Are you more concerned with people being caught or of committing copyright infringement?
If person A has no idea that person B has used their number as a key to get TCB, I would have to say that person A would not be guilty. If person B puts up the encrypted version but doesn't tell anyone what it is or how to decrypt it, person B hasn't distributed TCB. In order for anyone to get TCB, they would have to know the secret, and the person that gives away the secret would be the one guilty of distributing TCB.
Proving guilt in court would be much more difficult, but covering your tracks doesn't make an act any more legal.
The people who made the downloaded blocks available, and the person who downloaded them.
You can argue that they are only numbers, but a movie is only a swirling pattern of colors coupled with pressure waves. And when you watch it, it's just photons hitting the back of your eyeball and something shaking in your ear. All of these things are just different ways of representing and transmitting the same idea.
Yeah, as long as the hydrogen stays in the pipe everything will be fine. The danger is that any sort of impact that could make the pipe leak is likely to cause a spark.
Have you ever left the country? You can hope all you want, but no one has ever looked at my id for more than a few seconds. When I've had people in my car, we've never been asked to get out. Looking from a booth at customs into the far back seat of a car is at least 8 feet.
If a photo were a reliable form of identification, there wouldn't be so much interest in biometrics.
Based on the number of people I know who use other people's IDs to get into bars, I don't think you have to look all that much like the person in the picture. Passports are good for 10 years, people's appearance can change quite a bit in that amount of time. Dyed hair, a beard, or glasses can make it even easier to make it difficult to determine if you are actually the person in your picture.
If I understand what you are saying correctly, this wouldn't help the problem. Your solution would be vunerable to a replay attack. All someone would have to do is copy the data and the signature, there would be no need to forge it. If the picture is stored on the chip it makes it even easier.
Any hardware feature would just be a couple extra buttons. For that to do anything the signal has to be interpreted by software. If a piece of hardware actually implemented the features itself it would be windows specific and totally useless under any other operating system.
I'm not sure if that's just a typo, but there isn't much that's free to air on TV. TV stations pay for the right to show movies and syndicated TV shows. Radio stations pay royalities to BMI and ASCAP which distribute the royalites to the copyright holder. Ruckus is no different, once they work out licensing deals with various groups they will be able to show their copyrighted works.
I would expect that the selection initially on a service like this would be quite limited. However, if companies see that the copyright holders are making money off this arrangement they would be more inclined to license their bigger name properties.
I would expect that a lot of independent music labels and filmmakers would like a chance to distribute their creations this way. Who knows, maybe this will, in the long run, get more people interested in independent music and movies and lessen the influence of the RIAA and the MPAA,
You do realize that that just means you have some sort of emotional problem, right? Most people are able to make the distinction between video games and real life. You make a strong argument for people who think violence in video games and movies leads to real violence.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This is the fourth Ammendment to the Constitution. No judge will issue a blanket warrant to allow the police to search everyone's home. It is against the law for the police to pull you over without a reason. But here is a machine that will allow the police to effectively pull over everyone who drives through their town and check their records. We don't have to present any sort of identification to travel from state to state or town to town. This system is an automated way to implement a checkpoint to screen everyone traveling on the roads. I don't see how you can see it as anything but a blatent violation of the right to privacy written in the bill of rights.
I wish people would realize that you only have to release source code to customers, not to the general public. The government would not be violating the GPL. The users would not be violating the GPL. If an outside contractor developed the source code, they would only be required to release the source code to the government.
I have to agree. I saw emusic linked in an earlier article here on good old/. and decided to check it out. I've found a lot of good stuff from smaller labels that I might not have gotten to check out otherwise. The files are regular mp3s that you can share with friends and whatnot if you are so inclined. The thing I really like about it is I can check out other styles of music without having to spend any extra money.
Does anyone know how they are doing financially? I think that they send half of the subscription money to the artists or their labels.
Slashdot Mirror
That's easy, he'll use his other finger.
If person A has no idea that person B has used their number as a key to get TCB, I would have to say that person A would not be guilty. If person B puts up the encrypted version but doesn't tell anyone what it is or how to decrypt it, person B hasn't distributed TCB. In order for anyone to get TCB, they would have to know the secret, and the person that gives away the secret would be the one guilty of distributing TCB.
Proving guilt in court would be much more difficult, but covering your tracks doesn't make an act any more legal.
You can argue that they are only numbers, but a movie is only a swirling pattern of colors coupled with pressure waves. And when you watch it, it's just photons hitting the back of your eyeball and something shaking in your ear. All of these things are just different ways of representing and transmitting the same idea.
Yeah, as long as the hydrogen stays in the pipe everything will be fine. The danger is that any sort of impact that could make the pipe leak is likely to cause a spark.
Well, this is one possible danger.
Have you ever left the country? You can hope all you want, but no one has ever looked at my id for more than a few seconds. When I've had people in my car, we've never been asked to get out. Looking from a booth at customs into the far back seat of a car is at least 8 feet. If a photo were a reliable form of identification, there wouldn't be so much interest in biometrics.
Based on the number of people I know who use other people's IDs to get into bars, I don't think you have to look all that much like the person in the picture. Passports are good for 10 years, people's appearance can change quite a bit in that amount of time. Dyed hair, a beard, or glasses can make it even easier to make it difficult to determine if you are actually the person in your picture.
If I understand what you are saying correctly, this wouldn't help the problem. Your solution would be vunerable to a replay attack. All someone would have to do is copy the data and the signature, there would be no need to forge it. If the picture is stored on the chip it makes it even easier.
Here is the official count of provisional ballots in Ohio, and absentee ballots were already counted except for a small number of them from overseas.
Any hardware feature would just be a couple extra buttons. For that to do anything the signal has to be interpreted by software. If a piece of hardware actually implemented the features itself it would be windows specific and totally useless under any other operating system.
Yeah, you can believe whatever you want, but the terms of service forbid recording the broadcast.
I'm not sure if that's just a typo, but there isn't much that's free to air on TV. TV stations pay for the right to show movies and syndicated TV shows. Radio stations pay royalities to BMI and ASCAP which distribute the royalites to the copyright holder. Ruckus is no different, once they work out licensing deals with various groups they will be able to show their copyrighted works.
I would expect that the selection initially on a service like this would be quite limited. However, if companies see that the copyright holders are making money off this arrangement they would be more inclined to license their bigger name properties.
I would expect that a lot of independent music labels and filmmakers would like a chance to distribute their creations this way. Who knows, maybe this will, in the long run, get more people interested in independent music and movies and lessen the influence of the RIAA and the MPAA,
Yea! You got the joke! Your mom was right, you do have a great sense of humor.
You do realize that that just means you have some sort of emotional problem, right? Most people are able to make the distinction between video games and real life. You make a strong argument for people who think violence in video games and movies leads to real violence.
This is the fourth Ammendment to the Constitution. No judge will issue a blanket warrant to allow the police to search everyone's home. It is against the law for the police to pull you over without a reason. But here is a machine that will allow the police to effectively pull over everyone who drives through their town and check their records. We don't have to present any sort of identification to travel from state to state or town to town. This system is an automated way to implement a checkpoint to screen everyone traveling on the roads. I don't see how you can see it as anything but a blatent violation of the right to privacy written in the bill of rights.
Yes, that is candy ass.
I wish people would realize that you only have to release source code to customers, not to the general public. The government would not be violating the GPL. The users would not be violating the GPL. If an outside contractor developed the source code, they would only be required to release the source code to the government.
now you took it out and I'm sitting here wondering what it was.
Does anyone know how they are doing financially? I think that they send half of the subscription money to the artists or their labels.