SunnComm's statement is, of course, a tacit admission that Halderman's information is correct: "Once the file is found and deleted according to the instructions given in the Princeton grad student's report, the MediaMax copy management system can be bypassed resulting in the copyright protected music being converted or misappropriated for potentially unauthorized and/or illegal use," it says.
If Halderman is incorrect, then the outcome described above can't happen, and the DMCA hasn't been violated. Yet SunnComm claims the law has been broken - ergo Halderman's conclusion is correct.
In which case, SunnComm's technology is indeed flawed, and the company can't argue the student has damaged its reputation.
The fact that free market has been demonstrated to be succesful in most areas of economy is a generalization. The free market, just like any other economical method, is subject to human mistakes and misexpectations, even in a global scale (e.g. the Y2K issues). The free market only gives an advantage to the ones who make less mistakes and do more accurate predictions.
Might the GNU project be better served if their leaders would stop worrying about whether it should be called GNU/Linux and get back to the technical side of things?
As far as I have understood, the development of technical GNU components critical to GNU/Linux, such as GNU libc and the GNU C Compiler, is doing fine. The objective of the GNU project has been and still is making a technically superior GNU operating system that is free for everyone. The fact that many people know GNU only from their ideology does not change the fact that the GNU project has been constantly producing lots of software.
Nothing is 100% secure, nothing is flawless, all operating systems are imperfect pieces of junk [...]
Which is why software monoculture is bad. The existence of competing implementations is always a good thing whether it's OpenSSH vs. GNU lsh or something else. That way not everything is compromised in one swoop once a new security flaw is discovered.
Well, I guess the underlying assumption here is that the software using the ports 135, 137, 139, and 445 is broken beyond repair either from the security perspective or then the software is very hard to configure properly (because it seems people accidentally misconfigure it to be open to the entire Internet). Either way, the suggested measure would be an unnecessary limit of free communication for no other reason than a common implementation of certain protocols.
If it is possible for clueless users to accidentally run software that puts their computers at great risk, then I say there is a serious usability problem here. If the software implementation and/or protocols itself are insecure, providing a better implementation/protocol is a step towards better future. Trying to shift the responsibility to ISPs isn't the way to go.
A SCO article that either 1) explains SCO is wrong or 2) tells what stupid thing SCO has done now.
Hey now, let's not be so cynical there. This Slashdot article contains some very insightful editorial commentary, such as "It seems that SCO finds it increasingly difficult to distinguish facts from fiction."
How about some protections for democracy back home first? This is utterly unacceptable.
Well, the American people can ask themselves: "Will the next Iraqi elections be more free than the next US elections?" If you have any doubts of Iraq winning, then it might be best to start doing something, quickly.
Contrary to the hysterical claims you read in/., Europe is not free of software patents now.
In the same sense, the world is not free of software patents. Some countries in the world have software patents, some other countries don't. There is no standard policy on software patents throughout the world.
Continuing this example, some EU countries have allowed software patents, some haven't. "Europe" or "EU" has had no directive concerning patenting software. It has been up to the member countries.
I think you could compare it to a situation where patents would have been granted in individual states of the USA. Some would have allowed software patents and some other states wouldn't. And then the Congress were to decide on a Federal law overriding all the local laws.
Wow, the guys sends millions of e-mail messages, then he closes up shop after getting 20 unsolicited phone calls.
Actually that sounds like a good strategy. If even a tiny group of all the people who receive spam would give feedback by making a phone call, I think it could make many spammers to reconsider their business. Assuming that you get the right person on the line, it will take them a few seconds or minutes per each caller (as opposed to a mail bounce or a mail reply that won't ever be read by a real person) plus they will get a fair share of verbal abuse they deserve.
GNU/LinEx is based on GNU/Debian, a Linux distribution that, thanks to its design, makes it easy to create other distributions that can inherit its advantages and get rid of some of its faults [...]
In other words, GNU/LinEx is a modified version of the Debian GNU/Linux operating system. No, I don't even want to think what the proper name of the system should be if the GNU concept of proper credit is followed.
As I've understood it (and I'm probably misinformed) Debian needs all packages in a release to be stable before issuing a new stable release. With thousands of packages that's a lot of work.
As far as I know, a package must also properly compile and work on all the supported architechtures. There are currently 11 supported architechtures in the latest stable release. I wouldn't be surprised if the support for so many platforms would cause its own share of delays.
The copyright system has traditionally been a system that concerns professional authors and professional publishers and distributors. The general public has never really had a need to pay any more attention to copyright than to many other business-to-business issues or issues that concern a narrow field of profession.
Now basically every individual who can access the Internet can distribute works in massive quantities. Any person who makes their own web page and has a few hundred visitors has done what was very hard for an average person a decade ago. Publishing is no longer an expensive task that only traditional medias such as newspapers and record companies can afford.
The copyright system will eventually go through a major reform. The current form is simply designed for a situation where there are few authors and few publishers and then the general public that isn't either an author or a publisher. That situation no longer matches the reality which is why a new copyright system (if there will be a copyright system at all) will need to handle copyright as an issue that concerns each and everyone.
