The music industry just started illegally interfering with computer networks to the detriment of others
To be fair (I know, I know -- this is slashdot. But let's try.), they haven't actually hacked anyone yet. They're pushing for legislation to make it legal, but they aren't doing it now.
Anyone else think for a minute, "Hmmm. I wonder if they DDoS'ed their own site to create a news piece and have something to terrify Congresscritters with?" I mean, it's exactly the right timing, isn't it?
OK, I don't believe it either. (For one thing, it is too subtle and clue-ful, not to mention tech-savvy.) But the thought was there...
I've read a bunch of comments along the lines of "Oh, that's interesting. But those mathematicians, with their formality, are killing Escher's art". Bullwash. There is beauty in the math, too, and grace, and yes, even art. Sure, these researchers are using a different brush and a different canvas. But in number theory there are intricacies and elegances to break your heart. It's no less "art" because it's done through math.
I don't think they've improved on Escher, any more than I think they've "ruined" him. They've just used his artwork as a springboard for their own. For a community that likes to rhapsodize about the value of the public domain and the intellectual commons, an awful lot of slashdotters seem to object to this.
The difference between a madman and a genuius is that we force the madman to live in our world while the genius forces us to live in his.
--Karl Evander Kaufeld
I don't know, but once the movie ended, I felt a strange compulsion to finish off my Pepsi(TM) Cola and check my Bvlgari(TM) watch to see if I had time to hop into my Lexus(TM) coupe and drive over to the Gap (TM) before they closed. But instead I decided to book a vacation using my Nokia(TM) phone and data I'd downloaded to my transparent Iomega PocketZIP(TM) disk.
As I said elsewhere, that sort of decision is either good or bad depending on circumstances.
Fair enough and quite the right attitude about it. But that hardly makes Red Hat "insane" for making the choice they did. It had a certain logic to it, and I certainly feel that defaults should be set (a) to maximize security and minimize the coneqeuence of a click-through install (even though we know no one ever does that:) ) and (b) secondary to this, cause the least inconvenience to the most users.
How insane is it that Red Hat decided to ship the OS with telnet access off by default? What good is a server if you can't telnet into it? Are they expecting me to sit down in front of the damn thing?
I don't think this is an oversight. I think it's a security issue... isn't telnetd insecure? (Disclaimer: I've been a Unix user from time to time but not a gearhead or guru. I just know what I spot on the Net.) I seem to remember some distro getting hauled across the coals exactly because it came with telnetd on by default...
Re:good idea
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Blockquoth the poster:
I suspect that industry would be more receptive to these online libraries if goverments extended such programs into this area.
Quite the opposite, actually. Publishers have hated the idea of public libraries for literally centuries. They have done everything they can to restrict, reduce, and eventually rub out libraries. Only the fact that the public library is so patently a public good -- that it engenders warm, fuzzy feelings in John Q. Voter -- has protected it so far.
In the DMCA hearings, who was just about the only group looking out for anything close to what we might call the average citizen? The librarians' group.
Doubt me? Ask a former Registrar of Copyright, Ralph Oman, who in a letter to The Washington Post bewhined that
"A long list of
special pleaders now gets free use of copyrighted works, including small businesses, veterans' groups, bars, scholars, restaurants, fraternal groups, marching bands, Boy Scout troops, nursing homes, libraries, radio broadcasters and home tapers" (emphasis added)
Mr. Olman was speaking in favor of the Sonny Bono Public Domain Pillage Act (also known as the "Copyright Term Extension Act"). He bewailed the loss of revenues such Communists and anarchists as the Boy Scouts cost the poor, abused Content Cartel every year. (Blatant plug: The Post published my reply. Like a schlub, I've lost the actual WashPost link.)
The evidence is, the Content Cartel would prefer to see libraries go gently into that dark night of perpetual copyright extension, indefinite "access controls", and a denuded public domain.
If the copy is not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright, as in, you own the copyright, then the watermark is genuine, and you havne't broken the law.
Assuming, of course, that you can even generate a watermark. But maybe the only legal watermarks will have to come from "approved" sources, and that the price to get one may be high. (We'll leave aside the issue of whether I should have to do anything special to display those digital pictures I snapped or to play that song I wrote and recorded...)
Note that we wouldn't need a new law to restrict the vendors of watermarks down to one or a handful of companies. If the DRM hardware or software requires a particular format, and if that format is protected by Big Company's copyright or -- more likely -- patent, then BigCo has a de facto monopoly on that media type. If hacking, faking, or reverse-engineering watermarks is made massively illegal, then that monopoly is cemented in place. And no law had to be passed specifically naming BigCo as the gateway through which creativity must pass.
Tell me now, is this idea funny or terrifyingly close to reality?
