It doesn't matter. p2p has a magnifying effect on the security leak--and the artists to have a legal right to control who can copy their copywrtitten work.
p2p distribution's legality is only at the artist's sufferance. Before Metallica got outraged, RIAA was content to let p2p fester as-is. Napster simply went too far, and riled up the industry.
They (the industry appeasers; Metallica, Dr. Dre, and Madonna have all, AFAIK, calmed down and moved on) simply haven't calmed down yet, and odds are that even when they do, they won't let "harmless piracy" like p2p continue if they can avoid it.
Public domain is NOT the same as Free software. It's nowhere NEAR Free software. With public domain, anyone can take my code and change the license and sell it to me with a restrictive license.
Nitpick: When using the term "Free Software", it's probably better to capitalize both words. Same for "Public Domain" or "Real Problem" or anything else.
That said...
This makes Bill happy as a pig in the mud because he can take what I wrote (or paid for with my taxes), embrace, extend, and sell back to me. This means I'm paying twice for it, as I already paid for it with my taxes.
If Bill does something with the code that makes it worth paying for, then he's done effort and "deserves" some compensation. The Federal Government does not, which is why PD or BSD would be the best way to go.
RMS would take PD software, GNU it, and give it back to you (after you've allready paid for it) only if you agree to his license. It's, in this theoretical case, the same as Bill taking it and selling it to you.
The best thing is a BSD style license, so Federally funded codes has to be noted as such. Everyone who cares gets something, and everyone has to say when they're using the federally paid for stuff.
Not true. Stallman's "purity" in regards to the free software movement is illustrted by how much critical, quality software he has given away. GCC, EMACS, etc...
It's disengenious to characterise a GPL release as "giving away." Stallman's getting tons of free testing and easy adoption for his programs, and he gets his agenda advanced to boot. Hardly "giving away.";) (In the same way that IE was hardly " given away.")
I can actually see some useful aspects of a Palladuim-type system...but the potential for abuse is so very high that I am willing to live without them.
So am I, but I don't think that we're going to have that luxury for so long. So the proper course of action is to create an ideal system, not hope it doesn't come down.
For what was being discussed, it would be sufficient to put the next release of Outlook through some testing before it shipped.
It would be ludicrous not to. But that won't help allready shipped versions.
"Run Legacy Code without alteration" means that someone needs to be able to install Outlook 97 and gain all of the securty benefits of Palladium. Which means that, to get the claimed effect, some agent software needs to be made to watch O97 and other old programs.
I know I bought metallica albums before their napster crusade, but I flat our refuse to now.
So, Lars & co. should have just sat back while their unfinished tracks were being distributed en masse?
The item that caused the "Napster Crusade", which Metallica was only the first to notice, was the distribution of unfinished songs as MP3s, against the artist's wishes.
This is the equivalent of buggy alpha code being given to anyone who wants it even when the coders know it's faulty.
I was a Metallica fan before Napster, and I remain a fan after Napster. And the band has even got samples of their entire song library online for sampling... http://www.metallica.com/
I'd say they've done an OK job in finding a happy medium between "digital is bad" and "here, have access to everything I ever record, even the bad things."
While most people would tell you that there's more to life than making money, the same people suddenly become completely driven by financial interests when put in a corporate environment.
You mean as in a "Corporation", a legal entity created where people have the legal duty to maximize the profits of the shareholders?
Gee, who'da thunk it.
What this boils down to is that many of the people involved in DRM development/policy may consider the overall project to be morally wrong, but are able to (consciously or not) justify their part in it enough to become active participants.
OK, tell me how DRM is "morally wrong." What's wrong with technology that protects the rights of artists?
Remember: You don't have "complete" control of your car, telephone, or television, either.
MS can only truly believe what they're doing is the right thing if the 'right thing' is making MS more powerful.
MS has had no small part in creating the current "information age." When they started out PCs were horribly expensive and not all that useful; it doesn't take a lot of PR to give them a healthy dollop of credit for it. (And, yes, Apple and Atari and Nintendo get some too.)
Furthermore, anyone can get oneself to believe in self-rationalizations of one's unethical behaviour.
You mean immoral. Ethics are subjective.
But, leaving that as is, kindly proove that MS's behavior is unethical--beyond the obvious, and their predatory business pracitces are only bad if they're as big as they are; were MS a small fry, they could try every strategy that they do and it wouldn't be amoral or unethical.
MS is cutthroat when it comes to getting their power, but I haven't seen them abuse that power in a way that hurts MS users yet.
Why the heck do you need a Palladium Agent to implement this?
You don't. You COULD do it with some Palladium Agent workalike. But a simple OS call won't do it; it needs to be a process that runs in the background, and actually monitors untrusted programs.
