The string allows one to circumvent copy protection measures. Under the DMCA, publishing such information is a thought crime punishable by scrotal piercing.
A friend of mine works for a security firm here in NYC. They do camera system installs for certain *really*, *really* high security locations. If he wanders around in certain areas of the city, he'll have a nice email the next morning retracing his steps with still photos at various locations. The surveillance operators just feed the system a headshot and the rest is history. Sure, it's a little joke amongst co-workers, but it's fully possible today, right now.
...this tool in the right hands is effective. Israeli airlines and airports have the reputation for being the safest in the world. A big part of the reason for that is that they focus on passengers' behavior rather than what they put into their bags. Granted, the volume of air travel to and from Israel is probably a tiny fraction of what most major airports see. The questions are: (a) whether the Israelis' success is scalable to other airports, and (b) whether this device is a valuable supplement to a well-trained security team--one that can understand the machine's limitations and leverage its strengths in assessing the stream of passengers.
There are so many crazy uninformed opinions in these comments about the legal standards for copyright infringement of a work of fiction. It's maddening for anyone who actually understands the topic.
First of all, in the US an author still controls derivative works. A derivative work is a "work based upon one or more preexisting works such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, [ . . . ], abridgment, condensation or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted". (Copyright Act, Section 101). Also, "[a] work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship is a 'derivative work'." (Copyright Act, Section 101). Fan fiction is an obvious example of a derivative work in most cases.
Secondly, if this case were in the USA, it would turn on whether the court thinks Dan Brown used copyrightable elements of the other book. This is a tough argument to make, especially where the subject matter straddles the line between fiction and history. But consider for a moment a few examples. If Author B read Author A's book about UFOs invading Earth and then Author B wrote his own book on UFOs invading Earth, there probably wouldn't be a good infringement claim based on that alone. But if Author B's book included all the same characters as in Author A's, and the plotlines were essentially identical and the only differences were word choice and formatting, Author A would probably have a good claim, especially if Author A can show that Author B's book is robbing his sales.
I'm not sure what the merits are in this case (or what the standards for infringement are in the UK), but it's clear that the plaintiffs have an argument and should have their day in court.
Yes, Mac users have a well-deserved reputation for being fanatical (and sometimes even for good reason). But then along comes a story like this one that smears Apple for no particularly good reason and without much of an argument, and you have to ask yourself WTF.
Not true. You need a license to use software any time you aren't the original author. The GPL grants you a license on conditions that are imposed when distribution happens.
That's not a creation of net-new rights--it's merely a transfer of existing rights from the author to the licensee. The GPL only "creates" new rights if you compare it to other less developer-friendly licenses.
That depends on who you meant by "you". As the recipient of GPL'd software, your rights are indeed probably more expansive than if you licensed commercial software under a standard EULA. On the other hand, as a developer, your authorship rights have conditions placed on them that come from the GPL and not from copyright laws. The GPL does not create new rights, actually. It merely creates a contract condition (i.e., disclosure of source code) on the licensee's ability to distribute the program. in this sense, the GPL simply transfers more of the original author's rights to the end user than classic copyright laws or most EULA terms would do.
How about the one where Best Buy forced people to buy XBOX 360 bundles after they waited on line to buy the core system? And wasn't it Best Buy that was illegally detaining customers on pretense of shoplifting who tried to collect refunds?
The point is that the copyright laws in the US grant rights in the author to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies of, perform and display copyrighted works. To the extent that the GPL places a condition on the end user's ability to make copies, derivative works, and distribute software, it is the same as any other EULA.
I don't want to debate the meaning of "use", since it's both arbitrary and irrelevant (and not defined under US copyright law in the manner you purport, AFAIK).
I see what you're saying, but I think the real issue is whether "use" is tantamount to "distribution" in the context of a hosted application. I would argue that there is no functional difference between: (a) shipping an installer CD for an application to be deployed on Generic Company's servers for its internal use, and (b) providing that same application's functionality for Generic Company's internal use via a hosted application service. Don't you agree that there's some overlap worth exploring there?
