unfortunately, it becomes complicated when trying to play with a real scrabble weeenie. it seems that the "scrabble dictionary" allows such "words" as "qwerty" and "ay".
I actually once used "qwertys" in a real game. Got challenged and everything. That was fun.
much prefer using a real dictionary, versus the "i managed to memorize 100 different iterations of two letter words, so i must be 'leet".
And then the goal becomes...memorizing which words aren't in the "real dictionary" you've chosen?
No, the layout of the board is a design - it is not copyrightable.
Design is not copyrightable? Where do you get this idea?
Dictionaries & word lists are definitely NOT copyrightable.
They are if they pick a creative selection.
Just like phone books are not copyrightable.
Read the Feist decision again. Phone books are not copyrightable per se, but if they employ a creative selection then they are copyrightable.
Check out a couple of dictionaries - they are all copyrighted by their individual publishers. They are not copyrighting the word list in them, but the specific formatting & layout.
They're copyrighting the selection, the formatting, the layout, the definitions themselves, many things.
Let's put it this way. Try putting the official scrabble dictionary list of word on your website and see when you get sued.
<hemos_> Alterslash is illegal.
And is violating copyright.
And unfortunately, under the way US copyright law works
they will probably get a cease and desist soon.
Becuase if we don't - then we give up the right to defend ourselves.
So, I don't want to be hostile
but because of the law, we have to.
Well, they also call themselves the "Internet Scrabble Club". But then, it says at the bottom "SCRABBLE is a trademark of Hasbro in the United States and Canada. Scrabble rights elsewhere in the world are held by J.W. Spear and Sons, PLC." Maybe it is at least in part because they're outside the US.
Maybe since its called WordBiz that would save it. I sure would hate to see it go.
Me too. I haven't played online in a while but I used to play a lot and I'm sure I'll go through a few more periods of online scrabble addiction.
Really, is this any different than hosting a big 24/7 get together in some public park where people can come play Scrabble all they want?
Not really, of course, if you called it p-Scrabble, you'd probably get sued. If you made copies of the board game and handed them out, you'd definitely get sued.
What about the board? It seems scrabble could have a copyright on the layout of the board, for instance the locations of the triple word squares.
Other than that, I'm not sure what non-trivial stuff they could copyright. Maybe the number of tiles of a particular letter, but that's pretty borderline. Of course they can trademark and possible copyright the color schemes and stuff like that, but that's all trivially changed without changing the game itself.
Oh yeah, and the most definitely copyrightable part is the official dictionary. But it wouldn't be too horrible to use a game with an alternate dictionary.
the grey goo issue is when self replicating machines go out of control and turn everything into copies of themselves
What I never understood about this is that turning everything into copies of itself would require infinite raw materials. If it's even possible, and I have my doubts about that, I feel that it'd require a really long period of time.
Of course, if you buy into the singularity theory maybe you'd say I'm just completely off base. But remember, not everything is knowable. Life itself places a limit on how intelligent you can be, and even how fast your intelligence can grow. One might even argue that if grey goo were possible it would have already happened by now.
Just because it is a public record doesn't mean it is easy to get.
You'd be surprised. Nowadays you can get a lot of this information right on the internet.
A person would have to find out where you were married, go there (or mail them), wait god knows how long, and MAYBE get something. Last time I checked most criminals were lazy, that is why they are criminals.
It only takes one criminal with your information to cause havoc. The fact of the matter is that one's social security number is not all that sensitive of information. It's certainly not any more sensitive than a bank account number, and just think of how many loonies have access to that.
I personally don't want my potential anniversary date posted online
Of all the pieces of information that were listed, I would think this would be the least controversial. After all, a wedding is a public event, and your anniversary is part of the public record.
Incidently, in most states your social security number is right there on your marriage license and is also part of the public record. So if you think it's a big deal for someone to get your SSN, think again.
The company is either committing copyright infringement, or if they have accepted the GPL, then they are violating the terms of the license.
Based on the fact that they distributed the binary without distributing the source? It's not even clear that has happened (all the author has said is that they "distributed it but refuse to make the source public". They don't have to make the source public. They just have to distribute it (or a written offer for it) whenever they distribute the code. And this assumes that their distribution is not available under some other means, such as first sale or fair use.