If you've got an OSS system that works, I'd love to hear about it. If it'll run on Windows or you can name me a Linux installation that can write to XP's NTFS, I'd install it too.
I was talking about Palladium with a geek friend of mine the other day and after a while, he pointed out that I sounded like I should be wearing a tinfoil hat.
And he was right. But it was all true. Palladium is one of those things that, if you explain it to non-geeks, makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Or maybe it's actually a good idea, and Stallman et all really are being conspiracy theorists.
If you don't mind, I'd like to hear you explain Palladium to them. I'd like a shot at helping explain how (if?) it's a bad thing, since Stallman did such a poor job at it.
Lets say I develop an application or send a document. And I am not interested in getting a certificate for that application or document. Well Palladium can stop my application or document because it is untrusted. Fair enough, that is true. BUT and this is a big BUT, the control of determining this is not in my hands.
Says who, exactly? From what I'm gathering about Palladium from more reasoned folks posting on this article, Palladim won't stop your application or document from doing what it does--it'll just stop it from messing with the files of any "trusted" application.
Palladium will not allow me to void my fair use if a company deems it so. This runs counter to general consumer laws since the person who decides is not the consumer, but the company from where end product came from. This means I do not have a choice.
What country do you live in again? Ever hear of deCSS, Macrovision, or those old red sheets that used to be "copy protection" in video games.
Once upon a time book publishers tried to claim that they had a "license" on the books, and that you couldn't resell them. Someone countersued when taken to court, and the SC declared a "Doctrine of First Sale." If the pendulum of copyability swings back to the publishers for a few years, it'll eventually get overturned by the courts, just as the pendulum is now being pulled away from its consumer-centered swing by the legislature and OS vendor.
Legally Kaaza is not responsible and hence the companies have to go after those that share
KaZaa is intended to promote copyright infringement, just as Napster was. It'll have a hard time proving that it has "significant legal uses," and even then it (as an entity) might be given a duty of patrolling its network.
Now about looser terms? Ha! Time and time again it has been proven that when corporations can increase their profit lines they will do so regardless. Corporations are entities that only care about money and not social ethics. Otherwise we would not have Enron and Tyco messes.
Interesting that you bring that up, considering that the CEOs in question were acting to defaud their investors for personal gain, not acting as the corporation should be acting...
We have these problems now with "stealing" because corporations are gouging for CD's. Here in Europe the big Labels were just fined for price fixing CD's....
And the same thing will happen if the trust-nature of the labels and movie studios continues after Palladium. In fact, it SHOULD happen, and DRM will make it happen sooner rather than later.
What do you think they're talking about when they say "trusted e-mail" and "persistent protection of corporate documents"?
I'd wager "you know when your e-mail comes from a trusted source and when it doesn't" and "you know who does what to a corporate document."
In any case, Stallman picked two straw-man arguments. Reports have in the past and will in the future make stories on testamony, not just leaked documents. Command orders from managers will either be proveable or not proveable; if the e-mail becomes unprintable & unsaveable, the employees will simply require a printed notice from sneaky bosses.
Better arugments could have been made--such as offering a comparable solution to get the same effect, rather than simply complaining.
I don't know any more about Palladium that you do, but here's what I think:
Palladium will stop the sort of small-time copyright infringement that Napster promoted. I hope it stops it dead cold; it may be convenient to have easy access to MP3s and all, but I'd give that up in a heartbeat if it meant that artists would be less shy about computers and digital media. (Remember that it wasn't RIAA that started the suits against Napster--it was RIAA contracted muscisions who's unfinished tracks were showing up on Napster.)
As for actual criminal acts... hacking will probably still happen, but a "more secure" windows would make it harder, and if a Palladium-PC comes with a real ID feature* it'll certainly help prove or disprove allegations of hacking.
*: Personally, I think that Intel got all that flak because they didn't announce it ahead of time, provide a good reason for it, or say what they were going to use it for. Sort of like how King Solomon got struck down for taking a census when he didn't have a reason, but the US gets along just fine taking one every ten years to ensure proportionate representation and taxataion.
Palladium eliminates Fair Use because the large copyright holders will use Palladium to restrict copyrighted works from being copied
They have that right. That's *exactly* what copyright means.
"Fair Use" is quoting someone else's copywritten work in your review, news item, scholarly journal, or parody. If you can access the media at all, you can make a sound byte / note of it, and use it for your Fair Use claim.
Copyright should never have been stretched to cover software, and I hate that MS et al forced it to working this way. Software should be covered by design patents or a new class of IP, that can have its own special rules that don't mess with music, art, or literary works.
How can you even argue this point. Palladium in the hands of these content companies will not allow a backup, in fact business models are being dreamed up where a consumer would have time limited access to the content. Please quit pleading ignorant. It is obvious from your other posts that you are simply a MS shill.
