Stock price means nothing except PERCEIVED value of a company. It only has something to do with reality in so far venture capitalists are able to distinguis between fact and fantasy (and we still remember the.com bust)...
There have been multiple stories about microsoft research using linux machines. So microsoft is using linux for research, and most likely not distributing the results.
-> It inconveniences users : jup -> It poses problems for a *large* number of network protocols : jup -> It is still exploitable : jups (shell commands can EASILY be sent in a http page)
I see a necessity for this post since most people don't seem to realise what this is and what it is not. Some people take the acronym as thruth and assume it will enforce their rights online. It will NOT.
a) Microsoft WILL be able to bypass the restrictions and thus your rights will not be protected from them and their "partners". It will protect their "rights" against you (the quotation marks are there because market domination and forced obsolecence will surely be among the enforced "rights")
b) DRM is a technical solution to achieve MORE and STRICTER copyright law. According to microsoft's own site.
0) you will need a licence server to actually be able "transparently" protect files. This means the possibility of giving out licences over the web. (I wonder what other way they had in mind)
-> somehow i doubt they will support apache
-> the cost of a licence server is in the same ballpark as the datacenter server version of windows (NOT the consumer ballpark), so if you're an artist, you will most likely not be able to afford this
1) DRM will prevent resale of bought music.
2) DRM can make most music self destruct after a while, because you have supposedly agreed to that (note that you DO NOT get the choice to agree or not) at the present time, the clauses of the "contract" aren't even shown to the user. And it is ILLEGAL to bypass the contract (as in potential jail time if you record the music)
3) DRM does not allow you to play a file on another computer, an mp3 player or...
4) DRM makes it possible for the licensor to revoke and change YOUR rights to your music AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON.
5) Because licenses and digital media files are stored separately, licensing terms can be changed on the server, without needing to redistribute or repackage the digital media file.
6) Windows Media Rights Manager "locks" digital media files with a license key to maintain content protection, even if these files are widely distributed. Each license is uniquely assigned to each computer.
1) a laser is a single frequency of light, meaning that it only selects VERY few molecules and heats those 2) you can see it, so obviously it's causing a reaction 3) that reaction has to be violent because you only have a very small subset of detection molecules that you can trigger and the signal needs to be strong enough to notice
result : you get a lot of very local, and strong, heat sources on your retina, which is something that just doesn't occur in nature, and your eye probably isn't prepared for it.
Nobody encrypts their programs these days. It's a hurdle, it takes an expert and advanced assembler knowledge to do it right (right = not trivial to bypass). Knowing what the call to create a window is (rara... CreateWindow or CreateWindowEx) is enough to immediately locate places in the program where a window is created (automatically by a debugger) as the program runs. You basically change the routine that is called by a CreateWindowEx() instruction)
Removing that dialogbox is trivial. 99% of those screens are implemented with a modal dialog box (the program partially suspends execution and only the shown window is accessible). From that point on it is a trivial matter to find the last routine call (a CALL assembler instruction, you know it's address as it's on the stack) and change thel CALL xxxxx to NOP (5 nops)
re-run the progam and I'll bet you that dialogbox isn't there anymore. (but generally the program crashes... hmmm repeat but find the call above that, it generally doesn't go up more than 3 levels)
This process can, once you know the address involved (and to be honestly, you can't miss it in a debugger) easily be automated by a patch.
It is so trivial people just don't bother for smaller programs (only if someone asks them)
No, it just cannot be hampered by government intervention. Valenti and Rosen can try and DRM or CD-key everything in sight but under no circumstances are they to have the power of law on their side. If I can beat it, I am legally allowed to do so AND publish my method for doing so...
1) how will you compile it ? Not with GNU compiler collection I hope... 2) how will you install it ? Not with the GNU bootloader I hope 3) What will it run ? Not a GNU shell I hope (bash, csh,...) 4) What desktop system will you run on it ? Not GNOME (GNU...) I hope
nearly all components of the "linux" operating system are GNU, except the kernel itself...
