The game industry is quite different in that regard. It is not mathematically possible to secure the client-server model of multiplayer gaming against cheating.
That's certainly an overstatement. A well designed game, built with the internet in mind from the ground up, will not suffer from this problem. Well, sort of. All games suffer from the problem of collusion between players, but hiding the client code doesn't do very much to stop that.
For example, consider online poker. A well designed multiplayer poker game cannot be cheated except through collusion of players. So maybe your statement is correct with regard to half-life, but that's a flaw in the game itself, not a flaw in the concept of multiplayer gaming.
I have to wonder how long until people start to realize that for truly critical (read millions of dollars) work, you're best off having the production machines OFFLINE.
About the same time they realize that you're best off not relying on obscurity for your security.
That would be a Very Bad Thing, but it still wouldn't have root privileges.
Why do you need root privileges to write a virus? You don't need root to access the user's crontab, do you? Or the autoexec for the user's X session? Why does it matter whether or not you have root?
Furthermore, once you have a desktop user's privileges, it's easy to get root. You just pop up a dialog box asking for the root password, or install a keystroke logger or whatever and get the password next time the user installs something.
The very fact that Unix-like OSs have a concept of a "root" account (which the Windows "equivalent", "administrator", does not even come CLOSE to matching in terms of actual separation of permissions), makes it all but invincible to virii.
No, the very fact that people don't want to remember one password (let alone two) is the reason that any popular operating system will necessarily be subject to viruses. You don't need root access to install a virus, and certainly not to install a worm (which is what mostly what the author was talking about anyway).
Yes, if Linux becomes popular enough for virus authors to target it, we'll see a round of trojans using root exploits - But unlike Windows exploits, very few of these exist to start with, and they will (and do) get fixed within a few hours of discovery.
Actually it isn't even necessary to use a root exploit to gain root. Just pop up a "type in your root password" dialog at an expected moment, and you're in. And fixing root exploits within a few hours, even if it happened, wouldn't solve the problem until the operating system is updated, which could be years later.
An article at The Register, authored by Scott Granneman of SecurityFocus, examines the conventional wisdom that if Linux or Mac OS X were as popular as Windows, there would be just as many viruses written for those platforms.
Logically, of course, this statement is absolutely true, as Linux and Mac OS X are *not* as popular as Windows. But without bringing out analogies to becoming the pope it's still clear why Granneman's explanation fails.
Mr. Granneman bluntly says this is wrong, then proceeds to detail the fundamental differences between those OS's and Windows which make Windows an easy and inviting target for virus-writers, as opposed to the Unix-based platforms.
Of course, these fundamental differences are also the reason why Windows is so popular.
"It's easy to run executables in the Windows world" - Go figure. Maybe that's part of the reason for its popularity.
"This sort of social engineering, so easy to accomplish in Windows, requires far more steps and far greater effort on the part of the Linux user." - Likewise, running a non-viral application contained in an email requires far more steps and far greater effort on the part of the Linux user. Another reason for the popularity of Windows.
"Further, due to the strong separation between normal users and the privileged root user, our Linux user would have to be running as root to really do any damage to the system." - Or to install software. Another reason why Linux is less popular.
"On a Windows system, programs installed by a non-Administrative user can still add DLLs and other system files that can be run at a level of permission that damages the system itself." - Or enhances the system itself. A reason why Windows is more popular.
"Linux runs on many architectures, not just Intel, and there are many versions of Linux, many packaging systems, and many shells. But most obvious to the end user, Linux mail clients and address books are far from standardized." - This one is just a bad argument. Mac has the most standardized platform of all, and yet it has far fewer viruses than Windows. Of course the standardization is also part of the reason for the popularity of Windows (and Macintosh).
The labels could have created a pay service far superior to any P2P had they chosen to.
But this is only due to the fact that P2P is illegal. Make it legal, and now a much better system can be developed, a system where links aren't constantly going up and down, a system where people can put their name on files ensuring that the song really is what it says it is. Of course I wonder where you would draw the line as to what is commercial. Is Kazaa commercial? Was Napster? Or would you want to throw out contributory copyright infringement as well?
And pay services could incorporate valued-added services, speed, and easy of use that P2P could never match.
