So, what you are saying is that since people buy less music and the profits were lower, the industry felt obliged to invest money to promote crap bands that still no one will buy, but all will download for the sake of filling up a HDD?
I guess the next logical step would be for them to sell white noise!
I am there for the content; if they want to support their business by ads, then they should serve ads that:
are NOT obtrusive
are at least likely to interest me
What I see is a band of idiots thinking that it's their God given right to display ads on my screen... any ads, obtrusive ads, ads who make noise, who shake and what not.
It's not me they are screwing, it's the advertiser. I will NOT click on obnoxious ads, and in the worst cases I will write a message to the webmaster(s) complaining and also publicly complain on blogs.
Oh, I don't block ads by default because... I am lazy. However, on the first offence, the ads for the entire site get blocked.
And, to bar the t, the appoteose of irony is a site heavily depending on ads to write an article how ad blockers are imoral, illegal, and give you the cooties!
Well, I doubt that they will shut down Sony... but some nice fines might be in order. And some regulations on the EULAs. And maybe, just maybe, some modifications on the DMCA.
I wonder what happened... suddenly they started to care about malware...
I hope that they sue Sony for really big damages. People should be able to trust the software vendors.
On the other hand, I also hope that the DMCA will be really shaken by this event. After all, according to DMCA, Sony rootkit is protected software.
Hit them in the wallet, me says!
The internet is a very useful educational tool, and as such I would like my kids to benefit from it. I do believe that parents can limit access - however manufacturers have a duty to the public to make their products as safe as possible. If DRM can help do this, then it is all for the good.
Maybe it's me, but exactly the DRM can make a product safer? what's the product that's made safer? The computer is made unsafer for all we know! And by the way, DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. It does NOT limit access in any way!
Actually I do know what a rootkit is. However, this is not a rootkit. It is a legitimate piece of software with a legitimate purpose which is just exploitable. By your argument your operating system which contains flaws from time to time is a rootkit. What does any responsible computer owner do when there is a security flaw, they install the patch. Can my system be compromised, yes because people have announced this flaw on the internet allowing time for virus writers to exploit it. Was Sony given time to release a patch to fix an exploit? I guess not.
We'll agree to disagree on this one. It's a malware that is installed without your consenta; nowhere Sony describes what it's DRM software does. Since it comes with usefull content, it's also a trojan. It also buries itself under the operating system, which is what rootkits do.
There is a big difference between a operating system with a flaw (I am not particullary fond of those, either:) ) and a malware which WITH INTENT creates a hole. Sony knew all too well what they were installing; as far as I understand, they created a "patch" that uninstalls some of the DRM component, and some component remain buried there.
The BIG problem is that a vendor abused the trust it was given. If you don't trust the software manufacturer, you are in deep doh-doh - you can't use your computer. As far as I know, Sony was dishonest from the start to this point.
And if you want to control your kids, it's quite simple - firewall + antivirus + user policy. Don't allow them to install filesharing software and you'll be safe. Not to mention that making a copy for oneself is not illegal copying. Think mp3player, Ipod, etc.
This is only possible because systems like DRM are not in place to prevent such action. Legitimate uses are allowed, it is only illegal copying which they are trying to prevent. I see nothing wrong in that.
First, there is no such thing as illegal copying. There is illegal distribution. Then, you should realise that only ONE cd must be ripped in order for the album to be available on the net. Of course, that will happen, DRM or not.
Hmmm, make this personal will you. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me slow - it could mean you are wrong too.
I'll appologise for getting personal. However I stand by my other opinions.
It is also a manufacturers responsibility to prevent harm from occurring to its consumers.
Yeah, like not creating exploitable holes in a computer's defence, not installing malicious software, etc...
All software from time to time has exploits - that's why we have security patches.
