Release an official emulator for the hardware as a freeware product. Also, release a hardware product that allows the proprietary cartrige to feed games to the emulator over USB. Allow the user to save serial-number tied copies to their hard disk and sell blank cartriges on which lost or destroied games can be restored, even if they're only playable on one specific unit after that's been done.
Then, open up your SDK so that people can make their own game images and release them however they want. They may just end up discovering some new game creation talent this way. Afterall, having better games available can help sell a weaker platform over a stronger one.
If you help the hacker community color between the lines, you'll have less of a threat in the areas where you do have to clamp down, such as the copying and distribution copyright-protected games.
Make it easier to do things the right way, and most (but not quite all) will do it that way instead of a wrong way.
The defense of owning a lawful copy (that is, an original Game Pak) does shift the burden of proof to the copyright owner to prove that the alleged infringer was not capable of making the copy,
Off by a little bit. It's not that the infinger could not make a legal copy, all they need to show is that the infinger did not make a legal copy. Any proof that the infringer downloaded a copy that was not from their source is a checkmate.
Likewise, it's very hard to reverse engineer a product legally. It's almost as if the civil burden of proof that a reverse engineered product is on the defendant to show documentation that all the proper setps were followed in order for the reverse engineering defense to fly.
The reverse engineering sheild is often invoked in cases where it just doesn't function.
Well, somebody has been gone after for allowing somebody who has proof of ownership of a CD copy song to download a digital copy of that song...
That was the lawsuit that brought down the original MP3.com site and turned the joint over to the recording industry's hands.
It's legal to format-shift under far use, but everybody must do their own format shifting for yourself.
Owning a music CD allows you to rip the files to MP3 for your own use. Owning a music CD however doesn't give you an excuse to be lazy and download an MP3 file that was made for somebody else's copy. Yeah, the net result of getting the song in MP3 form on your HD is the same, but one method is legal under fair use while the other isn't.
That's not what the patent claims. The patent is for a handheld emulator that can dynamically chose which platform to emulate based on the input file it was asked to load.
The workaround is to forget about coding that part and just have the user select which platform needs to be emulated.
You *are* allowed to make backups and fair-use copies. Wailing lawyers don't change this fact.
Yes, but you can only use a backup copy for restoration purposes, otherwise it's not a backup copy anymore.
And, if you're defeating an encryption scheme to try to use your "backup copy" in an emulator, now you've really got yourself on the wrong side of the DMCA.
At least Nintendo's sending a polite letter warning that this project is dangerously close if not over the line into foul territory before this project gets into trouble. They should at least talk to lawyers before going any further with their plans.
These guys seem to have stepped into legal hot water in several places.
- Emulating a video game platform is okay, but the patent Nintendo is claiming is against a program emulates multiple handheld videogame consoles based on analysing its input file to declare what format it has been given and therefore which console it needs to emulate. Now, there's likely was that a multi-platform emulator can step around this limitation, like requiring the user to declare which emulation mode is to be used, but this is definitely something the write of such a program should have a lawyer look over before they release their product.
- Emulating a video game platform is okay, but if there are no legal non-cartrige games available for that platform, there's a problem. The Atari emulator community has managed to not just reverse engineer the platform, but have also reverse engineered development tools for that platform so there are some legal freeware Atari 2600 games in circulation. I don't think there are any freeware Game Boy Advance games in circulation yet.
- You can legally copy your cartriges to your computer (if you can) to make a backup copy that could later be used to restore a lost or damaged cartrige, but you can't legally do anything else with your backup copy and still hide behind the backup fair use shield.
- The moral justifiation that you can download from the internet what you legally have another copy of is not a legal one. Maybe it should be, but under today's laws it isn't so that's not a defense to hide behind.
In short, this seems like a tool that encurages piracy and cannot seem to come up with a "substation non-infringing functionality" yet. It should be held tight to the developer until somebody can come up with one... maybe a lawyer can help find one.
Such a deadlock is avoidable either Alice and Bob are both smart enough to see it coming and value the communication enough to head it off.
