There is a difference between morality and legality. Learn it.
With morality, I'm likely to have the support of the people and possible sway to change the laws/have corrupt laws better worded for the people and change the future to a more positive outlook for humanity as a whole as opposed to a possible real life 1984 (a la Ghandi, Jesus Christ, ect... though being a martyr is also a possibility...). With legality, I have the possibility to abuse the laws, sue/jail my customers, alienate the public and have the demand for laws to be changed against me with no help for my plight from the public (a la **AA's).
With DRM, its nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally amongst your own friends/family, original or not.
Yeah, I hate those new paper-based DRM systems, too.
Those older ones from the 80's were the worst. 'Please enter the third word on line 8 found on page 19.' Manuals became worth more then the game itself...
DRM usually works on a license. You can copy the file as many times as you want, but you can only authorize a finite number of copies. If that number was 1, you can give a copy to your friend and then deauthorize your own. Then it is legal.
Thats DRM on paper, but it rarely if ever works out that way. My friend has games on Steam and last thing I knew, he couldn't transfer one to me and deauthorize his own. Same issue with anything bought from iTunes. Greed mixed with DRM typically turns out to be a bad combination. This also doesn't take into consideration of DRM issues with server checks. Servers are shut down (or in the case of the newer Ubisoft DRMs, servers can have connection issues) and then it doesn't matter how well care you give your purchase/'investment', it can and will be taken away from you regardless if it was legally purchased and your the original purchaser, all without your consent.
With DRM, its nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally amongst your own friends/family, original or not.
Quite so. And your point would be, what? That this inconvenience justifies the theft of IP? That's just stupid. Not quite as stupid as punishing people who have legally paid for a DRM encumbered work, but stupid nonetheless.
My point would be that it's not justifiable to purposefully cripple a product just because someone can do something wrong with it. It would be like making sure no car can go over 10mph because someone could get drunk and kill someone if allowed to go faster, you can't allow a knife to be sharp because someone can kill with it...
When the **AA are at war with their customers, its the artists that suffer. A big part of the issue here I feel is that with all the crap the **AA's have done, people just don't care as much about whom it hurts. The **AA's have spent so much time and money showing people that they are the face of the artists that when people think of illegally downloading they don't have the real makers of the music come to mind and how that will hurt them, all they see in their mind is just a giant, faceless corporation that doesn't give a shit of them and will sue anyone and everyone they can just for a few more dollars. No one really has any sympathy for the **AA's, and in turn they don't care if they hurt the **AA's. The hidden issue though is while the illegal downloading does hurt the **AA's (which most people don't care about) it also hurts the artists too.
As a 17 year old, I must agree with Eleannor or w/e on the fact that credit cards are often required to purchase things online. I would have loved to get TF2 and HL2 through steam when they were like $10 each, but I don't have a credit card and they require one, and my parents don't like using them online due to keylogger concerns (with which I agree).
If your worried about security, then use a Linux Live CD. Or if your parents won't give you their credit card, just buy a prepaid gift credit card. They are found in many big chain stores. When the card is done, get rid of it.
Normally the print version is cheaper then the preformed version, same has always been for things like books/theater plays, ect... Why should it be reversed if its music?
You are allowed to share, as long as it is the original copy. That's how libraries work. You are allowed to buy a piece of sheet music and give it to a friend. But you are not allowed to buy a piece of sheet music and give your friend a replica. Then there are 2 copies and you only paid for one.
Without DRM, it is nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally on the internet. To share it legally would mean deleting your copy when you send it to a friend.
With DRM, its nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally amongst your own friends/family, original or not.
Ignoring the 'X OS is more secure then Y OS' debate, nothing is immune to being hacked. It just takes times and a desire. Like every system, if someone wants to break into it enough then they will find a way. Something like this would have been a targeted attack which pretty much makes any normal security moot since the way it was done would have been unique to this system. Its a tailor-made attack and nothing short of disconnecting the iTunes server could have prevented it.
On a side note though, it was an interesting move for them to do this on a long weekend since it's the 4th of July holiday weekend in the US and since this is a US company they no doubt have a lot of their staff off so they can enjoy the holiday. Least amount of physical presences and security to watch out for such an attack. Tomorrow might be one hell of a day at the office for Apple though.
