By the way... I think the number of Linux users is probably already higher than any of the hypothetical numbers you threw out.
It's obviously impossible to know for sure how many people use a given OS... especially when that OS is distributed freely and requires no kind of registration. However we can get some vague ideas from a few sources. The Linux Counter estimated 29 million in 2005. This was in part based upon verifiable numbers from Red Hat indicating 8 million installs in 1998 (yes, this is including corporate installs, not just home users).
Another (again not totally reliable) way is to use browser stats. W3school reports ~3.4% of browsers are running in Linux. Since there are 1 billion internet users, that means 39 million Linux users.
Again, these numbers are open to massive debate. But I think the real number is somewhere in the ballpark of 10 million to 40 millions users. Alot more than most people think.
See my other reply. Summing the two numbers to 90% was a joke, meant to point out that their numbers are ridiculous. Sorry that it wasn't more obvious that I was joking.
Err... yes I'm well-aware that the statements, from a purely logical standpoint, can be reconciled with one another. That doesn't mean they can be reconciled with reality. The joke I was making was meant to point out that the numbers are meaningless and probably made up.
Firstly the statements don't really make sense. In both statements they do not clearly define whether they are referring to the percentage of illegal camcording acts, or the percentage of camcording movies that originate from a particular region, or the percentage of bootleg copies that can be traced back to a particular region.
Secondly, the numbers themselves seem ridiculously inflated. Are we honestly supposed to believe that 40% of the US problem can be traced to a single US city or that 50% of the global problem originates from a single country with a rather small population? Such grandiose claims require serious evidence. In fact, these statistics have been debunked by others and shown to be false.
That the MPAA can engage in verbal acrobatics so as to not directly contradict themselves doesn't mean their numbers are in any way valid or credible.
You're quite right. Obscurity does provide some level of security, though relying on it alone is a surefire way to have your security cracked eventually. (Whereas things that are cryptographically secure will not be cracked in my lifetime.)
Another way to look at it (especially in the context of open source radio) is that whoever is implementing the security has finite resources (money, man-hours, whatever) at their disposal. For every hour they spend trying to obfuscate the inner workings, that is one less hour spent validating that it is *truly* secure (in the "cryptographically secure" sense). If you instead leverage open-source, then you have code that has been tested and vetted by experts the world over. Suddenly the hours spent on adding obfuscation would be a waste of resources: the code is already so secure that adding the slight additional security of obscurity is a waste of time.
So, while obscurity does provide some kind of security... it is actually the most resource-wasteful form of security (alot of effort for something that eventually gets cracked), whereas the more efficient security model is to focus on things that are fundamentally secure (in which case you may as well use open-source solutions, since you get to take advantage of work already done, and the marginal loss of obscurity doesn't end up mattering).
I have to ask this to make sure we all completely understand, but so what if MS distributes a Linux distro under the GPL? I mean, what do they care? The argument has gone on so long that I'm forgetting why it's so funny that MS has done this.
You're right... we have to remind ourselves why this matters.
The GPLv3 contains explicit language which states (paraphrasing): "By distributing this software, you must also provide rights to use any patents you own which are in the software. If you do not extend this patent use, you are not allowed to distribute the code. Moreover, by distributing this software, you agree that this patent use right applies to anyone who might eventually get a copy of the code. That is, you extend a license to use the implicated patents to the community at large."
(Again, I'm paraphrasing this highly, the actual wording is much more precise.) Basically GPLv3 requires that anyone who distributes the software agree that they are distributing it without patent encumbrance. So when Novell distributes Linux (with GPLv3 code in it), it means that they are giving their users the assurance that they will not sue them for patent violations. So if MS were actually distributing GPLv3 code, then they could not sue Linux or Linux users for patent violations: they have given us a license to use their patents, as stipulated by the GPLv3. (If they claim otherwise, then they were in violation of the terms of the GPLv3 themselves, and can be sued for copyright infringement.)
Of course it really depends whether MS is actually "distributing" GPLv3 code.
People tend to forget that the GPLv2 had similar (but not as explicit) requirements: you were not allowed to distribute the software if there were patent restrictions. But the GPLv3 makes it much more explicit, and specifically states that patent rights are extended to the entire community (i.e. anyone who may eventually legitimately receive a copy of the code will have the rights extended to them).
Hmmmm.... Your comment got me thinking. You describe an "implied contract" between a consumer and the corporation. I agree with that: the consumers were sold something ("here is a work... it will enter public domain in X years"), whose value is then afterwards altered ("sorry... it will now enter public domain in X+Y years!"). So the consumer is being ripped off.
But authors are, too. When I publish something and assign the copyright to the publisher (in exchange for whatever terms), it is with the knowledge that the work will enter the public domain on a given date. However if the laws are suddenly altered, then my contract has been changed without me agreeing to anything! If an additional 20 years of protection are afforded, how can those extra 20 years be included in a contract retroactively? What if I wanted the work to enter the public domain on a particular date? The original contract guaranteed that, and now the government imposes a law that invalidates the assumptions of my previous contract!
I think a consumer arguing that an implicit contract had been violated would be interesting... but I think if an author, who had assigned the copyright to another party, vocally said that they would sue to regain control of the "extended time" of any copyright extension... that might draw some much-needed publicity to this debate.
Imagine what would happen if *all* authors said they would reclaim the "extended time" from copyright extension. I bet the publishers wouldn't be so keen to support extensions in that case. Rights of the authors indeed.
The argument was being made that because MS was distributing "vouchers" for GPL-software, they would be considered distributors of GPL software, hence bound by the distribution terms of the GPL. Since the vouchers had no "expiry date" on them, the argument was made that if someone cashes in their voucher after Novell releases a version that includes GPLv3, then MS is, by association through the voucher, distributing GPLv3 code and hence bound by that license.
I always thought the legal logic was a little weak, myself. However now that MS is publicly trying to retroactively change the meaning of already-distributed vouchers, I can only assume that their lawyers are actually afraid that this argument would stand up in court.
