I take it that you failed that physics class. You just claimed that that pounds were equivalent to meters. I think that you meant 32 feet per second per second.
So again, pounds are a unit of weight, not of mass. My statement which you quoted was correct.
The/. herd has gone off on lawsuits and what not--but the real issue is much bigger. According to the article, the problem is ISP's continuing to accept emails to closed acconts, storing them, and then using them as leverage to force customers to pay disputed bills.
In his report, Canada's Privacy Commissioner said Inter.net's policies are standard practice in the ISP industry that need to be changed.
The commissioner recommended that "the ISP immediately cease collecting, storing, and denying access to e-mails addressed to holders of accounts under suspension and adopt instead the practice of deflecting such e-mails back to the senders with notification to the effect that the messages could not be delivered."
Agreeing to a contract, having the product delivered, and then not paying might be classified as stealing.
But for the other reasons you mention, I would generally agree with you that it is not stealing. (And in fact, if there is no expectation that you would have paid in the first place--because, say, you are poor--then you can't really say you made the author work under false pretenses either.)
In the end, there is simply no deprivation taking place, as there is, say, when you steal a car from its rightful owner.
The legal system should not be applying laws created for the protection of physical goods, therefore, to the protection of intellectual property.
Unfortunately the English langugage is not so precise, and I'm afraid we'll have to live with the words in common usage. Argh, Matey, I'm off to burn me some CD's.
3rd - depriving of profit is not "stealing"- it's depriving of profit.
Points 1 and 2 are right on, but I have to disagree with the above.
Our society gives authors and creators a sort of 'implied contract'; they create, and we grant them copyright. Sure, no one signs anything, but none of us signed the constitution (which grants copyright authority to Congress) either. There are certain social obligations that everyone is bound to, whether or no they agree. In effect, you (through your legal institutions) have promised copyright, and in return the author has created something. Once the goods have been delivered, you are at least somewhat obligated to fulfill your side of the deal. Breaking this social contract is slightly different than merely depriving a corporation of profit. You can't give the author back their lost effort. On the other hand, I deprive McDonalds of profit every time I drive by their shitty restaurant and thank god that I'm not stopping.
Yeah, they'd like this to be just like a rental agreement, and that would be a great business model. I love Blockbuster and I wish that there was some way to make that work over the internet. But it's not technically feasible. They only way for this to work is for them to copy something for you (unlike Blockbuster), and copyright makes no provision for uncopying. So instead of renting you something, they are forced to embed a self-destruct switch in a product that they have given you. A self-destruct switch that you aren't legally allowed to hack. It's unfortunate that the only way for this business model to work is for it to infringe on your rights.
Something has got to give: It can either be your rights, or their business model. Which do you pick?
They are giving you the information. Only it is in a form that self-destructs (large appliance manufacturers take note). Remember that the only way for them to make sure this works is to take away your right to control the information on your system. Your right to hack your own files.
Every company in the world would like to be able to sell you a product with a self-destruct device embedded that you couldn't remove legally. Only Hollywood thinks that it is their right.
Welcome to the future. They aren't even selling you the music anymore. They're selling you a proprietary DRM format that can only play on a computer--with the option of paying extra to burn 10 tracks (per Month!!) to a CD. (I wonder if it will even be a normal mp3 or audio CD. Maybe they'll just stick their proprietary format and player on the CD.)
A couple of years from now, the new plan will be to only let you listen to it 3 times before you have to buy it again or some such.
Goddamn, doesn't anyone realize that a system that sold tracks for 25 cents a piece in whatever format you wanted would make a ton of money? The worries about piracy in that sort of system are completely irrational. But then anybody could do it...and no control for the big boys is just intolerable I guess.
Yes it would. The steganography part comes when you stick the signed hash back into the original image (probably along with the entire original image to make it reversible). Which is kind of silly. But isn't that just what the front page of/. is there for?
The most secure this could possibly be would be if the camera generated a signed hash with every image using a unique private key. This private key would have to be stored someone. Inside an IC, in other words. That would be hard to break. You would have to a.) take apart the IC and get the key (if it's well designed). Or b.) fool the camera into thinking that it is taking a picture, when you have actually bypassed the CCD and are feeding it information from your home computer. b.) is probably a lot easier.
Here's a message that you could send to your girlfriend. Take a picture of yourself standing on a steal I-beam with your hand on your heart, with your university sweater emblazoned with U of whatever. Put that in any file format you want.
