There is the debate of WHY Microsoft would do this. I would agree with the lawyer that Microsoft has a case. And I would go a step further.
If a trademark holder does not "reasonably" protect its trademark, it will fall in the public domain. The trademark "Aspirin" was actually once awarded to Bayer if I remember correctly.
http://www.inta.org/basics/aspirinbrand.shtml
So pending the victory of this case, which may not line the coats of Microsoft that thick, it is a step to protect a trademark. If Microsoft let this go, some other product could come up calling itself Bindows. Sooner than later, the Empire of Redmond(R) would have lost Windows(tm) to the public domain.
I think it would be interesting to hear what schools in other countries have done about this. Not because I doubt that American schools have done it, but because it would show how universal an Open Source solution could be.
1) The AT&T network suffers from less latency. The @Home network was terrible. For you Quakers out there, I am speaking of pings ranging from 50 to 200 with @Home and generally under 40 for AT&T Broadband.
2) AT&T would have a cable Internet monopoly. Well, it turns out that they are going in that direction anyway, but still...
I doubt that the two reasons I gave you had anything to do with the decision to ditch @Home. It was probably some financial aspect involved as well, such as @Home wanting a lot more than they had charged previously. And then there is the case with Armstrong...
I think it is very funny (as in peculiar) that mergers like this happen. And once this all ends up being some kind of OmniCorp(tm) people start looking around saying that it is terrible that we have another monopoly. I rather fancy the analogy from Demolition Man, where Taco Bell has become the only survivor of the fast food chains.
Shakedown between AOL/Time Warner and ComCast/AT&T anytime soon? Likely to go on for years and cost tramendous amounts of money. Money that the customer will have to pay once the winner has the monopoly...
Or maybe I am just paranoid and this is all not going to happen. But I think it's interesting nevertheless.
No, the NSA has domestic jurisdiction, while the CIA is mainly on foreign intelligence duty. The NSA is supposed to take care of National Security as the abbreviation implies. I may however, be misinformed.
I agree that if these corporations really wanted to see a revenue stream from the public they should make a heavily discounted non-commercial licensing agreement. Could companies cheat with this? I am sure they could, however that would just prove to be companies that aren't trying to keep up with their licensing. So no real change.
I doubt that would have helped much, because these people are obviously lacking some level of rudimentary intelligence. But it would have been fun to hear the answer. =)
Let's say that this hits the news. CNN tells people to be careful when they use IE/Outlook. John Doe says "Oh my, that's terrible!" and stays away from the computer for a few days because it could blow up on him. Later on though, the pr0n is too tempting and he starts using IE again. Darnit, this is some good stuff here.. Anna Nicole Smith and all this type of stuff. Two months later he doesn't remember a thing about the horrible bug in IE. Because his computer works fine.
I am 99.999% certain that this will not be a turning point in the browser war. John Doe doesn't care unless his pr0n disappears. And he is certainly not going to download Netscape because that's too hard, let alone PAY for Opera?! He can view his pr0n quite well on IE, barring of course the fact that he gets 400 popup windows on his screen by clicking some link.
Microsoft will walk away from this one too. Until Microsoft blows up John Doe's computer, or takes away his pr0n, this will probably go fairely un-noticed by the public.
So the software giants go out and claim that N dollars are lost because these people have obtained their software in a fashion not endorsed by these proprietors. This deems the obtaining and posession illegal. If one is intending on further distributing this software, it is even more serious. And perhaps there is a small margin of people that now won't pay for something they got for "free". But I am of the opinion that most of these people would end up buying the software anyway because they like the fuzzy feeling of doing the right thing. The others simply either do not have the money, or don't think it's worth paying for. So the N dollars lost is nothing that was a revenue stream in the first place. Hence not such a big loss.
But what these software giants DON'T say is how much business they gained from having people obtain their software illegally. Imagine this 17 year old kid who started with Windows 2000 when it started hitting the warez scene. What if he wouldn't have been able to do this? How much less exposure - and addiction - to this product would he sustain as a result? Probably lots. Much of the corporate usage of products such as the various productivity suites and tools is due to the exposure people get to a certain piece of software.
Did you ever meet some guy/girl who maintains that Lotus WordPro or Corel WordPerfect is superior, or simply that that's what they use? Sure you have, even though they aren't that vast in numbers. These people are most likely honest customers from the very start. They bought a computer and got the software bundled, or they bought the software in the store. And they kept with it because that's what they know. But again, they are few. Now look at all the attention Microsoft has on their Office suite. Is there a coincidence that this particular piece of software seems to be far more trafficked than competitive products?
Also pay attention to the fact that when a Microsoft OS is in beta stages, these builds seem to fly around on the Internet like crazy. Even "secret" or "leaked" builds do. And people collect and probably install them and use them. Because they want to be the first kid on their block with Windows XL or whatever the next version will be called. Microsoft seems to do nothing about the spread of this software. However, once it is released and stores charge for the software, it's another ballgame.
I would put more credibility in the reports if they were accredited an estimate on how much sales increased just because of piracy. Of course I am just speculating, but to me it makes sense.
I am one of those strange guys that pay for what they use. I have two computers that have Windows 2000 on them and I upgraded my NT 4.0 license to Windows 2000 Server. I also bought CALs for the clients. Why? Because my son and my wife use these services. I don't, but that's another story. I am of the belief that one should pay for what one uses. Hell, I am one of those weirdos that actually paid for WinZip.
