That means I can't circumvent the digital lock preventing me from installing programs not directly approved by Apple on my iPhone. If we don't take a stand, one day, these locks will extend to our PCs and restrict what applications we can use and what websites we can visit.
These closed and proprietary locks aren't about piracy. They're about control. These companies want to dictate to us how we should use their hardware, software, and media.
These companies don't want us to unlock the door ourselves, they want to unlock the door for us. They want us to stand in front of the door and ask them for permission to use our media and hardware.
Exactly. Piracy is already illegal. The goal here is to make MORE things illegal, but somehow these reforms keep getting framed as "fighting piracy". It's like, drug dealers carry around a lot of cash with them, so we're going to make carrying around a lot of cash illegal to fight drugs!
Oh man, didn't Ubisoft have to basically patch out all their DRM stuff because it was breaking their games on everybody's computers?
They patched them using cracks made by pirates no less.
The only successful content authentication system will be one that is universal to every device AND completely open source, utilizing open standards for the delivery, the container, and the encryption.
o_O A completely open source content authorization system would be easily circumventable, unless you're talking about something like personal RSA keys and credit-card-like security systems. (That is, companies would have to invest heavily into maintaining security, fraud detection, and authorization checking systems.)
o_O A completely open source content authorization system would be easily circumventable, unless you're talking about something like personal RSA keys and credit-card-like security systems. (That is, companies would have to invest heavily into maintaining security, fraud detection, and authorization checking systems.)
I'm talking about PGP (aka the encryption the FBI can't even crack).
The public keys (or ways to access them) to the encryption systems used by DVDs, Blu-rays, etc. are all known. It's how we crack them. Closed digital locks are all built around the idea that we won't get access to the keys. But we do...
So why not just give the keys away in the first place and restrict their publication through the law? Much simpler.
The public keys (or ways to access them) to the encryption systems used by DVDs, Blu-rays, etc. are all known. It's how we crack them. Closed digital locks are all built around the idea that we won't get access to the keys. But we do...
So why not just give the keys away in the first place and restrict their publication through the law? Much simpler.
ok... imagine there's someone out there that can "break the law". If this mystical feat is achieved everyone will have it in a matter of days.
ok... imagine there's someone out there that can "break the law". If this mystical feat is achieved everyone will have it in a matter of days.
It's pointless trying to fix societal problems with technology. There will always be pirates. You can, however, deter pirates of convenience, people who pirate so that the copy protection and distribution mechanisms do not get in their way.
The orientation of this system would be so that you wouldn't have to crack it to copy the content onto another medium. The distribution of license would be separate from the content itself. This way you can freely distribute the media without distributing the rights granted by the license.
Distributing the key would be like distributing the license and the rights provided by it. There would be no real fair use argument for publicily distributing these keys, like there would be for distributing the content, making these laws much simpler and easier to enforce.
o_O A completely open source content authorization system would be easily circumventable, unless you're talking about something like personal RSA keys and credit-card-like security systems. (That is, companies would have to invest heavily into maintaining security, fraud detection, and authorization checking systems.)
I'm talking about PGP (aka the encryption the FBI can't even crack).
The public keys (or ways to access them) to the encryption systems used by DVDs, Blu-rays, etc. are all known. It's how we crack them. Closed digital locks are all built around the idea that we won't get access to the keys. But we do...
So why not just give the keys away in the first place and restrict their publication through the law? Much simpler.
Well yes, but Kerckhoff's Principle and PGP refer to encryption systems and their "security" is spoken of in that sense, the ability for two parties to privately communicate in public. We're talking about stemming piracy, which means that one of the two parties is non-cooperative and doesn't actually want the system to remain secure. There's no security system in the world that can be secure given that one of its members is hostile.
I mean, maybe you're just using the word "successful" in a different sense than I'm understanding it, but the system will still fail. It just might fail less than closed systems.
Well yes, but Kerckhoff's Principle and PGP refer to encryption systems and their "security" is spoken of in that sense, the ability for two parties to privately communicate in public. We're talking about stemming piracy, which means that one of the two parties is non-cooperative and doesn't actually want the system to remain secure. There's no security system in the world that can be secure given that one of its members is hostile.
