I'm definitely going to be purchasing this book, as we've recently had an 'incident' and in the health care field these kinds of things could mean jail time for me as the person responsible for security thanks to HIPAA.
Are you an skillfull troll, or an ignorant ass? Sometimes it's hard to tell.
The 'vendors' did pay licensing, until something better came along (png). Thanks to Unisys contracts* though, Microsoft never provided proper support for PNG.
* Ask yourself why Microsoft never had to pay gif licensing fees when everyone else did, and PNG alpha layer support stayed broken through 3 versions of Internet Explorer.
They could probably arrest you for posting information posted in the past that is now deem criminal, but I don't think they could prosecute succesfully. Those types of laws are called Post Ipso Facto, and as far as I know aren't enforcable. I know they aren't in Indiana, but IANAL.
"Patent MAD seems like the only way to get to be a big company these days. With the dot com boom over, what else could possibly take a small company and make it competitive with a giant like ebay.com?"
Maybe someone should be selling 'accidental patent violation' insurance to small companys? The small company wins, the insurer wins, and progress gets to live.
This reminds me of an idea I had, to protect P2P users from the **AA.
The idea is simple. The only way we can be certain that an anonymous user of a file sharing system is not a member of one of the copyright cartels is to verify that they are in fact a 'thief' themselves (as the **AA like to call copyright infringer's). We force any user wishing for us to respond with a search response or a file to first 'steal' OUR own personal Intellectual Property.
When our imaginary P2P loads for the first time a 64 bits of random bytes are generated. The random bytes are copyrighted to the user that just launched our application. Upon receiving a query or file transfer request our P2P app responds with a copyright notice explaining that no one may access our list of files without paying an arbitrarily large sum of money first (aka 1 billion dollars ), and that authentication is performed by the requester acknowledging our copyright notice with our copyrighted 64 bit key. The key is shared without protection beyond a simple 'I am entitled' 'i am not entitled' button. If the requesting user clicks the 'i am entitled' button the P2P app retrieves our copyrighted key and echo's it back to the 'file serving' user. There will also, of course be a 'do not bother me again' check box that it would be horribly illegal to check. Simple. No cascaded onion routing nightmare necessary
Besides, a system like this would be a great way to allow legitimate uses of P2P as well. One could even build in a payment system, so that those who wish to sell content distributed via P2P would be able to easily do so.
The seems like it would be a simple hack, and fairly foolproof until the unjust copywrong laws are changed, so someone tell me why it wont work.
This is only informative if you dont give a rats ass about the legalilty of the whole thing. Sorenson based codecs are patent encumbered and gross. They should stick to mpeg4 base stuff like xvid, so we can all play.
Go ahead and try to be a leecher. It wont hurt me. Leechers dont get anything from me, and never will. Most P2P clients prioritize uploads so that leechers get little to no bandwidth, and people with fat pipes are always swamped with requests from REAL sharers, so you will never even see 1 byte of any file from me.
Don't act like a scared child. The odds of you getting caught are like one in 65 million, and the penalty is puny, and easily evaded with simple defenses (wifi, trojan, neighbor kid, etc). With that attitude you must work for the movie/music industry. You sound like a FUD-slinger.
They have no proof, and they dont even have a preponderence of evidence. All they have is an IP, an ISP log, and maybe a search result that shows a file with the right name and file hash. Whoopie! They have no proof that I was even involved. Maybe I get my kicks from altering P2P clients to return false search results, and then deleting my experimental P2P clients? Maybe a trojan did it? If someone else used my equipment to do these things than how can I be responsible? I wouldn't be responsible if I loaned you my car and you ran over a bunch of nuns.
Only an idiot would pay the RIAA, or the MPAA anything. I would happily spend my time in court laughing at their ridiculous case until it was thrown out.
All of these arguments hinge around a belief that artists deserve to continue making money from the same work for the rest of their life, without having to produce anything new.
I do not believe in 'Intellectual Property'. The concept that a person, or group of persons, should have some right to 'own' an idea, concept, or particular method of expressing an idea, or concept appalls me, as it would any person more concerned with the welfare of the species, than the welfare of the individual members of that species.
IP laws are self-contradictory, and ill-defined. If I saw a Frank Lloyd Wright building, and built one which looked similar as a tribute, I would not be sued. Few would call me a criminal, and none would call me a pirate. What if I liked a very nice suit, and copied its design to produce my own suit? If I do the same thing with a song, or a movie, or software than I suddenly become a thief. It is not fair, and it is not logical.
