Many companies that displayed these kind of alerts have no need to install a DRM driver...the software is self-protecting, if it's copy protected at all.
I think the vast majority of CDs that asked for autorun did it to lower support costs. Telling Joe Average to type d:\setup.exe is harder than you might expect. What if he types a forward slash? What if the CD-ROM drive is not drive D? If you recommend turning autorun on, the current CD (and all future CDs the manufacturer sells) will automagically run the setup program, meaning fewer support calls in the future.
It may have been pre-meditated, but I don't believe that the majority of companies were doing it to screw the customer.
It seemed as if Windows applied some heuristic to guess what it was I wanted to do and did that instead of what I told it to do, often without asking me first.
Get off your high horses: piracy is illegal and wrong.
True, but the trick is fairly defining "piracy." I, for one, think that the current normal behavior among copyright owners is unacceptable. If they are getting the benefit of a monopoly, they need to hold up their end of the bargain and ensure the works become freely available when copyright expires. If the public doesn't benefit from contributions to the public domain after a reasonable time, then it is the content providers who are pirates.
Disclaimer: Like many other readers, I work in IT, though not in network administration or anything similar.
Researchers can no longer use their computers as web servers.
Most researchers I know don't have the technical knowledge to run any web server, let alone a secure one, and they have no desire to learn. Even if they did, the web is a different place today than it was in the early 90's. When the web was started at CERN, the Internet was still a relatively closed network, where people behaved themselves because it was the polite thing to do. These days, worms, crackers, and script kiddies are run rampant, and having computers with open ports, combined with people who don't know how to secure themselves, is a significant problem.
Now all has to go through controlled centralized machines, run the administrators.
There are significant advantages to centrally controlled machines. They can be optimized and tuned for web serving; they handle unusual loads better; they can be backed up centrally; they are cheaper to maintain and more secure because IT staff can be hired to monitor them 24/7. What is the downside?
Even simple e-mail exchange from computer to computer no longer work. Now we need mail exchangers, which again are centralized controlled systems.
Blame spammers. These days, major universities are getting blacklisted for spam. Imagine the potential problems if instead of locking down one mail server, the IT department had to lock down thousands.
Of course the administrators love to point out that this is all a matter of policies and security. Policies made by the administrators and security problems cause by the administors' insecure Microsoft Windows systems.
Of course it is. IT staff don't tell researchers how to do their work, because they understand that is not their function, and researchers are far better equipped to gather and analyze data than IT. Similarly, I don't see why researchers can't show some understanding for the IT department, which is trying to protect them and their research from the very real problems on the Internet that didn't exist ten years ago.
It gets worse. Not only do such centralized gatekeepers limit our freedom as researchers,
How? I'd honestly like to know. I can't think of a single instance where a legitimate research project or any accompanying data has been censored by IT. What would be the motivation for doing this, anyway?
they also cost money. A lot of money, which is deducted from the research budgets.
If you were using your own resources, you'd be spending about as much money for the servers. You would also need to strongly consider hiring a system administrator, because if the university gets sued because your personal desktop web server is part of a botnet, guess where the settlement money is going to come from? Why not have all the research departments consolidate their system administrators so they can work together to solve problems and allow researchers to focus at what they're best at?
The Internet is changing, no doubt. It is happening in Europe, the US, Asia, all over the world.
Yes, and that change is the cause of the problem, not the symptom.
If you're buying a "used" Win98 license (which is no longer supported, right?), then it is *DEFINITLY* not in "as good of condition" as it was "new"
See, the difference between software and cars is that cars start new and accumulate problems; software starts with problems and (theoretically) gets better over time.
When it gets down to it, couldn't vulnerabilities be analogous to dents and dings (or major engine trouble)?
Sure, if the car manufacturer sold you the car new with the dents and dings already included, but hidden with surface paint.
If a physical store made me sign a contract that I would ask them permission before playing the music I purchased, would only play it using the store's brand of (expensive) music player, and went out of their way to make the music not work every few months on the music player I choose to use, I most certainly would not "be happy to go there again and again."
I don't mean to criticize you or accuse you of doing this, but I have avoided Wikalong because it would make it trivially easy for you to compile an incredibly detailed browsing history of me. I'm not sure what you could do to alleviate that caution, but I thought I'd bring it up in case you had any other ideas as good as Wikalong:)
Again, this is not a personal criticism - just a general one. As a Slashdotter, you understand the concept of "tin-foil hat", right?
Yeah, I worded that badly. My apologies. I still think it's telling that the one person willing to face Goliath was not a "professional" soldier but a shepard.
I sure don't want my music collection to become obsolete instantly if I forget to pay a bill.
Actually, as strongly and vehemently as I oppose digital restrictions management, I don't think I have a problem with it in that one, specific instance. If you're essentially renting me your jukebox for some period of time, and you're clear that if you don't pay, you'll take it away, that's fine.