But I responded to your comment for another reason. Nobody has ever written an optimal image format. Besides which, optimal for what? Plain-old human vision? You can remove information from an image in such a way that a human couldn't tell the difference (what most optimizing does). But computer processing can tell the difference in a nano-second. Probably, human-optimized images wouldn't even fool all primates.
It is relevant. For example if a corporate monopoly controlled print publishing the lack of choice would be quite important. In fact, it would be so important that we might not be able to sustain democracy in the face of the danger generated by the potential abuse of control of speech. The internet is a new medium of communication, and one that will only grow in importance. One party that can control content on that medium is quite dangerous.
And to inject some reality into this discussion, we interfere with the free market all the time. We interfere almost every time citizens consider that the available choices aren't good enough. Those cars that you spoke of not buying. They probably have a number of safety features that are not present because of the free market. Even the omnipresent seat belts were made mandatory because the Government thought that the choices being offered simply weren't good enough.
And, last I checked, free speech has nothing to do with trading copyrighted materials.
Now I wonder if you are being obtuse on purpose. Sure is lucky that it is easy for me to repeat myself with a quick cut and paste:
But the only way for this technology to work is for them to have complete power over any information on your computer. The nature of the technology is that it can be used to censor any type of information. All we have to go on is their promise that it will only be used for copyright violation.
--Me, from a couple of comments up in this thread.
Oh yes. They tell us they're only going to use this to stop you from seeing copyrighted movies. But the only way for this technology to work is for them to have complete power over any information on your computer. The nature of the technology is that it can be used to censor any type of information. All we have to go on is their promise that it will only be used for copyright violation.
How is using Kazaa "free speech"?
Think about it for a second. All Kazaa is, speaking of the actual application, is a system for sending information between two points on a network. Kazaa--the application--is truly content neutral. Human beings can share whatever they wish too. Unfortunately, the technological fix for things like Kazaa is also content neutral. It's the technicians in charge of the system that choose what can and cannot be shared.
Power tends to be misused though. And once this power is ceded to others, you can be sure that you won't be getting it back without a struggle.
I said if you don't like it, don't buy it.
Really. So once all computer components are manufactured with this technology, the choice becomes: don't buy it. Don't hook up to the internet. Don't watch movies. Don't read electronic texts.
Unrestricted corporate monopolies are about to take absolute control over a new medium of communication. Your freedom of speech across the internet will be at their pleasure.
And your solution to this...a boycott? Consumer boycotts are always quite effective, aren't they?
Have you considered that your approach may be a bit...naive?
If this were the U.S. Government pulling something like this, we'd have torched the White House by now, and the only real question we'd be debating would be whether Senator Hollings needs five more turns on the spit. But to some extent we are at a loss because it is business rather than government leading this assault on speech and liberty.
The world has started to turn into a scary place. It used to be the government that was most likely to take away people's rights. Nowadays corporations can be just as dangerous; and the massive bulwarks of liberity put up by our founding fathers--the U.S. Constitution and the checks and balances that make up the branches of government--were not intended to protect us from powerful corporations. If we are going to secure liberty for our children, it may take a struggle just as momentus as those struggles that have been fought before. Resting on our laurels is not an option for free men who mean to stay free.
On the other hand, modern consumer lawsuits are so random in application and award that rather than causing good behavior in large corporations, they instead create a climate of uncertainty which serves to sieze up the gears of capitalism through what amounts to a government mandated legal tax across the board, accomplishing little public good except the certain enrichment of the legal class and a lottery type system of enrichment of certain citizens through chance rather than meritorious conduct; structural reform may be impossible, therefore proposed tort reforms seek mainly to reduce the magnitude of the legal tax.
Filing as we speak: A government system for appropriating the obvious and awarding it, by order of legal expenditure magnitude, to corporate entities unable to compete without government-granted intellectual property monopoly.
I didn't attempt to justify it. But as for lax security...
For most of these networks, a normal functioning laptop equipped with a wireless card will automatically sign on to the network with no input from the user at all, just by bringing the laptop into the general vicinity.
No it's not lax security. I think it qualifies as no security at all.
And if you make absolutely no attempt at privacy, if you put your computer network outside in public places (the street), then no, you don't have much right to privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it that you failed that physics class. You just claimed that that pounds were equivalent to meters. I think that you meant 32 feet per second per second.
So again, pounds are a unit of weight, not of mass. My statement which you quoted was correct.
