Replying to my own post, but this IS just a sort of encryption - their main claim being because the data is encrypted, it's not copyright.
As has been pointed out below, the data transferred is not the thing copyrighted - it's what it represents. So it's an arduous and painful encryption, with high overhead, easy to crack and no plausible benefit. With some hand-wavy 'it annuls all badness from bad things' explanation.
Once I actually understood what on earth they are on about, it seems like an interesting idea with very little basis in reality. Their main claim seems to be a magic-wand approach to getting round copyright, as opposed to a particularly useful distributed filesystem:
No data passing through the network can be considered copyrighted because the means by which it is represented is truly random
Sure... So if I put in Brittany's latest album, then tell my friend to click on the url that 'reassembles' the 'truly random' data into, well, Brittany's latest album, then do you really think copyright has nothing to say?
Breaking news! Photocopying books is TOTALLY LEGAL if you use yellow paper and/or put the book in the machine upside down!
A correctly encrypted file also appears random. It does not mean it IS random, otherwise it would be, well, not very useful.
Isn't this just a sophisticated form of encryption, using a large, randomly generated key?
If so, does it have any real advantages over conventional encryption? It seems that the disadvantage would be the need to have both the file (large) and the random data (large) instead of, conventionally, just the file (large) and key (small).
Also, I can't be the only one who found the summary, uh, confusing??
If this is to be used for defensive measures, it's another sign of how badly broken the US patent system is - and how expensive that brokenness is to big businesses.
If it's to be used for offensive measures, then it's another sign of how badly broken the US patent system is - and how expensive that brokenness is to small businesses.
WOW, did you SEE that thing lift off the RUNWAY??!? It was GANE!!OMGZERSone11one
Surely the correct response would have been 'no, that was an artist's impression.'
The news anchor may be employed to use baby-talk, but there's no excuse for a supposedly informed correspondent to go along with the idiocy. The pride in ignorance is obviously annoying him, why doesn't he challenge it?
Equally when asked to explain in 'English, not science-talk,' perhaps he should have said 'Yes, perfectly possible. Let me explain' and delved into some of the simpler theory of reciprocating engines, turbojets, high and low bypass fans and scramjets. When challenged he could then say, "what with words less than 3rd grade level? Ah, no sorry, not possible.'
I'm writing to you following yesterday's vote on the ability to hold `terrorism
suspects' for 42 days without charge. I am truely ashamed that the DUP felt
compelled to use its in
uential position to push this through for the government.
Existing `anti-terror' laws have already regularly abused to harrass pension-
ers, stop and search thousands of peace protesters and prevent environmental
protests. These are hardly the cutting edge of terrorism that was waved before
us to scare us into accepting these laws. This law would further undermine the
basic right to due process and trial and the assumption of innocence.
If the law allowed for judges to pass indenite detention for proven terrorists,
you can rest assured you would not hear from me. In fact, it already does; it's
called a life conviction. But while the subject is suspects and not convicts, laws
like this pose an innitely greater risk to our (your and my) freedom than any
terrorism this country has seen.
I am particularly let down by your apparent capitulation to Brown's desire, in
the context of the large Labour rebellion, since your past stances and speeches
on topics such as ID cards and the government's previous attempt to extend the
detention period give the impression of someone who values your constituents'
rights and freedoms. The accusations shouted across parliament towards DUP
of `being bought,' whether true or not, do nothing for the DUP's apparent lack
of integrity on this issue.
If you are in doubt about the popularity of this law, I suggest you visit the
BBC forum site: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4145.
Assuming and hoping the House of Lords has the common sense to return this
poor legislation, I would strongly urge you to vote against it.
A polite letter to your MP, believe it or not, does have an effect on them - especially Labour MPs who voted for the bill with majorities of 15% or less.
You're right, I should have worded my post more carefully. Much of the opposition to the GWB era of democracy comes from within the USA - about 48% opposed at last count, slightly over 50% at the previous count (argument for another day, right?;) ).
However, the same can be said for India (and maybe for Google?). The actions of those in power are easy to interpret as the actions of the country as a whole, especially when the country has the level of influence on the world that the US enjoys.
I was about to reply with a tongue-in-cheek comment congratulating the GP on one of the most original trolls I've seen in a while. After all, it must be a joke, right?
Then I clicked on his sig link... So either the whole account is just for trolling, or he really is serious.
