Browser support is one big sticking point I have with this. The problem is that web designers are supposed to support disabled people. Analogies may be made to wheelchair ramps and the like, but that's missing one key point: designers also have to support the disabled person's web client-- that could be any manner of OS/browser/helper-app combinations. Would someone who relied on standards-compliant code that wasn't browser supported (use of voice styles, for instance-- many "screen scraper" readers don't support that) be liable in noncompliance? What about the opposite: "This site requires Netscape Navigator 4 Gold and Bob's Screenreader Pro for ADA compliant rendering."
Good point... I imagine if you are the kind of person that picks through and jumps into any large amount of OSS source, you've seen plenty enough crap code in your time.
Just as free speech can be an enabler for the distasteful, free code can also be an enabler for the distasteful. If you want the benefits of control, opt for control-- use a permission-based license. However, if you want freedom, understand and accept the lack of control that is freedom's byproduct. And, yes, I understand that one can write a license that prohibits distasteful uses of ones tools, and that is (and should be) in a writer's power. But to my mind, to place a "morally restricted" license under the banner of freedom in software says that author doesn't understand the concept of freedom. Freedom has to be as total as possible, or it's just relative freedom for a selected group.
Also, consider that if you use a viral/copyleft license, like the GPL or CC ShareAlike, even if Microsoft were to latch onto the code, they'd still be bound by the terms and playing in the same field as anyone else who chose to download it.
I don't deal in code as much as writing and images, but I've seen people get far too protective over their free work, which they're not planning to commercialize in the least, for no reason other than they think they ought to get a cut for someone else's monetization. (A bit off your point, but relevant to the Microsoft comment.) My personal stance is that when I intend to license things openly, I do it as openly as possible (Credit requested but not required, no verbatim redistribution (for images), and no misrepresentation of source or libelous use. All else is fair game).
The way I see it is that the playing field is level, albeit a bit higher now-- yes, some work is already done for anyone who wants to commercialize my work, but then again, that same work is available to everyone. Anyone has the same chance to make trillions of dollars off this platform if they can bring the right things to the table. If someone has the further wherewithal and the resources to cash in (using a resource forced to be a commodity, no less), then let them reap the rewards of their industriousness. I sure wasn't going to do it.
That can still scale up to a damaging level, though. With that loose of a restriction, for instance, you'd get legal legitimacy on file-sharing networks. The practical price or value of any transferable content would be greatly impacted (save for the really rare stuff).
One problem is that, to make the scenario you presented 100% above-board, there'd need to be a lot of legislation involved that covered "gray areas" that would end up being just as lousy as the current legislation, chillingly vague, or imprecise to the point that it could allow "technically legal" damaging wholesale piracy. Something like a Founders' Copyright could help to mitigate the situation somewhat, but still, most of the above would still run technically afoul of that as well.
What we have now does decently well in filling in the cracks, in that for all their talk and bluster, few content producers would want to take on the cost and popular backlash of suing over most minor infractions. There's also Fair Use, which protects the free-speech use angle.
If we're still talking pipe dreams, though, the best solution would be a universal rights clearinghouse with sane royalties for low-volume reproduction. (I could even see an expanded statutory rate, with care not to trample on artists' rights.) The problem is that since royalty is so rarely requested in personal-use situations, there's no "customer base" for personal or low-volume use, and the pricing for licensing starts in the ballparks of large-scale money-making use.
(Okay, not so true in my area-- I'm on TDS and have options-- but I know of plenty of places, even in the town where I live, where feasible services are offered only by two or three companies.)
How's that? It's not like they can retroactively zip up the licensing terms they made previously. They may "own" the copyright, but it's been licensed to anyone under GPL viral-license terms. Don't like it? Fork it.
Perhaps I don't run in the circle where these are found, but are copy-protected discs really prevalent enough not to be avoidable? Until they become a majority, I'd just refrain from buying any form of a CP disc, on matters of principle if not practicality.
