The problem here is that this doesn't stop the DNS server from responding with a seemingly authoratative reply. It just changes WHICH server/machine will send you the "connection refused" message when you try to connect.
Sure the sitefinder web page is a travesty, but the larger (and core) problem is that an IP address is being returned when a "not found" should be.
I am specifically NOT trying to overload the DNS servers. I specifically will only do lookups as infrequently as necessary. Between lookups, all requests will be sent directly to the Verisign interceptor server.
1. You guarantee that we (the ISP) are not liable for anything you do 2. If you do something we think we could be liabl for, we pull the plug 3. We allot you rediculously lopsided bandwidth 3Mb/640Kb (in my case) 4. If you actually USE that much bandwidth we'll consider it abuse and pull the plug 5. You are now allowed to do anything with the service except browse the web, you can not serve any content 6. You'll only be allowed to hook up one computer, try to connect more and we'll pull the plug
Broadband isn't widely accepted in the US because it's a joke. You don't get an ISP you get a finiky grandmother who snaps at you every time you sneak in past 9pm.
When American companies start offering symmetrical througput, unrestricted use/access and charge a reasonable price; then broadband will become ubiquitous.
I do in fact know it's Verisign not Verizon doing this, as I've been on the phone with them for a total of about 15 calls and over 2 hours. If nothing else, I've annoyed quite a few phone reps and run up at least a few cents of phone bills for them.
SERIOUS gamers don't play with mice anyway. They use multi button game controllers.
Apple's opinion seems to be: Our OS is simple enogh to operate with one button, so that's what we ship. If YOU want to do something that uses/requires more buttons, you can go purchase one of the many options available.
I like to use a yoke, throttle and pedals with my flight sims, should Apple include those with the system also? Perhaps they should also include a scrub wheel like the Griffin PowerMate?
This is of course completely different than the MSIS issue. The MS only affected MSIE users for web browsing. The Verison issue affects ALL Internet clients, not just web browsers. It's actually worse for other clients than web and email as Verizon's machine does not return an error for any other protocol, it just says "connection refused".
DNS wasn't designed to do what Verizon wants it to do, and there's no way to only offer the fake address for queries for web sites.
I'm also starting to think of ways to use the whois database instead of the DNS system. The issue of course is that Verisign states that they don't want regular/automated queries to the database as it is very resource intensive.
Then again... perhaps if they see a tremendous load on those servers, they just might understand how much negative impact thier "helpfulness" has impacted the net as a whole.
Ya know, 5 years ago people couldn't figure out why anyone needed a 1GHz CPU or more than 1GB of RAM in a desktop. Now that's considered an entry level machine. Of course 20 years ago there was a bozo that thought no-one needed more than 640KB of RAM. And about 40 years ago someone else thought that 5-10 computers would suffice for all the world's needs. (I'll leave the "who"s as an exercise for the reader)
Fact is that software (especially games) loads expand to fill the cycles alloted. Sure it's nice that there were 1st person 3D shooters three years ago, but today's games have dynamic lighting, real-time fog/atmosphere, larger worlds, more character, etc. Then there's all the 3D rendering and video transcoding/encoding that's going on. The G5 will render DV to MPEG2 in a few minutes per hour of footage, that makes home video archiving attractive, unlike the 1 hour per minute of footage on my G3. With today's desktop computing power more scientists can explore more possibilites in less time. Instead of signing up for time on a super computer and planning and testing your app before getting it inserted for a run, you just launch your app on the desktop and play with the variables in real time.
There's only two reasons NOT to have that much power on your desktop: 1) cost 2) heat
I'm starting to write a small perl program that will hopefully cause some annoyance to verisign, but not cause much extra load on the legitimate infrastucture.
My idea is that the program will perform a lookup on a random and quite inconcievably legitimate second level domain (using perhaps a random string of characters and numbers at least 20 chars in length). It will only perform the lookup every 15 minutes (the expire time of the wildcard A record according to verizign's documentation). The program will then continue to generate random domain names and send HTTP requests to the IP address that is stored from the periodic lookups. Some particularly vitriolic comment would be placed in the client ID section of the request, of course.
I figure in this manner I can be kind to the DNS systems by only making lookups every 15 minutes, yet creating some extra traffic for Verisign to analyze (they claim to do this in 10 minute chunks), and track for thier connection refusal logic.
I would think the argument here is that Apple dooes not use that name for the on-line music sales. All references by Apple computer to the music store call it "The iTunes Music Store", not "Apple Music". So while Apple does in fact operate the site, the brand name of the site is not "Apple".
