It's probably illegal. The question really should be is it ethical ? My take on this is that it is ethical. Just because the RIAA has a business model that involves taking the risk that people will circumvent their protections and violate the laws they have lobbied to put in place, doesn't make it unethical, especially because there are other business models for releasing digital media without this risk. Ethics don't change just because laws are passed one day. Ethics do change when conditions change around your business model. There are many examples. It's caused by progress. It's time for laws to change, and they will, it's unavoidable. D.R.
If you have a stomach for cryptography this is the research paper that triggered these claims. There is nothing in there about particular software, but it is not surprising one might dream up these claims. http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rafail/PUBLIC/Ostrovsky-Sk eith.pdf
So what ? These guys are the same people that copy music online. Does everyone write something for getting credit ? What a lousy attitude. I'm sure Aristotle, Einstein and Newton are ashamed. DR.
You may have broken the law, but the RIAA should have no claim, because first they have to prove you caused financial loss. The truth is, they have choices for their business model other than to abandon music in the digital domain. They could, for instance release their music only after they have made their money. It's been done before. They have made a choice to go after the high margin model with the associated risk that they incur abandoning their music at the mercy of everyone with internet access. That's the way of business. DR.
That's exactly right. The foundation has crumbled and the businesses are clinging to an old model for making a profit. Copyrights are not rights. They're nothing more than a promise from the government that they'll enforce that old business model for you. But that business model is no longer the only model around. They have other ways to make the same money. There will be a day when people will look at copyrights as antiquated contracts are today. DR.
Information IS free. It's always been free. People create the barriers/lies/secrets/confusion that prevent you from getting to it. Google is only bypassing those barriers because the digital world we live in makes this inevitable consequence reachable. It doesn't matter what their motive is. DR.
It's great news and we should applaud the effort. But unfortunately for them this practice isn't going to be sustainable. One model which does work, in order to release your work for free and generate revenue for your efforts without relying so much on the good will of your audience is to auction your work. This has been done before by the Blender foundation for software and is being repeated successfully for the release of the movie Orange. It's a simple concept. People pay a very small amount, until a threshold is met, then the work is released free to everyone. It's IMHO the only model that will ever succeed. Maybe they'll catch on. DR
That's nonsense. Just like you can't pilot that plane on the first day, you should be responsible for learning to use software before you can blame someone for the disruption in your life when you lose your data or crash your system.
You always have a choice.
This is a stunning revelation since downloading music that has been abandonned in the digital domain could hardly be labelled unethical, in comparison to the highly unethical behaviors listed alongside in the article.
Finally some innovation. It's still a long way from the type of distribution the movie Orange is using: For details see http://orange.blender.org./ Raise capital, on the promise you ill deliver a great work. That's the way the world works, from your job interview down to that new razor you just bought. DR.
That's right. It's me, DR, the enemy of copyrights.
But I have to admit, this is finally a good move for the industry. It's a lost battle but the money is not wasted. Trying to preserve your sandwich for a little longer makes sense, while you can think of alternative ways to profit from your work.
I'm afraid this might not really be the motive, but rather some strategy to keep signing on artists for more exclusive distribution rights. But still you have to applaud the effort.
Two words: Screw copyrights. Copyrights are the product of 1- The ability to hide, delay or deter the flow of information. 2- The ability to lobby politicians to your side.
Copryrihgts are going away (kicking and screaming) because 3- The digital world makes it harder to achieve (1). 4- Most people are not sympathetic with the likes of Metallica.
Don't bother lecturing me about the poor starving artists who need to make money somehow. The chose to be arists, and there are other ways to make money than selling records.
They collect money for the artists. So what ? Who says I'm entitled to the money I make from writing code ? Nobody. Whose responsibility is it to make sure my stuff is not blasted over the internet from someone to copy. Mine. Let's review: Who says britney spears is entitled to the money she makes today from her singing ? Nobody. Whose responsibility is it to make sure her work isn't blasted over the internet for people to copy? Hers. She makes a choice, between making less money from concerts and other performances (it's called work) or taking a risk and putting her work out on the net, knowing it will get copied, for a bigger reward. It's a risk vs reward situation. She makes the wrong choice. Though. Live with it.
