You mean have their leet skillz starve half to death as they work 60 hours a week to baaaaaarely make ends meet...?
No, I think he means they'll realize that they can make more money writing Fake Antivirus malware for russian gangs and skimming profits off the rounding errors of electronic funds transfers -- and that they're less likely to get caught doing it.
Really... the thing about activism of any sort is that getting caught is part of the deal. It's civil disobedience, not criminal intent to harm -- but it happens to be actions that DO harm more than the perpetrators realize, and has thus been deemed a criminal offence in many places.
When enough "upstanding citizens" end up in jail that the system can't support the people in power, then things may change based on this kind of disobedience. Until then, other means will be much more useful while also being more constructive to society.
What telco in their right mind would choose giving their customers choice over having to pay some license fees and passing on the cost to the customer in exchange for almost complete control of the hardware and softawre?
To clarify: copyright law has things to say about performance rights as well. For instance, you can't play the DVD in a public place, nor charge people admission to come watch it in your home. This is copyright law, not license agreements.
To play MPAA's advocate: you could also argue* that what you bought was the CSS'd data: you make a copy every time you view it, as it is streamed to some CPU and decoded into data that can then be converted to a viewable analog. THIS copy is made under license, not under sale doctrine, as the decoder is licensed from the MPAA/DVD Consortium, and the DMCA prevents you from circumventing it without their permission.
*You wouldn't, but the MPAA companies probably would, given the chance.
The funny thing is that you can probably buy all the movies that were produced for Divx format on DVD now for $4.95 each. Possibly with a bonus Bluray disc inside.
Not in this case. Thanks to the DMCA you own a piece of shiny plastic, you have no right to defeat the copy protection mechanism (CSS) in order to access the VOB files and place shift the content from the shiny plastic to your player of choice. Personally I don't care what the law says and will not pay again to access the exact same content but the law is the law. Btw courts have so far upheld this interpretation multiple times whenever a home theater company has brought a product to market that allows the customer to import their DVD collection.
Interestingly, there's no need to defeat CSS on most computers; just use the provided DVD player to deCSS the content, and then use whatever software you want to read the deCSS'd content and spool it out to disk in an unencumbered format. Since your DVD software has permission to decode the content and you've given your other software permission to store the resulting data, no part of the DMCA has been broken.
Of course, there are very few pieces of software that take this approach these days; most just either use deCSS or some software that uses deCSS to rip the decoded content.
? Just because you're pushing the phrase "2000s" does not mean that others cannot use other accepted nomenclature in regular correspondence. I prefer naughties. So sue me -- but watch who you're calling OCD, as I'm not the one who posted an anonymous comment to correct a perfectly standard word usage with another perfectly standard word usage. And I'm definitely not OCD, as a walk through my post history will quickly show:) CD, maybe... CSPD, definitely.
Nobody really needs second level domain names these days anyway -- get yourself an SSL cert with a signatory chain, QR codes of your stable and fully-owned IPv6 address, and feed your data to Google. Even if your IP changes (which it shouldn't if you own it yourself), everyone's going to find your site via Google anyway. DNS is more a convenience than anything else.
Dear non-Americans - Don't play in our court if you don't like our rules. You have you're own TLD.
And so do you. It's called ".us".
On the other hand,.com,.net, and.org are supposed to be non-nation specific.
No, they belong to the US and are on loan to Network Solutions for international use. This means that the US government can tell NetSol to do whatever they want them to, or they lose the rights to domain control. This is completely outside the fact that Network Solutions is subject to California and US law.
I think the obvious answer is that we need to petition ICANN to open the ".them" TLD to compete with the American ".us" doamin.
.co.ca is not the Canadian.com -- it belongs to Reg.CA Enterprises Inc. of White Rock, BC Canada.
Canada used to have very strict ccTLD rules which were relaxed sometime during the naughties (2003 I believe). It used to be that only government-related offices could have.ca domains, and everything else was relegated to provinceabbr.ca -- so Canada Post got a.ca domain, but businesses had to get timhortons.on.ca, timhortons.pq.ca, timhortons.ab.ca, timhortons.bc.ca etc. Eventually, this requirement was lifted, and now anyone can apply for a.ca domain through any registrar that handles them -- as long as they are registered with CIRA via a legitimate Canadian address.