Also, consider the reason for the GPL's requirement that the source be distributed with the executable code. Isn't the policy essentially to allow your users to become co-developers in order to improve the quality/functionality that the distributed code offers? I would say it is, at least in part. Consequently, why should the hosted application model be exempt from the same policy? It seems logical to me that hosted applications should be treated as a distribution under the right circumstances.
BTW, how is the GPL *not* an EULA? Doesn't it impose conditions on the use of software as a condition of use? Don't forget that modifying source code is a form of "use", as is distribution. And, finally, to the extent that the copyright laws ensure certain rights for authors, the GPL *is* a restrictive license.
You don't think these guys are as big crooks as any of the Brooklyn warehouses? I guess you've never been on the receiving end of their insipid sales strategies.
I can't tell if you're attacking their business acumen, their politics, or both, but it either way you're missing the point. There was a story yesterday about the name "Open Source Media", and a lot of commenters had a gripe with the use of 'Open Source' in that context. I submitted this story as a follow-up because it is interesting to me that they acted so quickly in response to public criticism. You can deem it opportunism or incompetence if you like, but my opinion is that they (unlike, say, CBS) are a news outlet (yes, I said it) that is paying close attention to what their readers are saying.
This isn't that big of a deal. I don't like the inclusion of "marketing materials", but otherwise this is pretty much limited to the types of use most software developers reserve from their end users, IMO.
I agree, it is complex. Yes, I also see your point that France operates on a number of official contradictions that span the spectrum of tolerance vs. xenophobia. I still maintain, though, that ill-conceived attempts to foster a muslim enclave in French society in the name of multiculturalism is the root of this riot escapade.
Blogs are nothing more or less than a communications channel. The logic behind the police action to close them down is premised on blogs being used as means of coordinating the rioters. There is nothing about blogs per se that makes them subject to special protections vis a vis other communication channels.
The example you cite (the well-trodden headscarves controversy) is an imperfect example of the situation, but worth discussing. The explicit motive for the headscarves rule was to maintain secular governance. This is known as separation of church and state in the US (where it is routinely ignored by our reborn President). This notion is a pillar of liberal and republican dogma, and has nothing to do with religious intolerance or supremecy of one culture over another. The point is that all cultures are treated the same under the law. This is an exceedingly fair and commendable policy, IMO. (Set aside the argument that Christians still wear their crosses, as there's a legitimate apples/oranges argument there.)
The problem is that fairness is a two way street. Even if the French policy is fiar, the Muslims who is applies to have increasingly less tolerance for other cultures, including the traditional French culture, and believe in their own cultural supremecy. In light of this, the otherwise fair policy of the French government is rendered absurd and unsound. Egalitarian policies make no sense when they aim to protect the interests of avowed supremecists.
It is this undercurrent of supremecy which has festered in the warm waters of France's rational adherence to policies that validate multiculturalism. It is this same undercurrent that is driving the riots.
"Driven to riot" implies a lack of accountability on the part of the people looting and burning one of history's great civilizations. I find the argument that inflammatory statements from the French government are the direct cause of the riots offensively absurd, esp. in light of France's reputation for pandering to the multicultural tolerance dogma. The sad truth is that it is this so-called "tolerance" that fueled the fire in the first place. Blogs are not sanctified absolutely by virtue of free speech (esp. if those blogs are being used to incite and coordinate violent attacks on the public). Does anyone really believe that freedom of speech extends to tactical communications in promotion of mayhem? And if the police don't stop the riots, the same people protesting the violation of personal freedom are going to protest the inefficacy of the police. It's all so depressingly predictable and pathetic.
Slashdot Mirror
The string allows one to circumvent copy protection measures. Under the DMCA, publishing such information is a thought crime punishable by scrotal piercing.
