My point was: the organized crime will get the DRMed media, copy and unDRM it, and sell it on the streets for $1 a pop (as they already DO TODAY), and one of us (or many of us) will pick that unDRMed media and post it on the net for the delight of the rest (even if it is in an anonymized -- read "full of kiddie porn" -- encrypted/distributed channel)
IOW: extreme DRMing has as consequence the popularization of kiddie porn. No, not that. Aw, forget it:-)
3. I concede it takes more time to download than to rip a DVD. But it takes less of MY time. To rip a DVD = 20-30 minutes of my time; to click on a torrent link and let KTorrent do its thing = 20 seconds, if you count that one to two days after I'll check to see if it arrived OK.
4. This is an strictly USofAn problem. (Ok, and Aussie, and maybe Canadian). The time of use for any computer equipment in less developed countries is too long for an effective implementation of TCP+DMCA legislation. (Many people here in my work use 7 year old computers!). And people can work in Beowulf clusters of older equipment (I have news of a Beowulf of old Pentiums in an university)
Ok, so we can reach the conclusion that you certainly like more obscure titles than I do. Which is impressive in and on itself.
We have a consumer protection legislation -- and popular movements -- that make the passing of DMCA-like legislation practically impossible, which is GOOD. So, yes, I do have another perspective. TCP-less hardware abound here and will continue to abound for a long time... even after every single piece of hardware in the USofA is TCP-enabled. This is a 180-million people country, and others (China and India) will follow suit. The "War on Reading" is a war that the USofA cannot win (just like the other two, but I digress).
About hardware hacks: if you stop to remember, before the 1960's there were no software hacks... but plenty of hardware hacks, with secret recipies being exchanged in the underground (do you know what is a 999 key?) The internet will continue to make those hardware hacks available to anyone anonymously, even in a TCP-dominated USofA. And it's just slightly more expensive to implement, but plenty of people will do so. And plenty of unDRMed media will be available, even if more obscure titles don't.
Today, people that copy DRMed media and distribute it normally have the skills necessary to make the transition from soft-hacking to hard-hacking, and that is my point. Or worse: it will all fall in the hands of the organized crime (you know, those that supply the $1-a-pop pirate DVD that the street guy sells) and we DO know those are pretty much untouchable, as a rule.
Essencially, yes. This is already the case today. Actually, as another poster stated, that or the creation of a really serious, organized-crime type copying ring will ensue. And then, the War on Terror and the War on Drugs will meet their younger sibling, the War on Reading.
Once one person breaks the encryption, said person can release an infinite number of DRM-free copies. So, for DRM to work, it's not sufficient that it makes "difficult" or ("a hassle") to copy the work. It should make impossible to copy it. But, as I said, that's not gonna happen.
Repeat with me, once again: TCP/DRM does NOT work. Why? Simple. Cryptographically, DRM means you have the cyphertext AND the key... so, YOU have the plaintext also. But one'll say: "but the thing is protected, inside an IC, etc..etc.". So I say: The analog/digital loophole. How? Simple. Even if your audio output is digital and encrypted, you pry open your digital loudspeaker, reverse-engineer the digital datapaths till you find the DAC and plug some wires there. Even if it is completely integrated in the same IC, you rip off the coil from the speaker, and wire your ADC there so you have a reasonably-high-quality analog input. Even if all plasma/LCD tv sets are all-encrypted, they'll have to put _some_ color in _each_ pixel in the end, so you just yank the screen off and see how is color represented for each pixel. End of story. Now, I know that the USofA (and Australia? and where else?) they have that insane DMCA thing, but this depends on each one to combat idiot legislation. I am doing my part down here (I keep an eye for legislative insanity, and scream as loud as I can when I see one)
