Hmm, don't know about arch - I figured it probably does come PPC/i386/x64 because it should be just a recompile of the same source with different switches. Of course not every company will take the time to do that.
They may not be able to release the code to the drivers as they are - they probably do contain patented/licensed trade secret code. However, they certainly can provide basic - non optimized code to allow interfacing with the chipsets. With that as a basis, the OSS community could certainly work out how to optimize the system - alleviating the trade secret issues, though patents might still be a problem.
IANAL, but IIRC, the API's can't be patented, just the code behind them. The rational being that the API's just dictate the interface & there is only 1 way to impliment using the interface - as dictated by the API.
Between the Plain, &, and % codes you really could get away with things like:
ATZ0%F0&UC&K2O1F&F
which by the way is (IIRC) a perfectly acceptable init string to reset the modem to chipset default and then turn off some reporting that nobody uses anyway. It might also disable one of the 56K compression algorythms.
I am more interested in why they say they can't support it legally. Obviously it's incorrect as Real has the Helix player out for Linux & other *nixes. Given the existance of 1 major commercial format and several open formats, the statement makes no sense - unless the intent was, 'we cannot legally support our chosen codec on Linux'.
I would bet good money that there is no such formula. And note that there was no "lack of effort put into the CSS keys" -- the CSS keys were fine. The problem with CSS is that the cipher is weak, so it's possible to recover the key with a smidgen of known plaintext and a few seconds of computation on a low-end PC.
Actually the 40bit key was reduced to a 32[iirc] key due to an error in the keygen routine. Similar to Sprint's encryption on one of their phones being 24 bit encryption - with the first 10 bits always being 0.
This Court agrees with the Corley court that the purchase of a DVD does not give to the purchaser the authority of the copyright holder to decrypt CSS.
What were they smoking? This goes completely against Common Law Property Rights! Without the express or implied right to decrypt CSS, the owner of the disc is unable to use it for its Rightful Purpose. The DVD is thus rendered Unfit for Purpose.
Expect to see that ruling challenged. It would never have gone that way in Britain or Europe (and the Continentals have even stricter consumer protection laws than we do).
Oh yes, yes it does in fact go against every tiny bit of common sense that could possibly be used to examine the system as a whole. However, the courts logic is that 1 section clearly protects copying for fair use, therefor fair use is not being blocked by the DMCA. Access is also not blocked by the DMCA as access is granted by the copyright owners to the mfgs of players and thus to the players themselves. The problem is that the access is only granted under the conditions that expressly prohibit the fair use of the content.
The court looked at it in 2 parts -
Q: Is fair use prohibited? A: no, a clause in the DMCA expressly states fair use is still fair use.
Q: Do purchasers have authority from the copyright holders to decrypt the content of the DVD? A: No, as exibited by the restrictions placed on mfgs who receive valid keys.
Each part is internally consistant, but totally nonsensical when placed together.
In my motion to reconsider/appeal I think I would have included - "Given that the DMCA and this ruling both state that the concept of fair use is to be protected, please describe in detail how the average citizen of the United States may excercise their fair use rights to a DVD under this interpretation of the DMCA."
From my POV, that's the most important issue. If fair use is to be preserved, then the average citizen must be able to exercise that right. If the judges and the *AA can't come up with how that works, then they can't exclude the geeks from providing the tools. Yes fair use tools can be used to create pirated copies. Construction tools are frequently used to commit murder. Tools are tools, if they have legitimate uses, they need to be permitted.
Why do you assert that they are pseudorandomly generated, rather than generated from a true random number generator? How do you know that? And if you know that, what PRNG was used?
Please describe the mathematical theory you use to generate a true random number?
As to your point on why uniqueness is irrelevant, yes, in a practical sense it is. The point is that hardware suppliers and media empires aren't practical. The people who make these decisions don't see that the key is 128bits long and that that translates to 2^128 possible choices. They see that there is the possibility (remote is irrelevant) that they could be harmed by someone else's key being revoked. I have talked to people who make big business decisions, after the numbers go from big to huge, they seem to scale everything back to where they are comfortable. Thus "less likely than dying of heat stroke naked, at the north pole, in december" gets the response - "that bad?" They are not going to go for "It's not likely" they want to hear "no" so the keys are going to be required to be unique - it's a business thing not a math thing.
