... that won't get to sell you another copy of the DVD, because the one you already own is device-encoded for a computer and you want to play it on a TV?
You imply that digital data has no intrinsic worth, and therefore can't be stolen.
This is exactly the mindset I was criticizing. I didn't say or imply that digital data has no intrinsic worth. I said that its worth had to be calculated differently from the worth of phsical goods.
Theft of physical goods deprives the rightful owner of their use. Copying of digital goods does not deprive anyone of their use, but in fact greatly increases the number of people who may potentially use them. This could, of course, possibly reduce the value of the digital goods. Certain information is only valuable when it is not widely known. This is why Digital Rights Managment is so important to the RIAA and MPAA.
The point of the analogy, since you seem to have missed it, is that the customer pays someone for a product, and the provider doesn't take steps to ensure that the product is secure. The fact that EULA's have not been tested in court is the only reason software producers continue to believe this is acceptable.
"If someone left their front door unlocked... " Gah, I am so sick of hearing that analogy every time someone talks about computer security. Phisical theft and defacement is not the same as digital. So what would be a better analogy?
Imagine if someone went to a photographer and had some "personal" photos taken for their spouse. And that the photographer made poster-size prints and put them in the front window with a sign saying, "Please don't look at these."
Would you prosecute the 13-year-old kid who came by and looked at them? How about if he took picutres of the posters and put them up on his web site? The originals are still "secure" in the studio's safe. How can you blame the photographer?
If current computer law (UCITA, DMCA) were applied to this situation, the 13-year-old would be in jail and the photographer would be suing me for telling you that the posters were available.
There are two opposite sides to every debate. I am sure a middle ground is obtainable where everyone, well almost everyone, can meet and appease the majority of those concerned. Frankly, that's why it's called a "democracy". Without two opposing views, at an equal distance apart, a logical solution would be oppressed by the single minded behavior of an individual dominating force.
No. The reason it's called a democracy is because people get to vote. If there are in fact three sides to a debate, there is the distinct possibility that no one will be appeased. In fact, most compromise among reasonable people results in everyone being equally displeased, but willing to accept it.
Insisting on seeing every disagreement as a matter of two opposites is how we got the Republicans and the Democrats, with no (okay, little) room for third parties. I can't see how applying the same method to computer security will somehow suddenly work.
I am sure this will give new Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and HP buyers some pause
People who know this is just the latest symptom of Microsoft's general neglect for security won't be buying XP anyway. Those who believe Microsoft deserves their dominant position because they are the best will see that there is already a patch. Those who don't know enough to know why they should care... well, they don't know enough to care. Who does that leave?
MS are actually not charging ridiculous prices... They abused their monopoly by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, hurting Netscape.
While at the same time charging $40-$50 more for Windows (according to their own internal documents) than the market should have supported. So let's do the math:
Windows = $49
Netscape = $25
Windows + monopoly + Internet Explorer = $99
Canecel terms and we have Internet Exporer = $50. If the things they give away are subsidised by an illegally leveraged monopoly, the real cost of the things "given away" is actually the cost overcharged by virture of that monopoly.
If MS if "overcharging" then EVERY SINGLE OTHER COMPANY ON THE PLANET is over charging! Apple, IBM, Oracle, Sun, EVERYONE.
Gee, thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't aware that Apple, IBM, Oracle, Sun and everyone else had monopolies that allowed them to charge whatever they wanted to for their products. I didn't realize that they had all been found by a court to have illegally abused their monopolies. I'm glad there are people like you to straighten me out.
Everyone who believes this giveaway actually "costs" them anything please raise your hand. So the penalty for overcharging millions of consumers is to allow them to "upgrade" all the schools (start them young!) with software that has an explicit forced march built into the license.
And this was a plaintiff's attorney who came up with this? Oh yeah, the lawyer was only looking at dollar signs. And who wants to bet the attorney's fees will be based on a percentage of the $1.1 billion MS is claiming this will "cost" them?
