If nearly every copy protection is cracked, then the standard one being cracked shouldn't be any more of a big deal than already exists. I'd imagine the simplest API would be a way to grant a single executable low level access to communicate back to the parent program. The other option is to build an artificial low-level interface which itself has permission to non-destructively access the device in a low-level fashion--ie, trap in some fashion writes and selectively pass acceptable ones to a service with permission to do the actual access. The idea of the list is merely to limit who can access said emulated low-level device.
It might be able to crack the API readily by properly responding to the parent program, but it'd not be readily easy to crack the emulation short of just creating your own emulation of the low-level device as well as sending back the right signals. In either case, it'd almost certainly be easier to simply crack the program like is already occurring.
The problem with games is that they use low level access for copy protection tests, and need admin level to do that.
Maybe this is what DRM is supposed to fix? In all seriousness, XP could have included a standard API to validate the copy protection on a CD/DVD or emulate the low level access for a list of games. I'm certain that either option is a lot of work and not necessarily going to do the trick, but to act like Microsoft has done everything possible is silly.
On a positive note, I get the impression from the privilege service that Microsoft patented--yes, it wasn't worthy of a patent--that they might be plans in the future for something along the lines I discussed. Maybe while they're at it they'll create versioned filesystem support and pseudo-filesystems tailored for each user.
I welcome Microsoft trying to create things that will revolutionize how one uses a computer. If Microsoft actually does such, then they might be able to stop be being scorned. I'm still waiting.:/
no one should take what is known to be a very biased communciation at face value.
I somewhat agree, and I somewhat disagree. There are two types of biased communications. The first is simply stating biased opinion and only that biased opinion. The other is stating stating select facts to misrepresent the truth (for example, leaving out context or events that occurred) or outright lying. While the former is certainly a valid form of communication and free speech, the other is either fraud or slander/libel. And it's the job of government to investigate and punish fraud, while it's the job of individuals who are defamed to sue for slander/libel.
Unfortunately, many people in this country are incapable of realizing that bias even exists, let alone sifting through it.
Advertisements often include opinions--heavily biased, of course. And if this whole discussion was about opinion, then I'd see your point. But when Blockbuster stated an offer as fact, they were clearly lying. To me state that one should "sift through" this type of bias is to accept that liars should be able to spout off whatever they please as truth and that it's the people who are hurt by said liars that are responsible. The fact is, it's the various people who did accept the fact as advertised which are responsible for, in part, the punishing of Blockbuster.
The most frustrating part of all of this is how easy it is to draw parallels to FoxNews. The sheer number of obvious lies that occurs on FoxNews, a *news* channel, that go unpunished baffle my mind. The courts have ruled that FoxNews' first business is entertainment, and that reporters for FoxNews cannot seek wrongful termination suits if FoxNews places business above accurate reporting. You're right that many people don't see the bias in FoxNews, nor do they sift through it. But, it seems clear to me that with FoxNews, state and federal governments have failed the people by forcing everyone to do their own fact checking. If we the people are truly required do our own sifting and look out for ourselves, then I truly do not understand why we have much, if any, government at all. I can only hope that at some point in the future others being to realize this as well.
(Aside from the inherent problem in taking any advertised claim at face value - but in reality, you can't expect the general public to think that way.)
Yes, how stupid of the general public to believe advertisements. I mean, advertisements aren't at all about providing information. It's about disinformation. There isn't an FTC designed to guard against fraud either. It's all caveat emptor. Hell, there doesn't even exist a government of the people to remove the need of every person to be involved in every single possible abuse against a person or persons.
It's at least some thoughts along this line that allows for such blatant stuff like spam and utter trash "news" to be ignored out of hand as acceptable. If people as individuals are not going to boycott blatant liars and cheats, then at some point the government needs step in. I think the Blockbuster case is but the tip of the iceberg for when the government should step in. Simple disclaimer legalize shouldn't expunge liability to lying.
piracy is just people wanting to get stuff for free.
And breathing is just people wanting to get clean air* for free. Not all pirates paint activities that involve free stuff as a copyright holder endorsed crusade. Some just think there's nothing morally wrong with piracy and give little to no thought about violating copyright.
*There's all sorts of ways this is a good and bad example. Suffice to say that I rather like the idea of taxing people/companies to undo the damage they do every month/year with government-rate deductions on that tax for the clean-up one does. In that way, most people could just own healthy trees/grass to undo some/most/all the damage they do from breathing and company polluters would be motivated in making the most efficient cleaning regiment possible.
Just because a DLL exports a function doesn't mean it's "exported for all the world to use". That is simply how DLLs work.
No, you see, there's a simple catch-22. Some of IE's functions are part of core OS DLLs that form the API of Windows.
If IE is the only program that uses those functions, then one of two circumstances has arisen. Those functions could be related to the DLL. But if that's the case, there seems to be some rather unfair tying of OS API and application. If on the other hand the code is unrelated, then MS has really horrible code practices for which the only reasonable excuse for scattering code through all the core OS DLLs is to ensure their existence by making it fundamentally impossible to extract all IE functions if they were so judged, hence they could use the truth that it'd be cost prohibitive to remove IE.
However, if IE is only one of many other programs that uses these functions, then clearly these functions are a part of the API, and if they've not been documented, then IE is using undocumented APIs. Whether or not this actually leads to better performance is a moot point because the issue would mean Dave is lying and MS is using undocumented APIs in IE.
