The Court has already ruled that a technological measure that effectively controls access means anything that the publisher claims provides him that capability.
If I (digitally) stamp copyrighted material onto the "chewy nougut center", I can claim the crunchy chocolate coating is an "Access Control Mechanism".
Marketing, or so it's said, is the science of convincing someone to give you more money than you would otherwise be inclined to give in exchange for a given product or service.
No business in it's right mind would sell you a whatever (be it a universal power supply or a new patio) at the lowest possible price when they could sell you the same thing at that price plus a markup.
Marketing isn't about low prices; perhaps you were thinking of competition?
Marketing is about convincing you that you don't even need to consider the competition, because their prices must be higher, or because they must be less convenient, or because...well...because our product is for those who think young(tm).
There's a lot of meat here, and relates to the whole reason why Microsoft felt it had to control the browser back when it looked like the majority of marketing would be done on-line through the browser on the Internet, and why AOL felt obligated to buy Time Warner with the Internet looming as the next generation of TV...
I guess they can claim convicted felon who's served his time status, which puts them above unrepentant felon status, but no where near smart enough to have never done the crime in the first place status.
Way to go, Comcast! In all seriousness!
Money is how the world is influenced by people who can't code.
Money is to legislation what software is to an operating system.
If speech (as software) does not qualify for full First Amendment protection (we are seeing this in the various DeCSS cases), why should speech (as money) qualify?
If I find a bug in some software and report it back to company which created it, doesn't that make me an employee of the company which created the software? Am I entitled to compensation?
And if not, why should I waste my time reporting bugs?
If you let them show what YOU like to watch, then more porgrams of what YOU like to watch will become more common, and the programs that YOU HATE will start to disappear. How is that bad? Duh?
It would be more correct to say:
If you let them show what the average person likes to watch, then more programs of what the average person likes to watch will become more common, and the programs that the average person hates will start to disappear.
If you are just the average person in every way, then this is a great program for you. But don't come complaining to me when you one day find yourself suffering the tyranny of the majority.
....opening a brothel in Amsterdam, taking orders from the US and shipping prostitutes to the US.
Perhaps you should check-out the Amateur Action case on Legis?
In a nutshell, a company in California produces video tapes of things we don't usually discuss in polite forums; buy previously declared legal (if barely) in the community in which they are sold, on the basis that they are not obscene by the standards of that community. Offers the videos for sale by mail order.
Some postmaster in the Baptist South (Atlanta, I think) orders a copy delivered and, upon receipt, proceeds to have the vendor busted because the material is clearly obscene by his community standards.
MS: 'Everybody raise their hands if you trust your data on this man's server'
Here we see Microsoft conveniently ignoring a relative reference.
There's no reason why you would trust your data on my server, of course.
But would you trust your data on your server?
With.NET, Microsoft has acknowledged that the money is to be made by selling services as opposed to products. Microsoft wants to be the ones who sell you that service. Of course they're not going to acknowledge that you can provide that service yourself. Their survival depends on building a business model which prevents anyone but themselves from offering this service.
The primary purpose of cryptography is information management.
Cryptography gives one the power to control what happens with information. It includes functions to prevent leakage (the hiding part you mention) as well as functions to certify that the information is correct (hash functions), to certify the source of the information (authentication, signatures), etc.
You see, it's all about control.
Those who advocate that some segment of the population should be denied the use of cryptography want to deny them the power to control their own information.
OSS companies/programmers will be just as liable as closed source ones.
A simple solution:
People/firms who sell/vend/give away software incur full liability for the results of their software.
Offering a patch is not enough. The vendor must recall the software and replace it with corrected software (on similar media, at vendor expense) to avoid liability for software they released.
but
It's not software until it get's compiled.
This means OSS developers can avoid all liability by avoiding distributing pre-compiled binaries. The same exclusion would apply to other source-form distribution, including perl scripts, shell scripts, XML documents, python scripts (unless pre-compiled), etc.
Business-style vendors like Microsoft, Red Hat, could still distribute binaries, but they would incur the liability costs. Users of embedded software (like Ford Motors, or internet toasters) would have the same recall process they have today.
I'd imagine this would encourage disk drive and PC manufacturers to have a seperate BIOS disk so that if a patch were needed, the vendor could just ship new BIOS media, rather than having to recall the whole disk drive or computer. That would be good for those interested in hacking rights.
