Although it would be hard (and probably prohibitively costly) to prove, I'd imagine that if they were using a completely digital-to-digital translation/mangling method, you could get them for unauthorized derivative work.
You don't always have to apply it, though. It might be just the technicality someone needs to stop an objectionable but otherwise legal website. Granted, that's just as shady and flimsy as this case is...
It might not be profitable enough or feasable for the usual suspects, but imagine the usefulness of an automated MITM system set up on an open WiFi in some urban area. Combine poor SSL validation with any number of middle-access possibilities (ARP poisoning, as mentioned, WiFi spoofing, or even just "Lookie here, Open Wifi!"), then add in the fact that it takes only a few of the right compromises (a credit card number, or an online bank session key) to open yourself up to a fair amount of credit.
They'd say that. But you'd say (assuming you're in a favorable jurisdiction) "First sale! Rights of time- and media-shifting!" Then they'd say "Lawyers ho!" Then you'd be broke.
The problem with this is that you need a large mass of a certain "false type" of person, or the spurious results just become filterable noise. A group is a consistent value. Deviation has no such consistency.
"Testing" doesn't have to be some experiment that happens after the theory is created.
If a theory of evolution is laid out, its points can be tested and adjusted based upon evidence from the past. It's like the "experiment" of evolution had already been run (or is running), and scientists are examining the results, and refining theories to understand and fit that existing evidence. Not every theory would sync with that evidence, and as more evidence is uncovered, the theories either pass or fail.
Is there anyone left out there who actually believes these assholes deserve to retain any degree of their unprecedented money, power, and political influence? Tell me I'm wrong, please. Maybe there's a whole big contingent of people out there who think listening to music without paying for it is actually stealing. Those are probably the same people who think musicians make more than a few cents per every album sold, and that every song 'stolen' represents lost revenue equal to the retail price of that song. In other words, the sadly ignorant. ASCAP is even worse-- only the top-selling bands make any significant money whatsoever from ASCAP licensing revenues. Meanwhile, they're making money for their legal department by suing the bars and clubs who host DJs and cover bands.
As a musician, I think that's a big crock of shit.
Yes.
That said, I keep the RIAA off my back the old fashioned way-- I rip my friends' CDs rather than download off the net, and similarly share the wealth off-line. Not like I could've bought the Beatles' albums in the Apple Store anyway. And Sir McCartney certainly doesn't need it, if he even sees royalties from those sales anymore.
No. Do without. It's not that hard. It's just music, and it's not even all music. Boycott or get off the soapbox.
I'd say it's probably more a problem of them being beaten on in a school setting for 6 or 7 hours each day. Any computer that can survive that without a few quirks is probably just one of those locked-down machines that'll only open 3 programs and go to 18% of the web, by design. Consider that they're being slammed on by a mix of people who don't know what they're doing, and (even worse, from an administrative perspective), people who know some of what they're doing, and pick and explore to learn more. I've never been a sysadmin, but I do recall making one or two "blinky-disks" or "sad Macs" in my tenure as a student... I was of the second class, I suppose.
ObTopic: Why aren't there many same-screen multiplayer games planned for Windows XP or its successor Windows Vista?
I'd imagine it's not so much the split screen as having to jostle for keyboard space, desk space, leg room. Even though peripherals like joysticks or gamepads can be added, the computer is still fundamentally designed around being a one-user-at-a-time machine.
There are practices which, in the eyes of the market and in the interest of a leveled playing field, may be considered to be "fair play", but are still repugnant, dishonorable, corrupt, anti-social, leeching, and cause damage and fallout. These states are not mutually exclusive. Domain names are a "natural resource" of the Internet. Do cybersquatters have the right to strip-mine cheap domains by the hundreds and leave behind vast tracts of ugly, pointless crapflood and inflated ransom where someone with more initiative and actual talent could have created a beautiful construction (or even a crappy-but-sincere site)? Sure, they're free to buy $8 domains just as anyone else is.
To say they're just quicker, that's the market, and it's all just business, however, hides the fact that, aside from the virtue of being first to force-feed a dictionary down their registrar-of-choice, domain squatters really don't have many other virtues... at all. The term "parasite" fits quite well, unless you're one of the few who actually consider pages of spam and linkfarming with "Learn more about [domain-name-of-the-site-that-you-really-wanted-th at-expired-and-got-snapped-up-by-some-squatting-ra tbastard]" to be a positive addition to the Internet.