Now if only the pirates gone legit and start making legal music CD...
as absurd as this sounds there is only 1 thing standing in their way
KARTEL ( = MONOPOLY )
most people don't WANT to steal from "the artists". They however do not want to keep being fucked around. There are a number of fundamental problems with music distribution that this whole pirating thing solves
1) VERY limited choice. Compared to the amount of available music, there is no music store that has a decent selection (define decent selection as 1% of all music, you would have a VERY VERY VERY big store)
-> this can be solved now on the internet, it WAS being solved by napster, it IS being solved by gnutella, kazaa, etc
2) Price. Obviously most people want a big music collection with, say, 10% of all music they ever heard. At this moment that costs millions. THAT is a problem. (same goes for videos, people wouldn't even bother lending tapes, dvd's, etc if there was a better option, the technology to provide a better option is here, and available, USE IT)
-> this is SUPPOSED TO BE SOLVED by the public domain. You pay a price for the artists, to support them, but after a while it is public. This NEEDS to be enforced (you know why, and you know how ie the source material in unobfuscated form needs to be given in escrow somewhere, so libraries (and everybody else) can get their hands on it when copyright expires)
3) Big companies screwing around with release dates, availability. Trying to control the market. Monopolizing, screwing over artists, screwing over consumers. "The Market" is in reality a force of hundreds of millions of users. To control this you need to outsmart everyone. They infuriate people, and then they're surprised when people start using other means to the same goal.
They publish their software. They have to. And because of that they cannot enter an "amrs race" as it will be easy to archive their previous attempts. Once one of those is broken, all are broken. Heck even examining the differences between the versions could probably point you straight to a vulnerability (and if it's only a partial fix, crackers will have a field day).
If companies decide for themselves which standard they use, they can (and will) push the envelope by taking EVERY right away from the consumer. If there is a government mandated standard that standard could include the right to fair use, also government mandated, it should (in a democracy) give the people control over the rights they want producers to have. Of course... the above implies that we are not talking about america ("The land of the free [corporations]").
Also I think hardware controls are perfect. They create the illusion of safety (because you "cannot" get around it), and they have no hope of ever correcting them. I like that, because a standard like that will not hold up for long (and once they lose control over a piece of content they lose it forever).
They need to accept reality some time. It simply cannot be done. Making bits uncopyable is like making water not wet.
they are saying "you shouldn't download these files illegaly" so we say "uhm okay, can we do it legally ?" they're saying "no fucking way, we want absolute control over your listening" we say "fuck you then"
get real... following an immoral order is just as immoral as thinking of it yourselves. But for most people the law cannot be immoral (never mind it once stated that women found outside of their homes were to be put in stocks in the centre of the city and raped during the night)
That way it cannot be traced. Use the email/news over freenet feature to support the program and
1) you have drastically reduced bandwidth cost 2) you are completely anonymous, unless someone cares to search the ENTIRE freenet network computers (they would have to go to them) for your private key, and that would not be proof 3) you will probably spread freenet a lot wider 4) there are probably no lawyers comptetent enough to send email over freenet (outlook won't do it) so they will have no legal recourse;-)
At the VERY WORST a ping sweep and port scan gan give away your security policy. IF YOUR SYSTEM IS NOT SECURE WHEN THE SECURITY POLICY IS KNOWN, IT IS NOT SECURE AT ALL. You should publish it on your website goddammit !
you could say the same for gnutella now. Yet only LOCAL information is needed, nobody needs to see the big picture.
for example a node that newly connects to the network could jump from node to node until it finds a suitable place in the network (you should be able to easily work out this method for a binary tree). It could even (for efficiëncy) ask the network to give it a free spot. Nodes should then jump inwards to accomplish a smaller network.
Slashdot Mirror
-> it will make slashdotting an impossibility
...)
-> it will make removing a webpage without approval of the webmaster an impossibility
-> it will prevent sniffing of your web traffic, rendering carnivore and others useless
-> it has the potential of giving these properties to a lot more protocols (think mail, instant messaging,
it is the internet as it should be
Stock price means nothing except PERCEIVED value of a company. It only has something to do with reality in so far venture capitalists are able to distinguis between fact and fantasy (and we still remember the .com bust) ...
There have been multiple stories about microsoft research using linux machines. So microsoft is using linux for research, and most likely not distributing the results.
n ux .html
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/software/lcc/doc/li
so you are VERY wrong on both counts (and "we" most certainly don't prevent them from using anything)
Oelewapperke
Explain how a proxy protects you ?
