Thank you Michael Righi for attempting to stick up for everyone's rights. But unfortunately the real lesson that everyone who reads this story will learn is that you don't really have any rights, you should just shut up and comply with authority if you don't want to be punished. Be honest now, if you find yourself in a similar situation and you think back on this story, what will you really do?
Lots of good comments here already, but what the heck - always room for a few more.
I was a shareware vendor for many years, and now I run a small software company offering commercial products. I've dealt with this issue for a long time, so I can offer a few observations.
The first thing I would say is "do what your customers expect". In some markets, people expect to have to enter a serial number, but nothing more. In other markets, people expect to use a hardware dongle with the software. If you find out what others are doing and do the same, you won't violate your customers' expectations. They will perceive you as a responsible, professional vendor, while accepting a modest amount of inconvenience.
Most new software vendors tend to err on the side of too much copy protection, because they over-estimate the value of their work and they get really pissed-off at the thought of people stealing it. You should be so lucky! Cut whatever you had in mind in half, and do what must to deal with piracy later if you are fortunate enough to have your software widely copied and used.
Most business and professional software users are pretty responsible about paying for the software they use. A very modest speed bump that lets them notice if they are using a non-legitimate copy is generally sufficient. In every successful company I have ever worked at, there's a clear policy that all commercial software in use must be properly licensed and paid for. Not that there isn't some unofficial copying going on, but it has to stay below the level that comes to anyone's official attention.
My company is very careful to protect the value of its commercial products, but never in a way that gets beyond customer expectations. In various markets we use registration codes, timeouts, permanent personal registration of software copies, and even hardware dongles. All have their value, but it's never worth losing customers over this issue. Any legitimate customer complaints, and we would back right off and offer an acceptable alternative. That's business.
Personal software is another matter. As a shareware author I always made sure that my trial versions remained useful even if never registered, and I always encouraged users to ask their support questions even if they weren't registered. Based on the support questions and the number of downloads versus paid registrations, I would estimate about a 10:1 ratio between users and paying customers. Did that make me unhappy? Not at all! Most of those unpaid users would never pay for the software anyway, but by using it they are spreading the word and helping me test and improve the product. Plus I don't mind doing a little bit to improve the world for free as long as I'm getting an adequate return on my personal time investment.
My company has tried three times to get a response from Google's sales team on the cost of licensing Google Earh for a commercial application. The only response each time has been a canned auto-reply on how to download Google Earth. Now I know what we need to do! We'll have our web site violating Google's data licensing terms up shortly, and then we'll sit back and wait for their legal team to get in touch.:-)
Spamhaus and other block-list pushers are a solution to spam that's worse than the problem. I understand that it's up to individual ISPs to decide what they do with these block lists, but too many were relying on them blindly to reject email from any source that ended up on a block list. Unfortunately many sources that ended up on these block lists are the common mail servers of other major ISPs, resulting in large volumes of false-positive emails being blocked.
Perhaps it's indicative of the arrogant attitude of outfits like Spamhaus that this happened to them. Maybe this will serve as a wake-up call to other block-list operators to act more responsibly, but I suspect they'll ignore it and continue business as usual.
It's truly terrifying to see this happen in my lifetime. I grew up reading SF stories about bleak future worlds in the "1984" vein, but it was always difficult to understand how any people who loved freedom and democracy could let those worlds come about. Who would have believed that all it took was 19 nut cases acting together? Osama bin Laden must be ROFL wherever he is that he was able to destroy the ideals of the United State of America that took centuries to build so easily.
I'd call it hacking, not phishing, but this happened to us earlier this year. Our company web site at was hacked many times over a period of a month to insert code redirecting visitors to a Russian site that attempted to install a trojan. We knew that 's server was compromised because other users of the same server were also complaining about the same thing. 's reaction?: "We are aware of the problem and we are investigating". We abandoned our account there and moved to another web host after repairing our site every day (often several times per day) for a month.
Best show on television. You guys have my dream job.
I disagree with the guy that said the Mythbusters' results aren't meaningful because you aren't thorough enough - it looks like you are as thorough as it's possible to be under the circumstances, and you aren't afraid to revisit a myth if you find out more.
I also agree with the guy that said you should do a show on computer-related myths (this is Slashdot, after all).
