Distributing copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal. This is true regardless of what you might think about the fairness of either the behaviour of the copyright owner or of the copyright law itself.
No. It's not. Selling a device that circumvents copy protection is a crime, and has been since way back in 1998. Violation of copyright is not a crime, and never has never been illegal.
I know students who don't have CD burners, but have collections of 300+ albums just given to them by friends or at parties. I really wouldn't be surprised if the underground music exchange market wasn't several times the size of the above ground market.
Well, this is just clear evidence that we have to STOP the horrilbe scorge of HOME TAPING!!!!
You know, the p4 is slower at a lot of things then the p3 at the same clock speed. The thing is, you can jack the hell out of the clock speed with the core design they use.
Oh wait, was it a parody? Arn't those supposed to be funny? I mean, this commic dosn't really make any sense, because there isn't really any reason for SCO to listen to all of us, if they really think they're right.
Not very much work goes into making each disk and hardly any work goes into each copy of the mp3. Unlike the car, where it takes a huge amount of actual work to make the physical copy. When you buy a car, you are paying for the physical copy of the machine, not the 'intelectual property'. Obviously a lot of bands work hard, but all the lables do is market stuff. Why should I pay for a music companies efforts to sell me something?
If you want, you can buy manuals from ford or any other manufacturer that will detail every single repair that can be done. Enough information to build the car from scratch if you wanted. A car company is not a content industry. When you pay for a car, you're paying for the metal, and the sweat that went into making it. And yes, a lot of the money that you spend on a car is labor cost, meaning a lot of the money actually goes to the people who built it. And an engineer is always more replacable then an artist.
(of course, I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine the share of the revenue from each song you pirate on Kazaa that goes to the artist)
The record company is the one who actually spends the advance, producing the record. The record company picks the producer, does all the marketing, etc, with the money that was advanced. So they get to use that 12% to pay themselves back, and keep the 30% as profit.
At least with CDs it's not so blatantly transparent that the artists are getting ripped off. After all, someone needs to press the records/cds, printer the liners, and ship them and all that. You don't really think of the cost. Over the internet, it's different. You pay a dollar for almost nothing other then the content. (the bandwidth costs are nominal for a single 3meg upload, compared to a single dollar)
I really fail to see the point in attacking the FBI. Obviously they have problems, but if we removed all authority from all law enforcement agencies that problems, there would be no cops at all.
The article mentioned that Redhat had $300 million in cash and other investments. And that they could easily buy SCO.
But I think it's a little unfair for red-hat to pickup the tab for this. I really doubt that Anything SCO has is actualy worth $130 million dollars, certanly not in the form that Redhat could capitalize on. (unless they wanted to keep suing IBM)
The best idea I've seen in YEARS was to have people start using a specific, original poem as their signatures. Then, the author granted license to anyone who WASN'T sending spam. Therefore, they could sue any spammer for copyright infringement if they used it, and you could train your mail filter to look for the signature. Once spamassassin took it up, it pretty much snowballed. See story here
Yeah, but how do you find the spammer who filched your poem? If you could find them to begin with, you could just sue them for that.
What I do is set my MTA (well, actualy someone I'm using someone else's mail server) to forward all the mail sent to my domain to my main account. That way, whenever I sign up for anything or give away any email address I use a unique address.
Oddly enough, I've been totaly promiscuous with these throw-away email addresses, but I've only got one SPAM from a company I actualy bought stuff for. So far no one has sold any of the address, and all the websites I've posted too either arn't scanned or are protecting the address well.
OTOH, my 'main' address are spammed constantly. rrr.
This greylisting technique CANNOT be 'perfict', it's going to send some spam through, no matter what Right now that number is 5%. Once spammers know how to get around the system, that number will go up to 100%. Another poster already mentioned, all you have to do is send the message twice. (the greylist will see that as retrying and let the msg through).
If we have never seen this triplet before, then refuse this delivery and any others that may come within a certain period of time with a temporary failure.
Since SMTP is considered an unreliable transport, the possibility of temporary failures is built into the core spec (see RFC 821). As such, any well behaved message transfer agent (MTA) should attempt retries if given an appropriate temporary failure code for a delivery attempt (see below for discussion of issues concerning non-conforming MTA's).