"Business models that only give a consumer limited access to the content"--you mean like movies, concerts, rentals, and leases? The nerve!
You should probably read my posts a bit closer. I'm not an MS shrill, just someone who has an interest in and layman's understanding of copyright law. I'd love to dump windows and never touch MS again--in fact, name me a Linux distribution that can handle XP's NTFS, and I'll do a doc-and-music backup and install it tonight.
Palladium, unless it somehow involves a digital spinal tap, is still vulnerable to old-fashioned visual and audio copying--and for real Fair Use claims, the piss-poor quality you get from that should be fine and dandy.
The problem with PCs is that you can copy anything at any time for any reason, which destroys a lot of the apparant value of some very valuable things, like music and art. Palladium is an attempt to solve this problem. I hope they succeed, because if they do it'll mean more digital media and a less wild-west style internet.
Sure, but then this is not a part of Palladium. MS offered _zero_ ways Palladium might defeat these attacks. Therefore, it is rightly understood that Palladium has absolutely nothing todo with what we normally think of 'security'.
Hardly. MS has a track record of believing in the necessity of at least a little "Security through obscurity."
What the hell are you talking about? Do you normally randomly spew incoherant phrases? What do you have against making sense?
You're a GPL fan, aren't you? (Sorry, just noticed that the most offensive people I know are GPL zealots.)
Microsoft is not an evil organization that wants to destroy the values that the FSF protects. They are simply a cororation that has a different ethical viewpoint than the FSF. Their morals--real morality, not technicalities like "can I play my MP3 on fifteen computers with one purchase"--are most likely almost exactly in line with yours or mine (or the non-software part of Stallman's.)
Medieval Catholic Zealots believed that those who disagreed with them were obviously malicous and wrong. Modern-day people allegedly know that some people are just differnet, and even if they are wrong, they're sincerely wrong.
Were you at the talk? Are you aware that Brian admitted that the elimination of Fair Use was one of Palladiums goals?
Did he actually say that, using excctly that word? Not "what users think of fair use" or some line that you think means "fair use," but he actually, really, said "we think it's time to eliminate through fiat Fair Use." (or something approximating that, with the words "Fair Use" being the same words that the US Supreme Court would use?)
Apparently he does not believe the elimination of Fair Use to be a horrendous purpose.
Stop. Tell me how Palladium (or ANY form of encryption/security) "eliminates" fair use.
And by fair use, I suspect that you mean "fair use" in the "yes I'm infringing on this copyright but it's okay" way.
If I want to sample a song for a news bulliten or for my class discourse, there's still the analog hole. If I want to make a satire of the darn thing, I'm doing so much of the work as-is why do I need to copy it?
If I want to use something who's had the copyright expire on it, or use it in multiple devices, that's not a Fair Use problem--and if the vendor doesn't give a fair deal for it, take them to court for it.
Personally, I think Trusted Computing will lead to more digital media and looser licensing terms--which means greater sales for them, and more stuff for us, so the only people who lose are those that want to steal.
Indeed, as was pointed out by Stallman and others, if Palladium would run unmodified legacy applications, then how could Palladium thwart the legacy virus/trojans without upgrading Palladium enabled Outlook/IE/IIS?
Sandboxes and an agent watching the mail spool.
"Oh, Outlook 2000 is trying to write to the registry! "
"Oh, IE is attempting to send 5374 mail messages! "
Kick the user's head by requiring a certain security clearance for "", and an idiot warning to boot.
Man, I thought OSS folk were smarter than MS coders!
The truth is Brian was being disingenuous when he described the nightmare scenarios that motivate the Palladium team. In all honesty, there are only two nightmare scenarios that are relevant to the Palladium project:
Stop thinking like a medieval catholic zealot, and start thinking like a modern-day person.
MS et al really, truly believe that what they're doing is the right thing. Their arguments are not "justifications" for "controling your computer"--they're honestly believed arguments.
I could as soon say that Stallman just wants to not pay for software because he's cheap, and be just as accurate as you saying that MS is driven by a desire to disallow fair use.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that Palladium could provide quite a few wrench's to throw at Microsoft's open source competitors.
Maybe... but MS knows that OSS is a competitor, and that OSS will hack its way into useabilty no matter what they try and pull (remember deCSS?).
I suspect that MS will push palladium, and succeed, and license their software along with the Palladium hardware chip--thus allowing them an effectively "free" Linux binary distribution angle, which means that there won't be as many coders working to crack it.
Stallman isn't an unbiased or "reasonable" person in this debate. Trusted Computing ideas are, in some ways, in direct competition with his agenda--but that doesn't mean that they're totally wrong or immoral, or "trecharous computing." It just means that it's not likely to be advocated by the FSF anytime soon.
