listing to 'this week in tech', last week and someone (Leo / Dvorak) was saying they visited the HD-DVD booth who's rep's were all about how movies can be filmed with 'skinable features'.. and gave the example of Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift where they got to select the color of the cars....
I think Leo went on to predict the Porn industry will win the race with this feature alone...
Slashdotters will be able to superimpose their own face over Ron Jeremy's and finally get to see themselves (albeit a hairy version) do nasty things to girlz.
>>>"Downloading is a form of reproduction, and is illegal per 17 USC 106(1)"
so iTunes is illegal then?
I think the argument here is that customers of allofmp3 believe they are purchasing from a legitimate store. This store does pay royalties to the russian version of the RIAA, however this Russian RIAA does not pass them on. Downloading songs that you've paid for from a legitimate store is not illegal - there are many on-line stores where you can legally purchase music. THe issues is: 'is Allofmp3 a legal store?'. The RIAA believe it is not, the Ruskies believe it is. One is a government with oil and some legacy nukes, the other is a bunch of lawyers with deep ties into a government with shiney well maintained nukes.
>>> "Few people can remember where you've been on the 5th of Nov. 2003, but people take geotagged photos with timestamps. The internet has that information and search engines will make it available."
>>>"So,it seems to me that we should post pictures of ourselves everwhere, with tons of incorrect names. I guess tonight i will be making several myspace sites about fake people, with my pictures"
This is a good counter measure, if you can automate it by grabbing images of people from Flickr etc, and create bogus profiles (use the fakename generator). Nothing like dirtying the database.
But if you do go and dirty the database, I have to add the oblig' "why do you hate our freedom?"
>>>"If MS really were to do something half as crazy as disable access to a user's data just because it was unprotected, they'd find themselves with no customers."
Oh, so you've heard of the Zune 3day 3play DRM which applies DRM to all music you share between devices, even if the licence for that music expressly forbids it (e.g Creative Commons etc)
and I can see you've heard the "plays for sure" music purchased from the Microsoft online store is now orphaned and does not play on the Zune.
I agree with these bits of what you have said:
>>>"The DRM features in Vista..... [are]about creating a secure platform for providers to offer content on. In the end, no one forces you to buy DRM-bearing content - just stick to CDs, don't buy DVDs, HD DVDs, or Blu-ray Discs, or purchase music from iTunes/Zune/etc.." and " In the end, DRM is about enforcing the terms under which providers are willing to license content - it still doesn't force you to buy in."
I do not however agree with these bits:
>>>"The DRM features in Vista aren't about taking away access to your content." and " You're free to dictate your own terms.... just don't be surprised if no one is willing to cater to you."
Have you heard of Jamendo?
anyway, It's OK that we disagree. I won't purchase DRM music or content. You will. That's cool too.
>>>"If I double click on it, it does the job I want it to do..... My cameras are black boxes, my lights are black boxes, my chroma paint is top secret, I eat proprietary cereal, my car's design is patented, my apartment design is owned by another company, I can't even paint my walls without permission"
Imagine your camera not taking a birthday photo because it detects someone singing happy birthday in the background.... VISTA
Imagine all your light bulbs have a left hand thread and only one shop sells them.... VISTA
Imagine your cereal box detects that you are trying to eat with a new slightly different shaped spoon, and doesn't let you open it.... VISTA
Imagine your car needs an oil change, when you get it back it'll only go on toll roads..... VISTA
Imagine paying to 'upgrade the paint your walls' in your appartment then finding the house has one room that you cannot access..... VISTA
That day you "double click" on that something in Vista, and it does not do what you want it to because 'you do not own it', please think of what you wrote.
Good on you dude. WHile you might have a little trouble when you first go to use the command line, once you're semi proficient you will feel the freedom from MSFT.... it totally rocks.
>>> "Jailed for making the films 'Daredevil,' 'Miss Congeniality,' and 'Red Planet' available for download....... MacIntosh, in handing out the sentence measured the seriousness of the case by the harm done to the moviemakers"
I can see where they are coming from. I'd be embarrassed and 'harmed' by the general public seeing my totally crappy films too.
