A phone home would also server as a version check, that's some small value.
Some have argued (on this very article) that knowing about licensing issues is a valuable service for the customer since most people want to be legal.
A solution to the legal customer annoyance if something goes wrong... What if you could turn off the version check, and never be annoyed again.
License terms and license enforcement are two different issues. I was planning some sort of home+work installation is a-ok scheme to provide some flexibility. Probably have some kind of volume license scheme. But there's liberal, and there's absurd in what you allow.
I certainly like it the best for the smaller infractions. Someone bought 10 copies, and they're using 12, or 15 or even 20.
Maybe the nag-screen version would be ok for a key that's WAY over? Someone bought 10, 150 are being used. Because in that case, it's likely that the key was just posted publically somewhere.
I think you'd be surprised by the amount of piracy that "accidentally" happens in businesses because of users who misunderstand their software's licensing.
Thanks for all the comments everyone. I've been reading through them and have some ideas. Here's a scheme I had been considered that might address some of the concerns brought up.
1) Upon purchase, user gets a license key. 2) When installing, the software generates a random (somewhat) unique installation id 3) The license key is checked locally, with no net connection required. 3) Upon app startup, if there's an internet connection, the software phones home with the software version, the license key, and the installation ID
The phone-home also gives a version-check to let the user know about any updates. 4) We log the license key and installation ID
Someday, we do some data analysis and find any license keys with a large number (maybe 5, maybe dozens, not sure) of installation ID's. The data analysis should look for interwoven log records of installation ID, because the user might have uninstalled it on one machine, and installed it on another. Then a person (not automated process) would get a report and be able to investigate and flag certain keys as compromised.
What happens next?
Do we cause the software to stop functioning? (I don't like that) Do we cause the web service-portion to stop functioning? (I don't like that either) Do we pop up a window saying, "SOFTWARE PIRACY DETECTED!! YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL IF YOU DON'T STOP!" Do we pop up a window saying, "Hey, this might be pirated. Go to http://xxxxx/ to purchase additional copies" Maybe the software does nothing, and we deal with it through customer support. A friendly email to the original purchase agent?
I guess the goal is make honest people stay honest. As many have pointed out, it will be impossible to prevent someone who REALLY wants to pirate the software.
In any case, don't both sides often attempt to get summary judgement on some issues? It makes trials go faster.
The article makes it sound like RIAA is running scared, it sounds to me like they understand it's a big deal and are doing everything they can to win the case. I would expect anyone involved in a court case to, you know, actually try and win it.
Legal questions aside, is there some technical merit to sending a RST instead of just blocking the packets? Is it less expensive to the ISP or something? I don't understand why they're doing it.
There's a great project called swfobject that does all the browser/flash player version checking people want javascript for. But the great thing is that it'll fallback to non-javascript methods if not available. I don't know why more sites don't use it.
Since it's running through a computer algorithm and piecing many together, and isn't just a single "lucky" picture, I wonder how much error is introduced by the algorithm. I mean sure, an algorithm like this might work well most of the time, but what happens when it produces an image that looks clear, but isn't accurate.
Is there an alternative to an MIT or BSD license that does the same thing, but doesn't allow GPL people to use it? I release just about everything I do under the MIT license, but I'd consider a license that prohibits GPL people from using it after see some of the BSD hate in these comments and over at kernel trap.
I've considered logging my trips with GPS and doing data analysis afterwards to try and find trends. I'm surprised there isn't a website out there already doing this.
Viacom will claim fair use, probably rightfully so since it was a commentary on the video.
He probably can't claim fair use since he just posted a segment of the episode. The fact that he knew about it and didn't do anything gives further weight behind Viacom's fair use belief.
While this is a bizarre situation, it seems they decided to defend their copyrights where you decided not to defend yours.
What's surprising by the outcome?
Your choices...
- Work out a cross-license deal with them (yeah, right, like you'll ever even talk to someone).
- Sue them for copyright infringement (and they'll countersue)
- Forget about it
- Post it on Slashdot where the Viacom hating masses will give you accolades.