Does this make the Xbox illegal?
on
MAME On Xbox
·
· Score: 2
I mean, if software can be deemed illegal because it can be used to do things that are illegal, doesn't this also apply to hardware? If the Xbox can be used to play "stolen" games, doesn't that make it illegal?
(Yes, this assumes that MAME is "stealing" old games. See DMCA for references.)
There are two major problems, the first being that the users don't really know what they want
Could this be why projects keep failing? "We" all claim to recognize that "they" don't know what they want or need. But we go ahead and estimate it and develop it anyay. If you haven't convinced yourself that "they" know what they want, or even better helped them to figure out what they really want, then you're not ready to start development.
To beat the construction analogy horse another inch beyond its life: if you're a contractor and someone asks you, "How much to build a house," you wouldn't give them an estimate. You'd talk to them until they had narrowed down what they actually wanted.
Read up on anti-trust precedent. Google on 'Kodak Polaroid instant', or just follow this link [kodak.com]. Or this one [perdue.edu].
In the largest award ever in a patent-infringement case, a Federal judge ruled yesterday [October 1990] that the Eastman Kodak Company must pay the Polaroid Corporation $909.4 million for infringing Polaroid's patents for instant photography.
...
Both companies are widely held. Kodak, which has annual sales of $18 billion, has about 172,000 stockholders and Polaroid, which is much smaller with sales of about $1.9 billion, has about 21,000.
...
The award brings closer to an end a battle that began in April 1976, when Kodak introduced a line of instant cameras. Polaroid filed suit six days later, charging that Kodak infringed 10 patents, most involving technology in Polaroid's SX-70 system, which had been introduced in 1972.
So let's see. A case that takes 16 years to play out. A final judgement that is worth greater than half of the winner's annual sales, and more than 5% of the loser's. An entire product line pulled from the shelves after nearly two decaedes of sales. A class-action lawsuit against the loser that results in refunds to any purchasers of the discontinued product.
Sounds like a good roadmap to follow. And more to the point of my subject line, proof that the courts have a history of deciding to pull products after they have shipped. So enough of this "it's too late" boo-hooing. It is damn well not too late.
The AC I'm replying to is the only onw who pointed this out.
Please don't ask "which track sounds the best". Provide the track numbers of the original WAV files, and ask "which track sounds closest to the original".
If you mix the original WAV file in with your double-blind comparison, you will be picking which one you like, not which one is most accurate. What if your personal preference is for more bass than the original was mixed with? If one of the encoders is muddy, you might pick that over the most accurate.
To do it right, you'd have to double-blind all the various encodings and listen to them back to back with the original WAV file and see which one matches it best. And I wouldn't take the extra step of going back to WAV, as you'd be introducing another encoding layer that may introduce different artifacts.
It's not "copy protection." It's "copy prevention." Yeah, it's a small point, but the first step in changing people's perceptions of an issue is to change the language they use to describe it.
What's reasonable for me, or for any other small, independant developer, is probably not what's reasonable for, say, Adobe, Microsoft or Macromedia. So will they be allowed to pay "unreasonabley" low liscensing fees, or will I be asked to pay "unreasonably" high fees? It seems that "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder.
If you have said passwords then the intent is there to use thm - i dont care what bullshit defence you use to me.
At my last job, one of the network admins was trying to convince the management that our network procedures were insecure. After several weeks of getting nowhere, he installed some publicly available hacking tools and pointed them at our domain. Without using any of his inside knowledge of the system -- using only the default configuration of the tools -- he got a name/password list of most of the managing partners, the CIO, and the senior network administrator. None of these were passwords he would have had access to with any of his approved access from work.
He brought this list into the next meeting to demonstrate how insecure our system was. The official response was that he must have used his inside knowledge, and that no one from outside the company was that interested in trying to hack our system. This was at a law firm, BTW.
