So, most people who work in IT security are made out to be Mordac - "Preventer of information services".
I do a fair amount of "security engineering" - designing and implementing secure systems. What I have found is that in most cases the reason people (users) see the security people as "preventer of information services" is because the security people don't give a shit about actually using the systems, only about securing them.
I've come to believe that to be a really good security engineer requires loads of human-factors type expertise because the problem is not just how to secure the system, but really how to enable the users to do their work as easily as possible in a secure fashion.
The classic example is the password policy that is so byzantine that nobody can remember their own passwords - sure it is secure on paper, but because nobody took into account that actual people have to use it, the net result is that people 'cheat' and write down their passwords or come up with password creation schemes that produce easily human-guessable passwords if you know any of the previous passwords (!ReD_111, @BluE_222, #GreeN_333, etc).
You are very narrow-minded. Just because you can't see beyond the current system where distribution is a proxy for the work of creation does not mean that others can't. Get your head out of that rut and start thinking like a businessman, not a pussy brainwashed by the cult of copyright.
What sort of "huge mega projects" currently exist that rely on copyright and patents, but aren't expected to become profitable until 10 years do the road? Amazon certainly doesn't and if you want to say pharmaceuticals, trade secrets will do just fine.
The only problem is how do you reward the creativity without controlling the distribution of the work?
A lot of these games/movies/software products have enormous up front costs that become affordable only because distribution is controlled and on a massive scale in terms of numbers.
I'm sure the market will find a way. Do I sound like an American?
Seriously though, just because most of the last 100 years have used distribution as a proxy for creation does not mean that is the only way to do business. For example, let's look at cable television. Most people pay a monthly subscription fee, much of which goes to the distributors. How about instead of subscriptions going to the middlemen, it goes into rolling escrow accounts owned by production companies. Whenever the balance reaches enough to fund the production of an episode or a movie, the production company commences work. Once the work is completed, the results are released to the public domain and the production company claims the money from the escrow account.
Another business model is to tie live performances to the release of recordings. A band, or a theater group, can set a "price" of a certain number of tickets sold after which they will release a recording (maybe a studio recording, maybe a 'live' recording of their performances). So once they've sold enough tickets to fund their work, they release the recording to the public domain.
In both of those cases there are significant benefits to the creators - the free release of works becomes advertising for future works and the more popular the free stuff is, the higher a price they can ask for their next work. The first case of escrowing is also a form of risk mitigation that hollywood can not dream of under the current system - guaranteed profit before they even have to start work. Imagine if every single production was guaranteed to be profitable - the artistic freedom would be orders of magnitude greater than it is now where the pressure is to make the next movie exactly like the previous blockbuster because that's the closest thing to a formula for financial success.
I'm not saying those are the only two ways to make money without copyrights, nor am I saying that there is a 1:1 set of new business models to replace the old business models. But I am saying that the internet has made copyright obsolete and nothing anyone can reasonably do will ever change that. So, instead of trying to stuff the genie of the internet back into the lamp, the business of ideas needs to capitalize on the fact that they have a fucking genie and they should be using their wishes to capitalize on the new possibilities that the internet has brought them.
On the contrary. Creativity is precisely what will be rewarded in the future. It is distributors who will not be rewarded because the market for distribution of ideas was obsoleted by the internet. But creativity will always be in demand.
Cause that's what they need...cell phones. Nevermind the maniacs running those countries...
The fact that cells are routinely disabled in areas where heads of state make public appearances is evidence that enabling communication between regular people is a threat to the people who run/own a country.
Check out this article from the IBM Systems Journal about the work done at MIT on Project Athena and the model they developed for calculating the number of required IT staff based on the number of workstations, users, applications, licenses, etc.
That question, you mean? No, I don't. This philosophy only results in a sequence of escalations where ultimately everyone loses. Reprisals don't work.
No, turnabout does not mean reprisal. Turnabout means what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It means one person cuts the cake and the other person picks the piece. Turnabout is fair play is another way to say equality.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. The RIAA/MPAA know people are pirating, so instead of looking internally to see what is wrong with them they only see what is wrong with the people who steal it. If it were a boycott instead of a looting, they'd be desperate to increase sales, not punish their would-be customers.