I probably buy $1,000 worth of PC games every year at the very least. And every time it pisses me off to the point that I write the company in question asking them why the hell they are including copy protection on their CDs. Why can't I make a copy of a game that I bought for $50? Why are these companies charging me for a product that I am restricted to use with their original media? How about if I actually value the products that they pushed out the door? Perhaps I want to play the game (which requires the CD in the reader) off a backed up cheapo CD-R rather than the $50 original. Perhaps I don't want a jumbo scratch on my original? But these companies do not care. Why?
The reason is very simple. The multi billion dollar software industry aimed at corporate computing aren't losing much money. The reason being, which has been properly mentioned, is that most people copying this software can't afford to buy it in the first place. Get over it. If they wanted to see some revenue from the public, they should drive "non-commercial" licensing much harder.
But the gaming industry is different. They cater to entertainment needs of people in most ages and they have a very small margin. Activision can't charge $100 or $1,000 for a game however cool it may be. People will not buy it. But the $50 median is pretty much the breaking point. Hence they need to sell vast numbers of the game in order to make money on it. Add to that, that games are probably much more complex in terms of development than shoddy word processors are.
Because these people cater to the public, they also want to restrict or make it harder, for the public to serialize copies of their products. Understandable. Id Software seems to have reached a smart deal. Instead of including a bunch of weird copy protection schemes that significantly hinder me from fair use, they use a key string which is validated on a server somewhere. That's it. No checking of what hardware it runs on and tying it to some specific configuration. Just make sure that the key is valid. And it works. Why is it that it is such a hard thing for other game vendors to understand this concept?
Now what if piracy would stop all together? Would these companies stop being idiotic? Probably not, because it is somewhat of a second life line.
I accidentally broke the CD with Half-Life on it. I called Sierra and asked for a new one, but they said that I had to pick up a new copy in the store. I asked why. They said that it was just as expensive for me to have them ship me a new copy, but that would add shipping charges as well. This is where I told them that I needed replacement media, NOT another "license" to play the game. The reply I got was "We're sorry, sir. But we don't replace CDs just because customers can't take proper care of the product they bought." Chicken and egg answer. In the end, the consumer (love that word which implies parasite rather than citizen) gets screwed.
So some bright guy will now ask the question, why do I continue to buy games if I hate the companies that publish them so much? To tell the truth, I am not sure. But I suspect that I am a sucker for a good gaming experience, just like any other dude down the street.
The problem with cash settlements is the dispensing of funds. Lawyers seem to be the only ones getting rich this way. And also, if the cash was to go to poor schools, there is nothing that says that the money would be distributed for the direct benefit of students. It would most likely be used to extend employee parking lots, fix up the faquilty areas and possibly also buy new computer equipment - for the faquilty.
I am for a settlement where goods are exchanged instead of money. But I am against having Microsoft being in a position to leverage its own software to these schools, thereby extending/securing their monopoly for many years to come. Because the next class action suit that would come along, this would be an example on how "justice" had been served before. Besides, it is just a plain bad idea.
Otherwise I think you should distinguish this class action suit from the DoJ idictment. I was under the impression that the class action suit had nothing to do with the monopoly charges, but rather the fact that Microsoft had overcharged customers.
You are of course speaking of the civil suits against the company, not the MS vs. DoJ case? I am personally in favor of a settlement like this. Although I agree with the parent post. The company should be punished, not given an extended guarantee of their monopoly.
Hence, the settlement should force Microsoft to spend money on third party hardware and its own OS should not be allowed to enter the stakes. Furthermore, the company should NOT be allowed to use this as a tax writeoff. That is rewarding, not punishing.
If the schools then decide that they wish to use Microsoft products at their schools, let them procure this software themselves. But do not furnish them with the same.
The USPTO has issued patents to various organizations for dubious reasons, apparently. But they've done this for a long time. Such as allowing software patents and things like human genetic structures... This isn't what bothers me alone.
The major thing is that nobody appears to be shocked over this. This is what is really scary. Why? Because if these patents become increasingly ambiguous, who is to say that it can't get worse, without public scrutony? And worse, are patent laws going to be changed so that a filing party can "contribute" to the USPTO or any other organization to receive a "limited disclosure" filing? I know that is highly hypothetical and probably won't happen, but stranger things have happened.
I was under the impression that DirectX was a Win32 thing and wasn't implemented in hardware. In the case of Linux on PS2, there is the DirectFB (http://www.directfb.org) project for framebuffers and perhaps coupled with the SDL of Loki (http://www.lokisoft.com/development) and do something really cool? I've heard that SDL is a really good implementation of a rendering API and it is all Open Source.
And to the people out there thinking that this is stupid, I have but one thing to say. Linux being able to run on such a vast multitude of platforms and different architectures should indeed bear testimony to a truly portable and well designed operating system. It's not about why, but how.
On a more on topic note, I wonder what kind of benefits this would provide to the people with mod chips in their PS2s. Could it possibly put the knowledge about how the PS2 works out in the public domain? And if so, did Sony think about this?
Oh the possibilities... Check out Flight Gear (http://www.flightgear.org) and wonder if that could be made to favorably run on a PS2/Linux machine. GNU PS2 games... Mmmm. And foremost, could this allow for developers to make PS2/Linux a better gaming platform than XBox/WinXB[sic]?
I think AT&T has screwed up. But that is typical. They have capped the downstream to "enhance" your digital online experience. Bullshit. They couldn't handle the load.
