hm? as i understood, the company wouldnt get another 50 years.
You might want to read 85 UrhG. If you make just a copy of the record, you won't get another 50 years, but if you do some remastering, remixing etc., things are far from clear.
Yes, that is true, European copyrights ARE 95 years, for NEW copyrights. They didnt make the extension retrospective like the USA's act.
There is no completely consistent copyright law in Europe. In Germany, the copyright still expires 70 years after the creator's death (like it's in the US).
AFAIK, the 95 year mark in the US only applies to works which haven't creator, and such works cannot be copyrighted in Europe in the first place (if there's no author, there's no way his rights can be protected).
No copyright expires in Germany just after 50 years. If a work is copyrighted, these rights will expire 70 years after the author's death. (Substitute "droit d'auteur" for copyright if you want to).
What expires now, after 50 years, are the rights of the perfoming artists, and the those who made the records and distributed them.
This means that only a piece of music can be copied legally if, (a) the composer, songwriter etc. has been dead for at least 70 years, (b) the original release was 50 years ago, and (c) you make your copy from one of the origianl records. (With subsequent, say CD, releases, the record company gets new rights for 50 years.)
So I doubt that many mass-market compatible music recordings will suddenly become unencumbered by copyright law, at least here in Germany. I suspect the situation is similar in other European countries.
I think we're living in the last days of SMTP as our email delivery protocol. It worked great for the first ten years but now the commons is being exploited.
SMTP follows the design of the Internet: just send something, the receiving side will discard it (silently or not, depending on the protocol) if it doesn't like it. No real session initialization with verification of send/receiver identity, or negotiation of some parameters (bandwidth, content parameters, etc.) is performed.
This has made the Internet so simple and successful, but on the other side, there is the large potential for DoS attacks.
For IP packets, the recommended countermeasure is "secure the edge" (i.e. get rid of IP spoofing so that you can filter quite easily), for mail, this cannot work. Spam can be injected over a myriad of channels (SMTP (direct and via an open relay), Formail CGI scripts, open CONNECT proxies etc.), so you had to stop selling IP to customers, which isn't an option. However, strict anti-spam AUPs and government support (e.g. punitive damages for spam) might be the way to go. Similar to IP spoofing/IP DoS, you have rely on others to enhance their network, but I can't see any other solution.
Well, the Volkssicherheitsministerium will have a hard time to peek into, e.g. European research networks. It's unlikely that they would export flow data (or something else) to the U.S.
A maintainance release for Solaris 8 enabled additional features in BIND 8 which were known to be vulnerable at the time the maintainance release was shipped. Previous versions lacked the feature and thus the vulnerability.
Of course, this was much more dangerous than the current case because it had already been claim that Solaris 8 was not affected by that BIND bug.
When I read the headline, I was shocked: The IAB recommends advertising? ("IAB" expands to "Internet Architecture Board", at least in Internet context.)
...but transcendentals require an infinite number of terms.
Not if you use other transcendentals. IIRC, e^(-i*pi)=1.
"e^(-i*pi)" is thus an abbreviation for a power series involving pi, so there's actually "an infinite number of terms". (Of course, this concept doesn't make much sense. Obviously we can only talk about specific numbers which can be described with a finite amount of symbols.)
Quite a few people assume that web sites which are unsuable with Lynx (because of frames, JavaScript, Flash, extensive use of tables, image-based navigation etc.) aren't accessible for disabled people. (They usually write complaints to site owners expressing this concern.)
What's your experience? Is Lynx compatibility necessary or sufficient to guarantee accessibility? Or are there fundamental problems for visually impaired people with hypertext documents?
No it isn't, at least not in the sense of the original poster. You can easily get most of the Solaris source code as well (again, third-party code is the main problem). Sun has offered the source code for ages.
No, that would suck cock, because it would signal the end of the Sparc platform.
There are many corporations which expect that the SPARC platform will be around for a couple of years (decades?). If Sun dumps the SPARC platform (or indicates there are plans in this direction), the porting frenzy begins, and Sun will certainly start losing customers. (Even now, a few people are forced to port applications because Sun refuses to sell certain hardware/software combinations to them, but that's probably just the usual crazyness of huge corporation.)
If that's the case, what are the chances they could be considering opening the source for Solaris?
