unless you are living under a rock or in an Old West Saloon you know that hackers have been taking advantage of various "exploits" to "inject" their "malware" into victims' computers
and that every month MS sends out new patches -- but the problem goes on, and on and on and on
to the point where any credibility for MS is equal to ZILCH.
some kind of intervention is required to fix this,-- 3d party product maybe IBM can make a RACF for the promiscuous Ms. Windows -- or as an industry we might shift to Linux or maybe x.86 Solaris
something is going to change: we cannot conduct business over the net when there are RATS invading our systems at will
but p2p is a problem in that it facilitates copyright violations. taking p2p off the net would be one way to help control copyright violations and I ain't gonna bet that won't happen
Falkvinge' argument ("Our ideas are not out on the fringe, we were just a little bit ahead of time" -- is just an argument ad novitam -- a classic fallacy in logic
essential him and others of his ilk are saying "copyright law is obsolete because it is no longer enforceable "
he's going to find out he's wrong. in the meantime don't let this goof get you into trouble. if ya got p2p software on yer system get rid of it.
The pervasiveness of the malware problem contributes to this
Our shop had one shrink wrapped package that had malware included and when this was tracked down the vendor didn't know they had become infected and were distributing shrink-wrapped malware
this underscores the importance of putting a stop to malware
the fundamental error is at the concept level: it is wrong to think it is OK to run your programs on someone else' computer without their knowledge or permission
to invert this properly back to the other end of the pole it is wrong to think that a computer should run anything and everything that anyone sends to it which is what is going on with the promiscuous Ms Window
and so this is a concept that has to change
programming changes have to be proper documented, authenticated and approved before they are applied. and this should apply to everything from cell phones to computers
ya think ya wanna argue with this? don't bother: the security mess we got on our hands say all that needs to be said. the concept of promiscuous remote updates has caused nothing but trouble. It's a concept that is a disaster and that has to be corrected, PDQ
I think it is important to consider how 17 USC 106 is modified by the additional acts
for starters, IAW DMCA defeating the copyright protection ( "ripping" ) is a violation and then when ya post the evidence on a p2p net ya done incriminated yer own self
we are allowed one (1) "backup copy" but that is supposed to be made using a device whose primary purpose is handling music -- which a PC is not. a PC is a general purpose machine.
yup, I can sit here all morning thinking about going fishing but when I call Charlie and request him to participate we have formed a Conspiracy to go fishing
now if my wife finds out we better hope our luck is good cuz when we get back the skillet will be on the stove and plates on the table wait'n for us to fix supper
computers are not covered by HMRA as devices whose primary purpose is to record/playback music and so ripping a cd onto a computer is a copyright violation
putting music on a p2p share directory cannot be considered "private" use by any stretch
in respect to #1, ya rip a CD ya violated DMCA then ya post the evidence on yer p2p net. good job. ya think them tracks can be identified using pattern matching? the don't need "fingerprints" and we also know them fingerprints would be scrubbed pretty quick anyway
in respect to #2 a computer is not primarily a music recording device and so making a copy of a mp3 onto a computer is not covered under private/non-commercial use in HMRA
instead of properly going after the actual violations RIAA is equivocating in attempting to claim that "making available" is the same as "distributing". these are not equivalent, and as EFF properly points out case law on record confirms that there is no copyright violation until a transfer has occurred.
As a result RIAA has to show what files were actually transfered: from who, to who, and when and they gotta have proof that will hold up in a court of law. failing that RIAA case will FAIL.
why they are going after this this way instead of going after the simpler violations, i have no clue -- EXCEPT -- IF they get a favorable ruling that is upheld on appeal they will have changed the law by means of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. that's a bad topic and another issue we have to fight.
p2p software just needs to go away before it brings some evil down upon us such as having ISPs sign for us everything we transmit into the net,....l tee hee
that might be a Good Thing, particularly for our efforts to identify and cancel RATS, spyware, phishing, pharming, spy-bots, key loggers, and malware generally
Also, Vinyl is not immune against someone compressing the digital master before the recording is transferred to vinyl. Expect such stupidity to happen shortly;-)
absolutely! Too, there was a very marked difference between labels. I used a Yamaha CA-800 amp with the Yamaha turntable and Pioneer speakers with 10 inch woofers, midrange, and high tweeters.
