If you had a valid counterargument, you could explain what makes the analogy invalid.
Providing a retort centered around a news paper when we are discussing software copyright would be a waste of time.
Since you don't like analogies, here is a general statement that embodies the same principle: parties who are in possession of a copyrighted work cannot possibly be liable for copyright infringement for basic use of that work, because making use of a copyrighted work is not an exclusive right granted to copyright holders under copyright law.
If you come across a work, in good-faith, that has someone elses copyright and you are made aware of and ordered to either remove that copyrighted work or purchase a license for use, you will be held liable.
There are many precedents for it that have already been set. Just because you came into possession of something that is not rightfully yours to possess does not give you the right to continue to possess it. See ostensible and apparent authorities for more information on this.
Of course they do, if you distribute it, you are not an END-USER, and therefore you are reading the wrong license agreement!
Why are they mutually exclusive?
And have you ever run one of those brain-dead InstallShield installers for GPL software on Windows that says, "You MUST accept the license agreement to continue"? When one of the terms is, "You do not have to accept this license...."?
Sorry, I don't have regular access to Windows. I do know that I have used several Linux applications that require agreeance to the GPL to use (which violates a provision by not agreeing to it.)
Just because a lot of people do something doesn't mean they're right.
You mean like Slashdotters pretending to understand contract and copyright law?
You keep replying to people in this thread with claims that the GPL just has to be a EULA and that whatever claims the parent made hold water.
No, go back and re-read what I am writing. I am saying that the GPL can be a EULA. There are some cases where it is definitely a EULA by standard definitions.
You also keep forgetting that 1) the GPL specificially doesn't cover use and 2) contains a provision for ignorance of the license. This provision specifically nullifies the license and exposes you to any other underlying copyright law or secondary licensing, including the whims of the original owner of the IP.
It does cover use of the bits of the package. How do you expect to distribute it without using the bits?
As for "ignorance" it just allows you the same provisions granted under standard copyright law. Which... would be a standard "All Rights Reserved"
Finally, the copyright infringement and IP claims trump the whole license anyway, but no judge would hold the end-user responsible as it is the author who originally passed off the document (source) as an original work under a new license that is to blame.
If the user was notified of proven infringement and had an order to delete the software or purchase a license, they would be held liable. Just because you obtain something in good faith that isn't yours to take, doesn't mean you can keep it.
But you actually click through an EULA before you use the software that the BSA goes after people for. There's no EULA when you buy a CD of music.
And that's the difference. There are software programs in existence that don't have a click-through EULA during installation that the BSA could still bust you for. Just because they don't have a click-through, doesn't mean there isn't a EULA.
There's no EULA when you download GPL'ed programs either.
Really? Qt, Mandrake and Red Hat prove you wrong. So do several other applications.
So there aren't enough people showing you where you're wrong for you to believe them?
If I listen to a mechanic on how to fix my computer, what does that make me?
Calling the GPL a EULA is misleading. EULA's are generally understood to be click-through agreements that limit the rights of the user beyond the exclusive rights already provided by copyright. Companies that distribute software with EULA's attempt to force users to accept the agreement before they can use the software.
I would agree that is it's common term, but I have seen several software programs that prompt you to accept the GPL (Like Qt, for example) in order for it to install. In these cases, the GPL is an EULA, in all forms. Otherwise, it is an optional EULA as you stated.
Classifying distribution and reproduction under "use" is also misleading. "Use" is understood to mean "running the program." End-users are understood to be parties who use the software but do not distribute it; hence "end" as in "terminal to the distribution process."
The reason why "use" means only "running the program" in todays language is because of the EULAs and expectations of the publishers on the users. For example, you "use" (play) a CD, and copy it and use it somewhere else. You are using the bits on the software in each copy you would make.
It is the declarations of actions an individual is allowed to do with regards to DISTRIBUTING the software it covers.
You realize most EULAs cover distribution as the major point to the license, right? Go read some.
How does distributing not constitute using the software for something? If I distribute it, I am using the contents of the software by placing it on some form of media and sending it off.
It _IS NOT_ , in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, and "End USER License Agreement".
Because you don't think so. Right. So, I guess all the lawyers who define it as a legal EULA are wrong, and you are right. Glad you clarified that for me.
The GPL is in fact a license for the creation and distribution of derivative works, which not all end users (see 17 USC 117) will bother doing.