Either way, a +5 Funny rating seems to be the only way to go.;)
You forgot to mention the torture metted out in Guatanamo Bay and prisons in Iraq (Abu Graib amongst others), kidnapping, rendition and transfer of prisoners for torture in Eastern Europe, North Africa or the Middle East. All of which can now also be applied to US citizens.
It's not the contrast between the application of corrupt laws in India or China and the corruption of the law in the US that is the most shocking, it's the fact that both end in the same abuse and, frequently in the US and China's cases (I'm not up to spead on India), execution or death under torture.
Dang, hit 'Submit' instead of 'Continue editing'...
My point (not very well made) was that Google are caught between a rock and a hard place by obeying repressive laws in the countries where they do business, while in the US most telecoms and the government simply ignore the laws designed to protect people in order to be every bit as oppressive.
Of all the British citizens sent to Guatanamo Bay, those sent back to Britain to handle have been released with no charges. There is very good evidence to say that many, if not most, held there are entirely innocent. None have yet received any form of trial, with some having been held for 6 years.
On top of this, the PATRIOT act (which has everything to do with undermining the constitution and nothing to do with true patriotism) now makes it possible to send US citizens to Gitmo.
On top of this, nearly all US phone companies are implicated in spying on US citizens illegally, allowing the FBI/CIA etc who-knows-what access to every phone call handled.
On top of this, the president wants to grant these telecoms retroactive immunity from prosecution, since he asked them to do it.
And on top of all this, Americans have the nerve to get their knickers in a twist when another American company Obeys the laws of a country in which they do business?
By all means campaign to change the attitudes of those in power in repressive countries. Please, do. But remember Google was (presumably) obeying a court order.
The anti-Tivoisation is perhaps the most controversial clause of the GPL3, but as embedded Linux becomes more common, perhaps also one of the most important. It will be interesting to see how this sort of thing is affected in the longer term.
In the short term, they can probably stick with GPL2 software easily enough, if they feel they need to. But if and when a critical mass of FOSS is being released under GPL3, it will be harder to achieve full lockdown of the platform.
Of course, this will only be of any benefit to the users if they leave the 'modified easily and used at no cost on a wide range of hardware devices' aspect open to the users.
Judging by the past performance of Verizon, they will do anything possible to lock it down and maximise their profit stream/control over the platform.
At least it should make the devices more hackable though!:)
Whether the flag was set on purpose or not, it indicates that any system paying any attention to it is broken.
Time shifting was ruled many years ago as an allowed privilege. That doesn't change when the broadcaster says they don't want it any more (remember who brought the court case to try and ban it? The broadcasters). It certainly doesn't change when your computer decides to deny you that ability.
It does seem ridiculous when any form of security is built around proprietary software telling you what you can and can't do.
If timeshifting is a court-granted right, then a broadcaster saying you can't do it and a recording system believing them should be plenty of evidence that it's time to change to a system you control.
There have been many cases of this recently, but essentially it's the Alice/Bob/Charlie situation - Alice wants to send Bob some data, without Charlie getting it. The problem with ANY form of DRM is that Bob and Charlie are the same person.
If Vista refuses to record it cos it's told not to by the broadcaster ("Oh, uh, I'm Bob, right? I can watch this! No, hold on, who am I? Charlie? They say I'm Charlie, so I must be! I'm not letting you see it!"), then from the user's perspective it's broken.
Pirating software has been successfully prosecuted as a crime in most courts in the world.
Breaking EULA's has not.
One is blatantly illegal, the other is doing something that a company you bought something off would rather you didn't do, so has told you is against the undisclosed 'contract' you 'agreed to' when you 'bought' the software.
Pirating software has a long history of being successfully prosecuted through the courts of most Western countries.
Enforcing EULAS does not.
Just because Apple says you can't do what you want with the software you have bought doesn't necessarily mean it is not legal to do so. However it most certainly is illegal to install pirated commercial software.
Slashdot Mirror
Replying to my own post, but this IS just a sort of encryption - their main claim being because the data is encrypted, it's not copyright.
As has been pointed out below, the data transferred is not the thing copyrighted - it's what it represents. So it's an arduous and painful encryption, with high overhead, easy to crack and no plausible benefit. With some hand-wavy 'it annuls all badness from bad things' explanation.