The problem here is that you think that the Sony DRM was a legitimate software with a bug and most of the people think that Sony included intentionally a malware application. Looking myself at what was claimed to do and what it does, I have NO doubt it was intentional. And idiotic. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
No, the benefit from the system is that it is protective measure against illegal actions. It stops you from making mistakes. Your argument suggests that firewalls and anti-virus software is bad because they slow down your computer and occasionally have software exploits in them,
It stops you from making mistakes?!?! Such as transfering the music to your Ipod? Or transfering OTHER music to your mp3 player?
I posted an anonymous comment which was labelled flamebait - so much for any form of discussion.
If it was anywhere close to THIS comment, it's no wonder.
I stand by the view that piracy is a crime and that Sony is only acting in the best interests of the wider consumer by trying to limit such piracy.
I'll agree that copyright infringement is a crime. I'll suggest that Sony packs nerve gas in the CD jewel cases - that would be the best way to limit such piracy
Like it or not, piracy of copyrighted material increases the cost of that material to the rest of us.
I'll agree for the moment, even that I am not 100% sure.
Like it or not, most parents are far too busy to supervise their children's time on the internet.
Ooopsie. Your kid, your computer, your internet connexion. YOU are responsible for it. If you don't trust the kid, don't allow him near the computer. Make him a special account. Limit his access. It's your responsability. It's like saying "most parents are far to busy to supervise their children's time with fire weapons".
Like it or not, the internet allows for the easy distribution and copying of copyrighted material.
Like it or not, ordinary people are unwittingly committing a crime which costs the rest of us.
And your point is?
Yes, the DRM system is an inconvenience and concern to the smaller technically savvy community, but to the wider public it isn't.
Oh realllly? First, why don't you invest half an hour of your so precious time and learn what a rootkit is. And learn what the Sony rootkit does. And learn that there are already malware that USE the Sony DRM to conceal themselves. And then do what a concerned responsible computer owner would do: reboot from readonly media and reinstall windows, because it's compromised.
Keep in mind that your kid will most likely download (illegally) the songs from internet for his mp3 player if he can't rip them himself. Good DRM practice!
You might fight against it, but the wider audience understand the benefit it brings to the wider public and parents to which this matter is of concern.
Most people already understood what's to understand. You are slower. Let me help: It's a parent responsibility what the kid does with his computer. If a guy from Sony would come into your house and check your computer and then leave all doors and windows wide open, would you cheer? Because that's exactly what the Sony DRM does. The only benefit this rootkit does is to slow down your computer, compromise it definitively and maybe not allow you to use the CD drive until you reinstall windows.
As for boycotting Sony, well I'm for one are glad that they are trying to bring such systems in. I don't want to have to constantly supervise my children or be concerned that they might be committing criminal acts.
You do realize that the rootkit does nothing to ease your parental duties? No, you don't. You still need to supervise your children. You still need to be concerned that they might commit criminal acts. And, on the plus side, you have to be concerned that some hacker from the other side of the world is committing criminal acts using YOUR computer. And you know what's the best part? If the police breaks your door because your IP is spreading kid porn, you won't be able to prove it wasn't you.
Did I notice that the CD installed software on my system - No. Do I care about protecting my family - Yes.
It seems that you have mixed the answers. You should have noticed software was installed. And you obviously don't protect your family. You probably have the best intentions, but you fail to understand the basics about the electronic world you live in. Educate yourself and your family.
Well, Joe, I pretty much know the wedding pro photo market. I even do weddings every now and then. Guess what. The bride and groom and photographer sign a contract. Which they both agree, in good will, to sign.
It's your wedding, ok. Either you pay for my time and skill, or you take your own photographs. I don't care.
And your logic is of course flawed. The photographer owns copyright for the images, not the wedding. It's his product, he manufactured it. The wedding is not his creation, but the photographs are.
Most photographs will give you high resolution files, but for a different price.