I mean, maybe you're just using the word "successful" in a different sense than I'm understanding it, but the system will still fail. It just might fail less than closed systems.
BTW this system, called the "web of trust", is the same one open source developers use to maintain security in their development systems. Every package you download for a Linux distribution should be signed by a PGP key. Hell, with the Git revision code system (and probably most other such systems), every piece of code checked in is signed by a PGP key as well.
The "web of trust" has been proven to work, it just needs to be extended to media.
Music stores don't make content, they just buy it off someone else for a dollar and sell it for two.
So wouldn't a lot of their jobs be eliminated by a system in which artists would encrypt their content, uploaded the key to a server and then just sell the content directly to the consumers, distributing and validating access to the key through the server. The content would be distributed completely online. (BTW This is how iTunes, Xbox Live and NetFlix work as well. They just don't use open systems.)
The publisher and distributor middlemen would not be needed for content distribution. The keyservers would likely be publicly owned, like the ones used for Linux development. The content could very easily be distributed through P2P technology. The artist would basically become their own publisher, using public systems to deliver their content to the consumers.
Music stores don't make content, they just buy it off someone else for a dollar and sell it for two.
So wouldn't a lot of their jobs be eliminated by a system in which artists would encrypt their content, uploaded the key to a server and then just sell the content directly to the consumers, distributing and validating access to the key through the server. The content would be distributed completely online. (BTW This is how iTunes, Xbox Live and NetFlix work as well. They just don't use open systems.)
The publisher and distributor middlemen would not be needed for content distribution. The keyservers would likely be publicly owned, like the ones used for Linux development. The content could very easily be distributed through P2P technology. The artist would basically become their own publisher, using public systems to deliver their content to the consumers.
Except those aren't the people in question here. You seem to be REALLY confused about what companies are pushing this stuff. It's not the Music Stores, it's the Music Publishers. It's not HMV, it's like Sony and those guys.
Except those aren't the people in question here. You seem to be REALLY confused about what companies are pushing this stuff. It's not the Music Stores, it's the Music Publishers. It's not HMV, it's like Sony and those guys.
It would affect both. It would affect music stores as less people would buy CDs as they can download them off the Internet (already has happened really).
It would affect Music Publishers, as artists would no longer require a third-party to publish and distribute their work, as they could just use the public systems.
It won't kill them outright, but the need and use of both groups would be drastically reduced.
Music stores don't make content, they just buy it off someone else for a dollar and sell it for two.
So wouldn't a lot of their jobs be eliminated by a system in which artists would encrypt their content, uploaded the key to a server and then just sell the content directly to the consumers, distributing and validating access to the key through the server. The content would be distributed completely online. (BTW This is how iTunes, Xbox Live and NetFlix work as well. They just don't use open systems.)
The publisher and distributor middlemen would not be needed for content distribution. The keyservers would likely be publicly owned, like the ones used for Linux development. The content could very easily be distributed through P2P technology. The artist would basically become their own publisher, using public systems to deliver their content to the consumers.
Content distributed by P2P tech?
Fuck that, I am not paying for other people's music. Uploads don't happen magically, they cost money.
Well yes, but Kerckhoff's Principle and PGP refer to encryption systems and their "security" is spoken of in that sense, the ability for two parties to privately communicate in public. We're talking about stemming piracy, which means that one of the two parties is non-cooperative and doesn't actually want the system to remain secure. There's no security system in the world that can be secure given that one of its members is hostile.
I mean, maybe you're just using the word "successful" in a different sense than I'm understanding it, but the system will still fail. It just might fail less than closed systems.
BTW this system, called the "web of trust", is the same one open source developers use to maintain security in their development systems. Every package you download for a Linux distribution should be signed by a PGP key. Hell, with the Git revision code system (and probably most other such systems), every piece of code checked in is signed by a PGP key as well.
The "web of trust" has been proven to work, it just needs to be extended to media.
