never mind that not making the money you want is never the same as having money you already had taken away on the very logical principal THAT YOU NEVER HAD IT YET
It's not money I want. It's money I should have.
If you want to argue piracy is theft, at least TRY to make a logical argument as to why your point is why..
How about this: enjoying a paid product that you didn't make yourself and you didn't pay for it is theft. It applies to both physical and digital products. Say:
I cannot use the neighbour's luxury car because I didn't pay for it.
It's not, because it does not end in using a product you didn't pay for.
making a superior product or advertising better than you competitors is theft.
It's not, because it does not end in using a product you didn't pay for.
Telling the media that a company is putting poison in their powdered milk is theft
It's not, because it does not end in using a product you didn't pay for.
Demanding a replacement at a store for faulty merchandise is theft.
It's not, because it does not end in using a product you didn't pay for.
You also assume that people would buy everything they pirate if piracy weren't an option, I assure you this is not the case. I for one could never afford it.
Indeed. If people had the cash, they wouldn't pirate software/media. Since they don't have the cash, they do pirate software/media.
Enjoying a product you didn't make without having paid for it is theft.
The argument that making a copy of a digital product does not deprive the author of anything is wrong: copyright infringement leads to profit loss, and therefore it is outright theft.
What unethical behavior? the software does not do anything else other than exposing the pirate.
No more than Sony's CD rootkit was justifiable.
Your comparison is totally wrong. Sony's rootkit was unjustifiable because it was installed when you tried to play a legitimate copy of the songs, whereas in the case we are discussing it is the illegal version of software that gets you what you actually deserve.
want to be able to mod my PS3 or anything else I own for whatever reason I want - whether that's to put Linux on it or do something more unique with it as part of a research project or just for fun. The fact that this can be used for copyright infringement/piracy is secondary.
It's not secondary at all. Electronic products are different from non-electronic products. A whole business may depend on cryptography, as is the case with video games.
I think the middle ground is the most reasonable solution: you can do anything you want with the PS3, except decrypting the keys that allow the use of pirated games, because if you do so, then you demolish the business model of Sony.
This means that you can physically remove the hardware components, use them as you see fit, use the PS3 as a door stopper, etc. But if you want to load your own software on it, and you have to bypass the security, then you are not allowed to do that.
Wouldn't underground nuclear plants be the best way to handle problems like earthquakes, tsunamis and asteroids? in case there is a catastrophic failure that cannot be handled, then shutting down the reactors and filling them with dirt would make it impossible for radioactivity to affect anyone on the ground.
That would probably be the greatest moment of creation in history: instead of consuming corporate-made crap, tens of millions more people would begin collaborating and sharing their own efforts with the public.
Nothing stops people from doing this now. But it is not done, is it? probably because people want to profit from their works.
Let's stop deluding ourselves for a moment: if people were kind enough to share their works with the public all the time, it would have already happened. But it has not happened, due to human nature, and it will probably never happen.
I will hide here... and a myriad of other places on the Internet, including those where I publish my own works.
Publishing your own works is made possible by people working for profit.
For example, most blockbuster movies make most of their profit in the first one or two weeks, and people are willing to pay a premium to see the film early, with high quality, and added value features like 3D and advanced sound systems.
Given that home entertainment systems have extremely high quality these days, if there was no copyright, no one would go to the cinemas. Instead, they would view the movie at home, in 60" hires TVs, with dolby surround sound, and even with 3d glasses.
TV productions are almost entirely financed by advertisements, not future DVD sales.
Not on cable or satellite systems.
Most artists already earn most of their income from concerts, not from CD/downloadable music sales
They would have earned their income from sales if it wasn't for piracy.
Yeah, because NOBODY would put things into the public domain, do them for the love of the thing, or just to make a statement, or to provide a voice for themselves, work thousands of man-hours to build a free operating system that they then give away (and I mean BSD, not Linux, which relies on copyright), create a commercial-quality computer-rendered animated movie and give it away, create an encyclopaedia on every subject, etc.etc.etc.
All the free things you mention are a tiny fraction of all the non-free things.
You should also have in mind that those that work on free stuff earn their living by working on non-free stuff.
