Funny, but too bad real life isn't like that =P. Fact is this case is completely open/shut and the DMCA isn't really necessary for it to be taken to court. The 'hackers' were not simply sending each other diffs, or patches to the code or models that they changed. They were sending the actual whole code and in cases whole character models with little changes like "she has a big noSE!11!!11" This is clearly copyright infringement with or without the DMCA, the DMCA just helps the holders enforce it. FAR more interesting would be if the 'hackers' just posted diffs of their code or entirely new models and someone was using the DMCA against them for that. The article was light as hell on these details but if you follow the parent's archive.org link you can quickly see that this is the most plausible explanation, and that this has NO effect on GameShark, etc.
Wow people would be able to share in small groups. It would be less trouble than writing their own encryption protocols for these groups to just mail around external harddrives. The whole fingerprinting thing is ludicrous itself; the man in the middle thing I mention was ludicrous too. It's kind of like making a hilarious exageration so that you can see the rediculousness of the original premise.. actually that's exactly what it was. Note the last sentence of my original post.
Umm... if this was required by law for ISPs to implement, which is the only way this would be dangerous at all, then why wouldn the law award jack shit in a "huge lawsuit" for "mucking" with SSL root certificates? There would likely be other legal changes along with this. Look, I know this could never work in practicality, hence the way I ended my post, but in theory it sure as hell could. If you happen to solve the man in the middle problem without third parties, don't post it here, write it in a journal and win the Turing award.
If all ISPs are forced to do this is it really that hard for them to share the fake keys with one another? Also, look I said this would never happen. There are so many ways around it (temporarily in most cases) that it would be laughable. This would also require an ungodly amount of infrastructure etc. etc. etc. I said it would never happen. But in theory, not in practicality, it certainly could.
"Current throughput on our product is around 30mbs and that is with it "looking" for significantly more complicated patterns than a "digital fingerprint" in a stream. Using a load ballancer, we've hit 200mbs by ganging several systems." And this is for looking for some more significant patterns than digital fingerprints of every copyrighted work available on the internet? Holy shit. (I know you said "a," but for this to do what the article says it at least has to look for many thousands of copyrighted works...)
You're assuming people have a *CHOICE* about how to gain high speed internet access.
Me:
If your ISP pulls this shit and you care about it, then pretend you are one of the people with no provider and get dialup. Then the ISP may say "hey look, we predicted this many people would want broadband if we rolled it out way out here in boomfuck, but we are getting less than expected, why could that be?" And they may find out that it was because of the VOIP/server policy.
Care to tell me where I assumed people had a choice? I think with out reading you assumed I assumed people had a choice. I didn't. At least make arguments with what I said; it's harder than putting words in my mouth but damn, if that's all you want to do why bother talking to other people at all?
You forgot the trademark of all RPGs: while you give more and more hearts enemies also begin to take more and more hearts(substitute HPs/hearts/whatever).
Yes but the issue is they are allowing say sip phones that are using their own VOIP plan. I don't see a problem with this. It's anti-competitive blah blah blah but this is what it is going to take to make the user realize that signing that contract for internet which can be limited like this, "no running servers," is a scam--they will move to ISPs that don't do this bullshit. You might say, "boo hoo, for some people they only have one broadband provider." Who cares, some people have no broadband providers. If your ISP pulls this shit and you care about it, then pretend you are one of the people with no provider and get dialup. Then the ISP may say "hey look, we predicted this many people would want broadband if we rolled it out way out here in boomfuck, but we are getting less than expected, why could that be?" And they may find out that it was because of the VOIP/server policy. What you should not do is try to get the government involved in this at all. For instance right now I use a cell phone and I could give a flying shit about VOIP. If my ISP is blocking Vonage and only allowing their service, that means that for people who do use VOIP they are presumably making more money. That also means that to attract these people they can afford to lower the monthly rates on their broadband. I have no plans to use any VOIP so I sure as hell don't want government regulation telling me I have to effectively pay for it.
