If it had, rights holders would retain their rights indefinitely, passing them down from generation to generation just like the family farm.
Funny you should mention that--that appears to be the case. Specifically, every time Mickey Mouse becomes in danger of passing into the public domain, the Disney Corporation pays off Congress to extend the expiration period. It's now at 75-years-after-the-death-of-the-author and will probably be extended again "as necessary". So for all intents and purposes, rights holders are retaining their rights indefinitely.
It is not unstoppable anymore. All clients just got forced to upgrade to a version that relies on central servers before the client will connect to a supernode.
I doubt it will be very long before some enterprising soul writes an open-source equivalent that does not require any centralized authentication.
We hear the argument "pay the musician directly" a lot around here, but there is an obvious problem with that: Nobody would buy, copy, or download a single Briney Spears song
Everywhere except a couple of countries, it's perfectly legal to build a plutonium or uranium bomb
If you think this is true, try building one. Notify the local authorities to let them know you will be building one, and ask them if that is okay. Let me know how far you get.;^)
It used to be that when I wanted new music, I had to choose... should I buy the CD and rip it to my computer to listen to it, or should I just download the mp3 from a file sharing service? Now that choice has been made for me.;^)
I have seen birds just flap and take off, without any jumping to speak of. Certainly hummingbirds can do this (if you can hover and then fly straight up, you can do the same thing starting from a position on the ground, too)
Re:Tracking encrypted communications
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 2
Of ocurse, if the embedded/encrypted communications are broadcast rather than unicast, figuring out who is talking to who becomes much harder (think alt.binaries.* newsgroups).
Either they have to freedom to choose which set of songs they want to play or they don't. Take your pick.
You're trying to reduce the situation to only two courses of action when there are in fact many. In particular: ClearChannel has the right to censor its member stations, and we (the listening public) have the right to criticize them for doing so.
The author comments that an openable steel door in the aircraft would not be enough to stop hijaakers, as the pilots would be induced to open the door by threats from the cabin. Last week I would have agreed; after this Tuesday, however, I think most pilots would just disable the intercom system (so they don't/can't hear the hijackers' demands anymore) and land the plane. Even if the hijackers threatened to kill every passenger on board, that's still better than giving them control of the plane.
Fair use is not defined by the consumer, but is defined by the creator of the work itself.
Completely, 100% untrue. Fair use rights were defined by the US Supreme Court as part of copyright law. They are in no way determined by the creator of the work.
More info on fair use can be found here.
(Well, that was the original intent, anyway. The DMCA unfairly repeals these rights).
Want to really stop terrorism? Try helping improve the economic and democratic situations of the world's poorer countries, rather than ignoring or exploiting them. Try turning the US into a benevolent force in the world, rather than a self-centered, polluting, narcissistic bully. Peoples who haven't been shit on are much less likely to become (or support) terrorists. I'm not saying it would be perfect--someone is always going to get pissed off about something--but each dollar spent helping the world's citizens would improve our safety more than a hundred dollars spent blowing things up.
There is no legal reason for you to crack a piece of software
If the software is being used to deny you your fair use rights, I think it is legally and morally justifiable to sell another piece of software that restores those rights. Wouldn't you agree? If not, then the logical conclusion is that software makers have been given the legally enforceable power to dictate what your legal rights are, simply by encoding technical limitations to your rights into their software.
So when the cockpit seals off, the terrorists can say they will shoot one person every minute until it's open. What would you do as a pilot?
Notify the police on the radio, land safely at the nearest airport, and let the police deal with the terrorists. Note the lack of destroyed skyscapers in this scenario?
And once it gets to Orwellian levels, where the government is truly oppressing you and denying you your rights as an American citizen, you can pick up your gun and fight for your rights
I never quite understood this argument. Sure, in the 1700's, people with shotguns might have been a credible threat to the government. But have you noticed that the US government today enjoys the use of such toys as F-16s and nuclear weapons? How will owning a shotgun help defend you against that?
When all the lawful crypto users are using back-door laden crypto, the criminals and terrorists will walk right through those back doors to wreak more havoc. How does that help anyone?
Well, maybe, but then there would always be guns on the aircraft, freeing the hijaakers from having to figure out how to smuggle them on board. Instead, they could just sneak up on the pilots and grab the guns from them. Perhaps if the guns were "keyed" to the pilots' thumbprints or something, so that they couldn't be used by anyone else...
"Should not" and "is not" are two different things. Certainly lesser things (such as people's credit card information and passwords) are kept on computers hooked up to the Internet, and an attacker could manipulate those in ways that would lead to deaths.
I would never EVER let someone wielding a bladed weapon hi-jack an airplane.
With all due respect, I think it's easier to imagine being a brave hero in that sort of situation than it is to actually do it. Still, if everyone on board is doomed to die anyway, you have nothing to lose....
