Umm, my point is that you can't take away people's freedom because you feel their lifestyle is excessive, which is quite unlike what the poster I responded to is saying. The idiots in Hollywood and Al Gore should be left alone to enjoy what they own, even though I dislike them. Their vapidity will destroy them eventually anyway.
I like Christmas - it has valid pagan roots far before the Christians hijacked it. Now I mostly use it to get drunk and celebrate the modern capitalist festival of Xmas by buying stuff for people I like. Oddly enough, that seems to put me on the same side as the Christians, and the opposite side to the 'multiculturalists'.
I don't think they're as smart as that. And most of the people involved will see it as an interesting technical project to make drives and disks with writeable CSS (if they are engineers), or a chance to sell some of their drives/disks at a massive markup compared to normal DVD ons (if they are sales guys). And the people at the top will go through the motions of testing a new distribution method.
The requirement that people burn in stores rather than at home is inevitable once they decided to use non standard disks with writeable CSS. Unfortunately, that will probably make this scheme sink like DivX.
Pretty ironic isn't it? They went to a great deal of trouble forking the DVD-R from DVD so CSS keys couldn't be written. Now they'll need to go to even more trouble hacking it to put them back in.
And all to support a protection mechanism which can be broken trivially with DVD Decrypter.
Truth to be told, I don't think it's such a stretch to say that people who are contributing a disproportionate amount to pollution are trying to kill me. They are actively destroying the resources I need to survive, after all. Am I, while I'm trying to defend myself against these indirect murderers, pushing a socialist agenda?
So that means if you kill Al Gore who uses far more resources than you, it's justifiable self defense? What about all those Hollwood celebs with their private jets and extravagant lifestyles? Or is it just the Republican voting upper middle class in their SUVs who count?
I wouldn't exactly call it socialist, since democratic socialists had a much more subtle, nuanced ideology than this, but it's definitely a envy driven agenda. Actually, it reminds me of Marxism since it is a mixture of the politics of envy, a belief that free societies are a concealed dictatorship, and that they contain the seeds of their own demise due to unsustainability. In fact, the main flaws in Marxism were not adequately explaining why free societies were unsustainable. Environmentalism, I suspect, gives people who want to believe that a better reason than the orginal Marxist idea that free societies would eventually collapse as the rate of profit declined and be replaced with dictatorships of the proletariat.
But as a liberal, it seems that if you want to take away other people's freedom, you need to have evidence that they are harming you in a much more direct way than this.
And if you want to move towards a society where the Golden Rule matters less, remember that the Republican voting SUV drivers probably outnumber people like you. They are better organised too. There's a fair chance that you'll be the unpopular minority that ends up losing rights, not them.
Face it, we are not going to colonize space or anything like that. We have to learn to work with our planet or die.
Well even the worst case versions of environmental degradation, which are unlikely to happen, still happen slowly enough that humanity could work on counter measures.
I didn't posit a conspiracy since the astronomers are simply reported experimental results. By no means do all or even most astronomers believe the global warming hysteria, nor all climate scientists.
It's very disappointing that so many Wikipedians accepted Essjay's rationalizations for his deception and defended him on some sort of twisted utilitarian grounds because of his contributions to Wikipedia
Yeah, but in practice doctors with bogus qualifications are far more likely to not cure people. There've been cases where people have gone to alternative doctors who are unqualified in real medicine with diseases which are would have been cureable by a real doctor. Because the alternative doctors prescribe things which are non harmful, but completely inactive they have died. My guess would be that fake doctors would be safe to visit provided you're basically healthy. If you have something that requires an non obvious real medicine they will kill you for much the same reason the homeopaths do.
Going back to your original question, I think it is, because your misleading people about risk. Legally I'm not sure. I know that you can sue a real doctor for negiligence, but I'm not sure what happens to fake doctors.
Article 6 of the Directive provides protection for "technological measures", any technology device or component which is designed to restrict or prevent certain acts which are not authorised by the rightholder.
There is no exception for individuals under patent law, actually.
