On the other hand, they think everyone should have a backup right for media bought in digital form, like we have for software.
Not that any government agency bothers to enforce my fair use rights. I've got two or three fucked 'backups' (read: CD copy protection prevented me from excercising fair use rights) here on my table to prove it.
Ironically, the only company I can think of offhand that explicitly gives users the right to make backup copies of their software is Microsoft.
Your high school friends making coppies of tapes for everyone was illegal then, and is illegal now. Just because no one caught them and prosecuted them doesn't mean it was legal.
You're entirely right. On the other hand, it's difficult to argue that prosecuting 10 high school kids for making mix tapes for their friends is in the public interest.
That, in many ways, is one of the fundamental principles of America's body of law that is threatened by the DMCA. The American legal system hasn't traditionally taken such an unhealthy interest in actions that aren't a reasonable threat to other people's rights.
One mix tape out of my CD/Cassete/Radio device isn't sufficient to damage Sony, AOL-Time Warner, etc. Photocopying a chapter from an O'Reily manual that I find in the library isn't sufficiently harmful for it to be in the public interest to prosecute me. Traditional copyright law respects that sort of boundary. I only become a legally viable threat when I start pressing entire CDs en masse, or printing whole copies of that O'Reily book for large groups of people.
T3/Dev
"It's only illegal if someone files suit."
-- Mr. Carson, my former Business Law instructor
I think that we're very lucky that newspapers like the Washington Post are actually taking the time to point out to readers what precisely is happening, and what's wrong with it. We're extremely fortunate that this hasn't turned into another Kevin Mitnick scenario (read: "RUSSIAN HACKER THREATENS DIGITAL COPYRIGHTS: speaks at evil hacker convention and corrupts America's youth!)
As someone else on this thread pointed out, intellectual property/copyright/patent laws have never been this stringent. In traditional copyright law, a certain degree of copying and piracy is expected. I remember that my friends in high school were basically a tiny, living Napster server. Mix tapes for everyone. And let's not forget the fact that sometimes one needs to photocopy newspapers, books, magazines, etc. for school or personal research. ..
The big irony here is that the first DMCA arrest wasn't someone running a massive piracy ring. It was a foreign national who came to speak about the scientific ramnifications of a technology. It was not in the public interest to arrest Sklyarov. I can't think of any way to argue that it is.
In many ways, this reflects the current political culture in the US, and the direction it's developing in. We've been rapidly developing a legal system that shoots first (and doesn't always ask questions later). Knee-jerk reactions and "tough on (X)" legislation is pretty much the rule, and becoming moreso by the day. There's a general atmosphere of political apathy and helplessness among those I know, largely because these things are becoming more and more blindingly obvious (and harder to stop).
Lawmakers have traditionally been pretty conservative regarding print copyright legislation. It wasn't until I was in high school that Kinko's started posting that they weren't responsible for copyright infringement. It's only really been in the last 10 years that the US Govt. has come down so incredibly hard on these sorts of violations, and largely in the name of corporate interests at that.
The next 10 years are going to be interesting. I encourage those of you in the United States to write some letters, make some phone calls, and send some e-mail. If you've got cash to burn, donate to the appropriate causes and/or lobby.
. ..is developers that really WANT it to be a competitive, production OS. Linus has called it a hobby OS, and I get the distinct impression that Cox regards it as an interesting academic excercise.
I agree that it has potential. On the other hand, it's not capable of handling much of the REALLY BIG or obscure hardware, and it's not as stable as some of the things IBM is selling right now (they actually have 100% uptime guarantees for some of their massive systems).
These problems are also compounded by where most of the development happens. Linux, unlike several other *NIXes, is largely developed for and by hobbyists using PC hardware. In many ways, Linux has been blown out of proportion by "true believers" (aka "Penguinistas") who forget that it's Linus's pet project -- not (deity)'s gift to computing.
If Linux is to overtake OSes like AIX, it's going to have to take steps to mature and become more reliable, flexible, and capable. Programmers need to rethink its kernel architecture, iron out a lot of bugs that the OS has grown around, adequately set some standards. Linux will HAVE to support uncommon hardware (and/or 4+ GB RAM/large numbers of processors) to avoid being laughed at by the big boys.