Your also forgetting not every price is in money. As your mentioning of the girl being offered $1000 at a bar, $1000 might have been the right price considering the other part of the price being it wasn't going to be video taped and made public. If it was to be taped and made public I have a good feeling she might have at least demanded more money. And for some people, the thought of it going public and what that will do for them and their future might make them 'unpurchasable'.
Yes, that is another guess but so far its all just guesses. And I would question if it really is Activision since they are owned by Vivendi which is based in France so they might have something to gain with a closer tax break zone. EA on the other hand is only a US company so would have more to lose in theory.
As the system is based in Israel, American security service have had access.
While ICQ was founded in Israel, it's been owned by AOL for over a decade. The ICQ network has been integrated with AOL's AIM network many years ago and the servers are located in AOL's network supercenter in Virginia.
ICQ's networks haven't been integrated with AOL servers, they are still in Tel Aviv, Israel. They are a subsidiary of AOL, but not merged or located in the US. They are 2 different IM programs that were kept separated to appear as if there is competition, this is why you can download both an AIM chat program and a ICQ chat program and the user names are not cross-compatible.
Well, the Financial times also has quoted an unnamed senior law enforcement officer as saying "Every bad guy known to man [is on] ICQ". The ft.com article (requires free registration): Link. And at least for me, if you click on the link from Google, it doesn't seem to need any registration (it's the first listed link): Link.
Seems that the ft.com link needed free registration when I click the link. Doesn't seem to want me to register when I click the Google link (which is the first one listed), so if you don't want to register on ft.com try going from Google...
I don't think it's that simple since it's a now approved deal between 2 business's that aren't government based/ties with the government. Its a chat program used by many different people and only a small percentage is using it for illegal means, and this doesn't make it a true national security issue.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference between morality and legality. Learn it.
With morality, I'm likely to have the support of the people and possible sway to change the laws/have corrupt laws better worded for the people and change the future to a more positive outlook for humanity as a whole as opposed to a possible real life 1984 (a la Ghandi, Jesus Christ, ect... though being a martyr is also a possibility...). With legality, I have the possibility to abuse the laws, sue/jail my customers, alienate the public and have the demand for laws to be changed against me with no help for my plight from the public (a la **AA's).
With DRM, its nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally amongst your own friends/family, original or not.
Yeah, I hate those new paper-based DRM systems, too.
Those older ones from the 80's were the worst. 'Please enter the third word on line 8 found on page 19.' Manuals became worth more then the game itself...
Seems like we already have: top speed limiters, safety scissors, plastic butter knives....
We also still have those same products without those limits/safety-locks. You rarely if ever have a non-DRM version of the same DRM-laced product.
DRM usually works on a license. You can copy the file as many times as you want, but you can only authorize a finite number of copies. If that number was 1, you can give a copy to your friend and then deauthorize your own. Then it is legal.
Thats DRM on paper, but it rarely if ever works out that way. My friend has games on Steam and last thing I knew, he couldn't transfer one to me and deauthorize his own. Same issue with anything bought from iTunes. Greed mixed with DRM typically turns out to be a bad combination. This also doesn't take into consideration of DRM issues with server checks. Servers are shut down (or in the case of the newer Ubisoft DRMs, servers can have connection issues) and then it doesn't matter how well care you give your purchase/'investment', it can and will be taken away from you regardless if it was legally purchased and your the original purchaser, all without your consent.
With DRM, its nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally amongst your own friends/family, original or not.
Quite so. And your point would be, what? That this inconvenience justifies the theft of IP? That's just stupid. Not quite as stupid as punishing people who have legally paid for a DRM encumbered work, but stupid nonetheless.
My point would be that it's not justifiable to purposefully cripple a product just because someone can do something wrong with it. It would be like making sure no car can go over 10mph because someone could get drunk and kill someone if allowed to go faster, you can't allow a knife to be sharp because someone can kill with it...
When the **AA are at war with their customers, its the artists that suffer. A big part of the issue here I feel is that with all the crap the **AA's have done, people just don't care as much about whom it hurts. The **AA's have spent so much time and money showing people that they are the face of the artists that when people think of illegally downloading they don't have the real makers of the music come to mind and how that will hurt them, all they see in their mind is just a giant, faceless corporation that doesn't give a shit of them and will sue anyone and everyone they can just for a few more dollars. No one really has any sympathy for the **AA's, and in turn they don't care if they hurt the **AA's. The hidden issue though is while the illegal downloading does hurt the **AA's (which most people don't care about) it also hurts the artists too.