My only concern with that idea is the possible day that it becomes impossible to purchase, only rent. That means we lose stuff that might otherwise enter the public domain in my grandchildrens' lifetime.
The God of the Bible is often portrayed not as taking action himself, but instead by working through others. Some examples off the top of my head:
1. Moses parts the sea with his staff. It doesn't just part when the Israelites approach it. Same with the water from the rock. 2. God doesn't strike Goliath down; he gives an untrained shepard the ability to do it with a slingshot. 3. David isn't protected by a forcefield or some other visible miracle when Saul is trying to kill him; he is hidden by friends and relatives. 4. Jonah has to be thrown into the ocean before being swallowed by the big fish.
Given these, I don't think it's inconsistent to believe that the Bible was written down by man at God's direction.
While that may be an ethical thing to do, the fact is that (at least in the U.S.) that's still a computer crime, and if the server owner happens to be a nutcase, you can get the same penalty as the guy who cracked it first.
Re:Google, Books and the internet..
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
...the only people who have so far objected are people who make their living marketing and distributing books, because they are afraid that their position is in jeopardy.
I do not make my living marketing or distributing books. I therefore have no reason to be afraid that my position is in jeopardy.
I object.
Re:Google, Books and the internet..
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
I imagine if Google print takes off some publishers might implement standardized tag in the text of the book to automate this request. An excellent idea. I propose that it read as follows (*grabs a book at random from the bookshelf behind him*): "No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, or stored in a database or retrieval system, or transmitted or distributed in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher."
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
Those quotes say the copies must be made by "employees," not "agents." Copyright law tends to make a distinction in other places, and I believe it's reasonable to extend that distinction here.
Additionally, the law says the single digital copy must only be available on the premises of the library or archive. Since Google is not a library, and is not the entity in "lawful posession" of the copy (the library is), they shouldn't have the right to distribute the material at all. Your argument that it provides an off-site backup is irrelevant because the law specifically prohibits this.
Finally, unless Google is going against their established practices, there will be more than one copy on Google's cluster of servers. The law says "no more than one copy". I don't think this is a "backup copy" as exempted by law, since both copies will presumably be accessed equally. Even if it is, if Google makes even one more copy (which they do, if the paper on the Google File System is any indication), they are then in violation of the "backup copy" restrictions.
IANAL, of course, so this can be twisted to suit whoever has the most money in the case.
I hope you don't consider me "too stupid to exist" after you read my response.
I go to the public library. I read a *LOT* of books. I now decide to publish a newsletter of my book reviews...That is *fair use*.
You make a reasonable argument about this hypothetical newsletter. Your newsletter would presumably include some kind of rating, a little commentary about the author's writing style and the substance of the plot, and so forth. You would be using the "snippets" from the books to supplement content you created (which is the point of copyright law - to encourage creation of works).
The problem with your analogy is that Google is not proposing reviewing the books. They are not adding any content of worth to the book. The entire value of the web page they serve with the snippets, in fact, is the words from the book. I believe that by this reasoning, they do not qualify for fair use because they are not providing news reporting, commentary, or the other protected means of fair use.
There are other reasons I oppose what Google's doing as well. Whether Google "knows better" than the publishers or not is irrelevant. If the publishers don't want to release their books like this, they shouldn't have to - just like the movie studios don't have to release tapes or DVDs if they don't want to.
When I consider the publishing industry and Google in this scenario, I can't help but see the publishing industry as the victims and Google as the aggressors. I feel that if Google were to switch to opt-in, which is essentially all anybody is asking of them, economic pressure from the publishers that do "get it" will eventually push a majority of them to make their books available.
Companies these days have lost perspective. Happy customers == profit, and it's a lot easier (and much more fun) to make your customers happy than forcibly extract cash from them.
On the other hand, they are giving publishers a way to opt out, so it's perhaps not as bad as you make it seem.
That's precisely what the problem is. Everybody would think this was an incredibly cool service, and there would be little, if any, controversy, if this program was opt-in. Amazon.com has been scanning entire books to enable searching for years, and nobody cares because the publishers grant permission, not the other way around.
Microsoft has made so many mistakes at the past, that they've lost the trust of customers. To regain that trust, they need to make a number of correct decisions in a row. Keep in mind that even more people distrust Microsoft than complain about the quality of their software, so even if they stop making "mistakes," they still need to work to re-gain customer goodwill.
Slashdot Mirror
Many companies that displayed these kind of alerts have no need to install a DRM driver...the software is self-protecting, if it's copy protected at all.
I think the vast majority of CDs that asked for autorun did it to lower support costs. Telling Joe Average to type d:\setup.exe is harder than you might expect. What if he types a forward slash? What if the CD-ROM drive is not drive D? If you recommend turning autorun on, the current CD (and all future CDs the manufacturer sells) will automagically run the setup program, meaning fewer support calls in the future.
