Actually, they don't have to provide the code at all, unless they distributed 3rd party code along with it. You cannot violate a copyright license on your own works; authors don't need a license from themselves to distribute their own works.
You misunderstand me. There are a number of rights I have with materials I purchase. I have the right to phase-shift, time-shift, make excerpts, etc.
Since I have those rights, the only "management" that can be done by a copyright holder is to take them away (I've yet to see DRM that added rights without taking anything away). I feel copyright holders should be free to create whatever DRM they want to try to limit how I can use their works, since I do not believe it would be ethical for me to tell them what they can do with their own works.
Likewise, I do not feel that they should have legal protection when they try to take away my legal rights. The government should back off and let the market decide.
Note: I did not say anything about repealing copyright. Breaking DRM, then infringing copyright is still infringing copyright. I just don't believe DRM should be legally regulated, protected, or prohibited.
I hate DRM. I hate it with a passion. However, if the answer is "more government interference", you are asking the wrong question. The market should be making these decisions.
Personally, I would like to see the DMCA go away; however, any restrictive form of DRM you can think of is fair game. Don't take away your right to make it, and don't take away my right to break it.
> Do you really want to take away this potentially useful tool from law enforcement because you do not want to be inconvienced for a few minutes?
Strip searches and/or full body x-ray exams would be a potentially useful law enforcement tool for airline travel, and would only add a few minutes of inconvience. I still don't want them.
The right (not freedom, right) to travel anonymously is an important part of freedom of religion, speech, and of the press. There are times where having one's whereabouts known can place you at risk from a government which is not behaving lawfully or others (ex-spouce, stalkers, etc.) You can tell a lot about a person by where and what he does. The more power the government has over our daily lives, the more harm a corrupt politician (is that reudndant?) could cause.
Personally, I have a problem with any system that starts with an assumption of guilt. For example, I have no problem with searching a person in a public place because he was behaving in a overtly suspicious manner, or presenting a visible danger to himself or others. I do have a problem with searching everyone, on the assumption that they may be guilty.
The fact of the matter is that everyone is _always_ guilty of something, and accordingly _always_ a suspect for something or other. With our system of laws as convoluted as it is, the day you break no law is the day you don't get out of bed.
Optimization really doesn't require sneaky tricks, especially if you are just trying to legitimatly increase the amount of money you make on AdSense.
All it takes is a little bit of code, and you can test for yourself what Google thinks your page is about.
Wordpress took it too far, though. Not only did they make spammy pages, but they deliberatly linked to pages on how to file a lawsuit and the like. If you take a look at This Page, you can see what google did for their AdSense keywords:
Users can accumulate bandwidth at a set rate, and can burst when they need to. However, if you try to hog the bandwidth, you get throttled down really fast. For normal users, they get the bandwidth they need, when they need it.
... That's why sites have started overlaying a full screen flash animation over the site, with an arrow pointing to the bar, and an animation explaining to users how to open it. People trust the websites they go to.
It can run without prompting the user; however, it is not supposed to be able to write out an.exe file to the hard drive and run it without the user specifically granting permission.
The spyware installs itself using Java. It's not browser-specific; you can infect IE using Mozilla, Opera, IE, etc.
There _is_ a dialog box, since the applet is unsigned. I tried signing it with my certificate; it installed itself without prompting. I believe it uses some sort of JRE exploit.
The old iPods used to come in "Windows" and "Mac" formats. This was kind of silly, since the Mac ones could read the windows, but anyway....
They decided to come out with a "Universal" format. Rather than the obvious use of FAT, they decided to try to force you into using iTunes by doing the Mac format, which you would need a device driver for.
Anyhow, to fix: Go to "My Computer", format the iPod as FAT32. This will kill your iPod, but it's only temporary. Run the iPod updater software from Here, and it will get the iPod set up to use FAT32. Grab a copy of EphPod, and say goodbye to iTunes (unless you actually want to keep it).
You can then use the iPod on any modern Mac, Windows, or "Linux w/FAT32 support" system.
Suppose there were a piece of spyware that tweaked some settings, removed most other malware, and generally speaking, left your computer in better condition than when it was infected. It also sent a log of everything you did and spammed as soon as you weren't using it.
