I just received my first cell phone (part of my new job), which has 4,289 ring tones built-in, 4,288 of which are horribly obnoxious. So one of my first impulses was to see if there was a way to download an arbitrary.WAV file to the phone and have it be used as the ring tone.
Strange. There doesn't seem to be a consistent way of doing this. And I kept bumping into Web sites offering catalogs of ring tones -- for a "nominal fee." I thought to myself, "Self, people can't possibly this gullible or lazy, can they?"
Now I'm starting to get the impression that the only way to download that data into the phone is to pay someone an outrageous sum to do it. Am I the only one who thinks this is fscked in the head? It may have a radio in it, but ultimately it's a computer, and getting data in/out of computers is supposed to be easy.
The e-rate program is a rip-off. The monies that are provided to schools for Internet access end up right back in the pockets of the ILECs, in the form of "discounted" network service rates. Dave Hughes raised the cry against this years ago when it was first proposed, claiming it was just a pork barrel for the telcos, but it wasn't on anyone else's radar back then.
If the schools instead had gone to wireless networking (entirely possible at the time, as Mr. Hughes proposed), the schools could have cut out the ILECs entirely and provided their own network infrastructure at lower cost. And it wouldn't have required a tax hike... excuse me, service fee to do it, either.
The following is an excerpt from a post I made to a mailing list, where this very subject came up for discussion:
...The moment you declare content of a particular type or nature as verboten is when you enter the realm of censorship. You must then analyze the motives of the censors very, very closely to try and find what their actual goals are.
In this case, it's ostensibly to, "protect children." (From what, is rarely made clear.) To that end, they propose to shield children from viewing violence against law enforcement officers. This would preclude a minor from buying a copy of Deus Ex, which I think would be an unacceptable side-effect. Deus Ex is almost eerily important and relevant today, and I feel would be a good game for a teenager to play, despite the fact that the player is expected to subdue UNATCO personnel who are, in the context of the game, law enforcement. [... ]
Micros~1 can afford to buy Patrick Stewart's smiling face to promote their products. What difficulty do you imagine they would have procuring any bombshell celebrity to populate their booths? "Hey, babe, do you really want that grimy Linux stuff? Here, have a look at Microsoft's new Windows-XXXP..."
This is a form of escalation we can't possibly win. Really. Don't go there...
When I first read about this phenomonon, I thought it sounded familiar to something some prankster did many years ago. Now, in this Age of Google, I have found the original article.
The article deals with the propogation of "memes" -- infectious ideas that take on a life of their own (e.g. "All your base..."). It discusses in particular how the author faced what he thought was a rather impudent question on his college admission form -- asking for his religion -- and, with his cheeky response, inadvertently started a meme. It also discusses how the meme was extinguished by the college administration.
The religious meme thing is about one-third of the way down, but I recommend reading the whole article. It's a good read.
Verizon is obviously not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Even the telecomm analyst says this could be a, "moneymaker." Yet conspicuously absent from the press release is any discussion of pricing.
Is there any word on how much they expect to charge for this? How the billing will be performed? Can you use your laptop as-is, or will you be required to install some custom software (almost certainly Windoze-only)?
Do you get the same problems with non encrypted transfers as 50kbytes/sec is the kind of speeds I was seeing with a full/half duplex mismatch between my desktop machine and the switch.
No. Unencrypted transfers via vanilla FTP happen very quickly -- about 800-900K bytes/sec. The laptop is using an old PCMCIA network adapter (NE2000-compatible, 10base-T media), plugged into a 10/100 switch. The collision lights are inactive during transfers.
I'll admit my speeds are using blowfish and no compression, but if speed is what you want, those are the settings you should use.
I tried your suggested settings using PuTTY 0.53b, connecting to my laptop running OpenSSH 3.4p1 on Debian. I got about a 50% speed improvement, up to about 78KB/sec. Still darned slow.
What kind of configuration are you using that you can only get such horrid speeds? Are you using compression -9 and 3des encryption as your only encryption option?
On the client (PuTTY/PSCP 0.53b):
Preferred protocol 2.
Compression off.
Port forwarding off.
All bug compatibility options set to "Auto".
On the laptop server, I'm pretty much running Debian's defaults, which I won't copy out here. Some highlights:
Privilege separation on.
