If a legal Linux DVD player comes along in the middle of the trial, that's all very well and good, but it shouldn't affect the trial, right? There was no player at the time the alleged crime was committed...
I don't think the presence or absence of a legal player should have too much bearing on the legal issues involved, in any case....
Ok, so let's say (hypothetically, of course....) that you've been running a low-profile Linux system on the 'net for a while. At first, you just got IP Masqing up and turned off unused services. Later, you did some better firewalling. Then you started using SSH... added back in some services you needed...
But the thing is, it's been out there, in various states of lockdown, for at least the better part of a year.
How to know if you've already been compromised? Is there any way? Or is a fresh, secure install the only way to go?
I'm scared by the root kits that replace top, who, users, etc to make the intrusion undetectable. (Yeah, time to make that read-only floppy...)
Well, I realize that's a risk, but I'm just protecting my personal box. It's not like I'll inconvenience my users (I don't have any). I figure that my box will look unintersting enough that they'll go away. Whenever an IP is dropped, I get an email, so I'm aware of what's going on, and I can fix it if I need to.
There's generally no good reason to hack back, I think. (Unless identifying and reporting the hacker constitutes hacking back...)
I use PortSentry as one line of defense, and if someone scans the box, they just get dropped into a black hole. (Actually, them and their subnet, in case it's a dynamic IP on a dialup.)
PortSentry allows you to run any arbitrary command when a scan is detected, but he warns against retaliatory action:
I NEVER RECOMMEND PUTTING IN RETALIATORY ACTION AGAINST AN ATTACKING HOST. Virtually every time you're are port scanned the host doing the scanning has been compromised itself. Therefore, if you retaliate you are probably attacking an innocent(?) party. Also the goal of security is to make the person GO AWAY. You don't want to irritate them into making a personal vendetta against you. Remember, even a 13 year old can run a [insert favorite D.O.S. program here] attack against you from their Windows box to make your life miserable.
My point was that before, they seemed to think that the "source code" referred to in the GPL consisted only of the kernel source. To anyone who asked, they pointed to kernel-source-2.2.14.src.rpm. The sigh referred to the fact that they thought they were covered by this. Obviously confused.
And if YOU read the article, and the previous one, you'd see that at first they provided NO code to ANYTHING, and now they are finally providing source to everything but one package. Which is still a problem of course, but at least they're showing just a little bit of good faith...
Who are the criminals here in the MP3 debate? Is it the people downloading?
Yes. The law is clear here. They are violating the record industry's copyrights on the vast majority of downloaded files.
The lawmakers who passed silly IP laws like this?
Yep, lots of them are criminals, but not because they pass silly laws. No law against passing silly laws. And laws which protect the works of an individual are not that silly.
the courts for upholding such laws against public opinion and the constitution?
It's not the court's duty to rule based on public opinion (thank God!). I also don't see how copyright violations are a constitutional issue.
The RIAA for engaging in unethical and monopolistic business practices?
Probably.
Come on, this is silly. Sorry you want all your music for free. It's not legally available for free. That's clear. That's the law. Heck, I don't even think it's a bad law.
Don't get me wrong, when the RIAA tells me it's "illegal" for me to convert my OWN CD to MP3 format, I get really really pissed at their attitude... But you don't have a leg to stand on when you advocate theft of copyrighted material.
It's Gnome 1.2 that's out now, and Helix Code, being the awesome guys that they are, have already packaged it into the "Helix" distribution, or whatever. I'm not knocking Helix or Red Hat, it's just strange to see the news that Gnome 1.2 is released under the heading of "Helix Gnome 1.2 Released." Even if Helix is Miguel's company...
Property seizure and forfeiture laws are one of the biggest ways police depts can support themselves these days... I'm sure some of it is "evidence gathering" but sometimes it seems like outright theft. You may cheer when the Mafia king loses his house, but there are some pretty scary ramifications to these laws.
In Conneticut you can lose your car if you use it to solicit a prostitute.
On May 20, 1993, The City's Police Department
obtained a warrant to enter the home of Mr. Lawrence Perkins as part of a homicide investigation involving a former boarder of the Perkins household. Neither Mr. Perkins nor any member of his family were suspects in the investigation. During the search, the West Covina Police Department confiscated a number of items including $2,629 in cash.