This statement by MS amuses me to no end, actually. It betrays how afraid they are of the growing power of Linux (in terms of both consumer acceptability and legal power).
The entire text of this speech makes me sick. It is full of lies and unsubstantiated claims. Here's a random assortment:
And at a time of technological revolution, you have adapted to changes in consumer behaviour with great ingenuity, launching online and mobile services.
(Emphasis mine.) Ha! That's a laughable analysis of an industry desperately trying to maintain the status quo.
First, how do we prevent the massive fraud that is carried out against your industry every day through copyright theft.
I know it's been said a million times on Slashdot, but: calling copyright infringement "theft" is imprecise (and legally at least incorrect) and is an intentional attempt to bias the debate.
And second, how do we protect your investments in the long-term by looking at the issue of copyright extension in the digital age.
"Copyright extension in the digital age." The irony! Because we live in a world where information can be transmitted very quickly, and fads come and go much more quickly, and everything is being sped up... clearly the solution is to provide temporal extensions to all present laws! ~sarcasm~
Very few people would go into a shop, lift a CD from the shelves and just walk out with it. But for some reason, many are happy to buy pirate CDs or illegally download music.
This is a classic fallacy. Rather than dwell on the obvious differences between theft of physical property and unauthorized duplication of data, I ask a question: If the people of your country are obviously treating the two activities very differently (both in practical and moral terms), shouldn't you instead search out the root cause of those differences? Perhaps the people unconsciously realize that there is a fundamental difference!
This alone has cost the music industry as much as £1.1 billion in lost retail sales since 2004.
Prove it.
We wouldn't tolerate fraud on such a massive scale in any other industry... so why is there such little will on the part of government, businesses and individuals to confront it in the music industry?
Again, maybe you should use this as a clue to the fact that those figures of "lost sales" may not be realistic? Maybe you should search out the reasons why your citizens bear very little sympathy for this industry...
Copyright matters because it is the way artists are rewarded and businesses makes its money and invests in the future. So copyright theft has to be treated like other theft.
Correction: "Copyright matters because it is one way artists can be rewarded and business may make money." (The second sentence is a non sequitur.)
If you cannot get protection from illegal activity, where is the incentive to continue innovating?
That's a very good question... and since you evidently don't know the answer, you should spend time talking to the millions of artists worldwide who release their material under a creative commons license (or implicitly allow others to access their work by posting it online freely, e.g. YouTube), and the huge community of free software coders. (Note: I agree that free software coders benefit from the legal framework of the GPL, and others benefit from the legal framework of the CC licenses... but not in the way that he is implying.)
This only covers the first 1/4 of the speech. Again, I'm disgusted by the skewed view of the entire debate that is being presented. This results from either paying little to no attention to what is going on, or an intentional misrepresentation in order to garner the favor of a particular industry. In either case, it's not a good place from which to start setting social policy.
To all the people who doubt the social relevance of the "copyright reformist" debate... here is a perfect example of why we should be concerned. Not only is there yet another push for copyright extension, but this extension is being used to bargain for government censorship too.
The irony, of course, is that one of the main problems with effectively-perpetual copyright is the many restrictions it places on open commentary and free speech. Perpetual and rigidly-enforced copyrights essentially produce a chilling effect in the domain of free public discussion. Since copyright is a government-granted monopoly, it is hard to not label this as censorship.
So we get a double-dose of censorship: copyright extensions limit our ability to freely discuss and produce derivative art of the culture we are a part of... and these same extensions are used as a lever to enforce a government-mandated version of decency. In my mind this seriously calls into question the notion that copyrights are there as a service to society, encouraging distribution of artwork to the people... or have we given up on that interpretation of copyright entirely?
ripping your own CDs is not convenient enough to many people.
You've hit the nail, there. The convenience of digital downloads is the reason people love mp3s from sites like AllofMP3. Some may argue that iTunes provides the same convenience, but for many the DRM is an inconvenience that they don't want to put up with. I think Allofmp3 also showed what the value of convenient access to well-tagged, well-organized content is. They were selling mp3s for money, even though equivalent files are available for free form various P2P networks. Basically there is an unfilled consumer demand here...
Then there is a vocal (on this site) minority of people, who justify "sticking it" to "the system" -- the usual childish claptrap -- who get more and more vocal with every rightful-but-clumsy step by the **AA.
I think you're seriously mis-representing the opinions of copyright reformists. Or rather, you're combining the arguments of the copyright reformists along with the anarchists and along with the "I just want free stuff" crowd. This is not a fair way to represent those groups.
According to them, it is not quite stealing, and therefor is completely justified to produce unlimited copies of somebody else's intellectual property against the owner's will..
I view the widespread civil disobedience of copyright law (whether intentional or incidental) as a very strong indicator that most people unconsciously feel these laws are overly broad in their current form. I'll admit that many people break this law without thinking about it, or even just because they are "too cheap" or whatever. However there is a growing number of people who have carefully studied the arguments on both sides (e.g. Valenti vs. Lessig) and come to the conclusion that copyright in its current form is broken.
Thus, they argue that the "rights" of which you speak are fictitious and illegitimate (or at least overly broad). The "intellectual property" which you refer to is seen as an oxymoron and antithetical to progress and free culture. I won't go into the arguments any further--they have been described in eloquent detail many times on Slashdot.
The extent to which moral disagreement with copyright justifies civil disobedience is debatable. I'll give you that. However your characterization of the copyright reformist ideals as "childish claptrap" is quite unfair.
This might simplify the job of the patent reviewers, who cannot possibly know the history of entire industries. They could simply check out the claims of prior art...
Why not make it mandatory for them to check it?
Better yet, why not make it mandatory for the party applying for the patent to check it? Since a patent application is supposed to be some sort of legal document ("I certify that we originated this novel idea, and am not aware of prior art..."), then this could be a chance for the applying party to withdraw their patent (admit that there is prior art). If a party doesn't withdraw their patent, and the patent is thereafter rejected on the basis of the prior art evidence from the site, then the applying party must pay a fine (or forfeit a deposit they made, or whatever).