How I see it, it looks like it's a combination of all three that's occuring. The fact that IE is the only program which has actually taken advantage of its own API seems a rather moot point.
Oh, I see. It's not that IE uses undocumented API calls; it just has its internals sprayed about through multiple DLLs and exported for all the world to use (if they know what they're looking for). The only real question then is what logistics there is to such horrible code design. I mean, if you're exposing a function to the world you should a) document it, b) ensure it's robust, and c) make sure it's generic enough for more than just your program to use. It sounds like a lot of IE fails all three tests. Is this supposed to make me feel better?
DRM file doesn't do anything to actively destroy something else.
They do. It's called the public domain. Thanks to the wobbliness of the DMCA, I'm sure you'll be hearing how much the public domain is destroyed whenever the copyright eventually ends on one of the DRM-only works. You see, so long as there exists a technological measure that's used in both a public domain work (DRM-only) and copyrighted (DRM-at-all), then any device created to actually circumvent said technological measure to access said public domain work will be illegal because it can be used to circumvent the technological measure on a copyrighted work. So, this leads to effectively infinite copyright, if done right.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter that you need to use the Apple approved decoder to make the copy, the fact is, you CAN make the copy, and it is a perfectly legitimate and viable copy.
Wrong and wrong. One, you cannot remove the DRM from a copy with Apple's software--the only legal way to remove the DRM, btw; so at some point your archival copy will be unusable, which is a violation of First Sale Doctrine. Two, even if that did work, it is presumptive that I "CAN" make said copy with Apple's software. Just because software exists does not mean that I have the hardware to run it or the software to run it (this will be especially true in say 30 years time, well within any DRM-only protected works' copyright).
To claim that such is acceptable would allow the removal of the ability to make archival copies, as the DRM-hardware would be intertwined with the copyrighted work in a box. The only software to make an archival copy would not be for sale or if it were for sale, it'd be for an outrageous amount of money. And trying to circumvent this would be of the technological measure on the copyright of the copier, a DMCA infraction. Of course, you could still "technically" make an "archival copy" so long as the software is "technically" sold.
The point about rights is that a right is something that cannot be infringed without do process. Do process, in the US at least, requires a judge, jury, lawyers, and evidence, and it only works on a case by case basis. None of this has occurred, so it's rather infuriating to think you believe it okay that rights can be infringed frivolously with a set of hoops one must follow to be allowed to exercise one's rights.
It's the same logic that says censorship of speech or that killing a person in cold blood is somehow equivalent to the painstaking judicial procedure that would remove a feeding tube from someone who had expressed they wish to end their own life if certain conditions arise. I very much fear for the rights you are so willingly to ignore you have. I fear more that you'd willingly deem my acts illegal when I am simply exercising my rights.
It's illegal to burn that AAC file to CD (I assume you mean CD audio) using a non-Apple approved decoder because you'd need to break the encryption. And to make an archival copy, you'd need to decrypt the music at some point. Why? Because you'll run through your allotment of computers at some point.
A bit off-topic, but imagine if a book maker made custom poisons, laced each sold book with it, then injected the new book owner with an anidote. In fact, the anidote will wear off in around 75 years, shortly after the copyright on that book expires. But the poison doesn't break down. I'm sure the book owner could still technically sell the book, and face a murder charge, or even make an archival copy, and be really careful not to cross-contaminate the copy.
It seems criminal to go to such lengths to try to protect a copyrighted work. I'd say it's criminal to go to the lengths of throwing someone in jail for reselling something they bought or simply using something they bought, regardless of if it's with an "approved use device" or not.
It is if 8-Track -> CD converters are made illegal. One has an innate legal right to use the copyrighted work they bought. That's a principle that was established in First Sale Doctrine after many EULAs in books tried to do the same nature of shit that is occuring today in technological means combined with law.
So, basically the DMCA is in contradiction to copyright law just as the DMCA is in contradiction of the right to make archival copies (in that case by making cart copiers illegal). There's various ways in which the DMCA is clearly in contradiction to other law on the books, and there's no simple resolution that would maintain both in spirit on the books. It's primarily this reason why so many people on/., me included, are so adamant that the DMCA must go.
Wrong. You can't license the right to use a copyrighted work. You can only license the right to distribute or perform a work. Why? Because copyright doesn't *cover* use. It only covers distribution and performance.
I think a more apt analogy would be parking it in the middle of a charity organization's donation tent. No amount of "bad end of town" has any direct implication that there's authorization to redistribute. A warez server, on the other hand, is specification for the intention of redistribution. The "bad end of town" would be closer to having file sharing enabled without a password and without actively advertising the file share to others. Ie, people would have to go out of their way to enable access to your things.
9/11 was possible because we have (or had) a basically open, trusting society.
<sarcasm>So, the answer is to become a dictatorship like Iran?</sarcasm>
The reason that 9/11 was possible is because we as a society had become sheep to hostage situations. Be it from all the various hostage situations in the past which ended up with hostage -> money for the terrorists with no one being hurt, except maybe dehydration/heat stroke, or the at least yearly news reports/government reports that told us to just go along with hostage takers and to not "be a hero", there was a great bit of complacency that a terrorist would never do anything that'd end up killing the people.
So, it has nothing to do with the open, trusting society; even in a closed society there are terrorists who take hostages. In some small way I'm thankful for 9/11. Again people take hostage situations deadly seriously and hopefully will be more willing to "be a hero". Hopefully this reawakening will prevent another 9/11 from occuring. Now all we need to do is get rid of all this "government protection" that does nothing to help.
