I said UCITA is "bad for users of Free Software" when I really meant to say that it's bad for Free Software in general (the FSF has a good explanation of it).
Having said that, UCITA is indeed bad for users of Free Software. When Free Software authors are held liable for defects while software companies are allowed to disclaim liability (exactly the opposite of the way it should be!), both the developers and users of Free Software suffer. When proprietary vendors are allowed to create closed and legally inaccessible file formats, the developers and users of Free Software suffer greatly.
UCITA is an immense threat to anybody who is not a big corporation.
UCITA is bad for users of Free Software, but it's also bad for users of proprietary software. It lends validity to the concept of a shrink-wrap license, which means the software vendor can impose pretty much arbitrary restrictions on the use of a software package. Suddenly all those EULAs become legally binding contracts. All it would take to restrict your rights as a customer is a list of terms. It's way too easy.
Just imagine restrictions on the number of people allowed to use a software program, or website terms stipulating that whatever you write becomes the property of the company behind the website. Such terms are not unheard of, and UCITA would turn these and many others into binding restrictions.
Parts of DjVu are covered by patents, licensed for free use in GPL'd software. The DjVuLibre software is distributed under the GPL, which means commercial vendors won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Given the choice between paying royalties for a patented format that's not widely supported and paying royalties for a patented format that's already the de facto standard, they'll obviously choose the latter.
The last time I heard about the Simputer I was put off by the license, which treats the specs as if they constituted trade secrets. I don't know how you can publish specs and still expect trade secret protections.
It reminds me of Microsoft tying a license to their version of the Kerberos protocol. Although different in intent, the basic legal mechanism, if recognised as valid, is very, very dangerous.
One of my favorite websites, gamasutra.com, recently started requiring registration. Ever since they started doing this I haven't bothered to visit the site very often. It's a real shame.
I'm surprised to learn of Slashdot's policy regarding sites which require registration. It's an admirable policy. Bravo!
Email systems are designed to accept email messages from arbitrary sources. Calling it "trespassing" is a major distortion of the meaning of the word. The EFF has a press release on the Intel vs Hamidi case.
Re:Pay Per Minute for Non-Streaming Data
on
More on MPEG4
·
· Score: 1
The article is wrong in stating that users would have to pay.
Is it, really? As long as the use fee covers playback of MPEG4 content users may be charged for playback, either directly or indirectly. Not FUD, just the reality of charging for metered use of MPEG4 technology.
Re:Pay Per Minute for Non-Streaming Data
on
More on MPEG4
·
· Score: 1
A use fee is a use fee. It's certainly possible for the content provider or software provider to pay the use fee, but nothing about this fact eliminates the possibility of users paying for it. Indeed, the article says "a 2 cents an hour charge that either users or manufacturers of the software would have to come up with". In any case, my second point still applies.
Furthermore
on
More on MPEG4
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If software manufacturers resort to metering use of MPEG4 codecs as a way to calculate license fees, monitoring viewing habits as an "unaviodable" side-effect is just a small step away.
Pay Per Minute for Non-Streaming Data
on
More on MPEG4
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Will users be charged for viewing MPEG4 content if streaming is not involved? I hope not. Getting users accustomed to paying for MPEG4 content regardless of how it's delivered is a small step away from getting users accustomed to paying usage fees for all content.
How do you know that only a tiny fraction of PayPal users have experienced problems with their service? Have you compared the number of PayPal users who have experienced problems to the number of paypal users who haven't experienced problems? That's the only way to know for sure. It's certainly possible that people experiencing problems with PayPal are in the minority, but not all minorities are insignificant.
The requirement to provide a valid return address as a way to opt-out of further correspondence is good and reasonable. Not providing a valid return address is a concious decision to make oneself unavailable to complaints and opt-out requests, which is not acceptable behavior for spammers.
