I'm going on 5 years working almost 2000 miles away from my employer and over 1000 miles to my nearest coworker. I fly down 3-6 times per year on the company's dime, and have been known to show up on my own dime too.
If properly used, IM is extremely effective at enabling actual work -- The problem is that many/most people don't know how to use it. My current boss is a good example of this, you'll rarely get more then a couple sentences out of him before he wants to switch to phone, which ties him to his desk meaning that he can't actually get anything done (I usually only need him if I need something in the office done physically, which is relatively rare)
All that being said, this robotic presence is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard. On the other hand, I also refuse to video conference, although I do join most of the phone conference calls (There are currently 5 remote employees, and ~50 in the office)
I cherish my time in the office, and spend as much of it "bonding" as I can simply because it's the only time to socialize, but when it comes to actually getting work done, I get far more done in the comfort of my own office (which is equal in size only to the CEO's office, and is more adequately laid out for my needs then would be possible in a real office, and contains exactly the hardware I want)
I can crank up 400W of speakers when I'm in the mood, or have it perfectly quiet when I need to focus. No one bothers me when I'm concentrating (well, except if the kids wander by, but they understand what "I'm working" means, conversely, when I'm doing something that doesn't need my full attention (which is a lot of the time, I'm an insane multi-tasker) they can hang out on my sofa and chat.
It's tough though, sometimes -- It's not for everyone. It can be difficult to stay focused as I don't have the strong line between work and play anymore (I wish I had the space and budget to have a work office and a play office, but alas), and the lack of socializing is a curse as much as it can be a blessing.
On the plus side, I can work from anywhere with power and internet, I've been known to head out for a mini vacation without taking any time off... Get up at 8am, work for 6-8 hours, spend the rest of the day seeing the sights and sounds. Been to Vegas a couple times, out visiting family, did a month in Chicago just for the fun if it.
There are ups and downs. A lot of it depends on the company, whether they're strict about work hours, or more concerned with the work getting done then how/when/where you work. My company is absolutely fantastic about this, I have a ton of flexibility -- Self-discipline is an issue sometimes, but the thought of losing this freedom is a powerful incentive.
And since there are already laws on the books, in the specific state where this occurred, which specifically state that unless you are operating a motor vehicule, you do not need to provide ID, the police officer stepped over the line.
Shopkeeper's Privilege may be more broad then that, but even so, you still need to have reasonable suspicion of a crime -- At this point, they just have reasonable suspicion that the customer is not a sheep.
Awareness of a policy doesn't make any and all enforcement of that policy legal.
At best, it's a contract dispute which Circuit City can take up in court -- You cannot assault or detain someone for violation of a contract, even if the contract says you can.
For one, they would be enacting vigilante justice by entering my property to retrieve what they allege is their property. So that's out. They could contact the police and have them come into my house to retrieve my microwave, but then they would have to demonstrate not only probable cause that I stole it, but evidence that it was ever theirs in the first place. While not explicitly stated, I suspect any judge would recognize some limits (time and distance) on a merchant's ability to personally restrain someone he suspects of theft. For instance, once the supposed thief leaves the establishment, any special allowances vanish. It's called "fresh pursuit" -- If the store employees chased you all the way from the store to your house, they might be legally protected (if all the other various legal requirements of Shopkeeper's Privilege or a citizen's arrest were observed)
However, if they showed up thirty minutes later, they'd be too late.
Shopkeeper's Privilege explicitly requires the shopkeeper to call the police, otherwise they lose Shopkeeper's Privilege (And the associated protection -- IF they had it at all, which is unlikely given this situation and backstory)
In theory, it means that you can't walk back into the store without your goods, pick up those same goods from the shelf and depart using the same receipt.
In practice, that only works if they actually check the items in your bag match the receipt, it's fairly trivial to get two receipts (Just ask, they'll run through half your stuff on one receipt and half on another -- Explain you need it that way to expense one receipt, but the rest if personal)
Have them pink-mark the receipt containing $5 batteries, but not the expensive stuff, then you're home free.
The day one of those is found to be legally enforceable will be the day I put terms and conditions covering entering a financial transaction with myself, on my shirt.
Store wants to enforce their rules, I'll enforce mine.
You are receiving consideration, in the form of the product you purchased. The store's consideration is the cash you parted with to complete the sale.
The requirement for mutual consideration isn't applied on each individual item within a transaction or contract, only on the entirety of the transaction, which may include other terms and conditions.
If the purchaser and purchasee cannot reach mutually acceptable terms, either party could decline and the customer could simply depart without being included in this clause, so it would only impact those that made a purchase.
It can be done on the PBX, rather then in the phone... The sign in process is usually fairly simple, involves picking up and dialing *12, your extension and pin.