-> It inconveniences users : jup
-> It poses problems for a *large* number of network protocols : jup
-> It is still exploitable : jups (shell commands can EASILY be sent in a http page)
get a clue
I see a necessity for this post since most people don't seem to realise what this is and what it is not. Some people take the acronym as thruth and assume it will enforce their rights online. It will NOT.
...
a) Microsoft WILL be able to bypass the restrictions and thus your rights will not be protected from them and their "partners". It will protect their "rights" against you (the quotation marks are there because market domination and forced obsolecence will surely be among the enforced "rights")
b) DRM is a technical solution to achieve MORE and STRICTER copyright law. According to microsoft's own site.
0) you will need a licence server to actually be able "transparently" protect files. This means the possibility of giving out licences over the web. (I wonder what other way they had in mind)
-> somehow i doubt they will support apache
-> the cost of a licence server is in the same ballpark as the datacenter server version of windows (NOT the consumer ballpark), so if you're an artist, you will most likely not be able to afford this
1) DRM will prevent resale of bought music.
2) DRM can make most music self destruct after a while, because you have supposedly agreed to that (note that you DO NOT get the choice to agree or not) at the present time, the clauses of the "contract" aren't even shown to the user. And it is ILLEGAL to bypass the contract (as in potential jail time if you record the music)
3) DRM does not allow you to play a file on another computer, an mp3 player or
4) DRM makes it possible for the licensor to revoke and change YOUR rights to your music AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON.
5) Because licenses and digital media files are stored separately, licensing terms can be changed on the server, without needing to redistribute or repackage the digital media file.
6) Windows Media Rights Manager "locks" digital media files with a license key to maintain content protection, even if these files are widely distributed. Each license is uniquely assigned to each computer.
let's take napster as an example ...
...
-> 80 MILLION people DO NOT want companies to get more control
-> $80 million (and prb a lot more) does want
Guess who'll win ?
1) a laser is a single frequency of light, meaning that it only selects VERY few molecules and heats those
2) you can see it, so obviously it's causing a reaction
3) that reaction has to be violent because you only have a very small subset of detection molecules that you can trigger and the signal needs to be strong enough to notice
result : you get a lot of very local, and strong, heat sources on your retina, which is something that just doesn't occur in nature, and your eye probably isn't prepared for it.
Nobody encrypts their programs these days. It's a hurdle, it takes an expert and advanced assembler knowledge to do it right (right = not trivial to bypass). Knowing what the call to create a window is (rara ... CreateWindow or CreateWindowEx) is enough to immediately locate places in the program where a window is created (automatically by a debugger) as the program runs. You basically change the routine that is called by a CreateWindowEx() instruction)
... hmmm repeat but find the call above that, it generally doesn't go up more than 3 levels)
Removing that dialogbox is trivial. 99% of those screens are implemented with a modal dialog box (the program partially suspends execution and only the shown window is accessible). From that point on it is a trivial matter to find the last routine call (a CALL assembler instruction, you know it's address as it's on the stack) and change thel CALL xxxxx to NOP (5 nops)
re-run the progam and I'll bet you that dialogbox isn't there anymore. (but generally the program crashes
This process can, once you know the address involved (and to be honestly, you can't miss it in a debugger) easily be automated by a patch.
It is so trivial people just don't bother for smaller programs (only if someone asks them)
No, it just cannot be hampered by government intervention. Valenti and Rosen can try and DRM or CD-key everything in sight but under no circumstances are they to have the power of law on their side. If I can beat it, I am legally allowed to do so AND publish my method for doing so...
the kernel alone will run ?
... ...) ...) I hope
...
1) how will you compile it ? Not with GNU compiler collection I hope
2) how will you install it ? Not with the GNU bootloader I hope
3) What will it run ? Not a GNU shell I hope (bash, csh,
4) What desktop system will you run on it ? Not GNOME (GNU
nearly all components of the "linux" operating system are GNU, except the kernel itself
Just a thought
... a beowulf cluster of these ?
sorry I couldn't resist
In america you BUY laws, and this one isn't paid for. Good luck
Last time one of my teachers endorsed a piece of software, he asked the students to spread the cd with the software on it.
tsss
that he's RIGHT ...