Man, I can see DRM and Palladium getting closer every day.
Stallman's examples this time are rather simplistic. His concerns about "DRM", aside from the "I want to be able to shock myself" degree of control he wants for PCs, aren't all they're chalked up to be. Calling it "trecharous computing" makes him sound like a kook, not a serious voice.
To wit:
"Your boss's e-mails will be written in disappearing ink!"
"You won't be able to send incrimiating documents to the press!"
Any corporate system that causes the main focus of communication to automatically expire with no way to retrieve it is a poor business model, not an aspect of trusted computing. Investigative and Corporate preferences aside (after Enron, do you REALLY think that it'd be hard for Congress to slap a "records requirement" on corporations?), someone should be able to mark their e-mails as "archived." And you can always just print out the document...
And, if some company is too paranoid to keep any e-mails and advanced enough to be truly paperless, there's still a digital camera and the on-screen display. Or the simple expediency of calling the cops...
As for the rest--if MS wants Word to be Word-only, more power to them. It'd keep some large usability problems from arising, and quickly tone down word e-mail.
Postscript 2 really irks me. I'm no programmer, but even I can imagine a system where "untrusted" code & docs are run in a "sandbox," where they can't do any real harm and the user can still use them. Given six months of speed increase, the user probably won't even notice the difference between "game on new system's emulated layer" and "game on old system raw."
Given a set of operations to carry out, someone using a GUI file manager and someone else using a command line, I bet more than 9 times out of 10 the command line is faster.
of course a CLI is faster for executing a known set of commands on a known set of files.
But most user instances are either looking for a file that they "sort of" know where it should be, and THEN deciding what they want to do with it--maybe.
And then there's getting information about the PC--such as what is loading, what time is it, what apps are ready in the background... and a GUI is far better than a CLI on this.
The ideal is, of course, a blend of the two, with a well-done CLI-equivalent, say a "command window" that pops up, and opens / moves windows as needed.
It also has one big advantage, it's inherently scriptable.
If you can script it with a CLI, you can create a GUI program / keyboard shortcut to do the same thing. And some GUIs even come with their own scripting functions.
The advantages of a CLI are program speed (no GUI overhead) and the typing interface. That's it. Anything beyond that is just poor implementation or personal bias.
Hmm... now that I think of it, if the GUI reserved all alphanumeric keys for commands, and responded to any button press with a mini "command window", it'd take the non-overhead advantage of the CLI...
I wonder how I (a non-coder) could go about getting something like that done...
Re:What about GPL?? Sources??
on
Xandros 1.0
·
· Score: 1
They couldn't, for example, force you to pay for an extra manual or box, or add on any additional $$ for profit.
They could make it inconvenient, though. "To obtain source code, please send a written request to address X before 10/22/2005 with return postage and $X for handling and materials. Or pay $XX for our users manual and source code display right here from our website..."
Oh, and don't forget the employee's benefits, rent, electricity usage, hardware depreciation, et al... A 10-minute copy & mail job could easily get as high as $20 if it's really complex. (i.e., slow burner, problems every 1-per-100, etc.)
Re:What about GPL?? Sources??
on
Xandros 1.0
·
· Score: 1
Translation: If you take a GPL'd program and make modifications it and release that program you must make the modifications available to anyone who had a license to the original program or any derivative version of it!
No. (Did you even READ what you quoted?)
"this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version"
That means "you don't have to do ANYTHING for ANYONE but those you sell to, except let them use it."
That means that when you modify something GPL'd and give it to me, you're also giving everyone else in the world permission to use it, not just me or those I directly give it to, but everyone.
You do NOT have to do anything at all for anyone, but if someone shows up with a copy of software that you distributed just once, you can't say "you aren't allowed to have that."
Besides which, the FAQ is just an FAQ--it's not the license. The GPL's FAQ could very well say "the GPL means that you can never sell your software," but unless the GPL is changed to say that, it doesn't mean anything.
Re:What about GPL?? Sources??
on
Xandros 1.0
·
· Score: 5, Informative
from the GPL:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
E-mail is fine and dandy. You can even charge costs, and you only have to do it for three years.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter. p2p has a magnifying effect on the security leak--and the artists to have a legal right to control who can copy their copywrtitten work.
p2p distribution's legality is only at the artist's sufferance. Before Metallica got outraged, RIAA was content to let p2p fester as-is. Napster simply went too far, and riled up the industry.
They (the industry appeasers; Metallica, Dr. Dre, and Madonna have all, AFAIK, calmed down and moved on) simply haven't calmed down yet, and odds are that even when they do, they won't let "harmless piracy" like p2p continue if they can avoid it.
