It is fascinating that it seems they are only doing it client-side after the transaction - if so it is clearly a massive design flaw (and I'm suprised it took so long to find).
There are ways they could reduce the server load and make it a bit more secure though - eg. blanket encrypt/drm everything on the server and have the client rip that off and apply the personalised drm. Then you'd have to go fishing around in the client for keys etc.
They could also add some form of security handshake to the client & the protocol to identify it as a valid apple client.
By far the biggest problem they have is how to fix this without breaking their massive installed client-base. That is where I think things get interesting.
Are you asserting that it would be impossible to recompile the VB runtime, and change the VB compiler to generate 64-bit code?
No, I am saying that that is irrelevant. Your original suggestion of "a few changes to the source and recompile as a 64-bit DLL" is a bad attempt at solving an non-problem that wouldn't get you anywhere even if it did by some miracle actually work the way you suggest.
1. you don't just "make a few changes and recompile" to go from a large 32 (and probably 16) bit legacy codebase to 64bit native code.
2. luckily, you probably won't get to find out what a bad idea this was, because you won't have anything to link against anyway, because the entire system api underneath your dll is gone.
3. happily you can still run the original 32bit dll, because the api it was written for / compiled against is still emulated. A few OS/platform changes in the meantime are also therefore irrelevant, because they are underneath that emulation layer.
4. but you still have the real problem that people want VB6 to be re-written to be able to run on / target the new.Net platform / api. This isn't a small job, the source proably isn't much help. MS, who have the source, thinks it is too hard to do (maybe they just can't afford to pay enough people...).
Bottom line is that F/OSS is of limited value for something that requires a complete re-write.
Let's say it's the 21st century and there are no more roads or petrol, because we're all using hydrogen-powered flying cars. It doesn't really matter whether or not your 1990 Ford has the hood welded shut or not, does it ? Saying that you could pay a mechanic to tweak the timing and then you'd be able to run it on hydrogen isn't much of an argument for having the hood openable.
You aren't going to be doing "a few chages to the source and recompile" to make it run native even on Longhorn - as Win32 is going away. Your options will be:
1. to run it as is on a Win32 emulation layer 2. re-write VB6 for.Net.
For 1 the problem reduces to availability of win32 emulation - likely to be decades given the installed base, and F/OSS availability (Wine).
For 2 the problem reduces to re-writing VB6 for.Net. MS say it can't be done, but (modulo stupid isnot patents) someone else could prove them wrong. Given the likely age of the VB6 codebase and the previous MS decision to rewrite for.Net rather than port, it is quite possible that you'd be better off doing that without the current VB6 code anyway (and either way it would be a huge task).
The survival of COBOL compilers (many proprietary) has nothing do with F/OSS and everything to do with standards - as far as I can see. If Sun canned their Java dev tomorrow I'd have no worries about continuing to write Java, and that isn't because (Sun) Java is F/OSS - because it isn't. Anyone who wrote for VB6 believing that it was a standardised language with multiple vendor implementations gets no sympathy from me.
MFC, ATL and CRT source all include build scripts / makefiles (just checked) - MFC is the only one I have actually built before (so I absolutely know that one is complete).
All installed with either the compiler or the platform sdk (not sure which) afaik. For example, MFC is in \Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\VC98\MFC\SRC for vc6.
Some MSDN licensing does (or did) give rights to modify and distribute-modified MFC libraries, subject to requirements that you install it so it can't conflict with "real" MFC dlls - can't recall the details (it's been a while). Alternatively you can modify and statically link. So in MFC case at least (not sure about crt or atl - never needed to do it) you can fix bug in library, create statically linked version, submit patch to maintainers etc.
I think F/OSS has lots of real advantages. Claiming (eg. further up thread) that F/OSS is better because you can't audit libc on Windows is just plain false - and I don't think making false claims helps F/OSS.
I can audit MS libc (or MFC for that matter) just as easily as Linux libc.
Why ? Because MS provide the source. Not with all the freedoms that F/OSS gives you, but the code, and the option to audit absolutely _IS_ available. Does everyone check this (before commenting) ? Of course not. People are inherently lazy/too busy/whatever..