Except for those consumers who want physical CDs with cover art, I doubt it. Consider distribution of open source software products. No one is making money offering a pay-per-download service. There's nothing hard about using HTTP or FTP, and the speeds you get are generally limited only by your local connection.
Chuckle, it feels kind of funny arguing "up" from "no copyright" with many of the same things I use arguing "down" from current copyright law 99% of the time:)
But you really haven't done that. All you have argued is that this system will still allow artists to collect money for works they've created. Well, certainly, I agree with that. In fact, I even agree with the next logical followup which is that this will therefore cause people to create more copyrightable works. The problem is that it causes disincentive for people to distribute copyrighted works. As we both agree, some forms of distribution will simply not be possible to be done non-commercially. And as you said yourself, the record labels could be doing a much better job of distribution. They're not doing a better job precisely because they don't have any real competition. For sure, your version of copyright law increases competition, and therefore will increase quality of distribution, but it doesn't increase them as much as no copyright law.
The designers assume that spammers will not have domains of their own - as we've observed, spammers have many domains, and $6.95 will hardly break them. They can register thousands of domains, set up perfectly legitimate SPF records on them, and forge mail from those domains.
How many spammers are making the tens of thousands of dollars necessary to do this? Seems to me like it's very few.
This scheme would slow spam down for about a week, after which spammers would all be using throwaway domains.
So why not mark any mail coming from a recently registered domain as probable spam?
Chuckle. I'm "pro-copyright" in that I think it was a good and beneficial thing before it was expanded and distorted.
It's hard to say, as it was such a different world when copyright law was initially passed. Printing presses were expensive, now most households have a computer with internet access. Copyright law was probably even less beneficial back then, as authors could easily have used contractual agreements to protect their works for a decent period of time. But I digress...
Under traditional copyright law P2P was perfectly legal.
I wasn't aware of that, but I'll take your word for it.
So, being "anti-copyright", what are your thoughts on copyright being limited to restrictions on commercial use? Eliminate the criminal clauses and eliminate statutory damages.
As for eliminating criminal clauses for non-commercial copyright infringement, it seemed to work well enough before the passage of the NET Act, which was the first to make non-commercial copyright infringement criminal.
As far as eliminating statutory damages, that would be nice too. In fact, combined with eliminating criminal penalties, it'd solve pretty much all of my active (as opposed to theoretical) problems with copyright law. On the other hand, I'm not sure what would be the point of having copyright law any more, if you were going to restrict it that much. With regard to music, software, and anything else that can be transferred over the internet, why would anyone pay for it any more? Sure, artists would still make money by providing services, but this can happen without any copyright law at all.
For example commercial radio would continue to have to pay the same fees they do now. Advertizing revenue is still commercial exploitation of the music.
My initial reaction was that commercial radio wouldn't be able to survive in such a situation. After all, people would be able to make their own CDs for the price of the media. But you know what, maybe it would. People still would want to hear whatever's new and popular, and eliminating ASCAP fees wouldn't give non-commercial radio that much of an advantage. So maybe that answers my question about how this copyright law would be different from nothing.
Are you suggesting that anyone who bought an arcade game put it in arcade before that time ignored the law and commited infringment and the sellers should have been able to sue the buyers and win?
Did they ignore the law? Yes. Did they commit infringement? Maybe (depends on the specifics wrt fair use). Should they have been able to sue? No way.
There should be no need for endless separate clauses for arcades etc. If you sell an arcade machine to be placed in an arcade then that sale includes the right to place that machine in an arcade.
I can't argue against that, since I'm opposed to copyright law in the first place.:)
I see your concern, but I don't think it's a problem. It is essentially the same as the legally required warrant of merchantability - the product must do what it is supposed to do. Actually the required warrant of merchantability should really cover it anyway, if you sell software without the required rights to use it then it is unfit for its advertized purpose, a violation of the warrant of merchantability.
Sure, and you can return it for a refund. That doesn't mean you can't be sued for copyright infringement if you ignore the law. And most software is sold AS IS so this is a moot point anyway.
Now I admit this next situation is legally murky, but don't you think most judges would reach the same result if it were tax-preparation software? Would tax preparation software would get less protection than a game?