I understood you perfectly. I don't WANT them to increase sales. I believe copyright is fundamentally broken. No business model based on fee-for-distribution of things that have zero cost to distribute can be successful without severely compromising society at large.
I don't think that when you burn everything down, something better always arises. I think fixing it is better than destroying it.
I don't think ANYONE believes something better ALWAYS arises. But in THIS case, the industry has already burnt down, not by pirates, but by the internet. All that's left is just inertia.
But mostly I'm just irritated by the see-through rationalizations people use to steal without guilt. Just because they are wrong does not mean that you aren't wrong, too.
Yeah, it kind of does. If one party to a contract breaks a contract, then there is no moral or ethical requirement for the other party to continue to adhere to the contract.
If their sales were down and no one was pirating their product, do you think changes would happen more quickly, or more slowly?
Far more slowly because they would not waste so much money to shoot themselves in the foot by trying to prosecute. Campaigns like this one are the perfect illustration: If they didn't believe anyone was pirating, then they would not have spent the money on this campaign (and thousands of similar actions) and they would not be alienating their very best customers. Instead they would be working on ways to bring people like "back into the fold."
It's ok to not be part of the solution. Just don't delude yourself into believing you are.
Piracy accelerates their death spiral. You may be part of the solution, but don't delude yourself into believing you are particularly effective.
I answered your question directly, why didn't you answer mine?
Then you have the secondary tax effects. If the server farms adds jobs for everything from janitors and managers to network admins. Those then pay state income tax (if applicable), and make purchases in that state and pay state sales tax.
What do you want to bet that at least half of the high paying jobs (managers, network admins) and up living out of state and just telecommuting in? Once constructed and populated, all these facilities really need on site are a janitor, some rent-a-cops and manual labor trained in how to replace blades.
Usually tax incentives are done to promote business with the understanding is there will still be a net gain in tax revenue.
Replace "understanding" with "hope and prayer" and I'll agree. As far as I know, such benefits have never been realized as measured by any formal, after-the-fact, study. However, all the studies I have seen have been wrt to the massive tax subsidies given to professional sports franchaises and their stadiums.
I hate what the RIAA does, so I don't use their products. I like music, but I don't need it, and neither do you. Anything else is just a weak attempt at justification for getting something you want for free.
Do you believe that turnabout is fair play? Sounds like you don't because regardless of if "someone makes more than a certain amount of money" (whatever the eff that means) copyright extensions are outright theft. When the the MAFIAA bribed congress to take from the public domain and give to the distribution cartels they stole from you, me and every resident of this country. The MAFIAA didn't need the extensions, it was just something they wanted for free.
Microsoft is not consuming government resources tax-free, they're still paying to move there, paying to build their buildings, etc.
Your conclusion does not actually follow from your premise in this case. Moving, building, etc are not government services, the fact that anyone is paying for them is irrelevant. Ergo your conclusion is false.
If you decide not to hold up a liquor store, that's not a generous gift you've given the liquor store owner.
Welfare is taking from one group to support another group.
If you do not pay taxes, but you consume government provided resources, then the government is taking from one group to support you. Ergo, tax breaks (which is what we are talking about here, not actual cuts) are welfare.
That's strange. Fortunately, we can click on "View as HTML" in the Google cache and see it. However, even though the Google search results indicate that He Kexin is listed in the spreadsheet, when you view Google's cached version, her name no longer appears.
So much for don't be evil...
He is wrong, the google search results in his own screen shots only indicate that the number 1994 is in the spreadsheet. In fact, the blogger is being deliberately deceiving because when you view the actual cache it explicitly tells you that the girl's chinese name is only found in other documents that link to the spreadsheet. It is right there at the top of the page, but his screenshots only show the middle of the page.
It is far more likely that baidu is more out of date than google - i.e. the last time google spidered that website, the girl's info had already been wiped so google cached a more recent version of the file while baidu had not yet re-spidered that site and thus still has an older copy in their cache.