This is quite timely really. I've been looking for a new software firewall (have NAT router and WinXpSP2 default) which gives me no outgoing protection. (use winpatrol to monitor startup registry changes).
I like the look of the Comodo, and based on your recommendation I will install it tonight.
They're using every means possible to ensure their copyright gets extended. If copyright is not extended it will have a huge negative effect on the record companies / British Phonographic Industry (BPI), RIAA groups and content distributors, beyond that of royalties paid.
Content in the public domain waters down the argument for requiring ALL content to be 'protected'. If half of the worlds music was public domain, lobbyists would have a hard time persuading lawmakers to put restrictions on ALL devices. This has been evident with the RIAA continuously argue why DRM is required for ALL music to prevent copyright infringement. These arguments usually fail to recognize the existence of non-copyrighted music (Creative Commons, Public Domain etc), and certainly make no provision for it in their argument or 'industry drafted bills' (e.g DMCA). This results in systems like the Zune wi-fi sharing system which applies DRM when transferring songs, whether the media requires protection or not, and with total disregard for other licences such as 'copyleft' which may expressly forbid it.
We've seen from the Napster and Gokster cases in the 'war on file sharing' argued that "file sharing is always infringement of somebody's copyright", and fails to recognize the legal uses of file sharing systems. Again, if half of the worlds music was public domain, the argument agaisnt services like Bit-torrent is significantly watered down. Services like Youtube and Google Video have already been targeted, and we've seen media companies desire to shutdown the service altogether. Although Youtube and Google video are exceptional in that they've been careful to prevent copyright infringement from the start, and the result has been for the media companies attempts to re-define infringement. (i.e teenagers lip-sinking etc). Again their aim is to prove the majority of content that is free is infringing copyright and the services providing it should be shut-down.
We are seeing the music industry / BPI "pulling out all the stops" to prevent an extension of copyright. They're using artists that have done very very well out of record company who may 'win the hearts and minds of the people' (Cliff Richard), and now their padding their 'stats' with dead people. It is certain they are lobbying politicians as fast as they can.
The BPI (and RIAA) have responsibilities "in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and royalties" which relies on a vast library of content being under their control. Music that is currently in their control placed in the public domain erodes their breadth of responsibility and will ultimately affect their cut of the royalties.
This argument is not about the artists getting more money, it is about the BPI and RIAA retaining their value and ability to "fight the crime of music theft".
They cannot fight the "crime" if half the time it is perfectly legal to copy and share.
Funny that you mention ethics. I remember a class a few years ago, we tried to determine what set a 'Profession' different from a 'job'. Eventually we settled on something along the lines 'that a professional has a code of ethics'.e.g Doctors, engineers, lawyers (ok, yeah ok i know - stick with me)..
I dont recall IT professionals having a code of ethics. If BSC/SE graduates swore to uphold a code of ethics, it may weed out a few of the more 'innocent' people that would take up this offer. Of course it may always be to late by the time they graduate too....
One could always join the military to get their training. It even has a similar rank structure to the Mob.
If copyright is not extended it will have a huge negative effect on the record companies / British Phonographic Industry (BPI) and RIAA groups and content distributors, beyond that of royalties paid.
Content in the public domain waters down the argument for requiring ALL content is to be 'protected'. If half of the worlds music was public domain, lobbyists would have a hard time persuading lawmakers to put restrictions on ALL devices. This has been evident with the RIAA continuously argue why DRM is required for ALL music to prevent copyright infringement. These arguments usually fail to recognize the existence of non-copyrighted music (Creative Commons etc), and certainly make no provision for it in their argument or 'industry drafted bills' (e.g DMCA). This results in systems like the Zune wi-fi sharing system which applies DRM when transferring songs, whether the media requires protection or not, and with total disregard for other licences such as 'copyleft' which may expressly forbid it.