Worldcom bought MCI. They went bankrupt. After they went bankrupt their creditors own everything. So they didn't just "change their name" and get out of it. This is the creditors who got fucked on the original deal, struggling to spin MCI off as a new company and get away from the bad name of Worldcom. When a company goes bankrupt and then comes back, its not under the same ownership. Anyone who had stock in Worldcom when it went bankrupt lost it. It went to 0.
The ISPs will be legally required to do man in the middle attacks. When you start up an SSL connection they will accept it as if they were the destination and then make a request to the destination for a connection. They will then pipe all info between the two connections through their fingerprinting program, and then pipe the approved data to you and to them. None of this will ever happen.
I know that who holds the copyright does matter for cases where people explicitly market the item itself as the primary focus of their product. What I meant to say was that it doesn't matter at all for this blanket enforcement on the issue where tourists and journalists covering say a parade are being stopped by police and told they can't take pictures. The way courts interpret copyright law for public structures is much different than most other situations. It doesn't even have to be a public structure, if you are walking down the street holding a time magazine and I am filming a documentary -- hell it could even be a purely commercial action movie -- it honestly does not matter who owns the copyright to the picture on the front, I can leave it in my film. Now, if I market my movie as Time January 2005 and have a zoomed in picture of the cover from the footage as my billing... enforcement needs to be ex post facto indeed.
What the article said about landlines being a cash cow for Universities is very true. Clemson put an explicit ban on the program dial-pad back when it allowed you to make free calls over the internet several years ago. They explicitly blocked it from working on their network, it wasn't the consequence of other policies, it was simply "this competes with our long distance call revenue, terminate it."
Doesn't matter. If I want to make postcards of this thing and sell them in gift shops then it matters. The police are stopping every photographer from photographing this thing. Courts have ruled that things like advertisements and other works on public display are not covered by copyright if for instance someone is just taking a picture for their family album, if someone is taking a picture for a news article, or if the work is not the primary focus of a picture or pictorial. When someone takes a picture of a city skyline, they do not have to go paying thousands of architects for the right to do so.
If I go to the theator with a sound recorder, record all the sound, split off the music as much as possible and make a limited soundtrack of my own and sell it on CD how is that a copy1!11!11111 A movie has motion ADN sound!11 Oh my god my rights are being trampled.
Anyway, that was in response to your theory of how this shouldn't be copyright violation. There are many cases that already cover exactly this situation. For example a few years back here on Slashdot there was an article about a movie which featured Times Square in New York. They digitally removed ads from Time Square and put in their own. The court ruled that they had every right to film Time Square even though various advertisement's therein were copyrighted. They were explicitly for public display as is this sculpture. The court also ruled that just as an artist could make the statue of liberty be in a post apocolyptic state in say Planet of the Apes, an artist could also replace billboard advertisements with their own. The movie was I believe Spider Man 2. Head to that link and search for "Times Square".
No, if you really lived in Italy you might know that there is a (very) famous saying about Mussolini--"Mussolini may have done many brutal and tyrannical things; he may have destroyed human freedom in Italy; he may have murdered and tortured citizens whose only crime was to oppose Mussolini; but 'one had to admit' one thing about the Dictator: he 'made the trains run on time.'" Look around on Snopes, it's actually quite the urban legend, he didn't make the trains run on time.
Yes because he could have sold the hat. Disregarding the fact that the man has no brain and probably wouldn't be an effective salesman, even if he couldn't use the hat he could have sold it. If I don't like Rush music and I download 20 gigs of Rush music and then I delete it all without ever listening to it, nothing has been stolen. Yet I have set myself up for hundreds of thousands (actually millions since copyright law's damages are statutory, meaning basically not representitive at all of actual damages) of dollars in damages in civil suits.
Lets say I download every rush song which is currently in catalog at say Best Buy, Virgin Megastores, etc.. Lets say I then delete that. I'm still liable under statutory copyright damages for way more than the average American's net worth. For Rush. Is our country really this big of a joke? I could go steal every Rush CD from Best Buy and I would get at max one year in jail, though believe me that is max. If I actually got the CDs and managed to destroy them all (remember that's what I was doing with the downloaded Rush as well) I would be liable for the cost of the CDs, plus other minor damages to Best Buy such as the ever so slight loss of shelf space, etc. etc.. This would come out to less than $1000 total and in this case something bad actually happened, I actually took something from someone. In the previous case the whole thing was essentially imaginary, no one gained or lost benefit because of anything.
"Never mind the issue that uranium and/or plutonium make really bad ingredients for a dirty bomb (in terms of inflicting actual harm) because they are very hard to dispurse and settle quickly." The idea that those aren't good ingredients for a dirty bomb is even further argument that pebble bed reactors aren't some pit of a thousand billiard ball sized dirty elements waiting to be strapped to bombs.
You have to admit that that is pretty far off in the future. "1. With an orbiting telescope, size and weight are critical. If you build it on the moon (hopefully using local resources) it can weigh as much as you like and be as large as you want." Currently to make the mirror for a large telescope warranting being on the moon alone we have to use massive clean rooms, etc. etc. etc.. I don't see use being able to take less materials than the final weight of the telescope to the moon and through harvesting somehow build one. On earth we have years and years of infrastructure for harvesting and transporting materials, not to mention the electric grid, etc. etc. I just do not see this as viable for a very long time.
Seems like it would be quite hard to power a mobile system with no sunlight to charge batteries =P. Also, if the only reason for putting a telescope on the moon is that there isn't much atmosphere to scatter light, why not just use orbital telescopes like we already do? What is the point of putting one on the moon. The only point I could see is to black out the light and other radiation coming from earth, and then the whole 10mph thing is useless cause you want to be on the dark (as far as LOS to earth) side of the moon always.
Your geforce does massive parrellel computations. At 400Mhz it is getting a lot done. You don't quite understand Mhz. Current Athlons are way under the clock rate of P4's yet offer similar performance. A P4's FP unit runs at more than 4Ghz. Modern DSP's run above 10Ghz. Clock rate is not the only factor in a chip. You say you know they aren't exactly comparable... you are completely right, except replace "exactly" with "even a little bit".
Isn't a peice of paper something you can draft diagrams for an invention on? OMFG!11 No more patents cause paper itself serves as prior art to all of them.
That said, this patent is complete bullshit, especially given the date on which it was filed. Insane.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, but too bad real life isn't like that =P. Fact is this case is completely open/shut and the DMCA isn't really necessary for it to be taken to court. The 'hackers' were not simply sending each other diffs, or patches to the code or models that they changed. They were sending the actual whole code and in cases whole character models with little changes like "she has a big noSE!11!!11" This is clearly copyright infringement with or without the DMCA, the DMCA just helps the holders enforce it. FAR more interesting would be if the 'hackers' just posted diffs of their code or entirely new models and someone was using the DMCA against them for that. The article was light as hell on these details but if you follow the parent's archive.org link you can quickly see that this is the most plausible explanation, and that this has NO effect on GameShark, etc.
Wow people would be able to share in small groups. It would be less trouble than writing their own encryption protocols for these groups to just mail around external harddrives. The whole fingerprinting thing is ludicrous itself; the man in the middle thing I mention was ludicrous too. It's kind of like making a hilarious exageration so that you can see the rediculousness of the original premise.. actually that's exactly what it was. Note the last sentence of my original post.
Umm... if this was required by law for ISPs to implement, which is the only way this would be dangerous at all, then why wouldn the law award jack shit in a "huge lawsuit" for "mucking" with SSL root certificates? There would likely be other legal changes along with this. Look, I know this could never work in practicality, hence the way I ended my post, but in theory it sure as hell could. If you happen to solve the man in the middle problem without third parties, don't post it here, write it in a journal and win the Turing award.
If all ISPs are forced to do this is it really that hard for them to share the fake keys with one another? Also, look I said this would never happen. There are so many ways around it (temporarily in most cases) that it would be laughable. This would also require an ungodly amount of infrastructure etc. etc. etc. I said it would never happen. But in theory, not in practicality, it certainly could.
"Current throughput on our product is around 30mbs and that is with it "looking" for significantly more complicated patterns than a "digital fingerprint" in a stream. Using a load ballancer, we've hit 200mbs by ganging several systems." And this is for looking for some more significant patterns than digital fingerprints of every copyrighted work available on the internet? Holy shit. (I know you said "a," but for this to do what the article says it at least has to look for many thousands of copyrighted works...)