>> Seriously, though, this is silly. If the judge actually understood what was being requested and how the technology involved works, shouldn't she have ordered them to log the requested data to non-volatile storage?
That's *exactly* what the judge ordered them to do.
That's it, end of story. The judge ordered IP's to be logged to a non volatile storage.
But judges can't just force people to do things. There has to be a reason for the order. The reason was that ram is a storage medium and there are laws that govern that type of thing. I believe the judge understood things better than you think. It's not like the judge ordered "Bring me a copy of the ram!".
The summary of this article sucks, most of the comments here are nothing more than ravings based on a bad summary.
The judge wants them to start logging IP addresses. But a judge can't just order anyone to do anything they feel like, there has to be some precedent or law saying they can. This judge said in legal terms, stuff in RAM is stored data. Then he applied rules based on law that covers stored data.
It's like if a company has a policy to burn documents every night, but the judge orders them not to burn documents until the end of the case. There's no expectation that burnt documents can magically be unburnt.
Slashdot Mirror
So $690 million is nice for damages, but without a monitor, will any of the sanctions stick?
I mean $690 million is almost a rounding error at Microsoft.
A phone home would also server as a version check, that's some small value.
Some have argued (on this very article) that knowing about licensing issues is a valuable service for the customer since most people want to be legal.
A solution to the legal customer annoyance if something goes wrong... What if you could turn off the version check, and never be annoyed again.
License terms and license enforcement are two different issues. I was planning some sort of home+work installation is a-ok scheme to provide some flexibility. Probably have some kind of volume license scheme. But there's liberal, and there's absurd in what you allow.
Someone suggested:
>> B) "Phoning home for updates if accepted by user"
That sounds like a good idea, yes?
Means a "pirate" can avoid detection by simply turning off updates. But an accidental license breach would likely have left it on and see the problem?
p.s. Yes, I was the article author.
I certainly like it the best for the smaller infractions. Someone bought 10 copies, and they're using 12, or 15 or even 20.
Maybe the nag-screen version would be ok for a key that's WAY over? Someone bought 10, 150 are being used. Because in that case, it's likely that the key was just posted publically somewhere.
I think you'd be surprised by the amount of piracy that "accidentally" happens in businesses because of users who misunderstand their software's licensing.
Take a look at my comment a couple above.
Would that scheme, utilizing the email method, be a "good idea" to someone like you?
Thanks for the advice, really level headed thinking.
Great, two #3's, there's gonna be 50 comments about that now...
Thanks for all the comments everyone. I've been reading through them and have some ideas. Here's a scheme I had been considered that might address some of the concerns brought up.
1) Upon purchase, user gets a license key.
2) When installing, the software generates a random (somewhat) unique installation id
3) The license key is checked locally, with no net connection required.
3) Upon app startup, if there's an internet connection, the software phones home with the software version, the license key, and the installation ID
The phone-home also gives a version-check to let the user know about any updates.
4) We log the license key and installation ID
Someday, we do some data analysis and find any license keys with a large number (maybe 5, maybe dozens, not sure) of installation ID's. The data analysis should look for interwoven log records of installation ID, because the user might have uninstalled it on one machine, and installed it on another. Then a person (not automated process) would get a report and be able to investigate and flag certain keys as compromised.
What happens next?
Do we cause the software to stop functioning? (I don't like that)
Do we cause the web service-portion to stop functioning? (I don't like that either)
Do we pop up a window saying, "SOFTWARE PIRACY DETECTED!! YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL IF YOU DON'T STOP!"
Do we pop up a window saying, "Hey, this might be pirated. Go to http://xxxxx/ to purchase additional copies"
Maybe the software does nothing, and we deal with it through customer support. A friendly email to the original purchase agent?
I guess the goal is make honest people stay honest. As many have pointed out, it will be impossible to prevent someone who REALLY wants to pirate the software.
100% true.
I'd go a step further.
The more you directly contribute to the "core competencies" of your business, the more likely it is to have a local developer.