I'd love to see the same. For the opposite reason. I think the world would tick along perfectly, with slightly less mega-rich popstars and movie moguls (not to mention middle-men), and a lot more stuff that people can read, view and access without worrying about the licensing. It would be like giving everyone access to the British Library and telling them to read whatever they wanted. There might be less multi-million dollar heaps of shit in the cinema and a few more educated and enlightened people about.
You are so deluded. People just don't create stuff if they don't have a motive, and profit is one of the strongest motives out there.
For every free thing we have today, there are tens or even hundred other things that we had to buy. Imagine a world, for example, without IBM, Microsoft, Apple and Sun: who would create all that magnificent hardware and software for free? no one, is the answer. We we still be stuck with ancient Unix and green screen terminals.
Even this medium we are using (the web) evolved due to economics.
I'd love to see copyright abolished, for the simple reason that it will then be proved how much copyright is needed.
All the people saying that copyright must be abolished, where will you hide when there are no more works of art to enjoy? no new movies to download for free? no new games to play?
It does seem like a very expensive solution in search of a problem.
In countries like mine where tax evasion is widespread, it would be a godsend.
Many small shops, kiosks and clubs don't give you a receipt, which means they don't pay the VAT and they don't pay taxes for the items they sell. A contactless payment system would eliminate this important problem.
The real problem with nuclear reactors is not that the cannot be made 100% safe.
The real problem is that ALL nuclear reactors cannot be made 100% safe.
In other words, there are many countries that want nuclear power, but few of them have the technology and culture to make them 100% safe and maintain them 100% safe for the duration of their operation.
And, if an advanced country like the U.S. has the nuclear power technology that can make 100% safe reactors, then this technology will not be shared with other countries.
That's the real problem with nuclear power. If unstable or underdeveloped or developing countries make nuclear power plants, then the danger is great, because these countries do not have yet the culture or the technology required to make them safe.
Just like with everything else, it's not the technology that is the problem, it's economics, politics and social issues.
Not all kids use their cellphones for nefarious purposes...the best approach to this is very simple: just punish those kids that use their cellphones in the wrong way.
Forbidding all cell phones just because there might be an abuse sometime in the future is a non-democratic act. In fact, it's totally fascist.
Build a mothership in space, one that cannot land on Earth, equip it with nuclear reactors and a project-orion propulsion system, and then you have affordable space travel to any planet in our solar system.
Then Mars becomes simply a case of having the right vehicle on the mothership.
Oh, wait, the author didn't even remember it exists
So? unchecked memory access and pointer arithmetic has been established as a set of flaws that lead to security problems.
People need unchecked memory access and pointer arithimetics, just because you never a saw use for it doesn't mean that there isn't one.
I need it too, but it doesn't need to be the default.
There are plenty of ways to isolate code sections within the same process.
There are none. No CPU supports component isolation from within the same process.
Anyway, that has no relevance in a discussion about security.
I already explained in my post above why it is relevant to security.
You want to sandbox the software from the file system, right?
Not only the filesystem, but any resource a program should not touch.
that means you weren't thinking about servers
What I said is valid for servers as well.
Well, most people just don't want their browsers sandboxed.
No, most people simply don't care about that, as long as they get their job done.
How would an application create a communication channel with the OS? They aren't allowed to do that.
The protection should extend to all communication avenues, including system calls and other applications.
The security model of an operating system applies to the computer where it runs. For a network you need network security.
There needs to be a common security ground between operating systems.
Define it. Windows uses even the same name.
Please read the available online documentation about it.
post that under the "Nobody can hack a binary format" and "It's secure, I used the double ROT13 algorithm" labels.
If SQL strings were encoded in a such a way that the bytes preceding the string contained the string's length, then there would be no special SQL string characters, and therefore no need to filter the strings, and therefore no SQL injection.
Slashdot Mirror
never mind that not making the money you want is never the same as having money you already had taken away on the very logical principal THAT YOU NEVER HAD IT YET
It's not money I want. It's money I should have.
If you want to argue piracy is theft, at least TRY to make a logical argument as to why your point is why..
How about this: enjoying a paid product that you didn't make yourself and you didn't pay for it is theft. It applies to both physical and digital products. Say:
I cannot use the neighbour's luxury car because I didn't pay for it.
Or:
I cannot use Windows because I didn't pay for it.
See?
competition is theft
It's not, because it does not end in using a product you didn't pay for.
making a superior product or advertising better than you competitors is theft.
It's not, because it does not end in using a product you didn't pay for.
