Or just use most common linux distros with standard configs.
Slashdotters are sane compared to these guys
on
Insanely Audiophile
·
· Score: 1
This one's going in the archives. Every time my girlfriend gives me crap about some high tech purchase I can just pull this out as a kind of threat. I wonder how many people get killed over stereo equipment.
Hiding an obvious use for something you've already paid money for is just plain wrong.
This is just like copy protection or anything else, someone, somewhere, is going to figure it out on their own anyway. And then it'll just be a lot harder for the rest of us to do it too.
Also, beyond the cheating aspect, there are some pretty cool possibilities for these drivers. Sure, people will cheat, but we really can't stop them. And that's a really lame excuse for hiding something as cool as this.
Okay, while everyone is cheering, let's take a look at this. Only 3.5M? Rambus intimidates half the ram industry into royalties for over a year, and they get hit with a paltry little fine like that? And it's going to be reduced!!! I'd be interested in what their little deals cost everyone, and the ultimate hurt it put on the industry. Rambus should be thrown off a cliff. And have a crate of anvils thrown after. Followed by a stampeeding herd of elephants.
Ok, we've reached the point when you can get press (and a lot of/. comments) for doing just about nothing. Public windows shares? Anyone here ever go to college? Before Napster it's how we shared MP3's. It's pretty much accepted on college campuses that unpassworded shares mean "here's some stuff I'm trying to share". That's the point of the "feature" after all.
As far as internet users, it's pretty cool that we can do this on a large scale now. Protecting yourself is really easy, if you don't want someone accessing your computers, don't share. To crack, you should be circumventing security, not using it as intended. This is like running a warez site out of an anonymous ftp. Stupidity is not an excuse.
And what about the virus thing. If all of a sudden there are new files on your hard drive, don't run them. You can't remotely execute this way (of course, if someone was really dumb, and shared commonly used executables, I guess you could replace them). It's kinda like saying "What's this small round metal green thing on my porch? I think I'll pull this little pin."
In addition, this isn't new. People have been exploiting these shares for a long time on dumb cable modem/dsl users. If anything, if this takes off, it'll make people aware of the problem. It even tells you how to activate/disactivate sharing on the company's web site.
I hope someone sues them. It'll just confirm my theory that the judicial system has no clue when it comes to technology issues. It's like patents: put computer or internet in the description and the courts throw out logic, precedent, and common sense.
If the network administrator has half a brain, getting around Bess can be pretty tricky. Bess is a proxy server. If you set up your network correctly, the Bess server is the only machine that can get to the Internet (the only physically connected machine). This means that all connections go through Bess. This can also be used to use private addressing on a network, like a standard proxy. Of course, you can set up other proxies if other people want unfiltered access, or ip forwarding, or about a million other things.
The point is, without the password to get through Bess (which teachers should be given), it's pretty difficult. I guess you could try to hack the Bess server, but try at your own risk.
The other disadvantages of a filtering proxy is that lots of services get blocked, but that's another story.
Ok, I believe pretty strongly in the open source movement and all that goes with it, but some people just love to complain.
Ok, here goes. Usenet posts are public, so anyone can copy them (although they do all exist on private servers-except universities etc, may want to talk to a copyright lawyer). So, Google bought a copy of these posts from Deja. If others wanted a copy of these, they could have made one.
So, now, let me get the straight, someone had the foresight to make an archive of these posts. Then they had the gall to give access for free. Then, when they couldn't make any money (running a server that big costs a fortune) they had to sell it. Now, people who have been benifitting from the debt of others are mad because the owners of the archive (which anyone with a lot of tape could have made) want the government to run it? I repeat, THE GOVERNMENT!!! Are you kidding. Face it, doing something that anyone could or should have done does not indebt you to society because you decide not to do it anymore.
And that whole bit about the underground Dela guy sounds like some guy trying to make himself famous. If he was so great maybe he would give his actual name. Famous open source people actually do something. Not try and get someone to give you all of their work (a search tool for Tux's sake) so you can do nothing.
Let's stick to stopping Microsoft, RIAA, the MPAA, and the government from taking all of our rights away. Google is one of the best net companies right now. They make a useful product and don't bury us under banner ads. Plus they have a kick ass search engine. Give 'em a break before you try to treat them like Bill Gates.
I'm sorry, I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't see how breaking up Microsoft is going to do anything but give a lot of people headaches.
Also, there is not really any comparison between Network Solutions and Microsoft. The Domain Name registry is simply the ability to add a domain to a couple name servers, anyone can do that. Breaking up Microsoft isn't going to create dozens of companies that can do the same simple task.