I've personally always thought that watermarking or tracking information would be a good compromise-point between the freedom vs. anti-piracy stances. If a robust watermarking scheme could be made (which is a hurdle in and of itself), and applied to non-DRM files, it would impose no technological restrictions, but facilitate the creators and the law to assert their rights as well. On that last note, the "assertion of the creator's rights" would naturally be flexible to later changes in law, and limited only by the actual legal restrictions against the purchaser, since there is no inherent physical/technological restriction outright preventing any use of the content.
If Apple could be said to have performed any gaffes in their marked-music, it was inadequately publishing the fact that buyer information was tagged on. (Of course, whatever they did, I'm certain there would be "public outrage" over loss of some ill-defined freedom or another.)
As for the "premium price" and the limited selection, that's wholly politics and label-dealing, although I do agree that it's not worth it. Personally I avoid iTunes because, simply, I don't want to get locked in. MP3 is the standard (patents be damned and LAME be praised), and I can get a wider range of MP3 devices that are more tailored, versatile, and cheaper. Then the MP3s roll in from eMusic (although I'm really wondering how that site's future is going to go... a lot of labels are finding greener pastures).
Still, though, you have to throw more resources at it, and/or risk getting found out when an attempt fails or when the guards get suspicious about the same people showing up at the same places a number of times.
And as music is an entertainment thing that "vote with your wallet" argument doesn't always work.
You make it sound as if entertainment is a staple... It's not exactly the most important thing in the world, nor is it rare enough that it's impossible to be both discriminating and satisfied.
Google Video and now this? That time has arrived, and the examples are trickling in. At least with Apple, you have rather a "blue chip" company backing your DRM, and one that's receptive enough to its customer base (and one with a large enough post-customer base) that it's unlikely they'd screw 'em all. Still, though, there's the possibility that they (or even the iTMS division) could suddenly tank someday down the road after some executive mishaps.
Personally, DRM just pisses me off. My personal sources are eMusic and the rare CD... even iTMS's "oh-so-simple" DRM is a PITA (my wife has some iTMS songs purchased). There's the usual "can't listen to this without a registered iTunes" blues, but there's also the aggravation that the file is basically a brick until you strip off the crypto-- you can't do things like trimming the poorly-cut end off a song for a compilation, using a normalization filter, excerpting... Hell, just playing it in the car on the player of my choice. I know I'm out of the ordinary, but I want to use my music!
Still, though, I don't think Microsoft could have that much leverage-- enough to tell its licensees "leave this obvious gaping deficiency in your product or we won't let you use our DRM!" Perhaps a few manufacturers would fall for it, but they would choke any leverage they had in the resulting feedback loop: Devices with WMA don't support MP3, people don't buy WMA devices, manufacturers give up on licensing WMA, music sellers also give up on WMA, so WMA then lacks any value as a leverage point.
The only reason things like the broadcast flag are in danger of getting pushed through is that television is distributed from a (relatively) narrow range of sources, and when those sources agree that "this is how we're doing it" (and have the back-up in the form of standardization, regulation, and IP holdings), the tuner manufacturers can't just say "screw you guys, we're going to this other type of TV", since they'll end up with either 100 channels of static or a knock on the door from the FCC.
You might like your Creative Zen, but the company is only a follower behind Microsoft, and supported the plan to homogenize the world being one absolute DRM dictator. It's in your own interests that Apple kicked Microsoft's ass, because otherwise your CDs would have WMA files on them and the only download stores would be Urge and Walmart and other MediaNet supplied DRM subscriptions.
This makes no sense. What's the incentive for Creative, or any other hardware-maker, to omit easily-implementable, ubiquitous, and value-adding functions (MP3) from their players? Even if they were so well convinced/paid off by that they did drop open formats, they'd end up alienating their market with a sub-par product that, save for any other unique "killer app" functionality that made it a must-have, would be run out by any competitor with half a brain.