The requirement to include specific characters (ADV and ADV:ADLT) as part of the subject line is not so good. Requiring the tagging of content is a dangerous legal precedent which might easily be extended to things other than email. It would be ridiculous to fine or jail somebody for failing to tag content, email or otherwise, with specific labels.
Laptops for every kid seems like a great idea until you consider how little control kids are likely to have over the laptops given to them. Restrictions such as filtering software installed on every computer is almost a sure bet. Kids who use their free computers for all their schoolwork will get a filtered view of the Internet. A dream come true for many, a sad state of affairs for independence of thought.
Captain Jean Luc Picard is sitting impatiently in his chair. He adjusts his uniform.
PICARD
Ensign. Take us to planet Earth, Maximum warp.
He motions forward with his index finger.
PICARD
Engage!
Silence. Stillness.
PICARD
Ensign?
WESLEY
The ship is not responding, sir.
Picard activates his communicator.
PICARD
Picard to Laforge
GEORDIE
Yes captain?
PICARD
Geordie... is there something wrong with the engines?
GEORDIE
We're experiencing difficulties with the neon lights chamber.
PICARD
The what?
GEORDIE
The neon lights ch... I mean the dilithium chamber.
PICARD
Do you think you might have it repaired?
Geordie chuckles.
GEORDIE
Why wouldn't I? Frankly captain, I don't know why you even bother to ask such questions. I can repair just about anything by rerouting... oh wait, no that wont work.
PICARD
What won't work?
GEORDIE
Nevermind... the dilithium crystals must be replaced.
WESLEY
Oh is that all? We'll beam down to Coridan and steal...
PICARD
Silence boy. It's not that simple... you see, there's a little thing known as the Prime Guideline, which is one of our most im...
WESLEY
Spare me, captain... I've heard it a million times...
PICARD
Well, nevertheless...
RIKER
Captain...
PICARD
Number One?
RIKER
I believe we might be able to obtain...
Picard chuckles. Riker looks offended.
RIKER
Captain?
PICARD
Oh, sorry Number One, I was just thinking that it's lucky for you that you aren't second in command...
Riker makes an angry face as the camera closes up on him.
The geeky guy is a logo, so trademark protection is OK. The yellow/black color scheme on dummies books should not be the subject of trademark protection and neither should the red/white color scheme on certain soup cans. The "for dummies" suffix I haven't made up my mind about.
More precisely, this is yet another case of Apple claiming to have trademark protection on a distinctive interface. Trademarking "Apple" and the apple logo is OK, but just because there're the first to make things look a certain way doesn't mean they ought to be the only ones entitled to make things look a certain way.
This is yet another case of giving trademark protection to a distinctive interface. Trademark protection should be limited to the words and symbols used to identify a product. Things which are part of the product itself, like an interface, ought not to be covered by trademark.
I'll go even further and say that the color brown should not be an UPS trademark, and that the curvy bottle should not be a Coca-Cola trademark. Only names and logos (markings, you see) should be covered by trademark.
The guy who got 18 months was a different person. That's what I get for not reading the story.
I think they should return the kid his computer. They should delete the viruses and let him keep his computer and data. Just because he released a virus shouln't be reason to seize his entire digital "assets".
Eighteen months in jail is nothing like getting your wrists slapped! That's a year and a half in confinement at a very dangerous place. It's a jail sentence, not a slap on the wrist.
What the hell is the matter with people who think they're entitled to take away people's freedom for causing a little economic damage? People are more important than money!
A lot of these hackers might learn their lesson through public humiliation and education. Jail does nothing to fix people, so why the hell resort to it except in hopeless cases?
"Instead of being withdrawn from society, you're being supervised and forced to face it, which gives pretty good results."
This reminds me of the famous Borg warning "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
Eight months in juvenile prison is too harsh. Spending a month as an assistant to a system administrator might have made for a better "slap on the wrist".
Slashdot Mirror
I said UCITA is "bad for users of Free Software" when I really meant to say that it's bad for Free Software in general (the FSF has a good explanation of it).