It may have been pre-meditated, but I don't believe that the majority of companies were doing it to screw the customer.
It seemed as if Windows applied some heuristic to guess what it was I wanted to do and did that instead of what I told it to do, often without asking me first.
So you discovered Clippy?
Get off your high horses: piracy is illegal and wrong.
True, but the trick is fairly defining "piracy." I, for one, think that the current normal behavior among copyright owners is unacceptable. If they are getting the benefit of a monopoly, they need to hold up their end of the bargain and ensure the works become freely available when copyright expires. If the public doesn't benefit from contributions to the public domain after a reasonable time, then it is the content providers who are pirates.
Wouldn't a search warrant be needed to search the searches made using the search engine?
Bern time is based off of Greenwich time, so it doesn't matter much anyway
Bern is one hour ahead of GMT.
Disclaimer: Like many other readers, I work in IT, though not in network administration or anything similar.
Researchers can no longer use their computers as web servers.
Most researchers I know don't have the technical knowledge to run any web server, let alone a secure one, and they have no desire to learn. Even if they did, the web is a different place today than it was in the early 90's. When the web was started at CERN, the Internet was still a relatively closed network, where people behaved themselves because it was the polite thing to do. These days, worms, crackers, and script kiddies are run rampant, and having computers with open ports, combined with people who don't know how to secure themselves, is a significant problem.
Now all has to go through controlled centralized machines, run the administrators.
There are significant advantages to centrally controlled machines. They can be optimized and tuned for web serving; they handle unusual loads better; they can be backed up centrally; they are cheaper to maintain and more secure because IT staff can be hired to monitor them 24/7. What is the downside?
Even simple e-mail exchange from computer to computer no longer work. Now we need mail exchangers, which again are centralized controlled systems.
Blame spammers. These days, major universities are getting blacklisted for spam. Imagine the potential problems if instead of locking down one mail server, the IT department had to lock down thousands.
Of course the administrators love to point out that this is all a matter of policies and security. Policies made by the administrators and security problems cause by the administors' insecure Microsoft Windows systems.
Of course it is. IT staff don't tell researchers how to do their work, because they understand that is not their function, and researchers are far better equipped to gather and analyze data than IT. Similarly, I don't see why researchers can't show some understanding for the IT department, which is trying to protect them and their research from the very real problems on the Internet that didn't exist ten years ago.
It gets worse. Not only do such centralized gatekeepers limit our freedom as researchers,
How? I'd honestly like to know. I can't think of a single instance where a legitimate research project or any accompanying data has been censored by IT. What would be the motivation for doing this, anyway?
they also cost money. A lot of money, which is deducted from the research budgets.
If you were using your own resources, you'd be spending about as much money for the servers. You would also need to strongly consider hiring a system administrator, because if the university gets sued because your personal desktop web server is part of a botnet, guess where the settlement money is going to come from? Why not have all the research departments consolidate their system administrators so they can work together to solve problems and allow researchers to focus at what they're best at?
The Internet is changing, no doubt. It is happening in Europe, the US, Asia, all over the world.
Yes, and that change is the cause of the problem, not the symptom.
Given the current political climate, I would politely decline the medal.
If you're buying a "used" Win98 license (which is no longer supported, right?), then it is *DEFINITLY* not in "as good of condition" as it was "new"
See, the difference between software and cars is that cars start new and accumulate problems; software starts with problems and (theoretically) gets better over time.
When it gets down to it, couldn't vulnerabilities be analogous to dents and dings (or major engine trouble)?
Sure, if the car manufacturer sold you the car new with the dents and dings already included, but hidden with surface paint.
Or until iTunes is upgraded to the newest version.
If a physical store made me sign a contract that I would ask them permission before playing the music I purchased, would only play it using the store's brand of (expensive) music player, and went out of their way to make the music not work every few months on the music player I choose to use, I most certainly would not "be happy to go there again and again."
I don't mean to criticize you or accuse you of doing this, but I have avoided Wikalong because it would make it trivially easy for you to compile an incredibly detailed browsing history of me. I'm not sure what you could do to alleviate that caution, but I thought I'd bring it up in case you had any other ideas as good as Wikalong :)
Again, this is not a personal criticism - just a general one. As a Slashdotter, you understand the concept of "tin-foil hat", right?
Yeah, I worded that badly. My apologies. I still think it's telling that the one person willing to face Goliath was not a "professional" soldier but a shepard.
I sure don't want my music collection to become obsolete instantly if I forget to pay a bill.
Actually, as strongly and vehemently as I oppose digital restrictions management, I don't think I have a problem with it in that one, specific instance. If you're essentially renting me your jukebox for some period of time, and you're clear that if you don't pay, you'll take it away, that's fine.
