I agree. I already have trouble with arrogant admins blindly using dynamic IP blacklists and telling me I should use my ISP's unreliable SMTP servers. This will just make matters worse, as my e-mail address uses my registered domain rather than my ISP's, so it will be impossible for me to get my domain to match the IP my mail comes from.
Even so, shouldn't it be entirely up to the Iraqi people---rather than outsiders---to decide the extent to which the eventual Iraqi government will recognize and enforce foreign patents?
A "complete revamping of copyright as it currently exists" is just what is needed.
The copyright system two hundred years ago was a good deal for the public, because it encouraged authors by restricting publishers without affecting the general public's rights in practical terms---because reproducing books required expensive technology and specialist skills.
The current copyright system benefits publishers more than authors and severely restricts the public, since the technology for reproducing digital information is within the reach of ordinary people.
So we the users should demand a complete revision of the "copyright bargain".
Good point, but late-breaking stories do become fully accessible stories, so you could send a non-registered friend a link to an article you think he or she might find interesting or useful and he could read it without having to register.
I think it is the idea that you have to hand over personal information in order to read the news that people find objectionable.
As I said last time this was mentioned, this will let terrorists to create a bomb triggered by the presence (within the RFID's readable range) of someone of a specific nationality.
So the US government is making it easier for people to target its own citizens. Nice.
That's a very good point. According to the http://pvpm.metropipe.net/ link, PVPM runs from an OS that could have who knows what installed on it, so this would not protect you from someone like that guy who installed keyloggers in the Kinko's computers.
This is more secure than nothing (although there is the danger of a false sense of security!)
and it would allow you to use portable encryption on machines that belong to people you trust, but that's all.
It would be much better to boot a secure OS from the key. Something like Tinfoil Hat Linux (following the link is worth it just for the Tux picture), but with more features (Tinfoil runs from a 1.4MB floppy, I think). Tinfoil can play text output as Morse Code through the keyboard LEDs, however, to prevent Tempest attacks.
4. Use text messages (and switch the ringer off). Then no-one else in the train, cinema, bus or (in the near future) airplane has to listen to your mindless prattle.
This is part of the plan for so-called trusted computing, as pointed out in Richard Stallman's article Can you trust your computer?
Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can't use the email to show that the decision was not yours. "Getting it in writing" doesn't protect you when the order is written in disappearing ink.
Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is illegal or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company's audit documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country to move forward unchecked. Today you can send this to a reporter and expose the activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won't be able to read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her. Treacherous computing becomes a paradise for corruption.
...
Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If Microsoft, or the US government, does not like what you said in a document you wrote, they could post new instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read that document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new instructions. Your writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself.
But if we want wide-scale "R&D"... IPR are the means of securing that return.
Our opinions on this issue are not really so far apart. I think we both agree that copyrights and patents (sorry, I don't like the term "intellectual property" because IMO it has misleading implications) are there in order to get something beneficial ("wide-scale R&D") for society as a whole.
You're putting words into his mouth, but assuming the above is true, society depends on the development of much intellectual property, so it's fortunate that the law sides with (your description of) his viewpoint.
Humans have been developing arts, sciences and technology for tens of thousands of years, whereas "intellectual property" laws have existed for only a few hundred years. While copyright may be beneficial, is not necessary---as shown (in Western Europe alone) by Homer, Archimedes, Euclid, Newton, Vitruvius, Shakespeare, Bach, Chaucer, Snorri Sturluson, the anonymous authors of Beowulf and the Niebelungenlied, etc.
Therefore they are in violation of copyright law. This has nothing to do with what media companys say or how much they have paid to politicians.
The current state of copyright law is based almost entirely on who pays how much to politicians. Copyrights used to be much more limited in scope and duration.
Copyright is not a right but a privilege granted by the state to promote the public good. See Stallman's Free Software, Free Society and dspeyer's/. journal.
I don't we'll ever agree on this because we disagree about the fundamentals. You believe in a "right to earn a living from intellectual property" and I don't.
The only reason for copyrights and patents is to promote the public good. They are privileges---not rights---granted by the state for the benefit of the public.
In the USA, the Constitution explicitly states this. Elsewhere, it was originally based on the same principle. There's a good review of this in dspeyer's/. journal.
Those 'sharing' the files do not have a right to do what they are doing.
Why not? Because the media companies say so? Because they have politicians in their pockets.
Copyright law used to be a good deal for the public because it restricted publishers for the benefit of authors without restricting ordinary people in any practical way (because printing books was difficult).
Now it has been twisted to restrict the public for the benefit of publishers. It's no longer a good deal for the public and we deserve a total overhaul.
...I realise that copyright infringement is not the same as shoplifting...
The two things have absolutely nothing in common. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is merely copyright infringement.
