That's covered by the "no derivative works" section of the CC license, if the author uses that part. What I'm talking about is the "share-alike" section.
Your analogy isn't apt. There's really no need for an analogy, because the logic is fairly obvious here.
1. Suppose you share music with me via Zune, and the music is covered under a CC license. 2. I can listen to the file via MS's player, but since the file was shared via Zune, it is DRMed. 3. The DRM prevents me from exercising my rights granted under the CC license, despite the maintenance of those rights being a requirement under the CC license. 4. Since you don't hold the copyright on it, you must either agree to the terms that give you the right to distribute it (namely, the CC license) or not distribute it at all. 5. You are therefore in violation of copyright.
There is no question that the above logic holds true. The question raised by the ancestor post is whether the below logic is also true:
6. Microsoft is (according to the argument being put forth here, anyway) responsible for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement for providing and profiting on a service that causes you to violate copyright if you use it to share CC-licensed music, i.e., they don't give you any choice in the matter regarding the DRM.
I shudder to say it, but isn't this what DMCA takedown notices are for? If someone puts some music they don't own on the web space that their local ISP gives them, then the copyright holder's recourse is to send a DMCA takedown notice. The ISP handles it, problem solved.
Why should YouTube be any different? Send them a DMCA takedown notice, and surprise surprise, they'll happily remove the offending content. Problem solved.
There's only one reason why YouTube is getting treated differently. UMG sees a cash cow that they don't own, and they want desperately to milk it.
Tell them to call you via long-distance calling card. A lot of those cards will show up on your caller ID as a particular number every time that depends on which company offered the card.
In some municipalities (mine, for instance), you aren't allowed (i.e., it's illegal) to root through someone's bagged/boxed garbage that's set out on the treelawn for pickup. If someone puts a refrigerator/couch/shelves/etc. out there, though, it's fair game.
To extend this analogy, the unboxed furniture and appliances are like the linked stuff on a website. You can see it while walking down the street, and there's no privacy consideration. The bagged garbage is like all of the things that aren't linked - i.e., you know there's something there, because you can see the bags (URLs). If you just modify the bags/URLs a bit, you can get at all that stuff inside.
Again, there's a huge difference between what's technically possible and what's legally permitted.
Well, if the system is truly properly designed in all other respects, you don't need paper verification, because the system will be correct regardless of whether you have it or not. Even with paper ballots alone, you don't have true verification that your vote is being counted. Someone might drop it behind a desk, the box might end up in a horrible fiery car accident, or the wrong vote might be tabulated (intentionally or otherwise) if human eyes are doing the counting.
The reason that paper verification is so important (and I agree that it is a necessity at this point in the process) is that (a) people don't trust the voting machine companies, and (b) no voting machine that is truly reliable has yet been built.
As far as proper design, I would implement a system where each ballot station remotely transmits a completed ballot back to the counting station when it is cast. Each transaction would be digitally signed and encrypted using a key which can only be downloaded to the ballot station through a physical link between the counting station and the ballot station at the same time that the firmware is downloaded. An attempt to change the firmware leads to corrupting the digital signature, which would be caught instantly by the counting station when either the machine is first brought up on Election Day or the next vote is cast after the change to the firmware is attempted.
There's more to the design than I've mentioned here, of course, but if it's correctly implemented, then it can be guaranteed to be accurate down to the individual vote. And I'm certain that no paper ballot system can guarantee that beyond a small number of votes.
Many police departments that use Tasers include subjecting their officers to being shocked with the Taser as part of their training.
I find it interesting that the OP picked and chose his quotes to obfuscate what Wynne was getting at. He was actually trying to say that if we use these non-lethal weapons on (potentially) civilians abroad, we'd better also be willing to have them used in situations like riot control at home. Never let the truth stand in the way of politics, though.