There's an article (from a libertarian point of view) on this here
It's the Linux version of the virus. But since VB doesn't run on Linux, it's on the honor system. If you happen to get to get it in your box, it's up to you to delete some files, and then send it along to a few people in your address book...:-)
Ok, AMD can make a chip accurate to 0.18 microns. Granted, that accuracy doesn't apply to the top surface of the chip, but the packaging tolerances probably aren't very loose, and I have a hard time believing that Joe Overclocker and a Brillo pad can make matters any better. And how about the heat sink? Is that chunk of aluminum squirted out of a Taiwanese extruding machine really gonna be any flatter than the Athlon?
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
They're taking an open protocol, adding a bit to it, and trying to call the whole thing their property. I don't think that's going to work.
They aren't saying that they have registered the trademark for Kerberos. They aren't saying that they own the Kerberos spec. They are saying that they have documented their proprietary extensions to Kerberos, and that the document, which they wrote, is copyrighted.
I agree that something which is easily downloaded is not a trade secret. I agree that they do not own the Kerberos spec. I agree that "extending" it is an evil thing to do.
Given the fact that Microsoft is a known monopolist, people have a right to be concerned about what Microsoft is attempting to do with an open protocol. Posting the information so that we can all discuss it should be considered fair use, even if Microsoft does somehow own the copyright for the document.
I agree, 100%. Get the document, bypass the EULA, read it, and then post the details of the spec.
But taking their document & retransmitting it verbatim is copyright infringement, IMO. Perhaps/. can claim common carrier, and ignore MS's request. But that doesn't change the fact that the original posters of the document violated MS's copyright.
It's copyrighted. It doesn't matter if they're talking about extensions to an open spec - the document, which they wrote, is copyrighted. The same way O'Reilly copyrights books that explain the open TCP/IP protocols, etc.
This seems open and shut, I'm surprised/. is trying to fight it.
If somebody posted the text of an O'Reilly book to/. and Tim asked that it be removed, what do you think would happen?
The "remove the posts explaining click-through circumvention" part is bogus, of course, but the part that rings true is this:
Microsoft has a copyrighted document. How you got it doesn't matter - it could have been posted to their web page in plain ol' HTML, and if it says (c) 2000 Microsoft, Inc then it's copyrighted.
If you go and copy it and post it in full somewhere else, you are committing copyright violation. Same reason you can't go to the NYT page and post the entire text of an article on/.
Not true. The fact is that the material is allegedly copyrighted. The law may be unclear in this case, and is anyway certainly open to interpretation.
Uh? If I write a little Perl script and put "Copyright 2000, Eric Sandeen" on it, is that not copyrighted? There's no central copyright office, like there is for patents and trademarks.
If MS writes a document, stamps "copyright" on it, it's copyrighted (unless it was stolen from some other copyrighted material, of course.)
Which brings me to... just because Kerberos is an open standard, MS can still write a 10 page document describing it, and copyright that document.
If you subsequently retransmit it in full, you are guilty of copyright violation, AFAIK.
It's been posted before that AOL & Gateway threw money at Transmeta for wireless webpads... I'll betcha that's what will appear. No time for links, gotta run.
I firmly beleive that this is a little payback to M$ for not being a Gore or H. Clinton supporter in the upcoming campains. (sic)
Perhaps - it's always about money, isn't it?:)
But - the motives for launching the investigation don't necessarily mean that the allegations of monopoly are false. Would it have been better if the Clinton administration had chosen to look the other way if Microsoft had made some donations?
You can firmly believe what you like, but check this out:
1) no donation, no investigation -> status quo (==good?) 2) big donation, no investigation -> cries of MS buying the govt 3) no donation, big investigation -> your cry (above) of payback 4) big donation, big investigation -> cries of (unsucsessfully) trying to buy the govt:0)
Ok, time for self-aggrandizing... when I read things like
Critics of the DMCA have long argued that the "anti-circumvention" provisions tilt the balance too far in favor of copyright owners, while depriving the public of the ability to use and access information.
I equate "Critics of the DMCA" with "Readers of Slashdot and Linux users." Perhaps this is silly... are there other large groups of people organized against the DMCA? I think librarians in general probably are... but I also think that/. readers & Linux activists may have more political/PR clout than they realize.
Slashdot Mirror
That'd be swords.
---
If a legal Linux DVD player comes along in the middle of the trial, that's all very well and good, but it shouldn't affect the trial, right? There was no player at the time the alleged crime was committed...