Over the years I have traced several bugs in MS libraries - and then worked around them in the app. On Linux I could of course fix the bug in the library, which is great in theory - but would I require users to install my fixed libc ?, would I wait months for it to get fixed in distributions ? would I static link my own libc (and perhaps prevent other, eg. security, libc fixes propagating to my app) ? or would I work around it in the app - exactly as I would on windows ?
Guns _are_ banned, to varying degrees, in lots of places - in the UK people are now talking about banning airguns.
Bongs may get you into trouble as "Drug Paraphernalia" - varies by country.
Knives also sometimes have restrictions, eg. here in the UK: no sales of anything sharp to kids, flick-knives / switchblades, balisongs and a few other types banned, carrying any fixed (or lockable) blade in public without specific reason is also illegal.
Unless they actually buy Apple Records (the record company), this would just get them into even more legal/trademark problems than they have at the moment with their foray into music business.
RIAA members may not have signed a deal in this case, because it is a compulsory licensing scheme so they are in it whether they like it or not. They probably have to sign up if they want to collect anything from the pot - whether they do or not depends on how much legal russian sales are and if it is enough money for them to care about.
Interestingly, recent X history shows exactly why the "trap" is an illusion.
Long after the events in that essay, XFree86 had become the de-facto X distribution, and then they decided to change their licence.
Result ? Other people took the free code and ran with it and the result (and the way things look for the future) is arguably better for that having happened.
Once code is licenced under X11 or BSD licence, it is free and stays free, no one can take that freedom away. If the main developer wants to change to a non-free licence for a future version then yes, someone else will have to take on the project if more free versions are to be released - but the same applies to a GPL project if a maintainer drops out or if the copyright holder(s) decides to change licence of a future version (GPL doesn't prevent that - the copyright holder can still re-licence or dual-licence).
They are doing a pretty good job (currently) of _not_ looking very scary to an incoming ICBM.
It could of course all be a deception and in reality all the anti-ICBM missiles work really well and passed all their secret tests at area51 before they staged the public failures... but somehow I doubt it.
Movies make money from cinema showings prior to being released for purchase.
Successful movies have probably covered production costs by the time the dvd comes out. Movies that flop in the cinemas mostly (there will be exceptions and some stuff that goes straight to dvd) won't be successful and recoup costs on the dvd.
Music doesn't really work the same way. Bands could maybe do world tours playing each album before they release it but it is much more restricted (band can only play one place at a time) and much higher costs (per show) to stage a gig than to show a film.
The movie industry (or some parts of) has done pretty well at adapting in some ways - people have predicted the death of the cinema many times, but somehow they keep retaining / regaining the punters and taking more and more money.
You took a copy in russia that you paid for in russia. No probs there.
You transferred it to the US and copied it there.
Whether or not that second copying is illegal depends on whether or not copying for personal use is permitted under your laws - some places it is some it isn't.
If it would be legal for you to buy a cd in russia, bring it back to the US and then copy it to your HDD, then allofmp3 should be legal too, since it is the same thing. Alternatively both actions could be illegal - depends on your local laws.
Nope, the point is that there _is_ such a regulation. It is clearly referred to in the district court judgement, which threw out the challenge on the regulation begin too vague because the court wasn't allowed to see the regulation to assess it.
There is a regulation. It is secret. You may be in breach of it now. You aren't allowed to know.
John Gilmore thinks this is wrong.
You are free to disagree or not care, well at least you might be free, for now.
It isn't that important - the key thing is the secrecy of the law.
Not everyone who violates a law is charged or arrested. Maybe the power of arrest, summary conviction, detention without trial, whatever, is in this law. We don't know. Next time he turns up and tries the same thing maybe they will arest him, because they always had the power but they just weren't too bothered first time around ("hey first offence, banning him from flying is punishment enough"; "oh, trying it again is he, didn't get the message the first time, right this time we throw the book at him").
Maybe the law even has specific repeated-offence provisions ("attempting to board an aircraft without showing ID more than once in any given two year period is a repeat offence punishable by minimum of 2yrs in state penetentiary" or similar). You can guarantee to John that the law doesn't say this ?
Saying that secret laws are ok just because they haven't arrested anyone _yet_ ought to be obviously silly if you think about it.
Well, actually the no-fly list says just that (and not just "this guy" - it seems to be "anyone with a name like this").
Since John won't present ID, we don't really know if he would be allowed to fly since they might block him once they find out who he is.