For the sake of integrity, after some research, I will admit the following facts, that disagree with my post above: 1. The same way it's happening with the city of Paris and the Eiffel Tower, the Brasilian Catholic Church alleges that it is the copyright holder to the image of the Cristo Redentor. This would give any images of the statue, photographic or otherwise, the status of a derivative work, that must be authorized by the copyright holder. BUT... altough the Brasilian cardinal Dom Eugenio Salles has THREATENED to sue anyone who mis-use the image (like a bikini factory that was stamping their swimming suits with it), he has never come to the courts. And, in the cited Ronaldo case, the CONAR (Conselho Nacional de Auto-Regulamentação publicitária -- National Self-Regulation Advertising Council) ASKED the agency to can the ad. 2. In the case of Sergio von Helde Luiz, the bishop from the IURD (Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus -- Universal Church of Kingdom of God?) that kicked a statue of Our Lady of Aparecida on TV, the bishop was never arrested, and altough he was prosecuted for the felony from art. 208 of our Penal Code ("ultraje a culto e impedimento ou perturbação de ato a ele relativo" -- "outrage to cult or disturbing of act relative to a cult", that includes vilifying objects of cult), he bargained a guilty plea for a fine. I would like to ask other fellow slashdotters if they think all of the above as terrible limitations of the freedom of expression (I don't)
1. Google US opens Orkut. 2. Orkut get filled with Brasilians. 3. Orkut gets used by Brasilian Criminals to plan crimes, like child prostitution, drug sales, robberies, and others, anonymously. 4. Google US opens Google Brasil, to get $$$ from online ads in Brasilian sites 5. Prosecutors' office ask judge to subpoena Google Brasil for IP address of criminals, judge grants it. 6. Google Brasil says "we don't know anything... call my papa in the US". 7. Prosecutors' office, knowing that they have no leverage to force Google US to give the IP addresses, strongarm Google Brasil, asking judge for fines and possibly the extinction of the Brasilian branch of Google. Got it?
People on Google Brasil have access to the data just like people from the Google US. And Brasilian prosecutors have no authority over Google US, but they do have authority over Google Brasil,
Your prejudice is shown, first of all, in your insistence in spelling BraZil with an "s". If you are writing in english, you should use the english spelling, just as you should avoid using unnecessary english words when writing in portuguese.
I'm sorry, you are not my fifth grade teacher, and you should not be giving me english spelling lessons. Save it for others. I will spell Brasil with an S all the time, and I will call natives of the USofA as USofAns to my heart's content.
And even if nobody in Google Brasil has access to such data, they can ask Google US for the data -- as they already did when "hate speech" communities were taken off Orkut.
Which seems to be the crux of the question here. When should "hate speech" become illegal?
In Brasil? In 1988. Hate speech is prohibited by our Constitution.
Who should be in charge of deciding how much one is allowed to like or dislike other people, or other people's opinions?
No one is in charge of deciding how much you can like or dislike someone else -- but you are obligated by law not to spread your hate around.
I was born in Brazil and have lived here most of my life, and I must say this: Brazilian law is extremely, obscenely, biased against freedom of speech, even if that right is (theoretically) guaranteed in the constitution. The cases that have been judged against freedom of expression in Brazil are so utterly ridiculous that anyone it defies imagination.
This is where you show your lack of legal knowledge:
For instance, there was an advertisement in television a few years ago that showed the football (soccer) star Ronaldo running with extended arms. The curch of the Vatican successfully sued to remove that ad from the airwaves,
No they did not. They asked our advertising self-regulating agency to ask the original ad agency to remove the commercial
on the basis that the pose emulated the position that Jesus Christ had in the cross, and Jesus Christ (they claim) is an exclusive trademark of the church of the Vatican.
No they did not. They alleged that it was disrespectful for Christians, which I agree is nonsense.
If anybody not related to the Vatican church makes any statement about Jesus Christ in Brazil, that's considered "hate speech" by the catholic judges, who seem to hold many of the justice courts in Brazil.
This is an outright lie and I challenge you to bring ONE such case (which court, case #, etc)
A pentecostal preacher once touched a statue of the "virgin" in a Brazilian TV program, to show that it was just a material image, he was prosecuted and had to flee the country to escape lynch mobs organized by catholics.
The guy was not prosecuted, was not lynched, and ultimately was elected for some office in Rio, check your facts.
It's my opinion, as a native-born Brazilian, that when any Brazilian person mentions "hate speech", the whole matter should be disregarded. Our people are entirely too emotional to discuss seriously anything related to hate speech.