1) I can't get DSL, so I am fucked. I have to stick with AT&T and it isn't something I like to do. There are many more like me and AT&T knows that. So switching yourself and a few thousand more customers to DSL won't make a difference in AT&T policy. To AT&T you and I are entries in a spreadsheet.
2) The DHCP thing pisses me off beyond imagination. This is totally lame. But again, it shouldn't be hard to write some kind of utility that requests dhcp leases to be renewed, so that you can use a static IP on your ethernet. I remember somebody doing this for RoadRunner.
To answer your last statement, I was under the impression that AT&T was paying $8 initially, then negotiated $12. The $20 figure was requested from @Home during negotiations and AT&T said it wasn't worth it. Yes, less for more, just as you said.
"He is charged with both personally trafficking it and being part of a conspiracy to traffick it. He may or may not be guilty of that, but that's what he is charged with."
I will settle for that.
"Would it strike you strange if the kingpin of a drug-smuggling operation was charged with drug trafficking offenses even though that drug operation was incorporated in another country?"
According to recent history, Microsoft has received a number of law suits and among the largest, the DoJ vs. Microsoft. Both the Sklyarov and Microsoft cases involve criminal charges. In none of the cases were drugs involved. And Sklyarov was not a kingpin. He was simply here. Guilty by association.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title."
Good catch? If you purchase a PC game on CD-ROM and wish to use it with a backup copy to protect your original, you would not be endorsed to persue this by the proprietor. Fair Use is something of the worst enemy of Big Business. Fair Use means less sales. In essence, you are allowed to play the game, thus circumventing the protection lawfully. But you aren't allowed to make a backup.
"I guess I was wrong that backups were specifically exempted. I couldn't find it. But copying for the purpose of backups it perfectly legal, because it does not involve decryption. It is also likely to fall under fair use."
It involves circumventing a copy protection scheme. Once circumventing the finite state machine which was designed to disallow copying, you've committed an offense against the DMCA. The DMCA does NOT specifically state that it only concerns encryption. Back to the example of the CD-ROM. An oversized TOC or faked bad sector would suffice as attempted protective mechanism, provided that the operation of the program in question would require those "defects" in order to run. The DMCA would override Fair Use.
"No permission is necessary. Only the requirement to make "a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention""
Essentially the same thing. Most likely this effort would require e-mail, fax and letter requests. Most likely one form of communication or other would reach a corporate lawyer and be disallowed in writing. Why? Because no proprietor would like to divulge the internals of its technology to the Public Domain. Essentially this gives the proprietor full reign in what is premissible and what isn't.
"Afraid of what? An injunction? Circumvention does not fall under criminal law."
BUT THE DMCA MAKES it a criminal act to circumvent a finite state machine which aims to limit serialized duplication or disassembling of that very machine or target data.
"Show me these cases. All I see is Dmitry, who was trying to capitalize off of circumventing copyright, and DeCSS, which was hit with an injunction which forced them to stop distribution. I see nothing inherently evil with the DMCA, it just seems like a way to enforce the evil that is copyright law."
Well let's look at Felten vs. RIAA... There are clear threats of litigation, thus suppression. Read here:
http://cryptome.org/sdmi-attack.htm
The DMCA is THE tool for corporations to enforce and suppress free speech. To mention another case, is the DeCSS case. The problem with that case is not that DeCSS would aid in illegal mass distribution of copyrighted material, it is the fact that the CSS algorithm would bear no merit as a copy protection device. The only way for the MPAA to protect itself from this is to make DeCSS illegal and thus earning itself cases to relate to, should this type of software appear again. The problem is that license fees would be lost, and region coding would be circumvented. Big Bucks, nothing else. And in the quest for the Almighty $$$, First Sale, Fair Use and various other Freedoms are effectively circumvented.
Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"The DMCA only covers copyrighted material, not material which is in the public domain."
This is true, but the DMCA places hurdles on Copyrighted material ever being forced to become Public Domain.
"You mean for importing a program into this country and distributing it in this country."
Not to re-hash an old debacle, but he is an employee of a company that did this. He didn't personally traffic this for his own demise. He may be guilty of being an employee of this company which carried this traffic to our borders, but shouldn't it strike you as strange if Bill Gates was personally indicted for enacting a monopoly? In this country, a company is legally a person.
"I've told them about the intimidation and outright threatening of scientists who dare to expose flaws in a sham security system.
Completely irrelevant to the DMCA."
No it isn't. The DMCA specifically states that circumvention of a reasonable attempt to protect Copyrighted material is illegal. Hence it is illegal to point out flaws in a security system which would allegedly aid circumvention. Aiding and abetting.
"They don't think that reverse engineering for system interoperability should be illegal.
Also specifically protected by the DMCA."
Then how come the DeCSS thing is such a problem? Perhaps because the DMCA does in fact protect against circumventing protective measures on Copyrighted materials?
"They don't think allowing backups should be illegal.
Which it isn't."
Again, circumvention of a protective mechanism is prohibited under the governing of the DMCA. So copying a DVD or copy protected music CD is illegal. Even for purposes of backups. Because the CSS is considered a reasonable attempt of securing the Copyrighted material.
"They don't think that scientific research should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA. You should read it some time."
Specifically exempt from the DMCA if there is an approval from the Copyright holder and/or if the subject is in the Public Domain and/or if the subject isn't reasonably protected. But since poor mechanisms of protection are accepted in Court, I don't blame the scientists of being afraid.
