Honest citizens wouldn't need to encrypt their messages. Aren't the Brits contemplating enacting a law that makes it a crime to refuse to give up the decryption key??
I think it got passed in a somewhat modified version, but don't quote me on that.:-b
I think one bonus of the e-business buzz is that governments are realizing that there are legitimate uses of encryption.
The LAME encoder drastically increases the quality of MP3s, at the cost of some disk space (considerable disk space, if you go all out).
I've yet to hear an MP3 encoded at anything less than 256kbps on any encoder (free or commercial) that didn't have artifacts. LAME is good at 256kbps as long as there are no snare drums. I'd also recommend Audio Catalyst at 256kbps (but again, snare drums still aren't right). But then at that point, your file size is only a factor of ~2 away from the raw 44.1/16 audio.
Last month I bought 5 in one day -- all of them were purchases inspired by listening to MP3s from other people.
Last month I bought 17 CDs in one day.:-)= Yes, I spend far too much of my disposable income on music.:-( Out of those, 6 were MP3-inspired.
If they're really worried about reprisals, and if the government really is oppressive and arbitrary, then just using encrypted data when you communicate may not be enough. If the censors can see that there is encrypted data flowing between you and them, that may be enough to be suspicion of comitting a crime against the state which may be enough to warrant arrest.
Lots of people are complaining that an optimized Fortran compiler isn't an algorithm.
An algorithm is a deterministic set of procedures for turning a given input into a given output. A good algorithm is one that executes quickly and whose output is as close to some ideal as possible.
An optimized Fortran compiler is a deterministic set of procedures for turning Fortran source code into machine code, and it's a good one because its output executes quickly.
It may not be an algorithm that scientific computational people explicitly write into their code, but it *is* an algorithm that has improved our ability to solve complicated problems as quickly as possible.
According to the article, TVT is suing mp3.com about my.mp3.com, which is pretty safe considering that my.mp3.com has already been ruled against. Napster doesn't enter into it.
Offtopic: As well as putting out crap music, TVT actually puts out a lot of really good music... about 10% of my music (mostly industrial) is TVT and/or Wax Trax. Good to see a good music label and a good musician (Suzanne Vega) in one/. story!:)
(a)Copyright protection subsists,in accordance with this title,in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,reproduced,or otherwise communicated,either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.Works of authorship include the follow- ing categories: (1)literary works; (2)musical works,including any accompanying words; (3)dramatic works,including any accompanying music; (4)pantomimes and choreographic works; (5)pictorial,graphic,and sculptural works; (6)motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7)sound recordings;and (8)architectural works.
(emphasis mine)
Note that actually communicating it with anyone isn't a requirement... all you need to do is create an original work and set it down in a way that you could communicate it.
Interestingly, part (b) deals with the ideas expressed in copyright material:
(b)In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea,procedure,process,system,method of operation,concept,principle,or discovery,regardless of the form in which it is described,explained,illustrated,or embodied in such work.
Or in other words, Microsoft has copyright protection for their description of KerberMS, but not of KerberMS itself - that's something that's dealt with by patent law and trade secrecy.
The fact of the matter is that you can't copyright a trade secret.
Say what?
If you create an original piece of work, you have the copyright to it. Period. You don't even need to say you have a copyright on it for you to legally have a copyright on it... you have the copyright unless you specifically give it up.
Most interesting, I think, were the tunnels, connecting IN to OUT but bypassing the core. It would seem that such tunnels indicate weaknesses in the make up of the core, which is to say paths of connected interest that for some reason are not included in the core. These, I think would be worth looking at to see if grow or diminish. If a tunnel grew to similar size to the core, it would make an interesting model where IN and OUT have more than one major connecting network.
I'd be surprised to see that happen... the way the tunnel would grow would be because more and more links are added. If 30% of sites on the web are in the core, then assuming that the links are to random sites, after typically 4 links have been added it will be connected to the core and therefore fall into the IN group.