Combine the 2, you get a formula - somewhere - to generate keys. I didn't say reverse engineering it would be less work than just brute forcing the codes, but given the lack of effort put into the CSS keys, it's not inconceivable that it would be.
What measures were taken to verify that the IP address was neither spoofed nor usurped during the period in question?
Having worked for a cable ISP, it's not uncommon for 2 cable modems on the same UBR to have the same IP address - usually a result of one of the modems failing to honor the lease time from the DHCP grant - though potentially it could be deliberately done. Add to that the joy of promiscious mode settings and you can potentially be broadcasting from your neighbors IP address with his spoofed MAC address and still get your responses back.
Were any of the routers between the system which captured the screenshot and the defendants modem compromised at the time the screenshot was taken?
I don't recall the exact number, but IIRC one of the internal memo's indicated about 5-10% of my former companies UBR's had been compromised at some point in the last year.
What investigations have you taken into determining if the defendants computer was not compromised at the time of the screenshot.
If the US Government is repeatedly the victim of criminal computer access, what is the level of due dilligence required of the average citizen to prevent a compromised system from being used to illicitly trade files?
If I understand it correctly, it is their responsibility to prove that the system was not compromised at the time of the screenshot. Given the average 1st security update to a virgin XP box is 20-30 minutes and the average time to ownership is 15 minutes, I think there is a reasonable case to be made that the box may have been compromised at some point - proving it wasn't at the specified time may be difficult - especially if there are a few virus fragments laying around indicating it being 'p0wn3d' in the past.
The 1 cracked system key and the title key allow you to verify a successful hit on one of the other 199 keys. Without that, you would have to move to actual decrypting of the disk to verify the success.
The AES keys for the both the system and title keys are pseudo random 128 bit keys. One of the requirements is that the keys be "Unique" otherwise the deactivation of 1 key may kill more than 1 device/title. Generating random numbers is easy, generating "unique random numbers" is usually more complicated and is usually governed by a formula of some sort - which may or may not be discoverable based on the available dataset.
As for the last bit, any 128 bit number is valid, but not all 128 bit numbers are equally likely - depending on the method of generating the random number. That was the point, if you can rule out certain pieces of the numberspace by making educated guesses as to the algorythm used to make the keys, then you can greatly reduce the time to hit a key, and perhaps refine your next run. That was my point, not that you could hit the keys fast, but that with a dataset, you may be able to reverse engineer the varying number spaces and reduce the boundaries of the search.
It's my understanding that Mercene primes fall according to a formula that indicates where - roughly - they should fall in the overall numberspace. The formulas don't tell you what the number is, just where to go looking. That was the the understanding and intent of my comment.
The DMCA prohibits the sale or distribution of technology that would enable either the unauthorized access to a work or the unauthorized copying of a work. However, only the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work is prohibited.
The distinction is a neat bit of sleight of hand employed to ostensibly preserve fair use. The theory is that since copying a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, the DMCA does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological counter measure that prevents copying. However, the trafficking in tools to accomplish this is prohibited, so you have to be a hacker to enjoy fair use in the Digital Age.
As far as unauthorized access to a work is concerned, the argument is that since fair use is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited. This raises many thorny issues, not the least of which is that in the real world, you generally need access to a work in order copy the work.
Which is a discussion of copyright in general.
For an actual ruling this PDF is part of the DMCA ruling reguarding 321's DVD copying software. Wherein you get such gems as:
This Court agrees with the Corley court that the purchase of a DVD does not give to the purchaser the authority of the copyright holder to decrypt CSS. and
Licensed DVD players have been issued a key to decrypt CSS, and in exchange must adhere to strict prohibitions on copying of the decrypted DVD; 321's software does not have such a license, and therefore does not have the authority of the copyright owner. Which in effect means that You (the owner of the DVD) do not have permission to decrypt CSS, the DVD player (which you own) has the permision.
My real preference is actually a reference from Corley:
[Defendants] contend that subsection 1201(c)(1), which provides that
nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations or defenses
to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title can be read
to allow the circumvention of encryption technology protecting
copyrighted material when the material will be put to fair uses exempt
from copyright liability. We disagree that subsection 1201(c)(1) permits
such a reading. Instead, it simply clarifies that the DMCA targets the
circumvention of digital walls guarding copyrighted material (and
trafficking in circumvention tools), but does not concern itself with the use
of those materials after circumvention has occurred. Subsection 1201
(c)(1) ensures that the DMCA is not read to prohibit the fair use of
information just because that information was obtained in a manner made
illegal by the DMCA.