Personally, I've been waiting for the microwave pain ray to be made available in civilian applications for some time now. There have been altogether too many drunken riots after college sporting events in recent years, and a bit of momentary discomfort for a few troublemakers will save millions of dollars of property damage.
Security from a technical perspective may be different from security from a legal perspective.
Analogies are usually less apt than the author claims them to be, but I'll use one anyway: Saying that security through obscurity doesn't offer legal protection against intrusions is like saying that if I hide my house key under the door mat, then anyone is implicitly welcome to use it to come into my house (perhaps even to take my stuff, depending on how far you extend the analogy).
Is it the same (at least, for legal purposes)? I don't know. I do vaguely recall this (altering URLs to access unlinked content) coming up in another case, but I'm too lazy to do a search.
A properly designed electronic voting system will be far more accurate and far more secure than counting ballots by hand or using punch cards or optical scanners. Additionally, the results can be tabulated a lot more quickly.
Unfortunately, proper design seems to be something of a stumbling block among e-voting manufacturers.
WHEREAS ALL they NEED to do and HAD to do is to bar all access from u.s. to that u.k. site
If the US government did that, then you'd be complaining about censorship.
The problem is that this guy and his company accepted money from US citizens who were on US soil in exchange for providing a service that is illegal in the US. It would be trivial for him to refuse credit card transactions for cards where the address on record is in the US, and at least then he'd have plausible deniability. Of course, doing so destroys most of his market, so it's easy to see why he wouldn't do that.
OK, then, how do you think the {long list of things} has affected impressions of what is and is not acceptable behavior in the boardrooms of America?
If anything, the laws regarding corporate governance have gotten more strict during the current administration. I wouldn't blame/credit Bush for that, either - this was a long time in the making.
Who outside the administration is responsible for those things happening?
Could it possibly be the people who are actually in those boardrooms? Contrary to popular belief among the far left, free will wasn't completely abolished when Bush took over.
The real problem is that so many deeply disturbing things are happening at once that it's becoming impossible to keep track.
So rather than bothering to keep track, just blame Bush for everything. After all, it's also the most politically expedient move when it comes to bringing mindless sheep over to your side - and if you say something often enough, it also makes it true.
He didn't sound like a Bush apologist to me when he said, "His foreign policy is quite debatable, as is Dubai Ports, illegal immigrants taking blue collar jobs from the lower middle class, outsourcing, our trade policy with China, etc, etc."
"Martyr" is obviously the wrong word here. Nevertheless, unbridled attempts to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong - rather than just the things that he's responsible for - only serve to marginalize valid opposition opinions on things like illegal surveillance, deficit spending, the Iraq war, etc.
Leela: Bender, that aerosol head spray makes your antenna smell nice... Bender: Thank you. Leela:...but it's doing long-term damage to the planet! Bender: So? It's not like it's the only one we've got.
It depends. Where I live, it's illegal to root around through most garbage (i.e., dumpsters, garbage bags, boxes), but it's legal to take large unboxed items like discarded furniture or appliances such that there's no real privacy issue at hand.
Well, News Corp is one of the few media conglomerates not to have a music-producing subsidiary. If they pull this off right, it could be a tremendous coup for them (and for the little guy, strangely) against the rest of the music industry.
What will be really interesting is whether some major names decide to jump ship from the traditional music industry and move to MySpace.
If iTMS were a subscription service, I might be more inclined to agree with you. But it's not - you're buying the music for keeps, so it doesn't really matter ethically whether you strip the DRM or not, as long as you don't then go and violate copyright law.
Slashdot Mirror
That's covered by the "no derivative works" section of the CC license, if the author uses that part. What I'm talking about is the "share-alike" section.
Why pay for the cow when you can get the emulator for free?
Will the new digital phasers still point away from each other, yet somehow converge on their target?
Because it's not real TOS Star Trek if they don't.
Your analogy isn't apt. There's really no need for an analogy, because the logic is fairly obvious here.
