slightly-different-but-similar work? Maybe it comes down to intent...
But when it comes to tab sites as a whole (at least the ones I've ever seen), I'd stand by my previous analysis. Most if not all of the tabs are intended to reproduce the original, with any differences being accidental.
"unless the tablature has been written down then your putting it on paper (or computer screen) is a new work"
Probably not. It's a new representation of an old work. Copyright isn't attached to a specific representation of a work (though I believe it does require that the work be fixed in some tangible representation).
Fair use is pretty much inherantly a murky area of copyright law. The actual language in the law just sets a list of criteria to be weighed. It doesn't say how to weigh them, except that it says that none of the criteria alone is controlling. The introduction to TFA notes that this is a guide to interpret the law based on experience and opinion, but "This code of best practices does not tell you the limits of fair use rights." So it is very possible for two identical cases to be resolved in contradiction to one another.
The argument with mashups seems to be that the addition of new creative content justifies the use. There will always be a blurry line there. (If I juxtapose two copyrighted works and add nothing else, but the juxtaposition is itself meaningful, is that fair use? Who decides if it is meaningful, or if I'm just dodging copyright by slamming two works side by side?) The guidelines in TFA seem to acknowledge this, and are not nearly as one-sided as the slashdot headline/summary suggest. (Surprise, surprise.)
But when you transcribe tab, you're not adding any new content. You're just translating from one form to another. The translation process may be difficult and require skill, but it's still not a creative process. I'd like to think tab sites were legal; I used to use them quite a bit myself. But realistically, I can't see how they would be.
Imagine that if you want, but it isn't how it works.
A quantum bit can actually be in many different states; any weighted superposition of the 0 state and the 1 state, in fact. But you can't look at it and say "ah, right now it's in an indeterminate state"; when you read it, it collapses to either the 0 state or the 1 state. Its state prior to observation only determines the odds that you'll see the 0 state vs. the 1 state when you read it; you can only read it as being in one or the other.
I think you're playing a little loose with the numbers.
You're also not factoring in that in "retail theft" of personal information, every compromised account will probably be used in an act of fraud. In "wholesale theft", a small percentage of the stolen accounts will actually be used. The pool of potential victims may be much larger, but the number of actual, converted victims may not be.
More to the point -- an obsessive focus on the Threat of the Day is never a good idea. Make that one link as strong as you want, but the chain will still break.
That they have not implemented the patent for the PC, would not mean that anyone else could implement the patent for the PC without licensing. (Unless the interface wtih the PlayStation is somehow integral to the invention or the patent is badly enough written to represent it as though it were.) Patents aren't about protecting existing marketshare. (Copyright does take impact on market value into account in the fair use criteria, and trademark has everything to do with confusion in defined markets, but those are different animals entirely.)
I can think of two major questions that should relate to the applicability of the patent (if the system were really working as intended):
1) Does the software operate in the manner described by the patent? This isn't about "what it does", but rather "how it does it". People (including, it would seem, the courts in some cases) forget that patents don't cover "acheiving such-and-such result"; they cover "a method of acheiving such-and-such result".
2) Can the uses of the software be construed as falling under the types of use restricted by patent law? I'm not too familiar with how the lines have been drawn here; but for example, I can implement a patent for academic/research purposes with no license; I think I can do the same for personal use, though I'm less certain about that. On the other hand, I can't exploit the implementation commercially without a license.
1) You're assuming that by "partial copy" they mean they only get some of the encoded information; that may be what they mean, but it isn't what they say.
2) What you're saying also implies that the message itself is sent via quantum crypto; this is not the typical case. QC is used to distribute keys. Is getting part of a key useful? I'd think so, as long as you know which part you have.
The counterexample has only been theorized, not actually built and tested.
But if we assume they will build it, and if we assume it will work... Well, it doesn't do anything that's "theoretically impossible". What it violates isn't the theory -- what it violates is the glib assumptions of those who interpreted the theory to mean they could end what is probably an endless arms race.
