I'll accept DRM in the ~1990 United States codified form. That is, I can use anything I purchase/license within my fair use, and if I don't then the copyright holder may sue me for infringement.
No offense, but two factor authentication doesn't make things more difficult to impliment. Let's take your bank example.
So when a user wants to log into a real bank over the web, they enter a password, and swipe a card. The password, and the key on the card are sent off to the bank's site for verification.
Great, so a fake bank site does the same thing. It'll sit there and take the password and the card data, which can then be replayed to the real bank.
I mean sure, sending 2 data streams is more difficult than only one, but only trivially so.
The GPL doesn't give a rat's about IP agreements, and it doesn't care who the rightsholder is. When you transfer the copyright from your code to them, they become the GPL copyright holder, and are thus bound by that license for the code in question. That means the patents are likely good and the derived code must be made available with the app, though not necissarily free, and not necissarily public.
But I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I might be wrong.
Actually, Constantine was far better than the prequels. Oh, certainly not fantastic or 'dvd-worthy', but it was entertaining, and Keanu Reeves was left to do as little acting as possible. Now if they could only do the same with Christianson....
Because I've seen/used/experienced far too many absolutely braindead "web services" which place passwords into URL's or as hidden forms... place URL's as easily guessable templated locations, not use ssl.
Basically, I assume that people are dumb. Given numerous theories that require people being dumb and 1 theory that requires people to be clever? It's really no contest.
There is a difference between 'just the facts' and many an online journal. Newspapers at least pretend an air of impartiality, whereas fanboy web sites often do not.
Personally, I think that free speech vs trade secret is a better argument to make. Claiming special journalistic privledge only obscures the real matter.
If a developer has gone through and say... written network card drivers used by thousands of users, that's pretty damned impressive! It doesn't matter if they make tons of money [by doing it for 3com or whomever] from it or not [by doing it for a free OS].
As long as these people managers listen to their technical manager counterparts, they can be very successful.
Realistically though, Big Business promotes people due to age, wardrobe, ass-kissing, lineage, sexual favors or sheer lottery before they'd do it due to actual skill. So the chances of getting both a good people manager and good technical manager together are slim. It's more likely to find a good technical manager who doesn't completely suck at people management, and let them run the show.
So, eBay is price gouging an -auction- whose parameters [set increments] are defined well before the customer participates?
Perhaps I'm missing some nuance of law, but this seems like something that eBay's lawyers [and the judge] will toss into the street with a nice lengthy brief which summarizes to "RTFM!".
If people don't listen to their computers getting nuked or their info stolen or any other direct impact upon themselves, they're not going to listen to a pundit.
True, but that scenario leaves out the fact that the vehicle registration bureau publically states [Blizzard's TOS] that registration of the vehicle cannot be transferred, even if the vehicle itself can be [the EULA].
You're my neighbor. You have a swanky VW I'd like. Most windshields or dashes make the VIN visible to passersby. I write down the VIN, and say you sold me the car, but the keys don't work.
Now, does VW send me the keys so I can steal your car?
Blizzard is in a worse perdicament, as the VINs can be generated, and people don't need to know where the "car" is to steal it.
The account on their server does *not* come with the product. It's not in the contract. It's not in the box. The store you buy it from doesn't require info to create the account.
The license is to the client software. The client software *does not include a server account*. Even if Blizzard is in the wrong, legally they've left little room for liability.
But the legal concept hasn't changed. Blizzard sells a product, and that product is the game client. Not an account on their servers.
The account is specifically detailed under the Terms of Service *not* under the EULA, as the EULA pertains to goods in sale, and the Terms do not.
Blizzard specifies how to transfer the game client, and specifically prohibits transfer or sale of the account. Legally, it makes little difference that the game client is useless without the server account.
The key is just bits. The third party provided the same bits to the Poster.
Say I sell you a Beetle with a broken transmission. It's still a Beetle, even though it has far less value. And just like Blizzard in this case, there's no way Volkswagon should be involved in our transaction, or somehow guarantee to you that my Beetle has a good transmission.
And just like the broken Beetle example, the recourse is against the seller of the broken good for defrauding you, not the manufacturer of the good.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll accept DRM in the ~1990 United States codified form. That is, I can use anything I purchase/license within my fair use, and if I don't then the copyright holder may sue me for infringement.
It's TV. People don't want serious science, people want entertainment. There's a reason the Mythbusters blow something up each episode!
Speaking of which, I wonder how much that show's success had to do with exec's decision to bring Nye back.
How about Putty.
Then I don't have to carry around all those apps. I just ssh to my machine that does.
No offense, but two factor authentication doesn't make things more difficult to impliment. Let's take your bank example.
So when a user wants to log into a real bank over the web, they enter a password, and swipe a card. The password, and the key on the card are sent off to the bank's site for verification.
Great, so a fake bank site does the same thing. It'll sit there and take the password and the card data, which can then be replayed to the real bank.