What about DNA? My doctor now has a legal right to take a blood sample I have given him for testing, extract, and copyright MY genetic code, without my permission. I am now a thief, just by living. Is that 'moral'? Shouldn't I have some legal right to own at least the code that makes ME? No, of course not. How could I? He filed for the copyright/patent before I did. I have no rights. I didn't 'think of it' first. He 'invented' me, and that obviously helps to 'progress the progress of science, and the arts'.
Every thought you could ever think, has been thought before. The 'original' thinker just wasn't in a position where they could purchase 'protection' from the government. All concepts, ideas, algorithms, and dreams are built on the concepts that you have already been exposed to. ALL WORKS ARE DERIVITIVE WORKS!
IP is just an excuse that smart but lazy people use to keep from having to produce anything new. It is inherently evil, and sets BACK progress by its very nature.
Is anyone SERIOUSLY arguing for the right to disseminate the creations of other people for free?
Yes, me. Intellectual property is pointless, and it hurts more poeple than it helps. It should be abolished. There are a lot of reasons I feel this way, and I am not alone.
I don't need an excuse. I am the almighty consumer, and I will continue doing whatever is easiest/cheapest to get what I want. This is the way it has always been, and the way it will always be. Just because a company has a bad business model based entirely around the concept of 'unbreakable' DRM (a logical impossiblity) doesn't mean that the nature of consumers will change. Even stupid laws will not stop people, because after a stupid law has been passed it is not only easier, but now more fun as well.
Your arguments are quit compelling, and eloquently worded.
Your main point seems to be that commercial software, and free software are not mutually exclusive, and that sometimes software can be both free, and for profit. I disagree.
I believe that information wants to be free (Sorry to beat that dead horse again, but it is the best expression of the sentiment I know of), and that despite anyones best efforts to keep it from being free, it will inevitably find a way to become free. Code is just more information, and commercial software is an attempt to limit the availability of certain information (some would argue that code is not data, but instruction. I would argue that instruction is also data.). Any attempt to control the flow of information is doomed to fail (in the long run). Because of this, all efforts to make money by limiting the flow of information are fundamentally flawed, including the practice of withholding code from those unwilling or unable to pay for it. The only way to make money with information (in the long term) is to either generate new information, or provide a more efficient way to spread, gather, or copy information.
Recently the music, movies, and television industries have been hit with the revelation that their business models are no longer adequate. The entire reason that those systems are failing is because their primary source of income was in controlling the distribution channels the information used. Now the people have started to understand that audio and video are really just more information, and that it can be more easily/cheaply distributed without the middle men. The same thing has been happening with pay software for years, and is continuing to get 'worse' every year. The simple reason is that information wants to be free, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.
Why on earth would you say that? How can it possibly benefit the world if the software is not free. How can it be free as in speech, but not as in beer? Wouldn't one necessitate the other? As an example, if I have the code to something than I can just compile it and use it for free. Why pay for it? The main advantage of Open Source to most people is not in the openness of the code, but in the freeness of the binary. Although a few geeks such as myself feel like we need the source, most people would never miss it. Your kind of idealism is nice, but not even close to most of the real worlds point of view. Not to mention that if I had a choice between paying for KDE, or using gnome for free, I know which one I would use. Regardless of features.
Whats wrong with software you have to pay for?!? How about, it isn't FREE, and if it isn't free it leaves alot of people out of luck.
PS - Whoever modded me a troll can just go to hell. This was a legitimate question, from a concerned user.
Like any of these modern websites will be around in a hundred years. Go ahead and try to find it in ten years. I dare you. They wont be gone because of paper rot, they will be gone because no one will care once whatever replaces the internet replaces the internet.
You've artificially turned the "supply" dial to infinity, and it's wreaking havoc.
No. Music is information. Movies are information. DNA is information. Eventually everything except services will be just more information. Information wants to be free, and the supply was always unlimited, we just didn't know it yet and we were stupid enough to pay for it. Some of us aren't that stupid anymore. The rest of us wont be for long. Welcome to the Diamond Age MF'er.:)
It was a typo in my setup, oops. I should have triple checked my setup before I posted. It wasn't scanning inside zip files, hence half of them got through:) I guess ClamAV DOES rock:)
I set up ClamAV yesterday, because my Kaspersky AVP for linux mail servers quit working. I have to say that is doing a pretty poor job. Dont get me wrong, I love the concept of an open source AV engine, but it seems to be missing at least a good 50& of the new mydooms, and bagles, and things. I dont know why, but I know the defs are up to date, and I know its installed properly. It just doesn't work well. Maybe it will improve soon.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just an old promotional image. The alpha version, which breaks Googles CAPTCHA, doesn't have any advertising images yet, as far as I can tell.
I'm definitely going to be purchasing this book, as we've recently had an 'incident' and in the health care field these kinds of things could mean jail time for me as the person responsible for security thanks to HIPAA.
