Dont forget bootable cds like BartPE which can run a "pre-install" version of windows that boots on a cd. Throw a tool to check file sigs like you say, and you are set. Since its actually windows, it has no problem handling NTFS file systems. Since it boots from cd, you dont actually run anything on the infected machine.
You dont. Its a new Service Pack for office (which is free obviously). A company I work for got a letter about this requesting that any new installs of office be sure and have the latest service pack, or else you'd be in violation of the volume liscense agreement. In other words, non-compliance is now going to be the fault of the small businesses that MS audits, not the fault of MS.
Dont forget, every time there's a major graphics engine release (like when they went to UT and then I thnk ut2k4 engines) they redo the game practically from scratch. So maybe they will have 2 or 3 year old gameplay instead of 10 year old gameplay. Of course, by the time its released in 5 years, it probably will have 5+ year old gameplay.
Did any of the above actually make any sense? It doesn't now that I finished and read over it again.
Only problem is, last I checked, there was no artist that had a record of ever being paid the compensation from this thing. From what I can tell, RIAA is just keeping all the money themselves.
Anyone actually RTFA? They are saying that China is #5 in piracy loss, behind SPAIN!! I call BS. I can't walk out in the streets of my city and buy pirated dvd movies. But yet whenever I ask any of my asian friends who have been to china, they are always talking about how they are on every single street corner over there. For 50 cents or whatever.
But you could just get a normal 3.5" drive and shove it in a USB case.
For that matter, you could have one 160 gig laptop drive inside, and one outside in a USB case, sometimes laptop hdds dont need externally powered USB cases, they can be powered by the USB port. And they are pretty tiny and easy to carry. Using two 160 gig drives would be over your 250 gig desire:)
This is boring, set up an array of 14 petaboxes and you have the same thing.
http://www.archive.org/web/petabox.php
Nothing new here, except maybe using 500gig drives to do so. WOW what an idea!
You are mixing up two things (and perhaps I did too, though I thought I spelled them out).
1) The family copyright act thing was signed into law last year, I quoted from some of that. 2) the H.R.4077 from which I was quoting is NOT law. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.0 4077: "Latest Major Action: 9/29/2004 Received in the Senate." Which incidentally confirms what the article linked by this story says: "The provisions were included in H.R. 4077 as passed by the House."
But this new proposal (which again has NOT passed into law): H.R. 2391 The Intellectual Property Protection Act Includes elements from all the bills listed in the article, INCLUDING H.R.4077.
So your quote"Get it through your thick, thick head: this became the law of the land LAST YEAR. It's done. It is not a bill, it is not something that might be signed into law, it is signed, and it is the law, right now. Has been for a while." Is not correct. At least not in reference to that portion of what I was actually talking about, which was the proposed legislation HR4077 that exempts ad skipping from being infringment.
Quote from you: "And you know what I don't recall? I don't recall lawsuits around ad skipping buttons. In fact, as a copyright lawyer, who knows more about copyright law than you ever will, I don't even see how that would be possible." Your expert legal copyright career must have been pretty short up to this point. Starting around 2003 or 2004 perhaps, so you missed the sonicblue/replaytv lawsuit?
Lets pick a couple hits from google regarding sonicblue (original owners of replayTV driven into bankruptcy) http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-1015121.html "The company said its upcoming ReplayTV 5500 boxes, which are expected to be released in August, will not contain the Send Show and Automatic Commercial Advance tools as the company tries to "address the concerns of copyright holders."" "Two years ago, the major movie studios and TV networks filed a lawsuit against Sonicblue, which at the time owned ReplayTV."
The exact name (if you want to do more specific research): Paramount Pictures v. SonicBlue
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/Paramount_v_ReplayTV/2 0011031_complaint.html There's the complaint. Since you said "I don't recall lawsuits around ad skipping buttons. In fact, as a copyright lawyer, who knows more about copyright law than you ever will, I don't even see how that would be possible." Well here's how its possible, quotes from the complaint: "Defendants' unlawful scheme attacks the fundamental economic underpinnings of free television and basic nonbroadcast services and, hence, the means by which plaintiffs' copyrighted works are paid for. Advertisers will not pay to have their advertisements placed within television programming delivered to viewers when the advertisements will be invisible to those viewers. In effect, by eliminating the embedded advertising, defendants' copying-and-commercial-deletion feature will (as to those viewers who employ the feature) eliminate the source of payment to the copyright owner for the very program being viewed." "For subscription television program services that depend in part on advertising revenues, use of the AutoSkip feature has the same effect. In both cases, the AutoSkip feature would fundamentally and inevitably erode the means by which copyright owners are paid for their works and hence the value of the programming they create."
