While your basic description ("forcing a crime") may be correct, entrapment is a little more complex than your example portrays; as an second example, when performing underage online sex-chat stings, the agent may not initiate sexual talk, or the case is considered entrapment.
This online law reference describes entrapment in three aspects:
If the idea of the crime came from the law enforcement agent(s);
If the law enforcement agent(s) talked the individual into the crime;
If the person was not willing to commit the crime before the agent(s) spoke with them.
The above example reguarding chat stings could fall under (1) or (2) depending on circumstances and leaves considerable doubt as to (3).
Why would any company willingly give up any competitive advantage? That's business suicide.
Why would I, as a business owner, give my good, custom, closed software away?... It's a LOT of risk, with minimal reward, for people who already have a software advantage.
But the argument isn't meant applied to the custom business logic applications. When you have something like that it makes perfect sense to spend thousands of dollars to protect the secrets in it that makes your business run so well.
On the other hand, generic software like your word processor, database, web server, or operating system don't contain those secrets; that's why they're "generic". For those applications, why not swap expenses with your "competition"? (Note: competition is in quotes in the prior sentence since, these being generic programs, vendors in other fields will also have incentive to contribute - and you do not directly compete with them.)
The only question I have is this: How long can people fool themselves by clinging to these 20th century ideas?
I don't know... how long will people fool themselves with belief in Intelligent Design theory, ghosts, ESP, "flat earth", geocentrism, the healing power of crystals/magnets, bad luck from black cats, or profitable chain letters/pyramid schemes?
Now the writer doesn't understand much about senses:(
There are more than five, and he even cites internal ear.
The way I've always thought of it was that there were far more than five senses -- many of which fell under the "exteroceptive" senses:
visual (sight)
tactile (touch / pressure)
auditory (sound / vibration)
smell
taste
balance (the inner ear)
heat
all of which report about things outside one's body. There are also "forgotten" internal (introceptive) senses:
kinesthetic: the ability to know the relative position of limbs and body (no external references)
proprioception: the internal bodily state - composed of such things as "hungry", "thirsty", "sleepy", muscle fatigue, etc.
and finally, pain.
Of course, mapping over the first five with additional senses is much easier (and, right now, safer) than doing so on the other two... but hopefully when we start building ourselves cyborg bodies, the "check oil" light will be mapped over the proprioceptive or pain sense.
I work in an IT shop for a moderate sized company and our VP has told the people under him that have those things that he expects responses to e-mails within a couple of hours 24x7. The problem here is that the VP lives with that thing attached to him and does e-mail while on vacation, so he expect that from pretty much everyone else.
While I've not been in this position (yet!), I already know how I would respond to this — automation. While out of the office, have an email sent for every incoming, that would look something like:
I am currently out of the office, in Cancun (suckers!). If this is a critical issue, call me at my cell phone number, (XXX) XXX-XXXX. Otherwise, I will deal with this when I return on the (insert date here).
There - I replied. If the VP doesn't think that's acceptable, he can pay for my vacation hours at overtime rates (oh yes, and travel rates, since I'm not at my regular work place). Since I own no portion of the company (I assume the VP does), I get paid for when I work — even if that work is simply "check my office email while far, far away from the office".
Entirely free, as in BSD, or free-as-long-as-you-don't-ever-want-to-make-any-pr ofit-from-adding-to-it like the GPL?
It's only when you want to change the code and force people to pay you for those changes that the GPL says "No". In-house, undistributed changes do NOT have to be sent upstream. So actually, you would be free to add to the game and not have to distribute the changes, as long as the changes don't get distributed. (Say, if you make server code changes.)
In fact, you could couple your server changes (that don't get distributed) with client changes (that, naturally, do get distributed) and still "make [a] profit from adding to it". You couldn't go making changes to the client renderer and expecting to keep that proprietary, but you could (for example) re-implement the server's streaming algorythm for greater efficiency as "secret sauce" and be under no mandate to tell the world.
My opinion of Digital Rights Mangle-ment is quite simple.
Let them build their walled, locked garden of delights. Don't ask for admission; don't steal tickets; don't even wonder what's inside. Convince everyone else you can to do the same -- don't buy DRM'd products (but only the open ones).