A friend of mine works for a security firm here in NYC. They do camera system installs for certain *really*, *really* high security locations. If he wanders around in certain areas of the city, he'll have a nice email the next morning retracing his steps with still photos at various locations. The surveillance operators just feed the system a headshot and the rest is history. Sure, it's a little joke amongst co-workers, but it's fully possible today, right now.
Spoken like someone who doesn't know what is at stake. I am 'happy' if I can get onto an airplane and arrive at my destination without dying.
...this tool in the right hands is effective. Israeli airlines and airports have the reputation for being the safest in the world. A big part of the reason for that is that they focus on passengers' behavior rather than what they put into their bags. Granted, the volume of air travel to and from Israel is probably a tiny fraction of what most major airports see. The questions are: (a) whether the Israelis' success is scalable to other airports, and (b) whether this device is a valuable supplement to a well-trained security team--one that can understand the machine's limitations and leverage its strengths in assessing the stream of passengers.
First of all, in the US an author still controls derivative works. A derivative work is a "work based upon one or more preexisting works such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, [ . . . ], abridgment, condensation or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted". (Copyright Act, Section 101). Also, "[a] work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship is a 'derivative work'." (Copyright Act, Section 101). Fan fiction is an obvious example of a derivative work in most cases.
Secondly, if this case were in the USA, it would turn on whether the court thinks Dan Brown used copyrightable elements of the other book. This is a tough argument to make, especially where the subject matter straddles the line between fiction and history. But consider for a moment a few examples. If Author B read Author A's book about UFOs invading Earth and then Author B wrote his own book on UFOs invading Earth, there probably wouldn't be a good infringement claim based on that alone. But if Author B's book included all the same characters as in Author A's, and the plotlines were essentially identical and the only differences were word choice and formatting, Author A would probably have a good claim, especially if Author A can show that Author B's book is robbing his sales.
I'm not sure what the merits are in this case (or what the standards for infringement are in the UK), but it's clear that the plaintiffs have an argument and should have their day in court.
Yes, Mac users have a well-deserved reputation for being fanatical (and sometimes even for good reason). But then along comes a story like this one that smears Apple for no particularly good reason and without much of an argument, and you have to ask yourself WTF.
I'm up 70% so far on my AAPL. Thanks for the advice, though.
Surf to Google Mobile on your PC. Enter your phone number. Google will SMS you the URL. Store the SMS for future reference. How easy is that?
What I meant to refer to is this. And, no, they weren't "forced" to buy the bundle, but they were lied to about the availability of the core system.
Not true. You need a license to use software any time you aren't the original author. The GPL grants you a license on conditions that are imposed when distribution happens.
That's not a creation of net-new rights--it's merely a transfer of existing rights from the author to the licensee. The GPL only "creates" new rights if you compare it to other less developer-friendly licenses.
That depends on who you meant by "you". As the recipient of GPL'd software, your rights are indeed probably more expansive than if you licensed commercial software under a standard EULA. On the other hand, as a developer, your authorship rights have conditions placed on them that come from the GPL and not from copyright laws. The GPL does not create new rights, actually. It merely creates a contract condition (i.e., disclosure of source code) on the licensee's ability to distribute the program. in this sense, the GPL simply transfers more of the original author's rights to the end user than classic copyright laws or most EULA terms would do.
How about the one where Best Buy forced people to buy XBOX 360 bundles after they waited on line to buy the core system? And wasn't it Best Buy that was illegally detaining customers on pretense of shoplifting who tried to collect refunds?
I don't want to debate the meaning of "use", since it's both arbitrary and irrelevant (and not defined under US copyright law in the manner you purport, AFAIK).
I see what you're saying, but I think the real issue is whether "use" is tantamount to "distribution" in the context of a hosted application. I would argue that there is no functional difference between: (a) shipping an installer CD for an application to be deployed on Generic Company's servers for its internal use, and (b) providing that same application's functionality for Generic Company's internal use via a hosted application service. Don't you agree that there's some overlap worth exploring there?