I don't think the presence or absence of a legal player should have too much bearing on the legal issues involved, in any case....
---
Ok, so let's say (hypothetically, of course....) that you've been running a low-profile Linux system on the 'net for a while. At first, you just got IP Masqing up and turned off unused services. Later, you did some better firewalling. Then you started using SSH... added back in some services you needed...
But the thing is, it's been out there, in various states of lockdown, for at least the better part of a year.
How to know if you've already been compromised? Is there any way? Or is a fresh, secure install the only way to go?
I'm scared by the root kits that replace top, who, users, etc to make the intrusion undetectable. (Yeah, time to make that read-only floppy...)
---
Well, I realize that's a risk, but I'm just protecting my personal box. It's not like I'll inconvenience my users (I don't have any). I figure that my box will look unintersting enough that they'll go away. Whenever an IP is dropped, I get an email, so I'm aware of what's going on, and I can fix it if I need to.
Do you have any suggestions for a better way?
---
I use PortSentry as one line of defense, and if someone scans the box, they just get dropped into a black hole. (Actually, them and their subnet, in case it's a dynamic IP on a dialup.)
PortSentry allows you to run any arbitrary command when a scan is detected, but he warns against retaliatory action:
Sounds reasonable to me...
---
Hrm... is "Signal 11" your legal name? Just wondering where to start in the records... :)
---
WTF are you talking about? Stick up my ass?
My point was that before, they seemed to think that the "source code" referred to in the GPL consisted only of the kernel source. To anyone who asked, they pointed to kernel-source-2.2.14.src.rpm. The sigh referred to the fact that they thought they were covered by this. Obviously confused.
And if YOU read the article, and the previous one, you'd see that at first they provided NO code to ANYTHING, and now they are finally providing source to everything but one package. Which is still a problem of course, but at least they're showing just a little bit of good faith...
---
Some are still fuming that YHBT HAND.
Huh? I'm confused... how was this a troll, and what's WHBT HAND?
---
They actually have finally put the source out there - it's at http://www.gentus.com/downloads/source
Before, they said that they had released the source, then pointed to the kernel-source RPM.
sigh
---
Who are the criminals here in the MP3 debate? Is it the people downloading?
Yes. The law is clear here. They are violating the record industry's copyrights on the vast majority of downloaded files.
The lawmakers who passed silly IP laws like this?
Yep, lots of them are criminals, but not because they pass silly laws. No law against passing silly laws. And laws which protect the works of an individual are not that silly.
the courts for upholding such laws against public opinion and the constitution?
It's not the court's duty to rule based on public opinion (thank God!). I also don't see how copyright violations are a constitutional issue.
The RIAA for engaging in unethical and monopolistic business practices?
Probably.
Come on, this is silly. Sorry you want all your music for free. It's not legally available for free. That's clear. That's the law. Heck, I don't even think it's a bad law.
Don't get me wrong, when the RIAA tells me it's "illegal" for me to convert my OWN CD to MP3 format, I get really really pissed at their attitude... But you don't have a leg to stand on when you advocate theft of copyrighted material.
---
It's Gnome 1.2 that's out now, and Helix Code, being the awesome guys that they are, have already packaged it into the "Helix" distribution, or whatever. I'm not knocking Helix or Red Hat, it's just strange to see the news that Gnome 1.2 is released under the heading of "Helix Gnome 1.2 Released." Even if Helix is Miguel's company...
:)
(Hey, www.gnome.org has a new look, too!)
---
Hey, great! I hear that Red Hat Linux Kernel 2.4 will be out soon, too. ;)
---
In Conneticut you can lose your car if you use it to solicit a prostitute.
Or how bout this one:
There's an article (from a libertarian point of view) on this here
---
It's the Linux version of the virus. But since VB doesn't run on Linux, it's on the honor system. If you happen to get to get it in your box, it's up to you to delete some files, and then send it along to a few people in your address book... :-)
---
Ok, AMD can make a chip accurate to 0.18 microns. Granted, that accuracy doesn't apply to the top surface of the chip, but the packaging tolerances probably aren't very loose, and I have a hard time believing that Joe Overclocker and a Brillo pad can make matters any better. And how about the heat sink? Is that chunk of aluminum squirted out of a Taiwanese extruding machine really gonna be any flatter than the Athlon?
:)
Whatever.
