They're simply assuming there is a certain amount of copying (legal or otherwise) and deducing that such copying has a cost to the record industry. As such, a logical means to recoup the losses is to charge a levy on blank media. It's not the most direct way of recouping the cost, but its easy to administer, and it does mean that in general, those who copy a lot of music will contribute more money than those who don't.
What about people who use blank optical media to, oh, I don't know, store some sort of data that isn't audio?
What about them? When I visit other countries, I pay sales tax on a number of purchases. I had no right to (or need of) many of the services these taxes paid for. Should I have received a refund?
So what? The creators have got their money for the shows. Why does it make a difference to them if I sit at home watching it broadcast, or sit at my computer watching it? Why does the medium matter? Of course this isn't legal, but who am I actually hurting here?
There aren't anywhere near that number for practical purposes. The plugboard is just a substitution cypher. It can be ignored since we're looking for irregular distribution of decoded symbols. We don't care what the symbols are. That can be worked out later.
I did forget abut the notched rings, but for these many of the 676 combinations will be the same since the second rotor will not tick under most conditions.
4 out of 6 rotors, 26 setting each, gives us 164,511,360 possible combinations. It can't require that much processing power to emulate the machine since we're just doing table lookups.
Presumably we just need to Decode the message with each of these settings, and look for the ones with irregular character distribution. With a modern computer, we can't be looking at an implausible amount of time. Might take a few minutes to go through that keyspace, but I can't imagine it would take more than an hour.
They must have done occasionally. I remember hearing a story where Bletchley received a junk message which had no 'L's. Since the crib relied on the Enigma's inability to encode a letter to itself, the received message must have consisted entirely of the letter L.
You'll only need to convert from DRM AAC to non-DRM AAC. Future players will still have legacy codecs. At least if the ability of HD-DVD drives to play compact disc is anything to go by
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
It would be primarily designed to allow people to watch HD-DVDs on analogue only HDTVs. Okay, it might be illegal under this clause, but it's unlikely. You can already access the work using analogue equipment, just not in high definition. If they included macrovision, it would have the same utility, and would demonstrably be designed for watching DVDs. Making it illegal simply it circumvents a use that is perfectly legal and clearly neccesary would require an extremely overly literal interpretation of the law.
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
Certainly not the case. The purpose is clearly not for copying.
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person for use in circumventing a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Just added this for completeness. Clearly nobody would be daft enough to market it as somethign that allows copying.
I understand last year they suffered record breaking profits!
Yes. The video rental and sales divisions are largely responsible for that. Remarkable isn't it, how the technology that they thought would dstroy them has benefitted both the consumer and the industry.
The music industry could do the same. Unfortunately they're finding the whole digital distribution side is controlled by iTunes at least partly as a side effect of the music industry's insistence on DRM.
The thing about this patent is that it's fairly obvious now that there are a lot of games with a camera following the character. In 1985 when it was filed this sort of thing was a lot less common. The idea of a spherical pan may well have been original and innovative back then.
They're a cartel using monopolistic practices to render existing technology obsolete to the detriment of the consumer. Since they're actively barring manufacturers from providing a feature that many consumers will want, it should be possible to spin something from this.
The DMCA's wording only bans devices that have limited non-infringing use. I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to watch high definition content on an existing high definition TV.
This is something I was thinking about the other day... The RIAA resisted any attempts to allow mp3s to be sold, initally (I think) because they thought it would compete with their CD business and later because of fears of piracy. They didn't want to lose control of their product. So iTunes came along and offered DRM. Unfortunately, iTines is the only online music store that works with the most popular brand of player (the iPod). This means Apple gets to call the shots.
So, having avoided giving up control of their songs to the pirates, they've given up control of their songs to Apple. They could possibly get control back by letting other companies sell mp3s, thus meaning there's competition for the iPod market, but they're never going to do that.
Also, Google complies with the 512 safe harbor that protects it while also requiring it to honor takedowns; AFAICT none of these sites do.
Looks like some of them claim to. From the article:
"Funny, they didn't email me," Gary from ISOHunt said. "I'm not too concerned because we deal with copyright requests everyday, some of them from studios MPAA represents."
"Justin" from TorrentSpy echoed Gary's skepticism. "I guess I will learn more when I see what they have filed exactly. [I'm] not sure why they are suing when we comply with DMCA requests but I guess we will learn more down the road."
Re:Why do people care about this guy? (serious inq
on
Woz On Apple's Success
·
· Score: 1
If anything, his career as a serial startup-flop is longer and more sustained then his time at Apple.
Just about every multimillionaire will have a pile of serious flops under his belt. These people are risk takers. It's how they become rich. How about the Apple Newton? The Lisa? Failures from Apple under Steve Jobs' guidance.
The other difference is that torrent sites exist with the primary intention of assisting people in downloading illegal content, whereas generel prupose search engines exist with the primary purpose of assisting people in finding legal content.
Do you really believe that when they set them up, they thought most people would submit legal torrents?
The difference beeing that most of what Google indexes is prefectly legitimate, whereas most of what torrent search sites index are torrents for illegally distributed copyrighted works.
Just create a second company. Call one of them Apple, the other iPod. Both opwned by a parent company. Administratively it's a minor change, legally they're two separate companies. (presumably. IANAL)
Re:Why do people care about this guy? (serious inq
on
Woz On Apple's Success
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
He was co-founder of apple and creator of the original Apple personal computers. Reasonable to presume he has a few insights worth listening to.
