I just skimmed it.. this seems to make it quite clear that it only applies to commercial sites. While I'm against trying to limit people's access to information of any sort, surely there's no harm in saying you can't profit from it. As for someone selling an online version of an anatomy book being challenged- well, I guess I'll just be naive and say that it doesnt seem like the kind of thing this law is intended to block. May require actually going to court, but certainly doesnt sound like something that wouldnt eventually be laughed at. The power of a bunch of whiny parents who don't know how to teach they're kids through any means other than ignorance seems less of a threat to me than some huge multinational corperation trying to protect its copyright intrests
Seems to me that "AOL" is a much more recognizable name than "Netscape"- you can't help but know AOL from.. everything they do to shove their name at you. Sounds much more like they're trying to get Away from that name..
Could not a system (relatively) easily be put in place which uses existing cell-phone networks to transmit the data, encrypted, into the e-books, and never store that data outside of encrypted volitile memory, with the only data ever "stored" in the e-book being a single user-id and private key for access to a database of licenses? All keys would of course be one-time use and hideously long- because it's fucking TEXT. It doesnt require a high-speed connection.
I know there is most likely some technical reason, so what is that reason? Why are the makers of these readers complaining, instead of actually creating a secure product (which, btw, does NOT require backups of anything other than the userID and private key, which have no reason to be made unavailable to the user)
Of course, storing data "encrypted" would be pointless, as the key would need to be stored somewhere as well, but if the key is for one-time-use, the ability to take the cover off, hack and solder your way into the memory chip, and sift through until you get what you want.. doesnt seem like a problem to me...
Please, I'm not trying to troll or anything, I'd just like my ignorance to be alleviated.
I dont know, this sounds like something that, with enough forthough, could work very well. Of course, that would only work if nobody actually knew about it. The fool published the idea, now no one can do it!
I'm sshing in and it's slow as crap here, so I'll keep this short: What's easier than making a law requiring new [X] to have a new technology which must be developed? Make a law requiring something which already exists (and has been used, possibly for years) to be required instead of optional.
If anyone attacks my car while I'm driving it, I could very well die and/or cause the deaths of others. This is not controlled by the government- it's just illegal to attack things. Come on, people! I thought that we were against making extra things illegal when the crime itself is already illegal. This is worse than the DMCA, here- it would be like making, not the piracy of music, not the tools to pirate music, but the MUSIC ITSELF illegal, because it is "flawed" by having poor security.
No, I'm not saying that this is an ominous first step towards making music illegal, I'm saying that those who support this are fucking stupid.
Make the CRIME ITSELF ILLEGAL- no one is liable except for the criminals themselves.
If someone makes a faulty lock, they may be liable when someone slips into your house. But if you leave your doors unlocked(no firewall), or invite people in (opening e-mail attachments), only the person doing the crime is at fault.
Houses come with locks- but you need to/lock/ them in order for them to do any good. You can't sue the maker of the lock when you didnt lock your door.
Do computers come with locks? Not always. Is there any express or implied protection which comes with a computer? Hell no.
There are engines already built and out there, completely open for your use. Some of the best-selling games over the past couple years have been Mods built onto existing game engines. Why fuck with SDL/DirectX/ANYTHING when you can start off building a game, instead of an engine?
Newsflash: if you shoot out the tires of any vehical that is in motion, the car will go out of control. I guess we should recall all cars, in that case.
Since you'll already need a new PC to play the thing, where's the loss? You'll be booted into windows on one, and linux on another- just don't use the windows one for anything else, and you'll be fine.
Slashdot Mirror
dont you understand basic economics?! STOP SPENDING MY MONEY!!
CHAAAAAAAAARGE!!!
nocaps nocaps nocaps nocaps nocaps nocaps nocaps nocaps
This post is _FUNNY_, okay?
it's not like you can't donate to gAIM
who would pay for a closed-source clone? geez...
I just skimmed it.. this seems to make it quite clear that it only applies to commercial sites. While I'm against trying to limit people's access to information of any sort, surely there's no harm in saying you can't profit from it.
