> Rather you just need one example where the, so-called, liar diverges from it.
Lets say that that is a pretty low standard you are using there...
No 'evidence' or even suggestion of evicence is given to make clear that this is not a one of a kind mistake, if the person acts out of good faith or malice or such, and if what you represent has anything to do with the truth..
If that standard is acceptable to you, fine, makes life easy for sensationalists there where you live.
Hmm yes, I see.. you can tell out liars without knowing the truth maybe, but makign any convincing argument as to why they are liars without having an idea about the truth or something you can represent as such....
I have a conclusion... and now I'm gonna look for things that substantiate it, ignorign whatever conflicts with it...
That is in fact what you say they are doing (I do not know the program)
That is not a very good way to get a conclusion based on anything other then your beliefs.
When you are looking for Truth(tm), the first thing to learn is to recognize your own bias and get to know how it affects your perception of things (not that absolute truth exists.. or maybe it does, but I haven't heard of it yet.. yet you can try to look for it)
> I'm not against non-copylefted free software licenses. I think that programs licensed under them are a gift to everyone. Being a gift to everyone, there is a real risk that the developer and the free software community can suffer when a proprietor with superior advertising power makes a proprietary derivative and that derivative becomes accepted. A developer can end up competing against a derivative of their own code and the community can watch a proprietary incompatible modification make their version of the program functionally obsolete.
You see, that is where our difference lies, and where you do not seem to understand what many BSD developers seem to think.
They don't care if someoen does just what you described, and in fact Apple was very welcome to do so (that they made the result available with source is nice but not anything that was demanded in any way)
The simple difference is that for many who use the BSD license, it is a matter of making something to solve an issue for themselves, and simply not caring much for what others do with the result.
That is why while producing open source software, you will not find a strong care about it actually staying open when others do something with it, or for that matter about others taking a bit of it and making a binary only product that integrates nicely with it.
That Linus allowed the nVidia driver was with a specific explanation, and he has been far less willing to allow some other cases. It has to do with what you call a derivative work, and seeing how the nvidia driver doesn't exactly originate on the Linux platform, it is very difficult to consider it a derived work. The part that is a derived work is available under the gpl with source.
Btw, I am not endorsing one model over the other, merely pointing at an often occuring misconception.
Oh and in the BSD world you will also find people who care a lot about Freedom (Theo comes to mind), but you'll find that that freedom explicitly includes binary only derived works and binary only parts. They will often be unwillign to include those as standard part of the distribution, but that is another thing entirely.
Heh, after another post told about it running on some amd k6, I took a peek at what the official information says, and you are absolutely right.
The copy I have is a Dutch version including sp1, not that that should make a difference, but hrm, it does complain when trying to install on less then a ppro.
> But people need to realize that the drug laws don't work. When I was a teenager, it was MUCH easier to get a gram of weed than it ever was to buy a 6 pack of beer. I'm sure its still that way.
Heh, yeah.. criminals usually don't check your id... not to mention the fact that they very likely don't care about age restrictions anyway.. hmm, and of course there is this slight problem of age limits for soemthign that is illegal to begin with;P
> Here in Canada, there's a lot of talk about decriminalizing possession of small amounts of pot. I think the strategy is completely backwards though. They want to crack down on people growing their own, and ease up on people who purchase from the black market. The opposite would be much more effective: Make it legal to grow 1 or 2 plants in your own home, then increase the penalties if you're caught outside of your own home with *anything*.
Hmm, mght work..
I just know the somewhat hybrid and confusing ystem we ended up with in the Netherlands, and the system in Belgium which sounds a lot like what is being talked about in Canada from what I understand from you..
In the Netherlands, possession of small amounts is not considered a crime, and usage never is (it is your thing what you inject into yourself).
Trading and growing are the matters where things get seriously confusing.
First of all, there is a small amount of legal commercial growing of weed for medical purposes, but due to a variety of factors, a lot of that ends up not being sold.. they were discussing exporting it, but for now I don't see that happen.... hey mr. CHirac, wanna buy some pot? *lol*
Then, it is tolerated, but strictly spoken not legal to grow small amounts for your own usage.