Protocol 2,1.
Server key bits 768.
X11 forwarding off.
The laptop is an HP Omnibook 800CT, but I don't think that should matter. Clearly something is amiss...
Thanks for the feedback. Feel free to offer more if you're of a mind to do so.
I have a dinky little 166MHz Pentium laptop which is parked on my (wired) LAN 99% of the time. Depending on file content, file transmission over sftp or scp happens at about 55K bytes/sec. This is glacial (one-third the speed of a 1X CD-ROM drive). The problem is the time spent encrypting the data for transmission -- a 166 MHz Pentium just can't crank it out much faster.
FTP has no encryption step, so file transfers happen at line speed. Of course, FTP has almost no security measures at all, transmitting passwords in the clear. However, for moving files among machines on my switched LAN (as opposed to the Internet), I see this as less of an issue.
Ideally, I'd like sftp and scp to have the (obviously non-default) option of using secure authentication (encrypted passwords, etc.), but transfer the files themselves in the clear. I believe this would be useful in a wired LAN setting with anemic machines where the file contents are not considered sensitive (uploading MP3s and Vorbis files to your home jukebox, for instance). ssh does have the option of turning session encryption off, but it's a compile-time option none of the distros enable.
Of course, in a wireless "LAN" setting, all the bets are off, and encryption should be de rigueur.
Except that when they sell those products in a retail marketplace, they no longer can reasonably expect to maintain any secrets those products may contain, especially in light of the fact that there is no contract binding the customer to keep those secrets. Companies examine their competitors' products all the time. You think Sony just sits there contemplating its navel? No, they're out there buying their competitors' products, tearing them apart, and using that knowledge to improve their own products. This isn't some weird, occult activity practiced in SubGenius rituals or something -- this is normal. Software vendors have no right to expect different treatment.
...And before you start waving that "license" around like it's Magna Carta, EULAs are horsesh*t. If it smells like a sale and looks like a sale and walks like a sale, then it's a sale regardless of what that (unsigned) piece of paper says.
If someone is showing porn involving a minor, he'll be prosecuted. Failing that, he'll be blocked.
"Failing that?" Either they're disseminating unlawful material, or they're not. If the AG has enough evidence to arrest and prosecute, then they should arrest and prosecute, or provide their evidence to the agency that can arrest and prosecute. There is no provision for "failing that" anywhere in the process. Pawning this responsibility off onto private ISPs smacks of an inexcusable level of laziness.
Child pornographers should be given no quarter, but there are certain rules that are to be observed, no matter how personally repugnant we may find the alleged offender(s). Yes, child pornographers should be smacked down hard -- but prove it first.
Does that mean that I can buy one copy of Microsoft NT, and install it on all 32 nodes of my Beowulf cluster?
Nice try.
There's a difference between restrictions imposed by a vendor and restrictions imposed by the government. Right now, the government, in the form of copyright law, says you can't do that.
As it happens, because computers make it so easy to copy things, and because I see this form of infinite abundance as an overall Good Thing, I believe copyright needs to be fundamentally re-examined so that it can meaningfully exist in the modern world and the world to come. But for the time being, I pay for my software.
Well, here's a message for you: [your computer is] shared with all the people who write software for your computer. That's right, software has owners and when their software is on your computer they think they should have a say over how it is controlled.
They are wrong.
My home is "shared" with a Nerf arrow launcher, a Sonicare toothbrush, a Panasonic TV set, and a Revere tea kettle (among other things). Neither Nerf, Sonicare, Panasonic, or Revere have the right to enter my home and tell me how I can or can't use these articles. Why? Because they gave up all rights and claims to those articles when they sold them to me.
Yet, somehow, software vendors have gotten it into their minds that they not only have the right to impose constraints and restrictions on their customers post-sale, they think this is normal, even a positive thing. They are utterly incapable of seeing the yawning inconsistency between what they claim is happening (a "license" to use the software) and what is actually happening (a cash-for-goods sale).
If we were to presume the software vendors are correct in their beliefs -- if we were to accept that a retail marketplace seller can impose restrictions on a buyer with little more than a shrinkwrap "agreement" -- then lawful innovation becomes impossible. The TV show Junkyard Wars would be illegal, as all the articles in that junkyard would have been obtained under contractual restrictions forbidding their use for anything other than what the vendor deemed proper. Using an old camping tent as a parachute for your rocket would land you in prison, because the vendor only granted permission for it to be used for outdoor camping activities. Likewise, using the Unreal engine as a basis for architectural walk-through simulations would get you carted away.