Well it might be pretty close to reality -- see Minority Report for over-the-top product placement (though I think the satiric element justified it). But to be effective, the placement would have to be blatant. I suspect Coke might end up scratching its corporate head wondering why the #1 show tanked so decisively, once the system is in place...
On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I have real hope for the revolution of the average consumer, that people simply won't watch ad-saturated shows or buy over-DRMed media.
On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, I feel real despair at the coming victory of the corporatists.
Good to see our regular Rogues Gallery of senators. Blockquoth the ZDnet article:
Its sponsors include key Democrats and Republicans, including Senate Commerce chairman
Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the top GOPer on the Judiciary committee.
The sad thing is, I did correct the spelling... Apparently I deleted the "g" at the same time as fixing my other botched spelling. *Sigh* Proving once again that previewing doesn't guarantee anything.:(
What? What did you expect to follow "insert"? Get your mind out of the gutter.:)
Re:where do they get these numbers??
on
WarTalking Arrest
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Blockquoth the poster:
he alleged intrusion eventually resulted in the county closing its wireless LAN only a month after it was activated
the associated cost of dismantling the service is going to add up to at least five grand. I'm surprised it's not more
So, because the county installed a stupid system and was forced to shut it down, this guy is liable? There doesn't seem to be any accusation that he made the system (more) insecure. They just seem peeved that he actually demonstrated an existing insecurity, that mandated a reversal of policy. Shoot enough messengers and soon no one will bother you with news about bad things. And of course that means bad things will cease to exist.
Re:Ignorance is bliss.
on
WarTalking Arrest
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Blockquoth the poster:
If I walked up to a cop and said "This pop machine is insecure" and proceeded to kick it and then drink the soda that fell out do you think the cop would be happy I showed him that?
If I go up to a soda-machine owner and say, "This machine gives out free Cokes", then press a button and watch a Coke drop, should I expect to go to jail?? Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I would expect the soda-machine owner to be grateful that someone pointed out the flaw, so that it could be fixed.
But of course, in this case, it would require the government to admit that there had been a mistake, that confidential data conceivably might have gotten out without them knowing it, and that they weren't competent enough to detect the hole themselves. And that's why, instead, he's being charged.
Because, in order to copy the poem one would have to "circumvent" the copy protection... in this case, the copy protection is the envelope... you have to take it out of the envelope in order to copy it.
So, is an envelope a "technical access-control device"? What if I rot13 something, twice?
Here's something everyone needs to remember... If you DIDN'T Sign it or agree to it at the point of sale IT IS INVALID TRIPE.
You need to be careful here. The law recognizes so-called "implicit contracts". For example: You walk into Kwiki-Mart, where you see a sign "Soylent Green gum -- 25 zorkmids". You pick up a pack of Soylent Green gum, drop a twenty-five zorkmid coin on the counter, take the gum, and walk out. The store owner can't pursue you with a baseball bat for "stealing" the gum. By offering it for sale and announcing a price, he's offered an "implied contract". And by putting down the money, you've accepted it.
Obviously these things are a little hazy. The courts have to rely upon what sort of things are "usual". If you buy a car and there's no air conditioner (and no mention of one), you can't complain. If you buy a car and there's no engine, you can sue.
Software is too new for the "common" understanding to have settled down yet. Bleh.
For me to accept this, they must stop selling a "license to use" the software, and just charge for the media. As it is, the media charge is a tiny component of the total price, most of which is the software license.
I can't believe I'm coming in on this side of the argument but... that doesn't work. GM doesn't charge you just the cost of the steel, composite, leather, etc. They charge considerably above that. Some of it might be labor but most of it isn't. Most of it, people will pay $x for a GM car.
It's all about balancing the rights of others with selfish acts (I use the word non-perjoratively). That's why we have laws in the first place!!
Blockquoth Donnatella Moss (The West Wing):
In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make it illegal.
That is to say, the people at Sony have to show that protecting their profits is an overriding state interest that transcends the physical propoerty rights of the owner. To do that, they'll have to show that there are essentially no legal uses for mod chips. And that, they cannot do.
P2P networks - "Can we have immunity to steal intellectual property, as long as we call it "sharing""?
Leaving aside the fact that copyright infringement != stealing, let's see. Do we let convenience store clerks take guns into the apartments of people they think might rob the Kwiki-Mart? Do car owners get to blow up suspected car thieves? Does the local mall have the right to cut off your hand because, hey, that Gap shirt might have been stolen?
Language is a process of consensus, not one where words are defined formally and issued to the public.
Except in the field of intellectual output, wherein terms like "pirate" and "theft" have been stretched far beyond their usual connotations, solely by the pronouncement of the Content Cartel.
Of course, the terms will reflect common understanding. And that's why every time someone mis-identifies copyright infringement with theft or, heaven help us, piracy, I speak up. That "common consensus" cannot evolve unless people are out there trying to spread the terms.