Interestingly, after this rule changed, I know that a number of cities in California registered.ca domains. They appear to have since switched to using.ca.us; I'm not sure why.
Shold MJ's kids profit form "anyone" singing MJ's songs? I don't think so. Should they profit from copies of their Father singing the song? I don't see a problem in that.
So, you're basically saying that if person X wrote the lyrics to a song, person Y wrote the music, they both did it under contract to corporation C, who then hired performers P Q and R to perform it, P.1 should receive remuneration for every reproduction of that performance. At the same time, you're saying that if performer S then decides to cover the song, P.1 should not receive remuneration.
What you also loosely implied (but likely didn't mean to) was that at no time should X and Y benefit from "anyone" performing the song. I say this because MJ was often not just the performer, but also the songwriter (both X AND Y) and as such, it seems his children should have the same right to profit should those works (the lyrics and the tune) be reproduced by others.
In reality, X, Y C, P, Q and R can all be unique, the same, or any permutation. However, all of those variables have their own contracts and their own copyright protection, which is distinct for each role, even if they're not distinct in the person performing the function.
This is why the copyright issue is messy, and likely has no right answer.
I'm sorry, is "society" really entitled to everything a person created, ever? Even if they themselves never published it to the world?
My opinion is that, no, society isn't entitled to everything - a person is quite entitled to not release something and its no loss at all to society at large, because it never influenced it in the first place.
This is an excellent point that just helped me clarify my own views on copyright: A person or organization should not be allowed unlimited control over something they have used to influence society. A person or organization SHOULD be allowed unlimited control over the choice of whether to use some work to influence society.
Pedants aside, and following the "Limited" discussion in the AT&T story, restricting socialization of works artificially in order to "create" value for the producer is anti-social. Therefore, it should also be anti-copyright. Someone deciding to create something based on what society has provided, but deciding not to make it available to society at large should be just fine. They should never be forced to cede control - that would be anti-social and anti-copyright.
As an analogue: If I think something but hold my tongue, it should not be legal for someone to use all means available to force me to reveal what I didn't say. But if I thoughtlessly choose to say something, I shouldn't be able to restrict who hears it and how, outside of some very limited controls agreed to by all other parties present at time of performance (speech).
The place where all this falls into trouble in copyright is that the general public is no longer the audience for the product. Consumer, yes -- but not audience. As such, by the time the work is "published" it has long since been performed, and the true audience has decided what to release to the public and how. Muddy waters indeed.
Most likely it's people who buy less alcohol and cigarettes, start buying anti-nausea drugs, and buy pickles and ice cream together late at night... but nothing else.
This one's currently being run out of a call center in Austin, Texas. Does anyone know where Texas stands on all this? The NE US has already imposed state-level legislation shutting down these scumbags where they used to operate.
If you use a service like Google Voice, you can have this. The spam filter in GV works quite well -- and you can even have messages emailed to you as text instead of listening to the audio for the numbers you screen but don't block.
If an actual carrier had a service like this, it would prove to be hugely popular, and might even steal a large customer base from the competition.
The funny thing is, with the exception of the Greens, your statements are likely very accurate:
I'd strip about 20% off the stats for people who were actually voting *for* the MP they wanted. Most people have been negative voting for years.
40% of Canadians didn't want the Conservatives to be in power.... 50% of Canadians didn't want the NDP to be in power... 61% of Canadians didn't want the Liberals to be in power... 74% of Canadians didn't want the Bloc to be in power... 96% of Canadians didn't expect a vote for the Greens to ever get them into power...
Since the only number there below 50% is the Conservative number, they ended up with a Majority government. If that number had been 50% or higher, it would have been a minority government.
The end result is that it is possible to lock down a Mac if you'd like to, but still run software modified post-signer if you don't want to.
This is really a benefit as the current common Mac malware is: Fake Flash installer Fake Antivirus installer Fake Apple product installer Fake Microsoft product installer
That covers pretty much 80% of the malware you'll see today on the Mac. With a CA for apps, you can now attempt to runn that Flash installer and get a "This is not a signed application" error (and you KNOW that Adober signs their installers) or a "This application was downloaded from www.getcherwarezhere.info and is signed by 'Adobee lnc.' Are you sure you want to run this?" message. With Apple getting error submissions from most of the install base and someone likely to report this malicious app, the 'Adobee lnc.' cert would be revoked mightily fast, and thanks to Apple's push update service, most of the install base will have the revoked certificate cached within hours of its revocation.