Unless the content producers have the means and the resolve to force a disruptive amount of incompatibility with certain hardware, they simply don't have the relevant leverage to force those hardware-makers to cripple their products for the good of the content producers. Perhaps this is a feasible concept in an emerging market/tech (digital TV and the "Broadcast Flag"), but MP3 was a de facto standard before portable players ever came around, and by the time they got popular, it was an unstoppable force.
Since you're initiating the process from scratch, the reason they need a mailing to initiate the freeze is firstly: the cover-your-ass surety of certified mail, and secondly: you're doing all the "initiation" bits there-- passing them the initial "key" information you'll use to unlock your account later, and giving them the information you need to associate your request with your account. When you're unlocking, however, all you're doing is reciting the "key"-- they have all the other relevant info-- and effecting a status change. Basically, there's a lot more raw information getting passed around to freeze the account, versus unfreezing.
Also, people may legitimately need to unfreeze their accounts in a relative hurry.
Granted, this is just something I recall my mortgage broker saying a year ago (so take with salt as necessary), but I've heard that a critical component of assessing your credit is available credit versus utilized/outstanding debt. Having a higher credit limit (with low utilization) is a good thing-- I think it's thinking along the lines of "if you come into hard times, you can use your available credit to soak up other bills, and still pay us." (Of course, upping your limits just before looking to mortgage does trip fishiness filters.)
If you were to take this tactic, though, you'd still want to freeze your credit-- your not having existing accounts doesn't mean someone else can't apply under your name.
I see huge potential. Imagine the day when the internet itself is just referred to as Second Life, replacing the ubiquous web browser with an SL client, or that SL-only machines are sold...
How'd that work out? I've got a 7-year old laptop (thirdhand from university surplus) that I'd been trying to use, and Dell basically just told me "We won't let you hack your own machine." Granted the thing's got failing fans and a fist-mark for a screen (hence my getting it thirdhand, cheap), so it's not much worth to me save for spare parts.
It's a branded term for "white-hat". IIRC, these people take people through courses where they learn security topics and techniques, in a large part, from the perspective and experience of breaking into insecure systems. Specifying "Ethical" in the name clarifies their intent and goals to both their potential clients and to the outside world, that they are training ethical people "hacking" skills for constructive purposes.
Although I suppose there could be a skew of some sort, I wouldn't expect the gender differences-- as long as the group was otherwise similar-- to be much different.
There are still some distinguishing factors you fail to mention, though. Not all "plugging in" causes damage, and not all "plugging in" is unauthorized. Sure, hacking the TiVo to receive copy-protected or restricted premium content without consent can be illegal, but that's only a small part of the possible hacks. A broad spectrum of useful content and services are publicly available, or could become available if a hack creates the need, and sometimes circumventable restrictions and achievable enhancements are the only thing standing in the way.
There're still a world of hacks open that, although they may break people's over-dependent business models, are perfectly legal: Alternative OSs and feature enhancements, using different data sources, using the device in a completely different application, unlocking features... Hell, if we're talking TiVo, "Unbricking the thing without shelling out the gratuitous monthlies" is a legal and much-desired goal.
Although there may be legal pitfalls to watch out for, not every black box, "No, you shouldn't", or "We don't support that" means illegal. At least for the moment, customers' adherence to your profitable business model is not necessarily an inviolable or legally-protected right.
It's not so much a matter of speed increases, but bandwidth cost decreases. Your bit of residential bandwidth might not be optimal, might or might not be better, but it's usable, and it can be used to send content stored on your machine to someone directly, saving the otherwise-provider money in not having to use their metered bandwidth, of which they'll give you a cut of some sort.
Also, you're assuming that you'd be sucking from one straw and spitting right out the other. That is dumb. However, if you're already storing the data (or providing a processing service), you may still be at an edge point, but you're the endpoint that's serving the desired content.
