For a company that sells "unlimited" broadband usage at 6Mbs, and can't supply that due to massive under-provisioning of their Internet connectivity, this is an outright sham! Does anyone here think that, short of getting 98% of your Internet content direct from Comcast (remember AOL's walled garden) that they have any hope of providing such service in the real world, when they can't provide a reliable 6Mbs now.
And this is not to mention them throwing you off the system for violating their unpublished, secret, bandwidth caps. In short, if you actually use the bandwidth you think you purchased, you're cut off. This is nothing more than FUD so that Comcast and the other cable companies can claim that their system beats FiOS. And the government is refusing to protect us against this false advertising.
You don't have to shutoff Disney, as some posters are suggesting. You only have to shutdown their commercial advertisers. Use the time you're being forced to watch commercials to write protest letters to advertisers. This does get their attention -- especially when they arrive by the postal truck full.
will not affect viewers using DVRs to fast-forward through ads.
Okay, I record it to my DVR, start watching a few (lot of) minutes later while it's still recording the latter parts of the show, and skip the d@mn ads.
Oh, right, while they say it won't affect my DVR, what are the chances they won't allow said DVR to record that channel now?
Suppose I only care about the last quarter of the game because I missed that part on the live broadcast. Am I going to have to sit through everything else now to get to it?
Tell me again how this is somehow going to make me like Disney/Cox even more than before?
In fact, the only way these ads will stop is when everyone writes to every advertiser and informs them they will not buy this product as long as it's advertised in this manner!
The chip will be just one-seventh the size of normal chips, and consume only 10% of the power of existing processor.
Do the math. Core 2 Duo dissipates 65W. Silverthorn at 10% of that (65 *.1) = 6.5W. Transmeta used to have a 1W processor that Intel could only match by basically shutting down and underclocking everything possible, to the point of usability. I guess there are just different concepts of what a true low power processor is intended to be.
How about the Wire Fraud component of calling and demanding money under the threat of an expensive lawsuit to defend otherwise? And calling it a "settlement", when it's really a Take-It-Or-Leave-It demand? Doesn't that count?
In the same way the RIAA mislabels other aspects of their legal actions (e.g. calling P2P filesharing Online Media Distribution Systems), calling this a "settlement" agency is absolute New-Speak.
Copyright is not an unjust law. It exists to spur creation and innovation, and for a lot of artists, it's the only thing that allows them to afford to create the content you unjustly enjoy.
Explain to me, if you will, how extending copyrights long after the creation is done, affects that creation -- except to continue funneling excess profits into a monopoly of companies long after such works should have entered the Public Domain?
Copyright law ceased being fair when copyrights started being massively extended retroactively. At that point it was no longer about encouraging the creation of artistic works by securing for a limited time exclusive rights to profit from those works. It was simply about money, and the perpetuation of profits of one particular industry. This is the very thing thing that USA copyright law under the Constitution was supposed to prevent, and which was going on widely in Europe at the time the Constitution was written.
Existing works had already been created under the copyright laws of the time. (28 years plus one extension of 28 more years). The laws fully served their purpose of encouraging the creative arts. No change in the law afterwards would change what had been done. These works should have moved into the public domain, where new artists could freely use them to create even newer works to enrich society. Instead, the content creation industry got Congress to enrich them by extending unreasonably the time of protection. Congress did not represent the people at large that day.
The President failed in his job by signing this bill, and The Supreme Court failed miserably in their job of understanding the intent in the US Constitution by upholding the unwarranted extensions. And the court system now fails even more miserably by permitting the RIAA suits to exist in the first place, and then be dropped in ways that cost never-convicted defendants tens of thousands of reimbursed dollars, the moment the RIAA might lose. All this while the RIAA tries to trick the courts into granting them rights never included in the original legislation. If the RIAA can fool uninformed judges into creating precedents to be used in future cases, they will have de facto created new law for themselves.
Filesharing should be viewed as an act of civil disobedience against an industry that has received out-of-proportion, and unconstitutional, protection from all three branches of the government.