Even if they haven't done this, sure, they've committed a copyright violation, I suppose, but it's not clear how IBM, assuming they are not the ones to whom the binary was distributed, have any standing to bring a lawsuit against the company. IBM has not been harmed in any way by the companies alleged violation of the GPL.
The company has two options: they can either license their changes under the GPL, or they can distribute the original, unmodified program and a bunch of diffs. (Or not distribute it at all.)
Actually, they don't have to license their changes under the GPL, since they didn't make the changes, Daimaou did.
If they make a copy and distribute it, then they have to distribute the source or accompany it with a written offer, but they don't have to make the source public. If they distribute copies which they have already legally obtained, then they don't even have to do this, since they don't have to agree to the GPL in the first place (and are covered under first sale).
It seems to me it would be difficult for anyone to successfully sue anyone over this. Unless the company distributes the executable to IBM, it seems difficult for IBM to have any standing to bring suit against the company. If the company sues Daimaou, he has already set up his defense - he got verbal permission and explained that the code included the work of IBM. If Daimaou tries to sue the company, well, I'm sure there's a clause in his contract that any exceptions to the transfer must be in writing.
Of course, it's quite possible that the agreement itself is void. This would be dependent on a number of factors, and it's basically the only hope for Daimaou. But it would be a tough fight, and it seems unlikely Daimaou would have enough potential gain to bother.
Inconvenience other people? There's no law against inconveniencing people per se. And there are plenty of laws against doing things that don't inconvenience people.
Yes you can, always. Some people may claim you MAY not, due to the law.
*Yawn*
But these days the laws are being written by the corporation, for the corporation, and people should not feel any guilt for breaking such laws. In fact, it is the civic duty of the people to do so.
I wouldn't say it's the civic duty to do so. But for the most part I agree, except with your implication that this is a new thing.
I was under the impression that once I purchase something (be it a PS2, a torch, a computer, a book, etc) it becomes mine and I can do as I please with it.
No, see there are these things called laws, and just because you own something doesn't mean you can use it to break the law.
So he's afraid the govt is going to find out? And he thinks they're not going to find out anyway when they find either a) no hard drive or b) a wiped hard drive?
*it allows a hijacking website to replace pages belonging to target websites in the Search Engine Results Pages*
That's not what it does, though. At least, that's not what was done in the example. What was done in the example is allow a "hijacking website" to replace pages belonging to itself with content from the target website. SFW.
that's what it does. think about it for a while. sure they could have protection but at the time it seems they DO NOT.
What are you basing this on?
what it more likely happens if it isn't fixed is that advertisers start to pollute the results even more, eventually leading google to be useless.
Seems unlikely that this will be any more significant than the other ways to trick google. And like I said, I bet google has bots that don't announce themselves as googlebot just to check that someone isn't displaying different content to google than to regular users. If not, then they should, but not just for this exploit, for all the other more common ones.
How is this hijacking? How is this any different from me simply adding the text and title of the other page to my page? Sure, I can change the redirect later, or change it for anyone except for googlebot, but I can do that with the content just as easily (more easily, in fact).
Furthermore, I suspect google has at least a few bots which don't announce themselves as googlebots just to check for such discrepancies.
This is an attempt to get the online poker web sites to stop using that particular technique.
How, by threatening mutually assured destruction? Engaging in the same tactics just makes it harder for google to figure out who's legit and who isn't. And frankly, in this case, if I searched for "online poker" I'd rather find a place that actually offers online poker than some encyclopedia entry. If I wanted an encyclopedia entry I'd go to an encyclopedia, not to google.
Slashdot Mirror
unfortunately, it becomes complicated when trying to play with a real scrabble weeenie. it seems that the "scrabble dictionary" allows such "words" as "qwerty" and "ay".
I actually once used "qwertys" in a real game. Got challenged and everything. That was fun.
much prefer using a real dictionary, versus the "i managed to memorize 100 different iterations of two letter words, so i must be 'leet".
And then the goal becomes...memorizing which words aren't in the "real dictionary" you've chosen?
No, the layout of the board is a design - it is not copyrightable.
Design is not copyrightable? Where do you get this idea?