Selling.... is tolerated within certain limits, and actually sortof legal... sortof because there is no legal way to obtain the pot, but if you managed to get it anyway and comply with a whole lot of regulations (no alcohol being sold in the same place, no selling to people below 18, not selling more then a certain amount per customer, and never having more then approx 10x the amount a person can carry around legally in stock)
So... you can have a place selling weed to users legally, but that place can never legally get the pot... kinda confusing isn't it?
At any rate... the way it works here is by actually having laws makign it illegal, and then suspending those laws for the time being. It means that no new law has to be made when this becomes a problem, you just don't implement it as logn as its not needed.
Of course, that concept in itself is confusing enough for most..
Well, before you are allowed to drive a car, you got to get that license... and follow some appropriate trainign and do an exam to get it.
So, in case of cars, peopel are simply forced to learn at least the basics for operating them.
I'm not arguing that the same should happen for computers, but pointing at the fact that when there is an actual safety risk, we do require peopel to follow some level of trainign before allowing them to operate certain devices.
Hence the comparison between computers and cars is flawed for now.
The comparison with microwaves and such is also flawed. A microware is a relatively simple to operate, dedicated device. It can do one or at most a few things, and seldom has the possibility for 'upgrades' or extentions.
A computer on the other hand is a general purpose device that is not capable of much on its own, and needs to be given specific instructions (in the form of software) about how to accomplish certain tasks. The capabilities of it depend on what is installed on it. It is also a relatively complex device to operate, it has more buttons then virtually any other device used by consumers, but most of all, it doesn't serve a clear purpose, rather it serves almost any purpose when you install appropriate software.
When looking at somewhat more complex microwaves, lets say, one with hot-air oven and grill built in that can be programmed to use its different functions in a specific order for a specific amount of time... my mother has one, and is clueless about how to operate it beyond using the muicrowave... and can stare in awe ar me putting ina simple program to defrost and then bake a pizza... It seems that this is already a step to complex for her at least...
Another interesting one is looking at how many people have a VCR and can play a tape on it.. I bet you'd end up with almost everyone around you... now go look at their VCRs and see if they show the nice flashing 12:00 or 0:00 or similar... how many of those people are actually able to program their video recorder?
Like many technically interested people, I have no problem with such things, but I learned to recognize that most users will only ever learn the few things they actually need or strongly want from a device, and will never bother to actually learn what the device can do for them and how.
If you make and sell a consumer device, you better keep that in mind unless you are aiming at the niche of the 'geek market' (which is a valid and often proffitable market).
> Of course, this being/. the answer is to move to Linux which doesnt have bugs and never needs updating....and they wonder why folks who know their stuff call them trolls.
People who know their stuff also know that in 1996 there already existed linux distributions that did not run any services by default. This might still be vulnerable to bugs in the ip stack for example, bur I am very sure it is possible to install some distributions from that time on a machine, not instalkl any vendor updates, leaving it on for a few days, and not get rooted.
Somehow my Slackware 3 CD allows me to install and then set a root password without ever bringing up ethernet or telnet.. all thanks to this magic thing called local console..
Of course not the oldest slackware out there, and I didn't use earlier versions myself...
I did use Snow in the pre linux 1.0 days tho, and there the situation was the same.
Interesting stuff, please enlighten us some more if you happen to have some links to related information.
What you say sounds rather plausable and I did hear it before. It came to gether with the claim that this would still be a much smaller problem due to it not staying radioactive for centuries to come, but I do not know if there is any tuth to that.
That may bring up one of the most important issues with nuclear power btw, people can more or less grasp the working and the dangers associated with fossil fuel, but can't with regards to nuclear power. Fear of the unknown is quite a human trait, not always such a good one, but one that is undoubtedly there for a reason.
Heh, was just thinking after reading some other replies that maybe my idea of what makes for 'copy protection' is a bit more specific then what many others think.
For me it amounts to fysical or logical means that prevent me from copying the media or its content.
Now, tagging obviously doesn't do that... but you are of course right that it can still be a form of protection, esp. when it is used to prevent pirated copies from working (ie, if there is a mechanism to make a tag invalid and have the software respond to that... but that leads into a whole new area of potential nastiness)
Without something like that tho, I'd say that all it provides is a forensic tool, not any form of protection.
