"DRM'ed DVDs" and ''DVD will use a "better" encryption than ever before''
huh?
If it's a plain ol' DVD, that will play back in any regular ol' DVD player, then there's no DRM. There's encryption, sure, but the CSS encryption was cracked completely. Done. They *could* encrypt the thing better, but then it won't play back on DVD players - it's no longer a DVD.
Now perhaps you actually meant it'll only be available on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, and by some magic way the HD-DVD version won't be 'cracked' almost instantly (as the keys have been found for HD-DVD perpetually).. or, knowing that HD-DVD's only protection is swiss cheese, only go with Blu-Ray and its additional protection layer.
Or maybe it is a DVD - but a data DVD, and you can only play it back on a special HBO set top box media center thingamajig?
Anyway.. if it comes out on DVD at all, it'll be ripped in no time. === Other than that, I fully agree with what you're saying - production companies are exploiting the Regular > Special Edition > Collector's Edition > Director's Cut > Director's Cut Collector's Edition > etc. thing up the wazoo. I wish it would stop - but it's a moneymaker, so I doubt it will. As you said - it's just business.. but it's pretty dirty business.
I don't mind the model in general - I don't mind paying extra for additional content if that's what I want to see. What I do mind is if you have e.g. a Special Edition which has bonus features A, B, C and a Collector's Edition which has bonus features B, C, D, and a Director's Cut which has features B, D, E and F You'd have to buy all three to get the full extras. That's just lame.
so why didn't you go to the HTC Universal? Full VGA (640x480)
seriously, there's so many non-arguments about the iPhone vs everything else based on individual aspects. the iPhone will kick ass because of the overall package. It will still have its shortcomings (i.e. resolution, no buttons (it's a feature!), etc.) but overall it will be a better package than most everything out there. There'll always be people who need something that the iPhone can't offer, and they will go with something else... or deal with it and remain looking hip with an iPhone that doesn't do entirely what they need it to.
Re:when are you distributing software?
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
cool - thank you, and strider_44
when are you distributing software?
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Just curious... (mod Troll if you wish, but certainly not intended as such)
Obviously if I modify a GPL package, compile it, put it on my website... i'm distributing the thing, and anybody who downloads it should have access to my source code.
But if I'm Google and I use a GPL package, modify it, compile it, and put it as a service on my website... I'm not distributing the actual program as that stays server side. So no source code for any users of my service. Also fair enough, I suppose (though some feel that Google is in abuse of Free licenses there).
Now I'm ToVi (not sure about the exact bits in the TiVo case, so I'm not TiVo).. I modify a GPL package, compile it, put it on a harddisk platter, from which it can be read by the system to play back ToVi content. The user can access that harddisk via a USB cable. Did I just distribute the program? Probably.
Now I take away that access, and the user can only get at it if they remove the HDD and put it in some other HDD enclosure or straight into their case. Did I just distribute the program? I'm going to guess 'yes'.
Say that I am... now I encrypt the content of that harddisk and that content can only be decrypted using the key in the non-GPL firmware. Obviously the key will be cracked soon enough.. but did I still just distribute the program? I'm going to wager 'yes', because even though it's encrypted, it's still on there (though that might set some pretty dangerous precedent).
So say I stick the program in the firware chip instead, and that firmware can't be read out (unless you have some very expensive gear). Am I still distributing the program? It's just on a chip, but the user certainly doesn't 'have' the program in any which way or form. I'm going to guess that the spirit says 'yes' but the letter may say 'no'?
Assume it's 'no', and I update the firmware over the ToVi network. I suspect I'm now distributing the program again?
So what if I, as ToVi, run everything GPL as a service.. the menu, DRM keys, whatever. That's a la Google. The only part I'm putting on the ToVi device itself being the decoding routines and such, as the internet is nowhere near fast enough for realtime upload/decrypt/decode/display/etc. routines. Assume those are not GPL. Am I now in the clear?
In short... what's the argument for 'distributing' software, where the GPL kicks in?
I know I might be splitting hairs, but the latest draft has some hairs that should be split (as pointed out by others) as it is.. might as well split this one and find out what the answer is.
...but in come the privacy concerns, of course. 1. is that information easily read from the files, or does it take a decryption key which, presumably, only Apple has? 2. regardless, what would Apple / EMI do with that information? 2a. Assume they don't use it to track down those who are liberally sharing music... are they using it for advertising purposes? 2b. Tracking purposes? 2c. Social networking (of the evil kind) purposes?
And, of course, cue the replies... "removal tool in 3... 2.. 1..." "let's replace it with Steve Jobs's account info!" "let's put garbage data in there and flood the system with noise!" etc.
more-or-less.. yes. You need a license from Apple to even build a device that has the iPod connector. That's the part you stick in the iPod. That's not to mention the part you'd use for peripherals to connect -to-; the jack inside the iPod. afaik - Apple doesn't license that at all.
