Costly? They got one of their staff legal team to draft a complaint to tie them up in court for a while. TDS never wanted to win. Just to slow the city down.
So you say that as though it's a crime or something. What do you have against Furries? Are you equally intolerant of everyone with a different lifestyle?
If you don't agree with their price, don't watch it.
This argument is made a lot. I sort of see where you're coming from but if you do that surely you both lose out. You don;t get the film, and the studio still doesn't get the money.
By pirating, you get the film. Hence it's a net win. I'm aware that the excuse that people wouldn't have bought it is often just an excuse, but it's also often the truth. In that case, since no harm is done, why is it morally wrong?
No. I just think that the piracy apologist seems to make a lot of sense. I wouldn't use the word "GIMME" since it's not a word. "MINE" is just childish.
Fair use is deliberately vaguely defined. Since this is a clear desire to do nothing except deprive the right holder of their exclusive rights, and not intended for criticism or other aspects of fair use, then it's illegal.
Your motivation has much more to do with whether it's fair use than the length.
I'm quite happy with the idea that a machine can be intelligent, even if we know how it works, but I can't believe simple sentence parsers are intelligent any more than I would believe it was doing addition if it had a big table of all possible pairs of numbers and their sums.
Okay - intelligence for this purpose means working like the human brain works. This is why The Turing Test tries to convince a human that the machine is human. It's something the human brain does by definition. If I know how something works it doesn't mean it's not intelligent. It just gives me the information to determine whether something is actually intelligent or just faking intelligence. I'm satisfied in my own mind that my brain doesn't just take arbitrary words and find a suitable response. Words are assigned some meaning which represents actual concepts. It's reasonable to assume other peoples brains work the same way.
I don't see why it matters that human intelligence is restricted by such a small domain. Current AI can't work in anything like as large a domain as this tiny thought space. Nor does it matter that we get things wrong. Human brains work from incomplete knowledge most of the time. They're bound to be wrong a lot. Whether they're right or wrong is not what's interesting. What is was how they came to the conclusion.
It's an interesting thought. There are a finite (albeit absolutely vast) number of possible states your automaton could have, so I'm happy to accept for the sake of argument that it would be mathematically possible for such a table to exist.
I'm still not sure if the table itself is intelligent. There's certainly some intelligence there. It would absolutely be indistinguishable from a real human being. I just can't fund a way to convince myself that the table actually is intelligent. It seems to me that it's storing intelligence and that this is different from actually being intelligent.
I don't care what non-humans think about how my brain works. I only care how humans think their own brains work. The idea that other people's brains probably work in a similar way as their own seems a reasonable assumption. I don't consider that the machine understands anything other than simple rules that items are linked with other items? Change the content of the table and it will have a totally meaningless conversation. It just doesn't seem to fit any reasonable meaning of the term "understand"
Maybe Deep Blue could be said to understand chess. It has an abstract model of the game stored in its memory that it can access and extrapolate from. Seems a much better starting point if nothing else.
Can you prove, beyond reasonable doubt that he was lying, that he knew he was lying, and that the statement that contradicted the lie (e.g. the recorded telephone calls) were not actually misinformation to prevent a potential competitor from stealing his way of doing things?
If the machine can fool a human who are you to claim that it doesn't "think?"
Someone who can analyse the source code and determine that it is just parsing responses without any reason to think it's understanding.
Can you give me any evidence that you don't just "parse responses to match your massive yet limited supply of answers?"
No, but do I need to? All I care about is whether I can prove this to me. I just want a machine that thinks similarly to me. I have an ability to extrapolate and apply general concepts from simple principles. I'd potentially consider a machine that can do this, even in a simple domain intelligent. The larger the domain, the more intelligent.
I can't except to myself. That's the crux of the matter isn't it. There's no way for me to convince you with 100% certainty that I'm thinking or for me to be 100% certain that you are. Any test I can think of will be flawed, for you or a machine.
Still, with the Turing test it seems that there are clearly machines that would pass under certain circumstances that are obviously not intelligent. A large enough lookup table will pass, but that just proves the person who created the lookup table was capable of thinking.
Is it one of those screwup pieces of legislation where it's legal if I print the source code for a copy protection cracker in a book (think PGP) and mail it to someone but illegal if I email it to them. Or would both be illegal?
Nope. It depends on the purpose of sending it. If you post it to them for the explicit reason of allowing them to illegally circumvent copyright protections then it's potentially illegal. If you email it to them explicitly so they may take advantage of one of the exceptions to the DMCA then it's probably legal.