You're assuming people have a *CHOICE* about how to gain high speed internet access.
Me:If your ISP pulls this shit and you care about it, then pretend you are one of the people with no provider and get dialup. Then the ISP may say "hey look, we predicted this many people would want broadband if we rolled it out way out here in boomfuck, but we are getting less than expected, why could that be?" And they may find out that it was because of the VOIP/server policy.
Care to tell me where I assumed people had a choice? I think with out reading you assumed I assumed people had a choice. I didn't. At least make arguments with what I said; it's harder than putting words in my mouth but damn, if that's all you want to do why bother talking to other people at all?
You forgot the trademark of all RPGs: while you give more and more hearts enemies also begin to take more and more hearts(substitute HPs/hearts/whatever).
Yes but the issue is they are allowing say sip phones that are using their own VOIP plan. I don't see a problem with this. It's anti-competitive blah blah blah but this is what it is going to take to make the user realize that signing that contract for internet which can be limited like this, "no running servers," is a scam--they will move to ISPs that don't do this bullshit. You might say, "boo hoo, for some people they only have one broadband provider." Who cares, some people have no broadband providers. If your ISP pulls this shit and you care about it, then pretend you are one of the people with no provider and get dialup. Then the ISP may say "hey look, we predicted this many people would want broadband if we rolled it out way out here in boomfuck, but we are getting less than expected, why could that be?" And they may find out that it was because of the VOIP/server policy. What you should not do is try to get the government involved in this at all. For instance right now I use a cell phone and I could give a flying shit about VOIP. If my ISP is blocking Vonage and only allowing their service, that means that for people who do use VOIP they are presumably making more money. That also means that to attract these people they can afford to lower the monthly rates on their broadband. I have no plans to use any VOIP so I sure as hell don't want government regulation telling me I have to effectively pay for it.
Worldcom bought MCI. They went bankrupt. After they went bankrupt their creditors own everything. So they didn't just "change their name" and get out of it. This is the creditors who got fucked on the original deal, struggling to spin MCI off as a new company and get away from the bad name of Worldcom. When a company goes bankrupt and then comes back, its not under the same ownership. Anyone who had stock in Worldcom when it went bankrupt lost it. It went to 0.
The ISPs will be legally required to do man in the middle attacks. When you start up an SSL connection they will accept it as if they were the destination and then make a request to the destination for a connection. They will then pipe all info between the two connections through their fingerprinting program, and then pipe the approved data to you and to them. None of this will ever happen.
I know that who holds the copyright does matter for cases where people explicitly market the item itself as the primary focus of their product. What I meant to say was that it doesn't matter at all for this blanket enforcement on the issue where tourists and journalists covering say a parade are being stopped by police and told they can't take pictures. The way courts interpret copyright law for public structures is much different than most other situations. It doesn't even have to be a public structure, if you are walking down the street holding a time magazine and I am filming a documentary -- hell it could even be a purely commercial action movie -- it honestly does not matter who owns the copyright to the picture on the front, I can leave it in my film. Now, if I market my movie as Time January 2005 and have a zoomed in picture of the cover from the footage as my billing... enforcement needs to be ex post facto indeed.
What the article said about landlines being a cash cow for Universities is very true. Clemson put an explicit ban on the program dial-pad back when it allowed you to make free calls over the internet several years ago. They explicitly blocked it from working on their network, it wasn't the consequence of other policies, it was simply "this competes with our long distance call revenue, terminate it."
Doesn't matter. If I want to make postcards of this thing and sell them in gift shops then it matters. The police are stopping every photographer from photographing this thing. Courts have ruled that things like advertisements and other works on public display are not covered by copyright if for instance someone is just taking a picture for their family album, if someone is taking a picture for a news article, or if the work is not the primary focus of a picture or pictorial. When someone takes a picture of a city skyline, they do not have to go paying thousands of architects for the right to do so.