So, because not all end-users will be doing it, it isn't a EULA for the end-user? Uhm, do you realize that makes no sense at all? "Here's a license for the end-user that isn't an end-user license because the end-user probably won't do the things allowed in the license." Uhm... what?
Pretty much all copyrighted matter other than software is sold or given away as well, and there's a pretty strong argument that EULAs are not generally valid which would put them into the same boat.
EULAs can almost always be proven to be a valid contract, by the 4 (and sometimes 5) requisites for an agreement to be a contract. For example, the Windows EULA would be a binding contract because you have to explicitely agree to it to install the software. Same thing with Mandrake. If you do not agree to the EULA, you can't install it.
So, enlighten me, how are EULAs not enforcable? Especially when there was a recent court victory featured on Slashdot by a term in the EULA (Refund for Windows)?
No, you're incorrect here. No license is required to use software published under the GPL, just as no license is required to use a book purchased from the store. The GPL only extends to users rights not granted to the user by the Copyright Act under certain terms and conditions; namely, the right to copy and modify the software.
The GPL is a license. It is the declarations of actions an individual is allowed to do with the software. If there were no license, than it would fall under standard copyright law. The right to copy and modify the software is a license to the end-user offered by the owner of the software through the GPL.
First, there are no "Linux enduser license agreements" (except perhaps the one from Caldera), so whoever wrote this knows jack about shit.
Incorrect. The GPL is an end-user license agreement. Also, Mandrake, and RedHat both have a EULA section in the installation.
Second, even if there were Linux EULAs, it would still be irrelevant, because he's saying "the EULA doesn't protect you from copyright or IP claims" - all the while ignoring the fact that people would be immune anyway, as they're not copying anything.
If they have software that infringes on the copyright and IP claims of another party, they will be liable for what is in their possession. If they weren't copying anything, how did it get on their hard drive?
No, actually - at least one lawyer, who doesn't have a clue about the facts in the case, thinks that an EULA (which doesn't exist) wouldn't stop liability, when standard property-rights laws would.
Lets just rename the site, "Slashdot: News for Nerds, who pretend to be lawyers."
That I'll do, if you weren't exaggerating. Which book should I read?
Just go through some of the tutorials. The Castle tutorial explains how to do most basic things you will need for modelling, as well as texturing and lighting. Just play around and keep your finger on the undo.
As a disclaimer, I suck at 3d modelling. It's not a software issue. I've used everything from TruSpace to Maya. I always suck. But I measure my ability as being able to render something that is recognizable as what I'm trying to render from a separate person. I built a crappy little space ship after 30 minutes in Blender, and someone said, "Hey, neat space ship." That's how I measure proficiency:)
The easiest--and one of the more significant--changes that could be made would be a simple visual change in how the GUI elements look. For instance, make menu's have a distinct look from buttons. As it is, everything looks like a button. And changing the visual look of the GUI elements would not hurt the power users (such as myself) one bit. But it would be a godsend for newbies.
I would agree with this, but it never really messed with me much. I've only been using Blender for about 6 months, but I haven't had any problems after the first hour figuring out how to do something. If you figure out how the heirarchy of the functions work, most things are pretty easy to find. The one thing that really tripped me up wasn't a UI issue but a procedural one. I was just an idiot though:)
most people dont live in the states... linux isnt mentioned much in the news that my paretns read/watch and if i didnt have it running on my server wouldnt have a clue what it was, and most people tend not to read computer related stories...
But Linux has been featured in many non-computer related stories. Business, especially in Investment news, features it often. I've seen it in Forbes a few times, and other investment mags.
The fact that this judge was in the silicon valley also makes it hard to believe he doesn't know what Linux is.
You failed to address the relevant point: Blender's UI is needlessly cryptic. Even assuming that you really can pick it up in half an hour like you claim (obviously false; I and many others have spent far more than half an hour trying to learn to use it), there is absolutely no reason to simply ignore the years of research and work on user interfaces. A well-designed interface would be just as powerful of the "power user", and still not be as opaque to the new user.
Feel free to try to build a better interface for it. All I'm saying is that it isn't cryptic if you do a bit of research.
This is completely analogous to Windows users saying that Linux is needlessly cryptic, you realize?
Not so. I was able to pick up Maya, 3DS Max and Lightwave and start editing meshes pretty quickly just by playing with the interface. I have read a couple of Blender tutorials and it still seems like too much work.