''The extent to which a particular make of computer is capable of "dithering" is a function of the sophistication of the programming of the software. For example, in the case of the MacBook and MacBook Pro, because of the uniqueness of these computers to be able to run both Apple's OS operating system, and the PC's Microsoft Windows operating system, it is possible to compare the quality of the display between the two operating systems. In the case of the display that the MacBook and the MacBook Pro produces using the Microsoft Windows operating system at all resolution levels is superior to the display that those same computers display using Apple's OS operating system.''
Some nasty grammar in there, but in summary: no such problem when running Windows on the same machine?
If that is true, then it is indeed an Apple software problem. Note that software shouldn't be in charge of this sort of thing in the first place. LCD displays themselves handle incoming 8bit values on a 6bit displays in one of three ways: A. 'as is', 91 becomes 92. B. 'dither', 3 out of 4 pixels are 92, the other one is 88, averaging to 91 C. 'frame rate control', 3 out of 4 refreshes it draws the pixel as 92, the other one is 88, averaging to 91.
B&C are both common, and both have pros/cons. But either way, the software shouldn't be doing anything there (arguably, a driver might - i.e. if the monitor specifically allows you to specify which method to use, what dithering pattern, etc. by means of driver control).
where's my mod points already? Troll? More like INSIGHTFUL. Even though it shouldn't take any insight to realize that you can't claim "car of the year 2007" in february either - but I guess it's more profitable not to be insightful. Perhaps the Troll mod that parent poster got is evidence thereof.
...that's what I would do anyway. Oh yes, it's funny. It's uhm.. hilarious. Look at that.. snippets from Disney productions used to explain the evils of copyright. Yeah. So what else is on?
Seriously, watch the thing.. What../is/ COPY.. rrrright? COPY COPY.. rrright? IT!/is/.. a.. rrright! by the COPY!.. rrright OOOwner... etc. Would you like your newspaper to be written in the style of a 'ransom note'? Sure, it'd be interesting for a day, it might even enter history as a landmark publication.. but you wouldn't want to read it again. And more likely than not, you're not going to remember what the thing read. I don't even remember what this video was trying to tell me, exactly.. just that it annoyed the crap out of me - in a bad way. Quite unlike commercials for tampons and such which are very annoying as well, but I sure remember that they now come in a silky smooth and curved lines-variant for ease insertion from Tampax.
So if Disney is smart.. they'll ignore it, and it'll go away faster than the SONY 'rootkit' outrage.
A much better video would have used snippets of the first Mickey Mouse adventure etc. with clear and concise narration, law references, case references, and so forth - it would hold attention much better. imho anyway - perception is a personal thing after all
I actually saw the movie, then went online and got some more information from the other point of view.. only to find there wasn't really any.
I think way too many people reacted to that whole thing, as well as to the movie, as being about 'freedom of speech'. Even Natalie herself did, to an extent, at one point (after which she calls Bush a "Dumb Fuck", for those who have seen the movie and needed the pointer). However, throughout the movie there was never once a strong "this is freedom of speech! why are people trampling on our freedom of speech!?" mantra. ( Aside from the old man stating that free speech is fine, but not on foreign soil and not in public. )
To me, it wasn't about freedom of speech. *obviously* you can say just about whatever you want, just don't get upset if somebody else makes a 'freedom of speech' statement back - and that includes no longer buying your product, or even going public with their opinion. ( Death threats are in a completely different league. )
I got a much stronger sense that the movie was about "this is what happens when a select group of powerful people focus their sheeple". From the political movement involved to the radio station 'federation' bosses right down to the woman who once loved the Dixie Chick's music (note: their music), then considered their music to be "trash" because of a personal (political or not, I say it was - even if it was meant in fun) statement from one of the band members.
Imagine if a similarly strong group of people existed in the software world. Perhaps they would convince 'blacks' that Open Source is "trash" because of ESR's past statements, even if currently perhaps only a few are offended by what he said, and fewer still may not touch anything to do with ESR.
So why do these things usually blow over (what of the huge public outcry against SONY's 'rootkit'?), and some times blow up (Dixie Chicks, Imus, etc.)?
As stated in the movie by one of the other band members (not a fan - don't recall the name, the other blonde anyway), the situation was just too perfect for those with an interest to let it blow over.
Even though I'm not a fan, I do admire their attitude, resolve -and- sense of when to just 'give up'. That's the other thing I think the movie demonstrated.. that sometimes, if the other side isn't going to budge, it may be better to just give up, and move on - even if the other side can't or won't. They moved on, with continued success.
