Tax cars at a rate of $10,000 per vehicle, but allow owners to pay off the tax slowly. How slow? $100 is due at each 10,000 increment until the tax is paid off (i.e. 1 million miles), with taxes deferred for any mileage driven when the car is not registered in the state or when it is registered with a salvage or other "non-driving" title. "Taxes deferred" just means you will have to keep paying taxes after the millionth mile until the full $10,000 is paid off. If the car is permanently junked or permanently moved out of state, then the taxes are "deferred forever."
Convoluted? You betcha. But it's just like gas taxes in that it's effectively taxing miles driven in and out of the state even if on paper, and in legal terms taxing something else entirely.
Patronize him, but only if 1) you are his boss AND 2) he's really so good that he's earned it.
Things like "Most of us aren't smart enough to read through this code and understand it quickly. One of the things keeping me from recommending you for promotion is that right now, if the team loses you, we couldn't maintain the code that you've written. For all future projects, I need you to 'dumb down' your code so less experienced programmers can jump in and maintain it if necessary."
Let's pretend I'm a juror and the judge didn't already kick it out. I'm going to apply the "common sense" principle.
Was the developer a co-conspirator? OR Was the developer merely grossly negligent? OR Was the developer merely selling a lawful product to a customer which he had no legal obligation to monitor?
Non-computer example of co-conspirator:
Burglar walks into a hardware store and says "I need something to pick my neighbor's lock so I can steal his stuff when he's at work tomorrow. I can't pay you now but I'll give you have of his loot." "Sure, here's our lockpick set."
Non-computer example of being grossly negligent:
"Bar*HIC*keeper, can I have one for the *HIC*[stumbles and falls] road? [reaches into pocket to get car keys]?" "Sure, I'll put it on your tab."
So, basically, as a juror I'm going to ask: * Is the programmer in cahoots with the other criminal? * If not, is it reasonable for him to realize that his product will almost certainly be used to commit a crime AND that it almost certainly will not be put to any other use except perhaps "to prove the point" that it "can" be used for non-criminal purposes?
In the United States at least, we have "fair use" and other exceptions to copyright law.
Mass-market items whose use is minor and incidental to a film are (almost?) always okay.
The "tricked out bike" may be another story, but if it's use is minor and purely incidental there may not be any issue either. But I'd check with a lawyer on this one.
Besides, if VW sues a movie studio because there was a Bug in the background, you can bet there will never be another VW car in any movie for years to come. Does VW really want that?
Evil Publisher: How can you copyright something you can't competitively provide to the public.
Young Author: Oh I guess you're right. I should have listened to that Anonymous Coward.
A few years later, not-so-young former author gets wise to the concept of "if you right it down, it's under copyright" and sues, this time with lawyers backing him up.
If the "replica Batmobile" is first and foremost a car, then you have a point.
If it's first and foremost a "work of art" that also happens to be a car, then your point is greatly diminished.
I've been to car shows that had cars with exquisite custom paint jobs and other modifications that clearly made them first and foremost a work of art. Yes, they were still cars. Yes, the government still required license plates. But the only "driving" use was to get them on and off of the tow vehicle at car shows and at their storage facility, maybe some driving in parades and the like, plus maybe a few miles a month just to keep the mechanical parts working.
You may like your own. You may like those who have done you or your friends and family a favor. You may (still) like your friends and family members if they become one. You may like the exceptional one (e.g. "that Congressman who cares more about the little guy than getting re-elected," EFF's lawyers).
But as for lawyers in general and Congresspeople in general, public opinion is pretty low.
First off, I am not a lawyer. Now on to my blabbering....:)
As SeaFox mentioned in an earlier reply, an exact replica of a custom-designed car is probably protected by copyright and possibly by trademark.
The Batman logo itself is almost certainly a trademark and copyright violation and its presence may tilt the balance on a "close case" as to whether the entire car is a trademark violation. About the only way I can see around the trademark issue is to show that the mark is not going to confuse people. While it can be done - when I see an Andy Warhol "Campbell's Soup Can" artwork, I think of Warhol, not soup or the soup company - it's not easy.
Purely artistic elements like ornamental markings are probably much easier to claim protection for than functional elements. Functional elements would likely have been covered by long-expired patents, or not at all. "Simple" artistic elements, like the color black or the particular shade of orange, will be very hard to claim as a trademark and all but impossible to claim under copyright.