Microsoft has definately abused it's power as a market leader (maybe even a monopoly), but let's face it, it's only had this power for a few years (around the time Win95 came out and they cemented their grasp on the Office market). Now, the market is completely different than when the case started.
Linux is becoming popular, Intel has a major compeditor, and those NC's that everyone used to laugh at are becoming bigger every day. Even the Mac is coming back from death (although, personally, I wouldn't have minded if Microsoft would have finished Apple off).
So now, we are about to create a few Microsoft companies, an OS company and an Application company. Great, two monopolies. Does anyone think that a smaller Microsoft applications division will produce software for other OS's. They would have no reason to. They'd have less money to waste, and just concentrate on the most popular OS, which will still be Windows.
Now, before everyone and their brother flames me, I would like to state that I am an avid Linux user. I just think that Microsoft is going to loose market share on it's own as the operating system becomes less important and applications become more important. All the breakup will do is demonstrate the government's complete lack of understanding of the software industry.
It's hard to determine where to start on this guy, but first I'll put in my two cents and then disect a few majorly screwed up points he makes.
First, this guy doesn't understand the internet. He assumes the standards and laws of America apply everywhere, and restricting the internet in America would stop piracy. Second, every country has different laws and views on copyright. Third, I've yet to see a copy protection scheme that actually worked, they just make life more complicated. Fourth, intellectual property rights are not as simple as he makes it seem. There are scores of patent and copyright lawyers who can prove this. And finally, there are several conceiveable reasons that the internet can be involved in fair use.
Now, on to the speech:
And "intellectual property" is property, period.
This must be why patents have a limited period of time before they must be renewed. It is property, but it's different than your car.
But there are those who believe that because technology can access property and appropriate it, then somehow that which is yours is no longer yours -because technology has made it simple and easy for someone else to take it from you.
Is he advocating gun control now?
For the great ferment of works and ideas, including your own, if taken at will and without restraint, have no chance of surviving any better than did the buffalo.
My favorite, the buffalo is doing fine now. Might have tried the Dodo.
What would the Internet be without "content?" It would be a valueless collection of silent machines with gray screens. It would be the electronic equivalent of a marine desert - lovely elements, nice colors, no life. It would be nothing.
My biggest problem with this. The Internet is simply a communications network. He doesn't differentiate between the Internet and the Web, or the great uses for communication that doesn't directly involve sales. What about culture and art? Are we to just whore our culture to profit?
First, we are focused on creating and launching a consumer-preferred and legal system for consumers to access the media they desire - beginning with music.
Then just give me the friggin' mp3. It can be converted no matter what you do.
Technology exists that can trace every Internet download and tag every file. These tools make it possible to identify those who are using the Internet to improperly and illegally acquire music and other copyrighted information. While adhering to the principle of respect for individual privacy, we fully intend to exploit technology to protect the property which rightfully belongs to its owners.
This will also allow them to track every access to every web site - health, politics, personal, and everything else. Is my privacy that cheap? Furthermore, do we have to rewrite the TCP protocols to log everyting to the FBI?
Another recent victory confirming the application of copyright law to cyberspace involved the unlawful dissemination of DVD anti-copy codes.
I'm pretty sure he made this one up. This trial is going to be very interesting. I hope the supreme court tears the MPAA a new one.
Anonymity, on the other hand, means being able to get away with stealing, or hacking, or disseminating illegal material on the Internet - and presuming the right that nobody should know who you are. There is no such right. This is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.
No, anonymity means I decide what personal information you get from me. Last I checked, Americans were not required to carry around identification papers and show them to everyone. What's next, Stars of David? Can you put a video camera in my house to make sure I don't copy and distribute a CD I buy at BestBuy?
The massive power of the Internet can permanently wipe out and shut down in one unthinking moment, a writer who may depend for his living on the sale of 5 or 10 thousand copies of his book.
Uh, this has been possible for a long time. For some reason people still like prepackaged paper. And will for a long time. Oh, and should we outlaw libraries?
hackers and spies, pirates and pedophiles.
I love being grouped with these people. Do we link Segrams with Al Capone because they sell alchol?
So, in review, this guy doesn't have a clue about the Internet, and his view of it makes it a corporate sales machine, instead of the widespread communications network that it really is. The real reason these people are scared is because they realize they can no longer control the way we communicate.
Alright, I have to agree that Lars has some good points, as I have always thought. But, now I feel the need to put my two cents in and probably get flamed a lot.
First, of course, Metallica has a right to determine how their work is distrubuted. No matter how you feel about them gouging the prices, they made it. Thus, when someone derives a profit from unauthorized copying, they have a right to be pissed. So, I'm very interested in what the court has to say about whether napster is a service, or is breaking the law.