---
Regardless of whether you're a fan or not, I do recommend watching this movie - it has some other bits of background information, and plenty of humor (the shot of Rick Rubin's dog is hilarious - brilliant editing! In fact, google for "Rick Rubin's dog" - currently only three hits, and all about this movie. )
that's the possible - the question is how likely it is still to be. Keep in mind that the fingerprint isn't the -only- bit to check against. There's things like duration that they can take into account. For example, if you make a video of 4 minutes of a Colbert Report section and just tack a "ROFL" frame before and a "watch my other videos!" thing at the end - that's not fair use. If it's a 10 second clip inside a 4 minute video you make - it probably is fair use. Obviously, there's plenty of room for "I'm not sure if it is, or isn't". At that point, video services could investigate for themselves, let the copyright holder investigate / whatever. That's well outside the scope of fingerprint technologies and what they can or cannot do.
To answer the obvious question - if it's not reasonably certain, then content should never be taken down automatically.. not even as a precaution. if nothing else, write to the user first, ask them if *they* believe it is fair use or not, as to give them the opportunity to take it down themselves if they figure it quite probably isn't. If they do, then they can indicate that, and the video site can take it up with the copyright / license / whatever holder and have them either agree or not. It's in all parties' best interest not to mistake it.. i.e. if it is fair use, and the copyright holder believes otherwise, then things like mediators or even lawyers come into play.. they cost money.. money they'd prefer not to spend if it's obviously they're in the wrong. Same applies the other way around, of course.
Most video fingerprinting technology can deal with mirroring, rotating, shearing, compression, time stretching, channel swapping (RGB and YUV), and practically any other method you can think of. One thing you -can- is chop it up into fragments that are smaller than the watermarking window, and distribute those fragments across the canvas randomly. The problem with that (and, actually, almost all of the aforementioned methods) is that the video is unwatchable and compresses horribly. The latter you're stuck with, the former you could code a special plugin for that unscrambles the video. But at that point, it's no longer video for the masses.
I'm sure other posters have already pointed out that people will just upload/download on a different service, etc. so I won't go into that here.. nor the possible (unlikely, but possible) 'fair use' issues.
In addition, it doesn't matter whether the file is less than 512 or, in this case, 4096 bytes. What matters is if the 'size % block_size' is non-zero. I.e. let's say the file is 4090 bytes. It will fit just fine, and you'll only waste 6 bytes. Now the file is 4100 bytes, only 4 bytes over. Except now you need 2 blocks, and thus waste 4092 bytes.
Sure, on a multi-GB file that's not going to matter too much, as even on a TB drive you can only have a few hundred of those, and who's going to miss that 1MB? However, there's plenty of other files that hover between 1k and 10k, 10k and 100k, 100k and 1MB where those tiny fractions do add up.
That said, GP is still right. Say you do have a TB drive.. unless you only have a few free MB left, you're not going to worry too much about the losses from block sizes.
edit, that is.. the title now does read "BBC". Scaaaaary. Rest assured, though, parent poster - you're not going nuts, it did indeed spell "BCC" before. Made me wonder what that electronics chain had to do with it..
Seems you and at least one other responded mentioned texture.. hadn't thought of that, to be honest, and I suppose there is something to be said for that (went out and got some poppy seed covered buns just to check if I was going nuts.. but nope, still no particular taste to me)
Nor have I tried a poppy seed cake (couldn't find any around here either) where somebody said flavor was stronger.
I'm still curious as to what caused people to put poppy seeds on/in products in the first place tho'.. hmm.
Okay, okay.. so poppy seeds not an officially listed narcotic/opiate or whatever you'd call them in the U.S... but obviously they have some of the same characteristics as the full deal - just in far lesser concentrations?
Could it be that eating poppy seed products be doing drugs, in some form? I know this sounds ridiculous just on the face of it, but does anybody know the origin of using poppy seeds in food products? I've scraped the poppy seeds off a bun once and ate them.. they didn't have any specific taste that I could tell - quite unlike the relatively strong tastes of, say, sesame seeds, sunflower pits, almond shavings, etc. So assuming I don't have some poppy seed-taste deficiency, and they really are rather bland, why are they in/on food products and why do some of us choose to eat them. Moreover, why do those who choose to eat them choose to eat them relatively frequently? (like GP, who apparently had poppy seed bagels for breakfast every morning - as opposed to plain, sesame seed, etc. for variety)
Has there been research done into this subject? Honestly curious.
I mean - I can only assume this was a 'white hat' hackers conference, given there was actual publicity given and a public bounty and such. But then things like these pop up?
"'Shane can have the laptop, I want the money,' Dai Zovi said in a telephone interview from New York" "Conference attendees were underwhelmed, reasoning a Mac exploit that required no end-user interaction could be sold for upwards of $20,000."
Makes me think.. black hat, white hat.. what's the difference these days? I thought a white hat hacker was the 'good guy' (albeit still a hacker).. the kind of person who hacks for fun / curiosity.. the kind of person who notifies the developer of the bug or, at least, just makes the bug known to the world at no charge. Not the kind of person who hacks, then scours the 'security conferences' for a bounty, and when that bounty is lower than what they could get off of actual 'bad guys', complain that the bounty is too low. To me, that just sounds like the person is a black hat, but dons a white hat on top in an attempt to fool us into thinking they're white hat.