Until we make it financially painful for companies to file bogus patents, they will continue to do so. The system you describe seems like the perfect way to warn a patent applicant that there is prior art. If they pursue their claim despite that knowledge, then they are breaking the law and should, at a minimum, be fined. (A harsher system would might also prevent them from applying for other patents for some time period, or perhaps even bring charges against the persons making the claims, or threaten disbarment for any lawyer who signs off on fraudulent claims.)
The only way that the present proposal would offer any benefit beyond a random web search for prior art (which you can do nowadays if you really want to invalidate a patent) would be to have a system that was organized and exhaustive. It would have to be very well organized and categorized, and people would have to actively watch what companies are doing, and preemptively writing long discussions about "obvious solutions" to potential problems. These entries would have to be analyzed by others, and refined in some way. Spam and bogus entries would have to be trimmed.
Ideally, a community of volunteers would watch patents as they are granted (or applied for) and would do their own research, amassing links to prior art that exists elsewhere. This data would then be easily available to anyone who wanted to challenge the patent. By lowering the barrier to challenging software patents, such a system could conceivably reduce the number of frivolous patents.
However, ultimately to be useful it will require considerable work from alot of volunteers. Merely tagging random blog entries with "prior art" isn't useful--everything you do is prior art for a sufficiently stupid patent claim. So every single page on the internet is "prior art" for something... the tough part is organizing this all so that when you are challenging a particular claim, you can quickly find the prior art that is relevant (and so that you can, with some authority, prove that the prior art existed before a given date).
A useful volunteer-based anti-patent website is not impossible. Wikipedia proves that you can organize volunteers to generate something useful. A wiki format, for instance, would also inherently maintain histories and dates, making prior-art claims more heavily documented. But such a community will require significant effort by many people. Unfortunately, it stops becoming "a simple plan."
For awhile I used to watch the evening news using this method. I had my MythTV set to record the 6-o'clock news, so that when I got home I would watch it at high-speed. By skipping commercials and segments I wasn't interested in (especially the numerous fluff pieces), and by setting the playback speed to ~150%, I could watch an hour of news in 8-12 minutes.
It worked fine, and taught me that TV has a very high ratio of filler to content.
One interpretation is that it's sad that people don't have the attention span to watch a 30-minute show, and would rather watch a 5-minute compressed version of it.
Another interpretation is that it's sad that the content in question is so bad, so filled with fluff and useless scenes, that it can be comfortably compressed by a factor of 6 with little loss in intelligent commentary or entertainment value.
Frankly I don't think many people are going to want to watch compressed versions of Schindler's List. But many shows truly are needlessly long and slow-moving (the intention, I suppose, it to increase the ratio of commercials to production dollars). I think a crappy hour-long show could conceivably be compressed into an entertaining 5-minute show by a talented editor. In fact, many movie trailers (which are only a few minutes long) are quite a bit more compelling, funny, and entertaining than the full-length movies they advertise. Some things are really not worth an hour of my time. But 5 minutes? Maybe.
You're right, of course. A $50 difference is not that persuasive. However, at least the Ubuntu machine isn't more expensive than the equivalent Vista one. After all, there was considerable worry that Dell would keep the Ubuntu price higher (for a variety of reasons, such as contracts with MS or kickbacks from craplet installs, etc.).
So, I see Dell's offering of Ubuntu machines as a small step in the right direction. And the fact that they are a bit cheaper than the Vista equivalent is also a step in the right direction.
I highly doubt many consumers will be randomly browsing the Dell website and say "damn, those Ubuntu machines look awesome!"... but at least these prices allow those in the know to suggest to others: "If you're looking for a new computer, consider getting a Dell Ubuntu machine. Ubuntu is very stable and secure and you don't need the most expensive computer to run it. In fact, it's a bit cheaper than the equivalent Windows machine!"
Will this give Linux a 15% marketshare overnight? No. But it's a step towards breaking the current OS monoculture... and that's a good thing.
Yes, you're quite right. This is not "theft" in any useful sense. Certainly in regards to the law, "theft" has a specific meaning. The present actions, if true, are probably illegal, but are not theft.
Similarly, the other examples you gave: "theft of service," "identity theft," "you stole my thunder," "stolen kisses". None of those are "theft" in the legal sense (in fact half are not even illegal). Moreover, if you were trying to have a refined argument about any one of those topics, I believe most rational debaters would agree that none of them are "theft" in the strict sense of the word. The word "theft" is being applied in those cases to make the term catchy and easy to remember.
In regards to copyright infringement being inappropriately called "theft" (which is what you were indirectly referring to), similar arguments apply. It is not "theft" in the legal sense of the word, and I believe in a critical argument of the subject, using the term "theft" is imprecise and essentially an appeal to emotion rather than logic. The reason why many people in the copyright debate request that the terms "theft" and "piracy" be expunged from the debate is that, while they are catchy and easy-to-use terms, they muddy the debate by injecting moral preconceptions into the debate. (Thus, by using the terms one is implicitly already supporting a certain moral position, making impartial debate more difficult.)
Similarly, I think if there was a serious debate about the morality of giving one's lover a quick kiss, it would be a weak argument from the anti-kiss debaters if they said "stealing a kiss is, like all forms of stealing, immoral since theft is wrong." The pro-kiss debaters would be well within their debating rights to request that the term "stealing kisses" not be used, and the more neutral term "quick kiss" be used instead.
Market share is certainly a factor, but I think it's a stretch to say that it's the only factor.
Let's say some nefarious guys are trying to get their malware installed on everyone's computers. So they buy some exploit code that targets IE. They say "Great, this will infect 3/4 of the computers out there!"
Now if these malware distributors are approached by some other guy who says "I can sell you exploit code that targets Firefox"... do you think the malware distributors will say "no thanks" or will they say "Great, that covers the other 1/4 of computers out there!" (Maybe they will pay less for that exploit, but they will surely use it if it's available.)
