Might have a serial number or something similar you need to enter, with a checksum to verify it's valid.
Mandatory serial numbers are DRM.
I can't believe how many responses there are in this thread from people who seem to think that just because some scheme isn't super-heavy duty that it isn't DRM. That's like say that any weather system less than a monsoon isn't a storm.
even if it's $0.99 has a five hour demo and is DRM-free and done by a nobel-peace prize winning game design legend, will be cracked and distributed on day one by some self righteous teenager anyway.
Huh? What's to crack if there is no DRM?
Pirate the whole game, I can see that happening, but that's cracker-lackin!
at the end of one episode he asked young/old people to count 60 seconds. The older people consistently counted for much longer than the actual minute while younger people consistently counted much faster.
Where they permitted to use any heuristics? I just tried it with the old "One one-thousand, Two one-thousand, Three one-thousand, etc" method with my eyes closed and got it right on the dot.
You can piss and moan all you want about people being dicks and guess what - they will still be dicks. Its like those personal ads where the girl says things like "no jerks need reply" - like that would ever stop a jerk. The only person you have control over is yourself.
I would have KILLED for training in basic social mores and skills as a child - just rote, repetitive stuff the same as any other kind of training, so that what I did not know naturally I could at least fall back on manually learned behavior. We put kids who are slow in math and reading in classes that teach to their level - how about classes that teach social conventions and behaviorism for kids who are slow at that?
Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid's entire 25student classroom. The mother doesn't give a shit, because atleast she didn't get the side effect.
The really stupid thing about arguments like the one you just made is that if all the 25 other kids have parents who do trust in the vaccine, then they don't have to worry about it because they've been vaccinated.
You might have a point if you were to say that the unvaccinated kid infected someone who could not get vaccinated - like a baby who is to young to safely take the vaccine or someone who has some other illness making their immune system too weak to safely take the vaccine. But those risks are practically zero in comparison to the the emotionaly super-sized risk of getting all the other kids in their class infected...
A shorter copyright duration would lead to them no longer being orphaned works. They would become public domain works. This would indeed help with orphaned works.
That's not sufficient - because of automatic copyright assignment, anything that gets created gets copyrighted and in the vast majority of cases there is no official record of the date of creation. If you don't know when the copyright term started, determining that the term has expired is very problematic.
If you get your punctuation wrong when programming, all sorts of bad things happen. English is just a natural extension of this.
No it is not. English -- and just about every other natural language -- has lots of redundancy in the form of context that programming languages generally lack (and compilers/interpreters hardly ever make use of even when it is there). It really is the extremely rare case where bad punctuation will cause a significant number of humans to take away an unintended meaning.
If anything, the panda example demonstrates the silliness of adhering to a literal interpretation in the face of context that indicates otherwise.
That's not to say that using scrupulously correct punctuation is pointless or a bad thing - I'm just disagreeing with the idea that humans parsing English are even remotely like a compiler parsing a programming language.
But Google should have gone for opt-in for living authors, or if the author can't be found, a statement saying they would like to get in touch with him/her so they can ask him/her to opt-in.
Which would have the effect of making no significant change to the current situation, and the current situation must change for their to be any significant progress. Make no mistake about it - the problem of orphaned works is huge and intractable under anything like, "opt in." For example, posting a statement saying they would like to get in touch with the copyright holder of an out-of-print work (the author doesn't mean squat under current law, only the copyright holder) will result in nearly zero responses because in many cases no one knows who the holder is, including the holder him/it-self because over the course of events like bankruptcies, mergers, buyouts, etc the details of the individual contracts for out of print works get lost really easily because there is no money in keeping track of OOP copyright ownership details. Even when the records have been diligently filed away, no one with access to those records is going to check if Google's request applies to them because there is no money in it. The records will just sit there moldering away until the records owner thinks they might be able to make money with some of the information in them.
FWIW, if I were trying to fix the current situation I would prefer to establish a global/centralized "opt-out" database, let google maintain it if they want to, and then anyone - not just google - can freely distribute anything that has not been opted-out. I'd also end automatic copyright assignment and go back to the previous system of requiring registration.
As long s the "a reasonable amount" is set by the Copyright Holder. They own the rights, and should be free to set the price.
No, they do not own the rights - at best they are leasing them from the Public. Since it is the Public who Grants the copyright in the first place, then the Public should have a say in the pricing too.
Some people might object of a megacorp using their creations for profit without even giving them notice.