Public domain is NOT the same as Free software. It's nowhere NEAR Free software. With public domain, anyone can take my code and change the license and sell it to me with a restrictive license.
Nitpick: When using the term "Free Software", it's probably better to capitalize both words. Same for "Public Domain" or "Real Problem" or anything else.
That said...
This makes Bill happy as a pig in the mud because he can take what I wrote (or paid for with my taxes), embrace, extend, and sell back to me. This means I'm paying twice for it, as I already paid for it with my taxes.
If Bill does something with the code that makes it worth paying for, then he's done effort and "deserves" some compensation. The Federal Government does not, which is why PD or BSD would be the best way to go.
RMS would take PD software, GNU it, and give it back to you (after you've allready paid for it) only if you agree to his license. It's, in this theoretical case, the same as Bill taking it and selling it to you.
The best thing is a BSD style license, so Federally funded codes has to be noted as such. Everyone who cares gets something, and everyone has to say when they're using the federally paid for stuff.
Not true. Stallman's "purity" in regards to the free software movement is illustrted by how much critical, quality software he has given away. GCC, EMACS, etc...
;) (In the same way that IE was hardly " given away.")
It's disengenious to characterise a GPL release as "giving away." Stallman's getting tons of free testing and easy adoption for his programs, and he gets his agenda advanced to boot. Hardly "giving away."
I can actually see some useful aspects of a Palladuim-type system...but the potential for abuse is so very high that I am willing to live without them.
So am I, but I don't think that we're going to have that luxury for so long. So the proper course of action is to create an ideal system, not hope it doesn't come down.
For what was being discussed, it would be sufficient to put the next release of Outlook through some testing before it shipped.
It would be ludicrous not to. But that won't help allready shipped versions.
"Run Legacy Code without alteration" means that someone needs to be able to install Outlook 97 and gain all of the securty benefits of Palladium. Which means that, to get the claimed effect, some agent software needs to be made to watch O97 and other old programs.
I know I bought metallica albums before their napster crusade, but I flat our refuse to now.
So, Lars & co. should have just sat back while their unfinished tracks were being distributed en masse?
The item that caused the "Napster Crusade", which Metallica was only the first to notice, was the distribution of unfinished songs as MP3s, against the artist's wishes.
This is the equivalent of buggy alpha code being given to anyone who wants it even when the coders know it's faulty.
I was a Metallica fan before Napster, and I remain a fan after Napster. And the band has even got samples of their entire song library online for sampling... http://www.metallica.com/
I'd say they've done an OK job in finding a happy medium between "digital is bad" and "here, have access to everything I ever record, even the bad things."
While most people would tell you that there's more to life than making money, the same people suddenly become completely driven by financial interests when put in a corporate environment.
You mean as in a "Corporation", a legal entity created where people have the legal duty to maximize the profits of the shareholders?
Gee, who'da thunk it.
What this boils down to is that many of the people involved in DRM development/policy may consider the overall project to be morally wrong, but are able to (consciously or not) justify their part in it enough to become active participants.
OK, tell me how DRM is "morally wrong." What's wrong with technology that protects the rights of artists?
Remember: You don't have "complete" control of your car, telephone, or television, either.
Intersting. It'd probably work for an in-house LAN--but for that, aren't you controlling the clients ANYWAY?
What you describe makes sense for turn-based games, but FPS games are quite a ways from that being tolerable.
They appear to have no qualms whatsoever about lying about their products,
Advertising. (Except for that Court bit, which someone should be sued for)
bullying people into overpaying for software licenses,
"What the market may bear"
and violating federal law,
Do you mean besides the antitrust laws? I mean, when MS was a small company, their "monopolist" tactics weren't illegal at all.
I think that all of those things are immoral, so I'd have to say that my morals are rather different from theirs.
So, you never lie, never take advantage in a business deal, and never ever break a law?
If so, I salute you as a model human being. If not, then congradulations, you're just like the rest of us.
MS can only truly believe what they're doing is the right thing if the 'right thing' is making MS more powerful.
MS has had no small part in creating the current "information age." When they started out PCs were horribly expensive and not all that useful; it doesn't take a lot of PR to give them a healthy dollop of credit for it. (And, yes, Apple and Atari and Nintendo get some too.)
Furthermore, anyone can get oneself to believe in self-rationalizations of one's unethical behaviour.
You mean immoral. Ethics are subjective.
But, leaving that as is, kindly proove that MS's behavior is unethical--beyond the obvious, and their predatory business pracitces are only bad if they're as big as they are; were MS a small fry, they could try every strategy that they do and it wouldn't be amoral or unethical.
MS is cutthroat when it comes to getting their power, but I haven't seen them abuse that power in a way that hurts MS users yet.
