I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's especially important among geeks to get the language right. We seem unable to communicate without especially strict language constructs.
...making a distinction between sharing copyrighted and non-copyrighted material.
The term we need to use here is copyright infringment, and despite what geeks and lawmakers alike would love to believe, there is no way to codify the concept of copyright infringment in a way that a computer program or delusional person can always understand.
I have nothing againt an individual sharing copyrighted material, so long as he is authorized to do so. If somebody wants to share public domain stuff, that's okay. If somebody wants to share his own copyrighted material, that's okay. If somebody wants to share my copyrighted material with my explicit permission, that's okay. If somebody wants to share my copyrighted material without my explicit permission, but within the bounds of "fair use", I may not like it, but because we both live in this society and we've agreed that a concept of Fair Use is a good thing (and we're created laws specifically for that), that's okay, too.
But anyone sharing my copyrighted material against my wishes and for their own private gain (or to avoid their expense) is acting in a fashion which is illegal, selfish, and stupid. And it doesn't matter how corrupt our politicians are, or how evil the RIAA is, or how unreasonable copyright term is, or how many other people are doing it, or how slim their chance of getting caught is, or whether or not they would have paid for it otherwise, or how outdated the current business model is, or whether the author/artist would be "richer" or "better off" if he'd change his mind and allowed it to be shared, and so on. As far as I'm concerned, those are just the lame rationalizing of a delusional mind which has already admitted it is infringing someone elses copyright, but has decided to do it anyway for its own selfish reasons.
This is one of those things we can't really leave up to our computers or our lawmakers to decide. We have to decide for ourselves if we would rather live in a world where we have free access to all of the content produced by the RIAA and kin back when they existed, but nothing at any price since we killed them, or whether it's better off for us to respect the wishes of our valued authors and artists and acknowledge a right we know they can't well enforce in exchange for the things we will lose if we force them to enforce it poorly.
Most people who post here know piracy is illegal...
Yup. I got that part.
...and they know that large-scale p2p filesharing isn't legitimate fair use.
Stop right there, pardner...
This is exactly what the reasonable slashdotter is railing against. Let's pause for a moment, catch our breath, then repeat after me:
There is nothing illegal about sharing files. Even if it's done it on-line. Even if it's done using p2p. Even if it's done in a large-scale operation.
I'd love to string-up those selfish miscreants who share infringing music on-line, and it's not just because they are using up all the bandwidth or getting something for free that I would have to pay to get (obviously different moral standards). But I see even more danger in people who would use the "disallow all file sharing" cure to solve the "some childish thieves" problem.
The Internet, as we know it, is about peer-to-peer sharing. All of the greatest features of the Internet (USENET, email, WWW, IRC, etc) were originally peer-to-peer, at least until the abuses forced us to CancelMoose, Spamblock, Filter, or Botban the functionality to useless castration. We need to ask ourselves if p2p is worth anything, because our elected officials are clearly already asking those questions. We need to be prepared to answer those questions. If we had to give-up sharing of infringing material, would we still want the Internet? Statements like "large-scale p2p filesharing isn't legitimate fair use" reinforce the idea that the Internet is just a copyright-infringment-orgy with no other use than facilitating copyright infringment. If that belief is allowed to hold sway, then the heavily taxed, heavily regulated, privacy-free and totally useless Internet will surely follow.
They're only going to let us make the same mistake so many times before they reach the conclusion nobody important actually uses that stuff anymore.
In my opinion, if we are opposed to legislation such as the proposed, then we have an obligation to a) share files like there's no tomorrow, b) avoid sharing any sort of copyright-infringing material, and c) shun with utmost prejudice anyone attempting to destroy the community we love by wasting the precious resources on their own childish quest to avoid paying their own fair share.
We've already tried writing our congressmen (or we've decided it wasn't worth wasting a stamp on trying) why not try a new tactic; one we're already familiar with, one right up our alley, one that's both totally legal and totally moral, one that's sure to make the xxAA freak; boycott on-line copyright-infringing material and promote the sharing of legitimate material instead.
Back the downloaders, but smack the freeloaders.
It will be interesting to see how quickly the RIAA backpedals once the on-line community equates anything Brittany with being an Internet freeloader.
Doels [SIC] this mean all public crypto algorithims are useless?
Good crypto makes the assumption that the opponent knows everything except the key. In this way, the security of the system can be easily summarized in terms of the key length. More commonly, the strength of the system is expressed in terms of the amount of work (through a brute-force attack, or some other mechanism) required to determine the key.
In the greylisting system, the key is simply the knowledge that a second delivery attempt with the same triplet will succeed. This is not a difficult key to discern, even by accident. And since the key is effectively contained within the source code, there really is no security here.
It's not a complete waste, though. A spammers work is effectively doubled.
(But what happens to a message with multiple To; addresses, matching multiple triplets, some known and some unknown? Is it completely accepted, completely rejected, or partially delivered and partially rejected?)
In cases where the embargo time is greater than the time it takes to identify and terminate the spammers ability to use that triplet, it becomes completely effective. I don't think we're there yet, but it's an interesting idea to keep on the shelf for the day when all email requires an authenticated sender. (replacing the IP address/sender portion of the triplet)
Imagine a system where each person who wants to send email must apply for an "authentication" certificate for a trivial (but non-zero) cost and ageree to a no-spam policy. Couple this with a central database where the authentication can be revoked for spamming in a guaranteed t time and the embargo would only need to exceed t time.
Of course there are lots of other problems with such a system, but spam wouldn't be one of them. Like tossing a cat into the incinerator; at least it gets rid of the fleas...
When the Government decides to develop software using a restrictive licensing base, such as the GNU GPL, (it) should be aware that this would prevent it from deriving commercial gain from any subsequent derivative programs and prevent or severely limit the opportunities to work with commercial companies on such projects," Intellect said in the response paper.
Businesses are geared to think only in terms of how profitable a certain action can be, and are incorrectly projecting that necessity-for-profit onto others. Intellect appears to be trying to equate their perception of a reduced commercial value of GPL'd software to a reduced societal value of GPL'd software. And while the former is an unproven assertion at best, the latter is downright wrong.
Should we abandon the creation of roads where the cost of building a new highway exceeds the revenue of the resulting taxes? What about housing for the poor? Surely we're not "deriving commercial gain" out of those projects?
Seems to me this is yet another case where commercial organizations need to be reminded by the public that they exist only at the pleasure of the populace, and by their grace. When a commercial organization (or other entity) begins to promote it's own interests over the advancement of the society as a whole, that society is correct in recognising such an organization as hostile.
To close, let me re-iterate that this needs to stay legal:
1) Go onto their property
2) Talk to ANY customers entering and leaving the premesis
3) Disturb normal business activities
4) Block traffic or people on the sidewalk
Perhaps there was meant to be a NOT in there somewhere?