The DMCA has been applied in all of the above cases, in terms of supressive measures to maintain information/studies captive or openly challenged in Court. I think your literal interpretation of the DMCA shows exactly how easy and how dangerous it is to get the wrong idea about something so evil.
Re:It would work in the U.S.
on
New Nokia Phone
·
· Score: 2
So once again I make the mistake of reading things with a tired mind. Been up all night. It says that it DOESN'T have GSM1900 support. I am sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
This phone is a TriBand phone, which means it operates on GSM900, GSM1800 and GSM1900. I have a TriBand Motorola and it works like a charm. One would have to get a subscription with a GSM provider in the U.S but that's not a big issue.
I see the big issue being the expensiveness of GSM in the U.S for being one reason why the phones don't see marketing time here before anywhere else. In several European countries you can buy a pre-paid SIM card, which you can refill every so often - as needed. You don't pay for incoming calls, so they last for a long time. VoiceStream in the U.S has pre-paid cards as well, however the minutes you buy are very expensive and they EXPIRE after two months as if your money isn't good anymore.
If GSM phones are supposed to go mainstream, something like this needs to happen. The main problem is that the public has the idea that a cell phone costs at least $49/mo with 400 minutes. It doesn't have to.
But anyway, yes you can buy one in Europe and have it shipped here and it would work. It does have GSM1900 support.
On one part, Ashcroft is doing something to cover for the alledged Chinese hackers who wish to circumvent electronic security and go after the perps. While action on this part is definately welcome, there are a few more things one should consider.
On the other hand, it is one more way for the corporations with big bucks to insist on severe punishment for 14 year old kids. And no, there is no limit for how old a person must be to be labeled "terrorist".
If somebody successfully steals a database with credit cards, the company that created that database should be indicted just as well as the cracker. Why? Because they are NOT SUFFICIENTLY protecting their database. When my Egghead account was compromised I got pissed at them, not just the guys who cracked their security. If a company that wishes to have my credit card number and SSN or whatever, on electronic file, they should damn well protect that information. There are instances where people have been convicted by clause of negligence, or comparable negligence. Why is this any different? I mean, if I leave a white plastic bag with a million dollars on the curb outside the Marriott in San Francisco and I find that somebody took it, why is it that I am negligent? Because I didn't take good measures in protecting that which I meant to keep to myself!
But by all means, beef up the security around Government computer installations. I'd be happy to let my congressman pass a bill for another $5 billion to do this.
However this bill is undoubtedly going to make many people "terrorists", just because they circumvented the copy protection of Windows XP or something like that. I do not support this bill.
The SSSCA will most likely pass and will be a formidable parter to the DMCA in order to restrict Fair Use and other Consumer rights. This is just a preamble.
All CDs will be encrypted with some type of Microsoft Windows XP clearing house mechanism that verifies a signature to see if you really did PAY for your CD. If the signature is already registered or perhaps doesn't match some type of logic, an automatic message will go to the FBI to arrest the criminal who is screwing the poor RIIA out of their hard earned money.
No matter of course if the mechanism they come up with is inadequate and has many innocent people arrested because their stuff doesn't work. They want to see as many sinners as possible be jailed. Intimidation tactics - same as we're trying with the Taliban. "If you're not with us, you're with them..."
And the worst thing is that Americans will let this happen and be proud of it. This is harm that will take tramendous effort to undo, if at all possible.
On a different note, what happens to SCO Unix once Caldera dies?
Very interesting that you mentioned that. In fact, it's quite nice to see early posters ask cool questions.
My guess is that Caldera is going to try to scrape up some cash by selling off SCO. I'd say to maybe Sun or possibly IBM. IBM has already contributed a lot to Project Monterey and may see this as a protection on investment. And a dreaded moment would be if Microsoft would bid on it. They could buy it and hence own the copyright on the SVR5 design. I don't know any other vendor that has a SVR5 implementation but SCO and IBM, but still...
If Caldera can't sell it, SCO may spin off on it's own again or die with Caldera. The code would effectively become Public Domain, since there wouldn't be a transfer of ownership. But that doesn't mean that we would see any source code. That would mean that we can download Open UNIX 8 on abandonware.com in binary form, just because there is no company around to file suit.
I am hoping, just as everybody else that Caldera will Open Source (preferably a BSD style license) SVR5. But I think that we may be hoping for something that won't happen. Chances are that SCO may once again become part of Microsoft or just die and the last source code repositories being eBayed on the hard drive of some server, possibly to never see the light of day again as the unknowing buyer would format the drives and bring up a shiny new installation of Windows 2000.
But I am still going to hope. I am believe that Caldera will die or be bought out by some large corporation for lieuting of assets. Just how will one of the past decade's treasures be treated when that day comes? If Ransom Love is reading this, I urge you to consider an Open Sourcing of the parts that can be opened. This will ensure the afterlife of that codebase and people would respect you immensely for doing this. Perhaps this as a last resort, could save Caldera from extinction?
I saw a banner ad for a Cable TV descrambling device so that you can watch HBO for free. These devices are PERFECTLY LEGAL to sell in most states, if not all. They are also PERFECTLY LEGAL to purchase in most states, if not all. But once you start using it with the intent of watching pay channels for free, it stops being legal.
So in essence Dmitry could have come here to the U.S and sold the program to anybody who wanted to buy it. Legally. It is when somebody starts using it with the intent of redistributing the illegalities start to kick in.
But the reason Dmitry can be found guilty of a crime and the producer/distributor of the Cable TV descrambler can't, is that there is a law called the DMCA which protects Big Business(tm).
