Okay...
So how long until somebody writes the one where it looks like you've downloaded the song and it then pops up the DRM window. User types in the info to buy, and off it goes to the hacker who charges a whole lot more than what he said he would!
The risk of it being a fake one of these discredits the real ones, and this technology goes down the drain due to inability to be trusted.
Nonsense. If Hollywood really can't protect it's works the film industry will die. It's an economic question. A reasonably large budgeted feature film costs $100 M to make and involves at a very rough estimate around 100 person years of labour. If the money cannot be recouped reasonably it's all over. No more "Good Burger", "Dude, Where's My Car", "The Cable Guy"...
The world would not come to a hault if the $100,000,000.00 (it seems bigger when you type it out) movie became an impossble business decision. Yeah, a lot of actors, cameramen, and production assistants would lose their jobs, but hey, they can all go back to waiting tables, doing a job that society still considers productive enough to merit pay.
We don't need to protect industries that have served their purpose in the past, but are now no longer worth what they used to be.
One addition to this... violate my privacy a bit and take note of what I'm requesting to download.
If I want an ISO image from Red Hat, and my 19 of my neighbors wants the exact same thing... cut your external bandwidth by 95% by making only one download from the Red Hat server, and the multicast that out to all 20 of us. Much more efficient usage of the network for all involved.
No, this doesn't work on the horizontal edges of your port range. This works below your TCP and UDP ports. It sends messages that don't quite make it that far up there in order to just see what happens.
Maybe it's too early for anybody to make sense of this thing... but here's what I've got so far:
It seems that the great advance here is based on using the IP protocol all by itself in situations where conventionally we use TCP wrapping IP. (Remember class, we had a discussion on leaky abstractions recently where we remembered that TCP is what we use when we want to forget that IP exists.)
By taking advantage of obscure parts of the IP protocol that we don't usually concern ourselves with, he's been able to use intentionally wayward packets to learn about the network. For example, sending an IP packet with a hopelessly short time to live to take advantage of the fact that whomever has the packet when it when it times out is supposed to send back a packet indicating that error. Turns out most routers do, so he collects that information and gets a traceroute that can go into places where a traditonal traceroute meets with a firewall.
And that brings up the potentially dangerous side of things. This flies below our radars, it stays below our firewalls. His packets never go higher than the IP layer of our OSI model stack. (Remember that 7-layer thing that we all had to memorize in networking classes...) I'm not quite sure yet what poking around there gets them other than network topology info, but I kinda get the feeling that if there is something destructive that can be done, we're gonna get blindsided with it.
This is a business statement. DRM can be built on top of Mac just as easily as it has been on Windows. However, Microsoft has paid to assist in DRM efforts, Apple refuses to spend a penny on it.
Furthermore, Apple supports artists who want to use their Macs to create content that is of a quality that competes with the major publishers. iMovie isn't the world's greatest video editing program, but it beats Nothing which is the video creation program you get free with Windows.
The USSR only gave away bread to the people who needed it. There was no government handout waiting for those who could afford to buy their own.
Yet here, MovieLink (which is another word for "a group the major content owners") is bypassing Macintosh users because Apple refuses to develop a DRM technology because all DRM would do is limit the functionaility of their products in ways that are unfavorable to the people who buy their products. This, instead of say, MovieLink hiring tech staff to create its own DRM solution... bearing the costs of doing so themselves instead of trying to stick Apple with the bill.
BTW... who's working on the DRM technology so MovieLink will see fit to offer their services to users of Linux. Anybody? Anybody at all?
No, if I unplug power from your computer (or take the battery out of your laptop) you definitely won't be making any copies of any copyrighted materials. However, that might slightly interfere with your user experience.
Microsoft can make their DRM technology work, by using Security-by-Lawyer...
If you crack even the stupidest DRM technology, you have violated the DMCA. Therefore, there's no need to make a bulletproof DRM technology, just a stupid one with lawyers to back it up. That seems to be good enough for Hollywood.
Keeping your kids away from Windows is an absolutely pointless idea because at some point in their lives they are going to be confronted with a Windows computer, likely sometime in the early grades of school. Your kids should be smart enough to reject the idea that Windows is the only opertating system that exists, but they shouldn't think that Windows is absolutely useless.
I think the best thing to do would be to get a Linux computer, but keep the Windows computer functioning so that the 3 year old's games can still function. The 11 year old will certainly be old enough to understand that the Linux-based computer is "like the other one, but very different too" and that there are some programs that can only run on one computer and not the other. The younger ones will figure that out too eventually.