AH well, seems a matter of definition.. jst to be clear, I completely agree that tagging alone is not causing a big problem (beyond being able to verify the integrity of the package, but that is solvable)
> I could go on and start ranting about how I am getting tired about the attitude by some people here that "copy protection always equals bad"
Well, except for that tagging or watermarking is not really any form of copy protections.. sorry for making a small off-topic comment there as reply to the parent who was talking about actual copy protection also..
The tagging inconveniences you only for as far as it prevents you from verifying the integrity of the package.
Again, the comments I made were about actual copy protection schemes like the one the grantparent was talking about (cd key etc)
I'd suggest to read posts in context, it helps understanding them.
> You're referring to Tchernobyl, aren't you? There are no such reactors operating in Western Europe and those in post-communist countries are being upgraded to meet modern standards.
And at least 2 of the remainign reactors of Tchernobyl are still being operated, and the state of the encasing of the damanged reactor is not such that it will still be standing a century from now.
Also, risk assesment does of course include the actual chance of somethign happening, which is small, and getting smaller and smaller as technology develops and old systems are being decommisioned.
The other side of it are the potential consequences, and those are enormous.
> The Tchernobyl catastrophe was caused by terrible negligence on the part of the reactor crew.
And a bad design that failed to contain the radioactive dust.
> Besides, the Western Europe is overracting even with Tchernobyl. Most probably more people are dying because of illnesses caused by car exhaust and industrial pollution then died because of Chernobyl.
And the relation is?
Fewer peopel are likely dying of the exhaust from the local gas driven powerplants then died from thcernobyl, which amkes for a much better comparison unless you are going to stick nuclear power into every car maybe.
Btw, I agree with regards to the car polution problem, but it is simply a seperate issue.
> And a large part of Tchernobyl deaths would have been avoided if the USSR didn't try, in a totally criminal and inhuman way, to cover up the scandal initially (they didn't evacuate people) and after that send soldiers to clean up without any substantial protection (they were cleaning up the debris with hand-held spades).
Which completely disregards the consequences this accident had for Europe's agricultural sector for example.
Tchernobyl caused a lot more damage then soem fatalities.
How many people are still being treated but didn't die yet from its consequences? How many peopel basicly lost all they had as a consequence? How much land in the USSR will be uninhabitable for decades to come? (luckily they have enough land there)
In other words, you look at one very specific type of damage it caused, and ignore most of the effects.
> With the advent of pellet fuel technology, the security will dramatically increase. We have a good, clean technology (nuclear power) and we're still smoking coal.
There are other, much cleaner alternatives without having to turn to nuclear power.
> It's drastically stupid. Whenever I hear such argumenting against nuclear power, I smell some 'Green' politicians counting votes and Greenpeace activists trying to get more funding.
Yeah, whatever. Whenever I hear the type of arguments you brign up, I start thinking about scientists utterly out of touch with reality.
> Wrong again. Only the person who lets their copy of their.tgz file out into the wilderness of P2P is going to be treated as a criminal.
Well, thanks for getting us back on topic completely... the watermarking that is being done here is not actually copy protection, it is a way to be able to indentify the source of copyright infringement. THe argument you responded to went a bit off-topic indeed and talked about copy-protection, which this watermarking idea is definitely not.
Btw, I don't mind the watermarking as long as there is a way for me to verify the integrity of such a package still.
> Drug laws: Because idiots can't handle themselves and commit crimes and such while using them or to gain use of them, recreational use of certain drugs is against the law. Similarly, the issue with alcohol and tobacco (of course, there are health issues and who has to pay the bills in there too).
Some countries deal differently with this particular issue. Despite popular belief, allowing certain recreational use does not result in more drug abuse, rather, it seems to cause better control over drug abuse because you can isolate it from recreational use a lot easier.
Examples of countries who permit recreational use of at least certain drugs are the Netherlands and Belgium.
In case of drug related laws, I'd suggest considering a change of law indeed to concentrate on abuse, and leave recreational use alone.
Its not like current laws are preventing anything, they just make sure that recreational users do have to deal with criminals if they want their pot or whatever, increasing the actual risk of abuse.
