Note that all of these "When I worked for X..." stories are dated quite in the past. Albertson's isn't getting those screener tapes anymore, that's a crackdown that happened a couple years ago. Academy members are the only ones left, so are the only ones who could possibly have leaked a current movie's screener.
Shrinkwrapping alone doesn't exactly promise that the media will arrive untouched, as any FedEx processing center likely already has a shrink-wrap machine capable of re-wrapping the package. However, if there was a holographic seal accross the opening of the box, that would be nearly impossible to set right...
Already against the rules. Academy members aren't supposed to share screeners with anybody. They're for professional use only, to aid them in voting for the Oscar awards.
This person either did it himself, or he gave his screener to somebody else... both are against the rules. I'm sure the MPAA has audits of the process to prove that from creation to packaging nobody interfered with the disc, and from there put it in a tamper-evident seal that if it arived at the actor's address broken he should have reported immediately...
That's most likely the actual story, but the release form was clear that he had to not allow the screener to be reproduced... which means it was his responsiblity to keep the disc or tape under lock and key. No matter how it got to the net, he should have had control of the physical media so that it didn't happen.
Yep, but the foul play has to have started with the actor in question, who should have known better than to give the disc to his kids or to throw it out without destroying the data. Afterall, he did sign a release form just to get access to the screener...
Is there something that people sign when they receive a screener which says that if the screener shows up on the net they are somehow liable?
Yep. RTFA.
Screeners are DVDs/tapes of movies that are still in theaters given to Academy Members so that they're able to see all of the films nominated so that they can properly vote for the Oscar awards.
While there's no proof that he actually did the encoding, there is proof that it was his copy of the movie that was incoded rather than anybody else's. It becomes a chain-of-custody issue from here on. I assume there was a point that there was a tamper-evident seal placed around the package, and if somebody had broken that seal in the mail process he should have called in right away.
Yeah, not quite automatic proof... but clearly a reason to look into the guy's connection because it sure seems likely he at least gave his copy away which would be a violation of his contract...
A dumb out-of-work actor gets caught letting his copy of a screener be the one that gets onto the 'net. I wouldn't call this a setback, I'd call this proof that this idea works.
There's tons of ways a screener could be marked up so that unique ID numbers get inserted, and it was only a matter of time before everybody who got a screener got a serial number embeded into the content so that when the screener appears on the 'net, the leaker could be busted for a breach of their contract. For once, a copy-protection technology that I don't think anybody can argue with...
Prices for everything connected to cell phone service in the USA have taken a nose dive recently because number portablity went into effect, and every carrier has been doing their best to try to poach every other carrier's subscribers as a result. That's competition at its best.
Cell phone service will always have to be a regulated marketplace because always going to be a limit on how many providers can be using the finite resources of wireless frequencies. How effective that regulation turns out to be will always be the deciding factor in how mcuh cell service costs, and how much the celluar providers have to contribute to our puchase of devices in the form of subsidies. It's nice to see that by at least one yardstick of measurement, the FCC must be doing a pretty good job...
- Your free web-based e-mail account can end in either msn.com or hotmail.com... your choice! - You can browse the web with either Internet Explorer or MSN Explorer... your choice! - You can read your e-mail with Outlook Express or Outlook... your choice! - You can use Windows XP Home or Windows XP Pro... your choice! - You can use WMA files with any music player that has paid the appropriate fees to Microsoft, plenty of choices available in the market! - You can get WMA files from any music service that has paid the appropriate fees to Microsoft, plenty of choices available in the market!
That's what a software vendor who delivered buggy code told me once. I asked them if they could tell me just when we signed up for their Beta Test program, because I had an envelope marked "General Release" on my desk.
Unless IPv4 is "unplugged", there's no hard reason for the end user to switch to IPv6. Right now, everything in my house that wants an IP address can have a 10.x.x.x address behind my NAT, and those that need to have a dedicated port can have their port forwarded at the router.
Nobody's going to run out of IPv4 addresses if they can set up a NAT, which is why IPv6 is waiting to jump in during a crisis that just isn't coming.
Nope... who you're talking to is enough to prove that they're on the wrong call. If the warrent doesn't cover your doctor, and you call your doctor, they don't listening to that call. If they try using information learned that way, then that entire thread of the investigation becomes "fruit from a posionous tree" and all gets thrown out of court.
One other thing. If you ever know that your phone is tapped... then the whole wiretap is going to be useless because of course you're going to stop using the phone, or worse give them disinformation in phone calls.