I haven't used 3DS much, but my first impression of it was worse than Blender.
I read the Castle tutorial on Blender and felt very comfortable with it. Which tutorials did you read?
Maybe it works for the experienced user, but it's still a stellar example of bad UI design. Tiny buttons with cryptic icons, a GUI interface that works in an irritatingly nonstandard fasion, and so forth. Fixing these would go a long way towards making it accessible to new users, and would not hurt the experienced users one bit. Given that the poor interface is by far the biggest complaint people have about Blender, you would think that some thought would be given to fixing it.
The people who complain about Blenders UI wouldn't manage with any 3d application. If you read any of the numerous tutorials on Blender, you can get the hang of the UI in less than a half hour. I'm not saying be efficient and quick, but at least use it without difficulty.
3d modeling applications with more power than TruSpace can't have that user friendly of an interface because of the sheer number of functions it has to have in quick access. If you look at Maya, they have spent tons of time in the UI, and their biggest contribution was the pie menu. Using Maya for an hour, vs. Blender you will notice Blender has faster keystrokes (while Maya is more "usable") but after 10 hours, Blender is more usable.
Their GUI also works in fairly standard fashion, with menus and hotkeys. The button tray at the bottom (default) is easy to see, and after you know what the icons mean (5 minutes of reading) it makes sense. I'm going to reiterate this point: Most people that complain about Blender and it's interface haven't read any of the documentation on it and spent 30 minutes trying to figure it out.
It isn't a mail client, it's a 3d modelling application.
Or, we could simply do away with the Mission Impossible-esque idea and simply say that the pictures are probably encrypted in some fashion and need to be read via the Ritz hardware. Sometimes the simplest answer is usually the right one.
This would be easier to break. Ritz has to have the same keyset distributed over all of their stores, right? Having a software based solution with a predictable key pattern only requires that to leak once, because it would be a moderate pain in the ass to generate new keys to use. A clerk at Ritz would have no problems leaking the key, would be my guess. With hardware, you don't have to worry about internal meat popcicle weakness.
Man, somebody hates you. I actually thought that was a pretty funny comment and you got nailed to -1, my apologies. If it makes you feel better, I didn't think you were trolling or flaming. Mods on crack.
If you work in an office, where non-geeks work on (non-iMac) computers all day, try this little experiment. Choose an average-looking victim and ask "Could you please point to the computer you are using?"
I work for a major education-oriented company. The only people I know that are less computer literate than these people work for the government.
What's worse is seeing a BestBuy advert that claims, "Speed up your CPU!" with a hard disk upgrade. You wonder why people get confused with the terms.
Just mixing up terms is not the same as not conceptually knowing that Linux is an operating system. My father is a great example of this. You could ask him what a monitor was and he would tell you it's somebody who makes sure equipment is running correctly.
It's also hard to be aware of events and ignore linux, you do remember the major stock events surrounding Linux? Some of the biggest IPOs in history surround Linux companies.
If you know the rules and accept them, you are still being screwed out of the money they are making. Just because you KNOW you're getting screwed does not make you any less screwed. I'm not saying anyone is forcing me, I'm just saying that I'd like to see a little more transparency regarding these things on Slashdot. Got it?
This is like claiming rape right in the middle of consentual sex.
I was about to say "they probably don't have any customer accessible ports, because when people can download the pictures, they can just do that and then reuse, instead of returning, the camera", but this is slashdot, the screws won't stop us. So I do wonder how Ritz plans to stop people from cracking the cameras open, download the pictures, and reuse them indefinitely, depriving them (Ritz) of profit?
2 minute thought on this: Have an RFID tag with a key that emits to the camera. If the camera doesn't sense that, and the case-removal screws are taken out erase the pictures. If the RFID key doesn't match a checksum, erase the pictures.
You could even, rather easily, destroy the hardware after deleting the pictures.
I think this would be rather silly to do, but it's possible. You just have to make it more expensive to hack a single camera than it is to buy a real camera. If the station for unloading cost $200 in parts, they still make a profit (many cameras to one base station) but the user would take a hit spending $210.99 for a 2mp digital camera with no LCD.
Likewise, if I go to the middle of Silicon Valley and the judges there know about Linux, I can't extrapolate that to the rest of the world either. Or even the rest of the country. People at large are not as tech-savvy as people in Silicon Valley. That judge is the exception, not the rule.
I live on the west coast of the US. I travel frequently, although it is usually on the west coast. I would guess that the denser the population area (East and West coast) the more common it is to find people who know what Linux is.
If you'd like to make more childish comments about professional lawyers "not knowing what the fuck is going on" because they happen to not live in California, go right ahead.
Any lawyer who doesn't read the news, doesn't know what the fuck is going on. I wouldn't trust a lawyer who doesn't know what Linux is anymore than I would trust a programmer who doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal law. Common knowledge is something people should obtain. If they don't, it's a sad thing. Linux is common knowledge. I also know that more than 1 out of 12 people who work on an oil platform know what Linux is.
Your initial comment, about it not being a win for Linux, was more childish than anything I ever said about your lawyer buddies. It was a victory for Linux, and the judge probably knew damn well what Linux was.
Just because you don't experience that in your daily life, doesn't mean that's the world. All up and down the west coast, I see more news articles, stickers, magazine references, and conversations about Linux than I ever thought I would.
It's not sterotypes. It's statistics. 11 out of the 12 people I know in law offices have never heard of Linux. Three of them say that their colleagues (they didn't say how many, unfortunately) at other law offices have never heard of Linux either.
Do you live in a small, podunk town? Remember, this took place in the silicon valley. In California. Not in Buttfuck, North Dakota.
From that, I extrapolate that -- again, read this slowly, since you seem to have trouble with the concept -- it's a safe bet that the average person in a law office does not currently know of Linux. So, we need to get the word out.:-)
And I'm saying that you are wrong. More people do know about it than your limited data set provided. If you go down to Castro district in San Francisco, and ask people if they are homosexual 11 out of 12 would probably say yes. It doesn't mean that 11 out of 12 Americans are gay. It just means that 11 out of 12 people you know in law offices don't know what the fuck is going on outside of their world.
Slashdot Mirror
If you had a valid counterargument, you could explain what makes the analogy invalid.
Providing a retort centered around a news paper when we are discussing software copyright would be a waste of time.
Since you don't like analogies, here is a general statement that embodies the same principle: parties who are in possession of a copyrighted work cannot possibly be liable for copyright infringement for basic use of that work, because making use of a copyrighted work is not an exclusive right granted to copyright holders under copyright law.
If you come across a work, in good-faith, that has someone elses copyright and you are made aware of and ordered to either remove that copyrighted work or purchase a license for use, you will be held liable.
There are many precedents for it that have already been set. Just because you came into possession of something that is not rightfully yours to possess does not give you the right to continue to possess it. See ostensible and apparent authorities for more information on this.
Of course they do, if you distribute it, you are not an END-USER, and therefore you are reading the wrong license agreement!
Why are they mutually exclusive?
And have you ever run one of those brain-dead InstallShield installers for GPL software on Windows that says, "You MUST accept the license agreement to continue"? When one of the terms is, "You do not have to accept this license...."?
Sorry, I don't have regular access to Windows. I do know that I have used several Linux applications that require agreeance to the GPL to use (which violates a provision by not agreeing to it.)
Just because a lot of people do something doesn't mean they're right.
You mean like Slashdotters pretending to understand contract and copyright law?
You keep replying to people in this thread with claims that the GPL just has to be a EULA and that whatever claims the parent made hold water.
No, go back and re-read what I am writing. I am saying that the GPL can be a EULA. There are some cases where it is definitely a EULA by standard definitions.
You also keep forgetting that 1) the GPL specificially doesn't cover use and 2) contains a provision for ignorance of the license. This provision specifically nullifies the license and exposes you to any other underlying copyright law or secondary licensing, including the whims of the original owner of the IP.
It does cover use of the bits of the package. How do you expect to distribute it without using the bits?
As for "ignorance" it just allows you the same provisions granted under standard copyright law. Which... would be a standard "All Rights Reserved"
Finally, the copyright infringement and IP claims trump the whole license anyway, but no judge would hold the end-user responsible as it is the author who originally passed off the document (source) as an original work under a new license that is to blame.
If the user was notified of proven infringement and had an order to delete the software or purchase a license, they would be held liable. Just because you obtain something in good faith that isn't yours to take, doesn't mean you can keep it.
But you actually click through an EULA before you use the software that the BSA goes after people for.
There's no EULA when you buy a CD of music.