As a 17 year old, I must agree with Eleannor or w/e on the fact that credit cards are often required to purchase things online. I would have loved to get TF2 and HL2 through steam when they were like $10 each, but I don't have a credit card and they require one, and my parents don't like using them online due to keylogger concerns (with which I agree).
If your worried about security, then use a Linux Live CD. Or if your parents won't give you their credit card, just buy a prepaid gift credit card. They are found in many big chain stores. When the card is done, get rid of it.
$10.99 for the book...
$25.99 for the DVD...
Normally the print version is cheaper then the preformed version, same has always been for things like books/theater plays, ect... Why should it be reversed if its music?
You are allowed to share, as long as it is the original copy. That's how libraries work. You are allowed to buy a piece of sheet music and give it to a friend. But you are not allowed to buy a piece of sheet music and give your friend a replica. Then there are 2 copies and you only paid for one. Without DRM, it is nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally on the internet. To share it legally would mean deleting your copy when you send it to a friend.
With DRM, its nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally amongst your own friends/family, original or not.
Ignoring the 'X OS is more secure then Y OS' debate, nothing is immune to being hacked. It just takes times and a desire. Like every system, if someone wants to break into it enough then they will find a way. Something like this would have been a targeted attack which pretty much makes any normal security moot since the way it was done would have been unique to this system. Its a tailor-made attack and nothing short of disconnecting the iTunes server could have prevented it.
On a side note though, it was an interesting move for them to do this on a long weekend since it's the 4th of July holiday weekend in the US and since this is a US company they no doubt have a lot of their staff off so they can enjoy the holiday. Least amount of physical presences and security to watch out for such an attack. Tomorrow might be one hell of a day at the office for Apple though.
Who else read the title and saw 'Microsoft kills own kin'? Thought they started killing their own brothers and sisters for a moment...
Your also forgetting not every price is in money. As your mentioning of the girl being offered $1000 at a bar, $1000 might have been the right price considering the other part of the price being it wasn't going to be video taped and made public. If it was to be taped and made public I have a good feeling she might have at least demanded more money. And for some people, the thought of it going public and what that will do for them and their future might make them 'unpurchasable'.
Appreciated. But, no, that's a quote from a real comment I made that was modded as +5 insightful. :)
Looks like it was modded +5 Informative...
Yes, that is another guess but so far its all just guesses. And I would question if it really is Activision since they are owned by Vivendi which is based in France so they might have something to gain with a closer tax break zone. EA on the other hand is only a US company so would have more to lose in theory.
But if I had to take a guess, oddly my guess would be EA...
The real question is why to the Russians want it?
Its because ICQ is the most popular IM program used in Russian speaking countries.
Except, umm, I use my ICQ UID directly on AIM with iChat... oops.
iChat is an instant messaging program that that can support AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo and Google Talk. Unless I'm mistaken, iChat is just using the needed settings to chat with between them. Other programs like Trillian does this as well that I know of.
As the system is based in Israel, American security service have had access.
While ICQ was founded in Israel, it's been owned by AOL for over a decade. The ICQ network has been integrated with AOL's AIM network many years ago and the servers are located in AOL's network supercenter in Virginia.
ICQ's networks haven't been integrated with AOL servers, they are still in Tel Aviv, Israel. They are a subsidiary of AOL, but not merged or located in the US. They are 2 different IM programs that were kept separated to appear as if there is competition, this is why you can download both an AIM chat program and a ICQ chat program and the user names are not cross-compatible.
Well, the Financial times also has quoted an unnamed senior law enforcement officer as saying "Every bad guy known to man [is on] ICQ". The ft.com article (requires free registration): Link. And at least for me, if you click on the link from Google, it doesn't seem to need any registration (it's the first listed link): Link.
Seems that the ft.com link needed free registration when I click the link. Doesn't seem to want me to register when I click the Google link (which is the first one listed), so if you don't want to register on ft.com try going from Google...
Article 1 Article 2
I don't think it's that simple since it's a now approved deal between 2 business's that aren't government based/ties with the government. Its a chat program used by many different people and only a small percentage is using it for illegal means, and this doesn't make it a true national security issue.
Wikipedia link about SegaScope 3-D Glasses. And for the nostalgia of it, the commercial for the glasses.
M for Mature is a rating for content like films and games, not for the mode of delivery of content.
WTF is wrong with them!? Why did they bury the findings!
I'm guessing to hide the loss of money and man hours from share holders.