Oh, so your reason why the current system is broken isn't that the record companies have to front a lot of money in order to make the record, but that they don't release the albums to the public domain.
The record companies do not HAVE to front a lot of money. Just look at how much less indie labels front. But essentially you are right. The biggest flaw with the current system is that it requires copyright and copyright is fundamentally and irrevocably broken.
The industry needs to figure that out, internalize it and adopt business models that do not require limitations on distribution. If they can't do that, then they might as well start selling buggy whips.
I really like this idea, I don't like going to concerts but I like the idea of YOU paying for MY music buy purchasing concert tickets, THANKS!!!
You don't get it do you? It is not YOUR music. It is OUR music. Under the current system, copyright expires and then everyone who has purchased copies beforehand has paid for 'YOUR music.' Same damn thing, just no need for a huge system of laws and their corresponding expenses nor the waste of century of time between the start and the end.
Instead why don't they just get corporate sponsers and "sell-out to the man" by doing endorsements
Absolutely. If Downy sees value in commissioning Marilyn Manson to pitch their product and then give away the result to the public domain, then they should absolutely do so. Nothing wrong with that at all. My absolute favorite HDTV demo clip (youtube is obviously not HD) is a commercial for Sony Bravia TVs - they put together a video and set it to the song "Heartbeats" by Jose Gonzalez. I bought his album because of it and I'm sure its sold a bunch of Sony TVs.
Ultimately, expenses are required to produce and promote any music otherwise no one will ever hear it
Sure. However bands should hire promoters, not the other way around, the way it is now where promoters not only hire the bands, but they contractually prevent them from producing any work that they do not promote.
I don't see how either mandatory or even voluntary reporting of the music I personally listen to can be considered a 'bast case' scenario.
I would rather see a system where the release of a music recording is sold (rather than a copy). For example, a band records a studio album and goes on tour. They price the release of the album at 100,000 tickets. After they've sold their 100,000 concert ticket, they release the album to the public domain. That's just one example, artists that don't tour or perform live would have to come up with other mechanisms.
An internet means copyright violations. The two are inseperable. The only way to eliminate copyright violations is to destroy internet technology and ensure that nobody ever rediscovers it. The only way to ensure the end of internet proliferation is to cease development of internet technology in ALL FORMS, and destroy any existing internet technology.
The supposed benefits of internets (which I find highly dubious and false) do not justify the continued existence of copyright violations which can destroy all life in Hollwood.
Of course they get dubious groups into their boat that have nothing to do with the issues. First, they don't know jack about what's going on. Second, it doesn't affect them. And because of all that, they're cheap to buy.
Seems like the name for these kinds of organizations ought to be "Special Disinterest Groups."
Actually, the worst they can do is not apply it and decide you're incompetent/don't play by the rules/etc.
No, the worst they can do is not apply it and decide you are so incomptent that you are a menace to life on earth so they send "kill -9" kernel assassination squads to take out you, your entire family and your dog and then burn your house down to hide the evidence.
On the other hand, you have no expectation of privacy when you travel out in public.
That's a vast over simplification, particularly due to your leaving out the word "reasonable." The courts have ruled that public phones can not be wiretapped without a warrant. Clearly your assertion is in conflict with that ruling.
Similarly, 10 years ago it was impossible to put a gps-tracker on a car in this manner. Why should the advances of technology suddenly make what was impossible now 'reasonable' without any significant review - either judicial or through legislation?
I think he meant the real money FOR THE ARTIST is in concerts. the Record industry makes more off cd sales then the artist themselves do.
Yep, that's correct. I was attempting to show that the money the studios take could ALSO go to the artists, so ignoring it is like leaving money on the table.
Slashdot Mirror
So, most people who work in IT security are made out to be Mordac - "Preventer of information services".
I do a fair amount of "security engineering" - designing and implementing secure systems. What I have found is that in most cases the reason people (users) see the security people as "preventer of information services" is because the security people don't give a shit about actually using the systems, only about securing them.