Zilch. I doubt that Sun has full records which source file incorporated code from which source, so it will be a very significant effort to check that the publication under a free software license does not infringe on third party copyright.
And what's so cool about Solaris? The kernel? Maybe, but certainly only the SPARC version. The userland? Oh, please, get real!
It would be nice if Sun opened Java or the Forte compilers, granted, but this won't happen.
Open source implies that they have all the rights you specifically say that they will not be granted.
The term has been dilluted over the years. Anybody can call anything "open source", as long they ship a few lines of source code, and they don't charge extra for the delivery of these few lines. Hardly anybody will check the software license or the patent situation etc., and certainly not the journalists who report that company X will release product Y in a few months as "open source".
And it's not an Internet-wide phenomenon. And the claim that the Internet was much better in the old days because nowadays, smaller towns can be drop off the Internet in the case of a major disaster is a bit strange. In the old days, organizations in these smaller towns were connected to the Internet via modem lines, if they were lucky.
I guess that those organizations which had network access in the early nineties often still have quite a bit of redundancy (despite the backbone consolidation) because they care about their Internet connection, it's often an integral part of their work. The newcomers don't care that much, can afford outages of days in a row, look extremely closely at the price tags etc.
Or another strange claim:
"If you destroyed a major internet hub, you would also destroy all the links that are connected to it," said Morton O'Kelly, Professor of Geography at Ohio State University.
The links are not destroyed, they are still there and could be reconnected in most cases. Of course there would be a major outage, but you still wouldn't have to reconnected the country from scratch.
I hope the actual paper is a bit better. Despite all concentration, I don't see that physical interference with network components is a major threat to the network. It just doesn't scale too well.
Visa International Services Association applied for the mark on August 19, 1999. JSL applied for the mark on October 6, 1999. Visa wins.
Is it that simple in the US? In other countries, a trademark gains some protection by its use, even if it is not registered. If Visa didn't use the trademark back in 1999, it's not obvious who should own the trademark.
I can handle it quite well, although I believe I receive more spam than the average use (too many mailboxes are my own).
However, something is changing my email habits quite drastically: Worms are becoming more and more common which take snippets from old mail found on the disk and resend them. As long as only Word documents were leaking, my secrets were relatively safe at the receiver's end, but they aren't nowadays.
Unfortunately, the set of I people I trust to handle senstive information responsibly is much large than the set of people who are unlikely to make themselves victims of email worms.
Spam is just a nuisance, but such information leaks are scary.
You can use IPsec policies to filter incoming IP packets. IPsec policies apply to normal IP traffic as well. No reboot is required when you change the filter. Works on Windows 2000 and XP.
(I don't do Windows, but these things are quite well-known, I guess.)
It's been known for long that the BIND 8 DNSSEC is especially flakey, and if someone distributes compiled BIND 8 binaries with enabled DNSSEC, he's willing to take the risk and partly to blame for it. At the moment, nobody really needs DNSSEC, certainly not the (relative) masses who install precompiled BIND binaries.
I'm no longer sure that the current, critical problem is related to DNSSEC. There could be a spelling error in the ISS advisory. So please do not assume that you are safe if you've compiled BIND 8 without DNSSEC support!
Based on the ISS and CERT info it looks like OpenBSD's named is vulnerable. However, since named is run chrooted on OpenBSD this shouldn't be such a big deal.
How many kernel exploits to gain root access have been discovered for OpenBSD this year, and how many of them can be used from a chroot "jail"?
(Leaving aside the fact that a chroot "jail" is sufficient for quite a bit of network tunnelling, misuse of a machine as spam relay etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that everyone at slashdot feels like they have the rights to any information that is out there?
Because it should be that way and Slashdot users are idealists?
"Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est."
hm? as i understood, the company wouldnt get another 50 years.
You might want to read 85 UrhG. If you make just a copy of the record, you won't get another 50 years, but if you do some remastering, remixing etc., things are far from clear.
Yes, that is true, European copyrights ARE 95 years, for NEW copyrights. They didnt make the extension retrospective like the USA's act.
There is no completely consistent copyright law in Europe. In Germany, the copyright still expires 70 years after the creator's death (like it's in the US).
AFAIK, the 95 year mark in the US only applies to works which haven't creator, and such works cannot be copyrighted in Europe in the first place (if there's no author, there's no way his rights can be protected).
