Speaking of BitTorrent, upon seeing that the "how it should have ended" site only distributed files using that method I way I fired it up to download them.
Everything was proceeding nicely when, suddenly, my firewall started going nuts with dozens of incoming probes to ports commonly used by sql server, oracle, various license managers, and so on.
Is it just me, or are hackers are using the ip addresses distributed by the trackers to find currently connected computers to attack?
I copy the file onto my (hypothetical) home-made computer, which was completely made by me(lets say I even fabricated the CPU myself) and runs only on software...
Hypothetically, the individual that could do that (including the fab) would be a brilliant billionare who could buy as many copies as he damn well pleases...
The problem is, that the law is not necessarily based off what is ethical.
Since DRM exists primarily because people are perceived as copying anything and everything they can get their hands on, I'm not too sure bringing ethics into the discussion is a good idea...
You're completely missing the point. It doesn't have to be 100% effective and complete uncrackable. It doesn't matter that 15 people on an island in the Pacific are in a "safe haven".
MacroVision for VHS wasn't 100% effective either, but it was enough to stop the vast majority of people from copying video tapes.
I can spend a hour trying to find a bad overly compressed screen capture of a movie off BT, or $15 for a new one at Target, or $3 for a rental at BB. Which one is a better use of my time? Which course of action gives me a better movie experience?
All the studios need to do is protect the majority of their market, while not pissing them off by being too heavy handed, and they'll succeed. And don't think for a second they haven't been observing the music/mp3/itunes battles with great interest.
I don't think they're going to make all of the same mistakes, but I do expect them to do what they can to protect their investments.
And if P2P and Freenet become perceived as too much of a problem, those protocols will be monitored, banned, disrupted, blocked, and/or the users fined or jailed. Too many people think that because their computer is sitting down in their basement that their internet access is "private" and unmonitored and untraceable.
I've said before, and I'll say it again. The key here is not to crack and steal their work, but to create and patronize new models and new works. Do the first, and you enter into an arms race. Do the second, and they have no choice but to embrace them... or die.
...and then see if the sending IP address matches the sending machines for those sites.
Which, unless I'm very mistaken, is what an SPF record allows you to do, identify the machines in a domain authorized to send mail.
The problem with your suggestion is that everyone who wants to prevent people from phishing using their name would need to register with hotmail... and yahoo... and excite... and gmail... and...
I hope you get the idea. Not to mention that you have no idea that the people who register are authorized to do so. At least with a change to the domain record you can assume it was authorized.
And if the rest of your site was a rant against piracy, you might get away with it. If, however, your site was a rant against the **AAs and promoted "free" music, and you tried adding your disclaimer I suspect that the charade would be seen through rather quickly.
Even in the first case we're probably in gray water. The just for example/evidence/research/reporting line has been tried in child porn cases, and struck down each time.
Most people didn't do it to cheat artists, they did it because they had no choice.
Right.... "most" people here in the U.S. live 500 to 1,000 miles away from the nearest Goody, Tower, MediaPlay, Borders, B&N, Target, K-Mart, WalMart, and shopping mall. They have no USPS, UPS, or FedEx service, so Amazon, Half.com, and any other online store can't deliver there.
Left with no "choice" whatsoever, they downloaded music off the internet which, for some odd reason, they DID have access to...
I've noticed that 100% cpu usage usually occurs when a page somewhere has a Flash rich-media ad running. With no way to "stop" flash from running on such a page, I've found that installing flash-block and/or ad-block fixes the problem.
While a romantic notion, your assertion is entirely false-to-fact. Far from being chaotic, the internet exists entirely due to the infrastructure provided by governments, and by the corporate world.
Every request you make can be, and probably is, logged by your ISP. Any privacy you feel sitting there in your darkened room is an illusion at best. You exist as a specific and known address at the end of a specific route, a destination made visible and active only by a set of entries in a bank of servers.
Wires can be cut. Servers can be pulled. Numbers can be deleted.
I said, and I quote, "The file extension on those free music files is not mp3." Which is true.
But, where, oh argumentitive one, did I specifically state that it was really an mp3 file in disguise? Or that changing the file extension would magically change it from one compressed audio format to another?
I'm waiting. Exact quotes, if you please.
Or were you simply making an ASSumption on your part, the end result of which was designed to awe us with your theoretically superior intellect and technological knowledge? Or were you attempting to quash the "newbie", smashing that which would dare question a being such as yourself.
Is your ego that precious and fragile a thing?
