I think "elimination of Fair Use" understates the severity of the problem.
What's the problem with Microsoft? Proprietary data formats and protocols. Do you want to be able to be able to communicate with your friends, relatives, and collegues? Then you better have a copy of MS Office around, because without it, you won't be able to manipulate their documents very well. Some companies have achieved a modicum of success reverse engineering these file formats, such that we can use alternative, but (1) the effort requires a great effort which could be avoided by using open formats and (2) the process is error-prone and results in buggy and incomplete implementations.
Do people think Palladium is just about movies and pop radio? What happens when you cross Palladium with MS Word? You get file formats that are untouchable. This document was made for and by MS word, period. End of story. And end of competition.
I really hope U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is paying attention. I happen to believe, along with many others, that the approprate remedy she should impose on Microsoft would be to compell them to open their file formats and protocols. But how can you reconcile such a ruling with technology like Palladium?
Do you compell Microsoft to share its Palladium technology with any and all comers? That's would be useless. Just because you have Palladium doesn't mean you can write an application that will read a Palladiumized MS Word doc. In a way, this would be an insidious win for MS, as it would further validate the legitimacy of their proprietary machinations.
Do you prohibit Microsoft from employing any technology such as Palladium? How do you ensure such a ruling is legal and enforceable? How do you make such a ruling broad enough that it describes Palladium's intent rather than its specific technological underpinnings?
What it does do is use proven technologically sound encryption for the purpose of matching one piece of data to exactly one piece of code.
A lot of people have suggested that the appropriate remedy in response to the illegal activities demonstrated in the MS anti-trust trial would be to compell MS to openly publish its file formats and protocols.
Your description of Palladium is the opposite of this. Palladium takes the notion of 'proprietary data format' to a new extreme.
I find it interested that Microsoft has stated that it is willing to publish the inner workings of Palladium. "See, we're showing people how it works! Now bugger off and leave us alone."
Lets say U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly favors forcing Microsft to open its file formats and protocols. How do you reconcile this position with Palladium? Perhaps you prohibit Microsoft from producing it. Or perhaps you compell them to license the technology to any and all interested third parties (anti-Palladium though I may be, I believe it will kill *itself* in an free market. No need to prohibit the technology, that would be truly luddite).
How to reconcile Palladium w/ a open file format/protocol ruling in the MS anti-trust trial? Any bright ideas?
These people will never win elections and pass new laws w/ 20,000 people, even in unpopulated states, without counting on the usual apathetic voter turnout. Voters are apathetic because politicians are typically stupid and their aspirations are of little consequence (except for the Kafkaesque effects of their accumulated stupidity). However, tell one million voters that you're going to take their state away (a sophist ploy, but you know that's how it would be worded) and you better damn well believe they'll be voting your ass into jail. Because that's how they really believe they'll make their world a better place.
What type of customer are you targeting with this technology: your traditional home and business computer user (who have nothing to gain, but lots to lose), or the corporate content industry? Do you intend to leverage this technology to foray into content production and/or distribution yourself? Does Microsoft aim to be king of all media?
They want to hear "technical" questions? How about political questions? How about ethical questions? How about legal questions? I don't suppose they're prepared for that are they. They explicitely state that they're not. They want technical questions.
Q: "How does Palladium work?"
A: "Great question, Spanky! Let me tell you..."
Q: "Will it run on Windows?"
A: "Great question, Pookums! Yes!"
Q: "Do you have slack?"
A: "Great question, dude with the nipple rings! Huh?"
Perhaps shareholders aren't happy, but screw 'em. Why should a company be considered a "failure" if it doesn't rake in gonzo billions? If you can make money, pay your employees decently, and you have happy customers, you are not a failure - despite whatever Wall Street jerky boys in their pinstripe monkey suits would have you believe. How did it come to pass that world domination is our only criteria for success?
