And every chance I get, I install it (with permission) on computers belonging to family, friends and business contacts.
Fool! If we're going to win this fight, we have to play dirty! You know what that means? Surreptitiously installing Firefox on every machine you can get your hands on, permission be damned! Oh, and remove the IE icon from the desktop. Better yet, make the shortcut to Firefox have the blue "e" as its icon. Actually, I think I did that at some point in the past on my parent's machine.
Google/YouTube hides under the fact that US copyright law puts the responsibility of reporting violation on the copyright holders. The problem is that a copyright holder should not be reasonably expected to scrape all of YouTube and all other similar sites every day/hour to look for violations just to have somebody else repost the video after it is taken down. I believe in fair use, but YouTube just spits in the face of copyright holders by throwing up their hands as if it is completely beyond their control. YouTube doesn't want to invest the time and money to perform their due diligence, but expects copyright holders to do it for them.
I think the responsibility absolutely should lie with the copyright holder. How is it any fairer to expect the host of the material to determine the copyright status of everything that is posted to their site? And how far would you go? Would you have forum moderators scan all posts to determine if the text is copyrighted? That would create an enormous workload, so much so that no one would be able to run such a site.
Also, IIRC, use of material may violate copyright but still be legal. I.E., just because something is copyrighted doesn't mean that it cannot be posted, etc. There is no easy way to determine the legality of posting most works, so how can you expect the host to do this? Leave it up to the copyright holder - then if they care enough to enforce it, they can try.
Ok, fair enough, though that of 'cracking' could simply be taken from the "article" he is talking about... It sure doesn't help that the text isn't searchable/selectable.
Did you read the same brief I did? Because your quotes don't match with what is in the PDF file.
Also, some of this is really atrocious. Early in the report it cites an example of someone downloading child pornography sitting in a car by "hacking" a wi-fi network. Only at the end of the report does it admit that the network was unsecured. If you connect to 'linksys' are you "hacking" that network? Would you use that term No. No "hacking" (in any reasonable sense) is going on.
Here's what I see in the PDF: "An example of the dangers of open networks is the case of Walter Nowakoski. Nowakoski connected to unsecured home networks and used the bandwidth via unencrypted wireless networks to download child pornography. This is an example of criminals using networks of others to commit crimes so that the innocent are victims twice - once for the theft of their own network resource and then when they are wrongly accused for the illegal activity."
Is the "expert" a native English speaker? "Botnet, Trojan, and Back Door are example of malicious codes..." Aside from the grammatical atrocities, I have never heard of my fellow software engineers referring to software programs as "codes."
Not to be picky, but if you're going to comment on the man's grammar, at least have the courtesy to quote him correctly. He conjugates the verb correctly, saying "... are examples of malicious codes..."
These sort of things (smoking, weight, etc.) are taken into consideration if I buy health insurance on my own - I'll either be denied, or have to pay a higher premium. Am I to understand that people on Clarian's company health plan all "paid" the same amount (i.e., Clarian didn't distinguish between its employees when buying coverage)? If this is the case, isn't Clarian basically just doing for its employees what insurance companies do for individual purchasers?
Also, the browsing experience is perfectly fine. The ability to easily and autmatically zoom to content negates the claim of screen real estate. Everything can be as large or as small as you like.
I wonder if there is a similar sort of implementation for Pocket PC. I have a Fujitsu LOOX, which has a 640x480 4" screen, but using Pocket Internet Explorer (even with an add-on that allows for multiple browser windows) is still clunky and frustrating in general. A browser that could zoom in or out using the stylus instead of your fingers would be great.
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
It has never been legal in your lifetime. Your parents. Your grandparents.
Actually, the DMCA, which is part of the legislation to which I was referring, was passed in 1998. With the passage of the DMCA, circumventing technological protection measures to ensure fair use rights became illegal. So, for example, using DeCSS to rip a purchased DVD and store it on your MythTV box for easy viewing, which is a pretty clear cut case of fair use, is now illegal.
