Which company are you talking about? The violator or copyright holder? I'm no lawyer, but I would think notifying the copyright holder about the violation is the most appropriate thing to do.
...and by here and there, i mean everywhere......Just because they do shady things here and there (mostly in business practices however) doesn't mean everything they do is evil.
Using your own interpretation of "here and there". Yes! Yes it does...
Ubuntu completely screwed up my X configuration after an apt-get upgrade that took two hours (6.x to 7.4) and I just shut the thing down.
So let me see here.
a) You didn't read the upgrade instructions but simply assumed Ubuntu = Debian and tried to manually switch versions using apt-get. b) Even on Debian upgrading between versions is done using dist-upgrade rather than upgrade. c) You got lazy and interrupted the process halfway through d) The only problem you had was that you had to reconfigure X
Now, let us hypothetically assume that Windows had a package manager that let you upgrade from XP to Vista over the net. Let us further assume that instead of following the instructions for how to use it, you run a low-level tool with incorrect command line parameters to do it the way you would have done it on a completely different system. Let us finally assume you interrupted the thing halfway through. How much do you want to bet that fixing your display settings would be the only problem you would experience as a consequence?
For those of you who don't see the boiling frog issue...
1:Taxi company installs GPS and charges with credit cards. 2:Taxi company stores credit card details of it's customers in huge database 3:Taxi company stores GPS data in huge database 4:NSA demand access to the last 10 years of data from the database. 5:The government now knows about every cab ride you have taken, within an accuracy of 1m - 10m, for the past 10 years.
It doesn't matter if the NSA does not have this authority today ( hint: they do ) the mere fact that data like this can be accumulated means that it will be, and that will at any latter point in time enable anybody with access to the database to tell where anybody they didn't like has gone for a cab ride.
Now, that was the taxi company. Now merge this data with the data from restaurants, face-recognition software on video tapes from old surveillance cameras... etc...
The problem isn't that they can know what cab rides you have been on. The problem is that before you know it they can know what cab,bus,airplane,train you were on, what restaurant you ate at, where you placed a call with your cellphone, which "security" camera you walked by, what stores you visited.. etc etc... Much of this data is already being collected, and as long as it is kept there is little to stop a future government from suddenly overturning all privacy laws and demand access to all this data at once. If ( i.e when/already ) they do this they will be able to reconstruct your entire life. Were you politically inconvenient? Well, what have we known, suddenly there are laws which punish you retroactively...
The scary bit is that I don't even have to come up with a conspiracy theory. The law already permits it. The NSA already has the taps running, and the legislation is already in place. Good game.
So... because of the crazy way the RIAA et al do their lawsuits there is a big incentive to leave your wireless unsecured. This in turns causes confusion as to if it is legal or not to use it, which gets us this stupid situation. Siiigh. So many of these cases would be so much simpler if the judge would just say "don't be silly, case dismissed".
Is it just me, or is the decision to make the adds semi-transparent a deliberate way to make it possible for third parties to strip the ads away? I.e, if the translucency algorithm is "loss-less" you could combine data from two videos to figure out what the ads look like and then subtract that value from the feed to produce the original content. I doubt Google would make their videos have this "feature" by mistake, so maybe they are deliberately trying to encourage people to write tools that strip it away, knowing that the majority of users won't bother installing it. End result would be google gets money, most people don't care, and those who do can strip it away using third party tools. I'm starting to think that unlike the record industry lawyers, Google's people actually know what they are doing...
A theorem of quantum mechanics is that you can't perfectly copy a quantum state as that would allow you to measure the energy of one copy and the time of the other, thus violating the uncertainty principle. In practise what happens is that the two systems become entangled so that a measurement on one of them will instantly disrupt the state of the other. Thus your quantum UNIX would have the 'ln' command but not 'cp' ( 'cp -l' is ok ). Even more amusing is that this mandates that the disruption is non-deterministic. If it wasn't you could use it to transmit information and energy quicker than the speed of light, which is prohibited by relativity. So, if you thought lawmakers had trouble understanding how computers work, just wait until they get to deal with the question of who is liable for causing the de-coherence of a quantum system ( hint: you can't prove it unless you caused it ). Bring on the lawyers:P
The lesson to be learned here is that you should never believe anything you read on the Internet that you don't know to already be true or that you get from a source that has proven its trustworthiness repeatedly.