After reading that, I am having a laugh. A pound is a non-SI measure of Newtons, not of kilograms. Pounds really are a unit of weight (force).
You mass the same everywhere (kilograms), but you will weigh (Newtons or pounds) a different amount in every different gravity field.
I'll even post with my real user-name.
Of course, all of this is kind of meaningless, since the space station is in a gravity field. I just wanted to clear up your mis-conception.
Agreeing to a contract, having the product delivered, and then not paying might be classified as stealing.
But for the other reasons you mention, I would generally agree with you that it is not stealing. (And in fact, if there is no expectation that you would have paid in the first place--because, say, you are poor--then you can't really say you made the author work under false pretenses either.)
In the end, there is simply no deprivation taking place, as there is, say, when you steal a car from its rightful owner.
The legal system should not be applying laws created for the protection of physical goods, therefore, to the protection of intellectual property.
Unfortunately the English langugage is not so precise, and I'm afraid we'll have to live with the words in common usage. Argh, Matey, I'm off to burn me some CD's.
3rd - depriving of profit is not "stealing"- it's depriving of profit.
Points 1 and 2 are right on, but I have to disagree with the above.
Our society gives authors and creators a sort of 'implied contract'; they create, and we grant them copyright. Sure, no one signs anything, but none of us signed the constitution (which grants copyright authority to Congress) either. There are certain social obligations that everyone is bound to, whether or no they agree. In effect, you (through your legal institutions) have promised copyright, and in return the author has created something. Once the goods have been delivered, you are at least somewhat obligated to fulfill your side of the deal. Breaking this social contract is slightly different than merely depriving a corporation of profit. You can't give the author back their lost effort. On the other hand, I deprive McDonalds of profit every time I drive by their shitty restaurant and thank god that I'm not stopping.
Very cool. The very generalness and nature of this approach makes me want to categorize this as nano-machine rather than new drug.
Last Post!
Yeah, they'd like this to be just like a rental agreement, and that would be a great business model. I love Blockbuster and I wish that there was some way to make that work over the internet. But it's not technically feasible. They only way for this to work is for them to copy something for you (unlike Blockbuster), and copyright makes no provision for uncopying. So instead of renting you something, they are forced to embed a self-destruct switch in a product that they have given you. A self-destruct switch that you aren't legally allowed to hack. It's unfortunate that the only way for this business model to work is for it to infringe on your rights.
Something has got to give: It can either be your rights, or their business model. Which do you pick?
They are giving you the information. Only it is in a form that self-destructs (large appliance manufacturers take note). Remember that the only way for them to make sure this works is to take away your right to control the information on your system. Your right to hack your own files.
Every company in the world would like to be able to sell you a product with a self-destruct device embedded that you couldn't remove legally. Only Hollywood thinks that it is their right.
Welcome to the future. They aren't even selling you the music anymore. They're selling you a proprietary DRM format that can only play on a computer--with the option of paying extra to burn 10 tracks (per Month!!) to a CD. (I wonder if it will even be a normal mp3 or audio CD. Maybe they'll just stick their proprietary format and player on the CD.)
A couple of years from now, the new plan will be to only let you listen to it 3 times before you have to buy it again or some such.
Goddamn, doesn't anyone realize that a system that sold tracks for 25 cents a piece in whatever format you wanted would make a ton of money? The worries about piracy in that sort of system are completely irrational. But then anybody could do it...and no control for the big boys is just intolerable I guess.
Yes it would. The steganography part comes when you stick the signed hash back into the original image (probably along with the entire original image to make it reversible). Which is kind of silly. But isn't that just what the front page of /. is there for?
The most secure this could possibly be would be if the camera generated a signed hash with every image using a unique private key. This private key would have to be stored someone. Inside an IC, in other words. That would be hard to break. You would have to a.) take apart the IC and get the key (if it's well designed). Or b.) fool the camera into thinking that it is taking a picture, when you have actually bypassed the CCD and are feeding it information from your home computer. b.) is probably a lot easier.
Then digitally sign it with GnuPG.
Re-sizing is still alteration. As for telling which portions have been changed--hash 50x50 pixel squares, or whatever you want.
Here's a message that you could send to your girlfriend. Take a picture of yourself standing on a steal I-beam with your hand on your heart, with your university sweater emblazoned with U of whatever. Put that in any file format you want.