So, you can legally engage in any fair-use of material from a work covered under the DMCA, after you have ilegally broken the 'digital walls'. Wee, that one really does seem to cover "It's legal to do it, but illegal for anyone to make or distribute the tools to do it."
The GPP went on about DUI, Assult, Theft, etc. Changing the analogy to jaywalking and parking meters doesn't fix the problem of poor analogies.
The correct analogy is books. When you purchase a book, you are permitted to read it whereever you would like. On the bus, in your bedroom, in the tub, wherever. When you purchase a DVD, CD, or HD-DVD you are doing exactly the same thing as buying a book. You are purchasing a physical copy of the creative effort of the distributor.
What is the total sum of the equipment to read a book? Light and functioning eyes. Oh wait, you can legally use a braile reader to translate the book to braile - some record the book for later playback so one person can scan for another person to 'read' later.
What do you need to view a DVD movie? A player, a video source, and an audio source - along with eyes & ears. Somehow, needing more than your body to appriciate a distributed work makes all of the rules change. What portion of the right to govern distribution (which is all copyright is supposed to cover), covers the right to limit the use of a legally distributed copy?
If I desire to view a legally purchased DVD on my Linux box instead of a Windows box, how do I effect the profit margin of the distributing company? If I re-rip the movie & place it on my video-iPod so I can watch it on my train commute, how do I effect the bottom line? Since, I have already made my purchase of the movie, format shifting should be viewed as no more than the equivalent of moving a purchased book from room to room. Most of the hacks and work-arounds that have been developed were initially done to enable people to use digital media in the same manner they had always used analog. It is not some conspiracy to deprive companies of revenue, it is the efforts of people directed towards maintaining their way of life in a digital erra.
Has the availability of those hacks and work-arounds created an environment in which people blatently disreguard the right-of-first-sale and fair use rules on which they are based on? The honest answer is yes. However, that does not mean that the solution is ever increasing regulation and restriction. As evidenced by the dismal failure of every effort to limit piracy, it simply doesn't work. Eliminating my rights to fair use doesn't solve the problem, in fact it enlarges it as disillusionment with the system causes more casual disreguard for it. The hypocracy doesn't help. Remember legitimate fair use of a copyright work is not an exemption from the provisions of the Digital Milenium Copyright Act. The DMCA itself re-affirms the rights of fair use, but simultaniously denies you the rights to the means to exercise those rights. A shear genius work of doublespeak.
Actually, one of the federal courts upheld the right to copy/decrypt digital media for personal use as a fair use exception, however, the same case also determined that creating & distributing the software required to do so was illegal.
So according to the Federal court system, you have the legal right to copy your digital media to you computer for personal use, you just don't have the legal right to posses the software that would allow you to actually do it.
Actually you do have some good data points already.
If you have 1 cracked system key & the title key, and copies of the same title key encrypted with 199 other system keys it becomes trivial - though tedius to find the other system keys. That's how public key encryption works - it's not impossible to find the key - it just takes longer than is worth it. Now if a couple of other system keys get cracked, then some of the bright boys with math degrees will start looking at how the system keys were generated to begin with - that lets you narrow down the numberspace you have to look in for the remaining system keys.
Alternately, the fun stuff starts happening when you get to grab all of the title keys for the current titles. Once you have those, you can try to determine the routine for creating the title keys in the first place. Knowing the keygen routine, you can probably get the numberspace down to something suitable for brute force cracking on a per title basis.
[blah][blah][blah] But once something breaks you're back to cryptic/etc files and other obscure things. Given time to research I can handle this, but the average person cannot. Linux is still more complicated to maintain than Windows, and that is going to be deciding factor for your average schmo.
How exactly do you fix things that break in Windows? I ask because it's usually registry edits and magic downloads that end up fixing the problems I have. While there isn't a set format for those cryptic/etc files, there are usually headers that tell you what to do, along with those wonderful MAN pages. With Windows, I have no choice but to google the problem & hope someone else has come up with a solution. Even the few times I've called MS support, I usually get the 'we can't help you - reinstalling should solve your problem' response from the phone droids.
Also, do you consider the prevelance of spyware on the average home Windows machine to be a maintenance problem that should be included in the discussion on how easy it is to maintain a computer?
