. . . just give us your credit card number and everything will be fine.
But seriously; they paint the situation much worse than it currently really is, because they want ordinary users to be frightened of getting a virus. And that's because people who are frightened of getting viruses buy anti-virus packages.
It looks like someone noticed a potential security flaw to do with the way MacOS X presents files and file types to the user. He asked around on a Mac programming group to make sure he wasn't being paranoid, people there confirmed it was possible and one even made a test case (totally benign - it runs code but does nothing else). Here's a link to that thread on google groups.
Intego caught wind of this, and immediately issued a press release describing how the sky is falling, noone can trust anything any more, claiming credit for the discovery, and by the way have you noticed we sell a product which will prevent infection? Buy it now!
I think many people would maintain there is nothing illegal about 'breaking a DRM scheme.'
Then they'd be wrong. The DMCA clearly applies to this situation (in the USA at least).
It may or may not be moral or immoral, the DMCA may or may not be a bad law or a good law. But as things currently stand, there's no question of it being legal.
I am supposed to be happy that we have only taken one step back instead of two?
Because if that step isn't taken, you don't get support from the music companies and you don't get legal, convenient, on-line music stores selling the music you want to listen to.
You're supposed to be happy that you're getting the benefits that can only be provided because of DRM, and yet you're not suffering too many of the bad effects of the restrictions DRM can place on the end user.
How can you be "insightful" when you say you haven't used the product? What exactly is it you want to do, that you've heard Apple DRM prevents you from doing?
If their business was based on not turning anything over to the spooks, well, so much for that idea.
I think the parent was probably referring to uptime guarantees, which the confiscation of equipment has caused the ISP to fail on, rather than anything to do with data privacy.
See also What Evil Lurks in the Hearts of NPCs?", an article by Ernest Adams discussing the behaviour of programmed characters, and how they can be modelled in terms of emotional state.
This article is pure speculation. I am disappointed that you have published a piece which falls well below your usual high standards.
I would like to draw attention to two points in particular.
Firstly, you grossly misrepresent users of Linux, and this attitude permeates the tone of the entire piece. "If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source)." - it is not, and never has been, the point of Open Source software to make all "code" free agains the wishes of its authors. But if a programmer does decide to make his own source code available, it is fundamental that no other person or company should be allowed to claim it as their own. This is what appears to have occurred in the SCO case, and why Linux users in general are upset at SCO. SCO are also attacking end users before their ownership of the disputed code is proven (or otherwise) in court. For references, please see http://www.groklaw.net/
Secondly there is no proof that Linux users wrote the virus, in fact there is not a single indication that this might be the case (other than an apparent motive). It is just as likely that someone chose the target in order to discredit Linux users, or to draw attention away from any real motive. And even if it was written by a Linux user, or a small group of Linux users, please be careful not to tar the entire Linux community with the same brush. Linux users in general do not approve of illegal tactics such as this virus, and would much rather see that justice is brought to SCO by the conventional legal means. http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/DOS/
Microsoft today pushed congress to ban the l key from being sold on PC keyboards. A spokesperson said "You don't need to type that key to visit good and whoesome websites. On the other hand, that key is essentia to terrorists trying to visit communist and subversive sites. True patriots wi have nothing at a to worry about."
The Californian company isn't even allowed to advertise in the Low Countries any longer and, even more remarkable, the judge has ordered Lindows to make its Web site inaccessible to Benelux-based web users.
Another case of Microsoft pushing Security Through Obscurity?
According to the BBC's story, the BPI are taking action on the basis that Cd-Wow have somehow violated copyright law. Even though there is no allegation that unauthorized duplication ever took place (all the stock is bought indirectly from the same record companies, albeit their overseas branches). I have no idea why copyright law applies here? I'm yet to be convinced that Cd-Wow have done anything remotely illegal.
But of course, the musiconglomeratopoly has more money to spend on lawyers, and even if there's no case they can get it to drag out for months or years. Meanwhile the defendant pays huge legal fees until it runs out of money. BPI seems to be trying to use lawsuits to disable the smaller companies who can't afford to stand up to them and get justice.
No they won't. They will not stop unless they actually go bust.
iTunes encryption was about as permissive as it gets. Now that's broken, the media companies will naturally start pushing a more restrictive system. Eventually, there will be hardware-based DRM with legal backing to enforce its inclusion in all end-user machines. The technology already exists, and iDVD Jon pulling this kind of stunt will only spur the government into getting it adopted. He is hastening the death of the general purpose computer.
Tetris is still the best in its original form for the Gameboy
That wasn't the original version! Tetris has a long and complicated commercial history, but Nintendo's version arrived four years later than the original conception, and two years after "official" ports to just about every plaform in existance at the time.
"Pro Pinball: Timeshock" had a special mode which would be enabled if you were in the middle of a game when the stroke of midnight passed. It put about 10 balls on the table, with about two minutes of ball saver, and did other things turn all the bumpers up to maximum strength. It was worth almost no points at all, but a lot of fun!
Slashdot Mirror
At least they can say Longhorn was released on schedule!
Well, not delayed too much, anyway.
... you insensitive clod!
The nearest pay-per-download service we get is probably mycokemusic (licensed from OD2) which costs 99p per track, which works out about $1.82 US.
And you think you've got it tough!
. . . just give us your credit card number and everything will be fine.
But seriously; they paint the situation much worse than it currently really is, because they want ordinary users to be frightened of getting a virus. And that's because people who are frightened of getting viruses buy anti-virus packages.
