Care to tell me which ISP carries out such a man-in-the-middle attack on a secure web site so I can permanently blacklist them and any entity even remotely connected to them?
Instead of having "tiers", have "packages" that you buy by type. So all the sports channels (including the expensive ones like ESPN) would go in a "sports pack". All the documentary channels (Discovery, History, National Geographic etc) would go in a "documentary pack" All the kids channels (Cartoon Network, Disney, Nickelodeon etc) would go in a "kids pack" All the music channels (MTV, Country Music Channel etc) would go in a "music pack"
I have been reading Slashdot for years and posting for just as long and here is what I think Slashdot needs: 1.Posting that focuses more on "News for Nerds" and less on useless crap. Bring in more technical stories and less political and legal stories. A post that sued for violations of is not "news for nerds".
Looking at the front page as of now (and going a page or 2 back), "Browser Emulation of 1975 Computer Runs First 16-Bit Home Game " is a good story, its very much "news for nerds". "MIT Institute's Gloomy Prediction: 'Global Economic Collapse' By 2030 " is not "news for nerds". Yeah sure some people ran some computer simulations but there is no geek/nerd angle. "Yahoo Layoffs Begin, CEO Sends Employees Apologetic Letter " is also not "news for nerds". Just because its a tech company doesn't mean the fact that people are being fired is "news for nerds".
2.Better editing of what gets posted (e.g. checking for spelling errors, looking for dupes, making sure links work etc)
3.A complete ban on posting any article that is behind a pay wall or requires a login to read the content, no matter how good it might be (e.g. the recent Nature cancer study link that is pay walled). This includes linking to the New York Times unless the link works without the need to log in.
4.No more posting of "slashvertisments" (i.e. articles that are clearly written just to sell whatever product they are writing about)., The recent "Nokia Lumia 900 Reviews " article is an example of this, reviews of a new smartphone (no matter how good) is not "news for nerds" (unless its a phone like the GTA04 that is specifically built to be "open").
Same thing with endless posts about the latest iPad or other must-have gadget. Unless its specifically a geeky or nerdy product like the GTA04 or the Raspberry Pi, its not "news for nerds" and there are plenty of other places to read about that stuff. Slashdot is not Engadget. It's also not Autoblog (the recent story about the Volt sales numbers isn't "news for nerds" either. A technical article on just how the Volt battery packs work on the other hand would definatly qualify as "news for nerds")
5.Do not implement comment flagging or removal. Yes, comments get posted that shouldn't be (e.g. links to goatse) but people mod those down or post replies saying "link in parent post is NSFW". Slashdot should have a policy of never removing comments unless legally required to do so. (even spam generally gets modded down pretty fast)
6.Redo the code for the site. Get rid of a lot of the fancy Javascript and AJAX and stuff and go back to a much leaner Slashdot. Replace the "many more" link and rewrite the display system for frontpage and firehose so that its possible to bookmark (or return to) a specific state with a specific set of articles visible and so you wont loose your place when you click on a link that takes you away from the firehose page. Make the loading of the next batch of articles for the front page or firehose much faster.
Support modern features like IPv6 and Unicode (if Google can do IPv6 there is no reason Slashdot cant do it)
7.Make it easier for people to use the fire-hose to mod articles up or down and in particular to down-vote the spam and ads that get posted there whilst allowing the legitimate articles to shine through so they can be front-paged.
8.Ban URL shorteners or pre-expand the URL before they get posted. This prevents people posting shortened URLs that really point to goatse.
9.Completely cease and desist using proprietary technologies (such as Flash) for any part of the site. If you must have video clips, use HTML5 audio/video by default (preferably with WebM rather than H.264 where possible). If you do need to use Flash (for browsers that dont have HTM5 audio/video support), make sure its only used for browsers that dont support HTML5 audio/video.
ok, and where are the people who run mailing lists like the GCC mailing lists, linux kernel mailing list or any of the hundreds of other legitimate (and in some cases quite high volume) mailing lists out there supposed to find the money to pay this tax on all their emails?
Is there any reason the Gnash team cant step up and improve Gnash and make it as good as Flash? Or at least good enough that it can be a drop-in replacement for Flash?