The real question may be whether the elements are protected under copyright, trademark, both, or neither:
Trademark on the 1960s-era vehicles is likely very weak or non-existent due to abandonment issues and "lack of confusion" issues. Copyright for other than an exact replica or truly unique features will be very difficult to claim. Looking at the photo in the Hollywood Reporter article, I see several design elements that may or may not be unique to the "1960s Batmobile(s)," including:
Orange trim and lighting
Design of the front grille and lighting
Design of windshield
Design of tail fins
Pop-up thing in the middle
The previously-mentioned Batman logo
I'm sure there are other issues I missed.
If this goes to court and is appealed, it will be interesting to see what the appellate court says and how that affects copyright and trademark going forward.
My hope is that it doesn't go that far:
I hope Warner Brothers' executives see a PR opportunity in the making and enter into a cross-marketing and publicity agreement. Win-win.
Anyone asking a "how can I secure NEW_THING" needs to ask it in the context of this question:
Is your {house|car|child|elderly relative|bank|worksite|road to work|neighborhood} completely secure from harm, invasion-of-privacy, or other loss? How secure is it? Am I okay with that level of security or am I willing to SPEND_RESOURCES to improve security, and if so, what kind of "bang for the buck" am I looking for when I spend my "security dollars" and what will I do if I can't get it?
A computer that is infected by a virus where the VIRUS ITSELF leads to output that is not a result of operator input + the programs the computer is designed to have on it may be "secure" in a narrow sense of the word, but not in the broader sense of the word.
Let's suppose that instead of STUXNET infecting the Iranian computers that were connected to the centrifuges through social engineering and/or USB memory sticks, they had been deliberately infected at the computer-manufacturing factory or during initial setup, before they were attached to the centrifuges.
While it is true that they would not in turn infect other computers outside of their "secure network," they would still not be trustworthy and therefore, in a broad definition of the word, they would not be a "secure computing device."
The storytelling of the "Turnerized" shot-in-BW-converted-to-color movies and TV shows may have benefited from the process, even if many or most did not.
Have a "secure ops" room with a computer that is run off of stock "dumb" batteries delivering the normal voltages delivered by a power supply. Your normal laptop's battery is too smart for the job.
Make sure the room is EMF-proof when the door is shut and locked from the inside. Yes, that includes visible light, so you'll need a battery-operated light source.
Make sure the only input is the keyboard and mouse or equivalent. Make sure the only output is the screen and optionally a printer or equivalent write-only device. Make sure the storage is not only sealed inside the computer but that its contents can be destroyed at the touch of a button AND that the contents self-destruct if the door to the room opens while the computer is powered on. Make sure there is a strong power-on password or other authentication mechanism and that the data storage self-destructs after only a few failed attempts to gain access.
Oh, finally:
Make sure your computer has a "trusted bootloader" that only runs "trusted applications" and that nothing is installed on it that is not needed. Lock down the entire system so seemingly-non-malicious mistakes don't compromise the computer itself in a way that isn't immediately obvious. For example, it's okay if a malicious insider's buggy formula in a spreadsheet gives a mathematically incorrect answer, but it's not okay if that causes the spreadsheet to create a file that grows big enough to trigger a bug in the filesystem that disables the "trusted bootloader" mechanism so the next time the machine boots, someone can run a script that creates an EXE file that logs all future keystrokes for the malicious insider to view and memorize later. Of course, any computer you put in this room will have to be designed and built by someone you trust, using parts designed and built by someone you trust, etc. Alternatively, the computer can be simple enough that you can mathematically prove it is trustworthy.
This is about my personal computing, but I would apply the same general principles to other non-critical environments.
What's the worst thing that could happen to my computers? Someone sneaks into my home and installs a hidden camera to catch everything that's on the screen and all keyboard input, AND they somehow install something to log all network traffic and become the man in the middle when they want to.
How likely is this? Unless the feds confuse me with a terrorist and do this with a warrant, it's exceedingly unlikely.
What are some other "high-loss" risks? * Virus that encrypts my computer and holds it ho$tage * Virus installs a keylogger that captures an email login, banking credentials, etc. and uses them to impersonate me in a very bad way. "Hi, this is your bank. Your wire transfer to OFFSHOREBANK was processed this morning. This is just a call to remind you of a low-balance fee if sufficient funds are not deposited by the end of the day. Thank you." * Fire or other calamity that physically destroys my computers, and things a lot more important than my computers.