But I responded to your comment for another reason. Nobody has ever written an optimal image format. Besides which, optimal for what? Plain-old human vision? You can remove information from an image in such a way that a human couldn't tell the difference (what most optimizing does). But computer processing can tell the difference in a nano-second. Probably, human-optimized images wouldn't even fool all primates.
It is relevant. For example if a corporate monopoly controlled print publishing the lack of choice would be quite important. In fact, it would be so important that we might not be able to sustain democracy in the face of the danger generated by the potential abuse of control of speech. The internet is a new medium of communication, and one that will only grow in importance. One party that can control content on that medium is quite dangerous.
And to inject some reality into this discussion, we interfere with the free market all the time. We interfere almost every time citizens consider that the available choices aren't good enough. Those cars that you spoke of not buying. They probably have a number of safety features that are not present because of the free market. Even the omnipresent seat belts were made mandatory because the Government thought that the choices being offered simply weren't good enough.
And, last I checked, free speech has nothing to do with trading copyrighted materials.
Now I wonder if you are being obtuse on purpose. Sure is lucky that it is easy for me to repeat myself with a quick cut and paste:
Living in the woods like a hermit to avoid corporate power simply isn't much of a choice.
The internet is just like any other communication medium. There is an inherent right to free speech online. Check out the first ammendment.
Oh yes. They tell us they're only going to use this to stop you from seeing copyrighted movies. But the only way for this technology to work is for them to have complete power over any information on your computer. The nature of the technology is that it can be used to censor any type of information. All we have to go on is their promise that it will only be used for copyright violation.
How is using Kazaa "free speech"?
Think about it for a second. All Kazaa is, speaking of the actual application, is a system for sending information between two points on a network. Kazaa--the application--is truly content neutral. Human beings can share whatever they wish too. Unfortunately, the technological fix for things like Kazaa is also content neutral. It's the technicians in charge of the system that choose what can and cannot be shared. Power tends to be misused though. And once this power is ceded to others, you can be sure that you won't be getting it back without a struggle.
I said if you don't like it, don't buy it.
Really. So once all computer components are manufactured with this technology, the choice becomes: don't buy it. Don't hook up to the internet. Don't watch movies. Don't read electronic texts.
I fail to see how that is much of a choice.
there were no corporations to speak of (think pre-industrial revolution)
Actually I was. I was contrasting the time-period of the framing of the constitution to the time-period of today.
You are right, however, to point out that the evolution of the power of business has certainly been a gradual process taking many decades.
Unrestricted corporate monopolies are about to take absolute control over a new medium of communication. Your freedom of speech across the internet will be at their pleasure.
And your solution to this...a boycott? Consumer boycotts are always quite effective, aren't they?
Have you considered that your approach may be a bit...naive?
If this were the U.S. Government pulling something like this, we'd have torched the White House by now, and the only real question we'd be debating would be whether Senator Hollings needs five more turns on the spit. But to some extent we are at a loss because it is business rather than government leading this assault on speech and liberty.
The world has started to turn into a scary place. It used to be the government that was most likely to take away people's rights. Nowadays corporations can be just as dangerous; and the massive bulwarks of liberity put up by our founding fathers--the U.S. Constitution and the checks and balances that make up the branches of government--were not intended to protect us from powerful corporations. If we are going to secure liberty for our children, it may take a struggle just as momentus as those struggles that have been fought before. Resting on our laurels is not an option for free men who mean to stay free.
On the other hand, modern consumer lawsuits are so random in application and award that rather than causing good behavior in large corporations, they instead create a climate of uncertainty which serves to sieze up the gears of capitalism through what amounts to a government mandated legal tax across the board, accomplishing little public good except the certain enrichment of the legal class and a lottery type system of enrichment of certain citizens through chance rather than meritorious conduct; structural reform may be impossible, therefore proposed tort reforms seek mainly to reduce the magnitude of the legal tax.
Look, Mom, no periods!
Filing as we speak: A government system for appropriating the obvious and awarding it, by order of legal expenditure magnitude, to corporate entities unable to compete without government-granted intellectual property monopoly.
Why does it take $40 billion to give away software?
I didn't attempt to justify it. But as for lax security...
For most of these networks, a normal functioning laptop equipped with a wireless card will automatically sign on to the network with no input from the user at all, just by bringing the laptop into the general vicinity.
No it's not lax security. I think it qualifies as no security at all.
And if you make absolutely no attempt at privacy, if you put your computer network outside in public places (the street), then no, you don't have much right to privacy.