It would be less likely to be detected, and less likely to be removed. People wouldn't complain to their friends/kids/whoever that their computers were being so slow, and wouldn't be told that they probably had spyware. It would still serve the author's purpose, it would just be nicer about it. Heck, some people might not even have a problem with it.
If, for example, I were to approach the same problem (having no knowledge of his solution), and come up with the same solution, why should I not be allowed to use or benefit from it? Suppose, for example, I had came up with the idea before him, and patented it. He would not be allowed to use or benefit from the invention he came up with. How is it right to give one man an exclusive right to something intangible, and to bar every other person from coming up with the same solution, just because he happened to be first?
It's a small ISP. It works out to $75/customer. That probably wipes out at least 2 months of profit.
Also, fines can grow with time. The goal is to change behavior, not make money. If $15,000 is not a big enough fine, the next one could be $75,000. Fining the small ISP $500,000 would almost definatly bankrupt it, and still wouldnt get the users VOIP.
When considering things like the superbowl, where companies are willing to pay millions for 30 seconds of time, the fine has to be a little steeper to matter. Fining the big companies $15,000 wouldnt even begin to cover the added publicity they got.
It breaks anti-virus and anti-spyware programs (which the user might run to clean it up). It does not show up in add/remove programs. I have a problem with any application which actively tries to prevent the user from removing it, or which deliberatly causes other application to cease to function.
As for the legality, I could make a pretty strong case that this is in violation of Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, 1030. It would depend on if the court considered the EULA sufficient authorization. Of course, in any case where the user did not see it, that could not apply.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, they don't have to provide the code at all, unless they distributed 3rd party code along with it. You cannot violate a copyright license on your own works; authors don't need a license from themselves to distribute their own works.
You try changing your client port? Depending on the setup, it might make a difference.
The handbrake switch is required by law, not the TV.
Personally, I've always been fond of "for device in urandom zero; do dd if=/dev/$device of=/dev/hdaX bs=512; done"
You like the free OS better?
You misunderstand me. There are a number of rights I have with materials I purchase. I have the right to phase-shift, time-shift, make excerpts, etc.
Since I have those rights, the only "management" that can be done by a copyright holder is to take them away (I've yet to see DRM that added rights without taking anything away). I feel copyright holders should be free to create whatever DRM they want to try to limit how I can use their works, since I do not believe it would be ethical for me to tell them what they can do with their own works.
Likewise, I do not feel that they should have legal protection when they try to take away my legal rights. The government should back off and let the market decide.
Note: I did not say anything about repealing copyright. Breaking DRM, then infringing copyright is still infringing copyright. I just don't believe DRM should be legally regulated, protected, or prohibited.
I hate DRM. I hate it with a passion. However, if the answer is "more government interference", you are asking the wrong question. The market should be making these decisions.
Personally, I would like to see the DMCA go away; however, any restrictive form of DRM you can think of is fair game. Don't take away your right to make it, and don't take away my right to break it.
... as opposed to the thousands of unchecked-yet-presented-as-factual search results for students to find?
> Do you really want to take away this potentially useful tool from law enforcement because you do not want to be inconvienced for a few minutes?
Strip searches and/or full body x-ray exams would be a potentially useful law enforcement tool for airline travel, and would only add a few minutes of inconvience. I still don't want them.
The right (not freedom, right) to travel anonymously is an important part of freedom of religion, speech, and of the press. There are times where having one's whereabouts known can place you at risk from a government which is not behaving lawfully or others (ex-spouce, stalkers, etc.) You can tell a lot about a person by where and what he does. The more power the government has over our daily lives, the more harm a corrupt politician (is that reudndant?) could cause.
Personally, I have a problem with any system that starts with an assumption of guilt. For example, I have no problem with searching a person in a public place because he was behaving in a overtly suspicious manner, or presenting a visible danger to himself or others. I do have a problem with searching everyone, on the assumption that they may be guilty.
The fact of the matter is that everyone is _always_ guilty of something, and accordingly _always_ a suspect for something or other. With our system of laws as convoluted as it is, the day you break no law is the day you don't get out of bed.
All it takes is a little bit of code, and you can test for yourself what Google thinks your page is about.