Although in the West case it's pretty clear he was also trying to rip off their site administration scripts, your assertion that mere posession of a password list equals intent to commit a crime doesn't stand up.
But researchers at the University of Toronto's Institute for Aerospace Studies claim their machine will either get off the ground in the next few weeks, or prove that a bird-brained plane is an impossible design challenge.
So if their current project doesn't work, we can all stop working on the problem. They've done everything that can be done, learned everything that can be learned, tried everything that can be tried. We have finally reached the limits of human knowledge.
Whew. Thank God that's over. All that exploration and research was starting to get exhausting.
We need to get out from under this rock that GW has put our country.
We've been under a rock for a lot longer than the last eight months. While I agree with the rest of your point, I don't think this has anything to do with the current administration.
To get us to change our lifestyle. To get us to live in fear. That's the real purpose of terrorism. If we take this as a cue to crack down on personal freedoms, the method will be proven effective.
The best thing we can do is to continue going about our lives as we always have. Let the appropriate agencies find who did it and bring them to justice. (Note: I can't imagine "justice" in this case being anything other than swift execution of all involved.)
This is not to deny that we may have engendered the hatred much of the world has for us.
However, I do not consider it likely that someone who knows nearly everything about me will track where I go in Grand Central Station, what I do there, how long I take to do it, whether I do it alone, and so forth -- and I damn sure don't consider it likely that this mysterious individual about whom I will know almost nothing will have the ability and the desire to sell what he has learned about me to a third party so that that third party may increase what _it_ knows about me.
There already are people tracking your every move in public places. These people already are selling some of your personal information to third parties. Question is, do enough people care about this to do anything about it?
What exactly is a "fraudulent regustration"? Do they mean the registration of a non-person? Fine. Check to see if the people who signed up exist. Is that what they're alleging? It seems to me that if someone is interested enough in ICANN to bother registering, they are interested enough to have a say.
Slashdot Mirror
How does a band become popular? Locally, they play gigs. Beyond that? Radio/TV play.
Who deciedes what goes on the air? The people who own the stations. How big is that group? Smaller than you think.
... that won't get to sell you another copy of the DVD, because the one you already own is device-encoded for a computer and you want to play it on a TV?
Yeah, but does it play Vorbis files?
I can install any software or operating system I want.
Really? Try to get a "legal" copy of Windows 95.
Next thing we'll have telephone answering machines recording what phone numbers people are calling from....
...in short, we'll be living in a POLICE STATE.
Caller ID
video libraries recording who borrowed each book and when.....
Library card
Internet ads that track and record who saw them...
Cross-site cookies
hotel room doors that record every time each person goes in or out...
Key cards
cellphones that report every move we make to the authorities...
Universal 911
tollbooths that record every car that goes through them...
E-ZPass
guards in every airport demanding to see 'our papers' before we are permitted to travel in our own country...
Flagged for search when paying cash
Shouldn't that be present tense?
You imply that digital data has no intrinsic worth, and therefore can't be stolen.
This is exactly the mindset I was criticizing. I didn't say or imply that digital data has no intrinsic worth. I said that its worth had to be calculated differently from the worth of phsical goods.
Theft of physical goods deprives the rightful owner of their use. Copying of digital goods does not deprive anyone of their use, but in fact greatly increases the number of people who may potentially use them. This could, of course, possibly reduce the value of the digital goods. Certain information is only valuable when it is not widely known. This is why Digital Rights Managment is so important to the RIAA and MPAA.
The point of the analogy, since you seem to have missed it, is that the customer pays someone for a product, and the provider doesn't take steps to ensure that the product is secure. The fact that EULA's have not been tested in court is the only reason software producers continue to believe this is acceptable.
"If someone left their front door unlocked ... " Gah, I am so sick of hearing that analogy every time someone talks about computer security. Phisical theft and defacement is not the same as digital. So what would be a better analogy?
Imagine if someone went to a photographer and had some "personal" photos taken for their spouse. And that the photographer made poster-size prints and put them in the front window with a sign saying, "Please don't look at these."