Why wait? You can speed the process via the judicious use of aerosol. As a bonus, you'll make that land you bought in Indiana ocean front property. :)
Are you an skillfull troll, or an ignorant ass? Sometimes it's hard to tell.
The 'vendors' did pay licensing, until something better came along (png). Thanks to Unisys contracts* though, Microsoft never provided proper support for PNG.
* Ask yourself why Microsoft never had to pay gif licensing fees when everyone else did, and PNG alpha layer support stayed broken through 3 versions of Internet Explorer.
They could probably arrest you for posting information posted in the past that is now deem criminal, but I don't think they could prosecute succesfully. Those types of laws are called Post Ipso Facto, and as far as I know aren't enforcable. I know they aren't in Indiana, but IANAL.
Check out this hillarious spoof comic via BoingBoing.
On second thought forget the blackjack, and the series.
Yeah, but that didn't include licensing costs :)
Lower TCO my ass.
"Patent MAD seems like the only way to get to be a big company these days. With the dot com boom over, what else could possibly take a small company and make it competitive with a giant like ebay.com?" Maybe someone should be selling 'accidental patent violation' insurance to small companys? The small company wins, the insurer wins, and progress gets to live.
This reminds me of an idea I had, to protect P2P users from the **AA.
The idea is simple. The only way we can be certain that an anonymous user of a file sharing system is not a member of one of the copyright cartels is to verify that they are in fact a 'thief' themselves (as the **AA like to call copyright infringer's). We force any user wishing for us to respond with a search response or a file to first 'steal' OUR own personal Intellectual Property.
When our imaginary P2P loads for the first time a 64 bits of random bytes are generated. The random bytes are copyrighted to the user that just launched our application. Upon receiving a query or file transfer request our P2P app responds with a copyright notice explaining that no one may access our list of files without paying an arbitrarily large sum of money first (aka 1 billion dollars ), and that authentication is performed by the requester acknowledging our copyright notice with our copyrighted 64 bit key. The key is shared without protection beyond a simple 'I am entitled' 'i am not entitled' button. If the requesting user clicks the 'i am entitled' button the P2P app retrieves our copyrighted key and echo's it back to the 'file serving' user. There will also, of course be a 'do not bother me again' check box that it would be horribly illegal to check. Simple. No cascaded onion routing nightmare necessary
Besides, a system like this would be a great way to allow legitimate uses of P2P as well. One could even build in a payment system, so that those who wish to sell content distributed via P2P would be able to easily do so.
The seems like it would be a simple hack, and fairly foolproof until the unjust copywrong laws are changed, so someone tell me why it wont work.
This is only informative if you dont give a rats ass about the legalilty of the whole thing. Sorenson based codecs are patent encumbered and gross. They should stick to mpeg4 base stuff like xvid, so we can all play.
If you dont like it, just email him...
:)
nicholas@petreley.com
Go ahead and try to be a leecher. It wont hurt me. Leechers dont get anything from me, and never will. Most P2P clients prioritize uploads so that leechers get little to no bandwidth, and people with fat pipes are always swamped with requests from REAL sharers, so you will never even see 1 byte of any file from me.
Don't act like a scared child. The odds of you getting caught are like one in 65 million, and the penalty is puny, and easily evaded with simple defenses (wifi, trojan, neighbor kid, etc). With that attitude you must work for the movie/music industry. You sound like a FUD-slinger.
They have no proof, and they dont even have a preponderence of evidence. All they have is an IP, an ISP log, and maybe a search result that shows a file with the right name and file hash. Whoopie! They have no proof that I was even involved. Maybe I get my kicks from altering P2P clients to return false search results, and then deleting my experimental P2P clients? Maybe a trojan did it? If someone else used my equipment to do these things than how can I be responsible? I wouldn't be responsible if I loaned you my car and you ran over a bunch of nuns.
Only an idiot would pay the RIAA, or the MPAA anything. I would happily spend my time in court laughing at their ridiculous case until it was thrown out.
All of these arguments hinge around a belief that artists deserve to continue making money from the same work for the rest of their life, without having to produce anything new.
I do not believe in 'Intellectual Property'. The concept that a person, or group of persons, should have some right to 'own' an idea, concept, or particular method of expressing an idea, or concept appalls me, as it would any person more concerned with the welfare of the species, than the welfare of the individual members of that species.
IP laws are self-contradictory, and ill-defined. If I saw a Frank Lloyd Wright building, and built one which looked similar as a tribute, I would not be sued. Few would call me a criminal, and none would call me a pirate. What if I liked a very nice suit, and copied its design to produce my own suit? If I do the same thing with a song, or a movie, or software than I suddenly become a thief. It is not fair, and it is not logical.
