No, it's multiple single points of failure. An anime trading tracker can be shut down, and Bram's RedHat 9 ISO tracker stays up just fine.
It's a feature. If you run a tracker that hosts infringing material, you get killed. If you don't, you don't. You can keep them seperate. Unlike Kazaa et all, there is one big mesh, and it will always contain infringing material. Therefore the ??AA has to try to shut down the whole thing.
The.torrent file doesn't matter. Each.torrent file contains, however, the URL of the site that tracks the file while it is being transferred. Without a tracker, you can't get the file. The tracker URLs are static, and therefore can be attacked in a variety of ways (DoS, C&D, etc..)
You can have the.torrent file sitting on your drive, and it won't do you any good without a functioning corresponding tracker.
There's no "life in the balance". The ??AA can shut down all the warez tracker sites they want, and it doesn't affect non-infringing uses at all. You can set up a tracker and post a.torrent file anytime you want. You will always be able to do so.
In order to "get rid" of BitTorrent, someone would have to up a RFC documenting the protocol, and then write legislation declaring any compliant implementations illegal.
And that would be about as effective as banning DeCSS.
One of the interesting things about BitTorrent is that there is no single heirarchy of nodes. All the trackers are run independently, so if one gets shut down, DoSsed, etc.. the others aren't affected.
Point being that if the warez trackers are having trouble, the ones using it for legitimate purposes (downloading open source ISOs, etc..) are unaffected.
Makes it that much harder to claim that the protocol/code has no legitimate uses. If the RIAA/MPAA has a problem with some content, then go after that site. Leave those of us downloading RedHat 9 alone.
Robbie isn't the problem. The problem is struggling artists, and mking it "normal" for the record companies to take one more source of revenue from them.
No, no one is forcing the artists to sign a contract, but they really have little choice if they want to be professional musicians at this point.
Don't try to make the RIAA et al out to be worse than they are.
I don't think I could if I tried.:)
I think a lot more people have an idea how a record contract works now, because of what the RIAA has been up to.
And yes, I'm aware there's a fee when a song is performed... which is why I said that in the post you replied to. That's actually an interesting allowance in the otherwise draconian music copyright laws... I believe the law permits me to perform any song I want, as long as I pay my fee, yes?
Anyone know if the RIAA still gets their cut when you're performing your own song?
Don't the labels get a fee whenever a song is performed? (Some of which might be back to the writer, if the label feels like it...) Wouldn't that include the artist performing their own song?
I guess the new part is wanting a percentage of merchansing? Oh, and the article says sponsorship, too. Ouch. You mean you can't even sell out to Pepsi without losing a cut, now?
I've combed through Broadcom's website, but pretty much everything eventually leads to "call us for product info". They make reference to a software kit for their reference design, but it doesn't relly say exactly what comes with it (the compiler, or not.)
The files from Linksys give every appearance of just being the ones that Broadcom compiled and gave out. So, I can't determine for sure if they give it out or not.
I had already requested processor specs from Broadcom yesterday, we'll see if I get anything. Maybe they'll sell me a reference design and software toolkit?
Broadcom distributes/sells the GPL'd code including a modified GCC compiler ("GCC: (GNU) 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications."), allowing the OEMs to modify the sources and recompile.
Do you know for sure that they have distributed the compiler, and not just pre-compiled binaries? If they have distributed their modified gcc, then we would need to find out to whom, and see if they will request a copy of the source, and give it to us.
I am. So far, I'm not seeing any evidence that they've left out code. I can't prove they didn't of course, I just don't see anything to suggest they did.
I've replied to your post about the gcc compiler. No, they are not required to give you the gcc modifications, they didn't give you a gcc binary. What other evidence have I missed?
They would be, if they shipped a gcc binary. The GPL doesn't require you to produce changes you use in house, only if you supply the binaries to someone else do you have to give up the source.
I think perhaps you are confusing "modifications" and "modules". They've published the GPL source they used. It appears that the kernel has been changed, according to another thread on this topic. There are a number of other programs which appear to be proprietary, such as the httpd and kernel modules (drivers) for the network interfaces.
Until/unless someone can demonstrate that they didn't publish any GPL source modifications, or that some of the "proprietary" code contains GPL code, they don't appear to be commiting any GPL violations (anymore.)
\lib\modules\2.4.5\kernel\drivers\net\diag\diag. o \lib\modules\2.4.5\kernel\drivers\net\et\et.o \lib\modules\2.4.5\kernel\drivers\net\mac\writemac.o \lib\modules\2.4.5\kernel\drivers\net\wl\wl.o
Not ideal (open-source drivers would be nice) but workable, for this hardware platform. They are binaries for a custom MIPS32 processor after all. But yes, if want you want to do (like me) is make small mods to the box, these drivers are what you need to stay functional.
The unpacking has been done. It's quite easy, someone posted the instructions elsewhere in this article.
All of the existing web scripts are.asp, but I don't think they are Active Server Pages (ala IIS.) I don't recognize the scripting language, but that's not saying much for me. It could be something well-known and I wouldn't know.
