From my reading of the US constitution, the Congress is not allowed to enact any copyright laws at all. 10th Amendment disallows messing with anything that is not an enumerated power (as defined by article 1 section 8). The referred to power allows "promoting Science and Useful Arts".
This can be read two ways: * in 18th century, "useful arts" did not mean "art" in today's sense of the word; this clause allows patents * if you use "art" in the modern sense, this disallows copyright on typical entertainment (definitely not "useful")
At least one AV maker used to brag about this semi-publicly in the 80s when (at least here) it wasn't a crime. I fail to believe no one does this today too -- especially that authorship of a virus is damn hard to prove and an AV maker will legitimately have samples of hundreds or thousands of viruses, including commented assembly.
But in today's global world, what would you use instead? National domains are any good only for sites that are restricted to a single country, or at least have close ties to one in some way. Of course, technically you can run a global site from Lybia or Montenegro, but that's contrary to the point of national TLDs.
Well, she did experiment with taking virgin blood both internally (drinking) and externally (bathing in it). You see, a good scientist uses different approaches and repeats the test on a big enough sample to get good confidence.
GPL's aim is to emulate the world without copyright.
That's GPL, not BSD. With freedom of copying, you have no means to render a piece of software proprietary, and you can bet that decompilers would spring up the moment using the result of decompilation stops being illegal in all relevant cases. If we merely banned copyright but didn't enact consumer protection laws, a decompiled binary would in the worst case be identical to obfuscated source.
Claiming that censoring culture is not a violation of free speech is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest thing the copyright cartels have tried to do.
Copyright is censorship. It's not a "right" but deprivation of rights -- it removes a natural and vital right the public had for as long as culture existed.
Through the history of our species, every single piece of culture builds upon earlier ones. There's nothing entirely new, merely degrees of derivation. And even most prominent novel works build upon old culture if they want to be understood. Don't forget, even the language itself is a work of culture -- what if THAT was copyrighted/patented? Or, say, alphabet. Would you want to use "counterfeit alphabets"? If not, please contact the nearest temple of Amon, priests there will provide you with solutions for your writing needs for "reasonable and non-discriminatory" prices.
With copyright in its present form, there'd be no Shakespeare, and if Bonos had their way, we'd have no Tolkien as well.
That's why they want to replace "merely" oppressive law with few upsides like the DMCA with something downright ridiculous that allows censorship with impunity.
People in Egypt or Syria suffer from internet censorship just the same, and for them communication is a matter of freedom or slavery. Not a first world problem in my book.
Quarter a decade ago decompilers were quite popular. There's little point in developing them today, though, due to rampant copyright -- you won't be able to use whatever semi-source you recovered due to oppressive laws.
If we got rid of copyright, though, you can bet any not thoroughly obfuscated code that's useful would be immediately decompiled and cleaned up by someone. And thoroughly obfuscated pieces would be merely considered a challenge by some of us.
that results in another middleman that adds more overhead.
They already add hundreds of middlemen at different stages to avoid taxes and paying royalties to the artists. Most of works robbed by both MPAA and RIAA are officially in red even when a resounding commercial success. They want this overhead as it gives another opportunity to weasel away some of the gains.
That's why you restore not the fresh install but one of your regular backups. And those can have/srv or misplaced data (/var/lib/mysql/ shouldn't be there) saved separately so you can choose what to restore.
With btrfs that's a matter of a single command. This does share the flaw of being useless against actual intrusions (ironically what Microsoft markets this feature as a defense from!), but for any breakage you did yourself it's godsent. And protects you against disasters like OS developers putting Gnome3 into unstable.
A good part of that bloatware, adware and crapware is installed right by the PC hardware sellers.
And they never give you crap-free install media. If you don't happen to have proper install media from another source, of the same exact Windows flavour, you're fucked. And unlike you and me, 99.9% users don't have them.
Except that executables for the recovery process itself must be stored somewhere. Verifying a signature is no good if the verifier can be subverted.
Those "standard OS protections and security" would work only if the OS itself is impeccable -- and we're talking Windows where. Unix sysadmins, even though their systems are generally more trustworthy, have mostly learned that a compromised install cannot be trusted for literally anything. You can't do forensics from the tainted system.
Slashdot Mirror
From my reading of the US constitution, the Congress is not allowed to enact any copyright laws at all. 10th Amendment disallows messing with anything that is not an enumerated power (as defined by article 1 section 8). The referred to power allows "promoting Science and Useful Arts".
This can be read two ways:
* in 18th century, "useful arts" did not mean "art" in today's sense of the word; this clause allows patents
* if you use "art" in the modern sense, this disallows copyright on typical entertainment (definitely not "useful")
At least one AV maker used to brag about this semi-publicly in the 80s when (at least here) it wasn't a crime. I fail to believe no one does this today too -- especially that authorship of a virus is damn hard to prove and an AV maker will legitimately have samples of hundreds or thousands of viruses, including commented assembly.
most sites outside USA still use .org, .com and .net
Well now here's their incentive to change,/i>,
But in today's global world, what would you use instead? National domains are any good only for sites that are restricted to a single country, or at least have close ties to one in some way. Of course, technically you can run a global site from Lybia or Montenegro, but that's contrary to the point of national TLDs.