Uh yeah, not seeing this working en masse, in a world where users use the same password for everything, changing them by one character at a time when forced to by network administrators, save their passwords in their web browsers, forget passwords, break things so they have to reinstall software, are fooled by password phishing sites, etc., And, as far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be anything preventing someone from simply sharing their private key with others, packaging it with whatever content I purchased and was sent to me encrypted by the corresponding public key, such that there is effectively no encryption on it. This doesn't seem to be any different than how CD-keys are circumvented.
In general, I find the gulf between hostile expert users and naive casual users too great to span with a single security system. Any system that's easy enough for the latter to use is too easily circumventable by the former; any system that stymies the former also prevents the latter from using it.
Fuck that, I am not paying for other people's music. Uploads don't happen magically, they cost money.
Well, there's really no other way to get 1080p video over the Internet. Each stream would take around 8 Mb/s of data, which after say 1000 users, would be an ENORMOUS load on the server in terms of bandwidth.
In general, I find the gulf between hostile expert users and naive casual users too great to span with a single security system. Any system that's easy enough for the latter to use is too easily circumventable by the former; any system that stymies the former also prevents the latter from using it.
Ummm. You would log into a server and it would give you access to the keys/content. It would be essentially transparent to users. Like iTunes, just based on open tech.
The keychains could also be synced to different devices, so they wouldn't need Internet access. Like iPods.
In general, I find the gulf between hostile expert users and naive casual users too great to span with a single security system. Any system that's easy enough for the latter to use is too easily circumventable by the former; any system that stymies the former also prevents the latter from using it.
Ummm. You would log into a server and it would give you access to the keys/content. It would be essentially transparent to users. Like iTunes, just based on open tech.
The keychains could also be synced to different devices, so they wouldn't need Internet access. Like iPods.
And how would I log on to this server? Using a username/password, or a private key of some sort, which I could write on a piece of paper and give to a friend to use?
And how would I log on to this server? Using a username/password, or a private key of some sort, which I could write on a piece of paper and give to a friend to use?
Look no system is PERFECT. And technology can't correct the PEBKAC.
You're arguing semantics and impossibilities.
This is system would not be perfect, however, that is not the goal. The goal to make it less of a PITA and less restrictive for users than the existing systems while protecting the rights of content owners. It is a compromise.
Fuck that, I am not paying for other people's music. Uploads don't happen magically, they cost money.
Well, there's really no other way to get 1080p video over the Internet. Each stream would take around 8 Mb/s of data, which after say 1000 users, would be an ENORMOUS load on the server in terms of bandwidth.
Well then I guess we won't be seeing widespread 1080p streaming.
I don't care if it's practical or not, I am not fucking subsidizing someone's business model with my bandwidth. If they want to use my power, system resources and bandwidth then they can pay for them.
Well then I guess we won't be seeing widespread 1080p streaming.
I don't care if it's practical or not, I am not fucking subsidizing someone's business model with my bandwidth. If they want to use my power, system resources and bandwidth then they can pay for them.
And how would I log on to this server? Using a username/password, or a private key of some sort, which I could write on a piece of paper and give to a friend to use?
Look no system is PERFECT. And technology can't correct the PEBKAC.
You're arguing semantics and impossibilities.
This is system would not be perfect, however, that is not the goal. The goal to make it less of a PITA and less restrictive for users than the existing systems while protecting the rights of content owners. It is a compromise.
Sorry, you said the words "successful", and "proven to work", and "one word: keyservers", but I forgot that this thread is all about moving the goalposts and redefining things until you're right. So yes, I agree. Your imperfect security system is successful and proven to work, and not "easily circumventable" as I suggested - and you seemed to deny by linking to a bunch of now seemingly irrelevant Wikipedia articles - even though I just found an easy way to circumvent it.
My bad. I didn't realise you meant "economically successful".
You really do have an obsession with absolutes. And putting words into my mouth.
I never said it would rid the world of piracy, I said it would deter it. Nothing more, nothing less.
I did *imply* that it would work better than existing systems because it wouldn't encourage users to break it due to restrictions.