Okay. First off, there are two different enemies here:
1) The "professional" pirates. These are the guys that can remove a watermark fairly trivially, simply buy, hack, or otherwise acquire four or five different copies of a file. Compare them. Any difference between them is a personally identifying watermark. Any other watermark can't be personally identifying, since it was shared amongst several purchasers, so it's unimportant.
All you can do is annoy these guys, you cannot stop them with technological means. For some it's profit, for others it's a moral "Information wants to be free" imperative. However, for them to impact business, they need to be fairly large scale, which means they're a worthwhile target of the legal system without huge backlash. These guys aren't innocent quadriplegic grandmothers who have to cancel their cancer treatments and rescues of puppies with cute eyes to attend court.
2) The "casual" copiers. This is you and me, who buy a program, movie, song, copy it to a few of their friends and family. XP's activation scheme didn't put much of a dent in wholesale copiers, but it sure shut down my dad who used to install the latest OS on all of his computers using one license (And no, it didn't generate any additional revenue, now the other machines sit on Windows 2000 until the hardware gets replaced, then it gets an OEM license)
Like XP's activation, these guys are stopped dead in their tracks by non-trivial DRM simply because it's more hassle to work around it then the cost to work within the system. Using lawyers against this bunch can generate a lot of negative feedback (as we're starting to see), so it's better to find a less invasive solution.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of legitimate sales (myself, for example) that are lost due to the DRM restrictions.
When I want to watch a movie on a flight, I download it in a format compatible with my media player, I don't bother to try to rip the movie (if I own it) or buy it (if I don't own it)
Watermarking as potential against this class of user, since although I might share a copy with someone I trust, how many people do you really trust to not share it down the road?
In this respect, a "Your file can be tracked back to you" mentality may be sufficient to get through. It may not.
Worst case, watermarking leads to the same moronic lawsuits we have today, but at least those of us who would purchase legally can do so without the DRM restrictions. Ideally it may mean better targeting of those lawsuits too, although some care will need to be taken to factor in the "legitimate" loses of files resulting in a file getting shared around the net (A lost MP3 player)
Lastly, it's not like the industries aren't tracking purchases already. Unless you share a file and it somehow makes it's way back to the industry, there is no new "tracking" -- It's not like watermarking files would suddenly allow some big brother industry to tell when you play files, or copy them to a media player, or something else.
To quote Jim Carrey, "Stop breaking the law, asshole"
In other words, I view DRM as abusive because it prevents me from doing things I want with media I have purchased. These things are legal, and entirely for personal use.
Things like copy the media to a media player of my choice. This could be my portable player, or the HD player attached to my TV. It will be hardware I purchased because of price:performance, not because that company made friends with the media companies.
Things like being able to use the media indefinitely, even if the company stops.
I am not especially interested in sharing media, and as I've spent most of my life very well compensated by a software company I have an understanding of just how much revenue we're talking about here (No, I don't believe the music/video industry's counts of how much money they are "losing". I also believe that just as much of the "lost" revenue is due to people like me, who are no longer making legitimate purchases due to their behaviour, vs the number of sales "lost" to sharing)
Watermarking seems to be a best of all worlds, it lets the industry track those who are breaking the law, without restricting my freedom.
And by attempting settlement talks first, the company essentially did offer to bend over and take it. The fact that the settlement talks didn't reach a conclusion simply indicates that HP either wouldn't bend far enough, or frequently enough.
My cell phone carrier has a service that can identify virtually any song from a 15 second sample transmitted through the cell phone.
It's not like any specific part is needed here -- All the RIAA needs to do is request a small portion of the file (say, 15 seconds worth -- Trivial to determine if you pull the headers first, not much harder if you pull the middle of an MP3)
There is no reason we need to lose the ability to sell watermarked products.
There are a couple ways to do it, one is with a bill of sale. Obviously maintaining a bill of sale for every MP3 you purchased isn't practical, although it would solve the immediate problem.
Second, rather then giving the actual file, you would give your rights to the file. The file would disappear from your list of purchased files and appear on the recipient's list, and the recipient could then download a version watermarked to themselves. The flaw with this plan is that the record companies wouldn't want to make this easy as it would cut into their revenue.
#2 when available, falling back to #1 would seem to be the easiest solution.
In either case, retaining the original file would be in violation of copyright law, although not prohibited by any technical means.
You're thinking like an audio geek, rather then a computer geek. We're not working with the analog medium here, just the digital one.
It's fairly trivial to find the differences between multiple sets of files at the byte level, and randomize those bits. A bit of file format knowledge would be needed to ensure that the media quality doesn't suffer, but all in all, you could ensure that no user-specific information remains fairly trivially unless the music industry can manage to reencode every single sale with slightly different compression routines.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn the PackBot looks pretty sweet. I could use one of those for my virtual presence...