But here's my personal question: How much help do you really get from assistants behind the scenes that we don't get to see on camera? It looks like you give plenty of credit to your on-camera team, but do you have other guys that routinely help you build stuff, or on-staff scientific/engineering advisors etc?
Let me preface my comment by mentioning that I've used all the methods of photo printing extensively. I used an actual chemical color darkroom setup at home in the years before color ink-jet printers - and yes, that was very expensive and time-consuming, but it was the only way to do it at the time. I rushed out to buy the original Epson Color Stylus (one of the first practical photo ink-jet printers) back when it first became available. Since then I've used dozens of Epson, HP, Canon and Lexmark ink-jet printers, and few color lasers and dye-sub printers as well. I also use the services of several local digital printing labs, most of which produce pretty good results these days.
There's no question that printing at home on glossy photo paper is only for people who can't do basic math, especially with the latest Epson and HP printers (don't blame the messenger, Epson and HP owners, I'm speaking from experience). The costs are much higher than better-quality professional photo printing. I can go to a store and get 1-hour turnaround at lower cost - or I can send the photos by internet to the lab and get them in the mail a few days later at even lower cost. Anyway, these days why would you bother printing dozens or hundreds of little 4x6 prints to show your photos to your friends and family when they can see them faster on the internet at no cost, or you can do a TV slide show for the few who don't have PCs.
But there are good reasons for printing, and options to reduce the cost.
I usually print only large-format 8x10 prints of my best photos. At that size the cost equation changes a bit compared to the photo labs. Also the resolution at that size is better than the computer screen, and they're worth putting in a photo album or mounting on the wall.
These days I use only Canon ink-jet printers, because their ink cost per page is significantly lower than the competition (a factor often skipped in reviews), and they are a lot more reliable (I get a perfect print first time, every time - even if it hasn't been used in a month - try that with HP or Epson). That wasn't the case a few years ago, and it might not be true next year, but that's the way it stacks up today.
I almost never print on glossy photo paper - I use selected brands of high-quality matte paper that offer equivalent quality at a fraction of the price. And then I slip them into a 2-cent plastic cover sheet that makes them look glossy and protects them from the damaging effects of atmospheric gases and UV light.
Don't I remember Microsoft setting out to completely rewrite Windows from the ground up in 1992, with a more professional development approach? Wasn't it called something like Windows/NT ("New Technology").
What makes them think that they'll do any better this time, with the same same designers and programmers that produced what they have now?
Those who forget history... etc etc
I think you miss the point of "deniability".
Nobody can "prove" that they don't have a hidden secret that may or may not exist.
The point of deniability is that nobody can prove that you do.
Truecrypt's optional second-level encryption is different because there's no way to prove that any second-level encryption is being used, and in fact there may not be any for the majority of Truecrypt drives. That's not the same as somebody actually be able to point to a file on your system which is clearly encrypted and saying "decrypt it - or else".
Truecrypt is an open-source virtual drive encrypter which offers the feature of "deniability". It lets you hide additional files in the free space of the encrypted drive, protected by a second secrety key. And it guarantees that both unused free space on a normal encrypted drive and free space used to hold additional hidden data all looks completely random regardless of the content or lack of content. Therefore you can easily deny that there is any additional hidden data, and there is no basis for anyone to say otherwise.
Joss also warned in that post that the trailer has major spoilers for Firefly fans who are familiar with the TV series and would prefer to see the movie unspoiled.
For what it's worth, Firefly is one of the better SF series ever made. For one thing, spaceships don't make whooshing or rumbling sounds - scenes in space are completely silent.:-)
Why report this as a new story? It's an old story - Videotron took this position 2 years ago when the case was filed. It was decided against the CRIA last year. The CRIA have recently appealed, but they appear to have few grounds, given the judgement that they had no case on multiple grounds.
... to can the DRM and offer downloads including the advertising, just like it aired?
They could probably sell advertising in downloads as a separate product, just like they sell broadcast rights in a different market. If it's an old, unpopular show, or one that never aired, they could offer really cheap advertising rates.
If it were convenient and legal, I wouldn't mind downloading and watching a show with the ads included. After all, I'm used to watching it that way on broadcast TV, and it might be interesting to see what ads I'd get from other countries.