Also, it looks more like he won't fly until they show him the regulation and that it was passed with proper democratic process, it isn't clear to me that he is demanding that the regulation be changed.
If it was a mistake, they would have admitted/corrected it by now, they have had ample opportunity.
They appear to have passed laws/regulations which they require the populace to obey whilst also requiring them (the laws) to remain secret. Furthermore they have then gone on to deny that they have done it.
Doesn't look like they just made a mistake. Looks like they knew damn well what they were doing and that it stinks and that is why they are trying to hide it.
He can probably go on a plane too - just charter a private one.
His main gripe is one of principle - the laws on ID appear to have been changed without any democratic or judicial oversight, and the laws are being kept secret.
How can you keep within a law you are not allowed to know about ?
Third-party liability, for the damage you might do with the item, is going to be important for a vehicle rental. Deposit on that would be well out of the reach of most people.
So then you need insurance, which is provided on conditions (like age, ability/licence to drive etc.). So if the rental co. provides the insurance they need to check each driver's details conform.
If the driver provides the insurance instead, then the rental co. would still need to check the insurance, which would also mean checking the driver is the one covered on the insurance...
Anonymous in this situation is going to be tough to arrange. End of the day, if someone kills a few people with a rental car and then disappears (or is dead and unidentifiable) then the trace is going to go back to the rental co. and they better know who they rented it to.
The parliament is full of politicians, not lawyers. They may know what they want a law to do, but aren't the expert on what is or is not in conflict with other laws etc.
Personally I think it is remarkably honest of a set of politicians to get advice from the experts before passing laws. Most places they just pass the laws and let the courts try and sort out the mess later.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but the generation loss to the output (front middle of skull) is pretty bad, as listening to any karaoke will quickly establish.
It is fascinating that it seems they are only doing it client-side after the transaction - if so it is clearly a massive design flaw (and I'm suprised it took so long to find).
There are ways they could reduce the server load and make it a bit more secure though - eg. blanket encrypt/drm everything on the server and have the client rip that off and apply the personalised drm. Then you'd have to go fishing around in the client for keys etc.
They could also add some form of security handshake to the client & the protocol to identify it as a valid apple client.
By far the biggest problem they have is how to fix this without breaking their massive installed client-base. That is where I think things get interesting.
Are you asserting that it would be impossible to recompile the VB runtime, and change the VB compiler to generate 64-bit code?
.Net platform / api. This isn't a small job, the source proably isn't much help. MS, who have the source, thinks it is too hard to do (maybe they just can't afford to pay enough people...).
No, I am saying that that is irrelevant. Your original suggestion of "a few changes to the source and recompile as a 64-bit DLL" is a bad attempt at solving an non-problem that wouldn't get you anywhere even if it did by some miracle actually work the way you suggest.
1. you don't just "make a few changes and recompile" to go from a large 32 (and probably 16) bit legacy codebase to 64bit native code.
2. luckily, you probably won't get to find out what a bad idea this was, because you won't have anything to link against anyway, because the entire system api underneath your dll is gone.
3. happily you can still run the original 32bit dll, because the api it was written for / compiled against is still emulated. A few OS/platform changes in the meantime are also therefore irrelevant, because they are underneath that emulation layer.
4. but you still have the real problem that people want VB6 to be re-written to be able to run on / target the new
Bottom line is that F/OSS is of limited value for something that requires a complete re-write.
Let's say it's the 21st century and there are no more roads or petrol, because we're all using hydrogen-powered flying cars. It doesn't really matter whether or not your 1990 Ford has the hood welded shut or not, does it ? Saying that you could pay a mechanic to tweak the timing and then you'd be able to run it on hydrogen isn't much of an argument for having the hood openable.
You aren't going to be doing "a few chages to the source and recompile" to make it run native even on Longhorn - as Win32 is going away. Your options will be:
.Net.
.Net. MS say it can't be done, but (modulo stupid isnot patents) someone else could prove them wrong. Given the likely age of the VB6 codebase and the previous MS decision to rewrite for .Net rather than port, it is quite possible that you'd be better off doing that without the current VB6 code anyway (and either way it would be a huge task).
1. to run it as is on a Win32 emulation layer
2. re-write VB6 for
For 1 the problem reduces to availability of win32 emulation - likely to be decades given the installed base, and F/OSS availability (Wine).