This means that in order to do what they do now, the malware authors would have to either register a few thousand bogus developer accounts in a way that wouldn't get them auto-revoked, or start targeting ADC account username/password combos to make an end-run around this security measure.
Both of these add a disincentive to write the stuff in the first place, and both methods will eventually be attempted. We'll see how well Apple does at handling them.
The main down-side I see to this system is that if I write some software, publish it (to the App store, or freelance) and then someone steals my account info, my cert will be blocked and ALL my software will be revoked. To fix this, I'll have to re-compile all my software against a new certificate and make it available to my userbase.
From an end-user's perspective, the issue becomes some random software on my computer suddenly failing to run without control-clicking to run it, with no reason given. This could get extremely confusing.
In my opinion, Apple needs one more piece to make this a solid system... Anything that can run in the sandbox should do so. If it does something that can't run in the sandbox, this should be flagged in an "Application summary" panel, where you can see what other rights (kernel access, network stack access, system-area file access, etc.) the software wants to use, and approve/deny those features on a per-app basis.
This way, if you have an app that's supposed to print postcards based on images in iPhoto and it starts asking for elevated kernel privileges or access to the network stack, you can revoke access and still use the app.
While not really the best thing to do, it's what would work in real life with real users who won't want to ditch their postcard printer and search for some software that is legit.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean have their leet skillz starve half to death as they work 60 hours a week to baaaaaarely make ends meet...?
No, I think he means they'll realize that they can make more money writing Fake Antivirus malware for russian gangs and skimming profits off the rounding errors of electronic funds transfers -- and that they're less likely to get caught doing it.
Really... the thing about activism of any sort is that getting caught is part of the deal. It's civil disobedience, not criminal intent to harm -- but it happens to be actions that DO harm more than the perpetrators realize, and has thus been deemed a criminal offence in many places.
When enough "upstanding citizens" end up in jail that the system can't support the people in power, then things may change based on this kind of disobedience. Until then, other means will be much more useful while also being more constructive to society.
What telco in their right mind would choose giving their customers choice over having to pay some license fees and passing on the cost to the customer in exchange for almost complete control of the hardware and softawre?
To clarify: copyright law has things to say about performance rights as well. For instance, you can't play the DVD in a public place, nor charge people admission to come watch it in your home. This is copyright law, not license agreements.
To play MPAA's advocate: you could also argue* that what you bought was the CSS'd data: you make a copy every time you view it, as it is streamed to some CPU and decoded into data that can then be converted to a viewable analog. THIS copy is made under license, not under sale doctrine, as the decoder is licensed from the MPAA/DVD Consortium, and the DMCA prevents you from circumventing it without their permission.
*You wouldn't, but the MPAA companies probably would, given the chance.
Can someone remind me whats in it for me?
Sure... the warm fuzzy feeling that you are breaking fewer laws while attempting to re-watch the entertainment you already paid to see at least twice.
The funny thing is that you can probably buy all the movies that were produced for Divx format on DVD now for $4.95 each. Possibly with a bonus Bluray disc inside.
Not in this case. Thanks to the DMCA you own a piece of shiny plastic, you have no right to defeat the copy protection mechanism (CSS) in order to access the VOB files and place shift the content from the shiny plastic to your player of choice. Personally I don't care what the law says and will not pay again to access the exact same content but the law is the law. Btw courts have so far upheld this interpretation multiple times whenever a home theater company has brought a product to market that allows the customer to import their DVD collection.
Interestingly, there's no need to defeat CSS on most computers; just use the provided DVD player to deCSS the content, and then use whatever software you want to read the deCSS'd content and spool it out to disk in an unencumbered format. Since your DVD software has permission to decode the content and you've given your other software permission to store the resulting data, no part of the DMCA has been broken.
Of course, there are very few pieces of software that take this approach these days; most just either use deCSS or some software that uses deCSS to rip the decoded content.
