Get down to the part about AOL Search, which has additional privacy terms. It is implied that they have your consent unless you opt out of the data collection.
The average user doesnt comprehent that searching _for_ something actually sends this something into the internet
Is that because they didn't read the dialog box that explains it to themevery time they push 'Submit' until they uncheck the box, or because they weren't paying attention in second grade when they were taught what 'Submit' meant?
Why do people think they have a right to be protected from their own stupidity?
Not only is it hard to link the data to the employee, it's *impossible* to prove the link.
Besides, the user herself (assuming it's a she) is at fault, not AOL. The user had no reasonable expectation that somebody wasn't watching what they were searching. Hell, there's a good chance it was logged by their employer's firewall.
You can only think this is a privacy issue if you are neglectfully ignorant of how the internet works.
And so the hell what? Even if you could make a guess, you still couldn't prove it.... And even if you could prove it... WHO CARES? These people didn't even have a reasonable expectation that this data would be private. Their browser even told them so the first time the submitted data.
Yeah, if I were 6497 I'd.... Well I'd be ashamed that I liked Ricky Martin, but that's about it.
There is no privacy issue here. Even if users names had been used, you don't have a right to privacy of submitted internet form data unless you are using encryption and the server operator has agreed to enforce your privacy. Every major browser informs you of this the first time you submit data, and every time until you acknowledge it.
This was not a well thought out move by AOL, but that's about it.
You still don't know who that person is, so why does it matter.
Why were you ever under the delusion that aggrigate data about your searches would be kept private. You don't even have an implied right to privacy when you send un-encrypted data across the internet. Not only are people stupid if they're upset about this, they're stupid if they're surprised.
Calling this is a consumer rights issue is a joke. There are no rights involved here other than ones that people made up after the fact because they were irrationally upset.
To add to your anecdotal evidence, both of my PS2s still work, one from launch day, and one from three days before the official release of the new slim model. They are both model numbers that are 'notorious' for breaking, and they both have several hundred hours of play time on them.
My first two GameCubes can't read discs anymore. (But my original NES and SNES both still work with occational cartridge slot cleaning).
Um... No problem. Just use rubber handled cutters, and only cut one wire at a time. I do it all the time when I'm changing outlets or light switches. Even when you screw it up, a safe distance is about 4 inches.
but then who of us works for a company that's willing to kick down dollars for sensible security measures?
Sensible? Those types of things are only sensible for a very limited number of environments. Many companies are willing to spend for signifigantly more security than is actually required for their situation. (And most of those companies proceed to set it up incorrectly so that they're not actually secure anyway).
Microsoft seems to have forgotten how to market a product in a space where they have no monopoly to leverage. They took an excelent product (the 360) and completely blew a year lead through terrible marketing and third party relations. They're not even outselling the competition's previous generation products. The best they can do for the system thus far is release classic video games from their competitors' platforms. Microsoft has two modes, run-away success, and utter failure. They're about to miss the boat on run-away success as of the day the Wii comes out, so the question is how long they are willing to flush money down the toilet on what isn't really a gaming effort, but an effort to get their DRM technology in everybody's living room. They know they can't win that battle from second place. If I had invested in a 360, I'd be scared right now that Microsoft is going to pull the plug early just like they've done with all their other failed attempts at being a market leader... That includes the original Xbox.
It should be moderated flamebait along with anybody who calls it a 'rootkit'. We should have seen it coming, back when the first stories were posted saying the software used rootkit technology to hide itself from the user that it would be called a rootkit from then on, but it's not a rootkit. Rootkits are very specific things that exist to give a remote entity root access to your machine. This was spyware, pure and simple.
Yes, I'm being pedantic, but it's important. You are using a pseudonym: '|/|/|||'. Terrorists use pseudonyms. Should we call you a terrorist because you're using one of the same techniques?
But you're emphasizing an irrelevant logistical detail
The hell I'm not. I'm emphasizing the entire legal standing in the case.
The court ruling doesn't emphasize the physicality of the medium so much as some presumed fundamental right of the copyright holder "to protect its creation in the form in which it was created."