Thus, the analogy must be deemed to fail. There is no "sharing" going on here, because the software was sold to end users. Once sold, the end user gets final say over how it's used. Any other interpretation raises caveat emptor to unreasonable levels. I should not have to take Lawrence Lessig with me every time I go shopping at Fry's.
Besides, the computer industry got plenty vigorous and prosperous without these restrictions. No one has yet presented a convincing argument why that should change.
A sale isn't a sale if the person buying the item for sale AGREES TO A CONTRACT!!!! [... ] If I make you sign a contract that says you must not do X, and that you are liable for civil penalties (or even criminal if the contract provisions are worded properly) if you do X, and you agree to it, you ARE subject to this penalties if you violate it. [... ]
I agree. Signed contracts are an important component of modern society, and should be observed and enforced. This is why I try to carefully read everything I sign (I nearly lost out on a job interview because there were onerous terms in the company's NDA I wouldn't agree to).
The stupid clicking "I agree" and onscreen agreements in tiny text is not a very enforcable contract.
Here we also mostly agree, although I would go rather farther and state that EULAs are wholly invalid, precisely because of the dodgy legal mechanisms used to try and impose them. See my lengthy editorial for a more complete discussion of my thoughts here.
I sugest making buyers of Palladium equipped hardware sign a paper contract, with a carbon copy of the contract and their signature kept by the buyer. Just like buying anything else with strings attached, like a house or car. If you read the fine print when you bought that house or car, you DID agree to restrictions on your use of it.
I think this is a splendid way to address the issue, and would support this implementation in the marketplace.
I am positive you don't have the rights to do anything you want with your horse or buggy, either. I bet you can't "mod" the wheels so that it is unsafe, nor use certain whips, nor abuse your horse.
I hope you will agree there is a distinction between restrictions coming from the government (imposed and enforced by law) and restrictions coming from the vendor (imposed by words in the manual and enforced by wishful thinking). Absent a legitimate contract -- and I do not accept EULAs as legitimate -- the vendor really has no realistic standing from which to impose restrictions on the buyer.
Prior to the DMCA -- which many people are working to have struck down -- vendors had no recourse against people who cracked through cryptosystems or removed copy protection schemes. Despite this, the computer and software industries grew from nothing to become one of the pre-eminent economic activity centers of the western world. So I hope you'll understand if I view the stated "need" for these restrictions with a lot of skepticism.
There can be absolutely no doubt whatsover that content creators will NOT be compensated as much as they would have been if their creations can be freely copied.
On the contrary: this assertion is very much in doubt. I fundamentally question the assumptions and methodologies that have led to preposterous claims of billions of dollars lost to unsanctioned copying. I feel my skepticism is bolstered when one also considers these "studies" have all been industry-conducted and never subjected to independent analysis.
(At least, that's how I take your meaning -- the (mis)placement of modifiers make your sentence somewhat ambiguous.)
Your "not distribute data" analogy falls apart instantly right here : the content creators have to distribute data to paying customers : they inherently HAVE to trust the clients.
Incorrect; my analogy is sound. It is the content creators' business model that falls apart instantly right here.
Further Analogy: Everyone needs water. You could make a killing selling water to people. But there's a problem with your plans: Rain. No problem! Follow this simple plan:
Complain bitterly and shrilly in uncritical fora (TV news, paid magazine ads, etc.) that people who collect rain are "stealing" from you,
Purchase the passage of a law forbidding the collection of rain,
Profit! (Sorry.)
You see the point I'm trying to make here? We basically have a bunch of people complaining that they could make metric buttloads of money if only reality would stop interefering with their plans. As such, it's really difficult for me to see this kind of behavior as anything other than childish.
Yes, someone COULD physically hack this chip, but they would CLEARLY be committing a crime.
Absent the widely- and correctly-reviled DMCA, how does this follow?
...this is prosecuting someone who cut apart a specific chip with the intent to steal specific information, with specialized hardware. [Emphasis mine.]