Yeah, seriously. And how did the idiot get 35 years and not 32 ? I love these kinds of doomsaying quacks. There is no technology today that is cryptographically secure enough for more than 7 days. Even RSA 1024 can be broken by a good Twinkle.
I agree. Even if the blog owner had written it himself it should be fine. He paid for his web site didn't he. Nobody is forced to look at his blog. What's next ? Sue me because I have a Sore-Loserman bumper sticker ?
First look at the Dod recommendations for Trusted OSs.There are few, and the level of assurance (that they do what they claim) varies. Choose EAL4 at least. You can probably get SE Linux or Trusted Solaris. After you choose the OS, you'll have to pick one of the supported hardware platforms. Then you'll have to read up a lot about Mandatory Access Controls and Role Based Access control. Don't forget that once you secure one machine, you'll have to make sure anything that touches the info on it is secured too otherwise, the weakest link will surely break. Good luck.
It really shows how overpriced the medical devices are in the rest of the world. But of course no one usually cares because your insurance pays for it. But wait, $3000 for a 15 minute CAT Scan at the local clinic. Hummm...
I agree. "classification" is not the same as censorship. If the government wants to 'help' me classify web sites so 'I' can censor what my kids see, I think it's commandable.
However, if the government wants to classify AND prevent my access to certain web sites (such as the Australian Gov going after Google for pulling up hits about gambling sites) then I think it goes right against free speech.
I missed the part where Australians were forced to use Google ? Why don't they build their own search engine and regulate it up the wazoo. It's just about as Stupid as the French wanting every French hosted web site to be available in French.
Awesome.
I love it ! F**k the USPTO.
Someone should patent this snippet and tell them it calculates how many more years the USPTO will remain an institution...
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably illegal. The question really should be is it ethical ?
My take on this is that it is ethical. Just because the RIAA has a business model that involves taking the risk that people will circumvent their protections and violate the laws they have lobbied to put in place, doesn't make it unethical, especially because there are other business models for releasing digital media without this risk.
Ethics don't change just because laws are passed one day.
Ethics do change when conditions change around your business model. There are many examples. It's caused by progress.
It's time for laws to change, and they will, it's unavoidable.
D.R.
If you have a stomach for cryptography this is the research paper that triggered these claims.k eith.pdf
There is nothing in there about particular software, but it is not surprising one might dream up these claims.
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rafail/PUBLIC/Ostrovsky-S
So what ? These guys are the same people that copy music online. Does everyone write something for getting credit ?
What a lousy attitude. I'm sure Aristotle, Einstein and Newton are ashamed.
DR.
You may have broken the law, but the RIAA should have no claim, because first they have to prove you caused financial loss. The truth is, they have choices for their business model other than to abandon music in the digital domain.
They could, for instance release their music only after they have made their money. It's been done before.
They have made a choice to go after the high margin model with the associated risk that they incur abandoning their music at the mercy of everyone with internet access. That's the way of business.
DR.
That's exactly right. The foundation has crumbled and the businesses are clinging to an old model for making a profit.
Copyrights are not rights. They're nothing more than a promise from the government that they'll enforce that old business model for you.
But that business model is no longer the only model around. They have other ways to make the same money.
There will be a day when people will look at copyrights as antiquated contracts are today.
DR.
Ditto.
Information IS free. It's always been free.
People create the barriers/lies/secrets/confusion that prevent you from getting to it. Google is only bypassing those barriers because the digital world we live in makes this inevitable consequence reachable.
It doesn't matter what their motive is.
DR.
It's great news and we should applaud the effort. But unfortunately for them this practice isn't going to be sustainable.
One model which does work, in order to release your work for free and generate revenue for your efforts without relying so much on the good will of your audience is to auction your work.
This has been done before by the Blender foundation for software and is being repeated successfully for the release of the movie Orange.
It's a simple concept. People pay a very small amount, until a threshold is met, then the work is released free to everyone.
It's IMHO the only model that will ever succeed. Maybe they'll catch on.