The copyright holder absolutley has that right under the current law, but only in situations where a copy is being made. In fact, the ruling was considerably more narrow than what the law allows. Not only does the creator have the right to protect their creation in the form in which it was created, but they have the right to stop you from making copies for any other damned reason they can come up with too.
The court argues by analogy that "a person who dislikes Michelangelo's statue of David" does not have "a right to take a sledgehammer to it, or, as may be more aptly said in this case, to put a fig leaf on it to make it more acceptable for viewing by parents with young children."
Let's fix your utterly stupid and broken analogy:
The court argues by analogy that "a person who dislikes Michelangelo's statue of David" (irrelevant detail, BTW) does not have "a right to make an identical copy of a majority of it and then take a sledgehammer to it, or as may be more aptly said in this case, to copy the entire statue except for the penis to make it more acceptable for viewing by parents with young children."
There, now the analogy is accurate, if not stupid because Michelangelo's David is not protected by copyright. To further emphisize how dumb your analogy is, under the ruling, defacing an artistic work, or a licensed copy of an artistic work remains perfectly legal. You can continue to crush, burn, microwave, or deficate on your DVDs at will. You can also fast forward through the naughty bits, or flip to religious programming until the cast has been reclothed, all with total disregard to artistic integrity.
The law may be crap, but the ruling upholds the law. They did not have the right to run the business they were running.
People stop buying music through their distribution channels, and their revenue stream is cut off... Then the spend their remaining cash on legal bills and lobbying, and they're out of business. It's the one two punch. It's the one way of suing out of existance that nobody ever sees coming.
And to make the whole thing even better, they're always about three years behind the times when it comes to picking which piece of software they need to sue out of existance. You would think that file sharing companies would keep that in mind and go out of business after two years and nine months after becoming mainstream. It's a guaranteed legal protection strategy.
slice its power cord or something at 2AM in the morning
Dispite the redundancy in there, I think that's a great idea! If you keep complaining about the damned thing after you've disabled it, he won't even know it's broken.
Yeah, that will work great in a two dimensional world. Here in three dimensions it will suck a lot in all the places where amplitude is doubled instead.
It doesn't have to hold very much data. 700MB would do. It's only an album's worth of music after all. And it doesn't have to be read/write. Read only would be fine. Hell, it doesn't have to be electronic. Optical or magnetic would work. It doesn't even have to be fast. 1MB/second would be more than enough.
You could do that with slightly larger than SD sized media for very little money. And since they're going to charge $22 for it, it almost doesn't matter if the media costs twice as much as a DVD.
Not according to the completed auctions listings...
Perhaps you were looking at soundtracks or reserve price auctions. Even from low-feedback users, you can't even get a used one for less than $30, and I've never bought a used PS1 game from a low feedback eBay user that has actually worked all the way through the game.
For a sealed copy, the low price over the last two months is $55. For a non-Greatest Hits version, there was a sale for $502 recently.
Most of the disc is CD Audio, since the PS1 wasn't powerful enough to play compressed audio and the game at the same time. I'd imagine that by compressing the audio they could get the game down into the 40-50MB range very easily.
Maybe this will finally bring the price of SOTN discs back down. Judging by the first post in this story though, I doubt it.
You've got it backwards.... The target is the middle-aged, gullible, and rich. No young, rich kid is going to carry around a portable music player large enough to play a DVD-sized format.
If the music industry ever wants another new phyiscal media to catch on, it has to be tiny... SD card or NDS cartridge sized would do... Anything signifigantly larger than 1" square is doomed unless it is easilly rippable to mp3. But when is the last time the music industry introduced new technology? This has been the least innovative decade in the history of recorded music, and not only is the industy not innovating, but they're suing all the third parties who are.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep reading.
Get down to the part about AOL Search, which has additional privacy terms. It is implied that they have your consent unless you opt out of the data collection.
The average user doesnt comprehent that searching _for_ something actually sends this something into the internet
Is that because they didn't read the dialog box that explains it to themevery time they push 'Submit' until they uncheck the box, or because they weren't paying attention in second grade when they were taught what 'Submit' meant?