Would you prosecute the 13-year-old kid who came by and looked at them? How about if he took picutres of the posters and put them up on his web site? The originals are still "secure" in the studio's safe. How can you blame the photographer?
If current computer law (UCITA, DMCA) were applied to this situation, the 13-year-old would be in jail and the photographer would be suing me for telling you that the posters were available.
There are two opposite sides to every debate. I am sure a middle ground is obtainable where everyone, well almost everyone, can meet and appease the majority of those concerned. Frankly, that's why it's called a "democracy". Without two opposing views, at an equal distance apart, a logical solution would be oppressed by the single minded behavior of an individual dominating force.
No. The reason it's called a democracy is because people get to vote. If there are in fact three sides to a debate, there is the distinct possibility that no one will be appeased. In fact, most compromise among reasonable people results in everyone being equally displeased, but willing to accept it.
Insisting on seeing every disagreement as a matter of two opposites is how we got the Republicans and the Democrats, with no (okay, little) room for third parties. I can't see how applying the same method to computer security will somehow suddenly work.
I am sure this will give new Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and HP buyers some pause
... well, they don't know enough to care. Who does that leave?
People who know this is just the latest symptom of Microsoft's general neglect for security won't be buying XP anyway. Those who believe Microsoft deserves their dominant position because they are the best will see that there is already a patch. Those who don't know enough to know why they should care
MS are actually not charging ridiculous prices ... They abused their monopoly by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, hurting Netscape.
While at the same time charging $40-$50 more for Windows (according to their own internal documents) than the market should have supported. So let's do the math:
Windows = $49
Netscape = $25
Windows + monopoly + Internet Explorer = $99
Canecel terms and we have Internet Exporer = $50. If the things they give away are subsidised by an illegally leveraged monopoly, the real cost of the things "given away" is actually the cost overcharged by virture of that monopoly.
If MS if "overcharging" then EVERY SINGLE OTHER COMPANY ON THE PLANET is over charging! Apple, IBM, Oracle, Sun, EVERYONE.
Gee, thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't aware that Apple, IBM, Oracle, Sun and everyone else had monopolies that allowed them to charge whatever they wanted to for their products. I didn't realize that they had all been found by a court to have illegally abused their monopolies. I'm glad there are people like you to straighten me out.
Everyone who believes this giveaway actually "costs" them anything please raise your hand. So the penalty for overcharging millions of consumers is to allow them to "upgrade" all the schools (start them young!) with software that has an explicit forced march built into the license.
And this was a plaintiff's attorney who came up with this? Oh yeah, the lawyer was only looking at dollar signs. And who wants to bet the attorney's fees will be based on a percentage of the $1.1 billion MS is claiming this will "cost" them?
I mean, if software can be deemed illegal because it can be used to do things that are illegal, doesn't this also apply to hardware? If the Xbox can be used to play "stolen" games, doesn't that make it illegal?
(Yes, this assumes that MAME is "stealing" old games. See DMCA for references.)
There are two major problems, the first being that the users don't really know what they want
Could this be why projects keep failing? "We" all claim to recognize that "they" don't know what they want or need. But we go ahead and estimate it and develop it anyay. If you haven't convinced yourself that "they" know what they want, or even better helped them to figure out what they really want, then you're not ready to start development.
To beat the construction analogy horse another inch beyond its life: if you're a contractor and someone asks you, "How much to build a house," you wouldn't give them an estimate. You'd talk to them until they had narrowed down what they actually wanted.
XP is already out of the gate.
Read up on anti-trust precedent. Google on 'Kodak Polaroid instant', or just follow this link [kodak.com]. Or this one [perdue.edu].
So let's see. A case that takes 16 years to play out. A final judgement that is worth greater than half of the winner's annual sales, and more than 5% of the loser's. An entire product line pulled from the shelves after nearly two decaedes of sales. A class-action lawsuit against the loser that results in refunds to any purchasers of the discontinued product.