I disagree with you. Hate speech has nothing emotional about it. As I said above, you can like or dislike whoever you want, but keep it to yourself, don't go around saying "black people smell bad" or "gay people are a plague" or "jews are the spawn of hell" and you'll be fine.
In Brazil you can sue your bank and win if they refuse you credit, based on "moral damages". "Hmmm, no, we don't think you have enough collateral for a $100k loan" is a mortal offense in Brazil, such
The GPP, while discussing the news item "Brasilian prosecutors subpoena Google Brasil for IP addresses of Orkut members", said
Calling that a "Child porn investigation case" is one of the most misleading statements I've ever heard. It was a "porn on the 'net fishing expedition."
That is what I asked him to clarify. AFAIK (and I know quite a lot about those cases) Brasilian prosecutors normally don't go on fishing expeditions... especially when it's about on-line stuff.
People on Google Brasil have access to the data just like people from the Google US.
That doesn't mean that they have the right, or can be compelled, to divulge that information.
as long as Google wants to have a subsidiary in Brasil and they want to make money out of their ads in Brasilian websites, yes the prosecuters have the right to compell Google Brasil to give any information about IPs of specific criminals using their website to communicate anonymously.
We should invade the privacy of millions in case someone has a picture of a naked 17 year old.
No. Google should turn in the IP address of a specific Orkut account that posted an announcement for the auction of the virginity of a ten-year-old, with nude pictures of her.
They want the IP addresses associated with any sessions opened by . So, they'll cross-reference with the ISPs that own those guys, and get: (1) the financial info used to pay for the ISP and/or (2) the address of the phone that dialed (in the case of dial-up) or the address of the cable/adsl-modem installation, so they can grab the guys.
Calling that a "Child porn investigation case" is one of the most misleading statements I've ever heard. It was a "porn on the 'net fishing expedition."
Ok, can you elaborate on that? Normally, the cases where the prosecutors ask Google for Orkut user info normally involve child porn or drug distribution, and at least one case involved "virginity auctions" of ten-year-olds. Disclaimer: I am married to a District Attorney, and I worked for two years as a paralegal in a D.A.'s office. Now, from the article you pointed to:
"We have obeyed all the judicial orders that requested we remove undue content. Some orders demanded that we turn over user information for investigation and we complied," Nicole Wong, a spokeswoman for Google Inc., said at the time. In anticipation of the complaint, Google's Brazilian unit petitioned a judge on Monday to name an independent specialist to determine whether it is withholding user information. In its request, Google said its Orkut pages are housed on its server in the United States and that Brazilian authorities should request that information from its headquarters, not its Brazilian unit. In a statement, Google's Brazilian unit said it filed the request to show that despite the "attacks from the prosecutor's office," it does not possess a data bank of its Orkut communities or any information about those users.
Bullshit and double bullshit. People on Google Brasil have access to the data just like people from the Google US. And Brasilian prosecutors have no authority over Google US, but they do have authority over Google Brasil, so Google Brasil is the logical "person" to ask for data they DO have access to. And even if nobody in Google Brasil has access to such data, they can ask Google US for the data -- as they already did when "hate speech" communities were taken off Orkut.
Stallman begat Emacs Emacs begat elisp elisp begat gcc gcc begat gnu gnu begat hurd hurd has a growth-inhibiting condition, so gcc begat linux, and qt qt begat kdelibs kdelibs begat kde kde begat kubuntu and there was light:-) Any similarity with the truth is mere coincidence.
Yep, Boston is full of mineiros:-) [one of my dearest friends is living there] Sorry for the mix-up. And thank you very much for the pointers, I'm digging
I'm sure you should have noticed at this point - the Slashdot herd leaders only disagree with patent laws and licensing requirements when it hurts their fancies.
What astonishes me is that slashdot still fancies GPL-abusing TiVo.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, my government is strong on consumer protection law, not the other way around.