So long as you don't try to put in 2 NICs that both impliment slightly different versions of the NE2000 driver. Windows fall down go boom.
You know why Apple only runs OS X on Apple hardware - so they can preconfigure all the hardware & drivers to play nice together. Why do the DELLs & HP's always work out-of-the-box? Because the OEM spent months making sure that the drivers for the various components work together and burning all the drivers to the install image.
I've had Linux driver issues w/ old hardware - mostly sound cards with a NIC problem thrown in for fun. You know what my solution was to each of those problems? Dig out the code for the last known working driver & recompile it. Know how I solve the problem when an 8bit audio card from a Win95 box doesn't work in an XP box? I buy a new card.
Up until my October upgrade, my Linux box was running a 15yr old JVEC NIC with RJ45 & BNC connectors - something my Win2K box decided it didn't want to do (the NE2000 clone drivers install & say they are running fine, but no data transfers). The 8MB S3VIRGE card I use for my 2nd monitor? Linux loves it. Windows let's me use the default of 640X480.
Gaming - not for Linux - yet. I think with China pushing Red Flag - you'll see more open video interfaces - especially since they & Russia have already stated they don't like the concept of the Continuous Authorization from Vista. Heck the US military & state department have made their concerns known. I don't expect the cards to be more open, but the API's should open up soon.
Servers - better multi-processor support than Windows 2k or XP, more stability, and more configurability. All wins in the server world
Office - OO has better import/export between versions of Win.Office than Win.Office itself. Yeah, I've had problems with OO crashing, but the recovery is usually better than a Win.Office crash. It's also slower, though I've found Abiword and Gnumeric to cover 90+% of what I do & both seem to be as stable & faster than either OO or WO. The PDF export is better for almost all of the Linux software than it is for WO.
Development - I have more shell, scripting, and programming languages available to choose from, than I have space on my bookshelf for books. My standard work environment includes a 6 desktop setup that separates my development environment from my production environment, and keeps my new project work separate from my maintenance work. I also get to keep my system monitoring tools, communications, and slashdotting on sepate screens. Quick count gives me 22 windows open and viewable.
Web - Email - check, newsgroups - check, gopher - check, Archie - check, IRC - check, IM - check, Soft phone - check, Web - check. Excluding MS specific extensions, I have everything - except all the spyware I have to clean out of my son's computer every 3 months. Those extensions? Don't miss them - except for CNN's videos - all in all, a fair trade I would say.
I believe that there is a CERN paper on this, that I can't find now. Basically the guy giving tours & showing the bubble chamber would tell people either A or B should happen depending on how he felt that day, since it was 50/50 for the actual experiment, either people were satisfied or excited about seeing a 'special' event depending on whether or not it came out like he predicted. He found that the results didn't quite come out 50/50 - there appeared to be a slight bias towards whatever he told them. IIRC, it's an ancecdotal paper & there was never any controlled experiment looking farther into this.
According to the statistics, if this guy goes with a single arbitrator, he's got a 80/20 chance of loosing. It drops to 60/40 if he goes with the 3 member arbitration board. Either way, chances are he's pretty likely to loose this.
The key to this is that the complaintant get's to choose the arbitration company - the 1 person board is also picked by the complaintant, hence the statistics.
Looking at the ruling on dellcomputerssuck.com domain, it seems that if you have a companies trademark in your name, they get it - no matter how assinine the thought process it takes to get there.
then we shouldn't be forcing cable companies to do so either.
That's the even dumber part of this. This change in structure says that cable companies won't have to do full build outs either, in the future. However, if they are currently under a contract, they have to finish the full build out. So the phone company still gets to come out ahead. They can finish their partial build-outs & be reaping huge profits in tiny areas, while the cable companies are still bound by last years build-out agreements & are spending billions on installing fiber lines to everyone.
The DMCA appears to violate clause 107 in several ways, [snip]
Supersedes, the word you wanted was supersede not violate. When a new law comes out it supersedes the old law. Usually, the new law will explicitly state that particular issue - if it's recognized as being in direct conflict when it's written.
The issue with loosing rights is really with the dumb-ass judge who said - "yes you have the right to copy DVDs for personal use, but nobody can sell you the tools to do it with."
If it's legal to do, the tools to do it with should be legal by default.
A guy was just arrested last week in the US for making child porn --- he took pictures of fully clothed children piled on top of each other in a playground --- with the parents permission.
