Dollars to doughnuts, in this sort of scheme, what you mentioned would self-destruct the game, not the hardware (by revoking its key from the PS3's list of authorized games, for example). Of course, plenty of people would want their money back from the game, but I doubt Sony would decide to kill the hardware of anyone who tried using such a hack.
Yeah, and I'm sure it won't require an internet connection when it ships, I'm just going by what the article says. No company in their right mind would require the end user to have to wire out an ethernet connection to these boxes in order to simply play a disc.
The players won't have to be connected to the Internet; the self-destruct code can be delivered on discs.
Actually, they will, if the AACS draft isn't changed by the time these ship.
From the Tom's Hardware article:
One part of the announcement that had been anticipated by experts was Blu-ray's embrace of Advanced Access Content System (AACS), one version of which has also been adopted by the HD DVD Forum. This controversial technology would require that disc players maintain permanent connections to content providers via the Internet, making it possible for discs that fail a security check to trigger a notification process, enabling the provider to send the player a sort of "self-destruct code."
Interestingly though, you DO have a point: If someone were to slip a hacked disc into your machine, it would trigger a notification back to the provider, who would presumably then SEND the self-destruct code. This means that anyone could destroy your player simply by inserting a hacked disc.
Eh. First off, according to the Tom's Hardware article, these players would have to be permanently connected to the internet. Where have I heard about something like that before... Perhaps from DivX, which required the players to be connected to a phone line to "phone home" every now and again... and I'm sure we all know how well that turned out.
Besides, what's to prevent a hacker from filtering out this self-destruct code from the downstream content anyway? I mean, it's not like this internet connection is protected or anything. If the content provider sends a packet to reflash the player, just don't let it get to the player. Have something in between to filter it out.
As usual, there are a bunch of fundamental flaws in DRM that will always keep coming back no matter what the content providers try to do. I see DVD Jon cracking this in a week after it's put out on the streets.
This is *the* spyware program right now. It used to be Gator (as that was included with Kazaa and many other popular programs) but CoolWebSearch has, at last glance (I no longer do tech support for a living), vastly surpassed it for number of infected PCs.
If you happen to be in the unfortunate majority infected by it, download CWShredder (free) to get rid of it, then get something like Ad-Aware to get rid of anything else you might have gotten along with it (as spyware often gets installed in packs, so to speak).
By the by, if you'd like to slashdot these people a bit, here's the CoolWebSearch website, though I obviously don't condone anything like that.;^)
At my college, through the MSDNAA program, we get practically any Microsoft program you can think of for free (by which, of course, I mean it was included in our tuition). This includes XP, Office, Visual Studio, etc.
I'm sorry, but this would be preventing user stupidity at the cost of a slower OS for those users who aren't stupid enough to let a scripting virus in their system in the first place. Keep virus security where it is already, in virus scanners, and let us have our functional OS that does what we and our programs tell it to do.
If I am really good at, say, lightbulb design, and I want to sell on the internet, why is it a bad thing for someone to provide a service to help me do so?
It's not. The problem is that they want to patent parts of their planned business process, giving them a *monopoly* on providing that service. There are lots of places on the internet already providing e-commerce hosting and services (I work for one).
No matter; I feel a free but slightly different equivalent will emerge (see my post further down). The thing that most of us are against with software patents is that it makes it that these competitors must carefully avoid the things specifically mentioned in the patents drawn up by Amazon and the like, effectively limiting what they can and cannot do, and thus limiting their ability to compete fairly.
And lack of competition ultimately hurts the customer.
From the article, this looks to be a combination of a specialized search engine and some sort of PayPal equivalent, which they want to protect by patent so nobody else can do quite the same thing.
My prediction is a free (ad-supported, perhaps) but slightly different equivalent will come along slightly after this is launched, and hopefully an entertaining patent lawsuit that will take over the hole that SCO has left in Slashdot for some time now.
You know, Microsoft could (and I'm not suggesting this is what they plan to do) simply mark some low percentage of valid CD keys as pirated, then offer a "discounted" price to the unlucky consumers to make their install "genuine" again. I mean think about it, Microsoft is the final arbiter as to which installs of their software are legal, right?
Referrers.
When you click on a link in a Google search result, your search terms get passed along to the site through the referrer (your search terms are in the query itself). It's fairly trivial to capture each incoming referrer and add it to their network of domains as a link so Google will cache it next time.
And this sort of thinking is why I will not buy anything by Apple. It goes along with their choice to make it hard to take songs off an iPod, their use of DRM in iTunes, and various other issues with their product offerings. They make their fans come up with excuses for them.
The products I buy shouldn't need excuses, they should just do what I want, when I want, and not have hidden flaws.
// This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under // the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software // Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later // version.
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
It seems pretty clear to me that software under the GPL is meant to display a copyright notice by the original author just as prominently as the GPL notice itself. What exactly is the original article trying to say here?
You'll find someone. There are girls who think the same way you do. I know, I've met one, and I'm happier than I've ever been. Keep at it, you'll end up ahead.
Slashdot Mirror
Dollars to doughnuts, in this sort of scheme, what you mentioned would self-destruct the game, not the hardware (by revoking its key from the PS3's list of authorized games, for example). Of course, plenty of people would want their money back from the game, but I doubt Sony would decide to kill the hardware of anyone who tried using such a hack.