You sold me the box, and all the chips in it. That means you gave up all rights and claims on the box when you took my money. Your right to bitch about what I do with the box after that is at an end.
But even if you buy the delusional New Thinking that says a sale isn't really a sale, the question must still be asked: Why are you making available information you don't want scrutinized? Clearly you see these crypto keys as very valuable -- so valuable, in fact, that you feel strongly that people should be tossed in prison for decades for misappropriating them. Yet you're selling them to any random passer-by who has the money. Hell, you're not even performing background checks.
You claim you have valuable data, yet you freely distribute it. This inconsistency undermines your position, not to mention your credibility. Adopting a more consistent position (e.g. Trusted Client doesn't work) will lead to more consistent and sustainable business models.
I'm sorry, but none of these arguments stand scrutiny.
Anyway, there are some notable advantages to a system like Palladium. Theoretically, it could enable certain types of applications that aren't possible today which involve trusting the client. [... ]
Repeat after me: The "Trusted Client" Model Does Not Work. Ever.
For the Trusted Client model to work, the client must be uncrackable. Turing indirectly proved this is impossible. Therefore, anything proceeding from this assumption is bogus, because it is all based on a false premise. Palladium, or whatever they're calling it this week, will be cracked.
So, if you want to be thought of as a Mature, Responsble, Adult Digital Engineer, you accept that Trusted Client doesn't work, and design your systems and applications accordingly.
Yes in theory SOME types of remote hacking exploits could be stopped. Network applications would now only process messages that are signed by code that your palladium chip certifies as meeting certain criteria. This could make it possible for a microsoft server app to only even look at messages sent by a microsoft client app, preventing many hacks.
Uh, no.
The client has a static key. Crack that key, and a work-alike client (from the server's point of view) is now possible. Example fails.
If you hand out a different key to each user, then you're no longer performing client authentication, but user authentication, which is a different problem space, and does nothing to solve the trusted client "problem".
This means the application could have secret information in it that needs to be hidden from the end user.
This kind of thinking really gets my back up. If you don't want me to look at your precious data, don't put it on my machine. A Man's Computer Is His Castle, and he will do whatever he damn well pleases with it, and all the data on it. If you accept that principle and design accordingly, you have a much easier time of protecting "your" data.
For instance, the application could be a movie player that decrypts a spiffy new high definition format which is capable of encoding 1080p digital movie quality video, copied byte for byte straight from the version used in theaters.
If you don't want theater-quality data in the hands of consumers, don't ship them theater-quality data.
It could be an online gaming client that to run efficiently must have certain information protected from access and tampering(coordinates of other players, your crosshair location, the current state of the world physics system, objects occluded from view, and many many more). [... ]
If you don't want clients/users making use of certain data, don't send them that data.
And yes, it could be a document viewer that reads encrypted documents. The document files themselves might contain more information than the author wants revealed, [... ]
Then don't send them that information!
Really. It's that simple.
...I believe that this has the potential to be a killer app.
Yes, it does. But not in the way you believe.
Surely it is cheaper to not distrubute data than to distribute it and expect every machine in the world to not look at it. Personally, I refuse to abide anyone crippling my computer simply so they can be lazy about data distribution. There is a more mature, responsible, adult approach to the problems described.
We need the ISPs to work WITH the spammers ( or vice cersa). Make it trvial to filter, and only send it once. Give everybody a shared "Spam box", as place to go and see if they really need to acclerate their dialup to new levels, or a vacation, or whatever [... ]
Hmm. Interesting. The "shared mailbox" you describe already exists, and is called a newsgroup.
If all unsolicited ads were deposited into a single newsgroup, and my ISP sent me a single email summarizing the day's posts to that group (which doesn't need to be more than a listing of all the Subject: lines), I think that might be something I could live with.
I loathe and despise spam, and wouldn't turn away the opportunity to corner a spammer in a dark alley, me with my five-foot cocobolo staff and him with fear in his eyes... Er, I digress. But at the same time, spam has a certain fascination -- sort of a cross between anthropology and a train wreck. You can't look away, because you just can't believe people could be this stupid.
So if there were a centralized place spam could exist without harming anyone but still be available for viewing -- rather like animals kept in a zoo -- I think I could live with that.