So here's the big question:
What are the security vulnerabilities I can mitigate cheaper than the "cost" of just not having a network-attached computer at all?
* Fire/theft/physical loss. Mitigated/prevented by backups, casualty insurance, fire extinguishers, etc. * Theft: Good encryption and good passwords. Pray the thief or his buyer isn't a forensics expert. * Malware. Mitigated/prevented by backups, low-cost ("$50+tax with $50 mail-in rebate!") security software, "safe-surfing" habits (script-blocking, etc.), 2-way firewalls on the computer and network gateway/router, etc. * Legal government intrusion: Mitigated/prevented by living in a relatively free country. Cannot be eliminated. * Illegal/rogue government or ISP intrusion: Mitigated/prevented by living in a relatively free country that can and sometimes will throw individuals responsible in jail. Work on the assumption that this cannot be eliminated. * WiFi intrusion on my home net: Mitigated by strong encryption and a good pass-phrase and a WiFi Router vendor that I trust. * WiFi spoofing: Unknown risk.. Other than keeping the password secure and avoiding algorithms that are known to be vulnerable, I don't attempt to mitigate or prevent this. * Public WiFi hotspots: Compute with care, avoid using them unless absolutely necessary. Prefer my cell phone's "G3/G4" instead of an unsecure or secure-but-untrusted hotspot. * WiFi- and Bluetooth-based attacks: Turn off WiFi when not in use. Don't allow connections in or out without my permission. * Backup failure: Test backups. Have multiple backups in multiple formats from multiple points in time. * File format obsolescence: Have really important stuff in formats that will likely outlive the usefulness of the data..TXT, TAB- and comman-delimited simple spreadsheets,.GIF and.JPEG images, and some versions of PostScript and PDF files are among the many formats that will likely be easily readable 10 or 20 years from now assuming the media is still readable or that the file has been copied to new media before it became unreadable. Human-readable paper printouts, photographic slides, and photographic negatives are also pretty much immune from becoming technologically obsolete in my lifetime, but they require large amounts of space and a certain amount of care. Paper and especially film also decays over a 10-100 year time frame.
Bottom line: * If I lose everything I have on my computer, it won't drive me to suicide. * The very important stuff is backed up in multiple places including offsite and in multiple formats. * The medium-important stuff is backed up. * If I can prevent a large amount of likely damage at a low cost, I'll do it. * If I can't afford to lose it, I can't afford to NOT insure against loss.
There is no good reason why any license shouldn't be transferable to any other "qualified" licensee.
Software purchased "for academic use only" should be legally transferable to anyone else who can buy the same license.
There's no reason in principle to extend this to other types of licenses/permissions that are at least in part based on payment of a fee for the license/permission itself:
For example, if my driver's license is good for 3 more years and I move out of state and get a new one, I should be able to "sell" my remaining 3 years to anyone in my old state who is qualified to renew his license until 12/26/2015 or beyond. He would still have to pay a nominal fee to cover the paperwork and other costs of renewing his license plus any pro-rata amount for any mandatory extension beyond my old license's expiration.
Think of it as "sub-leasing" for the "payment" portion of a license.
There were some scenes in Burton's 2010 adaptation of Alice In Wonderland where 3D helped tell the story.
In some of the grade-B monster thrill movies of the 1950s, having the monster "jump out at you" from the screen adds to the thrill, which in these kinds of movies is part of the reason for seeing the film in the first place.
But I agree, by and large, it doesn't do much.
Then again, there are lots of modern movies whose stories wouldn't lose much if they were screened on a black and white TV with "mono" sound (letterbox of course, pan-and-scan almost always hurts the story).
Slashdot Mirror
Tax cars at a rate of $10,000 per vehicle, but allow owners to pay off the tax slowly. How slow? $100 is due at each 10,000 increment until the tax is paid off (i.e. 1 million miles), with taxes deferred for any mileage driven when the car is not registered in the state or when it is registered with a salvage or other "non-driving" title. "Taxes deferred" just means you will have to keep paying taxes after the millionth mile until the full $10,000 is paid off. If the car is permanently junked or permanently moved out of state, then the taxes are "deferred forever."