I've come to believe that to be a really good security engineer requires loads of human-factors type expertise because the problem is not just how to secure the system, but really how to enable the users to do their work as easily as possible in a secure fashion.
The classic example is the password policy that is so byzantine that nobody can remember their own passwords - sure it is secure on paper, but because nobody took into account that actual people have to use it, the net result is that people 'cheat' and write down their passwords or come up with password creation schemes that produce easily human-guessable passwords if you know any of the previous passwords (!ReD_111, @BluE_222, #GreeN_333, etc).
You are very narrow-minded. Just because you can't see beyond the current system where distribution is a proxy for the work of creation does not mean that others can't. Get your head out of that rut and start thinking like a businessman, not a pussy brainwashed by the cult of copyright.
What are you talking about?
What sort of "huge mega projects" currently exist that rely on copyright and patents, but aren't expected to become profitable until 10 years do the road? Amazon certainly doesn't and if you want to say pharmaceuticals, trade secrets will do just fine.
The only problem is how do you reward the creativity without controlling the distribution of the work?
A lot of these games/movies/software products have enormous up front costs that become affordable only because distribution is controlled and on a massive scale in terms of numbers.
I'm sure the market will find a way. Do I sound like an American?
Seriously though, just because most of the last 100 years have used distribution as a proxy for creation does not mean that is the only way to do business. For example, let's look at cable television. Most people pay a monthly subscription fee, much of which goes to the distributors. How about instead of subscriptions going to the middlemen, it goes into rolling escrow accounts owned by production companies. Whenever the balance reaches enough to fund the production of an episode or a movie, the production company commences work. Once the work is completed, the results are released to the public domain and the production company claims the money from the escrow account.
Another business model is to tie live performances to the release of recordings. A band, or a theater group, can set a "price" of a certain number of tickets sold after which they will release a recording (maybe a studio recording, maybe a 'live' recording of their performances). So once they've sold enough tickets to fund their work, they release the recording to the public domain.
In both of those cases there are significant benefits to the creators - the free release of works becomes advertising for future works and the more popular the free stuff is, the higher a price they can ask for their next work. The first case of escrowing is also a form of risk mitigation that hollywood can not dream of under the current system - guaranteed profit before they even have to start work. Imagine if every single production was guaranteed to be profitable - the artistic freedom would be orders of magnitude greater than it is now where the pressure is to make the next movie exactly like the previous blockbuster because that's the closest thing to a formula for financial success.
I'm not saying those are the only two ways to make money without copyrights, nor am I saying that there is a 1:1 set of new business models to replace the old business models. But I am saying that the internet has made copyright obsolete and nothing anyone can reasonably do will ever change that. So, instead of trying to stuff the genie of the internet back into the lamp, the business of ideas needs to capitalize on the fact that they have a fucking genie and they should be using their wishes to capitalize on the new possibilities that the internet has brought them.
Creativity will NOT be rewarded in the future.
On the contrary. Creativity is precisely what will be rewarded in the future. It is distributors who will not be rewarded because the market for distribution of ideas was obsoleted by the internet. But creativity will always be in demand.
Cause that's what they need...cell phones. Nevermind the maniacs running those countries...
The fact that cells are routinely disabled in areas where heads of state make public appearances is evidence that enabling communication between regular people is a threat to the people who run/own a country.
Check out this article from the IBM Systems Journal about the work done at MIT on Project Athena and the model they developed for calculating the number of required IT staff based on the number of workstations, users, applications, licenses, etc.
That question, you mean? No, I don't. This philosophy only results in a sequence of escalations where ultimately everyone loses. Reprisals don't work.
No, turnabout does not mean reprisal. Turnabout means what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It means one person cuts the cake and the other person picks the piece. Turnabout is fair play is another way to say equality.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. The RIAA/MPAA know people are pirating, so instead of looking internally to see what is wrong with them they only see what is wrong with the people who steal it. If it were a boycott instead of a looting, they'd be desperate to increase sales, not punish their would-be customers.