And if you download my open source software off the internet and compile it yourself, then the liability rests with you, not me, because you were the one who compiled it. I have no control over what compiler you use, how you select the options, or even what platform you're compiling it for.
The content providers have already divvied-up the Internet, but no one yet owns the content layer on the network that runs within your own home. That's unacceptable to them. The home network becomes yet another marketplace for the proprietary technology vendors to fight over.
And in that battle there will be two losers: you and whomeved doesn't get to "sell you the whatever...."
When I want moderation as "Funny", I'll include the appropriate:-).
802.11 is not regulated by the FCC. That's why everyone who wants to innovate in the Video Content delivery segment proposes sending throughout their home as some sort of 802.11b wireless signal. If the VHF or HDTV spectrum were unregulated, you'd see a whole slew of personal VHF or HDTV broadcast devices, so you wouldn't have to retrofit your television set, or build a seperate 802.11 to video translators.
What's the difference between buying a DVD player and putting it in my living room, or streaming the content to a wireless receiver at my TV??
That depends. Am I the company that won't get to sell you the additional DVD player, or am I the company that won't get to sell you the wireless receiver?
I know that I would pay extra for a CD player that would allow me to make a backup copy. Wouldn't you?
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Don't you realize you already have a CD player that allows you to make a backup copy? Why would you pay extra to buy a new one?
So, if I threw a brick through your window with a note tied to it saying "We fix broken windows, prompt service, please call" you'd call us right up and say "gosh, I just happen to have a broken window that needs fixing...
I bet Dick Stallman is going to ask everybody to speak and write in Esperanto next.
...plus much other clueless stuff.
First, there's no corporation which gains financially each time someone (who has never used the format before) converts over to using a non-proprietary format, such as plain TEXT, UNICODE, LaTeX,.info, or esperanto. This is not true of proprietary format documents, such as.doc.
Second, I'm at a loss to think of any application which will silently (and without informing the user) encode a simpler format (such as plain TEXT) into a more complex format (such as LaTeX, or some other non-proprietary format) in the way Microsoft products routinely do.
Stallman isn't commenting on the fact that some can't access the content. (How would you solve the problem of Internet communication with someone who can't even read? Even plain TEXT can't fix that one.) Instead, it's a comment on Microsoft's unceasing efforts to bend the Internet into a platform for the promotion of their own products and the furthering of their own business plans.
Unfortunately, he's still preaching to the choir.
I don't have a solution to the problem of stupid people, but I'm pretty sure joining them ain't it.
Could someone please tell me how the flag on some file will stop [the transfer of video files over the Internet]
Let's take it in pieces...
...my buddy taping...
For as long as you (or your buddy, in this scenario) have an analog recording mechanism (like a VCR) you're okay. But the AV equipment manufacturers don't make much money unless you buy new equipment. Therefore, you will always be under pressure to but a new VCR, or a recordable DVD box, or even a TV tuner card for your PC. In each of these cases, it opens a vulnerability because you are at the whim of the equipment manufacturers. (I'm neglecting the possibility that you build all of your own equipment from scratch.) The AV equipment manufacturers are under legal and business pressure to ensure that copyrighted material remains marked that way, and is not easily copyable. One simple way to do this is to mark all material as copyrighted, and therefore non-copyable. So, you (or your buddy in this scenario) could be stopped by a failure of his current recording mechanism, or by his own desire to keep current and upgrade.
...then ripping South Park...
This presumes the ability to convert analog content into digital content, or to somehow get the original content digitally. There are many schemes which can already be used to prevent you from getting the original content digitally. We will presume that an effective application of the DMCA will cut off your access to the original digital content. And since the scenario you propose seems to indicate a tolerance of any analog adequate copy anyway (since it's coming from tape) lets's focus on this instead.
This would seem to be the place where blocking is least possible, but only if we presume that all of the equipment (computer, disk, digitizer, and software) are under your own control. But there have been initiatives to remove this control from you, even for equipment you "own", in each of these cases.
The DMCA represents a broad example of law dictating what you can (or cannot) do with your own computer in your own home. As long as you're using a non-free operating system, then you will only have the ability to digitize video content if the OS manufacturer chooses to allow that capability, and then only under the terms dictated by the manufacturer. And, regardless of size, OS manufacturers are too big of a target for content providers to ignore. Is it too much to imagine an operating system which refuses to allow certain copy operations except under the approval of a digital copyright management scheme? Microsoft doesn't think so, and they've already applied for a patent for one way to do it.