Does Gnash support RTMPE streams? Maybe what is needed is a fork of Gnash (or a bolt-on for Gnash) hosted in a country without anti-circumvention laws that supports RTMPE and other flash DRM. (similar to how many projects have had and continue to have sites outside the US for the development and distribution of encryption software to avoid strong US export controls)
I have no problems with the government (the TSA) in this case running airport security. What is needed is to undo all the post 9/11 "Security Theater" (liquid ban, body scanners, pat-downs, nail clipper bans, toy guns being confiscated etc) and go back to a sane level of security.
The solution is to eliminate CAs altogether and do 4 things instead: 1.Stop storing identifying information (individual or company names etc) in SSL certificates and only store authenticating information. The only thing web page encryption should be doing is verifying that the web page you think you are talking to is the one you are actually talking to.
2.Store certificates (or certificate hashes) in DNSSEC-secured DNS records. Its much harder for a malicious attacker to break the encryption on DNSSEC or to convince a DNS registrar to modify the DNS record than it is for the attacker to convince a rogue or compromised CA to make them a fake certificate. Also, any attacks that involve modifying the DNS record (either by hacking the registrar or convincing them to change the data) can be easily picked up by the domains owner and sorted out.
3.Use some form of web of trust where different entities all sign the key/certificate of the server. Your browser would verify that the certificate is correctly signed by those keys it trusts to certify stuff as legitimate.
and 4.Cache all certificates/keys and if the certificate has changed, only then would it need to re-validate the security on it (e.g. doing the relatively-expensive verification of the various entities that have signed the SSL certificate)
There are statements (I cant find a source right now but I think they got a mention here a while back) where top technical guys from some big sites that have gone "HTTPS for everyone all the time" said that the overhead of SSL is minimal even when doing millions of page views.
He carried out experiments on a number of British Airways flights to see if he could come up with new food that tasted better without adding more sugar, salt and bad things, without requiring anything new on the airplanes and without adding anything to the preparation time or to the cost of the food.
The best thing he came up with was a new way to do Shepard's Pie.
As for the solution to the problem, I recon they should require that the people who design/approve airline food have to taste it after its been through the same cooking process as it would undergo in the air and under the same atmospheric conditions as an airplane. That way they can come up with dishes that wont suffer so much in an airplane setting.
One thing they could do to make the food not taste so crap is to re-think the way the food is packaged and prepared so that it doesn't loose most of its moisture in the process (it IS possible to freeze e.g. a serving of mince+tomato based pasta sauce+pasta and have it taste just as good after re-heating as it did before it was frozen but if you take too much moisture out of the food and dont put it back, the flavor will suffer).
It depends on the company. Some companies just want royalties paid on their patent (e.g. the MPEG patents) Other companies want royalties plus limits on behavior (e.g. Microsoft v Android where Microsoft is rumored to be telling Android vendors what they aren't allowed to do if they want to use Microsoft patents) Some companies want the infringing product gone completly (Apple v Samsung) and wont even consider licensing.
The state rationale for using the body scanners and pat downs is to detect explosives. So why not have sniffer dogs in and around the checkpoints checking for explosives? Keep the bag x-ray and metal detector but ditch the body scanner and the pat-downs.
They already have dogs for detecting drugs so why not for detecting explosives?
Any bomb big enough to actually do any damage will be picked up by the dogs.
Right now this DRM is limited to Blu-Ray players and the article mentions that people will just buy set-top-boxes that play their pirated content without the Cinavia DRM.
But it will spread. Other content providers like Netflix and Comcast and Hulu will start using Cinavia watermarks on their content and those companies will start insisting that any device that plays back their content (e.g. set-top-boxes with Netflix or Hulu support) pass all the content they play through the Cinavia validation system and produce warnings if the content is pirated. And yes that includes passing every YouTube video played by the device through Cinavia.
Re:And showing every bit of its age too, apparentl
on
GCC Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
Is GCC on Windows still treated like a third-class citizen? I remember a resistance to supporting certain features of Windows that the MS computer supported like SEH but I dont know if that has changed.
Are there any instances where governments have (or talked about) restricting research into fusion power in order to keep "nuclear secrets" out of the hands of the "bad guys"
For example, has the "born secrets" clause of the Atomic Energy Act been used to restrict fusion research, the dissemination of info/theories/results, and the sharing of information?
What about the "arms control" regulations that restrict the export of military and "dual use" items, are there restrictions there that have gotten in the way of full disclosure and dissemination of fusion research?