The copyright holder tells YouTube that they believe that the copyright lays with them, and to please take it down. Google passes on this message to the person who uploaded the video. The person who uploaded the video then goes "uh, no - this is quite clearly a parody and is fully covered by blabla law" to YouTube. YouTube passes that on to the copyright holder, and they get to say that they either agree, or disagree.
If they disagree, YouTube would be in a unique position to hold a mediation between the two parties before any expensive lawsuits would evolve. This mediation may have to come at a small price, to be paid by the losing party. The small price should easily be payable by a private party should they 'lose', so that... 1. people who believe they are in their right get every opportunity to defend that right, and if they lose anyway, they're just out a small amount instead of a lot + a lot of time with lawyers/court(s). 2. people who know they're in the wrong can cede right away. 3. the copyright holder, should they 'win', still get to have the material taken down 4. the copyright holder, should they 'lose', will also just be out a small amount - but presuming they did this for every video like the one you referenced where they would clearly lose, that would still add up; thus, hopefully, preventing copyright holders from just issueing takedown notices to every video under the sun.
Should mediation fail (or either party refuses to partake*), -then- the two parties can still take it up with their lawyers/etc. and things just follow the natural course it has been for years. *not partaking in the mediation would reflect very badly on the person who refused to do so when in an actual court.. courts don't like having their time eaten up when it could've been solved through a mediator.. so in cases where there's no clear-cut verdict, expect the judge to judge in favor of the party that did want to go through with mediation.
I (We) actually work with the "listen to basic exposition of information" part. But guess what - very often that will just be "it doesn't work" and "I don't know why it doesn't work, it just doesn't work, fix it!". And yes, that's when flowcharts come into play.
And if you have talked to a tech support whose flowchart's flow goes from "power light off" to "instruct customer to reboot computer", then good lord do yourself a favor and switch because they can't even get their flowcharts right - how do you figure they'll solve your problem?;)
For most of the videos, the following could easily be done...
Copyright holder notices a video that they hold the copyright to. They tell Google. Google checks the claims made, etc. etc. and presumably finds it valid. They make a hash of the video. They check their site for any other videos that match that hash, and remove those as well. They check any future upload and see if it matches the hash - if it does, it doesn't post it.
That leaves people getting around that by re-encoding, etc.
It's not exactly rocket science. Re-encode it? Zap a few frames? Fingerprinting tech laughs in the face of that sort of thing. The only two effective means of fooling fingerprinting tech are: 1. mangle the video so it can't possibly be recognized. Unfortunately, this means nobody can watch it without a special de-mangling player. 2. find out how the fingerprinting tech works, and make sure that only in those spots where it checks the original video, there's a difference. Of course any fingerprinting tech worth it's $$,$$$ will allow a seed value to change things around, and google rotates this once a week or however often needed once they realize people are getting around things in that way - and punish those users appropriately.
Not saying I agree with them doing it - though I find it hilarious in a sad way that if a copyright holder says "X is mine, please take it offline", that Google will do so - but not on Y which is the exact same video, or Z which is the exact same video getting uploaded a day later - but those are the ways they -can- do it.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that Google build an AI system that magically determines whether the copyright of a video lays with a third party and by means of technological ESP determines that said copyright holder did not consent to the upload - and I certainly don't think that Google is claming that they are either.
By far the most pleasant customers are those who will read/listen to what you're saying, and will give you accurate information back. Their problem also gets resolved -much- faster.
I know a lot of you out there are going to be "but we often know better than the CSR anyway", but if that is the case, then wtf are you doing calling the support line? You obviously need help, so -let- them help you in the way that they know will be best. Yes, they'll walk you through a stupid flowchart on their screen - but those flowcharts are typically well-made to determine exact causes and exact solutions.
Too often when I get a call there'll be somebody saying "it doesn't work", and we spend 3 minutes just to find out -what- doesn't work, -when- it doesn't work, and -how- it doesn't work. Then when you get them a (possible) solution X, they're quiet for a while, get back to you and say "Hey, I tried Y and it didn't work", and we have to go figure out if them changing Y f'ed things up even more so that we have to undo Y before getting back to X.
The longest support call I've had was 3 hours, and was from exactly such a user, and I'm sure they were thinking "why the hell did that take so long? they suck!" but they never mentioned. Another user with the same problem just 2 weeks before who was one of the aforementioned was back up and running in 4 minutes.
Now of course we don't pre-judge our users, but it usually takes only a minute to figure out where they lay.. the 3 hour, the 2 minute, or somewhere inbetween variety, and will take appropriate action when determined. I.e. get some extra coffee and an aspirin for the 3 hour ones.
Slashdot Mirror
"DRM'ed DVDs" and ''DVD will use a "better" encryption than ever before''
huh?
If it's a plain ol' DVD, that will play back in any regular ol' DVD player, then there's no DRM. There's encryption, sure, but the CSS encryption was cracked completely. Done. They *could* encrypt the thing better, but then it won't play back on DVD players - it's no longer a DVD.