Having said that, UCITA is indeed bad for users of Free Software. When Free Software authors are held liable for defects while software companies are allowed to disclaim liability (exactly the opposite of the way it should be!), both the developers and users of Free Software suffer. When proprietary vendors are allowed to create closed and legally inaccessible file formats, the developers and users of Free Software suffer greatly.
UCITA is an immense threat to anybody who is not a big corporation.
UCITA is bad for users of Free Software, but it's also bad for users of proprietary software. It lends validity to the concept of a shrink-wrap license, which means the software vendor can impose pretty much arbitrary restrictions on the use of a software package. Suddenly all those EULAs become legally binding contracts. All it would take to restrict your rights as a customer is a list of terms. It's way too easy.
Just imagine restrictions on the number of people allowed to use a software program, or website terms stipulating that whatever you write becomes the property of the company behind the website. Such terms are not unheard of, and UCITA would turn these and many others into binding restrictions.
The point I forgot to make is that without the support of commercial vendors the DjVu format is unlikely to replace JPG as the de facto standard.
Parts of DjVu are covered by patents, licensed for free use in GPL'd software. The DjVuLibre software is distributed under the GPL, which means commercial vendors won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Given the choice between paying royalties for a patented format that's not widely supported and paying royalties for a patented format that's already the de facto standard, they'll obviously choose the latter.
The last time I heard about the Simputer I was put off by the license, which treats the specs as if they constituted trade secrets. I don't know how you can publish specs and still expect trade secret protections.
It reminds me of Microsoft tying a license to their version of the Kerberos protocol. Although different in intent, the basic legal mechanism, if recognised as valid, is very, very dangerous.
One of my favorite websites, gamasutra.com, recently started requiring registration. Ever since they started doing this I haven't bothered to visit the site very often. It's a real shame.
I'm surprised to learn of Slashdot's policy regarding sites which require registration. It's an admirable policy. Bravo!
Reserve a small but significant amount of bandwidth for the following procedure:
Email systems are designed to accept email messages from arbitrary sources. Calling it "trespassing" is a major distortion of the meaning of the word. The EFF has a press release on the Intel vs Hamidi case.
The article is wrong in stating that users would have to pay.
Is it, really? As long as the use fee covers playback of MPEG4 content users may be charged for playback, either directly or indirectly. Not FUD, just the reality of charging for metered use of MPEG4 technology.
A use fee is a use fee. It's certainly possible for the content provider or software provider to pay the use fee, but nothing about this fact eliminates the possibility of users paying for it. Indeed, the article says "a 2 cents an hour charge that either users or manufacturers of the software would have to come up with". In any case, my second point still applies.
If software manufacturers resort to metering use of MPEG4 codecs as a way to calculate license fees, monitoring viewing habits as an "unaviodable" side-effect is just a small step away.
Will users be charged for viewing MPEG4 content if streaming is not involved? I hope not. Getting users accustomed to paying for MPEG4 content regardless of how it's delivered is a small step away from getting users accustomed to paying usage fees for all content.
How do you know that only a tiny fraction of PayPal users have experienced problems with their service? Have you compared the number of PayPal users who have experienced problems to the number of paypal users who haven't experienced problems? That's the only way to know for sure. It's certainly possible that people experiencing problems with PayPal are in the minority, but not all minorities are insignificant.
- sell your software and accept the fact that others might reverse enginneer it, or
- keep your software to yourself and make no money at all
Which one would you choose?That's the way cereal works, and fruit loops sell just fine.
The requirement to provide a valid return address as a way to opt-out of further correspondence is good and reasonable. Not providing a valid return address is a concious decision to make oneself unavailable to complaints and opt-out requests, which is not acceptable behavior for spammers.
The requirement to include specific characters (ADV and ADV:ADLT) as part of the subject line is not so good. Requiring the tagging of content is a dangerous legal precedent which might easily be extended to things other than email. It would be ridiculous to fine or jail somebody for failing to tag content, email or otherwise, with specific labels.
