Our aim is not to be in court We don't care about innocence or guilt.
but to seek appropriate retribution for the damage done to the industry. We just want your money.
True, but more like since the mid 80s, not just the past few years.
To extend your point... the article isn't about inventing the idea of an OS in your car, which has been around for a long time. What they're talking about is standardizing the various OSs that already exist. In the US today Chevy, Ford, etc all have computers in their cars that manage the engine, transmission, emissions, etc, but they're not interchangeable. If your Chevy ECU needs replacement you can't put a Ford ECU in. Same thing with sensors/parts that work with the ECU. Even within the same manufacturer you often need to match up the specific engine type, or even the specific engine year. All the article is talking about is coming up with a standard for the computers so that it's more convenient when repairing/upgrading the vehicles.
All of the "oh my god, my car running on windows?" jokes may be amusing, but that's obviously not what this is about.
However then don't get mad if companies do as you suggest and stop using Linux. Linux is getting widely used in embedded type devices because it is good quality for that and doesn't cost anything. Thus it is a good starting point. The condition of having to release source code changes is minor enough that companies are ok with it. However it isn't the only game in town. There's plenty of commercial solutions like vxWorks, QNX and even Windows (there's a special embedded version of XP you can get). While many companies would rather not pay the money, if the Linux license becomes too restrictive, they'll do it.
So if Linux becomes too restrictive they'll pay more in order to use commercial software, which is completely restrictive? Huh?
Make no mistake, that's what they are talking about with the GPL is a more restrictive license. The idea behind it may be to encourage more free development but the license itself is more restrictive.
Yes, the GPL is way more restrictive than the license you can get from Microsoft for the Windows source code (which doesn't exist).
No offense, but I think you're missing the point somewhere.
But it's quite unlikely that the RIAA is faking up screenshots so they can accuse completely random people of illegal file sharing
Not necessarily faking, but how about just getting it wrong. Everyone seems to be assuming that whatever algorithm they are using to identify copyrighted material is accurate.
If you're accused of illegal file sharing and you're innocent, I'd imagine plausible reasons why are: (a) They identified the infringer's IP address correctly but are mistaken in thinking it was assigned to you during the relevant time window; or (b) The infringement did take place on your IP address but you have an unsecured network (ideally a wireless router) and god knows who did it; or (c) The infringement did take place on your computer but several people use that and who knows which of them did it.
(d) The IP they identify is yours, but no infringement ever took place.
I don't know how closely this applies to the RIAA, but I've had two notifications forwarded to me in the past by a previous ISP from the MPAA. In both cases the notification was referring to files that I know never existed on my computer. I had a static IP at the time, so I know it's not a matter of there being any doubt that the IP they identified belonged to me. I did run P2P software, but never downloaded/shared any of the files they were talking about and never even downloaded any MPAA material at all. The only thing I can guess from that situation is that whatever application they were using to identify infringement was coming up with false positives.
If it were me, that's the first place I would start. Before even worrying about who an IP belonged to over a certain period of time... what evidence are they using to claim that a copyrighted file was hosted on that IP address? At least in the case of the MPAA, their methods are obviously flawed. It couldn't have been filenames, because I didn't have those files. Maybe they were doing something with hashes, and I happend to have a completely unrelated file that by coincidence had a matching hash (is that possible)? Or their algorithm was just plain wrong and flagging random people. Would it surprise anybody if their "infringement detection software" had bugs in it?
The reason they didn't is because all their suits are based on the same evidence: an IP address (which really has file-shared)
I wonder if this is really true though. I know that the MPAA is not the RIAA, but I've gotten letters from my ISP twice that said the MPAA had detected a particular show was being shared from my IP and that I was to remove it. In both cases, I am positive that the file they were talking about never existed on my computer. One of them was "Stargate Atlantis", which I've never downloaded (never even seen the show). I don't remember off the top of my head what the other file was.
A lot of the arguments around here seem to be questioning whether the IP can really be tied to a single person. However, I believe that it's more fundamental than that. Whatever algorithms they (at least the MPAA) are using do not seem to be accurate even correlating a copyrighted file to an IP, let alone an IP to a person. I think the first think that should be argued in a case like this is what evidence do they have that even says the file was shared by the IP in the first place?