What does the patent system try to accomplish? I think your "stimulate research" and "foster innovation" on on the mark, but "protect ideas" is just another way of describing what patents do, not what they're designed to accomplish.
In any case, the question is: does the patent system meet these objectives? I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that it does. Another way of asking the same question would be "If the patent system didn't exist, what would happen to research and development?"
With some effort, this seems like a question that can be answered empirically. In different places and different times, the patent system did/does not exist. What are the consequences? Certainly you can't say there was never any basic research without a patent system in place. But to what degree has the patent system accelerated or retarded progress? Remember, not everyone agrees that patents, certainly not all/types/ of patents, promote progress.
If you're going to restrict my freedoms, please provide some solid evidence that these restrictions are indeed useful.
I'm not defending RMS's personal idiosyncrocies, just trying to dispell the notion that the name campaign's purpose is to garner credit for writing a bunch of software. You know that, I'm sure, but judging from the comments people make, a lot of people don't. (Or don't care, and just want to cast aspersions at RMS).
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you agree with RMS's message, but disagree with his methods. This may or may not be true, but bear with me for a moment. What do you think is the best way to increase people's awareness of the importance of free software? It seems like, whatever the method, some repetition is required, no?
Personally, I don't know that I think browbeating people to use the name "GNU/Linux" is the most effective marketing strategy. OTOH, without spending a lot of money, RMS has succeeded in at least generating a lot of passionate discussion. It's hard to say his efforts have been a failure, even if you don't like the name. And didn't RMS's biographer suggest he may have a touch of autism? I hardly think it's fair to criticize someone for behavior that may very well be out of their control.
How would you go about doing what RMS is attempting to accomplish?
I am grateful to the FSF for providing excellent Free Software which I use daily
I realize I'm being pedantic, but are you grateful for the freedom or the software.
There is a big difference between GPLed software and GNU software.
True. GNU/Linux really should apply to a system using GNU components, I suppose. I still think, though, that a lot of people completely miss the point of the FSF's name campaign. It's not about the software, it's about the principle behind the software.
I can name this just Linux (not GNU/Linux) because it contains no GNU software.
But you're missing the main point. The point is not that the OS contains a whole bunch of GNU components, so therefore you owe the FSF fealty. If that were the point, than as many have (incorrectly) pointed out, it would be equally valid to request the system be called Perl/Linux, etc.
Whether or not your system is built using GNU components, you still owe the FSF a debt of gratitude for promoting free software. Or did you put your system together from scratch? You did not: you're using busybox, for example, which is licenced under the GPL.
While there are many organizations which produce free software, which organizations do you look to unswervingly promote the ideals of software freedom? The FSF.
Again, the FSF is not asking you to use GNU/Linux out of respect for the amount of code they gave you. They want you to use the name GNU/Linux to increase awareness of the principle of software freedom on which your OS is based.
Also remember - it's just a request. Not a demand. Not a EULA. Not a law. Nothing to lose sleep over.
One: Apple's revenue comes from it's hardware sales. If people can go out and buy plain vanilla PCs and install MacOS on them for significantly cheaper than they can buy a Mac, Apple's income will drop a great deal/
That's really the main reason I don't buy Macs. I value the innovation and cost savings spurred by open hardware. I can't speak for others, but I'd imagine that that is the same reason many other people don't buy Macs as well. It's not so clear to me that Apple's revenue would drop if they abondoned total control in favor of greater marketshare.
On the other hand, I appreciate the fact they are doing something unique, and can keep an eye on quality. I guess I'm just a American muscle car over European quality racecar kind of guy. Maybe if I won the lottery my tastes would change.
I would really like to see some open systems built with these new IBM chips.
They never went down so they figured I didnt do anything:):)
When people ask me what I do, I sometimes like to regurgitate the aphorism about dial tone, or keeping the trains running on time. These are the kinds of things no one notices. Until they're gone. So in that sense, one of the biggest priorities of a good sysadmin is to not be noticed.