That one dealt with an explicit problem rather than a hypothetical future problem, and they wanted to keep the scope as limited as possible.
Not saying I agree this is the right way to go about it but I'm pretty certain this was the copyright office's logic.
Definitely need a tougher exception for Spore
on
DMCA Exemption Time
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
There's already an exception for computer software which is no longer supported. I think we need an exception for computer software that requires a potentially expensive phone call to activate. Needs a better argument than EA are idiots though. Having to call and explain why you've installed 3 times already doesn't sound such an onerous task until you have to actually do it.
Can anyone tell me: how strong does encryption have to be to make breaking it illegal?
It's up to human judgement. You would need to convince the court that your "encryption" is a mechanism for preventing unauthorised access. Your opponent would try to convince the court that it isn't. You may want to find a cryptography specialist as an expert witness
What if I use nothing more than thousand year old classic like a Caesar cipher to encrypt my media- Is any kid who writes a trivial program to crack such ciphers(specific to my media or not) then breaking the law?
See above. Most cryptography specialist would point out that this is just a data representation change.
Is thinking about breaking encryption illegal?
No.
Is it limited to digital devices or is it illegal to write down a mathamatical formula on paper which can be used to break an encryption scheme?
It's manufacturing, importing or distributing a device that is intended for circumventing encryption. Probably wouldn't apply to a formula.
Is it illegal to give the formula to people? How about emailing it to people?
Depends on your motivations. This is different from your stated motivations. If you're clearly lying when you're saying it's for academic study only then it's still not legal.
Where's the line?
There is no line. This is why humans interpret the laws rather than machines. We can handle fuzzy logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Costly? They got one of their staff legal team to draft a complaint to tie them up in court for a while. TDS never wanted to win. Just to slow the city down.
Well, it does. Play a DRMed file. Listen to the quality.
Turn off the DRM servers, transfer the file to another machine and listen to it again.
Listen to the windows error message sound.
Which sounds better?
But the OP seemed to only have a problem with this from furries.
So you say that as though it's a crime or something. What do you have against Furries? Are you equally intolerant of everyone with a different lifestyle?
If you don't agree with their price, don't watch it.
This argument is made a lot. I sort of see where you're coming from but if you do that surely you both lose out. You don;t get the film, and the studio still doesn't get the money.
By pirating, you get the film. Hence it's a net win. I'm aware that the excuse that people wouldn't have bought it is often just an excuse, but it's also often the truth. In that case, since no harm is done, why is it morally wrong?
Why not. I'm being totally screwed over by publishers so people might as well steal my stuff.
I've given up caring. I end up with pretty much the same amount whether people pirate or not.
No. I just think that the piracy apologist seems to make a lot of sense. I wouldn't use the word "GIMME" since it's not a word. "MINE" is just childish.
Wow. Talk a lot don't you.
I agree with everything the "piracy apologist has to say". You're preaching to the choir here.
It gives Apple plenty of time to work out how to build an iPod with a removable battery. They have until 2012.
Nope.
Fair use is deliberately vaguely defined. Since this is a clear desire to do nothing except deprive the right holder of their exclusive rights, and not intended for criticism or other aspects of fair use, then it's illegal.
Your motivation has much more to do with whether it's fair use than the length.
I'm quite happy with the idea that a machine can be intelligent, even if we know how it works, but I can't believe simple sentence parsers are intelligent any more than I would believe it was doing addition if it had a big table of all possible pairs of numbers and their sums.
Okay - intelligence for this purpose means working like the human brain works. This is why The Turing Test tries to convince a human that the machine is human. It's something the human brain does by definition. If I know how something works it doesn't mean it's not intelligent. It just gives me the information to determine whether something is actually intelligent or just faking intelligence. I'm satisfied in my own mind that my brain doesn't just take arbitrary words and find a suitable response. Words are assigned some meaning which represents actual concepts. It's reasonable to assume other peoples brains work the same way.
I don't see why it matters that human intelligence is restricted by such a small domain. Current AI can't work in anything like as large a domain as this tiny thought space. Nor does it matter that we get things wrong. Human brains work from incomplete knowledge most of the time. They're bound to be wrong a lot. Whether they're right or wrong is not what's interesting. What is was how they came to the conclusion.