> Gun laws: Because idiots use them to commit crimes, people who have legitimate recreational uses for guns (target shooting, hunting, etc.) are penalized.
I do see why you'd want to keep track of potentially dangerous items while allowing their use for specific purposes. It seems to me that gun control laws actually serve a purpose (we can argue about their implementation tho)
> Speeding: Because there are folks who refuse to admit that they don't know how to drive fast (and therefore speed and cause accidents), there are laws that penalize us all. (Yes, I know that there are more complex decisions that go into traffic speed laws, but this is an example.)
Because most people do not know how to drive fast, this rule seems to serve a practical purpose. You should consider however that there are countries out there which do not impose speed limits on part of their roads. The results of that seem to suggest that in certain cases that isn't a problem for safety, on many cases it is. Germany is an example of such a country.
The argument of having the majority pay for some fools might hold in cases where the measures are actually acomplishing something, but imho they do not in case of copy protection, and neither do they in at least one of the examples you gave.
> I'd say that copyright protections do hamper casual copying of games, for those individuals who WOULD copy it but aren't technical to figure out workarounds by themselves.
I know that this line of reasoning is often used, and at first glance it really makes sense.
What it ignores is the following:
Whenever someoen puts up a method to prevent copying, there are people who find reason to circumvent it, not just to the point of being able to copy the original (game) itself, but going as far as providing a version without the copy protection or creating a program that will fool the copy protection.
In either case, the non technical user can now make copies of existing (illegal) copies without needing more knowledge then clicking 'copy' in Nero or whatever CD writer tool they happen to use.
This has been true since the early 80s at least, and I do not see anythign havign changed there in the almost quarter century since.
So no, it does not prevent non-technical people from copying the games or other software, but it does stop those who want to make a legitimate backup copy and don't want to get into illegal activity alltogether.
> But lets face it, Gentoo users are more than technical enough to pirate anything if they really want to.
Well... being a good unix administrator will do fine for setting up and usign Gentoo, but in many cases you need to be a somewhat decent 'hacker' in order to circumvent copy protection.. its not the same set of skills (there are quite a few peopel who happen to have both tho)
Hey... you propose something that makes sense and woudl actually solve something... We'll have to disqualify you, with such peopel we cannot have pointless eternal discussions.
> And furthermore, it seems to me that fusion research in the EU is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that people here instinctively equate all nuclear power with dangerous, radioactive evil.
Just some small little sidenotes...
First of all, a substantial part of the electricity in EUrope is generated using nuclear power, especially in France.
Second, people here know quite well that fusion is not having the same issues with redioactive waste as more traditional forms of nuclear power
Third and last, people in EUrope have good reason to be wary of nuclear power. Have you seen and felt the effects of a big nuclear accident? most of Europe did, they KNOW what they fear, a nuclear accident is not an unlikely theoretical possibility, it has becoem reality in a rather prominent way already.
Then, just try to imagine what it is to take all the population of the USA, add soem 50% to it, and then sqeeze it onto a landmass 1/5th of the USA. You will get a lot closer to the population density that EUrope has to deal with, and with that population density, spots where you can put up a nuclear powerplant safely are rather limited really.
> Wrong, And even if they are defeated you will find that the goal of this security method is to deter piracy, not to prevent it.
ANd while I know that that is the idea, the idea is wrong and flawed.
What happens in reality is that piracy is not stopped, those interested in a pirated copy can still easily get it, while the legitimate and paying user is bothered, treated like a soon to be criminal, and that legitimate uses of the software are at times prevented.
So, original poster is right, it is completely and utterly ineffective, and in fact does more damage then that it does good.
Slashdot Mirror
> Rather you just need one example where the, so-called, liar diverges from it.
Lets say that that is a pretty low standard you are using there...
No 'evidence' or even suggestion of evicence is given to make clear that this is not a one of a kind mistake, if the person acts out of good faith or malice or such, and if what you represent has anything to do with the truth..
If that standard is acceptable to you, fine, makes life easy for sensationalists there where you live.
Hmm yes, I see.. you can tell out liars without knowing the truth maybe, but makign any convincing argument as to why they are liars without having an idea about the truth or something you can represent as such....
I have a conclusion... and now I'm gonna look for things that substantiate it, ignorign whatever conflicts with it...