40K in NYC! What a bunch of bozos. It sounds like in the long run, you'll be glad you're gone.
Now we get to the part I find especially interesting, and where I think there is a lot of confusion among users. When BayTSP finds an IP address... it can subpoena ISP logs. These logs can directly connect even dynamic IP addresses to user accounts, making it clear very quickly who owns the offending account. Every ISP keeps these http logs, and even products for so-called anonymous surfing aren't effective in circumventing the technique.
The "technique" involves subpoenoeing log files. If you don't keep logs, there's nothing to subpeona. Here's an example. Put 1000 users behind a NAT box. Don't log NAT activity - which is pretty much the norm. Are you going to blame the NAT box operator for activity behind the box?! This goes beyond being an accomplice to the crime.
There are laws that allow for law enforcement agencies to subpoena connect logs. But as far as I know, there are no laws which require people to keep logs of all communication activity. That would be outlandish. If you thought Ashcroft's peeping goon squad idea was bad...
Eldred v. Ashcroft is not predicated on the argument that copyright must be limited.... The argument Lessig makes is not that the "limited term" clause is violated.
In fact, if you read the brief, he does exactly that. The constitution makes provisions for both Free Speech and the types of protections that Patents and Copyright afford. This is not about Copyright being trumped by Free Speech. That would be like having two Popes trying to excommunicate each other. That could never happen...;)
This is how the brief petioning the Supreme Court to hear the case begins:
This case is about the limits on Congress' Copyright Clause power.
Christmas clearly captures vendor interest. Students going back to school, and school administrators equiping their instutions with new hardware and software to start the year must also put some money in the bank. I know software vendors who target educational markets try hard to make sure they get a new release out in the summer to temp people into upgrading. I don't know much about the operation of federal and state government, but I've heard say that when the cycle's about over, and you still have cash, you better spend it.
If these represent peak demand times, then you might expect to see higher prices. But I really have no idea if there's any validity whatever to my armchair economics.
Come to think of it, you wouldn't want people to vote at home either; for the same reason you don't want to hand people a voting reciept. It would be too easy for Buster and Bruno to intimidate voters. Well lit, populated, and policed voting booths are the way to go.
But what would people do with their vote reciepts? They couldn't be used for recounting purposes - people will lose them, discard them, etc. The voting records used for recounts need to be stored centrally.
A vote reciept can't be used constuctively, but it's easy to imagine how it could be abused. Voting should be secret. You don't want people to feel intimidated by the thugs outside who would like to know how they voted.
I can think of one good reason to use computers rather than a mechanical means of voting: to make it easier for the disabled, elderly, busy and distracted to vote. If technology could be used to allow people to vote from home (or wherever they happen to be), I'd support that. But I can't concieve how that would work.
National ID cards would help. You need to be able to authenticate people's identity. But ID cards could be stolen or borrowed. Swipe your national ID card and do a retinal scan in your own home?! Doesn't seem likely anytime soon. I hope.
And I'd add, another aspect of discerning with certainty what's happening within the machine is that everyone has to understand it. Theoretically proveable to a handful of mathematicians and computer gurus doesn't cut it. Your grandma has to believe that the system is trustworthy. She has to comprehend how the system works. Counting holes punched in a piece of paper makes sense to people. Locking the paper up to prevent tampering, and having multiple independent auditing authorities in place makes sense to people. Cryptography does not.
Use computers to rapidly tally the votes, sure. But why use computers to do the actual voting? What's the point? What is gained? You can count the votes in real time rather than taking minutes or hours. So what? Sometimes simple is good.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me the amount of taxes paid by Microsoft.
Any old app can open it if it knows how to decrypt it and interpret it.
It's that 'if' that's the tickly bit. Palladium itself could be open as a sieve, while still enabling ultra-proprietary data formats.
I think "elimination of Fair Use" understates the severity of the problem.