Using the system codecs on Windows wont always work because Windows XP does not support H.264 no matter what video card you use. The only way to get H.264 on Windows is to install a 3rd party codec.
This is NOT about piracy. This is about old-guard publishers of content (movie studios, film distributors, TV production houses, TV networks and channels, cable companies, record companies, book publishers) trying to stop the biggest revolution in content publishing and distribution since Gutenberg invented the printing press.
They know that the user-generated-content revolution is going to end their status as "gatekeepers" of the worlds content and take away their abillity to control how content is made and distributed and they will do whatever it takes to stop that from happening.
As an Aussie I believe we need a government in this country that is no longer the lap dog of the Yanks and the vested interests they represent.
We DON'T need American troops or facilities on Australian soil. We DON'T need an American spy base in the Australian outback. We DON'T need to keep signing up to us-lead "free-trade" agreements that are anything but free (the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement did NOTHING to open up US markets to Australian agricultural exports) We DON'T need to continue to spend money on security measures at airports, seaports, train stations, bus stations, important buildings and elsewhere when those measures do nothing to improve actual security and in some case can potentially make it worse. We DON'T need to make it easier for the big media companies to sue people they believe are violating their copyright (or to allow them to force ISPs to kick people off) We DON'T need to censor the internet for ANY reason (no content, no matter HOW bad it is justifies censorship of any kind) We DON'T need to continue following the US into wars that dont directly threaten Australia (like a possible future war in Iran) We DON'T need to keep Australian troops in Afghanistan any more (especially with the Afghan government making noise and saying they want coalition troops to leave or at least downsize their forces and stay in their bases more) We DON'T need to blindly follow the US on foreign policy and the need for increased military presence in the region to deal with so-called "threats" (instead of considering countries like Indonesia or China a threat, we should be looking for ways to sign peace treaties and military cooperation agreements with these counties and make them our allies in the fight against terrorist groups wherever they may hide) We DON'T need to water down the mining tax just because a few vested interests want it watered down (it should apply to ALL minerals, not just a select few)
I dont think the publishers are directly responsible for this, its the rights-holder organization saying "the publishers of these works are on our books therefore we have a legal obligation to collect money on their behalf every time a public performance of one of their works happens" regardless of whether the publisher does or doesn't want that money collected in that specific circumstance.
What its REALLY about is so-called "rights-holders groups" who have a legal right to collect money every time a "public performance" occurs. Its totally ridiculous and these groups need to be reigned in and stripped of some of their power. Allow venues to perform works without paying these "rights-holders groups" if the venue has permission from the copyright holders of all the works that are to be performed. (whether that permission includes a payment directly to the copyright holder or whether the copyright holder allows the work to be performed for free shouldn't matter, this change should apply in both cases).
There are stories out there where people have written their own song (and own the copyright 100%) and performed it in a cafe or bar or something and the relevant "rights-holders group" has insisted on collecting money for that performance even though the guy who wrote the song (and is playing it) has given explicit permission for the song to be played and does not want to go through these groups.
And whats worse is that the guy tries to reclaim that paid money from the "rights-holders group" (after all, it was paid to the group to secure a license to play music he wrote and owns the copyright to) but the "rights-holders group" finds some way to avoid paying out.
Whats happened to music is that people with genuine talent are being overlooked in favor of people who can be made to look really really good and who have enough talent to actually make music but not enough that they could make a living from it without the backing of the record company keeping them alive.
See Justin Beber, Katy Perry and who knows how many others who's name I forget because their music is so crap. Also see everyone who has won shows like American Idol.
REAL musicians are artists like Bruce Springsteen, The Who, Jimmy Barnes, Lee Kerneghan, Emerson Lake & Palmer, Cold Chisel, AC/DC, Rolling Stones, John Farnham, John Williamson, Slim Dusty, Billy Joel, Elton John, Men At Work, Queen and Hunters & Collectors.
I suspect that it would be impossible to copyright your DNA and have it hold up. But if someone DID manage to do what you suggested, they would either get a law passed that prohibits copyrighting of DNA or they would get a law passed that allows law enforcement to violate copyright on DNA when required to do their jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to tell me which ISP carries out such a man-in-the-middle attack on a secure web site so I can permanently blacklist them and any entity even remotely connected to them?
Instead of having "tiers", have "packages" that you buy by type.