There's no such thing as a perfectly secure system. There will always be holes and vulnerabilities. The "web of trust" system just minimizes the amount of technological deficiencies (by using proven open technologies like PGP and keyservers), while placing the enforcement of the system in the hands of users and the law. This is much better than just using plain technology and expecting people will never get access to the keys (which they invariably will).
Technology can not fix societal problems. Piracy, as a black market, is a societal problem. You can never prevent people from pirating, as a few will ALWAYS find a way. You can only attempt to influence people to buy through efficient and productive technology.
The only successful content authentication system will be one that is universal to every device AND completely open source, utilizing open standards for the delivery, the container, and the encryption. This would be the most secure system possible due to peer review and would nullify many of the fair use arguments.
(emphasis mine)
So I read this, and I think, well, there are currently content authorization systems that aren't universal to every device and are completely open source and do deter piracy. Since you say that the only successful content authorization system will be universal to every device and completely open source, then obviously you must mean success to be something above and beyond "deterring piracy".
o_O A completely open source content authorization system would be easily circumventable, unless you're talking about something like personal RSA keys and credit-card-like security systems. (That is, companies would have to invest heavily into maintaining security, fraud detection, and authorization checking systems.)
I'm talking about PGP (aka the encryption the FBI can't even crack).
The public keys (or ways to access them) to the encryption systems used by DVDs, Blu-rays, etc. are all known. It's how we crack them. Closed digital locks are all built around the idea that we won't get access to the keys. But we do...
So why not just give the keys away in the first place and restrict their publication through the law? Much simpler.
Then I note that an open source content authorization system would be easily circumventable, annd then you link me to a couple of Wikipedia articles about cryptography for some reason, which I then note isn't even the same field as media security... but does have as its standard complete and total security.
BTW this system, called the "web of trust", is the same one open source developers use to maintain security in their development systems. Every package you download for a Linux distribution should be signed by a PGP key. Hell, with the Git revision code system (and probably most other such systems), every piece of code checked in is signed by a PGP key as well.
The "web of trust" has been proven to work, it just needs to be extended to media.
Then I even suggest that maybe you and I aren't using the same definition of successful... which you blithely ignore, so I take that to mean you reject that suggestion. Of course, now you say that my definition of successful is ridiculous and semantics and putting words in your mouth.
Aaand then you link me to some other cryptography Wikipedia page about a system that you purport has been proven to work... which again I point out is one about cryptography and not general mass media authorization, which is a completely different problem with different parameters, such that, as I note, your "proven to work" system would most assuredly not work any better than systems already currently in operation, such as Steam.
In general, I find the gulf between hostile expert users and naive casual users too great to span with a single security system. Any system that's easy enough for the latter to use is too easily circumventable by the former; any system that stymies the former also prevents the latter from using it.
Ummm. You would log into a server and it would give you access to the keys/content. It would be essentially transparent to users. Like iTunes, just based on open tech.
The keychains could also be synced to different devices, so they wouldn't need Internet access. Like iPods.
And then I make a statement about the general problem concerning mass media security and its intractability, and you seem to suggest your solution, which not only has been "proven to work" but is also the "only successful system" ... is just like the system that's currently on iTunes. Which is easily circumventable. Annd then of course now you come back and say that I'm willfully ignorant of the fact that no digital security system is perfect... which is exactly the point I just made.
If I'm putting words in your mouth, it's only because the ones coming out of it aren't making any sense and, as a scientist, I try to make sense of the insensible, and as a computer scientist who's studied issues of security, I'm capable of distinguishing cryptographic problems from security problems and in general I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
You're not even addressing my points, you're addressing individual words.
Yes, iTunes can be cracked. But why do most people want to crack iTunes? Because they want to use their media on a different device or operating system.
Why do people crack DVDs? 95% of the them so they can make copies for themselves or transfer it to a different medium.
I think it's pointless to attempt to make an uncrackable system as the reason why people crack DRM is mostly because they want to get around the restrictions present in the media. Making a system that doesn't restrict users in this way is a much more productive way to solve the problem, rather than trying to implement endless layers of DRM that will end up being hacked eventually anyways.