Put another way, the fact that AFP wrote an article isn't news being reported and doesn't trigger this exception.
Maybe if it was bundled in other articles they wrote, I'd agree. But the whole function of Google News is reporting about the news of others. Well, Google News is closer to a catalog of news. So, maybe they need to do a bit more reporting..
Your point about celebrities is hard to follow, but it's worth noting that they can't use a copyrighted work to attract attention to their causes any more than anyone else can. They need a license to sing "Happy Birthday" like everyone else. [insert long, off topic rant here]
You're missing my point. The grandparent poster was claiming that Google News getting traffic meant Google was as well. But that doesn't make Google News innately commercial. As another example, think of the various non-profit organizations which are funded by commercial entities. Just become somewhere along the line some organization benefits indirectly doesn't make the whole thing tainted with being a commercial enterprise. I'm sorry if my celebrity example wasn't clear on that point.
You don't seriously think that the "educational use" exception covers every quotation from which some one might learn something, do you?
No. I never said anything of the kind. The point was that news is education. If Google News was including snippits of music, I don't think that could be claimed to be educational. But certainly snippits of news reports is educational. I agree that at least one reason for this exception was the realization that schools would possibly not be able to afford what they need in copyrighted works (and I kind of wonder why whole textbooks haven't fallen under this scope, seeing as how it'd please most everyone but the textbook makers), but the fair use rules don't actually state "for school use". It doesn't seem hard, to me, to argue that news is educational.
If AFP wants to use it's content to gain eyeballs and Google is taking the eyeballs away, AFP has been damaged.
That's a hard argument to make, though. That's basically claiming that people go to Google News to avoid going to AFP because the one paragraph snippit that Google News takes is sufficient. The truth is, Google News' largest conceivable negative effect on AFP's market is exposing said market's audience to many other papers and that audience reading those other papers instead of one with AFP articles. If people are going to Google News for news, then without Google News they'd probably choose a newspaper without AFP. And if they're using Google News as a gateway to news sites, then it's only improving AFP's market.
It'd help if you'd actually use the guidelines specified for valuing if a work is covered under fair use.
Quotes from US Code Title 17, 107:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
So, right away Google seems cleared. But, lets make it more clear since something like blatant plagiarism of a whole news paper would likely not be protected.
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Contrary to your claim, Google News isn't commercial. Your logic that a non-profit action attracts attention/money isn't relevant. By your logic no celebrity would have access to fair use since their non-profit statements would attract attention to them and conceivably make more money. The test is for if the work itself is commercial. Google News doesn't make money.
Second, Google News is for providing access to news. To claim news is uneducational in general is to ignore what news is. Now, if Google News started quoting from press releases by companies or one of the Government produced "news" releases, you'd have a much stronger argument. Such is propaganda and propaganda is not educational except in the general case that knowing what to look for it in propaganda.
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
The original was news as well.
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
Only the first paragraph is copied, normally, as well as a blurb picture. That's a relatively small part of most reports.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
This is the real crux that I think exhaunerates Google. Just like Slashdot or fark, Google News redirects to pages in a way that if anything *increases* the market for the work. It's unlikely I'd ever even see a fraction of the news papers listed on Google News if it weren't for Google. Google News doesn't replace all these news sites. It's a nexus for finding them.
The funniest part is that Google already does the same thing with their search page. They include a small blurb and a link to the original site. While the Google Cache is likely dice, from the perspective of ad revenue being the market provider, search engines in general haven't really been questioned before. Google News is merely a search engine specifically geared towards news. If Google News is commit some illegal act by linking to news stories and including a blurb then so are most store catalogs, search engines, and tons of databases of information (lots of things one makes are copyrighted, after all).
No, for the same reason that Coca-Cola shouldn't be able to prevent McDonalds from selling Coke and Pepsi products. Coca-Cola can try all sorts of legal means to stop it, like not selling to them directly. But I question the legality of signing those they sell to to not resell to McDonalds. At least in the sale of copyrighted works, that'd not be legal as specified under First Sale Doctrine. Of course in this case there's no actual sale going on. The real issue, as others have stated, is the question of fair use.
To put it in simpler terms, do you not think fair use should exist? It's that which allows for things like reviews of products which almost certainly place some in a "bad light". If you want to argue that this isn't fair use, first read my post below.
Hackers will continue to try to keep hacking any DRM that pops up. That's what hackers do. If the fact that hackers exist is the limitation to legal online music, then there's no actual solution. When hackers do end up breaking a DRM scheme, it will increase sales, decrease sales, or have no effect on sales; with all the free illegally avaialble music I can't imagine how it would do anything but have no effect on sales or increase sales.
You seem to be saying that the answer to making more legal online music available is to *not* buy from them. That doesn't make sense. It's only through sales that any reasonable company can ascertain how viable a market is. Not buying DRMed music only helps to confirm fears/assumptions that legal online music is not viable. The same is true when a DRM scheme is cracked. But again, it's only through sales than any reasonable company can ascertain how viable a market is. It's insanity to bow down to quell the fears of companies like they're naive children.
Something you have (a key, a smartcard) Something you know (a password, a PIN) Something you are (a fingerprint, a voiceprint)
Each one has a failing, security wise, and it's different than the failings of the others.