We've seen from the Napster and Gokster cases in the 'war on file sharing' argued that "ALL file sharing is infringement of copyright", and fails to recognize the legal uses of file sharing systems. Again, if half of the worlds music was public domain, media conglomerates' argument is significantly watered down. Services like Youtube and Google Video have already been targeted, and we've seen media companies desire to shutdown the service altogether although Youtube and Google video are exceptional in that they've been careful to prevent copyright infringement from the start, and the result has been for the media companies attempts to re-define infringement. (i.e teenagers lip-sinking songs). Again their aim is to prove the majority of content that is free is infringing copyright and the services providing it should be shut-down.
Big Media have a very huge stake in extending the duration of copyright, well beyond the immediate issue of royalties for artists. (The amount of these royalties that is passed to artists is another issue altogether). The music industry and BPI will likely "pull out all the stops" to prevent an extension of copyright, which we are starting to see it with the use of artists that have done very very well out of record company who may 'win the hearts and minds of the people'. Big Media will be lobbying politicians as fast as they can, and will no doubt us scare tactics where possible. If all this British music is released into public domain, it will make shutting down file sharing networks much harder.
The BPI (and RIAA) have responsibilities "in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and royalties" which relies on a vast library of content being under their control. Music that us currently in their control placed in the public domain erodes their breadth of responsibility and will ultimately affect their cut of the royalties.
The extension of copyright by 50 years has far further implications than just the royalties paid to the artists. It weakens many of the arguments of the BPI and RIAA groups, and reducing their value and their income. This argument is not about the artists getting more money, it is about the BPI and RIAA retaining their value and ability to "fight the crime of music theft".
They cannot fight the "crime" if the music is free to copy and share.
>>>"Bad idea. If someone starts a business and it flops, why should they not be allowed to start a new business?
No reason, other than if they owe a bunch of money to customers, employees and investors. If the business liquidates and all debts are paid, then no problem.
However, I think a "stand-down" period of 1 year would be appropriate for a 'failed business owner' who still owes a significant amount to previous stakeholders, employees etc. It'd go someway to stopping the "scam-lather-rinse-repeat" the GGP mentioned.
But hey, if it's OK with you that people can do this over and over then I don't have a problem. It's your Country.
>>> "Then they open under a new name, as a new business. This makes it much harder to go after them as it was, technically, the first business that scammed. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Hence the
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act should be applied to CEO's and Board of Directors of failed companies, and restrict them from holding such positions again for a set period of time. ( I read it that the BAPCPA only applies to individuals, anyone?)
I'm with tracfone also. We do not use our phone much and find it the most cost effective approach. Being able to extend your minutes at the time of purchase (extra 90 days for something like $10) is well worth it. What I like is I know exactly how much i'm paying. There arent all these crazy arse City and State Taxes that surprise me on by bill - there is no bill.
In contrast. I was with Sprint for about two months, but after my $50 plan came in at $92 after BEING RAPED BY THE TAXES for one month with FIVE MINUTES of phonecalls, I kicked them to the curb like the $2 hookers they are.
If you settle out of court with the RIAA you are not settling with the artist (and the settlement says that) Sooooo... the artist could still sue... which in this case would be an awesome move.
>>>"As it is, your average desktop will not handle anything even close to 100G Ethernet"
Key words there "As it is"; If they build it, etc...
Plus, I'd quite happily have 100G to the house. It would not be for one computer, but for the four that I currently have, plus who knows how many I'd have by the time they roll it out.
A couple of apps I might use it for [pipedream]:
thin client gaming to Google-games(TM), where the googleserver does all the game crunching, HDR etc.
I might want to Slingbox HD media to my... er,,.. somewhere.
and, the most usefull: I might need to download pr0n really fast.
Slashdot Mirror
listing to 'this week in tech', last week and someone (Leo / Dvorak) was saying they visited the HD-DVD booth who's rep's were all about how movies can be filmed with 'skinable features'.. and gave the example of Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift where they got to select the color of the cars....
I think Leo went on to predict the Porn industry will win the race with this feature alone...
Slashdotters will be able to superimpose their own face over Ron Jeremy's and finally get to see themselves (albeit a hairy version) do nasty things to girlz.
>>>"Downloading is a form of reproduction, and is illegal per 17 USC 106(1)"
so iTunes is illegal then?