Why do people think they have a right to be protected from their own stupidity?
How do you know it's their SSN? Maybe they're typing in somebody else's.
Not only is it hard to link the data to the employee, it's *impossible* to prove the link.
Besides, the user herself (assuming it's a she) is at fault, not AOL. The user had no reasonable expectation that somebody wasn't watching what they were searching. Hell, there's a good chance it was logged by their employer's firewall.
You can only think this is a privacy issue if you are neglectfully ignorant of how the internet works.
...they usually charge astronomical fees for that kind of data, which is the only reason it had been compiled in the first place.
Hmm... None of them?
And so the hell what? Even if you could make a guess, you still couldn't prove it.... And even if you could prove it... WHO CARES? These people didn't even have a reasonable expectation that this data would be private. Their browser even told them so the first time the submitted data.
Yeah, if I were 6497 I'd.... Well I'd be ashamed that I liked Ricky Martin, but that's about it.
There is no privacy issue here. Even if users names had been used, you don't have a right to privacy of submitted internet form data unless you are using encryption and the server operator has agreed to enforce your privacy. Every major browser informs you of this the first time you submit data, and every time until you acknowledge it.
This was not a well thought out move by AOL, but that's about it.
You still don't know who that person is, so why does it matter.
Why were you ever under the delusion that aggrigate data about your searches would be kept private. You don't even have an implied right to privacy when you send un-encrypted data across the internet. Not only are people stupid if they're upset about this, they're stupid if they're surprised.
Calling this is a consumer rights issue is a joke. There are no rights involved here other than ones that people made up after the fact because they were irrationally upset.
To add to your anecdotal evidence, both of my PS2s still work, one from launch day, and one from three days before the official release of the new slim model. They are both model numbers that are 'notorious' for breaking, and they both have several hundred hours of play time on them.
My first two GameCubes can't read discs anymore. (But my original NES and SNES both still work with occational cartridge slot cleaning).
The software did, in fact, phone home every time the user played an XCP 'protected' CD.
Um... No problem. Just use rubber handled cutters, and only cut one wire at a time. I do it all the time when I'm changing outlets or light switches. Even when you screw it up, a safe distance is about 4 inches.
but then who of us works for a company that's willing to kick down dollars for sensible security measures?
Sensible? Those types of things are only sensible for a very limited number of environments. Many companies are willing to spend for signifigantly more security than is actually required for their situation. (And most of those companies proceed to set it up incorrectly so that they're not actually secure anyway).
It seems unlikely.
Microsoft seems to have forgotten how to market a product in a space where they have no monopoly to leverage. They took an excelent product (the 360) and completely blew a year lead through terrible marketing and third party relations. They're not even outselling the competition's previous generation products. The best they can do for the system thus far is release classic video games from their competitors' platforms. Microsoft has two modes, run-away success, and utter failure. They're about to miss the boat on run-away success as of the day the Wii comes out, so the question is how long they are willing to flush money down the toilet on what isn't really a gaming effort, but an effort to get their DRM technology in everybody's living room. They know they can't win that battle from second place. If I had invested in a 360, I'd be scared right now that Microsoft is going to pull the plug early just like they've done with all their other failed attempts at being a market leader... That includes the original Xbox.
Uh. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Microsoft, at this exact moment in time, have the *only* online system of the three?
Doesn't that technically make him correct?
It should be moderated flamebait along with anybody who calls it a 'rootkit'. We should have seen it coming, back when the first stories were posted saying the software used rootkit technology to hide itself from the user that it would be called a rootkit from then on, but it's not a rootkit. Rootkits are very specific things that exist to give a remote entity root access to your machine. This was spyware, pure and simple.
Yes, I'm being pedantic, but it's important. You are using a pseudonym: '|/|/|||'. Terrorists use pseudonyms. Should we call you a terrorist because you're using one of the same techniques?
But you're emphasizing an irrelevant logistical detail
The hell I'm not. I'm emphasizing the entire legal standing in the case.
The court ruling doesn't emphasize the physicality of the medium so much as some presumed fundamental right of the copyright holder "to protect its creation in the form in which it was created."