That's the great problem of pay-for information of all kinds... with no way to preview what you're getting, there's very few people who are willing to pay. Of course, if one-look is all they want, there's no way to construct a preview that doesn't give away the store.
I don't think a one-cent-per-hit model is every going to succeed. I think a much better method to pay the sites you like would be to click on the Google ads or similar on their pages...
PayPal's reputation issues basically got wiped clean when eBay aquired them. Really, what's now called "PayPal" looks a lot more like eBay's BillPoint than the original service.
Why do businesses sell underclocked hardware when they know some geek somewhere is going to try loading the higher software in and seeing what happens? If that test comes back positive and can be duplicated... we'll be reading it here on/.
Yes, but no... Google is strict about not allowing political causes, no matter how justified, to throw around their search results. The only pressure they'll bow to is a law, which only impacts the www.google.xx address for that country code, and not any other.
Robert X. mentions that his plan would see resistance from ISPs who would cite anti-sharing clauses in their end user contracts, and his explanation of how he'd get arround that is that if everybody's doing it, they can't stop it.
Well, that was Napster's plan. And, it turns out that's only half right. They couldn't stop P2P, but they could stop Napster and at least put that company out of business. Kazaa is still kicking around, but their business model is purely as a distribution network for spyware, adware and other troublemakers which does scare away a good chunk of the user base.
In short, this is a pipe dream that will never come true. Universial WiFi is a nice concept, but impossible to execute because the wired network providers behind the hotspots are going to want their cut of the action.
Re:Misleading...Onlt 1358 Authorized Wiretaps!
on
Feds Want to Tap VoIP
·
· Score: 1
Which indicates that they're wiretaping busy people/groups... busy doing what?
A high number in authorized wiretaps is not cause alone for alarm... maybe it's just that the police are trying harder and doing better? A high number of unauthorized ones would be much more worrysome.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that all of these "When I worked for X..." stories are dated quite in the past. Albertson's isn't getting those screener tapes anymore, that's a crackdown that happened a couple years ago. Academy members are the only ones left, so are the only ones who could possibly have leaked a current movie's screener.
Shrinkwrapping alone doesn't exactly promise that the media will arrive untouched, as any FedEx processing center likely already has a shrink-wrap machine capable of re-wrapping the package. However, if there was a holographic seal accross the opening of the box, that would be nearly impossible to set right...
There's a solution to that... run a marker accross the data side(s) of the disc or run it through a shredder...
Maybe one of his kids watched it and did it
Already against the rules. Academy members aren't supposed to share screeners with anybody. They're for professional use only, to aid them in voting for the Oscar awards.
This person either did it himself, or he gave his screener to somebody else... both are against the rules. I'm sure the MPAA has audits of the process to prove that from creation to packaging nobody interfered with the disc, and from there put it in a tamper-evident seal that if it arived at the actor's address broken he should have reported immediately...
That's most likely the actual story, but the release form was clear that he had to not allow the screener to be reproduced... which means it was his responsiblity to keep the disc or tape under lock and key. No matter how it got to the net, he should have had control of the physical media so that it didn't happen.
Yep, but the foul play has to have started with the actor in question, who should have known better than to give the disc to his kids or to throw it out without destroying the data. Afterall, he did sign a release form just to get access to the screener...
Is there something that people sign when they receive a screener which says that if the screener shows up on the net they are somehow liable?
Yep. RTFA.
Screeners are DVDs/tapes of movies that are still in theaters given to Academy Members so that they're able to see all of the films nominated so that they can properly vote for the Oscar awards.
While there's no proof that he actually did the encoding, there is proof that it was his copy of the movie that was incoded rather than anybody else's. It becomes a chain-of-custody issue from here on. I assume there was a point that there was a tamper-evident seal placed around the package, and if somebody had broken that seal in the mail process he should have called in right away.
Yeah, not quite automatic proof... but clearly a reason to look into the guy's connection because it sure seems likely he at least gave his copy away which would be a violation of his contract...
100% of screeners that wind up on the 'net are leaked by Academy members... they're the only ones who are authorized to have them to begin with.
A dumb out-of-work actor gets caught letting his copy of a screener be the one that gets onto the 'net. I wouldn't call this a setback, I'd call this proof that this idea works.