With the various ways to record fingerprints and voiceprints and the high rate of social engineering of passwords/PINs, I'd say the truth is that all three securities are based on something you have. It's just how one goes about obtaining them. The sad truth is that most social engineering attacks will work just as successfully in N-factor authentication. Why? Because social engineering is about getting someone to authenticate against you.
The only way which I can think of to really secure the system is to have a challenge response that you know. So long as the challenge response is self-contained in the brain it becomes incredibly difficult to steal the challenge mechanism, trick someone into providing authentication for someone else's use, or being unaware that someone is trying to compromise your setup. Of course until we can all do at least a simple form of public/private key encryption in our brain we're fucked really.
You'd be more correct in saying "If you are making a *commercial* web page and you are not coding so that is renders correctly on IE you are a fool." It's hardly foolish to be obsessed with being absolutely sure that 85%, let alone 100%, of people view your personal web page. Personally, my web pages end up being so minimal that even bad rendering would at worst just make it look ugly. The whole point of the web is to display content. So long as content is out there and I'm not going out of my way to make pages render well in only brand X browser, I really don't care if any specific browser misrenders the page. When developing personal web space, I don't feel it my responsibility to include everyone. Of course, I guess my biggest reason for saying all this is because my web pages are so minimalistic that even lynx and dillo can display them well. So, it'd have to be a pretty fucked up browser to misrender my pages. As others have stated, it's the fucked up way in which IE handles pages that has slowed down any goals of mine in making any complex page for the concern it might not render properly in all sorts of browsers that a person might use which I cannot be goaded to check against just to not piss lots of people off.
Re:Microsoft has finally been forced to innovate
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 1
That's like a mouse setting a mouse trap for itself.
You know, that's not such a bad idea.
<User moves mouse towards Internet Explorer icon> *snap* <Mouse and hand caught in mouse trap>
Yes, society sometimes must use taxes to enforce things that are considered beneficial for society as a _whole_. Yes, there might be people who do not _directly_ get a ROI on their money, but the idea is that on the whole you get more good than bad out of it.
Society is made up of people. Copyright is set at the life of the author + 75 years. Given that you have to be alive to copyright something (at least, as far as I'm aware) and that the average life expectance is sub-75 years, that means that anyone born at the time a copyrighted work is created will be dead prior to the copyrighted work being put into the public domain. Hence, there's a serious lacking in the claim it "benefits society" or is "limited times".
One of the benefits of a copyrighted work, after all, is the time when it returns to the public domain. The whole "limited time" is there for the work to be created in the first place. The fact is, we're currently at the point that if we were to decide today to put all copyrighted works in the public domain, by law, while enacting in the same legislation that such a mass conversion won't occur again for a "limited time" (to make clear the risk reduction of one's copyright hence forth being nullified arbitrarily), we'd be in the possession of a ton of works and wouldn't be in some massive "need" for new works.
Sure, new works would be great, and I'm sure they'd be made regardless. And I think that's the core issue. The foundation of the claim for the need for copyright is that without protection there would be few new works. Yet I'm very sure that if copyright were rescinded for all previous works and only allow for works past date X, we'd still see new works. Ie, even with massive amounts of "free" works out there, there'd still be people willing to dish out money for new works.
One main reason is that, at least for software, there's a group of dedicated people who already have access and knowledge to the code and could make the proper updates. Reverse engineering the binary into source then updating it as necessary is a rather large financial investment. Because of this, it's not financially feasible for everyone to do the work. In fact, it's very much the prisoners' dilemma*. So, as long as the original software company has copyright long enough to recoup the costs by mass purchases by industry (and if you'll notice, NT 4.0 and OS/2 machines are being pushed towards Windows 2k/XP Embedded in those industries which are normally slowest to change), there's little reason to believe that any company or group of companies will work together to reverse engineer an already working product.
Having said all that, I would have to state that there's clearly inefficiency to this whole model** anyways. At least for software, having every couple reinvent the wheel unnecessarily doesn't help things. Yes, it does mean less of a monoculture, but it's hard to disagree that a combination of cooperation and open forks tend towards the minimal amount of redundant work. And all work requires time. And time is money. So, the actual cost imposed upon everyone by copyright is much more than the direct taxation that government imposes.
Is society gaining a net sum now days?
*Linux, et al are the exception, if only because they were never proprietary in the first place and each company who wants to become involved for their own benefit only has to dedicate a small detachment to help tune the source to their own needs. Getting to the point of there being an actually working OS that's already out there (no company wants to just "give away" a *lot* of their hard work to the competition) is the rough hump.
**The Free Market is based on a form of self interest with limited resources. The problem, of course, is that software is a mostly intangible good with nearly zero cost to redistribute. The real main cost then is the fixed cost of production. In a system where there was no copyright, surely there would be companies that release encrypted binarie
If you mean it's sad that "reality TV" is so pervasive that a comment about reality blogs needs a mention of how it's different, then I'd agree. If you took the comment to mean that people don't have an understand of reality outside of "reality TV", I think you're misreading the explanation. It's designed to clarify a question that the submitter thinks will be asked.
What about extraditing public school children who have photos posted on the internet of them wearing crosses while in school to France (a stretch). Or maybe to Iran (slightly less of a stretch, I think)? I don't think as many people will care about Hefner being sent to Saudi Arabia for porn as will care about their children being extradited over religion.