Are you aware that the text you so fondly claim to have read of the bill passed and signed also contains things like: 1) Using any kind of audiovisual recording device, such as a cell phone camera, inside a movie theatre, even if its to take a quick snapshot, is illigal? And that you can get 3 years in jail for it? 2) As well, theatre operators/employees can detain and interrogate you and are made IMMUNE from federal and criminal lawsuits if they do so? 3) Having certain types of movies on your computer can get you jail time, even if you never share or distribute those?
If you cant find the specific text I'm referring to, lemme know and I'll quote it. Ok thats all from the already signed into law bill. Now lets move on.
First lets check some of the text of the current law, "Section 110 of title 17, United States Code"
"the following are not infringements of copyright:" Ok got it, these are copyright exclusions. Now lets see the text of the family copyright thing: "Exemption From Trademark Infringement" Ok, so this is about exclusions from trademarks as well.
Ok next, some specific text: "the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture" Ok, it applies to a private house watching a legit copy. Who else does it apply to? "or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household" Ok so it applies to anyone who creates such technology as well. Lets see what else we can learn. "A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible as described in subparagraph (A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for a violation of any right under this Act" Ok, if you make such technology (that makes parts of a movie imperceptable), you aren't liable. But wait: "The limitations on liability in subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall not apply to a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that fails to comply with this paragraph." Ok so you CAN be liable if you dont comply with that paragraph (which currently says you have to have a notice saying this differs from the original movie).
So thats it for the already signed into law part. Now lets look at what will be modified until the proposed law. The text of that proposal is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:3:./tem p/~c108QoEUCV:e26552: "no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture."
Got it. In other words, a private person in thier home, and companies making such technology, are no longer exempt when they are skipping stuff, if they skip ads.
Now does that directly say they are violating laws by doing so? No, but now they are not exempt now. And being as the movie companies were already moving to sue the origin
Good ole Philips. They musta snuck this in From the http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391 link, it lists all the stuff thats been shoved into this monstrosity. I just spotted this:
"H.R. 4586 The Family Movie Act Now, the affirmative right to watch and skip parts of the content that a consumer has legally obtained only exists if certain conditions are met: no commercial or promotional ads may be skipped.... This sets the functionality of the everyday VCR and TiVo on its head."
So now Philips has it all set, they have that patented technology to prevent ad skipping, and this will make it ILLIGAL to skip ads. Nice.
Re:Old games were pretty nice
on
Abandoned Games
·
· Score: 1
Make sure you play the fan made VGA remakes w/ full talkie and digital music of KQ1 and KQ2: http://www.agdinteractive.com/
They even got some of the original devs involved.
Anyway, KQ1 is an EXACT remake, KQ2 has added stuff, very very high quality stuff. I actually liked the KQ2 better.
Too bad there's nothing similar for software computer players like powerdvd.
The only advantage is telling what buttons are disabled on a software player (they are greyed out). I had a situation recently on the Monk tv show retail Season 3 dvds where some of the warning screens could be skipped with fast forward to next track, but when they played previews, they disabled fast forward for them. Fortunately they forgot to disable the menu key (which takes you to main menu) during the ads, so I was able to press that. Oddly enough they DID remember to disable it for the warning/logo screens, so it became kinda a "password" if you didn't want to watch 10 mins of crap. Hit the fast forward about 4 times then hit the menu key.
Its enough to make you want to rip your own copies from dvds you buy and remove all that crap.
Slashdot Mirror
And then you have cases like eminent domain in the supreme court case where they not only go against the constitution, but against precedent.
Didn't someone find that MS used the unix TCP/IP stack or some such? Of course I think thats code that anyone can use now if I remember right.
blasé? :)
Dont forget bootable cds like BartPE which can run a "pre-install" version of windows that boots on a cd. Throw a tool to check file sigs like you say, and you are set. Since its actually windows, it has no problem handling NTFS file systems. Since it boots from cd, you dont actually run anything on the infected machine.
You dont. Its a new Service Pack for office (which is free obviously). A company I work for got a letter about this requesting that any new installs of office be sure and have the latest service pack, or else you'd be in violation of the volume liscense agreement. In other words, non-compliance is now going to be the fault of the small businesses that MS audits, not the fault of MS.
