To be fair, that's probably the fault of the OEM you bought from loading tons of crap and free offers on top of the system.
That is not fair. Most people could not do a clean install of Vista on their PCs, so they have no alternative except to buy a PC with all the craplets pre-loaded.
what crack are you smoking? i've been able to make a copy of my dvd's for atleast the last 5 years.
So..... you have been making bit-for-bit copies of your DVD's before 9GB DVD-R/DVD+R's (DL) were available?
With a little research, I found links to answers and articles that clearly say that DVD burners are not supposed to write the keys onto a disk, so you can make a bit-for-bit copy, but that copy does not include the CSS keys, so your player will not play it. In order to use your bit-for-bit copies, you will have to rip them.
From the page:
] 17.11.3 Content provider information
] These 28 672 bytes shall be set to all (00). Under no circumstance may data
] received from the host be recorded in this field. Circumvention: Recorders and
] recording drives shall be considered as circumvention devices when these are
] produced to record, or can easily be modified to record, in any manner, a
] user-defined number in this field.
Why not just copy the DVD bit-for-bit? That would not circumvent DeCSS and still in any player. You do not need to de-scramble to copy.
DVD burners cannot presently copy the keys that are required for the players to decrypt the data. The keys are on a different part of the disk. I seem to recall a story about changes to the DVD licenses that would allow burners to be sold that are capable of copying the keys.
Assuming the lawsuit is successful, they'll just roll the $7 fee into the base price for ALL of their plans. So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop.
Maybe they will roll it in, maybe not. Thee is clearly an advantage in deceiving their customers, or they would not do it. If the current monthly cost is (for example) $30 (plus a fee of $7), how many fewer will sign up if the service is priced at $37/month? Clearly some will not sign up. Perhaps the companies will find it advantageous to charge something between $30 and $37/month.
In any case, I wonder how those 2 year contract (if that is typical in Canada like it is in the US) might come back to bite the providers if they have to keep providing service for the remainder of the contract, but MINUS the "access fees"?
Yeah, it would be nice if people quit the FUD, wouldn't it?
They updated Windows Update, when people explicitly visited the Windows Update site. That is all. They are not pushing out updates to critical system files without any user intervention.
You know I've been on slashdot for a few months now, and it is posts like that make me wish, 1; I had mod points (I've never been given mod points, so I wouldn't even know how to recognize it. Help?)
Mod points are like busses. You never have them when you need them, yet, when you don't need them 3 turn up at once. Seriously, the first time I got mod points, I had not used them all, yet I got another batch (I still only had 5 mod points, since there is a limit).
Of course, now I get emails every week from the store about printer cartridges... bah... stupid "opt-in-by-default" system
If it is the same store as the one I used (but no longer), you will get SPAM from multiple, unrelated sources due to buying from this inkjet cartridge seller. I know that the cartridge seller has leaked my email address, because I used a unique address in my signup.
I can see how the sci fi writers would use this tool after repeated attempts at other eforts to have their still owned works taken down... with limited or NO success. I think Jerry Pournelle... who was one of those who requested this actions sums it up clearly, honestly and completely.
Well,
If Scribd have procedures other than those prescribed by the DMCA, then Scribd is once again in the wrong.
According to the SWFA Livejournal site, no DMCA notice was issued to Scribd, so, in this case, I think Jerry Pournelle should stop whining and use the existing procedues and laws available to him.
I don't think its fair to act as if Scribd's is morally obligated to know the precise legal boundaries of what they can get away with and push them (unless they have an explicit contractual obligation to their users to do so).
If you are in the business of running a website whose mission is to collect documents from users (as Scribd is), then failing to invest in some legal advice on how to handle real and supposed DMCA notices and/or the pitfalls of hosting user-uploaded content is simply irresponsible.
Reading the emails, there is no way that they consitute a valid DMCA takedown notice. Thus, Scribd had no obligation to take anything down. Scribd should have demanded a proper notice or ignored the emails.
You think any of them want to do that? You think Microsoft is happy they had to pour a gazillion dollars into some cockeyed DRM scheme dreamed up by coke snorting clowns?
Yes, I think that they are.
1. as a monopoly OS supplier, they can tell the media companies where to go.
2. DRM == proprietary lock in. While MS controlls the DRM dominant schemes, they can force people to buy MS products in order to access the content that MS has locked in.
The problem with your example of buying a hi-def card at Fry's and having it just work without all the DRM is that the same then applies to a Linux user.
Apple has made great headway while using a lightweight and easily circumvented DRM scheme in iTunes. Why else does MS feel that it is necessary to include a heavyweight DRM scheme, including ensuring that hardware is not interfered with? The answer is obvious: MS feels it is in their interests to do this.
First off, the first key phrase is "By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public..."