Slashdot Mirror
There is the debate of WHY Microsoft would do this. I would agree with the lawyer that Microsoft has a case. And I would go a step further.
If a trademark holder does not "reasonably" protect its trademark, it will fall in the public domain. The trademark "Aspirin" was actually once awarded to Bayer if I remember correctly.
http://www.inta.org/basics/aspirinbrand.shtml
So pending the victory of this case, which may not line the coats of Microsoft that thick, it is a step to protect a trademark. If Microsoft let this go, some other product could come up calling itself Bindows. Sooner than later, the Empire of Redmond(R) would have lost Windows(tm) to the public domain.
I think it would be interesting to hear what schools in other countries have done about this. Not because I doubt that American schools have done it, but because it would show how universal an Open Source solution could be.
For two reasons I am glad they didn't.
1) The AT&T network suffers from less latency. The @Home network was terrible. For you Quakers out there, I am speaking of pings ranging from 50 to 200 with @Home and generally under 40 for AT&T Broadband.
2) AT&T would have a cable Internet monopoly. Well, it turns out that they are going in that direction anyway, but still...
I doubt that the two reasons I gave you had anything to do with the decision to ditch @Home. It was probably some financial aspect involved as well, such as @Home wanting a lot more than they had charged previously. And then there is the case with Armstrong...
I think it is very funny (as in peculiar) that mergers like this happen. And once this all ends up being some kind of OmniCorp(tm) people start looking around saying that it is terrible that we have another monopoly. I rather fancy the analogy from Demolition Man, where Taco Bell has become the only survivor of the fast food chains.
Shakedown between AOL/Time Warner and ComCast/AT&T anytime soon? Likely to go on for years and cost tramendous amounts of money. Money that the customer will have to pay once the winner has the monopoly...
Or maybe I am just paranoid and this is all not going to happen. But I think it's interesting nevertheless.
No, the NSA has domestic jurisdiction, while the CIA is mainly on foreign intelligence duty. The NSA is supposed to take care of National Security as the abbreviation implies. I may however, be misinformed.
I was under the impression that government work could never be patented at all since it is funded by tax payers.
I agree that if these corporations really wanted to see a revenue stream from the public they should make a heavily discounted non-commercial licensing agreement. Could companies cheat with this? I am sure they could, however that would just prove to be companies that aren't trying to keep up with their licensing. So no real change.
I doubt that would have helped much, because these people are obviously lacking some level of rudimentary intelligence. But it would have been fun to hear the answer. =)
Let's say that this hits the news. CNN tells people to be careful when they use IE/Outlook. John Doe says "Oh my, that's terrible!" and stays away from the computer for a few days because it could blow up on him. Later on though, the pr0n is too tempting and he starts using IE again. Darnit, this is some good stuff here.. Anna Nicole Smith and all this type of stuff. Two months later he doesn't remember a thing about the horrible bug in IE. Because his computer works fine.
I am 99.999% certain that this will not be a turning point in the browser war. John Doe doesn't care unless his pr0n disappears. And he is certainly not going to download Netscape because that's too hard, let alone PAY for Opera?! He can view his pr0n quite well on IE, barring of course the fact that he gets 400 popup windows on his screen by clicking some link.
Microsoft will walk away from this one too. Until Microsoft blows up John Doe's computer, or takes away his pr0n, this will probably go fairely un-noticed by the public.
So the software giants go out and claim that N dollars are lost because these people have obtained their software in a fashion not endorsed by these proprietors. This deems the obtaining and posession illegal. If one is intending on further distributing this software, it is even more serious. And perhaps there is a small margin of people that now won't pay for something they got for "free". But I am of the opinion that most of these people would end up buying the software anyway because they like the fuzzy feeling of doing the right thing. The others simply either do not have the money, or don't think it's worth paying for. So the N dollars lost is nothing that was a revenue stream in the first place. Hence not such a big loss.
But what these software giants DON'T say is how much business they gained from having people obtain their software illegally. Imagine this 17 year old kid who started with Windows 2000 when it started hitting the warez scene. What if he wouldn't have been able to do this? How much less exposure - and addiction - to this product would he sustain as a result? Probably lots. Much of the corporate usage of products such as the various productivity suites and tools is due to the exposure people get to a certain piece of software.
Did you ever meet some guy/girl who maintains that Lotus WordPro or Corel WordPerfect is superior, or simply that that's what they use? Sure you have, even though they aren't that vast in numbers. These people are most likely honest customers from the very start. They bought a computer and got the software bundled, or they bought the software in the store. And they kept with it because that's what they know. But again, they are few. Now look at all the attention Microsoft has on their Office suite. Is there a coincidence that this particular piece of software seems to be far more trafficked than competitive products?
Also pay attention to the fact that when a Microsoft OS is in beta stages, these builds seem to fly around on the Internet like crazy. Even "secret" or "leaked" builds do. And people collect and probably install them and use them. Because they want to be the first kid on their block with Windows XL or whatever the next version will be called. Microsoft seems to do nothing about the spread of this software. However, once it is released and stores charge for the software, it's another ballgame.
I would put more credibility in the reports if they were accredited an estimate on how much sales increased just because of piracy. Of course I am just speculating, but to me it makes sense.
I am one of those strange guys that pay for what they use. I have two computers that have Windows 2000 on them and I upgraded my NT 4.0 license to Windows 2000 Server. I also bought CALs for the clients. Why? Because my son and my wife use these services. I don't, but that's another story. I am of the belief that one should pay for what one uses. Hell, I am one of those weirdos that actually paid for WinZip.