I was reading about TRON in Byte Magazine in the mid-1980's. This almost certainly pre-dates anything Mentor has done, much less registered.
Schwab
Better Throw In Some Bounce
on
Clear Case Roundup
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What about static electricity? Acrylic just loves to build up static. Even small amounts of static electricity, too small to be felt by human touch, will still turn expensive, delicate chips into expensive sand.
Yeah, they're pretty, but it looks like they'll probably also shorten the life of your 1337 g4m1n6 r1g.
I know you have a zillion more important things to worry about, but have you ever considered filing suit against these choads?
Since they failed to perform due dilligence to determine that the file was actually available, and that your subnet was actually hosting it, then their good-faith claims as required under the DMCA are manfiestly false. Since they have done this multiple times (you saved copies of the previous extortion threats, didn't you?), this can't be excused as a simple mistake, but is instead of pattern of abusive, bad-faith behavior. This should be actionable and, with a good attorney, should be a slam-dunk.
Microsoft merely states that they do not send any PERSONAL information. As I see it, having them receive an inventory of what is installed on the machines helps greatly with statistical analysis for errata. If they send data about whats installed but you're anonymous, what difference does it make? Its not like they're tracking webclicks or personal information.
Right-click on My Computer; select Properties.
See that ID code there? That's your system's unique registration code. It gets sent to Microsoft every time you run Windoze Update. That, together with your IP number and a DMCA Blackmail Request to your ISP will yield your personal information.
As for gathering statistical data on which apps blow chunks, they could try asking nicely for it instead of taking it from you.
I hope you would agree that the procedures and rules that apply at your workplace are highly unusual, and that it would be a bad idea to try and apply them to the general public.
This is not some one-off facility, targeted toward a very narrow market segment. This is something Micros~1 is going to cram in to every copy of Windows. It will appear in every new computer shipped, whether it is appropriate for it to be there or not.
Slashdot Mirror
You're expected to pay for ring tones?
I just received my first cell phone (part of my new job), which has 4,289 ring tones built-in, 4,288 of which are horribly obnoxious. So one of my first impulses was to see if there was a way to download an arbitrary .WAV file to the phone and have it be used as the ring tone.
Strange. There doesn't seem to be a consistent way of doing this. And I kept bumping into Web sites offering catalogs of ring tones -- for a "nominal fee." I thought to myself, "Self, people can't possibly this gullible or lazy, can they?"
Now I'm starting to get the impression that the only way to download that data into the phone is to pay someone an outrageous sum to do it. Am I the only one who thinks this is fscked in the head? It may have a radio in it, but ultimately it's a computer, and getting data in/out of computers is supposed to be easy.
Who organized this? Have they caught him yet?
Schwab
The e-rate program is a rip-off. The monies that are provided to schools for Internet access end up right back in the pockets of the ILECs, in the form of "discounted" network service rates. Dave Hughes raised the cry against this years ago when it was first proposed, claiming it was just a pork barrel for the telcos, but it wasn't on anyone else's radar back then.
If the schools instead had gone to wireless networking (entirely possible at the time, as Mr. Hughes proposed), the schools could have cut out the ILECs entirely and provided their own network infrastructure at lower cost. And it wouldn't have required a tax hike... excuse me, service fee to do it, either.
Schwab
That's a violation of your End-User License Agreement and the DMCA.
Please lie face down on the ground, with your legs and arms apart. BSA agents will be arriving shortly to take you into custody.
Schwab
The following is an excerpt from a post I made to a mailing list, where this very subject came up for discussion:
Schwab
You don't want to go there. Really.
Micros~1 can afford to buy Patrick Stewart's smiling face to promote their products. What difficulty do you imagine they would have procuring any bombshell celebrity to populate their booths? "Hey, babe, do you really want that grimy Linux stuff? Here, have a look at Microsoft's new Windows-XXXP..."
This is a form of escalation we can't possibly win. Really. Don't go there...
Schwab
When I first read about this phenomonon, I thought it sounded familiar to something some prankster did many years ago. Now, in this Age of Google, I have found the original article.
The article deals with the propogation of "memes" -- infectious ideas that take on a life of their own (e.g. "All your base..."). It discusses in particular how the author faced what he thought was a rather impudent question on his college admission form -- asking for his religion -- and, with his cheeky response, inadvertently started a meme. It also discusses how the meme was extinguished by the college administration.