Laptops for every kid seems like a great idea until you consider how little control kids are likely to have over the laptops given to them. Restrictions such as filtering software installed on every computer is almost a sure bet. Kids who use their free computers for all their schoolwork will get a filtered view of the Internet. A dream come true for many, a sad state of affairs for independence of thought.
Captain Jean Luc Picard is sitting impatiently in his chair. He adjusts his uniform.
PICARD
Ensign. Take us to planet Earth, Maximum warp.
He motions forward with his index finger.
PICARD
Engage!
Silence. Stillness.
PICARD
Ensign?
WESLEY
The ship is not responding, sir.
Picard activates his communicator.
PICARD
Picard to Laforge
GEORDIE
Yes captain?
PICARD
Geordie... is there something wrong with the engines?
GEORDIE
We're experiencing difficulties with the neon lights chamber.
PICARD
The what?
GEORDIE
The neon lights ch... I mean the dilithium chamber.
PICARD
Do you think you might have it repaired?
Geordie chuckles.
GEORDIE
Why wouldn't I? Frankly captain, I don't know why you even bother to ask such questions. I can repair just about anything by rerouting... oh wait, no that wont work.
PICARD
What won't work?
GEORDIE
Nevermind... the dilithium crystals must be replaced.
WESLEY
Oh is that all? We'll beam down to Coridan and steal...
PICARD
Silence boy. It's not that simple... you see, there's a little thing known as the Prime Guideline, which is one of our most im...
WESLEY
Spare me, captain... I've heard it a million times...
PICARD
Well, nevertheless...
RIKER
Captain...
PICARD
Number One?
RIKER
I believe we might be able to obtain...
Picard chuckles. Riker looks offended.
RIKER
Captain?
PICARD
Oh, sorry Number One, I was just thinking that it's lucky for you that you aren't second in command...
Riker makes an angry face as the camera closes up on him.
CUT TO:
Commercial
The geeky guy is a logo, so trademark protection is OK. The yellow/black color scheme on dummies books should not be the subject of trademark protection and neither should the red/white color scheme on certain soup cans. The "for dummies" suffix I haven't made up my mind about.
More precisely, this is yet another case of Apple claiming to have trademark protection on a distinctive interface. Trademarking "Apple" and the apple logo is OK, but just because there're the first to make things look a certain way doesn't mean they ought to be the only ones entitled to make things look a certain way.
This is yet another case of giving trademark protection to a distinctive interface. Trademark protection should be limited to the words and symbols used to identify a product. Things which are part of the product itself, like an interface, ought not to be covered by trademark.
I'll go even further and say that the color brown should not be an UPS trademark, and that the curvy bottle should not be a Coca-Cola trademark. Only names and logos (markings, you see) should be covered by trademark.
The guy who got 18 months was a different person. That's what I get for not reading the story.
I think they should return the kid his computer. They should delete the viruses and let him keep his computer and data. Just because he released a virus shouln't be reason to seize his entire digital "assets".
Eighteen months in jail is nothing like getting your wrists slapped! That's a year and a half in confinement at a very dangerous place. It's a jail sentence, not a slap on the wrist.
What the hell is the matter with people who think they're entitled to take away people's freedom for causing a little economic damage? People are more important than money!
A lot of these hackers might learn their lesson through public humiliation and education. Jail does nothing to fix people, so why the hell resort to it except in hopeless cases?
This reminds me of the famous Borg warning "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
Eight months in juvenile prison is too harsh. Spending a month as an assistant to a system administrator might have made for a better "slap on the wrist".
Please, no jokes about "chmod: not_a_tojan_i_swear: No such file or directory" ok?
The following steps would lead to an infection:
./not_a_trojan_i_swear
[Save As: not_a_tojan_i_swear]
$ chmod 777 not_a_trojan_i_swear
$ su
[password: god]
/home/darwin#
If after doing all this your system blows up in smoke it's nobody's fault but your own.