Dont forget, every time there's a major graphics engine release (like when they went to UT and then I thnk ut2k4 engines) they redo the game practically from scratch. So maybe they will have 2 or 3 year old gameplay instead of 10 year old gameplay. Of course, by the time its released in 5 years, it probably will have 5+ year old gameplay.
Did any of the above actually make any sense? It doesn't now that I finished and read over it again.
Only problem is, last I checked, there was no artist that had a record of ever being paid the compensation from this thing. From what I can tell, RIAA is just keeping all the money themselves.
Anyone actually RTFA? They are saying that China is #5 in piracy loss, behind SPAIN!! I call BS. I can't walk out in the streets of my city and buy pirated dvd movies. But yet whenever I ask any of my asian friends who have been to china, they are always talking about how they are on every single street corner over there. For 50 cents or whatever.
How is this in the Games category? There's far more MOVIES in dvd than games, just like there probably will be with blu-ray and hd dvd :)
Yep you are right, I dont.
Its probably also 500 times more expensive :)
Looks like 160gig (the new perpendicular recording) is as high as laptop hdds go at the moment:2 E16822148073
:)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N8
But you could just get a normal 3.5" drive and shove it in a USB case.
For that matter, you could have one 160 gig laptop drive inside, and one outside in a USB case, sometimes laptop hdds dont need externally powered USB cases, they can be powered by the USB port. And they are pretty tiny and easy to carry. Using two 160 gig drives would be over your 250 gig desire
This is boring, set up an array of 14 petaboxes and you have the same thing. http://www.archive.org/web/petabox.php Nothing new here, except maybe using 500gig drives to do so. WOW what an idea!
You are mixing up two things (and perhaps I did too, though I thought I spelled them out).
0 4077:
2 0011031_complaint.html
1) The family copyright act thing was signed into law last year, I quoted from some of that.
2) the H.R.4077 from which I was quoting is NOT law.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.
"Latest Major Action: 9/29/2004 Received in the Senate."
Which incidentally confirms what the article linked by this story says:
"The provisions were included in H.R. 4077 as passed by the House."
But this new proposal (which again has NOT passed into law):
H.R. 2391 The Intellectual Property Protection Act
Includes elements from all the bills listed in the article, INCLUDING H.R.4077.
So your quote"Get it through your thick, thick head: this became the law of the land LAST YEAR. It's done. It is not a bill, it is not something that might be signed into law, it is signed, and it is the law, right now. Has been for a while."
Is not correct. At least not in reference to that portion of what I was actually talking about, which was the proposed legislation HR4077 that exempts ad skipping from being infringment.
Quote from you:
"And you know what I don't recall? I don't recall lawsuits around ad skipping buttons. In fact, as a copyright lawyer, who knows more about copyright law than you ever will, I don't even see how that would be possible."
Your expert legal copyright career must have been pretty short up to this point. Starting around 2003 or 2004 perhaps, so you missed the sonicblue/replaytv lawsuit?
Lets pick a couple hits from google regarding sonicblue (original owners of replayTV driven into bankruptcy)
http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-1015121.html
"The company said its upcoming ReplayTV 5500 boxes, which are expected to be released in August, will not contain the Send Show and Automatic Commercial Advance tools as the company tries to "address the concerns of copyright holders.""
"Two years ago, the major movie studios and TV networks filed a lawsuit against Sonicblue, which at the time owned ReplayTV."
The exact name (if you want to do more specific research):
Paramount Pictures v. SonicBlue
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/Paramount_v_ReplayTV/
There's the complaint.
Since you said
"I don't recall lawsuits around ad skipping buttons. In fact, as a copyright lawyer, who knows more about copyright law than you ever will, I don't even see how that would be possible."
Well here's how its possible, quotes from the complaint:
"Defendants' unlawful scheme attacks the fundamental economic underpinnings of free television and basic nonbroadcast services and, hence, the means by which plaintiffs' copyrighted works are paid for. Advertisers will not pay to have their advertisements placed within television programming delivered to viewers when the advertisements will be invisible to those viewers. In effect, by eliminating the embedded advertising, defendants' copying-and-commercial-deletion feature will (as to those viewers who employ the feature) eliminate the source of payment to the copyright owner for the very program being viewed."
