I'm a student at the University of Utah, and I live in the University student housing. So I have no option but to use the University-provided Internet connection.
For over a year now, it seems that they've been blocking the default ports used by bittorrent (azureus). I can't download anything with azureus (even legal stuff, like linux distributions), if I use the default ports settings. It does work (somewhat), however, if I change the TCP port setting to a non-standard one. Uploads still don't work, even with the port change (don't know why) -- so I'm always a "leach" in the bittorrent stream.
I don't use bittorrent much anymore, so it doesn't bother me. Most of the stuff I download is available through other means. But it still doesn't feel right that an industry can convince government and educational institutions to cripple awesome technology like bittorrent, just because it may be one of the factors hurting their profits.
Interesting article... the author goes into a fair bit of detail in differentiating between the assigning of rights to digital media and the enforcing the rights on digital media. This is rather unusual, since the the most common usage of DRM has always been about enforcing the rights of the creator.
It would have been nice if he had gone into as much detail about GSM, and what specifically in the GSM system makes it specifically suited to DRM. I am assuming that he is referring to the encryption system used by GSM. If that is the case, there is a fundamental flaw here: as with all other DRM schemes this would require that the "keys" be stored along with the encrypted data, and the devices would know how to decrypt the data. It would only be a matter of time that someone would discover a method to retrieve the keys from the media. It works for GSM because, GSM being a communication system, there are protocols for exchanging keys between two ends of the system.
To me this appears to be an advertisement to use their DRM technology.
Despite disliking DRM, GSM is the most sophisticated communications protocol that I have ever seen. I have read the standard (dispite getting a headache in 5 minutes) and it is totally locked down using encryption, session keys, etc. Perhaps I am in error, but I doubt the standard itself has ever been cracked- unless via law enforcement with the complicity of the companies involved.
However, it is important realize that there isn't as much motivation to crack/hack a communications protocol as there is to break the DRM on music/video. I can bet that there are a lot more "attempts" on Movie-DRM schemes than there would be on GSM encryption.
I just looked into something like this for myself and found portableapps.com.
This sounds very similar to http://www.u3.com/ U3 software, which also provides a bunch of applications one can carry on a USB flash-drive. This includes free and not-so-free software (all for windows tho'). Inserting the USB drive into a windows machine brings up a little "Start" menu in the taskbar, with options to interact with the software on the drive (launch program, install new software, etc.).
They don't appear to have a very extensive collection of software (yet). But most of the essentials are there (OOo, Firefox, etc.)
I have mixed feelings about this until the full details come out. On the one hand it is good that people are trying to standardize the open source software interfaces and infrastructure, on the other hand, more the number of "standardization bodies" or "advocacy groups" we have, more the number "of standards" that would exist/be created.
Kids (depending on age) can not drive, buy tobacco and alcohol, open bank accounts, stay out late, or marry without legal guardians' consent. Heck -- a few months before birth they can even be killed by their mothers (with doctors assistance).
So, what's the fuss about restricting their on-line socializing?
I guess the difference here is that the all of the entities involved in these actions (the parents, the alcohol/tobacco store owner, bank manager) are in the same state/city/town as the minor. But in case of a website, there is no way to enforce such a law if the website is based off-shore. The law just seems more over-reaching and unenforceable.
And how do they plan to enforce this? What if the site was hosted in some other country/state? Do they have the jurisdiction to go after such sites?
It seems like the legislators assume that the entire Internet is based only in the United States, and they have the power govern it like a public asset.:-|
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a student at the University of Utah, and I live in the University student housing. So I have no option but to use the University-provided Internet connection.
For over a year now, it seems that they've been blocking the default ports used by bittorrent (azureus). I can't download anything with azureus (even legal stuff, like linux distributions), if I use the default ports settings. It does work (somewhat), however, if I change the TCP port setting to a non-standard one. Uploads still don't work, even with the port change (don't know why) -- so I'm always a "leach" in the bittorrent stream.
I don't use bittorrent much anymore, so it doesn't bother me. Most of the stuff I download is available through other means. But it still doesn't feel right that an industry can convince government and educational institutions to cripple awesome technology like bittorrent, just because it may be one of the factors hurting their profits.
Interesting article... the author goes into a fair bit of detail in differentiating between the assigning of rights to digital media and the enforcing the rights on digital media. This is rather unusual, since the the most common usage of DRM has always been about enforcing the rights of the creator.
It would have been nice if he had gone into as much detail about GSM, and what specifically in the GSM system makes it specifically suited to DRM. I am assuming that he is referring to the encryption system used by GSM. If that is the case, there is a fundamental flaw here: as with all other DRM schemes this would require that the "keys" be stored along with the encrypted data, and the devices would know how to decrypt the data. It would only be a matter of time that someone would discover a method to retrieve the keys from the media. It works for GSM because, GSM being a communication system, there are protocols for exchanging keys between two ends of the system.
To me this appears to be an advertisement to use their DRM technology.
Despite disliking DRM, GSM is the most sophisticated communications protocol that I have ever seen. I have read the standard (dispite getting a headache in 5 minutes) and it is totally locked down using encryption, session keys, etc. Perhaps I am in error, but I doubt the standard itself has ever been cracked- unless via law enforcement with the complicity of the companies involved.
However, it is important realize that there isn't as much motivation to crack/hack a communications protocol as there is to break the DRM on music/video. I can bet that there are a lot more "attempts" on Movie-DRM schemes than there would be on GSM encryption.
This sounds very similar to http://www.u3.com/ U3 software, which also provides a bunch of applications one can carry on a USB flash-drive. This includes free and not-so-free software (all for windows tho'). Inserting the USB drive into a windows machine brings up a little "Start" menu in the taskbar, with options to interact with the software on the drive (launch program, install new software, etc.).
They don't appear to have a very extensive collection of software (yet). But most of the essentials are there (OOo, Firefox, etc.)
I have mixed feelings about this until the full details come out. On the one hand it is good that people are trying to standardize the open source software interfaces and infrastructure, on the other hand, more the number of "standardization bodies" or "advocacy groups" we have, more the number "of standards" that would exist/be created.
Kids (depending on age) can not drive, buy tobacco and alcohol, open bank accounts, stay out late, or marry without legal guardians' consent. Heck -- a few months before birth they can even be killed by their mothers (with doctors assistance). So, what's the fuss about restricting their on-line socializing?
I guess the difference here is that the all of the entities involved in these actions (the parents, the alcohol/tobacco store owner, bank manager) are in the same state/city/town as the minor. But in case of a website, there is no way to enforce such a law if the website is based off-shore. The law just seems more over-reaching and unenforceable.
And how do they plan to enforce this?
:-|
What if the site was hosted in some other country/state? Do they have the jurisdiction to go after such sites?
It seems like the legislators assume that the entire Internet is based only in the United States, and they have the power govern it like a public asset.