Why the heck do you need a Palladium Agent to implement this?
You don't. You COULD do it with some Palladium Agent workalike. But a simple OS call won't do it; it needs to be a process that runs in the background, and actually monitors untrusted programs.
If you've got an OSS system that works, I'd love to hear about it. If it'll run on Windows or you can name me a Linux installation that can write to XP's NTFS, I'd install it too.
I was talking about Palladium with a geek friend of mine the other day and after a while, he pointed out that I sounded like I should be wearing a tinfoil hat.
And he was right. But it was all true. Palladium is one of those things that, if you explain it to non-geeks, makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Or maybe it's actually a good idea, and Stallman et all really are being conspiracy theorists.
If you don't mind, I'd like to hear you explain Palladium to them. I'd like a shot at helping explain how (if?) it's a bad thing, since Stallman did such a poor job at it.
Lets say I develop an application or send a document. And I am not interested in getting a certificate for that application or document. Well Palladium can stop my application or document because it is untrusted. Fair enough, that is true. BUT and this is a big BUT, the control of determining this is not in my hands.
Says who, exactly? From what I'm gathering about Palladium from more reasoned folks posting on this article, Palladim won't stop your application or document from doing what it does--it'll just stop it from messing with the files of any "trusted" application.
Palladium will not allow me to void my fair use if a company deems it so. This runs counter to general consumer laws since the person who decides is not the consumer, but the company from where end product came from. This means I do not have a choice.
What country do you live in again? Ever hear of deCSS, Macrovision, or those old red sheets that used to be "copy protection" in video games.
Once upon a time book publishers tried to claim that they had a "license" on the books, and that you couldn't resell them. Someone countersued when taken to court, and the SC declared a "Doctrine of First Sale." If the pendulum of copyability swings back to the publishers for a few years, it'll eventually get overturned by the courts, just as the pendulum is now being pulled away from its consumer-centered swing by the legislature and OS vendor.
Legally Kaaza is not responsible and hence the companies have to go after those that share
KaZaa is intended to promote copyright infringement, just as Napster was. It'll have a hard time proving that it has "significant legal uses," and even then it (as an entity) might be given a duty of patrolling its network.
Now about looser terms? Ha! Time and time again it has been proven that when corporations can increase their profit lines they will do so regardless. Corporations are entities that only care about money and not social ethics. Otherwise we would not have Enron and Tyco messes.
Interesting that you bring that up, considering that the CEOs in question were acting to defaud their investors for personal gain, not acting as the corporation should be acting...
We have these problems now with "stealing" because corporations are gouging for CD's. Here in Europe the big Labels were just fined for price fixing CD's....
And the same thing will happen if the trust-nature of the labels and movie studios continues after Palladium. In fact, it SHOULD happen, and DRM will make it happen sooner rather than later.
What do you think they're talking about when they say "trusted e-mail" and "persistent protection of corporate documents"?
I'd wager "you know when your e-mail comes from a trusted source and when it doesn't" and "you know who does what to a corporate document."
In any case, Stallman picked two straw-man arguments. Reports have in the past and will in the future make stories on testamony, not just leaked documents. Command orders from managers will either be proveable or not proveable; if the e-mail becomes unprintable & unsaveable, the employees will simply require a printed notice from sneaky bosses.
Better arugments could have been made--such as offering a comparable solution to get the same effect, rather than simply complaining.
I don't know any more about Palladium that you do, but here's what I think:
Palladium will stop the sort of small-time copyright infringement that Napster promoted. I hope it stops it dead cold; it may be convenient to have easy access to MP3s and all, but I'd give that up in a heartbeat if it meant that artists would be less shy about computers and digital media. (Remember that it wasn't RIAA that started the suits against Napster--it was RIAA contracted muscisions who's unfinished tracks were showing up on Napster.)
As for actual criminal acts... hacking will probably still happen, but a "more secure" windows would make it harder, and if a Palladium-PC comes with a real ID feature* it'll certainly help prove or disprove allegations of hacking.
*: Personally, I think that Intel got all that flak because they didn't announce it ahead of time, provide a good reason for it, or say what they were going to use it for. Sort of like how King Solomon got struck down for taking a census when he didn't have a reason, but the US gets along just fine taking one every ten years to ensure proportionate representation and taxataion.
Palladium eliminates Fair Use because the large copyright holders will use Palladium to restrict copyrighted works from being copied
They have that right. That's *exactly* what copyright means.
"Fair Use" is quoting someone else's copywritten work in your review, news item, scholarly journal, or parody. If you can access the media at all, you can make a sound byte / note of it, and use it for your Fair Use claim.
Copyright should never have been stretched to cover software, and I hate that MS et al forced it to working this way. Software should be covered by design patents or a new class of IP, that can have its own special rules that don't mess with music, art, or literary works.