Yes, it would. Tax preparation software is not an audiovisual work. A game's storyline, graphics, and music are. OK, there's the graphics of the tax preparation software, but that small portion of the overall product would almost surely fall under fair use.
Put another way, a game isn't protected either, in itself. The storyline is protected, the music is protected, etc. Most tax preparation software doesn't contain such things.
Given all of that, I think it's up to you to show that they need to use GR to get this position.
I'm not sure it's possible to show that they must use GR to get this position. There's always a possibility that they found some way around it, I just don't see what it is.
"Performance" is in the running of the software (and the display of that result).
Perhaps by a dictionary definition, but here we're talking about public performance, which involves performing the work for the public.
It is generally used in refference to music and animation, but think that many courts would uphold a well argued case involving something like a spreadsheet.
RTFL. "in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;" I highly doubt a court would consider a spreadsheet to be an audiovisual work. Furthermore, even if a spreadsheet were an audiovisual work, that would not mean that the code is an audiovisual work.
Perhaps you had the right intent there and simply worded it ambiguously, but there is a small but crucial error in that wording. If you go buy regular softare and put it in a coin-operated machine you will get sued and lose on public performace infringment.
Perhaps I was just giving a quick summary rather than using the exact technical definition since I then listed the exact law immediately thereafter.
The clause you quoted specificly says it only applies to software sold with the intent that it is to be used in such a machine.
See. You read it. So you know exactly what I meant.
Actually I think copyright law could be signifigantly cleaned up by striking the clause you posted and a few other clauses and simply state that it is never infringement to make ordinary use for which it was sold.
Seems to me that such a law would suffer from from being unconstitutionally vague.
If you want to take issue with the results (and be taken seriously), you need to make an effort to understand those results and the previous work which underpins it.
I obviously am not taking issue with the results, as I have not seen them. You, on the other hand, seem to be defending them without having seen them either.
Cassini is never near the Sun. The signal sometimes passes near the Sun, but Cassini never does.
Yeah yeah, that's what I meant:).
Cassini is on a well-measured orbit far from the Sun.
What means are used? The orbit isn't measured with rulers. It's measured by people living on an accelerated platform, the Earth.
As I said, in this limit, Newtonian gravity is all you need to get the trajectory. (Newton agrees with GR, and no one doubts the validity of either in this regime)
And in the limit there is no effect by the gravity of the sun. When we're talking about confirming something to "20 parts per million" this certainly needs to be factored in.
For starters it's highly unlikely that taking somebody else's copyrighted work, passing it through Baudio, and selling that would be legal. (why pay for something that's free?)
Under the GPL, for example, it's perfectly legal.
And you may be missing the point about the open source software -- it's already free to redistribute, and so selling it isn't likely to work.
That part I certainly agree with.
However, if there's an audio-only compulsory, those open source authors could convert their files to audio and take a share of the pie. The end users still don't have to pay for anything -- all they have to do is download the audio version, and that helps to support the project.
I guess I just don't understand. If the end users aren't paying, who is, and why are they going to do this? And more importantly, why bother with the extra step of encoding it into an audio file? Just get whoever is paying to pay directly.
Presumably they did measure the distance: you can get the round-trip signal when the path to Cassini is far from the Sun.
But that's not the same distance as when it's near the sun. And you have to factor in the fact that both objects are in accelerated motion around the sun, which of course uses Einstein's equations.
Obviously we're both merely speculating without seeing the actual calculations, though.
Somehow I suspect they're using Einstein's equations to prove his predictions. From the article: "They precisely measured the change in the round-trip light time of the radio signal as it traveled close to the Sun." But round-trip time is not enough. You must also precisely measure the distance, and you can't measure that without using Einstein's equations.
Well, as just one example -- an open source app could offer downloads in both regular and Baudio-encoded formats. They could then tell their users that if they choose to download the Baudio-encoded version, then they're helping the team.
But if the software is open source, anyone could create a Baudio-encoded version himself and collect royalties on the download instead of the author. Besides, this has nothing to do with the musical encoding. The author could just as easily grant a license to download the gzipped version of his software by paying a certain amount of money. Of course, if it's open source already, it would be kind of stupid for the same reason as the Baudio-encoded version.