This article makes a big deal about the fact that Moxi is using Linux, but neglects the fact that TiVo has been out for a few years with a Linux-based PVR already.
Cable companies have been spreading a lot of half-truths about how their digital service compares to the DBS companies.
For example, they say DBS charges an extra fee on top of their base package to get local channels. However, on cable those local channels aren't free, they're just included in the higher-priced base package. So on DBS, you have the option to decline the local stations if you don't need them (in many cases, you can get them fine over the air yourself, why pay for something you can already get?) but on cable you have to buy them.
What this is designed to do is to make an example out of Verio. If an ISP hurting to make reveune targets agrees to look the other way towards spammers, that ISP will find itself in the black hole, and end up losing legit customers (whether they walk away in protest after hearing of the RBL, or simply because they think Verio's too clueless to get their e-mail to work) which negates the spammer income and then some.
Yeah, it's cat-and-mouse, but eventually the mouse will run out of places to hide. There are a finite number of backbone providers in this world.
Re:A *real* anti-leech/anti attacker system propos
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 2
Zeroing out HoneyPot after the fact still didn't prevent you from getting a bogus file. Expanded outward, if ten of your twelve favorite servers all turn bogus for you at the same time, you will have a rather meaningless set of trust data with trustworthy sites with low ratings and bogus sites rated high. What's more, less frequent users will not notice when a HoneyPot flips, so they'll continue to transfer a false trustworthy status to that flipped HoneyPot.
Alcoholic processing
on
Fun With Wine
·
· Score: 2, Funny
If you put cygwin under wine under cygwin under wine too many times, and it starts to process incohently, would that effect be caused by the fact that the computer is drunk?
Re:Wow. How disgusting.
on
ALICE vs. ALICE
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There needs to be a new mod category... (-1) Offensive
Re:A *real* anti-leech/anti attacker system propos
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 2
I see a hole in that. HoneyPot1 absolutely trusts RIAA1, RIAA2, RIAA3, RIAA4, RIAA5, etc.
HoneyPot1 earns trust points by giving out the real thing very well, and then transfers that those points to servers that have the dud content by "trusting" them. Whats more, once HoneyPot1 gets up to its desired state of trust, it could flip itself into dud content mode as well. The attackers could repeat this process as many times as they want.
A trust system dies the first time a turncoat gets a high-trust status.
Image if the same anti-Linux organization posted trojan-containing distributions and started sending them out over ftp or http... all it takes is a few people too lazy to check their hashes and it will become impossible to audit back who released all the exploits into the wild.
Nope. It'd come out that the University of Middle-of-Nowhere's FTP mirror got hacked, so anybody who downloaded from them should check to see what they got. If you decide to download your Linux from an FTP server that's known to be owned by Microsoft, you need professional help. In being able to trace back who you downloaded from in real-identity rather than username form, it gives you a much better trail for reporting untrustworthy servers.
Especially if you work in the ad business and instead of having an ftp server you have a p2p client where people can transfer clips etc etc using the existing network. Just, there are so many uses for P2P besides violating copyright.
Nah, FTP is still better for that use. An FTP server isn't that hard to set up, there are plenty of open source packages to pick from. Almost every web browser is capable of downloading over FTP, so your client likely already has the software they need, rather than asking them to download a special (offen spyware-laced... boy is that unprofessional) client.
Moreover, wouldn't this kind of communication be something only your client should see, and not something left out for other people to grab. Sure, you could sit and cancel every other user who tries to grab that file while you wait for the client to take the file, but that means you have to be there the whole time the file is up. As compared to FTP, where you can set it up so only the somebody who knows the right username/pw can get at the file, none of the P2P programs let you do that.
I'm not disputing that there are uses for P2P that don't violate copyright... I'm saying that P2P sucks compared to the mainstream protocols such as FTP, HTTP, SMTP/POP3 e-mail, etc.
There is a solution to this, have Gnutella as a trademark word, it'd be a violation of intelectual property law for anybody to create a product and call it Gnutella2 unless they're authorized to.
Oops... P2P caring about intelectual property law, knew there'd be a flaw in that one!
Slashdot Mirror
IP is a P2P protocol... but since it does things other than share MP3s that's quickly forgoten.