I will say, for my part, that I'm not sure Linux is really the right "Open Source" OS to push into the GREAT BIG MONSTER COMPUTING market. It wasn't really intended to go in that direction, and will need a great deal of retooling before it's ready to.
For the record, my FreeBSD box is a P150 with 32MB of RAM. KDE is completely out of the question. I'm currently trying AfterStep with Netscape 4.7. My preferred browser on that box? Lynx.
I was talking about this not long ago with a friend over corporate fast food in a corporate department store chain in the trendy little college town in which I live:
Most companies create for themselves and image. They build a face, maybe a logo, a mascot, a color scheme, a tagline, whatever, and they associate this image with their name. Most companies work so that their name and image (and sometimes catchphrase) far overshadow their product. Why? Because people are bored by details. Soundbites, hot logos, and "the idea" are what sell things.
Examples: Tony the Tiger has NOTHING to do with Frosted Flakes, and neither do those little guys on the Rice Crispies box have anything to do with their cereal. McDonalds doesn't care if we smile or not -- they lie about what they cook their fries in.
With companies, it's all buzzwords and ideas that "make ya feel good about the product." IBM isn't going to bore end users and PHBs with jargon and technobabble. No, they'll play up the B2B angle, show pictures of sleek machines (and people) working hard. They play up the power aspect. Who cares that the whole tech crew might have to make a shift from Solaris to AIX, or from BSD to NT, or whatever. It's the CONCEPT that they feed us, the associations that they attach to their name and image, that is important.
That's why (whatever)sucks.com is such a big issue with these people. It's hard to put on the hard sell when Joe Sixpack in Blindpossum, OK can just surf over to (whatever)sucks.com and instantly see a negative view there.
In the thread about teaching seniors about the Internet, concerns were voiced about being savvy enough to tell the shysters from the experts. After all, a lot of people really do believe everything that they read, and anyone who represents himself as an expert.
That's part of what motivates companies to sue (whatever)sucks.com webmasters: it interferes with the picture they paint. Whether or not the material that appears on the site is true is immaterial, because either way, it's bad for the company.
Americans especially are used to being told how to think, what to buy, etc. Our entire society is very neatly designed for us, from what our families should be like, how we interact, all the way to what to wear, eat, drive, etc. In a modern age of media, those with broadcast control have the power.
The Internet is a unique media where the common man can expend very little money and effort ($35 to buy the domain, about the same monthly for a cheap-midrange hosting package, and a few hours) to create something just as publically available as microsoft.com. If Joe Sixpack from Blindpossum, OK decides that some company or another has given him a raw deal, the Internet can provide a perfect forum to voice discontent (although I will say that this forum is also a great place to spread disinfo, and I'm suprised rival companies haven't snatched up (whatever)sucks.com domains, started hosting them in South Korea, etc).
Companies aren't used to the little guy having so much power, and react the way they always do: by crushing their adversary.
I don't think it's ever been about confusion. It's companies defending their carefully wrought, expensive images from Joe Sixpack of Blindpossum, OK's untrained hand.
"Because the truth is available in limited quanitites."
. ..but I'm not entirely convinced of it's feasability.
Let me explain.
Using audio to transfer data isn't a new idea. The humble telephone line modem bears witness to that, as does modern DSL.
What is new about this is the really creative hardware hack. Sound cards (like any other expansion card) are manufactured with a purpose in mind (in this case, that purpose is producing or inputting sound). With the exception of some cards produced with a modem input, these adapters may not be designed in such a way to enable data transfer.
That would have to be addressed in software. To make this method widely-used, AuDSL would need to include modified drivers for common sound cards in addition to the software instructions that tell your computer how to take this audio data and turn it into something usable.
And then there's the matter of it taking 38% of CPU cycles. ..
A better solution might be to design a less expensive alternative to already existing hardware that would work with already existing systems.
I admire their ingenuity, but I wonder if there isn't a better way. ..