If you make an online statement about me, you would be required to foot the bill for my response. Note that my response does not have to be interesting, clever, on-topic, or concise.
Imagine you have criticized by speling capabilities. I could demand you publish a list of people I say have no objection to my spelling, and include a copy of several phone books. Or one of those one-billion-email-addresses-for-a-dollar CD's.
Mention my prose is worthless, and I could prove the point at your expense.
Eventually, SMS providers will find their price point. Maybe it will be a cent per message, or a fraction of a cent. Whatever. They might even find they can charge people to to receive messages sent by others, and people will pay it.
The SMS Spammers, too, have a price point. Maybe they will find they can tolerate having to spend a cent per message sent in the way some email Spammers have found they can tolerate losing accounts at a rate of one per minute. I don't think MMF scams are that lucrative, but who knows?
But what happens if the price point for the SMS providers and the price point for the SMS Spammers are compatible? You won't see SMS providers kicking SMS Spammers off their network as long as they pay their bill.
In a way, this has already happened in email, thus our spam problems there. It also seems to have happened (to some extent) with telemarketing. I don't know if we'll see this problem develop with SMS, but I do belive many many services are vulnerable to this threat. Will we eventually see a problem of IM spamming (more than we already have)? What about SPAM files on P2Pnetworks? (Oh wait; we've seen that one too.) I wonder how easy it will be to tie a SPAMblaster into a SIP-phone implementation for automated telemarketing once SIP phones become commonplace? I wonder how long after that we'll see a SIP-enabled PROCMAIL filter.
More generally; are we as a society willing to tolerate such SPAM-cancer in all of our communication networks, or will we eventually evolve into a society where we cannot even talk to each other unless we've already been whitelisted?
Free Speech means nothing if we all chosen to go deaf. I sense bad Juju here.
Aren't these extra people the ones that can't afford to pay the full price of a network connection?
What's the "full price of a network connection" for a rural telephone user? Do you really think the phone compaany can install, maintain, and upgrade 40 miles of copper pair, repeaters, line concentrators, trunks and switching equipment for the $15 a month they currently pay (as a rural user)? Could they do it for $100 a month an urban business might pay for phone service? Doubtful.
But then again, without the prospect of servicing rural customers, most urban businesses wouldn't pay the $100 a month. And without the large customer base, the phone companies couldn't even maintain an urban telephone network for $100 a month.
In what way do they increase the economic prospects of the net, then?
Through economies of scale, and shared benefit. Think about the common pencil. You you think you could manufacture pencils, and deliver them to local retail stationery stores for 5 dcents a piece? No? Then how does one explain the fact that pencils are commonly available for 5 cents a piece? I don't understand why so many urban dwellers miss this. I can't understand why anyone would choose to live in an urban setting unless they understood about economies of scale, and shared benefit. Maybe they just like crowds, pollution, and traffic jams.
If you're an urban dweller, do you really think you could get beef at $1.50 a pound were it not for the billions of dollars worth of highways between you and those rural hicks who apparently can't even afford to pay for their telephones? Clearly those people aren't going to use a billion dollars worth of highways, so why should we even bother putting in highways in the first place?
Either they don't have any money as others have claimed, or they can pay for their connection.
That, or perhaps theres something in the question you don't understand. In the end, it's not about whether they will benefit from being connected, but whether you will benefit from their being connected.
Up until August, 1993, the only way most people could "get onto the Internet" was through a large institution, a government facility, or a university network. The thing which made the Internet something most people paid attention to was PPP (the Point-to-Point Protocol) which allowed dial-up users to access the Internet through their ISP. Before AOL began their carpet-bombing campaign, most people hadn't even heard of the Internet. Hell, in the beginning, even AOL hadn't heard about the Internet.
Combined with low-cost personal computers, they created a ready market of millions of Internet users. The Internet became accessible to anyone with a copper pair to their home; and that's just about everyone. It was only after a million-person user base existed that companies like Toyota, or Proctor and Gamble (which have nothing to do with computers) decided they needed to set up web sites for their customers.
According to a recent government study, 80% of all people who access the Internet do it through dial-up. Do you honestly believe any cable company would be offering IP services, or that any DSL company would even exist, if the only people on the Internet were people who already had Internet access through a large institution, a government facility, or a university network?
It may be hard to admit, and even harder to swallow, but if you remove dial-up users, the Internet ceases to exist. This has been proven time and again (unfortunately) by failed dot-coms that make the mistake of thinking they won't alienate their customers with 10Mb Flash intro pages, and then wonder why nobody ever visits their web site.
Why should rural dwellers get help from the rest of us on paying for their phone connection?
Because of network effects. When you add a customer (either urban or rural) to the telephone network, the network becomes that much more functional for all customers, both urban and rural.
Did you ever consider that the investment needed to get phone service to "the rest of us" urban dwellers would never have been made (would never have made sense) without the promise of Universal Phone Service to make it also useful for rural dwellers.
It took the better part of century to convince businesses that enough people would have a telephone that it makes sense to have your business directly accessible by phone. How long did it take for everybody and his brother to have a web site? Seems to me like nobody had heard about the Internet prior to 1993, and everybody was on the web by 1998. Network effects.
What if they're too poor to afford a tv at all, does the government have to buy them one?
I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about the television receivers (which are private property, and therefore should not be "bought for" anyone, nor should anyone be required to own/watch one.)
I was talking about the public airwaves over which broadcast television is sent. Everyone "owns" a piece of these, no matter how poor they are, even the people who are so poor they can't afford to buy a television.
This is an important concept: the person who owns two televisions sets does not own the public airwaves any more or less that the person who owns none. Any we should resist the recent trends which seem to say that the person in the proper market segment and with the most disposable income has a greater "ownership" of the broadcast spectrum.
In the same way that all Americans own a piece of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska (ANWAR). I've never been there, and may never go. But does that mean (as the Oil companies and their political cronies like to argue) that I should have no say in what is done with it?
Since television networks are entrenched interests, and because the barriers to entering television broadcasting are so high, broadcast television is a fantastic propaganda tool for entrenched interests.
Or it would be, if the "entrenched interests" had free reign to broadcast as they see fit. They don't. The FCC still regulates the content a broadcast television station can send over the public airwaves. (Yes, that regulation is rapidly degrading, but it's still there.)
There is little or no such regulation in media where the network is "owned" by the "entrenched interest", such as is the case with cable and Internet.
We have people that block your access to content on broadcast TV, as well. They're called network censors.