How can you even argue this point. Palladium in the hands of these content companies will not allow a backup, in fact business models are being dreamed up where a consumer would have time limited access to the content. Please quit pleading ignorant. It is obvious from your other posts that you are simply a MS shill.
"Business models that only give a consumer limited access to the content"--you mean like movies, concerts, rentals, and leases? The nerve!
You should probably read my posts a bit closer. I'm not an MS shrill, just someone who has an interest in and layman's understanding of copyright law. I'd love to dump windows and never touch MS again--in fact, name me a Linux distribution that can handle XP's NTFS, and I'll do a doc-and-music backup and install it tonight.
Palladium, unless it somehow involves a digital spinal tap, is still vulnerable to old-fashioned visual and audio copying--and for real Fair Use claims, the piss-poor quality you get from that should be fine and dandy.
The problem with PCs is that you can copy anything at any time for any reason, which destroys a lot of the apparant value of some very valuable things, like music and art. Palladium is an attempt to solve this problem. I hope they succeed, because if they do it'll mean more digital media and a less wild-west style internet.
Sure, but then this is not a part of Palladium. MS offered _zero_ ways Palladium might defeat these attacks. Therefore, it is rightly understood that Palladium has absolutely nothing todo with what we normally think of 'security'.
Hardly. MS has a track record of believing in the necessity of at least a little "Security through obscurity."
What the hell are you talking about? Do you normally randomly spew incoherant phrases? What do you have against making sense?
You're a GPL fan, aren't you? (Sorry, just noticed that the most offensive people I know are GPL zealots.)
Microsoft is not an evil organization that wants to destroy the values that the FSF protects. They are simply a cororation that has a different ethical viewpoint than the FSF. Their morals--real morality, not technicalities like "can I play my MP3 on fifteen computers with one purchase"--are most likely almost exactly in line with yours or mine (or the non-software part of Stallman's.)
Medieval Catholic Zealots believed that those who disagreed with them were obviously malicous and wrong. Modern-day people allegedly know that some people are just differnet, and even if they are wrong, they're sincerely wrong.
Were you at the talk? Are you aware that Brian admitted that the elimination of Fair Use was one of Palladiums goals?
Did he actually say that, using excctly that word? Not "what users think of fair use" or some line that you think means "fair use," but he actually, really, said "we think it's time to eliminate through fiat Fair Use." (or something approximating that, with the words "Fair Use" being the same words that the US Supreme Court would use?)
This assumes you are given the right to print the document by the system. Even if you can, I can see the scenario now.
And how, exactly, is this differnet from now?
Companies can still abuse the system, and innocent people can still get caught.
Like I said, a digital camera still works. And finding other people to witness it works even better.
Apparently he does not believe the elimination of Fair Use to be a horrendous purpose.
Stop. Tell me how Palladium (or ANY form of encryption/security) "eliminates" fair use.
And by fair use, I suspect that you mean "fair use" in the "yes I'm infringing on this copyright but it's okay" way.
If I want to sample a song for a news bulliten or for my class discourse, there's still the analog hole. If I want to make a satire of the darn thing, I'm doing so much of the work as-is why do I need to copy it?
If I want to use something who's had the copyright expire on it, or use it in multiple devices, that's not a Fair Use problem--and if the vendor doesn't give a fair deal for it, take them to court for it.
Personally, I think Trusted Computing will lead to more digital media and looser licensing terms--which means greater sales for them, and more stuff for us, so the only people who lose are those that want to steal.
Let that be:
"Oh, Outlook 2000 is trying to write to the registry! [abort] [inspect] [allow]
"Oh, IE is attempting to send 5374 mail messages! [abort] [inspect] [allow] "
Kick the user's head by requiring a certain security clearance for " [allow] ", and an idiot warning to boot.
Indeed, as was pointed out by Stallman and others, if Palladium would run unmodified legacy applications, then how could Palladium thwart the legacy virus/trojans without upgrading Palladium enabled Outlook/IE/IIS?
Sandboxes and an agent watching the mail spool.
"Oh, Outlook 2000 is trying to write to the registry! "
"Oh, IE is attempting to send 5374 mail messages! "
Kick the user's head by requiring a certain security clearance for "", and an idiot warning to boot.
Man, I thought OSS folk were smarter than MS coders!
The truth is Brian was being disingenuous when he described the nightmare scenarios that motivate the Palladium team. In all honesty, there are only
two nightmare scenarios that are relevant to the Palladium project:
Stop thinking like a medieval catholic zealot, and start thinking like a modern-day person.
MS et al really, truly believe that what they're doing is the right thing. Their arguments are not "justifications" for "controling your computer"--they're honestly believed arguments.