Now perhaps you actually meant it'll only be available on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, and by some magic way the HD-DVD version won't be 'cracked' almost instantly (as the keys have been found for HD-DVD perpetually).. or, knowing that HD-DVD's only protection is swiss cheese, only go with Blu-Ray and its additional protection layer.
Or maybe it is a DVD - but a data DVD, and you can only play it back on a special HBO set top box media center thingamajig?
Anyway.. if it comes out on DVD at all, it'll be ripped in no time.
===
Other than that, I fully agree with what you're saying - production companies are exploiting the Regular > Special Edition > Collector's Edition > Director's Cut > Director's Cut Collector's Edition > etc. thing up the wazoo. I wish it would stop - but it's a moneymaker, so I doubt it will. As you said - it's just business.. but it's pretty dirty business.
I don't mind the model in general - I don't mind paying extra for additional content if that's what I want to see. What I do mind is if you have e.g. a Special Edition which has bonus features A, B, C and a Collector's Edition which has bonus features B, C, D, and a Director's Cut which has features B, D, E and F You'd have to buy all three to get the full extras. That's just lame.
so why didn't you go to the HTC Universal? Full VGA (640x480)
seriously, there's so many non-arguments about the iPhone vs everything else based on individual aspects. the iPhone will kick ass because of the overall package. It will still have its shortcomings (i.e. resolution, no buttons (it's a feature!), etc.) but overall it will be a better package than most everything out there. There'll always be people who need something that the iPhone can't offer, and they will go with something else... or deal with it and remain looking hip with an iPhone that doesn't do entirely what they need it to.
cool - thank you, and strider_44
Just curious... (mod Troll if you wish, but certainly not intended as such)
Obviously if I modify a GPL package, compile it, put it on my website... i'm distributing the thing, and anybody who downloads it should have access to my source code.
But if I'm Google and I use a GPL package, modify it, compile it, and put it as a service on my website... I'm not distributing the actual program as that stays server side. So no source code for any users of my service. Also fair enough, I suppose (though some feel that Google is in abuse of Free licenses there).
Now I'm ToVi (not sure about the exact bits in the TiVo case, so I'm not TiVo).. I modify a GPL package, compile it, put it on a harddisk platter, from which it can be read by the system to play back ToVi content. The user can access that harddisk via a USB cable. Did I just distribute the program? Probably.
Now I take away that access, and the user can only get at it if they remove the HDD and put it in some other HDD enclosure or straight into their case. Did I just distribute the program? I'm going to guess 'yes'.
Say that I am... now I encrypt the content of that harddisk and that content can only be decrypted using the key in the non-GPL firmware. Obviously the key will be cracked soon enough.. but did I still just distribute the program? I'm going to wager 'yes', because even though it's encrypted, it's still on there (though that might set some pretty dangerous precedent).
So say I stick the program in the firware chip instead, and that firmware can't be read out (unless you have some very expensive gear). Am I still distributing the program? It's just on a chip, but the user certainly doesn't 'have' the program in any which way or form. I'm going to guess that the spirit says 'yes' but the letter may say 'no'?
Assume it's 'no', and I update the firmware over the ToVi network. I suspect I'm now distributing the program again?
So what if I, as ToVi, run everything GPL as a service.. the menu, DRM keys, whatever. That's a la Google. The only part I'm putting on the ToVi device itself being the decoding routines and such, as the internet is nowhere near fast enough for realtime upload/decrypt/decode/display/etc. routines. Assume those are not GPL. Am I now in the clear?
In short... what's the argument for 'distributing' software, where the GPL kicks in?
I know I might be splitting hairs, but the latest draft has some hairs that should be split (as pointed out by others) as it is.. might as well split this one and find out what the answer is.
...but in come the privacy concerns, of course.
1. is that information easily read from the files, or does it take a decryption key which, presumably, only Apple has?
2. regardless, what would Apple / EMI do with that information?
2a. Assume they don't use it to track down those who are liberally sharing music... are they using it for advertising purposes?
2b. Tracking purposes?
2c. Social networking (of the evil kind) purposes?
And, of course, cue the replies...
"removal tool in 3... 2.. 1..."
"let's replace it with Steve Jobs's account info!"
"let's put garbage data in there and flood the system with noise!"
etc.
more-or-less.. yes. You need a license from Apple to even build a device that has the iPod connector. That's the part you stick in the iPod. That's not to mention the part you'd use for peripherals to connect -to-; the jack inside the iPod. afaik - Apple doesn't license that at all.
o r+license
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ipod+connect
From the PDF ( http://www.engadget.com/videos/PDF/apple_macbook_l awsuit.pdf ) :
''The extent to which a particular make of computer is capable of "dithering" is a function of the sophistication of the programming of the software. For example, in the case of the MacBook and MacBook Pro, because of the uniqueness of these computers to be able to run both Apple's OS operating system, and the PC's Microsoft Windows operating system, it is possible to compare the quality of the display between the two operating systems. In the case of the display that the MacBook and the MacBook Pro produces using the Microsoft Windows operating system at all resolution levels is superior to the display that those same computers display using Apple's OS operating system.''
