You seem to be missing the point of why anyone is obligated to pay for anything. It's not because everyone who makes a product or performs a service has some automatic right to get paid; it's because payment is what it takes to convince someone to perform a service or transfer ownership of a product.
Suppose you make a widget, and I want it. That widget is a physical thing, which means we can't both have it at once; someone has to own it, and the initial owner is you because you made it. I have to convince you to chown it to me, so I pay you.
Information, however, doesn't work that way. We can both have it at once, because I can make a copy for myself without taking away your ability to enjoy yours. Therefore, there's no need for either of us to be the owner, and no need to pay you to transfer ownership to me.
I am guessing you sneak into the movies. I mean, they can't be taken away simply by viewing or downloading it.
You guessed wrong. Although the movie itself can't be depleted, the theater is a physical place, and there's only so much room inside. That means someone has to decide who can be in the theater and who can't; that "someone" is the owner of the theater, and if he wants to only let in the people who've bought tickets, that's his right. Trespassing is basically equivalent to stealing, in that there's something which can only be used one way at a time, and you're violating the owner's right to decide how it will be used.
Now, having said that, I'll make you the same offer: if you can come up with a way to sneak into a theater without depriving anyone else of the ability to be there--that is, without occupying any space inside the theater--then I'll reconsider my answer and also nominate you for a Nobel Prize.
As long as we're talking about movies, here's an analogy that's a little closer to what I was talking about: suppose I work on the 10th floor of an office building, right across the street from a drive-in theater. If I'm working late, I can look out my window and watch a movie for free (and maybe even hear it, if they use an FM broadcast for the sound). Looking out my window doesn't deprive anyone of anything, so is it wrong to do that? I don't think so.
OK, so we agree that the only difference is in the musicians' heads, but you seem to think their thoughts have the power to force an obligation on other people.
If I build a snowman in my front yard with the expectation that everyone else on the block will pay me for adding some holiday charm to the neighborhood, does that mean they owe me money? Or does your logic only apply to music for some reason?
There's a huge difference. The street musician is giving his stuff away for free and asking for a kind donation. The label musician is *selling* his stuff. Do you honestly not see a difference?
The only difference is in the musicians' attitudes. One of them demands payment, the other hopes for donations; but in both cases, the music has already been performed by the time anyone makes a decision about paying for it, and if the listeners decide not to pay, they haven't taken anything away from the musicians. Listening for free has exactly the same consequences in both cases.
People give away newspapers all the time (either promotions or actually free papers). Does that mean you're entitled to a copy free of charge from every paper at any time? I mean they're just sitting there in the box.
Now it's my turn to ask: do you honestly not see a difference?
Newspapers can only be in one place at a time. If I take a newspaper out of the box, that's one less newspaper that can be sold to someone else. If I take one, I have to compensate the owner for the loss of his newspaper. Music, on the other hand, cannot be taken away simply by listening to it or downloading it. You don't owe anyone compensation for listening to their song, because they still have everything they had before you heard it.
Now, if you can come up with a way to take a newspaper out of a box without reducing the number of newspapers in the box, then I'll reconsider my answer. I'll also nominate you for a Nobel Prize.
If a band, regardless of popular, has made music that they like and have copied, they owe the band a good faith effort to pay for the music. What's so hard about that? Even if you think it's not stealing, why is it so hard to say that you should compensate someone for making stuff you like?
If I walk past someone on the sidewalk playing guitar, and I enjoy his playing, then throwing a couple bucks in his guitar case is a nice way to reward him for making my day more pleasurable and encourage him to keep playing... but I still don't owe it to him. It's voluntary. Why should a band be treated differently?
Really makes me worried that the new 1080p TVs are just too wrapped up in HDCP to be worth the extra expense.
It's not 1080p, it's HDTV in general. That's why I'm planning to hold off for another three years - if they aren't affordable by then, or if HDCP still isn't cracked, then they never will be.
I had no such message when I watched Studio 60 on my Tivo last night.
Unless you're getting your TV from the same source as him, this means nothing. King of the Hill was flagged because some engineer turned the flag on when he shouldn't have; he made a mistake. Who's to say someone, in some part of the country, didn't make the same mistake with Studio 60 this week?
Tivo alleged that it was accidental, and it's never been documented by anyone since.
It sounds like the person you're responding to is trying to document it. Of course it'll never be "documented" again in your mind if you're going to ignore every report!