Yeah, and I'm sure it won't require an internet connection when it ships, I'm just going by what the article says. No company in their right mind would require the end user to have to wire out an ethernet connection to these boxes in order to simply play a disc.
But remember, you're not buying the hardware, you're buying a license to use the hardware...
Not true now, but I bet that's how they'll get around it though... Software-like EULAs on hardware. Scary thought, isn't it?
Actually, they will, if the AACS draft isn't changed by the time these ship.
From the Tom's Hardware article:
Interestingly though, you DO have a point: If someone were to slip a hacked disc into your machine, it would trigger a notification back to the provider, who would presumably then SEND the self-destruct code. This means that anyone could destroy your player simply by inserting a hacked disc.
Eh. First off, according to the Tom's Hardware article, these players would have to be permanently connected to the internet. Where have I heard about something like that before... Perhaps from DivX, which required the players to be connected to a phone line to "phone home" every now and again... and I'm sure we all know how well that turned out.
Besides, what's to prevent a hacker from filtering out this self-destruct code from the downstream content anyway? I mean, it's not like this internet connection is protected or anything. If the content provider sends a packet to reflash the player, just don't let it get to the player. Have something in between to filter it out.
As usual, there are a bunch of fundamental flaws in DRM that will always keep coming back no matter what the content providers try to do. I see DVD Jon cracking this in a week after it's put out on the streets.
This is *the* spyware program right now. It used to be Gator (as that was included with Kazaa and many other popular programs) but CoolWebSearch has, at last glance (I no longer do tech support for a living), vastly surpassed it for number of infected PCs.
;^)
If you happen to be in the unfortunate majority infected by it, download CWShredder (free) to get rid of it, then get something like Ad-Aware to get rid of anything else you might have gotten along with it (as spyware often gets installed in packs, so to speak).
By the by, if you'd like to slashdot these people a bit, here's the CoolWebSearch website, though I obviously don't condone anything like that.
At my college, through the MSDNAA program, we get practically any Microsoft program you can think of for free (by which, of course, I mean it was included in our tuition). This includes XP, Office, Visual Studio, etc.
I'm sorry, but this would be preventing user stupidity at the cost of a slower OS for those users who aren't stupid enough to let a scripting virus in their system in the first place. Keep virus security where it is already, in virus scanners, and let us have our functional OS that does what we and our programs tell it to do.
I would mod you up if I had the points. Very believeable theory...
Clearly if I steal something and then improve it, it's no longer stolen. *rolls eyes*
Wow, the Microsoft code ALREADY has a possible buffer overflow in it. You work for them already, don't you?
...but IF and ONLY IF the thirteenth month is called Smarch.
Clearly all patents should be written in x86 machine code.
If I am really good at, say, lightbulb design, and I want to sell on the internet, why is it a bad thing for someone to provide a service to help me do so?
It's not. The problem is that they want to patent parts of their planned business process, giving them a *monopoly* on providing that service. There are lots of places on the internet already providing e-commerce hosting and services (I work for one).
No matter; I feel a free but slightly different equivalent will emerge (see my post further down). The thing that most of us are against with software patents is that it makes it that these competitors must carefully avoid the things specifically mentioned in the patents drawn up by Amazon and the like, effectively limiting what they can and cannot do, and thus limiting their ability to compete fairly.
And lack of competition ultimately hurts the customer.
From the article, this looks to be a combination of a specialized search engine and some sort of PayPal equivalent, which they want to protect by patent so nobody else can do quite the same thing. My prediction is a free (ad-supported, perhaps) but slightly different equivalent will come along slightly after this is launched, and hopefully an entertaining patent lawsuit that will take over the hole that SCO has left in Slashdot for some time now.
I would give you my last moderator point, but Slashdot hasn't yet implemented my suggested "+1, Evil" idea.
None of the others do that at all, even to the slightest degree.
;^)
*cough*Internet Explorer*cough*
Teehee
You know, Microsoft could (and I'm not suggesting this is what they plan to do) simply mark some low percentage of valid CD keys as pirated, then offer a "discounted" price to the unlucky consumers to make their install "genuine" again. I mean think about it, Microsoft is the final arbiter as to which installs of their software are legal, right?
</tinfoil>
Because.
Referrers. When you click on a link in a Google search result, your search terms get passed along to the site through the referrer (your search terms are in the query itself). It's fairly trivial to capture each incoming referrer and add it to their network of domains as a link so Google will cache it next time.
It should be noted that Disney made up neither Snow White nor Beauty And The Beast.
Wait, does this mean that we're supposed to... like... AOL?
:^(
But... it just feels wrong somehow...
And this sort of thinking is why I will not buy anything by Apple. It goes along with their choice to make it hard to take songs off an iPod, their use of DRM in iTunes, and various other issues with their product offerings. They make their fans come up with excuses for them.
The products I buy shouldn't need excuses, they should just do what I want, when I want, and not have hidden flaws.
It seems pretty clear to me that software under the GPL is meant to display a copyright notice by the original author just as prominently as the GPL notice itself. What exactly is the original article trying to say here?
You'll find someone. There are girls who think the same way you do. I know, I've met one, and I'm happier than I've ever been. Keep at it, you'll end up ahead.