Even more advanced: how about including country-specific ads on-the-fly during download? That would let them charge more to advertisers.
Argument: any complex system that can be easily defeated by the enemy at much lower cost is a losing proposition. For example, if the enemy can overwhelm your expensive missile defense system with cheap decoys, it's not worth the effot. Or if simple changes in encryption can defeat your signature sniffing within days of deploying it, then it's a big waste of time and money. Wait a minute, on second thought you should go right ahead with that, MPAA. Yes, it's a great idea!
Exactly. The PC Mag article was pretty deficient as a review. But why would you read a computer mag for an audio review anyway? You might as well read Consumer Reports.
I'm the first to admit that the iPod is not the most bang for your buck, but I have no complaints about its sound quality when used with the right headphones - and I'm pretty picky about sound quality (my home system has full-range electrostatic speaker towers and 1000w of all Class-A amps in a carefully-tuned listening room, so I have some standard for comparison). By contrast I find most other MP3 players noticeably inferior, including my own Creative and Samsung flash players.
Quantum cryptography is the encoding of communications using a quantum technique which allows the guaranteed detection of any intrusion or interception of the communication. Prototype systems now available. Not to be confused with quantum computers, a technology which could theoretically allow successful code-cracking computations which are beyond the power of current computers. Quantum computers are theoretically possible, but only the most basic building blocks of the technology have been demonstrated to date.
And it should be noted that cryptographic engineers have already documented half a dozen techniques for intercepting quantum cryptographic communications without violating any laws of physics by simply outsmarting the builders and operators of such systems. For example, by taking advantage of the error correction built into the sender's hardware to make it repeat data blocks without notifying the human operator. Or overloading the receiver's detector by shining a laser down the optical fibre, causing it to read all zeroes.
This technique is used very effectively by Israeli security officers to flush out security risks - but they receive special training in interrogation technique, and they're not so much comparing your answers as observing you carefully. This technique can be very effective if applied selectively by people who are properly trained and experienced - much more effective than document checks, routine questions, and luggage searches. How many terrorist hijackings and bombings have there been on prime target El Al Airlines in the last 30 years?
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you Michael Righi for attempting to stick up for everyone's rights. But unfortunately the real lesson that everyone who reads this story will learn is that you don't really have any rights, you should just shut up and comply with authority if you don't want to be punished. Be honest now, if you find yourself in a similar situation and you think back on this story, what will you really do?
Lots of good comments here already, but what the heck - always room for a few more. I was a shareware vendor for many years, and now I run a small software company offering commercial products. I've dealt with this issue for a long time, so I can offer a few observations. The first thing I would say is "do what your customers expect". In some markets, people expect to have to enter a serial number, but nothing more. In other markets, people expect to use a hardware dongle with the software. If you find out what others are doing and do the same, you won't violate your customers' expectations. They will perceive you as a responsible, professional vendor, while accepting a modest amount of inconvenience. Most new software vendors tend to err on the side of too much copy protection, because they over-estimate the value of their work and they get really pissed-off at the thought of people stealing it. You should be so lucky! Cut whatever you had in mind in half, and do what must to deal with piracy later if you are fortunate enough to have your software widely copied and used. Most business and professional software users are pretty responsible about paying for the software they use. A very modest speed bump that lets them notice if they are using a non-legitimate copy is generally sufficient. In every successful company I have ever worked at, there's a clear policy that all commercial software in use must be properly licensed and paid for. Not that there isn't some unofficial copying going on, but it has to stay below the level that comes to anyone's official attention. My company is very careful to protect the value of its commercial products, but never in a way that gets beyond customer expectations. In various markets we use registration codes, timeouts, permanent personal registration of software copies, and even hardware dongles. All have their value, but it's never worth losing customers over this issue. Any legitimate customer complaints, and we would back right off and offer an acceptable alternative. That's business. Personal software is another matter. As a shareware author I always made sure that my trial versions remained useful even if never registered, and I always encouraged users to ask their support questions even if they weren't registered. Based on the support questions and the number of downloads versus paid registrations, I would estimate about a 10:1 ratio between users and paying customers. Did that make me unhappy? Not at all! Most of those unpaid users would never pay for the software anyway, but by using it they are spreading the word and helping me test and improve the product. Plus I don't mind doing a little bit to improve the world for free as long as I'm getting an adequate return on my personal time investment.