The MPL does allow you to charge a fee for support, but I didn't see it mention that you could charge for distribution. Nor did I see any nmention that you couldn't charge for distribution but it's not all that clear.
Is it wrong to charge $10 per CD with Mozilla on it?
Do you mean from an ethical point of view? i.e. Is it wrong to charge people that much for doing so little work? If that's what your asking, my answer is "no". It's also not wrong for me to charge $9 for the same CD. Free market forces work rather nicely here.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody's assuming guilt.
They're simply assuming there is a certain amount of copying (legal or otherwise) and deducing that such copying has a cost to the record industry. As such, a logical means to recoup the losses is to charge a levy on blank media. It's not the most direct way of recouping the cost, but its easy to administer, and it does mean that in general, those who copy a lot of music will contribute more money than those who don't.
What about people who use blank optical media to, oh, I don't know, store some sort of data that isn't audio?
What about them? When I visit other countries, I pay sales tax on a number of purchases. I had no right to (or need of) many of the services these taxes paid for. Should I have received a refund?
So what? The creators have got their money for the shows. Why does it make a difference to them if I sit at home watching it broadcast, or sit at my computer watching it? Why does the medium matter? Of course this isn't legal, but who am I actually hurting here?
Since we've paid for these shows (through the licence fee), is there any ethical reason that we shouldn't download them from the internet?
Ah, that's the really hard thing...
Persuading someone with money to invest in an original idea.
Well, they made the logical leap, assumed it was all L, and used that as their crib. Apparently it worked.
There aren't anywhere near that number for practical purposes. The plugboard is just a substitution cypher. It can be ignored since we're looking for irregular distribution of decoded symbols. We don't care what the symbols are. That can be worked out later.
I did forget abut the notched rings, but for these many of the 676 combinations will be the same since the second rotor will not tick under most conditions.
4 out of 6 rotors, 26 setting each, gives us 164,511,360 possible combinations. It can't require that much processing power to emulate the machine since we're just doing table lookups.
Presumably we just need to Decode the message with each of these settings, and look for the ones with irregular character distribution. With a modern computer, we can't be looking at an implausible amount of time. Might take a few minutes to go through that keyspace, but I can't imagine it would take more than an hour.
They must have done occasionally. I remember hearing a story where Bletchley received a junk message which had no 'L's. Since the crib relied on the Enigma's inability to encode a letter to itself, the received message must have consisted entirely of the letter L.
You'll only need to convert from DRM AAC to non-DRM AAC. Future players will still have legacy codecs. At least if the ability of HD-DVD drives to play compact disc is anything to go by
Probably true.
I think we're more likely to see hackable players.
I understand last year they suffered record breaking profits!
Yes. The video rental and sales divisions are largely responsible for that. Remarkable isn't it, how the technology that they thought would dstroy them has benefitted both the consumer and the industry.
The music industry could do the same. Unfortunately they're finding the whole digital distribution side is controlled by iTunes at least partly as a side effect of the music industry's insistence on DRM.
The thing about this patent is that it's fairly obvious now that there are a lot of games with a camera following the character. In 1985 when it was filed this sort of thing was a lot less common. The idea of a spherical pan may well have been original and innovative back then.
They're a cartel using monopolistic practices to render existing technology obsolete to the detriment of the consumer. Since they're actively barring manufacturers from providing a feature that many consumers will want, it should be possible to spin something from this.
The DMCA's wording only bans devices that have limited non-infringing use. I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to watch high definition content on an existing high definition TV.
This is something I was thinking about the other day... The RIAA resisted any attempts to allow mp3s to be sold, initally (I think) because they thought it would compete with their CD business and later because of fears of piracy. They didn't want to lose control of their product. So iTunes came along and offered DRM. Unfortunately, iTines is the only online music store that works with the most popular brand of player (the iPod). This means Apple gets to call the shots.
So, having avoided giving up control of their songs to the pirates, they've given up control of their songs to Apple. They could possibly get control back by letting other companies sell mp3s, thus meaning there's competition for the iPod market, but they're never going to do that.
Looks like some of them claim to. From the article:
If anything, his career as a serial startup-flop is longer and more sustained then his time at Apple.
Just about every multimillionaire will have a pile of serious flops under his belt. These people are risk takers. It's how they become rich. How about the Apple Newton? The Lisa? Failures from Apple under Steve Jobs' guidance.
The other difference is that torrent sites exist with the primary intention of assisting people in downloading illegal content, whereas generel prupose search engines exist with the primary purpose of assisting people in finding legal content.
Do you really believe that when they set them up, they thought most people would submit legal torrents?
The difference beeing that most of what Google indexes is prefectly legitimate, whereas most of what torrent search sites index are torrents for illegally distributed copyrighted works.
Just create a second company. Call one of them Apple, the other iPod. Both opwned by a parent company. Administratively it's a minor change, legally they're two separate companies. (presumably. IANAL)
He was co-founder of apple and creator of the original Apple personal computers. Reasonable to presume he has a few insights worth listening to.
The MPL does allow you to charge a fee for support, but I didn't see it mention that you could charge for distribution. Nor did I see any nmention that you couldn't charge for distribution but it's not all that clear.
Is it wrong to charge $10 per CD with Mozilla on it?
Do you mean from an ethical point of view? i.e. Is it wrong to charge people that much for doing so little work? If that's what your asking, my answer is "no". It's also not wrong for me to charge $9 for the same CD. Free market forces work rather nicely here.