;-)
that'll teach him
Oelewapperke
Now if only the pirates gone legit and start making legal music CD...
as absurd as this sounds there is only 1 thing standing in their way
KARTEL ( = MONOPOLY )
most people don't WANT to steal from "the artists". They however do not want to keep being fucked around. There are a number of fundamental problems with music distribution that this whole pirating thing solves
1) VERY limited choice. Compared to the amount of available music, there is no music store that has a decent selection (define decent selection as 1% of all music, you would have a VERY VERY VERY big store)
-> this can be solved now on the internet, it WAS being solved by napster, it IS being solved by gnutella, kazaa, etc
2) Price. Obviously most people want a big music collection with, say, 10% of all music they ever heard. At this moment that costs millions. THAT is a problem. (same goes for videos, people wouldn't even bother lending tapes, dvd's, etc if there was a better option, the technology to provide a better option is here, and available, USE IT)
-> this is SUPPOSED TO BE SOLVED by the public domain. You pay a price for the artists, to support them, but after a while it is public. This NEEDS to be enforced (you know why, and you know how ie the source material in unobfuscated form needs to be given in escrow somewhere, so libraries (and everybody else) can get their hands on it when copyright expires)
3) Big companies screwing around with release dates, availability. Trying to control the market. Monopolizing, screwing over artists, screwing over consumers. "The Market" is in reality a force of hundreds of millions of users. To control this you need to outsmart everyone. They infuriate people, and then they're surprised when people start using other means to the same goal.
They publish their software. They have to. And because of that they cannot enter an "amrs race" as it will be easy to archive their previous attempts. Once one of those is broken, all are broken. Heck even examining the differences between the versions could probably point you straight to a vulnerability (and if it's only a partial fix, crackers will have a field day).
.02 cents
just my
If companies decide for themselves which standard they use, they can (and will) push the envelope by taking EVERY right away from the consumer. If there is a government mandated standard that standard could include the right to fair use, also government mandated, it should (in a democracy) give the people control over the rights they want producers to have. Of course ... the above implies that we are not talking about america ("The land of the free [corporations]").
Also I think hardware controls are perfect. They create the illusion of safety (because you "cannot" get around it), and they have no hope of ever correcting them. I like that, because a standard like that will not hold up for long (and once they lose control over a piece of content they lose it forever).
They need to accept reality some time. It simply cannot be done. Making bits uncopyable is like making water not wet.
I'm sounding scary here
they are saying "you shouldn't download these files illegaly"
so we say "uhm okay, can we do it legally ?"
they're saying "no fucking way, we want absolute control over your listening"
we say "fuck you then"
which is perfectly acceptable
get real ... following an immoral order is just as immoral as thinking of it yourselves. But for most people the law cannot be immoral (never mind it once stated that women found outside of their homes were to be put in stocks in the centre of the city and raped during the night)
That way it cannot be traced. Use the email/news over freenet feature to support the program and
;-)
1) you have drastically reduced bandwidth cost
2) you are completely anonymous, unless someone cares to search the ENTIRE freenet network computers (they would have to go to them) for your private key, and that would not be proof
3) you will probably spread freenet a lot wider
4) there are probably no lawyers comptetent enough to send email over freenet (outlook won't do it) so they will have no legal recourse
just my 2ct
the incentive is even simpler ...
it's illegal. You have to pay big bucks if you do this.
"ideal for development studios and hobby programmers" ...
:
... why not ? That was its intended purpose anyway.
and the proof of that
http://www.visoly.com/demo.php
the DMCA used for squashing competition
can anyone please stop this ? these demos rule.
At the VERY WORST a ping sweep and port scan gan give away your security policy. IF YOUR SYSTEM IS NOT SECURE WHEN THE SECURITY POLICY IS KNOWN, IT IS NOT SECURE AT ALL. You should publish it on your website goddammit !
just my 2 cents
you could say the same for gnutella now. Yet only LOCAL information is needed, nobody needs to see the big picture.
for example a node that newly connects to the network could jump from node to node until it finds a suitable place in the network (you should be able to easily work out this method for a binary tree). It could even (for efficiëncy) ask the network to give it a free spot. Nodes should then jump inwards to accomplish a smaller network.
look this up now :
kdb
this is the sort of thing only open source can do