Since Firefox's market share is not insignificant (10% to 25%?), there should be a market for such exploits. Similarly, there should be a market (perhaps smaller, but still a market) for the 4% Mac users. It appears that despite this, the targeting of Mac and Firefox is very much less than Windows/IE (more than can be accounted for by market share alone).
I'm sure that part of it has to do with market share. However inherent security is also part of the equation. (And frankly I don't know why such a statement is so controversial on Slashdot... why should security be based on only one factor in the first place?)
Your argument makes no sense. Massachusetts has to select a standard. No matter what standard they use, people wanting to access those documents will, yes, have to obtain software that can read that standard. There is no escaping that fact.
However the precise difference between an open standard and a closed standard is that the open standard can be freely implemented by any party. This means that you, the average citizen, can in principle write your own program to read the standard. More realistically, it means in practice that there will be numerous products on the market available to read the standard. In fact in the case of ODF, every computer nowadays can read it (by extracting the zip and reading the XML inside using any text editor), and there are free and Free options (such as OpenOffice, or free ODF->PDF converters or whatever) for reading the data is prettier forms.
So, yes, no matter what standard the government selects, you will be "forced" to use that standard to read their documents. So then the government must decide between a "open and human-readable format that numerous vendors can currently read/write, and for which there is not restriction on future implementations" and a "proprietary or semi-open standard that only one vendor can properly claim compliance with, and whose implementation specifications are not guaranteed to be freely available"...
It's also important to realize that it's much easier to use an open standard, and then convert from that to whatever other document types people want... rather than to use a proprietary standard, where finding or creating document converters may be much harder.
I think it's pretty obvious that the open standard forces very little on the citizens, whereas the proprietary standard does.
You seem to be confused as to what the point of a standard is, and what the point of an open standard, specifically, is.
Is it really so ridiculous to say that people should just use whatever standard they feel is best for the task at hand.
Well the whole purpose of a "standard" is to get a group of people using the same rules, so that interoperability and transfer of data becomes much easier. Of course there will always be multiple standards, and different groups may decide that one standard fits their needs better than another. No one is arguing that point.
So you guys are mad that there isnt going to be a law forcing states to be locked into ODF?
Actually the proposed law is that the government should be using an open standard. No one is 'forcing' you (or any person or any company) to use this standard. The purpose of the law is to say that the government has a responsibility to use a standard that is open, so that archiving of data is easier (and can be accessed years later), and so that all citizens have access to the data. This makes sense: the government is an instrument of the people, and all the citizens of a democracy should have easy access to government data (and for all time!).
It's rather disingenuous to say "locked into ODF" since ODF is an open standard which means that anyone can generate their own ODF reader and writer. In fact, every computer on the market right now can basically read ODF (in a primitive way), since any modern OS can extract a zip archive and read the plaintext that is inside. Yes, ODF is really that open! You can read it and work with it with very simple tools. There are also many full office suites that can read/write ODF. So it's hard to see how you can say that the government will be "locked into ODF" when it will be trivial for them to convert the data to other formats, copy the data elsewhere, extract it for other use, automate searching through the data, etc. Where's the lockin?
The point with ODF is that you are not locked in. It is so open that it is very easy to convert your data, using a wide variety of tools (many of them freely available). The same cannot be said for MS's offering... which is why it cannot be legitimately called "open" and is a poor match to the needs of archiving and disseminating government data.
Frankly, if companies want to stop people have having paranoid reactions to EULAs, they should stop writing such blatantly over-broad EULAs in the first place. Go ahead, read a random portion from the EULA for Windows Vista. It contains all kinds of broad statements limiting what I can do with the product, while simultaneously disclaiming all warranty on their part, and giving them broad ability to do as they please and change the terms as they please.
As long as companies write such ridiculous EULAs, it is only natural that people will react this way to them. Frankly the only reason that more people are not scared and appalled at EULAs is that no one actually reads them. Probably many of the things claimed in EULAs would not hold up in a court of law. But if all the terms of the EULAs were actually legally enforceable, then it would not be at all paranoid to be concerned about them: the terms are, after all, very consumer-hostile.
Well they say the information is anonymous, but it includes things like your IP address. So they can convert that it non-anonymous information quite easily.
So... some reasons why this is probably a bad idea: 1. If they discover that you are running non-legit software, they can track you down. (And considering that any such analysis will always make mistakes, even users of legitimate copies of software should be worried.) 2. If MS's servers get compromised (or a bug is found in the "secure transmission" protocol), third parties can obtain your data. Depending on exactly what is being sent, this could be a privacy breach, security breach, or both. 3. Having services constantly establishing these connections is a security risk. Malware or viruses may be able to exploit it as a point of infection. Or, they may be able to use it as a means of spreading copies of themselves, or secretly transmitting information back to a third party. Every unnecessary service (from a user perspective) is a security breach waiting to happen. 4. Having code running that doesn't explicitly benefit the user is a waste of resources. This means overhead on your computer and overhead on your internet connection. 5. The EULA seems to state that they can change the terms as it suits them. This means that they can push updates through Windows Update that increase the scope of the data obtained. Perhaps they eventually decide to drop the anonymous clause. I don't think signing over so much freedom and privacy is a good idea, regardless of how "well-intentioned" the recipient of your rights claims to be.
And finally, there is the general "bad vibes" I'm sure we're all getting about this. It would be one thing if it were an additional feature that you could turn on if you wanted to. Something like "Help MS improve the quality of service by sending reports on how your software is running. This voluntary service is under your control, and only human-readable summaries will be sent, which you can inspect before they are sent. Do you wish to participate? Cancel/Allow"
Instead we get something like: "MS reserves the right to monitor your computer and transmit information to MS HQ. We can change these terms at our leisure. By using any of these features, you implicitly agree to this monitoring."
This is not an act of charity on MS's part. This is part of a plan to obtain information that they want, without customers noticing it is happening. That can only be a bad thing.
The privacy concerns are obvious. I, for one, do not want to agree to having all kinds of (largely unspecified) information transmitted to Microsoft.
