I just went through the hell of a SAS70 audit that was more invasive than my last rectal exam.
Then you've never had a true audit. SAS70's aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Type 1 SAS70s don't even require control testing. The only point to a SAS70 is to get a check-in-the-box when the IT auditor asks if you have a SAS70 for each of your external service providers.
Wait, I'm mistaken... The only point to a SAS70 is to enrich your CPA...
There are other options that are cheaper, better audio quality, demand lower bandwidth and provide a greater free calling area with significantly reduced international calling rates.
For large data sets, I rar to a "block" size one third of that of my media, then put two data blocks and one par block per disk. Yes, it's a pain to restore, even without damage, but it gives me great recoverability, as I can loose up to a third of my disks and still be able to recover. These data sets are typically 50 to 200 GBs, btw...
It hasn't been "cracked", since it still requires your Media Access Key to decode the video.
Remember what Bruce says kids: In the classic encryption scenerio, A(lice) encrypts her message to B(ob) to protect it from C(harles). With DRM, Bob and Charles are the same person!
A fake boarding pass generator does not endanger the safety of anyone except for the idiot who tries to actually board a plane with one, because he's likely to end up being interrogated by Homeland Security for hours in a back room of the airport.
Don't forget the danger to everyone who ran the boarding pass generator... The Feds have the access logs and I know I'm in them. I didn't change the default name (Osama B.) or anything though. My God help you if you did and then generated a boarding pass... (Excuse me, somebody is knocking on my door...)
While we agree on the details, I must disagree that Tivo did not subvert GNU/Linux to their own ends. While I can appreciate the distinction between hardware and software, I contend that the reason modified kernels will not run on unmodified Tivo devices is because that is the way Tivo designed them. They intentionally threw that roadblock in place to prevent people from doing whatever they wanted with GPL software. You do not agree that such actions are misuse, at least in conflict with the intent of the GPL?
BTW- The way to get a Tivo to run modified GPL software is to hack the firmware. As I'm sure you know, firmware is software that happens to reside on a chip. While I haven't gone to such extremes, others have and are truly free.
They make money on the hardware, not bleed their customers every month with a service that would not be necessary at all if the hardware wasn't closed.
That is an excellent point. The Tivo Service that I pay for every month really isn't worth the cost, as I get a virtually identical service free with my MythTV box. What I pay for is really the whole "Tivo Experience", which is really becoming worth less and less as time goes on. When my MythTV box becomes as easy to use (for the family, not me...) as my Tivo, I and Tivo will likely part ways. (Bonus points if somebody can get MythTV working on Tivo hardware!)
My understanding is that (under US law, anyway -- you don't say where you and your pot are) if you draft a contract, you're expected to address and clarify all your own concerns. Courts take a dim view of your discovering new subtleties or "violations of spirit" in your own words, as you had ample opportunity to make them clear to begin with. The other party gets more benefit of the doubt if he has a similar complaint against you, though.
And, hence, the need for GPLv3. As these abuses of the GPL were not foreseen, there was never an opportunity to negotiate.
And while Tivo may or may not win a challenge that they violated the spirit of the GPL, just the publicity of such a challenge may be enough to have them change their ways.
I, too, am torn in regard to Tivo's actions. On one hand, they certainly make a great use of GPL software, demonstrating to the entire world that GPL is better than good enough.
On the other hand, making sure that you can't actually change the GPL code on their platform is reprehensible. I really don't believe Tivo cares if you hack their product (I have, of course. It can be done.) My take is that as long as Tivo get's their $12.95 a month, they couldn't care less what you do. But the real kicker is that Tivo is making these accomodations on behalf of the content industry, who just can't make up their mind if Tivo is good for them or not.
There is an unsubstantiated rumor going around that Tivo's Home Media software (that lets you store Tivo content on your PC) actually looks for and disables software that is known to be effective for removing Tivo DRM from Tivo media files. Now if that turns out to be the case, it really puts a razor's edge to the whole "Treacherous Computing" idiom!
I understand that Tivo would like to make money on their investment. If you are suggesting that they should be permitted to misuse GPL software in that pursuit, I would have to disagree with you. If Tivo doesn't like the idea of people running whatever kernel they want on their hardware, let them write their own kernel and not subvert GNU/Linux. (Like that would stop experimenters...)
Disclaimer: I own two Tivos and a home-built MythTV box.
Gee, thanks. Now that you've cleared that up, let me restate my question. There is a concept within criminal law that allows for criminal prosecution of a defendant even if he/she is technically not in violation of the written law. The example I hear about most frequently is the prosecution of possession of canibis indica when only the possession of canibis sativa is against the law.
Is there such a concept within contract law? If a contract participate violates the spirit of the contract but not the letter, can that be used as a basis for a contract dispute? And if so, could there be a favorable judgement?