Slashdot Mirror
If nearly every copy protection is cracked, then the standard one being cracked shouldn't be any more of a big deal than already exists. I'd imagine the simplest API would be a way to grant a single executable low level access to communicate back to the parent program. The other option is to build an artificial low-level interface which itself has permission to non-destructively access the device in a low-level fashion--ie, trap in some fashion writes and selectively pass acceptable ones to a service with permission to do the actual access. The idea of the list is merely to limit who can access said emulated low-level device.
It might be able to crack the API readily by properly responding to the parent program, but it'd not be readily easy to crack the emulation short of just creating your own emulation of the low-level device as well as sending back the right signals. In either case, it'd almost certainly be easier to simply crack the program like is already occurring.
The problem with games is that they use low level access for copy protection tests, and need admin level to do that.
:/
Maybe this is what DRM is supposed to fix? In all seriousness, XP could have included a standard API to validate the copy protection on a CD/DVD or emulate the low level access for a list of games. I'm certain that either option is a lot of work and not necessarily going to do the trick, but to act like Microsoft has done everything possible is silly.
On a positive note, I get the impression from the privilege service that Microsoft patented--yes, it wasn't worthy of a patent--that they might be plans in the future for something along the lines I discussed. Maybe while they're at it they'll create versioned filesystem support and pseudo-filesystems tailored for each user.
I welcome Microsoft trying to create things that will revolutionize how one uses a computer. If Microsoft actually does such, then they might be able to stop be being scorned. I'm still waiting.
no one should take what is known to be a very biased communciation at face value.
I somewhat agree, and I somewhat disagree. There are two types of biased communications. The first is simply stating biased opinion and only that biased opinion. The other is stating stating select facts to misrepresent the truth (for example, leaving out context or events that occurred) or outright lying. While the former is certainly a valid form of communication and free speech, the other is either fraud or slander/libel. And it's the job of government to investigate and punish fraud, while it's the job of individuals who are defamed to sue for slander/libel.
Unfortunately, many people in this country are incapable of realizing that bias even exists, let alone sifting through it.
Advertisements often include opinions--heavily biased, of course. And if this whole discussion was about opinion, then I'd see your point. But when Blockbuster stated an offer as fact, they were clearly lying. To me state that one should "sift through" this type of bias is to accept that liars should be able to spout off whatever they please as truth and that it's the people who are hurt by said liars that are responsible. The fact is, it's the various people who did accept the fact as advertised which are responsible for, in part, the punishing of Blockbuster.
The most frustrating part of all of this is how easy it is to draw parallels to FoxNews. The sheer number of obvious lies that occurs on FoxNews, a *news* channel, that go unpunished baffle my mind. The courts have ruled that FoxNews' first business is entertainment, and that reporters for FoxNews cannot seek wrongful termination suits if FoxNews places business above accurate reporting. You're right that many people don't see the bias in FoxNews, nor do they sift through it. But, it seems clear to me that with FoxNews, state and federal governments have failed the people by forcing everyone to do their own fact checking. If we the people are truly required do our own sifting and look out for ourselves, then I truly do not understand why we have much, if any, government at all. I can only hope that at some point in the future others being to realize this as well.
(Aside from the inherent problem in taking any advertised claim at face value - but in reality, you can't expect the general public to think that way.)
Yes, how stupid of the general public to believe advertisements. I mean, advertisements aren't at all about providing information. It's about disinformation. There isn't an FTC designed to guard against fraud either. It's all caveat emptor. Hell, there doesn't even exist a government of the people to remove the need of every person to be involved in every single possible abuse against a person or persons.
It's at least some thoughts along this line that allows for such blatant stuff like spam and utter trash "news" to be ignored out of hand as acceptable. If people as individuals are not going to boycott blatant liars and cheats, then at some point the government needs step in. I think the Blockbuster case is but the tip of the iceberg for when the government should step in. Simple disclaimer legalize shouldn't expunge liability to lying.
piracy is just people wanting to get stuff for free.
And breathing is just people wanting to get clean air* for free. Not all pirates paint activities that involve free stuff as a copyright holder endorsed crusade. Some just think there's nothing morally wrong with piracy and give little to no thought about violating copyright.
*There's all sorts of ways this is a good and bad example. Suffice to say that I rather like the idea of taxing people/companies to undo the damage they do every month/year with government-rate deductions on that tax for the clean-up one does. In that way, most people could just own healthy trees/grass to undo some/most/all the damage they do from breathing and company polluters would be motivated in making the most efficient cleaning regiment possible.
Home Edition Neutered
I'd like to be the first to mod down this part of the name as redundant.
Just because a DLL exports a function doesn't mean it's "exported for all the world to use". That is simply how DLLs work.
No, you see, there's a simple catch-22. Some of IE's functions are part of core OS DLLs that form the API of Windows.
If IE is the only program that uses those functions, then one of two circumstances has arisen. Those functions could be related to the DLL. But if that's the case, there seems to be some rather unfair tying of OS API and application. If on the other hand the code is unrelated, then MS has really horrible code practices for which the only reasonable excuse for scattering code through all the core OS DLLs is to ensure their existence by making it fundamentally impossible to extract all IE functions if they were so judged, hence they could use the truth that it'd be cost prohibitive to remove IE.
However, if IE is only one of many other programs that uses these functions, then clearly these functions are a part of the API, and if they've not been documented, then IE is using undocumented APIs. Whether or not this actually leads to better performance is a moot point because the issue would mean Dave is lying and MS is using undocumented APIs in IE.