Most (all?) of the scripts call functions and/or some kind of virtual file system built into their httpd, which I assume is proprietary? They didn't seem to give out source to that. I think it's a pretty safe bet that one could find a function through that httpd that would allow one to call busybox in shell mode.
If that doesn't work, then I might have to figure out how to cross-compile a MIPS32 binary for Linux, and replace one of the less-used binaries with code of my choosing. I suspect I won't have to go to all that work, though...
Wait a while, and I'll bet you'll be able to. Not from Linksys, neccessarily... but from people like me who have taken a sudden interest due to this article.
Looks like it might be pretty straightforward to unpack the cramfs system, add a tiny.asp file to the www directory, repack, and upload. The.asp file could, say, allow shell commands. I'll let you know when my wrt54g arrives.:)
I'm about there. My 3 year old has destroyed most of the Disney DVDs, and scratched up the new Weird Al and Metallica CDs in the last couple of days. The last piece is the media box to go with each TV, so that everything can come across the home Ethernet.
Tools would be released so that anyone with a DVD drive in their Windows box will be able to do so. There would be $200 devices with 2 DVD drives, one read, one write. Word would get out that you could do down down up up A B on the remote to disable checking of the DRM bit. Then there are lots of people with friends like me who they come to with technical questions.
That's not the point, though... the point is that consumer would WANT to have copies, even if they had no means to do so. It's the desire to have things a particular way that drives their decisions.
I'm not going to give up music or movies. Problem is, these guys have a near monopoly. Boycots are good, but they often don't work as well against monopolies. Well.. not boycotts based on ideals, anyway. The bulk of the consumers will vote with their dollars based on functionality, not fairness.
Fortunately, it sometimes works out the same (Divx). The self-destruct scheme is quite similar in result, so I'm hoping it gets the same treatement.
In favor of the self-destruct... if they are significantly cheaper (again, like Divx... say $5 for a 3-day disk, instead of $20 for a "permanent" disk) then I'll happily buy them and rip them...
Divx would never survive today because too many people know how to rip DVDs. Divx would have been cracked long ago.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's multiple single points of failure. An anime trading tracker can be shut down, and Bram's RedHat 9 ISO tracker stays up just fine.
It's a feature. If you run a tracker that hosts infringing material, you get killed. If you don't, you don't. You can keep them seperate. Unlike Kazaa et all, there is one big mesh, and it will always contain infringing material. Therefore the ??AA has to try to shut down the whole thing.
The .torrent file doesn't matter. Each .torrent file contains, however, the URL of the site that tracks the file while it is being transferred. Without a tracker, you can't get the file. The tracker URLs are static, and therefore can be attacked in a variety of ways (DoS, C&D, etc..)
.torrent file sitting on your drive, and it won't do you any good without a functioning corresponding tracker.
You can have the
There's no "life in the balance". The ??AA can shut down all the warez tracker sites they want, and it doesn't affect non-infringing uses at all. You can set up a tracker and post a .torrent file anytime you want. You will always be able to do so.
In order to "get rid" of BitTorrent, someone would have to up a RFC documenting the protocol, and then write legislation declaring any compliant implementations illegal.
And that would be about as effective as banning DeCSS.
One of the interesting things about BitTorrent is that there is no single heirarchy of nodes. All the trackers are run independently, so if one gets shut down, DoSsed, etc.. the others aren't affected.
Point being that if the warez trackers are having trouble, the ones using it for legitimate purposes (downloading open source ISOs, etc..) are unaffected.
Makes it that much harder to claim that the protocol/code has no legitimate uses. If the RIAA/MPAA has a problem with some content, then go after that site. Leave those of us downloading RedHat 9 alone.
Robbie isn't the problem. The problem is struggling artists, and mking it "normal" for the record companies to take one more source of revenue from them.
No, no one is forcing the artists to sign a contract, but they really have little choice if they want to be professional musicians at this point.
Don't try to make the RIAA et al out to be worse than they are.
:)
I don't think I could if I tried.
I think a lot more people have an idea how a record contract works now, because of what the RIAA has been up to.
And yes, I'm aware there's a fee when a song is performed... which is why I said that in the post you replied to. That's actually an interesting allowance in the otherwise draconian music copyright laws... I believe the law permits me to perform any song I want, as long as I pay my fee, yes?
Anyone know if the RIAA still gets their cut when you're performing your own song?
Don't the labels get a fee whenever a song is performed? (Some of which might be back to the writer, if the label feels like it...) Wouldn't that include the artist performing their own song?
I guess the new part is wanting a percentage of merchansing? Oh, and the article says sponsorship, too. Ouch. You mean you can't even sell out to Pepsi without losing a cut, now?
Oh man, if they can sell a $100,000 support contract, they'll never let you do it properly.
I've combed through Broadcom's website, but pretty much everything eventually leads to "call us for product info". They make reference to a software kit for their reference design, but it doesn't relly say exactly what comes with it (the compiler, or not.)
The files from Linksys give every appearance of just being the ones that Broadcom compiled and gave out. So, I can't determine for sure if they give it out or not.
I had already requested processor specs from Broadcom yesterday, we'll see if I get anything. Maybe they'll sell me a reference design and software toolkit?