No, but as the only patent suits I've read about is one big company against another. I think it's because it's a waste of money starting a load of lawsuits against individuals. Especially if they are anonymous like Muslix64. Or maybe you only sue people if you know they have the assets to make it worthwhile.
But patents require disclosure, and on the whole, they'd prefer to maintain some obscurity, so they don't use patents quite so much in the encryption and decryption stages. Also, patents expire more quickly than copyrights.
If you read the Doom 9 thread, there's a AACS spec which is complete enough for Muslix64 to write a decoder, so AACS doesn't seem to rely on obscurity. That doesn't preven the AACS LA from getting a patent first, before the spec was published. Most of the specs I've read recently have a disclaimer at the start about how reading the spec doesn't give you rights to any patents the people that own the technology have, you need a license for that.
I think they used existing patent law, a lobbied for changes to copyright law in the DMCA. Those two things together, together with the contracts that HDDVD player manufacturers sign with the AACS LA are the legal basis for it.
In a sense, they did what Stallman did in taking existing IP law, in his case copyright, and using it to provide legal backing for something, in his case the GPL, to create an enviroment where their business model was legally protected.
In the case of the unapproved DVD player it's illegal because it uses a patented algorithm without licensing the patents from the AACS LA. In the case of this tool it's illegal to distribute it under the DMCA. It's also probably violating the patents, but patent law is useless against individuals, which is why the MPAA needed the DMCA provision.
I guess there's a patent on some part of the algorithm which is what the licensing authority licenses. So if you don't have a license, you're in breach of that patent. Whereas if you sign up for a license, you have to agree to great lengths that your implementation won't allow people to get access to the decrypted digital video, like his does. Also, he's in violation of the DMCA provision on not providing tools to "circumvent a technological measure", which is the basis of the takedown notice.
You may not like the way the law is, but that doesn't change the fact that he's on the wrong side of it.
Well his code also lets people extract the movie as an avi file and upload it to a torrent site. Which the people that own the rights to movies are not keen on.
If he was making HDDVD players which just allowed people to watch them, he wouldn't be on the run.
Why does everyone here want this not to work? Seems to me this could be the alternative to DRM. It doesn't interfere with fair use at all; it only detects when copyrighted works are made widely available.
Umm, because we want free stuff?
If we want to dissuade the entertainment industry from using DRM, it seems incumbent upon us, as technologists, to propose alternatives that at least partially answer copyright owners' legitimate concerns. Seems to me this could be one of them.
No, no. The copyright owners need to move to new business models, like "packaging it properly and uploading to Pirate Bay". They can make money of selling support for people who want to download torrents from open source OSs. And anyway, intellectual property is a nonsensical term. Property is for physical things my Cheetos and GPL code, not for herds of bits freely migrating through cyberspace like my mp3 collection. And it's like free speech and stuff. I could print the bits of an mp3 on a T shirt and the first amendment means that I'm allowed to wear it wherever I want, so uploading it to Napster must be legal. Check out Groklaw - "Challenges to the First Amendment in the Internet age"
So that shows that the MAFIIIIAAA are a bunch of gangsters and it's are duty to fgiht them. Have your read Cory Doctorow's essay on "Intellectual Property in the Web 2.0 age"? It's hard to find now, because he complained about people stealing it and putting in their websites so they took it down, but it's on boingboing somewhere. He said that some guy in Africa got killed by DRM because he wanted to install Linux on his girlfriend's iPod. The DRM stopped her listening to he music she bought so she shot him. It's like the Nazis really, both them and the DRM destroy information - how different is DRM key revocation and burning books when you think about it.
In reality, you don't have hidden nuclear bombs and known terrorists who are conveniently in your jail cell and know where the nuclear bombs are hidden
Yeah, but what if you did? Let's say you've got some terrorist who killed your wife and daughter, and has planted a bomb that will kill millions of people. Time is ticking, and unless the police get the information they don't have time to search all the possible locations. You've got Carlos the terrorist handcuffed to a radiator, a pair of pliers and blowtorch. Oh, and Carlos starts goading you about how your wife and daughter pleaded for their lives. He is unarmed.