Yes, but the FCC is (at least in theory) composed of people selected (by-and-by) by the electorate. The things they choose to restrict mirror (at least in theory) the consensus of the population. If we as a nation decided blatant nudity was acceptable for broadcast television, it wouldn't be long before the FCC allowed it. (Witness: NYPD Blue)
The FCC is motivated by staying in power; they are legally mandated to perform in the best interest of the Public and make the best use of the public airwaves that they can. (Or at least thats the theory.) A business, on the other hand, has a legal mandate to its shareholders to make decisions which will maximize profit; and if given the power to censor along those lines is legally required to do so, and the Public be damned.
I am, of course, completely sidestepping the recent influence of campaign financing on public institutions like the FCC. While we'd like to believe the FCC will act in the interest of getting re-elected, and we presume that meanns acting in the public interest, nowadays it means using the power of office to peddle to whatever business is offering the largest "contributions".
It could be that we've already lost the great promise broadcast television offered in the early days; an informed and educated populace. Judging from the content which survives, there's not much "democracy-preserving" stuff anyway.
Since when did access to television programming become a necessity?
Access to television programming is clearly not a requirement for any one person. But, at least in a democracy, if access to the broadcast channels is made available to any subset of the populace then access to it for the general populace becomes a necessity for the preservation of democratic principles.
No doubt the amount of good public discourse on the television today is minimal (and largely there only by FCC mandate). And you may never watch TV (I avoid it whenever I can) but there are large portions of our population who choose to receive all of their information about policy and issues through television programming. It's an important medium; one we can't afford to lose.
To cut them off merely adds more influence to the entrenched interests.
Bad idea. We've still got problems in Cable/Dish/Internet we haven't worked out yet.
If I have received a license to broadcast programming to a certain market, my programming (whatever it might be) is "must carry" content for the broadcast spectrum of my market area. If someone (intentionally or not) intrudes on my spectrum and prevents my potential viewers from receiving my programming, I have a course of action against whomever is causing the interference.
Contrast this with the other media outlet formats mentioned. For both cable and satelite, the owner of the service decides what content will be carried, and how much extra will be charged for it.
And anyone who thinks the Internet is a replacement for broadcast television is off their rocker. Not only can an ISP (or anyone along the pipe, for that matter) choose to block access to a selected web site, we have laws requiring libraries and such to perform exactly that function.
We need to ensure that there are platforms for free speech to ensure our democracy. The closest thing we have for that right now is the Internet, but even there sites are getting disconnected left and right.
There is a really good article on the economics invoved by Clay Shirky.
However, there's a new component here: the "legislative" layer.
In the ZapMail scenario, individual businesses could replace the FedEx service simply by buying a fax machine; but that's only because of FCC rules which a) demanded that common carriers (the phone companies) could not discriminate against different users of the network, and b) allow any non-destructive device to be connected to the Public Switched Network. In other words, the fax machine revolution was sparked by FCC rules which created an open and equal (Lessig would call it "flat and end-to-end") network on top of which others could build and innovate.
However, the FCC has chosen a different path with "broadband" these days. The FCC has already begun to rule (and appears ready to go whole hog with more rulings) that companies which provide broadband services own their network. If we were replaying ZapMail today, that means the phone companies would be allowed to prevent individual businesses from using their network to transfer documents via fax. Customers who wanted to deliver a document would have to use either an authorized corporate partner (in this case, FedEx) or the services of the telephone company itself.
We're already seeing manifestations of this in the Internet today; Most ISP's won't allow individuals to use port 25 (SMTP) so if you want to send email, you have to use the server provided by the ISP. That service is no longer available to customers, even the ones who have already bought equipment capable of sending and receiving email direrctly.
Consider AOL's position concerning mailing lists: If you want to provide a mailing list (free or fee) service to AOL subscribers, you must either a) run your list from an "approved" (read: corporate partner) server, or b) trudge through a lengthly approval process to get your mailing list onto the "whitelisted" list. It's not a far stretch to see the day when there will be a fee to mailing list managers in order to service AOL subscribers, and that will be the end of the free mailing list.
So, the next thing to fail will be the "free" services currently offered on the Internet.
We're already seeing pressure on major business sites to get an AOL keyword associated with their site. For all I know, getting that keyword cost money. If it doesn't already, it soon will. When that starts to happen, I wonder if Slashdot will be pulling in enough revenue to maintain contact with it's AOL customers, or if Slashdot will become another site AOL subscribers have to jump through hoops (or pay and extra "access" fee) to access?
Will we see a day when on-line gamers will be required to use only the "service provider approved" gaming server, because ports to other servers are blocked? Isn't Microsoft doing something like this already on MSN requiring a Passport to access their Gaming server?
Will we soon see the day when trying to access any "terrorist" news site (like Al Jazerra) will be impossible, and accessing any "liberal" (read: non-corporate/administration partner) news site will be slow and unreliable at best? And if you're trying to get to the campaign web site of the non-incumbent candidate, well, you can just forget it.
There's more at work here than just simple economics. Without on open networking layer as we had with the PSN, there won't be the kind of telecommunications revolution we say after the AT&T breakup in 1984.
...a single fiber, instead of carrying one conversation per line, can now carry one IP stream per line...
Well, yes, but it goes even deeper than that.
A single fiber can support multiple wavelengths. A single wavelength supports a $#!+load of packets, and (remember, this is IP) each of those packets *could* be from a different IP stream.
And, yes, since everything is encapsulated, two adjacent packets could be destined for two different "Internets".
Fiber has always been packet, but in the past it's been primarily ATM. ATM has a guaranteed throughput, which means your connection stays sane even if some American Idol contest uses up every other bit of capacity on the line. The downside of this is that the carrier has to pay the same amount for all of those bits even when there isn't some American Idol contest using the rest of them.
With IP, you put all of your required capacity onto as few trunks as you need, use all of the bits for paying customers, and have a much more profitable system. The downside, then, is when some American Idol contest comes along and you suddenly need 10x the packet capacity, and have to start routing packets via Tokyo just to get them to the destination.
Don't worry about the telecom industry. They learned this lesson a hundred times before, they'll learn it again this time, too.
The article (and additionally, the Slashdot headline) makes several things unclear. I'll clean these up here.
Understand; while it is VOIP (voice over Internet Protocol), it is not running voice calls over "The Internet". When you place a phone call through this service, the packets never share a line with Internet traffic. (Unless they've really screwed something up royally.) The packets use the same protocol (IP) that hosts on "The Internet" use to talk to one another, that is where the sharing of information ends. You'll never see some script kiddee in Tiawan DDOS your IP phone into molten slag, or (if you pardon the mixed metaphor) get a "404 error" trying to ring your grandmother. It's an entirely other, airgap firewalled network. That's important for two reasons; here's why:
First; it's a network that the network provider owns and controls completely. You won't be able to put a phone onto it unless you have a service agreement with them, pay a monthly fee, and use only equipment they have vetted. There will be no anonymity. Every packet you send will be tracable (and likely billable) to you. They aren't likely to allow you to put your Linux Phone onto this system (for fear you'd become that Tiawan script kiddee). Their Internet will be closed. You won't be able to offer an innovative service, unless you have their blessing (read: they get a cut of the profits). Forget about storing voicemail on a local hard disk: that will still be $9.95/month plus $0.11 per kilobyte.