There's nothing particularly new about the idea of using "secret codes" to pass information along. Everyone I knew in middle school wrote [and often memorized] codes to write more "secure" notes to their friends. Leonardo DaVinci wrote backwards. Ours and every other military have used codes, ciphers, and various types of encryption for centuries. Many gangs have their own alphabets and pictograms.
And we're supposed to be suprised that Osama Bin Laden is using PGP and/or other crytographic software?
Because Bin Laden is one of the Bad Guys [TM], any tool he uses to make his job easier is a Bad Thing [TM], and doubly so on the Web because the media has worked very hard to make it look dangerous.
In many ways it is. Identity theft, script kiddies, and hackers with a penchant for malicious code are real. Unfortunatly, Joe EndUser has yet to come to the realization that the Web is a lot like the real world: learn the basics, play it safe, and you're usually okay. Remain ignorant, and you're a target.
Because society at large IS ignorant regarding even the very basics of the technology it's addicted to and/or reliant upon, it should be no suprise that Joe EndUser is afraid of encryption. He's afraid of his own on/off switch! He doesn't have the tools to understand why something like that would be useful. He can't apply common sense to something that acts like a TV with a typewriter and cup holder attached.
"Why would you use encryption if you're not doing something wrong?" he asks. Same reason I don't shower in the town square, or keep my diary pasted on the front door of my apartment, or keep my mother's jewelry in a candy bowl next to the street. Some things are private, or should be kept safe.
Because Joe EndUser doesn't understand the toys he uses to "download that internet," the media can have a field day frightening people with a useful tool. They don't make money telling Joe EndUser that the good guys use it too, or teaching people how these tools work. The media makes money on fear and outrage.
It comes down to this: if you want to keep your privacy, you want the right to use encryption, etc., it's like anything else in a representative democracy. You get involved. You keep yourself informed, you educate other people, and you get in touch with relavent parties. It's work, but any government ostensibly based on the will of the people requires active citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, they think everyone should have a backup right for media bought in digital form, like we have for software.
Not that any government agency bothers to enforce my fair use rights. I've got two or three fucked 'backups' (read: CD copy protection prevented me from excercising fair use rights) here on my table to prove it.
Ironically, the only company I can think of offhand that explicitly gives users the right to make backup copies of their software is Microsoft.
T3/Dev
Goodbye karma.
After all, not every OS will let you get away with naming something
.caffiene. . .
Great Programmer/Universe
without complaining about the space. . .
T3/Dev
Need. .
Your high school friends making coppies of tapes for everyone was illegal then, and is illegal now. Just because no one caught them and prosecuted them doesn't mean it was legal.
You're entirely right. On the other hand, it's difficult to argue that prosecuting 10 high school kids for making mix tapes for their friends is in the public interest.
That, in many ways, is one of the fundamental principles of America's body of law that is threatened by the DMCA. The American legal system hasn't traditionally taken such an unhealthy interest in actions that aren't a reasonable threat to other people's rights.
One mix tape out of my CD/Cassete/Radio device isn't sufficient to damage Sony, AOL-Time Warner, etc. Photocopying a chapter from an O'Reily manual that I find in the library isn't sufficiently harmful for it to be in the public interest to prosecute me. Traditional copyright law respects that sort of boundary. I only become a legally viable threat when I start pressing entire CDs en masse, or printing whole copies of that O'Reily book for large groups of people.
T3/Dev
"It's only illegal if someone files suit."
-- Mr. Carson, my former Business Law instructor
Hope that this at least alters the DMCA.
.
I think that we're very lucky that newspapers like the Washington Post are actually taking the time to point out to readers what precisely is happening, and what's wrong with it. We're extremely fortunate that this hasn't turned into another Kevin Mitnick scenario (read: "RUSSIAN HACKER THREATENS DIGITAL COPYRIGHTS: speaks at evil hacker convention and corrupts America's youth!)
As someone else on this thread pointed out, intellectual property/copyright/patent laws have never been this stringent. In traditional copyright law, a certain degree of copying and piracy is expected. I remember that my friends in high school were basically a tiny, living Napster server. Mix tapes for everyone. And let's not forget the fact that sometimes one needs to photocopy newspapers, books, magazines, etc. for school or personal research. .