Convoluted? You betcha. But it's just like gas taxes in that it's effectively taxing miles driven in and out of the state even if on paper, and in legal terms taxing something else entirely.
Patronize him, but only if 1) you are his boss AND 2) he's really so good that he's earned it.
Things like "Most of us aren't smart enough to read through this code and understand it quickly. One of the things keeping me from recommending you for promotion is that right now, if the team loses you, we couldn't maintain the code that you've written. For all future projects, I need you to 'dumb down' your code so less experienced programmers can jump in and maintain it if necessary."
Let's pretend I'm a juror and the judge didn't already kick it out. I'm going to apply the "common sense" principle.
Was the developer a co-conspirator? OR
Was the developer merely grossly negligent? OR
Was the developer merely selling a lawful product to a customer which he had no legal obligation to monitor?
Non-computer example of co-conspirator:
Burglar walks into a hardware store and says "I need something to pick my neighbor's lock so I can steal his stuff when he's at work tomorrow. I can't pay you now but I'll give you have of his loot." "Sure, here's our lockpick set."
Non-computer example of being grossly negligent:
"Bar*HIC*keeper, can I have one for the *HIC*[stumbles and falls] road? [reaches into pocket to get car keys]?" "Sure, I'll put it on your tab."
So, basically, as a juror I'm going to ask:
* Is the programmer in cahoots with the other criminal?
* If not, is it reasonable for him to realize that his product will almost certainly be used to commit a crime AND that it almost certainly will not be put to any other use except perhaps "to prove the point" that it "can" be used for non-criminal purposes?
If I drive outside of Washington state and fill up in Washington state, they've effectively taxed my driving out of state.
In the United States at least, we have "fair use" and other exceptions to copyright law.
Mass-market items whose use is minor and incidental to a film are (almost?) always okay.
The "tricked out bike" may be another story, but if it's use is minor and purely incidental there may not be any issue either. But I'd check with a lawyer on this one.
Besides, if VW sues a movie studio because there was a Bug in the background, you can bet there will never be another VW car in any movie for years to come. Does VW really want that?
Evil Publisher: How can you copyright something you can't competitively provide to the public.
Young Author: Oh I guess you're right. I should have listened to that Anonymous Coward.
A few years later, not-so-young former author gets wise to the concept of "if you right it down, it's under copyright" and sues, this time with lawyers backing him up.
If the "replica Batmobile" is first and foremost a car, then you have a point.
If it's first and foremost a "work of art" that also happens to be a car, then your point is greatly diminished.
I've been to car shows that had cars with exquisite custom paint jobs and other modifications that clearly made them first and foremost a work of art. Yes, they were still cars. Yes, the government still required license plates. But the only "driving" use was to get them on and off of the tow vehicle at car shows and at their storage facility, maybe some driving in parades and the like, plus maybe a few miles a month just to keep the mechanical parts working.
You may like your own. You may like those who have done you or your friends and family a favor. You may (still) like your friends and family members if they become one. You may like the exceptional one (e.g. "that Congressman who cares more about the little guy than getting re-elected," EFF's lawyers).
But as for lawyers in general and Congresspeople in general, public opinion is pretty low.
First off, I am not a lawyer. Now on to my blabbering.... :)
As SeaFox mentioned in an earlier reply, an exact replica of a custom-designed car is probably protected by copyright and possibly by trademark.
The Batman logo itself is almost certainly a trademark and copyright violation and its presence may tilt the balance on a "close case" as to whether the entire car is a trademark violation. About the only way I can see around the trademark issue is to show that the mark is not going to confuse people. While it can be done - when I see an Andy Warhol "Campbell's Soup Can" artwork, I think of Warhol, not soup or the soup company - it's not easy.
Purely artistic elements like ornamental markings are probably much easier to claim protection for than functional elements. Functional elements would likely have been covered by long-expired patents, or not at all. "Simple" artistic elements, like the color black or the particular shade of orange, will be very hard to claim as a trademark and all but impossible to claim under copyright.
The real question may be whether the elements are protected under copyright, trademark, both, or neither:
Trademark on the 1960s-era vehicles is likely very weak or non-existent due to abandonment issues and "lack of confusion" issues.
