> What else do you expect when the majority of the employees aren't even citizens of the country the product is sold in?
That a someone competent would require that the marketing was controlled by some subset of employees who actually were members of the same culture as the target market, just like in every other normal multinational corporation (assuming the target market is significant enough)?
commodore64_love, shame on you! How could you have missed the obvious addendum where the device also includes an explosive charge which can be remotely detonated, saving the police and society a lot of trouble!
I vaguely remember a wave of anti-Paypal protest and an anti-Paypal meme using the meant-to-be-pejorative take-off name "Praypal". But now when I search for "Praypal" on Google I only get legit "find someone to pray with" (and similar) sites. Did I miss some kind of meme revolution, there?
Let me make the same mistake you made and state: In the same way that it is impossible to use system logs to detect a compromise, it is in general impossible to conclude that a system is compromised even given a full dump of its state (stopping problem).
But we all know that that is not the case in reality/practicality, only a minuscule fraction of compromised systems would be compromised in such a careful way, leading us to believe that it is worthwhile to try to detect compromise.
News at 11: once you have been compromised, you're sunk. Time to reimage or rollback the VM.
Anyone interested in log monitoring should already know that.
Since this sub-thread is about log monitoring, your comment was, er, offtopic/superfluous, although I suppose you got the Interesting mod for the TSA story.
I agree that running SSH on a high port might not be a good idea, but didn't understand how a non-root user, who presumably doesn't have read access to the private SSH host key, could manage to successfully run a fake without causing the MITM attack warning to come up?
If someone is going to ignore the MITM attack warning, than anyway his password isn't being protected from a variety of other attacks, so I don't know how significant your additional attack vector is.
Just adding that in most countries, downloading isn't illegal (yet). Only uploading is, which is the act of illegal distribution a.k.a. copyright infringement. (Sure, P2P needs uploading too).
You indirectly hit upon another problem with copyright, the fact that it is a complex legal question which varies quite widely between various jurisdictions. IIRC, you are wrong about non-commercial, personal downloading not being illegal in most common-law-based and Crown-law-based countries, but you might be correct in some European countries (like Spain). And in Canada, downloading music is OK but downloading other media is illegal.
As long as the legal bounds defined by copyright law are more constraining than what people feel is morally acceptable, it is inevitable that rampant copyright infringement will be the call of the day once the preferred format for books phases into the digital domain. This so-called "piracy" will take on a myriad number of forms some of which will be:
People illegally downloading digital copies of books which they have bought in non-digital form
People "lending" a friend an illegal copy of an ebook which they have legally bought, because the DRM on their legal copy doesn't allow for this.
Other people might also find it acceptable to:
Illegally download, read, and then delete a copy of a book which they could anyway have almost certainly checked out of their local library because it is not a "hot item", but they are just too lazy to drive there (and anyway the copy in the library isn't digital).
Illegally download an orphaned book which is still in copyright but is unavailable for purchase and unlikely to be available in the near future.
Illegally download a book which is still in copyright, yet is so old it does not seem to be worth more than a small purchase prices, but it is only available at a very expensive purchase price.
Other people, of course, will just download and not think twice. It should be obvious to everyone that it is even less likely to be able to prevent this than with much larger works like music or movies. In addition, there will be an enormous amount of public domain and freely licensed content which will be easily found via the wonders of the net, search engines, and the inevitable rise of sites which try to survive based on replacing the edit/review/recommend function of current publishers for this wealth of free content.
To sum up, the current business model of book publishers isn't going to survive. My guess is that its new form will include a lot of mutations of the Street Performer Protocol.
the much larger issue is very simple: at what point will our government start allowing private corporations to instantly determine guilt or innocence?
I totally agree with you here; that has to be one of the more insightful comments I've seen in the copyright-wars-subthread at Slashdot.
What makes it even more insightful is that one's actual ability to know if you are violating copyright will be more and more in question. If I see a file which is claimed to be: "First half of New Blockbuster Movie" which claims it is legally licensed for redistribution for publicity, I don't see it being a strong case in court that I would knowingly be violating copyright by downloading it.