During the initial testing of Greylisting, it was observed that the vast majority of spam appears to be sent from applications designed specifically for spamming. These applications appear to adopt the "fire-and-forget" methodology. That is, they attempt to send the spam to one or several MX hosts for a domain, but then never attempt a true retry as a real MTA would. From our testing, this means that currently, based on a fairly conservative interpretation of testing data, we see effectiveness of over 95%, and that is with no legitimate mail ever being permanently blocked.
Any attempt to build technology to work around current spammer's techniques is pretty much a waste of time. They'll just adapt. A well written SPAM program can fetch $10,000 per license. It wouldn't be that hard for them to act like a legit MTA to get around this problem, if the patch were widespread.
Sure, it prevents 95% of spam now, but if it becomes widespread it won't.
That said, it will make spammers lives much more difficult, and requires them to identify themselves. So this could be helpful, in concert with other tools. One option would be to use this along with sender-verification, so that people who run legitimate MTAs don't need to worry about getting a verification message (for now).
Just because you feel safe when you are in control dosn't mean that you are actualy less likely to get into an accident. Technology is failable, yes. But so are humans.
You can always print out emails and keep them saved in a secure location. Sure, the software that runs these things can be pretty funky, but in general in runs well and has lots of redundancy. It's just a pain in the ass to deal with all those physical bills when I can pay 'em online or even setup my bank account to do it automaticaly.
Besides, what would a 'web developer' know about radar technology? I think this is the real problem. A lot of geeks think they're 'smart' and when they hear about something they don't understand they think it must be impossible.
There are times when governments will want to control import/export. Tarrifs are just another tool to do that. Would you prefer that we let the dollar sink even further? It would have a broad "sledgehammer" effect on every sector of the world economy, not just the chip sector, or lumber, or whatever people want to complain about.
Actualy, it would reduce the cost of american goods abroad
Slashdot Mirror
Distributing copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal. This is true regardless of what you might think about the fairness of either the behaviour of the copyright owner or of the copyright law itself.
No. It's not. Selling a device that circumvents copy protection is a crime, and has been since way back in 1998. Violation of copyright is not a crime, and never has never been illegal.
Stealing copyrighted materials violates a federal law, hence the FBI should get involved.
And which federal law would that be?
I know students who don't have CD burners, but have collections of 300+ albums just given to them by friends or at parties. I really wouldn't be surprised if the underground music exchange market wasn't several times the size of the above ground market.
Well, this is just clear evidence that we have to STOP the horrilbe scorge of HOME TAPING!!!!
They'll be as effective as the anti-drug education they've been pushing in this country.
You know, the p4 is slower at a lot of things then the p3 at the same clock speed. The thing is, you can jack the hell out of the clock speed with the core design they use.
That linux users do not steal IP.
Oh wait, was it a parody? Arn't those supposed to be funny? I mean, this commic dosn't really make any sense, because there isn't really any reason for SCO to listen to all of us, if they really think they're right.
Not very much work goes into making each disk and hardly any work goes into each copy of the mp3. Unlike the car, where it takes a huge amount of actual work to make the physical copy. When you buy a car, you are paying for the physical copy of the machine, not the 'intelectual property'. Obviously a lot of bands work hard, but all the lables do is market stuff. Why should I pay for a music companies efforts to sell me something?
Hahaha. I'm am just so funny.
If you want, you can buy manuals from ford or any other manufacturer that will detail every single repair that can be done. Enough information to build the car from scratch if you wanted. A car company is not a content industry. When you pay for a car, you're paying for the metal, and the sweat that went into making it. And yes, a lot of the money that you spend on a car is labor cost, meaning a lot of the money actually goes to the people who built it. And an engineer is always more replacable then an artist.
(of course, I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine the share of the revenue from each song you pirate on Kazaa that goes to the artist)
What do you mean? All of it goes to the artist.
The record company is the one who actually spends the advance, producing the record. The record company picks the producer, does all the marketing, etc, with the money that was advanced. So they get to use that 12% to pay themselves back, and keep the 30% as profit.
At least with CDs it's not so blatantly transparent that the artists are getting ripped off. After all, someone needs to press the records/cds, printer the liners, and ship them and all that. You don't really think of the cost. Over the internet, it's different. You pay a dollar for almost nothing other then the content. (the bandwidth costs are nominal for a single 3meg upload, compared to a single dollar)
I really fail to see the point in attacking the FBI. Obviously they have problems, but if we removed all authority from all law enforcement agencies that problems, there would be no cops at all.