Slashdot Mirror
Browser support is one big sticking point I have with this. The problem is that web designers are supposed to support disabled people. Analogies may be made to wheelchair ramps and the like, but that's missing one key point: designers also have to support the disabled person's web client-- that could be any manner of OS/browser/helper-app combinations. Would someone who relied on standards-compliant code that wasn't browser supported (use of voice styles, for instance-- many "screen scraper" readers don't support that) be liable in noncompliance? What about the opposite: "This site requires Netscape Navigator 4 Gold and Bob's Screenreader Pro for ADA compliant rendering."
If it uses domain names, a Hosts file entry might work.
Good point... I imagine if you are the kind of person that picks through and jumps into any large amount of OSS source, you've seen plenty enough crap code in your time.
Just as free speech can be an enabler for the distasteful, free code can also be an enabler for the distasteful. If you want the benefits of control, opt for control-- use a permission-based license. However, if you want freedom, understand and accept the lack of control that is freedom's byproduct. And, yes, I understand that one can write a license that prohibits distasteful uses of ones tools, and that is (and should be) in a writer's power. But to my mind, to place a "morally restricted" license under the banner of freedom in software says that author doesn't understand the concept of freedom. Freedom has to be as total as possible, or it's just relative freedom for a selected group.
Also, consider that if you use a viral/copyleft license, like the GPL or CC ShareAlike, even if Microsoft were to latch onto the code, they'd still be bound by the terms and playing in the same field as anyone else who chose to download it.
I don't deal in code as much as writing and images, but I've seen people get far too protective over their free work, which they're not planning to commercialize in the least, for no reason other than they think they ought to get a cut for someone else's monetization. (A bit off your point, but relevant to the Microsoft comment.) My personal stance is that when I intend to license things openly, I do it as openly as possible (Credit requested but not required, no verbatim redistribution (for images), and no misrepresentation of source or libelous use. All else is fair game).
The way I see it is that the playing field is level, albeit a bit higher now-- yes, some work is already done for anyone who wants to commercialize my work, but then again, that same work is available to everyone. Anyone has the same chance to make trillions of dollars off this platform if they can bring the right things to the table. If someone has the further wherewithal and the resources to cash in (using a resource forced to be a commodity, no less), then let them reap the rewards of their industriousness. I sure wasn't going to do it.
That can still scale up to a damaging level, though. With that loose of a restriction, for instance, you'd get legal legitimacy on file-sharing networks. The practical price or value of any transferable content would be greatly impacted (save for the really rare stuff).
One problem is that, to make the scenario you presented 100% above-board, there'd need to be a lot of legislation involved that covered "gray areas" that would end up being just as lousy as the current legislation, chillingly vague, or imprecise to the point that it could allow "technically legal" damaging wholesale piracy. Something like a Founders' Copyright could help to mitigate the situation somewhat, but still, most of the above would still run technically afoul of that as well.
What we have now does decently well in filling in the cracks, in that for all their talk and bluster, few content producers would want to take on the cost and popular backlash of suing over most minor infractions. There's also Fair Use, which protects the free-speech use angle.
If we're still talking pipe dreams, though, the best solution would be a universal rights clearinghouse with sane royalties for low-volume reproduction. (I could even see an expanded statutory rate, with care not to trample on artists' rights.) The problem is that since royalty is so rarely requested in personal-use situations, there's no "customer base" for personal or low-volume use, and the pricing for licensing starts in the ballparks of large-scale money-making use.
What, you think I want to go to Comcast?
(Okay, not so true in my area-- I'm on TDS and have options-- but I know of plenty of places, even in the town where I live, where feasible services are offered only by two or three companies.)
So wait a minute. The FSF releases a license, GPLv3, that it says protects our "freedom"
I've always seen it as a "You trade some freedom you have for some freedom you wouldn't." system.
How's that? It's not like they can retroactively zip up the licensing terms they made previously. They may "own" the copyright, but it's been licensed to anyone under GPL viral-license terms. Don't like it? Fork it.
Perhaps I don't run in the circle where these are found, but are copy-protected discs really prevalent enough not to be avoidable? Until they become a majority, I'd just refrain from buying any form of a CP disc, on matters of principle if not practicality.