Yes, but Wikipedia is your friend...
Seriously, I even use it to find websites these days. Need to find the web-page of the APA but don't want to google it because you will just get a bunch of stupid comercial sites with the same acronym ? Wikipedia... It is essentially a search engine with peer-reviewed entries. Yes, it isn't perfect, but name a better alternative...
He is talking of the principle of first sale. Essentially, for watermarking to work that principle must be abandoned. I either can sell media I have bought to somebody else, or I can't. The labels will argue mp3s are not covered, that it only applies to CDs, but that doesn't mean it is true. As for copyright licenses and EULA's , they can only give you permission to do things copyright law does not allow. If copyright law allows first sale then you can use a EULA that says it doesn't as toilet paper. It is all down to weather the judge will consider the principle of first sale to apply to digital media as well as physical media. This will probably differ from country to country or even jurisdiction to jurisdiction within the same country, which is why watermarking won't work. It is enough for one country to uphold the principle of first sale for digital media, and BOOOM, watermarking breaks down when the media hits the internet.
Watermarking isn't perfect, but significantly improves usability for consumers. If the studios and recording labels release watermarked media that is fast to download, reasonably priced, and simple to find, I think they could easily beat pirates at their own game. Pirates don't have access to consumer outlets like Amazon, Wal-Mart, X-Box Live, Playstation Home, and the Wii Shop Channel. The mainstream markets would eat up a fair download service wrapped in a brand they trust from their couch, rather than having to download obscure file sharing clients and sitting in front of their PC's all night watching progress bars.
Well if the labels released media that is fast to download, reasonably priced, and simple to find, then they probably wouldn't need to watermark it anyway. At the end of the day watermarking won't deter copyright infringement because a single infringement in a country that doesn't recognise it as evidence will be enough to kill the entire scheme. Lowering prices and removing DRM could help a lot, but that is not because of the watermarking. Watermarking only helps if you assume you will use either DRM or Watermarks. There is a third option: just the music in a portable format. Have a guess which of the 3 will be more popular among consumers.
The idea seems to be to sue anybody who has their watermark distributed over the net. This will never work in the long run because:
a)The studios will be too damn stupid to encrypt the download, thus making it trivial for somebody else to get hold of a video with your watermark on it (just wait and see, you know it will happen ).
b)The studios will not be able to prove that it was the person they sued who uploaded the file. In particular, they won't be able to prove that it wasn't THEY who did it. They can create the watermarks, thus they can frame you if they find they are short on evidence. Sooner or latter a judge will realise this.
c)Viruses, trojans... etc can upload a copy of a video with somebody else's watermark.
d)First sale. You are legally allowed to sell a copy to somebody else, at which point it becomes impossible to tell who uploaded the file. Just blame one another and they can't do shit.
e)Even if American courts would accept watermarking it only takes one infringement, anywhere in the world, and then it hits the internet. Want to start trying to use watermarking as evidence in Norwegian, Canadian, Japanese, and Dutch courts ? Yea, good luck with that...
f)This is just another incentive to get your media of P2P networks rather than from the studios.
Basically, it is doomed to fail. Won't stop them trying thou.
Of course this doesn't help at all because the patents that can cause the most trouble are the valid ones. Under current law you could easily get a valid patent on a media encoding format as an example, and suddenly the free software community is banned from implementing it. This is why mp3s cause problems. Prior art can't fix this problem, only a change in legislation can.
The Oil industry has used desktop-sized fusion devices for prospecting for decades. They are also commonly used as neutron sources for various scientific experiments. Heck, there are even teenagers building their own fusors in the basement. Now if you were talking about fusion devices capable of yielding a net power output at prices competitive with existing energy sources, then that is quite a different thing, but I don't think anybody has ever claimed to have achieved this, not even the cold-fusion crowd...