So all the sports channels (including the expensive ones like ESPN) would go in a "sports pack".
All the documentary channels (Discovery, History, National Geographic etc) would go in a "documentary pack"
All the kids channels (Cartoon Network, Disney, Nickelodeon etc) would go in a "kids pack"
All the music channels (MTV, Country Music Channel etc) would go in a "music pack"
I have been reading Slashdot for years and posting for just as long and here is what I think Slashdot needs:
1.Posting that focuses more on "News for Nerds" and less on useless crap. Bring in more technical stories and less political and legal stories. A post that sued for violations of is not "news for nerds".
Looking at the front page as of now (and going a page or 2 back), "Browser Emulation of 1975 Computer Runs First 16-Bit Home Game " is a good story, its very much "news for nerds".
"MIT Institute's Gloomy Prediction: 'Global Economic Collapse' By 2030 " is not "news for nerds". Yeah sure some people ran some computer simulations but there is no geek/nerd angle.
"Yahoo Layoffs Begin, CEO Sends Employees Apologetic Letter " is also not "news for nerds". Just because its a tech company doesn't mean the fact that people are being fired is "news for nerds".
2.Better editing of what gets posted (e.g. checking for spelling errors, looking for dupes, making sure links work etc)
3.A complete ban on posting any article that is behind a pay wall or requires a login to read the content, no matter how good it might be (e.g. the recent Nature cancer study link that is pay walled). This includes linking to the New York Times unless the link works without the need to log in.
4.No more posting of "slashvertisments" (i.e. articles that are clearly written just to sell whatever product they are writing about)., The recent "Nokia Lumia 900 Reviews " article is an example of this, reviews of a new smartphone (no matter how good) is not "news for nerds" (unless its a phone like the GTA04 that is specifically built to be "open").
Same thing with endless posts about the latest iPad or other must-have gadget. Unless its specifically a geeky or nerdy product like the GTA04 or the Raspberry Pi, its not "news for nerds" and there are plenty of other places to read about that stuff. Slashdot is not Engadget. It's also not Autoblog (the recent story about the Volt sales numbers isn't "news for nerds" either. A technical article on just how the Volt battery packs work on the other hand would definatly qualify as "news for nerds")
5.Do not implement comment flagging or removal. Yes, comments get posted that shouldn't be (e.g. links to goatse) but people mod those down or post replies saying "link in parent post is NSFW". Slashdot should have a policy of never removing comments unless legally required to do so. (even spam generally gets modded down pretty fast)
6.Redo the code for the site. Get rid of a lot of the fancy Javascript and AJAX and stuff and go back to a much leaner Slashdot. Replace the "many more" link and rewrite the display system for frontpage and firehose so that its possible to bookmark (or return to) a specific state with a specific set of articles visible and so you wont loose your place when you click on a link that takes you away from the firehose page.
Make the loading of the next batch of articles for the front page or firehose much faster.
Support modern features like IPv6 and Unicode (if Google can do IPv6 there is no reason Slashdot cant do it)
7.Make it easier for people to use the fire-hose to mod articles up or down and in particular to down-vote the spam and ads that get posted there whilst allowing the legitimate articles to shine through so they can be front-paged.
8.Ban URL shorteners or pre-expand the URL before they get posted. This prevents people posting shortened URLs that really point to goatse.
9.Completely cease and desist using proprietary technologies (such as Flash) for any part of the site. If you must have video clips, use HTML5 audio/video by default (preferably with WebM rather than H.264 where possible). If you do need to use Flash (for browsers that dont have HTM5 audio/video support), make sure its only used for browsers that dont support HTML5 audio/video.
ok, and where are the people who run mailing lists like the GCC mailing lists, linux kernel mailing list or any of the hundreds of other legitimate (and in some cases quite high volume) mailing lists out there supposed to find the money to pay this tax on all their emails?
Is there any reason the Gnash team cant step up and improve Gnash and make it as good as Flash? Or at least good enough that it can be a drop-in replacement for Flash?
Does Gnash support RTMPE streams? Maybe what is needed is a fork of Gnash (or a bolt-on for Gnash) hosted in a country without anti-circumvention laws that supports RTMPE and other flash DRM. (similar to how many projects have had and continue to have sites outside the US for the development and distribution of encryption software to avoid strong US export controls)
I have no problems with the government (the TSA) in this case running airport security.
