As I said above, it's a big win (for the companies involved) if less people can copy/rip cd's from each other. This is very common. I know a lot of people whose hard drives are full of albums they've borrowed off friends for a day and ripped, a lot of which they otherwise would have bought. A lot of these people wouldn't go through the trouble if it wasn't so easy, and instead would have just went to the store and bought the cd. Many of them also don't know what gnutella is.
If your gnutella example is supposed to prove that copying still will occur, believe me, I know that. But it will be reduced, and as far as the RIAA is concerned, that is a victory.
If by "the pirates" you mean people who copy cd's for profit (professional pirates), then I agree. But the purpose of anti-piracy schemes has never been to stop those people, because the companies accept that they are unstoppable. The goal is to reduce the occurrence of people casually copying cd's from each other, and at that they will succeed. Also, less people being able to rip cd's to mp3s will lead to a smaller pool of songs being available online.
It will certainly also reduce the ability of people to make legitimate backup copies of their cds (to cd or to mp3). I am not disagreeing with that, and I agree that that is unfortunate.
However, that wasn't what I was discussing. My point was simply that people who respond to these things by saying "the RIAA is so stupid, I know a clever way to get around this, so their copyright proctection is worthless, I'm so smart", are missing the point, which is that a lot of people will be stopped, even if they're not among them. You're right that people's legitimate rights are being impeded, but the RIAA companies also will increase their profits with this move, and anyone who tries to argue that they won't is very naive.
No doubt this sort of thing is possible, but I think that point is that the majority of people won't know how to do this and won't bother.
Everyone here seems to argue that 'look this is stupid because piracy is still possible'. But the point is that it will be reduced (to only people who, for example, knwo what D/A A/D means, which I assure you is a minority). As far as the RIAA is concerned, that's a big win.
You will use MP3, even though you dislike it's politics, simply because it's popular? But, you refuse to use products from (the vastly popular, in terms of being widely used) Microsoft, because you disagree with their politics? I don't understand how you can reconcile these two positions. You have some thinking to do.
As I suggested a compiler switch and not what you said
Sorry, I thought that you were suggesting the #define. What is the compiler switch? I've never seen that before. How does one use a compiler switch (at the command line when you compile, or in the code)? Is there more info somewhere?
You are not the first person to suggest that
#define for="if(false);else for"
is a good solution. I disagree. This is not legal C++ code and therefore (even though it might work on your compiler), it is not guaranteed to work. According to the C++ standard, the compiler doesn't even have to warn you that you are doing anything illegal, and it's behaviour in response to this #define is undefined. This may work on your compiler, but cause problems in a silent and nonobvious way on another.
If you are going to complain the VC++ is not real C++ because it doesn't follow standards, then your code should follow standards too. Don't use this #define.
The great think about a mission like this is you'll get that search listed twice by having every do it in one month, because first it will be a Gaining Query and then it will be a Declining Query.
What matters is the intent. If you register a domain name because it will get hits as a result of typos, that's illegal. If your comany's name happens to be similar to another's, that's fine. The ruling is against typosquatting, not against similar names.
In other words, create an extended SMTP protocol which allows for two mail servers to talk to each other via encypted messages.
People could still read your mail as it goes from you to your mail server, or from the recipient's server to them. If you're going to do encryption, you might as well go for a solution that encrypts it during the whole journey, otherwise there's no point.
Realize too that by only encrypting between mail servers, the people who run the servers could still see and intercept your (unencrypted) message if, say, the FBI forced them to.
I'm sure any online blackjack site would make sure the rules were in their favor. It's trivial for them ot just reshuffle after every hand. Even if they don't go that far, they can use far more decks than in a casino and have very weak little penetration.
This would be especially necessary since it's so easy for anyone playing at home to use some card counting program and just punch in the cards as they are dealt. It could always tell them the optiumum play.
Alcohol isn't as bad as many other drugs because it's rather non-addictive
I have to disagree with this statement. There of course, many people who drink their entire lives without developing a problem, and it is pretty obvious that alcohol is less addictive than cigarettes or heroin. But it is still quite an addictive drug that many, many people become dependant on. I would say that "non-addictive", while it is the prevailing view of alcohol, is not accurate.