Of course, sites aren't added randomly, but since the core by definition contains often-linked-to sites, chances are that more than 30% of newly added links in the tunnel will point to the core.
The thing that disgusts me is that nowhere in all these "oh I used Napster but I'm still a good person" arguments is that no-one gives a toss about the artists who literally did work their arses off to write and record their music - and then work harder touring to promote sales of their albums.
I'm a musician.
I bet you weren't expecting that one, eh?
Maybe in the software industry, you actually make money from royalties, but musicians don't. Not unless they're unbelievably succesful. As a musician, you might make money from playing live (but more often you'll do slightly worse than break even and consider that an advertising expense so that your future shows will be more likely to make money). But unless you are ordained by the record company as someone who's going to sell a hell of a lot, you won't break even on selling your music.
Given that, free advertising is a Good Thing. I have nothing against napster.
A lot of good points. Using Napster to download all the songs from an album and then not buying that album is illegal and immoral. But is that what the main use of Napster is? I don't think it is.
I'm going to assume that I'm a pretty typical Napster user. I just went through my 282 MP3s (about 1.3 Gb) and catalogued them by type. Here's the result:
Bootleg / Unavailable: 104
Trying out: 51
Public domain: 12
Wouldn't buy: 70
Immoral: 45
"Bootleg / Unavailable" means the track is something I wouldn't be able to buy on a CD the artist released (either because they're bootleg live tracks, bootleg remixes, or are out of print). "Trying out" are tracks where I'm interested in finding out whether I should buy a CD from that artist. "Public domain" should be obvious, as is "Wouldn't buy". "Immoral" means that there is a CD that the artist has released with that track on it which I would like to have but don't.
The "Trying out" section used to be larger, but it's shrunk a lot because I've either (a) listened to the song, said "I don't like this", and deleted it, or (b) listened to the song, said "I like this", and bought the CD. I've bought 4 CDs within the last week that were in the "Trying out" section. I'm about to write a cheque to buy 2 CDs with tracks from the "Public domain" section.
The RIAA is not poorer for me having Napster; quite the opposite. Are 59% of my MP3s illegal? Yeah, sure. Do I feel guilty about that? Not as long as they're better off as a result. And anything that introduces me to more artists is going to be good for them.
I'm sure there are people who completely and totally abuse Napster and use it to download entire albums that they should buy. And I'm sure that the libertarian/. crowd are high among those. But I'd be very surprised if they are more typical than me, especially when averaged over the amount of money the RIAA should make off us.
Quantum communication is very cool, and can reduce the amount of information you need to send to someone to give them the same message, but it doesn't help you communicate faster than c.
Briefly: In order to communicate a quantum state you need to send both an entangled particle and information on how the entangled partner reacts to a specific experiment. Since you can't send that information faster than c, you can't communicate knowledge about the quantum state faster than c.
First, anyone notice that the Wired article acts as though LinDVD is already available, as opposed to vapourware? You and I know differently, but this adds to the innacurate "Linux DVD players already exist, so those DeCSS defenders must be pirates" line that the MPAA PR department's been doing a good job of pushing lately.
Secondly, I really hope the court gets a clue and doesn't grant the injunction. It has to be made clear by the defense that making a site responsible for linked-to content would make:
All search engines illegal
All compiled indices (eg. Yahoo) illegal
Any bulletin-board-esque site which allows posters to post links (eg. Slashdot) very vulnerable to spurious lawsuits
Hell, any site that links to any other site (ie. virtually any site on the web) very vulnerable to spurious lawsuits
You might be able to argue that (1) and (3) don't count because the site authors don't exercise any editorial control over the links, but (2) and (4) are pretty analagous to what 2600 is doing.
Why does EVERY Net Censoring product out there have encrypted software lists?
Because there's a sizable (if misguided) market for censorware, there are quite a few companies vying for that market all of whom consider their prime asset to be their blocked site list, and if there were a plain text copy of one company's list, it would be very easy for every other censorware company to add every site in that list to their own, this negating the original company's advantage.