Erm... you can crash or misprogram a computer that is involved in keeping the victim alive.... thus killing the victim from the comfort of your armchair (think air traffic control, etc)
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you should mention that--that appears to be the case. Specifically, every time Mickey Mouse becomes in danger of passing into the public domain, the Disney Corporation pays off Congress to extend the expiration period. It's now at 75-years-after-the-death-of-the-author and will probably be extended again "as necessary". So for all intents and purposes, rights holders are retaining their rights indefinitely.
I doubt it will be very long before some enterprising soul writes an open-source equivalent that does not require any centralized authentication.
I disagree. See my
Having never seen a fuel cell in person before... do they make any noise? If so, what do they sound like?
Our technology is not thief proof. What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things
So it won't stop the pirates, and will inconvenience the honest folks. Sounds like a real winner!
And how is this a problem, exactly?
If you think this is true, try building one. Notify the local authorities to let them know you will be building one, and ask them if that is okay. Let me know how far you get.
It used to be that when I wanted new music, I had to choose... should I buy the CD and rip it to my computer to listen to it, or should I just download the mp3 from a file sharing service? Now that choice has been made for me. ;^)
Funny you should mention making money... my favorite company went IPO a while back, and the main effect was that they started making really stupid decisions and now they are more or less out of business. So it's not clear to me how turning over control of your business to a bunch of people out to make a quick buck will help your business any.
themselves upward. Thinking about it a bit will show how such isn't even possible.
Sounds impossible to me too... but try telling that to this guy.
I have seen birds just flap and take off, without any jumping to speak of. Certainly hummingbirds can do this (if you can hover and then fly straight up, you can do the same thing starting from a position on the ground, too)
Of ocurse, if the embedded/encrypted communications are broadcast rather than unicast, figuring out who is talking to who becomes much harder (think alt.binaries.* newsgroups).
You're trying to reduce the situation to only two courses of action when there are in fact many. In particular: ClearChannel has the right to censor its member stations, and we (the listening public) have the right to criticize them for doing so.
So hire a company to support the code for you if that's what you want. Companies like Red Hat do this sort of thing already.
The author comments that an openable steel door in the aircraft would not be enough to stop hijaakers, as the pilots would be induced to open the door by threats from the cabin. Last week I would have agreed; after this Tuesday, however, I think most pilots would just disable the intercom system (so they don't/can't hear the hijackers' demands anymore) and land the plane. Even if the hijackers threatened to kill every passenger on board, that's still better than giving them control of the plane.
Completely, 100% untrue. Fair use rights were defined by the US Supreme Court as part of copyright law. They are in no way determined by the creator of the work.
More info on fair use can be found here.
(Well, that was the original intent, anyway. The DMCA unfairly repeals these rights).
Want to really stop terrorism? Try helping improve the economic and democratic situations of the world's poorer countries, rather than ignoring or exploiting them. Try turning the US into a benevolent force in the world, rather than a self-centered, polluting, narcissistic bully. Peoples who haven't been shit on are much less likely to become (or support) terrorists. I'm not saying it would be perfect--someone is always going to get pissed off about something--but each dollar spent helping the world's citizens would improve our safety more than a hundred dollars spent blowing things up.
If the software is being used to deny you your fair use rights, I think it is legally and morally justifiable to sell another piece of software that restores those rights. Wouldn't you agree? If not, then the logical conclusion is that software makers have been given the legally enforceable power to dictate what your legal rights are, simply by encoding technical limitations to your rights into their software.
Notify the police on the radio, land safely at the nearest airport, and let the police deal with the terrorists. Note the lack of destroyed skyscapers in this scenario?
I never quite understood this argument. Sure, in the 1700's, people with shotguns might have been a credible threat to the government. But have you noticed that the US government today enjoys the use of such toys as F-16s and nuclear weapons? How will owning a shotgun help defend you against that?
When all the lawful crypto users are using back-door laden crypto, the criminals and terrorists will walk right through those back doors to wreak more havoc. How does that help anyone?
Well, maybe, but then there would always be guns on the aircraft, freeing the hijaakers from having to figure out how to smuggle them on board. Instead, they could just sneak up on the pilots and grab the guns from them. Perhaps if the guns were "keyed" to the pilots' thumbprints or something, so that they couldn't be used by anyone else...
"Should not" and "is not" are two different things. Certainly lesser things (such as people's credit card information and passwords) are kept on computers hooked up to the Internet, and an attacker could manipulate those in ways that would lead to deaths.
With all due respect, I think it's easier to imagine being a brave hero in that sort of situation than it is to actually do it. Still, if everyone on board is doomed to die anyway, you have nothing to lose....
Erm... you can crash or misprogram a computer that is involved in keeping the victim alive.... thus killing the victim from the comfort of your armchair (think air traffic control, etc)