I've personally always thought that watermarking or tracking information would be a good compromise-point between the freedom vs. anti-piracy stances. If a robust watermarking scheme could be made (which is a hurdle in and of itself), and applied to non-DRM files, it would impose no technological restrictions, but facilitate the creators and the law to assert their rights as well. On that last note, the "assertion of the creator's rights" would naturally be flexible to later changes in law, and limited only by the actual legal restrictions against the purchaser, since there is no inherent physical/technological restriction outright preventing any use of the content.
If Apple could be said to have performed any gaffes in their marked-music, it was inadequately publishing the fact that buyer information was tagged on. (Of course, whatever they did, I'm certain there would be "public outrage" over loss of some ill-defined freedom or another.)
As for the "premium price" and the limited selection, that's wholly politics and label-dealing, although I do agree that it's not worth it. Personally I avoid iTunes because, simply, I don't want to get locked in. MP3 is the standard (patents be damned and LAME be praised), and I can get a wider range of MP3 devices that are more tailored, versatile, and cheaper. Then the MP3s roll in from eMusic (although I'm really wondering how that site's future is going to go... a lot of labels are finding greener pastures).
Still, though, you have to throw more resources at it, and/or risk getting found out when an attempt fails or when the guards get suspicious about the same people showing up at the same places a number of times.
And as music is an entertainment thing that "vote with your wallet" argument doesn't always work.
You make it sound as if entertainment is a staple... It's not exactly the most important thing in the world, nor is it rare enough that it's impossible to be both discriminating and satisfied.
That's basically where DRM will take us.
Google Video and now this? That time has arrived, and the examples are trickling in. At least with Apple, you have rather a "blue chip" company backing your DRM, and one that's receptive enough to its customer base (and one with a large enough post-customer base) that it's unlikely they'd screw 'em all. Still, though, there's the possibility that they (or even the iTMS division) could suddenly tank someday down the road after some executive mishaps.
Personally, DRM just pisses me off. My personal sources are eMusic and the rare CD... even iTMS's "oh-so-simple" DRM is a PITA (my wife has some iTMS songs purchased). There's the usual "can't listen to this without a registered iTunes" blues, but there's also the aggravation that the file is basically a brick until you strip off the crypto-- you can't do things like trimming the poorly-cut end off a song for a compilation, using a normalization filter, excerpting... Hell, just playing it in the car on the player of my choice. I know I'm out of the ordinary, but I want to use my music!
So, yeah. MP3 all the way.
Still, though, I don't think Microsoft could have that much leverage-- enough to tell its licensees "leave this obvious gaping deficiency in your product or we won't let you use our DRM!" Perhaps a few manufacturers would fall for it, but they would choke any leverage they had in the resulting feedback loop: Devices with WMA don't support MP3, people don't buy WMA devices, manufacturers give up on licensing WMA, music sellers also give up on WMA, so WMA then lacks any value as a leverage point.
The only reason things like the broadcast flag are in danger of getting pushed through is that television is distributed from a (relatively) narrow range of sources, and when those sources agree that "this is how we're doing it" (and have the back-up in the form of standardization, regulation, and IP holdings), the tuner manufacturers can't just say "screw you guys, we're going to this other type of TV", since they'll end up with either 100 channels of static or a knock on the door from the FCC.
You might like your Creative Zen, but the company is only a follower behind Microsoft, and supported the plan to homogenize the world being one absolute DRM dictator. It's in your own interests that Apple kicked Microsoft's ass, because otherwise your CDs would have WMA files on them and the only download stores would be Urge and Walmart and other MediaNet supplied DRM subscriptions.
This makes no sense. What's the incentive for Creative, or any other hardware-maker, to omit easily-implementable, ubiquitous, and value-adding functions (MP3) from their players? Even if they were so well convinced/paid off by that they did drop open formats, they'd end up alienating their market with a sub-par product that, save for any other unique "killer app" functionality that made it a must-have, would be run out by any competitor with half a brain.