They aren't exploiting an implementation weakness. They're exploiting the fact that you don't have to do what's "theoretically impossible" to extract information from the message. Look at it this way: Somebody said:
1) You can't copy the quantum communication without visibly disturbing the original 2) ??? 3) QC can't be broken!
But there was hand-waving at step 2, and it apparently isn't valid (if this technique turns out to be a practical exploit, which is yet to be seen).
They aren't selling the key. Even if they do have it, and even if they do honor the "agreement", the victim will never get a copy of the key. (That is, the victim won't get a copy of the universal key, which is what this effort wants to crack...)
The universal key is used to encrypt a secondary key, which is randomly generated per victim. That key can decrypt that particular victim's data (but not necessarily any other victim's data). What they claim they'll give you (embedded, presumably, in a program that performs the actual decryption) is the secondary key for your particular data.
The 15-million-CPU-year-to-crack key would never leave the criminals' exclusive possession.
Well, this scenario seems a bit far fetched to me... but I guess it's hard to be sure.
My main observation is, it doesn't make sense to trick us into breaking a key, if they have the key. So perhaps an interesting question is, has anybody paid the extortionist (and is willing to admit it), and if so was the extortionist able to provide the decryptor?
Slashdot Mirror
"Nooooo, I complain that other people don't read the post."
Which is ironic, since you apparently didn't read mine. If you had, you'd have noticed that I wasn't disagreeing with your post, but rather I was disagreeing with timmarhy's post (you know, the one to which I replied).
You might also note that "you" doesn't always mean you. It means "person whose post I'm replying to". Again, I was replying to timmarhy's post... and look at that, timmarhy did complain about "poor maths".
Get the chip off your shoulder (and this time I do mean you), twit.
Let's imagine, for a moment, that he had said what you think he said.
And your complaint was: "your(sic) assuming 100% efficent conversion. you are flatout getting 15%"
That would mean his error is less than a factor of ten, and we could address your concern by rewriting his statement as: "the Sun can give us all the energy we will need for one year in ten days". That, to you, sounds like a bad deal?
And you complain about other people's "poor maths".
It might be more efficient to collect a fund, but would anyone contribute if it were done that way? By asking people to just get the ad run, they (1) eliminate any costs to administrate such a fund (so they can claim, if they like, that 100% of the money you put in goes to the mission), and (2) also eliminate any perception that they could commit fraud and walk away with your money.
Consider that running a protest ad when it's constitutionally too late to do anything about it is bound to draw skepticism, including possibly questioning of motives. If I say "send me $X and I'll put it toward a cause that can't possibly succeed", you wouldn't be off base to think I just wanted you to send me $X so I could have your $X. How would you notice I'd scammed you? Lack of results -- on a project that was already doomed to fail?
Done this way, we still might debate about quixotic gestures, but at least the organizer's motives aren't so easily questioned.
...the entire point of a doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?
I'm aware of what the attack mentioned in "my" link is called. That doesn't make it a non-threat.
The picture system does not defeat a man-in-the-middle if the page where you log in isn't SSL'd. (Your bank probably knows this, and it's why they SSL the pages.) Unless, of course, you think attackers can't be patient.
Once your man is in the middle, he can watch one login session, capture your picture, and present it to you the next time. Yes, the attacker can be that smart -- "pick the picture" is becoming incredibly common, and it only takes one attacker to think it's worth the trouble to defeat it.
You can add another wrinkle, and another, making it harder and harder on the user until you convince yourself that the man-in-the-middle won't work (but you'll probably be wrong)...
Or you can just SSL the page and be done with it.
Yes, if I'm going to lose some money, I at least want to have been in physical danger to boot. </sarcasm>
This debate was tiresome before it started. Short of providing statistics on the risk of loss in each scenario (no, I don't have them), nobody has anything interesting to say on the topic.