the difference in labels was quite noticable
ya gotta be a Grampaw to remember this, but if ya are ya remember the broughhaha over the conversion from vacuum tube amps with output transformers to solid state. the argument was the solid state amps didn't have good sound. some didn't, but that CA-800 was exceptional ( still is, I've had it for years! )
cassetes and 8-tracks didn't make very good copies but a 7-inch open reel deck at 7.5 in/sec could make a copy hard to tell from the original
How do they know the students were not the victims of identity theft?
that is an internet issue that will most likely soon be resolved.
lots of bad crap gets sent to the net every second. and this ain't good, from id theft, online fraud, phishing, bot-nets and spam, to web site philosophy
the resolution is simple: and that is to establish a Point of Control and that should be where the ISP obtains access to The Net. the ISP should be responsible for verifying the ID of its customers, and on presentation of a proper warrant, verify to authorities who posted what
ISP not in compliance would be disconnected and any country not requiring ISP to comply would be disconnected.
the concept of remote software updates also has to go into the garbage can so that we can get rid of RATS. We have to be rid of RATS so that sign-ons and activity can be properly verified and to do this everyone has a right to a CLEAN computer
expel everyone who seems inappropriate in some way?
post armed guards and metal detectors
this is an unfortunate issue the resolution to which is not clear yet. but it has its origin in the change in the nature and character of our people-- there being not an insignificant amount of evidence indicating our entertainment industry is primarily responsible for this change.
as a grumpy old grampaw I find much of what is presented as "entertainment" to be just plain disgusting and there is no doubt that young kids watching such tripe are not going to be learning good things.
actually, the "Days of the Old West" were safer than downtown LA, Detroit, or DC are today. we need our old time Sunday preachers back and "Sunday, go to meet'n". not as a requirement mind, you, but as a good habit.
"computer security" is the laughing stock of the world
I am hoping that as some of these new systems come out, based on Linux, or perhaps Solaris x.86 that the makers will delete the concept of remote updates to software
yep, I said delete that bad idea
download is OK, but after the download customer needs a chance to review what the material is, check signatures, etc and decide whether he wants to update his machine or not
NO SIGNATURE? NO EXECUTE.
It's time to get serious about security before something bad happens. And I think maybe IBM might be just the outfit that could do it. Let's resurrect RACF and set it up for Linux ( maybe Solaris! )
I really like that Solaris x.86 -- which is real unix instead of a substitute.
eff is attempting to prevent RIAA from equivocating "making available" with "distributing". it is certainly the case that RIAA has no authority to change the meaning of the law in the way that they want, and it is certainly the case that the implications of such a change could have far reaching consequences which could be badly used by greedy parties who might make advantage of an opportunity to abuse the law.
RIAA should have focused on the act of ripping the music and putting in on computer. A computer is a general purpose device and is not covered by HMRA. So all RIAA has to do is find copyright material on p2p machines anyplace and then charge the owners with ripping music and putting it on their computers
but they are not approaching the issue in this manner, instead they are trying to equivocate "making available" with "distributing". i don't know who their lawyer is but he should certainly do better than that.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
in our system today when an issue is un-clear the court will select a case to use as a test. and the test will be appealed to a higher level court where the ruling will be made. and after that the principle of *stare decisis* is used to apply the test case ruling to all subsequent rulings.
guess what kids: sharing music over p2p is a copyright violation. if I was a betting man I'd wager the court will rule this way and that will be the end of this cry story
i've said this before but it bears repeating: the existing copyright law does not address the issue of p2p. the law then needs to be amended before and other proceeings
amending the law is the job of the Congress, not of the courts. and we do not allow *ex post facto* law either. after the law is amended by Congress then we can proceed with any other actions but not before
HMRA does not cover computers. it only covers copies made to devices whose primary purpose is recording music. a computer is a general purpose machine its primary purpose being information storage and retrieval
and so ripping a copy from a CD or some such media and storing it on your computer is in fact a copyright violation. and the plaintiffs need to approach this issue from that direction. but they have not. and the court won't do that for them the court will only act on the case that is brought.