My only concern with that idea is the possible day that it becomes impossible to purchase, only rent. That means we lose stuff that might otherwise enter the public domain in my grandchildrens' lifetime.
The God of the Bible is often portrayed not as taking action himself, but instead by working through others. Some examples off the top of my head:
1. Moses parts the sea with his staff. It doesn't just part when the Israelites approach it. Same with the water from the rock.
2. God doesn't strike Goliath down; he gives an untrained shepard the ability to do it with a slingshot.
3. David isn't protected by a forcefield or some other visible miracle when Saul is trying to kill him; he is hidden by friends and relatives.
4. Jonah has to be thrown into the ocean before being swallowed by the big fish.
Given these, I don't think it's inconsistent to believe that the Bible was written down by man at God's direction.
For an extra $500, could I get the same collection without any of the Voyager episodes?
Absolutely. Please make the check payable to "Baricom."
They keep their DRM in place, and they get access to sell the music in the catalogs. No other online music seller has said access.
I think you forgot a few.
The new beta supports both a Flash and AJAX architecture. You can visit http://beta.maps.yahoo.com/ to see the Flash version in action.
While that may be an ethical thing to do, the fact is that (at least in the U.S.) that's still a computer crime, and if the server owner happens to be a nutcase, you can get the same penalty as the guy who cracked it first.
...the only people who have so far objected are people who make their living marketing and distributing books, because they are afraid that their position is in jeopardy.
I do not make my living marketing or distributing books. I therefore have no reason to be afraid that my position is in jeopardy.
I object.
I imagine if Google print takes off some publishers might implement standardized tag in the text of the book to automate this request.
An excellent idea. I propose that it read as follows (*grabs a book at random from the bookshelf behind him*): "No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, or stored in a database or retrieval system, or transmitted or distributed in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher."
Those quotes say the copies must be made by "employees," not "agents." Copyright law tends to make a distinction in other places, and I believe it's reasonable to extend that distinction here.
Additionally, the law says the single digital copy must only be available on the premises of the library or archive. Since Google is not a library, and is not the entity in "lawful posession" of the copy (the library is), they shouldn't have the right to distribute the material at all. Your argument that it provides an off-site backup is irrelevant because the law specifically prohibits this.
Finally, unless Google is going against their established practices, there will be more than one copy on Google's cluster of servers. The law says "no more than one copy". I don't think this is a "backup copy" as exempted by law, since both copies will presumably be accessed equally. Even if it is, if Google makes even one more copy (which they do, if the paper on the Google File System is any indication), they are then in violation of the "backup copy" restrictions.
IANAL, of course, so this can be twisted to suit whoever has the most money in the case.
Do publishers and authors currently spend time policing libraries, making sure no one is making 10 cent copies of their work?
They would if one was photocopying the entire library.
I hope you don't consider me "too stupid to exist" after you read my response.
I go to the public library. I read a *LOT* of books. I now decide to publish a newsletter of my book reviews...That is *fair use*.
You make a reasonable argument about this hypothetical newsletter. Your newsletter would presumably include some kind of rating, a little commentary about the author's writing style and the substance of the plot, and so forth. You would be using the "snippets" from the books to supplement content you created (which is the point of copyright law - to encourage creation of works).
The problem with your analogy is that Google is not proposing reviewing the books. They are not adding any content of worth to the book. The entire value of the web page they serve with the snippets, in fact, is the words from the book. I believe that by this reasoning, they do not qualify for fair use because they are not providing news reporting, commentary, or the other protected means of fair use.
There are other reasons I oppose what Google's doing as well. Whether Google "knows better" than the publishers or not is irrelevant. If the publishers don't want to release their books like this, they shouldn't have to - just like the movie studios don't have to release tapes or DVDs if they don't want to.
When I consider the publishing industry and Google in this scenario, I can't help but see the publishing industry as the victims and Google as the aggressors. I feel that if Google were to switch to opt-in, which is essentially all anybody is asking of them, economic pressure from the publishers that do "get it" will eventually push a majority of them to make their books available.
Companies these days have lost perspective. Happy customers == profit, and it's a lot easier (and much more fun) to make your customers happy than forcibly extract cash from them.
We need more DreamHosts in this world.
On the other hand, they are giving publishers a way to opt out, so it's perhaps not as bad as you make it seem.
That's precisely what the problem is. Everybody would think this was an incredibly cool service, and there would be little, if any, controversy, if this program was opt-in. Amazon.com has been scanning entire books to enable searching for years, and nobody cares because the publishers grant permission, not the other way around.
Microsoft has made so many mistakes at the past, that they've lost the trust of customers. To regain that trust, they need to make a number of correct decisions in a row. Keep in mind that even more people distrust Microsoft than complain about the quality of their software, so even if they stop making "mistakes," they still need to work to re-gain customer goodwill.