What about DNA? My doctor now has a legal right to take a blood sample I have given him for testing, extract, and copyright MY genetic code, without my permission. I am now a thief, just by living. Is that 'moral'? Shouldn't I have some legal right to own at least the code that makes ME? No, of course not. How could I? He filed for the copyright/patent before I did. I have no rights. I didn't 'think of it' first. He 'invented' me, and that obviously helps to 'progress the progress of science, and the arts'.
Every thought you could ever think, has been thought before. The 'original' thinker just wasn't in a position where they could purchase 'protection' from the government. All concepts, ideas, algorithms, and dreams are built on the concepts that you have already been exposed to. ALL WORKS ARE DERIVITIVE WORKS!
IP is just an excuse that smart but lazy people use to keep from having to produce anything new. It is inherently evil, and sets BACK progress by its very nature.
Is anyone SERIOUSLY arguing for the right to disseminate the creations of other people for free?
Yes, me. Intellectual property is pointless, and it hurts more poeple than it helps. It should be abolished. There are a lot of reasons I feel this way, and I am not alone.
I don't need an excuse. I am the almighty consumer, and I will continue doing whatever is easiest/cheapest to get what I want. This is the way it has always been, and the way it will always be. Just because a company has a bad business model based entirely around the concept of 'unbreakable' DRM (a logical impossiblity) doesn't mean that the nature of consumers will change. Even stupid laws will not stop people, because after a stupid law has been passed it is not only easier, but now more fun as well.
Your arguments are quit compelling, and eloquently worded.
Your main point seems to be that commercial software, and free software are not mutually exclusive, and that sometimes software can be both free, and for profit. I disagree.
I believe that information wants to be free (Sorry to beat that dead horse again, but it is the best expression of the sentiment I know of), and that despite anyones best efforts to keep it from being free, it will inevitably find a way to become free. Code is just more information, and commercial software is an attempt to limit the availability of certain information (some would argue that code is not data, but instruction. I would argue that instruction is also data.). Any attempt to control the flow of information is doomed to fail (in the long run). Because of this, all efforts to make money by limiting the flow of information are fundamentally flawed, including the practice of withholding code from those unwilling or unable to pay for it. The only way to make money with information (in the long term) is to either generate new information, or provide a more efficient way to spread, gather, or copy information.
Recently the music, movies, and television industries have been hit with the revelation that their business models are no longer adequate. The entire reason that those systems are failing is because their primary source of income was in controlling the distribution channels the information used. Now the people have started to understand that audio and video are really just more information, and that it can be more easily/cheaply distributed without the middle men. The same thing has been happening with pay software for years, and is continuing to get 'worse' every year. The simple reason is that information wants to be free, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.
Why on earth would you say that? How can it possibly benefit the world if the software is not free. How can it be free as in speech, but not as in beer? Wouldn't one necessitate the other?
As an example, if I have the code to something than I can just compile it and use it for free. Why pay for it?
The main advantage of Open Source to most people is not in the openness of the code, but in the freeness of the binary. Although a few geeks such as myself feel like we need the source, most people would never miss it. Your kind of idealism is nice, but not even close to most of the real worlds point of view. Not to mention that if I had a choice between paying for KDE, or using gnome for free, I know which one I would use. Regardless of features.
Thank you. Thats all I wanted to know :)
Whats wrong with software you have to pay for?!? How about, it isn't FREE, and if it isn't free it leaves alot of people out of luck. PS - Whoever modded me a troll can just go to hell. This was a legitimate question, from a concerned user.
Doesn't QT have a bunch of annoying licensing restrictions?
Like any of these modern websites will be around in a hundred years. Go ahead and try to find it in ten years. I dare you. They wont be gone because of paper rot, they will be gone because no one will care once whatever replaces the internet replaces the internet.
You've artificially turned the "supply" dial to infinity, and it's wreaking havoc.
:)
No. Music is information. Movies are information. DNA is information. Eventually everything except services will be just more information. Information wants to be free, and the supply was always unlimited, we just didn't know it yet and we were stupid enough to pay for it. Some of us aren't that stupid anymore. The rest of us wont be for long. Welcome to the Diamond Age MF'er.
It was a typo in my setup, oops. I should have triple checked my setup before I posted. It wasn't scanning inside zip files, hence half of them got through :) I guess ClamAV DOES rock :)
I set up ClamAV yesterday, because my Kaspersky AVP for linux mail servers quit working. I have to say that is doing a pretty poor job. Dont get me wrong, I love the concept of an open source AV engine, but it seems to be missing at least a good 50& of the new mydooms, and bagles, and things. I dont know why, but I know the defs are up to date, and I know its installed properly. It just doesn't work well. Maybe it will improve soon.