How I see it, it looks like it's a combination of all three that's occuring. The fact that IE is the only program which has actually taken advantage of its own API seems a rather moot point.
Here is a relink of relevant information: Missing Settlement Functions
Oh, I see. It's not that IE uses undocumented API calls; it just has its internals sprayed about through multiple DLLs and exported for all the world to use (if they know what they're looking for). The only real question then is what logistics there is to such horrible code design. I mean, if you're exposing a function to the world you should a) document it, b) ensure it's robust, and c) make sure it's generic enough for more than just your program to use. It sounds like a lot of IE fails all three tests. Is this supposed to make me feel better?
DRM file doesn't do anything to actively destroy something else.
They do. It's called the public domain. Thanks to the wobbliness of the DMCA, I'm sure you'll be hearing how much the public domain is destroyed whenever the copyright eventually ends on one of the DRM-only works. You see, so long as there exists a technological measure that's used in both a public domain work (DRM-only) and copyrighted (DRM-at-all), then any device created to actually circumvent said technological measure to access said public domain work will be illegal because it can be used to circumvent the technological measure on a copyrighted work. So, this leads to effectively infinite copyright, if done right.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter that you need to use the Apple approved decoder to make the copy, the fact is, you CAN make the copy, and it is a perfectly legitimate and viable copy.
Wrong and wrong. One, you cannot remove the DRM from a copy with Apple's software--the only legal way to remove the DRM, btw; so at some point your archival copy will be unusable, which is a violation of First Sale Doctrine. Two, even if that did work, it is presumptive that I "CAN" make said copy with Apple's software. Just because software exists does not mean that I have the hardware to run it or the software to run it (this will be especially true in say 30 years time, well within any DRM-only protected works' copyright).
To claim that such is acceptable would allow the removal of the ability to make archival copies, as the DRM-hardware would be intertwined with the copyrighted work in a box. The only software to make an archival copy would not be for sale or if it were for sale, it'd be for an outrageous amount of money. And trying to circumvent this would be of the technological measure on the copyright of the copier, a DMCA infraction. Of course, you could still "technically" make an "archival copy" so long as the software is "technically" sold.
The point about rights is that a right is something that cannot be infringed without do process. Do process, in the US at least, requires a judge, jury, lawyers, and evidence, and it only works on a case by case basis. None of this has occurred, so it's rather infuriating to think you believe it okay that rights can be infringed frivolously with a set of hoops one must follow to be allowed to exercise one's rights.
It's the same logic that says censorship of speech or that killing a person in cold blood is somehow equivalent to the painstaking judicial procedure that would remove a feeding tube from someone who had expressed they wish to end their own life if certain conditions arise. I very much fear for the rights you are so willingly to ignore you have. I fear more that you'd willingly deem my acts illegal when I am simply exercising my rights.
It's illegal to burn that AAC file to CD (I assume you mean CD audio) using a non-Apple approved decoder because you'd need to break the encryption. And to make an archival copy, you'd need to decrypt the music at some point. Why? Because you'll run through your allotment of computers at some point.
A bit off-topic, but imagine if a book maker made custom poisons, laced each sold book with it, then injected the new book owner with an anidote. In fact, the anidote will wear off in around 75 years, shortly after the copyright on that book expires. But the poison doesn't break down. I'm sure the book owner could still technically sell the book, and face a murder charge, or even make an archival copy, and be really careful not to cross-contaminate the copy.
It seems criminal to go to such lengths to try to protect a copyrighted work. I'd say it's criminal to go to the lengths of throwing someone in jail for reselling something they bought or simply using something they bought, regardless of if it's with an "approved use device" or not.
It is if 8-Track -> CD converters are made illegal. One has an innate legal right to use the copyrighted work they bought. That's a principle that was established in First Sale Doctrine after many EULAs in books tried to do the same nature of shit that is occuring today in technological means combined with law.
/., me included, are so adamant that the DMCA must go.
So, basically the DMCA is in contradiction to copyright law just as the DMCA is in contradiction of the right to make archival copies (in that case by making cart copiers illegal). There's various ways in which the DMCA is clearly in contradiction to other law on the books, and there's no simple resolution that would maintain both in spirit on the books. It's primarily this reason why so many people on
Wrong. You can't license the right to use a copyrighted work. You can only license the right to distribute or perform a work. Why? Because copyright doesn't *cover* use. It only covers distribution and performance.
I think a more apt analogy would be parking it in the middle of a charity organization's donation tent. No amount of "bad end of town" has any direct implication that there's authorization to redistribute. A warez server, on the other hand, is specification for the intention of redistribution. The "bad end of town" would be closer to having file sharing enabled without a password and without actively advertising the file share to others. Ie, people would have to go out of their way to enable access to your things.
9/11 was possible because we have (or had) a basically open, trusting society.
<sarcasm>So, the answer is to become a dictatorship like Iran?</sarcasm>
The reason that 9/11 was possible is because we as a society had become sheep to hostage situations. Be it from all the various hostage situations in the past which ended up with hostage -> money for the terrorists with no one being hurt, except maybe dehydration/heat stroke, or the at least yearly news reports/government reports that told us to just go along with hostage takers and to not "be a hero", there was a great bit of complacency that a terrorist would never do anything that'd end up killing the people.