How much are these converters really going to cost? I cannot even find HDTV converter boxes on ebay. The HDTVs are all selling for well over $1,000, and many are only "HDTV ready", which I believe means supply your own box. I really doubt we'll have $40 converters before 2009
HDTV and digital television are not the same thing. The $40 converter box is not an HDTV tuner.
Not sure why anyone spends the $$ on a big screen CRT/FPTV/RPTV anymore.
Easy, in addition to the ambient light requirements the X1 (along with most front projectors) doesn't do an HD picture. It will take an HD signal and downconvert it to it's 800x600 native resolution, but that's not the same. There are lots of RPTVs out there that will natively do full HD. If you're spending that amount of money on a picture that big, most people would want it to be HDTV capable.
I recently upgraded the hd on my Win2000 machine. I took both the old and new drives and connected them to a linux machine, then used dd to transfer the data and VolumeManager (same company as PartitionMagic) to grow the partition to the size of the new drive. Worked fine.
It depends on the player you are using. "Progressive scan" DVD players will read the interlaced video data off of the DVD and convert it to a progressive video before sending it to a HDTV. I'm sure there are software equivalents for doing the conversion on computer DVD players. The actual data on the DVD is still interlaced though.
There does appear to be surround sound, however, the image is interlaced... but I'll probably have to get the official set when that's released, just for the full DVD resolution and progressive image quality
This is a minor point, but FYI all DVDs are interlaced. The NTSC standard is 480i.
This is the flaw in your argument. Downloaders do not make a copy, the sharer does. The downloader requests a file, but the sharer's software makes a copy of the file and pushes it out over the network. There is no software on the downloader's end that has direct access to the sharer's hard drive.
It's the sharer that is creating copies and distributing them without authorization. The downloader is merely receiving.
Possession of ilegally obtained material is illegal.
If the possessor broke no laws while they were obtaining it, which is the case with downloading, then it is not illegal. The distributor/sharer is certainly breaking laws, but the receiver/downloader is not.
If you think this is inaccurate, please point to anything in copyright law that talks about receiving a copyrighted work.
Actually, the act of downloading copyrighted music that you do not have a legal right to posess is illegal.
Please quote anything in copyright law that says it is illegal to receive a copied work without the copyright owners permission. (hint, it isn't there)
If we are not going to rely on perfect code but expect firewalls to catch the problems, then what do we do if the code in the firewalls aren't perfect?
What that means is don't run MS firewalls because MS doesn't want to be relied on for writing perfect code.
Gates is basically saying "You can't trust our software to be secure, so run somebody else's in front of ours to protect you".
Why would customers even need indemnification against SCO?
They don't.
What action could SCO bring against someone using (but NOT distributing) Linux
None.
In other words, indemnification against what? As I understand it, if a Linux user isn't distributing software, they can't be violating anyone's copyrights with respect to that program.
Correct.
I'm missing something relevent about copyright law, and a copyright holder can sue someone who isn't distributing their copyrighted work.
You're not missing anything. Copyright law only covers distribution rights.
SCO (and HP, et. al) are full of crap regarding the idea of customers needing indemnification.
SCO is full of crap, yes. HP is just doing it for the PR and because they know that there is nothing SCO can go after individual customers for. There's basically no risk for HP, and it makes them look good to their customers
What happened to free speech with the intent of parody? What message is this high school sending to its students? Why are public schools engaging in unconstitutional behavior?
There's no such thing as free speech in the public education system, at least as far as they are concerned. I've spoken with my wife, who is a teacher, about this before. She honestly believes that the school has the right to make any rules they want to and enforce them upon the kids, and that any constitutional rights don't apply to students while they are on school property. I find that pretty scary.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but more like since the mid 80s, not just the past few years.
To extend your point... the article isn't about inventing the idea of an OS in your car, which has been around for a long time. What they're talking about is standardizing the various OSs that already exist. In the US today Chevy, Ford, etc all have computers in their cars that manage the engine, transmission, emissions, etc, but they're not interchangeable. If your Chevy ECU needs replacement you can't put a Ford ECU in. Same thing with sensors/parts that work with the ECU. Even within the same manufacturer you often need to match up the specific engine type, or even the specific engine year. All the article is talking about is coming up with a standard for the computers so that it's more convenient when repairing/upgrading the vehicles.
All of the "oh my god, my car running on windows?" jokes may be amusing, but that's obviously not what this is about.