No copyright expires in Germany just after 50 years. If a work is copyrighted, these rights will expire 70 years after the author's death. (Substitute "droit d'auteur" for copyright if you want to).
What expires now, after 50 years, are the rights of the perfoming artists, and the those who made the records and distributed them.
This means that only a piece of music can be copied legally if, (a) the composer, songwriter etc. has been dead for at least 70 years, (b) the original release was 50 years ago, and (c) you make your copy from one of the origianl records. (With subsequent, say CD, releases, the record company gets new rights for 50 years.)
So I doubt that many mass-market compatible music recordings will suddenly become unencumbered by copyright law, at least here in Germany. I suspect the situation is similar in other European countries.
Or more specifically, here:p df
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/196352.
Wow, 62 pages for an evaluation of "dd". The whole source code of the program is just 20 pages.
Microsoft technology is the dominant tech today, who's to say what will be in highest demand tommorrow?
As long as the Windows brand is advertized on almost all college computers, all over the place, this won't change. So what?
It seems to me that this judge is basically just upholding that ruling and *not* allowing MS to do the same thing to Sun.
Yes, but why Sun? Why not other Java implementations? Why not the implementation of your favorite toy language?
If Microsoft is guilty of any wrongdoing, they should be punished. Rewarding some random competitor is not a proper solution.
I think we're living in the last days of SMTP as our email delivery protocol. It worked great for the first ten years but now the commons is being exploited.
SMTP follows the design of the Internet: just send something, the receiving side will discard it (silently or not, depending on the protocol) if it doesn't like it. No real session initialization with verification of send/receiver identity, or negotiation of some parameters (bandwidth, content parameters, etc.) is performed.
This has made the Internet so simple and successful, but on the other side, there is the large potential for DoS attacks.
For IP packets, the recommended countermeasure is "secure the edge" (i.e. get rid of IP spoofing so that you can filter quite easily), for mail, this cannot work. Spam can be injected over a myriad of channels (SMTP (direct and via an open relay), Formail CGI scripts, open CONNECT proxies etc.), so you had to stop selling IP to customers, which isn't an option. However, strict anti-spam AUPs and government support (e.g. punitive damages for spam) might be the way to go. Similar to IP spoofing/IP DoS, you have rely on others to enhance their network, but I can't see any other solution.
Why even bother with Spews? Why not Spamcop, who doesn't block half the planet?
SpamCop's blacklist announces hosts with a bad no-spam/spam ratio. As a result, non-US freemail providers tend to end up in SpamCop's blacklist.
SpamCop is honest and they warn that the blacklist should only be used for tagging, but many people ignore this advice.
This is looking at the whole Internet.
Well, the Volkssicherheitsministerium will have a hard time to peek into, e.g. European research networks. It's unlikely that they would export flow data (or something else) to the U.S.
anyway, if someone was to look me up on google, they would find a sexual predator? great. gotta love free information.
;-)
You just have to put your name on enough pages on the web, and it's suddenly impossible to discover anything interesting about you using Google.
A maintainance release for Solaris 8 enabled additional features in BIND 8 which were known to be vulnerable at the time the maintainance release was shipped. Previous versions lacked the feature and thus the vulnerability.
Of course, this was much more dangerous than the current case because it had already been claim that Solaris 8 was not affected by that BIND bug.
When I read the headline, I was shocked: The IAB recommends advertising? ("IAB" expands to "Internet Architecture Board", at least in Internet context.)
...but transcendentals require an infinite number of terms.
Not if you use other transcendentals. IIRC, e^(-i*pi)=1.
"e^(-i*pi)" is thus an abbreviation for a power series involving pi, so there's actually "an infinite number of terms". (Of course, this concept doesn't make much sense. Obviously we can only talk about specific numbers which can be described with a finite amount of symbols.)
Quite a few people assume that web sites which are unsuable with Lynx (because of frames, JavaScript, Flash, extensive use of tables, image-based navigation etc.) aren't accessible for disabled people. (They usually write complaints to site owners expressing this concern.)
What's your experience? Is Lynx compatibility necessary or sufficient to guarantee accessibility? Or are there fundamental problems for visually impaired people with hypertext documents?