Best. Post. Ever.
I'm going on 5 years working almost 2000 miles away from my employer and over 1000 miles to my nearest coworker. I fly down 3-6 times per year on the company's dime, and have been known to show up on my own dime too.
If properly used, IM is extremely effective at enabling actual work -- The problem is that many/most people don't know how to use it. My current boss is a good example of this, you'll rarely get more then a couple sentences out of him before he wants to switch to phone, which ties him to his desk meaning that he can't actually get anything done (I usually only need him if I need something in the office done physically, which is relatively rare)
All that being said, this robotic presence is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard. On the other hand, I also refuse to video conference, although I do join most of the phone conference calls (There are currently 5 remote employees, and ~50 in the office)
I cherish my time in the office, and spend as much of it "bonding" as I can simply because it's the only time to socialize, but when it comes to actually getting work done, I get far more done in the comfort of my own office (which is equal in size only to the CEO's office, and is more adequately laid out for my needs then would be possible in a real office, and contains exactly the hardware I want)
I can crank up 400W of speakers when I'm in the mood, or have it perfectly quiet when I need to focus. No one bothers me when I'm concentrating (well, except if the kids wander by, but they understand what "I'm working" means, conversely, when I'm doing something that doesn't need my full attention (which is a lot of the time, I'm an insane multi-tasker) they can hang out on my sofa and chat.
It's tough though, sometimes -- It's not for everyone. It can be difficult to stay focused as I don't have the strong line between work and play anymore (I wish I had the space and budget to have a work office and a play office, but alas), and the lack of socializing is a curse as much as it can be a blessing.
On the plus side, I can work from anywhere with power and internet, I've been known to head out for a mini vacation without taking any time off... Get up at 8am, work for 6-8 hours, spend the rest of the day seeing the sights and sounds. Been to Vegas a couple times, out visiting family, did a month in Chicago just for the fun if it.
There are ups and downs. A lot of it depends on the company, whether they're strict about work hours, or more concerned with the work getting done then how/when/where you work. My company is absolutely fantastic about this, I have a ton of flexibility -- Self-discipline is an issue sometimes, but the thought of losing this freedom is a powerful incentive.
Two words: Slippery Slope.
And since there are already laws on the books, in the specific state where this occurred, which specifically state that unless you are operating a motor vehicule, you do not need to provide ID, the police officer stepped over the line.
Shopkeeper's Privilege may be more broad then that, but even so, you still need to have reasonable suspicion of a crime -- At this point, they just have reasonable suspicion that the customer is not a sheep.
Awareness of a policy doesn't make any and all enforcement of that policy legal.
At best, it's a contract dispute which Circuit City can take up in court -- You cannot assault or detain someone for violation of a contract, even if the contract says you can.
However, if they showed up thirty minutes later, they'd be too late.
Shopkeeper's Privilege explicitly requires the shopkeeper to call the police, otherwise they lose Shopkeeper's Privilege (And the associated protection -- IF they had it at all, which is unlikely given this situation and backstory)
In theory, it means that you can't walk back into the store without your goods, pick up those same goods from the shelf and depart using the same receipt.
In practice, that only works if they actually check the items in your bag match the receipt, it's fairly trivial to get two receipts (Just ask, they'll run through half your stuff on one receipt and half on another -- Explain you need it that way to expense one receipt, but the rest if personal)
Have them pink-mark the receipt containing $5 batteries, but not the expensive stuff, then you're home free.
The day one of those is found to be legally enforceable will be the day I put terms and conditions covering entering a financial transaction with myself, on my shirt.
Store wants to enforce their rules, I'll enforce mine.
Welcome to corporate America.
Shopkeeper's Privilege extends beyond the borders of the shop, with the usual inclusion of fresh pursuit.
You are receiving consideration, in the form of the product you purchased. The store's consideration is the cash you parted with to complete the sale.
The requirement for mutual consideration isn't applied on each individual item within a transaction or contract, only on the entirety of the transaction, which may include other terms and conditions.
If the purchaser and purchasee cannot reach mutually acceptable terms, either party could decline and the customer could simply depart without being included in this clause, so it would only impact those that made a purchase.
The sad part is that it is the local taxpayers who will pay for this cop's mistake.
It can be done on the PBX, rather then in the phone... The sign in process is usually fairly simple, involves picking up and dialing *12, your extension and pin.
Okay. First off, there are two different enemies here:
1) The "professional" pirates. These are the guys that can remove a watermark fairly trivially, simply buy, hack, or otherwise acquire four or five different copies of a file. Compare them. Any difference between them is a personally identifying watermark. Any other watermark can't be personally identifying, since it was shared amongst several purchasers, so it's unimportant.