That is in fact what you say they are doing (I do not know the program)
That is not a very good way to get a conclusion based on anything other then your beliefs.
When you are looking for Truth(tm), the first thing to learn is to recognize your own bias and get to know how it affects your perception of things (not that absolute truth exists.. or maybe it does, but I haven't heard of it yet.. yet you can try to look for it)
> I'm not against non-copylefted free software licenses. I think that programs licensed under them are a gift to everyone. Being a gift to everyone, there is a real risk that the developer and the free software community can suffer when a proprietor with superior advertising power makes a proprietary derivative and that derivative becomes accepted. A developer can end up competing against a derivative of their own code and the community can watch a proprietary incompatible modification make their version of the program functionally obsolete.
You see, that is where our difference lies, and where you do not seem to understand what many BSD developers seem to think.
They don't care if someoen does just what you described, and in fact Apple was very welcome to do so (that they made the result available with source is nice but not anything that was demanded in any way)
The simple difference is that for many who use the BSD license, it is a matter of making something to solve an issue for themselves, and simply not caring much for what others do with the result.
That is why while producing open source software, you will not find a strong care about it actually staying open when others do something with it, or for that matter about others taking a bit of it and making a binary only product that integrates nicely with it.
That Linus allowed the nVidia driver was with a specific explanation, and he has been far less willing to allow some other cases. It has to do with what you call a derivative work, and seeing how the nvidia driver doesn't exactly originate on the Linux platform, it is very difficult to consider it a derived work. The part that is a derived work is available under the gpl with source.
Btw, I am not endorsing one model over the other, merely pointing at an often occuring misconception.
Oh and in the BSD world you will also find people who care a lot about Freedom (Theo comes to mind), but you'll find that that freedom explicitly includes binary only derived works and binary only parts. They will often be unwillign to include those as standard part of the distribution, but that is another thing entirely.
Heh, after another post told about it running on some amd k6, I took a peek at what the official information says, and you are absolutely right.
The copy I have is a Dutch version including sp1, not that that should make a difference, but hrm, it does complain when trying to install on less then a ppro.
Ah well, I don't use it anyway.
Hmm, it includes sp1... could that be the problem? dono.. when trying to install it on an old p200 here, it fails complaining it needs 686 class cpu.
Not that I want to run it ont hat machine anyway (actually, trying to take the machien out of use)
> This is getting pretty OT. ;) ;)
;P
> But people need to realize that the drug laws don't work. When I was a teenager, it was MUCH easier to get a gram of weed than it ever was to buy a 6 pack of beer. I'm sure its still that way.
Heh, yeah.. criminals usually don't check your id... not to mention the fact that they very likely don't care about age restrictions anyway.. hmm, and of course there is this slight problem of age limits for soemthign that is illegal to begin with
> Here in Canada, there's a lot of talk about decriminalizing possession of small amounts of pot. I think the strategy is completely backwards though. They want to crack down on people growing their own, and ease up on people who purchase from the black market. The opposite would be much more effective: Make it legal to grow 1 or 2 plants in your own home, then increase the penalties if you're caught outside of your own home with *anything*.
Hmm, mght work..
I just know the somewhat hybrid and confusing ystem we ended up with in the Netherlands, and the system in Belgium which sounds a lot like what is being talked about in Canada from what I understand from you..
In the Netherlands, possession of small amounts is not considered a crime, and usage never is (it is your thing what you inject into yourself).
Trading and growing are the matters where things get seriously confusing.
First of all, there is a small amount of legal commercial growing of weed for medical purposes, but due to a variety of factors, a lot of that ends up not being sold.. they were discussing exporting it, but for now I don't see that happen.... hey mr. CHirac, wanna buy some pot? *lol*
Then, it is tolerated, but strictly spoken not legal to grow small amounts for your own usage.
Selling.... is tolerated within certain limits, and actually sortof legal... sortof because there is no legal way to obtain the pot, but if you managed to get it anyway and comply with a whole lot of regulations (no alcohol being sold in the same place, no selling to people below 18, not selling more then a certain amount per customer, and never having more then approx 10x the amount a person can carry around legally in stock)
So... you can have a place selling weed to users legally, but that place can never legally get the pot... kinda confusing isn't it?