Okay... So how long until somebody writes the one where it looks like you've downloaded the song and it then pops up the DRM window. User types in the info to buy, and off it goes to the hacker who charges a whole lot more than what he said he would! The risk of it being a fake one of these discredits the real ones, and this technology goes down the drain due to inability to be trusted.
XBox Live Admin... play XBox Live games all day long. But when you win and the loser swears at you, you get to ban them.
Researcher allowed to talk bad about DRM?
And the DCMA allowed this? What loophole?
Nonsense. If Hollywood really can't protect it's works the film industry will die. It's an economic question. A reasonably large budgeted feature film costs $100 M to make and involves at a very rough estimate around 100 person years of labour. If the money cannot be recouped reasonably it's all over. No more "Good Burger", "Dude, Where's My Car", "The Cable Guy"... The world would not come to a hault if the $100,000,000.00 (it seems bigger when you type it out) movie became an impossble business decision. Yeah, a lot of actors, cameramen, and production assistants would lose their jobs, but hey, they can all go back to waiting tables, doing a job that society still considers productive enough to merit pay. We don't need to protect industries that have served their purpose in the past, but are now no longer worth what they used to be.
One addition to this... violate my privacy a bit and take note of what I'm requesting to download. If I want an ISO image from Red Hat, and my 19 of my neighbors wants the exact same thing... cut your external bandwidth by 95% by making only one download from the Red Hat server, and the multicast that out to all 20 of us. Much more efficient usage of the network for all involved.
I'll say it this way... there is no consumer device in existance that will give you a DVD with CSS protections like the kind Hollywood gets to use.
No, this doesn't work on the horizontal edges of your port range. This works below your TCP and UDP ports. It sends messages that don't quite make it that far up there in order to just see what happens.
If you don't know what the OSI Networking Model is yet I suggest you go look it up...
Maybe it's too early for anybody to make sense of this thing... but here's what I've got so far: It seems that the great advance here is based on using the IP protocol all by itself in situations where conventionally we use TCP wrapping IP. (Remember class, we had a discussion on leaky abstractions recently where we remembered that TCP is what we use when we want to forget that IP exists.) By taking advantage of obscure parts of the IP protocol that we don't usually concern ourselves with, he's been able to use intentionally wayward packets to learn about the network. For example, sending an IP packet with a hopelessly short time to live to take advantage of the fact that whomever has the packet when it when it times out is supposed to send back a packet indicating that error. Turns out most routers do, so he collects that information and gets a traceroute that can go into places where a traditonal traceroute meets with a firewall. And that brings up the potentially dangerous side of things. This flies below our radars, it stays below our firewalls. His packets never go higher than the IP layer of our OSI model stack. (Remember that 7-layer thing that we all had to memorize in networking classes...) I'm not quite sure yet what poking around there gets them other than network topology info, but I kinda get the feeling that if there is something destructive that can be done, we're gonna get blindsided with it.
This is a business statement. DRM can be built on top of Mac just as easily as it has been on Windows. However, Microsoft has paid to assist in DRM efforts, Apple refuses to spend a penny on it.
Furthermore, Apple supports artists who want to use their Macs to create content that is of a quality that competes with the major publishers. iMovie isn't the world's greatest video editing program, but it beats Nothing which is the video creation program you get free with Windows.
The USSR only gave away bread to the people who needed it. There was no government handout waiting for those who could afford to buy their own.
Yet here, MovieLink (which is another word for "a group the major content owners") is bypassing Macintosh users because Apple refuses to develop a DRM technology because all DRM would do is limit the functionaility of their products in ways that are unfavorable to the people who buy their products. This, instead of say, MovieLink hiring tech staff to create its own DRM solution... bearing the costs of doing so themselves instead of trying to stick Apple with the bill.
BTW... who's working on the DRM technology so MovieLink will see fit to offer their services to users of Linux. Anybody? Anybody at all?
No, if I unplug power from your computer (or take the battery out of your laptop) you definitely won't be making any copies of any copyrighted materials. However, that might slightly interfere with your user experience.
Microsoft can make their DRM technology work, by using Security-by-Lawyer...
If you crack even the stupidest DRM technology, you have violated the DMCA. Therefore, there's no need to make a bulletproof DRM technology, just a stupid one with lawyers to back it up. That seems to be good enough for Hollywood.