Also,
Now you just have to convince the majority of the population who will disagree with your assertion
There is no evidence that I've seen to indicate that "the majority of the population" equates copyright infringement with theft. Millions of people who would never take a second newspaper from a vending machine routinely trade files online with no sense of guilt, so they must not think it's theft. Millions more will create and listen to mix tapes using albums owned by friends. Even more millions will watch videotapes in group settings, or copy bits to show friends. And untold millions routinely photocopy entire articles from magazines and journals. Every one of them feels their use is fair -- but no one has ever argued for "fair use theft".
I would argue strongly that the identity "infringement = theft" is simply not believed by the majority of the population. How has it taken hold? Because the Content Cartel has a vested interest in seeing infringement identified with much more serious (and well-understood) crimes. Not coincidentally, the Content Cartel also has great power to shape debate, since it frames the discussion for many (most?) people through newspapers, radio shows, and TV news.
The terms haven't achieved dominance through "common consensus". They achieved it through one-sided power and a deliberate attempt to obfuscate.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I don't believe it either. (For one thing, it is too subtle and clue-ful, not to mention tech-savvy.) But the thought was there...
I don't think they've improved on Escher, any more than I think they've "ruined" him. They've just used his artwork as a springboard for their own. For a community that likes to rhapsodize about the value of the public domain and the intellectual commons, an awful lot of slashdotters seem to object to this.
The difference between a madman and a genuius is that we force the madman to live in our world while the genius forces us to live in his.
--Karl Evander Kaufeld
In the DMCA hearings, who was just about the only group looking out for anything close to what we might call the average citizen? The librarians' group.
Doubt me? Ask a former Registrar of Copyright, Ralph Oman, who in a letter to The Washington Post bewhined that
Mr. Olman was speaking in favor of the Sonny Bono Public Domain Pillage Act (also known as the "Copyright Term Extension Act"). He bewailed the loss of revenues such Communists and anarchists as the Boy Scouts cost the poor, abused Content Cartel every year. (Blatant plug: The Post published my reply. Like a schlub, I've lost the actual WashPost link.)The evidence is, the Content Cartel would prefer to see libraries go gently into that dark night of perpetual copyright extension, indefinite "access controls", and a denuded public domain.
Note that we wouldn't need a new law to restrict the vendors of watermarks down to one or a handful of companies. If the DRM hardware or software requires a particular format, and if that format is protected by Big Company's copyright or -- more likely -- patent, then BigCo has a de facto monopoly on that media type. If hacking, faking, or reverse-engineering watermarks is made massively illegal, then that monopoly is cemented in place. And no law had to be passed specifically naming BigCo as the gateway through which creativity must pass.
I wish I could append a little smiley there, but in this climate, there's little to smile about...
On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I have real hope for the revolution of the average consumer, that people simply won't watch ad-saturated shows or buy over-DRMed media.
On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, I feel real despair at the coming victory of the corporatists.
On Sunday, I don't read slashdot. :)
The sad thing is, I did correct the spelling... Apparently I deleted the "g" at the same time as fixing my other botched spelling. *Sigh* Proving once again that previewing doesn't guarantee anything. :(
What? What did you expect to follow "insert"? Get your mind out of the gutter. :)
But of course, in this case, it would require the government to admit that there had been a mistake, that confidential data conceivably might have gotten out without them knowing it, and that they weren't competent enough to detect the hole themselves. And that's why, instead, he's being charged.
Obviously these things are a little hazy. The courts have to rely upon what sort of things are "usual". If you buy a car and there's no air conditioner (and no mention of one), you can't complain. If you buy a car and there's no engine, you can sue.
Software is too new for the "common" understanding to have settled down yet. Bleh.
Of course, the terms will reflect common understanding. And that's why every time someone mis-identifies copyright infringement with theft or, heaven help us, piracy, I speak up. That "common consensus" cannot evolve unless people are out there trying to spread the terms.
Also,
There is no evidence that I've seen to indicate that "the majority of the population" equates copyright infringement with theft. Millions of people who would never take a second newspaper from a vending machine routinely trade files online with no sense of guilt, so they must not think it's theft. Millions more will create and listen to mix tapes using albums owned by friends. Even more millions will watch videotapes in group settings, or copy bits to show friends. And untold millions routinely photocopy entire articles from magazines and journals. Every one of them feels their use is fair -- but no one has ever argued for "fair use theft".I would argue strongly that the identity "infringement = theft" is simply not believed by the majority of the population. How has it taken hold? Because the Content Cartel has a vested interest in seeing infringement identified with much more serious (and well-understood) crimes. Not coincidentally, the Content Cartel also has great power to shape debate, since it frames the discussion for many (most?) people through newspapers, radio shows, and TV news.
The terms haven't achieved dominance through "common consensus". They achieved it through one-sided power and a deliberate attempt to obfuscate.