and it certainly appears the plaintiff will be obliged to demonstrate that actual copies have been distributed in order to make its case
so all of this needs to be set aside until Congress considers an amendment to the law.
if i was a betting man i'd wager p2p can be used to share virus codes as well as music. why don't you people get rid of that p2p software before it gets you into real trouble?
so if you are thinking of using encryption to hide your copyright violations, guess what clones: you will have to use encryption that has an ADK or alternate decryption key registered with your isp
this so we can police your copyright violations. and as a extra kicker big brother will gain the ability to spy on all your communications because guess what: your isp won't forward encrypted messages that don't decrypt using the ADK
this hack is just another example of tricking the victim into executing un-authorized code
the block has to be at the java/parser so that when java is envoked to start parsing a code segment for any reason the first thing it does is look for the signature for that program
NO SIGNATURE? NO EXECUTE.
the days of running anything on anybody's computer need to come to an abrupt halt here
this kind of crap ain't gonna stop until we have a fundamental change in our approach to security: and that is we use a WHITELIST to authorize execution of the programs we trust and exclude EVERYTHING else.
trying to identify and exclude malware has fallen short of meeting our needs
and that demonstration continues week after week after week after week as the hacking gets worse and worse
if we are going to use the internet for business purposes this is UNACCEPTABLE. Change has to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
my my my resorting to a personal attack
it's all that is left to you when you are looking at what is right and proper and you can't admit it to yourself
unless you are living under a rock or in an Old West Saloon you know that hackers have been taking advantage of various "exploits" to "inject" their "malware" into victims' computers
and that every month MS sends out new patches -- but the problem goes on, and on and on and on
to the point where any credibility for MS is equal to ZILCH.
some kind of intervention is required to fix this,-- 3d party product maybe IBM can make a RACF for the promiscuous Ms. Windows -- or as an industry we might shift to Linux or maybe x.86 Solaris
something is going to change: we cannot conduct business over the net when there are RATS invading our systems at will
you might hope ya take my money
but p2p is a problem in that it facilitates copyright violations. taking p2p off the net would be one way to help control copyright violations and I ain't gonna bet that won't happen
if *we* don't get together and straighten this mess up our loving government will provide us with a plan for our own safety
do you want fries with that?
what you say is exactly correct
/. hopefully we will be able to bring this into plain view
thanks to services like
once the problem is in plain view corrective action will be forthcoming and I don't think it will take long at all
how about IBM provide us with a RACF version for the promiscuous Ms. Windows?
Falkvinge' argument ("Our ideas are not out on the fringe, we were just a little bit ahead of time" -- is just an argument ad novitam -- a classic fallacy in logic
essential him and others of his ilk are saying "copyright law is obsolete because it is no longer enforceable "
he's going to find out he's wrong. in the meantime don't let this goof get you into trouble. if ya got p2p software on yer system get rid of it.
The pervasiveness of the malware problem contributes to this
Our shop had one shrink wrapped package that had malware included and when this was tracked down the vendor didn't know they had become infected and were distributing shrink-wrapped malware
this underscores the importance of putting a stop to malware
the fundamental error is at the concept level: it is wrong to think it is OK to run your programs on someone else' computer without their knowledge or permission
to invert this properly back to the other end of the pole it is wrong to think that a computer should run anything and everything that anyone sends to it which is what is going on with the promiscuous Ms Window
and so this is a concept that has to change
programming changes have to be proper documented, authenticated and approved before they are applied. and this should apply to everything from cell phones to computers
ya think ya wanna argue with this? don't bother: the security mess we got on our hands say all that needs to be said. the concept of promiscuous remote updates has caused nothing but trouble. It's a concept that is a disaster and that has to be corrected, PDQ
NO SIGNATURE? NO EXECUTE.I think it is important to consider how 17 USC 106 is modified by the additional acts for starters, IAW DMCA defeating the copyright protection ( "ripping" ) is a violation and then when ya post the evidence on a p2p net ya done incriminated yer own self we are allowed one (1) "backup copy" but that is supposed to be made using a device whose primary purpose is handling music -- which a PC is not. a PC is a general purpose machine.