What is needed is to undo all the post 9/11 "Security Theater" (liquid ban, body scanners, pat-downs, nail clipper bans, toy guns being confiscated etc) and go back to a sane level of security.
The solution is to eliminate CAs altogether and do 4 things instead:
1.Stop storing identifying information (individual or company names etc) in SSL certificates and only store authenticating information. The only thing web page encryption should be doing is verifying that the web page you think you are talking to is the one you are actually talking to.
2.Store certificates (or certificate hashes) in DNSSEC-secured DNS records. Its much harder for a malicious attacker to break the encryption on DNSSEC or to convince a DNS registrar to modify the DNS record than it is for the attacker to convince a rogue or compromised CA to make them a fake certificate. Also, any attacks that involve modifying the DNS record (either by hacking the registrar or convincing them to change the data) can be easily picked up by the domains owner and sorted out.
3.Use some form of web of trust where different entities all sign the key/certificate of the server. Your browser would verify that the certificate is correctly signed by those keys it trusts to certify stuff as legitimate.
and 4.Cache all certificates/keys and if the certificate has changed, only then would it need to re-validate the security on it (e.g. doing the relatively-expensive verification of the various entities that have signed the SSL certificate)
There are statements (I cant find a source right now but I think they got a mention here a while back) where top technical guys from some big sites that have gone "HTTPS for everyone all the time" said that the overhead of SSL is minimal even when doing millions of page views.
I suspect that Android vendors like HTC and Samsung were sued over patents other than just the FAT patent.
He carried out experiments on a number of British Airways flights to see if he could come up with new food that tasted better without adding more sugar, salt and bad things, without requiring anything new on the airplanes and without adding anything to the preparation time or to the cost of the food.
The best thing he came up with was a new way to do Shepard's Pie.
As for the solution to the problem, I recon they should require that the people who design/approve airline food have to taste it after its been through the same cooking process as it would undergo in the air and under the same atmospheric conditions as an airplane. That way they can come up with dishes that wont suffer so much in an airplane setting.
One thing they could do to make the food not taste so crap is to re-think the way the food is packaged and prepared so that it doesn't loose most of its moisture in the process (it IS possible to freeze e.g. a serving of mince+tomato based pasta sauce+pasta and have it taste just as good after re-heating as it did before it was frozen but if you take too much moisture out of the food and dont put it back, the flavor will suffer).
It depends on the company.
Some companies just want royalties paid on their patent (e.g. the MPEG patents)
Other companies want royalties plus limits on behavior (e.g. Microsoft v Android where Microsoft is rumored to be telling Android vendors what they aren't allowed to do if they want to use Microsoft patents)
Some companies want the infringing product gone completly (Apple v Samsung) and wont even consider licensing.
The state rationale for using the body scanners and pat downs is to detect explosives. So why not have sniffer dogs in and around the checkpoints checking for explosives? Keep the bag x-ray and metal detector but ditch the body scanner and the pat-downs.
They already have dogs for detecting drugs so why not for detecting explosives?
Any bomb big enough to actually do any damage will be picked up by the dogs.
Right now this DRM is limited to Blu-Ray players and the article mentions that people will just buy set-top-boxes that play their pirated content without the Cinavia DRM.
But it will spread. Other content providers like Netflix and Comcast and Hulu will start using Cinavia watermarks on their content and those companies will start insisting that any device that plays back their content (e.g. set-top-boxes with Netflix or Hulu support) pass all the content they play through the Cinavia validation system and produce warnings if the content is pirated.
And yes that includes passing every YouTube video played by the device through Cinavia.
Is GCC on Windows still treated like a third-class citizen? I remember a resistance to supporting certain features of Windows that the MS computer supported like SEH but I dont know if that has changed.
Are there any instances where governments have (or talked about) restricting research into fusion power in order to keep "nuclear secrets" out of the hands of the "bad guys"
For example, has the "born secrets" clause of the Atomic Energy Act been used to restrict fusion research, the dissemination of info/theories/results, and the sharing of information?
What about the "arms control" regulations that restrict the export of military and "dual use" items, are there restrictions there that have gotten in the way of full disclosure and dissemination of fusion research?
If you know the libraries that a program is using, it can make it easier to reverse engineer.