It sucks when a doctor learns about new medical techniques and then uses them in his practice at an HMO. It sucks when an Avis or Hertz leases cars built with the sweat and labor of plant workers. It sucks when a scientist at Dow Chemical uses another scientist's research results as a foundation for his own research.
Even better - hold friday afternoon beer parties. And the occasional company BBQ, and when times are good - take the company on a cruise. In fact you may not even need to wait for good times, cruises are dirt cheap now. Of course don't even think of charging the employees for these activities - that will build commuinity too - a community united in thinking just how stingy the company is.
Can you give me a list of ISPs that don't operate under government franchise, license, or subsidy?
I could walk around personally and get all the right-of-way agreements, but would I then be legally allowed to build the infrastructure? No, because government has a monopoly on infrastructure.
The two are not mutually incompatible. The only reason that local governments are able to require franchise agreements is because the agreements include the right of ways. Nothing there to stop a company from privately negotiating all those right of ways on its own and thus being completely untouchable as a result.
It would appear that you are the one with the lack of vision.
It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn. But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.
Or, replaced with cartoon judges.
If cartoons of kiddie porn are the equivalent of actual kiddie porn, then cartoons of judges are surely the equivalent of actual judges.
Every single word you've addressed to me has been premised on my total lack of intellectual ability and honesty.
Totally false. I originally responded to you in this thread completely on the level. And then you just went into outer space with your response. The first half of your response was premised on an argument that I did not make - [i]why[/i] would you do that? And then the second half was a denial of your very own words just one post up the thread. What is ANY neutral observer supposed to take away from that?
You are, to use your own terminology, a dickhead.
See, here you go again coming in from outer space - "dickhead" is YOUR terminology. Go back and read the previous thread - you were the one who used the term "dickhead," first and multiple times before I ever quoted it back at you. If you are going to hang your hat on accusations like that when they are demonstrably false - and trivially easy to demonstrate at that - just how should I interpret that? As a sign of superior intellect? REALLY? Would you do the same if the situation was reversed and I was consistently getting basic facts wrong?
I understand how you got confused in those cases and the ones in the previous thread - but instead of going back and checking yourself, you dig in deeper. And when you chose to protect your ego over correcting your errors like that, you can't reasonably lay claim to any sort of intellectual honesty.
On the other hand, it's a little inconsistent to call SourceForge "cowardly" for not standing up the government. (Note that the wording of any OS agreement they adhere to is irrelevant -- no agreement to act illegally is valid.) Would you dare to flout Syrian law the same way? Not to judge your system of government, but you have to acknowledge the consequences would be pretty severe.
In the US, the legal system is designed such that bad laws need to be broken in order to get standing in court to have them overturned. Syria doesn't even make a pretense that they expect citizens to challenge their laws. Comparing the two is really disingenuous.
That is what lead us to non-DRM music; it will also eventually happen to video.
I've seen that belief expressed a couple of times in the past few weeks here on slashdot. Unforunately, it ain't true. The only reason DRM has been removed from most online music sales is because Apple had an effective monopoly on DRM - they refused to license itunes-compatible DRM to any other hardware manufacturer - and the one thing the RIAA monopolists can't stand is being under the thumb of a monopoly. They fully understand how badly that sucks.
As long as the RIAA insisted on DRM, they had to cede control over everything else to Apple. Dropping the requirement for DRM meant they could sell through multiple outlets instead of just itunes - which gave them back control over pricing and bundling.
The video business ain't the same - there is no single dominant DRM system and even then some of the larger DRM vendors (MS and Rovi nee Macrovision) are happy to license it on any hardware platform. We won't be seeing the death of DRM on video any time soon, we may even see a resurgence on music if Apple loses its market dominance.
Slashdot Mirror
Might have a serial number or something similar you need to enter, with a checksum to verify it's valid.
Mandatory serial numbers are DRM.
I can't believe how many responses there are in this thread from people who seem to think that just because some scheme isn't super-heavy duty that it isn't DRM. That's like say that any weather system less than a monsoon isn't a storm.
CD checks are DRM.
even if it's $0.99 has a five hour demo and is DRM-free and done by a nobel-peace prize winning game design legend, will be cracked and distributed on day one by some self righteous teenager anyway.
Huh? What's to crack if there is no DRM?