It's not "digital rights management", it's "reproductive rights management"... which is even more surprising to see on slashdot!
Although, come to think of it, the typical slashdotter probably has naturally built-in RRM restrictions.
However then don't get mad if companies do as you suggest and stop using Linux. Linux is getting widely used in embedded type devices because it is good quality for that and doesn't cost anything. Thus it is a good starting point. The condition of having to release source code changes is minor enough that companies are ok with it. However it isn't the only game in town. There's plenty of commercial solutions like vxWorks, QNX and even Windows (there's a special embedded version of XP you can get). While many companies would rather not pay the money, if the Linux license becomes too restrictive, they'll do it.
So if Linux becomes too restrictive they'll pay more in order to use commercial software, which is completely restrictive? Huh?
Make no mistake, that's what they are talking about with the GPL is a more restrictive license. The idea behind it may be to encourage more free development but the license itself is more restrictive.
Yes, the GPL is way more restrictive than the license you can get from Microsoft for the Windows source code (which doesn't exist).
No offense, but I think you're missing the point somewhere.
Putting your content on a publicly accessible website is the opt-in.
If you want everyone *except* a search engine to be able to use it, then you opt-out for the search engine.
But it's quite unlikely that the RIAA is faking up screenshots so they can accuse completely random people of illegal file sharing
Not necessarily faking, but how about just getting it wrong. Everyone seems to be assuming that whatever algorithm they are using to identify copyrighted material is accurate.
If you're accused of illegal file sharing and you're innocent, I'd imagine plausible reasons why are:
(a) They identified the infringer's IP address correctly but are mistaken in thinking it was assigned to you during the relevant time window; or
(b) The infringement did take place on your IP address but you have an unsecured network (ideally a wireless router) and god knows who did it; or
(c) The infringement did take place on your computer but several people use that and who knows which of them did it.
(d) The IP they identify is yours, but no infringement ever took place.
I don't know how closely this applies to the RIAA, but I've had two notifications forwarded to me in the past by a previous ISP from the MPAA. In both cases the notification was referring to files that I know never existed on my computer. I had a static IP at the time, so I know it's not a matter of there being any doubt that the IP they identified belonged to me. I did run P2P software, but never downloaded/shared any of the files they were talking about and never even downloaded any MPAA material at all. The only thing I can guess from that situation is that whatever application they were using to identify infringement was coming up with false positives.
If it were me, that's the first place I would start. Before even worrying about who an IP belonged to over a certain period of time... what evidence are they using to claim that a copyrighted file was hosted on that IP address? At least in the case of the MPAA, their methods are obviously flawed. It couldn't have been filenames, because I didn't have those files. Maybe they were doing something with hashes, and I happend to have a completely unrelated file that by coincidence had a matching hash (is that possible)? Or their algorithm was just plain wrong and flagging random people. Would it surprise anybody if their "infringement detection software" had bugs in it?
The reason they didn't is because all their suits are based on the same evidence: an IP address (which really has file-shared)
I wonder if this is really true though. I know that the MPAA is not the RIAA, but I've gotten letters from my ISP twice that said the MPAA had detected a particular show was being shared from my IP and that I was to remove it. In both cases, I am positive that the file they were talking about never existed on my computer. One of them was "Stargate Atlantis", which I've never downloaded (never even seen the show). I don't remember off the top of my head what the other file was.
A lot of the arguments around here seem to be questioning whether the IP can really be tied to a single person. However, I believe that it's more fundamental than that. Whatever algorithms they (at least the MPAA) are using do not seem to be accurate even correlating a copyrighted file to an IP, let alone an IP to a person. I think the first think that should be argued in a case like this is what evidence do they have that even says the file was shared by the IP in the first place?
Yeah, I can see that dialog box now:
"This website wants to take advantage of an unpatched buffer overflow in the browser itself, an Active-X component, or an underlying DLL. Is that OK?"
The majority of IE users would probably still hit "Yes".
Tell that to the many Paypal victims...
Paypal isn't a bank. Thinking otherwise is why people get into trouble with it.
How much are these converters really going to cost? I cannot even find HDTV converter boxes on ebay. The HDTVs are all selling for well over $1,000, and many are only "HDTV ready", which I believe means supply your own box. I really doubt we'll have $40 converters before 2009
HDTV and digital television are not the same thing. The $40 converter box is not an HDTV tuner.
