This is probably true but then another issue comes up in regards to collecting / licensing societies (organizations such as BMI, Harry Fox, SOCAN, etc...)
Some of these societies (one example is GEMA, the German all-encompassing one, and also the UK one to a degree) have contracts which take away certain rights of the copyright holders. That is, they contain a clause that forbids you from negotiating new contracts, or severely limit the options you have in the new contract.
If someone is knowingly collecting and/or distributing a sound file for a band (even if severely deteriorated, but still recognizable) then they should also be paying mechanical/performance licensing royalties to the respective organizations.
Further to that they may have additional contracts with Engineers and Producers, and even band members, that dictate a strict quality approval process for any release music. Producing lower quality files may also break such contracts (though I suspect most contracts are worded in such a way that the label can do what they want in this regards).*
The mileage of these contract limitations varies from nation to nation, and the societies in Canada and the USA pretty much allow whatever, but a lot of popular artists have song copyrights controlled by European societies that have more strict rules.
*If rather they are distributing sequences of noise we should simply ask the death industrial and japanese noise band to start looking for copyright violations of their music.:)
Perhaps "free of cheating" may be a little bit too strong of a phrase (it would certainly be one of the high selling points were it true).
From Google: "xbox cheat" = 687,000 results "xbox modchip" = 25,400 results "xbox game crack" = 59,800 results
Naturally I can't draw definitive conclusions from search results, but I would guess this system is just to prone as cheating as any other. Even without cracks and modchips, all of the games on the XBox live as susceptible to the proxy server cheats (such as aiming proxies).
I've effectively switched all of my windows tools to tools that are available on Linux, most of which are open source and free (as far as I'm aware).
There is however no sufficient option for music recording software. I've looked into programs like Jazz, and then I ended up learning about ALSA to see if I could program what was missing. It looks like it is okay if you want only to do Audio or MIDI, but I could not find a good solution for them combined (with all the required effects and piano roll midi scoring).
However, the major software for recording is available for Mac, and that will be upgrading to OS X, which puts all of it a little closer to working under Linux. This won't be an open/free solution, but at least it would give us the opportunity to finally drop windows.
The last windows I purchased is Win98, and I'm still using it now. It crashing, or interrupting the audio devices, is the single biggest loss of time we have while recording.
But that's it, the recording software. Everything else, from maintaining the website, to writing the contracts, to distributing items, to doing graphics, to email, to whatever can be done in Linux, witout major complaints.
Re:DON'T /. THE NAMED.ROOT FILES!!!!
on
Root Zone Changed
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why shouldn't somebody look if they are curious? I often hear about problems resulting from people not knowing enough about computers and the internet, perhaps looking at these root files is a good thing -- certainly some people will just be confused, but others might actually be even more curious and try to figure out what they mean.
Any extra bit of knowledge anybody has about the internet probably helps everybody in the long run.
And in any case, since nobody needs this root file immediately, and since the/. effect disappears in a few days, there shouldn't be any concern. At very least, consider this a fair test of the system, we wouldn't want our root name servers running on anything not-up-to-the-job, would we?
This process seems to be heavily biased towards the vendor and does not seem to offer very much to the community at large. A vendor not interested in exposing vulnerabilities could easily exploit this process.
Simply setting up the recommended email address and generating an auto-reply (or the equivalent with form letters and an assistant) to all reports would acknowledge all claims. This auto-reply could immediately include a request for extension. Delay the auto-reply from 4-7 days, put snapshots of similar keyword searches from the internal knowledgebase, and you have a suitable claim for an extension.
Any disclosure of the flaw before the extension and the vendor can quite happily say that they are following the process and the reporter is not. Meanwhile the vendor themself has no reason, what-so-ever to follow the remaining sections of the process, then can simply allow all periods to lapse and proceed on their own accord. This allows the reporter to be labelled in bad faith, whereas the vendor can artificially appear to act in good faith.
Not following this best practice would furthermore not generate any additional bad publicity for the offending company. Vendors operating in bad faith will already have a negative image. Vendors operating in good faith will have an extra overhead that they may not be able to support if they follow this process.
It additionally appears vendor biased because it does not offer any benefit to the security community, or the user community at large. Prevention of exploits does not appear as a goal of this process. Nor does protection from exploitation of flaws. Unless of course we make the unreasonable assumption that exploits do no appear until over 30 days past the point of/reported/ discovery.