Copyright for other than an exact replica or truly unique features will be very difficult to claim. Looking at the photo in the Hollywood Reporter article, I see several design elements that may or may not be unique to the "1960s Batmobile(s)," including:
I'm sure there are other issues I missed.
If this goes to court and is appealed, it will be interesting to see what the appellate court says and how that affects copyright and trademark going forward.
My hope is that it doesn't go that far:
I hope Warner Brothers' executives see a PR opportunity in the making and enter into a cross-marketing and publicity agreement. Win-win.
- first front page /. post of 2013.*
*official /. Standard (???!!!) Time.
Base 13.
Slashdot commenters not being able to moderate other's comments in stories they commented in?
Oh wait....
Yeah.
Anyone asking a "how can I secure NEW_THING" needs to ask it in the context of this question:
Is your {house|car|child|elderly relative|bank|worksite|road to work|neighborhood} completely secure from harm, invasion-of-privacy, or other loss? How secure is it? Am I okay with that level of security or am I willing to SPEND_RESOURCES to improve security, and if so, what kind of "bang for the buck" am I looking for when I spend my "security dollars" and what will I do if I can't get it?
A computer that is infected by a virus where the VIRUS ITSELF leads to output that is not a result of operator input + the programs the computer is designed to have on it may be "secure" in a narrow sense of the word, but not in the broader sense of the word.
Let's suppose that instead of STUXNET infecting the Iranian computers that were connected to the centrifuges through social engineering and/or USB memory sticks, they had been deliberately infected at the computer-manufacturing factory or during initial setup, before they were attached to the centrifuges.
While it is true that they would not in turn infect other computers outside of their "secure network," they would still not be trustworthy and therefore, in a broad definition of the word, they would not be a "secure computing device."
The storytelling of the "Turnerized" shot-in-BW-converted-to-color movies and TV shows may have benefited from the process, even if many or most did not.
Have a "secure ops" room with a computer that is run off of stock "dumb" batteries delivering the normal voltages delivered by a power supply. Your normal laptop's battery is too smart for the job.
Make sure the room is EMF-proof when the door is shut and locked from the inside. Yes, that includes visible light, so you'll need a battery-operated light source.
Make sure the only input is the keyboard and mouse or equivalent. Make sure the only output is the screen and optionally a printer or equivalent write-only device. Make sure the storage is not only sealed inside the computer but that its contents can be destroyed at the touch of a button AND that the contents self-destruct if the door to the room opens while the computer is powered on. Make sure there is a strong power-on password or other authentication mechanism and that the data storage self-destructs after only a few failed attempts to gain access.
Oh, finally:
Make sure your computer has a "trusted bootloader" that only runs "trusted applications" and that nothing is installed on it that is not needed. Lock down the entire system so seemingly-non-malicious mistakes don't compromise the computer itself in a way that isn't immediately obvious. For example, it's okay if a malicious insider's buggy formula in a spreadsheet gives a mathematically incorrect answer, but it's not okay if that causes the spreadsheet to create a file that grows big enough to trigger a bug in the filesystem that disables the "trusted bootloader" mechanism so the next time the machine boots, someone can run a script that creates an EXE file that logs all future keystrokes for the malicious insider to view and memorize later. Of course, any computer you put in this room will have to be designed and built by someone you trust, using parts designed and built by someone you trust, etc. Alternatively, the computer can be simple enough that you can mathematically prove it is trustworthy.
This is about my personal computing, but I would apply the same general principles to other non-critical environments.
What's the worst thing that could happen to my computers? Someone sneaks into my home and installs a hidden camera to catch everything that's on the screen and all keyboard input, AND they somehow install something to log all network traffic and become the man in the middle when they want to.
How likely is this? Unless the feds confuse me with a terrorist and do this with a warrant, it's exceedingly unlikely.
What are some other "high-loss" risks?
* Virus that encrypts my computer and holds it ho$tage
* Virus installs a keylogger that captures an email login, banking credentials, etc. and uses them to impersonate me in a very bad way. "Hi, this is your bank. Your wire transfer to OFFSHOREBANK was processed this morning. This is just a call to remind you of a low-balance fee if sufficient funds are not deposited by the end of the day. Thank you."
* Fire or other calamity that physically destroys my computers, and things a lot more important than my computers.