The religious meme thing is about one-third of the way down, but I recommend reading the whole article. It's a good read.
Schwab
Well, he worked for NewTek promoting the Toaster. I don't think he worked on the Toaster itself.
Not anymore. Read here to find out why.
Arena is now hosted by a smug Brit and a jarhead -- not that I have any strong feelings about it or anything...
Schwab
Verizon is obviously not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Even the telecomm analyst says this could be a, "moneymaker." Yet conspicuously absent from the press release is any discussion of pricing.
Is there any word on how much they expect to charge for this? How the billing will be performed? Can you use your laptop as-is, or will you be required to install some custom software (almost certainly Windoze-only)?
Schwab
No. Unencrypted transfers via vanilla FTP happen very quickly -- about 800-900K bytes/sec. The laptop is using an old PCMCIA network adapter (NE2000-compatible, 10base-T media), plugged into a 10/100 switch. The collision lights are inactive during transfers.
Schwab
I tried your suggested settings using PuTTY 0.53b, connecting to my laptop running OpenSSH 3.4p1 on Debian. I got about a 50% speed improvement, up to about 78KB/sec. Still darned slow.
On the client (PuTTY/PSCP 0.53b):
On the laptop server, I'm pretty much running Debian's defaults, which I won't copy out here. Some highlights:
The laptop is an HP Omnibook 800CT, but I don't think that should matter. Clearly something is amiss...
Thanks for the feedback. Feel free to offer more if you're of a mind to do so.
Schwab
I have a dinky little 166MHz Pentium laptop which is parked on my (wired) LAN 99% of the time. Depending on file content, file transmission over sftp or scp happens at about 55K bytes/sec. This is glacial (one-third the speed of a 1X CD-ROM drive). The problem is the time spent encrypting the data for transmission -- a 166 MHz Pentium just can't crank it out much faster.
FTP has no encryption step, so file transfers happen at line speed. Of course, FTP has almost no security measures at all, transmitting passwords in the clear. However, for moving files among machines on my switched LAN (as opposed to the Internet), I see this as less of an issue.
Ideally, I'd like sftp and scp to have the (obviously non-default) option of using secure authentication (encrypted passwords, etc.), but transfer the files themselves in the clear. I believe this would be useful in a wired LAN setting with anemic machines where the file contents are not considered sensitive (uploading MP3s and Vorbis files to your home jukebox, for instance). ssh does have the option of turning session encryption off, but it's a compile-time option none of the distros enable.
Of course, in a wireless "LAN" setting, all the bets are off, and encryption should be de rigueur.
Schwab
Except that when they sell those products in a retail marketplace, they no longer can reasonably expect to maintain any secrets those products may contain, especially in light of the fact that there is no contract binding the customer to keep those secrets. Companies examine their competitors' products all the time. You think Sony just sits there contemplating its navel? No, they're out there buying their competitors' products, tearing them apart, and using that knowledge to improve their own products. This isn't some weird, occult activity practiced in SubGenius rituals or something -- this is normal. Software vendors have no right to expect different treatment.
...And before you start waving that "license" around like it's Magna Carta, EULAs are horsesh*t. If it smells like a sale and looks like a sale and walks like a sale, then it's a sale regardless of what that (unsigned) piece of paper says.
Schwab
"Failing that?" Either they're disseminating unlawful material, or they're not. If the AG has enough evidence to arrest and prosecute, then they should arrest and prosecute, or provide their evidence to the agency that can arrest and prosecute. There is no provision for "failing that" anywhere in the process. Pawning this responsibility off onto private ISPs smacks of an inexcusable level of laziness.
Child pornographers should be given no quarter, but there are certain rules that are to be observed, no matter how personally repugnant we may find the alleged offender(s). Yes, child pornographers should be smacked down hard -- but prove it first.
Schwab
What's the Norwegian for, "Amicus Curiae?"
Schwab
Nice try.
There's a difference between restrictions imposed by a vendor and restrictions imposed by the government. Right now, the government, in the form of copyright law, says you can't do that.
As it happens, because computers make it so easy to copy things, and because I see this form of infinite abundance as an overall Good Thing, I believe copyright needs to be fundamentally re-examined so that it can meaningfully exist in the modern world and the world to come. But for the time being, I pay for my software.