"The article suggests many tips for combating the problem - chief among them being the establishment of specific school policies."
Am I the only one who sees a problem with giving schools control over students' lives beyond campus grounds?
I was wondering the same thing. My first thought on seeing the above quote was... How does this have anything to do with a school?
Those two statements have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Not sure why anyone spends the $$ on a big screen CRT/FPTV/RPTV anymore.
Easy, in addition to the ambient light requirements the X1 (along with most front projectors) doesn't do an HD picture. It will take an HD signal and downconvert it to it's 800x600 native resolution, but that's not the same. There are lots of RPTVs out there that will natively do full HD. If you're spending that amount of money on a picture that big, most people would want it to be HDTV capable.
I recently upgraded the hd on my Win2000 machine. I took both the old and new drives and connected them to a linux machine, then used dd to transfer the data and VolumeManager (same company as PartitionMagic) to grow the partition to the size of the new drive. Worked fine.
It depends on the player you are using. "Progressive scan" DVD players will read the interlaced video data off of the DVD and convert it to a progressive video before sending it to a HDTV. I'm sure there are software equivalents for doing the conversion on computer DVD players. The actual data on the DVD is still interlaced though.
There does appear to be surround sound, however, the image is interlaced ... but I'll probably have to get the official set when that's released, just for the full DVD resolution and progressive image quality
This is a minor point, but FYI all DVDs are interlaced. The NTSC standard is 480i.
When you download, you are making a copy.
This is the flaw in your argument. Downloaders do not make a copy, the sharer does. The downloader requests a file, but the sharer's software makes a copy of the file and pushes it out over the network. There is no software on the downloader's end that has direct access to the sharer's hard drive.
It's the sharer that is creating copies and distributing them without authorization. The downloader is merely receiving.
Possession of ilegally obtained material is illegal.
If the possessor broke no laws while they were obtaining it, which is the case with downloading, then it is not illegal. The distributor/sharer is certainly breaking laws, but the receiver/downloader is not.
If you think this is inaccurate, please point to anything in copyright law that talks about receiving a copyrighted work.
Actually, the act of downloading copyrighted music that you do not have a legal right to posess is illegal.
Please quote anything in copyright law that says it is illegal to receive a copied work without the copyright owners permission. (hint, it isn't there)
You could always try the RedHat Fedora installer.
If we are not going to rely on perfect code but expect firewalls to catch the problems, then what do we do if the code in the firewalls aren't perfect?
What that means is don't run MS firewalls because MS doesn't want to be relied on for writing perfect code.
Gates is basically saying "You can't trust our software to be secure, so run somebody else's in front of ours to protect you".
It's equally possible that the ISP provided the wrong customer's information after the RIAA submitted the IP address and connection time to them.
True, and doesn't the fact that this has already occured throw a big question mark against all of the other cases?
Why would customers even need indemnification against SCO?
They don't.
What action could SCO bring against someone using (but NOT distributing) Linux
None.
In other words, indemnification against what? As I understand it, if a Linux user isn't distributing software, they can't be violating anyone's copyrights with respect to that program.
Correct.
I'm missing something relevent about copyright law, and a copyright holder can sue someone who isn't distributing their copyrighted work.
You're not missing anything. Copyright law only covers distribution rights.
SCO (and HP, et. al) are full of crap regarding the idea of customers needing indemnification.
SCO is full of crap, yes. HP is just doing it for the PR and because they know that there is nothing SCO can go after individual customers for. There's basically no risk for HP, and it makes them look good to their customers
What happened to free speech with the intent of parody? What message is this high school sending to its students? Why are public schools engaging in unconstitutional behavior?
There's no such thing as free speech in the public education system, at least as far as they are concerned. I've spoken with my wife, who is a teacher, about this before. She honestly believes that the school has the right to make any rules they want to and enforce them upon the kids, and that any constitutional rights don't apply to students while they are on school property. I find that pretty scary.
I agree with you, it sounds unconstitutional.
"The women at work..."
Dude, if you have enough women where you work to make a statistically valid statement, you're on the wrong website...
This is the same person who also said...
"I never watched it myself which means that most of the general population did not either"
I don't think they understand what a "statistically valid statement" means.