That they seem to do this almost deliberately seems to me that Apple Computer's legal team has studied the issue and feels that with the format and naming they use, that there is not real ingrigement on the Apple Record's name.
As you stated the term "IP" is a vacuous term without further explination. Many think it to be anything you know, others anything you create, other just anything that you write down.
And yes, they re two different arguments all together.
On one hand this root article was discussing the settlement between two parties. One party was thought to be infringin on the rights of another. The plaintiff approached the defendant via a vehicle known as a summons or suit in civil court. The defending party then agreed to pay the plaintiff some damages in liu of a trial.
On the other hand in your refererenced comment we have discussion of things that thr RIAA (and others) have done that are of questionable equity to the another party. Questionable, but legal actions can't be justification for illegal behavior against a person or company. If that were the case then vigilantyism would be a good thing, as it stands it is illegal.
The government (via the police force) is specifically restricted from searching your home without probable cause and a court-ordered search warrant, or your permission. The RIAA, not being a government entity, is not thusly restricted. They are however bound by private property and tresspass laws.
I didn't say the RIAA has the right to search your home at will, just that they have greater leeway in when and how they can gain access.
It's really too late for me to write out a long explination at the moment. Suffice it to say a private investigator could masquerade as someone else (telephone repair, janitor, etc)and enter the home. Any "evidence" gained would likely be admissible in civil court as long as the entry was not otherwise illegal. If a police officer did this without a warrant the evidence would be inadmissible in criminal court, even if you let the officer in, since there's no search warrant.
There was absoloutly no charge of criminal behavior in this case. The case is completely about the violation of covol rights.
Your set of examples of products is flawed. Shop owners and manufacturers re regularly sued (and pay out) for the way in which others use their products.
In this case, I've read that the girl was found ot have songs on her computer that were downloaded from the Internet. She apparently does not own a license/copy of the music. She seems to admit that she downloaded and played music without paying the copyright holder. She is the person who obtained the goods, and the one you yourself say should be held accountable.
You do not need a criminal case to proceed with a civil case. If something is illegal but the government attourney's refuse to bring charges, one can still file a civil suit. That's what happened here. There may still be criminal charges to come later.
Since the girl is a minor, her actions are the responsibility of the parent. There's strong precent for parents being held liable for the actions of their children.
The RIAA would not need a search warrant to enter a dwelling. The Bill of Rights only protects you from search and seizure by the government. The RIAA is a private party and as such as MUCH greater leeway in what they can do.
"...(Keep in mind that I do not believe in intellectual property...)
Then please post your SSN, PIN, bank account numbers, any and all plans or ideas and all other personal information here.
What you mean is that you don't believe in intellectual property when it's protecting someone elses property from your free use.
You are also arguing the wrong topic. These suits are not about lost money, they are about lost rights. By copying music without the copyright holder's permission, you deny them of that sole reserved right. THAT is what these swappers are being sued for: for violating copyright.
So according to you if an under cover police officer purchases drugs from me I can't be procecuted because the officer is allowed to do that to enforce the law?
There's also the fact that since these are civil cases, not criminal the rules of evidence are relaxed, and the burden of proof is "purponderance of the evidence", and not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt".
Defending against a civil case is very hard if the plaintff has anything near a reasonable case. 50.001% of the evidence will win the case for them, not the 99.5% for criminal cases.
In each of the cases, the operators of the servers did not set up the server so ONLY the RIAA could download the songs, the servers were apparently set up in a manner that allowd anyone to get at the content. Since the RIAA was able to download the song, so was anyone else. Seriously, what are the chances someone would accidentally allow file downloading to only the IP addresses that the RIAA were secretly using to locate servers? About zero.
That's not what these suits are about. To continue your analogy, these suits are about taping the song from a radio, then making hundreds or thousands of copies and giving (or selling) them to anyone who asks you for one. You are distributing the content without the author's or rights-holder's permission, thus violating their right (to copy in this case). The copyright holder has the right (under U.S. law) to seek damages and an injunction against the offender.
If you were to do any research in to copyright law (written and case), you would easily find the answers to your questions. yes, yes, yes (as long as you don't re-broadcast it - they must all listen via "open air" from the same device", or charge for the performance), no, no difference.
This wasn't a "fine", it was damages. The lawsuit was not unjust. Pleas explain to me what is "unjust" about using the laws and suing someone who is violating your rights.
For better or worse, I have no idea what WinFS is or is suppoed to do. All I know is that it'll supposedlt be part of the "Longhorn" release, and will run on top pf NTFS. For that matter I really don't care about it either. I'm a network fixer upper.