Slashdot Mirror
Now add the requirements of real time, scalable to many players, and playable on existing hardware.
Not so simple a problem as poker now, is it?
Huh? Online poker is all these things.
All I'll say is there's a nasty exploit that can get me a SYSTEM priv shell remotely. And it's worked on every box that I've tried it upon.
Yeah, me too. There's not a single windows box that I have ever tried to break into and failed.
The game industry is quite different in that regard. It is not mathematically possible to secure the client-server model of multiplayer gaming against cheating.
That's certainly an overstatement. A well designed game, built with the internet in mind from the ground up, will not suffer from this problem. Well, sort of. All games suffer from the problem of collusion between players, but hiding the client code doesn't do very much to stop that.
For example, consider online poker. A well designed multiplayer poker game cannot be cheated except through collusion of players. So maybe your statement is correct with regard to half-life, but that's a flaw in the game itself, not a flaw in the concept of multiplayer gaming.
I have to wonder how long until people start to realize that for truly critical (read millions of dollars) work, you're best off having the production machines OFFLINE.
About the same time they realize that you're best off not relying on obscurity for your security.
That would be a Very Bad Thing, but it still wouldn't have root privileges.
Why do you need root privileges to write a virus? You don't need root to access the user's crontab, do you? Or the autoexec for the user's X session? Why does it matter whether or not you have root?
Furthermore, once you have a desktop user's privileges, it's easy to get root. You just pop up a dialog box asking for the root password, or install a keystroke logger or whatever and get the password next time the user installs something.
I use Outlook (Express), but I checked the "read all messages in plain text" box in options.
The very fact that Unix-like OSs have a concept of a "root" account (which the Windows "equivalent", "administrator", does not even come CLOSE to matching in terms of actual separation of permissions), makes it all but invincible to virii.
No, the very fact that people don't want to remember one password (let alone two) is the reason that any popular operating system will necessarily be subject to viruses. You don't need root access to install a virus, and certainly not to install a worm (which is what mostly what the author was talking about anyway).
Yes, if Linux becomes popular enough for virus authors to target it, we'll see a round of trojans using root exploits - But unlike Windows exploits, very few of these exist to start with, and they will (and do) get fixed within a few hours of discovery.
Actually it isn't even necessary to use a root exploit to gain root. Just pop up a "type in your root password" dialog at an expected moment, and you're in. And fixing root exploits within a few hours, even if it happened, wouldn't solve the problem until the operating system is updated, which could be years later.
An article at The Register, authored by Scott Granneman of SecurityFocus, examines the conventional wisdom that if Linux or Mac OS X were as popular as Windows, there would be just as many viruses written for those platforms.
Logically, of course, this statement is absolutely true, as Linux and Mac OS X are *not* as popular as Windows. But without bringing out analogies to becoming the pope it's still clear why Granneman's explanation fails.
Mr. Granneman bluntly says this is wrong, then proceeds to detail the fundamental differences between those OS's and Windows which make Windows an easy and inviting target for virus-writers, as opposed to the Unix-based platforms.
Of course, these fundamental differences are also the reason why Windows is so popular.
The labels could have created a pay service far superior to any P2P had they chosen to.
But this is only due to the fact that P2P is illegal. Make it legal, and now a much better system can be developed, a system where links aren't constantly going up and down, a system where people can put their name on files ensuring that the song really is what it says it is. Of course I wonder where you would draw the line as to what is commercial. Is Kazaa commercial? Was Napster? Or would you want to throw out contributory copyright infringement as well?
And pay services could incorporate valued-added services, speed, and easy of use that P2P could never match.
Except for those consumers who want physical CDs with cover art, I doubt it. Consider distribution of open source software products. No one is making money offering a pay-per-download service. There's nothing hard about using HTTP or FTP, and the speeds you get are generally limited only by your local connection.
Chuckle, it feels kind of funny arguing "up" from "no copyright" with many of the same things I use arguing "down" from current copyright law 99% of the time :)
But you really haven't done that. All you have argued is that this system will still allow artists to collect money for works they've created. Well, certainly, I agree with that. In fact, I even agree with the next logical followup which is that this will therefore cause people to create more copyrightable works. The problem is that it causes disincentive for people to distribute copyrighted works. As we both agree, some forms of distribution will simply not be possible to be done non-commercially. And as you said yourself, the record labels could be doing a much better job of distribution. They're not doing a better job precisely because they don't have any real competition. For sure, your version of copyright law increases competition, and therefore will increase quality of distribution, but it doesn't increase them as much as no copyright law.