But even putting that aside for a moment. Assume that Microsoft is a friendly company and that you are confident they will never use this information "against you." Even in that case, this is a really bad idea. Why? Because security works best when you *minimize* the avenues of attack. By sending this information to Microsoft HQ, your OS opens itself to new attacks. On the one hand you have the possibility of MS's servers being hacked, and your information stolen (or the transmission being intercepted and copied). But much worse, this transmission functionality can be co-opted by malware or viruses.
Every functionality you include in the OS is a functionality that "the enemy" (malware, viruses, crackers, etc.) can (and will) use against you. In particular, every network-enabled program is a potential security breach. Hence, we should always be disabling as many services (especially network services) as possible. By having all kinds of code that is constantly communicating outside the machine (with no notification to the user), built into services that the user cannot sensibly disable, you are leaving a tempting target for "the enemy" to find vulnerabilities.
Add to this the fact that it makes it harder on network admins to pick out suspicious traffic. If all these Vista installs are constantly sending out packets of information, how can the sysadmin tell when one of those machines has been taken over, and that "phone MS HQ" service is now sending nefarious packets?
I was at a physics conference a few years ago and one of the plenary lectures was on this topic. The speaker basically put forth all the various cosmological models (expanding universe with slowing expansion, universe that eventually collapses back on itself, etc.) and concluded that: "Based on our current understanding, we live in the worst possible universe."
This is because, according to our best measurements, the universe it not only expanding, but the rate of expansion is increasing with time. Thus the universe's expansion is accelerating (this is the indirect evidence for "Dark Energy").
This is "the worst possible scenario" because it can easily be shown (in a mathematically rigorous way) that as expansion occurs, the universe will become isolated islands of matter, which are flying away from each other so fast that they cannot hope to communicate with one another. This means that ultimately no information from one region of the universe can ever reach another region, which makes it impossible to reconstruct what happened in the distant past. Worse still, it can be shown that this leads to "Heat Death", where the universe becomes very very cold (because, for example, objects radiate energy that is lost into space and never comes back, nor is replaced by any influx of energy). The end result is that there is not enough energy density to sustain life or any organized constructs. So the end state is one of extremely high entropy, with no usable information content.
This is not just a matter of not having good enough technology. The problem is that the universe will expand and local regions will irrevocably lose the ability to probe the past. Information will be inaccessible. No matter how good your technology is, the evidence will simply be locally nonexistent (because information can't travel faster than the speed of light).
Now, having said all that, it's entirely possible that new measurements will point to something previously unknown (e.g. perhaps the explanation for dark energy changes the conclusions entirely). However if current models are mostly correct, then a progression towards locally isolated regions of space, who have no access to cosmological history, is inevitable.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way... I think the number of Linux users is probably already higher than any of the hypothetical numbers you threw out.
It's obviously impossible to know for sure how many people use a given OS... especially when that OS is distributed freely and requires no kind of registration. However we can get some vague ideas from a few sources. The Linux Counter estimated 29 million in 2005. This was in part based upon verifiable numbers from Red Hat indicating 8 million installs in 1998 (yes, this is including corporate installs, not just home users).
Another (again not totally reliable) way is to use browser stats. W3school reports ~3.4% of browsers are running in Linux. Since there are 1 billion internet users, that means 39 million Linux users.
Again, these numbers are open to massive debate. But I think the real number is somewhere in the ballpark of 10 million to 40 millions users. Alot more than most people think.
See my other reply. Summing the two numbers to 90% was a joke, meant to point out that their numbers are ridiculous. Sorry that it wasn't more obvious that I was joking.
Err... yes I'm well-aware that the statements, from a purely logical standpoint, can be reconciled with one another. That doesn't mean they can be reconciled with reality. The joke I was making was meant to point out that the numbers are meaningless and probably made up.
Firstly the statements don't really make sense. In both statements they do not clearly define whether they are referring to the percentage of illegal camcording acts, or the percentage of camcording movies that originate from a particular region, or the percentage of bootleg copies that can be traced back to a particular region.
Secondly, the numbers themselves seem ridiculously inflated. Are we honestly supposed to believe that 40% of the US problem can be traced to a single US city or that 50% of the global problem originates from a single country with a rather small population? Such grandiose claims require serious evidence. In fact, these statistics have been debunked by others and shown to be false.
That the MPAA can engage in verbal acrobatics so as to not directly contradict themselves doesn't mean their numbers are in any way valid or credible.
You're quite right. Obscurity does provide some level of security, though relying on it alone is a surefire way to have your security cracked eventually. (Whereas things that are cryptographically secure will not be cracked in my lifetime.)
Another way to look at it (especially in the context of open source radio) is that whoever is implementing the security has finite resources (money, man-hours, whatever) at their disposal. For every hour they spend trying to obfuscate the inner workings, that is one less hour spent validating that it is *truly* secure (in the "cryptographically secure" sense). If you instead leverage open-source, then you have code that has been tested and vetted by experts the world over. Suddenly the hours spent on adding obfuscation would be a waste of resources: the code is already so secure that adding the slight additional security of obscurity is a waste of time.
So, while obscurity does provide some kind of security... it is actually the most resource-wasteful form of security (alot of effort for something that eventually gets cracked), whereas the more efficient security model is to focus on things that are fundamentally secure (in which case you may as well use open-source solutions, since you get to take advantage of work already done, and the marginal loss of obscurity doesn't end up mattering).
The GPLv3 contains explicit language which states (paraphrasing): "By distributing this software, you must also provide rights to use any patents you own which are in the software. If you do not extend this patent use, you are not allowed to distribute the code. Moreover, by distributing this software, you agree that this patent use right applies to anyone who might eventually get a copy of the code. That is, you extend a license to use the implicated patents to the community at large."