My company has tried three times to get a response from Google's sales team on the cost of licensing Google Earh for a commercial application. The only response each time has been a canned auto-reply on how to download Google Earth. Now I know what we need to do! We'll have our web site violating Google's data licensing terms up shortly, and then we'll sit back and wait for their legal team to get in touch. :-)
Spamhaus and other block-list pushers are a solution to spam that's worse than the problem. I understand that it's up to individual ISPs to decide what they do with these block lists, but too many were relying on them blindly to reject email from any source that ended up on a block list. Unfortunately many sources that ended up on these block lists are the common mail servers of other major ISPs, resulting in large volumes of false-positive emails being blocked. Perhaps it's indicative of the arrogant attitude of outfits like Spamhaus that this happened to them. Maybe this will serve as a wake-up call to other block-list operators to act more responsibly, but I suspect they'll ignore it and continue business as usual.
It's truly terrifying to see this happen in my lifetime. I grew up reading SF stories about bleak future worlds in the "1984" vein, but it was always difficult to understand how any people who loved freedom and democracy could let those worlds come about. Who would have believed that all it took was 19 nut cases acting together? Osama bin Laden must be ROFL wherever he is that he was able to destroy the ideals of the United State of America that took centuries to build so easily.
I'd call it hacking, not phishing, but this happened to us earlier this year. Our company web site at was hacked many times over a period of a month to insert code redirecting visitors to a Russian site that attempted to install a trojan. We knew that 's server was compromised because other users of the same server were also complaining about the same thing. 's reaction?: "We are aware of the problem and we are investigating". We abandoned our account there and moved to another web host after repairing our site every day (often several times per day) for a month.
Best show on television. You guys have my dream job. I disagree with the guy that said the Mythbusters' results aren't meaningful because you aren't thorough enough - it looks like you are as thorough as it's possible to be under the circumstances, and you aren't afraid to revisit a myth if you find out more. I also agree with the guy that said you should do a show on computer-related myths (this is Slashdot, after all). But here's my personal question: How much help do you really get from assistants behind the scenes that we don't get to see on camera? It looks like you give plenty of credit to your on-camera team, but do you have other guys that routinely help you build stuff, or on-staff scientific/engineering advisors etc?
Perhaps we should be asking why so many unoriginal and untalented researchers want to duplicate the patented work of others.
Let me preface my comment by mentioning that I've used all the methods of photo printing extensively. I used an actual chemical color darkroom setup at home in the years before color ink-jet printers - and yes, that was very expensive and time-consuming, but it was the only way to do it at the time. I rushed out to buy the original Epson Color Stylus (one of the first practical photo ink-jet printers) back when it first became available. Since then I've used dozens of Epson, HP, Canon and Lexmark ink-jet printers, and few color lasers and dye-sub printers as well. I also use the services of several local digital printing labs, most of which produce pretty good results these days. There's no question that printing at home on glossy photo paper is only for people who can't do basic math, especially with the latest Epson and HP printers (don't blame the messenger, Epson and HP owners, I'm speaking from experience). The costs are much higher than better-quality professional photo printing. I can go to a store and get 1-hour turnaround at lower cost - or I can send the photos by internet to the lab and get them in the mail a few days later at even lower cost. Anyway, these days why would you bother printing dozens or hundreds of little 4x6 prints to show your photos to your friends and family when they can see them faster on the internet at no cost, or you can do a TV slide show for the few who don't have PCs.
But there are good reasons for printing, and options to reduce the cost. I usually print only large-format 8x10 prints of my best photos. At that size the cost equation changes a bit compared to the photo labs. Also the resolution at that size is better than the computer screen, and they're worth putting in a photo album or mounting on the wall. These days I use only Canon ink-jet printers, because their ink cost per page is significantly lower than the competition (a factor often skipped in reviews), and they are a lot more reliable (I get a perfect print first time, every time - even if it hasn't been used in a month - try that with HP or Epson). That wasn't the case a few years ago, and it might not be true next year, but that's the way it stacks up today. I almost never print on glossy photo paper - I use selected brands of high-quality matte paper that offer equivalent quality at a fraction of the price. And then I slip them into a 2-cent plastic cover sheet that makes them look glossy and protects them from the damaging effects of atmospheric gases and UV light.