By MySQL I meant MySQL, but yes, any database would do fine. I don't really care if it's open source even, just that it's free and flexible. It would probably be MORE interesting to have a "lite" version of something like Oracle shipped with the stock OS than to use an open source DBMS like *SQL.
After reading the article I don't understand a few things:
1. Why the article's title on CNET mentions "futuristic barcode" when the project is apparently in relation to low capacity (96bit) RFIDs or the like.
2. Why it took 5 years to develop. RFID technology is readily understood. Databases are readily understood, wireless communication is readily understood. Prototyping hardware and writing some connectivity software should not have taken 5 years for such a "group". I'm either dissapointed or confused.
3. Why give each tag a only specific serial number that MUST be looked up in the database to ID it. The current barcode mass-grouping is still valid even with more bits. A stripped down database could then be used for off-line reading and you would still know the manufacturer and possibly the product family. For example barcodes starting with "636920" are from O'Reilly; all barcodes starting with "05000" are from Nestle. Isn't that much easier than having NO idea what "aj380dk358fh3k8i" is?
4. Why access a database directly? Why not use the Internet and stanard DNS and HTML/XML? Purchase a domain and make simple IRLs that include the tag info: http://www.taginfo.org/044254 ? The server would see the code, and send back a response containing one of two things: 1: the product information in XML (including a link to more info from the manufacturer), 2: an error. Such a thin HTTP/HTML client could be written quite quickly and be embedded in almost anything. There are already many synconization and caching sytems in place for HTML.
An RFID would not be the enabling technology for that. If cloting were to self destruct it woul be due to the materials used to assemble it, and the methods used to eave/stich it together.
I only hope your post was supposed to be a joke or at least funny, because this is the FUD that is not helping the acceptance of these tags.
Dman, the RFID advocacy board should start paying me to do this, I've spent entirely too much time defending the image and correcting the misinformation on/. regarding RFID.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here is that this doesn't stop the DNS server from responding with a seemingly authoratative reply. It just changes WHICH server/machine will send you the "connection refused" message when you try to connect.
Sure the sitefinder web page is a travesty, but the larger (and core) problem is that an IP address is being returned when a "not found" should be.
I am specifically NOT trying to overload the DNS servers. I specifically will only do lookups as infrequently as necessary. Between lookups, all requests will be sent directly to the Verisign interceptor server .
a standard broadband agreement in the US?
1. You guarantee that we (the ISP) are not liable for anything you do
2. If you do something we think we could be liabl for, we pull the plug
3. We allot you rediculously lopsided bandwidth 3Mb/640Kb (in my case)
4. If you actually USE that much bandwidth we'll consider it abuse and pull the plug
5. You are now allowed to do anything with the service except browse the web, you can not serve any content
6. You'll only be allowed to hook up one computer, try to connect more and we'll pull the plug
Broadband isn't widely accepted in the US because it's a joke. You don't get an ISP you get a finiky grandmother who snaps at you every time you sneak in past 9pm.
When American companies start offering symmetrical througput, unrestricted use/access and charge a reasonable price; then broadband will become ubiquitous.
Oops. Type slip!
I do in fact know it's Verisign not Verizon doing this, as I've been on the phone with them for a total of about 15 calls and over 2 hours. If nothing else, I've annoyed quite a few phone reps and run up at least a few cents of phone bills for them.
I completely fail to understand how I "hammered" you. You critisized Apple (I do it all the time), and I responded with my opinion and some facts.
I did not mock you or call you names. I did not call your idea or comments stupid.
SERIOUS gamers don't play with mice anyway. They use multi button game controllers.
Apple's opinion seems to be: Our OS is simple enogh to operate with one button, so that's what we ship. If YOU want to do something that uses/requires more buttons, you can go purchase one of the many options available.
I like to use a yoke, throttle and pedals with my flight sims, should Apple include those with the system also?
Perhaps they should also include a scrub wheel like the Griffin PowerMate?
This is of course completely different than the MSIS issue.
The MS only affected MSIE users for web browsing. The Verison issue affects ALL Internet clients, not just web browsers.
It's actually worse for other clients than web and email as Verizon's machine does not return an error for any other protocol, it just says "connection refused".
DNS wasn't designed to do what Verizon wants it to do, and there's no way to only offer the fake address for queries for web sites.
I'm also starting to think of ways to use the whois database instead of the DNS system. The issue of course is that Verisign states that they don't want regular/automated queries to the database as it is very resource intensive.