Our experience in the investigation of these crimes also signals a strong correlation between child pornography offenders and molesters of children. In Operation Candyman, for example, of the 90 people arrested thus far for their participation in the child pornography e-group, 13 of them who chose to make inculpatory statements admitted to molesting a combined total of 48 children
Hmm, 13/90 = 14.4%. Not a huge issue there. Of course that's just as pointless a statistic as any of the ones you just marked. Ohh, there is a strong correlation, in which direction?
If
pr0n->molest =>.144
and
molest->pr0n =>.900
Then you have a strong correlation between molesters possesing pr0n, but not between people possesing pr0n being molesters. Note that, since this is statistics, these types of arguments are wrong to begin with, you're looking at degree's of union, not correlations.
The question to ask is "What is the degree of union between possession & molestation, specified as percentages of both populations."
You follow that with the questions of violent games/violent acts, violent movies/violent acts, depictions of rape/rape.... Then, when you have a real body of work, you look at everything & make a decision if putting the money/effort into this is going to be worth it, or if it's better spent elsewhere. Until you have that body of work, ancedotal numbers are pointless.
Substitute maintain for use and your statement moves from funny to true.
I've swapped out 3 motherboards and a dozen other components in my Linux box (the HD is the only part less than 3rd hand), and gone from RH7.0 to FC6, and the system still runs - despite the power going out in the middle of the upgrade from FC4 -> FC5. After the upgrade from FC5->FC6 the system is a bit quirky (rpm -a says I have 2-3 packages of almost everything installed), but it still works and I have access to all my data on both local & shared drives. I'll be doing a fresh install this weekend (because it's less work than cleaning up the system), but even then, I'm not worried about the data on the drive being lost.
Compare that to 'upgrading' from 2K to XP. Had to start with a complete wipe, and then XP didn't recognize the partitioning of the 2nd harddrive - heck it didn't recognize the existance of the drive until I went in and mucked around in the registry. In the end, I had to dump the data to the Linux box, reformat, & reload - 45G of music & graphics work on 2 partitions --- all because MS incrimented their NTFS by.1 (.3->.4 IIRC) and did nothing to retain backwards compatibility. Hint - keep a Linux Live CD around - they work just as good for Windows recovery as they do for Linux.
In 4 years of running Linux, I've never had a problem I couldn't figure out how to solve (sometimes the solution was more work than it was worth), with Windows, half the solutions I find are "we don't know why, but reinstall fixes this"
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, don't know about arch - I figured it probably does come PPC/i386/x64 because it should be just a recompile of the same source with different switches. Of course not every company will take the time to do that.
Adobe has the Flash 9 beta out, I've been using it for over a month now. Seems to work very nicely
They may not be able to release the code to the drivers as they are - they probably do contain patented/licensed trade secret code. However, they certainly can provide basic - non optimized code to allow interfacing with the chipsets. With that as a basis, the OSS community could certainly work out how to optimize the system - alleviating the trade secret issues, though patents might still be a problem. IANAL, but IIRC, the API's can't be patented, just the code behind them. The rational being that the API's just dictate the interface & there is only 1 way to impliment using the interface - as dictated by the API.
Between the Plain, &, and % codes you really could get away with things like:
ATZ0%F0&UC&K2O1F&F which by the way is (IIRC) a perfectly acceptable init string to reset the modem to chipset default and then turn off some reporting that nobody uses anyway. It might also disable one of the 56K compression algorythms.
I am more interested in why they say they can't support it legally. Obviously it's incorrect as Real has the Helix player out for Linux & other *nixes. Given the existance of 1 major commercial format and several open formats, the statement makes no sense - unless the intent was, 'we cannot legally support our chosen codec on Linux'.
Expect to see that ruling challenged. It would never have gone that way in Britain or Europe (and the Continentals have even stricter consumer protection laws than we do).
Oh yes, yes it does in fact go against every tiny bit of common sense that could possibly be used to examine the system as a whole. However, the courts logic is that 1 section clearly protects copying for fair use, therefor fair use is not being blocked by the DMCA. Access is also not blocked by the DMCA as access is granted by the copyright owners to the mfgs of players and thus to the players themselves. The problem is that the access is only granted under the conditions that expressly prohibit the fair use of the content.
The court looked at it in 2 parts -
A: no, a clause in the DMCA expressly states fair use is still fair use.
A: No, as exibited by the restrictions placed on mfgs who receive valid keys.