I could as soon say that Stallman just wants to not pay for software because he's cheap, and be just as accurate as you saying that MS is driven by a desire to disallow fair use.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that Palladium could provide quite a few wrench's to throw at Microsoft's open source competitors.
Maybe... but MS knows that OSS is a competitor, and that OSS will hack its way into useabilty no matter what they try and pull (remember deCSS?).
I suspect that MS will push palladium, and succeed, and license their software along with the Palladium hardware chip--thus allowing them an effectively "free" Linux binary distribution angle, which means that there won't be as many coders working to crack it.
Stallman isn't an unbiased or "reasonable" person in this debate. Trusted Computing ideas are, in some ways, in direct competition with his agenda--but that doesn't mean that they're totally wrong or immoral, or "trecharous computing." It just means that it's not likely to be advocated by the FSF anytime soon.
Man, I can see DRM and Palladium getting closer every day.
Stallman's examples this time are rather simplistic. His concerns about "DRM", aside from the "I want to be able to shock myself" degree of control he wants for PCs, aren't all they're chalked up to be. Calling it "trecharous computing" makes him sound like a kook, not a serious voice.
To wit:
"Your boss's e-mails will be written in disappearing ink!"
"You won't be able to send incrimiating documents to the press!"
Any corporate system that causes the main focus of communication to automatically expire with no way to retrieve it is a poor business model, not an aspect of trusted computing. Investigative and Corporate preferences aside (after Enron, do you REALLY think that it'd be hard for Congress to slap a "records requirement" on corporations?), someone should be able to mark their e-mails as "archived." And you can always just print out the document...
And, if some company is too paranoid to keep any e-mails and advanced enough to be truly paperless, there's still a digital camera and the on-screen display. Or the simple expediency of calling the cops...
As for the rest--if MS wants Word to be Word-only, more power to them. It'd keep some large usability problems from arising, and quickly tone down word e-mail.
Postscript 2 really irks me. I'm no programmer, but even I can imagine a system where "untrusted" code & docs are run in a "sandbox," where they can't do any real harm and the user can still use them. Given six months of speed increase, the user probably won't even notice the difference between "game on new system's emulated layer" and "game on old system raw."
*sigh*
Given a set of operations to carry out, someone using a GUI file manager and someone else using a command line, I bet more than 9 times out of 10 the command line is faster.
of course a CLI is faster for executing a known set of commands on a known set of files.
But most user instances are either looking for a file that they "sort of" know where it should be, and THEN deciding what they want to do with it--maybe.
And then there's getting information about the PC--such as what is loading, what time is it, what apps are ready in the background... and a GUI is far better than a CLI on this.
The ideal is, of course, a blend of the two, with a well-done CLI-equivalent, say a "command window" that pops up, and opens / moves windows as needed.
It also has one big advantage, it's inherently scriptable.
If you can script it with a CLI, you can create a GUI program / keyboard shortcut to do the same thing. And some GUIs even come with their own scripting functions.
The advantages of a CLI are program speed (no GUI overhead) and the typing interface. That's it. Anything beyond that is just poor implementation or personal bias.
Hmm... now that I think of it, if the GUI reserved all alphanumeric keys for commands, and responded to any button press with a mini "command window", it'd take the non-overhead advantage of the CLI...
I wonder how I (a non-coder) could go about getting something like that done...
They couldn't, for example, force you to pay for an extra manual or box, or add on any additional $$ for profit.
They could make it inconvenient, though. "To obtain source code, please send a written request to address X before 10/22/2005 with return postage and $X for handling and materials. Or pay $XX for our users manual and source code display right here from our website..."
Oh, and don't forget the employee's benefits, rent, electricity usage, hardware depreciation, et al... A 10-minute copy & mail job could easily get as high as $20 if it's really complex. (i.e., slow burner, problems every 1-per-100, etc.)
Translation: If you take a GPL'd program and make modifications it and release that program you must make the modifications available to anyone who had a license to the original program or any derivative version of it!
No. (Did you even READ what you quoted?)
"this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version"
That means "you don't have to do ANYTHING for ANYONE but those you sell to, except let them use it."
That means that when you modify something GPL'd and give it to me, you're also giving everyone else in the world permission to use it, not just me or those I directly give it to, but everyone.
You do NOT have to do anything at all for anyone, but if someone shows up with a copy of software that you distributed just once, you can't say "you aren't allowed to have that."
Besides which, the FAQ is just an FAQ--it's not the license. The GPL's FAQ could very well say "the GPL means that you can never sell your software," but unless the GPL is changed to say that, it doesn't mean anything.
from the GPL:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
E-mail is fine and dandy. You can even charge costs, and you only have to do it for three years.