Java is open.
No it isn't, at least not in the sense of the original poster. You can easily get most of the Solaris source code as well (again, third-party code is the main problem). Sun has offered the source code for ages.
No, that would suck cock, because it would signal the end of the Sparc platform.
There are many corporations which expect that the SPARC platform will be around for a couple of years (decades?). If Sun dumps the SPARC platform (or indicates there are plans in this direction), the porting frenzy begins, and Sun will certainly start losing customers. (Even now, a few people are forced to port applications because Sun refuses to sell certain hardware/software combinations to them, but that's probably just the usual crazyness of huge corporation.)
If that's the case, what are the chances they could be considering opening the source for Solaris?
Zilch. I doubt that Sun has full records which source file incorporated code from which source, so it will be a very significant effort to check that the publication under a free software license does not infringe on third party copyright.
And what's so cool about Solaris? The kernel? Maybe, but certainly only the SPARC version. The userland? Oh, please, get real!
It would be nice if Sun opened Java or the Forte compilers, granted, but this won't happen.
Open source implies that they have all the rights you specifically say that they will not be granted.
The term has been dilluted over the years. Anybody can call anything "open source", as long they ship a few lines of source code, and they don't charge extra for the delivery of these few lines. Hardly anybody will check the software license or the patent situation etc., and certainly not the journalists who report that company X will release product Y in a few months as "open source".
And it's not an Internet-wide phenomenon. And the claim that the Internet was much better in the old days because nowadays, smaller towns can be drop off the Internet in the case of a major disaster is a bit strange. In the old days, organizations in these smaller towns were connected to the Internet via modem lines, if they were lucky.
I guess that those organizations which had network access in the early nineties often still have quite a bit of redundancy (despite the backbone consolidation) because they care about their Internet connection, it's often an integral part of their work. The newcomers don't care that much, can afford outages of days in a row, look extremely closely at the price tags etc.
Or another strange claim:
"If you destroyed a major internet hub, you would also destroy all the links that are connected to it," said Morton O'Kelly, Professor of Geography at Ohio State University.
The links are not destroyed, they are still there and could be reconnected in most cases. Of course there would be a major outage, but you still wouldn't have to reconnected the country from scratch.
I hope the actual paper is a bit better. Despite all concentration, I don't see that physical interference with network components is a major threat to the network. It just doesn't scale too well.
Visa International Services Association applied for the mark on August 19, 1999. JSL applied for the mark on October 6, 1999. Visa wins.
Is it that simple in the US? In other countries, a trademark gains some protection by its use, even if it is not registered. If Visa didn't use the trademark back in 1999, it's not obvious who should own the trademark.
I can handle it quite well, although I believe I receive more spam than the average use (too many mailboxes are my own).
However, something is changing my email habits quite drastically: Worms are becoming more and more common which take snippets from old mail found on the disk and resend them. As long as only Word documents were leaking, my secrets were relatively safe at the receiver's end, but they aren't nowadays.
Unfortunately, the set of I people I trust to handle senstive information responsibly is much large than the set of people who are unlikely to make themselves victims of email worms.
Spam is just a nuisance, but such information leaks are scary.
You can use IPsec policies to filter incoming IP packets. IPsec policies apply to normal IP traffic as well. No reboot is required when you change the filter. Works on Windows 2000 and XP.
(I don't do Windows, but these things are quite well-known, I guess.)
It's been known for long that the BIND 8 DNSSEC is especially flakey, and if someone distributes compiled BIND 8 binaries with enabled DNSSEC, he's willing to take the risk and partly to blame for it. At the moment, nobody really needs DNSSEC, certainly not the (relative) masses who install precompiled BIND binaries.
I'm no longer sure that the current, critical problem is related to DNSSEC. There could be a spelling error in the ISS advisory. So please do not assume that you are safe if you've compiled BIND 8 without DNSSEC support!
Based on the ISS and CERT info it looks like OpenBSD's named is vulnerable. However, since named is run chrooted on OpenBSD this shouldn't be such a big deal.
How many kernel exploits to gain root access have been discovered for OpenBSD this year, and how many of them can be used from a chroot "jail"?
(Leaving aside the fact that a chroot "jail" is sufficient for quite a bit of network tunnelling, misuse of a machine as spam relay etc.)