Good I can feel your hatred. Take up the pliers and the blowtorch and torture him with all your anger and your journey to the Dark Side will be complete.
This message was paid for by Fox News on behalf of the Committee to Elect Anyone But McCain.
What about when Jack Bauer tortures a terrorist so he can find where they've hidden a nuclear bomb. Or when he kills one of them? Would you say that's evil?
Not really, Win32 is a very thin wrapper in this case. All the Win32 thread functions have identical equivalents in the native API. E.g. CreateThread becomes NtCreateThread. And NtCreateThread is just a syscall into the kernel.
What I *really* want to know is.... what the FUCK is this story doing on Slashdot?
Presenting a story about an (admittedly stupid) ban on a TV advert in Australia it as "your rights online" is really stretching things. I'm willing to bet someone out there will present a contrived argument as to how this really is "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
Well most slashdot stories are designed to trigger a load of misspelled comments from nerds about how dumb 'ordinary' people are. To work, the story needs to have a target group which is not well represented on slashdot. This one is couples with kids who watch TV and complain about adverts. Obviously, only a very, very small percentage of slashdotters have kids, and admitting to watching TV seriously uncool here. Real slashdotters spend their evening sitting and watching the build logs from Gentoo scrolling past, with Golum-like dilated pupils in their pitch black basement apartments. And people who call in to complain about anything are supporting censorship, like Hitler did. So the people that complained about the ad are actually an ideal target for the slashdot two minute hate.
Ordinary people are teh stoopid BTW, and did you notice my Orwell wiki link?
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, my point is that you can't take away people's freedom because you feel their lifestyle is excessive, which is quite unlike what the poster I responded to is saying. The idiots in Hollywood and Al Gore should be left alone to enjoy what they own, even though I dislike them. Their vapidity will destroy them eventually anyway.
I like Christmas - it has valid pagan roots far before the Christians hijacked it. Now I mostly use it to get drunk and celebrate the modern capitalist festival of Xmas by buying stuff for people I like. Oddly enough, that seems to put me on the same side as the Christians, and the opposite side to the 'multiculturalists'.
I don't think they're as smart as that. And most of the people involved will see it as an interesting technical project to make drives and disks with writeable CSS (if they are engineers), or a chance to sell some of their drives/disks at a massive markup compared to normal DVD ons (if they are sales guys). And the people at the top will go through the motions of testing a new distribution method.
The requirement that people burn in stores rather than at home is inevitable once they decided to use non standard disks with writeable CSS. Unfortunately, that will probably make this scheme sink like DivX.
Pretty ironic isn't it? They went to a great deal of trouble forking the DVD-R from DVD so CSS keys couldn't be written. Now they'll need to go to even more trouble hacking it to put them back in.
And all to support a protection mechanism which can be broken trivially with DVD Decrypter.
Truth to be told, I don't think it's such a stretch to say that people who are contributing a disproportionate amount to pollution are trying to kill me. They are actively destroying the resources I need to survive, after all. Am I, while I'm trying to defend myself against these indirect murderers, pushing a socialist agenda?
So that means if you kill Al Gore who uses far more resources than you, it's justifiable self defense? What about all those Hollwood celebs with their private jets and extravagant lifestyles? Or is it just the Republican voting upper middle class in their SUVs who count?
I wouldn't exactly call it socialist, since democratic socialists had a much more subtle, nuanced ideology than this, but it's definitely a envy driven agenda. Actually, it reminds me of Marxism since it is a mixture of the politics of envy, a belief that free societies are a concealed dictatorship, and that they contain the seeds of their own demise due to unsustainability. In fact, the main flaws in Marxism were not adequately explaining why free societies were unsustainable. Environmentalism, I suspect, gives people who want to believe that a better reason than the orginal Marxist idea that free societies would eventually collapse as the rate of profit declined and be replaced with dictatorships of the proletariat.
But as a liberal, it seems that if you want to take away other people's freedom, you need to have evidence that they are harming you in a much more direct way than this.