yup, I can sit here all morning thinking about going fishing but when I call Charlie and request him to participate we have formed a Conspiracy to go fishing
now if my wife finds out we better hope our luck is good cuz when we get back the skillet will be on the stove and plates on the table wait'n for us to fix supper
if ya read HMRA and DMCA you'll easily see that p2p phreaks are committing several violations:
in respect to #1, ya rip a CD ya violated DMCA then ya post the evidence on yer p2p net. good job. ya think them tracks can be identified using pattern matching? the don't need "fingerprints" and we also know them fingerprints would be scrubbed pretty quick anyway
in respect to #2 a computer is not primarily a music recording device and so making a copy of a mp3 onto a computer is not covered under private/non-commercial use in HMRA
instead of properly going after the actual violations RIAA is equivocating in attempting to claim that "making available" is the same as "distributing". these are not equivalent, and as EFF properly points out case law on record confirms that there is no copyright violation until a transfer has occurred.
As a result RIAA has to show what files were actually transfered: from who, to who, and when and they gotta have proof that will hold up in a court of law. failing that RIAA case will FAIL.
why they are going after this this way instead of going after the simpler violations, i have no clue -- EXCEPT -- IF they get a favorable ruling that is upheld on appeal they will have changed the law by means of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. that's a bad topic and another issue we have to fight.
p2p software just needs to go away before it brings some evil down upon us such as having ISPs sign for us everything we transmit into the net,....l tee hee
that might be a Good Thing, particularly for our efforts to identify and cancel RATS, spyware, phishing, pharming, spy-bots, key loggers, and malware generally
absolutely! Too, there was a very marked difference between labels. I used a Yamaha CA-800 amp with the Yamaha turntable and Pioneer speakers with 10 inch woofers, midrange, and high tweeters.
the difference in labels was quite noticable
ya gotta be a Grampaw to remember this, but if ya are ya remember the broughhaha over the conversion from vacuum tube amps with output transformers to solid state. the argument was the solid state amps didn't have good sound. some didn't, but that CA-800 was exceptional ( still is, I've had it for years! )
cassetes and 8-tracks didn't make very good copies but a 7-inch open reel deck at 7.5 in/sec could make a copy hard to tell from the original
those were the day, -eh?
that is an internet issue that will most likely soon be resolved.
lots of bad crap gets sent to the net every second. and this ain't good, from id theft, online fraud, phishing, bot-nets and spam, to web site philosophy
the resolution is simple: and that is to establish a Point of Control and that should be where the ISP obtains access to The Net. the ISP should be responsible for verifying the ID of its customers, and on presentation of a proper warrant, verify to authorities who posted what
ISP not in compliance would be disconnected and any country not requiring ISP to comply would be disconnected.
the concept of remote software updates also has to go into the garbage can so that we can get rid of RATS. We have to be rid of RATS so that sign-ons and activity can be properly verified and to do this everyone has a right to a CLEAN computer
if I was a betting man I'd wager that p2p networks will very shortly become a thing of the past
the reason being that these are used primarily for copyright violations
i just got a new ISP and I noticed when i read the Acceptable Use *policy* that they strongly discouraged p2p software
get over it kids, the party's over, RSN
how do ya stop schools shootings?
this is an unfortunate issue the resolution to which is not clear yet. but it has its origin in the change in the nature and character of our people-- there being not an insignificant amount of evidence indicating our entertainment industry is primarily responsible for this change.
as a grumpy old grampaw I find much of what is presented as "entertainment" to be just plain disgusting and there is no doubt that young kids watching such tripe are not going to be learning good things.
actually, the "Days of the Old West" were safer than downtown LA, Detroit, or DC are today. we need our old time Sunday preachers back and "Sunday, go to meet'n". not as a requirement mind, you, but as a good habit.
"computer security" is the laughing stock of the world
I am hoping that as some of these new systems come out, based on Linux, or perhaps Solaris x.86 that the makers will delete the concept of remote updates to software
yep, I said delete that bad idea
download is OK, but after the download customer needs a chance to review what the material is, check signatures, etc and decide whether he wants to update his machine or not
NO SIGNATURE? NO EXECUTE.
It's time to get serious about security before something bad happens. And I think maybe IBM might be just the outfit that could do it. Let's resurrect RACF and set it up for Linux ( maybe Solaris! )
I really like that Solaris x.86 -- which is real unix instead of a substitute.