(Again, I'm paraphrasing this highly, the actual wording is much more precise.) Basically GPLv3 requires that anyone who distributes the software agree that they are distributing it without patent encumbrance. So when Novell distributes Linux (with GPLv3 code in it), it means that they are giving their users the assurance that they will not sue them for patent violations. So if MS were actually distributing GPLv3 code, then they could not sue Linux or Linux users for patent violations: they have given us a license to use their patents, as stipulated by the GPLv3. (If they claim otherwise, then they were in violation of the terms of the GPLv3 themselves, and can be sued for copyright infringement.)
Of course it really depends whether MS is actually "distributing" GPLv3 code.
People tend to forget that the GPLv2 had similar (but not as explicit) requirements: you were not allowed to distribute the software if there were patent restrictions. But the GPLv3 makes it much more explicit, and specifically states that patent rights are extended to the entire community (i.e. anyone who may eventually legitimately receive a copy of the code will have the rights extended to them).
Hmmmm.... Your comment got me thinking. You describe an "implied contract" between a consumer and the corporation. I agree with that: the consumers were sold something ("here is a work... it will enter public domain in X years"), whose value is then afterwards altered ("sorry... it will now enter public domain in X+Y years!"). So the consumer is being ripped off.
But authors are, too. When I publish something and assign the copyright to the publisher (in exchange for whatever terms), it is with the knowledge that the work will enter the public domain on a given date. However if the laws are suddenly altered, then my contract has been changed without me agreeing to anything! If an additional 20 years of protection are afforded, how can those extra 20 years be included in a contract retroactively? What if I wanted the work to enter the public domain on a particular date? The original contract guaranteed that, and now the government imposes a law that invalidates the assumptions of my previous contract!
I think a consumer arguing that an implicit contract had been violated would be interesting... but I think if an author, who had assigned the copyright to another party, vocally said that they would sue to regain control of the "extended time" of any copyright extension... that might draw some much-needed publicity to this debate.
Imagine what would happen if *all* authors said they would reclaim the "extended time" from copyright extension. I bet the publishers wouldn't be so keen to support extensions in that case. Rights of the authors indeed.
The argument was being made that because MS was distributing "vouchers" for GPL-software, they would be considered distributors of GPL software, hence bound by the distribution terms of the GPL. Since the vouchers had no "expiry date" on them, the argument was made that if someone cashes in their voucher after Novell releases a version that includes GPLv3, then MS is, by association through the voucher, distributing GPLv3 code and hence bound by that license.
I always thought the legal logic was a little weak, myself. However now that MS is publicly trying to retroactively change the meaning of already-distributed vouchers, I can only assume that their lawyers are actually afraid that this argument would stand up in court.
This statement by MS amuses me to no end, actually. It betrays how afraid they are of the growing power of Linux (in terms of both consumer acceptability and legal power).
This only covers the first 1/4 of the speech. Again, I'm disgusted by the skewed view of the entire debate that is being presented. This results from either paying little to no attention to what is going on, or an intentional misrepresentation in order to garner the favor of a particular industry. In either case, it's not a good place from which to start setting social policy.
To all the people who doubt the social relevance of the "copyright reformist" debate... here is a perfect example of why we should be concerned. Not only is there yet another push for copyright extension, but this extension is being used to bargain for government censorship too.
The irony, of course, is that one of the main problems with effectively-perpetual copyright is the many restrictions it places on open commentary and free speech. Perpetual and rigidly-enforced copyrights essentially produce a chilling effect in the domain of free public discussion. Since copyright is a government-granted monopoly, it is hard to not label this as censorship.
So we get a double-dose of censorship: copyright extensions limit our ability to freely discuss and produce derivative art of the culture we are a part of... and these same extensions are used as a lever to enforce a government-mandated version of decency. In my mind this seriously calls into question the notion that copyrights are there as a service to society, encouraging distribution of artwork to the people... or have we given up on that interpretation of copyright entirely?
Thus, they argue that the "rights" of which you speak are fictitious and illegitimate (or at least overly broad). The "intellectual property" which you refer to is seen as an oxymoron and antithetical to progress and free culture. I won't go into the arguments any further--they have been described in eloquent detail many times on Slashdot.
The extent to which moral disagreement with copyright justifies civil disobedience is debatable. I'll give you that. However your characterization of the copyright reformist ideals as "childish claptrap" is quite unfair.
Better yet, why not make it mandatory for the party applying for the patent to check it? Since a patent application is supposed to be some sort of legal document ("I certify that we originated this novel idea, and am not aware of prior art..."), then this could be a chance for the applying party to withdraw their patent (admit that there is prior art). If a party doesn't withdraw their patent, and the patent is thereafter rejected on the basis of the prior art evidence from the site, then the applying party must pay a fine (or forfeit a deposit they made, or whatever).
Until we make it financially painful for companies to file bogus patents, they will continue to do so. The system you describe seems like the perfect way to warn a patent applicant that there is prior art. If they pursue their claim despite that knowledge, then they are breaking the law and should, at a minimum, be fined. (A harsher system would might also prevent them from applying for other patents for some time period, or perhaps even bring charges against the persons making the claims, or threaten disbarment for any lawyer who signs off on fraudulent claims.)
I have to agree.
The only way that the present proposal would offer any benefit beyond a random web search for prior art (which you can do nowadays if you really want to invalidate a patent) would be to have a system that was organized and exhaustive. It would have to be very well organized and categorized, and people would have to actively watch what companies are doing, and preemptively writing long discussions about "obvious solutions" to potential problems. These entries would have to be analyzed by others, and refined in some way. Spam and bogus entries would have to be trimmed.
Ideally, a community of volunteers would watch patents as they are granted (or applied for) and would do their own research, amassing links to prior art that exists elsewhere. This data would then be easily available to anyone who wanted to challenge the patent. By lowering the barrier to challenging software patents, such a system could conceivably reduce the number of frivolous patents.
However, ultimately to be useful it will require considerable work from alot of volunteers. Merely tagging random blog entries with "prior art" isn't useful--everything you do is prior art for a sufficiently stupid patent claim. So every single page on the internet is "prior art" for something... the tough part is organizing this all so that when you are challenging a particular claim, you can quickly find the prior art that is relevant (and so that you can, with some authority, prove that the prior art existed before a given date).