For 2 the problem reduces to re-writing VB6 for
The survival of COBOL compilers (many proprietary) has nothing do with F/OSS and everything to do with standards - as far as I can see. If Sun canned their Java dev tomorrow I'd have no worries about continuing to write Java, and that isn't because (Sun) Java is F/OSS - because it isn't. Anyone who wrote for VB6 believing that it was a standardised language with multiple vendor implementations gets no sympathy from me.
MFC, ATL and CRT source all include build scripts / makefiles (just checked) - MFC is the only one I have actually built before (so I absolutely know that one is complete).
All installed with either the compiler or the platform sdk (not sure which) afaik. For example, MFC is in \Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\VC98\MFC\SRC for vc6.
Some MSDN licensing does (or did) give rights to modify and distribute-modified MFC libraries, subject to requirements that you install it so it can't conflict with "real" MFC dlls - can't recall the details (it's been a while). Alternatively you can modify and statically link. So in MFC case at least (not sure about crt or atl - never needed to do it) you can fix bug in library, create statically linked version, submit patch to maintainers etc.
I think F/OSS has lots of real advantages. Claiming (eg. further up thread) that F/OSS is better because you can't audit libc on Windows is just plain false - and I don't think making false claims helps F/OSS.
I can audit MS libc (or MFC for that matter) just as easily as Linux libc.
Why ? Because MS provide the source. Not with all the freedoms that F/OSS gives you, but the code, and the option to audit absolutely _IS_ available. Does everyone check this (before commenting) ? Of course not. People are inherently lazy/too busy/whatever..
Over the years I have traced several bugs in MS libraries - and then worked around them in the app. On Linux I could of course fix the bug in the library, which is great in theory - but would I require users to install my fixed libc ?, would I wait months for it to get fixed in distributions ? would I static link my own libc (and perhaps prevent other, eg. security, libc fixes propagating to my app) ? or would I work around it in the app - exactly as I would on windows ?
RTFA
MS has discontinued _free_ support. Paid-for support is still there.
So, if it was F/OSS, you would have to pay someone to support it, if it is VB6, you have to pay MS to support it.
Either way there is support while there is demand (willing to pay for it).
Bad analogies.
Guns _are_ banned, to varying degrees, in lots of places - in the UK people are now talking about banning airguns.
Bongs may get you into trouble as "Drug Paraphernalia" - varies by country.
Knives also sometimes have restrictions, eg. here in the UK: no sales of anything sharp to kids, flick-knives / switchblades, balisongs and a few other types banned, carrying any fixed (or lockable) blade in public without specific reason is also illegal.
I'd be suprised.
Unless they actually buy Apple Records (the record company), this would just get them into even more legal/trademark problems than they have at the moment with their foray into music business.
Or you could if you downloaded it in russia, burned it and flew back with it.
"forming part of such person's personal baggage"
going to be interesting to see if you can stretch that to electronic transfer...
North, hmm lets see which way is that, ah yes jsut check my fancy shmancy magnetic gizmo... yep that way...
RIAA members may not have signed a deal in this case, because it is a compulsory licensing scheme so they are in it whether they like it or not. They probably have to sign up if they want to collect anything from the pot - whether they do or not depends on how much legal russian sales are and if it is enough money for them to care about.
This isn't a new thing.
The bloat reputation (in some cases) goes back to the beginnning of the Free Software movement, before Open Source even started.
Proof ? - EMACS.
That's "Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping" for those still in daipers when eight megs was a stupendous amount of memory...
Interestingly, recent X history shows exactly why the "trap" is an illusion.
Long after the events in that essay, XFree86 had become the de-facto X distribution, and then they decided to change their licence.
Result ? Other people took the free code and ran with it and the result (and the way things look for the future) is arguably better for that having happened.
Once code is licenced under X11 or BSD licence, it is free and stays free, no one can take that freedom away. If the main developer wants to change to a non-free licence for a future version then yes, someone else will have to take on the project if more free versions are to be released - but the same applies to a GPL project if a maintainer drops out or if the copyright holder(s) decides to change licence of a future version (GPL doesn't prevent that - the copyright holder can still re-licence or dual-licence).
They are doing a pretty good job (currently) of _not_ looking very scary to an incoming ICBM.