Each part is internally consistant, but totally nonsensical when placed together.
In my motion to reconsider/appeal I think I would have included - "Given that the DMCA and this ruling both state that the concept of fair use is to be protected, please describe in detail how the average citizen of the United States may excercise their fair use rights to a DVD under this interpretation of the DMCA."
From my POV, that's the most important issue. If fair use is to be preserved, then the average citizen must be able to exercise that right. If the judges and the *AA can't come up with how that works, then they can't exclude the geeks from providing the tools. Yes fair use tools can be used to create pirated copies. Construction tools are frequently used to commit murder. Tools are tools, if they have legitimate uses, they need to be permitted.
As to your point on why uniqueness is irrelevant, yes, in a practical sense it is. The point is that hardware suppliers and media empires aren't practical. The people who make these decisions don't see that the key is 128bits long and that that translates to 2^128 possible choices. They see that there is the possibility (remote is irrelevant) that they could be harmed by someone else's key being revoked. I have talked to people who make big business decisions, after the numbers go from big to huge, they seem to scale everything back to where they are comfortable. Thus "less likely than dying of heat stroke naked, at the north pole, in december" gets the response - "that bad?" They are not going to go for "It's not likely" they want to hear "no" so the keys are going to be required to be unique - it's a business thing not a math thing.
Combine the 2, you get a formula - somewhere - to generate keys. I didn't say reverse engineering it would be less work than just brute forcing the codes, but given the lack of effort put into the CSS keys, it's not inconceivable that it would be.
- What measures were taken to verify that the IP address was neither spoofed nor usurped during the period in question?
Having worked for a cable ISP, it's not uncommon for 2 cable modems on the same UBR to have the same IP address - usually a result of one of the modems failing to honor the lease time from the DHCP grant - though potentially it could be deliberately done. Add to that the joy of promiscious mode settings and you can potentially be broadcasting from your neighbors IP address with his spoofed MAC address and still get your responses back.- Were any of the routers between the system which captured the screenshot and the defendants modem compromised at the time the screenshot was taken?
I don't recall the exact number, but IIRC one of the internal memo's indicated about 5-10% of my former companies UBR's had been compromised at some point in the last year.- What investigations have you taken into determining if the defendants computer was not compromised at the time of the screenshot.
- If the US Government is repeatedly the victim of criminal computer access, what is the level of due dilligence required of the average citizen to prevent a compromised system from being used to illicitly trade files?
If I understand it correctly, it is their responsibility to prove that the system was not compromised at the time of the screenshot. Given the average 1st security update to a virgin XP box is 20-30 minutes and the average time to ownership is 15 minutes, I think there is a reasonable case to be made that the box may have been compromised at some point - proving it wasn't at the specified time may be difficult - especially if there are a few virus fragments laying around indicating it being 'p0wn3d' in the past.The 1 cracked system key and the title key allow you to verify a successful hit on one of the other 199 keys. Without that, you would have to move to actual decrypting of the disk to verify the success.
The AES keys for the both the system and title keys are pseudo random 128 bit keys. One of the requirements is that the keys be "Unique" otherwise the deactivation of 1 key may kill more than 1 device/title. Generating random numbers is easy, generating "unique random numbers" is usually more complicated and is usually governed by a formula of some sort - which may or may not be discoverable based on the available dataset.
As for the last bit, any 128 bit number is valid, but not all 128 bit numbers are equally likely - depending on the method of generating the random number. That was the point, if you can rule out certain pieces of the numberspace by making educated guesses as to the algorythm used to make the keys, then you can greatly reduce the time to hit a key, and perhaps refine your next run. That was my point, not that you could hit the keys fast, but that with a dataset, you may be able to reverse engineer the varying number spaces and reduce the boundaries of the search.
It's my understanding that Mercene primes fall according to a formula that indicates where - roughly - they should fall in the overall numberspace. The formulas don't tell you what the number is, just where to go looking. That was the the understanding and intent of my comment.
For an actual ruling this PDF is part of the DMCA ruling reguarding 321's DVD copying software. Wherein you get such gems as: This Court agrees with the Corley court that the purchase of a DVD does not give to the purchaser the authority of the copyright holder to decrypt CSS. and Licensed DVD players have been issued a key to decrypt CSS, and in exchange must adhere to strict prohibitions on copying of the decrypted DVD; 321's software does not have such a license, and therefore does not have the authority of the copyright owner. Which in effect means that You (the owner of the DVD) do not have permission to decrypt CSS, the DVD player (which you own) has the permision.