When Bob gives Alice his e-mail address, he could put Alice on his whitelist immediately, or have given Alice a password that would automatically get her past the screening process on the first try. If Bob was really interested in getting Alice to go out with him again, he could have sent a request through through whatever common friend or dating service first introduced the two of them.
Alice could have not sent a second e-mail, but instead contacted Bob through whatever common friend or dating service first introduced the two of them. Alice could have also asked Bob for a secondary contact means during the first date. She also could have asked for a better communication means than e-mail if she wanted to make sure she could get through.
You should never make any important decisions based on an unencrypted e-mail alone unless you can contact the sender in another medium to confirm that the message you got was one they sent and meant. If you're girlfriend is dumping you by e-mail, veryify that with a phone call or at least confirm that she's refusing to take your calls... you do need make sure it's not somebody else trying to freak you out by making you think your girlfriend dumped you before you take any irreversable actions based on that information.
I wouldn't block anybody after their first mistake. However, there comes a point where too many mistakes indicate either a robotic attempt that isn't learning from its errors, or a really stupid human who likely can't compose a useful e-mail either.
Many spammers who are trying to beat a Bayes filter are either using misspellings of their most spammy words, or large lists of random dictionary words to try to lower their score. However, a coutermeasure to that would be to factor in the results of a spell check and grammar check. Some errors can be tolerated, however having too many mispellings and too many word groups that can't possibly be a proper sentance should raise the score enough to counteract the attempts to lower it and then some.
For a new account that's never been seen before, or worse yet, a new domain that's never been seen before, the number of knock-knocks (of any kind) they should be allowed to make should be limited.
Afterall, if somebody new out of the blue wants to speak to a large users on your mail server, they deserve some checking into. They're at least a new mailing list who is growing at unheard of rates. Better to blacklist them until they've been proven worthy.
Cumulate stats for new accounts, new domains, and new originating SMTP servers both individually and by IP space. Any that pass their speed limit are shut off. And, if it just so happens that too many new accounts are coming from the range of 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255, well, it's time to shut down for a bit...
If you're under attack from all corners of the web, then the only logical thing to do (and maybe you should have a doomsday script to recognize that) then the only logical thing to do is to do what the world would want you to do, block everyone from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255. "Sorry, DDOSers, we're closed. We'll be back when you all get patched."
A further piece of planning would be to have a "three strikes you're out" rule so that any IP address (or maybe even a range) who is proving to be really stupid at answering the questions is told they can't bother trying for a while, and any further attempts to load the page before their time is up will just result in an extention to their penalty.
Yes, but such a human-check is unlikely to be beaten by a computer 100% of the time. If a log of the failed challenge attempts is kept, the source of repeated failed challenges can be ruled out from getting any more challege attempts, or even just one failed challenge with hundreds of successful ones coming from the same IP space... then the hacker source cna be flagged and ruled out.
The best defenses involve several lines so that when the first gets beaten, another one tightens up against whatever the first line learned from its defeat...
Of course, the worst spammers make it impossible for the average user to ever identify the true source. I guess you are just giving them another reason why they need to do that.
That's like saying a all theoretical attacks is not worth securing against somebody's fallen victim to it. Sure, there's some way-out ideas that can be dismissed that way, but this one seems so simple I'm pretty sure somebody who runs both spam and a porn site could pull it off...
Just what do our friends at the DVD CCA have to say about the "DVD Authoring" standard? Is this something home users who don't have thousands and thousands to spend will ever be able to do legally?
It's because TV is driven by the paterns of the sweeps. All of the high-rating shows are being rested with either preemptions or reruns now to conserve expensive new episodes for the May sweeps, plus one or two episodes to run just before the sweeps start to get people back into the patern.
However, Dish will still have to pay the movie studio for each viewing, even though they're not collecting a fee. That will be actual money they have to pay since Echostar doesn't own any movies by itself...
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. So long as there's WiFi that covers my entire house, then this phone is just a geeky version of a 2.4 GHz cordless phone.
There may in fact be a path that this product can tread legally... it just has to make very sure it's well-marked so it doesn't stray from that path.
Maybe there's a hidden market here...