Also, consider the reason for the GPL's requirement that the source be distributed with the executable code. Isn't the policy essentially to allow your users to become co-developers in order to improve the quality/functionality that the distributed code offers? I would say it is, at least in part. Consequently, why should the hosted application model be exempt from the same policy? It seems logical to me that hosted applications should be treated as a distribution under the right circumstances.
BTW, how is the GPL *not* an EULA? Doesn't it impose conditions on the use of software as a condition of use? Don't forget that modifying source code is a form of "use", as is distribution. And, finally, to the extent that the copyright laws ensure certain rights for authors, the GPL *is* a restrictive license.
You don't think these guys are as big crooks as any of the Brooklyn warehouses? I guess you've never been on the receiving end of their insipid sales strategies.
I can't tell if you're attacking their business acumen, their politics, or both, but it either way you're missing the point. There was a story yesterday about the name "Open Source Media", and a lot of commenters had a gripe with the use of 'Open Source' in that context. I submitted this story as a follow-up because it is interesting to me that they acted so quickly in response to public criticism. You can deem it opportunism or incompetence if you like, but my opinion is that they (unlike, say, CBS) are a news outlet (yes, I said it) that is paying close attention to what their readers are saying.
What's a 'pres'? And at least I told you it was presumptuous.
This isn't that big of a deal. I don't like the inclusion of "marketing materials", but otherwise this is pretty much limited to the types of use most software developers reserve from their end users, IMO.
I agree, it is complex. Yes, I also see your point that France operates on a number of official contradictions that span the spectrum of tolerance vs. xenophobia. I still maintain, though, that ill-conceived attempts to foster a muslim enclave in French society in the name of multiculturalism is the root of this riot escapade.
Blogs are nothing more or less than a communications channel. The logic behind the police action to close them down is premised on blogs being used as means of coordinating the rioters. There is nothing about blogs per se that makes them subject to special protections vis a vis other communication channels.
...since France trashed Algeria for so long. Nothing's ever so simple, is it?
No. As I said above, it is Muslim supremecism, victimism, and adolescent insecurity that you can thank for the riots.
The example you cite (the well-trodden headscarves controversy) is an imperfect example of the situation, but worth discussing. The explicit motive for the headscarves rule was to maintain secular governance. This is known as separation of church and state in the US (where it is routinely ignored by our reborn President). This notion is a pillar of liberal and republican dogma, and has nothing to do with religious intolerance or supremecy of one culture over another. The point is that all cultures are treated the same under the law. This is an exceedingly fair and commendable policy, IMO. (Set aside the argument that Christians still wear their crosses, as there's a legitimate apples/oranges argument there.)
The problem is that fairness is a two way street. Even if the French policy is fiar, the Muslims who is applies to have increasingly less tolerance for other cultures, including the traditional French culture, and believe in their own cultural supremecy. In light of this, the otherwise fair policy of the French government is rendered absurd and unsound. Egalitarian policies make no sense when they aim to protect the interests of avowed supremecists.
It is this undercurrent of supremecy which has festered in the warm waters of France's rational adherence to policies that validate multiculturalism. It is this same undercurrent that is driving the riots.
"Driven to riot" implies a lack of accountability on the part of the people looting and burning one of history's great civilizations. I find the argument that inflammatory statements from the French government are the direct cause of the riots offensively absurd, esp. in light of France's reputation for pandering to the multicultural tolerance dogma. The sad truth is that it is this so-called "tolerance" that fueled the fire in the first place. Blogs are not sanctified absolutely by virtue of free speech (esp. if those blogs are being used to incite and coordinate violent attacks on the public). Does anyone really believe that freedom of speech extends to tactical communications in promotion of mayhem? And if the police don't stop the riots, the same people protesting the violation of personal freedom are going to protest the inefficacy of the police. It's all so depressingly predictable and pathetic.