...but if it's to be punished...
Copyright exists for one purpose only---to promote the public good (by encouraging artists to create so that the public domain will in the long run be enriched). It is not a right, and certainly not a property right. It should be enforced only to the extent that it is in the public interest to do so.
I live in the UK, am registered with the Telephone Preference Service, and get almost no unsolicited calls. But I've also had an unlisted ("ex-directory") number for 10 years---that probably makes the biggest difference.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I already have trouble with arrogant admins blindly using dynamic IP blacklists and telling me I should use my ISP's unreliable SMTP servers. This will just make matters worse, as my e-mail address uses my registered domain rather than my ISP's, so it will be impossible for me to get my domain to match the IP my mail comes from.
Yes, but probably not the same way you look at them now! (And most likely not the same ones.)
There's nothing nasty or immoral at all (IMHO) in your suggestion!
Even so, shouldn't it be entirely up to the Iraqi people---rather than outsiders---to decide the extent to which the eventual Iraqi government will recognize and enforce foreign patents?
The copyright system two hundred years ago was a good deal for the public, because it encouraged authors by restricting publishers without affecting the general public's rights in practical terms---because reproducing books required expensive technology and specialist skills.
The current copyright system benefits publishers more than authors and severely restricts the public, since the technology for reproducing digital information is within the reach of ordinary people.
So we the users should demand a complete revision of the "copyright bargain".
You can configure a number of open-source desktops to do this for all applications.
I think it is the idea that you have to hand over personal information in order to read the news that people find objectionable.
What content on Slashdot is available only to readers who subscribe or register?
Hmm. Will the passports of "important people" have these tags too?
So the US government is making it easier for people to target its own citizens. Nice.
This is more secure than nothing (although there is the danger of a false sense of security!) and it would allow you to use portable encryption on machines that belong to people you trust, but that's all.
It would be much better to boot a secure OS from the key. Something like Tinfoil Hat Linux (following the link is worth it just for the Tux picture), but with more features (Tinfoil runs from a 1.4MB floppy, I think). Tinfoil can play text output as Morse Code through the keyboard LEDs, however, to prevent Tempest attacks.
4. Use text messages (and switch the ringer off). Then no-one else in the train, cinema, bus or (in the near future) airplane has to listen to your mindless prattle.
Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can't use the email to show that the decision was not yours. "Getting it in writing" doesn't protect you when the order is written in disappearing ink.
Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is illegal or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company's audit documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country to move forward unchecked. Today you can send this to a reporter and expose the activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won't be able to read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her. Treacherous computing becomes a paradise for corruption.
Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If Microsoft, or the US government, does not like what you said in a document you wrote, they could post new instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read that document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new instructions. Your writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself.
I agree with that, although I'd say "granting privileges" rather than "rights" because I think that keeps it in the right perspective.
Our opinions on this issue are not really so far apart. I think we both agree that copyrights and patents (sorry, I don't like the term "intellectual property" because IMO it has misleading implications) are there in order to get something beneficial ("wide-scale R&D") for society as a whole.
Humans have been developing arts, sciences and technology for tens of thousands of years, whereas "intellectual property" laws have existed for only a few hundred years. While copyright may be beneficial, is not necessary---as shown (in Western Europe alone) by Homer, Archimedes, Euclid, Newton, Vitruvius, Shakespeare, Bach, Chaucer, Snorri Sturluson, the anonymous authors of Beowulf and the Niebelungenlied, etc.
True. But it does affect their credibility.
The current state of copyright law is based almost entirely on who pays how much to politicians. Copyrights used to be much more limited in scope and duration.
Copyright is not a right but a privilege granted by the state to promote the public good. See Stallman's Free Software, Free Society and dspeyer's /. journal.
I don't we'll ever agree on this because we disagree about the fundamentals. You believe in a "right to earn a living from intellectual property" and I don't.
In the USA, the Constitution explicitly states this. Elsewhere, it was originally based on the same principle. There's a good review of this in dspeyer's /. journal.
Why not? Because the media companies say so? Because they have politicians in their pockets.
Copyright law used to be a good deal for the public because it restricted publishers for the benefit of authors without restricting ordinary people in any practical way (because printing books was difficult).
Now it has been twisted to restrict the public for the benefit of publishers. It's no longer a good deal for the public and we deserve a total overhaul.
The two things have absolutely nothing in common. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is merely copyright infringement.
Copyright exists for one purpose only---to promote the public good (by encouraging artists to create so that the public domain will in the long run be enriched). It is not a right, and certainly not a property right. It should be enforced only to the extent that it is in the public interest to do so.
I live in the UK, am registered with the Telephone Preference Service, and get almost no unsolicited calls. But I've also had an unlisted ("ex-directory") number for 10 years---that probably makes the biggest difference.