What's the problem with Microsoft? Proprietary data formats and protocols. Do you want to be able to be able to communicate with your friends, relatives, and collegues? Then you better have a copy of MS Office around, because without it, you won't be able to manipulate their documents very well. Some companies have achieved a modicum of success reverse engineering these file formats, such that we can use alternative, but (1) the effort requires a great effort which could be avoided by using open formats and (2) the process is error-prone and results in buggy and incomplete implementations.
Do people think Palladium is just about movies and pop radio? What happens when you cross Palladium with MS Word? You get file formats that are untouchable. This document was made for and by MS word, period. End of story. And end of competition.
I really hope U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is paying attention. I happen to believe, along with many others, that the approprate remedy she should impose on Microsoft would be to compell them to open their file formats and protocols. But how can you reconcile such a ruling with technology like Palladium?
Do you compell Microsoft to share its Palladium technology with any and all comers? That's would be useless. Just because you have Palladium doesn't mean you can write an application that will read a Palladiumized MS Word doc. In a way, this would be an insidious win for MS, as it would further validate the legitimacy of their proprietary machinations.
Do you prohibit Microsoft from employing any technology such as Palladium? How do you ensure such a ruling is legal and enforceable? How do you make such a ruling broad enough that it describes Palladium's intent rather than its specific technological underpinnings?
What it does do is use proven technologically sound encryption for the purpose of matching one piece of data to exactly one piece of code.
A lot of people have suggested that the appropriate remedy in response to the illegal activities demonstrated in the MS anti-trust trial would be to compell MS to openly publish its file formats and protocols.
Your description of Palladium is the opposite of this. Palladium takes the notion of 'proprietary data format' to a new extreme.
I find it interested that Microsoft has stated that it is willing to publish the inner workings of Palladium. "See, we're showing people how it works! Now bugger off and leave us alone."
Lets say U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly favors forcing Microsft to open its file formats and protocols. How do you reconcile this position with Palladium? Perhaps you prohibit Microsoft from producing it. Or perhaps you compell them to license the technology to any and all interested third parties (anti-Palladium though I may be, I believe it will kill *itself* in an free market. No need to prohibit the technology, that would be truly luddite).
How to reconcile Palladium w/ a open file format/protocol ruling in the MS anti-trust trial? Any bright ideas?
These people will never win elections and pass new laws w/ 20,000 people, even in unpopulated states, without counting on the usual apathetic voter turnout. Voters are apathetic because politicians are typically stupid and their aspirations are of little consequence (except for the Kafkaesque effects of their accumulated stupidity). However, tell one million voters that you're going to take their state away (a sophist ploy, but you know that's how it would be worded) and you better damn well believe they'll be voting your ass into jail. Because that's how they really believe they'll make their world a better place.
New Hampshire motto: "Live free or die."
Why would consumers want this at all
Or to expand on this:
What type of customer are you targeting with this technology: your traditional home and business computer user (who have nothing to gain, but lots to lose), or the corporate content industry? Do you intend to leverage this technology to foray into content production and/or distribution yourself? Does Microsoft aim to be king of all media?
They want to hear "technical" questions? How about political questions? How about ethical questions? How about legal questions? I don't suppose they're prepared for that are they. They explicitely state that they're not. They want technical questions.
Q: "How does Palladium work?"
A: "Great question, Spanky! Let me tell you..."
Q: "Will it run on Windows?"
A: "Great question, Pookums! Yes!"
Q: "Do you have slack?"
A: "Great question, dude with the nipple rings! Huh?"
Perhaps shareholders aren't happy, but screw 'em. Why should a company be considered a "failure" if it doesn't rake in gonzo billions? If you can make money, pay your employees decently, and you have happy customers, you are not a failure - despite whatever Wall Street jerky boys in their pinstripe monkey suits would have you believe. How did it come to pass that world domination is our only criteria for success?
What does the patent system try to accomplish? I think your "stimulate research" and "foster innovation" on on the mark, but "protect ideas" is just another way of describing what patents do, not what they're designed to accomplish.