Couldn't TPB scupper the case against them by moving their operations now to one of their backup sites? I gather they're rather certain that if the run the site from some other country, Swedish law doesn't apply. Wait until the heat dies down, then move back again.
Or fragment the operation such that not enough of it exists in any single country to be sued in that country. Only when the distributed pieces are put back together is a valid tracker emitted.
If we do not receive acceptable answers, Congress will be forced to act.
Nice to know that you alone can speak for all of Congress, and the President, who will have to sign it, and The Supreme Court, who may have to uphold it. You must have a really big mouth.
And how long for a distributed network of PS3's to locate another processing key by brute force testing of the probably keyspace against a new title decode block? Yes, it's a very big keyspace, however, there's a lot of unused capacity in a modern games console waiting to be tapped as well. One processing key a month would destroy AACS entirely.
And can someone re-create the original keygen process in the first place from available data? AACS is able to create keys on demand.
You're missing the point here. Everybody doesn't have to do this. One person does this and posts Volume Keys for each new release, allowing everyone else to simply decode with the volume key. If this truly can't be revoked, then it doesn't matter it they make it inaccessible tomorrow. Not until every existing modded player breaks beyond repair would it be secure again.
For a real laugh, check-out the formerly-known-as Secret Number as Photoshop art. My personal favorite is #12. The funniest part of all was as I went through the list, an animated ad for Blu-Ray high-definition movie playback popped in after image #9. It doesn't get better than that!
Look at old posts. I've been using that exact sequence of hex digits as my signature on posts since the beginning.
Then you're got prior art. I expect to be reading news of your lawsuit against the MPAA any moment now.
Re:How long must a number be to be copyrightable?
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
Can cryptographic keys be copyrighted? Can the MPAA use a (long) key containing a copyrightable image so that the cryptographic key is copyrighted as well?
That's how at least one computer BIOS was protected. The company name (IBM, IIRC) was placed in the BIOS, and the software looked for it at a specific location. People trying to duplicate the BIOS found themselves on the wrong end of a trademark suit against a big company with nearly as many (and much better paid) lawyers as programmers.
Are they able to get it out of the WayBack machine as well?
How about if it's represented in a different number base (ala DECSS in different programming languages)?
And all along I thought that numbers couldn't be copyrighted or patented.
Not to mention, if it is copyrighted, and therefore should be in the public domain of protected copyrighted works (i.e. you can't sell this very short story), then how is it secret, and did the actual copyright owner send the takedown notice? So many DMCA notices seem not to comply with the act properly these days.
Maybe they should just give it to Xenu (Scientology) to keep off the web. We know how well they've managed so far.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is not to mention them throwing you off the system for violating their unpublished, secret, bandwidth caps. In short, if you actually use the bandwidth you think you purchased, you're cut off. This is nothing more than FUD so that Comcast and the other cable companies can claim that their system beats FiOS. And the government is refusing to protect us against this false advertising.
You don't have to shutoff Disney, as some posters are suggesting. You only have to shutdown their commercial advertisers. Use the time you're being forced to watch commercials to write protest letters to advertisers. This does get their attention -- especially when they arrive by the postal truck full.
Okay, I record it to my DVR, start watching a few (lot of) minutes later while it's still recording the latter parts of the show, and skip the d@mn ads.
Oh, right, while they say it won't affect my DVR, what are the chances they won't allow said DVR to record that channel now?
Suppose I only care about the last quarter of the game because I missed that part on the live broadcast. Am I going to have to sit through everything else now to get to it?
Tell me again how this is somehow going to make me like Disney/Cox even more than before?
In fact, the only way these ads will stop is when everyone writes to every advertiser and informs them they will not buy this product as long as it's advertised in this manner!
Wow! Warner Brothers lies! Boy, that's no news at all.
That's because it will all be echoing: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C0
Do the math. Core 2 Duo dissipates 65W. Silverthorn at 10% of that (65 * .1) = 6.5W. Transmeta used to have a 1W processor that Intel could only match by basically shutting down and underclocking everything possible, to the point of usability. I guess there are just different concepts of what a true low power processor is intended to be.