I can fully understand a content provider that places ads on his page. After all, he's got bills to pay. Some are smart - think google, some will paint their pages with flash animations, fluorescent colors, pop-ups and popunders - those are just bad designers. However, I understand them, as lousy as they may get
On the other hand, the bastards behind Gator, Bonzi Buddy, Bargain Central et co are only parasites. They steal MY bandwith, my attention, they make websurfing an unpleasant experience, and they give ME nothing in exchange. Even more, they give NOBODY anything in exchange. They basically steal from the content providers - trust me, I won't click an ad on a page on which I got a popup - and they steal from me (time, bandwidth and brain cells). In fact, I am willing to bet that any given person wastes more bandwidth on ads than on spam! They should be put in the same cell with spammers and people should ge MEDIEVAL with their asses!
Not to mention the privacy issues when a browser installs sh1t from the internet without your command. Thank god for Opera!
C'mon guys! NASA is able to put a rover on a distant planet, navigate it around, and still can't stitch together seamlessly a few pictures? What's wrong here? Can't they aford slightly better stitch software? or they just don't care about PR?
The ideea behind spam is that the spammer can get payed. Since the stuff advertised is occidental, the companies that pay are likely to be occidental, and they are likely to pick fellow countrymen to do the spam.
Follow the money, apply some fines, and see the spam going down. Or, maybe, just maybe, US should invade America?:)
It's not I am against technology, but... do you really want to travel in a bus where 20 people are watching damn movies on their cell phones? Or listening to music? We already know most cell phone users are rude (see high pitch high volume ring tones and high pitch high volume speaking) and we know that cell phone in a bus (read Faraday cage) will emit at it's peak power. I wonder... do you want to be there?
Subsequent investigation has shown this was not the result of any breach of Microsoft's corporate network or internal security, nor is it related to Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative or its Government Security Program, which enable our customers and partners, as well as governments, to legally access Microsoft source code. Microsoft reaffirms its support for both the Shared Source Initiative and the Government Security Program.
I just don't get it. No security breach. Not related to the SSI, nor GSP. Then how did it leak???? Psychics?
Am I a total idiot (don't say a word!) or they will want to create models of our real-life social network? Who will hold that data? Maybe I don't want EVERYBODY to know that Joe is my friend, and from the moment he gave me Jane's address, I have meaningfull conversations with Jane, while rubbing noses with Louise... damn!
I know that THEY might know the list of people I email to, but creating a centralised structure?! I think I prefere spam.
I am just picturing some pimple faced hacker, rubbing his hands: so, finnally, Jane and John got to know each other... let's spy some more.
Right, because it now makes sense for the spammer to send spam. It's the cheapest way to advertise.
And wrong because it is not THAT dificult to stop spam. No, really. But you have to be practical.
1. Make good legislation. Thou shall not spam. IF you spam, you'll be seriously fined. Allow the $@#$%#@ lawyers to sue. Every time I get spammed, I forward the message to the anti-spam organization. Then, the lawyer sues, gets the money, keeps a fee and gives me the rest.
3. Don't tell me it's hard to track the spammer. It's EASY. Follow the money. Here comes step 1. If spam money are sent to Korea or China, block the transfer.
The last point I want to make: there was/is another advertising system where the recipient would pay more than the sender. But, guess what? They don't send ads through fax. Why? Huge fines.
And, by the way, falling??? That baby is on the orbit! If something goes one way, something else (presumably the ISS) pushed it. There are some funny things here: 1. the ISS is loosing parts; 2. It's likely that those parts will return (orbit, remember), maybe with some velocity; 3. I'll be delighted when some fancy top secret military satelite will get a nice russian bolt right in it's precisely calibrated lens. THAT hopefully will be the closest thing to star wars, or whatever was the hyphen some decades ago.
Mr. President, postphone a little the Mars trip, the station is about to fall on your empty suit, sir, mr. President, sir.
Provide simple uninstall for everything that's not needed by the operating system (do NOT read operating environement!!!).
I hate Windows Messenger. I hate the damn sticky key feature. I hate most of the accessories. Now, WMP ain't so bad, but BSPlayer is what *I* need. Did I mention ActiveX? Damn, I learned to hate IE... but, of course, is needed to patch Windows. MSN explorer? You keep it!
But, of course, to uninstall some of those you need to sell your first born male child... and the others (hint: IE) are just plain uninstalable.
You know what? It's an operating system. Bane EVERYTHING that's not using and following open protocols. TCP/IP? open - leave it. Outlook Express that connects to hotmail? Proprietary - erase it. IE? kind of uses open protocols, but we know it's not following standards. Bane it, or force them to change it. Oh, they want proprietary stuff? Ok, no prob, but not in the OS I paid for.
And, BTW, a ssh client would be nice, not to mention the daemon... I mean server.
I believe that there are at least 2 conclusions here:
1. Clicking can be dangerous.
2. If an operating system is that badly designed so one can actually overwrite an executable only by visiting a web page, than it's time to change the security settings.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess the next logical step would be for them to sell white noise!
ALL HAIL HYPNOTOAD!
According to Apple, you can see your photos and movies and listen to your music WITHOUT EVEN OPENING the files!!! :) That's something!
Back to your hole, please!
Free as in free beer. Download and install.
There is an Opera mobile browser available, and it acts quite nice. And it's here already!
However, downloadable extensions might be something interesting - if they are usefull on the smallish screen.
are NOT obtrusive
are at least likely to interest me
What I see is a band of idiots thinking that it's their God given right to display ads on my screen... any ads, obtrusive ads, ads who make noise, who shake and what not.
It's not me they are screwing, it's the advertiser. I will NOT click on obnoxious ads, and in the worst cases I will write a message to the webmaster(s) complaining and also publicly complain on blogs.
Oh, I don't block ads by default because... I am lazy. However, on the first offence, the ads for the entire site get blocked.
And, to bar the t, the appoteose of irony is a site heavily depending on ads to write an article how ad blockers are imoral, illegal, and give you the cooties!
I wonder what happened... suddenly they started to care about malware...
On the other hand, I also hope that the DMCA will be really shaken by this event. After all, according to DMCA, Sony rootkit is protected software. Hit them in the wallet, me says!
Maybe it's me, but exactly the DRM can make a product safer? what's the product that's made safer? The computer is made unsafer for all we know! And by the way, DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. It does NOT limit access in any way!
Actually I do know what a rootkit is. However, this is not a rootkit. It is a legitimate piece of software with a legitimate purpose which is just exploitable. By your argument your operating system which contains flaws from time to time is a rootkit. What does any responsible computer owner do when there is a security flaw, they install the patch. Can my system be compromised, yes because people have announced this flaw on the internet allowing time for virus writers to exploit it. Was Sony given time to release a patch to fix an exploit? I guess not.
We'll agree to disagree on this one. It's a malware that is installed without your consenta; nowhere Sony describes what it's DRM software does. Since it comes with usefull content, it's also a trojan. It also buries itself under the operating system, which is what rootkits do.
There is a big difference between a operating system with a flaw (I am not particullary fond of those, either :) ) and a malware which WITH INTENT creates a hole. Sony knew all too well what they were installing; as far as I understand, they created a "patch" that uninstalls some of the DRM component, and some component remain buried there.
The BIG problem is that a vendor abused the trust it was given. If you don't trust the software manufacturer, you are in deep doh-doh - you can't use your computer. As far as I know, Sony was dishonest from the start to this point.
And if you want to control your kids, it's quite simple - firewall + antivirus + user policy. Don't allow them to install filesharing software and you'll be safe. Not to mention that making a copy for oneself is not illegal copying. Think mp3player, Ipod, etc.
This is only possible because systems like DRM are not in place to prevent such action. Legitimate uses are allowed, it is only illegal copying which they are trying to prevent. I see nothing wrong in that.
First, there is no such thing as illegal copying. There is illegal distribution. Then, you should realise that only ONE cd must be ripped in order for the album to be available on the net. Of course, that will happen, DRM or not.
Hmmm, make this personal will you. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me slow - it could mean you are wrong too.
I'll appologise for getting personal. However I stand by my other opinions. It is also a manufacturers responsibility to prevent harm from occurring to its consumers.
Yeah, like not creating exploitable holes in a computer's defence, not installing malicious software, etc...
All software from time to time has exploits - that's why we have security patches.
The problem here is that you think that the Sony DRM was a legitimate software with a bug and most of the people think that Sony included intentionally a malware application. Looking myself at what was claimed to do and what it does, I have NO doubt it was intentional. And idiotic. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
No, the benefit from the system is that it is protective measure against illegal actions. It stops you from making mistakes. Your argument suggests that firewalls and anti-virus software is bad because they slow down your computer and occasionally have software exploits in them,
It stops you from making mistakes?!?! Such as transfering the music to your Ipod? Or transfering OTHER music to your mp3 player?
An operating system, firewal
If it was anywhere close to THIS comment, it's no wonder.
I stand by the view that piracy is a crime and that Sony is only acting in the best interests of the wider consumer by trying to limit such piracy.
I'll agree that copyright infringement is a crime. I'll suggest that Sony packs nerve gas in the CD jewel cases - that would be the best way to limit such piracy
Like it or not, piracy of copyrighted material increases the cost of that material to the rest of us.
I'll agree for the moment, even that I am not 100% sure.
Like it or not, most parents are far too busy to supervise their children's time on the internet.
Ooopsie. Your kid, your computer, your internet connexion. YOU are responsible for it. If you don't trust the kid, don't allow him near the computer. Make him a special account. Limit his access. It's your responsability. It's like saying "most parents are far to busy to supervise their children's time with fire weapons".
Like it or not, the internet allows for the easy distribution and copying of copyrighted material. Like it or not, ordinary people are unwittingly committing a crime which costs the rest of us.
And your point is? Yes, the DRM system is an inconvenience and concern to the smaller technically savvy community, but to the wider public it isn't.
Oh realllly? First, why don't you invest half an hour of your so precious time and learn what a rootkit is. And learn what the Sony rootkit does. And learn that there are already malware that USE the Sony DRM to conceal themselves. And then do what a concerned responsible computer owner would do: reboot from readonly media and reinstall windows, because it's compromised.
Keep in mind that your kid will most likely download (illegally) the songs from internet for his mp3 player if he can't rip them himself. Good DRM practice!
You might fight against it, but the wider audience understand the benefit it brings to the wider public and parents to which this matter is of concern.
Most people already understood what's to understand. You are slower. Let me help: It's a parent responsibility what the kid does with his computer. If a guy from Sony would come into your house and check your computer and then leave all doors and windows wide open, would you cheer? Because that's exactly what the Sony DRM does. The only benefit this rootkit does is to slow down your computer, compromise it definitively and maybe not allow you to use the CD drive until you reinstall windows.
As for boycotting Sony, well I'm for one are glad that they are trying to bring such systems in. I don't want to have to constantly supervise my children or be concerned that they might be committing criminal acts.
You do realize that the rootkit does nothing to ease your parental duties? No, you don't. You still need to supervise your children. You still need to be concerned that they might commit criminal acts. And, on the plus side, you have to be concerned that some hacker from the other side of the world is committing criminal acts using YOUR computer. And you know what's the best part? If the police breaks your door because your IP is spreading kid porn, you won't be able to prove it wasn't you.
Did I notice that the CD installed software on my system - No. Do I care about protecting my family - Yes.
It seems that you have mixed the answers. You should have noticed software was installed. And you obviously don't protect your family. You probably have the best intentions, but you fail to understand the basics about the electronic world you live in. Educate yourself and your family.
Unfortunately, the only browser that is recognised by the software is IE...
It's your wedding, ok. Either you pay for my time and skill, or you take your own photographs. I don't care.
And your logic is of course flawed. The photographer owns copyright for the images, not the wedding. It's his product, he manufactured it. The wedding is not his creation, but the photographs are.
Most photographs will give you high resolution files, but for a different price.
Are you kidding me? It's more likely Yahoo Messenger and ICQ while switching between AIM and MSN all the time... a full time job
Yeah, I know, there is another... duh
On the other hand, the bastards behind Gator, Bonzi Buddy, Bargain Central et co are only parasites. They steal MY bandwith, my attention, they make websurfing an unpleasant experience, and they give ME nothing in exchange. Even more, they give NOBODY anything in exchange. They basically steal from the content providers - trust me, I won't click an ad on a page on which I got a popup - and they steal from me (time, bandwidth and brain cells). In fact, I am willing to bet that any given person wastes more bandwidth on ads than on spam! They should be put in the same cell with spammers and people should ge MEDIEVAL with their asses!
Not to mention the privacy issues when a browser installs sh1t from the internet without your command. Thank god for Opera!
2. I'm thinking I deserve a raise. Zzzzt! agreed.
Idiot! 3. I'm thinking I'll have myself a raise. Zzzzt... done.
4. I'm thinking that the leggy busty blonde wants visit my bed tonite...Zzzzt!
5. I'm thinking I should you all leave think. Zzzzt!.. !@#RTA [NO CARRIER]
Follow the money, apply some fines, and see the spam going down. Or, maybe, just maybe, US should invade America? :)
Just my 2e-2 $
I just don't get it. No security breach. Not related to the SSI, nor GSP. Then how did it leak???? Psychics?
I know that THEY might know the list of people I email to, but creating a centralised structure?! I think I prefere spam.
I am just picturing some pimple faced hacker, rubbing his hands: so, finnally, Jane and John got to know each other... let's spy some more.
Or, maybe, I am just paranoid. What do you think?
And wrong because it is not THAT dificult to stop spam. No, really. But you have to be practical.
1. Make good legislation. Thou shall not spam. IF you spam, you'll be seriously fined. Allow the $@#$%#@ lawyers to sue. Every time I get spammed, I forward the message to the anti-spam organization. Then, the lawyer sues, gets the money, keeps a fee and gives me the rest.
3. Don't tell me it's hard to track the spammer. It's EASY. Follow the money. Here comes step 1. If spam money are sent to Korea or China, block the transfer.
The last point I want to make: there was/is another advertising system where the recipient would pay more than the sender. But, guess what? They don't send ads through fax. Why? Huge fines.
My .02
And, by the way, falling??? That baby is on the orbit! If something goes one way, something else (presumably the ISS) pushed it. There are some funny things here: 1. the ISS is loosing parts; 2. It's likely that those parts will return (orbit, remember), maybe with some velocity; 3. I'll be delighted when some fancy top secret military satelite will get a nice russian bolt right in it's precisely calibrated lens. THAT hopefully will be the closest thing to star wars, or whatever was the hyphen some decades ago.
Mr. President, postphone a little the Mars trip, the station is about to fall on your empty suit, sir, mr. President, sir.
INCOMING!!!!
I hate Windows Messenger. I hate the damn sticky key feature. I hate most of the accessories. Now, WMP ain't so bad, but BSPlayer is what *I* need. Did I mention ActiveX? Damn, I learned to hate IE... but, of course, is needed to patch Windows. MSN explorer? You keep it!
But, of course, to uninstall some of those you need to sell your first born male child... and the others (hint: IE) are just plain uninstalable.
You know what? It's an operating system. Bane EVERYTHING that's not using and following open protocols. TCP/IP? open - leave it. Outlook Express that connects to hotmail? Proprietary - erase it. IE? kind of uses open protocols, but we know it's not following standards. Bane it, or force them to change it. Oh, they want proprietary stuff? Ok, no prob, but not in the OS I paid for.
And, BTW, a ssh client would be nice, not to mention the daemon... I mean server.
1. Clicking can be dangerous.
2. If an operating system is that badly designed so one can actually overwrite an executable only by visiting a web page, than it's time to change the security settings.