Once I actually understood what on earth they are on about, it seems like an interesting idea with very little basis in reality. Their main claim seems to be a magic-wand approach to getting round copyright, as opposed to a particularly useful distributed filesystem:
No data passing through the network can be considered copyrighted because the means by which it is represented is truly random
Sure... So if I put in Brittany's latest album, then tell my friend to click on the url that 'reassembles' the 'truly random' data into, well, Brittany's latest album, then do you really think copyright has nothing to say?
Breaking news! Photocopying books is TOTALLY LEGAL if you use yellow paper and/or put the book in the machine upside down!
A correctly encrypted file also appears random. It does not mean it IS random, otherwise it would be, well, not very useful.
Isn't this just a sophisticated form of encryption, using a large, randomly generated key?
If so, does it have any real advantages over conventional encryption? It seems that the disadvantage would be the need to have both the file (large) and the random data (large) instead of, conventionally, just the file (large) and key (small).
Also, I can't be the only one who found the summary, uh, confusing??
If this is to be used for defensive measures, it's another sign of how badly broken the US patent system is - and how expensive that brokenness is to big businesses.
If it's to be used for offensive measures, then it's another sign of how badly broken the US patent system is - and how expensive that brokenness is to small businesses.
WOW, did you SEE that thing lift off the RUNWAY??!? It was GANE!!OMGZERSone11one
Surely the correct response would have been 'no, that was an artist's impression.'
The news anchor may be employed to use baby-talk, but there's no excuse for a supposedly informed correspondent to go along with the idiocy. The pride in ignorance is obviously annoying him, why doesn't he challenge it?
Equally when asked to explain in 'English, not science-talk,' perhaps he should have said 'Yes, perfectly possible. Let me explain' and delved into some of the simpler theory of reciprocating engines, turbojets, high and low bypass fans and scramjets. When challenged he could then say, "what with words less than 3rd grade level? Ah, no sorry, not possible.'
<blushing>oops...</blushing>
Thanks!
And after only 4 comments, it's already slashdotted.
Searching on Google suggests the url was probably correct. The google cache link is here
In case the image doesn't show up (google cache still loads images from origin site), here it is on imageshack
Then there is still time to do this:
1. Go to theyworkforyou.com and find your MP.
2. Write letter (see example below).
3. Post it.
Dear Sammy Wilson,I'm writing to you following yesterday's vote on the ability to hold `terrorism suspects' for 42 days without charge. I am truely ashamed that the DUP felt compelled to use its in uential position to push this through for the government.
Existing `anti-terror' laws have already regularly abused to harrass pension- ers, stop and search thousands of peace protesters and prevent environmental protests. These are hardly the cutting edge of terrorism that was waved before us to scare us into accepting these laws. This law would further undermine the basic right to due process and trial and the assumption of innocence.
If the law allowed for judges to pass indenite detention for proven terrorists, you can rest assured you would not hear from me. In fact, it already does; it's called a life conviction. But while the subject is suspects and not convicts, laws like this pose an innitely greater risk to our (your and my) freedom than any terrorism this country has seen.
I am particularly let down by your apparent capitulation to Brown's desire, in the context of the large Labour rebellion, since your past stances and speeches on topics such as ID cards and the government's previous attempt to extend the detention period give the impression of someone who values your constituents' rights and freedoms. The accusations shouted across parliament towards DUP of `being bought,' whether true or not, do nothing for the DUP's apparent lack of integrity on this issue.
If you are in doubt about the popularity of this law, I suggest you visit the BBC forum site: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4145. Assuming and hoping the House of Lords has the common sense to return this poor legislation, I would strongly urge you to vote against it.
I look forward to your reply,
Yours Sincerely,
Andrew Simpson
Should be theyworkforYOU - http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ - site linked by parent is a parked ad-site.
You're right, I should have worded my post more carefully. Much of the opposition to the GWB era of democracy comes from within the USA - about 48% opposed at last count, slightly over 50% at the previous count (argument for another day, right? ;) ).
However, the same can be said for India (and maybe for Google?). The actions of those in power are easy to interpret as the actions of the country as a whole, especially when the country has the level of influence on the world that the US enjoys.
Does it come with a shark-head mount?
The summary leaves me unsure.
No, you're mis reading it. It says he wanted to use the same bowl:
He was arrested and... asked to use the same bowl to eat and to use in the toilet.I was about to reply with a tongue-in-cheek comment congratulating the GP on one of the most original trolls I've seen in a while. After all, it must be a joke, right?