It could of course all be a deception and in reality all the anti-ICBM missiles work really well and passed all their secret tests at area51 before they staged the public failures... but somehow I doubt it.
Movies make money from cinema showings prior to being released for purchase.
Successful movies have probably covered production costs by the time the dvd comes out. Movies that flop in the cinemas mostly (there will be exceptions and some stuff that goes straight to dvd) won't be successful and recoup costs on the dvd.
Music doesn't really work the same way. Bands could maybe do world tours playing each album before they release it but it is much more restricted (band can only play one place at a time) and much higher costs (per show) to stage a gig than to show a film.
The movie industry (or some parts of) has done pretty well at adapting in some ways - people have predicted the death of the cinema many times, but somehow they keep retaining / regaining the punters and taking more and more money.
The Financial Times.
You took a copy in russia that you paid for in russia. No probs there.
You transferred it to the US and copied it there.
Whether or not that second copying is illegal depends on whether or not copying for personal use is permitted under your laws - some places it is some it isn't.
If it would be legal for you to buy a cd in russia, bring it back to the US and then copy it to your HDD, then allofmp3 should be legal too, since it is the same thing. Alternatively both actions could be illegal - depends on your local laws.
Nope, the point is that there _is_ such a regulation. It is clearly referred to in the district court judgement, which threw out the challenge on the regulation begin too vague because the court wasn't allowed to see the regulation to assess it.
There is a regulation. It is secret. You may be in breach of it now. You aren't allowed to know.
John Gilmore thinks this is wrong.
You are free to disagree or not care, well at least you might be free, for now.
It isn't that important - the key thing is the secrecy of the law.
Not everyone who violates a law is charged or arrested. Maybe the power of arrest, summary conviction, detention without trial, whatever, is in this law. We don't know. Next time he turns up and tries the same thing maybe they will arest him, because they always had the power but they just weren't too bothered first time around ("hey first offence, banning him from flying is punishment enough"; "oh, trying it again is he, didn't get the message the first time, right this time we throw the book at him").
Maybe the law even has specific repeated-offence provisions ("attempting to board an aircraft without showing ID more than once in any given two year period is a repeat offence punishable by minimum of 2yrs in state penetentiary" or similar). You can guarantee to John that the law doesn't say this ?
Saying that secret laws are ok just because they haven't arrested anyone _yet_ ought to be obviously silly if you think about it.
Well, actually the no-fly list says just that (and not just "this guy" - it seems to be "anyone with a name like this").
Since John won't present ID, we don't really know if he would be allowed to fly since they might block him once they find out who he is.
Also, it looks more like he won't fly until they show him the regulation and that it was passed with proper democratic process, it isn't clear to me that he is demanding that the regulation be changed.
If it was a mistake, they would have admitted/corrected it by now, they have had ample opportunity.
They appear to have passed laws/regulations which they require the populace to obey whilst also requiring them (the laws) to remain secret. Furthermore they have then gone on to deny that they have done it.
Doesn't look like they just made a mistake. Looks like they knew damn well what they were doing and that it stinks and that is why they are trying to hide it.
He can go to Hawaii without boarding a plane.
He can probably go on a plane too - just charter a private one.
His main gripe is one of principle - the laws on ID appear to have been changed without any democratic or judicial oversight, and the laws are being kept secret.
How can you keep within a law you are not allowed to know about ?
Cost of the item may not be the only issue.
Third-party liability, for the damage you might do with the item, is going to be important for a vehicle rental. Deposit on that would be well out of the reach of most people.
So then you need insurance, which is provided on conditions (like age, ability/licence to drive etc.). So if the rental co. provides the insurance they need to check each driver's details conform.
If the driver provides the insurance instead,
then the rental co. would still need to check the insurance, which would also mean checking the driver is the one covered on the insurance...
Anonymous in this situation is going to be tough to arrange. End of the day, if someone kills a few people with a rental car and then disappears (or is dead and unidentifiable) then the trace is going to go back to the rental co. and they better know who they rented it to.
The parliament is full of politicians, not lawyers. They may know what they want a law to do, but aren't the expert on what is or is not in conflict with other laws etc.
Personally I think it is remarkably honest of a set of politicians to get advice from the experts before passing laws. Most places they just pass the laws and let the courts try and sort out the mess later.