Unless the content producers have the means and the resolve to force a disruptive amount of incompatibility with certain hardware, they simply don't have the relevant leverage to force those hardware-makers to cripple their products for the good of the content producers. Perhaps this is a feasible concept in an emerging market/tech (digital TV and the "Broadcast Flag"), but MP3 was a de facto standard before portable players ever came around, and by the time they got popular, it was an unstoppable force.
Here's what I'm assuming--
Since you're initiating the process from scratch, the reason they need a mailing to initiate the freeze is firstly: the cover-your-ass surety of certified mail, and secondly: you're doing all the "initiation" bits there-- passing them the initial "key" information you'll use to unlock your account later, and giving them the information you need to associate your request with your account. When you're unlocking, however, all you're doing is reciting the "key"-- they have all the other relevant info-- and effecting a status change. Basically, there's a lot more raw information getting passed around to freeze the account, versus unfreezing.
Also, people may legitimately need to unfreeze their accounts in a relative hurry.
Granted, this is just something I recall my mortgage broker saying a year ago (so take with salt as necessary), but I've heard that a critical component of assessing your credit is available credit versus utilized/outstanding debt. Having a higher credit limit (with low utilization) is a good thing-- I think it's thinking along the lines of "if you come into hard times, you can use your available credit to soak up other bills, and still pay us." (Of course, upping your limits just before looking to mortgage does trip fishiness filters.)
If you were to take this tactic, though, you'd still want to freeze your credit-- your not having existing accounts doesn't mean someone else can't apply under your name.
I see huge potential. Imagine the day when the internet itself is just referred to as Second Life, replacing the ubiquous web browser with an SL client, or that SL-only machines are sold...
Oh boy. VRML.
How'd that work out? I've got a 7-year old laptop (thirdhand from university surplus) that I'd been trying to use, and Dell basically just told me "We won't let you hack your own machine." Granted the thing's got failing fans and a fist-mark for a screen (hence my getting it thirdhand, cheap), so it's not much worth to me save for spare parts.
It's a branded term for "white-hat". IIRC, these people take people through courses where they learn security topics and techniques, in a large part, from the perspective and experience of breaking into insecure systems. Specifying "Ethical" in the name clarifies their intent and goals to both their potential clients and to the outside world, that they are training ethical people "hacking" skills for constructive purposes.
Although I suppose there could be a skew of some sort, I wouldn't expect the gender differences-- as long as the group was otherwise similar-- to be much different.
There are still some distinguishing factors you fail to mention, though. Not all "plugging in" causes damage, and not all "plugging in" is unauthorized. Sure, hacking the TiVo to receive copy-protected or restricted premium content without consent can be illegal, but that's only a small part of the possible hacks. A broad spectrum of useful content and services are publicly available, or could become available if a hack creates the need, and sometimes circumventable restrictions and achievable enhancements are the only thing standing in the way.
There're still a world of hacks open that, although they may break people's over-dependent business models, are perfectly legal: Alternative OSs and feature enhancements, using different data sources, using the device in a completely different application, unlocking features... Hell, if we're talking TiVo, "Unbricking the thing without shelling out the gratuitous monthlies" is a legal and much-desired goal.
Although there may be legal pitfalls to watch out for, not every black box, "No, you shouldn't", or "We don't support that" means illegal. At least for the moment, customers' adherence to your profitable business model is not necessarily an inviolable or legally-protected right.
It's not so much a matter of speed increases, but bandwidth cost decreases. Your bit of residential bandwidth might not be optimal, might or might not be better, but it's usable, and it can be used to send content stored on your machine to someone directly, saving the otherwise-provider money in not having to use their metered bandwidth, of which they'll give you a cut of some sort.
Also, you're assuming that you'd be sucking from one straw and spitting right out the other. That is dumb. However, if you're already storing the data (or providing a processing service), you may still be at an edge point, but you're the endpoint that's serving the desired content.