Slashdot Mirror
This is probably true but then another issue comes up in regards to collecting / licensing societies (organizations such as BMI, Harry Fox, SOCAN, etc...) Some of these societies (one example is GEMA, the German all-encompassing one, and also the UK one to a degree) have contracts which take away certain rights of the copyright holders. That is, they contain a clause that forbids you from negotiating new contracts, or severely limit the options you have in the new contract. If someone is knowingly collecting and/or distributing a sound file for a band (even if severely deteriorated, but still recognizable) then they should also be paying mechanical/performance licensing royalties to the respective organizations. Further to that they may have additional contracts with Engineers and Producers, and even band members, that dictate a strict quality approval process for any release music. Producing lower quality files may also break such contracts (though I suspect most contracts are worded in such a way that the label can do what they want in this regards).* The mileage of these contract limitations varies from nation to nation, and the societies in Canada and the USA pretty much allow whatever, but a lot of popular artists have song copyrights controlled by European societies that have more strict rules. *If rather they are distributing sequences of noise we should simply ask the death industrial and japanese noise band to start looking for copyright violations of their music. :)
Perhaps "free of cheating" may be a little bit too strong of a phrase (it would certainly be one of the high selling points were it true).
From Google:
"xbox cheat" = 687,000 results
"xbox modchip" = 25,400 results
"xbox game crack" = 59,800 results
Naturally I can't draw definitive conclusions from search results, but I would guess this system is just to prone as cheating as any other. Even without cracks and modchips, all of the games on the XBox live as susceptible to the proxy server cheats (such as aiming proxies).
I've effectively switched all of my windows tools to tools that are available on Linux, most of which are open source and free (as far as I'm aware).
There is however no sufficient option for music recording software. I've looked into programs like Jazz, and then I ended up learning about ALSA to see if I could program what was missing. It looks like it is okay if you want only to do Audio or MIDI, but I could not find a good solution for them combined (with all the required effects and piano roll midi scoring).
However, the major software for recording is available for Mac, and that will be upgrading to OS X, which puts all of it a little closer to working under Linux. This won't be an open/free solution, but at least it would give us the opportunity to finally drop windows.
The last windows I purchased is Win98, and I'm still using it now. It crashing, or interrupting the audio devices, is the single biggest loss of time we have while recording.
But that's it, the recording software. Everything else, from maintaining the website, to writing the contracts, to distributing items, to doing graphics, to email, to whatever can be done in Linux, witout major complaints.
Why shouldn't somebody look if they are curious? I often hear about problems resulting from people not knowing enough about computers and the internet, perhaps looking at these root files is a good thing -- certainly some people will just be confused, but others might actually be even more curious and try to figure out what they mean.
/. effect disappears in a few days, there shouldn't be any concern. At very least, consider this a fair test of the system, we wouldn't want our root name servers running on anything not-up-to-the-job, would we?
Any extra bit of knowledge anybody has about the internet probably helps everybody in the long run.
And in any case, since nobody needs this root file immediately, and since the
This process seems to be heavily biased towards the vendor and does not seem to offer very much to the community at large. A vendor not interested in exposing vulnerabilities could easily exploit this process.
/reported/ discovery.
Simply setting up the recommended email address and generating an auto-reply (or the equivalent with form letters and an assistant) to all reports would acknowledge all claims. This auto-reply could immediately include a request for extension. Delay the auto-reply from 4-7 days, put snapshots of similar keyword searches from the internal knowledgebase, and you have a suitable claim for an extension.
Any disclosure of the flaw before the extension and the vendor can quite happily say that they are following the process and the reporter is not. Meanwhile the vendor themself has no reason, what-so-ever to follow the remaining sections of the process, then can simply allow all periods to lapse and proceed on their own accord. This allows the reporter to be labelled in bad faith, whereas the vendor can artificially appear to act in good faith.
Not following this best practice would furthermore not generate any additional bad publicity for the offending company. Vendors operating in bad faith will already have a negative image. Vendors operating in good faith will have an extra overhead that they may not be able to support if they follow this process.
It additionally appears vendor biased because it does not offer any benefit to the security community, or the user community at large. Prevention of exploits does not appear as a goal of this process. Nor does protection from exploitation of flaws. Unless of course we make the unreasonable assumption that exploits do no appear until over 30 days past the point of