It's an interesting thought. There are a finite (albeit absolutely vast) number of possible states your automaton could have, so I'm happy to accept for the sake of argument that it would be mathematically possible for such a table to exist.
I'm still not sure if the table itself is intelligent. There's certainly some intelligence there. It would absolutely be indistinguishable from a real human being. I just can't fund a way to convince myself that the table actually is intelligent. It seems to me that it's storing intelligence and that this is different from actually being intelligent.
Oh. Interesting. So are all data representation changes encryption?
I don't care what non-humans think about how my brain works. I only care how humans think their own brains work. The idea that other people's brains probably work in a similar way as their own seems a reasonable assumption. I don't consider that the machine understands anything other than simple rules that items are linked with other items? Change the content of the table and it will have a totally meaningless conversation. It just doesn't seem to fit any reasonable meaning of the term "understand"
Maybe Deep Blue could be said to understand chess. It has an abstract model of the game stored in its memory that it can access and extrapolate from. Seems a much better starting point if nothing else.
Can you prove, beyond reasonable doubt that he was lying, that he knew he was lying, and that the statement that contradicted the lie (e.g. the recorded telephone calls) were not actually misinformation to prevent a potential competitor from stealing his way of doing things?
If the machine can fool a human who are you to claim that it doesn't "think?"
Someone who can analyse the source code and determine that it is just parsing responses without any reason to think it's understanding.
Can you give me any evidence that you don't just "parse responses to match your massive yet limited supply of answers?"
No, but do I need to? All I care about is whether I can prove this to me. I just want a machine that thinks similarly to me. I have an ability to extrapolate and apply general concepts from simple principles. I'd potentially consider a machine that can do this, even in a simple domain intelligent. The larger the domain, the more intelligent.
Are you really thinking?
Yes.
Prove it.
I can't except to myself. That's the crux of the matter isn't it. There's no way for me to convince you with 100% certainty that I'm thinking or for me to be 100% certain that you are. Any test I can think of will be flawed, for you or a machine.
Still, with the Turing test it seems that there are clearly machines that would pass under certain circumstances that are obviously not intelligent. A large enough lookup table will pass, but that just proves the person who created the lookup table was capable of thinking.
Where did I say it was for academic study?
I didn't. It's an example.
Is it one of those screwup pieces of legislation where it's legal if I print the source code for a copy protection cracker in a book (think PGP) and mail it to someone but illegal if I email it to them. Or would both be illegal?
Nope. It depends on the purpose of sending it. If you post it to them for the explicit reason of allowing them to illegally circumvent copyright protections then it's potentially illegal. If you email it to them explicitly so they may take advantage of one of the exceptions to the DMCA then it's probably legal.
They haven't patented fast forward, rewind and record. The result is not what's patented. The method it.
It's non zero for the right to play a game that I own.
Why should I should change my phone plan just so I can have the right to play the game I own?
That one dealt with an explicit problem rather than a hypothetical future problem, and they wanted to keep the scope as limited as possible.
Not saying I agree this is the right way to go about it but I'm pretty certain this was the copyright office's logic.
There's already an exception for computer software which is no longer supported. I think we need an exception for computer software that requires a potentially expensive phone call to activate. Needs a better argument than EA are idiots though. Having to call and explain why you've installed 3 times already doesn't sound such an onerous task until you have to actually do it.
Can anyone tell me: how strong does encryption have to be to make breaking it illegal?
It's up to human judgement. You would need to convince the court that your "encryption" is a mechanism for preventing unauthorised access. Your opponent would try to convince the court that it isn't. You may want to find a cryptography specialist as an expert witness
What if I use nothing more than thousand year old classic like a Caesar cipher to encrypt my media- Is any kid who writes a trivial program to crack such ciphers(specific to my media or not) then breaking the law?
See above. Most cryptography specialist would point out that this is just a data representation change.
Is thinking about breaking encryption illegal?
No.
Is it limited to digital devices or is it illegal to write down a mathamatical formula on paper which can be used to break an encryption scheme?
It's manufacturing, importing or distributing a device that is intended for circumventing encryption. Probably wouldn't apply to a formula.
Is it illegal to give the formula to people? How about emailing it to people?
Depends on your motivations. This is different from your stated motivations. If you're clearly lying when you're saying it's for academic study only then it's still not legal.
Where's the line?
There is no line. This is why humans interpret the laws rather than machines. We can handle fuzzy logic.
91degrees will not be buying a DSi.
A feature that makes the hardware not run certain applications is of no use to me.