How can RIAA claim any loss in salse when the people sharing files do not have the dispoable income to purchase Cds in the firs tplace?
Their business is based on the distribution of music and charging money for it. If someone else distributes music that is covered by the exclusive right the law has granted them (copyright), it weakens their business. It's not "one illegal download = one lost sale" as they like to think, but it's also deceptive to say "illegal downloads = no impact on business".
Illegal distribution of copyrighted material hurts the business of the corporations the RIAA presents. I don't really care of their business and I'd rather want to legalize this currently illegal distribution but that's different from saying it wouldn't hurt them.
USD 3M is a tiny price to pay if the system enhances the military's ability to anticipate threats to American civilians.
The system would also tell hostile organizations what threats the American civilians expect the least. Market mechanism can't be a drop-in replacement for an intelligence agency. If you take the market mechanism, everything will need to happen in public. Yes, the military can take advantage of that when planning a defence strategy but so can the attacking organization when they're planning an attack strategy.
Maybe irony is what makes us human. Is any other species on the planet this self-contradictory?
GNU
Re:How could this story be believed?
on
The Beast of Brussels
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Today, with the technology we have, it might actually be possible. [...] More information could be monitored by numerous distributed computer systems. It's all certainly POSSIBLE.
What STASI did in East Germany was a lot worse than that. And it was not only possible, it was real.
When people read books like 1984, they often forget that it was criticism aimed at the an existing system and its possible outcomes.
What they're legislating here is that before a server transmits an HTTP response featuring a Set-Cookie header, they must send a prior (human readable) HTTP response to the client saying that they'll be sending a response with a Set-Cookie header along next if the client doesn't mind.
So, what's the essential difference to SMTP and opt-in legislation? Opt-in requires the consent of the recipient before any advertising can be sent. It is possible to configure SMTP server to reject messages just like it's possible to configure a HTTP client to reject cookies. Following your logic, it would be dangerous to regulate any SMTP traffic (whether opt-in, opt-out or whatever) because people can choose whether to receive messages or not.
This legislation is about what people use technology for. You can't know what cookies will be used for just by looking what browser tells you about a cookie in a warning dialog. It's not about modifying protocol through legislation. It's about what people do with technology.
That said, I'm not sure if this legislation is such a good thing.
I will be boycotting the RIAA from now on as well, but I would hate to never listen to music again. Where can I get a list of "safe" alternatives to the RIAA so that I won't be sued?
If you're after high quality music and you want to be safe from RIAA&co., try classical music. I know that it isn't exactly the latest fashion but it's a fact that it there is a huge library of classical music that is mostly in public domain.
It is very different to the mainstream music of today but it's also very nice once you get used to it. At least I think so.
Also, one way to get music legally is to listen to mp3/ogg streams. I listen to Digitally Imported and Kohina from time to time.
In any case, this is a big inconvenience for many people using Linux in their companies. I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux.
It's rather simple: there is no reason to pay SCO any money if you use Linux.
Whoever suggests otherwise should come up with proof. So far, no one has.
...that the desire for independence from the US is going to be an increasingly important factor in driving Linux/OSS adoption throughout the world. I mean, "government wasting money on Microsoft products" wouldn't have such a ring to it in the US now, would it?
I think it's more about independence than anti-US attitude. In the current world independence and anti-US attitude have something in common but in the end, they're two very different things.
One example is the city of Munich that switched from an American vendor (Microsoft) to another American vendor (IBM). The difference is that the former makes the city dependant on a single foreign company while the latter simply provides good service for an open platform. Choosing an American vendor doesn't seem to raise many concerns but depending on one American vendor does.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33322.html:
The fact that free market has been demonstrated to be succesful in most areas of economy is a generalization. The free market, just like any other economical method, is subject to human mistakes and misexpectations, even in a global scale (e.g. the Y2K issues). The free market only gives an advantage to the ones who make less mistakes and do more accurate predictions.
As far as I have understood, the development of technical GNU components critical to GNU/Linux, such as GNU libc and the GNU C Compiler, is doing fine. The objective of the GNU project has been and still is making a technically superior GNU operating system that is free for everyone. The fact that many people know GNU only from their ideology does not change the fact that the GNU project has been constantly producing lots of software.
Which is why software monoculture is bad. The existence of competing implementations is always a good thing whether it's OpenSSH vs. GNU lsh or something else. That way not everything is compromised in one swoop once a new security flaw is discovered.
Is this a contest for the best offer? I'll raise the offer with my finger.
Well, I guess the underlying assumption here is that the software using the ports 135, 137, 139, and 445 is broken beyond repair either from the security perspective or then the software is very hard to configure properly (because it seems people accidentally misconfigure it to be open to the entire Internet). Either way, the suggested measure would be an unnecessary limit of free communication for no other reason than a common implementation of certain protocols.
If it is possible for clueless users to accidentally run software that puts their computers at great risk, then I say there is a serious usability problem here. If the software implementation and/or protocols itself are insecure, providing a better implementation/protocol is a step towards better future. Trying to shift the responsibility to ISPs isn't the way to go.