Second, since they now have a closed, controlable, internet they own, why should they promote that Other Interent, or support it, or even allow it to continue to exist?
The good news is that this is a sign of a return to profitability for the telecommunications industry as a whole. We're likely to see our entire communications environment change over to an industry run like this; optimizing for high quality and shunning any change which could impact reliability of the existing system. Here starts a new 150 year era of innovations like Call Waiting and the Princess Phone.
The bad news is that this is a sign of a return to profitability for the telecommunications industry as a whole. We're likely to see our entire communications environment change over to an industry run like this; optimizing for high quality and shunning any change which could impact reliability of the existing system. Here starts a new 150 year era of innovations like Call Waiting and the Princess Phone.
<SOAPBOX> We had 10 years to "make the Internet work", but instead we handed it over to the spammers and the music traders and the Flash-only IE-only web sites and the script kiddees. Maybe now that The Internet is about to die they'll all go find some other network to infest. They've built a walled city inside the noosphere; you can choose to live within the city or live without. Didn't you always want to live in a "Road Warrior" kinda world?</SOAPBOX>
Who lost money because the source code wasn't released in a proper fashion?
It works like this. The act of not releasing the source code (a GPL violation) incurs the simple penalty of no longer having a license to make and distribute copies of that GPL licensed code. That's all. But then it get's sticky.
The act of making and distributing copies of the GPL licensed code without a license to do so (a Copyright violation) incurs potentially huge penalties, which varies on a case by case basis, but can include a requirement to destroy all illigitimate copies, and monitary damages three times whatever profit was made by selling the illigitimate copies. Furthermore, Copyright law is well established, fairly universal, and backed by huge companies with deep pockets and mean bulldog lawyers like Disney, the MPAA and the RIAA.
The violator could be required to recall and destroy all copies (or devices including copies) of the illegally published software (and refund money to their now-pissed-off customers), as well as turning over all profits derived from the illegally published software, as well as paying twice as much again in punatitive damages. That's before reimbursing the copyright holders for the cost of lost sales (which I think you are presuming would have a low value, because it's given away for free) and such. In other words, you can't claim free license to publish someone elses writings even if they couldn't make any money publishing it themselves.
For most businesses, it simply spells game over which is why every business which finds itself in the position of having to explain a GPL violation quickly comes to it's senses (whatever the cost) and adheres to their obligations. The alternative is unthinkable.
Does anyone know of any statistics on how many developers actually get away with using Open Source Software (more specifically GPLed) code within their closed source products.
Try this little thought experiment; You're a (reasonably smart) software developer. You're paid to develop a portion of a proprietary software product. You find a function in a GPL'd program which does what you need. You do the copy/paste/globalsub dance and complete the project.
Then a bit later, you get called into a meeting with your manager and some junior coder dude from another part of your company.
"Hey dude, like, it kinda looks like, for your code, you like just copied the GPL'd stuff and substituted your own identifiers, man."
This brings up the common questions of:
If this was some "simple" piece of code, why didn't you just write it yourself? Are you incompetent or just an idiot?
If it was complex stuff, did you really think no one would notice your implementation was identical to the GPL'd one, or are you just an idiot?
Did you think your company could get away with this because you supposedly keep all your code secret (as if no one ever leaves your company, or there aren't any honorable, clued, and GPL-sympathetic people employed there) or are you just an idiot?
Believe me, it's not that much more comfortable to be "that coder dude" having to ask the questions like "did you really write this yourself?" and "Do we have the rights to ship this to our customers?" and "...ummm...BugTrak just reported a vulnerability in the GPL'd one, do we need to go back and check our implementation?" Been there, done that. It's no fun counting dots on the ceiling why the Legal guy explains that we can't ship the product as planned, or have to recall everything we've already shipped.
Standard users, using standard techniques are only allowed to use public members and this is correct.
I think you're missing something, but not in the programming realm. When speaking of control, reality trumps perception.
If you've written a class with a private member, I would be a fool to use it (for example, to increase performance in my game) as I risk unspecified behavior if you change the implementation. A prudent me would say "I don't control the private member, so I should not rely on it."
But I only lose if you change the implementation. If I have a guarantee from you that your implementation will not change without notice, (which is to say, if I have control over the private member, despite its being marked private) it's really a public (to me) function that's just marked private for everyone else. It's not the public/private marking which I use to decide access, my decision turns on the control I have.
This could be leveraged into the same old behaviors Microsoft has been accused of in the past: declare a slow public member and a fast private member. Since Microsoft ultimately has control of both the public and private members of the classes it creates, anyone non-Microsoft must (prudently) use the slow public members, but anyone "in the know" can use the fast private members without risk, giving an unfair advantage to Microsoft and associated developers.
It's also a predictor of the historical situation as well; if developers can gain performance and the expense of robustness, they will. Historically, this left Microsoft in the unenviable position of being unable to evolve their products in the direction their business objectives demand for fear of breaking compatibility with deployed applications using the fast, private members.
I sense the perception had been that private members could not be used at all. This article exposes the reality that under.NET, some private members (the ones over which you can presume you have control) are actually public; its up to the developer to guess which ones. (Or maybe that should read (with apologies to Monty Python/Life of Brian) "its okay to make their privates public for a game"
It has short-term advantages, and long-term consequences. If Microsoft is smart, they'll declare this a bug (regardless of original intent) and take steps to ensure no one can use these interfaces, even if this means they cannot (mis)use private members themselves.
However, there is NOTHING... to prevent another company from reverse-engineering the printer and designing their own cartridge that has their own expiration date encoded on the thing.
Actually there is; it is exactly the DMCA which does this, and there is already caselaw (in the Lexmark/SCC case) to support it. The legal theory was this:
Lexmark claims copyright to the software within the printers they manufacture.
Lexmark claims that a chip in the (high end) ink cartridges they manufacture serves as an access control mechanism, controlling access to a portion of their copyrighted material (software supporting extended high-end functions) in their printer.
Static Control Components reverse engineered and created a workalike chip which could be used to convince a Lexmark printer that the non-Lexmark ink cartridge installed was a genuine Lexmark ink cartridge, and should therefore be granted full access to the copyrighted software functions.
The DMCA prohibits the manufacture of devices which bypass access control mechanisms to digital copyrighted material.
The judge agreed that SCC's actions amounted to a violation.
However, just like if you put aftermarket parts on your car, don't expect the original manufacturer to repair or replace it under warrenty when it fails.