In the same way the RIAA mislabels other aspects of their legal actions (e.g. calling P2P filesharing Online Media Distribution Systems), calling this a "settlement" agency is absolute New-Speak.
Took 'em this long to figure this out?
Explain to me, if you will, how extending copyrights long after the creation is done, affects that creation -- except to continue funneling excess profits into a monopoly of companies long after such works should have entered the Public Domain?
I accept your silence as defeat.
Isn't England a Loser Pays legal system? If English Football loses, it could cost them a pretty pence.
Which President? Not either Bush. Not Kerry, who wanted to be President. Not either Clinton.
Oh, do you mean the President of Microsoft? Yes, but he dropped out.
This clear statement of all that's wrong here belongs on your blog, for all the people who need to see it and won't find it here first.
Existing works had already been created under the copyright laws of the time. (28 years plus one extension of 28 more years). The laws fully served their purpose of encouraging the creative arts. No change in the law afterwards would change what had been done. These works should have moved into the public domain, where new artists could freely use them to create even newer works to enrich society. Instead, the content creation industry got Congress to enrich them by extending unreasonably the time of protection. Congress did not represent the people at large that day.
The President failed in his job by signing this bill, and The Supreme Court failed miserably in their job of understanding the intent in the US Constitution by upholding the unwarranted extensions. And the court system now fails even more miserably by permitting the RIAA suits to exist in the first place, and then be dropped in ways that cost never-convicted defendants tens of thousands of reimbursed dollars, the moment the RIAA might lose. All this while the RIAA tries to trick the courts into granting them rights never included in the original legislation. If the RIAA can fool uninformed judges into creating precedents to be used in future cases, they will have de facto created new law for themselves.
Filesharing should be viewed as an act of civil disobedience against an industry that has received out-of-proportion, and unconstitutional, protection from all three branches of the government.
Or fragment the operation such that not enough of it exists in any single country to be sued in that country. Only when the distributed pieces are put back together is a valid tracker emitted.
Nice to know that you alone can speak for all of Congress, and the President, who will have to sign it, and The Supreme Court, who may have to uphold it. You must have a really big mouth.
And can someone re-create the original keygen process in the first place from available data? AACS is able to create keys on demand.
You're missing the point here. Everybody doesn't have to do this. One person does this and posts Volume Keys for each new release, allowing everyone else to simply decode with the volume key. If this truly can't be revoked, then it doesn't matter it they make it inaccessible tomorrow. Not until every existing modded player breaks beyond repair would it be secure again.
Did anyone notice that this article is nearly 3 weeks old? Really on the ball there, Slashdot.
For a real laugh, check-out the formerly-known-as Secret Number as Photoshop art. My personal favorite is #12. The funniest part of all was as I went through the list, an animated ad for Blu-Ray high-definition movie playback popped in after image #9. It doesn't get better than that!
And here's the obligatory: Production of units for sale to the public is expected in about 5 years.
Yes, but has Fake Steve Jobs posted a reply yet? That'll be the one worth reading.
And then we sue them.
Then you're got prior art. I expect to be reading news of your lawsuit against the MPAA any moment now.
That's how at least one computer BIOS was protected. The company name (IBM, IIRC) was placed in the BIOS, and the software looked for it at a specific location. People trying to duplicate the BIOS found themselves on the wrong end of a trademark suit against a big company with nearly as many (and much better paid) lawyers as programmers.
How about if it's represented in a different number base (ala DECSS in different programming languages)?
And all along I thought that numbers couldn't be copyrighted or patented.
Not to mention, if it is copyrighted, and therefore should be in the public domain of protected copyrighted works (i.e. you can't sell this very short story), then how is it secret, and did the actual copyright owner send the takedown notice? So many DMCA notices seem not to comply with the act properly these days.
Maybe they should just give it to Xenu (Scientology) to keep off the web. We know how well they've managed so far.