Schwab
They are wrong.
My home is "shared" with a Nerf arrow launcher, a Sonicare toothbrush, a Panasonic TV set, and a Revere tea kettle (among other things). Neither Nerf, Sonicare, Panasonic, or Revere have the right to enter my home and tell me how I can or can't use these articles. Why? Because they gave up all rights and claims to those articles when they sold them to me.
Yet, somehow, software vendors have gotten it into their minds that they not only have the right to impose constraints and restrictions on their customers post-sale, they think this is normal, even a positive thing. They are utterly incapable of seeing the yawning inconsistency between what they claim is happening (a "license" to use the software) and what is actually happening (a cash-for-goods sale).
If we were to presume the software vendors are correct in their beliefs -- if we were to accept that a retail marketplace seller can impose restrictions on a buyer with little more than a shrinkwrap "agreement" -- then lawful innovation becomes impossible. The TV show Junkyard Wars would be illegal, as all the articles in that junkyard would have been obtained under contractual restrictions forbidding their use for anything other than what the vendor deemed proper. Using an old camping tent as a parachute for your rocket would land you in prison, because the vendor only granted permission for it to be used for outdoor camping activities. Likewise, using the Unreal engine as a basis for architectural walk-through simulations would get you carted away.
Thus, the analogy must be deemed to fail. There is no "sharing" going on here, because the software was sold to end users. Once sold, the end user gets final say over how it's used. Any other interpretation raises caveat emptor to unreasonable levels. I should not have to take Lawrence Lessig with me every time I go shopping at Fry's.
Besides, the computer industry got plenty vigorous and prosperous without these restrictions. No one has yet presented a convincing argument why that should change.
Schwab
Actually, it seems we are very much in agreement.
I agree. Signed contracts are an important component of modern society, and should be observed and enforced. This is why I try to carefully read everything I sign (I nearly lost out on a job interview because there were onerous terms in the company's NDA I wouldn't agree to).
Here we also mostly agree, although I would go rather farther and state that EULAs are wholly invalid, precisely because of the dodgy legal mechanisms used to try and impose them. See my lengthy editorial for a more complete discussion of my thoughts here.
I think this is a splendid way to address the issue, and would support this implementation in the marketplace.
I hope you will agree there is a distinction between restrictions coming from the government (imposed and enforced by law) and restrictions coming from the vendor (imposed by words in the manual and enforced by wishful thinking). Absent a legitimate contract -- and I do not accept EULAs as legitimate -- the vendor really has no realistic standing from which to impose restrictions on the buyer.
Prior to the DMCA -- which many people are working to have struck down -- vendors had no recourse against people who cracked through cryptosystems or removed copy protection schemes. Despite this, the computer and software industries grew from nothing to become one of the pre-eminent economic activity centers of the western world. So I hope you'll understand if I view the stated "need" for these restrictions with a lot of skepticism.
Schwab
Sorry, the arguments still do not stand scrutiny.
On the contrary: this assertion is very much in doubt. I fundamentally question the assumptions and methodologies that have led to preposterous claims of billions of dollars lost to unsanctioned copying. I feel my skepticism is bolstered when one also considers these "studies" have all been industry-conducted and never subjected to independent analysis.
(At least, that's how I take your meaning -- the (mis)placement of modifiers make your sentence somewhat ambiguous.)
Incorrect; my analogy is sound. It is the content creators' business model that falls apart instantly right here.
Further Analogy: Everyone needs water. You could make a killing selling water to people. But there's a problem with your plans: Rain. No problem! Follow this simple plan:
You see the point I'm trying to make here? We basically have a bunch of people complaining that they could make metric buttloads of money if only reality would stop interefering with their plans. As such, it's really difficult for me to see this kind of behavior as anything other than childish.
Absent the widely- and correctly-reviled DMCA, how does this follow?
You sold me the box, and all the chips in it. That means you gave up all rights and claims on the box when you took my money. Your right to bitch about what I do with the box after that is at an end.
But even if you buy the delusional New Thinking that says a sale isn't really a sale, the question must still be asked: Why are you making available information you don't want scrutinized? Clearly you see these crypto keys as very valuable -- so valuable, in fact, that you feel strongly that people should be tossed in prison for decades for misappropriating them. Yet you're selling them to any random passer-by who has the money. Hell, you're not even performing background checks.