The only possible problem with this is that "available to members of the public" might not mean the same as "publicly available". For example if I put up a spreadsheet for my work colleages, those colleagues could be described as "members of the public", yet it is not my intent for the document to be available to all members of the public -- in other words, what is usually understood by "publicly available".
It is my understanding that in discovery, the party providing the discovery is not required to process the data in any fashion to make it more easily readable. Surely, providing logs form the server would constitute processing the discovery materials? Thus, Torrentspy should be able to provide dumps of the RAM contents taken at regular intervals. If the plaintiffs find that diffucult to use: tough -- the rules of evidence don't require TorrentSpy to do any more?
The 'leaving your back door open' analogy is not a good one. A better analogy is buying a book, scanning it, and posting it on a web page. In fact, it's EXACTLY the same thing, only with a different protocol.
It is only the same if no-one downloads the web page that you put up. If people read the web page then there has clearly been copying. If no-one read it, no copying.
>>>>Whoever drew up the questionnaire is not competent. From the document:
What??? Whoever drew up the questionnaire really knows what they are talking about.
You are confusing the specification document with the questionnaire drawn up the the OP's consultants. The original specification does state that anti-virus is only relevant for some platforms, but I interpreted the OP to say that that the questionnaire he had to complete did not make this distinction. The questionnaire should have been derived from the original specification, yet, it appears that the derivation had flaws.
PCI DSS compliance is a joke. You answer a long questionaire, much of which has no relevance (virus scanner for your Linux web server!?)
Whoever drew up the questionnaire is not competent. From the document:
5.1 Deploy anti-virus software on all systems commonly affected by viruses (particularly personal
computers and servers)
Note: Systems commonly affected by viruses typically do not include UNIX-based operating
systems or mainframes.
You may argue about whether the term "UNIX-based" includes Linux, but unless the questionnaire makes a distinction regarding ssytems "commonly affected by viruses" then it is not compliant with the original requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
With a little research, I found links to answers and articles that clearly say that DVD burners are not supposed to write the keys onto a disk, so you can make a bit-for-bit copy, but that copy does not include the CSS keys, so your player will not play it. In order to use your bit-for-bit copies, you will have to rip them.
From the page:
] 17.11.3 Content provider information
] These 28 672 bytes shall be set to all (00). Under no circumstance may data
] received from the host be recorded in this field. Circumvention: Recorders and
] recording drives shall be considered as circumvention devices when these are
] produced to record, or can easily be modified to record, in any manner, a
] user-defined number in this field.
In any case, I wonder how those 2 year contract (if that is typical in Canada like it is in the US) might come back to bite the providers if they have to keep providing service for the remainder of the contract, but MINUS the "access fees"?
According to my scanner, there is a whole class A subnet that is compromised:
127.0.0.0/8
He's talking to politicians.
What he is trying to establish is the maxim that GM used:
"What's good for GM is good for the US".
He is trying to make this:
"What's good for MS is good for the US (as shown by the creation of Google)"
Your first stop should be the local trading standards office.
If Scribd have procedures other than those prescribed by the DMCA, then Scribd is once again in the wrong.
According to the SWFA Livejournal site, no DMCA notice was issued to Scribd, so, in this case, I think Jerry Pournelle should stop whining and use the existing procedues and laws available to him.
Reading the emails, there is no way that they consitute a valid DMCA takedown notice. Thus, Scribd had no obligation to take anything down. Scribd should have demanded a proper notice or ignored the emails.
1. as a monopoly OS supplier, they can tell the media companies where to go.
2. DRM == proprietary lock in. While MS controlls the DRM dominant schemes, they can force people to buy MS products in order to access the content that MS has locked in.
The problem with your example of buying a hi-def card at Fry's and having it just work without all the DRM is that the same then applies to a Linux user.
Apple has made great headway while using a lightweight and easily circumvented DRM scheme in iTunes. Why else does MS feel that it is necessary to include a heavyweight DRM scheme, including ensuring that hardware is not interfered with? The answer is obvious: MS feels it is in their interests to do this.
Seriously,
Vista was supposed to be released in ?
Vista was proclaimed as ready... oops
How many times do people have to be fooled before they realise that the next release from MS will also be a disappointment?
I would not put the blame 100% on Earthlink, from what I see on the news, SF's Board of Supervisors could screw up anything.
It is my understanding that in discovery, the party providing the discovery is not required to process the data in any fashion to make it more easily readable. Surely, providing logs form the server would constitute processing the discovery materials? Thus, Torrentspy should be able to provide dumps of the RAM contents taken at regular intervals. If the plaintiffs find that diffucult to use: tough -- the rules of evidence don't require TorrentSpy to do any more?
At least, that is my non-lawyer's opinion.