But now what if there is another file which is "Last half of New Blockbuster Movie" with the same claim? It would be fairly obvious that if I download both, I can be fairly sure that I have downloaded at least one file with a false claim. But what if, for example, my best friend downloads the second file instead of me?
Unless they manage to outlaw one-to-one encrypted communications, people will still be able to use the net for organizing personal transfers of enormous amounts of content (just think about how many songs, or even non-HD movies, fit on one microSD chip now). Eventually it will be possible to tracelessly exchange enormous amounts of content in person, and social networking sites which enable this as a side-effect can easily be set up.
TPB will morph into "The Pirate Get-together Organizer", and as long as they are attentive-yet-ineffective to the demands of the content groups, as opposed to militantly "in your face", they will survive for a long, long, time.
Lacking any philosophical sense -- Who the hell are you? No, seriously, not trolling here.. Who the hell ARE YOU?? WOW. You're going to sit there and make absolute statements about philosophy like that? Sorry, you don't get to state absolutes like that.
Of course he does. You didn't read the fine print which is written between the lines that, except for statements of fact, everything which is stated on forums on the net are personal opinions? IMO, statements about philosophy are automatically not statements of fact.
Owning ideas is as valid a philosophy as not being able to own ideas. There IS a "sense" to it. The idea of copyright is reasonable. You're idea of how our creative works should be treated and expressed, is also reasonable.
I have a bit of trouble here. You believe that "property" should include, in its definition, something which, in order for it to be useful, has to be distributed to and used freely by others? Because I cannot think of any way we could actually be having this conversation on this forum except that you have just distributed a lot of ideas to me and I have processed them in my brain in order to generate this response which is a lot of ideas I am distributing back to you.
Even copyright doesn't go that far --- it is impossible to copyright an idea, one can only copyright the formalization of an idea in a particular, expressive, work. To which the original poster would certainly add: "whatever that means". And he'd probably be right. For example, I'm pretty sure that the MPAA and Marvel would have something to say in court if I would try to sell a film starring an "Arachnoman" superhero with powers identical to Spiderman. Unless, of course, it was obviously a parody.
The great success of TPB in the Swedish courts up to now leads one to believe that your comment probably shouldn't get all the way up to +5 Insightful. I do agree, however, that it does make it harder for the **AAs (or other national commercial content orgs) to shut things down when the servers are in foreign countries whose economies are less dependent on selling content.
there are a couple of services they provide which are valuable and cost money. The first one is qualified and expereicned editors, the second is profession information designers.
Actually, I think that the most significant service they (sometimes) provide is advertising/distribution know-how. (Not sure how significant this is going to be in the future, though.) The current business model gives them a big incentive to be as good as possible at getting your content sold.
On the other hand, I can see the two services you have listed easily becoming available in the form of work-for-hire from independents whose business model is a customer base of other independents (content producers).
At the point that you get sued, or even charged with a crime, it matters less what actually happened and whether you did something wrong and more what it takes to get out of the case as unscathed as possible. It's sad, but true, that our legal system can often be more strategy than justice.
his case shows there are solutions to the problem Carol Shloss faced other than simple capitulation,' says Fair Use Project Executive Director Anthony Falzone, who led the litigation team."
Right, every guy on the street can easily afford to take a big gamble that he might have to spend $400K to defend his fair use rights. Sure...
Well I suppose it would be a bit much for someone from the "Fair Use Project" to admit that "fair use" is fairly useless to most of us, when the heat is on.
And since when does does other people's "property" rights expire after a certain time after they die? You play the "property" card badly. There is property, and then there is property.
You should read the entirety of that blog. Not just the post I linked to.
> Copyright ensures that people who can write good books get paid so > they don't have to find a real job working in a supermarket or other > manual labor.
In theory. But that doesn't mean that their work cannot be used within the boundaries of law; the case in question being one of them, it seems.
And your use of the word "ensures" makes me think of another point made in that blog: just because something is under copyright doesn't magically imbue it with commercial value. The converse of that is true, also.