In any case, don't both sides often attempt to get summary judgement on some issues? It makes trials go faster.
The article makes it sound like RIAA is running scared, it sounds to me like they understand it's a big deal and are doing everything they can to win the case. I would expect anyone involved in a court case to, you know, actually try and win it.
What about Sony or Mitsubishi?
They probably just filter trademarked names.
Legal questions aside, is there some technical merit to sending a RST instead of just blocking the packets? Is it less expensive to the ISP or something? I don't understand why they're doing it.
So I read the article and am pretty confused.
What law provides fines for selling these vehicles in other states?
I understood the desire by automakers not to sell them because they cost more, but where did the big fine come from?
I thought slight mispellings of words in code was a form of job security?
class blah
{
private var wokrDay:Date;
public function testDate(workDay) : Boolean
{
return wokrDay.isValid();
}
}
Or at least a way to punish maintenance developers.
There's a great project called swfobject that does all the browser/flash player version checking people want javascript for. But the great thing is that it'll fallback to non-javascript methods if not available. I don't know why more sites don't use it.
http://blog.deconcept.com/swfobject/
Since it's running through a computer algorithm and piecing many together, and isn't just a single "lucky" picture, I wonder how much error is introduced by the algorithm. I mean sure, an algorithm like this might work well most of the time, but what happens when it produces an image that looks clear, but isn't accurate.
Is there an alternative to an MIT or BSD license that does the same thing, but doesn't allow GPL people to use it? I release just about everything I do under the MIT license, but I'd consider a license that prohibits GPL people from using it after see some of the BSD hate in these comments and over at kernel trap.
I'd love to get on any project at SCO with a 6 month+ timeframe.
You wouldn't have to do anything!
I've considered logging my trips with GPS and doing data analysis afterwards to try and find trends. I'm surprised there isn't a website out there already doing this.
Viacom will claim fair use, probably rightfully so since it was a commentary on the video.
He probably can't claim fair use since he just posted a segment of the episode. The fact that he knew about it and didn't do anything gives further weight behind Viacom's fair use belief.
While this is a bizarre situation, it seems they decided to defend their copyrights where you decided not to defend yours.
What's surprising by the outcome?
Your choices...
- Work out a cross-license deal with them (yeah, right, like you'll ever even talk to someone).
- Sue them for copyright infringement (and they'll countersue)
- Forget about it
- Post it on Slashdot where the Viacom hating masses will give you accolades.
Read what you quoted again.
The plantiffs said "We want your logs"
TorrentSpy said "We don't have any because we don't log. Nyah nyah"
The plantiffs asked the judge to make them turn on logs. This is equivalent to asking for a longer data retention of data already being generated.
TorrentSpy didn't like this. Their argument was "The data is never stored anywhere, so you can't make us store it longer."
The judge said, "Wrong, by it being it in RAM, it is 'stored' under the definition of the law so I CAN make you store it longer."
The ruling was for future data to be collected, not for old data.
While it's fun to believe that a judge doesn't understand tech, it's equally as likely that techies don't understand the law.
>> Seriously, though, this is silly. If the judge actually understood what was being requested and how the technology involved works, shouldn't she have ordered them to log the requested data to non-volatile storage?
That's *exactly* what the judge ordered them to do.
That's it, end of story. The judge ordered IP's to be logged to a non volatile storage.
But judges can't just force people to do things. There has to be a reason for the order. The reason was that ram is a storage medium and there are laws that govern that type of thing. I believe the judge understood things better than you think. It's not like the judge ordered "Bring me a copy of the ram!".
The summary of this article sucks, most of the comments here are nothing more than ravings based on a bad summary.
The judge wants them to start logging IP addresses. But a judge can't just order anyone to do anything they feel like, there has to be some precedent or law saying they can. This judge said in legal terms, stuff in RAM is stored data. Then he applied rules based on law that covers stored data.
It's like if a company has a policy to burn documents every night, but the judge orders them not to burn documents until the end of the case. There's no expectation that burnt documents can magically be unburnt.