Hey now, let's not be so cynical there. This Slashdot article contains some very insightful editorial commentary, such as "It seems that SCO finds it increasingly difficult to distinguish facts from fiction."
Well, the American people can ask themselves: "Will the next Iraqi elections be more free than the next US elections?" If you have any doubts of Iraq winning, then it might be best to start doing something, quickly.
In the same sense, the world is not free of software patents. Some countries in the world have software patents, some other countries don't. There is no standard policy on software patents throughout the world.
Continuing this example, some EU countries have allowed software patents, some haven't. "Europe" or "EU" has had no directive concerning patenting software. It has been up to the member countries.
I think you could compare it to a situation where patents would have been granted in individual states of the USA. Some would have allowed software patents and some other states wouldn't. And then the Congress were to decide on a Federal law overriding all the local laws.
Actually that sounds like a good strategy. If even a tiny group of all the people who receive spam would give feedback by making a phone call, I think it could make many spammers to reconsider their business. Assuming that you get the right person on the line, it will take them a few seconds or minutes per each caller (as opposed to a mail bounce or a mail reply that won't ever be read by a real person) plus they will get a fair share of verbal abuse they deserve.
Well, just to be fair, I'll quote the "GNU/LinEx Technical Specs":
In other words, GNU/LinEx is a modified version of the Debian GNU/Linux operating system. No, I don't even want to think what the proper name of the system should be if the GNU concept of proper credit is followed.
As far as I know, a package must also properly compile and work on all the supported architechtures. There are currently 11 supported architechtures in the latest stable release. I wouldn't be surprised if the support for so many platforms would cause its own share of delays.
[*]
Score: -10000
X-Newsreader: Microsoft
The copyright system has traditionally been a system that concerns professional authors and professional publishers and distributors. The general public has never really had a need to pay any more attention to copyright than to many other business-to-business issues or issues that concern a narrow field of profession.
Now basically every individual who can access the Internet can distribute works in massive quantities. Any person who makes their own web page and has a few hundred visitors has done what was very hard for an average person a decade ago. Publishing is no longer an expensive task that only traditional medias such as newspapers and record companies can afford.
The copyright system will eventually go through a major reform. The current form is simply designed for a situation where there are few authors and few publishers and then the general public that isn't either an author or a publisher. That situation no longer matches the reality which is why a new copyright system (if there will be a copyright system at all) will need to handle copyright as an issue that concerns each and everyone.
It also appears that wearing a button that says "Suspected Terrorist" may lead to being treated as a terrorist.
Their business is based on the distribution of music and charging money for it. If someone else distributes music that is covered by the exclusive right the law has granted them (copyright), it weakens their business. It's not "one illegal download = one lost sale" as they like to think, but it's also deceptive to say "illegal downloads = no impact on business".
Illegal distribution of copyrighted material hurts the business of the corporations the RIAA presents. I don't really care of their business and I'd rather want to legalize this currently illegal distribution but that's different from saying it wouldn't hurt them.
The system would also tell hostile organizations what threats the American civilians expect the least. Market mechanism can't be a drop-in replacement for an intelligence agency. If you take the market mechanism, everything will need to happen in public. Yes, the military can take advantage of that when planning a defence strategy but so can the attacking organization when they're planning an attack strategy.
Maybe irony is what makes us human. Is any other species on the planet this self-contradictory?
GNU
What STASI did in East Germany was a lot worse than that. And it was not only possible, it was real.
When people read books like 1984, they often forget that it was criticism aimed at the an existing system and its possible outcomes.
So, what's the essential difference to SMTP and opt-in legislation? Opt-in requires the consent of the recipient before any advertising can be sent. It is possible to configure SMTP server to reject messages just like it's possible to configure a HTTP client to reject cookies. Following your logic, it would be dangerous to regulate any SMTP traffic (whether opt-in, opt-out or whatever) because people can choose whether to receive messages or not.
This legislation is about what people use technology for. You can't know what cookies will be used for just by looking what browser tells you about a cookie in a warning dialog. It's not about modifying protocol through legislation. It's about what people do with technology.
That said, I'm not sure if this legislation is such a good thing.
If you're after high quality music and you want to be safe from RIAA&co., try classical music. I know that it isn't exactly the latest fashion but it's a fact that it there is a huge library of classical music that is mostly in public domain.
It is very different to the mainstream music of today but it's also very nice once you get used to it. At least I think so.
Also, one way to get music legally is to listen to mp3/ogg streams. I listen to Digitally Imported and Kohina from time to time.
Well, you know what they say about downloading and applying Windows patches...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It sounds like GNUnet might be something you would be interested of.
It's rather simple: there is no reason to pay SCO any money if you use Linux.
Whoever suggests otherwise should come up with proof. So far, no one has.
I think it's more about independence than anti-US attitude. In the current world independence and anti-US attitude have something in common but in the end, they're two very different things.
One example is the city of Munich that switched from an American vendor (Microsoft) to another American vendor (IBM). The difference is that the former makes the city dependant on a single foreign company while the latter simply provides good service for an open platform. Choosing an American vendor doesn't seem to raise many concerns but depending on one American vendor does.