My point was: the organized crime will get the DRMed media, copy and unDRM it, and sell it on the streets for $1 a pop (as they already DO TODAY), and one of us (or many of us) will pick that unDRMed media and post it on the net for the delight of the rest (even if it is in an anonymized -- read "full of kiddie porn" -- encrypted/distributed channel)
:-)
IOW: extreme DRMing has as consequence the popularization of kiddie porn. No, not that. Aw, forget it
1. I have not had this problem.
... but plenty of hardware hacks, with secret recipies being exchanged in the underground (do you know what is a 999 key?) The internet will continue to make those hardware hacks available to anyone anonymously, even in a TCP-dominated USofA. And it's just slightly more expensive to implement, but plenty of people will do so. And plenty of unDRMed media will be available, even if more obscure titles don't.
2. Nope, sorry.
3. I concede it takes more time to download than to rip a DVD. But it takes less of MY time. To rip a DVD = 20-30 minutes of my time; to click on a torrent link and let KTorrent do its thing = 20 seconds, if you count that one to two days after I'll check to see if it arrived OK.
4. This is an strictly USofAn problem. (Ok, and Aussie, and maybe Canadian). The time of use for any computer equipment in less developed countries is too long for an effective implementation of TCP+DMCA legislation. (Many people here in my work use 7 year old computers!). And people can work in Beowulf clusters of older equipment (I have news of a Beowulf of old Pentiums in an university)
Ok, so we can reach the conclusion that you certainly like more obscure titles than I do. Which is impressive in and on itself.
We have a consumer protection legislation -- and popular movements -- that make the passing of DMCA-like legislation practically impossible, which is GOOD. So, yes, I do have another perspective. TCP-less hardware abound here and will continue to abound for a long time... even after every single piece of hardware in the USofA is TCP-enabled. This is a 180-million people country, and others (China and India) will follow suit. The "War on Reading" is a war that the USofA cannot win (just like the other two, but I digress).
About hardware hacks: if you stop to remember, before the 1960's there were no software hacks
Today, people that copy DRMed media and distribute it normally have the skills necessary to make the transition from soft-hacking to hard-hacking, and that is my point. Or worse: it will all fall in the hands of the organized crime (you know, those that supply the $1-a-pop pirate DVD that the street guy sells) and we DO know those are pretty much untouchable, as a rule.
Essencially, yes. This is already the case today. Actually, as another poster stated, that or the creation of a really serious, organized-crime type copying ring will ensue. And then, the War on Terror and the War on Drugs will meet their younger sibling, the War on Reading.
Once one person breaks the encryption, said person can release an infinite number of DRM-free copies. So, for DRM to work, it's not sufficient that it makes "difficult" or ("a hassle") to copy the work. It should make impossible to copy it. But, as I said, that's not gonna happen.
Repeat with me, once again: TCP/DRM does NOT work. .etc.". So I say: The analog/digital loophole. How? Simple. Even if your audio output is digital and encrypted, you pry open your digital loudspeaker, reverse-engineer the digital datapaths till you find the DAC and plug some wires there. Even if it is completely integrated in the same IC, you rip off the coil from the speaker, and wire your ADC there so you have a reasonably-high-quality analog input.
Why? Simple.
Cryptographically, DRM means you have the cyphertext AND the key... so, YOU have the plaintext also.
But one'll say: "but the thing is protected, inside an IC, etc.
Even if all plasma/LCD tv sets are all-encrypted, they'll have to put _some_ color in _each_ pixel in the end, so you just yank the screen off and see how is color represented for each pixel. End of story.
Now, I know that the USofA (and Australia? and where else?) they have that insane DMCA thing, but this depends on each one to combat idiot legislation. I am doing my part down here (I keep an eye for legislative insanity, and scream as loud as I can when I see one)
I misread the last paragraph, or skipped the second-to-last, whatever.
For the sake of integrity, after some research, I will admit the following facts, that disagree with my post above:
1. The same way it's happening with the city of Paris and the Eiffel Tower, the Brasilian Catholic Church alleges that it is the copyright holder to the image of the Cristo Redentor. This would give any images of the statue, photographic or otherwise, the status of a derivative work, that must be authorized by the copyright holder. BUT... altough the Brasilian cardinal Dom Eugenio Salles has THREATENED to sue anyone who mis-use the image (like a bikini factory that was stamping their swimming suits with it), he has never come to the courts. And, in the cited Ronaldo case, the CONAR (Conselho Nacional de Auto-Regulamentação publicitária -- National Self-Regulation Advertising Council) ASKED the agency to can the ad.
