You are missing a fundamental tenet of DRM; that is, in order to allow access to the content, at some point you're going to have to give them the unencrypted content in one form or another. All the algorithms in the world can't prevent there being an attack vector on every DRM in existence (beyond completely locking up both the hardware and software, but thankfully we don't live in such a world yet).
Open source it, and I can simply redirect the unencrypted output to a file. So much for your restrictions.
Hans Reiser couldn't have done it, because he lives on the planet Endor. But humans are from the planet Earth! Does this make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Reiser lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Ah, didn't realize they'd fully open sourced it... last I heard they had only open sourced portions of the libraries. And I didn't know about that last bit at all.
Here we have a guy in charge of the biggest telecom company in the US, and he actually seems to know what he's doing. More than that, he actually wants to give his customers what they want for a fair price as opposed to being influenced by some lobbying group or external forces.
It seems so obvious but it's been so rare with companies this large recently. I don't expect it to last long (the CFO will probably figure that claiming unlimited access when it's not is still more profitable and override him) but if AT&T does this, they've seriously made me look at them in a whole new light.
Why should Apple fix a vulnerability in their browser that only affects Windows if it only makes their for-profit hardware division look better?
By not fixing this, they can say "Oh look, another Windows vulnerability," and people won't look too closely and realize that it's actually something Apple themselves could fix.
Well, good to know you didn't actually read how the auction works.
People bid while the product is in development, not while it's out on the market. They bid what they would pay for it to be released and for them to get a copy when that happens. The money doesn't actually get taken out of their account until the product is released, and the product isn't released until $X is reached in some combination of $Y minimum bids times Z bids (likely calculated automatically and automatically executed).
Bidders would likely provide a credit card or some other measure of proof; while the system could work with the money in escrow, it absolutely doesn't have to.
The bidders estimate the worth of the project to them; the company simply says at what point they will release it. The whole idea is that it's public domain after release, and yet the company still gets paid. The estimation of worth and promise to pay is simply made before it's released based on a list of specifications that the company has to match, which would likely be verified prior to "execution" of the deal by a third party validator. Upon execution, the people who bid the minimum bid or over would pay the amount that they bid and would receive the product; those who bid less would pay nothing and receive nothing. After that point, the product would be in the public domain for anyone to distribute or acquire.
The point is that without bidders being honest about what they would actually pay, the product never actually gets released, so there's a huge incentive to be honest even if you want it for free.
It basically gets the customers to be the investors in your business using micro-transactions that add up in volume. Go read the actual idea, it's a bit more complicated than the simple auction you seem to have outlined here.
Your assertion that a lack of impenetrable copyright protection equals a loss of profit for the company generating the product protected is false.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that companies, even in the IP field, do not need copyright to flourish.
Take a look at The Digital Art Auction. Basically, customers bid on a product, stating how much they'd be willing to pay for its release. Then, at a predetermined time when the producer reaches some number X at which he'd make Y profit, he releases the product and charges anyone who bit at or above X, $X. These successful bidders get a copy of the product, and those who bid below get nothing, though the game is now likely public domain so they could get a copy if they wanted.
The idea here is that even though freeloaders can get a copy upon release, if they don't bid what they actually would pay for the product, the product wouldn't be released (or at least, wouldn't be released as soon).
There are a bunch of different ideas as to how this could be done, but suffice it to say that a creative marketplace without copyright can exist where everyone gets paid.
Slashdot Mirror
Except none of those companies would then buy Nokia's phone.
You are missing a fundamental tenet of DRM; that is, in order to allow access to the content, at some point you're going to have to give them the unencrypted content in one form or another. All the algorithms in the world can't prevent there being an attack vector on every DRM in existence (beyond completely locking up both the hardware and software, but thankfully we don't live in such a world yet).
Open source it, and I can simply redirect the unencrypted output to a file. So much for your restrictions.
Yay new achievement!
Everyone will want the coveted +5, Troll award.
Well worded, I'd mod you up but alas, I used the last of my point yesterday. You should register.
To reiterate: What?