This is not about warranty service. It's about HP using embedded software to control the products they manufacture after the sale. As more and more products are manufactured with an embedded software component, we will likely see more and more of this behavior. Remember; software will always by loyal to whomever wrote it. Unless stopped, this means we may eventually see ACME cars that just don't run quite as well unless you're using ACME gasoline. As consumers we will make that choice, and have to live with it.
Here's a question for you; If I wanted to manufacture $10,000 ink cartridges for Lexmark printers with the feature of having "just the right shade of black", and could find a market for my ink cartridges, should the law prevent my sale? As written, the DMCA allows Lexmark to block my entry to this market, even if Lexmark has no intention of entering that market themselves.
This could be troubling to the sports gaming industry - we might be forced back into the dark ages of sports gaming, where team names and jersey numbers could be used, but not the names or likenesses of the players."
Dark Ages? Instead, this is a good thing. No one will mind much playing a game featuring the Dolphins or the Raiders in another ten years, but imagine playing a game fraturing the likes (pardon the pun) of Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, or O.J. Simpson?
We are human. Our culture evolves. Computers don't understand that; software doesn't age. Etching the face of a present day star into software stone makes about as much sense as locking our copyright works away forever behind some CSS encryption just because infinite-minus-a-day copyrights happen to be in vogue today.
Slashdot Mirror
The term we need to use here is copyright infringment, and despite what geeks and lawmakers alike would love to believe, there is no way to codify the concept of copyright infringment in a way that a computer program or delusional person can always understand.
I have nothing againt an individual sharing copyrighted material, so long as he is authorized to do so. If somebody wants to share public domain stuff, that's okay. If somebody wants to share his own copyrighted material, that's okay. If somebody wants to share my copyrighted material with my explicit permission, that's okay. If somebody wants to share my copyrighted material without my explicit permission, but within the bounds of "fair use", I may not like it, but because we both live in this society and we've agreed that a concept of Fair Use is a good thing (and we're created laws specifically for that), that's okay, too.
But anyone sharing my copyrighted material against my wishes and for their own private gain (or to avoid their expense) is acting in a fashion which is illegal, selfish, and stupid. And it doesn't matter how corrupt our politicians are, or how evil the RIAA is, or how unreasonable copyright term is, or how many other people are doing it, or how slim their chance of getting caught is, or whether or not they would have paid for it otherwise, or how outdated the current business model is, or whether the author/artist would be "richer" or "better off" if he'd change his mind and allowed it to be shared, and so on. As far as I'm concerned, those are just the lame rationalizing of a delusional mind which has already admitted it is infringing someone elses copyright, but has decided to do it anyway for its own selfish reasons.
This is one of those things we can't really leave up to our computers or our lawmakers to decide. We have to decide for ourselves if we would rather live in a world where we have free access to all of the content produced by the RIAA and kin back when they existed, but nothing at any price since we killed them, or whether it's better off for us to respect the wishes of our valued authors and artists and acknowledge a right we know they can't well enforce in exchange for the things we will lose if we force them to enforce it poorly.
Thanks for letting me rant.
Yup. I got that part.
Stop right there, pardner...
This is exactly what the reasonable slashdotter is railing against. Let's pause for a moment, catch our breath, then repeat after me:
There is nothing illegal about sharing files. Even if it's done it on-line. Even if it's done using p2p. Even if it's done in a large-scale operation.
I'd love to string-up those selfish miscreants who share infringing music on-line, and it's not just because they are using up all the bandwidth or getting something for free that I would have to pay to get (obviously different moral standards). But I see even more danger in people who would use the "disallow all file sharing" cure to solve the "some childish thieves" problem.
The Internet, as we know it, is about peer-to-peer sharing. All of the greatest features of the Internet (USENET, email, WWW, IRC, etc) were originally peer-to-peer, at least until the abuses forced us to CancelMoose, Spamblock, Filter, or Botban the functionality to useless castration. We need to ask ourselves if p2p is worth anything, because our elected officials are clearly already asking those questions. We need to be prepared to answer those questions. If we had to give-up sharing of infringing material, would we still want the Internet? Statements like "large-scale p2p filesharing isn't legitimate fair use" reinforce the idea that the Internet is just a copyright-infringment-orgy with no other use than facilitating copyright infringment. If that belief is allowed to hold sway, then the heavily taxed, heavily regulated, privacy-free and totally useless Internet will surely follow.
They're only going to let us make the same mistake so many times before they reach the conclusion nobody important actually uses that stuff anymore.
In my opinion, if we are opposed to legislation such as the proposed, then we have an obligation to a) share files like there's no tomorrow, b) avoid sharing any sort of copyright-infringing material, and c) shun with utmost prejudice anyone attempting to destroy the community we love by wasting the precious resources on their own childish quest to avoid paying their own fair share.
We've already tried writing our congressmen (or we've decided it wasn't worth wasting a stamp on trying) why not try a new tactic; one we're already familiar with, one right up our alley, one that's both totally legal and totally moral, one that's sure to make the xxAA freak; boycott on-line copyright-infringing material and promote the sharing of legitimate material instead.
Back the downloaders, but smack the freeloaders.
It will be interesting to see how quickly the RIAA backpedals once the on-line community equates anything Brittany with being an Internet freeloader.
Good crypto makes the assumption that the opponent knows everything except the key. In this way, the security of the system can be easily summarized in terms of the key length. More commonly, the strength of the system is expressed in terms of the amount of work (through a brute-force attack, or some other mechanism) required to determine the key.
In the greylisting system, the key is simply the knowledge that a second delivery attempt with the same triplet will succeed. This is not a difficult key to discern, even by accident. And since the key is effectively contained within the source code, there really is no security here.
It's not a complete waste, though. A spammers work is effectively doubled.
(But what happens to a message with multiple To; addresses, matching multiple triplets, some known and some unknown? Is it completely accepted, completely rejected, or partially delivered and partially rejected?)
In cases where the embargo time is greater than the time it takes to identify and terminate the spammers ability to use that triplet, it becomes completely effective. I don't think we're there yet, but it's an interesting idea to keep on the shelf for the day when all email requires an authenticated sender. (replacing the IP address/sender portion of the triplet)
Imagine a system where each person who wants to send email must apply for an "authentication" certificate for a trivial (but non-zero) cost and ageree to a no-spam policy. Couple this with a central database where the authentication can be revoked for spamming in a guaranteed t time and the embargo would only need to exceed t time.
Of course there are lots of other problems with such a system, but spam wouldn't be one of them. Like tossing a cat into the incinerator; at least it gets rid of the fleas...
Businesses are geared to think only in terms of how profitable a certain action can be, and are incorrectly projecting that necessity-for-profit onto others. Intellect appears to be trying to equate their perception of a reduced commercial value of GPL'd software to a reduced societal value of GPL'd software. And while the former is an unproven assertion at best, the latter is downright wrong.