I guess they are trying to rebuild goodwill they lost with the MS deal. Oh well, in either case this is a welcome announcement so at least they can get some praise for that one. Seems they realise just how bad they screwed up at least...
BBC's ISP to you: You need to pay me more to access my client's wonderful services A, B, and C.
Presumably after they stop "You need to pay the BBC for owning a TV because we make programs other people watch." and "You need to pay the government this bit of yoru income because they need to pay the BBC for making programs other people watch". So basically:
a)Taxes b)License fee c)Bandwidth bills d)VAT on Bandwidth bills e)Microsoft tax (no Linux support for iPlayer yet ) f)VAT on the Microsoft tax
There is more, but I were not certain where I'd draw the line between paying for the TV and Computer and the services available if you have one.
My bet is they will try to work out why a solar system with so few asteroids and comets, would see a large quantity of impacts, on a single planet, over such a short time period. ; )
Yea, because it is possible to determine now what will be worthwhile science in 50 years time... You know quantum mechanics pretty much started with physicists trying to explain how infra-red radiation behaves inside a hot oven. I doubt many people at the time expected that research to develop into solid-state physics, which is what the guys over at Intel rely on to make their CPUs...
If we are to switch to CO2 neutral biofuels, ethanol will very possibly be used as fuel in the future. I can't possibly see how that would cause a problem...
A linux distro where I can download an ISO and install from that ISO and get a version of ffmpeg and friend that doesn't have 90% of the media formats disabled.
Ubuntu Feisty Fawn gets pretty much as close as is possible within legal limits. From the documentation:
Click Applications Add/Remove. In the top right, change the setting to All available applications. Then select Other in the left panel and then select the Ubuntu restricted extras package. Click OK.
This will install a whole lot of crap that is restricted by software patents (mp3 support etc ), or stuff that isn't completely free ( like Flash and Sun Java ). Unfortunately it isn't possible for the distros to have this installed by default because the US patent and copyright system is completely broken.
( Btw, I'm not quite sure the angel chat is just the Norwegian princess, the Swedish royal family is fairly nutty as well. Maybe we have more in common than I first thought.... *groooan* )
Please don't open that can of worms.. really , please. I've lived in both Sweden and Norway, and to put it this way, the French have great love, appreciation and respect for the British as compared to Norwegian sentiments about Swedes... you have no idea what you get yourself into...
Sellers: Set a public minimum price and make sure it is high enough that you will be ok selling for that price. Buyers: Bid the maximum you would pay for an item.
Provided the site is one of the sane ones. i.e the winning bidder pays either the minimum price or the 2nd highest bid ( whichever is higher ) that should be all there is to it. No need to bid in the last minute ( because you DID put your maximum bid, right ? ) and no need to cancel the auction ( because you DID ask for enough money in your minimum price, right? ). If you think you are better of doing it some other way you're fooling yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Which company are you talking about? The violator or copyright holder? I'm no lawyer, but I would think notifying the copyright holder about the violation is the most appropriate thing to do.
One of the requirements of money is that it is standardised across the economy. Internet bandwidth fails at so many points here, and that isn't the only problem.c teristics
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Economic_chara
Using your own interpretation of "here and there". Yes! Yes it does...
So let me see here.
a) You didn't read the upgrade instructions but simply assumed Ubuntu = Debian and tried to manually switch versions using apt-get.
b) Even on Debian upgrading between versions is done using dist-upgrade rather than upgrade.
c) You got lazy and interrupted the process halfway through
d) The only problem you had was that you had to reconfigure X
Now, let us hypothetically assume that Windows had a package manager that let you upgrade from XP to Vista over the net. Let us further assume that instead of following the instructions for how to use it, you run a low-level tool with incorrect command line parameters to do it the way you would have done it on a completely different system. Let us finally assume you interrupted the thing halfway through. How much do you want to bet that fixing your display settings would be the only problem you would experience as a consequence?