A useful volunteer-based anti-patent website is not impossible. Wikipedia proves that you can organize volunteers to generate something useful. A wiki format, for instance, would also inherently maintain histories and dates, making prior-art claims more heavily documented. But such a community will require significant effort by many people. Unfortunately, it stops becoming "a simple plan."
For awhile I used to watch the evening news using this method. I had my MythTV set to record the 6-o'clock news, so that when I got home I would watch it at high-speed. By skipping commercials and segments I wasn't interested in (especially the numerous fluff pieces), and by setting the playback speed to ~150%, I could watch an hour of news in 8-12 minutes.
It worked fine, and taught me that TV has a very high ratio of filler to content.
One interpretation is that it's sad that people don't have the attention span to watch a 30-minute show, and would rather watch a 5-minute compressed version of it.
Another interpretation is that it's sad that the content in question is so bad, so filled with fluff and useless scenes, that it can be comfortably compressed by a factor of 6 with little loss in intelligent commentary or entertainment value.
Frankly I don't think many people are going to want to watch compressed versions of Schindler's List. But many shows truly are needlessly long and slow-moving (the intention, I suppose, it to increase the ratio of commercials to production dollars). I think a crappy hour-long show could conceivably be compressed into an entertaining 5-minute show by a talented editor. In fact, many movie trailers (which are only a few minutes long) are quite a bit more compelling, funny, and entertaining than the full-length movies they advertise. Some things are really not worth an hour of my time. But 5 minutes? Maybe.
You're right, of course. A $50 difference is not that persuasive. However, at least the Ubuntu machine isn't more expensive than the equivalent Vista one. After all, there was considerable worry that Dell would keep the Ubuntu price higher (for a variety of reasons, such as contracts with MS or kickbacks from craplet installs, etc.).
So, I see Dell's offering of Ubuntu machines as a small step in the right direction. And the fact that they are a bit cheaper than the Vista equivalent is also a step in the right direction.
I highly doubt many consumers will be randomly browsing the Dell website and say "damn, those Ubuntu machines look awesome!"... but at least these prices allow those in the know to suggest to others: "If you're looking for a new computer, consider getting a Dell Ubuntu machine. Ubuntu is very stable and secure and you don't need the most expensive computer to run it. In fact, it's a bit cheaper than the equivalent Windows machine!"
Will this give Linux a 15% marketshare overnight? No. But it's a step towards breaking the current OS monoculture... and that's a good thing.
Yes, you're quite right. This is not "theft" in any useful sense. Certainly in regards to the law, "theft" has a specific meaning. The present actions, if true, are probably illegal, but are not theft.
Similarly, the other examples you gave: "theft of service," "identity theft," "you stole my thunder," "stolen kisses". None of those are "theft" in the legal sense (in fact half are not even illegal). Moreover, if you were trying to have a refined argument about any one of those topics, I believe most rational debaters would agree that none of them are "theft" in the strict sense of the word. The word "theft" is being applied in those cases to make the term catchy and easy to remember.
In regards to copyright infringement being inappropriately called "theft" (which is what you were indirectly referring to), similar arguments apply. It is not "theft" in the legal sense of the word, and I believe in a critical argument of the subject, using the term "theft" is imprecise and essentially an appeal to emotion rather than logic. The reason why many people in the copyright debate request that the terms "theft" and "piracy" be expunged from the debate is that, while they are catchy and easy-to-use terms, they muddy the debate by injecting moral preconceptions into the debate. (Thus, by using the terms one is implicitly already supporting a certain moral position, making impartial debate more difficult.)
Similarly, I think if there was a serious debate about the morality of giving one's lover a quick kiss, it would be a weak argument from the anti-kiss debaters if they said "stealing a kiss is, like all forms of stealing, immoral since theft is wrong." The pro-kiss debaters would be well within their debating rights to request that the term "stealing kisses" not be used, and the more neutral term "quick kiss" be used instead.
Market share is certainly a factor, but I think it's a stretch to say that it's the only factor.
Let's say some nefarious guys are trying to get their malware installed on everyone's computers. So they buy some exploit code that targets IE. They say "Great, this will infect 3/4 of the computers out there!"
Now if these malware distributors are approached by some other guy who says "I can sell you exploit code that targets Firefox"... do you think the malware distributors will say "no thanks" or will they say "Great, that covers the other 1/4 of computers out there!" (Maybe they will pay less for that exploit, but they will surely use it if it's available.)
Since Firefox's market share is not insignificant (10% to 25%?), there should be a market for such exploits. Similarly, there should be a market (perhaps smaller, but still a market) for the 4% Mac users. It appears that despite this, the targeting of Mac and Firefox is very much less than Windows/IE (more than can be accounted for by market share alone).
I'm sure that part of it has to do with market share. However inherent security is also part of the equation. (And frankly I don't know why such a statement is so controversial on Slashdot... why should security be based on only one factor in the first place?)
Your argument makes no sense. Massachusetts has to select a standard. No matter what standard they use, people wanting to access those documents will, yes, have to obtain software that can read that standard. There is no escaping that fact.
However the precise difference between an open standard and a closed standard is that the open standard can be freely implemented by any party. This means that you, the average citizen, can in principle write your own program to read the standard. More realistically, it means in practice that there will be numerous products on the market available to read the standard. In fact in the case of ODF, every computer nowadays can read it (by extracting the zip and reading the XML inside using any text editor), and there are free and Free options (such as OpenOffice, or free ODF->PDF converters or whatever) for reading the data is prettier forms.
So, yes, no matter what standard the government selects, you will be "forced" to use that standard to read their documents. So then the government must decide between a "open and human-readable format that numerous vendors can currently read/write, and for which there is not restriction on future implementations" and a "proprietary or semi-open standard that only one vendor can properly claim compliance with, and whose implementation specifications are not guaranteed to be freely available"...
It's also important to realize that it's much easier to use an open standard, and then convert from that to whatever other document types people want... rather than to use a proprietary standard, where finding or creating document converters may be much harder.