I thought he made a sort of depth sensor, for building a 3d model from a real object.
Couldn't that be done with a regular 2d scanner?
The article mentioned that Redhat had $300 million in cash and other investments. And that they could easily buy SCO.
But I think it's a little unfair for red-hat to pickup the tab for this. I really doubt that Anything SCO has is actualy worth $130 million dollars, certanly not in the form that Redhat could capitalize on. (unless they wanted to keep suing IBM)
You're assuming the spammers can read source code.
Who do you think writes spamming software?
The best idea I've seen in YEARS was to have people start using a specific, original poem as their signatures. Then, the author granted license to anyone who WASN'T sending spam. Therefore, they could sue any spammer for copyright infringement if they used it, and you could train your mail filter to look for the signature. Once spamassassin took it up, it pretty much snowballed. See story here
Yeah, but how do you find the spammer who filched your poem? If you could find them to begin with, you could just sue them for that.
What I do is set my MTA (well, actualy someone I'm using someone else's mail server) to forward all the mail sent to my domain to my main account. That way, whenever I sign up for anything or give away any email address I use a unique address.
Oddly enough, I've been totaly promiscuous with these throw-away email addresses, but I've only got one SPAM from a company I actualy bought stuff for. So far no one has sold any of the address, and all the websites I've posted too either arn't scanned or are protecting the address well.
OTOH, my 'main' address are spammed constantly. rrr.
The site seems to be fine, why not wait untill it *actualy* get's slashdotted?
This greylisting technique CANNOT be 'perfict', it's going to send some spam through, no matter what Right now that number is 5%. Once spammers know how to get around the system, that number will go up to 100%. Another poster already mentioned, all you have to do is send the message twice. (the greylist will see that as retrying and let the msg through).
If we have never seen this triplet before, then refuse this delivery and any others that may come within a certain period of time with a temporary failure.
Since SMTP is considered an unreliable transport, the possibility of temporary failures is built into the core spec (see RFC 821). As such, any well behaved message transfer agent (MTA) should attempt retries if given an appropriate temporary failure code for a delivery attempt (see below for discussion of issues concerning non-conforming MTA's).
During the initial testing of Greylisting, it was observed that the vast majority of spam appears to be sent from applications designed specifically for spamming. These applications appear to adopt the "fire-and-forget" methodology. That is, they attempt to send the spam to one or several MX hosts for a domain, but then never attempt a true retry as a real MTA would. From our testing, this means that currently, based on a fairly conservative interpretation of testing data, we see effectiveness of over 95%, and that is with no legitimate mail ever being permanently blocked.
Any attempt to build technology to work around current spammer's techniques is pretty much a waste of time. They'll just adapt. A well written SPAM program can fetch $10,000 per license. It wouldn't be that hard for them to act like a legit MTA to get around this problem, if the patch were widespread.
Sure, it prevents 95% of spam now, but if it becomes widespread it won't.
That said, it will make spammers lives much more difficult, and requires them to identify themselves. So this could be helpful, in concert with other tools. One option would be to use this along with sender-verification, so that people who run legitimate MTAs don't need to worry about getting a verification message (for now).
according to this the authors of the software don't think Hatch would have to pay, if he had tried to license it legaly.
Just because you feel safe when you are in control dosn't mean that you are actualy less likely to get into an accident. Technology is failable, yes. But so are humans.
I'm sure the software will alow you to disable the feature, if not buy a nothere car.
You can always print out emails and keep them saved in a secure location. Sure, the software that runs these things can be pretty funky, but in general in runs well and has lots of redundancy. It's just a pain in the ass to deal with all those physical bills when I can pay 'em online or even setup my bank account to do it automaticaly.
Besides, what would a 'web developer' know about radar technology? I think this is the real problem. A lot of geeks think they're 'smart' and when they hear about something they don't understand they think it must be impossible.
There are times when governments will want to control import/export. Tarrifs are just another tool to do that. Would you prefer that we let the dollar sink even further? It would have a broad "sledgehammer" effect on every sector of the world economy, not just the chip sector, or lumber, or whatever people want to complain about.
Actualy, it would reduce the cost of american goods abroad