Good to hear; I haven't been a member of CIRA for a number of years, but we were pushing for reinstatement of the residency rule back when I left.
? :) CD, maybe... CSPD, definitely.
Just because you're pushing the phrase "2000s" does not mean that others cannot use other accepted nomenclature in regular correspondence. I prefer naughties. So sue me -- but watch who you're calling OCD, as I'm not the one who posted an anonymous comment to correct a perfectly standard word usage with another perfectly standard word usage. And I'm definitely not OCD, as a walk through my post history will quickly show
Nobody really needs second level domain names these days anyway -- get yourself an SSL cert with a signatory chain, QR codes of your stable and fully-owned IPv6 address, and feed your data to Google. Even if your IP changes (which it shouldn't if you own it yourself), everyone's going to find your site via Google anyway. DNS is more a convenience than anything else.
webnames.ca?
Using the Iceland TLD and an Icelandic registrar would probably be the safest these days though.
Dear non-Americans - Don't play in our court if you don't like our rules. You have you're own TLD.
And so do you. It's called ".us".
On the other hand, .com, .net, and .org are supposed to be non-nation specific.
No, they belong to the US and are on loan to Network Solutions for international use. This means that the US government can tell NetSol to do whatever they want them to, or they lose the rights to domain control. This is completely outside the fact that Network Solutions is subject to California and US law.
I think the obvious answer is that we need to petition ICANN to open the ".them" TLD to compete with the American ".us" doamin.
.co.ca is not the Canadian .com -- it belongs to Reg.CA Enterprises Inc. of White Rock, BC Canada.
Canada used to have very strict ccTLD rules which were relaxed sometime during the naughties (2003 I believe). It used to be that only government-related offices could have .ca domains, and everything else was relegated to provinceabbr.ca -- so Canada Post got a .ca domain, but businesses had to get timhortons.on.ca, timhortons.pq.ca, timhortons.ab.ca, timhortons.bc.ca etc. Eventually, this requirement was lifted, and now anyone can apply for a .ca domain through any registrar that handles them -- as long as they are registered with CIRA via a legitimate Canadian address.
Interestingly, after this rule changed, I know that a number of cities in California registered .ca domains. They appear to have since switched to using .ca.us; I'm not sure why.
That sound you hear from the graveyard is not Beethoven turning over in his grave; he's just de-composing.
Shold MJ's kids profit form "anyone" singing MJ's songs? I don't think so. Should they profit from copies of their Father singing the song? I don't see a problem in that.
So, you're basically saying that if person X wrote the lyrics to a song, person Y wrote the music, they both did it under contract to corporation C, who then hired performers P Q and R to perform it, P.1 should receive remuneration for every reproduction of that performance. At the same time, you're saying that if performer S then decides to cover the song, P.1 should not receive remuneration.
What you also loosely implied (but likely didn't mean to) was that at no time should X and Y benefit from "anyone" performing the song. I say this because MJ was often not just the performer, but also the songwriter (both X AND Y) and as such, it seems his children should have the same right to profit should those works (the lyrics and the tune) be reproduced by others.
In reality, X, Y C, P, Q and R can all be unique, the same, or any permutation. However, all of those variables have their own contracts and their own copyright protection, which is distinct for each role, even if they're not distinct in the person performing the function.
This is why the copyright issue is messy, and likely has no right answer.
I'm sorry, is "society" really entitled to everything a person created, ever? Even if they themselves never published it to the world?
My opinion is that, no, society isn't entitled to everything - a person is quite entitled to not release something and its no loss at all to society at large, because it never influenced it in the first place.
This is an excellent point that just helped me clarify my own views on copyright:
A person or organization should not be allowed unlimited control over something they have used to influence society.
A person or organization SHOULD be allowed unlimited control over the choice of whether to use some work to influence society.
Pedants aside, and following the "Limited" discussion in the AT&T story, restricting socialization of works artificially in order to "create" value for the producer is anti-social. Therefore, it should also be anti-copyright. Someone deciding to create something based on what society has provided, but deciding not to make it available to society at large should be just fine. They should never be forced to cede control - that would be anti-social and anti-copyright.