I think the argument here is that customers of allofmp3 believe they are purchasing from a legitimate store. This store does pay royalties to the russian version of the RIAA, however this Russian RIAA does not pass them on. Downloading songs that you've paid for from a legitimate store is not illegal - there are many on-line stores where you can legally purchase music. THe issues is: 'is Allofmp3 a legal store?'. The RIAA believe it is not, the Ruskies believe it is. One is a government with oil and some legacy nukes, the other is a bunch of lawyers with deep ties into a government with shiney well maintained nukes.
>>> I think the key concept you are missing is the linking directly to copyrighted material that the owner does not want others to link to.
If the owner is really that scared of someone linking to their content, I say don't fucking post it on the Internet.
>>> You should be plenty proud that you've dated girls and are able to post about it on slashdot. You're a hero and an inspiration to so many here!
Oh, did I say dated? To be accurate, I followed them.
>>> "Few people can remember where you've been on the 5th of Nov. 2003, but people take geotagged photos with timestamps. The internet has that information and search engines will make it available."
I think i'll start wearing these.
>>>"So,it seems to me that we should post pictures of ourselves everwhere, with tons of incorrect names. I guess tonight i will be making several myspace sites about fake people, with my pictures"
This is a good counter measure, if you can automate it by grabbing images of people from Flickr etc, and create
bogus profiles (use the fakename generator). Nothing like dirtying the database.
But if you do go and dirty the database, I have to add the oblig' "why do you hate our freedom?"
>>> "The researchers blindfolded college students who crawled through grass to sniff out a chocolate-scented trail"
I'm not proud of it, but I've dated girls that'd crawl through grass on the scent of chocolate.
>>>"If MS really were to do something half as crazy as disable access to a user's data just because it was unprotected, they'd find themselves with no customers."
..... [are]about creating a secure platform for providers to offer content on. In the end, no one forces you to buy DRM-bearing content - just stick to CDs, don't buy DVDs, HD DVDs, or Blu-ray Discs, or purchase music from iTunes/Zune/etc.." and " In the end, DRM is about enforcing the terms under which providers are willing to license content - it still doesn't force you to buy in."
.... just don't be surprised if no one is willing to cater to you."
Oh, so you've heard of the Zune 3day 3play DRM which applies DRM to all music you share between devices, even if the licence for that music expressly forbids it (e.g Creative Commons etc)
and I can see you've heard the "plays for sure" music purchased from the Microsoft online store is now orphaned and does not play on the Zune.
I agree with these bits of what you have said:
>>>"The DRM features in Vista
I do not however agree with these bits:
>>>"The DRM features in Vista aren't about taking away access to your content." and " You're free to dictate your own terms
Have you heard of Jamendo?
anyway, It's OK that we disagree. I won't purchase DRM music or content. You will. That's cool too.
>>>"If I double click on it, it does the job I want it to do..... My cameras are black boxes, my lights are black boxes, my chroma paint is top secret, I eat proprietary cereal, my car's design is patented, my apartment design is owned by another company, I can't even paint my walls without permission"
Imagine your camera not taking a birthday photo because it detects someone singing happy birthday in the background.... VISTA
Imagine all your light bulbs have a left hand thread and only one shop sells them.... VISTA
Imagine your cereal box detects that you are trying to eat with a new slightly different shaped spoon, and doesn't let you open it.... VISTA
Imagine your car needs an oil change, when you get it back it'll only go on toll roads..... VISTA
Imagine paying to 'upgrade the paint your walls' in your appartment then finding the house has one room that you cannot access..... VISTA
That day you "double click" on that something in Vista, and it does not do what you want it to because 'you do not own it', please think of what you wrote.
Good on you dude. WHile you might have a little trouble when you first go to use the command line, once you're semi proficient you will feel the freedom from MSFT.... it totally rocks.
>>> "Jailed for making the films 'Daredevil,' 'Miss Congeniality,' and 'Red Planet' available for download ....... MacIntosh, in handing out the sentence measured the seriousness of the case by the harm done to the moviemakers"
I can see where they are coming from. I'd be embarrassed and 'harmed' by the general public seeing my totally crappy films too.