My real preference is actually a reference from Corley: So, you can legally engage in any fair-use of material from a work covered under the DMCA, after you have ilegally broken the 'digital walls'. Wee, that one really does seem to cover "It's legal to do it, but illegal for anyone to make or distribute the tools to do it."
The GPP went on about DUI, Assult, Theft, etc. Changing the analogy to jaywalking and parking meters doesn't fix the problem of poor analogies.
The correct analogy is books. When you purchase a book, you are permitted to read it whereever you would like. On the bus, in your bedroom, in the tub, wherever. When you purchase a DVD, CD, or HD-DVD you are doing exactly the same thing as buying a book. You are purchasing a physical copy of the creative effort of the distributor.
What is the total sum of the equipment to read a book? Light and functioning eyes. Oh wait, you can legally use a braile reader to translate the book to braile - some record the book for later playback so one person can scan for another person to 'read' later.
What do you need to view a DVD movie? A player, a video source, and an audio source - along with eyes & ears. Somehow, needing more than your body to appriciate a distributed work makes all of the rules change. What portion of the right to govern distribution (which is all copyright is supposed to cover), covers the right to limit the use of a legally distributed copy?
If I desire to view a legally purchased DVD on my Linux box instead of a Windows box, how do I effect the profit margin of the distributing company? If I re-rip the movie & place it on my video-iPod so I can watch it on my train commute, how do I effect the bottom line? Since, I have already made my purchase of the movie, format shifting should be viewed as no more than the equivalent of moving a purchased book from room to room. Most of the hacks and work-arounds that have been developed were initially done to enable people to use digital media in the same manner they had always used analog. It is not some conspiracy to deprive companies of revenue, it is the efforts of people directed towards maintaining their way of life in a digital erra.
Has the availability of those hacks and work-arounds created an environment in which people blatently disreguard the right-of-first-sale and fair use rules on which they are based on? The honest answer is yes. However, that does not mean that the solution is ever increasing regulation and restriction. As evidenced by the dismal failure of every effort to limit piracy, it simply doesn't work. Eliminating my rights to fair use doesn't solve the problem, in fact it enlarges it as disillusionment with the system causes more casual disreguard for it. The hypocracy doesn't help. Remember legitimate fair use of a copyright work is not an exemption from the provisions of the Digital Milenium Copyright Act. The DMCA itself re-affirms the rights of fair use, but simultaniously denies you the rights to the means to exercise those rights. A shear genius work of doublespeak.
Actually, one of the federal courts upheld the right to copy/decrypt digital media for personal use as a fair use exception, however, the same case also determined that creating & distributing the software required to do so was illegal.
So according to the Federal court system, you have the legal right to copy your digital media to you computer for personal use, you just don't have the legal right to posses the software that would allow you to actually do it.
Actually you do have some good data points already.
If you have 1 cracked system key & the title key, and copies of the same title key encrypted with 199 other system keys it becomes trivial - though tedius to find the other system keys. That's how public key encryption works - it's not impossible to find the key - it just takes longer than is worth it. Now if a couple of other system keys get cracked, then some of the bright boys with math degrees will start looking at how the system keys were generated to begin with - that lets you narrow down the numberspace you have to look in for the remaining system keys.
Alternately, the fun stuff starts happening when you get to grab all of the title keys for the current titles. Once you have those, you can try to determine the routine for creating the title keys in the first place. Knowing the keygen routine, you can probably get the numberspace down to something suitable for brute force cracking on a per title basis.
How exactly do you fix things that break in Windows? I ask because it's usually registry edits and magic downloads that end up fixing the problems I have. While there isn't a set format for those cryptic /etc files, there are usually headers that tell you what to do, along with those wonderful MAN pages. With Windows, I have no choice but to google the problem & hope someone else has come up with a solution. Even the few times I've called MS support, I usually get the 'we can't help you - reinstalling should solve your problem' response from the phone droids.
Also, do you consider the prevelance of spyware on the average home Windows machine to be a maintenance problem that should be included in the discussion on how easy it is to maintain a computer?
You know why Apple only runs OS X on Apple hardware - so they can preconfigure all the hardware & drivers to play nice together. Why do the DELLs & HP's always work out-of-the-box? Because the OEM spent months making sure that the drivers for the various components work together and burning all the drivers to the install image.