Napster makes it a little too easy for everyone to break the law. We've probably all made illegal software copies, and traded mp3's in other ways, but Napster is the 1st program where we can all provide mp3's to others.
The real problem with the Lars interview is his view on how easy it is to copy media. You can already put a book on the internet the moment it is published (or, often, a movie script many months before it's released). Nobody does it though.
No matter how media is protected, it will be copied somehow. It's unavoidable. I have to be able to view it somehow, and so I can find a way to copy it. Eventually, it comes down to hoping people use the honor system. And I seriously debate the example of a band going from 600 CD sales to 50. If people copy 1.4 million mp3's in 48 hours, that band is getting the best promotion it ever could.
I have one final point. How can NetPD tell that you are copying a Metallica MP3? The file name? Since there are so many ways to encode an MP3, literally thousands of different MP3's could come out of each CD track. Do they download some and compare to these? Is thinking it is a metallica song when I download enough for me to be guilty of copyright infringement? What if we all took a legal mp3 and renamed it Metallica - Enter Sandman or something else? If it was a general napster user protest, then how could they tell if it was a real Metallica MP3?
Ok, correction. Publishing industry or whatever the hell you want to call it. They're all the same. Every time a new digital media comes out, someone wants to stop it. Thanks for discussing this in such an educated manner.
Well, this pretty much cinches it, the recording industry is practically clueless.
They keep trying to restrict what you can do with digital media that you legally purchase. Never mind that there are perfectly legitimate uses for digital output. And, all of their protections didn't keep DeCSS from being written (the cat's kinda outta the bag now). So what I find really interesting is that now I can decode a DVD and convert it into any format I want, but I can't have a firewire output.
Next time one of these copyright laws comes before congress, maybe we should really make a push for users rights.
I think the difference is the statement primarily designed. If there is fair use (making your own DVD's, backups, etc.) then it is considered ok. Just like dual deck vcr's being legal.
I think the difference is the DCMA, which specifically prohibits reverse engineering. However, if the primary purpose of DeCSS is to simply watch DVD's, it should be legal, and the encryption scheme is flawed. After all, I paid for the DVD, and they're the ones keeping me from watching it.
Unfortunately, I don't think the judiciary or congress is smart enough to figure this one out, but sometimes they suprise you (like the Computer Decency Act or whatever they called it a few years ago).
We should probably all write our congressmen (if you're from the US).
If I had the correct hardware (which I'm sure is expensive right now) couldn't I make an exact (bit for bit) copy of a DVD like you can do with a CD? I know I would still need a DVD Player/Decrypter to play it, but would it be any different from the original? The way I see it, DeCSS only restricts what you can use to play back a DVD (and also the ability to make digital conversions to other formats). If I have to compress a video to a format to distribute on a PC, is anyone going to notice that it went analog first? Furthermore, isn't it possible to use an encrypted DVD stream with a utility that makes it look like it's coming from a DVD?
So, isn't the MPAA just trying to take away my ability to view DVD's I've already paid for? Don't my personal rights outweigh the coporate profits? I mean, I could use my computer to crack the pentagon, but they haven't taken it from me yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just use most common linux distros with standard configs.
This one's going in the archives. Every time my girlfriend gives me crap about some high tech purchase I can just pull this out as a kind of threat. I wonder how many people get killed over stereo equipment.
This is just like copy protection or anything else, someone, somewhere, is going to figure it out on their own anyway. And then it'll just be a lot harder for the rest of us to do it too.
Also, beyond the cheating aspect, there are some pretty cool possibilities for these drivers. Sure, people will cheat, but we really can't stop them. And that's a really lame excuse for hiding something as cool as this.
I think I've made my point.
As far as internet users, it's pretty cool that we can do this on a large scale now. Protecting yourself is really easy, if you don't want someone accessing your computers, don't share. To crack, you should be circumventing security, not using it as intended. This is like running a warez site out of an anonymous ftp. Stupidity is not an excuse.
And what about the virus thing. If all of a sudden there are new files on your hard drive, don't run them. You can't remotely execute this way (of course, if someone was really dumb, and shared commonly used executables, I guess you could replace them). It's kinda like saying "What's this small round metal green thing on my porch? I think I'll pull this little pin."
In addition, this isn't new. People have been exploiting these shares for a long time on dumb cable modem/dsl users. If anything, if this takes off, it'll make people aware of the problem. It even tells you how to activate/disactivate sharing on the company's web site.