The big irony here is that the first DMCA arrest wasn't someone running a massive piracy ring. It was a foreign national who came to speak about the scientific ramnifications of a technology. It was not in the public interest to arrest Sklyarov. I can't think of any way to argue that it is.
In many ways, this reflects the current political culture in the US, and the direction it's developing in. We've been rapidly developing a legal system that shoots first (and doesn't always ask questions later). Knee-jerk reactions and "tough on (X)" legislation is pretty much the rule, and becoming moreso by the day. There's a general atmosphere of political apathy and helplessness among those I know, largely because these things are becoming more and more blindingly obvious (and harder to stop).
Lawmakers have traditionally been pretty conservative regarding print copyright legislation. It wasn't until I was in high school that Kinko's started posting that they weren't responsible for copyright infringement. It's only really been in the last 10 years that the US Govt. has come down so incredibly hard on these sorts of violations, and largely in the name of corporate interests at that.
The next 10 years are going to be interesting. I encourage those of you in the United States to write some letters, make some phone calls, and send some e-mail. If you've got cash to burn, donate to the appropriate causes and/or lobby.
T3/Dev
. . .is developers that really WANT it to be a competitive, production OS. Linus has called it a hobby OS, and I get the distinct impression that Cox regards it as an interesting academic excercise.
I agree that it has potential. On the other hand, it's not capable of handling much of the REALLY BIG or obscure hardware, and it's not as stable as some of the things IBM is selling right now (they actually have 100% uptime guarantees for some of their massive systems).
These problems are also compounded by where most of the development happens. Linux, unlike several other *NIXes, is largely developed for and by hobbyists using PC hardware. In many ways, Linux has been blown out of proportion by "true believers" (aka "Penguinistas") who forget that it's Linus's pet project -- not (deity)'s gift to computing.
If Linux is to overtake OSes like AIX, it's going to have to take steps to mature and become more reliable, flexible, and capable. Programmers need to rethink its kernel architecture, iron out a lot of bugs that the OS has grown around, adequately set some standards. Linux will HAVE to support uncommon hardware (and/or 4+ GB RAM/large numbers of processors) to avoid being laughed at by the big boys.
I will say, for my part, that I'm not sure Linux is really the right "Open Source" OS to push into the GREAT BIG MONSTER COMPUTING market. It wasn't really intended to go in that direction, and will need a great deal of retooling before it's ready to.
T3/Dev
"Where would I be without IBM?"
For the record, my FreeBSD box is a P150 with 32MB of RAM. KDE is completely out of the question. I'm currently trying AfterStep with Netscape 4.7. My preferred browser on that box? Lynx.
T300bps
Being devoured by Python
I was talking about this not long ago with a friend over corporate fast food in a corporate department store chain in the trendy little college town in which I live:
Most companies create for themselves and image. They build a face, maybe a logo, a mascot, a color scheme, a tagline, whatever, and they associate this image with their name. Most companies work so that their name and image (and sometimes catchphrase) far overshadow their product. Why? Because people are bored by details. Soundbites, hot logos, and "the idea" are what sell things.
Examples: Tony the Tiger has NOTHING to do with Frosted Flakes, and neither do those little guys on the Rice Crispies box have anything to do with their cereal. McDonalds doesn't care if we smile or not -- they lie about what they cook their fries in.
With companies, it's all buzzwords and ideas that "make ya feel good about the product." IBM isn't going to bore end users and PHBs with jargon and technobabble. No, they'll play up the B2B angle, show pictures of sleek machines (and people) working hard. They play up the power aspect. Who cares that the whole tech crew might have to make a shift from Solaris to AIX, or from BSD to NT, or whatever. It's the CONCEPT that they feed us, the associations that they attach to their name and image, that is important.
That's why (whatever)sucks.com is such a big issue with these people. It's hard to put on the hard sell when Joe Sixpack in Blindpossum, OK can just surf over to (whatever)sucks.com and instantly see a negative view there.In the thread about teaching seniors about the Internet, concerns were voiced about being savvy enough to tell the shysters from the experts. After all, a lot of people really do believe everything that they read, and anyone who represents himself as an expert.