Sounds like a good roadmap to follow. And more to the point of my subject line, proof that the courts have a history of deciding to pull products after they have shipped. So enough of this "it's too late" boo-hooing. It is damn well not too late.
The AC I'm replying to is the only onw who pointed this out.
Please don't ask "which track sounds the best". Provide the track numbers of the original WAV files, and ask "which track sounds closest to the original".
If you mix the original WAV file in with your double-blind comparison, you will be picking which one you like, not which one is most accurate. What if your personal preference is for more bass than the original was mixed with? If one of the encoders is muddy, you might pick that over the most accurate.
To do it right, you'd have to double-blind all the various encodings and listen to them back to back with the original WAV file and see which one matches it best. And I wouldn't take the extra step of going back to WAV, as you'd be introducing another encoding layer that may introduce different artifacts.
It's not "copy protection." It's "copy prevention." Yeah, it's a small point, but the first step in changing people's perceptions of an issue is to change the language they use to describe it.
What's reasonable for me, or for any other small, independant developer, is probably not what's reasonable for, say, Adobe, Microsoft or Macromedia. So will they be allowed to pay "unreasonabley" low liscensing fees, or will I be asked to pay "unreasonably" high fees? It seems that "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder.
If you have said passwords then the intent is there to use thm - i dont care what bullshit defence you use to me.
At my last job, one of the network admins was trying to convince the management that our network procedures were insecure. After several weeks of getting nowhere, he installed some publicly available hacking tools and pointed them at our domain. Without using any of his inside knowledge of the system -- using only the default configuration of the tools -- he got a name/password list of most of the managing partners, the CIO, and the senior network administrator. None of these were passwords he would have had access to with any of his approved access from work.
He brought this list into the next meeting to demonstrate how insecure our system was. The official response was that he must have used his inside knowledge, and that no one from outside the company was that interested in trying to hack our system. This was at a law firm, BTW.
Although in the West case it's pretty clear he was also trying to rip off their site administration scripts, your assertion that mere posession of a password list equals intent to commit a crime doesn't stand up.
It's good to hear it was the reporter who got it wrong, rather than the scientists.
But researchers at the University of Toronto's Institute for Aerospace Studies claim their machine will either get off the ground in the next few weeks, or prove that a bird-brained plane is an impossible design challenge.
So if their current project doesn't work, we can all stop working on the problem. They've done everything that can be done, learned everything that can be learned, tried everything that can be tried. We have finally reached the limits of human knowledge.
Whew. Thank God that's over. All that exploration and research was starting to get exhausting.
We need to get out from under this rock that GW has put our country.
We've been under a rock for a lot longer than the last eight months. While I agree with the rest of your point, I don't think this has anything to do with the current administration.
To get us to change our lifestyle. To get us to live in fear. That's the real purpose of terrorism. If we take this as a cue to crack down on personal freedoms, the method will be proven effective.
The best thing we can do is to continue going about our lives as we always have. Let the appropriate agencies find who did it and bring them to justice. (Note: I can't imagine "justice" in this case being anything other than swift execution of all involved.)
This is not to deny that we may have engendered the hatred much of the world has for us.
However, I do not consider it likely that someone who knows nearly everything about me will track where I go in Grand Central Station, what I do there, how long I take to do it, whether I do it alone, and so forth -- and I damn sure don't consider it likely that this mysterious individual about whom I will know almost nothing will have the ability and the desire to sell what he has learned about me to a third party so that that third party may increase what _it_ knows about me.
There already are people tracking your every move in public places. These people already are selling some of your personal information to third parties. Question is, do enough people care about this to do anything about it?
./sig
What exactly is a "fraudulent regustration"? Do they mean the registration of a non-person? Fine. Check to see if the people who signed up exist. Is that what they're alleging? It seems to me that if someone is interested enough in ICANN to bother registering, they are interested enough to have a say.