Now why a company wouldn't think that a list with 75% false positives (assuming that's typical - it might or might not be) isn't considered a liability is very interesting: They get less shit for a false positive than for a false negative. Virtually all censorware products have ways of overriding both. So imagine the two scenarios:
Child tries to visit www.perfectlyinnocentsite.com and gets unfairly blocked. They call Parent over, who overrides it. What are the chances that Parent complains to Censorware Company? Pretty low.
Child tries to visit www.hardcorepornsexandhatespeech.com and is not blocked. Parent happens to wander by, sees material which they think ought to be blocked, and goes ballistic. Of course they add it to a blocked list, but now what are the chances that they complain to Censorware Company? Much much higher
Because of this, censorware companies feel that the larger list they have, the better, no matter where that list comes from. And therefore they try to protect their list from being stolen by encrypting it. Badly.
So that's why. I know it doesn't make any sense, but that's the rationale.
Secondly, this is the TOP 50 sites, presumably the worst offenders. It's as if you were verifying the FBI top most wanted criminals, and found 76% who were in fact not criminals, just ordinary professors or students. Why bother checking the rest? If the so-called worst offenders are 3/4 wrong, why even bother with the rest?
Actually, no... the way that this sort of software works (I used to work for a company which is a purveyor of a like product) is using hash tables. The order that the sites come out has nothing to do with how bad they are, just the particular combination of hashing algorithm and URL database.
This is quite obviously lawsuit-bait, but should Napster be the one to bear the brunt of it? I don't think so, it's just a tool that's oblivious to copyright. But the actual network, and those computers being used to do the copying of copyrighted material, yeah they're gonna get burned.
Of course, one of the things that makes Napster work the way it does is that the file transfer itself is peer-to-peer, which conveniently means the files are never stored in anyone's server. Therefore there are N,000 separate individuals at any one time that they would need to go after. As N->infinity (and it definitely seems to be rising steadily), it's going to become completely unfeasible.
Which explains why they go after Napster. Napster may not be doing anything illegal, but at least they're one specific company that stays put.
Actually, it seems to me that the utopianism falls on the non-censorship side... in an ideal world, people wouldn't use public library computers to get off. So let's assume that people are mature enough (or are being guided by someone mature enough) to use the computers responsibly.
What about the source code (text) of books? Or music?
Yup, I can just see the next hit single for the Spice Girls - If you wanna read my DVD, you've gotta DeCSS.:-)=
Seriously, though, if I sat down tonight and made a recording of myself reading off the css-auth source code to a d-n-b backbeat and then posted that as an MP3, that would be legal, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Doh... lost a factor of 4. That's what I get for doing it in my head while half asleep. Thanks for pointing it out. :-)=
[TMB]
I think it got passed in a somewhat modified version, but don't quote me on that. :-b
I think one bonus of the e-business buzz is that governments are realizing that there are legitimate uses of encryption.
[TMB]
I've yet to hear an MP3 encoded at anything less than 256kbps on any encoder (free or commercial) that didn't have artifacts. LAME is good at 256kbps as long as there are no snare drums. I'd also recommend Audio Catalyst at 256kbps (but again, snare drums still aren't right). But then at that point, your file size is only a factor of ~2 away from the raw 44.1/16 audio.
Last month I bought 17 CDs in one day. :-)= Yes, I spend far too much of my disposable income on music. :-( Out of those, 6 were MP3-inspired.
[TMB]
If they're really worried about reprisals, and if the government really is oppressive and arbitrary, then just using encrypted data when you communicate may not be enough. If the censors can see that there is encrypted data flowing between you and them, that may be enough to be suspicion of comitting a crime against the state which may be enough to warrant arrest.
[TMB]
A is 44.1 kHz / 16 bit. B is a lossy 128 kbps MP3. If I really want to hear the music, I'll pick A.
[TMB]
Lots of people are complaining that an optimized Fortran compiler isn't an algorithm.
An algorithm is a deterministic set of procedures for turning a given input into a given output. A good algorithm is one that executes quickly and whose output is as close to some ideal as possible.