1) I believe that would be the lesser of their account balance or $100,000
2) It looks like GP said the institution is protected, not the customer
Actually, even if you POST using https, if the page displaying the form is not secure then there is a security risk.
A small percentage of grid electricity comes from oil-burning plants, sure. Coal-burning plants are far more common, though; so if you're going to single out one "fuel" used by electric cars, it should be coal rather than oil.
Now, I don't know how eGold operates, so there may be a valid point here that I'm not getting...
But I'm rather confused by what you say. Yes, the gold standard is dead -- that is, gold is not the underpinning of federal currency. However, it remains legal to trade in gold. You can even go to the bank and buy a gold coin (or several) if you care to. (Well, you can if you have that much money sitting around...)
So it's not clear to me what you're saying is wrong with eGold. They (claim to) hold assets in gold, and use that gold to back transactions... so what?
The analogy to sportscasting breaks down because the game itself (events that occured; raw facts) is not protected by copyright. The broadcast is protected (and the broadcaster will be sure to over-state its rights, including trying to imply that an amateur play-by-play would require permission), but a play-by-play isn't a representation of the (protected) broadcast -- it's a representation of the (not protected) game (which happens to also be depicted by the broadcast). Of course, as the reason the broadcast is protected should be because of added content beyond the raw facts of the game -- commentary, maybe camera angles and editing work, etc. -- if your "play by play" describes those added elements as opposed to just the game, there might actually be a copyright issue (depending on whether your commentary on their commentary constitutes fair use).
By contrast, with a musical recording, it is the music itself that is protected by copyright. That's why sheet music is covered by the music's copyright. (The publisher of the sheet music may claim additional copyright on the notation, independent of that on the music; but the notation is still subject to the copyright on the music itself if there is one.) Tab would be the same.
I guess to the other angle -- You can get from tab to the music. You just need a complex device (called a musician) to get from point A to point B.
Of course, all of that is my personal understanding and interpretation. While I've researched the subject a number of times, IANAL.
In that there are "legal fake books" full of notation for slightly-altered songs, where the original is copyrighted, you may have a point.
Of course, that just creates another blurry line -- What really is the difference between a low-fidellity copy (which is not protected) vs. an "interpretation" or other slightly-different-but-similar work? Maybe it comes down to intent...
But when it comes to tab sites as a whole (at least the ones I've ever seen), I'd stand by my previous analysis. Most if not all of the tabs are intended to reproduce the original, with any differences being accidental.
"unless the tablature has been written down then your putting it on paper (or computer screen) is a new work"
Probably not. It's a new representation of an old work. Copyright isn't attached to a specific representation of a work (though I believe it does require that the work be fixed in some tangible representation).
Fair use is pretty much inherantly a murky area of copyright law. The actual language in the law just sets a list of criteria to be weighed. It doesn't say how to weigh them, except that it says that none of the criteria alone is controlling. The introduction to TFA notes that this is a guide to interpret the law based on experience and opinion, but "This code of best practices does not tell you the limits of fair use rights." So it is very possible for two identical cases to be resolved in contradiction to one another.
The argument with mashups seems to be that the addition of new creative content justifies the use. There will always be a blurry line there. (If I juxtapose two copyrighted works and add nothing else, but the juxtaposition is itself meaningful, is that fair use? Who decides if it is meaningful, or if I'm just dodging copyright by slamming two works side by side?) The guidelines in TFA seem to acknowledge this, and are not nearly as one-sided as the slashdot headline/summary suggest. (Surprise, surprise.)
But when you transcribe tab, you're not adding any new content. You're just translating from one form to another. The translation process may be difficult and require skill, but it's still not a creative process. I'd like to think tab sites were legal; I used to use them quite a bit myself. But realistically, I can't see how they would be.
Imagine that if you want, but it isn't how it works.
A quantum bit can actually be in many different states; any weighted superposition of the 0 state and the 1 state, in fact. But you can't look at it and say "ah, right now it's in an indeterminate state"; when you read it, it collapses to either the 0 state or the 1 state. Its state prior to observation only determines the odds that you'll see the 0 state vs. the 1 state when you read it; you can only read it as being in one or the other.