And that's the difference. There are software programs in existence that don't have a click-through EULA during installation that the BSA could still bust you for. Just because they don't have a click-through, doesn't mean there isn't a EULA.
There's no EULA when you download GPL'ed programs either.
Really? Qt, Mandrake and Red Hat prove you wrong. So do several other applications.
So there aren't enough people showing you where you're wrong for you to believe them?
If I listen to a mechanic on how to fix my computer, what does that make me?
Calling the GPL a EULA is misleading. EULA's are generally understood to be click-through agreements that limit the rights of the user beyond the exclusive rights already provided by copyright. Companies that distribute software with EULA's attempt to force users to accept the agreement before they can use the software.
I would agree that is it's common term, but I have seen several software programs that prompt you to accept the GPL (Like Qt, for example) in order for it to install. In these cases, the GPL is an EULA, in all forms. Otherwise, it is an optional EULA as you stated.
Classifying distribution and reproduction under "use" is also misleading. "Use" is understood to mean "running the program." End-users are understood to be parties who use the software but do not distribute it; hence "end" as in "terminal to the distribution process."
The reason why "use" means only "running the program" in todays language is because of the EULAs and expectations of the publishers on the users. For example, you "use" (play) a CD, and copy it and use it somewhere else. You are using the bits on the software in each copy you would make.
If the New York Times got sued for plagarism and lost, would that make it's readers liable? Of course not. This is really no different.
That's because analogies are retarded and unneccessary. If you actually had a valid argument, you wouldn't need to use an analogy.
Notice how the RIAA doesn't go after people who download sogns via P2P? They go after the people who share the songs.
Notice how the BSA goes after people who use software?
Oops. Looks like you lost.
You have issues. Seriously.
It is the declarations of actions an individual is allowed to do with regards to DISTRIBUTING the software it covers.
You realize most EULAs cover distribution as the major point to the license, right? Go read some.
How does distributing not constitute using the software for something? If I distribute it, I am using the contents of the software by placing it on some form of media and sending it off.
It _IS NOT_ , in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, and "End USER License Agreement".
Because you don't think so. Right. So, I guess all the lawyers who define it as a legal EULA are wrong, and you are right. Glad you clarified that for me.
The GPL is in fact a license for the creation and distribution of derivative works, which not all end users (see 17 USC 117) will bother doing.
So, because not all end-users will be doing it, it isn't a EULA for the end-user? Uhm, do you realize that makes no sense at all? "Here's a license for the end-user that isn't an end-user license because the end-user probably won't do the things allowed in the license." Uhm... what?
Pretty much all copyrighted matter other than software is sold or given away as well, and there's a pretty strong argument that EULAs are not generally valid which would put them into the same boat.
EULAs can almost always be proven to be a valid contract, by the 4 (and sometimes 5) requisites for an agreement to be a contract. For example, the Windows EULA would be a binding contract because you have to explicitely agree to it to install the software. Same thing with Mandrake. If you do not agree to the EULA, you can't install it.
So, enlighten me, how are EULAs not enforcable? Especially when there was a recent court victory featured on Slashdot by a term in the EULA (Refund for Windows)?
No, you're incorrect here. No license is required to use software published under the GPL, just as no license is required to use a book purchased from the store. The GPL only extends to users rights not granted to the user by the Copyright Act under certain terms and conditions; namely, the right to copy and modify the software.
The GPL is a license. It is the declarations of actions an individual is allowed to do with the software. If there were no license, than it would fall under standard copyright law. The right to copy and modify the software is a license to the end-user offered by the owner of the software through the GPL.
First, there are no "Linux enduser license agreements" (except perhaps the one from Caldera), so whoever wrote this knows jack about shit.
Incorrect. The GPL is an end-user license agreement. Also, Mandrake, and RedHat both have a EULA section in the installation.
Second, even if there were Linux EULAs, it would still be irrelevant, because he's saying "the EULA doesn't protect you from copyright or IP claims" - all the while ignoring the fact that people would be immune anyway, as they're not copying anything.
If they have software that infringes on the copyright and IP claims of another party, they will be liable for what is in their possession. If they weren't copying anything, how did it get on their hard drive?
No, actually - at least one lawyer, who doesn't have a clue about the facts in the case, thinks that an EULA (which doesn't exist) wouldn't stop liability, when standard property-rights laws would.