Shortly those who thought "their" product was so sacrosant will learn they rule only at the pleasure of the peasants.
How else did you expect them to run a perpetual ownership system without perpetual copy protection?
Sarcasm aside, the thought still stands: of course they don't want old copy protection to stop working. To them that would be a gigantic flashing neon sign saying "FREE MOVIES HERE!" (Never mind that copyright law is the protection they need/want/have, not Digital Rights Manglement.)
[reviewers] hand out 6's and 7's and the companies are like "OMG!!!! totally unfair!!! That's a failing grade!"
For me, a "failing" review is a 3/10 or less, not 7/10. I would score a game 10/10 if it could not be improved in any way at all — perfect control scheme out of the box, perfect camera, perfect story and art, etc. Some novelty to a game justifies a 7, but anything that is "just another" should be a 6 at best, and usually a 4 (since "just another" games tend to have a goodly number of minor flaws).
Then again, when I (verbally) review things for friends its' in terms of the 5-star scale, and that doesn't imply the possibility of a failure in the same way.
The goal of a game is to be fun. Not all games are simulators -- for example, Katamari Damacy doesn't simulate anything approaching real physics. Nor does a strategy game like Warcraft III or Civ need detail accurate physics.
With the exception of simulators, detail accurate physics might hamper, not enhance fun -- in which case, just about any game engine out now (including a few F/OSS ones) will fit the bill.
I believe (and have, for the longest time) that the true purpose of Digital Rights Manglement is not to increase profits, restrict piracy, or (ultimately) to fundamentally alter the nature of copyright with pay-per-viewing movies.
I say that DRM is the studio's plan to have perpetual copyright. Think of it this way: it is, now and until the law is removed, a violation of the DMCA to unscramble CSS. So, when the copyright on Steamboat Willie (or any other DVD-released movie) expires, the studios will have a (potential) hook by which they can prevent transformative reuse of that footage: unlawful decryption of the video.
Now, this isn't to downplay the other, equally nasty, anti-consumer aspects of Rights Manglement, but I do fear that our children and children's children will have no right to read!
If this is all we have in our arsenal against patent abuse, we're totally, thoroughly screwed.
True, just as a soldier with an unloaded gun is totally, thoroughly screwed on a battlefield. However, as long as we have anything solid to back up our collective statements and the means to affect change, why gripe about allies? Be glad that Michael Crichton is willing to be our unloaded gun and wave the issue before a larger audience.
From the oral transcript before the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster, page 12, lines 3-7: "The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you purchased, upload it on your computer, put it on your iPod."
From the RIAA's DMCA filing, pages 31 and 32: "The Register was right in 2003 to be "skeptical" of the merits of any fair use analysis that asserts that space shifting or format shifting is a non-infringing use. This is particularly the case in today's market, where inexpensive digital copies of most types of works are readily available, and increasingly can be obtained through online download services.... In such a market, the inconvenience that faces consumers of works tethered to specific devices is far outweighed by the threat to enjoyment of copyright posed by illegal distrobution faced by copyright owners."
Wow! In one paragraph, the RIAA lawyer goes from a private citizen in his own home, making a personal copy of a work to change its' technical form to distributing that copy. What an amazing conclusion, that every person copying a CD has the intent to distribute! Furthermore, it seems when the record companies are before the courts that they sing a totally different tune. Now I know that big organizations have the "left hand doesn't know what right hand does" thing going on, but when your own lawyers can't remember what they said to this or that court then you have a real problem.
SCO has this problem too -- they can't remember who they told what, when, and it's starting to be a problem for them, since IBM and Groklaw do remember. Hmm, maybe us "anti-DMCA" activists need a blog for news and shove all the RIAA's contradictory statements onto it.
Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. -- Terry Pratchett
Why do people constantly want to declare Linux's lack of central controls a weakness rather than (more truthfully) its' strength?
Imagination is more important than knowlege. Knowlege is limited; imagination encircles the world. -- Albert Einstein
By allowing anyone and everyone to make their own Linux distrobution -- or patch, or driver, or X manager or what-have-you, we see the power of unfettered creativity. What need is there to shackle that creativity?