Should we abandon the creation of roads where the cost of building a new highway exceeds the revenue of the resulting taxes? What about housing for the poor? Surely we're not "deriving commercial gain" out of those projects?
Seems to me this is yet another case where commercial organizations need to be reminded by the public that they exist only at the pleasure of the populace, and by their grace. When a commercial organization (or other entity) begins to promote it's own interests over the advancement of the society as a whole, that society is correct in recognising such an organization as hostile.
Perhaps there was meant to be a NOT in there somewhere?
If you make an online statement about me, you would be required to foot the bill for my response. Note that my response does not have to be interesting, clever, on-topic, or concise.
Imagine you have criticized by speling capabilities. I could demand you publish a list of people I say have no objection to my spelling, and include a copy of several phone books. Or one of those one-billion-email-addresses-for-a-dollar CD's.
Mention my prose is worthless, and I could prove the point at your expense.
The SMS Spammers, too, have a price point. Maybe they will find they can tolerate having to spend a cent per message sent in the way some email Spammers have found they can tolerate losing accounts at a rate of one per minute. I don't think MMF scams are that lucrative, but who knows?
But what happens if the price point for the SMS providers and the price point for the SMS Spammers are compatible? You won't see SMS providers kicking SMS Spammers off their network as long as they pay their bill.
In a way, this has already happened in email, thus our spam problems there. It also seems to have happened (to some extent) with telemarketing. I don't know if we'll see this problem develop with SMS, but I do belive many many services are vulnerable to this threat. Will we eventually see a problem of IM spamming (more than we already have)? What about SPAM files on P2Pnetworks? (Oh wait; we've seen that one too.) I wonder how easy it will be to tie a SPAMblaster into a SIP-phone implementation for automated telemarketing once SIP phones become commonplace? I wonder how long after that we'll see a SIP-enabled PROCMAIL filter.
More generally; are we as a society willing to tolerate such SPAM-cancer in all of our communication networks, or will we eventually evolve into a society where we cannot even talk to each other unless we've already been whitelisted?
Free Speech means nothing if we all chosen to go deaf. I sense bad Juju here.
Go! Go! Go!
What's the "full price of a network connection" for a rural telephone user? Do you really think the phone compaany can install, maintain, and upgrade 40 miles of copper pair, repeaters, line concentrators, trunks and switching equipment for the $15 a month they currently pay (as a rural user)? Could they do it for $100 a month an urban business might pay for phone service? Doubtful.
But then again, without the prospect of servicing rural customers, most urban businesses wouldn't pay the $100 a month. And without the large customer base, the phone companies couldn't even maintain an urban telephone network for $100 a month.
Through economies of scale, and shared benefit. Think about the common pencil. You you think you could manufacture pencils, and deliver them to local retail stationery stores for 5 dcents a piece? No? Then how does one explain the fact that pencils are commonly available for 5 cents a piece? I don't understand why so many urban dwellers miss this. I can't understand why anyone would choose to live in an urban setting unless they understood about economies of scale, and shared benefit. Maybe they just like crowds, pollution, and traffic jams.
If you're an urban dweller, do you really think you could get beef at $1.50 a pound were it not for the billions of dollars worth of highways between you and those rural hicks who apparently can't even afford to pay for their telephones? Clearly those people aren't going to use a billion dollars worth of highways, so why should we even bother putting in highways in the first place?
Up until August, 1993, the only way most people could "get onto the Internet" was through a large institution, a government facility, or a university network. The thing which made the Internet something most people paid attention to was PPP (the Point-to-Point Protocol) which allowed dial-up users to access the Internet through their ISP. Before AOL began their carpet-bombing campaign, most people hadn't even heard of the Internet. Hell, in the beginning, even AOL hadn't heard about the Internet.
Combined with low-cost personal computers, they created a ready market of millions of Internet users. The Internet became accessible to anyone with a copper pair to their home; and that's just about everyone. It was only after a million-person user base existed that companies like Toyota, or Proctor and Gamble (which have nothing to do with computers) decided they needed to set up web sites for their customers.
According to a recent government study, 80% of all people who access the Internet do it through dial-up. Do you honestly believe any cable company would be offering IP services, or that any DSL company would even exist, if the only people on the Internet were people who already had Internet access through a large institution, a government facility, or a university network?
It may be hard to admit, and even harder to swallow, but if you remove dial-up users, the Internet ceases to exist. This has been proven time and again (unfortunately) by failed dot-coms that make the mistake of thinking they won't alienate their customers with 10Mb Flash intro pages, and then wonder why nobody ever visits their web site.
Because of network effects. When you add a customer (either urban or rural) to the telephone network, the network becomes that much more functional for all customers, both urban and rural.
Did you ever consider that the investment needed to get phone service to "the rest of us" urban dwellers would never have been made (would never have made sense) without the promise of Universal Phone Service to make it also useful for rural dwellers.
It took the better part of century to convince businesses that enough people would have a telephone that it makes sense to have your business directly accessible by phone. How long did it take for everybody and his brother to have a web site? Seems to me like nobody had heard about the Internet prior to 1993, and everybody was on the web by 1998. Network effects.
I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about the television receivers (which are private property, and therefore should not be "bought for" anyone, nor should anyone be required to own/watch one.)
I was talking about the public airwaves over which broadcast television is sent. Everyone "owns" a piece of these, no matter how poor they are, even the people who are so poor they can't afford to buy a television.
This is an important concept: the person who owns two televisions sets does not own the public airwaves any more or less that the person who owns none. Any we should resist the recent trends which seem to say that the person in the proper market segment and with the most disposable income has a greater "ownership" of the broadcast spectrum.
In the same way that all Americans own a piece of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska (ANWAR). I've never been there, and may never go. But does that mean (as the Oil companies and their political cronies like to argue) that I should have no say in what is done with it?
Or it would be, if the "entrenched interests" had free reign to broadcast as they see fit. They don't. The FCC still regulates the content a broadcast television station can send over the public airwaves. (Yes, that regulation is rapidly degrading, but it's still there.)
There is little or no such regulation in media where the network is "owned" by the "entrenched interest", such as is the case with cable and Internet.
Yes, but the FCC is (at least in theory) composed of people selected (by-and-by) by the electorate. The things they choose to restrict mirror (at least in theory) the consensus of the population. If we as a nation decided blatant nudity was acceptable for broadcast television, it wouldn't be long before the FCC allowed it. (Witness: NYPD Blue)
The FCC is motivated by staying in power; they are legally mandated to perform in the best interest of the Public and make the best use of the public airwaves that they can. (Or at least thats the theory.) A business, on the other hand, has a legal mandate to its shareholders to make decisions which will maximize profit; and if given the power to censor along those lines is legally required to do so, and the Public be damned.