I probably buy $1,000 worth of PC games every year at the very least. And every time it pisses me off to the point that I write the company in question asking them why the hell they are including copy protection on their CDs. Why can't I make a copy of a game that I bought for $50? Why are these companies charging me for a product that I am restricted to use with their original media? How about if I actually value the products that they pushed out the door? Perhaps I want to play the game (which requires the CD in the reader) off a backed up cheapo CD-R rather than the $50 original. Perhaps I don't want a jumbo scratch on my original? But these companies do not care. Why?
The reason is very simple. The multi billion dollar software industry aimed at corporate computing aren't losing much money. The reason being, which has been properly mentioned, is that most people copying this software can't afford to buy it in the first place. Get over it. If they wanted to see some revenue from the public, they should drive "non-commercial" licensing much harder.
But the gaming industry is different. They cater to entertainment needs of people in most ages and they have a very small margin. Activision can't charge $100 or $1,000 for a game however cool it may be. People will not buy it. But the $50 median is pretty much the breaking point. Hence they need to sell vast numbers of the game in order to make money on it. Add to that, that games are probably much more complex in terms of development than shoddy word processors are.
Because these people cater to the public, they also want to restrict or make it harder, for the public to serialize copies of their products. Understandable. Id Software seems to have reached a smart deal. Instead of including a bunch of weird copy protection schemes that significantly hinder me from fair use, they use a key string which is validated on a server somewhere. That's it. No checking of what hardware it runs on and tying it to some specific configuration. Just make sure that the key is valid. And it works. Why is it that it is such a hard thing for other game vendors to understand this concept?
Now what if piracy would stop all together? Would these companies stop being idiotic? Probably not, because it is somewhat of a second life line.
I accidentally broke the CD with Half-Life on it. I called Sierra and asked for a new one, but they said that I had to pick up a new copy in the store. I asked why. They said that it was just as expensive for me to have them ship me a new copy, but that would add shipping charges as well. This is where I told them that I needed replacement media, NOT another "license" to play the game. The reply I got was "We're sorry, sir. But we don't replace CDs just because customers can't take proper care of the product they bought." Chicken and egg answer. In the end, the consumer (love that word which implies parasite rather than citizen) gets screwed.
So some bright guy will now ask the question, why do I continue to buy games if I hate the companies that publish them so much? To tell the truth, I am not sure. But I suspect that I am a sucker for a good gaming experience, just like any other dude down the street.
The problem with cash settlements is the dispensing of funds. Lawyers seem to be the only ones getting rich this way. And also, if the cash was to go to poor schools, there is nothing that says that the money would be distributed for the direct benefit of students. It would most likely be used to extend employee parking lots, fix up the faquilty areas and possibly also buy new computer equipment - for the faquilty.
I am for a settlement where goods are exchanged instead of money. But I am against having Microsoft being in a position to leverage its own software to these schools, thereby extending/securing their monopoly for many years to come. Because the next class action suit that would come along, this would be an example on how "justice" had been served before. Besides, it is just a plain bad idea.
Otherwise I think you should distinguish this class action suit from the DoJ idictment. I was under the impression that the class action suit had nothing to do with the monopoly charges, but rather the fact that Microsoft had overcharged customers.
You are of course speaking of the civil suits against the company, not the MS vs. DoJ case? I am personally in favor of a settlement like this. Although I agree with the parent post. The company should be punished, not given an extended guarantee of their monopoly.
Hence, the settlement should force Microsoft to spend money on third party hardware and its own OS should not be allowed to enter the stakes. Furthermore, the company should NOT be allowed to use this as a tax writeoff. That is rewarding, not punishing.
If the schools then decide that they wish to use Microsoft products at their schools, let them procure this software themselves. But do not furnish them with the same.
The USPTO has issued patents to various organizations for dubious reasons, apparently. But they've done this for a long time. Such as allowing software patents and things like human genetic structures... This isn't what bothers me alone.
The major thing is that nobody appears to be shocked over this. This is what is really scary. Why? Because if these patents become increasingly ambiguous, who is to say that it can't get worse, without public scrutony? And worse, are patent laws going to be changed so that a filing party can "contribute" to the USPTO or any other organization to receive a "limited disclosure" filing? I know that is highly hypothetical and probably won't happen, but stranger things have happened.
I was under the impression that DirectX was a Win32 thing and wasn't implemented in hardware. In the case of Linux on PS2, there is the DirectFB (http://www.directfb.org) project for framebuffers and perhaps coupled with the SDL of Loki (http://www.lokisoft.com/development) and do something really cool? I've heard that SDL is a really good implementation of a rendering API and it is all Open Source.
And to the people out there thinking that this is stupid, I have but one thing to say. Linux being able to run on such a vast multitude of platforms and different architectures should indeed bear testimony to a truly portable and well designed operating system. It's not about why, but how.
On a more on topic note, I wonder what kind of benefits this would provide to the people with mod chips in their PS2s. Could it possibly put the knowledge about how the PS2 works out in the public domain? And if so, did Sony think about this?
Oh the possibilities... Check out Flight Gear (http://www.flightgear.org) and wonder if that could be made to favorably run on a PS2/Linux machine. GNU PS2 games... Mmmm. And foremost, could this allow for developers to make PS2/Linux a better gaming platform than XBox/WinXB[sic]?
I think AT&T has screwed up. But that is typical. They have capped the downstream to "enhance" your digital online experience. Bullshit. They couldn't handle the load.