I guess I have to say no, there is no such concept within contract law, or MS and SCO would be sued into oblivion. Hey wait...:)
I always wondered how Tivo could use GPL'ed software that technically didn't violate the license but certainly tramples all over the spirit of it. If RMS feels so strongly about it, why didn't he (or anyone else, for that matter) go after Tivo?
"It's so consumer-unfriendly that I think it's bound to fail -- and when it fails, it will sink whatever new formats content owners are trying to impose."
Hurray! Finally, Joe Sixpack finally gets DRM! The sooner the better, I say!
If I met him, Id buy him a few drinks (well, as many as he wants. he deserves it).
No lie, a lesbian friend of mine once shared drinks in a hot tub with Phil in Colorado. She said he was a bit of a jerk. Of course, she hates all men so I really can't go by her opinion.
Ya know, I've been waiting a long time to share that factoid with somebody who would know who Phil Zimmerman is. Never thought for a moment it would be a Slashdot post...
Tho I agree with your intent, thats not a fair example because you do pay for television via taxes for public broadcast and subscriptions for cable, etc.
No, you pay for (over the air) TV by watching ads...
LOL, now I can sell copies of all those promotional CDs that I got in college!
As long as you didn't install them and invoke the EULA, you sure can. Or are you telling me that you are subject to an illegal EULA you didn't even click-thru? If so, the industry has succeeded in brainwashing you!
As far as I know this executables are copyrighted and someone will get into a lot of troubles for posting them.
I download copyrighted software from the web all the time. Most recently, it was the Fedora linux distro and that contains copyrighted code from thousands of copyright holders!
As for this particular bit of code, I'd say a strong defense is "compelling public interest". It's not like the copyright holder can demonstrate damages (like we could use the code to sell voting machines...). On the other hand, bogus code could be very damaging to the copyright holder, but then that just reenforces the compelling public interest now doesn't it!
Because we all know how Microsoft treats those it writes contracts with... I seriously have to wonder why Novel thought that was a good idea. Are they so lacking in cash that they felt it was worth dealing with Bill G.?
I have to agree. This has been going on for quite some time, at least a couple of years. That's why I simply don't use codecs that come from questionable sources. You wouldn't run just any arbitrary program, would you?
Slashdot Mirror
I just went through the hell of a SAS70 audit that was more invasive than my last rectal exam.
Then you've never had a true audit. SAS70's aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Type 1 SAS70s don't even require control testing. The only point to a SAS70 is to get a check-in-the-box when the IT auditor asks if you have a SAS70 for each of your external service providers.
Wait, I'm mistaken... The only point to a SAS70 is to enrich your CPA...
There are other options that are cheaper, better audio quality, demand lower bandwidth and provide a greater free calling area with significantly reduced international calling rates.
And they're not getting sued! Bonus!
For large data sets, I rar to a "block" size one third of that of my media, then put two data blocks and one par block per disk. Yes, it's a pain to restore, even without damage, but it gives me great recoverability, as I can loose up to a third of my disks and still be able to recover. These data sets are typically 50 to 200 GBs, btw...
I'm at a crossroads at the moment. Tell me, why Ubuntu?
Make that 2,000,004...
Take the job, learn all of their internal systems and processes, steal them blind. Bonus points if you can frame the guy who hired you.
If you get caught, insist on a management position. You'll likely get it.
None of these posers got it but me. Props! (Is it wrong to get excited by Amy? If it is, I don't want to be right!)
Carol's noy happy either...
It hasn't been "cracked", since it still requires your Media Access Key to decode the video.
Remember what Bruce says kids: In the classic encryption scenerio, A(lice) encrypts her message to B(ob) to protect it from C(harles). With DRM, Bob and Charles are the same person!
A fake boarding pass generator does not endanger the safety of anyone except for the idiot who tries to actually board a plane with one, because he's likely to end up being interrogated by Homeland Security for hours in a back room of the airport.
Don't forget the danger to everyone who ran the boarding pass generator... The Feds have the access logs and I know I'm in them. I didn't change the default name (Osama B.) or anything though. My God help you if you did and then generated a boarding pass... (Excuse me, somebody is knocking on my door...)
Horse! Dead! Beat!
While we agree on the details, I must disagree that Tivo did not subvert GNU/Linux to their own ends. While I can appreciate the distinction between hardware and software, I contend that the reason modified kernels will not run on unmodified Tivo devices is because that is the way Tivo designed them. They intentionally threw that roadblock in place to prevent people from doing whatever they wanted with GPL software. You do not agree that such actions are misuse, at least in conflict with the intent of the GPL?
BTW- The way to get a Tivo to run modified GPL software is to hack the firmware. As I'm sure you know, firmware is software that happens to reside on a chip. While I haven't gone to such extremes, others have and are truly free.
They make money on the hardware, not bleed their customers every month with a service that would not be necessary at all if the hardware wasn't closed.