"For subscription television program services that depend in part on advertising revenues, use of the AutoSkip feature has the same effect. In both cases, the AutoSkip feature would fundamentally and inevitably erode the means by which copyright owners are paid for their works and hence the value of the programming they create."
H.R.4077 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:3:./tem p/~c108QoEUCV:e26552:
I also wrote a longer reply to someone else's response to this which may contain more detail that you need.
Short answer:m p/~c108QoEUCV:e26552:
1 93034
H.R.4077 which is in the article under the H.R. 4586 part.
Text:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:3:./te
I have a longer comment that may contain more details, that I wrote in reply to someone else:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183890&cid=15
Actually where have YOU been?
/s167
I'm well aware of the bill you quoted, Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/legislation
Or:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ009.109
Are you aware that the text you so fondly claim to have read of the bill passed and signed also contains things like:
1) Using any kind of audiovisual recording device, such as a cell phone camera, inside a movie theatre, even if its to take a quick snapshot, is illigal? And that you can get 3 years in jail for it?
2) As well, theatre operators/employees can detain and interrogate you and are made IMMUNE from federal and criminal lawsuits if they do so?
3) Having certain types of movies on your computer can get you jail time, even if you never share or distribute those?
If you cant find the specific text I'm referring to, lemme know and I'll quote it.
Ok thats all from the already signed into law bill.
Now lets move on.
First lets check some of the text of the current law, "Section 110 of title 17, United States Code"
"the following are not infringements of copyright:"
Ok got it, these are copyright exclusions. Now lets see the text of the family copyright thing:
"Exemption From Trademark Infringement"
Ok, so this is about exclusions from trademarks as well.
Ok next, some specific text:
"the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture"
Ok, it applies to a private house watching a legit copy. Who else does it apply to?
"or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household"
Ok so it applies to anyone who creates such technology as well.
Lets see what else we can learn.
"A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible as described in subparagraph (A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for a violation of any right under this Act"
Ok, if you make such technology (that makes parts of a movie imperceptable), you aren't liable. But wait:
"The limitations on liability in subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall not apply to a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that fails to comply with this paragraph."
Ok so you CAN be liable if you dont comply with that paragraph (which currently says you have to have a notice saying this differs from the original movie).
So thats it for the already signed into law part. Now lets look at what will be modified until the proposed law.
The text of that proposal is here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:3:./tem p/~c108QoEUCV:e26552:
"no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture."
Got it. In other words, a private person in thier home, and companies making such technology, are no longer exempt when they are skipping stuff, if they skip ads.
Now does that directly say they are violating laws by doing so? No, but now they are not exempt now. And being as the movie companies were already moving to sue the origin
Good ole Philips. They musta snuck this in
... This sets the functionality of the everyday VCR and TiVo on its head."
From the http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391 link, it lists all the stuff thats been shoved into this monstrosity. I just spotted this:
"H.R. 4586 The Family Movie Act
Now, the affirmative right to watch and skip parts of the content that a consumer has legally obtained only exists if certain conditions are met: no commercial or promotional ads may be skipped.
So now Philips has it all set, they have that patented technology to prevent ad skipping, and this will make it ILLIGAL to skip ads. Nice.
Make sure you play the fan made VGA remakes w/ full talkie and digital music of KQ1 and KQ2:
http://www.agdinteractive.com/
They even got some of the original devs involved.
Anyway, KQ1 is an EXACT remake, KQ2 has added stuff, very very high quality stuff. I actually liked the KQ2 better.
And now they are working on QFG!! I cant wait!
Too bad there's nothing similar for software computer players like powerdvd.
The only advantage is telling what buttons are disabled on a software player (they are greyed out).
I had a situation recently on the Monk tv show retail Season 3 dvds where some of the warning screens could be skipped with fast forward to next track, but when they played previews, they disabled fast forward for them. Fortunately they forgot to disable the menu key (which takes you to main menu) during the ads, so I was able to press that. Oddly enough they DID remember to disable it for the warning/logo screens, so it became kinda a "password" if you didn't want to watch 10 mins of crap. Hit the fast forward about 4 times then hit the menu key.
Its enough to make you want to rip your own copies from dvds you buy and remove all that crap.
"original piece"
Hahhahhahhahahah. nice. If I could mod that comment I would.
Which would be fine, IF this were an april fools story.
Since when was wikipedia "gay, ponies" (tags) ?
If this is tagged gay ponies, where are the screenshots of that?