2. In the case of Sergio von Helde Luiz, the bishop from the IURD (Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus -- Universal Church of Kingdom of God?) that kicked a statue of Our Lady of Aparecida on TV, the bishop was never arrested, and altough he was prosecuted for the felony from art. 208 of our Penal Code ("ultraje a culto e impedimento ou perturbação de ato a ele relativo" -- "outrage to cult or disturbing of act relative to a cult", that includes vilifying objects of cult), he bargained a guilty plea for a fine.
I would like to ask other fellow slashdotters if they think all of the above as terrible limitations of the freedom of expression (I don't)
1. Google US opens Orkut.
2. Orkut get filled with Brasilians.
3. Orkut gets used by Brasilian Criminals to plan crimes, like child prostitution, drug sales, robberies, and others, anonymously.
4. Google US opens Google Brasil, to get $$$ from online ads in Brasilian sites
5. Prosecutors' office ask judge to subpoena Google Brasil for IP address of criminals, judge grants it.
6. Google Brasil says "we don't know anything... call my papa in the US".
7. Prosecutors' office, knowing that they have no leverage to force Google US to give the IP addresses, strongarm Google Brasil, asking judge for fines and possibly the extinction of the Brasilian branch of Google.
Got it?
I'm sorry, you are not my fifth grade teacher, and you should not be giving me english spelling lessons. Save it for others. I will spell Brasil with an S all the time, and I will call natives of the USofA as USofAns to my heart's content.
In Brasil? In 1988. Hate speech is prohibited by our Constitution.
No one is in charge of deciding how much you can like or dislike someone else -- but you are obligated by law not to spread your hate around.
This is where you show your lack of legal knowledge:
No they did not. They asked our advertising self-regulating agency to ask the original ad agency to remove the commercial
No they did not. They alleged that it was disrespectful for Christians, which I agree is nonsense.
This is an outright lie and I challenge you to bring ONE such case (which court, case #, etc)
The guy was not prosecuted, was not lynched, and ultimately was elected for some office in Rio, check your facts.
I disagree with you. Hate speech has nothing emotional about it. As I said above, you can like or dislike whoever you want, but keep it to yourself, don't go around saying "black people smell bad" or "gay people are a plague" or "jews are the spawn of hell" and you'll be fine.
is called Amarok.
They want the IP addresses associated with any sessions opened by . So, they'll cross-reference with the ISPs that own those guys, and get: (1) the financial info used to pay for the ISP and/or (2) the address of the phone that dialed (in the case of dial-up) or the address of the cable/adsl-modem installation, so they can grab the guys.
:-)
Eu, por mim, dou boas-vindas aos nossos novos Senhores brasileiros.
This is a very Informative, +5 posting, that details correctly what is going on here. Valeu (=kudos), knightmad.
Disclaimer: I am married to a District Attorney, and I worked for two years as a paralegal in a D.A.'s office.
Now, from the article you pointed to: Bullshit and double bullshit. People on Google Brasil have access to the data just like people from the Google US. And Brasilian prosecutors have no authority over Google US, but they do have authority over Google Brasil, so Google Brasil is the logical "person" to ask for data they DO have access to. And even if nobody in Google Brasil has access to such data, they can ask Google US for the data -- as they already did when "hate speech" communities were taken off Orkut.
Stallman begat Emacs :-)
Emacs begat elisp
elisp begat gcc
gcc begat gnu
gnu begat hurd
hurd has a growth-inhibiting condition, so
gcc begat linux, and qt
qt begat kdelibs
kdelibs begat kde
kde begat kubuntu
and there was light
Any similarity with the truth is mere coincidence.
resent = feel bitter or indignant about
resemble = be similar or bear a likeness to
Yep, Boston is full of mineiros :-) [one of my dearest friends is living there] Sorry for the mix-up. And thank you very much for the pointers, I'm digging
In the State where I live (Minas Gerais) we have four GSM operators (two GSM-only, two GSM+AMPS) and zero CDMA operators.
And can I buy just the phone, if not? (because Verizon is kind of outside my area of interest)