1. Suppose you share music with me via Zune, and the music is covered under a CC license.
2. I can listen to the file via MS's player, but since the file was shared via Zune, it is DRMed.
3. The DRM prevents me from exercising my rights granted under the CC license, despite the maintenance of those rights being a requirement under the CC license.
4. Since you don't hold the copyright on it, you must either agree to the terms that give you the right to distribute it (namely, the CC license) or not distribute it at all.
5. You are therefore in violation of copyright.
There is no question that the above logic holds true. The question raised by the ancestor post is whether the below logic is also true:
6. Microsoft is (according to the argument being put forth here, anyway) responsible for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement for providing and profiting on a service that causes you to violate copyright if you use it to share CC-licensed music, i.e., they don't give you any choice in the matter regarding the DRM.
I shudder to say it, but isn't this what DMCA takedown notices are for? If someone puts some music they don't own on the web space that their local ISP gives them, then the copyright holder's recourse is to send a DMCA takedown notice. The ISP handles it, problem solved.
Why should YouTube be any different? Send them a DMCA takedown notice, and surprise surprise, they'll happily remove the offending content. Problem solved.
There's only one reason why YouTube is getting treated differently. UMG sees a cash cow that they don't own, and they want desperately to milk it.
Tell them to call you via long-distance calling card. A lot of those cards will show up on your caller ID as a particular number every time that depends on which company offered the card.
Agreed, this is a very important distinction.
In some municipalities (mine, for instance), you aren't allowed (i.e., it's illegal) to root through someone's bagged/boxed garbage that's set out on the treelawn for pickup. If someone puts a refrigerator/couch/shelves/etc. out there, though, it's fair game.
To extend this analogy, the unboxed furniture and appliances are like the linked stuff on a website. You can see it while walking down the street, and there's no privacy consideration. The bagged garbage is like all of the things that aren't linked - i.e., you know there's something there, because you can see the bags (URLs). If you just modify the bags/URLs a bit, you can get at all that stuff inside.
Again, there's a huge difference between what's technically possible and what's legally permitted.
Well, if the system is truly properly designed in all other respects, you don't need paper verification, because the system will be correct regardless of whether you have it or not. Even with paper ballots alone, you don't have true verification that your vote is being counted. Someone might drop it behind a desk, the box might end up in a horrible fiery car accident, or the wrong vote might be tabulated (intentionally or otherwise) if human eyes are doing the counting.
The reason that paper verification is so important (and I agree that it is a necessity at this point in the process) is that (a) people don't trust the voting machine companies, and (b) no voting machine that is truly reliable has yet been built.
As far as proper design, I would implement a system where each ballot station remotely transmits a completed ballot back to the counting station when it is cast. Each transaction would be digitally signed and encrypted using a key which can only be downloaded to the ballot station through a physical link between the counting station and the ballot station at the same time that the firmware is downloaded. An attempt to change the firmware leads to corrupting the digital signature, which would be caught instantly by the counting station when either the machine is first brought up on Election Day or the next vote is cast after the change to the firmware is attempted.
There's more to the design than I've mentioned here, of course, but if it's correctly implemented, then it can be guaranteed to be accurate down to the individual vote. And I'm certain that no paper ballot system can guarantee that beyond a small number of votes.
Many police departments that use Tasers include subjecting their officers to being shocked with the Taser as part of their training.
I find it interesting that the OP picked and chose his quotes to obfuscate what Wynne was getting at. He was actually trying to say that if we use these non-lethal weapons on (potentially) civilians abroad, we'd better also be willing to have them used in situations like riot control at home. Never let the truth stand in the way of politics, though.
Personally, I've been waiting for the microwave pain ray to be made available in civilian applications for some time now. There have been altogether too many drunken riots after college sporting events in recent years, and a bit of momentary discomfort for a few troublemakers will save millions of dollars of property damage.
Security from a technical perspective may be different from security from a legal perspective.