I am, of course, completely sidestepping the recent influence of campaign financing on public institutions like the FCC. While we'd like to believe the FCC will act in the interest of getting re-elected, and we presume that meanns acting in the public interest, nowadays it means using the power of office to peddle to whatever business is offering the largest "contributions".
It could be that we've already lost the great promise broadcast television offered in the early days; an informed and educated populace. Judging from the content which survives, there's not much "democracy-preserving" stuff anyway.
Access to television programming is clearly not a requirement for any one person. But, at least in a democracy, if access to the broadcast channels is made available to any subset of the populace then access to it for the general populace becomes a necessity for the preservation of democratic principles.
No doubt the amount of good public discourse on the television today is minimal (and largely there only by FCC mandate). And you may never watch TV (I avoid it whenever I can) but there are large portions of our population who choose to receive all of their information about policy and issues through television programming. It's an important medium; one we can't afford to lose.
To cut them off merely adds more influence to the entrenched interests.
If I have received a license to broadcast programming to a certain market, my programming (whatever it might be) is "must carry" content for the broadcast spectrum of my market area. If someone (intentionally or not) intrudes on my spectrum and prevents my potential viewers from receiving my programming, I have a course of action against whomever is causing the interference.
Contrast this with the other media outlet formats mentioned. For both cable and satelite, the owner of the service decides what content will be carried, and how much extra will be charged for it.
And anyone who thinks the Internet is a replacement for broadcast television is off their rocker. Not only can an ISP (or anyone along the pipe, for that matter) choose to block access to a selected web site, we have laws requiring libraries and such to perform exactly that function.
We need to ensure that there are platforms for free speech to ensure our democracy. The closest thing we have for that right now is the Internet, but even there sites are getting disconnected left and right.
However, there's a new component here: the "legislative" layer.
In the ZapMail scenario, individual businesses could replace the FedEx service simply by buying a fax machine; but that's only because of FCC rules which a) demanded that common carriers (the phone companies) could not discriminate against different users of the network, and b) allow any non-destructive device to be connected to the Public Switched Network. In other words, the fax machine revolution was sparked by FCC rules which created an open and equal (Lessig would call it "flat and end-to-end") network on top of which others could build and innovate.
However, the FCC has chosen a different path with "broadband" these days. The FCC has already begun to rule (and appears ready to go whole hog with more rulings) that companies which provide broadband services own their network. If we were replaying ZapMail today, that means the phone companies would be allowed to prevent individual businesses from using their network to transfer documents via fax. Customers who wanted to deliver a document would have to use either an authorized corporate partner (in this case, FedEx) or the services of the telephone company itself.
We're already seeing manifestations of this in the Internet today; Most ISP's won't allow individuals to use port 25 (SMTP) so if you want to send email, you have to use the server provided by the ISP. That service is no longer available to customers, even the ones who have already bought equipment capable of sending and receiving email direrctly.
Consider AOL's position concerning mailing lists: If you want to provide a mailing list (free or fee) service to AOL subscribers, you must either a) run your list from an "approved" (read: corporate partner) server, or b) trudge through a lengthly approval process to get your mailing list onto the "whitelisted" list. It's not a far stretch to see the day when there will be a fee to mailing list managers in order to service AOL subscribers, and that will be the end of the free mailing list.
So, the next thing to fail will be the "free" services currently offered on the Internet.
We're already seeing pressure on major business sites to get an AOL keyword associated with their site. For all I know, getting that keyword cost money. If it doesn't already, it soon will. When that starts to happen, I wonder if Slashdot will be pulling in enough revenue to maintain contact with it's AOL customers, or if Slashdot will become another site AOL subscribers have to jump through hoops (or pay and extra "access" fee) to access?
Will we see a day when on-line gamers will be required to use only the "service provider approved" gaming server, because ports to other servers are blocked? Isn't Microsoft doing something like this already on MSN requiring a Passport to access their Gaming server?
Will we soon see the day when trying to access any "terrorist" news site (like Al Jazerra) will be impossible, and accessing any "liberal" (read: non-corporate/administration partner) news site will be slow and unreliable at best? And if you're trying to get to the campaign web site of the non-incumbent candidate, well, you can just forget it.
There's more at work here than just simple economics. Without on open networking layer as we had with the PSN, there won't be the kind of telecommunications revolution we say after the AT&T breakup in 1984.
Well, yes, but it goes even deeper than that.
A single fiber can support multiple wavelengths. A single wavelength supports a $#!+load of packets, and (remember, this is IP) each of those packets *could* be from a different IP stream.
And, yes, since everything is encapsulated, two adjacent packets could be destined for two different "Internets".
Fiber has always been packet, but in the past it's been primarily ATM. ATM has a guaranteed throughput, which means your connection stays sane even if some American Idol contest uses up every other bit of capacity on the line. The downside of this is that the carrier has to pay the same amount for all of those bits even when there isn't some American Idol contest using the rest of them.
With IP, you put all of your required capacity onto as few trunks as you need, use all of the bits for paying customers, and have a much more profitable system. The downside, then, is when some American Idol contest comes along and you suddenly need 10x the packet capacity, and have to start routing packets via Tokyo just to get them to the destination.
Don't worry about the telecom industry. They learned this lesson a hundred times before, they'll learn it again this time, too.
Understand; while it is VOIP (voice over Internet Protocol), it is not running voice calls over "The Internet". When you place a phone call through this service, the packets never share a line with Internet traffic. (Unless they've really screwed something up royally.) The packets use the same protocol (IP) that hosts on "The Internet" use to talk to one another, that is where the sharing of information ends. You'll never see some script kiddee in Tiawan DDOS your IP phone into molten slag, or (if you pardon the mixed metaphor) get a "404 error" trying to ring your grandmother. It's an entirely other, airgap firewalled network. That's important for two reasons; here's why:
First; it's a network that the network provider owns and controls completely. You won't be able to put a phone onto it unless you have a service agreement with them, pay a monthly fee, and use only equipment they have vetted. There will be no anonymity. Every packet you send will be tracable (and likely billable) to you. They aren't likely to allow you to put your Linux Phone onto this system (for fear you'd become that Tiawan script kiddee). Their Internet will be closed. You won't be able to offer an innovative service, unless you have their blessing (read: they get a cut of the profits). Forget about storing voicemail on a local hard disk: that will still be $9.95/month plus $0.11 per kilobyte.
Second, since they now have a closed, controlable, internet they own, why should they promote that Other Interent, or support it, or even allow it to continue to exist?
The good news is that this is a sign of a return to profitability for the telecommunications industry as a whole. We're likely to see our entire communications environment change over to an industry run like this; optimizing for high quality and shunning any change which could impact reliability of the existing system. Here starts a new 150 year era of innovations like Call Waiting and the Princess Phone.