This is worth reading too. http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/security#firewall antivirus
This is quite timely really. I've been looking for a new software firewall (have NAT router and WinXpSP2 default) which gives me no outgoing protection. (use winpatrol to monitor startup registry changes).
I like the look of the Comodo, and based on your recommendation I will install it tonight.
Thanks!
>>> "We are seeing the music industry / BPI "pulling out all the stops" to prevent an extension of copyright"
should read: "We are seeing the music industry / BPI "pulling out all the stops" to ensure an extension of copyright.
I'm sure you get what i mean.
They're using every means possible to ensure their copyright gets extended. If copyright is not extended it will have a huge negative effect on the record companies / British Phonographic Industry (BPI), RIAA groups and content distributors, beyond that of royalties paid.
Content in the public domain waters down the argument for requiring ALL content to be 'protected'. If half of the worlds music was public domain, lobbyists would have a hard time persuading lawmakers to put restrictions on ALL devices. This has been evident with the RIAA continuously argue why DRM is required for ALL music to prevent copyright infringement. These arguments usually fail to recognize the existence of non-copyrighted music (Creative Commons, Public Domain etc), and certainly make no provision for it in their argument or 'industry drafted bills' (e.g DMCA). This results in systems like the Zune wi-fi sharing system which applies DRM when transferring songs, whether the media requires protection or not, and with total disregard for other licences such as 'copyleft' which may expressly forbid it.
We've seen from the Napster and Gokster cases in the 'war on file sharing' argued that "file sharing is always infringement of somebody's copyright", and fails to recognize the legal uses of file sharing systems. Again, if half of the worlds music was public domain, the argument agaisnt services like Bit-torrent is significantly watered down. Services like Youtube and Google Video have already been targeted, and we've seen media companies desire to shutdown the service altogether. Although Youtube and Google video are exceptional in that they've been careful to prevent copyright infringement from the start, and the result has been for the media companies attempts to re-define infringement. (i.e teenagers lip-sinking etc). Again their aim is to prove the majority of content that is free is infringing copyright and the services providing it should be shut-down.
We are seeing the music industry / BPI "pulling out all the stops" to prevent an extension of copyright. They're using artists that have done very very well out of record company who may 'win the hearts and minds of the people' (Cliff Richard), and now their padding their 'stats' with dead people. It is certain they are lobbying politicians as fast as they can.
The BPI (and RIAA) have responsibilities "in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and royalties" which relies on a vast library of content being under their control. Music that is currently in their control placed in the public domain erodes their breadth of responsibility and will ultimately affect their cut of the royalties.
This argument is not about the artists getting more money, it is about the BPI and RIAA retaining their value and ability to "fight the crime of music theft".
They cannot fight the "crime" if half the time it is perfectly legal to copy and share.
Funny that you mention ethics. I remember a class a few years ago, we tried to determine what set a 'Profession' different from a 'job'. Eventually we settled on something along the lines 'that a professional has a code of ethics'.e.g Doctors, engineers, lawyers (ok, yeah ok i know - stick with me)..
I dont recall IT professionals having a code of ethics. If BSC/SE graduates swore to uphold a code of ethics, it may weed out a few of the more 'innocent' people that would take up this offer. Of course it may always be to late by the time they graduate too....
One could always join the military to get their training. It even has a similar rank structure to the Mob.
If copyright is not extended it will have a huge negative effect on the record companies / British Phonographic Industry (BPI) and RIAA groups and content distributors, beyond that of royalties paid.
Content in the public domain waters down the argument for requiring ALL content is to be 'protected'. If half of the worlds music was public domain, lobbyists would have a hard time persuading lawmakers to put restrictions on ALL devices. This has been evident with the RIAA continuously argue why DRM is required for ALL music to prevent copyright infringement. These arguments usually fail to recognize the existence of non-copyrighted music (Creative Commons etc), and certainly make no provision for it in their argument or 'industry drafted bills' (e.g DMCA). This results in systems like the Zune wi-fi sharing system which applies DRM when transferring songs, whether the media requires protection or not, and with total disregard for other licences such as 'copyleft' which may expressly forbid it.