And if you want to move towards a society where the Golden Rule matters less, remember that the Republican voting SUV drivers probably outnumber people like you. They are better organised too. There's a fair chance that you'll be the unpopular minority that ends up losing rights, not them.
Face it, we are not going to colonize space or anything like that. We have to learn to work with our planet or die.
Well even the worst case versions of environmental degradation, which are unlikely to happen, still happen slowly enough that humanity could work on counter measures.
I didn't posit a conspiracy since the astronomers are simply reported experimental results. By no means do all or even most astronomers believe the global warming hysteria, nor all climate scientists.
All true climate scientists believe in global warming.
It's very disappointing that so many Wikipedians accepted Essjay's rationalizations for his deception and defended him on some sort of twisted utilitarian grounds because of his contributions to Wikipedia
I believe the term is Wikipedophile.
Yeah, but in practice doctors with bogus qualifications are far more likely to not cure people. There've been cases where people have gone to alternative doctors who are unqualified in real medicine with diseases which are would have been cureable by a real doctor. Because the alternative doctors prescribe things which are non harmful, but completely inactive they have died. My guess would be that fake doctors would be safe to visit provided you're basically healthy. If you have something that requires an non obvious real medicine they will kill you for much the same reason the homeopaths do.
Going back to your original question, I think it is, because your misleading people about risk. Legally I'm not sure. I know that you can sue a real doctor for negiligence, but I'm not sure what happens to fake doctors.
Above comment is likely from a sockpuppet of essjay. Sock puppets are a violation of WP:SOCK. Stop doing this or get an IP ban.
;-)
I vote to keep essjay deleted on grounds of non notability.
Sucks to be on the receiving end of WikiBureaucracy doesn't it essjay
Mind you, it's changing there's an EUCD which
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directi
There is no exception for individuals under patent law, actually.
No, but as the only patent suits I've read about is one big company against another. I think it's because it's a waste of money starting a load of lawsuits against individuals. Especially if they are anonymous like Muslix64. Or maybe you only sue people if you know they have the assets to make it worthwhile.
But patents require disclosure, and on the whole, they'd prefer to maintain some obscurity, so they don't use patents quite so much in the encryption and decryption stages. Also, patents expire more quickly than copyrights.
If you read the Doom 9 thread, there's a AACS spec which is complete enough for Muslix64 to write a decoder, so AACS doesn't seem to rely on obscurity. That doesn't preven the AACS LA from getting a patent first, before the spec was published. Most of the specs I've read recently have a disclaimer at the start about how reading the spec doesn't give you rights to any patents the people that own the technology have, you need a license for that.
I think they used existing patent law, a lobbied for changes to copyright law in the DMCA. Those two things together, together with the contracts that HDDVD player manufacturers sign with the AACS LA are the legal basis for it.
In a sense, they did what Stallman did in taking existing IP law, in his case copyright, and using it to provide legal backing for something, in his case the GPL, to create an enviroment where their business model was legally protected.
In the case of the unapproved DVD player it's illegal because it uses a patented algorithm without licensing the patents from the AACS LA. In the case of this tool it's illegal to distribute it under the DMCA. It's also probably violating the patents, but patent law is useless against individuals, which is why the MPAA needed the DMCA provision.
I guess there's a patent on some part of the algorithm which is what the licensing authority licenses. So if you don't have a license, you're in breach of that patent. Whereas if you sign up for a license, you have to agree to great lengths that your implementation won't allow people to get access to the decrypted digital video, like his does. Also, he's in violation of the DMCA provision on not providing tools to "circumvent a technological measure", which is the basis of the takedown notice.
You may not like the way the law is, but that doesn't change the fact that he's on the wrong side of it.
Well his code also lets people extract the movie as an avi file and upload it to a torrent site. Which the people that own the rights to movies are not keen on.
If he was making HDDVD players which just allowed people to watch them, he wouldn't be on the run.
Can't even have a movie day at the Library with materials in the library (although you can still read to children there...)
Technically, under the DMCA, you have to brainwipe the children afterwards.