I think it's pretty obvious that the open standard forces very little on the citizens, whereas the proprietary standard does.
It's rather disingenuous to say "locked into ODF" since ODF is an open standard which means that anyone can generate their own ODF reader and writer. In fact, every computer on the market right now can basically read ODF (in a primitive way), since any modern OS can extract a zip archive and read the plaintext that is inside. Yes, ODF is really that open! You can read it and work with it with very simple tools. There are also many full office suites that can read/write ODF. So it's hard to see how you can say that the government will be "locked into ODF" when it will be trivial for them to convert the data to other formats, copy the data elsewhere, extract it for other use, automate searching through the data, etc. Where's the lockin?
The point with ODF is that you are not locked in. It is so open that it is very easy to convert your data, using a wide variety of tools (many of them freely available). The same cannot be said for MS's offering... which is why it cannot be legitimately called "open" and is a poor match to the needs of archiving and disseminating government data.
As long as companies write such ridiculous EULAs, it is only natural that people will react this way to them. Frankly the only reason that more people are not scared and appalled at EULAs is that no one actually reads them. Probably many of the things claimed in EULAs would not hold up in a court of law. But if all the terms of the EULAs were actually legally enforceable, then it would not be at all paranoid to be concerned about them: the terms are, after all, very consumer-hostile.
Well they say the information is anonymous, but it includes things like your IP address. So they can convert that it non-anonymous information quite easily.
So... some reasons why this is probably a bad idea:
1. If they discover that you are running non-legit software, they can track you down. (And considering that any such analysis will always make mistakes, even users of legitimate copies of software should be worried.)
2. If MS's servers get compromised (or a bug is found in the "secure transmission" protocol), third parties can obtain your data. Depending on exactly what is being sent, this could be a privacy breach, security breach, or both.
3. Having services constantly establishing these connections is a security risk. Malware or viruses may be able to exploit it as a point of infection. Or, they may be able to use it as a means of spreading copies of themselves, or secretly transmitting information back to a third party. Every unnecessary service (from a user perspective) is a security breach waiting to happen.
4. Having code running that doesn't explicitly benefit the user is a waste of resources. This means overhead on your computer and overhead on your internet connection.
5. The EULA seems to state that they can change the terms as it suits them. This means that they can push updates through Windows Update that increase the scope of the data obtained. Perhaps they eventually decide to drop the anonymous clause. I don't think signing over so much freedom and privacy is a good idea, regardless of how "well-intentioned" the recipient of your rights claims to be.
And finally, there is the general "bad vibes" I'm sure we're all getting about this. It would be one thing if it were an additional feature that you could turn on if you wanted to. Something like "Help MS improve the quality of service by sending reports on how your software is running. This voluntary service is under your control, and only human-readable summaries will be sent, which you can inspect before they are sent. Do you wish to participate? Cancel/Allow"
Instead we get something like: "MS reserves the right to monitor your computer and transmit information to MS HQ. We can change these terms at our leisure. By using any of these features, you implicitly agree to this monitoring."
This is not an act of charity on MS's part. This is part of a plan to obtain information that they want, without customers noticing it is happening. That can only be a bad thing.
The privacy concerns are obvious. I, for one, do not want to agree to having all kinds of (largely unspecified) information transmitted to Microsoft.
But even putting that aside for a moment. Assume that Microsoft is a friendly company and that you are confident they will never use this information "against you." Even in that case, this is a really bad idea. Why? Because security works best when you *minimize* the avenues of attack. By sending this information to Microsoft HQ, your OS opens itself to new attacks. On the one hand you have the possibility of MS's servers being hacked, and your information stolen (or the transmission being intercepted and copied). But much worse, this transmission functionality can be co-opted by malware or viruses.
Every functionality you include in the OS is a functionality that "the enemy" (malware, viruses, crackers, etc.) can (and will) use against you. In particular, every network-enabled program is a potential security breach. Hence, we should always be disabling as many services (especially network services) as possible. By having all kinds of code that is constantly communicating outside the machine (with no notification to the user), built into services that the user cannot sensibly disable, you are leaving a tempting target for "the enemy" to find vulnerabilities.
Add to this the fact that it makes it harder on network admins to pick out suspicious traffic. If all these Vista installs are constantly sending out packets of information, how can the sysadmin tell when one of those machines has been taken over, and that "phone MS HQ" service is now sending nefarious packets?
I was at a physics conference a few years ago and one of the plenary lectures was on this topic. The speaker basically put forth all the various cosmological models (expanding universe with slowing expansion, universe that eventually collapses back on itself, etc.) and concluded that: "Based on our current understanding, we live in the worst possible universe."
This is because, according to our best measurements, the universe it not only expanding, but the rate of expansion is increasing with time. Thus the universe's expansion is accelerating (this is the indirect evidence for "Dark Energy").
This is "the worst possible scenario" because it can easily be shown (in a mathematically rigorous way) that as expansion occurs, the universe will become isolated islands of matter, which are flying away from each other so fast that they cannot hope to communicate with one another. This means that ultimately no information from one region of the universe can ever reach another region, which makes it impossible to reconstruct what happened in the distant past. Worse still, it can be shown that this leads to "Heat Death", where the universe becomes very very cold (because, for example, objects radiate energy that is lost into space and never comes back, nor is replaced by any influx of energy). The end result is that there is not enough energy density to sustain life or any organized constructs. So the end state is one of extremely high entropy, with no usable information content.
This is not just a matter of not having good enough technology. The problem is that the universe will expand and local regions will irrevocably lose the ability to probe the past. Information will be inaccessible. No matter how good your technology is, the evidence will simply be locally nonexistent (because information can't travel faster than the speed of light).
Now, having said all that, it's entirely possible that new measurements will point to something previously unknown (e.g. perhaps the explanation for dark energy changes the conclusions entirely). However if current models are mostly correct, then a progression towards locally isolated regions of space, who have no access to cosmological history, is inevitable.