The designers assume that spammers will not have domains of their own - as we've observed, spammers have many domains, and $6.95 will hardly break them. They can register thousands of domains, set up perfectly legitimate SPF records on them, and forge mail from those domains.
How many spammers are making the tens of thousands of dollars necessary to do this? Seems to me like it's very few.
This scheme would slow spam down for about a week, after which spammers would all be using throwaway domains.
So why not mark any mail coming from a recently registered domain as probable spam?
Chuckle. I'm "pro-copyright" in that I think it was a good and beneficial thing before it was expanded and distorted.
It's hard to say, as it was such a different world when copyright law was initially passed. Printing presses were expensive, now most households have a computer with internet access. Copyright law was probably even less beneficial back then, as authors could easily have used contractual agreements to protect their works for a decent period of time. But I digress...
Under traditional copyright law P2P was perfectly legal.
I wasn't aware of that, but I'll take your word for it.
So, being "anti-copyright", what are your thoughts on copyright being limited to restrictions on commercial use? Eliminate the criminal clauses and eliminate statutory damages.
As for eliminating criminal clauses for non-commercial copyright infringement, it seemed to work well enough before the passage of the NET Act, which was the first to make non-commercial copyright infringement criminal.
As far as eliminating statutory damages, that would be nice too. In fact, combined with eliminating criminal penalties, it'd solve pretty much all of my active (as opposed to theoretical) problems with copyright law. On the other hand, I'm not sure what would be the point of having copyright law any more, if you were going to restrict it that much. With regard to music, software, and anything else that can be transferred over the internet, why would anyone pay for it any more? Sure, artists would still make money by providing services, but this can happen without any copyright law at all.
For example commercial radio would continue to have to pay the same fees they do now. Advertizing revenue is still commercial exploitation of the music.
My initial reaction was that commercial radio wouldn't be able to survive in such a situation. After all, people would be able to make their own CDs for the price of the media. But you know what, maybe it would. People still would want to hear whatever's new and popular, and eliminating ASCAP fees wouldn't give non-commercial radio that much of an advantage. So maybe that answers my question about how this copyright law would be different from nothing.
"You must also precisely measure the distance, and you can't measure that without using Einstein's equations."
Sounds like you are asserting that to me.
Well, that's true. You don't deny that fact, do you?
In any event, this has become futile. You either don't understand, don't want to understand, or are simply trolling. In any case, I'm out of here.
Cya.
Are you suggesting that anyone who bought an arcade game put it in arcade before that time ignored the law and commited infringment and the sellers should have been able to sue the buyers and win?
Did they ignore the law? Yes. Did they commit infringement? Maybe (depends on the specifics wrt fair use). Should they have been able to sue? No way.
There should be no need for endless separate clauses for arcades etc. If you sell an arcade machine to be placed in an arcade then that sale includes the right to place that machine in an arcade.
I can't argue against that, since I'm opposed to copyright law in the first place. :)
But that's what you are asserting: that they need to take GR into account.
No, I never made that assertion.
I see your concern, but I don't think it's a problem. It is essentially the same as the legally required warrant of merchantability - the product must do what it is supposed to do. Actually the required warrant of merchantability should really cover it anyway, if you sell software without the required rights to use it then it is unfit for its advertized purpose, a violation of the warrant of merchantability.
Sure, and you can return it for a refund. That doesn't mean you can't be sued for copyright infringement if you ignore the law. And most software is sold AS IS so this is a moot point anyway.
Now I admit this next situation is legally murky, but don't you think most judges would reach the same result if it were tax-preparation software? Would tax preparation software would get less protection than a game?
Yes, it would. Tax preparation software is not an audiovisual work. A game's storyline, graphics, and music are. OK, there's the graphics of the tax preparation software, but that small portion of the overall product would almost surely fall under fair use.
Put another way, a game isn't protected either, in itself. The storyline is protected, the music is protected, etc. Most tax preparation software doesn't contain such things.