The closest equivalent is probably TyTool. It doesn't have the automatic transfer or streaming features, but it does have an editor (to cut out commercials), TY/VOB/MPG output, and simple DVD authoring.
Or "sharks" when looking for any article about lasers. Or "itsatrap"/"fud" when looking for any article about anything. We need a way to moderate tags.
The point of this article is now you don't need "some program that was included in windows". You don't need Windows at all. You can do the decryption on OS X or Linux, etc.
Before this, no one knew how to generate the keys to decrypt shows, which is why they had to use TiVo's DirectShow filter, but now they can generate the keys and decrypt shows without using any of TiVo's software.
That's like buying a little Ford Focus and being mad that you can't tow 3000lbs. You knew that going in.
Yes... and this crack is like buying a Focus, then putting a bigger engine in it so you can tow 3000 lbs. You aren't suggesting that a Focus owner doesn't have the right to do that, are you?
TiVo did the smart thing and went after the largest share of the market first. I agree they should add Mac support (Linux is another argument), but they didn't give up their right to control access to their box because they didn't do what you (or someone else) wanted.
What do you mean, "their box"? If I buy it, it's my box. They have no right to control it once they transfer ownership to me.
In fact, Tivo even does things that most Slashdotters would applaud, but are villainized nonetheless.
Gee, why could that be? Could it be because they're following the letter of the GPL while simultaneously pissing all over the spirit of the GPL?
They even use Linux and released their code under the GPL. And yet, we still hear Stallman complaining about the fact that the Tivo hardware locks you out from changing the software. What he (and many others) apparently miss is that when you buy a Tivo, you're not buying a general purpose computer: you're buying a DVR. I mean, God forbid that they prevent users from running them out of business by buying the hardware for far less than it costs Tivo to make it and loading MythTV onto it.
You might have a point here if that were the only reason to hack TiVo, or even a significant reason - but it isn't. People are willing to go to great lengths to change the software on their TiVos (check the dealdatabase forums), but I've never seen anyone try to replace the software entirely.
No. The main reason people want to hack their TiVos is to add features that aren't there in the base software, like running a web server to control their recordings remotely, adding caller ID display, extracting video without using the painfully slow TivoToGo feature, reinserting video that has previously been extracted... and so on. They don't want to run MythTV, they want to run the TiVo software with improvements. They don't want to avoid paying TiVo, they just want to get the most out of the box and the service they're paying for.
Releasing the code under the GPL is fine and good, but they're really just using it as a loophole. The code they've released is essentially useless to everyone except those with modified firmware (a delicate hardware mod that few people have the skill to perform) or old units that didn't require the hardware hack, because no one cares about running TiVo's code on another system.
I mean one of those pompous idiots who thinks no one in the Windows world can program, and that writing your own video plugin just to avoid the security risks of Apple's player is a sign of machismo, rather than masochism.
So people could play movie files that are stored in Apple's format without exposing themselves to security risks such as this one, thereby allowing.MOV to hold on to some shred of relevance on platforms other than OS X.
Any decent programmer could write one themself. But obviously there aren't any in the Windows camp.
The doc admitted that if insurance weren't involved in the process, he could probably get rid of more than half his staff--as they are devoted the paperwork involved in claims.
I believe that's the main reason countries with national health care end up paying less per capita than we do in the US. Whatever inefficiency they introduce by having the government run things instead of private industry, it's outweighed by the efficiency they gain by having all claims processed under the same rules and sent to the same place.
Well, it sure seems to be necessary for playing certain types of movie files. Perhaps our friends at Apple should separate the movie playing part out, so those of us who don't care about playing interactive QuickTime files can avoid security holes like this one.
Thanks for your response, 1991. I appreciate the information, but you can have your "interactive multimedia development and presentation system" back. Here in the future, when we want an interactive presentation, we use Flash or Java as noted earlier. It's crazy, I know, but QuickTime didn't really take over the world like one might have expected.
Also, sell your Pan Am stock and put the money on Australia to win the Rugby World Cup, and Arkansas governor Bill Clinton to win the presidential election next year. Just trust me. Finally, I don't want to spoil too much, but let me just say the Soviets aren't as much of a threat as you might think.
The final step in the card acceptance process is to ensure that the customer signs the sales receipt and to compare that signature with the signature on the back of the card. When signing the receipt, the customer should be within your full view, and you should check the two signatures closely for any obvious inconsistencies in spelling or handwriting.