I've had Linux driver issues w/ old hardware - mostly sound cards with a NIC problem thrown in for fun. You know what my solution was to each of those problems? Dig out the code for the last known working driver & recompile it. Know how I solve the problem when an 8bit audio card from a Win95 box doesn't work in an XP box? I buy a new card.
Up until my October upgrade, my Linux box was running a 15yr old JVEC NIC with RJ45 & BNC connectors - something my Win2K box decided it didn't want to do (the NE2000 clone drivers install & say they are running fine, but no data transfers). The 8MB S3VIRGE card I use for my 2nd monitor? Linux loves it. Windows let's me use the default of 640X480.
I believe that there is a CERN paper on this, that I can't find now. Basically the guy giving tours & showing the bubble chamber would tell people either A or B should happen depending on how he felt that day, since it was 50/50 for the actual experiment, either people were satisfied or excited about seeing a 'special' event depending on whether or not it came out like he predicted. He found that the results didn't quite come out 50/50 - there appeared to be a slight bias towards whatever he told them. IIRC, it's an ancecdotal paper & there was never any controlled experiment looking farther into this.
According to the statistics, if this guy goes with a single arbitrator, he's got a 80/20 chance of loosing. It drops to 60/40 if he goes with the 3 member arbitration board. Either way, chances are he's pretty likely to loose this.
The key to this is that the complaintant get's to choose the arbitration company - the 1 person board is also picked by the complaintant, hence the statistics.
Looking at the ruling on dellcomputerssuck.com domain, it seems that if you have a companies trademark in your name, they get it - no matter how assinine the thought process it takes to get there.
Supersedes, the word you wanted was supersede not violate. When a new law comes out it supersedes the old law. Usually, the new law will explicitly state that particular issue - if it's recognized as being in direct conflict when it's written.
The issue with loosing rights is really with the dumb-ass judge who said - "yes you have the right to copy DVDs for personal use, but nobody can sell you the tools to do it with." If it's legal to do, the tools to do it with should be legal by default.
A guy was just arrested last week in the US for making child porn --- he took pictures of fully clothed children piled on top of each other in a playground --- with the parents permission.
Hmm, 13/90 = 14.4%. Not a huge issue there. Of course that's just as pointless a statistic as any of the ones you just marked. Ohh, there is a strong correlation, in which direction? If .144 .900
pr0n->molest =>
and
molest->pr0n =>
Then you have a strong correlation between molesters possesing pr0n, but not between people possesing pr0n being molesters. Note that, since this is statistics, these types of arguments are wrong to begin with, you're looking at degree's of union, not correlations.
The question to ask is "What is the degree of union between possession & molestation, specified as percentages of both populations."
You follow that with the questions of violent games/violent acts, violent movies/violent acts, depictions of rape/rape .... Then, when you have a real body of work, you look at everything & make a decision if putting the money/effort into this is going to be worth it, or if it's better spent elsewhere. Until you have that body of work, ancedotal numbers are pointless.
works on almost every Ubuntu system
Substitute maintain for use and your statement moves from funny to true. .1 (.3->.4 IIRC) and did nothing to retain backwards compatibility. Hint - keep a Linux Live CD around - they work just as good for Windows recovery as they do for Linux.
I've swapped out 3 motherboards and a dozen other components in my Linux box (the HD is the only part less than 3rd hand), and gone from RH7.0 to FC6, and the system still runs - despite the power going out in the middle of the upgrade from FC4 -> FC5. After the upgrade from FC5->FC6 the system is a bit quirky (rpm -a says I have 2-3 packages of almost everything installed), but it still works and I have access to all my data on both local & shared drives. I'll be doing a fresh install this weekend (because it's less work than cleaning up the system), but even then, I'm not worried about the data on the drive being lost.
Compare that to 'upgrading' from 2K to XP. Had to start with a complete wipe, and then XP didn't recognize the partitioning of the 2nd harddrive - heck it didn't recognize the existance of the drive until I went in and mucked around in the registry. In the end, I had to dump the data to the Linux box, reformat, & reload - 45G of music & graphics work on 2 partitions --- all because MS incrimented their NTFS by
In 4 years of running Linux, I've never had a problem I couldn't figure out how to solve (sometimes the solution was more work than it was worth), with Windows, half the solutions I find are "we don't know why, but reinstall fixes this"