Given all of that, I think it's up to you to show that they need to use GR to get this position.
I'm not sure it's possible to show that they must use GR to get this position. There's always a possibility that they found some way around it, I just don't see what it is.
You have completely misunderstood me. Get some rest and try reading what I wrote again some othehr time.
"Performance" is in the running of the software (and the display of that result).
Perhaps by a dictionary definition, but here we're talking about public performance, which involves performing the work for the public.
It is generally used in refference to music and animation, but think that many courts would uphold a well argued case involving something like a spreadsheet.
RTFL. "in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;" I highly doubt a court would consider a spreadsheet to be an audiovisual work. Furthermore, even if a spreadsheet were an audiovisual work, that would not mean that the code is an audiovisual work.
Perhaps you had the right intent there and simply worded it ambiguously, but there is a small but crucial error in that wording. If you go buy regular softare and put it in a coin-operated machine you will get sued and lose on public performace infringment.
Perhaps I was just giving a quick summary rather than using the exact technical definition since I then listed the exact law immediately thereafter.
The clause you quoted specificly says it only applies to software sold with the intent that it is to be used in such a machine.
See. You read it. So you know exactly what I meant.
Actually I think copyright law could be signifigantly cleaned up by striking the clause you posted and a few other clauses and simply state that it is never infringement to make ordinary use for which it was sold.
Seems to me that such a law would suffer from from being unconstitutionally vague.
If you want to take issue with the results (and be taken seriously), you need to make an effort to understand those results and the previous work which underpins it.
I obviously am not taking issue with the results, as I have not seen them. You, on the other hand, seem to be defending them without having seen them either.
Given suitable equipment, Issac Newton himself could calculate the precise, simple, and smooth ellipse of the orbit.
Sure, you can calculate the elipse of the orbit. But that's not the same as calulating the round-trip distance between two accelerated objects.
Cassini is never near the Sun. The signal sometimes passes near the Sun, but Cassini never does.
Yeah yeah, that's what I meant :).
Cassini is on a well-measured orbit far from the Sun.
What means are used? The orbit isn't measured with rulers. It's measured by people living on an accelerated platform, the Earth.
As I said, in this limit, Newtonian gravity is all you need to get the trajectory. (Newton agrees with GR, and no one doubts the validity of either in this regime)
And in the limit there is no effect by the gravity of the sun. When we're talking about confirming something to "20 parts per million" this certainly needs to be factored in.
For starters it's highly unlikely that taking somebody else's copyrighted work, passing it through Baudio, and selling that would be legal. (why pay for something that's free?)
Under the GPL, for example, it's perfectly legal.
And you may be missing the point about the open source software -- it's already free to redistribute, and so selling it isn't likely to work.
That part I certainly agree with.
However, if there's an audio-only compulsory, those open source authors could convert their files to audio and take a share of the pie. The end users still don't have to pay for anything -- all they have to do is download the audio version, and that helps to support the project.
I guess I just don't understand. If the end users aren't paying, who is, and why are they going to do this? And more importantly, why bother with the extra step of encoding it into an audio file? Just get whoever is paying to pay directly.
Presumably they did measure the distance: you can get the round-trip signal when the path to Cassini is far from the Sun.
But that's not the same distance as when it's near the sun. And you have to factor in the fact that both objects are in accelerated motion around the sun, which of course uses Einstein's equations.
Obviously we're both merely speculating without seeing the actual calculations, though.
Somehow I suspect they're using Einstein's equations to prove his predictions. From the article: "They precisely measured the change in the round-trip light time of the radio signal as it traveled close to the Sun." But round-trip time is not enough. You must also precisely measure the distance, and you can't measure that without using Einstein's equations.
Well, as just one example -- an open source app could offer downloads in both regular and Baudio-encoded formats. They could then tell their users that if they choose to download the Baudio-encoded version, then they're helping the team.
But if the software is open source, anyone could create a Baudio-encoded version himself and collect royalties on the download instead of the author. Besides, this has nothing to do with the musical encoding. The author could just as easily grant a license to download the gzipped version of his software by paying a certain amount of money. Of course, if it's open source already, it would be kind of stupid for the same reason as the Baudio-encoded version.