Profit drives production and production is the side of the equation that the geek never quite seems to grasp.
I've nothing against profit. I do, however, believe that it was never intended by our founding fathers that people be able to exert perfect control over "intellectual property". Imperfect control is the rule in the real world; simply because perfect control is possible in the digital world doesn't make it beneficial. Besides, the government-granted monopoly of copyright is granted with the primary reason of benefiting society, not maximizing profit for private entities.
The Iron Giant. The Incredibles. Ratatouille. It takes $150 million to produce animation at this level. Projects can be five to ten years in development. Brad Bird is 50.
I liked both the Iron Giant and The Incredibles, and I saw them both via rental. Haven't seen Ratatouille yet, though. I also don't understand why you just mentioned animated films. Why not mention the myriad Hollywood films where actors are paid enormous sums of money, and millions of dollars are spent on advertising? I'm fairly sure we could do without those wasteful expenses.
The rights agencies are trade associations representing companies that - in a capitalist society - are accustomed to being paid for the products and services they deliver.
Perhaps too accustomed. The government has no obligation to guarantee profits for anyone, and the industries have utterly failed to adapt to a changing reality. What's more, while they are buying legislation, they are also stifling new business models and trampling over fair use rights.
Free downloads for the geek with a DVD burner were never part of the deal.
A copyright on a work by a corporation extending 120 years after creation was never part of the deal, either.
Spare me this adolescent prattling.
There's no need to descend into name-calling. I've read a significant amount of literature on this issue. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me an adolescent.
Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
It was called Iomega RecordIt - that's actually where I remember first hearing about MP2.
Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Oh that music on my MP2 player.
Was someone a little strapped for cash?
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It discourages casual copying, nothing more, but I can't imagine it was intended to do any more. Nobody's that stupid.
Of course not. That's why the MAFIAA and similar parties use the legal system to fill the holes that technology can't. If you can't actually stop everyone from doing it, simply make it illegal, and sue anyone who gets past the initial hurdles.
DRM and IP law, the technological and the legal - the two work in tandem, but I would say that the end goal is perfect control over content. Anything less than perfect control is, after all, simply an unexploited opportunity for profit.
A modern PC with a large HD is a very big place in which you can loose data.
Just yesterday, I started a download of a new release of KnoppMyth. Then I went and had some tea. When I came back in about twenty minutes to burn the ISO, I found that Firefox had renamed the file with a "(2)" - sure enough, I had already downloaded the same ISO previously, and just forgot about it.
So, Vista it is for the time being. I have already gotten a BSOD. The OS is nuttier than a squirrels turd and is a general pain in the ass. But my applications run, everything installs the moment I plug it on (joystick, pocket PC, Bluetooth adapter, SD cards, etc)... I can see what I am doing, the audio sounds great and I can get things done.
Would I rather run Linux? Yes. Vista thrashes the disk around like crazy the whole time the machine is on, and it can only see 2.5 gigs of the 4gigs of RAM I have installed. I suppose I could shell out a few hundred for 64but Vista, but who knows what drivers will and won't work in that.
I'd advise against Vista 64-bit. I'm currently running it on 'pseudo-cutting-edge' hardware (dual-core Opteron, 4 GB RAM, 3 monitors), and I'm tempted to say that more stuff is broken than works. Bad drivers and lack of application support are the main issues, and it makes it very painful - things don't install the moment I plug them in (e.g., Bluetooth, and I'm having issues with Windows Mobile Device Center). Besides that, there are a lot of programs that won't run (or won't run reliably) on 64-bit Vista - the Cisco VPN Client for 3000 series concentrators, Winamp, a hefty price tag CAD program I use (fortunately this is my home machine)... I'm considering trying 32-bit Vista.
Without copyright (or some similar idea written into a contract), there is no GPL.