I hope someone sues them. It'll just confirm my theory that the judicial system has no clue when it comes to technology issues. It's like patents: put computer or internet in the description and the courts throw out logic, precedent, and common sense.
The point is, without the password to get through Bess (which teachers should be given), it's pretty difficult. I guess you could try to hack the Bess server, but try at your own risk.
The other disadvantages of a filtering proxy is that lots of services get blocked, but that's another story.
Ok, here goes. Usenet posts are public, so anyone can copy them (although they do all exist on private servers-except universities etc, may want to talk to a copyright lawyer). So, Google bought a copy of these posts from Deja. If others wanted a copy of these, they could have made one.
So, now, let me get the straight, someone had the foresight to make an archive of these posts. Then they had the gall to give access for free. Then, when they couldn't make any money (running a server that big costs a fortune) they had to sell it. Now, people who have been benifitting from the debt of others are mad because the owners of the archive (which anyone with a lot of tape could have made) want the government to run it? I repeat, THE GOVERNMENT!!! Are you kidding. Face it, doing something that anyone could or should have done does not indebt you to society because you decide not to do it anymore.
And that whole bit about the underground Dela guy sounds like some guy trying to make himself famous. If he was so great maybe he would give his actual name. Famous open source people actually do something. Not try and get someone to give you all of their work (a search tool for Tux's sake) so you can do nothing.
Let's stick to stopping Microsoft, RIAA, the MPAA, and the government from taking all of our rights away. Google is one of the best net companies right now. They make a useful product and don't bury us under banner ads. Plus they have a kick ass search engine. Give 'em a break before you try to treat them like Bill Gates.
I saw the Microsoft whois response, anyone know why slashdot's is:
SLASHDOT.ORG.SUCKS.COMPARED.TO.JIMPHILLIPS.ORG
SLASHDOT.ORG
?
Just a question.
Also, there is not really any comparison between Network Solutions and Microsoft. The Domain Name registry is simply the ability to add a domain to a couple name servers, anyone can do that. Breaking up Microsoft isn't going to create dozens of companies that can do the same simple task.
Microsoft has definately abused it's power as a market leader (maybe even a monopoly), but let's face it, it's only had this power for a few years (around the time Win95 came out and they cemented their grasp on the Office market). Now, the market is completely different than when the case started.
Linux is becoming popular, Intel has a major compeditor, and those NC's that everyone used to laugh at are becoming bigger every day. Even the Mac is coming back from death (although, personally, I wouldn't have minded if Microsoft would have finished Apple off).
So now, we are about to create a few Microsoft companies, an OS company and an Application company. Great, two monopolies. Does anyone think that a smaller Microsoft applications division will produce software for other OS's. They would have no reason to. They'd have less money to waste, and just concentrate on the most popular OS, which will still be Windows.
Now, before everyone and their brother flames me, I would like to state that I am an avid Linux user. I just think that Microsoft is going to loose market share on it's own as the operating system becomes less important and applications become more important. All the breakup will do is demonstrate the government's complete lack of understanding of the software industry.
First, this guy doesn't understand the internet. He assumes the standards and laws of America apply everywhere, and restricting the internet in America would stop piracy. Second, every country has different laws and views on copyright. Third, I've yet to see a copy protection scheme that actually worked, they just make life more complicated. Fourth, intellectual property rights are not as simple as he makes it seem. There are scores of patent and copyright lawyers who can prove this. And finally, there are several conceiveable reasons that the internet can be involved in fair use.
Now, on to the speech:
And "intellectual property" is property, period.
This must be why patents have a limited period of time before they must be renewed. It is property, but it's different than your car.
But there are those who believe that because technology can access property and appropriate it, then somehow that which is yours is no longer yours -because technology has made it simple and easy for someone else to take it from you.
Is he advocating gun control now?
For the great ferment of works and ideas, including your own, if taken at will and without restraint, have no chance of surviving any better than did the buffalo.
My favorite, the buffalo is doing fine now. Might have tried the Dodo.
What would the Internet be without "content?" It would be a valueless collection of silent machines with gray screens. It would be the electronic equivalent of a marine desert - lovely elements, nice colors, no life. It would be nothing.
My biggest problem with this. The Internet is simply a communications network. He doesn't differentiate between the Internet and the Web, or the great uses for communication that doesn't directly involve sales. What about culture and art? Are we to just whore our culture to profit?
First, we are focused on creating and launching a consumer-preferred and legal system for consumers to access the media they desire - beginning with music.
Then just give me the friggin' mp3. It can be converted no matter what you do.