That's part of what motivates companies to sue (whatever)sucks.com webmasters: it interferes with the picture they paint. Whether or not the material that appears on the site is true is immaterial, because either way, it's bad for the company.
Americans especially are used to being told how to think, what to buy, etc. Our entire society is very neatly designed for us, from what our families should be like, how we interact, all the way to what to wear, eat, drive, etc. In a modern age of media, those with broadcast control have the power.
The Internet is a unique media where the common man can expend very little money and effort ($35 to buy the domain, about the same monthly for a cheap-midrange hosting package, and a few hours) to create something just as publically available as microsoft.com. If Joe Sixpack from Blindpossum, OK decides that some company or another has given him a raw deal, the Internet can provide a perfect forum to voice discontent (although I will say that this forum is also a great place to spread disinfo, and I'm suprised rival companies haven't snatched up (whatever)sucks.com domains, started hosting them in South Korea, etc).Companies aren't used to the little guy having so much power, and react the way they always do: by crushing their adversary.
I don't think it's ever been about confusion. It's companies defending their carefully wrought, expensive images from Joe Sixpack of Blindpossum, OK's untrained hand.
"Because the truth is available in limited quanitites."
. . .working 2 jobs and making only about 10,000 a year.
I'll never complain about rice again.
. . .but I'm not entirely convinced of it's feasability.
Let me explain.
Using audio to transfer data isn't a new idea. The humble telephone line modem bears witness to that, as does modern DSL.
What is new about this is the really creative hardware hack. Sound cards (like any other expansion card) are manufactured with a purpose in mind (in this case, that purpose is producing or inputting sound). With the exception of some cards produced with a modem input, these adapters may not be designed in such a way to enable data transfer.
That would have to be addressed in software. To make this method widely-used, AuDSL would need to include modified drivers for common sound cards in addition to the software instructions that tell your computer how to take this audio data and turn it into something usable.
And then there's the matter of it taking 38% of CPU cycles. . .
A better solution might be to design a less expensive alternative to already existing hardware that would work with already existing systems.
I admire their ingenuity, but I wonder if there isn't a better way. . .
There's nothing particularly new about the idea of using "secret codes" to pass information along. Everyone I knew in middle school wrote [and often memorized] codes to write more "secure" notes to their friends. Leonardo DaVinci wrote backwards. Ours and every other military have used codes, ciphers, and various types of encryption for centuries. Many gangs have their own alphabets and pictograms.
And we're supposed to be suprised that Osama Bin Laden is using PGP and/or other crytographic software?
Because Bin Laden is one of the Bad Guys [TM], any tool he uses to make his job easier is a Bad Thing [TM], and doubly so on the Web because the media has worked very hard to make it look dangerous.
In many ways it is. Identity theft, script kiddies, and hackers with a penchant for malicious code are real. Unfortunatly, Joe EndUser has yet to come to the realization that the Web is a lot like the real world: learn the basics, play it safe, and you're usually okay. Remain ignorant, and you're a target.
Because society at large IS ignorant regarding even the very basics of the technology it's addicted to and/or reliant upon, it should be no suprise that Joe EndUser is afraid of encryption. He's afraid of his own on/off switch! He doesn't have the tools to understand why something like that would be useful. He can't apply common sense to something that acts like a TV with a typewriter and cup holder attached.
"Why would you use encryption if you're not doing something wrong?" he asks. Same reason I don't shower in the town square, or keep my diary pasted on the front door of my apartment, or keep my mother's jewelry in a candy bowl next to the street. Some things are private, or should be kept safe.
Because Joe EndUser doesn't understand the toys he uses to "download that internet," the media can have a field day frightening people with a useful tool. They don't make money telling Joe EndUser that the good guys use it too, or teaching people how these tools work. The media makes money on fear and outrage.
It comes down to this: if you want to keep your privacy, you want the right to use encryption, etc., it's like anything else in a representative democracy. You get involved. You keep yourself informed, you educate other people, and you get in touch with relavent parties. It's work, but any government ostensibly based on the will of the people requires active citizens.