Release an official emulator for the hardware as a freeware product. Also, release a hardware product that allows the proprietary cartrige to feed games to the emulator over USB. Allow the user to save serial-number tied copies to their hard disk and sell blank cartriges on which lost or destroied games can be restored, even if they're only playable on one specific unit after that's been done.
Then, open up your SDK so that people can make their own game images and release them however they want. They may just end up discovering some new game creation talent this way. Afterall, having better games available can help sell a weaker platform over a stronger one.
If you help the hacker community color between the lines, you'll have less of a threat in the areas where you do have to clamp down, such as the copying and distribution copyright-protected games.
Make it easier to do things the right way, and most (but not quite all) will do it that way instead of a wrong way.
Yep, I'm just suggesting delcorations of "This is prior art!" be limited only to things that actually knock out the patent.
The defense of owning a lawful copy (that is, an original Game Pak) does shift the burden of proof to the copyright owner to prove that the alleged infringer was not capable of making the copy,
Off by a little bit. It's not that the infinger could not make a legal copy, all they need to show is that the infinger did not make a legal copy. Any proof that the infringer downloaded a copy that was not from their source is a checkmate.
Likewise, it's very hard to reverse engineer a product legally. It's almost as if the civil burden of proof that a reverse engineered product is on the defendant to show documentation that all the proper setps were followed in order for the reverse engineering defense to fly.
The reverse engineering sheild is often invoked in cases where it just doesn't function.
Well, somebody has been gone after for allowing somebody who has proof of ownership of a CD copy song to download a digital copy of that song... That was the lawsuit that brought down the original MP3.com site and turned the joint over to the recording industry's hands.
It's legal to format-shift under far use, but everybody must do their own format shifting for yourself.
Owning a music CD allows you to rip the files to MP3 for your own use. Owning a music CD however doesn't give you an excuse to be lazy and download an MP3 file that was made for somebody else's copy. Yeah, the net result of getting the song in MP3 form on your HD is the same, but one method is legal under fair use while the other isn't.
That's not what the patent claims. The patent is for a handheld emulator that can dynamically chose which platform to emulate based on the input file it was asked to load.
The workaround is to forget about coding that part and just have the user select which platform needs to be emulated.
You *are* allowed to make backups and fair-use copies. Wailing lawyers don't change this fact.
Yes, but you can only use a backup copy for restoration purposes, otherwise it's not a backup copy anymore.
And, if you're defeating an encryption scheme to try to use your "backup copy" in an emulator, now you've really got yourself on the wrong side of the DMCA.
At least Nintendo's sending a polite letter warning that this project is dangerously close if not over the line into foul territory before this project gets into trouble. They should at least talk to lawyers before going any further with their plans.
These guys seem to have stepped into legal hot water in several places.
- Emulating a video game platform is okay, but the patent Nintendo is claiming is against a program emulates multiple handheld videogame consoles based on analysing its input file to declare what format it has been given and therefore which console it needs to emulate. Now, there's likely was that a multi-platform emulator can step around this limitation, like requiring the user to declare which emulation mode is to be used, but this is definitely something the write of such a program should have a lawyer look over before they release their product.
- Emulating a video game platform is okay, but if there are no legal non-cartrige games available for that platform, there's a problem. The Atari emulator community has managed to not just reverse engineer the platform, but have also reverse engineered development tools for that platform so there are some legal freeware Atari 2600 games in circulation. I don't think there are any freeware Game Boy Advance games in circulation yet.
- You can legally copy your cartriges to your computer (if you can) to make a backup copy that could later be used to restore a lost or damaged cartrige, but you can't legally do anything else with your backup copy and still hide behind the backup fair use shield.
- The moral justifiation that you can download from the internet what you legally have another copy of is not a legal one. Maybe it should be, but under today's laws it isn't so that's not a defense to hide behind.
In short, this seems like a tool that encurages piracy and cannot seem to come up with a "substation non-infringing functionality" yet. It should be held tight to the developer until somebody can come up with one... maybe a lawyer can help find one.
Such a deadlock is avoidable either Alice and Bob are both smart enough to see it coming and value the communication enough to head it off.