I understood you perfectly. I don't WANT them to increase sales. I believe copyright is fundamentally broken. No business model based on fee-for-distribution of things that have zero cost to distribute can be successful without severely compromising society at large.
I don't think that when you burn everything down, something better always arises. I think fixing it is better than destroying it.
I don't think ANYONE believes something better ALWAYS arises. But in THIS case, the industry has already burnt down, not by pirates, but by the internet. All that's left is just inertia.
But mostly I'm just irritated by the see-through rationalizations people use to steal without guilt. Just because they are wrong does not mean that you aren't wrong, too.
Yeah, it kind of does. If one party to a contract breaks a contract, then there is no moral or ethical requirement for the other party to continue to adhere to the contract.
If their sales were down and no one was pirating their product, do you think changes would happen more quickly, or more slowly?
Far more slowly because they would not waste so much money to shoot themselves in the foot by trying to prosecute.
Campaigns like this one are the perfect illustration: If they didn't believe anyone was pirating, then they would not have spent the money on this campaign (and thousands of similar actions) and they would not be alienating their very best customers. Instead they would be working on ways to bring people like "back into the fold."
It's ok to not be part of the solution. Just don't delude yourself into believing you are.
Piracy accelerates their death spiral. You may be part of the solution, but don't delude yourself into believing you are particularly effective.
I answered your question directly, why didn't you answer mine?
Then you have the secondary tax effects. If the server farms adds jobs for everything from janitors and managers to network admins. Those then pay state income tax (if applicable), and make purchases in that state and pay state sales tax.
What do you want to bet that at least half of the high paying jobs (managers, network admins) and up living out of state and just telecommuting in? Once constructed and populated, all these facilities really need on site are a janitor, some rent-a-cops and manual labor trained in how to replace blades.
Usually tax incentives are done to promote business with the understanding is there will still be a net gain in tax revenue.
Replace "understanding" with "hope and prayer" and I'll agree. As far as I know, such benefits have never been realized as measured by any formal, after-the-fact, study. However, all the studies I have seen have been wrt to the massive tax subsidies given to professional sports franchaises and their stadiums.
I hate what the RIAA does, so I don't use their products. I like music, but I don't need it, and neither do you. Anything else is just a weak attempt at justification for getting something you want for free.
Do you believe that turnabout is fair play? Sounds like you don't because regardless of if "someone makes more than a certain amount of money" (whatever the eff that means) copyright extensions are outright theft. When the the MAFIAA bribed congress to take from the public domain and give to the distribution cartels they stole from you, me and every resident of this country. The MAFIAA didn't need the extensions, it was just something they wanted for free.
Microsoft is not consuming government resources tax-free, they're still paying to move there, paying to build their buildings, etc.
Your conclusion does not actually follow from your premise in this case.
Moving, building, etc are not government services, the fact that anyone is paying for them is irrelevant.
Ergo your conclusion is false.
Tax cuts are not welfare.
If you decide not to hold up a liquor store, that's not a generous gift you've given the liquor store owner.
Welfare is taking from one group to support another group.
If you do not pay taxes, but you consume government provided resources, then the government is taking from one group to support you.
Ergo, tax breaks (which is what we are talking about here, not actual cuts) are welfare.
That's strange. Fortunately, we can click on "View as HTML" in the Google cache and see it. However, even though the Google search results indicate that He Kexin is listed in the spreadsheet, when you view Google's cached version, her name no longer appears.
So much for don't be evil...
He is wrong, the google search results in his own screen shots only indicate that the number 1994 is in the spreadsheet. In fact, the blogger is being deliberately deceiving because when you view the actual cache it explicitly tells you that the girl's chinese name is only found in other documents that link to the spreadsheet. It is right there at the top of the page, but his screenshots only show the middle of the page.
See for yourself
It is far more likely that baidu is more out of date than google - i.e. the last time google spidered that website, the girl's info had already been wiped so google cached a more recent version of the file while baidu had not yet re-spidered that site and thus still has an older copy in their cache.
Good thing my laptop runs EWF drivers.