...chopping it into 15MB RARs and placing it on an FTP...
You don't own the Internet; maybe a small part within your own home, but not the whole 'end to end'. I could imagine your scenario being stopped here by any of:
a limit on your buddy's upload file size, imposed by his internet service provider.
a prohibitive surcharge to your buddy, based on upload file size.
the inability of your buddy to run an FTP service from his own equipment, based on firewalling or terms-of-service imposed by his internet service provider.
the inability of your buddy to find an FTP server run by someone else, due to a prohibitive cost, liability concerns on the part of the FTP site provider, lawsuits shutting down such a central server or their inability to run an FTP service from their own equipment for reasons detailed above.
the actions of "intelligent internet routers" which examine initiating and terminating ports, as well as content type, and choose not to pass content which is not beneficial (profitable) to their owners.
download limits, imposed by your internet service provider, which restrict what you can download, or your total download speed.
This last one is the "flag" you are referring to. It is not in AOL/Time Warner's interest to allow you to bypass their controls (and profitibility) on their content using their routers, so you can expect them to (Lessig puts it; "as corporations they are legally obligated to") take actions to prevent this type of content from being carried over their wires.
There are already software systems deployed which can "recognise" a song, even if it was performed by an unknown artist. It won't be difficult to modify this research to identify a portion of a South Park episode, no matter how bad the analog encoding was.
That leaves two obvious routes your buddy might employ (obsfucation and encryption), each with it's failings and drawbacks. Obsfucation ("we'll ROT13 the file before we upload it") only works if everyone knows the obsfucation method, and you can bet the search and identify software will learn it, too. Encryption has the same drawback, unless the key is tightly controlled, in which case knowing the key in itself becomes a liability.
Instead of patting yourself on the back, secure in the knowledge (even if you're right) that they can never stop the trading of digital content, why not ask the question why they would want to? If you didn't value South Park so much, they couldn't justify taking such actions to protect it.
Imagine that. the answer was right in front of you all along.
The real application I see here is in the field of optical computing.
We already know how to build optical "wires", optical "amplifiers", and optical "gates". What we haven't been able to do until now is build optical "memory".
This could also lead directly to fully optical routers which can "store and forward" data.
If the City of Chicago isn't careful, they will wind up granting an exclusive market to some Internet Service Provider, who will proceeded to lock-out (or charge monopoly prices for) all other Internet services.
Come on. people, we saw this same behavior with the cable companies and the cellphone providers, and the phone companies before them.
Will Chicagoans be guaranteed the same level of service regardless of which services they're using, or which web sites they're visiting?
Will Chicagoans be allowed to use other Internet Service Providers over the WAN provided?
Will they be able to select another broadband provider in the City of Chicago selected one prices too high, or offers poor service, or will this be an exclusive contract, with other providers banned from the wires, or from the market?
If they do this right, and demand that the selected provider "deliver the bits" fairly, this could make Chicage the next hub for Internet innovation. If they do thie right, they could clean-up big time.
If they do this wrong, they could lock themselves into a single-provider network and find themselves dealing with yet another Cable or Cellphone monopoly.
Time will tell.
...which, although probably true, does nothing to mitigate the concept of the weight of the color blue being an enigma.
(Although it does explain why my wife always looks heavier in her blue bathing suit when we come down out of the mountains to go to the beach...I think.)
Damn! Now I've got to find a new example. Probably something from Finance. Yeah. Nobody understands that stuff.
The above post probably deserve moderation as either Funny, or Off Topic, but I can't figure out which.
Yo! Taco! How about a LaTeX posting mode for Slashdot?
The users (students) have virtually no say over what tools will be deployed, but then again we're not expecting them to produce anything, or to innovate.
The people specifying the tools (teachers and administrators) are primarily after a tool which will get out of their way and let them teach.
The people supporting the tool (who? a teacher, maybe, or an overstreched support staff) are so non-existant as to be politically powerless.
The people paying for the tool (the school district in the case of a Public School, school regents in other cases) are usually much closer to the money than in a typical corporation, and at any rate are not expecting to garner a profit or expand their market share.
This would appear to be an ideal setting for a free-software solution. So why don't we see this happening everywhere?