That's basically what I said. As for your original comment, I see nothing hypocritical or contradictory about opposing the MAFIAA's use of copyrights while supporting legal action that enforces the GPL - the two are worlds apart. What's irrelevant is the fact that they fall under the same legal rubric. The MAFIAA's extortion and blatant abuse of the legal system vs. enforcing the GPL with a properly filed suit against a party who is selling the product for commercial gain = apples and oranges.
Besides, the principles for which each party is using copyright law are completely different. The MAFIAA want to exercise perfect control over their product to the great detriment of society at large, whereas the GPL attempts to benefit society at large by making the source code available, among other things. It's as if they're both using guns - supporting the use of a gun in one case doesn't mean you have to support its use in every case.
Now we will see the same people who oppose RIAA/MPAA copyrights cheering the copyright action that enforces open source. Don't you see that you can't have it both ways?
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need the GPL, but we don't live in a perfect world. The GPL attempts to use the (imperfect) legal tools that do exist (read: copyright law) to accomplish its goal of access to source. The spirit behind it has little to do with copyright.
So what colleges will do (and already do) is to simply disallow any kind of P2P traffic altogether.
And then students will start having file-swapping parties - everyone bring their laptops, or external hard drives, or iPods, or USB thumb drives, or whatever, and have a few beers while you're at it. Hell, a crackdown on P2P might end up actually increasing piracy - instead of downloading just one song on the spur of a moment, students will start copying their friends' and roommates' entire music/movie folders, 10 or 20 gigs at a time. Of course, this will be below the radar, so both the schools and the MAFIAA will be satisfied that they've accomplished something.
Actually, now that I think about it, this sounds good - socializing, file-swapping at hundreds of mbps, AND the MAFIAA off people's backs...
I was in France last year for a few months, and I believe there were triple-play services (Internet, Phone, and TV) being offered for around EUR 30 / month. Internet telephony is a pretty common offering there; there are lots of land-line plans you can get that offer unlimited calling to certain overseas regions (North America, for example) using it.
What makes you think that Vista SP1 will fix lacking drivers, poorly written 3rd party userspace apps, or Cisco VPN client? Your problem here isnt with MS and Vista, its with your software vendors. And who sold you the hardware? What do they say when you call their support and tell them the drivers they ship with the machine doesnt work? Did you get a refund?
Sorry, I didn't make it clear. This is a 2-year old home-built machine I've upgraded to Vista, but all the components are mainstream. Sure, driver support isn't Microsoft's fault, but what about the suspend-to-RAM (which worked under XP)? Or the virtualization (through Microsoft Virtual PC 2007, which worked under XP)? Or the fact that Windows Mobile Device Center has been fairly horrific so far (ActiveSync used to work just fine, thank you)? And then there's the fact that even if Bluetooth worked, it's less functional than in XP with Microsoft's stack. My god, they even managed to ruin Sound Recorder - it no longer will record WAV files, only 96 kpbs WMA - no other option.
There's plenty of blame to go around, but I hope that by the time SP 1 comes out, some of these vendors will have gotten their act together, and that there will be improvements to Vista as a whole.
A lot of them are eying that tasty "buy a Mac, get a free Ipod Nano" advertisement as I write.
Heh, that did pretty much make up my mind. The $200 rebate works out to an 80 GB iPod for $150 - not too shabby, IMO. Also, with the $100 student discount, I found that my configuration was actually a few dollars cheaper than a comparable Latitude or Thinkpad.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the responsibility absolutely should lie with the copyright holder. How is it any fairer to expect the host of the material to determine the copyright status of everything that is posted to their site? And how far would you go? Would you have forum moderators scan all posts to determine if the text is copyrighted? That would create an enormous workload, so much so that no one would be able to run such a site.
Also, IIRC, use of material may violate copyright but still be legal. I.E., just because something is copyrighted doesn't mean that it cannot be posted, etc. There is no easy way to determine the legality of posting most works, so how can you expect the host to do this? Leave it up to the copyright holder - then if they care enough to enforce it, they can try.