Keeping your kids away from Windows is an absolutely pointless idea because at some point in their lives they are going to be confronted with a Windows computer, likely sometime in the early grades of school. Your kids should be smart enough to reject the idea that Windows is the only opertating system that exists, but they shouldn't think that Windows is absolutely useless. I think the best thing to do would be to get a Linux computer, but keep the Windows computer functioning so that the 3 year old's games can still function. The 11 year old will certainly be old enough to understand that the Linux-based computer is "like the other one, but very different too" and that there are some programs that can only run on one computer and not the other. The younger ones will figure that out too eventually.
Paul Allen is not being friendly to Microsoft at all here, because this product is also a direct competitor to Microsoft's Ultimate TV product.
This article makes a big deal about the fact that Moxi is using Linux, but neglects the fact that TiVo has been out for a few years with a Linux-based PVR already.
Cable companies have been spreading a lot of half-truths about how their digital service compares to the DBS companies. For example, they say DBS charges an extra fee on top of their base package to get local channels. However, on cable those local channels aren't free, they're just included in the higher-priced base package. So on DBS, you have the option to decline the local stations if you don't need them (in many cases, you can get them fine over the air yourself, why pay for something you can already get?) but on cable you have to buy them.
What this is designed to do is to make an example out of Verio. If an ISP hurting to make reveune targets agrees to look the other way towards spammers, that ISP will find itself in the black hole, and end up losing legit customers (whether they walk away in protest after hearing of the RBL, or simply because they think Verio's too clueless to get their e-mail to work) which negates the spammer income and then some.
Yeah, it's cat-and-mouse, but eventually the mouse will run out of places to hide. There are a finite number of backbone providers in this world.
Zeroing out HoneyPot after the fact still didn't prevent you from getting a bogus file. Expanded outward, if ten of your twelve favorite servers all turn bogus for you at the same time, you will have a rather meaningless set of trust data with trustworthy sites with low ratings and bogus sites rated high. What's more, less frequent users will not notice when a HoneyPot flips, so they'll continue to transfer a false trustworthy status to that flipped HoneyPot.
If you put cygwin under wine under cygwin under wine too many times, and it starts to process incohently, would that effect be caused by the fact that the computer is drunk?
There needs to be a new mod category... (-1) Offensive
I see a hole in that. HoneyPot1 absolutely trusts RIAA1, RIAA2, RIAA3, RIAA4, RIAA5, etc. HoneyPot1 earns trust points by giving out the real thing very well, and then transfers that those points to servers that have the dud content by "trusting" them. Whats more, once HoneyPot1 gets up to its desired state of trust, it could flip itself into dud content mode as well. The attackers could repeat this process as many times as they want. A trust system dies the first time a turncoat gets a high-trust status.
Image if the same anti-Linux organization posted trojan-containing distributions and started sending them out over ftp or http... all it takes is a few people too lazy to check their hashes and it will become impossible to audit back who released all the exploits into the wild.
Nope. It'd come out that the University of Middle-of-Nowhere's FTP mirror got hacked, so anybody who downloaded from them should check to see what they got. If you decide to download your Linux from an FTP server that's known to be owned by Microsoft, you need professional help. In being able to trace back who you downloaded from in real-identity rather than username form, it gives you a much better trail for reporting untrustworthy servers. Especially if you work in the ad business and instead of having an ftp server you have a p2p client where people can transfer clips etc etc using the existing network. Just, there are so many uses for P2P besides violating copyright.
Nah, FTP is still better for that use. An FTP server isn't that hard to set up, there are plenty of open source packages to pick from. Almost every web browser is capable of downloading over FTP, so your client likely already has the software they need, rather than asking them to download a special (offen spyware-laced... boy is that unprofessional) client.
Moreover, wouldn't this kind of communication be something only your client should see, and not something left out for other people to grab. Sure, you could sit and cancel every other user who tries to grab that file while you wait for the client to take the file, but that means you have to be there the whole time the file is up. As compared to FTP, where you can set it up so only the somebody who knows the right username/pw can get at the file, none of the P2P programs let you do that.
I'm not disputing that there are uses for P2P that don't violate copyright... I'm saying that P2P sucks compared to the mainstream protocols such as FTP, HTTP, SMTP/POP3 e-mail, etc.
There is a solution to this, have Gnutella as a trademark word, it'd be a violation of intelectual property law for anybody to create a product and call it Gnutella2 unless they're authorized to.
Oops... P2P caring about intelectual property law, knew there'd be a flaw in that one!