---
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
/. can claim common carrier, and ignore MS's request. But that doesn't change the fact that the original posters of the document violated MS's copyright.
They're taking an open protocol, adding a bit to it, and trying to call the whole thing their property. I don't think that's going to work.
They aren't saying that they have registered the trademark for Kerberos. They aren't saying that they own the Kerberos spec. They are saying that they have documented their proprietary extensions to Kerberos, and that the document, which they wrote, is copyrighted.
I agree that something which is easily downloaded is not a trade secret. I agree that they do not own the Kerberos spec. I agree that "extending" it is an evil thing to do.
Given the fact that Microsoft is a known monopolist, people have a right to be concerned about what Microsoft is attempting to do with an open protocol. Posting the information so that we can all discuss it should be considered fair use, even if Microsoft does somehow own the copyright for the document.
I agree, 100%. Get the document, bypass the EULA, read it, and then post the details of the spec.
But taking their document & retransmitting it verbatim is copyright infringement, IMO. Perhaps
---
Did you miss the "they wrote it" part?
I'm not saying they wrote the Kerberos spec. I'm saying they wrote a document describing & explaining it. Or some semblance of it...
---
Here, look at the full text.
/. is trying to fight it.
/. and Tim asked that it be removed, what do you think would happen?
See there at the top? "© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved."
It's copyrighted. It doesn't matter if they're talking about extensions to an open spec - the document, which they wrote, is copyrighted. The same way O'Reilly copyrights books that explain the open TCP/IP protocols, etc.
This seems open and shut, I'm surprised
If somebody posted the text of an O'Reilly book to
---
The "remove the posts explaining click-through circumvention" part is bogus, of course, but the part that rings true is this:
/.
Microsoft has a copyrighted document. How you got it doesn't matter - it could have been posted to their web page in plain ol' HTML, and if it says (c) 2000 Microsoft, Inc then it's copyrighted.
If you go and copy it and post it in full somewhere else, you are committing copyright violation. Same reason you can't go to the NYT page and post the entire text of an article on
---
/undo_prior_moderation
Not true. The fact is that the material is allegedly copyrighted. The law may be unclear in this case, and is anyway certainly open to interpretation.
Uh? If I write a little Perl script and put "Copyright 2000, Eric Sandeen" on it, is that not copyrighted? There's no central copyright office, like there is for patents and trademarks.
If MS writes a document, stamps "copyright" on it, it's copyrighted (unless it was stolen from some other copyrighted material, of course.)
Which brings me to... just because Kerberos is an open standard, MS can still write a 10 page document describing it, and copyright that document.
If you subsequently retransmit it in full, you are guilty of copyright violation, AFAIK.
Right?
---
It's been posted before that AOL & Gateway threw money at Transmeta for wireless webpads... I'll betcha that's what will appear. No time for links, gotta run.
Score -1: tantalizing, yet lacking real info
(Search for aol & gateway press releases....)
---
I firmly beleive that this is a little payback to M$ for not being a Gore or H. Clinton supporter in the upcoming campains. (sic)
:)
:0)
Perhaps - it's always about money, isn't it?
But - the motives for launching the investigation don't necessarily mean that the allegations of monopoly are false. Would it have been better if the Clinton administration had chosen to look the other way if Microsoft had made some donations?
You can firmly believe what you like, but check this out:
1) no donation, no investigation -> status quo (==good?)
2) big donation, no investigation -> cries of MS buying the govt
3) no donation, big investigation -> your cry (above) of payback
4) big donation, big investigation -> cries of (unsucsessfully) trying to buy the govt
---
It makes sense to have a distinction between what you can do as a local user, and what you can do in a server and then retransmit to random people.
So write the dialectizer in Java, and run it on the client. Problem solved?
---
Ok, time for self-aggrandizing... when I read things like
/. readers & Linux activists may have more political/PR clout than they realize.
:)
Critics of the DMCA have long argued that the "anti-circumvention" provisions tilt the balance too far in favor of copyright owners, while depriving the public of the ability to use and access information.
I equate "Critics of the DMCA" with "Readers of Slashdot and Linux users." Perhaps this is silly... are there other large groups of people organized against the DMCA? I think librarians in general probably are... but I also think that
Or I could be on crack.
---
I'm wondering why a suit hasn't come up yet... does the EULA really protect them against this kind of thing?
Ten. Billion. Dollars.
$10,000,000,000
---