In a word: PEBKAC
For those of you who don't see the boiling frog issue...
1:Taxi company installs GPS and charges with credit cards.
2:Taxi company stores credit card details of it's customers in huge database
3:Taxi company stores GPS data in huge database
4:NSA demand access to the last 10 years of data from the database.
5:The government now knows about every cab ride you have taken, within an accuracy of 1m - 10m, for the past 10 years.
It doesn't matter if the NSA does not have this authority today ( hint: they do ) the mere fact that data like this can be accumulated means that it will be, and that will at any latter point in time enable anybody with access to the database to tell where anybody they didn't like has gone for a cab ride.
Now, that was the taxi company. Now merge this data with the data from restaurants, face-recognition software on video tapes from old surveillance cameras... etc...
The problem isn't that they can know what cab rides you have been on. The problem is that before you know it they can know what cab,bus,airplane,train you were on, what restaurant you ate at, where you placed a call with your cellphone, which "security" camera you walked by, what stores you visited.. etc etc... Much of this data is already being collected, and as long as it is kept there is little to stop a future government from suddenly overturning all privacy laws and demand access to all this data at once. If ( i.e when/already ) they do this they will be able to reconstruct your entire life. Were you politically inconvenient? Well, what have we known, suddenly there are laws which punish you retroactively...
The scary bit is that I don't even have to come up with a conspiracy theory. The law already permits it. The NSA already has the taps running, and the legislation is already in place. Good game.
I think you just increased the chance of that page getting slash-dotted by a bit ; )
So... because of the crazy way the RIAA et al do their lawsuits there is a big incentive to leave your wireless unsecured. This in turns causes confusion as to if it is legal or not to use it, which gets us this stupid situation. Siiigh. So many of these cases would be so much simpler if the judge would just say "don't be silly, case dismissed".
Is it just me, or is the decision to make the adds semi-transparent a deliberate way to make it possible for third parties to strip the ads away? I.e, if the translucency algorithm is "loss-less" you could combine data from two videos to figure out what the ads look like and then subtract that value from the feed to produce the original content. I doubt Google would make their videos have this "feature" by mistake, so maybe they are deliberately trying to encourage people to write tools that strip it away, knowing that the majority of users won't bother installing it. End result would be google gets money, most people don't care, and those who do can strip it away using third party tools. I'm starting to think that unlike the record industry lawyers, Google's people actually know what they are doing...
A theorem of quantum mechanics is that you can't perfectly copy a quantum state as that would allow you to measure the energy of one copy and the time of the other, thus violating the uncertainty principle. In practise what happens is that the two systems become entangled so that a measurement on one of them will instantly disrupt the state of the other. Thus your quantum UNIX would have the 'ln' command but not 'cp' ( 'cp -l' is ok ). Even more amusing is that this mandates that the disruption is non-deterministic. If it wasn't you could use it to transmit information and energy quicker than the speed of light, which is prohibited by relativity. So, if you thought lawmakers had trouble understanding how computers work, just wait until they get to deal with the question of who is liable for causing the de-coherence of a quantum system ( hint: you can't prove it unless you caused it ). Bring on the lawyers :P
Yes, but Wikipedia is your friend...
Seriously, I even use it to find websites these days. Need to find the web-page of the APA but don't want to google it because you will just get a bunch of stupid comercial sites with the same acronym ? Wikipedia... It is essentially a search engine with peer-reviewed entries. Yes, it isn't perfect, but name a better alternative...
He is talking of the principle of first sale. Essentially, for watermarking to work that principle must be abandoned. I either can sell media I have bought to somebody else, or I can't. The labels will argue mp3s are not covered, that it only applies to CDs, but that doesn't mean it is true. As for copyright licenses and EULA's , they can only give you permission to do things copyright law does not allow. If copyright law allows first sale then you can use a EULA that says it doesn't as toilet paper. It is all down to weather the judge will consider the principle of first sale to apply to digital media as well as physical media. This will probably differ from country to country or even jurisdiction to jurisdiction within the same country, which is why watermarking won't work. It is enough for one country to uphold the principle of first sale for digital media, and BOOOM, watermarking breaks down when the media hits the internet.