Wordpress took it too far, though. Not only did they make spammy pages, but they deliberatly linked to pages on how to file a lawsuit and the like. If you take a look at This Page, you can see what google did for their AdSense keywords:
Token Bucket Packet Shaping
Users can accumulate bandwidth at a set rate, and can burst when they need to. However, if you try to hog the bandwidth, you get throttled down really fast. For normal users, they get the bandwidth they need, when they need it.
... That's why sites have started overlaying a full screen flash animation over the site, with an arrow pointing to the bar, and an animation explaining to users how to open it. People trust the websites they go to.
Morons.
Nope, it's not trusted. Even works on a clean install of XP/FireFox/J2RE. The cert's signed by Verisign.
It can run without prompting the user; however, it is not supposed to be able to write out an .exe file to the hard drive and run it without the user specifically granting permission.
Hence, the exploit.
The spyware installs itself using Java. It's not browser-specific; you can infect IE using Mozilla, Opera, IE, etc.
There _is_ a dialog box, since the applet is unsigned. I tried signing it with my certificate; it installed itself without prompting. I believe it uses some sort of JRE exploit.
The old iPods used to come in "Windows" and "Mac" formats. This was kind of silly, since the Mac ones could read the windows, but anyway....
They decided to come out with a "Universal" format. Rather than the obvious use of FAT, they decided to try to force you into using iTunes by doing the Mac format, which you would need a device driver for.
Anyhow, to fix:
Go to "My Computer", format the iPod as FAT32. This will kill your iPod, but it's only temporary. Run the iPod updater software from Here, and it will get the iPod set up to use FAT32. Grab a copy of EphPod, and say goodbye to iTunes (unless you actually want to keep it).
You can then use the iPod on any modern Mac, Windows, or "Linux w/FAT32 support" system.
I get the reference, but I'm still too young. That last episode made no sense to me.
That would be darwine, not wine.
One may be a derivitive of the other, but they are still different products, for different uses, by different groups of people.
... and would there be a real problem if you guessed the URL to get access to your own bank account?
Suppose there were a piece of spyware that tweaked some settings, removed most other malware, and generally speaking, left your computer in better condition than when it was infected. It also sent a log of everything you did and spammed as soon as you weren't using it.
It would be less likely to be detected, and less likely to be removed. People wouldn't complain to their friends/kids/whoever that their computers were being so slow, and wouldn't be told that they probably had spyware. It would still serve the author's purpose, it would just be nicer about it. Heck, some people might not even have a problem with it.
That's what trade secrets are good for.
If, for example, I were to approach the same problem (having no knowledge of his solution), and come up with the same solution, why should I not be allowed to use or benefit from it? Suppose, for example, I had came up with the idea before him, and patented it. He would not be allowed to use or benefit from the invention he came up with. How is it right to give one man an exclusive right to something intangible, and to bar every other person from coming up with the same solution, just because he happened to be first?
Supposedly, the idea is to encourage invention.
It's a small ISP. It works out to $75/customer. That probably wipes out at least 2 months of profit.
Also, fines can grow with time. The goal is to change behavior, not make money. If $15,000 is not a big enough fine, the next one could be $75,000. Fining the small ISP $500,000 would almost definatly bankrupt it, and still wouldnt get the users VOIP.
When considering things like the superbowl, where companies are willing to pay millions for 30 seconds of time, the fine has to be a little steeper to matter. Fining the big companies $15,000 wouldnt even begin to cover the added publicity they got.
I don't know. He sounds pretty anal to me.
It breaks anti-virus and anti-spyware programs (which the user might run to clean it up). It does not show up in add/remove programs. I have a problem with any application which actively tries to prevent the user from removing it, or which deliberatly causes other application to cease to function.
As for the legality, I could make a pretty strong case that this is in violation of Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, 1030. It would depend on if the court considered the EULA sufficient authorization. Of course, in any case where the user did not see it, that could not apply.
I can't speak for the Mac version, but on a stock 1.5GHz P4 pc (XP, Radeon 9800) with 512mb of RAM, it's practically unplayable.
Throw in another 512MB, it's only choppy when a lot of people (20+) are in the same spot.