An easy way to get rid of automatic form spamming is to require some intrinsically difficult computation to be performed before submitting the form. This computation would be performed in a few seconds by Javascript while the user is filling the form. A robot would need to do the same computation, which spammers can't probably afford (unless if spamming from botnets).
Example of computation: the server picks a random string S and a random integer I between, say, 0 and 1000, sends S and md5(S+I) to the client and ask it to find I.
Well, large parts of Firefox are written in Javascript (which is garbage collected), and they are propabaly responsible for many memory leaks. One of the reasons is because of cycles between JS and C++ objects (through XPCOM) which cannot be collected with the GC technologies used on both side. Avoiding cycles require very tricky uses of weak references, which is itself error prone.
There is an ongoing project to add a cycle collector to XPCOM:
The draft law does *not* force Apple to do anything to their product. Apple will just have to disclose technical information necessary to achieve interoperability so that competitors can (if they want) add to their players the ability to read iTunes songs.
I think most people here did not read the law draft... The law would only force DRM providers to disclose technical information necessary to achieve interoperability. This might indeed allow (not force) iPods competitors to include in their players the ability to read songs purchased on iTunes, but the law obviously does not force Apple to give away software to convert their songs. Nor does it allow anyone to distribute a software to crack their DRM. Software intended to convert from one DRM to another one, preserving the level of protection should be ok. Most individual users will not be competent enough to use the technical information to crack the DRM themselves, and it is so easy to burn and rip that there would be no compelling reason to do so anyway.
Of course, the law applies to all companies. A good reaction would be that they all get together
and decide on a common open DRM format which could be implemented in open-source software (without paying
for a license).
There might be a risk for the Apple business model. In France, a company is not allowed to force two products to be bought together - which we call ``vente liée'' - arbitrarily (if there is no good technical reason to do so). Having different companies selling music players and online music is a good way to ensure some dose of concurrence, in the interest of both the industry and the consumers, IMO.
The link points to a page from which you can download the.pdf of the judgment. I think my claim was accurate.
In a sense, there is no deliberate upload in usual p2p networks. You simply put files in a "shared directory", and other people decide to download it if they want. You don't get any money from it and as long as it is for their private use, there should be no problem considering the current french law.
The judge only decided that download can be seen as private copy. Several other decisions in France go in the same direction. According to the current law, private copy cannot be prohibited by the copyright holders as long as the copy is intended to be used by the guy making the copy. It means you can rip a CD, put the MP3s on a website with restriced access and send a link to this website to your friends, but not directly send the MP3s by mail (because in this cause, you would be the one who create the copy to be used by someone else). In France, there is a non-negligible tax on writable CDs, on Flash memory, on hard drives which goes directly to the music/movie industries, as a compensation for private copy.
What is new in this decision is about upload. But this is not related to the private copy so-called exception. The arguments are: (1) the guy only put files in a shared directory, he had no control on whether the files would be downloaded or not; (2) actually, the software did not even allow the guy to distinguish between files protected by copyright and other materials; (3) one cannot assume by default that the guy wanted to cheat.
For those who read french: http://www.juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=785
Re:Doesn't matter if the country says it's ok (sot
on
Free P2P In France?
·
· Score: 1
In France at least, p2p is the main factor for the development of high-speed internet access (cable and DSL). If one ISP decides to limit bandwidth, it will immediatly loose customers.
Slashdot Mirror
An easy way to get rid of automatic form spamming is to require some intrinsically difficult computation to be performed before submitting the form. This computation would be performed in a few seconds by Javascript while the user is filling the form. A robot would need to do the same computation, which spammers can't probably afford (unless if spamming from botnets).
Example of computation: the server picks a random string S and a random integer I between, say, 0 and 1000, sends S and md5(S+I) to the client and ask it to find I.
Well, large parts of Firefox are written in Javascript (which is garbage collected), and they are propabaly responsible for many memory leaks. One of the reasons is because of cycles between JS and C++ objects (through XPCOM) which cannot be collected with the GC technologies used on both side. Avoiding cycles require very tricky uses of weak references, which is itself error prone.
7 8
;-)
There is an ongoing project to add a cycle collector to XPCOM:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3330
For a web browser written in a garbage collected languages, there is MMM
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~rouaix/mmm/
There are some ongoing efforts in the research community around such unifying languages for the web, such as Links: http://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/links/
The draft law does *not* force Apple to do anything to their product. Apple will just have to disclose technical information necessary to achieve interoperability so that competitors can (if they want) add to their players the ability to read iTunes songs.
I think most people here did not read the law draft... The law would only force DRM providers to disclose technical information necessary to achieve interoperability. This might indeed allow (not force) iPods competitors to include in their players the ability to read songs purchased on iTunes, but the law obviously does not force Apple to give away software to convert their songs. Nor does it allow anyone to distribute a software to crack their DRM. Software intended to convert from one DRM to another one, preserving the level of protection should be ok. Most individual users will not be competent enough to use the technical information to crack the DRM themselves, and it is so easy to burn and rip that there would be no compelling reason to do so anyway. Of course, the law applies to all companies. A good reaction would be that they all get together and decide on a common open DRM format which could be implemented in open-source software (without paying for a license). There might be a risk for the Apple business model. In France, a company is not allowed to force two products to be bought together - which we call ``vente liée'' - arbitrarily (if there is no good technical reason to do so). Having different companies selling music players and online music is a good way to ensure some dose of concurrence, in the interest of both the industry and the consumers, IMO.
Blah. So read the text of the judgment and tell me where it deems upload as "private use".
In a sense, there is no deliberate upload in usual p2p networks. You simply put files in a "shared directory", and other people decide to download it if they want. You don't get any money from it and as long as it is for their private use, there should be no problem considering the current french law.
The judge only decided that download can be seen as private copy. Several other decisions in France go in the same direction. According to the current law, private copy cannot be prohibited by the copyright holders as long as the copy is intended to be used by the guy making the copy. It means you can rip a CD, put the MP3s on a website with restriced access and send a link to this website to your friends, but not directly send the MP3s by mail (because in this cause, you would be the one who create the copy to be used by someone else). In France, there is a non-negligible tax on writable CDs, on Flash memory, on hard drives which goes directly to the music/movie industries, as a compensation for private copy. What is new in this decision is about upload. But this is not related to the private copy so-called exception. The arguments are: (1) the guy only put files in a shared directory, he had no control on whether the files would be downloaded or not; (2) actually, the software did not even allow the guy to distinguish between files protected by copyright and other materials; (3) one cannot assume by default that the guy wanted to cheat. For those who read french: http://www.juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=785
In France at least, p2p is the main factor for the development of high-speed internet access (cable and DSL). If one ISP decides to limit bandwidth, it will immediatly loose customers.