Some nasty grammar in there, but in summary: no such problem when running Windows on the same machine?
If that is true, then it is indeed an Apple software problem. Note that software shouldn't be in charge of this sort of thing in the first place. LCD displays themselves handle incoming 8bit values on a 6bit displays in one of three ways:
A. 'as is', 91 becomes 92.
B. 'dither', 3 out of 4 pixels are 92, the other one is 88, averaging to 91
C. 'frame rate control', 3 out of 4 refreshes it draws the pixel as 92, the other one is 88, averaging to 91.
B&C are both common, and both have pros/cons. But either way, the software shouldn't be doing anything there (arguably, a driver might - i.e. if the monitor specifically allows you to specify which method to use, what dithering pattern, etc. by means of driver control).
where's my mod points already? Troll? More like INSIGHTFUL. Even though it shouldn't take any insight to realize that you can't claim "car of the year 2007" in february either - but I guess it's more profitable not to be insightful. Perhaps the Troll mod that parent poster got is evidence thereof.
...that's what I would do anyway. Oh yes, it's funny. It's uhm.. hilarious. Look at that.. snippets from Disney productions used to explain the evils of copyright. Yeah. So what else is on?
/is/ COPY.. rrrright? COPY COPY.. rrright? IT! /is/.. a.. rrright! by the COPY!.. rrright OOOwner... etc. Would you like your newspaper to be written in the style of a 'ransom note'? Sure, it'd be interesting for a day, it might even enter history as a landmark publication.. but you wouldn't want to read it again. And more likely than not, you're not going to remember what the thing read. I don't even remember what this video was trying to tell me, exactly.. just that it annoyed the crap out of me - in a bad way. Quite unlike commercials for tampons and such which are very annoying as well, but I sure remember that they now come in a silky smooth and curved lines-variant for ease insertion from Tampax.
Seriously, watch the thing.. What..
So if Disney is smart.. they'll ignore it, and it'll go away faster than the SONY 'rootkit' outrage.
A much better video would have used snippets of the first Mickey Mouse adventure etc. with clear and concise narration, law references, case references, and so forth - it would hold attention much better.
imho anyway - perception is a personal thing after all
I actually saw the movie, then went online and got some more information from the other point of view.. only to find there wasn't really any.
I think way too many people reacted to that whole thing, as well as to the movie, as being about 'freedom of speech'. Even Natalie herself did, to an extent, at one point (after which she calls Bush a "Dumb Fuck", for those who have seen the movie and needed the pointer). However, throughout the movie there was never once a strong "this is freedom of speech! why are people trampling on our freedom of speech!?" mantra. ( Aside from the old man stating that free speech is fine, but not on foreign soil and not in public. )
To me, it wasn't about freedom of speech. *obviously* you can say just about whatever you want, just don't get upset if somebody else makes a 'freedom of speech' statement back - and that includes no longer buying your product, or even going public with their opinion. ( Death threats are in a completely different league. )
I got a much stronger sense that the movie was about "this is what happens when a select group of powerful people focus their sheeple". From the political movement involved to the radio station 'federation' bosses right down to the woman who once loved the Dixie Chick's music (note: their music), then considered their music to be "trash" because of a personal (political or not, I say it was - even if it was meant in fun) statement from one of the band members.
Imagine if a similarly strong group of people existed in the software world. Perhaps they would convince 'blacks' that Open Source is "trash" because of ESR's past statements, even if currently perhaps only a few are offended by what he said, and fewer still may not touch anything to do with ESR.
So why do these things usually blow over (what of the huge public outcry against SONY's 'rootkit'?), and some times blow up (Dixie Chicks, Imus, etc.)?
As stated in the movie by one of the other band members (not a fan - don't recall the name, the other blonde anyway), the situation was just too perfect for those with an interest to let it blow over.
Even though I'm not a fan, I do admire their attitude, resolve -and- sense of when to just 'give up'. That's the other thing I think the movie demonstrated.. that sometimes, if the other side isn't going to budge, it may be better to just give up, and move on - even if the other side can't or won't. They moved on, with continued success.
---
Regardless of whether you're a fan or not, I do recommend watching this movie - it has some other bits of background information, and plenty of humor (the shot of Rick Rubin's dog is hilarious - brilliant editing! In fact, google for "Rick Rubin's dog" - currently only three hits, and all about this movie. )
that's the possible - the question is how likely it is still to be. Keep in mind that the fingerprint isn't the -only- bit to check against. There's things like duration that they can take into account. For example, if you make a video of 4 minutes of a Colbert Report section and just tack a "ROFL" frame before and a "watch my other videos!" thing at the end - that's not fair use. If it's a 10 second clip inside a 4 minute video you make - it probably is fair use. Obviously, there's plenty of room for "I'm not sure if it is, or isn't". At that point, video services could investigate for themselves, let the copyright holder investigate / whatever. That's well outside the scope of fingerprint technologies and what they can or cannot do.