That is an excellent point. The Tivo Service that I pay for every month really isn't worth the cost, as I get a virtually identical service free with my MythTV box. What I pay for is really the whole "Tivo Experience", which is really becoming worth less and less as time goes on. When my MythTV box becomes as easy to use (for the family, not me...) as my Tivo, I and Tivo will likely part ways. (Bonus points if somebody can get MythTV working on Tivo hardware!)
My understanding is that (under US law, anyway -- you don't say where you and your pot are) if you draft a contract, you're expected to address and clarify all your own concerns. Courts take a dim view of your discovering new subtleties or "violations of spirit" in your own words, as you had ample opportunity to make them clear to begin with. The other party gets more benefit of the doubt if he has a similar complaint against you, though.
And, hence, the need for GPLv3. As these abuses of the GPL were not foreseen, there was never an opportunity to negotiate.
And while Tivo may or may not win a challenge that they violated the spirit of the GPL, just the publicity of such a challenge may be enough to have them change their ways.
I, too, am torn in regard to Tivo's actions. On one hand, they certainly make a great use of GPL software, demonstrating to the entire world that GPL is better than good enough.
On the other hand, making sure that you can't actually change the GPL code on their platform is reprehensible. I really don't believe Tivo cares if you hack their product (I have, of course. It can be done.) My take is that as long as Tivo get's their $12.95 a month, they couldn't care less what you do. But the real kicker is that Tivo is making these accomodations on behalf of the content industry, who just can't make up their mind if Tivo is good for them or not.
There is an unsubstantiated rumor going around that Tivo's Home Media software (that lets you store Tivo content on your PC) actually looks for and disables software that is known to be effective for removing Tivo DRM from Tivo media files. Now if that turns out to be the case, it really puts a razor's edge to the whole "Treacherous Computing" idiom!
I understand that Tivo would like to make money on their investment. If you are suggesting that they should be permitted to misuse GPL software in that pursuit, I would have to disagree with you. If Tivo doesn't like the idea of people running whatever kernel they want on their hardware, let them write their own kernel and not subvert GNU/Linux. (Like that would stop experimenters...)
Disclaimer: I own two Tivos and a home-built MythTV box.
Gee, thanks. Now that you've cleared that up, let me restate my question. There is a concept within criminal law that allows for criminal prosecution of a defendant even if he/she is technically not in violation of the written law. The example I hear about most frequently is the prosecution of possession of canibis indica when only the possession of canibis sativa is against the law.
:)
Is there such a concept within contract law? If a contract participate violates the spirit of the contract but not the letter, can that be used as a basis for a contract dispute? And if so, could there be a favorable judgement?
I guess I have to say no, there is no such concept within contract law, or MS and SCO would be sued into oblivion. Hey wait...
I always wondered how Tivo could use GPL'ed software that technically didn't violate the license but certainly tramples all over the spirit of it. If RMS feels so strongly about it, why didn't he (or anyone else, for that matter) go after Tivo?
"It's so consumer-unfriendly that I think it's bound to fail -- and when it fails, it will sink whatever new formats content owners are trying to impose."
Hurray! Finally, Joe Sixpack finally gets DRM! The sooner the better, I say!
If I met him, Id buy him a few drinks (well, as many as he wants. he deserves it).
No lie, a lesbian friend of mine once shared drinks in a hot tub with Phil in Colorado. She said he was a bit of a jerk. Of course, she hates all men so I really can't go by her opinion.
Ya know, I've been waiting a long time to share that factoid with somebody who would know who Phil Zimmerman is. Never thought for a moment it would be a Slashdot post...
Tho I agree with your intent, thats not a fair example because you do pay for television via taxes for public broadcast and subscriptions for cable, etc.
No, you pay for (over the air) TV by watching ads...
LOL, now I can sell copies of all those promotional CDs that I got in college!
As long as you didn't install them and invoke the EULA, you sure can. Or are you telling me that you are subject to an illegal EULA you didn't even click-thru? If so, the industry has succeeded in brainwashing you!
As far as I know this executables are copyrighted and someone will get into a lot of troubles for posting them.
I download copyrighted software from the web all the time. Most recently, it was the Fedora linux distro and that contains copyrighted code from thousands of copyright holders!
As for this particular bit of code, I'd say a strong defense is "compelling public interest". It's not like the copyright holder can demonstrate damages (like we could use the code to sell voting machines...). On the other hand, bogus code could be very damaging to the copyright holder, but then that just reenforces the compelling public interest now doesn't it!
Because we all know how Microsoft treats those it writes contracts with... I seriously have to wonder why Novel thought that was a good idea. Are they so lacking in cash that they felt it was worth dealing with Bill G.?
I have to agree. This has been going on for quite some time, at least a couple of years. That's why I simply don't use codecs that come from questionable sources. You wouldn't run just any arbitrary program, would you?
:)
But wait, if there's porn involved...
Yet sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice...
But you could be civilly sued for violating NWA's trademark and copyright.
Nope, parody is fair use. And it's trademark, not copyright. Learn the difference...