The idea seems to be to sue anybody who has their watermark distributed over the net. This will never work in the long run because:
...
a)The studios will be too damn stupid to encrypt the download, thus making it trivial for somebody else to get hold of a video with your watermark on it (just wait and see, you know it will happen ).
b)The studios will not be able to prove that it was the person they sued who uploaded the file. In particular, they won't be able to prove that it wasn't THEY who did it. They can create the watermarks, thus they can frame you if they find they are short on evidence. Sooner or latter a judge will realise this.
c)Viruses, trojans... etc can upload a copy of a video with somebody else's watermark.
d)First sale. You are legally allowed to sell a copy to somebody else, at which point it becomes impossible to tell who uploaded the file. Just blame one another and they can't do shit.
e)Even if American courts would accept watermarking it only takes one infringement, anywhere in the world, and then it hits the internet. Want to start trying to use watermarking as evidence in Norwegian, Canadian, Japanese, and Dutch courts ? Yea, good luck with that
f)This is just another incentive to get your media of P2P networks rather than from the studios.
Basically, it is doomed to fail. Won't stop them trying thou.
Of course this doesn't help at all because the patents that can cause the most trouble are the valid ones. Under current law you could easily get a valid patent on a media encoding format as an example, and suddenly the free software community is banned from implementing it. This is why mp3s cause problems. Prior art can't fix this problem, only a change in legislation can.
I guess they are trying to rebuild goodwill they lost with the MS deal. Oh well, in either case this is a welcome announcement so at least they can get some praise for that one. Seems they realise just how bad they screwed up at least ...
Presumably after they stop "You need to pay the BBC for owning a TV because we make programs other people watch." and "You need to pay the government this bit of yoru income because they need to pay the BBC for making programs other people watch". So basically:
a)Taxes
b)License fee
c)Bandwidth bills
d)VAT on Bandwidth bills
e)Microsoft tax (no Linux support for iPlayer yet )
f)VAT on the Microsoft tax
There is more, but I were not certain where I'd draw the line between paying for the TV and Computer and the services available if you have one.
In case somebody is looking at us, I'm sure events like this one left some of their astronomers pondering:d /Castle_Bravo_Blast.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5
My bet is they will try to work out why a solar system with so few asteroids and comets, would see a large quantity of impacts, on a single planet, over such a short time period. ; )
Yea, because it is possible to determine now what will be worthwhile science in 50 years time... You know quantum mechanics pretty much started with physicists trying to explain how infra-red radiation behaves inside a hot oven. I doubt many people at the time expected that research to develop into solid-state physics, which is what the guys over at Intel rely on to make their CPUs...
If we are to switch to CO2 neutral biofuels, ethanol will very possibly be used as fuel in the future. I can't possibly see how that would cause a problem ...
( Btw, I'm not quite sure the angel chat is just the Norwegian princess, the Swedish royal family is fairly nutty as well. Maybe we have more in common than I first thought.... *groooan* )
Please don't open that can of worms.. really , please. I've lived in both Sweden and Norway, and to put it this way, the French have great love, appreciation and respect for the British as compared to Norwegian sentiments about Swedes... you have no idea what you get yourself into...
you redistribute it without the corresponding source?
Sellers: Set a public minimum price and make sure it is high enough that you will be ok selling for that price.
Buyers: Bid the maximum you would pay for an item.
Provided the site is one of the sane ones. i.e the winning bidder pays either the minimum price or the 2nd highest bid ( whichever is higher ) that should be all there is to it. No need to bid in the last minute ( because you DID put your maximum bid, right ? ) and no need to cancel the auction ( because you DID ask for enough money in your minimum price, right? ). If you think you are better of doing it some other way you're fooling yourself.