Turbulence is life force. It is opportunity. Let's love turbulence and use it for change. -- Ramsay Clark, US Attorney General, 1967-1969
Linux can't and won't benefit from a drive to "standardize" on a few distrobutions. As long as there are open standards, what harm is there in having 20, 200, or 2,000,000 distrobutions rather than 2?
Re:Microsoft Innovates like Enron did - with BS.
on
Ballmer on Innovation
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft? Um, well they invented something... I just don't know what that is.
Are we trying to develop useful code to help people (BSD/MIT), or are we trying to make other people develop useful code to help us (GPL/LGPL)?
The best long-term benefits are realised with a truly free license, not a semi-free backscratching arrangement.
I don't know that I agree with your conclusion. The weight of history shows that 1960's styled gift cultires (BSD/MIT) don't hold up against capitalist wage cultures (GPL/LGPL). Sure, on paper it may be "better" to have a wage culture, but once you take into account human greed and callousness for our fellow man, those nice figures are rendered meaningless. Until (if!) that changes, all my efforts will be "paid", perhaps not with currency but with a fair exchange of value.
Darn tooting right, it's a double standard. "Ao" means "Sex Game", e.g. Leisure Suit Larry or those wacky Japanese "dating sims". No amount of violence will put a game there... but a single tit (or any other form of nudity) will force the game there.
Remember, this is America, land of the Free -- free to show and sell violence, to all, but not sex. (Remember Janet's Superbowl wardrobe malfunction? Lead to a $550K fine, one of the largest ever.)
Slashdot Mirror
This online law reference describes entrapment in three aspects:
- If the idea of the crime came from the law enforcement agent(s);
- If the law enforcement agent(s) talked the individual into the crime;
- If the person was not willing to commit the crime before the agent(s) spoke with them.
The above example reguarding chat stings could fall under (1) or (2) depending on circumstances and leaves considerable doubt as to (3).When the day comes that I can burn my secure data files to a DVD with a web app and not need to take my tinfoil hat off first...
then and only then might web apps replace desktop ones completely.
But the argument isn't meant applied to the custom business logic applications. When you have something like that it makes perfect sense to spend thousands of dollars to protect the secrets in it that makes your business run so well.
On the other hand, generic software like your word processor, database, web server, or operating system don't contain those secrets; that's why they're "generic". For those applications, why not swap expenses with your "competition"? (Note: competition is in quotes in the prior sentence since, these being generic programs, vendors in other fields will also have incentive to contribute - and you do not directly compete with them.)- visual (sight)
- tactile (touch / pressure)
- auditory (sound / vibration)
- smell
- taste
- balance (the inner ear)
- heat
all of which report about things outside one's body. There are also "forgotten" internal (introceptive) senses:- kinesthetic: the ability to know the relative position of limbs and body (no external references)
- proprioception: the internal bodily state - composed of such things as "hungry", "thirsty", "sleepy", muscle fatigue, etc.
- and finally, pain.
Of course, mapping over the first five with additional senses is much easier (and, right now, safer) than doing so on the other two... but hopefully when we start building ourselves cyborg bodies, the "check oil" light will be mapped over the proprioceptive or pain sense.I signed my credit cards (in blue pen), then went over it in black permanent marker with "ASK FOR ID".
Signed (e.g. valid), but you really have to be utterly blind to overlook the message.
While I've not been in this position (yet!), I already know how I would respond to this — automation. While out of the office, have an email sent for every incoming, that would look something like:
I am currently out of the office, in Cancun (suckers!). If this is a critical issue, call me at my cell phone number, (XXX) XXX-XXXX. Otherwise, I will deal with this when I return on the (insert date here).
There - I replied. If the VP doesn't think that's acceptable, he can pay for my vacation hours at overtime rates (oh yes, and travel rates, since I'm not at my regular work place). Since I own no portion of the company (I assume the VP does), I get paid for when I work — even if that work is simply "check my office email while far, far away from the office".It's only when you want to change the code and force people to pay you for those changes that the GPL says "No". In-house, undistributed changes do NOT have to be sent upstream. So actually, you would be free to add to the game and not have to distribute the changes, as long as the changes don't get distributed. (Say, if you make server code changes.)