Don't I remember Microsoft setting out to completely rewrite Windows from the ground up in 1992, with a more professional development approach? Wasn't it called something like Windows/NT ("New Technology"). What makes them think that they'll do any better this time, with the same same designers and programmers that produced what they have now? Those who forget history ... etc etc
I think you miss the point of "deniability". Nobody can "prove" that they don't have a hidden secret that may or may not exist. The point of deniability is that nobody can prove that you do. Truecrypt's optional second-level encryption is different because there's no way to prove that any second-level encryption is being used, and in fact there may not be any for the majority of Truecrypt drives. That's not the same as somebody actually be able to point to a file on your system which is clearly encrypted and saying "decrypt it - or else".
Truecrypt is an open-source virtual drive encrypter which offers the feature of "deniability". It lets you hide additional files in the free space of the encrypted drive, protected by a second secrety key. And it guarantees that both unused free space on a normal encrypted drive and free space used to hold additional hidden data all looks completely random regardless of the content or lack of content. Therefore you can easily deny that there is any additional hidden data, and there is no basis for anyone to say otherwise.
Joss also warned in that post that the trailer has major spoilers for Firefly fans who are familiar with the TV series and would prefer to see the movie unspoiled. For what it's worth, Firefly is one of the better SF series ever made. For one thing, spaceships don't make whooshing or rumbling sounds - scenes in space are completely silent. :-)
Why report this as a new story? It's an old story - Videotron took this position 2 years ago when the case was filed. It was decided against the CRIA last year. The CRIA have recently appealed, but they appear to have few grounds, given the judgement that they had no case on multiple grounds.
... to can the DRM and offer downloads including the advertising, just like it aired? They could probably sell advertising in downloads as a separate product, just like they sell broadcast rights in a different market. If it's an old, unpopular show, or one that never aired, they could offer really cheap advertising rates. If it were convenient and legal, I wouldn't mind downloading and watching a show with the ads included. After all, I'm used to watching it that way on broadcast TV, and it might be interesting to see what ads I'd get from other countries. Even more advanced: how about including country-specific ads on-the-fly during download? That would let them charge more to advertisers.
Argument: any complex system that can be easily defeated by the enemy at much lower cost is a losing proposition. For example, if the enemy can overwhelm your expensive missile defense system with cheap decoys, it's not worth the effot. Or if simple changes in encryption can defeat your signature sniffing within days of deploying it, then it's a big waste of time and money. Wait a minute, on second thought you should go right ahead with that, MPAA. Yes, it's a great idea!
Exactly. The PC Mag article was pretty deficient as a review. But why would you read a computer mag for an audio review anyway? You might as well read Consumer Reports. I'm the first to admit that the iPod is not the most bang for your buck, but I have no complaints about its sound quality when used with the right headphones - and I'm pretty picky about sound quality (my home system has full-range electrostatic speaker towers and 1000w of all Class-A amps in a carefully-tuned listening room, so I have some standard for comparison). By contrast I find most other MP3 players noticeably inferior, including my own Creative and Samsung flash players.
Quantum cryptography is the encoding of communications using a quantum technique which allows the guaranteed detection of any intrusion or interception of the communication. Prototype systems now available. Not to be confused with quantum computers, a technology which could theoretically allow successful code-cracking computations which are beyond the power of current computers. Quantum computers are theoretically possible, but only the most basic building blocks of the technology have been demonstrated to date. And it should be noted that cryptographic engineers have already documented half a dozen techniques for intercepting quantum cryptographic communications without violating any laws of physics by simply outsmarting the builders and operators of such systems. For example, by taking advantage of the error correction built into the sender's hardware to make it repeat data blocks without notifying the human operator. Or overloading the receiver's detector by shining a laser down the optical fibre, causing it to read all zeroes.
This technique is used very effectively by Israeli security officers to flush out security risks - but they receive special training in interrogation technique, and they're not so much comparing your answers as observing you carefully. This technique can be very effective if applied selectively by people who are properly trained and experienced - much more effective than document checks, routine questions, and luggage searches. How many terrorist hijackings and bombings have there been on prime target El Al Airlines in the last 30 years?
Isn't that great? We could be the last generation to snuff it. So close...