/types/ of patents, promote progress.
In any case, the question is: does the patent system meet these objectives? I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that it does. Another way of asking the same question would be "If the patent system didn't exist, what would happen to research and development?"
With some effort, this seems like a question that can be answered empirically. In different places and different times, the patent system did/does not exist. What are the consequences? Certainly you can't say there was never any basic research without a patent system in place. But to what degree has the patent system accelerated or retarded progress? Remember, not everyone agrees that patents, certainly not all
If you're going to restrict my freedoms, please provide some solid evidence that these restrictions are indeed useful.
I'm not defending RMS's personal idiosyncrocies, just trying to dispell the notion that the name campaign's purpose is to garner credit for writing a bunch of software. You know that, I'm sure, but judging from the comments people make, a lot of people don't. (Or don't care, and just want to cast aspersions at RMS).
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you agree with RMS's message, but disagree with his methods. This may or may not be true, but bear with me for a moment. What do you think is the best way to increase people's awareness of the importance of free software? It seems like, whatever the method, some repetition is required, no?
Personally, I don't know that I think browbeating people to use the name "GNU/Linux" is the most effective marketing strategy. OTOH, without spending a lot of money, RMS has succeeded in at least generating a lot of passionate discussion. It's hard to say his efforts have been a failure, even if you don't like the name. And didn't RMS's biographer suggest he may have a touch of autism? I hardly think it's fair to criticize someone for behavior that may very well be out of their control.
How would you go about doing what RMS is attempting to accomplish?
I am grateful to the FSF for providing excellent Free Software which I use daily
I realize I'm being pedantic, but are you grateful for the freedom or the software.
There is a big difference between GPLed software and GNU software.
True. GNU/Linux really should apply to a system using GNU components, I suppose. I still think, though, that a lot of people completely miss the point of the FSF's name campaign. It's not about the software, it's about the principle behind the software.
I can name this just Linux (not GNU/Linux) because it contains no GNU software.
But you're missing the main point. The point is not that the OS contains a whole bunch of GNU components, so therefore you owe the FSF fealty. If that were the point, than as many have (incorrectly) pointed out, it would be equally valid to request the system be called Perl/Linux, etc.
Whether or not your system is built using GNU components, you still owe the FSF a debt of gratitude for promoting free software. Or did you put your system together from scratch? You did not: you're using busybox, for example, which is licenced under the GPL.
While there are many organizations which produce free software, which organizations do you look to unswervingly promote the ideals of software freedom? The FSF.
Again, the FSF is not asking you to use GNU/Linux out of respect for the amount of code they gave you. They want you to use the name GNU/Linux to increase awareness of the principle of software freedom on which your OS is based.
Also remember - it's just a request . Not a demand. Not a EULA. Not a law. Nothing to lose sleep over.
One: Apple's revenue comes from it's hardware sales. If people can go out and buy plain vanilla PCs and install MacOS on them for significantly cheaper than they can buy a Mac, Apple's income will drop a great deal/
That's really the main reason I don't buy Macs. I value the innovation and cost savings spurred by open hardware. I can't speak for others, but I'd imagine that that is the same reason many other people don't buy Macs as well. It's not so clear to me that Apple's revenue would drop if they abondoned total control in favor of greater marketshare.
On the other hand, I appreciate the fact they are doing something unique, and can keep an eye on quality. I guess I'm just a American muscle car over European quality racecar kind of guy. Maybe if I won the lottery my tastes would change.
I would really like to see some open systems built with these new IBM chips.
They never went down so they figured I didnt do anything :) :)
When people ask me what I do, I sometimes like to regurgitate the aphorism about dial tone, or keeping the trains running on time. These are the kinds of things no one notices. Until they're gone. So in that sense, one of the biggest priorities of a good sysadmin is to not be noticed.
40K in NYC! What a bunch of bozos. It sounds like in the long run, you'll be glad you're gone.