Then again... perhaps if they see a tremendous load on those servers, they just might understand how much negative impact thier "helpfulness" has impacted the net as a whole.
Ya know, 5 years ago people couldn't figure out why anyone needed a 1GHz CPU or more than 1GB of RAM in a desktop. Now that's considered an entry level machine. Of course 20 years ago there was a bozo that thought no-one needed more than 640KB of RAM. And about 40 years ago someone else thought that 5-10 computers would suffice for all the world's needs. (I'll leave the "who"s as an exercise for the reader)
Fact is that software (especially games) loads expand to fill the cycles alloted. Sure it's nice that there were 1st person 3D shooters three years ago, but today's games have dynamic lighting, real-time fog/atmosphere, larger worlds, more character, etc.
Then there's all the 3D rendering and video transcoding/encoding that's going on. The G5 will render DV to MPEG2 in a few minutes per hour of footage, that makes home video archiving attractive, unlike the 1 hour per minute of footage on my G3.
With today's desktop computing power more scientists can explore more possibilites in less time. Instead of signing up for time on a super computer and planning and testing your app before getting it inserted for a run, you just launch your app on the desktop and play with the variables in real time.
There's only two reasons NOT to have that much power on your desktop: 1) cost 2) heat
I'm starting to write a small perl program that will hopefully cause some annoyance to verisign, but not cause much extra load on the legitimate infrastucture.
My idea is that the program will perform a lookup on a random and quite inconcievably legitimate second level domain (using perhaps a random string of characters and numbers at least 20 chars in length). It will only perform the lookup every 15 minutes (the expire time of the wildcard A record according to verizign's documentation).
The program will then continue to generate random domain names and send HTTP requests to the IP address that is stored from the periodic lookups.
Some particularly vitriolic comment would be placed in the client ID section of the request, of course.
I figure in this manner I can be kind to the DNS systems by only making lookups every 15 minutes, yet creating some extra traffic for Verisign to analyze (they claim to do this in 10 minute chunks), and track for thier connection refusal logic.
No, it's just not on ALL the root servers yet. At my site the .net TLD is much more heavily affected than the .com TLD.
I would think the argument here is that Apple dooes not use that name for the on-line music sales. All references by Apple computer to the music store call it "The iTunes Music Store", not "Apple Music".
So while Apple does in fact operate the site, the brand name of the site is not "Apple".
That they seem to do this almost deliberately seems to me that Apple Computer's legal team has studied the issue and feels that with the format and naming they use, that there is not real ingrigement on the Apple Record's name.
So now thes "poor, impoverished little girl" living in public housing has:
1. A computer
2. A film scanner
3. a high speed internet connection
Damn, I wish I were impoverished.
As you stated the term "IP" is a vacuous term without further explination. Many think it to be anything you know, others anything you create, other just anything that you write down.
And yes, they re two different arguments all together.
On one hand this root article was discussing the settlement between two parties. One party was thought to be infringin on the rights of another. The plaintiff approached the defendant via a vehicle known as a summons or suit in civil court. The defending party then agreed to pay the plaintiff some damages in liu of a trial.
On the other hand in your refererenced comment we have discussion of things that thr RIAA (and others) have done that are of questionable equity to the another party. Questionable, but legal actions can't be justification for illegal behavior against a person or company. If that were the case then vigilantyism would be a good thing, as it stands it is illegal.
I don't understand what is "nuts". Is it that I have a firm grasp of facts and apply them to the situation without an agenda?
The government (via the police force) is specifically restricted from searching your home without probable cause and a court-ordered search warrant, or your permission.
The RIAA, not being a government entity, is not thusly restricted. They are however bound by private property and tresspass laws.
I didn't say the RIAA has the right to search your home at will, just that they have greater leeway in when and how they can gain access.
It's really too late for me to write out a long explination at the moment. Suffice it to say a private investigator could masquerade as someone else (telephone repair, janitor, etc)and enter the home. Any "evidence" gained would likely be admissible in civil court as long as the entry was not otherwise illegal. If a police officer did this without a warrant the evidence would be inadmissible in criminal court, even if you let the officer in, since there's no search warrant.
There was absoloutly no charge of criminal behavior in this case. The case is completely about the violation of covol rights.
Your set of examples of products is flawed. Shop owners and manufacturers re regularly sued (and pay out) for the way in which others use their products.
In this case, I've read that the girl was found ot have songs on her computer that were downloaded from the Internet. She apparently does not own a license/copy of the music. She seems to admit that she downloaded and played music without paying the copyright holder. She is the person who obtained the goods, and the one you yourself say should be held accountable.