At any rate... the way it works here is by actually having laws makign it illegal, and then suspending those laws for the time being. It means that no new law has to be made when this becomes a problem, you just don't implement it as logn as its not needed.
Of course, that concept in itself is confusing enough for most..
> No, because in the US you'd have 50 states competing to NOT have it in their backyard.
*lol*
Good thing theres some territory there thats just not being called a state... or do they compete in the fight to not have it as well?
Well, before you are allowed to drive a car, you got to get that license... and follow some appropriate trainign and do an exam to get it.
So, in case of cars, peopel are simply forced to learn at least the basics for operating them.
I'm not arguing that the same should happen for computers, but pointing at the fact that when there is an actual safety risk, we do require peopel to follow some level of trainign before allowing them to operate certain devices.
Hence the comparison between computers and cars is flawed for now.
The comparison with microwaves and such is also flawed. A microware is a relatively simple to operate, dedicated device. It can do one or at most a few things, and seldom has the possibility for 'upgrades' or extentions.
A computer on the other hand is a general purpose device that is not capable of much on its own, and needs to be given specific instructions (in the form of software) about how to accomplish certain tasks. The capabilities of it depend on what is installed on it. It is also a relatively complex device to operate, it has more buttons then virtually any other device used by consumers, but most of all, it doesn't serve a clear purpose, rather it serves almost any purpose when you install appropriate software.
When looking at somewhat more complex microwaves, lets say, one with hot-air oven and grill built in that can be programmed to use its different functions in a specific order for a specific amount of time... my mother has one, and is clueless about how to operate it beyond using the muicrowave... and can stare in awe ar me putting ina simple program to defrost and then bake a pizza... It seems that this is already a step to complex for her at least...
Another interesting one is looking at how many people have a VCR and can play a tape on it.. I bet you'd end up with almost everyone around you... now go look at their VCRs and see if they show the nice flashing 12:00 or 0:00 or similar... how many of those people are actually able to program their video recorder?
Like many technically interested people, I have no problem with such things, but I learned to recognize that most users will only ever learn the few things they actually need or strongly want from a device, and will never bother to actually learn what the device can do for them and how.
If you make and sell a consumer device, you better keep that in mind unless you are aiming at the niche of the 'geek market' (which is a valid and often proffitable market).
> I ran Windows 2000 Professional just fine on a similar laptop that was a Pentium 200MHz with 96MB of RAM.
Interesting... the Win2k copy I have here refuses to work on anything below a pentium-pro...
I'd bet their netstat is derived from BSD just like their ftp client is/was..
Usefull indeed... has been there for quite a few versions of windows now also.
> Of course, this being /. the answer is to move to Linux which doesnt have bugs and never needs updating....and they wonder why folks who know their stuff call them trolls.
People who know their stuff also know that in 1996 there already existed linux distributions that did not run any services by default. This might still be vulnerable to bugs in the ip stack for example, bur I am very sure it is possible to install some distributions from that time on a machine, not instalkl any vendor updates, leaving it on for a few days, and not get rooted.
Somehow my Slackware 3 CD allows me to install and then set a root password without ever bringing up ethernet or telnet.. all thanks to this magic thing called local console..
Of course not the oldest slackware out there, and I didn't use earlier versions myself...
I did use Snow in the pre linux 1.0 days tho, and there the situation was the same.
Interesting stuff, please enlighten us some more if you happen to have some links to related information.
What you say sounds rather plausable and I did hear it before. It came to gether with the claim that this would still be a much smaller problem due to it not staying radioactive for centuries to come, but I do not know if there is any tuth to that.
That may bring up one of the most important issues with nuclear power btw, people can more or less grasp the working and the dangers associated with fossil fuel, but can't with regards to nuclear power. Fear of the unknown is quite a human trait, not always such a good one, but one that is undoubtedly there for a reason.
Heh, was just thinking after reading some other replies that maybe my idea of what makes for 'copy protection' is a bit more specific then what many others think.
For me it amounts to fysical or logical means that prevent me from copying the media or its content.