Given the page Version 1.6 Warning, does Microsoft make Xbox consoles compatible with the softmod anymore? And don't all new copies of the 007 and MechAssault games have the updated version that lacks the buffer overflow vulnerability that softmods exploit?
Savegame exploits are old news. I used Ndure, which installs from a PC (after "hot swapping" the Xbox's hard drive into it) and apparently works with every version of Xbox.
Is a dedicated PC required to run the modded Xbox or just for installation?
Just for installation; you just use it to copy the mod files to the Xbox HD. After that, you can put the Xbox back together and make changes, install software, etc. over FTP.
You don't need a modchip, you can install a softmod. If you know how to burn a CD and connect an IDE cable, all you need is an ISO, a Torx screwdriver, and a spare PC.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be missing the point of why anyone is obligated to pay for anything. It's not because everyone who makes a product or performs a service has some automatic right to get paid; it's because payment is what it takes to convince someone to perform a service or transfer ownership of a product.
Suppose you make a widget, and I want it. That widget is a physical thing, which means we can't both have it at once; someone has to own it, and the initial owner is you because you made it. I have to convince you to chown it to me, so I pay you.
Information, however, doesn't work that way. We can both have it at once, because I can make a copy for myself without taking away your ability to enjoy yours. Therefore, there's no need for either of us to be the owner, and no need to pay you to transfer ownership to me.
You guessed wrong. Although the movie itself can't be depleted, the theater is a physical place, and there's only so much room inside. That means someone has to decide who can be in the theater and who can't; that "someone" is the owner of the theater, and if he wants to only let in the people who've bought tickets, that's his right. Trespassing is basically equivalent to stealing, in that there's something which can only be used one way at a time, and you're violating the owner's right to decide how it will be used.
Now, having said that, I'll make you the same offer: if you can come up with a way to sneak into a theater without depriving anyone else of the ability to be there--that is, without occupying any space inside the theater--then I'll reconsider my answer and also nominate you for a Nobel Prize.
As long as we're talking about movies, here's an analogy that's a little closer to what I was talking about: suppose I work on the 10th floor of an office building, right across the street from a drive-in theater. If I'm working late, I can look out my window and watch a movie for free (and maybe even hear it, if they use an FM broadcast for the sound). Looking out my window doesn't deprive anyone of anything, so is it wrong to do that? I don't think so.
OK, so we agree that the only difference is in the musicians' heads, but you seem to think their thoughts have the power to force an obligation on other people.
If I build a snowman in my front yard with the expectation that everyone else on the block will pay me for adding some holiday charm to the neighborhood, does that mean they owe me money? Or does your logic only apply to music for some reason?
The only difference is in the musicians' attitudes. One of them demands payment, the other hopes for donations; but in both cases, the music has already been performed by the time anyone makes a decision about paying for it, and if the listeners decide not to pay, they haven't taken anything away from the musicians. Listening for free has exactly the same consequences in both cases.
Now it's my turn to ask: do you honestly not see a difference?
Newspapers can only be in one place at a time. If I take a newspaper out of the box, that's one less newspaper that can be sold to someone else. If I take one, I have to compensate the owner for the loss of his newspaper. Music, on the other hand, cannot be taken away simply by listening to it or downloading it. You don't owe anyone compensation for listening to their song, because they still have everything they had before you heard it.
Now, if you can come up with a way to take a newspaper out of a box without reducing the number of newspapers in the box, then I'll reconsider my answer. I'll also nominate you for a Nobel Prize.
If I walk past someone on the sidewalk playing guitar, and I enjoy his playing, then throwing a couple bucks in his guitar case is a nice way to reward him for making my day more pleasurable and encourage him to keep playing... but I still don't owe it to him. It's voluntary. Why should a band be treated differently?
It's not 1080p, it's HDTV in general. That's why I'm planning to hold off for another three years - if they aren't affordable by then, or if HDCP still isn't cracked, then they never will be.
Unless you're getting your TV from the same source as him, this means nothing. King of the Hill was flagged because some engineer turned the flag on when he shouldn't have; he made a mistake. Who's to say someone, in some part of the country, didn't make the same mistake with Studio 60 this week?
It sounds like the person you're responding to is trying to document it. Of course it'll never be "documented" again in your mind if you're going to ignore every report!