Pirate the whole game, I can see that happening, but that's cracker-lackin!
at the end of one episode he asked young/old people to count 60 seconds. The older people consistently counted for much longer than the actual minute while younger people consistently counted much faster.
Where they permitted to use any heuristics?
I just tried it with the old "One one-thousand, Two one-thousand, Three one-thousand, etc" method with my eyes closed and got it right on the dot.
Blaming the victim only keeps the cycle going.
You can piss and moan all you want about people being dicks and guess what - they will still be dicks. Its like those personal ads where the girl says things like "no jerks need reply" - like that would ever stop a jerk. The only person you have control over is yourself.
I would have KILLED for training in basic social mores and skills as a child - just rote, repetitive stuff the same as any other kind of training, so that what I did not know naturally I could at least fall back on manually learned behavior. We put kids who are slow in math and reading in classes that teach to their level - how about classes that teach social conventions and behaviorism for kids who are slow at that?
Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid's entire 25student classroom. The mother doesn't give a shit, because atleast she didn't get the side effect.
The really stupid thing about arguments like the one you just made is that if all the 25 other kids have parents who do trust in the vaccine, then they don't have to worry about it because they've been vaccinated.
You might have a point if you were to say that the unvaccinated kid infected someone who could not get vaccinated - like a baby who is to young to safely take the vaccine or someone who has some other illness making their immune system too weak to safely take the vaccine. But those risks are practically zero in comparison to the the emotionaly super-sized risk of getting all the other kids in their class infected...
If you like that comic, you need to see Moon.
After the scanners are installed, the next terrorist will hopefully put the C4 up his ass,
Butt bombs are old news.
A shorter copyright duration would lead to them no longer being orphaned works. They would become public domain works. This would indeed help with orphaned works.
That's not sufficient - because of automatic copyright assignment, anything that gets created gets copyrighted and in the vast majority of cases there is no official record of the date of creation. If you don't know when the copyright term started, determining that the term has expired is very problematic.
If you get your punctuation wrong when programming, all sorts of bad things happen. English is just a natural extension of this.
No it is not. English -- and just about every other natural language -- has lots of redundancy in the form of context that programming languages generally lack (and compilers/interpreters hardly ever make use of even when it is there). It really is the extremely rare case where bad punctuation will cause a significant number of humans to take away an unintended meaning.
If anything, the panda example demonstrates the silliness of adhering to a literal interpretation in the face of context that indicates otherwise.
That's not to say that using scrupulously correct punctuation is pointless or a bad thing - I'm just disagreeing with the idea that humans parsing English are even remotely like a compiler parsing a programming language.
But Google should have gone for opt-in for living authors, or if the author can't be found, a statement saying they would like to get in touch with him/her so they can ask him/her to opt-in.
Which would have the effect of making no significant change to the current situation, and the current situation must change for their to be any significant progress.
Make no mistake about it - the problem of orphaned works is huge and intractable under anything like, "opt in." For example, posting a statement saying they would like to get in touch with the copyright holder of an out-of-print work (the author doesn't mean squat under current law, only the copyright holder) will result in nearly zero responses because in many cases no one knows who the holder is, including the holder him/it-self because over the course of events like bankruptcies, mergers, buyouts, etc the details of the individual contracts for out of print works get lost really easily because there is no money in keeping track of OOP copyright ownership details. Even when the records have been diligently filed away, no one with access to those records is going to check if Google's request applies to them because there is no money in it. The records will just sit there moldering away until the records owner thinks they might be able to make money with some of the information in them.
FWIW, if I were trying to fix the current situation I would prefer to establish a global/centralized "opt-out" database, let google maintain it if they want to, and then anyone - not just google - can freely distribute anything that has not been opted-out. I'd also end automatic copyright assignment and go back to the previous system of requiring registration.
As long s the "a reasonable amount" is set by the Copyright Holder. They own the rights, and should be free to set the price.
No, they do not own the rights - at best they are leasing them from the Public.
Since it is the Public who Grants the copyright in the first place, then the Public should have a say in the pricing too.
Some people might object of a megacorp using their creations for profit without even giving them notice.
It sucks when a doctor learns about new medical techniques and then uses them in his practice at an HMO.
It sucks when an Avis or Hertz leases cars built with the sweat and labor of plant workers.
It sucks when a scientist at Dow Chemical uses another scientist's research results as a foundation for his own research.