When Bob gives Alice his e-mail address, he could put Alice on his whitelist immediately, or have given Alice a password that would automatically get her past the screening process on the first try. If Bob was really interested in getting Alice to go out with him again, he could have sent a request through through whatever common friend or dating service first introduced the two of them.
Alice could have not sent a second e-mail, but instead contacted Bob through whatever common friend or dating service first introduced the two of them. Alice could have also asked Bob for a secondary contact means during the first date. She also could have asked for a better communication means than e-mail if she wanted to make sure she could get through.
You should never make any important decisions based on an unencrypted e-mail alone unless you can contact the sender in another medium to confirm that the message you got was one they sent and meant. If you're girlfriend is dumping you by e-mail, veryify that with a phone call or at least confirm that she's refusing to take your calls... you do need make sure it's not somebody else trying to freak you out by making you think your girlfriend dumped you before you take any irreversable actions based on that information.
I wouldn't block anybody after their first mistake. However, there comes a point where too many mistakes indicate either a robotic attempt that isn't learning from its errors, or a really stupid human who likely can't compose a useful e-mail either.
Many spammers who are trying to beat a Bayes filter are either using misspellings of their most spammy words, or large lists of random dictionary words to try to lower their score. However, a coutermeasure to that would be to factor in the results of a spell check and grammar check. Some errors can be tolerated, however having too many mispellings and too many word groups that can't possibly be a proper sentance should raise the score enough to counteract the attempts to lower it and then some.
For a new account that's never been seen before, or worse yet, a new domain that's never been seen before, the number of knock-knocks (of any kind) they should be allowed to make should be limited.
Afterall, if somebody new out of the blue wants to speak to a large users on your mail server, they deserve some checking into. They're at least a new mailing list who is growing at unheard of rates. Better to blacklist them until they've been proven worthy.
Cumulate stats for new accounts, new domains, and new originating SMTP servers both individually and by IP space. Any that pass their speed limit are shut off. And, if it just so happens that too many new accounts are coming from the range of 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255, well, it's time to shut down for a bit...
Are you telling them to read the whole article? I'd settle for people just skimming it or reading part...
If you're under attack from all corners of the web, then the only logical thing to do (and maybe you should have a doomsday script to recognize that) then the only logical thing to do is to do what the world would want you to do, block everyone from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255. "Sorry, DDOSers, we're closed. We'll be back when you all get patched."
A further piece of planning would be to have a "three strikes you're out" rule so that any IP address (or maybe even a range) who is proving to be really stupid at answering the questions is told they can't bother trying for a while, and any further attempts to load the page before their time is up will just result in an extention to their penalty.
Yes, but such a human-check is unlikely to be beaten by a computer 100% of the time. If a log of the failed challenge attempts is kept, the source of repeated failed challenges can be ruled out from getting any more challege attempts, or even just one failed challenge with hundreds of successful ones coming from the same IP space... then the hacker source cna be flagged and ruled out.
The best defenses involve several lines so that when the first gets beaten, another one tightens up against whatever the first line learned from its defeat...
Of course, the worst spammers make it impossible for the average user to ever identify the true source. I guess you are just giving them another reason why they need to do that.
That's like saying a all theoretical attacks is not worth securing against somebody's fallen victim to it. Sure, there's some way-out ideas that can be dismissed that way, but this one seems so simple I'm pretty sure somebody who runs both spam and a porn site could pull it off...
Just what do our friends at the DVD CCA have to say about the "DVD Authoring" standard? Is this something home users who don't have thousands and thousands to spend will ever be able to do legally?
It's obscure in that few people see the need to buy it. America's Top 120 is more popular.
It's because TV is driven by the paterns of the sweeps. All of the high-rating shows are being rested with either preemptions or reruns now to conserve expensive new episodes for the May sweeps, plus one or two episodes to run just before the sweeps start to get people back into the patern.
They do make a profit, which is why my estimated cost has some wiggle room and is not the full $4 x 11 milion customers = $44 mill.
However, Dish will still have to pay the movie studio for each viewing, even though they're not collecting a fee. That will be actual money they have to pay since Echostar doesn't own any movies by itself...