Think about how a school goes about purchasing a computing environment; for any reasonable large site it's still a case of "meet with the sales folks, post the contract, accept bids, award the contract"; an art software marketers (like Microsoft, Apple, and even Intel) are well practiced in.
It occurs to me that a company like Red Hat could could really clean up in this market by acting as a go-between for the free software community. I imagine it would work something like this:
Accept resumes' from *volunteers* in selected geographic areas.
Organize the appropriate ones into sales teams, providing them with sales material and a 'heads up' when a school has opened a bid, and training in how to submit a bid based on Red Hat Linux and other free software components.
Organize other *volunteers* into teams of support personnel to handle the remote administration of the resulting contract wins. (Hardware support would be sub-contracted out to a local firm, as happens in most of these contracts.)
Red Hat benefits by:
Brand Exposure to it's emerging market.
The support team volunteers become the "farm pool" from which future Red Hat Linux support engineers can be culled.
Attacking the account with a dirt-cheap, motivated, locally connected sales team, and a dirt cheap and motivated, if not locally connect, support team. About the only thing Red Hat would have to buy is the T-shirts;-)
And while I imagine some people would be hesitant to volunteer their time to help out a commercial organization like Red Hat, if they play up the fact that the real beneficiaries are the students, as well as pledge the net profit from these accounts (if any) to an educational cause, this could turn out to be a very powerful rallying flag. They could get a lot of mileage out of the "no vendor lock in" and "not pre-addicting our kids to Microsoft" memes alone.
Just seems like one of those cases where a little bit of organizing could go a long way.
Yes. Very clued observation which I should have clarified. For most people, "rebooting and reinstalling Windows" (and similar tasks) defines the tech industry, and it's these people who would be hardest hit. People focused on implementing solutions (a much smaller segment) would be in a much better position.
...could be channeled into building and customizing apps that actually increase productivity or capture currently elusive business opportunity.
And would be today, were it not for that little thing Judge Jackson called "barriers to entry." If you arent' writing for the Windows monopoly, you'll spend a significant amount of time and effort just defending your existing platform against Windows encroachment. I'd love to spend more time developing an integrated product development system for my employer; as it is, I spend most of my time trying to convince other groups that there really is something wrong with tying the corporate authentication system to a Windows-only API.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a completely backwards way of thinking?
I'm not sure how you define "backward", but I'll admit it's certaintly counterintuitive.
You'll need to understand the disconnect between operation and support. This is often difficult for people with a Linux bend to grasp, because with Linux, you are both the operator and the one providing support.
In a business setting, when discussing "desktop" computer operating systems (here I'd include things like MacOS, Windows, etc.) the one who uses it is often different from the one who specifies it and is responsible for supporting it. And the two different groups may have very different objectives.
Sure, it'll be less tech support calls, but isn't that a good thing?
Good for whom? Now go re-read the original post you're replying to. Don't make me copy&paste it all over again.;-)
Here's a thought experiment to drive things home:
Suppose I offered you a job supporting the operating system component (and only the OS component) of a desktop system. No salary; instead you're paid only for legitimate and recognised patches you install: $10,000 for a 'root exploit' level patch, $5,000 for a "modify/delete files" level, $3,000 for an "information exposure" (sends my files to someone else) etc. Oh, and you get to choose which operating system it runs, and no, you don't have to actually use it yourself. And I'll let you pad your resume' with any classes or seminars the vendor offers (at my expense). Are you still considering Linux? Under that sort of agreement, you could choose Windows and retire next week.
On the other hand, how many helplines have a phone menu option to request assistance with using the building plumbing, or offering to help resolve problems with the AC wiring? These things just work, which means the helpline staff dedicated to them eventually gets reduced to nothing.
A while back, I was asked by a senior manager at our company what kind of computer he should get for his (kids? nephews? I can't recall). I responded with two questions:
Who will be responsible for installing and supporting it? He said he was, of course.
Will you be paid per incident when it breaks down? Of course not. This was for his family.
So I suggested he go with Macintosh. Then he asked why I recommend Macintosh but use Linux. I pointed out that I used Linux in the basement, because it allows me to take apart anything I want to learn more about, but upstairs (for the wife and kids) is 100% Macintosh, so that I can spend my time in the basement.
Better (IMHO) to pay for the learning curve once...
Better? Better for whom? That's the question you need to focus on.
In order for that action to be taken, the decision must be beneficial to whomever is charged with making that decision.