To answer the obvious question - if it's not reasonably certain, then content should never be taken down automatically.. not even as a precaution. if nothing else, write to the user first, ask them if *they* believe it is fair use or not, as to give them the opportunity to take it down themselves if they figure it quite probably isn't. If they do, then they can indicate that, and the video site can take it up with the copyright / license / whatever holder and have them either agree or not. It's in all parties' best interest not to mistake it.. i.e. if it is fair use, and the copyright holder believes otherwise, then things like mediators or even lawyers come into play.. they cost money.. money they'd prefer not to spend if it's obviously they're in the wrong. Same applies the other way around, of course.
fwiw - no, it catches that.
Most video fingerprinting technology can deal with mirroring, rotating, shearing, compression, time stretching, channel swapping (RGB and YUV), and practically any other method you can think of. One thing you -can- is chop it up into fragments that are smaller than the watermarking window, and distribute those fragments across the canvas randomly. The problem with that (and, actually, almost all of the aforementioned methods) is that the video is unwatchable and compresses horribly. The latter you're stuck with, the former you could code a special plugin for that unscrambles the video. But at that point, it's no longer video for the masses.
I'm sure other posters have already pointed out that people will just upload/download on a different service, etc. so I won't go into that here.. nor the possible (unlikely, but possible) 'fair use' issues.
Hooooooooooooo!
I need less whitespace and/or less repetition.. as badly as the story needs less 'crackpot'.
"shouldn't you be out chasing murderers?"
In addition, it doesn't matter whether the file is less than 512 or, in this case, 4096 bytes. What matters is if the 'size % block_size' is non-zero. I.e. let's say the file is 4090 bytes. It will fit just fine, and you'll only waste 6 bytes. Now the file is 4100 bytes, only 4 bytes over. Except now you need 2 blocks, and thus waste 4092 bytes.
Sure, on a multi-GB file that's not going to matter too much, as even on a TB drive you can only have a few hundred of those, and who's going to miss that 1MB?
However, there's plenty of other files that hover between 1k and 10k, 10k and 100k, 100k and 1MB where those tiny fractions do add up.
That said, GP is still right. Say you do have a TB drive.. unless you only have a few free MB left, you're not going to worry too much about the losses from block sizes.
edit, that is.. the title now does read "BBC". Scaaaaary. Rest assured, though, parent poster - you're not going nuts, it did indeed spell "BCC" before. Made me wonder what that electronics chain had to do with it..
Seems you and at least one other responded mentioned texture.. hadn't thought of that, to be honest, and I suppose there is something to be said for that (went out and got some poppy seed covered buns just to check if I was going nuts.. but nope, still no particular taste to me)
Nor have I tried a poppy seed cake (couldn't find any around here either) where somebody said flavor was stronger.
I'm still curious as to what caused people to put poppy seeds on/in products in the first place tho'.. hmm.
Says who?
Okay, okay.. so poppy seeds not an officially listed narcotic/opiate or whatever you'd call them in the U.S.
Could it be that eating poppy seed products be doing drugs, in some form? I know this sounds ridiculous just on the face of it, but does anybody know the origin of using poppy seeds in food products? I've scraped the poppy seeds off a bun once and ate them.. they didn't have any specific taste that I could tell - quite unlike the relatively strong tastes of, say, sesame seeds, sunflower pits, almond shavings, etc. So assuming I don't have some poppy seed-taste deficiency, and they really are rather bland, why are they in/on food products and why do some of us choose to eat them. Moreover, why do those who choose to eat them choose to eat them relatively frequently? (like GP, who apparently had poppy seed bagels for breakfast every morning - as opposed to plain, sesame seed, etc. for variety)
Has there been research done into this subject? Honestly curious.
I mean - I can only assume this was a 'white hat' hackers conference, given there was actual publicity given and a public bounty and such. But then things like these pop up?
Makes me think.. black hat, white hat.. what's the difference these days? I thought a white hat hacker was the 'good guy' (albeit still a hacker).. the kind of person who hacks for fun / curiosity.. the kind of person who notifies the developer of the bug or, at least, just makes the bug known to the world at no charge. Not the kind of person who hacks, then scours the 'security conferences' for a bounty, and when that bounty is lower than what they could get off of actual 'bad guys', complain that the bounty is too low. To me, that just sounds like the person is a black hat, but dons a white hat on top in an attempt to fool us into thinking they're white hat.
Well, here's what would happen...
The copyright holder tells YouTube that they believe that the copyright lays with them, and to please take it down. Google passes on this message to the person who uploaded the video. The person who uploaded the video then goes "uh, no - this is quite clearly a parody and is fully covered by blabla law" to YouTube. YouTube passes that on to the copyright holder, and they get to say that they either agree, or disagree.