There's tons of ways a screener could be marked up so that unique ID numbers get inserted, and it was only a matter of time before everybody who got a screener got a serial number embeded into the content so that when the screener appears on the 'net, the leaker could be busted for a breach of their contract. For once, a copy-protection technology that I don't think anybody can argue with...
How can this company do that? If they know the "secret handshake" it takes to unlock a phone, why can't just anybody do it?
Run those numbers through a CAN$ to US$ conversion, and that's roughly the state of the USA cell phone market too...
Prices for everything connected to cell phone service in the USA have taken a nose dive recently because number portablity went into effect, and every carrier has been doing their best to try to poach every other carrier's subscribers as a result. That's competition at its best.
Cell phone service will always have to be a regulated marketplace because always going to be a limit on how many providers can be using the finite resources of wireless frequencies. How effective that regulation turns out to be will always be the deciding factor in how mcuh cell service costs, and how much the celluar providers have to contribute to our puchase of devices in the form of subsidies. It's nice to see that by at least one yardstick of measurement, the FCC must be doing a pretty good job...
Microsoft offers choices...
- Your free web-based e-mail account can end in either msn.com or hotmail.com... your choice!
- You can browse the web with either Internet Explorer or MSN Explorer... your choice!
- You can read your e-mail with Outlook Express or Outlook... your choice!
- You can use Windows XP Home or Windows XP Pro... your choice!
- You can use WMA files with any music player that has paid the appropriate fees to Microsoft, plenty of choices available in the market!
- You can get WMA files from any music service that has paid the appropriate fees to Microsoft, plenty of choices available in the market!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this ApeXtreme brand an offshot of the Apex company that puts out those amazingly low priced TVs?
That's what a software vendor who delivered buggy code told me once. I asked them if they could tell me just when we signed up for their Beta Test program, because I had an envelope marked "General Release" on my desk.
Unless IPv4 is "unplugged", there's no hard reason for the end user to switch to IPv6. Right now, everything in my house that wants an IP address can have a 10.x.x.x address behind my NAT, and those that need to have a dedicated port can have their port forwarded at the router.
Nobody's going to run out of IPv4 addresses if they can set up a NAT, which is why IPv6 is waiting to jump in during a crisis that just isn't coming.
He addresses that point along side with the fact that no IPv6 application is battle-tested yet, and with new code comes unknown security holes.
Nope... who you're talking to is enough to prove that they're on the wrong call. If the warrent doesn't cover your doctor, and you call your doctor, they don't listening to that call. If they try using information learned that way, then that entire thread of the investigation becomes "fruit from a posionous tree" and all gets thrown out of court.
One other thing. If you ever know that your phone is tapped... then the whole wiretap is going to be useless because of course you're going to stop using the phone, or worse give them disinformation in phone calls.
That's the great problem of pay-for information of all kinds... with no way to preview what you're getting, there's very few people who are willing to pay. Of course, if one-look is all they want, there's no way to construct a preview that doesn't give away the store.
I don't think a one-cent-per-hit model is every going to succeed. I think a much better method to pay the sites you like would be to click on the Google ads or similar on their pages...
PayPal's reputation issues basically got wiped clean when eBay aquired them. Really, what's now called "PayPal" looks a lot more like eBay's BillPoint than the original service.
Why do businesses sell underclocked hardware when they know some geek somewhere is going to try loading the higher software in and seeing what happens? If that test comes back positive and can be duplicated... we'll be reading it here on /.
Yes, but no... Google is strict about not allowing political causes, no matter how justified, to throw around their search results. The only pressure they'll bow to is a law, which only impacts the www.google.xx address for that country code, and not any other.
Robert X. mentions that his plan would see resistance from ISPs who would cite anti-sharing clauses in their end user contracts, and his explanation of how he'd get arround that is that if everybody's doing it, they can't stop it.
Well, that was Napster's plan. And, it turns out that's only half right. They couldn't stop P2P, but they could stop Napster and at least put that company out of business. Kazaa is still kicking around, but their business model is purely as a distribution network for spyware, adware and other troublemakers which does scare away a good chunk of the user base.
In short, this is a pipe dream that will never come true. Universial WiFi is a nice concept, but impossible to execute because the wired network providers behind the hotspots are going to want their cut of the action.
Which indicates that they're wiretaping busy people/groups... busy doing what?
A high number in authorized wiretaps is not cause alone for alarm... maybe it's just that the police are trying harder and doing better? A high number of unauthorized ones would be much more worrysome.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics...