And we've seen AIOs from many manufacturers for years, which couldn't get out of their own way, in terms of what power users need performance-wise. iMac are a minor exception. They've had somewhat better specs but not SSD caches and 2GB GGDR5 enabled, seriously strong graphics like the new GeForce GT 750M.
Most PCs in any form factor fifn't have all that until very, very recently!!!
Paragraph 3 says "deletion", yes, but nothing in the article supports your definition of the term. I have never come across your definition of seletion before, which would appear to go contrary to all established UK copyright law....
It's a hard case to make that the DMCA takedowns were intentionally abusive or in bad faith. I would say that those rights holders that use automated detection and filing of DMCA takedown requests MUST know the possibility exists that such notices can affect Fair Uses. That means it's known in advance that some DMCA takedowns are going to be fraudulent. That means violation of the DMCA.
There's no evidence that the issue in question here is about automated notices. But the big controversy hanging over automated takedowns is, as I understand it, far more interesting than mere "bad faith" provisions. A DCMA takedown notice is supposed to be a sworn statement from an individual stating, essentially, "I am the copyright owner (or an authorised agent thereof) of material I believe has been infringed upon". The DMCA is supposed to be safe from abuse, because a sworn statement that is known false is perjury and criminally prosecutable. Someone can be jailed for submitting a false claim. Most DMCA takedown notices submitted to YouTube etc are automated and therefore do not actually constitute a genuine DMCA notice... and isn't it therefore fraud to submit such a notice under the false pretence that it is a DMCA notice..?
He's referring to the fact that standard contracts include a standardised estimated amount for breakages, and that this has not been removed for digital downloads. In fact, AIUI, the breakage estimates weren't actually accurate for CDs anyway, having not been adjusted to account for the fact that CDs travel better than vinyl... and in fact weren't even appropriate to vinyl, having been calculated based on the fragility of heavy, inflexible shellac 78s!
Why do we never hear what the artists, the ones who actually made the song or tune, have to say about this "infringements"?
Because the artists aren't the PR/legal department. Honestly, you may as well complain that the latest coke advert wasn't written by the CEO of Coca-Cola, or even anyone within the Coca-Cola Corporation, instead being outsourced to *GASP* an advertising agency. If I was a recording artist and I was expected to handle all the copyright stuff and comment on every takedown request, I'd seriously wonder what I was paying my label for...
No it's not - it's an accurate and faithful reproduction of the acting style of a 1990's CDi/3D0/CD32 "interactive movie". The plot is also clearly in the same style. I look forward to the completed game being released.
Assault is based not merely on the content of the message but the circumstances. If you say, "I'm gonna punch Mr. Slippery in the nose!" that's protected speech; if you say it while walking towards me with you fist raised, it's a different matter.
Yes, it is a different matter - even though you are still not actually attacking anyone. It's the imminence of the lawless action that makes the speech criminal. But make no mistake, it is still the speech that is criminal here, since nothing else has happened yet.
Seriously? That's not assault and should not be criminal. However, it should be enough to justify Mr. Slippery acting in self-defence. The only time threats of violence should be criminalised is when they are persistent and repeated. That's harassment. But having a bad day and losing your rag is a different matter.
I mean it makes perfect sense to me as a person that a possible legal defense could be, "Well if they didn't want us to have it they wouldn't have sat there and uploaded it to us." But in copyright law they're within their legal rights to do what they did. Enter the world of licensing.
Yes, they're within their rights to upload a self-replicating copy to the cloud -- but that's the important bit: self-replicating. They actively made it available in a form they knew would spread.
It doesn't quite work that way. Whether the copyright holder uploaded it or not is in and of itself a minor point. The question would be whether the downloader knew or reasonably would have known that the copyright holder had uploaded it and intended to distribute it. It's perfectly legal for the copyright holder to lay a trap for infringers, and the fact that it's the copyright holder laying it won't get the infringer a pass on the infringement.
Let's use an analogy with physical DVDs/Blurays.
Imagine you sell video discs, and someone comes up to you offering you a bunch of pirated Disney cartoons at a dollar a disc, and they look convincingly genuine. You take the risk. A year later you find yourself in court, and you discover the man that sold you them was from Disney, operating specifically to catch you. At this point, the case would fall apart. Those copies were supplied by disney for redistribution -- there is no crime.
Government "meddling" isn't the problem -- it's government "tinkering" that's to blame. Governments in plenty of countries meddle more than in the US, regulating, controlling and limiting the universities. This sort of meddling successfully pegs prices at an affordable range.
But the US government refuses to regulate, because that would be "interfering with the market", instead just pumping no-strings-attached money into the system. Which is ridiculously hypocritical, because even a total amateur economist knows that that money simply becomes absorbed as profit.
So the government needs to do more meddling, not less....
Also, while you can encrypt to your hear's content, how do you pass people you want to communicate to securely a private key to encrypt and decrypt with? You going to email it? Perhaps text it via SMS? Or, you could call them up and tell them the key? As soon as you transmit a key over a service they control, you are no longer really encrypted. You can meet someone in person to pass a key, but that really only works for people you are physically close to.
Sorry, I was being rather mindless in my last message. You don't give someone else a private key to communicate with them, they generate their own private/public key pair and they give you their public key. If you encrypt with their public key, only the person with the private key can decrypt it.
"Encryption" with a private key doesn't hide the message, because anyone can decrypt it using the public key. What it does do is "sign" it, proving (up to a point) who sent it.
Also, while you can encrypt to your hear's content, how do you pass people you want to communicate to securely a private key to encrypt and decrypt with?
You don't, you pass them a public key, and you keep the private key to yourself. You encrypt with your private key, they decrypt with your public key; they encrypt with your public key, you decrypt with your private key. This is the wonderfully symmetrical maths of pair-of-primes cryptosystems.
Only one Kickstarter project has ever broken the 10 million barrier, to the best of my knowledge. The highest funded film project to date is Veronica Mars, with 5.7 million. That's less than 5% of Prometheus. Every pledge in the history of Kickstarter ($717 million as of the 24th of July) would get you three Avatars ($237M). Kickstarter will always be an edge-case, it will never be mainstream.
You might want to think about that again. That I can decrypt a specific message using a public key doesn't mean I have full unfettered access to the cryptosystem. You have to think of execution as communicating withe the program, and therefore think of the version the program executed as a chain of non-independant messages, and I can only decrypt them in the context established by earlier ones.
Either that, or some anonymous coward on slashdot has once again managed to see the "obvious" flaw in rigorously-researched and peer-reviewed cutting-edge advanced information theory that a bunch of mutiple-PhDs have been studying in-depth for years...
The only actual crime here is the "content" Mafia stealing our money in return for doing absolutely zero work but only giving us a mere copy of the result of the work of somebody else (the artist) that they ripped off too.
OK, in that case go and buy an original uncopied film, price tag $10 000 000 (US).
In order to end up in a situation where you end up with $0 an hour and absolutely cannot find a job to save your life, first an environment has to be created where either the demand for the lunch is zero, or the supply is just too low.
That's utterly upside down. Once the demand for lunch among those with non-zero incomes is satisfied, there are no more jobs in making lunch. All my needs are satisfied by the services available to me, so I have no need to create new jobs, and thus people end up out of work. You are erroneously suggesting that the food supply and catering industry, which perfectly happily managed to provide all our needs when manufacturing was a major source of employment, can absorb the layoffs from decreasing industrial output in western countries, even with the current trend towards zero-population growth or even population decline. No change in demand, but an increase in jobs? Unlikely, particularly given that the catering industry is constantly downsizing. In the 1950s, your burger patty was shaped by hand by either the butcher or the cook -- now it's globbed and pressed by a machine in a humungous factory. There was a time it took a person and a scoop to serve an ice-cream, not to mention adding toppings; now you pull a handle and get a "MacSlurry"....
My girlfriend would definitely be printing a new back for Galaxy S2 every month. She's already ordered a couple, which are around $30 each once she finds the design she likes and adds p&p.
Except that if she's buying for cosmetic reasons, she's not going to be happy with what comes out of a printer...
How is this different? The public key for a machine-readable PGP message isn't "baked into the CPU", but that doesn't make PGP trivially easy to break -- far from it.
...then it may be impractical to figure it out. Not impossible though.
Everything in cryptography relies on the impracticality of brute-force attacks, which are never impossible. That's why we talk about security in terms of hundreds of years.
Slashdot Mirror
And we've seen AIOs from many manufacturers for years, which couldn't get out of their own way, in terms of what power users need performance-wise. iMac are a minor exception. They've had somewhat better specs but not SSD caches and 2GB GGDR5 enabled, seriously strong graphics like the new GeForce GT 750M.
Most PCs in any form factor fifn't have all that until very, very recently!!!
Paragraph 3 says "deletion", yes, but nothing in the article supports your definition of the term. I have never come across your definition of seletion before, which would appear to go contrary to all established UK copyright law....
It's a hard case to make that the DMCA takedowns were intentionally abusive or in bad faith. I would say that those rights holders that use automated detection and filing of DMCA takedown requests MUST know the possibility exists that such notices can affect Fair Uses. That means it's known in advance that some DMCA takedowns are going to be fraudulent. That means violation of the DMCA.
There's no evidence that the issue in question here is about automated notices. But the big controversy hanging over automated takedowns is, as I understand it, far more interesting than mere "bad faith" provisions. A DCMA takedown notice is supposed to be a sworn statement from an individual stating, essentially, "I am the copyright owner (or an authorised agent thereof) of material I believe has been infringed upon". The DMCA is supposed to be safe from abuse, because a sworn statement that is known false is perjury and criminally prosecutable. Someone can be jailed for submitting a false claim. Most DMCA takedown notices submitted to YouTube etc are automated and therefore do not actually constitute a genuine DMCA notice... and isn't it therefore fraud to submit such a notice under the false pretence that it is a DMCA notice..?
He's referring to the fact that standard contracts include a standardised estimated amount for breakages, and that this has not been removed for digital downloads. In fact, AIUI, the breakage estimates weren't actually accurate for CDs anyway, having not been adjusted to account for the fact that CDs travel better than vinyl... and in fact weren't even appropriate to vinyl, having been calculated based on the fragility of heavy, inflexible shellac 78s!
Why do we never hear what the artists, the ones who actually made the song or tune, have to say about this "infringements"?
Because the artists aren't the PR/legal department. Honestly, you may as well complain that the latest coke advert wasn't written by the CEO of Coca-Cola, or even anyone within the Coca-Cola Corporation, instead being outsourced to *GASP* an advertising agency. If I was a recording artist and I was expected to handle all the copyright stuff and comment on every takedown request, I'd seriously wonder what I was paying my label for...
gawd the acting in it is TERRIBLE
No it's not - it's an accurate and faithful reproduction of the acting style of a 1990's CDi/3D0/CD32 "interactive movie". The plot is also clearly in the same style. I look forward to the completed game being released.
Whadaya mean, "It's a TV series"?!?
Assault is based not merely on the content of the message but the circumstances. If you say, "I'm gonna punch Mr. Slippery in the nose!" that's protected speech; if you say it while walking towards me with you fist raised, it's a different matter.
Yes, it is a different matter - even though you are still not actually attacking anyone. It's the imminence of the lawless action that makes the speech criminal. But make no mistake, it is still the speech that is criminal here, since nothing else has happened yet.
Seriously? That's not assault and should not be criminal. However, it should be enough to justify Mr. Slippery acting in self-defence. The only time threats of violence should be criminalised is when they are persistent and repeated. That's harassment. But having a bad day and losing your rag is a different matter.
I mean it makes perfect sense to me as a person that a possible legal defense could be, "Well if they didn't want us to have it they wouldn't have sat there and uploaded it to us." But in copyright law they're within their legal rights to do what they did. Enter the world of licensing.
Yes, they're within their rights to upload a self-replicating copy to the cloud -- but that's the important bit: self-replicating. They actively made it available in a form they knew would spread.
It doesn't quite work that way. Whether the copyright holder uploaded it or not is in and of itself a minor point. The question would be whether the downloader knew or reasonably would have known that the copyright holder had uploaded it and intended to distribute it. It's perfectly legal for the copyright holder to lay a trap for infringers, and the fact that it's the copyright holder laying it won't get the infringer a pass on the infringement.
Let's use an analogy with physical DVDs/Blurays.
Imagine you sell video discs, and someone comes up to you offering you a bunch of pirated Disney cartoons at a dollar a disc, and they look convincingly genuine. You take the risk. A year later you find yourself in court, and you discover the man that sold you them was from Disney, operating specifically to catch you. At this point, the case would fall apart. Those copies were supplied by disney for redistribution -- there is no crime.
This case would be no different.
Government "meddling" isn't the problem -- it's government "tinkering" that's to blame. Governments in plenty of countries meddle more than in the US, regulating, controlling and limiting the universities. This sort of meddling successfully pegs prices at an affordable range.
But the US government refuses to regulate, because that would be "interfering with the market", instead just pumping no-strings-attached money into the system. Which is ridiculously hypocritical, because even a total amateur economist knows that that money simply becomes absorbed as profit.
So the government needs to do more meddling, not less....
Also, while you can encrypt to your hear's content, how do you pass people you want to communicate to securely a private key to encrypt and decrypt with? You going to email it? Perhaps text it via SMS? Or, you could call them up and tell them the key? As soon as you transmit a key over a service they control, you are no longer really encrypted. You can meet someone in person to pass a key, but that really only works for people you are physically close to.
Sorry, I was being rather mindless in my last message. You don't give someone else a private key to communicate with them, they generate their own private/public key pair and they give you their public key. If you encrypt with their public key, only the person with the private key can decrypt it.
"Encryption" with a private key doesn't hide the message, because anyone can decrypt it using the public key. What it does do is "sign" it, proving (up to a point) who sent it.
I would assume you meant to say 'sign with your private key'.
Yes. Red face here.
So you have just shown I'm right. Thanks.
Please explain, I'm all ears.
Also, while you can encrypt to your hear's content, how do you pass people you want to communicate to securely a private key to encrypt and decrypt with?
You don't, you pass them a public key, and you keep the private key to yourself. You encrypt with your private key, they decrypt with your public key; they encrypt with your public key, you decrypt with your private key. This is the wonderfully symmetrical maths of pair-of-primes cryptosystems.
Only one Kickstarter project has ever broken the 10 million barrier, to the best of my knowledge. The highest funded film project to date is Veronica Mars, with 5.7 million. That's less than 5% of Prometheus. Every pledge in the history of Kickstarter ($717 million as of the 24th of July) would get you three Avatars ($237M). Kickstarter will always be an edge-case, it will never be mainstream.
"decrypt" != "break encryption"
But we're not trying to "decrypt a message", but to "break the cipher".
You might want to think about that again. That I can decrypt a specific message using a public key doesn't mean I have full unfettered access to the cryptosystem. You have to think of execution as communicating withe the program, and therefore think of the version the program executed as a chain of non-independant messages, and I can only decrypt them in the context established by earlier ones.
Either that, or some anonymous coward on slashdot has once again managed to see the "obvious" flaw in rigorously-researched and peer-reviewed cutting-edge advanced information theory that a bunch of mutiple-PhDs have been studying in-depth for years...
Actually, in this case you're probably OK, because the "grain" of the bonded filament is going to be lying in the right direction to take the load....
The only actual crime here is the "content" Mafia stealing our money in return for doing absolutely zero work but only giving us a mere copy of the result of the work of somebody else (the artist) that they ripped off too.
OK, in that case go and buy an original uncopied film, price tag $10 000 000 (US).
In order to end up in a situation where you end up with $0 an hour and absolutely cannot find a job to save your life, first an environment has to be created where either the demand for the lunch is zero, or the supply is just too low.
That's utterly upside down. Once the demand for lunch among those with non-zero incomes is satisfied, there are no more jobs in making lunch. All my needs are satisfied by the services available to me, so I have no need to create new jobs, and thus people end up out of work. You are erroneously suggesting that the food supply and catering industry, which perfectly happily managed to provide all our needs when manufacturing was a major source of employment, can absorb the layoffs from decreasing industrial output in western countries, even with the current trend towards zero-population growth or even population decline. No change in demand, but an increase in jobs? Unlikely, particularly given that the catering industry is constantly downsizing. In the 1950s, your burger patty was shaped by hand by either the butcher or the cook -- now it's globbed and pressed by a machine in a humungous factory. There was a time it took a person and a scoop to serve an ice-cream, not to mention adding toppings; now you pull a handle and get a "MacSlurry"....
My girlfriend would definitely be printing a new back for Galaxy S2 every month. She's already ordered a couple, which are around $30 each once she finds the design she likes and adds p&p.
Except that if she's buying for cosmetic reasons, she's not going to be happy with what comes out of a printer...
Dude, you realise that people actualy DO buy soda at the movie theater... no?
But you wouldn't use "movie theater" as your benchmark for soda prices, though, would you?
How is this different? The public key for a machine-readable PGP message isn't "baked into the CPU", but that doesn't make PGP trivially easy to break -- far from it.
...then it may be impractical to figure it out. Not impossible though.
Everything in cryptography relies on the impracticality of brute-force attacks, which are never impossible. That's why we talk about security in terms of hundreds of years.