All you can do is annoy these guys, you cannot stop them with technological means. For some it's profit, for others it's a moral "Information wants to be free" imperative. However, for them to impact business, they need to be fairly large scale, which means they're a worthwhile target of the legal system without huge backlash. These guys aren't innocent quadriplegic grandmothers who have to cancel their cancer treatments and rescues of puppies with cute eyes to attend court.
2) The "casual" copiers. This is you and me, who buy a program, movie, song, copy it to a few of their friends and family. XP's activation scheme didn't put much of a dent in wholesale copiers, but it sure shut down my dad who used to install the latest OS on all of his computers using one license (And no, it didn't generate any additional revenue, now the other machines sit on Windows 2000 until the hardware gets replaced, then it gets an OEM license)
Like XP's activation, these guys are stopped dead in their tracks by non-trivial DRM simply because it's more hassle to work around it then the cost to work within the system. Using lawyers against this bunch can generate a lot of negative feedback (as we're starting to see), so it's better to find a less invasive solution.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of legitimate sales (myself, for example) that are lost due to the DRM restrictions.
When I want to watch a movie on a flight, I download it in a format compatible with my media player, I don't bother to try to rip the movie (if I own it) or buy it (if I don't own it)
Watermarking as potential against this class of user, since although I might share a copy with someone I trust, how many people do you really trust to not share it down the road?
In this respect, a "Your file can be tracked back to you" mentality may be sufficient to get through. It may not.
Worst case, watermarking leads to the same moronic lawsuits we have today, but at least those of us who would purchase legally can do so without the DRM restrictions. Ideally it may mean better targeting of those lawsuits too, although some care will need to be taken to factor in the "legitimate" loses of files resulting in a file getting shared around the net (A lost MP3 player)
Lastly, it's not like the industries aren't tracking purchases already. Unless you share a file and it somehow makes it's way back to the industry, there is no new "tracking" -- It's not like watermarking files would suddenly allow some big brother industry to tell when you play files, or copy them to a media player, or something else.
To quote Jim Carrey, "Stop breaking the law, asshole"
In other words, I view DRM as abusive because it prevents me from doing things I want with media I have purchased. These things are legal, and entirely for personal use.
Things like copy the media to a media player of my choice. This could be my portable player, or the HD player attached to my TV. It will be hardware I purchased because of price:performance, not because that company made friends with the media companies.
Things like being able to use the media indefinitely, even if the company stops.
I am not especially interested in sharing media, and as I've spent most of my life very well compensated by a software company I have an understanding of just how much revenue we're talking about here (No, I don't believe the music/video industry's counts of how much money they are "losing". I also believe that just as much of the "lost" revenue is due to people like me, who are no longer making legitimate purchases due to their behaviour, vs the number of sales "lost" to sharing)
Watermarking seems to be a best of all worlds, it lets the industry track those who are breaking the law, without restricting my freedom.
That's just me.
And by attempting settlement talks first, the company essentially did offer to bend over and take it. The fact that the settlement talks didn't reach a conclusion simply indicates that HP either wouldn't bend far enough, or frequently enough.
My cell phone carrier has a service that can identify virtually any song from a 15 second sample transmitted through the cell phone.
It's not like any specific part is needed here -- All the RIAA needs to do is request a small portion of the file (say, 15 seconds worth -- Trivial to determine if you pull the headers first, not much harder if you pull the middle of an MP3)
Impossible to download a partial file?
HTTP, FTP, and virtually every P2P app on the planet allow you to download parts of a file.
There is no reason we need to lose the ability to sell watermarked products.
There are a couple ways to do it, one is with a bill of sale. Obviously maintaining a bill of sale for every MP3 you purchased isn't practical, although it would solve the immediate problem.
Second, rather then giving the actual file, you would give your rights to the file. The file would disappear from your list of purchased files and appear on the recipient's list, and the recipient could then download a version watermarked to themselves. The flaw with this plan is that the record companies wouldn't want to make this easy as it would cut into their revenue.
#2 when available, falling back to #1 would seem to be the easiest solution.
In either case, retaining the original file would be in violation of copyright law, although not prohibited by any technical means.
You're thinking like an audio geek, rather then a computer geek. We're not working with the analog medium here, just the digital one.
It's fairly trivial to find the differences between multiple sets of files at the byte level, and randomize those bits. A bit of file format knowledge would be needed to ensure that the media quality doesn't suffer, but all in all, you could ensure that no user-specific information remains fairly trivially unless the music industry can manage to reencode every single sale with slightly different compression routines.
So what if they do? Why would pirates care if the recording industry can figure out which store sold the music, or what date?
As long as it cannot be tracked to an individual buyer, pirates won't care.