Now, tagging obviously doesn't do that... but you are of course right that it can still be a form of protection, esp. when it is used to prevent pirated copies from working (ie, if there is a mechanism to make a tag invalid and have the software respond to that... but that leads into a whole new area of potential nastiness)
Without something like that tho, I'd say that all it provides is a forensic tool, not any form of protection.
AH well, seems a matter of definition.. jst to be clear, I completely agree that tagging alone is not causing a big problem (beyond being able to verify the integrity of the package, but that is solvable)
Not judging their actual technical implementation, but this is kinda what ID/Grey matter/Activision did with the multiplayer version of RTCW
In that case it was simple... allow each key only once at the 'master server' for online gaming.
The nice result is that the one who gets hurt most by copying is the person who gives out the key.
> I could go on and start ranting about how I am getting tired about the attitude by some people here that "copy protection always equals bad"
Well, except for that tagging or watermarking is not really any form of copy protections.. sorry for making a small off-topic comment there as reply to the parent who was talking about actual copy protection also..
The tagging inconveniences you only for as far as it prevents you from verifying the integrity of the package.
Again, the comments I made were about actual copy protection schemes like the one the grantparent was talking about (cd key etc)
I'd suggest to read posts in context, it helps understanding them.
> You're referring to Tchernobyl, aren't you? There are no such reactors operating in Western Europe and those in post-communist countries are being upgraded to meet modern standards.
And at least 2 of the remainign reactors of Tchernobyl are still being operated, and the state of the encasing of the damanged reactor is not such that it will still be standing a century from now.
Also, risk assesment does of course include the actual chance of somethign happening, which is small, and getting smaller and smaller as technology develops and old systems are being decommisioned.
The other side of it are the potential consequences, and those are enormous.
> The Tchernobyl catastrophe was caused by terrible negligence on the part of the reactor crew.
And a bad design that failed to contain the radioactive dust.
> Besides, the Western Europe is overracting even with Tchernobyl. Most probably more people are dying because of illnesses caused by car exhaust and industrial pollution then died because of Chernobyl.
And the relation is?
Fewer peopel are likely dying of the exhaust from the local gas driven powerplants then died from thcernobyl, which amkes for a much better comparison unless you are going to stick nuclear power into every car maybe.
Btw, I agree with regards to the car polution problem, but it is simply a seperate issue.
> And a large part of Tchernobyl deaths would have been avoided if the USSR didn't try, in a totally criminal and inhuman way, to cover up the scandal initially (they didn't evacuate people) and after that send soldiers to clean up without any substantial protection (they were cleaning up the debris with hand-held spades).
Which completely disregards the consequences this accident had for Europe's agricultural sector for example.
Tchernobyl caused a lot more damage then soem fatalities.
How many people are still being treated but didn't die yet from its consequences? How many peopel basicly lost all they had as a consequence? How much land in the USSR will be uninhabitable for decades to come? (luckily they have enough land there)
In other words, you look at one very specific type of damage it caused, and ignore most of the effects.
> With the advent of pellet fuel technology, the security will dramatically increase. We have a good, clean technology (nuclear power) and we're still smoking coal.
There are other, much cleaner alternatives without having to turn to nuclear power.
> It's drastically stupid. Whenever I hear such argumenting against nuclear power, I smell some 'Green' politicians counting votes and Greenpeace activists trying to get more funding.
Yeah, whatever.
Whenever I hear the type of arguments you brign up, I start thinking about scientists utterly out of touch with reality.
> Wrong again. Only the person who lets their copy of their .tgz file out into the wilderness of P2P is going to be treated as a criminal.
Well, thanks for getting us back on topic completely... the watermarking that is being done here is not actually copy protection, it is a way to be able to indentify the source of copyright infringement. THe argument you responded to went a bit off-topic indeed and talked about copy-protection, which this watermarking idea is definitely not.
Btw, I don't mind the watermarking as long as there is a way for me to verify the integrity of such a package still.
> Drug laws: Because idiots can't handle themselves and commit crimes and such while using them or to gain use of them, recreational use of certain drugs is against the law. Similarly, the issue with alcohol and tobacco (of course, there are health issues and who has to pay the bills in there too).