As an analogue: If I think something but hold my tongue, it should not be legal for someone to use all means available to force me to reveal what I didn't say. But if I thoughtlessly choose to say something, I shouldn't be able to restrict who hears it and how, outside of some very limited controls agreed to by all other parties present at time of performance (speech).
The place where all this falls into trouble in copyright is that the general public is no longer the audience for the product. Consumer, yes -- but not audience. As such, by the time the work is "published" it has long since been performed, and the true audience has decided what to release to the public and how. Muddy waters indeed.
Most likely it's people who buy less alcohol and cigarettes, start buying anti-nausea drugs, and buy pickles and ice cream together late at night... but nothing else.
Sorry, by "returned" I meant "come" -- mental typo on my part. For the rest, that's a much better summary than my vague wording :)
This one's currently being run out of a call center in Austin, Texas. Does anyone know where Texas stands on all this? The NE US has already imposed state-level legislation shutting down these scumbags where they used to operate.
So just get a Google Voice/Skype account and don't hook it up to an actual number.
If you use a service like Google Voice, you can have this. The spam filter in GV works quite well -- and you can even have messages emailed to you as text instead of listening to the audio for the numbers you screen but don't block.
If an actual carrier had a service like this, it would prove to be hugely popular, and might even steal a large customer base from the competition.
The funny thing is, with the exception of the Greens, your statements are likely very accurate:
I'd strip about 20% off the stats for people who were actually voting *for* the MP they wanted. Most people have been negative voting for years.
40% of Canadians didn't want the Conservatives to be in power....
50% of Canadians didn't want the NDP to be in power...
61% of Canadians didn't want the Liberals to be in power...
74% of Canadians didn't want the Bloc to be in power...
96% of Canadians didn't expect a vote for the Greens to ever get them into power...
Since the only number there below 50% is the Conservative number, they ended up with a Majority government. If that number had been 50% or higher, it would have been a minority government.
In other news, scientists cloned their first Dodo bird today from preserved Dodo DNA....
Things like ACTA never really go away, they just declare bankruptcy and open up a new shell corporation... er...
The end result is that it is possible to lock down a Mac if you'd like to, but still run software modified post-signer if you don't want to.
This is really a benefit as the current common Mac malware is:
Fake Flash installer
Fake Antivirus installer
Fake Apple product installer
Fake Microsoft product installer
That covers pretty much 80% of the malware you'll see today on the Mac. With a CA for apps, you can now attempt to runn that Flash installer and get a "This is not a signed application" error (and you KNOW that Adober signs their installers) or a "This application was downloaded from www.getcherwarezhere.info and is signed by 'Adobee lnc.' Are you sure you want to run this?" message. With Apple getting error submissions from most of the install base and someone likely to report this malicious app, the 'Adobee lnc.' cert would be revoked mightily fast, and thanks to Apple's push update service, most of the install base will have the revoked certificate cached within hours of its revocation.
This means that in order to do what they do now, the malware authors would have to either register a few thousand bogus developer accounts in a way that wouldn't get them auto-revoked, or start targeting ADC account username/password combos to make an end-run around this security measure.
Both of these add a disincentive to write the stuff in the first place, and both methods will eventually be attempted. We'll see how well Apple does at handling them.
The main down-side I see to this system is that if I write some software, publish it (to the App store, or freelance) and then someone steals my account info, my cert will be blocked and ALL my software will be revoked. To fix this, I'll have to re-compile all my software against a new certificate and make it available to my userbase.
From an end-user's perspective, the issue becomes some random software on my computer suddenly failing to run without control-clicking to run it, with no reason given. This could get extremely confusing.
In my opinion, Apple needs one more piece to make this a solid system...
Anything that can run in the sandbox should do so. If it does something that can't run in the sandbox, this should be flagged in an "Application summary" panel, where you can see what other rights (kernel access, network stack access, system-area file access, etc.) the software wants to use, and approve/deny those features on a per-app basis.
This way, if you have an app that's supposed to print postcards based on images in iPhoto and it starts asking for elevated kernel privileges or access to the network stack, you can revoke access and still use the app.
While not really the best thing to do, it's what would work in real life with real users who won't want to ditch their postcard printer and search for some software that is legit.
Personally, I think He would have used /dev/urandom instead of /dev/random... No need for Him to make everything completely unique.