Why does everyone here want this not to work? Seems to me this could be the alternative to DRM. It doesn't interfere with fair use at all; it only detects when copyrighted works are made widely available.
Umm, because we want free stuff?
If we want to dissuade the entertainment industry from using DRM, it seems incumbent upon us, as technologists, to propose alternatives that at least partially answer copyright owners' legitimate concerns. Seems to me this could be one of them.
No, no. The copyright owners need to move to new business models, like "packaging it properly and uploading to Pirate Bay". They can make money of selling support for people who want to download torrents from open source OSs. And anyway, intellectual property is a nonsensical term. Property is for physical things my Cheetos and GPL code, not for herds of bits freely migrating through cyberspace like my mp3 collection. And it's like free speech and stuff. I could print the bits of an mp3 on a T shirt and the first amendment means that I'm allowed to wear it wherever I want, so uploading it to Napster must be legal. Check out Groklaw - "Challenges to the First Amendment in the Internet age"
So that shows that the MAFIIIIAAA are a bunch of gangsters and it's are duty to fgiht them. Have your read Cory Doctorow's essay on "Intellectual Property in the Web 2.0 age"? It's hard to find now, because he complained about people stealing it and putting in their websites so they took it down, but it's on boingboing somewhere. He said that some guy in Africa got killed by DRM because he wanted to install Linux on his girlfriend's iPod. The DRM stopped her listening to he music she bought so she shot him. It's like the Nazis really, both them and the DRM destroy information - how different is DRM key revocation and burning books when you think about it.
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6823&cid=8 86346
In reality, you don't have hidden nuclear bombs and known terrorists who are conveniently in your jail cell and know where the nuclear bombs are hidden
Yeah, but what if you did? Let's say you've got some terrorist who killed your wife and daughter, and has planted a bomb that will kill millions of people. Time is ticking, and unless the police get the information they don't have time to search all the possible locations. You've got Carlos the terrorist handcuffed to a radiator, a pair of pliers and blowtorch. Oh, and Carlos starts goading you about how your wife and daughter pleaded for their lives. He is unarmed.
Good I can feel your hatred. Take up the pliers and the blowtorch and torture him with all your anger and your journey to the Dark Side will be complete.
This message was paid for by Fox News on behalf of the Committee to Elect Anyone But McCain.
What about when Jack Bauer tortures a terrorist so he can find where they've hidden a nuclear bomb. Or when he kills one of them? Would you say that's evil?
Yeah, but if brainwashing really did work, that's what they'd make you think.
Not really, Win32 is a very thin wrapper in this case. All the Win32 thread functions have identical equivalents in the native API. E.g. CreateThread becomes NtCreateThread. And NtCreateThread is just a syscall into the kernel.
t ika/SS02/bsprakt/inside_the_native_api.html
http://www13.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/lehre/prak
Windows threads work on BOTH platforms, Windows XP/Vista and Windows CE.
Bloggers == http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenda_Slagg ? Whodathunkit????!
Q)Why did the multithreaded chicken cross the road?
A)to To other side. get the
Q)Why did the multithreaded chicken cross the road?
A)other to side. To the get
What I *really* want to know is.... what the FUCK is this story doing on Slashdot?
Presenting a story about an (admittedly stupid) ban on a TV advert in Australia it as "your rights online" is really stretching things. I'm willing to bet someone out there will present a contrived argument as to how this really is "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
Well most slashdot stories are designed to trigger a load of misspelled comments from nerds about how dumb 'ordinary' people are. To work, the story needs to have a target group which is not well represented on slashdot. This one is couples with kids who watch TV and complain about adverts. Obviously, only a very, very small percentage of slashdotters have kids, and admitting to watching TV seriously uncool here. Real slashdotters spend their evening sitting and watching the build logs from Gentoo scrolling past, with Golum-like dilated pupils in their pitch black basement apartments. And people who call in to complain about anything are supporting censorship, like Hitler did. So the people that complained about the ad are actually an ideal target for the slashdot two minute hate.
Ordinary people are teh stoopid BTW, and did you notice my Orwell wiki link?