1) I can't get DSL, so I am fucked. I have to stick with AT&T and it isn't something I like to do. There are many more like me and AT&T knows that. So switching yourself and a few thousand more customers to DSL won't make a difference in AT&T policy. To AT&T you and I are entries in a spreadsheet.
2) The DHCP thing pisses me off beyond imagination. This is totally lame. But again, it shouldn't be hard to write some kind of utility that requests dhcp leases to be renewed, so that you can use a static IP on your ethernet. I remember somebody doing this for RoadRunner.
To answer your last statement, I was under the impression that AT&T was paying $8 initially, then negotiated $12. The $20 figure was requested from @Home during negotiations and AT&T said it wasn't worth it. Yes, less for more, just as you said.
"He is charged with both personally trafficking it and being part of a conspiracy to traffick it. He may or may not be guilty of that, but that's what he is charged with."
I will settle for that.
"Would it strike you strange if the kingpin of a drug-smuggling operation was charged with drug trafficking offenses even though that drug operation was incorporated in another country?"
According to recent history, Microsoft has received a number of law suits and among the largest, the DoJ vs. Microsoft. Both the Sklyarov and Microsoft cases involve criminal charges. In none of the cases were drugs involved. And Sklyarov was not a kingpin. He was simply here. Guilty by association.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title."
Good catch? If you purchase a PC game on CD-ROM and wish to use it with a backup copy to protect your original, you would not be endorsed to persue this by the proprietor. Fair Use is something of the worst enemy of Big Business. Fair Use means less sales. In essence, you are allowed to play the game, thus circumventing the protection lawfully. But you aren't allowed to make a backup.
"I guess I was wrong that backups were specifically exempted. I couldn't find it. But copying for the purpose of backups it perfectly legal, because it does not involve decryption. It is also likely to fall under fair use."
It involves circumventing a copy protection scheme. Once circumventing the finite state machine which was designed to disallow copying, you've committed an offense against the DMCA. The DMCA does NOT specifically state that it only concerns encryption. Back to the example of the CD-ROM. An oversized TOC or faked bad sector would suffice as attempted protective mechanism, provided that the operation of the program in question would require those "defects" in order to run. The DMCA would override Fair Use.
"No permission is necessary. Only the requirement to make "a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention""
Essentially the same thing. Most likely this effort would require e-mail, fax and letter requests. Most likely one form of communication or other would reach a corporate lawyer and be disallowed in writing. Why? Because no proprietor would like to divulge the internals of its technology to the Public Domain. Essentially this gives the proprietor full reign in what is premissible and what isn't.
"Afraid of what? An injunction? Circumvention does not fall under criminal law."
BUT THE DMCA MAKES it a criminal act to circumvent a finite state machine which aims to limit serialized duplication or disassembling of that very machine or target data.
"Show me these cases. All I see is Dmitry, who was trying to capitalize off of circumventing copyright, and DeCSS, which was hit with an injunction which forced them to stop distribution. I see nothing inherently evil with the DMCA, it just seems like a way to enforce the evil that is copyright law."
Well let's look at Felten vs. RIAA... There are clear threats of litigation, thus suppression. Read here:
http://cryptome.org/sdmi-attack.htm
The DMCA is THE tool for corporations to enforce and suppress free speech. To mention another case, is the DeCSS case. The problem with that case is not that DeCSS would aid in illegal mass distribution of copyrighted material, it is the fact that the CSS algorithm would bear no merit as a copy protection device. The only way for the MPAA to protect itself from this is to make DeCSS illegal and thus earning itself cases to relate to, should this type of software appear again. The problem is that license fees would be lost, and region coding would be circumvented. Big Bucks, nothing else. And in the quest for the Almighty $$$, First Sale, Fair Use and various other Freedoms are effectively circumvented.
"The DMCA only covers copyrighted material, not material which is in the public domain."
This is true, but the DMCA places hurdles on Copyrighted material ever being forced to become Public Domain.
"You mean for importing a program into this country and distributing it in this country."
Not to re-hash an old debacle, but he is an employee of a company that did this. He didn't personally traffic this for his own demise. He may be guilty of being an employee of this company which carried this traffic to our borders, but shouldn't it strike you as strange if Bill Gates was personally indicted for enacting a monopoly? In this country, a company is legally a person.
"I've told them about the intimidation and outright threatening of scientists who dare to expose flaws in a sham security system.
Completely irrelevant to the DMCA."
No it isn't. The DMCA specifically states that circumvention of a reasonable attempt to protect Copyrighted material is illegal. Hence it is illegal to point out flaws in a security system which would allegedly aid circumvention. Aiding and abetting.
"They don't think that reverse engineering for system interoperability should be illegal.
Also specifically protected by the DMCA."
Then how come the DeCSS thing is such a problem? Perhaps because the DMCA does in fact protect against circumventing protective measures on Copyrighted materials?
"They don't think allowing backups should be illegal.
Which it isn't."
Again, circumvention of a protective mechanism is prohibited under the governing of the DMCA. So copying a DVD or copy protected music CD is illegal. Even for purposes of backups. Because the CSS is considered a reasonable attempt of securing the Copyrighted material.
"They don't think that scientific research should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA. You should read it some time."
Specifically exempt from the DMCA if there is an approval from the Copyright holder and/or if the subject is in the Public Domain and/or if the subject isn't reasonably protected. But since poor mechanisms of protection are accepted in Court, I don't blame the scientists of being afraid.