The bad news is that this is a sign of a return to profitability for the telecommunications industry as a whole. We're likely to see our entire communications environment change over to an industry run like this; optimizing for high quality and shunning any change which could impact reliability of the existing system. Here starts a new 150 year era of innovations like Call Waiting and the Princess Phone.
<SOAPBOX> We had 10 years to "make the Internet work", but instead we handed it over to the spammers and the music traders and the Flash-only IE-only web sites and the script kiddees. Maybe now that The Internet is about to die they'll all go find some other network to infest. They've built a walled city inside the noosphere; you can choose to live within the city or live without. Didn't you always want to live in a "Road Warrior" kinda world?</SOAPBOX>
It works like this. The act of not releasing the source code (a GPL violation) incurs the simple penalty of no longer having a license to make and distribute copies of that GPL licensed code. That's all. But then it get's sticky.
The act of making and distributing copies of the GPL licensed code without a license to do so (a Copyright violation) incurs potentially huge penalties, which varies on a case by case basis, but can include a requirement to destroy all illigitimate copies, and monitary damages three times whatever profit was made by selling the illigitimate copies. Furthermore, Copyright law is well established, fairly universal, and backed by huge companies with deep pockets and mean bulldog lawyers like Disney, the MPAA and the RIAA.
The violator could be required to recall and destroy all copies (or devices including copies) of the illegally published software (and refund money to their now-pissed-off customers), as well as turning over all profits derived from the illegally published software, as well as paying twice as much again in punatitive damages. That's before reimbursing the copyright holders for the cost of lost sales (which I think you are presuming would have a low value, because it's given away for free) and such. In other words, you can't claim free license to publish someone elses writings even if they couldn't make any money publishing it themselves.
For most businesses, it simply spells game over which is why every business which finds itself in the position of having to explain a GPL violation quickly comes to it's senses (whatever the cost) and adheres to their obligations. The alternative is unthinkable.
Try this little thought experiment; You're a (reasonably smart) software developer. You're paid to develop a portion of a proprietary software product. You find a function in a GPL'd program which does what you need. You do the copy/paste/globalsub dance and complete the project.
Then a bit later, you get called into a meeting with your manager and some junior coder dude from another part of your company.
"Hey dude, like, it kinda looks like, for your code, you like just copied the GPL'd stuff and substituted your own identifiers, man."
This brings up the common questions of:
If this was some "simple" piece of code, why didn't you just write it yourself? Are you incompetent or just an idiot?
If it was complex stuff, did you really think no one would notice your implementation was identical to the GPL'd one, or are you just an idiot?
Did you think your company could get away with this because you supposedly keep all your code secret (as if no one ever leaves your company, or there aren't any honorable, clued, and GPL-sympathetic people employed there) or are you just an idiot?
Believe me, it's not that much more comfortable to be "that coder dude" having to ask the questions like "did you really write this yourself?" and "Do we have the rights to ship this to our customers?" and "...ummm...BugTrak just reported a vulnerability in the GPL'd one, do we need to go back and check our implementation?" Been there, done that. It's no fun counting dots on the ceiling why the Legal guy explains that we can't ship the product as planned, or have to recall everything we've already shipped.
I think you're missing something, but not in the programming realm. When speaking of control, reality trumps perception.
If you've written a class with a private member, I would be a fool to use it (for example, to increase performance in my game) as I risk unspecified behavior if you change the implementation. A prudent me would say "I don't control the private member, so I should not rely on it."
But I only lose if you change the implementation. If I have a guarantee from you that your implementation will not change without notice, (which is to say, if I have control over the private member, despite its being marked private) it's really a public (to me) function that's just marked private for everyone else. It's not the public/private marking which I use to decide access, my decision turns on the control I have.
This could be leveraged into the same old behaviors Microsoft has been accused of in the past: declare a slow public member and a fast private member. Since Microsoft ultimately has control of both the public and private members of the classes it creates, anyone non-Microsoft must (prudently) use the slow public members, but anyone "in the know" can use the fast private members without risk, giving an unfair advantage to Microsoft and associated developers.
It's also a predictor of the historical situation as well; if developers can gain performance and the expense of robustness, they will. Historically, this left Microsoft in the unenviable position of being unable to evolve their products in the direction their business objectives demand for fear of breaking compatibility with deployed applications using the fast, private members.
I sense the perception had been that private members could not be used at all. This article exposes the reality that under .NET, some private members (the ones over which you can presume you have control) are actually public; its up to the developer to guess which ones. (Or maybe that should read (with apologies to Monty Python/Life of Brian) "its okay to make their privates public for a game"
It has short-term advantages, and long-term consequences. If Microsoft is smart, they'll declare this a bug (regardless of original intent) and take steps to ensure no one can use these interfaces, even if this means they cannot (mis)use private members themselves.
Actually there is; it is exactly the DMCA which does this, and there is already caselaw (in the Lexmark/SCC case) to support it. The legal theory was this:
Lexmark claims copyright to the software within the printers they manufacture.
Lexmark claims that a chip in the (high end) ink cartridges they manufacture serves as an access control mechanism, controlling access to a portion of their copyrighted material (software supporting extended high-end functions) in their printer.
Static Control Components reverse engineered and created a workalike chip which could be used to convince a Lexmark printer that the non-Lexmark ink cartridge installed was a genuine Lexmark ink cartridge, and should therefore be granted full access to the copyrighted software functions.
The DMCA prohibits the manufacture of devices which bypass access control mechanisms to digital copyrighted material.
The judge agreed that SCC's actions amounted to a violation.
This is not about warranty service. It's about HP using embedded software to control the products they manufacture after the sale. As more and more products are manufactured with an embedded software component, we will likely see more and more of this behavior. Remember; software will always by loyal to whomever wrote it. Unless stopped, this means we may eventually see ACME cars that just don't run quite as well unless you're using ACME gasoline. As consumers we will make that choice, and have to live with it.
Here's a question for you; If I wanted to manufacture $10,000 ink cartridges for Lexmark printers with the feature of having "just the right shade of black", and could find a market for my ink cartridges, should the law prevent my sale? As written, the DMCA allows Lexmark to block my entry to this market, even if Lexmark has no intention of entering that market themselves.
Dark Ages? Instead, this is a good thing. No one will mind much playing a game featuring the Dolphins or the Raiders in another ten years, but imagine playing a game fraturing the likes (pardon the pun) of Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, or O.J. Simpson?
We are human. Our culture evolves. Computers don't understand that; software doesn't age. Etching the face of a present day star into software stone makes about as much sense as locking our copyright works away forever behind some CSS encryption just because infinite-minus-a-day copyrights happen to be in vogue today.