Telling the media that a company is putting poison in their powdered milk is theft
It's not, because it does not end in using a product you didn't pay for.
Demanding a replacement at a store for faulty merchandise is theft.
It's not, because it does not end in using a product you didn't pay for.
You also assume that people would buy everything they pirate if piracy weren't an option, I assure you this is not the case. I for one could never afford it.
Indeed. If people had the cash, they wouldn't pirate software/media. Since they don't have the cash, they do pirate software/media.
Enjoying a product you didn't make without having paid for it is theft.
For the last time, /.: piracy is theft.
The argument that making a copy of a digital product does not deprive the author of anything is wrong: copyright infringement leads to profit loss, and therefore it is outright theft.
but that doesn't excuse unethical behavior.
What unethical behavior? the software does not do anything else other than exposing the pirate.
No more than Sony's CD rootkit was justifiable.
Your comparison is totally wrong. Sony's rootkit was unjustifiable because it was installed when you tried to play a legitimate copy of the songs, whereas in the case we are discussing it is the illegal version of software that gets you what you actually deserve.
want to be able to mod my PS3 or anything else I own for whatever reason I want - whether that's to put Linux on it or do something more unique with it as part of a research project or just for fun. The fact that this can be used for copyright infringement/piracy is secondary.
It's not secondary at all. Electronic products are different from non-electronic products. A whole business may depend on cryptography, as is the case with video games. I think the middle ground is the most reasonable solution: you can do anything you want with the PS3, except decrypting the keys that allow the use of pirated games, because if you do so, then you demolish the business model of Sony. This means that you can physically remove the hardware components, use them as you see fit, use the PS3 as a door stopper, etc. But if you want to load your own software on it, and you have to bypass the security, then you are not allowed to do that.
Wouldn't underground nuclear plants be the best way to handle problems like earthquakes, tsunamis and asteroids? in case there is a catastrophic failure that cannot be handled, then shutting down the reactors and filling them with dirt would make it impossible for radioactivity to affect anyone on the ground.
When I want to not be tracked, I just live my phone at home.
That would probably be the greatest moment of creation in history: instead of consuming corporate-made crap, tens of millions more people would begin collaborating and sharing their own efforts with the public.
Nothing stops people from doing this now. But it is not done, is it? probably because people want to profit from their works.
Let's stop deluding ourselves for a moment: if people were kind enough to share their works with the public all the time, it would have already happened. But it has not happened, due to human nature, and it will probably never happen.
But you don't do these things right now, do you? why? could it be, perhaps, that commercial offerings offer you more?
I will hide here... and a myriad of other places on the Internet, including those where I publish my own works.
Publishing your own works is made possible by people working for profit.
For example, most blockbuster movies make most of their profit in the first one or two weeks, and people are willing to pay a premium to see the film early, with high quality, and added value features like 3D and advanced sound systems.
Given that home entertainment systems have extremely high quality these days, if there was no copyright, no one would go to the cinemas. Instead, they would view the movie at home, in 60" hires TVs, with dolby surround sound, and even with 3d glasses.
TV productions are almost entirely financed by advertisements, not future DVD sales.
Not on cable or satellite systems.
Most artists already earn most of their income from concerts, not from CD/downloadable music sales
They would have earned their income from sales if it wasn't for piracy.
Copyright does not stop a person in any way to produce the greatest works of art ever.
Yeah, because NOBODY would put things into the public domain, do them for the love of the thing, or just to make a statement, or to provide a voice for themselves, work thousands of man-hours to build a free operating system that they then give away (and I mean BSD, not Linux, which relies on copyright), create a commercial-quality computer-rendered animated movie and give it away, create an encyclopaedia on every subject, etc.etc.etc.
All the free things you mention are a tiny fraction of all the non-free things.
You should also have in mind that those that work on free stuff earn their living by working on non-free stuff.
I'd love to see the same. For the opposite reason. I think the world would tick along perfectly, with slightly less mega-rich popstars and movie moguls (not to mention middle-men), and a lot more stuff that people can read, view and access without worrying about the licensing. It would be like giving everyone access to the British Library and telling them to read whatever they wanted. There might be less multi-million dollar heaps of shit in the cinema and a few more educated and enlightened people about.
You are so deluded. People just don't create stuff if they don't have a motive, and profit is one of the strongest motives out there.