An optimized Fortran compiler is a deterministic set of procedures for turning Fortran source code into machine code, and it's a good one because its output executes quickly.
It may not be an algorithm that scientific computational people explicitly write into their code, but it *is* an algorithm that has improved our ability to solve complicated problems as quickly as possible.
[TMB]
According to the article, TVT is suing mp3.com about my.mp3.com, which is pretty safe considering that my.mp3.com has already been ruled against. Napster doesn't enter into it.
/. story! :)
Offtopic: As well as putting out crap music, TVT actually puts out a lot of really good music... about 10% of my music (mostly industrial) is TVT and/or Wax Trax. Good to see a good music label and a good musician (Suzanne Vega) in one
[TMB]
(emphasis mine)
Note that actually communicating it with anyone isn't a requirement... all you need to do is create an original work and set it down in a way that you could communicate it.
Interestingly, part (b) deals with the ideas expressed in copyright material:
Or in other words, Microsoft has copyright protection for their description of KerberMS, but not of KerberMS itself - that's something that's dealt with by patent law and trade secrecy.
[TMB]
Say what?
If you create an original piece of work, you have the copyright to it. Period. You don't even need to say you have a copyright on it for you to legally have a copyright on it... you have the copyright unless you specifically give it up.
You might be thinking of patents.
[TMB]
I'd be surprised to see that happen... the way the tunnel would grow would be because more and more links are added. If 30% of sites on the web are in the core, then assuming that the links are to random sites, after typically 4 links have been added it will be connected to the core and therefore fall into the IN group.
Of course, sites aren't added randomly, but since the core by definition contains often-linked-to sites, chances are that more than 30% of newly added links in the tunnel will point to the core.
[TMB]
Certainly the best well-known one, but I think you'll find that War of the Worlds is about as well-known.
[TMB]
I'm a musician.
I bet you weren't expecting that one, eh?
Maybe in the software industry, you actually make money from royalties, but musicians don't. Not unless they're unbelievably succesful. As a musician, you might make money from playing live (but more often you'll do slightly worse than break even and consider that an advertising expense so that your future shows will be more likely to make money). But unless you are ordained by the record company as someone who's going to sell a hell of a lot, you won't break even on selling your music.
Given that, free advertising is a Good Thing. I have nothing against napster.
[TMB]
A lot of good points. Using Napster to download all the songs from an album and then not buying that album is illegal and immoral. But is that what the main use of Napster is? I don't think it is.
I'm going to assume that I'm a pretty typical Napster user. I just went through my 282 MP3s (about 1.3 Gb) and catalogued them by type. Here's the result:
"Bootleg / Unavailable" means the track is something I wouldn't be able to buy on a CD the artist released (either because they're bootleg live tracks, bootleg remixes, or are out of print). "Trying out" are tracks where I'm interested in finding out whether I should buy a CD from that artist. "Public domain" should be obvious, as is "Wouldn't buy". "Immoral" means that there is a CD that the artist has released with that track on it which I would like to have but don't.
The "Trying out" section used to be larger, but it's shrunk a lot because I've either (a) listened to the song, said "I don't like this", and deleted it, or (b) listened to the song, said "I like this", and bought the CD. I've bought 4 CDs within the last week that were in the "Trying out" section. I'm about to write a cheque to buy 2 CDs with tracks from the "Public domain" section.
The RIAA is not poorer for me having Napster; quite the opposite. Are 59% of my MP3s illegal? Yeah, sure. Do I feel guilty about that? Not as long as they're better off as a result. And anything that introduces me to more artists is going to be good for them.
I'm sure there are people who completely and totally abuse Napster and use it to download entire albums that they should buy. And I'm sure that the libertarian /. crowd are high among those. But I'd be very surprised if they are more typical than me, especially when averaged over the amount of money the RIAA should make off us.
[TMB]
That doesn't work.
Quantum communication is very cool, and can reduce the amount of information you need to send to someone to give them the same message, but it doesn't help you communicate faster than c.