Mind you, there needs to be at least something in place to *deter* people from republishing the content without the author's permission. So let's just make that something using secure open parts (please don't tell me PGP is insecure, considering the FBI can't even hack it and it was considered a muntion by the US government for a long period of time), put in as few restrictions as possible, and call it a damn day.
You're not even addressing my points, you're addressing individual words.
Because your points are not contained within your posts. Sending me to a Wikipedia link to read something irrelevant isn't making a point; it's just throwing in extraneous information that doesn't lead to any further clarity or understanding.
What are contained in your posts are words, which you seem to have a habit of neglecting to use properly, as though we can read your mind, which would make the whole "posting on an Internet forum" thing kinda redundant, now wouldn't it?
Except those aren't the people in question here. You seem to be REALLY confused about what companies are pushing this stuff. It's not the Music Stores, it's the Music Publishers. It's not HMV, it's like Sony and those guys.
It would affect both. It would affect music stores as less people would buy CDs as they can download them off the Internet (already has happened really).
This would be true.
It would affect Music Publishers, as artists would no longer require a third-party to publish and distribute their work, as they could just use the public systems.
This would not. Most of the publishers work has little to do with the exact method of distribution.
Lady Gaga, for example, is not huge because her publisher puts her music on CDs for her, she's huge because her publisher helps her make the music by giving her money and resources to do so and then promotes the shit out of her in order to sell those CDs.
What are contained in your posts are words, which you seem to have a habit of neglecting to use properly, as though we can read your mind, which would make the whole "posting on an Internet forum" thing kinda redundant, now wouldn't it?
I apologize if I didn't summarize my points well enough earlier on.
This would not. Most of the publishers work has little to do with the exact method of distribution.
Lady Gaga, for example, is not huge because her publisher puts her music on CDs for her, she's huge because her publisher helps her make the music by giving her money and resources to do so and then promotes the shit out of her in order to sell those CDs.
There are quite a few examples of bands on indie labels that have become quite popular without the help of the major record labels. Mostly due to blog coverage in their niche circles, word of mouth, or through music magazines.
True, they are not Lady Gaga popular. But that level of popularity is not necessary for success. In fact, I think a little bit of equalization in the music industry would help out quite a few smaller bands.
A spokesman for the group said that if the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois support the NDP bills, a ban could be legislated quickly.
It will last exactly as long as it takes for Harper to say "Socialists and Communists working with Sovereignists!"
Well it's reactionary BS. I saw a bunch of headlines just recently of Iggy talking up the tarsands. So I guess we're only going to sell to the Americans?
If it's actually very dangerous to ship oil via water, then that should be managed. But it seems more likely that this is just "disaster politics" and using what happened to the US to stir shit up.
The Alberta oilsands will allow Canada to stand up to the U.S. on everything from Arctic sovereignty to rewriting NAFTA, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Wednesday.
Ignatieff told a town hall meeting in a Gastown pub that Canadians are just starting to understand “how powerful the oilsands make us.”
Ignatieff’s comments came in response to a question from a woman in the audience, who used the term “tarsands” – a description used by opponents of the project.
“This is where a chill falls over the room because everybody expects me to say they’re terrible and shut them down,” said Ignatieff. “Absolutely not.”
Anyways, what's happening the in Gulf of Mexico should definitely cause us to react. But in a reasonable way. Not in a vote grabbing way.
Well it's reactionary BS. I saw a bunch of headlines just recently of Iggy talking up the tarsands. So I guess we're only going to sell to the Americans?
That was my first thought. It's probably about giving the Americans exclusive dibs on [strike]our[/strike] their oil. God knows the Liberals have been very enthusiastic about "stronger economic integration" (turning us into even more of an imperial vassal state) in the past. But given that the current government is quietly dismantling the regulatory framework on oil transportation, this doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
Regardless, Ignatieff is not to be trusted. I do not relish the idea of him being the PM. The only reasons I would prefer a Liberal government to the current government is it would have cabinet ministers who aren't complete boobs, it would not be as image-obsessed, it would not actively try to dismantle the public service and bankrupt the treasury in order to make us all buy into ridiculous "government is the problem" ideological nonsense, and in the best case scenario, it would have to at least pretend to listen to the NDP.