In the business case, that decision will be made by the IS department, who will clearly NOT benefit from a change which will:
reduce their budget, or make them explain why it hasn't
end the guarantee that next year's budget will also require yet another major Windows purchase.
If you want to get free software into the major corporations, you'll need to "get to" the shareholders, and the Boards Of Directors. Once they understand the racket their IS organizations are running, Linux will be in...
...and most of us will be out of a job.
(BTW: that's what killed the Macintosh environment where I work; ran so well they didn't need tech support anymore. Once the techs were gone, there was no one left to defend it.)
Slashdot Mirror
If I (digitally) stamp copyrighted material onto the "chewy nougut center", I can claim the crunchy chocolate coating is an "Access Control Mechanism".
But it won't be. And that's the problem.
Marketing, or so it's said, is the science of convincing someone to give you more money than you would otherwise be inclined to give in exchange for a given product or service.
No business in it's right mind would sell you a whatever (be it a universal power supply or a new patio) at the lowest possible price when they could sell you the same thing at that price plus a markup.
Marketing isn't about low prices; perhaps you were thinking of competition?
Marketing is about convincing you that you don't even need to consider the competition, because their prices must be higher, or because they must be less convenient, or because...well...because our product is for those who think young(tm).
There's a lot of meat here, and relates to the whole reason why Microsoft felt it had to control the browser back when it looked like the majority of marketing would be done on-line through the browser on the Internet, and why AOL felt obligated to buy Time Warner with the Internet looming as the next generation of TV...
I guess they can claim convicted felon who's served his time status, which puts them above unrepentant felon status, but no where near smart enough to have never done the crime in the first place status. Way to go, Comcast! In all seriousness!
Money is to legislation what software is to an operating system.
If speech (as software) does not qualify for full First Amendment protection (we are seeing this in the various DeCSS cases), why should speech (as money) qualify?
So can someone explain to me why I keep running into Java apps that crash horribly on my Macintosh?
And while you're at it, explain how CIL will avoid this same fate?
If I find a bug in some software and report it back to company which created it, doesn't that make me an employee of the company which created the software? Am I entitled to compensation?
And if not, why should I waste my time reporting bugs?
It would be more correct to say:
If you let them show what the average person likes to watch, then more programs of what the average person likes to watch will become more common, and the programs that the average person hates will start to disappear.
If you are just the average person in every way, then this is a great program for you. But don't come complaining to me when you one day find yourself suffering the tyranny of the majority.
Perhaps you should check-out the Amateur Action case on Legis?
In a nutshell, a company in California produces video tapes of things we don't usually discuss in polite forums; buy previously declared legal (if barely) in the community in which they are sold, on the basis that they are not obscene by the standards of that community. Offers the videos for sale by mail order.
Some postmaster in the Baptist South (Atlanta, I think) orders a copy delivered and, upon receipt, proceeds to have the vendor busted because the material is clearly obscene by his community standards.
I don't recall how the case turned out, sorry.
Here we see Microsoft conveniently ignoring a relative reference.
There's no reason why you would trust your data on my server, of course.
But would you trust your data on your server?
With .NET, Microsoft has acknowledged that the money is to be made by selling services as opposed to products. Microsoft wants to be the ones who sell you that service. Of course they're not going to acknowledge that you can provide that service yourself. Their survival depends on building a business model which prevents anyone but themselves from offering this service.
You're both wrong.
The primary purpose of cryptography is information management.
Cryptography gives one the power to control what happens with information. It includes functions to prevent leakage (the hiding part you mention) as well as functions to certify that the information is correct (hash functions), to certify the source of the information (authentication, signatures), etc.
You see, it's all about control.
Those who advocate that some segment of the population should be denied the use of cryptography want to deny them the power to control their own information.
Cryptography is not just cloak-and-dagger stuff.
A simple solution:
People/firms who sell/vend/give away software incur full liability for the results of their software.
Offering a patch is not enough. The vendor must recall the software and replace it with corrected software (on similar media, at vendor expense) to avoid liability for software they released.
but
It's not software until it get's compiled.
This means OSS developers can avoid all liability by avoiding distributing pre-compiled binaries. The same exclusion would apply to other source-form distribution, including perl scripts, shell scripts, XML documents, python scripts (unless pre-compiled), etc.
Business-style vendors like Microsoft, Red Hat, could still distribute binaries, but they would incur the liability costs. Users of embedded software (like Ford Motors, or internet toasters) would have the same recall process they have today.