Dictionaries & word lists are definitely NOT copyrightable.
They are if they pick a creative selection.
Just like phone books are not copyrightable.
Read the Feist decision again. Phone books are not copyrightable per se, but if they employ a creative selection then they are copyrightable.
Check out a couple of dictionaries - they are all copyrighted by their individual publishers. They are not copyrighting the word list in them, but the specific formatting & layout.
They're copyrighting the selection, the formatting, the layout, the definitions themselves, many things.
Let's put it this way. Try putting the official scrabble dictionary list of word on your website and see when you get sued.
<hemos_> Alterslash is illegal.
And is violating copyright.
And unfortunately, under the way US copyright law works
they will probably get a cease and desist soon.
Becuase if we don't - then we give up the right to defend ourselves.
So, I don't want to be hostile
but because of the law, we have to.
So we can make the lawyers rich? No thanks. He's in a better position without the money. Then Hasbro has nothing to gain by suing him.
Well, they also call themselves the "Internet Scrabble Club". But then, it says at the bottom "SCRABBLE is a trademark of Hasbro in the United States and Canada. Scrabble rights elsewhere in the world are held by J.W. Spear and Sons, PLC." Maybe it is at least in part because they're outside the US.
Maybe since its called WordBiz that would save it. I sure would hate to see it go.
Me too. I haven't played online in a while but I used to play a lot and I'm sure I'll go through a few more periods of online scrabble addiction.
Really, is this any different than hosting a big 24/7 get together in some public park where people can come play Scrabble all they want?
Not really, of course, if you called it p-Scrabble, you'd probably get sued. If you made copies of the board game and handed them out, you'd definitely get sued.
What about the board? It seems scrabble could have a copyright on the layout of the board, for instance the locations of the triple word squares.
Other than that, I'm not sure what non-trivial stuff they could copyright. Maybe the number of tiles of a particular letter, but that's pretty borderline. Of course they can trademark and possible copyright the color schemes and stuff like that, but that's all trivially changed without changing the game itself.
Oh yeah, and the most definitely copyrightable part is the official dictionary. But it wouldn't be too horrible to use a game with an alternate dictionary.
What about Internet Scrabble Club? Are they safe because they're outside the US, licensed, or are they next?
You say that as though the two are mutually exclusive.
the grey goo issue is when self replicating machines go out of control and turn everything into copies of themselves
What I never understood about this is that turning everything into copies of itself would require infinite raw materials. If it's even possible, and I have my doubts about that, I feel that it'd require a really long period of time.
Of course, if you buy into the singularity theory maybe you'd say I'm just completely off base. But remember, not everything is knowable. Life itself places a limit on how intelligent you can be, and even how fast your intelligence can grow. One might even argue that if grey goo were possible it would have already happened by now.
I have always been interested in applying evolution to computer chips
You don't apply evolution. Evolution applies itself. If you apply it it isn't evolution, it's design.
Just because it is a public record doesn't mean it is easy to get.
You'd be surprised. Nowadays you can get a lot of this information right on the internet.
A person would have to find out where you were married, go there (or mail them), wait god knows how long, and MAYBE get something. Last time I checked most criminals were lazy, that is why they are criminals.
It only takes one criminal with your information to cause havoc. The fact of the matter is that one's social security number is not all that sensitive of information. It's certainly not any more sensitive than a bank account number, and just think of how many loonies have access to that.
I personally don't want my potential anniversary date posted online
Of all the pieces of information that were listed, I would think this would be the least controversial. After all, a wedding is a public event, and your anniversary is part of the public record.
Incidently, in most states your social security number is right there on your marriage license and is also part of the public record. So if you think it's a big deal for someone to get your SSN, think again.
The company is either committing copyright infringement, or if they have accepted the GPL, then they are violating the terms of the license.
Based on the fact that they distributed the binary without distributing the source? It's not even clear that has happened (all the author has said is that they "distributed it but refuse to make the source public". They don't have to make the source public. They just have to distribute it (or a written offer for it) whenever they distribute the code. And this assumes that their distribution is not available under some other means, such as first sale or fair use.