A new act that limits credit given to prisoners for time served in custody before and during their trials will cost taxpayers $1 billion to implement and billions more to maintain, the parliamentary budget officer said Tuesday.
More than half of the expected total, $1.8 billion, will go towards constructing new correctional facilities, the PBO said in a report quantifying the implications of the Truth in Sentencing Act. A further $618 million will be needed annually for capital appropriations and operations and maintenance costs.
The numbers are rough estimates, which the PBO suggested was due to unwillingness on the part of the federal government to provide significant data.
"Undertaking the type of costing exercise, without rigorous bottom-up data from the department, absent any discussion with [Correctional Service Canada] poses significant risks," authors Ashutosh Rajekar and Ramnarayanan Mathilakath wrote.
As a result, their report, The Funding Requirement and Impact of the 'Truth in Sentencing Act' on the Correctional System in Canada, relied on "historical trends," intuition and probability, and "is limited to a high-level estimation," of the costs.
But the estimates are far greater than the $2-billion total price tag the Conservatives gave the legislation on April 28.
The act, which went into effect on Feb. 23, limits the credit judges can give prisoners for time served before sentencing.
Such limits have three major consequences, the PBO concluded:
* Inmates will spend more time in custody.
* Convicts whose credit might have kept them in provincial facilities will have to be transferred to federal prisons.
* Those convicted of lighter sentences who might have been directly released into community supervision will instead be sent to correctional facilities.
The act is expected to increase the number of inmates from 8,618 in fiscal year 2007-08 to 17,058, including 9,021 in community supervision, the report said.
New prisons needed
But Canada lacks sufficient space for so many inmates, requiring construction of new federal and provincial facilities at a cost of $1.8 billion, or $363 million per year for five years, the report said.
The cost of caring for those inmates — operation and maintenance expenses as well as capital appropriations — would also rise, by about $618 million a year to $2.8 billion annually, the report said.
The PBO was unable to project the financial impacts of the Truth in Sentencing Act for the provinces and territories due to a lack of current data.
However, using a simulation, it projected that annual costs of correctional services would more than double by 2015-16, from $4.4 billion to $9.5 billion, and responsibility for funding the majority of this would shift from the federal government to the provinces and territories.
Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland criticized the Conservatives for "a lack of co-operation and disclosure."
"The costs cannot be dumped on taxpayers and the provinces," Holland said. "The Conservatives must sit down with the provinces and territories to address their very legitimate concerns about how these initiatives are going to be funded."
TOUGH ON CRIME~! The real question is, how do you control the public discourse on something like this without the labelling choices being 'tough on crime' or 'pansy criminal supporter'?
But seriously, investing in drug rehabilitation efforts in the community would do a million times more than this law for a fraction of the price, but I guess I'm not 'tough on crime'
I have some problems with the 'Truth in Sentencing Act', mostly due to how lawyers can tie court cases up for fucking ever, and are encouraged to do so to better serve their clients if they know the client will be found guilty.
If making a 5 year sentence actually last 5 years, instead of 2 years because the trial took 1 year and they get triple credit for time spent in custody while being tried, if holding that criminal for the full 5 years is going to require some new prisons being built then I say build the damn prisons.
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of giving extra credit to criminals whose trials dragged on, since last I checked we dont reward/reimburse the people found not-guilty, only those found guilty.
TOUGH ON CRIME~! The real question is, how do you control the public discourse on something like this without the labelling choices being 'tough on crime' or 'pansy criminal supporter'?
Legal pressure has forced a senior Alberta government scientist to retract highly public statements saying two prominent oilsands critics lied and fudged their data.
In a letter to the scientists he questioned, Preston McEachern -- head of oilsands research for Alberta Environment -- now says he was the one who lied....
Alberta Environment spokesman Chris Bourdeau defended McEachern....
Bourdeau wouldn't say if McEachern would be disciplined.
Go #1 Albertan government oilsands scientist, lie your ass off. Go out of your way to discredit your fellow scientists and ruin their careers, just to prop up your own political beliefs. Attaboy.