Haha, wow, that's an atrocious mistake on my part. Guess I was a little out of it last night. Either that, or Skitt's Law is just totally unavoidable.
Ok, fair enough, though that of 'cracking' could simply be taken from the "article" he is talking about... It sure doesn't help that the text isn't searchable/selectable.
Did you read the same brief I did? Because your quotes don't match with what is in the PDF file.
Here's what I see in the PDF: "An example of the dangers of open networks is the case of Walter Nowakoski. Nowakoski connected to unsecured home networks and used the bandwidth via unencrypted wireless networks to download child pornography. This is an example of criminals using networks of others to commit crimes so that the innocent are victims twice - once for the theft of their own network resource and then when they are wrongly accused for the illegal activity."
Not to be picky, but if you're going to comment on the man's grammar, at least have the courtesy to quote him correctly. He conjugates the verb correctly, saying "... are examples of malicious codes..."
These sort of things (smoking, weight, etc.) are taken into consideration if I buy health insurance on my own - I'll either be denied, or have to pay a higher premium. Am I to understand that people on Clarian's company health plan all "paid" the same amount (i.e., Clarian didn't distinguish between its employees when buying coverage)? If this is the case, isn't Clarian basically just doing for its employees what insurance companies do for individual purchasers?
I wonder if there is a similar sort of implementation for Pocket PC. I have a Fujitsu LOOX, which has a 640x480 4" screen, but using Pocket Internet Explorer (even with an add-on that allows for multiple browser windows) is still clunky and frustrating in general. A browser that could zoom in or out using the stylus instead of your fingers would be great.
Actually, the DMCA, which is part of the legislation to which I was referring, was passed in 1998. With the passage of the DMCA, circumventing technological protection measures to ensure fair use rights became illegal. So, for example, using DeCSS to rip a purchased DVD and store it on your MythTV box for easy viewing, which is a pretty clear cut case of fair use, is now illegal.
I've nothing against profit. I do, however, believe that it was never intended by our founding fathers that people be able to exert perfect control over "intellectual property". Imperfect control is the rule in the real world; simply because perfect control is possible in the digital world doesn't make it beneficial. Besides, the government-granted monopoly of copyright is granted with the primary reason of benefiting society, not maximizing profit for private entities.
I liked both the Iron Giant and The Incredibles, and I saw them both via rental. Haven't seen Ratatouille yet, though. I also don't understand why you just mentioned animated films. Why not mention the myriad Hollywood films where actors are paid enormous sums of money, and millions of dollars are spent on advertising? I'm fairly sure we could do without those wasteful expenses.
Perhaps too accustomed. The government has no obligation to guarantee profits for anyone, and the industries have utterly failed to adapt to a changing reality. What's more, while they are buying legislation, they are also stifling new business models and trampling over fair use rights.
A copyright on a work by a corporation extending 120 years after creation was never part of the deal, either.
There's no need to descend into name-calling. I've read a significant amount of literature on this issue. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me an adolescent.
It was called Iomega RecordIt - that's actually where I remember first hearing about MP2.
Was someone a little strapped for cash?
Of course not. That's why the MAFIAA and similar parties use the legal system to fill the holes that technology can't. If you can't actually stop everyone from doing it, simply make it illegal, and sue anyone who gets past the initial hurdles.
DRM and IP law, the technological and the legal - the two work in tandem, but I would say that the end goal is perfect control over content. Anything less than perfect control is, after all, simply an unexploited opportunity for profit.
"This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her--but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books."
With these sorts of lawsuits flying around, people are going to start having to be very careful about who they allow to use their computer.
Just yesterday, I started a download of a new release of KnoppMyth. Then I went and had some tea. When I came back in about twenty minutes to burn the ISO, I found that Firefox had renamed the file with a "(2)" - sure enough, I had already downloaded the same ISO previously, and just forgot about it.