Lets just rename the site, "Slashdot: News for Nerds, who pretend to be lawyers."
That I'll do, if you weren't exaggerating. Which book should I read?
:)
Just go through some of the tutorials. The Castle tutorial explains how to do most basic things you will need for modelling, as well as texturing and lighting. Just play around and keep your finger on the undo.
As a disclaimer, I suck at 3d modelling. It's not a software issue. I've used everything from TruSpace to Maya. I always suck. But I measure my ability as being able to render something that is recognizable as what I'm trying to render from a separate person. I built a crappy little space ship after 30 minutes in Blender, and someone said, "Hey, neat space ship." That's how I measure proficiency
The easiest--and one of the more significant--changes that could be made would be a simple visual change in how the GUI elements look. For instance, make menu's have a distinct look from buttons. As it is, everything looks like a button. And changing the visual look of the GUI elements would not hurt the power users (such as myself) one bit. But it would be a godsend for newbies.
:)
I would agree with this, but it never really messed with me much. I've only been using Blender for about 6 months, but I haven't had any problems after the first hour figuring out how to do something. If you figure out how the heirarchy of the functions work, most things are pretty easy to find. The one thing that really tripped me up wasn't a UI issue but a procedural one. I was just an idiot though
most people dont live in the states... linux isnt mentioned much in the news that my paretns read/watch and if i didnt have it running on my server wouldnt have a clue what it was, and most people tend not to read computer related stories...
But Linux has been featured in many non-computer related stories. Business, especially in Investment news, features it often. I've seen it in Forbes a few times, and other investment mags.
The fact that this judge was in the silicon valley also makes it hard to believe he doesn't know what Linux is.
You failed to address the relevant point: Blender's UI is needlessly cryptic. Even assuming that you really can pick it up in half an hour like you claim (obviously false; I and many others have spent far more than half an hour trying to learn to use it), there is absolutely no reason to simply ignore the years of research and work on user interfaces. A well-designed interface would be just as powerful of the "power user", and still not be as opaque to the new user.
Feel free to try to build a better interface for it. All I'm saying is that it isn't cryptic if you do a bit of research.
This is completely analogous to Windows users saying that Linux is needlessly cryptic, you realize?
It really could use better documentation.
That's why they sell books, because they give the software away for free. Kind of forced compensation, but I think it's a great model.
Not so. I was able to pick up Maya, 3DS Max and Lightwave and start editing meshes pretty quickly just by playing with the interface. I have read a couple of Blender tutorials and it still seems like too much work.
I haven't used 3DS much, but my first impression of it was worse than Blender.
I read the Castle tutorial on Blender and felt very comfortable with it. Which tutorials did you read?
Maybe it works for the experienced user, but it's still a stellar example of bad UI design. Tiny buttons with cryptic icons, a GUI interface that works in an irritatingly nonstandard fasion, and so forth. Fixing these would go a long way towards making it accessible to new users, and would not hurt the experienced users one bit. Given that the poor interface is by far the biggest complaint people have about Blender, you would think that some thought would be given to fixing it.
The people who complain about Blenders UI wouldn't manage with any 3d application. If you read any of the numerous tutorials on Blender, you can get the hang of the UI in less than a half hour. I'm not saying be efficient and quick, but at least use it without difficulty.
3d modeling applications with more power than TruSpace can't have that user friendly of an interface because of the sheer number of functions it has to have in quick access. If you look at Maya, they have spent tons of time in the UI, and their biggest contribution was the pie menu. Using Maya for an hour, vs. Blender you will notice Blender has faster keystrokes (while Maya is more "usable") but after 10 hours, Blender is more usable.
Their GUI also works in fairly standard fashion, with menus and hotkeys. The button tray at the bottom (default) is easy to see, and after you know what the icons mean (5 minutes of reading) it makes sense. I'm going to reiterate this point: Most people that complain about Blender and it's interface haven't read any of the documentation on it and spent 30 minutes trying to figure it out.
It isn't a mail client, it's a 3d modelling application.
Or, we could simply do away with the Mission Impossible-esque idea and simply say that the pictures are probably encrypted in some fashion and need to be read via the Ritz hardware. Sometimes the simplest answer is usually the right one.