DR
That's nonsense. Just like you can't pilot that plane on the first day, you should be responsible for learning to use software before you can blame someone for the disruption in your life when you lose your data or crash your system. You always have a choice.
This is a stunning revelation since downloading music that has been abandonned in the
digital domain could hardly be labelled unethical, in comparison to the highly
unethical behaviors listed alongside in the article.
Finally some innovation. It's still a long way from the type of distribution the movie Orange is using:
For details see http://orange.blender.org./
Raise capital, on the promise you ill deliver a great work. That's the way the world works, from your job interview down to that new razor you just bought.
DR.
That's right. It's me, DR, the enemy of copyrights. But I have to admit, this is finally a good move for the industry. It's a lost battle but the money is not wasted. Trying to preserve your sandwich for a little longer makes sense, while you can think of alternative ways to profit from your work. I'm afraid this might not really be the motive, but rather some strategy to keep signing on artists for more exclusive distribution rights. But still you have to applaud the effort.
Two words: Screw copyrights.
Copyrights are the product of
1- The ability to hide, delay or deter the flow of information.
2- The ability to lobby politicians to your side.
Copryrihgts are going away (kicking and screaming) because
3- The digital world makes it harder to achieve (1).
4- Most people are not sympathetic with the likes of Metallica.
Don't bother lecturing me about the poor starving artists who need to make money somehow.
The chose to be arists, and there are other ways to make money than selling records.
DR.
What a dilemma. Must be important enough to warrant a slashdot discussion.
They collect money for the artists. So what ?
Who says I'm entitled to the money I make from writing code ? Nobody.
Whose responsibility is it to make sure my stuff is not blasted over the internet from someone to copy. Mine.
Let's review:
Who says britney spears is entitled to the money she makes today from her singing ? Nobody.
Whose responsibility is it to make sure her work isn't blasted over the internet for people to copy? Hers.
She makes a choice, between making less money from concerts and other performances (it's called work) or taking a risk and putting her work out on the net, knowing it will get copied, for a bigger reward.
It's a risk vs reward situation. She makes the wrong choice. Though. Live with it.
DR.
Yeah, seriously. And how did the idiot get 35 years and not 32 ? I love these kinds of doomsaying quacks.
There is no technology today that is cryptographically secure enough for more than 7 days.
Even RSA 1024 can be broken by a good Twinkle.
Slashdot users already know 7-Zip has been doing the same thing for free for years. What is this an advertisement ? WinZip is history.
Yep. Bruce is right. Signing as is currently exists is useless.
I agree. Even if the blog owner had written it himself it should be fine. He paid for his web site didn't he. Nobody is forced to look at his blog.
What's next ? Sue me because I have a Sore-Loserman bumper sticker ?
First look at the Dod recommendations for Trusted OSs.There are few, and the level of assurance (that they do what they claim) varies.
Choose EAL4 at least. You can probably get SE Linux or Trusted Solaris.
After you choose the OS, you'll have to pick one of the supported hardware platforms.
Then you'll have to read up a lot about Mandatory Access Controls and Role Based Access control.
Don't forget that once you secure one machine, you'll have to make sure anything that touches the info on it is secured too otherwise, the weakest link will surely break.
Good luck.
It really shows how overpriced the medical devices are in the rest of the world. But of course no one usually cares because your insurance pays for it.
But wait, $3000 for a 15 minute CAT Scan at the local clinic. Hummm...
I agree. "classification" is not the same as censorship. If the government wants to 'help' me classify web sites so 'I' can censor what my kids see, I think it's commandable. However, if the government wants to classify AND prevent my access to certain web sites (such as the Australian Gov going after Google for pulling up hits about gambling sites) then I think it goes right against free speech.
I missed the part where Australians were forced to use Google ?
Why don't they build their own search engine and regulate it up the wazoo.
It's just about as Stupid as the French wanting every French hosted web site to be available in French.
DR.
And put an end to this sorry crap by suing the USPTO for infringement.
Awesome. I love it ! F**k the USPTO. Someone should patent this snippet and tell them it calculates how many more years the USPTO will remain an institution...