If you make sure that you have licensed the work properly to the museum, then, as previous posters have observed, you can leave it in their hands as to how they will preserve your digital artwork for posterity.
If you mess up the licensing, they could easily be stuck in a situation where they aren't sure if it is legal for them to do the required copying and format transformations.
Someone like Creative Commons should think about this problem. Unfortunately, everyone has their own spin on how this should be accomplished. I suppose the CC guys would just say, use a CC license, for example, when this artist seems to be more interested in giving a particular organization (and no one else) the right to preserve his works until they enter the public domain. AFAIK, no one has invented an "archival" or "preservation" license like this artist needs.
Since the point of my post was to explain that it is bullshit to say "Nobody's stopping you from" immigrating/emmigrating I take it that you agree with me. Since you explain that yes, it is extremely difficult to do it (legally).
I suppose I shouldn't have bothered to reply to/feed the trollish "Nobody's stopping you from..." post; please excuse...
How is it that I get the distinct impression that if a bunch of whiney, bitchy Mexican hippies were to cross the border because of police oppression and decide to settle in the US, you wouldn't exactly cheer about it?
For extra security against X-site scripting attacks you can make the hash be a MAC instead and have the key be some secret server side data from the server side session data structure. But that then starts requiring you to actually have sessions, which it doesn't sound like the original poster has.
Am I missing something here, or didn't you skip a step in the security hierarchy? A MAC with a fixed secret server side key would still be more secure than a vanilla hash (it would limit the attacker to replay attacks), yet not need sessions, no?
Or was everyone saying "hash" when they meant "fixed-key MAC" (since there really is no reason I can see not to implement a fixed key MAC, here, instead)?
"Better" in that technology continues to progress rather than be stopped by various possible global disasters. That is all
> books... writing
As another poster has pointed out to you, I didn't say that books would die out, I said that eventually dead-tree books would die out. Of course books, in whatever different form they will take in the future, will remain with us (although, I could see it being possible that text-only books might also become relics or at least be looked upon as an unusual retro art form).
Slashdot Mirror
> What else do you expect when the majority of the employees aren't even citizens of the country the product is sold in?
That a someone competent would require that the marketing was controlled by some subset of employees who actually were members of the same culture as the target market, just like in every other normal multinational corporation (assuming the target market is significant enough)?
> the police will be dispatched.
commodore64_love, shame on you! How could you have missed the obvious addendum where the device also includes an explosive charge which can be remotely detonated, saving the police and society a lot of trouble!
I vaguely remember a wave of anti-Paypal protest and an anti-Paypal meme using the meant-to-be-pejorative take-off name "Praypal". But now when I search for "Praypal" on Google I only get legit "find someone to pray with" (and similar) sites. Did I miss some kind of meme revolution, there?
> on a console where they are locked up tighter than a stereotypical tight-ass' asshole.
"tighter than ..."? What console's DRM hasn't been broken, except for maybe the PS3 (IBM did the security there, I think)?
Maybe my kids' PSP-3000s and legit UMD games will have added resale value because of this move on Sony's part.
Let me make the same mistake you made and state: In the same way that it is impossible to use system logs to detect a compromise, it is in general impossible to conclude that a system is compromised even given a full dump of its state (stopping problem).
But we all know that that is not the case in reality/practicality, only a minuscule fraction of compromised systems would be compromised in such a careful way, leading us to believe that it is worthwhile to try to detect compromise.
News at 11: once you have been compromised, you're sunk. Time to reimage or rollback the VM.
Anyone interested in log monitoring should already know that.
Since this sub-thread is about log monitoring, your comment was, er, offtopic/superfluous, although I suppose you got the Interesting mod for the TSA story.
I agree that running SSH on a high port might not be a good idea, but didn't understand how a non-root user, who presumably doesn't have read access to the private SSH host key, could manage to successfully run a fake without causing the MITM attack warning to come up?
If someone is going to ignore the MITM attack warning, than anyway his password isn't being protected from a variety of other attacks, so I don't know how significant your additional attack vector is.
Just adding that in most countries, downloading isn't illegal (yet). Only uploading is, which is the act of illegal distribution a.k.a. copyright infringement. (Sure, P2P needs uploading too).