Analogies are usually less apt than the author claims them to be, but I'll use one anyway: Saying that security through obscurity doesn't offer legal protection against intrusions is like saying that if I hide my house key under the door mat, then anyone is implicitly welcome to use it to come into my house (perhaps even to take my stuff, depending on how far you extend the analogy).
Is it the same (at least, for legal purposes)? I don't know. I do vaguely recall this (altering URLs to access unlinked content) coming up in another case, but I'm too lazy to do a search.
A properly designed electronic voting system will be far more accurate and far more secure than counting ballots by hand or using punch cards or optical scanners. Additionally, the results can be tabulated a lot more quickly.
Unfortunately, proper design seems to be something of a stumbling block among e-voting manufacturers.
Most regular Slashdot readers know that the askers in Ask Slashdot articles rarely ask the correct question.
Would someone also care to explain to me how my comment above is "redundant"?
WHEREAS ALL they NEED to do and HAD to do is to bar all access from u.s. to that u.k. site
If the US government did that, then you'd be complaining about censorship.
The problem is that this guy and his company accepted money from US citizens who were on US soil in exchange for providing a service that is illegal in the US. It would be trivial for him to refuse credit card transactions for cards where the address on record is in the US, and at least then he'd have plausible deniability. Of course, doing so destroys most of his market, so it's easy to see why he wouldn't do that.
OK, then, how do you think the {long list of things} has affected impressions of what is and is not acceptable behavior in the boardrooms of America?
If anything, the laws regarding corporate governance have gotten more strict during the current administration. I wouldn't blame/credit Bush for that, either - this was a long time in the making.
Who outside the administration is responsible for those things happening?
Could it possibly be the people who are actually in those boardrooms? Contrary to popular belief among the far left, free will wasn't completely abolished when Bush took over.
The real problem is that so many deeply disturbing things are happening at once that it's becoming impossible to keep track.
So rather than bothering to keep track, just blame Bush for everything. After all, it's also the most politically expedient move when it comes to bringing mindless sheep over to your side - and if you say something often enough, it also makes it true.
The obvious application for this technology is in MMOG servers, not in desktop machines.
You Bush apologists crack me up.
He didn't sound like a Bush apologist to me when he said, "His foreign policy is quite debatable, as is Dubai Ports, illegal immigrants taking blue collar jobs from the lower middle class, outsourcing, our trade policy with China, etc, etc."
"Martyr" is obviously the wrong word here. Nevertheless, unbridled attempts to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong - rather than just the things that he's responsible for - only serve to marginalize valid opposition opinions on things like illegal surveillance, deficit spending, the Iraq war, etc.
Leela: Bender, that aerosol head spray makes your antenna smell nice... ...but it's doing long-term damage to the planet!
Bender: Thank you.
Leela:
Bender: So? It's not like it's the only one we've got.
It depends. Where I live, it's illegal to root around through most garbage (i.e., dumpsters, garbage bags, boxes), but it's legal to take large unboxed items like discarded furniture or appliances such that there's no real privacy issue at hand.
Why would it be necessary to figure out a way to do this without using neural network processing?
Cuyahoga County and the rest of Ohio were not using Diebold electronic voting machines in 2004's election. Why did the OP choose to mention Ohio's 2004 election in connection with Diebold then?
Well, News Corp is one of the few media conglomerates not to have a music-producing subsidiary. If they pull this off right, it could be a tremendous coup for them (and for the little guy, strangely) against the rest of the music industry.
What will be really interesting is whether some major names decide to jump ship from the traditional music industry and move to MySpace.
It's a good thing the ISPs are doing this, since it's important that Ted Stevens gets his e-mail without delay.
If iTMS were a subscription service, I might be more inclined to agree with you. But it's not - you're buying the music for keeps, so it doesn't really matter ethically whether you strip the DRM or not, as long as you don't then go and violate copyright law.
Apparently, the New York Times needs a lesson in geography - specifically, what country New York is in.