I'd imagine this would encourage disk drive and PC manufacturers to have a seperate BIOS disk so that if a patch were needed, the vendor could just ship new BIOS media, rather than having to recall the whole disk drive or computer. That would be good for those interested in hacking rights.
And if you download my open source software off the internet and compile it yourself, then the liability rests with you, not me, because you were the one who compiled it. I have no control over what compiler you use, how you select the options, or even what platform you're compiling it for.
This all makes perfect sense to me.
The content providers have already divvied-up the Internet, but no one yet owns the content layer on the network that runs within your own home. That's unacceptable to them. The home network becomes yet another marketplace for the proprietary technology vendors to fight over.
And in that battle there will be two losers: you and whomeved doesn't get to "sell you the whatever...."
When I want moderation as "Funny", I'll include the appropriate
No, but that's exactly the rub.
802.11 is not regulated by the FCC. That's why everyone who wants to innovate in the Video Content delivery segment proposes sending throughout their home as some sort of 802.11b wireless signal. If the VHF or HDTV spectrum were unregulated, you'd see a whole slew of personal VHF or HDTV broadcast devices, so you wouldn't have to retrofit your television set, or build a seperate 802.11 to video translators.
That depends. Am I the company that won't get to sell you the additional DVD player, or am I the company that won't get to sell you the wireless receiver?
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Don't you realize you already have a CD player that allows you to make a backup copy? Why would you pay extra to buy a new one?
So, if I threw a brick through your window with a note tied to it saying "We fix broken windows, prompt service, please call" you'd call us right up and say "gosh, I just happen to have a broken window that needs fixing...
First, there's no corporation which gains financially each time someone (who has never used the format before) converts over to using a non-proprietary format, such as plain TEXT, UNICODE, LaTeX, .info, or esperanto. This is not true of proprietary format documents, such as .doc.
Second, I'm at a loss to think of any application which will silently (and without informing the user) encode a simpler format (such as plain TEXT) into a more complex format (such as LaTeX, or some other non-proprietary format) in the way Microsoft products routinely do.
Stallman isn't commenting on the fact that some can't access the content. (How would you solve the problem of Internet communication with someone who can't even read? Even plain TEXT can't fix that one.) Instead, it's a comment on Microsoft's unceasing efforts to bend the Internet into a platform for the promotion of their own products and the furthering of their own business plans.
Unfortunately, he's still preaching to the choir.
I don't have a solution to the problem of stupid people, but I'm pretty sure joining them ain't it.
Let's take it in pieces...
For as long as you (or your buddy, in this scenario) have an analog recording mechanism (like a VCR) you're okay. But the AV equipment manufacturers don't make much money unless you buy new equipment. Therefore, you will always be under pressure to but a new VCR, or a recordable DVD box, or even a TV tuner card for your PC. In each of these cases, it opens a vulnerability because you are at the whim of the equipment manufacturers. (I'm neglecting the possibility that you build all of your own equipment from scratch.) The AV equipment manufacturers are under legal and business pressure to ensure that copyrighted material remains marked that way, and is not easily copyable. One simple way to do this is to mark all material as copyrighted, and therefore non-copyable. So, you (or your buddy in this scenario) could be stopped by a failure of his current recording mechanism, or by his own desire to keep current and upgrade.
This presumes the ability to convert analog content into digital content, or to somehow get the original content digitally. There are many schemes which can already be used to prevent you from getting the original content digitally. We will presume that an effective application of the DMCA will cut off your access to the original digital content. And since the scenario you propose seems to indicate a tolerance of any analog adequate copy anyway (since it's coming from tape) lets's focus on this instead.
This would seem to be the place where blocking is least possible, but only if we presume that all of the equipment (computer, disk, digitizer, and software) are under your own control. But there have been initiatives to remove this control from you, even for equipment you "own", in each of these cases.
The DMCA represents a broad example of law dictating what you can (or cannot) do with your own computer in your own home. As long as you're using a non-free operating system, then you will only have the ability to digitize video content if the OS manufacturer chooses to allow that capability, and then only under the terms dictated by the manufacturer. And, regardless of size, OS manufacturers are too big of a target for content providers to ignore. Is it too much to imagine an operating system which refuses to allow certain copy operations except under the approval of a digital copyright management scheme? Microsoft doesn't think so, and they've already applied for a patent for one way to do it.