Even if they haven't done this, sure, they've committed a copyright violation, I suppose, but it's not clear how IBM, assuming they are not the ones to whom the binary was distributed, have any standing to bring a lawsuit against the company. IBM has not been harmed in any way by the companies alleged violation of the GPL.
The company has two options: they can either license their changes under the GPL, or they can distribute the original, unmodified program and a bunch of diffs. (Or not distribute it at all.)
Actually, they don't have to license their changes under the GPL, since they didn't make the changes, Daimaou did.
If they make a copy and distribute it, then they have to distribute the source or accompany it with a written offer, but they don't have to make the source public. If they distribute copies which they have already legally obtained, then they don't even have to do this, since they don't have to agree to the GPL in the first place (and are covered under first sale).
It seems to me it would be difficult for anyone to successfully sue anyone over this. Unless the company distributes the executable to IBM, it seems difficult for IBM to have any standing to bring suit against the company. If the company sues Daimaou, he has already set up his defense - he got verbal permission and explained that the code included the work of IBM. If Daimaou tries to sue the company, well, I'm sure there's a clause in his contract that any exceptions to the transfer must be in writing.
Of course, it's quite possible that the agreement itself is void. This would be dependent on a number of factors, and it's basically the only hope for Daimaou. But it would be a tough fight, and it seems unlikely Daimaou would have enough potential gain to bother.
Inconvenience other people? There's no law against inconveniencing people per se. And there are plenty of laws against doing things that don't inconvenience people.
Yes you can, always. Some people may claim you MAY not, due to the law.
*Yawn*
But these days the laws are being written by the corporation, for the corporation, and people should not feel any guilt for breaking such laws. In fact, it is the civic duty of the people to do so.
I wouldn't say it's the civic duty to do so. But for the most part I agree, except with your implication that this is a new thing.
I was under the impression that once I purchase something (be it a PS2, a torch, a computer, a book, etc) it becomes mine and I can do as I please with it.
No, see there are these things called laws, and just because you own something doesn't mean you can use it to break the law.
So he's afraid the govt is going to find out? And he thinks they're not going to find out anyway when they find either a) no hard drive or b) a wiped hard drive?
eh, any precedent would be country-specific anyway. and he ain't tellin' which country, for obvious reasons.
Obvious reasons? Like 'cause then it limits down his identity to one of a few million people?
Anyway, pick a country, doesn't matter if it's his or not. I'd be interested in hearing about it, because it's a strange legal situation.
If the police bug your car, do they still own the bug, or have they abandoned the property? Anyone know any precedent for that one?
you can switch any page (i.e. the page ranked #1 for 'online poker') with the URL of your choice
If so, then please switch the Microsoft homepage for Yahoo so that when I search for "Microsoft" I get the Yahoo page.
Otherwise, I don't believe you or TFA. The example in the article just showed that you can switch the content of a page you own. SFW.
*it allows a hijacking website to replace pages belonging to target websites in the Search Engine Results Pages*
That's not what it does, though. At least, that's not what was done in the example. What was done in the example is allow a "hijacking website" to replace pages belonging to itself with content from the target website. SFW.
that's what it does. think about it for a while. sure they could have protection but at the time it seems they DO NOT.
What are you basing this on?
what it more likely happens if it isn't fixed is that advertisers start to pollute the results even more, eventually leading google to be useless.
Seems unlikely that this will be any more significant than the other ways to trick google. And like I said, I bet google has bots that don't announce themselves as googlebot just to check that someone isn't displaying different content to google than to regular users. If not, then they should, but not just for this exploit, for all the other more common ones.
How is this hijacking? How is this any different from me simply adding the text and title of the other page to my page? Sure, I can change the redirect later, or change it for anyone except for googlebot, but I can do that with the content just as easily (more easily, in fact).
Furthermore, I suspect google has at least a few bots which don't announce themselves as googlebots just to check for such discrepancies.
This is an attempt to get the online poker web sites to stop using that particular technique.
How, by threatening mutually assured destruction? Engaging in the same tactics just makes it harder for google to figure out who's legit and who isn't. And frankly, in this case, if I searched for "online poker" I'd rather find a place that actually offers online poker than some encyclopedia entry. If I wanted an encyclopedia entry I'd go to an encyclopedia, not to google.