So, it has nothing to do with the open, trusting society; even in a closed society there are terrorists who take hostages. In some small way I'm thankful for 9/11. Again people take hostage situations deadly seriously and hopefully will be more willing to "be a hero". Hopefully this reawakening will prevent another 9/11 from occuring. Now all we need to do is get rid of all this "government protection" that does nothing to help.
Put another way, the fact that AFP wrote an article isn't news being reported and doesn't trigger this exception.
Maybe if it was bundled in other articles they wrote, I'd agree. But the whole function of Google News is reporting about the news of others. Well, Google News is closer to a catalog of news. So, maybe they need to do a bit more reporting..
Your point about celebrities is hard to follow, but it's worth noting that they can't use a copyrighted work to attract attention to their causes any more than anyone else can. They need a license to sing "Happy Birthday" like everyone else. [insert long, off topic rant here]
You're missing my point. The grandparent poster was claiming that Google News getting traffic meant Google was as well. But that doesn't make Google News innately commercial. As another example, think of the various non-profit organizations which are funded by commercial entities. Just become somewhere along the line some organization benefits indirectly doesn't make the whole thing tainted with being a commercial enterprise. I'm sorry if my celebrity example wasn't clear on that point.
You don't seriously think that the "educational use" exception covers every quotation from which some one might learn something, do you?
No. I never said anything of the kind. The point was that news is education. If Google News was including snippits of music, I don't think that could be claimed to be educational. But certainly snippits of news reports is educational. I agree that at least one reason for this exception was the realization that schools would possibly not be able to afford what they need in copyrighted works (and I kind of wonder why whole textbooks haven't fallen under this scope, seeing as how it'd please most everyone but the textbook makers), but the fair use rules don't actually state "for school use". It doesn't seem hard, to me, to argue that news is educational.
If AFP wants to use it's content to gain eyeballs and Google is taking the eyeballs away, AFP has been damaged.
That's a hard argument to make, though. That's basically claiming that people go to Google News to avoid going to AFP because the one paragraph snippit that Google News takes is sufficient. The truth is, Google News' largest conceivable negative effect on AFP's market is exposing said market's audience to many other papers and that audience reading those other papers instead of one with AFP articles. If people are going to Google News for news, then without Google News they'd probably choose a newspaper without AFP. And if they're using Google News as a gateway to news sites, then it's only improving AFP's market.
It'd help if you'd actually use the guidelines specified for valuing if a work is covered under fair use.
Quotes from US Code Title 17, 107:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
So, right away Google seems cleared. But, lets make it more clear since something like blatant plagiarism of a whole news paper would likely not be protected.
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Contrary to your claim, Google News isn't commercial. Your logic that a non-profit action attracts attention/money isn't relevant. By your logic no celebrity would have access to fair use since their non-profit statements would attract attention to them and conceivably make more money. The test is for if the work itself is commercial. Google News doesn't make money.
Second, Google News is for providing access to news. To claim news is uneducational in general is to ignore what news is. Now, if Google News started quoting from press releases by companies or one of the Government produced "news" releases, you'd have a much stronger argument. Such is propaganda and propaganda is not educational except in the general case that knowing what to look for it in propaganda.
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
The original was news as well.
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
Only the first paragraph is copied, normally, as well as a blurb picture. That's a relatively small part of most reports.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
This is the real crux that I think exhaunerates Google. Just like Slashdot or fark, Google News redirects to pages in a way that if anything *increases* the market for the work. It's unlikely I'd ever even see a fraction of the news papers listed on Google News if it weren't for Google. Google News doesn't replace all these news sites. It's a nexus for finding them.
The funniest part is that Google already does the same thing with their search page. They include a small blurb and a link to the original site. While the Google Cache is likely dice, from the perspective of ad revenue being the market provider, search engines in general haven't really been questioned before. Google News is merely a search engine specifically geared towards news. If Google News is commit some illegal act by linking to news stories and including a blurb then so are most store catalogs, search engines, and tons of databases of information (lots of things one makes are copyrighted, after all).
So, I sincerely fear for what such would mean.
No, for the same reason that Coca-Cola shouldn't be able to prevent McDonalds from selling Coke and Pepsi products. Coca-Cola can try all sorts of legal means to stop it, like not selling to them directly. But I question the legality of signing those they sell to to not resell to McDonalds. At least in the sale of copyrighted works, that'd not be legal as specified under First Sale Doctrine. Of course in this case there's no actual sale going on. The real issue, as others have stated, is the question of fair use.
To put it in simpler terms, do you not think fair use should exist? It's that which allows for things like reviews of products which almost certainly place some in a "bad light". If you want to argue that this isn't fair use, first read my post below.
Hackers will continue to try to keep hacking any DRM that pops up. That's what hackers do. If the fact that hackers exist is the limitation to legal online music, then there's no actual solution. When hackers do end up breaking a DRM scheme, it will increase sales, decrease sales, or have no effect on sales; with all the free illegally avaialble music I can't imagine how it would do anything but have no effect on sales or increase sales.
You seem to be saying that the answer to making more legal online music available is to *not* buy from them. That doesn't make sense. It's only through sales that any reasonable company can ascertain how viable a market is. Not buying DRMed music only helps to confirm fears/assumptions that legal online music is not viable. The same is true when a DRM scheme is cracked. But again, it's only through sales than any reasonable company can ascertain how viable a market is. It's insanity to bow down to quell the fears of companies like they're naive children.