For every free thing we have today, there are tens or even hundred other things that we had to buy. Imagine a world, for example, without IBM, Microsoft, Apple and Sun: who would create all that magnificent hardware and software for free? no one, is the answer. We we still be stuck with ancient Unix and green screen terminals.
Even this medium we are using (the web) evolved due to economics.
I'd love to see copyright abolished, for the simple reason that it will then be proved how much copyright is needed.
All the people saying that copyright must be abolished, where will you hide when there are no more works of art to enjoy? no new movies to download for free? no new games to play?
or states that the point is to live well with your neighbor?
How about the 'turn the other chick' part?
I seem to remember Jesus specifically going after those who placed too much emphasis on personal righteousness
Irrelevant to living nicely with your neighbors.
It does seem like a very expensive solution in search of a problem.
In countries like mine where tax evasion is widespread, it would be a godsend. Many small shops, kiosks and clubs don't give you a receipt, which means they don't pay the VAT and they don't pay taxes for the items they sell. A contactless payment system would eliminate this important problem.
What did they take away from you?
10 bucks.
My "stealing" your product did not induce any substantial damage to you
Yes it did. I suddenly have 10 less bucks than I should.
You forgot the amount of money I would have if you have legally bought the car from me.
Contrary to the /. spirit, I say that piracy is theft.
It's simple:
I sell a product for 10 bucks.
You buy this product. I make 10 bucks.
You pirate this product. I don't make 10 bucks. You have something I sell without me having the profit from the product.
If that is not theft, I don't know what it is. You robbed me of my 10 legally entitled bucks.
The rest are cheap excuses.
Id or not, the children will be abducted and exploited. This id will not help children at all.
Ids are useful when people enter a place, not when the leave it.
The real problem with nuclear reactors is not that the cannot be made 100% safe.
The real problem is that ALL nuclear reactors cannot be made 100% safe.
In other words, there are many countries that want nuclear power, but few of them have the technology and culture to make them 100% safe and maintain them 100% safe for the duration of their operation.
And, if an advanced country like the U.S. has the nuclear power technology that can make 100% safe reactors, then this technology will not be shared with other countries.
That's the real problem with nuclear power. If unstable or underdeveloped or developing countries make nuclear power plants, then the danger is great, because these countries do not have yet the culture or the technology required to make them safe.
Just like with everything else, it's not the technology that is the problem, it's economics, politics and social issues.
Not all kids use their cellphones for nefarious purposes...the best approach to this is very simple: just punish those kids that use their cellphones in the wrong way.
Forbidding all cell phones just because there might be an abuse sometime in the future is a non-democratic act. In fact, it's totally fascist.
Build a mothership in space, one that cannot land on Earth, equip it with nuclear reactors and a project-orion propulsion system, and then you have affordable space travel to any planet in our solar system.
Then Mars becomes simply a case of having the right vehicle on the mothership.
Not to mention that the ribbon requires more clicks than the menu UI.
Oh, wait, the author didn't even remember it exists
So? unchecked memory access and pointer arithmetic has been established as a set of flaws that lead to security problems.
People need unchecked memory access and pointer arithimetics, just because you never a saw use for it doesn't mean that there isn't one.
I need it too, but it doesn't need to be the default.
There are plenty of ways to isolate code sections within the same process.
There are none. No CPU supports component isolation from within the same process.
Anyway, that has no relevance in a discussion about security.
I already explained in my post above why it is relevant to security.
You want to sandbox the software from the file system, right?
Not only the filesystem, but any resource a program should not touch.
that means you weren't thinking about servers
What I said is valid for servers as well.
Well, most people just don't want their browsers sandboxed.
No, most people simply don't care about that, as long as they get their job done.
How would an application create a communication channel with the OS? They aren't allowed to do that.
The protection should extend to all communication avenues, including system calls and other applications.
The security model of an operating system applies to the computer where it runs. For a network you need network security.
There needs to be a common security ground between operating systems.
Define it. Windows uses even the same name.
Please read the available online documentation about it.
post that under the "Nobody can hack a binary format" and "It's secure, I used the double ROT13 algorithm" labels.
If SQL strings were encoded in a such a way that the bytes preceding the string contained the string's length, then there would be no special SQL string characters, and therefore no need to filter the strings, and therefore no SQL injection.