You don't even need Galleon for most of those additional features. My Music, Photos & More menu has these already:
Yahoo Photos, Weather, Traffic
Browse & Buy Movie Tickets (Fandango)
Live365
Podcaster
plus a couple others.
The closest equivalent is probably TyTool. It doesn't have the automatic transfer or streaming features, but it does have an editor (to cut out commercials), TY/VOB/MPG output, and simple DVD authoring.
Wow. Please, keep posting, your ignorance is hilarious.
Except for that day when every single story was tagged "itsatrap", and only one of them was about MS.
Or "sharks" when looking for any article about lasers. Or "itsatrap"/"fud" when looking for any article about anything. We need a way to moderate tags.
The point of this article is now you don't need "some program that was included in windows". You don't need Windows at all. You can do the decryption on OS X or Linux, etc.
Before this, no one knew how to generate the keys to decrypt shows, which is why they had to use TiVo's DirectShow filter, but now they can generate the keys and decrypt shows without using any of TiVo's software.
Yes... and this crack is like buying a Focus, then putting a bigger engine in it so you can tow 3000 lbs. You aren't suggesting that a Focus owner doesn't have the right to do that, are you?
What do you mean, "their box"? If I buy it, it's my box. They have no right to control it once they transfer ownership to me.
Gee, why could that be? Could it be because they're following the letter of the GPL while simultaneously pissing all over the spirit of the GPL?
You might have a point here if that were the only reason to hack TiVo, or even a significant reason - but it isn't. People are willing to go to great lengths to change the software on their TiVos (check the dealdatabase forums), but I've never seen anyone try to replace the software entirely.
No. The main reason people want to hack their TiVos is to add features that aren't there in the base software, like running a web server to control their recordings remotely, adding caller ID display, extracting video without using the painfully slow TivoToGo feature, reinserting video that has previously been extracted... and so on. They don't want to run MythTV, they want to run the TiVo software with improvements. They don't want to avoid paying TiVo, they just want to get the most out of the box and the service they're paying for.
Releasing the code under the GPL is fine and good, but they're really just using it as a loophole. The code they've released is essentially useless to everyone except those with modified firmware (a delicate hardware mod that few people have the skill to perform) or old units that didn't require the hardware hack, because no one cares about running TiVo's code on another system.
I mean one of those pompous idiots who thinks no one in the Windows world can program, and that writing your own video plugin just to avoid the security risks of Apple's player is a sign of machismo, rather than masochism.
So people could play movie files that are stored in Apple's format without exposing themselves to security risks such as this one, thereby allowing
Oh, now I get it. You're one of those.
Indeed. More stuff we don't really need. Why the hell should an audio or video stream be able to execute scripts?
I believe that's the main reason countries with national health care end up paying less per capita than we do in the US. Whatever inefficiency they introduce by having the government run things instead of private industry, it's outweighed by the efficiency they gain by having all claims processed under the same rules and sent to the same place.
Well, it sure seems to be necessary for playing certain types of movie files. Perhaps our friends at Apple should separate the movie playing part out, so those of us who don't care about playing interactive QuickTime files can avoid security holes like this one.
Thanks for your response, 1991. I appreciate the information, but you can have your "interactive multimedia development and presentation system" back. Here in the future, when we want an interactive presentation, we use Flash or Java as noted earlier. It's crazy, I know, but QuickTime didn't really take over the world like one might have expected.
Also, sell your Pan Am stock and put the money on Australia to win the Rugby World Cup, and Arkansas governor Bill Clinton to win the presidential election next year. Just trust me. Finally, I don't want to spoil too much, but let me just say the Soviets aren't as much of a threat as you might think.
Yes, it is. From page 28 of the Rules for Visa Merchants:
No, QuickTime doesn't need to "allow interactive behavior". It just needs to play video. If I want interactive behavior, I'll use Flash or Java.
Savegame exploits are old news. I used Ndure, which installs from a PC (after "hot swapping" the Xbox's hard drive into it) and apparently works with every version of Xbox.
Just for installation; you just use it to copy the mod files to the Xbox HD. After that, you can put the Xbox back together and make changes, install software, etc. over FTP.
You don't need a modchip, you can install a softmod. If you know how to burn a CD and connect an IDE cable, all you need is an ISO, a Torx screwdriver, and a spare PC.