I mean sure, sending 2 data streams is more difficult than only one, but only trivially so.
The GPL doesn't give a rat's about IP agreements, and it doesn't care who the rightsholder is. When you transfer the copyright from your code to them, they become the GPL copyright holder, and are thus bound by that license for the code in question. That means the patents are likely good and the derived code must be made available with the app, though not necissarily free, and not necissarily public.
But I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I might be wrong.
Actually, Constantine was far better than the prequels. Oh, certainly not fantastic or 'dvd-worthy', but it was entertaining, and Keanu Reeves was left to do as little acting as possible. Now if they could only do the same with Christianson....
Because I've seen/used/experienced far too many absolutely braindead "web services" which place passwords into URL's or as hidden forms... place URL's as easily guessable templated locations, not use ssl.
Basically, I assume that people are dumb. Given numerous theories that require people being dumb and 1 theory that requires people to be clever? It's really no contest.
If ethics was so important, how come it wasn't tested for in the actual application process?
There is a difference between 'just the facts' and many an online journal. Newspapers at least pretend an air of impartiality, whereas fanboy web sites often do not.
Personally, I think that free speech vs trade secret is a better argument to make. Claiming special journalistic privledge only obscures the real matter.
And what about Spirited Away, or any of Gibli's other US releases? They've done fantastically well from what I understand.
No. And shouldn't be given the same protection.
That said. Think Secret from what I've seen isn't exactly a 'blog', as it resembles game news sites more than anything else.
And boy do I hate that fucking term.
If a developer has gone through and say... written network card drivers used by thousands of users, that's pretty damned impressive! It doesn't matter if they make tons of money [by doing it for 3com or whomever] from it or not [by doing it for a free OS].
Cool stuff is universal.
Oh, that's a brilliant idea. Symantec only has about $5 -billion- in liquid cash.
Somehow I think $20 per extra patent isn't exactly going to discourage them.
You think that's bad?
I happen to be one of the twenty or so people left in the known universe without a cell phone.
I don't feel alone really, the sheer joy gained everytime I hear the words "crappy reception" makes up for it and then some.
As long as these people managers listen to their technical manager counterparts, they can be very successful.
Realistically though, Big Business promotes people due to age, wardrobe, ass-kissing, lineage, sexual favors or sheer lottery before they'd do it due to actual skill. So the chances of getting both a good people manager and good technical manager together are slim. It's more likely to find a good technical manager who doesn't completely suck at people management, and let them run the show.
So, eBay is price gouging an -auction- whose parameters [set increments] are defined well before the customer participates?
Perhaps I'm missing some nuance of law, but this seems like something that eBay's lawyers [and the judge] will toss into the street with a nice lengthy brief which summarizes to "RTFM!".
I'm not saying he doesn't deserve listening to. And I'm not saying he's mistaken. I'm just saying people won't listen.
If people don't listen to their computers getting nuked or their info stolen or any other direct impact upon themselves, they're not going to listen to a pundit.
Huh? that's what I said. Or rather, thats what the grandparent said.
True, but that scenario leaves out the fact that the vehicle registration bureau publically states [Blizzard's TOS] that registration of the vehicle cannot be transferred, even if the vehicle itself can be [the EULA].
Like hell they would!
You're my neighbor. You have a swanky VW I'd like. Most windshields or dashes make the VIN visible to passersby. I write down the VIN, and say you sold me the car, but the keys don't work.
Now, does VW send me the keys so I can steal your car?
Blizzard is in a worse perdicament, as the VINs can be generated, and people don't need to know where the "car" is to steal it.
The account on their server does *not* come with the product. It's not in the contract. It's not in the box. The store you buy it from doesn't require info to create the account.
The license is to the client software. The client software *does not include a server account*. Even if Blizzard is in the wrong, legally they've left little room for liability.
But the legal concept hasn't changed. Blizzard sells a product, and that product is the game client. Not an account on their servers.
The account is specifically detailed under the Terms of Service *not* under the EULA, as the EULA pertains to goods in sale, and the Terms do not.
Blizzard specifies how to transfer the game client, and specifically prohibits transfer or sale of the account. Legally, it makes little difference that the game client is useless without the server account.
Where exactly in the EULA does it say that?
Oh right, the EULA applies to *only* the software client, not the account on the server. The Terms of Service apply to that...
Where in the Terms of Service does it say you may trade/sell the account made? Nowhere, unless I missed it?
Legally, it's clear cut.
The key is just bits. The third party provided the same bits to the Poster.
Say I sell you a Beetle with a broken transmission. It's still a Beetle, even though it has far less value. And just like Blizzard in this case, there's no way Volkswagon should be involved in our transaction, or somehow guarantee to you that my Beetle has a good transmission.
And just like the broken Beetle example, the recourse is against the seller of the broken good for defrauding you, not the manufacturer of the good.