Technology exists that can trace every Internet download and tag every file. These tools make it possible to identify those who are using the Internet to improperly and illegally acquire music and other copyrighted information. While adhering to the principle of respect for individual privacy, we fully intend to exploit technology to protect the property which rightfully belongs to its owners.
This will also allow them to track every access to every web site - health, politics, personal, and everything else. Is my privacy that cheap? Furthermore, do we have to rewrite the TCP protocols to log everyting to the FBI?
Another recent victory confirming the application of copyright law to cyberspace involved the unlawful dissemination of DVD anti-copy codes.
I'm pretty sure he made this one up. This trial is going to be very interesting. I hope the supreme court tears the MPAA a new one.
Anonymity, on the other hand, means being able to get away with stealing, or hacking, or disseminating illegal material on the Internet - and presuming the right that nobody should know who you are. There is no such right. This is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.
No, anonymity means I decide what personal information you get from me. Last I checked, Americans were not required to carry around identification papers and show them to everyone. What's next, Stars of David? Can you put a video camera in my house to make sure I don't copy and distribute a CD I buy at BestBuy?
The massive power of the Internet can permanently wipe out and shut down in one unthinking moment, a writer who may depend for his living on the sale of 5 or 10 thousand copies of his book.
Uh, this has been possible for a long time. For some reason people still like prepackaged paper. And will for a long time. Oh, and should we outlaw libraries?
hackers and spies, pirates and pedophiles.
I love being grouped with these people. Do we link Segrams with Al Capone because they sell alchol?
So, in review, this guy doesn't have a clue about the Internet, and his view of it makes it a corporate sales machine, instead of the widespread communications network that it really is. The real reason these people are scared is because they realize they can no longer control the way we communicate.
First, of course, Metallica has a right to determine how their work is distrubuted. No matter how you feel about them gouging the prices, they made it. Thus, when someone derives a profit from unauthorized copying, they have a right to be pissed. So, I'm very interested in what the court has to say about whether napster is a service, or is breaking the law.
Napster makes it a little too easy for everyone to break the law. We've probably all made illegal software copies, and traded mp3's in other ways, but Napster is the 1st program where we can all provide mp3's to others.
The real problem with the Lars interview is his view on how easy it is to copy media. You can already put a book on the internet the moment it is published (or, often, a movie script many months before it's released). Nobody does it though.
No matter how media is protected, it will be copied somehow. It's unavoidable. I have to be able to view it somehow, and so I can find a way to copy it. Eventually, it comes down to hoping people use the honor system. And I seriously debate the example of a band going from 600 CD sales to 50. If people copy 1.4 million mp3's in 48 hours, that band is getting the best promotion it ever could.
I have one final point. How can NetPD tell that you are copying a Metallica MP3? The file name? Since there are so many ways to encode an MP3, literally thousands of different MP3's could come out of each CD track. Do they download some and compare to these? Is thinking it is a metallica song when I download enough for me to be guilty of copyright infringement? What if we all took a legal mp3 and renamed it Metallica - Enter Sandman or something else? If it was a general napster user protest, then how could they tell if it was a real Metallica MP3?
They keep trying to restrict what you can do with digital media that you legally purchase. Never mind that there are perfectly legitimate uses for digital output. And, all of their protections didn't keep DeCSS from being written (the cat's kinda outta the bag now). So what I find really interesting is that now I can decode a DVD and convert it into any format I want, but I can't have a firewire output.
Next time one of these copyright laws comes before congress, maybe we should really make a push for users rights.
I think the difference is the DCMA, which specifically prohibits reverse engineering. However, if the primary purpose of DeCSS is to simply watch DVD's, it should be legal, and the encryption scheme is flawed. After all, I paid for the DVD, and they're the ones keeping me from watching it.
Unfortunately, I don't think the judiciary or congress is smart enough to figure this one out, but sometimes they suprise you (like the Computer Decency Act or whatever they called it a few years ago).
We should probably all write our congressmen (if you're from the US).
If I had the correct hardware (which I'm sure is expensive right now) couldn't I make an exact (bit for bit) copy of a DVD like you can do with a CD? I know I would still need a DVD Player/Decrypter to play it, but would it be any different from the original? The way I see it, DeCSS only restricts what you can use to play back a DVD (and also the ability to make digital conversions to other formats). If I have to compress a video to a format to distribute on a PC, is anyone going to notice that it went analog first? Furthermore, isn't it possible to use an encrypted DVD stream with a utility that makes it look like it's coming from a DVD?
So, isn't the MPAA just trying to take away my ability to view DVD's I've already paid for? Don't my personal rights outweigh the coporate profits? I mean, I could use my computer to crack the pentagon, but they haven't taken it from me yet.