It looks like someone noticed a potential security flaw to do with the way MacOS X presents files and file types to the user. He asked around on a Mac programming group to make sure he wasn't being paranoid, people there confirmed it was possible and one even made a test case (totally benign - it runs code but does nothing else). Here's a link to that thread on google groups.
Intego caught wind of this, and immediately issued a press release describing how the sky is falling, noone can trust anything any more, claiming credit for the discovery, and by the way have you noticed we sell a product which will prevent infection? Buy it now!
You could have used one CD-RW.
I think many people would maintain there is nothing illegal about 'breaking a DRM scheme.'
Then they'd be wrong. The DMCA clearly applies to this situation (in the USA at least).
It may or may not be moral or immoral, the DMCA may or may not be a bad law or a good law. But as things currently stand, there's no question of it being legal.
I am supposed to be happy that we have only taken one step back instead of two?
Because if that step isn't taken, you don't get support from the music companies and you don't get legal, convenient, on-line music stores selling the music you want to listen to.
You're supposed to be happy that you're getting the benefits that can only be provided because of DRM, and yet you're not suffering too many of the bad effects of the restrictions DRM can place on the end user.
How can you be "insightful" when you say you haven't used the product? What exactly is it you want to do, that you've heard Apple DRM prevents you from doing?
Sure they're adding to the GDP - somebody has to make the luxury cars their lawyers buy.
But so much for the rest of the wrold. We don't have the iTunes Music Store - now it seems we don't even get the player.
Time for me to send Steve Jobs a globe with a big red arrow stuck on it pointing at England, and a note saying "I am here".
If their business was based on not turning anything over to the spooks, well, so much for that idea.
I think the parent was probably referring to uptime guarantees, which the confiscation of equipment has caused the ISP to fail on, rather than anything to do with data privacy.
See also What Evil Lurks in the Hearts of NPCs?", an article by Ernest Adams discussing the behaviour of programmed characters, and how they can be modelled in terms of emotional state.
Here's what I sent:
This article is pure speculation. I am disappointed that you have published a piece which falls well below your usual high standards.
I would like to draw attention to two points in particular.
Firstly, you grossly misrepresent users of Linux, and this attitude permeates the tone of the entire piece. "If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source)." - it is not, and never has been, the point of Open Source software to make all "code" free agains the wishes of its authors. But if a programmer does decide to make his own source code available, it is fundamental that no other person or company should be allowed to claim it as their own. This is what appears to have occurred in the SCO case, and why Linux users in general are upset at SCO. SCO are also attacking end users before their ownership of the disputed code is proven (or otherwise) in court. For references, please see http://www.groklaw.net/
Secondly there is no proof that Linux users wrote the virus, in fact there is not a single indication that this might be the case (other than an apparent motive). It is just as likely that someone chose the target in order to discredit Linux users, or to draw attention away from any real motive. And even if it was written by a Linux user, or a small group of Linux users, please be careful not to tar the entire Linux community with the same brush. Linux users in general do not approve of illegal tactics such as this virus, and would much rather see that justice is brought to SCO by the conventional legal means. http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/DOS/
Thankyou for your time.
I'm sure it will work for Microsoft
Whoever moderated that as Troll, I congratulate you for making his point.
I agree it's a fair lawsuit, but I also think the action of blocking websites is a silly restriction.
Microsoft today pushed congress to ban the l key from being sold on PC keyboards. A spokesperson said "You don't need to type that key to visit good and whoesome websites. On the other hand, that key is essentia to terrorists trying to visit communist and subversive sites. True patriots wi have nothing at a to worry about."
The Californian company isn't even allowed to advertise in the Low Countries any longer and, even more remarkable, the judge has ordered Lindows to make its Web site inaccessible to Benelux-based web users.
Another case of Microsoft pushing Security Through Obscurity?
According to the BBC's story, the BPI are taking action on the basis that Cd-Wow have somehow violated copyright law. Even though there is no allegation that unauthorized duplication ever took place (all the stock is bought indirectly from the same record companies, albeit their overseas branches). I have no idea why copyright law applies here? I'm yet to be convinced that Cd-Wow have done anything remotely illegal.
But of course, the musiconglomeratopoly has more money to spend on lawyers, and even if there's no case they can get it to drag out for months or years. Meanwhile the defendant pays huge legal fees until it runs out of money. BPI seems to be trying to use lawsuits to disable the smaller companies who can't afford to stand up to them and get justice.
Sure - when you got your back to the wall, the only thing left to do is to turn around and fight.
Eventually, they'll give up
No they won't. They will not stop unless they actually go bust.
iTunes encryption was about as permissive as it gets. Now that's broken, the media companies will naturally start pushing a more restrictive system. Eventually, there will be hardware-based DRM with legal backing to enforce its inclusion in all end-user machines. The technology already exists, and iDVD Jon pulling this kind of stunt will only spur the government into getting it adopted. He is hastening the death of the general purpose computer.
Tetris is still the best in its original form for the Gameboy
That wasn't the original version! Tetris has a long and complicated commercial history, but Nintendo's version arrived four years later than the original conception, and two years after "official" ports to just about every plaform in existance at the time.
"Pro Pinball: Timeshock" had a special mode which would be enabled if you were in the middle of a game when the stroke of midnight passed. It put about 10 balls on the table, with about two minutes of ball saver, and did other things turn all the bumpers up to maximum strength. It was worth almost no points at all, but a lot of fun!
I guess you want to destroy cover bands.
Pretty please?
There is no political party at this address.
Did you mean?
We did find these similar political parties.
The Republican Party
You know you can set up the preferences so you don't even have to do that...