Using the system codecs on Windows wont always work because Windows XP does not support H.264 no matter what video card you use. The only way to get H.264 on Windows is to install a 3rd party codec.
This is NOT about piracy.
This is about old-guard publishers of content (movie studios, film distributors, TV production houses, TV networks and channels, cable companies, record companies, book publishers) trying to stop the biggest revolution in content publishing and distribution since Gutenberg invented the printing press.
They know that the user-generated-content revolution is going to end their status as "gatekeepers" of the worlds content and take away their abillity to control how content is made and distributed and they will do whatever it takes to stop that from happening.
Is remote desktop secured and encrypted by default? If not, why the hell not?
Only an idiot would implement a remote-access protocol like this and NOT use good encryption on it.
I am in the wrong state so I cant vote for Julian.
As an Aussie I believe we need a government in this country that is no longer the lap dog of the Yanks and the vested interests they represent.
We DON'T need American troops or facilities on Australian soil.
We DON'T need an American spy base in the Australian outback.
We DON'T need to keep signing up to us-lead "free-trade" agreements that are anything but free (the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement did NOTHING to open up US markets to Australian agricultural exports)
We DON'T need to continue to spend money on security measures at airports, seaports, train stations, bus stations, important buildings and elsewhere when those measures do nothing to improve actual security and in some case can potentially make it worse.
We DON'T need to make it easier for the big media companies to sue people they believe are violating their copyright (or to allow them to force ISPs to kick people off)
We DON'T need to censor the internet for ANY reason (no content, no matter HOW bad it is justifies censorship of any kind)
We DON'T need to continue following the US into wars that dont directly threaten Australia (like a possible future war in Iran)
We DON'T need to keep Australian troops in Afghanistan any more (especially with the Afghan government making noise and saying they want coalition troops to leave or at least downsize their forces and stay in their bases more)
We DON'T need to blindly follow the US on foreign policy and the need for increased military presence in the region to deal with so-called "threats" (instead of considering countries like Indonesia or China a threat, we should be looking for ways to sign peace treaties and military cooperation agreements with these counties and make them our allies in the fight against terrorist groups wherever they may hide)
We DON'T need to water down the mining tax just because a few vested interests want it watered down (it should apply to ALL minerals, not just a select few)
I dont think the publishers are directly responsible for this, its the rights-holder organization saying "the publishers of these works are on our books therefore we have a legal obligation to collect money on their behalf every time a public performance of one of their works happens" regardless of whether the publisher does or doesn't want that money collected in that specific circumstance.
What its REALLY about is so-called "rights-holders groups" who have a legal right to collect money every time a "public performance" occurs. Its totally ridiculous and these groups need to be reigned in and stripped of some of their power. Allow venues to perform works without paying these "rights-holders groups" if the venue has permission from the copyright holders of all the works that are to be performed. (whether that permission includes a payment directly to the copyright holder or whether the copyright holder allows the work to be performed for free shouldn't matter, this change should apply in both cases).
There are stories out there where people have written their own song (and own the copyright 100%) and performed it in a cafe or bar or something and the relevant "rights-holders group" has insisted on collecting money for that performance even though the guy who wrote the song (and is playing it) has given explicit permission for the song to be played and does not want to go through these groups.
And whats worse is that the guy tries to reclaim that paid money from the "rights-holders group" (after all, it was paid to the group to secure a license to play music he wrote and owns the copyright to) but the "rights-holders group" finds some way to avoid paying out.
Whats happened to music is that people with genuine talent are being overlooked in favor of people who can be made to look really really good and who have enough talent to actually make music but not enough that they could make a living from it without the backing of the record company keeping them alive.
See Justin Beber, Katy Perry and who knows how many others who's name I forget because their music is so crap. Also see everyone who has won shows like American Idol.
REAL musicians are artists like Bruce Springsteen, The Who, Jimmy Barnes, Lee Kerneghan, Emerson Lake & Palmer, Cold Chisel, AC/DC, Rolling Stones, John Farnham, John Williamson, Slim Dusty, Billy Joel, Elton John, Men At Work, Queen and Hunters & Collectors.
I suspect that it would be impossible to copyright your DNA and have it hold up. But if someone DID manage to do what you suggested, they would either get a law passed that prohibits copyrighting of DNA or they would get a law passed that allows law enforcement to violate copyright on DNA when required to do their jobs.