I read your original comment as complaining that Apple never gave away free MUSIC, as the term mp3s usually equates to music, at least in the common vernacular. However, your apparently small and feeble mind has fixated on the three small letters at the end of the file name. (Excuse me, on the fact that the free music in question is not encoded in the MPeg layer 3 file format.)
The point you seem unwilling or unable to grasp is that I, like quite a few other people, buy MUSIC, not file formats. And as long as I have a reasonable expectation of fair use, which FairPlay grants, I could care LESS what format it's in.
Which, before you make another rash assumption, doesn't mean I don't KNOW which format it's in.
Forgive me. You're correct. The file extension on those free music files is not mp3... a distinction that I'm sure is highly significant to you and perhaps five other people.
That's not how deterence works. The analogy would be if you tried to shoplift a game in the store, got caught, and only had to pay $50.
Under that scenario, how many people wouldn't try to see if they could get it for free, since at worse they'd simply have to pay for what they wanted anyway?
So in real life, try shoplifting and if you get caught, you get detained, arrested, booked, questioned, tried, convicted, and thrown in jail. End result? The potential gain (the $50 game) isn't worth the potential risk.
Now, if you want to track the site for a while and charge the warez site owner the exact amount for EACH copy he allowed to be downloaded....
And to continue the analogy, you gave away your copy to everyone else who might want one. Needless to say, now no one is going to pay him for his copy either...
And I'm amazed by the number of people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them must automatically be a shill. Of course, no rational person could possibly have a different perspective on such things...
OTOH, one can see how countries certainly have legitimate security interests in making sure that no one can "shut them down". The U.S. doesn't want anyone able to disrupt them, and the same goes for, say, France, who doesn't want the U.S. to screw with them just because someone got in a huff.
Of course, if such things were THAT important, I guess the U.S. shouldn't have outsourced all of its heavy industry, production, call centers, and other essential infrastructure...
I don't want to put it quite this way but... are you really that misguided?
Your statements assume that terrorists are reasonable and rational, operate in good faith, never want to simply make a point that no one is safe, and that what you consider to be "pacifying" and "non-predatory" and "respectful" is seen that way from their side.
No matter WHAT you do, there's going to be someone with a different viewpoint and beliefs, and often with conflicting interests.
Simple example: your not meddling in the internal affairs of other countries can be taken as inaction and indifference by one side, and they may bomb you anyway just to get you "involved".
This is not to say that one shouldn't do the things you suggest, but following your recipie by rote does NOT mean that *no* terrorists will *ever* want to bomb your country.
Phrases like mob mentality, and 'go lemmings go' and group pyscology, etc. spring to mind.
So? Are all of the individuals sitting at home reading and debating this "persons" or "people"? What good is bringing up mob psychology [sic] when they're not a mob?
Slashdot Mirror
Everything was proceeding nicely when, suddenly, my firewall started going nuts with dozens of incoming probes to ports commonly used by sql server, oracle, various license managers, and so on.
Is it just me, or are hackers are using the ip addresses distributed by the trackers to find currently connected computers to attack?
Hypothetically, the individual that could do that (including the fab) would be a brilliant billionare who could buy as many copies as he damn well pleases...
Or for the slightly less paranoid... Cringely.
Since DRM exists primarily because people are perceived as copying anything and everything they can get their hands on, I'm not too sure bringing ethics into the discussion is a good idea...
MacroVision for VHS wasn't 100% effective either, but it was enough to stop the vast majority of people from copying video tapes.
I can spend a hour trying to find a bad overly compressed screen capture of a movie off BT, or $15 for a new one at Target, or $3 for a rental at BB. Which one is a better use of my time? Which course of action gives me a better movie experience?
All the studios need to do is protect the majority of their market, while not pissing them off by being too heavy handed, and they'll succeed. And don't think for a second they haven't been observing the music/mp3/itunes battles with great interest.
I don't think they're going to make all of the same mistakes, but I do expect them to do what they can to protect their investments.
And if P2P and Freenet become perceived as too much of a problem, those protocols will be monitored, banned, disrupted, blocked, and/or the users fined or jailed. Too many people think that because their computer is sitting down in their basement that their internet access is "private" and unmonitored and untraceable.
I've said before, and I'll say it again. The key here is not to crack and steal their work, but to create and patronize new models and new works. Do the first, and you enter into an arms race. Do the second, and they have no choice but to embrace them... or die.
Since you didn't have a clue, you also didn't get the fact that his response was, in fact, a paraphrase of a joke from the same movie...
Or to run out the old line, "Forget about security fixes. Why did the developers write insecure, buggy code to start with?"