The copyright holder absolutley has that right under the current law, but only in situations where a copy is being made. In fact, the ruling was considerably more narrow than what the law allows. Not only does the creator have the right to protect their creation in the form in which it was created, but they have the right to stop you from making copies for any other damned reason they can come up with too.
The court argues by analogy that "a person who dislikes Michelangelo's statue of David" does not have "a right to take a sledgehammer to it, or, as may be more aptly said in this case, to put a fig leaf on it to make it more acceptable for viewing by parents with young children."
Let's fix your utterly stupid and broken analogy:
The court argues by analogy that "a person who dislikes Michelangelo's statue of David" (irrelevant detail, BTW) does not have "a right to make an identical copy of a majority of it and then take a sledgehammer to it, or as may be more aptly said in this case, to copy the entire statue except for the penis to make it more acceptable for viewing by parents with young children."
There, now the analogy is accurate, if not stupid because Michelangelo's David is not protected by copyright. To further emphisize how dumb your analogy is, under the ruling, defacing an artistic work, or a licensed copy of an artistic work remains perfectly legal. You can continue to crush, burn, microwave, or deficate on your DVDs at will. You can also fast forward through the naughty bits, or flip to religious programming until the cast has been reclothed, all with total disregard to artistic integrity.
The law may be crap, but the ruling upholds the law. They did not have the right to run the business they were running.
Yup, and we should be supporting them!
People stop buying music through their distribution channels, and their revenue stream is cut off... Then the spend their remaining cash on legal bills and lobbying, and they're out of business. It's the one two punch. It's the one way of suing out of existance that nobody ever sees coming.
And to make the whole thing even better, they're always about three years behind the times when it comes to picking which piece of software they need to sue out of existance. You would think that file sharing companies would keep that in mind and go out of business after two years and nine months after becoming mainstream. It's a guaranteed legal protection strategy.
I can't tell if you're serious or not.
Please tell me you're joking.
slice its power cord or something at 2AM in the morning
Dispite the redundancy in there, I think that's a great idea! If you keep complaining about the damned thing after you've disabled it, he won't even know it's broken.
Yeah, that will work great in a two dimensional world. Here in three dimensions it will suck a lot in all the places where amplitude is doubled instead.
Who needs the cops? Sue him. He'll take it down in seconds. You won't even have to go to court.
Then, all you need to do is be annoying enough that he moves to Florida. (Unless you already live in Florida, in which case you're screwed.)
It doesn't have to hold very much data. 700MB would do. It's only an album's worth of music after all. And it doesn't have to be read/write. Read only would be fine. Hell, it doesn't have to be electronic. Optical or magnetic would work. It doesn't even have to be fast. 1MB/second would be more than enough.
You could do that with slightly larger than SD sized media for very little money. And since they're going to charge $22 for it, it almost doesn't matter if the media costs twice as much as a DVD.
Not according to the completed auctions listings...
Perhaps you were looking at soundtracks or reserve price auctions. Even from low-feedback users, you can't even get a used one for less than $30, and I've never bought a used PS1 game from a low feedback eBay user that has actually worked all the way through the game.
For a sealed copy, the low price over the last two months is $55. For a non-Greatest Hits version, there was a sale for $502 recently.
Most of the disc is CD Audio, since the PS1 wasn't powerful enough to play compressed audio and the game at the same time. I'd imagine that by compressing the audio they could get the game down into the 40-50MB range very easily.
Maybe this will finally bring the price of SOTN discs back down. Judging by the first post in this story though, I doubt it.
You've got it backwards.... The target is the middle-aged, gullible, and rich. No young, rich kid is going to carry around a portable music player large enough to play a DVD-sized format.
If the music industry ever wants another new phyiscal media to catch on, it has to be tiny... SD card or NDS cartridge sized would do... Anything signifigantly larger than 1" square is doomed unless it is easilly rippable to mp3. But when is the last time the music industry introduced new technology? This has been the least innovative decade in the history of recorded music, and not only is the industy not innovating, but they're suing all the third parties who are.