Briefly: In order to communicate a quantum state you need to send both an entangled particle and information on how the entangled partner reacts to a specific experiment. Since you can't send that information faster than c, you can't communicate knowledge about the quantum state faster than c.
[TMB]
If you look at the instructions, they tell you to use LiViD or your favourite DeCSS implementation to get the MPEG stream in the first place.
[TMB]
First, anyone notice that the Wired article acts as though LinDVD is already available, as opposed to vapourware? You and I know differently, but this adds to the innacurate "Linux DVD players already exist, so those DeCSS defenders must be pirates" line that the MPAA PR department's been doing a good job of pushing lately.
Secondly, I really hope the court gets a clue and doesn't grant the injunction. It has to be made clear by the defense that making a site responsible for linked-to content would make:
- All search engines illegal
- All compiled indices (eg. Yahoo) illegal
- Any bulletin-board-esque site which allows posters to post links (eg. Slashdot) very vulnerable to spurious lawsuits
- Hell, any site that links to any other site (ie. virtually any site on the web) very vulnerable to spurious lawsuits
You might be able to argue that (1) and (3) don't count because the site authors don't exercise any editorial control over the links, but (2) and (4) are pretty analagous to what 2600 is doing.[TMB]
Yes.
Yes. See, for example:
"Orbital Evolution and Migration of Giant Planets: Modeling Extrasolar Planets", Trilling, D.E., Benz, W., Guillot, T., Lunine, J.I., Hubbard, W.B., Burrows, A., 1998, Astrophysical Journal, 500, 428.
[TMB]
Because there's a sizable (if misguided) market for censorware, there are quite a few companies vying for that market all of whom consider their prime asset to be their blocked site list, and if there were a plain text copy of one company's list, it would be very easy for every other censorware company to add every site in that list to their own, this negating the original company's advantage.
Now why a company wouldn't think that a list with 75% false positives (assuming that's typical - it might or might not be) isn't considered a liability is very interesting: They get less shit for a false positive than for a false negative. Virtually all censorware products have ways of overriding both. So imagine the two scenarios:
Because of this, censorware companies feel that the larger list they have, the better, no matter where that list comes from. And therefore they try to protect their list from being stolen by encrypting it. Badly.
So that's why. I know it doesn't make any sense, but that's the rationale.
[TMB]
Actually, no... the way that this sort of software works (I used to work for a company which is a purveyor of a like product) is using hash tables. The order that the sites come out has nothing to do with how bad they are, just the particular combination of hashing algorithm and URL database.
[TMB]
(since I don't have moderator points right now)
Of course, there's always...
http://www.userfriendly.org (3, Funny)
http://slashdot.org (-1, Flamebait)
[TMB]
I was going to write about how surprisingly slashdot-pure I was (79.5%)...
;-)
...but I think by doing so, I just lost a couple of percentage points of purity.
[TMB]
Of course, one of the things that makes Napster work the way it does is that the file transfer itself is peer-to-peer, which conveniently means the files are never stored in anyone's server. Therefore there are N,000 separate individuals at any one time that they would need to go after. As N->infinity (and it definitely seems to be rising steadily), it's going to become completely unfeasible.
Which explains why they go after Napster. Napster may not be doing anything illegal, but at least they're one specific company that stays put.
[TMB]
Off the top of my head...
There must be more... can anyone think of any?
[TMB]
Something wrong with utopianism? :-)=
Actually, it seems to me that the utopianism falls on the non-censorship side... in an ideal world, people wouldn't use public library computers to get off. So let's assume that people are mature enough (or are being guided by someone mature enough) to use the computers responsibly.
[TMB]
Yup, I can just see the next hit single for the Spice Girls - If you wanna read my DVD, you've gotta DeCSS. :-)=
Seriously, though, if I sat down tonight and made a recording of myself reading off the css-auth source code to a d-n-b backbeat and then posted that as an MP3, that would be legal, right?
Sounds like it's time to for me to get busy. :-)=
[TMB]