Then I clicked on his sig link... So either the whole account is just for trolling, or he really is serious.
Either way, a +5 Funny rating seems to be the only way to go. ;)
You forgot to mention the torture metted out in Guatanamo Bay and prisons in Iraq (Abu Graib amongst others), kidnapping, rendition and transfer of prisoners for torture in Eastern Europe, North Africa or the Middle East. All of which can now also be applied to US citizens.
It's not the contrast between the application of corrupt laws in India or China and the corruption of the law in the US that is the most shocking, it's the fact that both end in the same abuse and, frequently in the US and China's cases (I'm not up to spead on India), execution or death under torture.
Dang, hit 'Submit' instead of 'Continue editing'...
My point (not very well made) was that Google are caught between a rock and a hard place by obeying repressive laws in the countries where they do business, while in the US most telecoms and the government simply ignore the laws designed to protect people in order to be every bit as oppressive.
Pot, meet Black Kettle.
This really gets to me.
Of all the British citizens sent to Guatanamo Bay, those sent back to Britain to handle have been released with no charges. There is very good evidence to say that many, if not most, held there are entirely innocent. None have yet received any form of trial, with some having been held for 6 years.
On top of this, the PATRIOT act (which has everything to do with undermining the constitution and nothing to do with true patriotism) now makes it possible to send US citizens to Gitmo.
On top of this, nearly all US phone companies are implicated in spying on US citizens illegally, allowing the FBI/CIA etc who-knows-what access to every phone call handled.
On top of this, the president wants to grant these telecoms retroactive immunity from prosecution, since he asked them to do it.
And on top of all this, Americans have the nerve to get their knickers in a twist when another American company Obeys the laws of a country in which they do business?
By all means campaign to change the attitudes of those in power in repressive countries. Please, do. But remember Google was (presumably) obeying a court order.
What's funny about this?
The anti-Tivoisation is perhaps the most controversial clause of the GPL3, but as embedded Linux becomes more common, perhaps also one of the most important. It will be interesting to see how this sort of thing is affected in the longer term.
In the short term, they can probably stick with GPL2 software easily enough, if they feel they need to. But if and when a critical mass of FOSS is being released under GPL3, it will be harder to achieve full lockdown of the platform.
Of course, this will only be of any benefit to the users if they leave the 'modified easily and used at no cost on a wide range of hardware devices' aspect open to the users.
Judging by the past performance of Verizon, they will do anything possible to lock it down and maximise their profit stream/control over the platform.
At least it should make the devices more hackable though! :)
To save you having to wade through 6 ad-filled half pages - here's the link.
Why this link is't published to start with is beyond me.
Interestingly, the first ever computer bug was also of the 'physical' variety - See here
Whether the flag was set on purpose or not, it indicates that any system paying any attention to it is broken.
Time shifting was ruled many years ago as an allowed privilege. That doesn't change when the broadcaster says they don't want it any more (remember who brought the court case to try and ban it? The broadcasters). It certainly doesn't change when your computer decides to deny you that ability.
It does seem ridiculous when any form of security is built around proprietary software telling you what you can and can't do.
If timeshifting is a court-granted right, then a broadcaster saying you can't do it and a recording system believing them should be plenty of evidence that it's time to change to a system you control.
There have been many cases of this recently, but essentially it's the Alice/Bob/Charlie situation - Alice wants to send Bob some data, without Charlie getting it. The problem with ANY form of DRM is that Bob and Charlie are the same person.
If Vista refuses to record it cos it's told not to by the broadcaster ("Oh, uh, I'm Bob, right? I can watch this! No, hold on, who am I? Charlie? They say I'm Charlie, so I must be! I'm not letting you see it!"), then from the user's perspective it's broken.
Pirating software has been successfully prosecuted as a crime in most courts in the world.
Breaking EULA's has not.
One is blatantly illegal, the other is doing something that a company you bought something off would rather you didn't do, so has told you is against the undisclosed 'contract' you 'agreed to' when you 'bought' the software.
Pirating software has a long history of being successfully prosecuted through the courts of most Western countries.
Enforcing EULAS does not.
Just because Apple says you can't do what you want with the software you have bought doesn't necessarily mean it is not legal to do so. However it most certainly is illegal to install pirated commercial software.