If I go to the theator with a sound recorder, record all the sound, split off the music as much as possible and make a limited soundtrack of my own and sell it on CD how is that a copy1!11!11111 A movie has motion ADN sound!11 Oh my god my rights are being trampled.
Anyway, that was in response to your theory of how this shouldn't be copyright violation. There are many cases that already cover exactly this situation. For example a few years back here on Slashdot there was an article about a movie which featured Times Square in New York. They digitally removed ads from Time Square and put in their own. The court ruled that they had every right to film Time Square even though various advertisement's therein were copyrighted. They were explicitly for public display as is this sculpture. The court also ruled that just as an artist could make the statue of liberty be in a post apocolyptic state in say Planet of the Apes, an artist could also replace billboard advertisements with their own. The movie was I believe Spider Man 2. Head to that link and search for "Times Square".
No, if you really lived in Italy you might know that there is a (very) famous saying about Mussolini--"Mussolini may have done many brutal and tyrannical things; he may have destroyed human freedom in Italy; he may have murdered and tortured citizens whose only crime was to oppose Mussolini; but 'one had to admit' one thing about the Dictator: he 'made the trains run on time.'" Look around on Snopes, it's actually quite the urban legend, he didn't make the trains run on time.
Lets say I download every rush song which is currently in catalog at say Best Buy, Virgin Megastores, etc.. Lets say I then delete that. I'm still liable under statutory copyright damages for way more than the average American's net worth. For Rush. Is our country really this big of a joke? I could go steal every Rush CD from Best Buy and I would get at max one year in jail, though believe me that is max. If I actually got the CDs and managed to destroy them all (remember that's what I was doing with the downloaded Rush as well) I would be liable for the cost of the CDs, plus other minor damages to Best Buy such as the ever so slight loss of shelf space, etc. etc.. This would come out to less than $1000 total and in this case something bad actually happened, I actually took something from someone. In the previous case the whole thing was essentially imaginary, no one gained or lost benefit because of anything.
Was that option hidden and turned on by default when you signed up for slashdot? No.
Dude read his again, *he* was joking. Wait, are you joking?
"Never mind the issue that uranium and/or plutonium make really bad ingredients for a dirty bomb (in terms of inflicting actual harm) because they are very hard to dispurse and settle quickly." The idea that those aren't good ingredients for a dirty bomb is even further argument that pebble bed reactors aren't some pit of a thousand billiard ball sized dirty elements waiting to be strapped to bombs.
You have to admit that that is pretty far off in the future. "1. With an orbiting telescope, size and weight are critical. If you build it on the moon (hopefully using local resources) it can weigh as much as you like and be as large as you want." Currently to make the mirror for a large telescope warranting being on the moon alone we have to use massive clean rooms, etc. etc. etc.. I don't see use being able to take less materials than the final weight of the telescope to the moon and through harvesting somehow build one. On earth we have years and years of infrastructure for harvesting and transporting materials, not to mention the electric grid, etc. etc. I just do not see this as viable for a very long time.
Are you talking about google maps or map24? Google maps doesn't use java so that could be why.
Or maybe it's beta and google hasn't secured licensing for maps of the entire world to be publicly displayed yet.
Seems like it would be quite hard to power a mobile system with no sunlight to charge batteries =P. Also, if the only reason for putting a telescope on the moon is that there isn't much atmosphere to scatter light, why not just use orbital telescopes like we already do? What is the point of putting one on the moon. The only point I could see is to black out the light and other radiation coming from earth, and then the whole 10mph thing is useless cause you want to be on the dark (as far as LOS to earth) side of the moon always.
Your geforce does massive parrellel computations. At 400Mhz it is getting a lot done. You don't quite understand Mhz. Current Athlons are way under the clock rate of P4's yet offer similar performance. A P4's FP unit runs at more than 4Ghz. Modern DSP's run above 10Ghz. Clock rate is not the only factor in a chip. You say you know they aren't exactly comparable... you are completely right, except replace "exactly" with "even a little bit".
Isn't a peice of paper something you can draft diagrams for an invention on? OMFG!11 No more patents cause paper itself serves as prior art to all of them.
That said, this patent is complete bullshit, especially given the date on which it was filed. Insane.