Hans Reiser couldn't have done it, because he lives on the planet Endor. But humans are from the planet Earth! Does this make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Reiser lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Weird. I was just reading the European Convention on Human Rights and it seems to say some things about Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly.
Maybe I'm reading the wrong thing.
I heard they were adding a new Candlejack bar, I'm pretty exci
Ah, didn't realize they'd fully open sourced it... last I heard they had only open sourced portions of the libraries. And I didn't know about that last bit at all.
I'm surprised at this, honestly.
Here we have a guy in charge of the biggest telecom company in the US, and he actually seems to know what he's doing. More than that, he actually wants to give his customers what they want for a fair price as opposed to being influenced by some lobbying group or external forces.
It seems so obvious but it's been so rare with companies this large recently. I don't expect it to last long (the CFO will probably figure that claiming unlimited access when it's not is still more profitable and override him) but if AT&T does this, they've seriously made me look at them in a whole new light.
Yes, because clearly they want to be using a closed-source virtual machine reading all of their mission-critical code in ways that can't be predicted.
This would be why your government needs to become more efficient, not stop operating as a government.
In all the ones I've used, variable names can't start with a digit.
Also, if that's the case, apologies. Shows what I get for believing a Slashdot summary.
Why should Apple fix a vulnerability in their browser that only affects Windows if it only makes their for-profit hardware division look better?
By not fixing this, they can say "Oh look, another Windows vulnerability," and people won't look too closely and realize that it's actually something Apple themselves could fix.
Brewster Jennings Protects America is pretty close.
I think anyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask on an airplane would be assumed to be a terrorist by default.
Well done, sir. Well done.
Well, good to know you didn't actually read how the auction works.
People bid while the product is in development, not while it's out on the market. They bid what they would pay for it to be released and for them to get a copy when that happens. The money doesn't actually get taken out of their account until the product is released, and the product isn't released until $X is reached in some combination of $Y minimum bids times Z bids (likely calculated automatically and automatically executed).
Bidders would likely provide a credit card or some other measure of proof; while the system could work with the money in escrow, it absolutely doesn't have to.
The bidders estimate the worth of the project to them; the company simply says at what point they will release it. The whole idea is that it's public domain after release, and yet the company still gets paid. The estimation of worth and promise to pay is simply made before it's released based on a list of specifications that the company has to match, which would likely be verified prior to "execution" of the deal by a third party validator. Upon execution, the people who bid the minimum bid or over would pay the amount that they bid and would receive the product; those who bid less would pay nothing and receive nothing. After that point, the product would be in the public domain for anyone to distribute or acquire.
The point is that without bidders being honest about what they would actually pay, the product never actually gets released, so there's a huge incentive to be honest even if you want it for free.
It basically gets the customers to be the investors in your business using micro-transactions that add up in volume. Go read the actual idea, it's a bit more complicated than the simple auction you seem to have outlined here.
Judges have probably already decided that having sex with cars is technically valid, but too onerous. I mean really, that tailpipe is sharp!
Your assertion that a lack of impenetrable copyright protection equals a loss of profit for the company generating the product protected is false.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that companies, even in the IP field, do not need copyright to flourish.
Take a look at The Digital Art Auction. Basically, customers bid on a product, stating how much they'd be willing to pay for its release. Then, at a predetermined time when the producer reaches some number X at which he'd make Y profit, he releases the product and charges anyone who bit at or above X, $X. These successful bidders get a copy of the product, and those who bid below get nothing, though the game is now likely public domain so they could get a copy if they wanted.
The idea here is that even though freeloaders can get a copy upon release, if they don't bid what they actually would pay for the product, the product wouldn't be released (or at least, wouldn't be released as soon).
There are a bunch of different ideas as to how this could be done, but suffice it to say that a creative marketplace without copyright can exist where everyone gets paid.
Trusted Computing Platform Alliance FAQ, as of 2003. This is ooooold news.
Ah, the old "screw the sick, I'm healthy" argument. What's it like living without compassion?
Which, if they include that plugin as-is and keep it open source, that's awesome on Microsoft's part.
I'm not passing judgement here. I'm simply predicting their course of action based on past history.