Sure, it's a free market. Yes, it's supply-and-demand coupled with disproportionately low first-time costs. It's all a natural and fair system, and there probably isn't one that's better, but that doesn't even touch the fact that domain squatters are useless leeches and parasites, and generally, all-around "not a good thing". You can sit around and point at how shiny and clean the "supply and demand" system is, but I still see this very real effect here... the do-nothing virtual-lardass sitting on some piece of property they have no intention of ever making anything of, trying to grow disproportionately rich for having done or been little of value to anyone.
No, I don't want to change the free-market system, I haven't seen much better. Still, though, people need to realize that things like (accurate) name-calling, boycott, anger, hate, protest, ostracism... these are parts of the system! To yell "Shout it to the hills! This person and their kind are a load of shiftless parasites! Buy nothing from them, and seek to eradicate them! Make them hate themselves and their career choice!" is as integral a part to capitalism as is "fair market value". Basically, the heat comes with the kitchen.
Still, though, enough people don't know or care about every issue. I'm just reminded of stories of small council or PTA meetings where nobody cares for 364 days, then some "action group" flash-floods the meeting when their particular pet issue comes up. You'd just end up with more pork and more fringe legislation if it was "all voting, all the time".
OTOH, imagine if every single law were brought up for a popular vote. After all the noise, the only people who would care enough to vote would be the zealots. At least, in the current system, the zealots only get to apply pressure to a representative who has independent responsibility to weigh the options, instead of the zealots themselves actually flipping the switch.
OTOH, the only thing that keeps seeing a movie from costing the thousands-to-millions that it cost to make it is the fact that it is copyable and time-shiftable. You might not be depriving others of goods, but you're stealing services, albeit time-shifted and distributed services.
OTOH, DRM isn't a dead-horse issue. The issue in the stage right now where simple "awareness-building" is key. Although I think they could have found something more relevant than standing around in HAZMAT suits, I don't think stunts are out of the question.
Slashdot Mirror
Although it would be hard (and probably prohibitively costly) to prove, I'd imagine that if they were using a completely digital-to-digital translation/mangling method, you could get them for unauthorized derivative work.
You don't always have to apply it, though. It might be just the technicality someone needs to stop an objectionable but otherwise legal website. Granted, that's just as shady and flimsy as this case is...
It might not be profitable enough or feasable for the usual suspects, but imagine the usefulness of an automated MITM system set up on an open WiFi in some urban area. Combine poor SSL validation with any number of middle-access possibilities (ARP poisoning, as mentioned, WiFi spoofing, or even just "Lookie here, Open Wifi!"), then add in the fact that it takes only a few of the right compromises (a credit card number, or an online bank session key) to open yourself up to a fair amount of credit.
And the FBI comment was just self-defeating.
Does your license permit redistribution without credit?
OTOH, remember the crapflood that was MP3.com back when? Discretion can be helpful.
They'd say that.
But you'd say (assuming you're in a favorable jurisdiction) "First sale! Rights of time- and media-shifting!"
Then they'd say "Lawyers ho!"
Then you'd be broke.
If they didn't want middlemen, they shouldn't've signed on for middlemen.
With security like that, your stuff is so amazingly gone.
The problem with this is that you need a large mass of a certain "false type" of person, or the spurious results just become filterable noise. A group is a consistent value. Deviation has no such consistency.
"Testing" doesn't have to be some experiment that happens after the theory is created.
If a theory of evolution is laid out, its points can be tested and adjusted based upon evidence from the past. It's like the "experiment" of evolution had already been run (or is running), and scientists are examining the results, and refining theories to understand and fit that existing evidence. Not every theory would sync with that evidence, and as more evidence is uncovered, the theories either pass or fail.
I can't imagine what an espresso and a bunch of cream cheese would do to me just before bedtime
If your "opposites" theory is correct, nothing (if adequately and proportionately mixed).
In retrospect, s/soapbox/high horse/.
Is there anyone left out there who actually believes these assholes deserve to retain any degree of their unprecedented money, power, and political influence? Tell me I'm wrong, please. Maybe there's a whole big contingent of people out there who think listening to music without paying for it is actually stealing. Those are probably the same people who think musicians make more than a few cents per every album sold, and that every song 'stolen' represents lost revenue equal to the retail price of that song. In other words, the sadly ignorant. ASCAP is even worse-- only the top-selling bands make any significant money whatsoever from ASCAP licensing revenues. Meanwhile, they're making money for their legal department by suing the bars and clubs who host DJs and cover bands.
As a musician, I think that's a big crock of shit.
Yes.