You don't own the Internet; maybe a small part within your own home, but not the whole 'end to end'. I could imagine your scenario being stopped here by any of:
a limit on your buddy's upload file size, imposed by his internet service provider.
a prohibitive surcharge to your buddy, based on upload file size.
the inability of your buddy to run an FTP service from his own equipment, based on firewalling or terms-of-service imposed by his internet service provider.
the inability of your buddy to find an FTP server run by someone else, due to a prohibitive cost, liability concerns on the part of the FTP site provider, lawsuits shutting down such a central server or their inability to run an FTP service from their own equipment for reasons detailed above.
the actions of "intelligent internet routers" which examine initiating and terminating ports, as well as content type, and choose not to pass content which is not beneficial (profitable) to their owners.
download limits, imposed by your internet service provider, which restrict what you can download, or your total download speed.
This last one is the "flag" you are referring to. It is not in AOL/Time Warner's interest to allow you to bypass their controls (and profitibility) on their content using their routers, so you can expect them to (Lessig puts it; "as corporations they are legally obligated to") take actions to prevent this type of content from being carried over their wires.
There are already software systems deployed which can "recognise" a song, even if it was performed by an unknown artist. It won't be difficult to modify this research to identify a portion of a South Park episode, no matter how bad the analog encoding was.
That leaves two obvious routes your buddy might employ (obsfucation and encryption), each with it's failings and drawbacks. Obsfucation ("we'll ROT13 the file before we upload it") only works if everyone knows the obsfucation method, and you can bet the search and identify software will learn it, too. Encryption has the same drawback, unless the key is tightly controlled, in which case knowing the key in itself becomes a liability.
Instead of patting yourself on the back, secure in the knowledge (even if you're right) that they can never stop the trading of digital content, why not ask the question why they would want to? If you didn't value South Park so much, they couldn't justify taking such actions to protect it.
Imagine that. the answer was right in front of you all along.
The real application I see here is in the field of optical computing.
We already know how to build optical "wires", optical "amplifiers", and optical "gates". What we haven't been able to do until now is build optical "memory".
This could also lead directly to fully optical routers which can "store and forward" data.
If the City of Chicago isn't careful, they will wind up granting an exclusive market to some Internet Service Provider, who will proceeded to lock-out (or charge monopoly prices for) all other Internet services.
Come on. people, we saw this same behavior with the cable companies and the cellphone providers, and the phone companies before them.
Will Chicagoans be guaranteed the same level of service regardless of which services they're using, or which web sites they're visiting?
Will Chicagoans be allowed to use other Internet Service Providers over the WAN provided?
Will they be able to select another broadband provider in the City of Chicago selected one prices too high, or offers poor service, or will this be an exclusive contract, with other providers banned from the wires, or from the market?
If they do this right, and demand that the selected provider "deliver the bits" fairly, this could make Chicage the next hub for Internet innovation. If they do thie right, they could clean-up big time.
If they do this wrong, they could lock themselves into a single-provider network and find themselves dealing with yet another Cable or Cellphone monopoly.
Time will tell.
(Although it does explain why my wife always looks heavier in her blue bathing suit when we come down out of the mountains to go to the beach...I think.)
Damn! Now I've got to find a new example. Probably something from Finance. Yeah. Nobody understands that stuff.
The above post probably deserve moderation as either Funny, or Off Topic, but I can't figure out which.
Yo! Taco! How about a LaTeX posting mode for Slashdot?
The users (students) have virtually no say over what tools will be deployed, but then again we're not expecting them to produce anything, or to innovate.
The people specifying the tools (teachers and administrators) are primarily after a tool which will get out of their way and let them teach.
The people supporting the tool (who? a teacher, maybe, or an overstreched support staff) are so non-existant as to be politically powerless.
The people paying for the tool (the school district in the case of a Public School, school regents in other cases) are usually much closer to the money than in a typical corporation, and at any rate are not expecting to garner a profit or expand their market share.
This would appear to be an ideal setting for a free-software solution. So why don't we see this happening everywhere?
Think about how a school goes about purchasing a computing environment; for any reasonable large site it's still a case of "meet with the sales folks, post the contract, accept bids, award the contract"; an art software marketers (like Microsoft, Apple, and even Intel) are well practiced in.
It occurs to me that a company like Red Hat could could really clean up in this market by acting as a go-between for the free software community. I imagine it would work something like this:
Accept resumes' from *volunteers* in selected geographic areas.