Something you have (a key, a smartcard)
Something you know (a password, a PIN)
Something you are (a fingerprint, a voiceprint)
Each one has a failing, security wise, and it's different than the failings of the others.
With the various ways to record fingerprints and voiceprints and the high rate of social engineering of passwords/PINs, I'd say the truth is that all three securities are based on something you have. It's just how one goes about obtaining them. The sad truth is that most social engineering attacks will work just as successfully in N-factor authentication. Why? Because social engineering is about getting someone to authenticate against you.
The only way which I can think of to really secure the system is to have a challenge response that you know. So long as the challenge response is self-contained in the brain it becomes incredibly difficult to steal the challenge mechanism, trick someone into providing authentication for someone else's use, or being unaware that someone is trying to compromise your setup. Of course until we can all do at least a simple form of public/private key encryption in our brain we're fucked really.
You'd be more correct in saying "If you are making a *commercial* web page and you are not coding so that is renders correctly on IE you are a fool." It's hardly foolish to be obsessed with being absolutely sure that 85%, let alone 100%, of people view your personal web page. Personally, my web pages end up being so minimal that even bad rendering would at worst just make it look ugly. The whole point of the web is to display content. So long as content is out there and I'm not going out of my way to make pages render well in only brand X browser, I really don't care if any specific browser misrenders the page. When developing personal web space, I don't feel it my responsibility to include everyone. Of course, I guess my biggest reason for saying all this is because my web pages are so minimalistic that even lynx and dillo can display them well. So, it'd have to be a pretty fucked up browser to misrender my pages. As others have stated, it's the fucked up way in which IE handles pages that has slowed down any goals of mine in making any complex page for the concern it might not render properly in all sorts of browsers that a person might use which I cannot be goaded to check against just to not piss lots of people off.
That's like a mouse setting a mouse trap for itself.
You know, that's not such a bad idea.
<User moves mouse towards Internet Explorer icon>
*snap*
<Mouse and hand caught in mouse trap>
No kidding.
Yes, society sometimes must use taxes to enforce things that are considered beneficial for society as a _whole_. Yes, there might be people who do not _directly_ get a ROI on their money, but the idea is that on the whole you get more good than bad out of it.
Society is made up of people. Copyright is set at the life of the author + 75 years. Given that you have to be alive to copyright something (at least, as far as I'm aware) and that the average life expectance is sub-75 years, that means that anyone born at the time a copyrighted work is created will be dead prior to the copyrighted work being put into the public domain. Hence, there's a serious lacking in the claim it "benefits society" or is "limited times".
One of the benefits of a copyrighted work, after all, is the time when it returns to the public domain. The whole "limited time" is there for the work to be created in the first place. The fact is, we're currently at the point that if we were to decide today to put all copyrighted works in the public domain, by law, while enacting in the same legislation that such a mass conversion won't occur again for a "limited time" (to make clear the risk reduction of one's copyright hence forth being nullified arbitrarily), we'd be in the possession of a ton of works and wouldn't be in some massive "need" for new works.
Sure, new works would be great, and I'm sure they'd be made regardless. And I think that's the core issue. The foundation of the claim for the need for copyright is that without protection there would be few new works. Yet I'm very sure that if copyright were rescinded for all previous works and only allow for works past date X, we'd still see new works. Ie, even with massive amounts of "free" works out there, there'd still be people willing to dish out money for new works.
One main reason is that, at least for software, there's a group of dedicated people who already have access and knowledge to the code and could make the proper updates. Reverse engineering the binary into source then updating it as necessary is a rather large financial investment. Because of this, it's not financially feasible for everyone to do the work. In fact, it's very much the prisoners' dilemma*. So, as long as the original software company has copyright long enough to recoup the costs by mass purchases by industry (and if you'll notice, NT 4.0 and OS/2 machines are being pushed towards Windows 2k/XP Embedded in those industries which are normally slowest to change), there's little reason to believe that any company or group of companies will work together to reverse engineer an already working product.
Having said all that, I would have to state that there's clearly inefficiency to this whole model** anyways. At least for software, having every couple reinvent the wheel unnecessarily doesn't help things. Yes, it does mean less of a monoculture, but it's hard to disagree that a combination of cooperation and open forks tend towards the minimal amount of redundant work. And all work requires time. And time is money. So, the actual cost imposed upon everyone by copyright is much more than the direct taxation that government imposes.
Is society gaining a net sum now days?
*Linux, et al are the exception, if only because they were never proprietary in the first place and each company who wants to become involved for their own benefit only has to dedicate a small detachment to help tune the source to their own needs. Getting to the point of there being an actually working OS that's already out there (no company wants to just "give away" a *lot* of their hard work to the competition) is the rough hump.
**The Free Market is based on a form of self interest with limited resources. The problem, of course, is that software is a mostly intangible good with nearly zero cost to redistribute. The real main cost then is the fixed cost of production. In a system where there was no copyright, surely there would be companies that release encrypted binarie
If you mean it's sad that "reality TV" is so pervasive that a comment about reality blogs needs a mention of how it's different, then I'd agree. If you took the comment to mean that people don't have an understand of reality outside of "reality TV", I think you're misreading the explanation. It's designed to clarify a question that the submitter thinks will be asked.
What about extraditing public school children who have photos posted on the internet of them wearing crosses while in school to France (a stretch). Or maybe to Iran (slightly less of a stretch, I think)? I don't think as many people will care about Hefner being sent to Saudi Arabia for porn as will care about their children being extradited over religion.