As for someone selling an online version of an anatomy book being challenged- well, I guess I'll just be naive and say that it doesnt seem like the kind of thing this law is intended to block. May require actually going to court, but certainly doesnt sound like something that wouldnt eventually be laughed at.
The power of a bunch of whiny parents who don't know how to teach they're kids through any means other than ignorance seems less of a threat to me than some huge multinational corperation trying to protect its copyright intrests
Seems to me that "AOL" is a much more recognizable name than "Netscape"- you can't help but know AOL from.. everything they do to shove their name at you.
Sounds much more like they're trying to get Away from that name..
Could not a system (relatively) easily be put in place which uses existing cell-phone networks to transmit the data, encrypted, into the e-books, and never store that data outside of encrypted volitile memory, with the only data ever "stored" in the e-book being a single user-id and private key for access to a database of licenses? All keys would of course be one-time use and hideously long- because it's fucking TEXT. It doesnt require a high-speed connection.
I know there is most likely some technical reason, so what is that reason? Why are the makers of these readers complaining, instead of actually creating a secure product (which, btw, does NOT require backups of anything other than the userID and private key, which have no reason to be made unavailable to the user)
Of course, storing data "encrypted" would be pointless, as the key would need to be stored somewhere as well, but if the key is for one-time-use, the ability to take the cover off, hack and solder your way into the memory chip, and sift through until you get what you want.. doesnt seem like a problem to me...
Please, I'm not trying to troll or anything, I'd just like my ignorance to be alleviated.
if those directors don't like what the MPAA is doing, maybe those directors will stop supporting the MPAA?
oh.. is that why your typing is so horrible?
I dont know, this sounds like something that, with enough forthough, could work very well.
Of course, that would only work if nobody actually knew about it. The fool published the idea, now no one can do it!
would it no longer meet its qualification of being "volitile memory" if the power went down?
I'm sshing in and it's slow as crap here, so I'll keep this short:
What's easier than making a law requiring new [X] to have a new technology which must be developed?
Make a law requiring something which already exists (and has been used, possibly for years) to be required instead of optional.
I really wish the person who modded me as "troll" would post a reply.. I would like to know his reasoning.
DO IT.
If anyone attacks my car while I'm driving it, I could very well die and/or cause the deaths of others. This is not controlled by the government- it's just illegal to attack things.
/lock/ them in order for them to do any good. You can't sue the maker of the lock when you didnt lock your door.
Come on, people! I thought that we were against making extra things illegal when the crime itself is already illegal. This is worse than the DMCA, here- it would be like making, not the piracy of music, not the tools to pirate music, but the MUSIC ITSELF illegal, because it is "flawed" by having poor security.
No, I'm not saying that this is an ominous first step towards making music illegal, I'm saying that those who support this are fucking stupid.
Make the CRIME ITSELF ILLEGAL- no one is liable except for the criminals themselves.
If someone makes a faulty lock, they may be liable when someone slips into your house. But if you leave your doors unlocked(no firewall), or invite people in (opening e-mail attachments), only the person doing the crime is at fault.
Houses come with locks- but you need to
Do computers come with locks? Not always. Is there any express or implied protection which comes with a computer? Hell no.
Stay off the internet.
be quiet or they'll figure out that they aren't entitled to secure jobs or expensive medications either!! Then politics itself will be doomed!
Add a third wheel, you fucks >!!
There are engines already built and out there, completely open for your use. Some of the best-selling games over the past couple years have been Mods built onto existing game engines. Why fuck with SDL/DirectX/ANYTHING when you can start off building a game, instead of an engine?
It's already illegal to write a malicious worm your fucking idiot
as a true warrior should
(fuck you)
Newsflash: if you shoot out the tires of any vehical that is in motion, the car will go out of control.
I guess we should recall all cars, in that case.
Please stay off the internet.
Since you'll already need a new PC to play the thing, where's the loss? You'll be booted into windows on one, and linux on another- just don't use the windows one for anything else, and you'll be fine.
TAHN!
please stop linking to The Inquirer.
Thank you.