Organize the appropriate ones into sales teams, providing them with sales material and a 'heads up' when a school has opened a bid, and training in how to submit a bid based on Red Hat Linux and other free software components.
Organize other *volunteers* into teams of support personnel to handle the remote administration of the resulting contract wins. (Hardware support would be sub-contracted out to a local firm, as happens in most of these contracts.)
Red Hat benefits by:
Brand Exposure to it's emerging market.
The support team volunteers become the "farm pool" from which future Red Hat Linux support engineers can be culled.
Attacking the account with a dirt-cheap, motivated, locally connected sales team, and a dirt cheap and motivated, if not locally connect, support team. About the only thing Red Hat would have to buy is the T-shirts ;-)
And while I imagine some people would be hesitant to volunteer their time to help out a commercial organization like Red Hat, if they play up the fact that the real beneficiaries are the students, as well as pledge the net profit from these accounts (if any) to an educational cause, this could turn out to be a very powerful rallying flag. They could get a lot of mileage out of the "no vendor lock in" and "not pre-addicting our kids to Microsoft" memes alone.
Just seems like one of those cases where a little bit of organizing could go a long way.
Yes. Very clued observation which I should have clarified. For most people, "rebooting and reinstalling Windows" (and similar tasks) defines the tech industry, and it's these people who would be hardest hit. People focused on implementing solutions (a much smaller segment) would be in a much better position.
And would be today, were it not for that little thing Judge Jackson called "barriers to entry." If you arent' writing for the Windows monopoly, you'll spend a significant amount of time and effort just defending your existing platform against Windows encroachment. I'd love to spend more time developing an integrated product development system for my employer; as it is, I spend most of my time trying to convince other groups that there really is something wrong with tying the corporate authentication system to a Windows-only API.
I'm not sure how you define "backward", but I'll admit it's certaintly counterintuitive.
You'll need to understand the disconnect between operation and support. This is often difficult for people with a Linux bend to grasp, because with Linux, you are both the operator and the one providing support.
In a business setting, when discussing "desktop" computer operating systems (here I'd include things like MacOS, Windows, etc.) the one who uses it is often different from the one who specifies it and is responsible for supporting it. And the two different groups may have very different objectives.
Good for whom? Now go re-read the original post you're replying to. Don't make me copy&paste it all over again. ;-)
Here's a thought experiment to drive things home:
Suppose I offered you a job supporting the operating system component (and only the OS component) of a desktop system. No salary; instead you're paid only for legitimate and recognised patches you install: $10,000 for a 'root exploit' level patch, $5,000 for a "modify/delete files" level, $3,000 for an "information exposure" (sends my files to someone else) etc. Oh, and you get to choose which operating system it runs, and no, you don't have to actually use it yourself. And I'll let you pad your resume' with any classes or seminars the vendor offers (at my expense). Are you still considering Linux? Under that sort of agreement, you could choose Windows and retire next week.
On the other hand, how many helplines have a phone menu option to request assistance with using the building plumbing, or offering to help resolve problems with the AC wiring? These things just work, which means the helpline staff dedicated to them eventually gets reduced to nothing.
A while back, I was asked by a senior manager at our company what kind of computer he should get for his (kids? nephews? I can't recall). I responded with two questions:
Who will be responsible for installing and supporting it? He said he was, of course.
Will you be paid per incident when it breaks down? Of course not. This was for his family.
So I suggested he go with Macintosh. Then he asked why I recommend Macintosh but use Linux. I pointed out that I used Linux in the basement, because it allows me to take apart anything I want to learn more about, but upstairs (for the wife and kids) is 100% Macintosh, so that I can spend my time in the basement.
Better? Better for whom? That's the question you need to focus on.
In order for that action to be taken, the decision must be beneficial to whomever is charged with making that decision.
In the business case, that decision will be made by the IS department, who will clearly NOT benefit from a change which will:
reduce their budget, or make them explain why it hasn't
end the guarantee that next year's budget will also require yet another major Windows purchase.
If you want to get free software into the major corporations, you'll need to "get to" the shareholders, and the Boards Of Directors. Once they understand the racket their IS organizations are running, Linux will be in...
(BTW: that's what killed the Macintosh environment where I work; ran so well they didn't need tech support anymore. Once the techs were gone, there was no one left to defend it.)