This would be easier to break. Ritz has to have the same keyset distributed over all of their stores, right? Having a software based solution with a predictable key pattern only requires that to leak once, because it would be a moderate pain in the ass to generate new keys to use. A clerk at Ritz would have no problems leaking the key, would be my guess. With hardware, you don't have to worry about internal meat popcicle weakness.
Man, somebody hates you. I actually thought that was a pretty funny comment and you got nailed to -1, my apologies. If it makes you feel better, I didn't think you were trolling or flaming. Mods on crack.
If you work in an office, where non-geeks work on (non-iMac) computers all day, try this little experiment. Choose an average-looking victim and ask "Could you please point to the computer you are using?"
I work for a major education-oriented company. The only people I know that are less computer literate than these people work for the government.
What's worse is seeing a BestBuy advert that claims, "Speed up your CPU!" with a hard disk upgrade. You wonder why people get confused with the terms.
Just mixing up terms is not the same as not conceptually knowing that Linux is an operating system. My father is a great example of this. You could ask him what a monitor was and he would tell you it's somebody who makes sure equipment is running correctly.
It's also hard to be aware of events and ignore linux, you do remember the major stock events surrounding Linux? Some of the biggest IPOs in history surround Linux companies.
If you know the rules and accept them, you are still being screwed out of the money they are making. Just because you KNOW you're getting screwed does not make you any less screwed. I'm not saying anyone is forcing me, I'm just saying that I'd like to see a little more transparency regarding these things on Slashdot. Got it?
This is like claiming rape right in the middle of consentual sex.
I was about to say "they probably don't have any customer accessible ports, because when people can download the pictures, they can just do that and then reuse, instead of returning, the camera", but this is slashdot, the screws won't stop us. So I do wonder how Ritz plans to stop people from cracking the cameras open, download the pictures, and reuse them indefinitely, depriving them (Ritz) of profit?
2 minute thought on this: Have an RFID tag with a key that emits to the camera. If the camera doesn't sense that, and the case-removal screws are taken out erase the pictures. If the RFID key doesn't match a checksum, erase the pictures.
You could even, rather easily, destroy the hardware after deleting the pictures.
I think this would be rather silly to do, but it's possible. You just have to make it more expensive to hack a single camera than it is to buy a real camera. If the station for unloading cost $200 in parts, they still make a profit (many cameras to one base station) but the user would take a hit spending $210.99 for a 2mp digital camera with no LCD.
Likewise, if I go to the middle of Silicon Valley and the judges there know about Linux, I can't extrapolate that to the rest of the world either. Or even the rest of the country. People at large are not as tech-savvy as people in Silicon Valley. That judge is the exception, not the rule.
I live on the west coast of the US. I travel frequently, although it is usually on the west coast. I would guess that the denser the population area (East and West coast) the more common it is to find people who know what Linux is.
If you'd like to make more childish comments about professional lawyers "not knowing what the fuck is going on" because they happen to not live in California, go right ahead.
Any lawyer who doesn't read the news, doesn't know what the fuck is going on. I wouldn't trust a lawyer who doesn't know what Linux is anymore than I would trust a programmer who doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal law. Common knowledge is something people should obtain. If they don't, it's a sad thing. Linux is common knowledge. I also know that more than 1 out of 12 people who work on an oil platform know what Linux is.
Your initial comment, about it not being a win for Linux, was more childish than anything I ever said about your lawyer buddies. It was a victory for Linux, and the judge probably knew damn well what Linux was.
Just because you don't experience that in your daily life, doesn't mean that's the world. All up and down the west coast, I see more news articles, stickers, magazine references, and conversations about Linux than I ever thought I would.
Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.
It's not sterotypes. It's statistics. 11 out of the 12 people I know in law offices have never heard of Linux. Three of them say that their colleagues (they didn't say how many, unfortunately) at other law offices have never heard of Linux either.
:-)
Do you live in a small, podunk town? Remember, this took place in the silicon valley. In California. Not in Buttfuck, North Dakota.
From that, I extrapolate that -- again, read this slowly, since you seem to have trouble with the concept -- it's a safe bet that the average person in a law office does not currently know of Linux. So, we need to get the word out.
And I'm saying that you are wrong. More people do know about it than your limited data set provided. If you go down to Castro district in San Francisco, and ask people if they are homosexual 11 out of 12 would probably say yes. It doesn't mean that 11 out of 12 Americans are gay. It just means that 11 out of 12 people you know in law offices don't know what the fuck is going on outside of their world.