We've seen from the Napster and Gokster cases in the 'war on file sharing' argued that "ALL file sharing is infringement of copyright", and fails to recognize the legal uses of file sharing systems. Again, if half of the worlds music was public domain, media conglomerates' argument is significantly watered down. Services like Youtube and Google Video have already been targeted, and we've seen media companies desire to shutdown the service altogether although Youtube and Google video are exceptional in that they've been careful to prevent copyright infringement from the start, and the result has been for the media companies attempts to re-define infringement. (i.e teenagers lip-sinking songs). Again their aim is to prove the majority of content that is free is infringing copyright and the services providing it should be shut-down.
Big Media have a very huge stake in extending the duration of copyright, well beyond the immediate issue of royalties for artists. (The amount of these royalties that is passed to artists is another issue altogether). The music industry and BPI will likely "pull out all the stops" to prevent an extension of copyright, which we are starting to see it with the use of artists that have done very very well out of record company who may 'win the hearts and minds of the people'. Big Media will be lobbying politicians as fast as they can, and will no doubt us scare tactics where possible. If all this British music is released into public domain, it will make shutting down file sharing networks much harder.
The BPI (and RIAA) have responsibilities "in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and royalties" which relies on a vast library of content being under their control. Music that us currently in their control placed in the public domain erodes their breadth of responsibility and will ultimately affect their cut of the royalties.
The extension of copyright by 50 years has far further implications than just the royalties paid to the artists. It weakens many of the arguments of the BPI and RIAA groups, and reducing their value and their income. This argument is not about the artists getting more money, it is about the BPI and RIAA retaining their value and ability to "fight the crime of music theft".
They cannot fight the "crime" if the music is free to copy and share.
>>>>Anybody know of any four-byte long spyware programs?
/F /S /Q " might fit if you squeeze it.
No, but "del
>>>"Bad idea. If someone starts a business and it flops, why should they not be allowed to start a new business?
No reason, other than if they owe a bunch of money to customers, employees and investors. If the business liquidates and all debts are paid, then no problem.
However, I think a "stand-down" period of 1 year would be appropriate for a 'failed business owner' who still owes a significant amount to previous stakeholders, employees etc. It'd go someway to stopping the "scam-lather-rinse-repeat" the GGP mentioned.
But hey, if it's OK with you that people can do this over and over then I don't have a problem. It's your Country.
>>> "Then they open under a new name, as a new business. This makes it much harder to go after them as it was, technically, the first business that scammed. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Hence the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act should be applied to CEO's and Board of Directors of failed companies, and restrict them from holding such positions again for a set period of time. ( I read it that the BAPCPA only applies to individuals, anyone?)
I'm with tracfone also. We do not use our phone much and find it the most cost effective approach. Being able to extend your minutes at the time of purchase (extra 90 days for something like $10) is well worth it. What I like is I know exactly how much i'm paying. There arent all these crazy arse City and State Taxes that surprise me on by bill - there is no bill.
In contrast. I was with Sprint for about two months, but after my $50 plan came in at $92 after BEING RAPED BY THE TAXES for one month with FIVE MINUTES of phonecalls, I kicked them to the curb like the $2 hookers they are.
Sociologists ??? You want them to hire Tom Cruise?
>>> having hired ..... 250 computer science PhD candidates in Redmond alone..."
But will M$FT listen to a damn thing they have to say?
If you settle out of court with the RIAA you are not settling with the artist (and the settlement says that) Sooooo... the artist could still sue... which in this case would be an awesome move.
>>>"As it is, your average desktop will not handle anything even close to 100G Ethernet"
Key words there "As it is"; If they build it, etc...
Plus, I'd quite happily have 100G to the house. It would not be for one computer, but for the four that I currently have, plus who knows how many I'd have by the time they roll it out.
A couple of apps I might use it for [pipedream]:
thin client gaming to Google-games(TM), where the googleserver does all the game crunching, HDR etc. I might want to Slingbox HD media to my... er,,.. somewhere.
and, the most usefull: I might need to download pr0n really fast.