Even blocking domains is enough to cause massive damage: most sites outside USA still use .org, .com and .net, especially in English speaking countries.
Well, she did experiment with taking virgin blood both internally (drinking) and externally (bathing in it). You see, a good scientist uses different approaches and repeats the test on a big enough sample to get good confidence.
Note the URL of your link. It's a case of spammers complaing about Spamhaus.
It's sad Google has to hide some of its operations, but it'd be basically impossible to fight SEO lowlifes otherwise.
GPL's aim is to emulate the world without copyright.
That's GPL, not BSD. With freedom of copying, you have no means to render a piece of software proprietary, and you can bet that decompilers would spring up the moment using the result of decompilation stops being illegal in all relevant cases. If we merely banned copyright but didn't enact consumer protection laws, a decompiled binary would in the worst case be identical to obfuscated source.
I fully agree! Hint: my address starts with 2001:
Sadly, Apple manages to get away with this.
I haven't watched a movie in a couple of years, and two movies total in the two years before.
Why stop at 5 years? 0 sounds like a much better idea to me.
I smell a marketing campaign targeted against Google. Yahoo is powered by Bing.
And the changes Nov-Dec 2011 are:
* +0.5 Google
* +0.1 Bing
* -0.6 Yahoo
In other words, 0.5% of the global search volume moved from Bing-powered to Google-powered in a single month.
Claiming that censoring culture is not a violation of free speech is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest thing the copyright cartels have tried to do.
Copyright is censorship. It's not a "right" but deprivation of rights -- it removes a natural and vital right the public had for as long as culture existed.
Through the history of our species, every single piece of culture builds upon earlier ones. There's nothing entirely new, merely degrees of derivation. And even most prominent novel works build upon old culture if they want to be understood. Don't forget, even the language itself is a work of culture -- what if THAT was copyrighted/patented? Or, say, alphabet. Would you want to use "counterfeit alphabets"? If not, please contact the nearest temple of Amon, priests there will provide you with solutions for your writing needs for "reasonable and non-discriminatory" prices.
With copyright in its present form, there'd be no Shakespeare, and if Bonos had their way, we'd have no Tolkien as well.
but AT LEAST they're not in our dreams!
Yet. I somehow can't imagine crap peddlers to skip this opportunity when (not if) that technology becomes available.
That's why they want to replace "merely" oppressive law with few upsides like the DMCA with something downright ridiculous that allows censorship with impunity.
People in Egypt or Syria suffer from internet censorship just the same, and for them communication is a matter of freedom or slavery. Not a first world problem in my book.
there's no way to prevent someone from using another DNS server
for prot in tcp udp; do iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i lan0 -p $prot --dport 53 -j REDIRECT;done
Use -j DNAT if the DNS server is on another box.
Quite a bunch of ISPs do that already.
Quarter a decade ago decompilers were quite popular. There's little point in developing them today, though, due to rampant copyright -- you won't be able to use whatever semi-source you recovered due to oppressive laws.
If we got rid of copyright, though, you can bet any not thoroughly obfuscated code that's useful would be immediately decompiled and cleaned up by someone. And thoroughly obfuscated pieces would be merely considered a challenge by some of us.
that results in another middleman that adds more overhead.
They already add hundreds of middlemen at different stages to avoid taxes and paying royalties to the artists. Most of works robbed by both MPAA and RIAA are officially in red even when a resounding commercial success. They want this overhead as it gives another opportunity to weasel away some of the gains.
That's why you restore not the fresh install but one of your regular backups. And those can have /srv or misplaced data (/var/lib/mysql/ shouldn't be there) saved separately so you can choose what to restore.
With btrfs that's a matter of a single command. This does share the flaw of being useless against actual intrusions (ironically what Microsoft markets this feature as a defense from!), but for any breakage you did yourself it's godsent. And protects you against disasters like OS developers putting Gnome3 into unstable.
A good part of that bloatware, adware and crapware is installed right by the PC hardware sellers.
And they never give you crap-free install media. If you don't happen to have proper install media from another source, of the same exact Windows flavour, you're fucked. And unlike you and me, 99.9% users don't have them.
will reinstall Windows 8, but keep your documents and installed Metro apps in tact
So that's where you do put malware in if you don't want to bother with subverting the image or the reinstaller.
Except that executables for the recovery process itself must be stored somewhere. Verifying a signature is no good if the verifier can be subverted.
Those "standard OS protections and security" would work only if the OS itself is impeccable -- and we're talking Windows where. Unix sysadmins, even though their systems are generally more trustworthy, have mostly learned that a compromised install cannot be trusted for literally anything. You can't do forensics from the tainted system.
The only difference between the two is that politicians are in it for the power while companies are in it for the money.
Power is money. Money is power.