C'mon IBM, Let's Rock!
who is "Ubuntu"? chief of a cannibal tribe? tee hee
DMCA makes it illegal to defeat copyright protection mechanisms
yeah ok ya all proved you can defeat any copyright protection scheme in short order
and then ya planted the evidence of what ya did on yer p2p system
I ain't got a clue why RIAA don't come after ya on that basis
the way they are going-- trying to equivocate "making available" with "distributing" ain't gonna fly
but guess what kids: they'll be back
another aspect of this is that DMCA prohibits defeating copyright protection mechanisms
so yeah kids, ya done good ya proved ya can break any copyright protection scheme
ya also violated the law by doing that and then posed the evidence on yer p2p system
ya best get rid of that p2p software before ya all get into real trouble
eff is attempting to prevent RIAA from equivocating "making available" with "distributing". it is certainly the case that RIAA has no authority to change the meaning of the law in the way that they want, and it is certainly the case that the implications of such a change could have far reaching consequences which could be badly used by greedy parties who might make advantage of an opportunity to abuse the law.
RIAA should have focused on the act of ripping the music and putting in on computer. A computer is a general purpose device and is not covered by HMRA. So all RIAA has to do is find copyright material on p2p machines anyplace and then charge the owners with ripping music and putting it on their computers
but they are not approaching the issue in this manner, instead they are trying to equivocate "making available" with "distributing". i don't know who their lawyer is but he should certainly do better than that.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
in our system today when an issue is un-clear the court will select a case to use as a test. and the test will be appealed to a higher level court where the ruling will be made. and after that the principle of *stare decisis* is used to apply the test case ruling to all subsequent rulings.
guess what kids: sharing music over p2p is a copyright violation. if I was a betting man I'd wager the court will rule this way and that will be the end of this cry story
i've said this before but it bears repeating: the existing copyright law does not address the issue of p2p. the law then needs to be amended before and other proceeings
amending the law is the job of the Congress, not of the courts. and we do not allow *ex post facto* law either. after the law is amended by Congress then we can proceed with any other actions but not before
HMRA does not cover computers. it only covers copies made to devices whose primary purpose is recording music. a computer is a general purpose machine its primary purpose being information storage and retrieval
and so ripping a copy from a CD or some such media and storing it on your computer is in fact a copyright violation. and the plaintiffs need to approach this issue from that direction. but they have not. and the court won't do that for them the court will only act on the case that is brought.
and it certainly appears the plaintiff will be obliged to demonstrate that actual copies have been distributed in order to make its case
so all of this needs to be set aside until Congress considers an amendment to the law.
if i was a betting man i'd wager p2p can be used to share virus codes as well as music. why don't you people get rid of that p2p software before it gets you into real trouble?
the music industry has traditionally made a lotta cash offa sales of copyright tunes
now you clones all think ya gonna rip them guys off?
not without a fight and guess what: they got the law on their side
if ya pirating music on a p2p net my advice is quit and hope you ain't already on their list
so if you are thinking of using encryption to hide your copyright violations, guess what clones: you will have to use encryption that has an ADK or alternate decryption key registered with your isp
this so we can police your copyright violations. and as a extra kicker big brother will gain the ability to spy on all your communications because guess what: your isp won't forward encrypted messages that don't decrypt using the ADK
anyone using BitTorrent is probably violating copyrights anyway and needs to have their access revoked, go to jail and pay a fine
this hack is just another example of tricking the victim into executing un-authorized code
the block has to be at the java/parser so that when java is envoked to start parsing a code segment for any reason the first thing it does is look for the signature for that program
NO SIGNATURE? NO EXECUTE.
the days of running anything on anybody's computer need to come to an abrupt halt here
this kind of crap ain't gonna stop until we have a fundamental change in our approach to security: and that is we use a WHITELIST to authorize execution of the programs we trust and exclude EVERYTHING else.
trying to identify and exclude malware has fallen short of meeting our needs
and that demonstration continues week after week after week after week as the hacking gets worse and worse
if we are going to use the internet for business purposes this is UNACCEPTABLE. Change has to happen.
NO SIGNATURE? NO EXECUTE.