The DMCA has been applied in all of the above cases, in terms of supressive measures to maintain information/studies captive or openly challenged in Court. I think your literal interpretation of the DMCA shows exactly how easy and how dangerous it is to get the wrong idea about something so evil.
So once again I make the mistake of reading things with a tired mind. Been up all night. It says that it DOESN'T have GSM1900 support. I am sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
This phone is a TriBand phone, which means it operates on GSM900, GSM1800 and GSM1900. I have a TriBand Motorola and it works like a charm. One would have to get a subscription with a GSM provider in the U.S but that's not a big issue.
I see the big issue being the expensiveness of GSM in the U.S for being one reason why the phones don't see marketing time here before anywhere else. In several European countries you can buy a pre-paid SIM card, which you can refill every so often - as needed. You don't pay for incoming calls, so they last for a long time. VoiceStream in the U.S has pre-paid cards as well, however the minutes you buy are very expensive and they EXPIRE after two months as if your money isn't good anymore.
If GSM phones are supposed to go mainstream, something like this needs to happen. The main problem is that the public has the idea that a cell phone costs at least $49/mo with 400 minutes. It doesn't have to.
But anyway, yes you can buy one in Europe and have it shipped here and it would work. It does have GSM1900 support.
On one part, Ashcroft is doing something to cover for the alledged Chinese hackers who wish to circumvent electronic security and go after the perps. While action on this part is definately welcome, there are a few more things one should consider.
On the other hand, it is one more way for the corporations with big bucks to insist on severe punishment for 14 year old kids. And no, there is no limit for how old a person must be to be labeled "terrorist".
If somebody successfully steals a database with credit cards, the company that created that database should be indicted just as well as the cracker. Why? Because they are NOT SUFFICIENTLY protecting their database. When my Egghead account was compromised I got pissed at them, not just the guys who cracked their security. If a company that wishes to have my credit card number and SSN or whatever, on electronic file, they should damn well protect that information. There are instances where people have been convicted by clause of negligence, or comparable negligence. Why is this any different? I mean, if I leave a white plastic bag with a million dollars on the curb outside the Marriott in San Francisco and I find that somebody took it, why is it that I am negligent? Because I didn't take good measures in protecting that which I meant to keep to myself!
But by all means, beef up the security around Government computer installations. I'd be happy to let my congressman pass a bill for another $5 billion to do this.
However this bill is undoubtedly going to make many people "terrorists", just because they circumvented the copy protection of Windows XP or something like that. I do not support this bill.
Alex
The SSSCA will most likely pass and will be a formidable parter to the DMCA in order to restrict Fair Use and other Consumer rights. This is just a preamble.
All CDs will be encrypted with some type of Microsoft Windows XP clearing house mechanism that verifies a signature to see if you really did PAY for your CD. If the signature is already registered or perhaps doesn't match some type of logic, an automatic message will go to the FBI to arrest the criminal who is screwing the poor RIIA out of their hard earned money.
No matter of course if the mechanism they come up with is inadequate and has many innocent people arrested because their stuff doesn't work. They want to see as many sinners as possible be jailed. Intimidation tactics - same as we're trying with the Taliban. "If you're not with us, you're with them..."
And the worst thing is that Americans will let this happen and be proud of it. This is harm that will take tramendous effort to undo, if at all possible.
Alex
Very interesting that you mentioned that. In fact, it's quite nice to see early posters ask cool questions.
My guess is that Caldera is going to try to scrape up some cash by selling off SCO. I'd say to maybe Sun or possibly IBM. IBM has already contributed a lot to Project Monterey and may see this as a protection on investment. And a dreaded moment would be if Microsoft would bid on it. They could buy it and hence own the copyright on the SVR5 design. I don't know any other vendor that has a SVR5 implementation but SCO and IBM, but still...
If Caldera can't sell it, SCO may spin off on it's own again or die with Caldera. The code would effectively become Public Domain, since there wouldn't be a transfer of ownership. But that doesn't mean that we would see any source code. That would mean that we can download Open UNIX 8 on abandonware.com in binary form, just because there is no company around to file suit.
I am hoping, just as everybody else that Caldera will Open Source (preferably a BSD style license) SVR5. But I think that we may be hoping for something that won't happen. Chances are that SCO may once again become part of Microsoft or just die and the last source code repositories being eBayed on the hard drive of some server, possibly to never see the light of day again as the unknowing buyer would format the drives and bring up a shiny new installation of Windows 2000.
But I am still going to hope. I am believe that Caldera will die or be bought out by some large corporation for lieuting of assets. Just how will one of the past decade's treasures be treated when that day comes? If Ransom Love is reading this, I urge you to consider an Open Sourcing of the parts that can be opened. This will ensure the afterlife of that codebase and people would respect you immensely for doing this. Perhaps this as a last resort, could save Caldera from extinction?
Alex
I saw a banner ad for a Cable TV descrambling device so that you can watch HBO for free. These devices are PERFECTLY LEGAL to sell in most states, if not all. They are also PERFECTLY LEGAL to purchase in most states, if not all. But once you start using it with the intent of watching pay channels for free, it stops being legal.
So in essence Dmitry could have come here to the U.S and sold the program to anybody who wanted to buy it. Legally. It is when somebody starts using it with the intent of redistributing the illegalities start to kick in.
But the reason Dmitry can be found guilty of a crime and the producer/distributor of the Cable TV descrambler can't, is that there is a law called the DMCA which protects Big Business(tm).
Alex