For every day your trial takes, if you're found guilty you get 2X that amount of time tacked onto your sentence. Give some people incentive to plead guilty.*
*
I don't actually think this is a good plan. But something about it warms my heart.
For every day your trial takes, if you're found guilty you get 2X that amount of time tacked onto your sentence. Give some people incentive to plead guilty.*
*
I don't actually think this is a good plan. But something about it warms my heart.
You should probably see your doctor and get that checked out.
For every day your trial takes, if you're found guilty you get 2X that amount of time tacked onto your sentence. Give some people incentive to plead guilty.*
*
I don't actually think this is a good plan. But something about it warms my heart.
Its not necessary to have the system in the first place. If you are guilty and your lawyer advises you that they wont be able to get you off, you strike a plea bargain. You get a lesser sentence and you start serving it sooner so that its over sooner.
If you force the court to drag the whole thing out, then you have the whole length of the court case plus the full sentence that wont be shortened by a judge being lenient because fighting tooth and nail does not show remorse.
I would love to have some way to repay people found not-guilty, but as they say, they are found not-guilty not innocent. The state doesnt admit that they were wrong, just that they couldnt prove it.
Posts
They patched them using cracks made by pirates no less.
How?
What do you think most people who work for these companies DO?
Why do you need record stores and paperboys when you can just get that content online? These services will become a novelty, like the modern milkman.
o_O A completely open source content authorization system would be easily circumventable, unless you're talking about something like personal RSA keys and credit-card-like security systems. (That is, companies would have to invest heavily into maintaining security, fraud detection, and authorization checking systems.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs'_principle
I'm talking about PGP (aka the encryption the FBI can't even crack).
The public keys (or ways to access them) to the encryption systems used by DVDs, Blu-rays, etc. are all known. It's how we crack them. Closed digital locks are all built around the idea that we won't get access to the keys. But we do...
So why not just give the keys away in the first place and restrict their publication through the law? Much simpler.
ok... imagine there's someone out there that can "break the law". If this mystical feat is achieved everyone will have it in a matter of days.
It's pointless trying to fix societal problems with technology. There will always be pirates. You can, however, deter pirates of convenience, people who pirate so that the copy protection and distribution mechanisms do not get in their way.
The orientation of this system would be so that you wouldn't have to crack it to copy the content onto another medium. The distribution of license would be separate from the content itself. This way you can freely distribute the media without distributing the rights granted by the license.
Distributing the key would be like distributing the license and the rights provided by it. There would be no real fair use argument for publicily distributing these keys, like there would be for distributing the content, making these laws much simpler and easier to enforce.
Well yes, but Kerckhoff's Principle and PGP refer to encryption systems and their "security" is spoken of in that sense, the ability for two parties to privately communicate in public. We're talking about stemming piracy, which means that one of the two parties is non-cooperative and doesn't actually want the system to remain secure. There's no security system in the world that can be secure given that one of its members is hostile.
I mean, maybe you're just using the word "successful" in a different sense than I'm understanding it, but the system will still fail. It just might fail less than closed systems.
One word, keyserver.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_server_(cryptographic)
BTW this system, called the "web of trust", is the same one open source developers use to maintain security in their development systems. Every package you download for a Linux distribution should be signed by a PGP key. Hell, with the Git revision code system (and probably most other such systems), every piece of code checked in is signed by a PGP key as well.
The "web of trust" has been proven to work, it just needs to be extended to media.
Music stores don't make content, they just buy it off someone else for a dollar and sell it for two.
So wouldn't a lot of their jobs be eliminated by a system in which artists would encrypt their content, uploaded the key to a server and then just sell the content directly to the consumers, distributing and validating access to the key through the server. The content would be distributed completely online. (BTW This is how iTunes, Xbox Live and NetFlix work as well. They just don't use open systems.)
The publisher and distributor middlemen would not be needed for content distribution. The keyservers would likely be publicly owned, like the ones used for Linux development. The content could very easily be distributed through P2P technology. The artist would basically become their own publisher, using public systems to deliver their content to the consumers.