So here's the big question:
What are the security vulnerabilities I can mitigate cheaper than the "cost" of just not having a network-attached computer at all?
* Fire/theft/physical loss. Mitigated/prevented by backups, casualty insurance, fire extinguishers, etc. .TXT, TAB- and comman-delimited simple spreadsheets, .GIF and .JPEG images, and some versions of PostScript and PDF files are among the many formats that will likely be easily readable 10 or 20 years from now assuming the media is still readable or that the file has been copied to new media before it became unreadable. Human-readable paper printouts, photographic slides, and photographic negatives are also pretty much immune from becoming technologically obsolete in my lifetime, but they require large amounts of space and a certain amount of care. Paper and especially film also decays over a 10-100 year time frame.
* Theft: Good encryption and good passwords. Pray the thief or his buyer isn't a forensics expert.
* Malware. Mitigated/prevented by backups, low-cost ("$50+tax with $50 mail-in rebate!") security software, "safe-surfing" habits (script-blocking, etc.), 2-way firewalls on the computer and network gateway/router, etc.
* Legal government intrusion: Mitigated/prevented by living in a relatively free country. Cannot be eliminated.
* Illegal/rogue government or ISP intrusion: Mitigated/prevented by living in a relatively free country that can and sometimes will throw individuals responsible in jail. Work on the assumption that this cannot be eliminated.
* WiFi intrusion on my home net: Mitigated by strong encryption and a good pass-phrase and a WiFi Router vendor that I trust.
* WiFi spoofing: Unknown risk.. Other than keeping the password secure and avoiding algorithms that are known to be vulnerable, I don't attempt to mitigate or prevent this.
* Public WiFi hotspots: Compute with care, avoid using them unless absolutely necessary. Prefer my cell phone's "G3/G4" instead of an unsecure or secure-but-untrusted hotspot.
* WiFi- and Bluetooth-based attacks: Turn off WiFi when not in use. Don't allow connections in or out without my permission.
* Backup failure: Test backups. Have multiple backups in multiple formats from multiple points in time.
* File format obsolescence: Have really important stuff in formats that will likely outlive the usefulness of the data.
Bottom line:
* If I lose everything I have on my computer, it won't drive me to suicide.
* The very important stuff is backed up in multiple places including offsite and in multiple formats.
* The medium-important stuff is backed up.
* If I can prevent a large amount of likely damage at a low cost, I'll do it.
* If I can't afford to lose it, I can't afford to NOT insure against loss.
The Ninja post was a joke with a point: It's practically impossible to do "secure computing" unless you are an island unto yourself.
The better question is:
What level of security is "cost effective" for you?
I'll give my answer as a reply.
Nobody but me gets to my abacus!
Don't you have to, um, have to, you know, um, the thing you do when you get a girlfriend and get married, that thing, first???
Who knew???
There is no good reason why any license shouldn't be transferable to any other "qualified" licensee.
Software purchased "for academic use only" should be legally transferable to anyone else who can buy the same license.
There's no reason in principle to extend this to other types of licenses/permissions that are at least in part based on payment of a fee for the license/permission itself:
For example, if my driver's license is good for 3 more years and I move out of state and get a new one, I should be able to "sell" my remaining 3 years to anyone in my old state who is qualified to renew his license until 12/26/2015 or beyond. He would still have to pay a nominal fee to cover the paperwork and other costs of renewing his license plus any pro-rata amount for any mandatory extension beyond my old license's expiration.
Think of it as "sub-leasing" for the "payment" portion of a license.
There were some scenes in Burton's 2010 adaptation of Alice In Wonderland where 3D helped tell the story.
In some of the grade-B monster thrill movies of the 1950s, having the monster "jump out at you" from the screen adds to the thrill, which in these kinds of movies is part of the reason for seeing the film in the first place.
But I agree, by and large, it doesn't do much.
Then again, there are lots of modern movies whose stories wouldn't lose much if they were screened on a black and white TV with "mono" sound (letterbox of course, pan-and-scan almost always hurts the story).
Are you saying he transcribed the joke from a golden plate?
Maybe. This is the Internet. Nobody knows.
The dividing line is the Prime Meridian (ie, from Greenwich around the International Date Line, through both poles.)
There's a song that says "...as far as the east is from the west."
Since they touch I guess it's not all that far after all :).