Now we get to the part I find especially interesting, and where I think there is a lot of confusion among users. When BayTSP finds an IP address ... it can subpoena ISP logs. These logs can directly connect even dynamic IP addresses to user accounts, making it clear very quickly who owns the offending account. Every ISP keeps these http logs, and even products for so-called anonymous surfing aren't effective in circumventing the technique.
The "technique" involves subpoenoeing log files. If you don't keep logs, there's nothing to subpeona. Here's an example. Put 1000 users behind a NAT box. Don't log NAT activity - which is pretty much the norm. Are you going to blame the NAT box operator for activity behind the box?! This goes beyond being an accomplice to the crime.
There are laws that allow for law enforcement agencies to subpoena connect logs. But as far as I know, there are no laws which require people to keep logs of all communication activity. That would be outlandish. If you thought Ashcroft's peeping goon squad idea was bad...
If, as you say, you need a security co-processor, then how do you implement Palladium on existing hardware?
Did you read the article? That isn't the basis for this case.
Read the Petition to the Supreme Court to hear the case. That there should be limits on Copyright Clause is, in fact, the basis of this case.
Eldred v. Ashcroft is not predicated on the argument that copyright must be limited. ... The argument Lessig makes is not that the "limited term" clause is violated.
;)
In fact, if you read the brief, he does exactly that. The constitution makes provisions for both Free Speech and the types of protections that Patents and Copyright afford. This is not about Copyright being trumped by Free Speech. That would be like having two Popes trying to excommunicate each other. That could never happen...
This is how the brief petioning the Supreme Court to hear the case begins:
This case is about the limits on Congress' Copyright Clause power.
Christmas clearly captures vendor interest. Students going back to school, and school administrators equiping their instutions with new hardware and software to start the year must also put some money in the bank. I know software vendors who target educational markets try hard to make sure they get a new release out in the summer to temp people into upgrading. I don't know much about the operation of federal and state government, but I've heard say that when the cycle's about over, and you still have cash, you better spend it.
If these represent peak demand times, then you might expect to see higher prices. But I really have no idea if there's any validity whatever to my armchair economics.
Come to think of it, you wouldn't want people to vote at home either; for the same reason you don't want to hand people a voting reciept. It would be too easy for Buster and Bruno to intimidate voters. Well lit, populated, and policed voting booths are the way to go.
But what would people do with their vote reciepts? They couldn't be used for recounting purposes - people will lose them, discard them, etc. The voting records used for recounts need to be stored centrally.
A vote reciept can't be used constuctively, but it's easy to imagine how it could be abused. Voting should be secret. You don't want people to feel intimidated by the thugs outside who would like to know how they voted.
I can think of one good reason to use computers rather than a mechanical means of voting: to make it easier for the disabled, elderly, busy and distracted to vote. If technology could be used to allow people to vote from home (or wherever they happen to be), I'd support that. But I can't concieve how that would work.
National ID cards would help. You need to be able to authenticate people's identity. But ID cards could be stolen or borrowed. Swipe your national ID card and do a retinal scan in your own home?! Doesn't seem likely anytime soon. I hope.
And I'd add, another aspect of discerning with certainty what's happening within the machine is that everyone has to understand it. Theoretically proveable to a handful of mathematicians and computer gurus doesn't cut it. Your grandma has to believe that the system is trustworthy. She has to comprehend how the system works. Counting holes punched in a piece of paper makes sense to people. Locking the paper up to prevent tampering, and having multiple independent auditing authorities in place makes sense to people. Cryptography does not.
Use computers to rapidly tally the votes, sure. But why use computers to do the actual voting? What's the point? What is gained? You can count the votes in real time rather than taking minutes or hours. So what? Sometimes simple is good.
Speaking of going to the moon, don't tell Buzz Aldrin that no one's been there!
If you're using Depends, you should always opt for the high speed reliable storage over the low speed crap storage.