OK, so here's some evidence that they might have left things out:
= 6384447
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70115&cid
Broadcom distributes/sells the GPL'd code including a modified GCC compiler ("GCC: (GNU) 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications."), allowing the OEMs to modify the sources and recompile.
Do you know for sure that they have distributed the compiler, and not just pre-compiled binaries? If they have distributed their modified gcc, then we would need to find out to whom, and see if they will request a copy of the source, and give it to us.
I am. So far, I'm not seeing any evidence that they've left out code. I can't prove they didn't of course, I just don't see anything to suggest they did.
I've replied to your post about the gcc compiler. No, they are not required to give you the gcc modifications, they didn't give you a gcc binary. What other evidence have I missed?
My copy of IDAPro is the standard edition, not advanced, so unfortunately, I can't use that tool to disassemble MIPS. What tool(s) are you using?
They would be, if they shipped a gcc binary. The GPL doesn't require you to produce changes you use in house, only if you supply the binaries to someone else do you have to give up the source.
:)
Ask them for a binary copy of their compiler.
I think perhaps you are confusing "modifications" and "modules". They've published the GPL source they used. It appears that the kernel has been changed, according to another thread on this topic. There are a number of other programs which appear to be proprietary, such as the httpd and kernel modules (drivers) for the network interfaces.
Until/unless someone can demonstrate that they didn't publish any GPL source modifications, or that some of the "proprietary" code contains GPL code, they don't appear to be commiting any GPL violations (anymore.)
They're kernel drivers, I believe:
. o
\lib\modules\2.4.5\kernel\drivers\net\mac\writemac .o
\lib\modules\2.4.5\kernel\drivers\net\diag\diag
\lib\modules\2.4.5\kernel\drivers\net\et\et.o
\lib\modules\2.4.5\kernel\drivers\net\wl\wl.o
Not ideal (open-source drivers would be nice) but workable, for this hardware platform. They are binaries for a custom MIPS32 processor after all. But yes, if want you want to do (like me) is make small mods to the box, these drivers are what you need to stay functional.
The unpacking has been done. It's quite easy, someone posted the instructions elsewhere in this article.
.asp, but I don't think they are Active Server Pages (ala IIS.) I don't recognize the scripting language, but that's not saying much for me. It could be something well-known and I wouldn't know.
All of the existing web scripts are
Most (all?) of the scripts call functions and/or some kind of virtual file system built into their httpd, which I assume is proprietary? They didn't seem to give out source to that. I think it's a pretty safe bet that one could find a function through that httpd that would allow one to call busybox in shell mode.
If that doesn't work, then I might have to figure out how to cross-compile a MIPS32 binary for Linux, and replace one of the less-used binaries with code of my choosing. I suspect I won't have to go to all that work, though...
Wait a while, and I'll bet you'll be able to. Not from Linksys, neccessarily... but from people like me who have taken a sudden interest due to this article.
.asp file to the www directory, repack, and upload. The .asp file could, say, allow shell commands. I'll let you know when my wrt54g arrives. :)
Looks like it might be pretty straightforward to unpack the cramfs system, add a tiny
Most of the binaries say:
GCC: (GNU) 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications
I don't follow GCC versions that closely. Does that indicate a customized (non-public) version of GCC?
Any reason to think that a current GCC 3.xx won't work with this target hardware?
No, I'm going to load strange software on it, and make it do things that have little or no practical value.
Because I can.
In regards to P2P sharing of copyrighted materials "There are more unindicted felons in the US than voted for Bush in the last election."
:)
:)
Heh. More than voted for Gore, too?
At least a few of the downloaders have to stick to legal stuff though, I'm sure.
Clearly, copyright law needs to catch up with technology.
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment. I'm afraid the disagreement is exactly what "catch up" means.
I'm about there. My 3 year old has destroyed most of the Disney DVDs, and scratched up the new Weird Al and Metallica CDs in the last couple of days. The last piece is the media box to go with each TV, so that everything can come across the home Ethernet.
Setting, exactly. I've got Vice City, and the music is just one more little touch that gives it the perfect 80's feel.
Tools would be released so that anyone with a DVD drive in their Windows box will be able to do so. There would be $200 devices with 2 DVD drives, one read, one write. Word would get out that you could do down down up up A B on the remote to disable checking of the DRM bit. Then there are lots of people with friends like me who they come to with technical questions.
That's not the point, though... the point is that consumer would WANT to have copies, even if they had no means to do so. It's the desire to have things a particular way that drives their decisions.
I'm not going to give up music or movies. Problem is, these guys have a near monopoly. Boycots are good, but they often don't work as well against monopolies. Well.. not boycotts based on ideals, anyway. The bulk of the consumers will vote with their dollars based on functionality, not fairness.
Fortunately, it sometimes works out the same (Divx). The self-destruct scheme is quite similar in result, so I'm hoping it gets the same treatement.
In favor of the self-destruct... if they are significantly cheaper (again, like Divx... say $5 for a 3-day disk, instead of $20 for a "permanent" disk) then I'll happily buy them and rip them...
Divx would never survive today because too many people know how to rip DVDs. Divx would have been cracked long ago.