If they disagree, YouTube would be in a unique position to hold a mediation between the two parties before any expensive lawsuits would evolve. This mediation may have to come at a small price, to be paid by the losing party. The small price should easily be payable by a private party should they 'lose', so that...
1. people who believe they are in their right get every opportunity to defend that right, and if they lose anyway, they're just out a small amount instead of a lot + a lot of time with lawyers/court(s).
2. people who know they're in the wrong can cede right away.
3. the copyright holder, should they 'win', still get to have the material taken down
4. the copyright holder, should they 'lose', will also just be out a small amount - but presuming they did this for every video like the one you referenced where they would clearly lose, that would still add up; thus, hopefully, preventing copyright holders from just issueing takedown notices to every video under the sun.
Should mediation fail (or either party refuses to partake*), -then- the two parties can still take it up with their lawyers/etc. and things just follow the natural course it has been for years. *not partaking in the mediation would reflect very badly on the person who refused to do so when in an actual court.. courts don't like having their time eaten up when it could've been solved through a mediator.. so in cases where there's no clear-cut verdict, expect the judge to judge in favor of the party that did want to go through with mediation.
I (We) actually work with the "listen to basic exposition of information" part. But guess what - very often that will just be "it doesn't work" and "I don't know why it doesn't work, it just doesn't work, fix it!". And yes, that's when flowcharts come into play.
;)
And if you have talked to a tech support whose flowchart's flow goes from "power light off" to "instruct customer to reboot computer", then good lord do yourself a favor and switch because they can't even get their flowcharts right - how do you figure they'll solve your problem?
I'm not GP, but here you go:2 38245 - O'Reilly and CMP Exercise Trademark on 'Web 2.0'
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/26/1
..right?
5 ).
okay, maybe not - not noted in the bug anyway ( turn off referrer: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9216
In summary: You cannot rename a folder name "foo" to "Foo" (e.g. a case change). You have to rename "foo" to "foo_", and then rename "foo_" to "Foo".
For most of the videos, the following could easily be done...
p rint
Copyright holder notices a video that they hold the copyright to. They tell Google. Google checks the claims made, etc. etc. and presumably finds it valid. They make a hash of the video. They check their site for any other videos that match that hash, and remove those as well. They check any future upload and see if it matches the hash - if it does, it doesn't post it.
That leaves people getting around that by re-encoding, etc.
So in comes fingerprinting:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=video+finger
It's not exactly rocket science. Re-encode it? Zap a few frames? Fingerprinting tech laughs in the face of that sort of thing. The only two effective means of fooling fingerprinting tech are:
1. mangle the video so it can't possibly be recognized. Unfortunately, this means nobody can watch it without a special de-mangling player.
2. find out how the fingerprinting tech works, and make sure that only in those spots where it checks the original video, there's a difference. Of course any fingerprinting tech worth it's $$,$$$ will allow a seed value to change things around, and google rotates this once a week or however often needed once they realize people are getting around things in that way - and punish those users appropriately.
Not saying I agree with them doing it - though I find it hilarious in a sad way that if a copyright holder says "X is mine, please take it offline", that Google will do so - but not on Y which is the exact same video, or Z which is the exact same video getting uploaded a day later - but those are the ways they -can- do it.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that Google build an AI system that magically determines whether the copyright of a video lays with a third party and by means of technological ESP determines that said copyright holder did not consent to the upload - and I certainly don't think that Google is claming that they are either.
By far the most pleasant customers are those who will read/listen to what you're saying, and will give you accurate information back. Their problem also gets resolved -much- faster.
I know a lot of you out there are going to be "but we often know better than the CSR anyway", but if that is the case, then wtf are you doing calling the support line? You obviously need help, so -let- them help you in the way that they know will be best. Yes, they'll walk you through a stupid flowchart on their screen - but those flowcharts are typically well-made to determine exact causes and exact solutions.
Too often when I get a call there'll be somebody saying "it doesn't work", and we spend 3 minutes just to find out -what- doesn't work, -when- it doesn't work, and -how- it doesn't work. Then when you get them a (possible) solution X, they're quiet for a while, get back to you and say "Hey, I tried Y and it didn't work", and we have to go figure out if them changing Y f'ed things up even more so that we have to undo Y before getting back to X.
The longest support call I've had was 3 hours, and was from exactly such a user, and I'm sure they were thinking "why the hell did that take so long? they suck!" but they never mentioned. Another user with the same problem just 2 weeks before who was one of the aforementioned was back up and running in 4 minutes.
Now of course we don't pre-judge our users, but it usually takes only a minute to figure out where they lay.. the 3 hour, the 2 minute, or somewhere inbetween variety, and will take appropriate action when determined. I.e. get some extra coffee and an aspirin for the 3 hour ones.