Some countries deal differently with this particular issue. Despite popular belief, allowing certain recreational use does not result in more drug abuse, rather, it seems to cause better control over drug abuse because you can isolate it from recreational use a lot easier.
Examples of countries who permit recreational use of at least certain drugs are the Netherlands and Belgium.
In case of drug related laws, I'd suggest considering a change of law indeed to concentrate on abuse, and leave recreational use alone.
Its not like current laws are preventing anything, they just make sure that recreational users do have to deal with criminals if they want their pot or whatever, increasing the actual risk of abuse.
> Gun laws: Because idiots use them to commit crimes, people who have legitimate recreational uses for guns (target shooting, hunting, etc.) are penalized.
I do see why you'd want to keep track of potentially dangerous items while allowing their use for specific purposes. It seems to me that gun control laws actually serve a purpose (we can argue about their implementation tho)
> Speeding: Because there are folks who refuse to admit that they don't know how to drive fast (and therefore speed and cause accidents), there are laws that penalize us all. (Yes, I know that there are more complex decisions that go into traffic speed laws, but this is an example.)
Because most people do not know how to drive fast, this rule seems to serve a practical purpose. You should consider however that there are countries out there which do not impose speed limits on part of their roads. The results of that seem to suggest that in certain cases that isn't a problem for safety, on many cases it is. Germany is an example of such a country.
The argument of having the majority pay for some fools might hold in cases where the measures are actually acomplishing something, but imho they do not in case of copy protection, and neither do they in at least one of the examples you gave.
> I'd say that copyright protections do hamper casual copying of games, for those individuals who WOULD copy it but aren't technical to figure out workarounds by themselves.
I know that this line of reasoning is often used, and at first glance it really makes sense.
What it ignores is the following:
Whenever someoen puts up a method to prevent copying, there are people who find reason to circumvent it, not just to the point of being able to copy the original (game) itself, but going as far as providing a version without the copy protection or creating a program that will fool the copy protection.
In either case, the non technical user can now make copies of existing (illegal) copies without needing more knowledge then clicking 'copy' in Nero or whatever CD writer tool they happen to use.
This has been true since the early 80s at least, and I do not see anythign havign changed there in the almost quarter century since.
So no, it does not prevent non-technical people from copying the games or other software, but it does stop those who want to make a legitimate backup copy and don't want to get into illegal activity alltogether.
> But lets face it, Gentoo users are more than technical enough to pirate anything if they really want to.
Well... being a good unix administrator will do fine for setting up and usign Gentoo, but in many cases you need to be a somewhat decent 'hacker' in order to circumvent copy protection.. its not the same set of skills (there are quite a few peopel who happen to have both tho)
Hey... you propose something that makes sense and woudl actually solve something... We'll have to disqualify you, with such peopel we cannot have pointless eternal discussions.
> And furthermore, it seems to me that fusion research in the EU is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that people here instinctively equate all nuclear power with dangerous, radioactive evil.
Just some small little sidenotes...
First of all, a substantial part of the electricity in EUrope is generated using nuclear power, especially in France.
Second, people here know quite well that fusion is not having the same issues with redioactive waste as more traditional forms of nuclear power
Third and last, people in EUrope have good reason to be wary of nuclear power. Have you seen and felt the effects of a big nuclear accident? most of Europe did, they KNOW what they fear, a nuclear accident is not an unlikely theoretical possibility, it has becoem reality in a rather prominent way already.
Then, just try to imagine what it is to take all the population of the USA, add soem 50% to it, and then sqeeze it onto a landmass 1/5th of the USA. You will get a lot closer to the population density that EUrope has to deal with, and with that population density, spots where you can put up a nuclear powerplant safely are rather limited really.
> It is obvious that they are not interested in the science and simply want to be able to say "look what we have".
Hmm, and the USA would never ever do that eh?
> Wrong, And even if they are defeated you will find that the goal of this security method is to deter piracy, not to prevent it.
ANd while I know that that is the idea, the idea is wrong and flawed.
What happens in reality is that piracy is not stopped, those interested in a pirated copy can still easily get it, while the legitimate and paying user is bothered, treated like a soon to be criminal, and that legitimate uses of the software are at times prevented.
So, original poster is right, it is completely and utterly ineffective, and in fact does more damage then that it does good.