You indirectly hit upon another problem with copyright, the fact that it is a complex legal question which varies quite widely between various jurisdictions. IIRC, you are wrong about non-commercial, personal downloading not being illegal in most common-law-based and Crown-law-based countries, but you might be correct in some European countries (like Spain). And in Canada, downloading music is OK but downloading other media is illegal.
What a mess.
As long as the legal bounds defined by copyright law are more constraining than what people feel is morally acceptable, it is inevitable that rampant copyright infringement will be the call of the day once the preferred format for books phases into the digital domain. This so-called "piracy" will take on a myriad number of forms some of which will be:
Other people might also find it acceptable to:
Other people, of course, will just download and not think twice. It should be obvious to everyone that it is even less likely to be able to prevent this than with much larger works like music or movies. In addition, there will be an enormous amount of public domain and freely licensed content which will be easily found via the wonders of the net, search engines, and the inevitable rise of sites which try to survive based on replacing the edit/review/recommend function of current publishers for this wealth of free content.
To sum up, the current business model of book publishers isn't going to survive. My guess is that its new form will include a lot of mutations of the Street Performer Protocol.
the much larger issue is very simple: at what point will our government start allowing private corporations to instantly determine guilt or innocence?
I totally agree with you here; that has to be one of the more insightful comments I've seen in the copyright-wars-subthread at Slashdot.
What makes it even more insightful is that one's actual ability to know if you are violating copyright will be more and more in question. If I see a file which is claimed to be: "First half of New Blockbuster Movie" which claims it is legally licensed for redistribution for publicity, I don't see it being a strong case in court that I would knowingly be violating copyright by downloading it.
But now what if there is another file which is "Last half of New Blockbuster Movie" with the same claim? It would be fairly obvious that if I download both, I can be fairly sure that I have downloaded at least one file with a false claim. But what if, for example, my best friend downloads the second file instead of me?
Unless they manage to outlaw one-to-one encrypted communications, people will still be able to use the net for organizing personal transfers of enormous amounts of content (just think about how many songs, or even non-HD movies, fit on one microSD chip now). Eventually it will be possible to tracelessly exchange enormous amounts of content in person, and social networking sites which enable this as a side-effect can easily be set up.
TPB will morph into "The Pirate Get-together Organizer", and as long as they are attentive-yet-ineffective to the demands of the content groups, as opposed to militantly "in your face", they will survive for a long, long, time.
Lacking any philosophical sense -- Who the hell are you? No, seriously, not trolling here.. Who the hell ARE YOU?? WOW. You're going to sit there and make absolute statements about philosophy like that? Sorry, you don't get to state absolutes like that.
Of course he does. You didn't read the fine print which is written between the lines that, except for statements of fact, everything which is stated on forums on the net are personal opinions? IMO, statements about philosophy are automatically not statements of fact.
Owning ideas is as valid a philosophy as not being able to own ideas. There IS a "sense" to it. The idea of copyright is reasonable. You're idea of how our creative works should be treated and expressed, is also reasonable.
I have a bit of trouble here. You believe that "property" should include, in its definition, something which, in order for it to be useful, has to be distributed to and used freely by others? Because I cannot think of any way we could actually be having this conversation on this forum except that you have just distributed a lot of ideas to me and I have processed them in my brain in order to generate this response which is a lot of ideas I am distributing back to you.
Even copyright doesn't go that far --- it is impossible to copyright an idea, one can only copyright the formalization of an idea in a particular, expressive, work. To which the original poster would certainly add: "whatever that means". And he'd probably be right. For example, I'm pretty sure that the MPAA and Marvel would have something to say in court if I would try to sell a film starring an "Arachnoman" superhero with powers identical to Spiderman. Unless, of course, it was obviously a parody.
The great success of TPB in the Swedish courts up to now leads one to believe that your comment probably shouldn't get all the way up to +5 Insightful. I do agree, however, that it does make it harder for the **AAs (or other national commercial content orgs) to shut things down when the servers are in foreign countries whose economies are less dependent on selling content.
there are a couple of services they provide which are valuable and cost money. The first one is qualified and expereicned editors, the second is profession information designers.