Earth, Wind and Fire? So are you running the "Time is on Your Side" edition or maybe, "They Don't See [the disk writes]" version?
This myth was dispelled long ago, one example is gorilla warfare.
Freakin monkeys with freakin laser guns!
Oh, so your reason why the current system is broken isn't that the record companies have to front a lot of money in order to make the record, but that they don't release the albums to the public domain.
The record companies do not HAVE to front a lot of money. Just look at how much less indie labels front.
But essentially you are right. The biggest flaw with the current system is that it requires copyright and copyright is fundamentally and irrevocably broken.
The industry needs to figure that out, internalize it and adopt business models that do not require limitations on distribution. If they can't do that, then they might as well start selling buggy whips.
I really like this idea, I don't like going to concerts but I like the idea of YOU paying for MY music buy purchasing concert tickets, THANKS!!!
You don't get it do you? It is not YOUR music. It is OUR music. Under the current system, copyright expires and then everyone who has purchased copies beforehand has paid for 'YOUR music.' Same damn thing, just no need for a huge system of laws and their corresponding expenses nor the waste of century of time between the start and the end.
Instead why don't they just get corporate sponsers and "sell-out to the man" by doing endorsements
Absolutely. If Downy sees value in commissioning Marilyn Manson to pitch their product and then give away the result to the public domain, then they should absolutely do so. Nothing wrong with that at all. My absolute favorite HDTV demo clip (youtube is obviously not HD) is a commercial for Sony Bravia TVs - they put together a video and set it to the song "Heartbeats" by Jose Gonzalez. I bought his album because of it and I'm sure its sold a bunch of Sony TVs.
Ultimately, expenses are required to produce and promote any music otherwise no one will ever hear it
Sure. However bands should hire promoters, not the other way around, the way it is now where promoters not only hire the bands, but they contractually prevent them from producing any work that they do not promote.
I don't see how either mandatory or even voluntary reporting of the music I personally listen to can be considered a 'bast case' scenario.
I would rather see a system where the release of a music recording is sold (rather than a copy). For example, a band records a studio album and goes on tour. They price the release of the album at 100,000 tickets. After they've sold their 100,000 concert ticket, they release the album to the public domain. That's just one example, artists that don't tour or perform live would have to come up with other mechanisms.
An internet means copyright violations. The two are inseperable. The only way to eliminate copyright violations is to destroy internet technology and ensure that nobody ever rediscovers it. The only way to ensure the end of internet proliferation is to cease development of internet technology in ALL FORMS, and destroy any existing internet technology.
The supposed benefits of internets (which I find highly dubious and false) do not justify the continued existence of copyright violations which can destroy all life in Hollwood.
Of course they get dubious groups into their boat that have nothing to do with the issues. First, they don't know jack about what's going on. Second, it doesn't affect them. And because of all that, they're cheap to buy.
Seems like the name for these kinds of organizations ought to be "Special Disinterest Groups."
Actually, the worst they can do is not apply it and decide you're incompetent/don't play by the rules/etc.
No, the worst they can do is not apply it and decide you are so incomptent that you are a menace to life on earth so they send "kill -9" kernel assassination squads to take out you, your entire family and your dog and then burn your house down to hide the evidence.
On the other hand, you have no expectation of privacy when you travel out in public.
That's a vast over simplification, particularly due to your leaving out the word "reasonable." The courts have ruled that public phones can not be wiretapped without a warrant. Clearly your assertion is in conflict with that ruling.
Similarly, 10 years ago it was impossible to put a gps-tracker on a car in this manner. Why should the advances of technology suddenly make what was impossible now 'reasonable' without any significant review - either judicial or through legislation?
I think he meant the real money FOR THE ARTIST is in concerts. the Record industry makes more off cd sales then the artist themselves do.
Yep, that's correct. I was attempting to show that the money the studios take could ALSO go to the artists, so ignoring it is like leaving money on the table.
Yes some late night comedians exaggerated events for comedic effect, but what do you expect from them?
My point was not that just "some late night comedians" exaggerated it -- every single person reporting the story 'exaggerated' it.