Its simple,get a water cooler
Even better - hold friday afternoon beer parties. And the occasional company BBQ, and when times are good - take the company on a cruise. In fact you may not even need to wait for good times, cruises are dirt cheap now. Of course don't even think of charging the employees for these activities - that will build commuinity too - a community united in thinking just how stingy the company is.
Can you give me a list of ISPs that don't operate under government franchise, license, or subsidy?
I could walk around personally and get all the right-of-way agreements, but would I then be legally allowed to build the infrastructure? No, because government has a monopoly on infrastructure.
The two are not mutually incompatible. The only reason that local governments are able to require franchise agreements is because the agreements include the right of ways. Nothing there to stop a company from privately negotiating all those right of ways on its own and thus being completely untouchable as a result.
It would appear that you are the one with the lack of vision.
The problem is they can't easily redirect you to the server closest to you once you've already resolved their address.
What's wrong with an http redirect? They seem to work just dandy for akamai.
If only they would have stood up for free speech at the beginning, and not only after they found themselves with a disappointing 29% market share.
Microsoft would kill for a 29% market share of the search business in the USA.
It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn. But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.
Or, replaced with cartoon judges.
If cartoons of kiddie porn are the equivalent of actual kiddie porn, then cartoons of judges are surely the equivalent of actual judges.
Apparently the coupsters did not succeed at taking the news media...
Every single word you've addressed to me has been premised on my total lack of intellectual ability and honesty.
Totally false. I originally responded to you in this thread completely on the level. And then you just went into outer space with your response. The first half of your response was premised on an argument that I did not make - [i]why[/i] would you do that? And then the second half was a denial of your very own words just one post up the thread. What is ANY neutral observer supposed to take away from that?
You are, to use your own terminology, a dickhead.
See, here you go again coming in from outer space - "dickhead" is YOUR terminology. Go back and read the previous thread - you were the one who used the term "dickhead," first and multiple times before I ever quoted it back at you. If you are going to hang your hat on accusations like that when they are demonstrably false - and trivially easy to demonstrate at that - just how should I interpret that? As a sign of superior intellect? REALLY? Would you do the same if the situation was reversed and I was consistently getting basic facts wrong?
I understand how you got confused in those cases and the ones in the previous thread - but instead of going back and checking yourself, you dig in deeper. And when you chose to protect your ego over correcting your errors like that, you can't reasonably lay claim to any sort of intellectual honesty.
Didn't I already explain how boring you are?
No. It was all in your head.
Court challenges aren't the only way to get rid of bad laws.
Did I use the word "only" or some synonym?
Not even clear that there's any basis for a court challenge of this law.
Not even clear that it's not even clear that there's any basis for a court challenge of this law.
Any comparison between the U.S. and Syrian governments is in your own head.
Yeahhhhh, sure it is. I just spontaneously brought up the idea of "daring to flout syrian law in the same way."
Continuing in your fine tradition of just making up shit, eh?
Which rational people seeking value will gladly work out privately (except you, apparently.)
Really? Name one, just one example, of an ISP privately negotiating right-of-way easements of any significant number in the USA.
On the other hand, it's a little inconsistent to call SourceForge "cowardly" for not standing up the government. (Note that the wording of any OS agreement they adhere to is irrelevant -- no agreement to act illegally is valid.) Would you dare to flout Syrian law the same way? Not to judge your system of government, but you have to acknowledge the consequences would be pretty severe.
In the US, the legal system is designed such that bad laws need to be broken in order to get standing in court to have them overturned. Syria doesn't even make a pretense that they expect citizens to challenge their laws. Comparing the two is really disingenuous.
That is what lead us to non-DRM music; it will also eventually happen to video.
I've seen that belief expressed a couple of times in the past few weeks here on slashdot.
Unforunately, it ain't true.
The only reason DRM has been removed from most online music sales is because Apple had an effective monopoly on DRM - they refused to license itunes-compatible DRM to any other hardware manufacturer - and the one thing the RIAA monopolists can't stand is being under the thumb of a monopoly. They fully understand how badly that sucks.
As long as the RIAA insisted on DRM, they had to cede control over everything else to Apple. Dropping the requirement for DRM meant they could sell through multiple outlets instead of just itunes - which gave them back control over pricing and bundling.
The video business ain't the same - there is no single dominant DRM system and even then some of the larger DRM vendors (MS and Rovi nee Macrovision) are happy to license it on any hardware platform. We won't be seeing the death of DRM on video any time soon, we may even see a resurgence on music if Apple loses its market dominance.