That said, I keep the RIAA off my back the old fashioned way-- I rip my friends' CDs rather than download off the net, and similarly share the wealth off-line. Not like I could've bought the Beatles' albums in the Apple Store anyway. And Sir McCartney certainly doesn't need it, if he even sees royalties from those sales anymore.
No. Do without. It's not that hard. It's just music, and it's not even all music. Boycott or get off the soapbox.
I'd say it's probably more a problem of them being beaten on in a school setting for 6 or 7 hours each day. Any computer that can survive that without a few quirks is probably just one of those locked-down machines that'll only open 3 programs and go to 18% of the web, by design. Consider that they're being slammed on by a mix of people who don't know what they're doing, and (even worse, from an administrative perspective), people who know some of what they're doing, and pick and explore to learn more. I've never been a sysadmin, but I do recall making one or two "blinky-disks" or "sad Macs" in my tenure as a student... I was of the second class, I suppose.
ObTopic: Why aren't there many same-screen multiplayer games planned for Windows XP or its successor Windows Vista?
I'd imagine it's not so much the split screen as having to jostle for keyboard space, desk space, leg room. Even though peripherals like joysticks or gamepads can be added, the computer is still fundamentally designed around being a one-user-at-a-time machine.
Do you still need to send it a Wake-on-LAN signal for that, or does it actually watch for any ol' connections?
Ahh, but over a cable modem?
Wha'? Courts? Trials? That is so pre-9/11.
There are practices which, in the eyes of the market and in the interest of a leveled playing field, may be considered to be "fair play", but are still repugnant, dishonorable, corrupt, anti-social, leeching, and cause damage and fallout. These states are not mutually exclusive. Domain names are a "natural resource" of the Internet. Do cybersquatters have the right to strip-mine cheap domains by the hundreds and leave behind vast tracts of ugly, pointless crapflood and inflated ransom where someone with more initiative and actual talent could have created a beautiful construction (or even a crappy-but-sincere site)? Sure, they're free to buy $8 domains just as anyone else is.
h at-expired-and-got-snapped-up-by-some-squatting-ra tbastard]" to be a positive addition to the Internet.
To say they're just quicker, that's the market, and it's all just business, however, hides the fact that, aside from the virtue of being first to force-feed a dictionary down their registrar-of-choice, domain squatters really don't have many other virtues... at all. The term "parasite" fits quite well, unless you're one of the few who actually consider pages of spam and linkfarming with "Learn more about [domain-name-of-the-site-that-you-really-wanted-t
Sure, it's a free market. Yes, it's supply-and-demand coupled with disproportionately low first-time costs. It's all a natural and fair system, and there probably isn't one that's better, but that doesn't even touch the fact that domain squatters are useless leeches and parasites, and generally, all-around "not a good thing". You can sit around and point at how shiny and clean the "supply and demand" system is, but I still see this very real effect here... the do-nothing virtual-lardass sitting on some piece of property they have no intention of ever making anything of, trying to grow disproportionately rich for having done or been little of value to anyone.
No, I don't want to change the free-market system, I haven't seen much better. Still, though, people need to realize that things like (accurate) name-calling, boycott, anger, hate, protest, ostracism... these are parts of the system! To yell "Shout it to the hills! This person and their kind are a load of shiftless parasites! Buy nothing from them, and seek to eradicate them! Make them hate themselves and their career choice!" is as integral a part to capitalism as is "fair market value". Basically, the heat comes with the kitchen.
Still, though, enough people don't know or care about every issue. I'm just reminded of stories of small council or PTA meetings where nobody cares for 364 days, then some "action group" flash-floods the meeting when their particular pet issue comes up. You'd just end up with more pork and more fringe legislation if it was "all voting, all the time".
OTOH, imagine if every single law were brought up for a popular vote. After all the noise, the only people who would care enough to vote would be the zealots. At least, in the current system, the zealots only get to apply pressure to a representative who has independent responsibility to weigh the options, instead of the zealots themselves actually flipping the switch.
OTOH, the only thing that keeps seeing a movie from costing the thousands-to-millions that it cost to make it is the fact that it is copyable and time-shiftable. You might not be depriving others of goods, but you're stealing services, albeit time-shifted and distributed services.
Who needs headphones? Duck tape, portable speakers...
OTOH, DRM isn't a dead-horse issue. The issue in the stage right now where simple "awareness-building" is key. Although I think they could have found something more relevant than standing around in HAZMAT suits, I don't think stunts are out of the question.
Yes, but the computer is like a car, you see...