Which, unless I'm very mistaken, is what an SPF record allows you to do, identify the machines in a domain authorized to send mail.
The problem with your suggestion is that everyone who wants to prevent people from phishing using their name would need to register with hotmail... and yahoo... and excite... and gmail... and...
I hope you get the idea. Not to mention that you have no idea that the people who register are authorized to do so. At least with a change to the domain record you can assume it was authorized.
Even in the first case we're probably in gray water. The just for example/evidence/research/reporting line has been tried in child porn cases, and struck down each time.
Right.... "most" people here in the U.S. live 500 to 1,000 miles away from the nearest Goody, Tower, MediaPlay, Borders, B&N, Target, K-Mart, WalMart, and shopping mall. They have no USPS, UPS, or FedEx service, so Amazon, Half.com, and any other online store can't deliver there.
Left with no "choice" whatsoever, they downloaded music off the internet which, for some odd reason, they DID have access to...
Funny how I never looked at it that way.
I've noticed that 100% cpu usage usually occurs when a page somewhere has a Flash rich-media ad running. With no way to "stop" flash from running on such a page, I've found that installing flash-block and/or ad-block fixes the problem.
Every request you make can be, and probably is, logged by your ISP. Any privacy you feel sitting there in your darkened room is an illusion at best. You exist as a specific and known address at the end of a specific route, a destination made visible and active only by a set of entries in a bank of servers.
Wires can be cut. Servers can be pulled. Numbers can be deleted.
But, where, oh argumentitive one, did I specifically state that it was really an mp3 file in disguise? Or that changing the file extension would magically change it from one compressed audio format to another?
I'm waiting. Exact quotes, if you please.
Or were you simply making an ASSumption on your part, the end result of which was designed to awe us with your theoretically superior intellect and technological knowledge? Or were you attempting to quash the "newbie", smashing that which would dare question a being such as yourself.
Is your ego that precious and fragile a thing?
I read your original comment as complaining that Apple never gave away free MUSIC, as the term mp3s usually equates to music, at least in the common vernacular. However, your apparently small and feeble mind has fixated on the three small letters at the end of the file name. (Excuse me, on the fact that the free music in question is not encoded in the MPeg layer 3 file format.)
The point you seem unwilling or unable to grasp is that I, like quite a few other people, buy MUSIC, not file formats. And as long as I have a reasonable expectation of fair use, which FairPlay grants, I could care LESS what format it's in.
Which, before you make another rash assumption, doesn't mean I don't KNOW which format it's in.
Get a life dude...
Forgive me. You're correct. The file extension on those free music files is not mp3... a distinction that I'm sure is highly significant to you and perhaps five other people.
No, I don't get it at all...
I think a new promotion is out where if you buy an AirPort Express from them you'll get 30 free itunes.
Under that scenario, how many people wouldn't try to see if they could get it for free, since at worse they'd simply have to pay for what they wanted anyway?
So in real life, try shoplifting and if you get caught, you get detained, arrested, booked, questioned, tried, convicted, and thrown in jail. End result? The potential gain (the $50 game) isn't worth the potential risk.
Now, if you want to track the site for a while and charge the warez site owner the exact amount for EACH copy he allowed to be downloaded....
And to continue the analogy, you gave away your copy to everyone else who might want one. Needless to say, now no one is going to pay him for his copy either...
And I'm amazed by the number of people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them must automatically be a shill. Of course, no rational person could possibly have a different perspective on such things...
You forgot to mention eliminating a 25lb book bag. 'Course, upside is a lighter bag, downside is less exercise for the kids. Hmmm....
What firm? It sounds as if they need qualified people...
Of course, if such things were THAT important, I guess the U.S. shouldn't have outsourced all of its heavy industry, production, call centers, and other essential infrastructure...
Why Business People Speak Like Idiots : A Bullfighter's Guide
Your statements assume that terrorists are reasonable and rational, operate in good faith, never want to simply make a point that no one is safe, and that what you consider to be "pacifying" and "non-predatory" and "respectful" is seen that way from their side.
No matter WHAT you do, there's going to be someone with a different viewpoint and beliefs, and often with conflicting interests.
Simple example: your not meddling in the internal affairs of other countries can be taken as inaction and indifference by one side, and they may bomb you anyway just to get you "involved".
This is not to say that one shouldn't do the things you suggest, but following your recipie by rote does NOT mean that *no* terrorists will *ever* want to bomb your country.
So? Are all of the individuals sitting at home reading and debating this "persons" or "people"? What good is bringing up mob psychology [sic] when they're not a mob?