Unfortunately, that "fix" is illegal in ANSI C++. Further, no diagnostic is required by a compiler when parsing your "fix"; a conforming implementation may fail silently and horribly.
Can you please explain? Why is this #define illegal in ansic c++? And what do you mean by 'no diagnostic is required by a compiler when parsing your "fix"'? I don't quite follow.
One of them, near the back of the room, perhaps, has a little chat session running on his handheld, allowing his friend who took that test during the previous period to feed him all kinds of useful information
If he took it during the previous period, couldn't he just tell him the answers before he went in?
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. OK, I'll agree with that.
--
As I said above, it's a big win (for the companies involved) if less people can copy/rip cd's from each other. This is very common. I know a lot of people whose hard drives are full of albums they've borrowed off friends for a day and ripped, a lot of which they otherwise would have bought. A lot of these people wouldn't go through the trouble if it wasn't so easy, and instead would have just went to the store and bought the cd. Many of them also don't know what gnutella is. If your gnutella example is supposed to prove that copying still will occur, believe me, I know that. But it will be reduced, and as far as the RIAA is concerned, that is a victory.
--
It will certainly also reduce the ability of people to make legitimate backup copies of their cds (to cd or to mp3). I am not disagreeing with that, and I agree that that is unfortunate.
However, that wasn't what I was discussing. My point was simply that people who respond to these things by saying "the RIAA is so stupid, I know a clever way to get around this, so their copyright proctection is worthless, I'm so smart", are missing the point, which is that a lot of people will be stopped, even if they're not among them. You're right that people's legitimate rights are being impeded, but the RIAA companies also will increase their profits with this move, and anyone who tries to argue that they won't is very naive.
--
No doubt this sort of thing is possible, but I think that point is that the majority of people won't know how to do this and won't bother. Everyone here seems to argue that 'look this is stupid because piracy is still possible'. But the point is that it will be reduced (to only people who, for example, knwo what D/A A/D means, which I assure you is a minority). As far as the RIAA is concerned, that's a big win.
--
--
--
You will use MP3, even though you dislike it's politics, simply because it's popular? But, you refuse to use products from (the vastly popular, in terms of being widely used) Microsoft, because you disagree with their politics? I don't understand how you can reconcile these two positions. You have some thinking to do.
--
--
--
You are not the first person to suggest that #define for="if(false);else for" is a good solution. I disagree. This is not legal C++ code and therefore (even though it might work on your compiler), it is not guaranteed to work. According to the C++ standard, the compiler doesn't even have to warn you that you are doing anything illegal, and it's behaviour in response to this #define is undefined. This may work on your compiler, but cause problems in a silent and nonobvious way on another. If you are going to complain the VC++ is not real C++ because it doesn't follow standards, then your code should follow standards too. Don't use this #define.
The great think about a mission like this is you'll get that search listed twice by having every do it in one month, because first it will be a Gaining Query and then it will be a Declining Query.
--
--
There's also python, where if(a=b) is simply illegal.
What matters is the intent. If you register a domain name because it will get hits as a result of typos, that's illegal. If your comany's name happens to be similar to another's, that's fine. The ruling is against typosquatting, not against similar names.
What "principle" do you hold that says that it's wrong to sell a domain name?
I'm sure any online blackjack site would make sure the rules were in their favor. It's trivial for them ot just reshuffle after every hand. Even if they don't go that far, they can use far more decks than in a casino and have very weak little penetration. This would be especially necessary since it's so easy for anyone playing at home to use some card counting program and just punch in the cards as they are dealt. It could always tell them the optiumum play.
Care about freedom?
Care about freedom?
If he took it during the previous period, couldn't he just tell him the answers before he went in?
Care about freedom?
The CDA was passed for reference? I was sure it was passed for value.
Care about freedom?
Agreed. I don't think md5sums are a possible way of filtering though, because every rip of the same song is going to be a little different.
Care about freedom?