You claim you have valuable data, yet you freely distribute it. This inconsistency undermines your position, not to mention your credibility. Adopting a more consistent position (e.g. Trusted Client doesn't work) will lead to more consistent and sustainable business models.
Schwab
I'm sorry, but none of these arguments stand scrutiny.
Repeat after me: The "Trusted Client" Model Does Not Work. Ever.
For the Trusted Client model to work, the client must be uncrackable. Turing indirectly proved this is impossible. Therefore, anything proceeding from this assumption is bogus, because it is all based on a false premise. Palladium, or whatever they're calling it this week, will be cracked.
So, if you want to be thought of as a Mature, Responsble, Adult Digital Engineer, you accept that Trusted Client doesn't work, and design your systems and applications accordingly.
Uh, no.
The client has a static key. Crack that key, and a work-alike client (from the server's point of view) is now possible. Example fails.
If you hand out a different key to each user, then you're no longer performing client authentication, but user authentication, which is a different problem space, and does nothing to solve the trusted client "problem".
This kind of thinking really gets my back up. If you don't want me to look at your precious data, don't put it on my machine. A Man's Computer Is His Castle, and he will do whatever he damn well pleases with it, and all the data on it. If you accept that principle and design accordingly, you have a much easier time of protecting "your" data.
If you don't want theater-quality data in the hands of consumers, don't ship them theater-quality data.
If you don't want clients/users making use of certain data, don't send them that data.
Then don't send them that information!
Really. It's that simple.
Yes, it does. But not in the way you believe.
Surely it is cheaper to not distrubute data than to distribute it and expect every machine in the world to not look at it. Personally, I refuse to abide anyone crippling my computer simply so they can be lazy about data distribution. There is a more mature, responsible, adult approach to the problems described.
Schwab
Hmm. Interesting. The "shared mailbox" you describe already exists, and is called a newsgroup.
If all unsolicited ads were deposited into a single newsgroup, and my ISP sent me a single email summarizing the day's posts to that group (which doesn't need to be more than a listing of all the Subject: lines), I think that might be something I could live with.
I loathe and despise spam, and wouldn't turn away the opportunity to corner a spammer in a dark alley, me with my five-foot cocobolo staff and him with fear in his eyes... Er, I digress. But at the same time, spam has a certain fascination -- sort of a cross between anthropology and a train wreck. You can't look away, because you just can't believe people could be this stupid.
So if there were a centralized place spam could exist without harming anyone but still be available for viewing -- rather like animals kept in a zoo -- I think I could live with that.
Schwab
I was reading about TRON in Byte Magazine in the mid-1980's. This almost certainly pre-dates anything Mentor has done, much less registered.
Schwab
What about static electricity? Acrylic just loves to build up static. Even small amounts of static electricity, too small to be felt by human touch, will still turn expensive, delicate chips into expensive sand.
Yeah, they're pretty, but it looks like they'll probably also shorten the life of your 1337 g4m1n6 r1g.
Schwab
I know you have a zillion more important things to worry about, but have you ever considered filing suit against these choads?
Since they failed to perform due dilligence to determine that the file was actually available, and that your subnet was actually hosting it, then their good-faith claims as required under the DMCA are manfiestly false. Since they have done this multiple times (you saved copies of the previous extortion threats, didn't you?), this can't be excused as a simple mistake, but is instead of pattern of abusive, bad-faith behavior. This should be actionable and, with a good attorney, should be a slam-dunk.
Schwab
Right-click on My Computer; select Properties.
See that ID code there? That's your system's unique registration code. It gets sent to Microsoft every time you run Windoze Update. That, together with your IP number and a DMCA Blackmail Request to your ISP will yield your personal information.
As for gathering statistical data on which apps blow chunks, they could try asking nicely for it instead of taking it from you.
Schwab
I hope you would agree that the procedures and rules that apply at your workplace are highly unusual, and that it would be a bad idea to try and apply them to the general public.
This is not some one-off facility, targeted toward a very narrow market segment. This is something Micros~1 is going to cram in to every copy of Windows. It will appear in every new computer shipped, whether it is appropriate for it to be there or not.
Schwab