I think you're playing a little loose with the numbers.
You're also not factoring in that in "retail theft" of personal information, every compromised account will probably be used in an act of fraud. In "wholesale theft", a small percentage of the stolen accounts will actually be used. The pool of potential victims may be much larger, but the number of actual, converted victims may not be.
More to the point -- an obsessive focus on the Threat of the Day is never a good idea. Make that one link as strong as you want, but the chain will still break.
I see. And how does one know which numbers to combine to make the original file?
Oh, you tell them. Well, that's copyright infringement. Have a nice day.
It does not matter how complex the representation is. What's copyrighted is what the file(s) represent.
I would assume that if you're watching a specific known subject from a distance, you turn this feature off.
That they have not implemented the patent for the PC, would not mean that anyone else could implement the patent for the PC without licensing. (Unless the interface wtih the PlayStation is somehow integral to the invention or the patent is badly enough written to represent it as though it were.) Patents aren't about protecting existing marketshare. (Copyright does take impact on market value into account in the fair use criteria, and trademark has everything to do with confusion in defined markets, but those are different animals entirely.)
I can think of two major questions that should relate to the applicability of the patent (if the system were really working as intended):
1) Does the software operate in the manner described by the patent? This isn't about "what it does", but rather "how it does it". People (including, it would seem, the courts in some cases) forget that patents don't cover "acheiving such-and-such result"; they cover "a method of acheiving such-and-such result".
2) Can the uses of the software be construed as falling under the types of use restricted by patent law? I'm not too familiar with how the lines have been drawn here; but for example, I can implement a patent for academic/research purposes with no license; I think I can do the same for personal use, though I'm less certain about that. On the other hand, I can't exploit the implementation commercially without a license.
Two things:
1) You're assuming that by "partial copy" they mean they only get some of the encoded information; that may be what they mean, but it isn't what they say.
2) What you're saying also implies that the message itself is sent via quantum crypto; this is not the typical case. QC is used to distribute keys. Is getting part of a key useful? I'd think so, as long as you know which part you have.
The counterexample has only been theorized, not actually built and tested.
But if we assume they will build it, and if we assume it will work... Well, it doesn't do anything that's "theoretically impossible". What it violates isn't the theory -- what it violates is the glib assumptions of those who interpreted the theory to mean they could end what is probably an endless arms race.
That's not actually the problem.
They aren't exploiting an implementation weakness. They're exploiting the fact that you don't have to do what's "theoretically impossible" to extract information from the message. Look at it this way: Somebody said:
1) You can't copy the quantum communication without visibly disturbing the original
2) ???
3) QC can't be broken!
But there was hand-waving at step 2, and it apparently isn't valid (if this technique turns out to be a practical exploit, which is yet to be seen).
If N is too high, you don't get enough information.
If N is too low, you drive the error rate high enough that the communication is no longer regarded by the parties as secure.
N is always either too high, too low, or both.
They aren't selling the key. Even if they do have it, and even if they do honor the "agreement", the victim will never get a copy of the key. (That is, the victim won't get a copy of the universal key, which is what this effort wants to crack...)
The universal key is used to encrypt a secondary key, which is randomly generated per victim. That key can decrypt that particular victim's data (but not necessarily any other victim's data). What they claim they'll give you (embedded, presumably, in a program that performs the actual decryption) is the secondary key for your particular data.
The 15-million-CPU-year-to-crack key would never leave the criminals' exclusive possession.
So, the probe will be unable to inform you that you've missed the joke?
Well, this scenario seems a bit far fetched to me... but I guess it's hard to be sure.
My main observation is, it doesn't make sense to trick us into breaking a key, if they have the key. So perhaps an interesting question is, has anybody paid the extortionist (and is willing to admit it), and if so was the extortionist able to provide the decryptor?