In fact, you could couple your server changes (that don't get distributed) with client changes (that, naturally, do get distributed) and still "make [a] profit from adding to it". You couldn't go making changes to the client renderer and expecting to keep that proprietary, but you could (for example) re-implement the server's streaming algorythm for greater efficiency as "secret sauce" and be under no mandate to tell the world.
Let them build their walled, locked garden of delights. Don't ask for admission; don't steal tickets; don't even wonder what's inside. Convince everyone else you can to do the same -- don't buy DRM'd products (but only the open ones).
Shortly those who thought "their" product was so sacrosant will learn they rule only at the pleasure of the peasants.How else did you expect them to run a perpetual ownership system without perpetual copy protection?
Sarcasm aside, the thought still stands: of course they don't want old copy protection to stop working. To them that would be a gigantic flashing neon sign saying "FREE MOVIES HERE!" (Never mind that copyright law is the protection they need/want/have, not Digital Rights Manglement.)
For me, a "failing" review is a 3/10 or less, not 7/10. I would score a game 10/10 if it could not be improved in any way at all — perfect control scheme out of the box, perfect camera, perfect story and art, etc. Some novelty to a game justifies a 7, but anything that is "just another" should be a 6 at best, and usually a 4 (since "just another" games tend to have a goodly number of minor flaws).
Then again, when I (verbally) review things for friends its' in terms of the 5-star scale, and that doesn't imply the possibility of a failure in the same way.The goal of a game is to be fun. Not all games are simulators -- for example, Katamari Damacy doesn't simulate anything approaching real physics. Nor does a strategy game like Warcraft III or Civ need detail accurate physics.
With the exception of simulators, detail accurate physics might hamper, not enhance fun -- in which case, just about any game engine out now (including a few F/OSS ones) will fit the bill.I say that DRM is the studio's plan to have perpetual copyright. Think of it this way: it is, now and until the law is removed, a violation of the DMCA to unscramble CSS. So, when the copyright on Steamboat Willie (or any other DVD-released movie) expires, the studios will have a (potential) hook by which they can prevent transformative reuse of that footage: unlawful decryption of the video.
Now, this isn't to downplay the other, equally nasty, anti-consumer aspects of Rights Manglement, but I do fear that our children and children's children will have no right to read!Code Maze
You are in a maze of twisty little subroutines, all alike.
> N
Conference Hall
You see a pointy haired manager here.
Your torch has been extinguished!
>look
It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a deadline.
Gee, that is affordable -- only 3x what it originally cost upon first release in 1991!
From the RIAA's DMCA filing, pages 31 and 32: "The Register was right in 2003 to be "skeptical" of the merits of any fair use analysis that asserts that space shifting or format shifting is a non-infringing use. This is particularly the case in today's market, where inexpensive digital copies of most types of works are readily available, and increasingly can be obtained through online download services. ... In such a market, the inconvenience that faces consumers of works tethered to specific devices is far outweighed by the threat to enjoyment of copyright posed by illegal distrobution faced by copyright owners."
Wow! In one paragraph, the RIAA lawyer goes from a private citizen in his own home, making a personal copy of a work to change its' technical form to distributing that copy. What an amazing conclusion, that every person copying a CD has the intent to distribute! Furthermore, it seems when the record companies are before the courts that they sing a totally different tune. Now I know that big organizations have the "left hand doesn't know what right hand does" thing going on, but when your own lawyers can't remember what they said to this or that court then you have a real problem.
SCO has this problem too -- they can't remember who they told what, when, and it's starting to be a problem for them, since IBM and Groklaw do remember. Hmm, maybe us "anti-DMCA" activists need a blog for news and shove all the RIAA's contradictory statements onto it.Have Google searches replaced DNS for web name lookup? Not yet, you say? Then they aren't the most popular search engine yet!
Darn tooting right, it's a double standard. "Ao" means "Sex Game", e.g. Leisure Suit Larry or those wacky Japanese "dating sims". No amount of violence will put a game there... but a single tit (or any other form of nudity) will force the game there.
Remember, this is America, land of the Free -- free to show and sell violence, to all, but not sex. (Remember Janet's Superbowl wardrobe malfunction? Lead to a $550K fine, one of the largest ever.)