Actually, I think that the most significant service they (sometimes) provide is advertising/distribution know-how. (Not sure how significant this is going to be in the future, though.) The current business model gives them a big incentive to be as good as possible at getting your content sold.
On the other hand, I can see the two services you have listed easily becoming available in the form of work-for-hire from independents whose business model is a customer base of other independents (content producers).
but he does a decent business without them, and just figures he'll avoid getting into something that he has neither the time or money to deal with.
To quote attorney Jennifer Granick in her blogging about "Ciscogate":
From the article you cite
> but Judge Richard A. Jones ruled in Vernorâ(TM)s favor and the case will proceed.
Translation: Vernor only "won" in that Autodesk didn't manage to to win its claims in summary judgment.
his case shows there are solutions to the problem Carol Shloss faced other than simple capitulation,' says Fair Use Project Executive Director Anthony Falzone, who led the litigation team."
Right, every guy on the street can easily afford to take a big gamble that he might have to spend $400K to defend his fair use rights. Sure...
Well I suppose it would be a bit much for someone from the "Fair Use Project" to admit that "fair use" is fairly useless to most of us, when the heat is on.
> How does such retarded tripe get modded up?
Well, at least yours hasn't been, yet.
> ... other people's property ...
And since when does does other people's "property" rights expire after a certain time after they die? You play the "property" card badly. There is property, and then there is property.
You should read the entirety of that blog. Not just the post I linked to.
> Copyright ensures that people who can write good books get paid so
> they don't have to find a real job working in a supermarket or other
> manual labor.
In theory. But that doesn't mean that their work cannot be used within the boundaries of law; the case in question being one of them, it seems.
And your use of the word "ensures" makes me think of another point made in that blog: just because something is under copyright doesn't magically imbue it with commercial value. The converse of that is true, also.
If you make sure that you have licensed the work properly to the museum, then, as previous posters have observed, you can leave it in their hands as to how they will preserve your digital artwork for posterity.
If you mess up the licensing, they could easily be stuck in a situation where they aren't sure if it is legal for them to do the required copying and format transformations.
Someone like Creative Commons should think about this problem. Unfortunately, everyone has their own spin on how this should be accomplished. I suppose the CC guys would just say, use a CC license, for example, when this artist seems to be more interested in giving a particular organization (and no one else) the right to preserve his works until they enter the public domain. AFAIK, no one has invented an "archival" or "preservation" license like this artist needs.
> Three right turns = one left. It is a universal rule!
Which does not necessarily apply in locations where penguins rule!
Since the point of my post was to explain that it is bullshit to say "Nobody's stopping you from" immigrating/emmigrating I take it that you agree with me. Since you explain that yes, it is extremely difficult to do it (legally).
I suppose I shouldn't have bothered to reply to/feed the trollish "Nobody's stopping you from ..." post; please excuse...
How is it that I get the distinct impression that if a bunch of whiney, bitchy Mexican hippies were to cross the border because of police oppression and decide to settle in the US, you wouldn't exactly cheer about it?
For extra security against X-site scripting attacks you can make the hash be a MAC instead and have the key be some secret server side data from the server side session data structure. But that then starts requiring you to actually have sessions, which it doesn't sound like the original poster has.
Am I missing something here, or didn't you skip a step in the security hierarchy? A MAC with a fixed secret server side key would still be more secure than a vanilla hash (it would limit the attacker to replay attacks), yet not need sessions, no?
Or was everyone saying "hash" when they meant "fixed-key MAC" (since there really is no reason I can see not to implement a fixed key MAC, here, instead)?
> How will these futures be "better"?
"Better" in that technology continues to progress rather than be stopped by various possible global disasters. That is all
> books ... writing
As another poster has pointed out to you, I didn't say that books would die out, I said that eventually dead-tree books would die out. Of course books, in whatever different form they will take in the future, will remain with us (although, I could see it being possible that text-only books might also become relics or at least be looked upon as an unusual retro art form).