You do not need a criminal case to proceed with a civil case. If something is illegal but the government attourney's refuse to bring charges, one can still file a civil suit. That's what happened here. There may still be criminal charges to come later.
Since the girl is a minor, her actions are the responsibility of the parent. There's strong precent for parents being held liable for the actions of their children.
The RIAA would not need a search warrant to enter a dwelling. The Bill of Rights only protects you from search and seizure by the government. The RIAA is a private party and as such as MUCH greater leeway in what they can do.
"...(Keep in mind that I do not believe in intellectual property...)
Then please post your SSN, PIN, bank account numbers, any and all plans or ideas and all other personal information here.
What you mean is that you don't believe in intellectual property when it's protecting someone elses property from your free use.
You are also arguing the wrong topic. These suits are not about lost money, they are about lost rights. By copying music without the copyright holder's permission, you deny them of that sole reserved right. THAT is what these swappers are being sued for: for violating copyright.
So according to you if an under cover police officer purchases drugs from me I can't be procecuted because the officer is allowed to do that to enforce the law?
There's also the fact that since these are civil cases, not criminal the rules of evidence are relaxed, and the burden of proof is "purponderance of the evidence", and not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt".
Defending against a civil case is very hard if the plaintff has anything near a reasonable case. 50.001% of the evidence will win the case for them, not the 99.5% for criminal cases.
In each of the cases, the operators of the servers did not set up the server so ONLY the RIAA could download the songs, the servers were apparently set up in a manner that allowd anyone to get at the content. Since the RIAA was able to download the song, so was anyone else. Seriously, what are the chances someone would accidentally allow file downloading to only the IP addresses that the RIAA were secretly using to locate servers? About zero.
That's not what these suits are about.
To continue your analogy, these suits are about taping the song from a radio, then making hundreds or thousands of copies and giving (or selling) them to anyone who asks you for one.
You are distributing the content without the author's or rights-holder's permission, thus violating their right (to copy in this case).
The copyright holder has the right (under U.S. law) to seek damages and an injunction against the offender.
If you were to do any research in to copyright law (written and case), you would easily find the answers to your questions. yes, yes, yes (as long as you don't re-broadcast it - they must all listen via "open air" from the same device", or charge for the performance), no, no difference.
This wasn't a "fine", it was damages. The lawsuit was not unjust.
Pleas explain to me what is "unjust" about using the laws and suing someone who is violating your rights.
For better or worse, I have no idea what WinFS is or is suppoed to do. All I know is that it'll supposedlt be part of the "Longhorn" release, and will run on top pf NTFS. For that matter I really don't care about it either. I'm a network fixer upper.
By MySQL I meant MySQL, but yes, any database would do fine. I don't really care if it's open source even, just that it's free and flexible. It would probably be MORE interesting to have a "lite" version of something like Oracle shipped with the stock OS than to use an open source DBMS like *SQL.
After reading the article I don't understand a few things:
1. Why the article's title on CNET mentions "futuristic barcode" when the project is apparently in relation to low capacity (96bit) RFIDs or the like.
2. Why it took 5 years to develop. RFID technology is readily understood. Databases are readily understood, wireless communication is readily understood. Prototyping hardware and writing some connectivity software should not have taken 5 years for such a "group". I'm either dissapointed or confused.
3. Why give each tag a only specific serial number that MUST be looked up in the database to ID it. The current barcode mass-grouping is still valid even with more bits. A stripped down database could then be used for off-line reading and you would still know the manufacturer and possibly the product family. For example barcodes starting with "636920" are from O'Reilly; all barcodes starting with "05000" are from Nestle. Isn't that much easier than having NO idea what "aj380dk358fh3k8i" is?
4. Why access a database directly? Why not use the Internet and stanard DNS and HTML/XML? Purchase a domain and make simple IRLs that include the tag info: http://www.taginfo.org/044254 ? The server would see the code, and send back a response containing one of two things: 1: the product information in XML (including a link to more info from the manufacturer), 2: an error. Such a thin HTTP/HTML client could be written quite quickly and be embedded in almost anything. There are already many synconization and caching sytems in place for HTML.
An RFID would not be the enabling technology for that. If cloting were to self destruct it woul be due to the materials used to assemble it, and the methods used to eave/stich it together.
/. regarding RFID.
I only hope your post was supposed to be a joke or at least funny, because this is the FUD that is not helping the acceptance of these tags.
Dman, the RFID advocacy board should start paying me to do this, I've spent entirely too much time defending the image and correcting the misinformation on