Clever, working the "penis and testicles" emoticon into your last sentence, there. Thought no one would notice, did you? You sick bastard.
Sounds like the name of a porn film.
Now that's one dish I could do without.
I wasn't aware we had started measuring keyboards by paper sizes.
I'd advise against Vista 64-bit. I'm currently running it on 'pseudo-cutting-edge' hardware (dual-core Opteron, 4 GB RAM, 3 monitors), and I'm tempted to say that more stuff is broken than works. Bad drivers and lack of application support are the main issues, and it makes it very painful - things don't install the moment I plug them in (e.g., Bluetooth, and I'm having issues with Windows Mobile Device Center). Besides that, there are a lot of programs that won't run (or won't run reliably) on 64-bit Vista - the Cisco VPN Client for 3000 series concentrators, Winamp, a hefty price tag CAD program I use (fortunately this is my home machine)... I'm considering trying 32-bit Vista.
That's basically what I said. As for your original comment, I see nothing hypocritical or contradictory about opposing the MAFIAA's use of copyrights while supporting legal action that enforces the GPL - the two are worlds apart. What's irrelevant is the fact that they fall under the same legal rubric. The MAFIAA's extortion and blatant abuse of the legal system vs. enforcing the GPL with a properly filed suit against a party who is selling the product for commercial gain = apples and oranges.
Besides, the principles for which each party is using copyright law are completely different. The MAFIAA want to exercise perfect control over their product to the great detriment of society at large, whereas the GPL attempts to benefit society at large by making the source code available, among other things. It's as if they're both using guns - supporting the use of a gun in one case doesn't mean you have to support its use in every case.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need the GPL, but we don't live in a perfect world. The GPL attempts to use the (imperfect) legal tools that do exist (read: copyright law) to accomplish its goal of access to source. The spirit behind it has little to do with copyright.
Personally, until encoding video is as fast as encoding audio is now, I for one welcome faster machines.
And then students will start having file-swapping parties - everyone bring their laptops, or external hard drives, or iPods, or USB thumb drives, or whatever, and have a few beers while you're at it. Hell, a crackdown on P2P might end up actually increasing piracy - instead of downloading just one song on the spur of a moment, students will start copying their friends' and roommates' entire music/movie folders, 10 or 20 gigs at a time. Of course, this will be below the radar, so both the schools and the MAFIAA will be satisfied that they've accomplished something.
Actually, now that I think about it, this sounds good - socializing, file-swapping at hundreds of mbps, AND the MAFIAA off people's backs...
I was in France last year for a few months, and I believe there were triple-play services (Internet, Phone, and TV) being offered for around EUR 30 / month. Internet telephony is a pretty common offering there; there are lots of land-line plans you can get that offer unlimited calling to certain overseas regions (North America, for example) using it.
Sorry, I didn't make it clear. This is a 2-year old home-built machine I've upgraded to Vista, but all the components are mainstream. Sure, driver support isn't Microsoft's fault, but what about the suspend-to-RAM (which worked under XP)? Or the virtualization (through Microsoft Virtual PC 2007, which worked under XP)? Or the fact that Windows Mobile Device Center has been fairly horrific so far (ActiveSync used to work just fine, thank you)? And then there's the fact that even if Bluetooth worked, it's less functional than in XP with Microsoft's stack. My god, they even managed to ruin Sound Recorder - it no longer will record WAV files, only 96 kpbs WMA - no other option.
There's plenty of blame to go around, but I hope that by the time SP 1 comes out, some of these vendors will have gotten their act together, and that there will be improvements to Vista as a whole.
Heh, that did pretty much make up my mind. The $200 rebate works out to an 80 GB iPod for $150 - not too shabby, IMO. Also, with the $100 student discount, I found that my configuration was actually a few dollars cheaper than a comparable Latitude or Thinkpad.