Except those aren't the people in question here. You seem to be REALLY confused about what companies are pushing this stuff. It's not the Music Stores, it's the Music Publishers. It's not HMV, it's like Sony and those guys.
It would affect both. It would affect music stores as less people would buy CDs as they can download them off the Internet (already has happened really).
It would affect Music Publishers, as artists would no longer require a third-party to publish and distribute their work, as they could just use the public systems.
It won't kill them outright, but the need and use of both groups would be drastically reduced.
Content distributed by P2P tech?
Fuck that, I am not paying for other people's music. Uploads don't happen magically, they cost money.
Uh yeah, not seeing this working en masse, in a world where users use the same password for everything, changing them by one character at a time when forced to by network administrators, save their passwords in their web browsers, forget passwords, break things so they have to reinstall software, are fooled by password phishing sites, etc., And, as far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be anything preventing someone from simply sharing their private key with others, packaging it with whatever content I purchased and was sent to me encrypted by the corresponding public key, such that there is effectively no encryption on it. This doesn't seem to be any different than how CD-keys are circumvented.
In general, I find the gulf between hostile expert users and naive casual users too great to span with a single security system. Any system that's easy enough for the latter to use is too easily circumventable by the former; any system that stymies the former also prevents the latter from using it.
Well, there's really no other way to get 1080p video over the Internet. Each stream would take around 8 Mb/s of data, which after say 1000 users, would be an ENORMOUS load on the server in terms of bandwidth.
Ummm. You would log into a server and it would give you access to the keys/content. It would be essentially transparent to users. Like iTunes, just based on open tech.
The keychains could also be synced to different devices, so they wouldn't need Internet access. Like iPods.
I miss him too. The guy did a lot for Canada. Shame he didn't have a longer duration for PM.
And how would I log on to this server? Using a username/password, or a private key of some sort, which I could write on a piece of paper and give to a friend to use?
Look no system is PERFECT. And technology can't correct the PEBKAC.
You're arguing semantics and impossibilities.
This is system would not be perfect, however, that is not the goal. The goal to make it less of a PITA and less restrictive for users than the existing systems while protecting the rights of content owners. It is a compromise.
Well then I guess we won't be seeing widespread 1080p streaming.
I don't care if it's practical or not, I am not fucking subsidizing someone's business model with my bandwidth. If they want to use my power, system resources and bandwidth then they can pay for them.
Then don't use the system or get the content.
Sorry, you said the words "successful", and "proven to work", and "one word: keyservers", but I forgot that this thread is all about moving the goalposts and redefining things until you're right. So yes, I agree. Your imperfect security system is successful and proven to work, and not "easily circumventable" as I suggested - and you seemed to deny by linking to a bunch of now seemingly irrelevant Wikipedia articles - even though I just found an easy way to circumvent it.
My bad. I didn't realise you meant "economically successful".
I never said it would rid the world of piracy, I said it would deter it. Nothing more, nothing less.
I did *imply* that it would work better than existing systems because it wouldn't encourage users to break it due to restrictions.
There's no such thing as a perfectly secure system. There will always be holes and vulnerabilities. The "web of trust" system just minimizes the amount of technological deficiencies (by using proven open technologies like PGP and keyservers), while placing the enforcement of the system in the hands of users and the law. This is much better than just using plain technology and expecting people will never get access to the keys (which they invariably will).
Technology can not fix societal problems. Piracy, as a black market, is a societal problem. You can never prevent people from pirating, as a few will ALWAYS find a way. You can only attempt to influence people to buy through efficient and productive technology.
So I read this, and I think, well, there are currently content authorization systems that aren't universal to every device and are completely open source and do deter piracy. Since you say that the only successful content authorization system will be universal to every device and completely open source, then obviously you must mean success to be something above and beyond "deterring piracy".
Then I note that an open source content authorization system would be easily circumventable, annd then you link me to a couple of Wikipedia articles about cryptography for some reason, which I then note isn't even the same field as media security... but does have as its standard complete and total security.
Then I even suggest that maybe you and I aren't using the same definition of successful... which you blithely ignore, so I take that to mean you reject that suggestion. Of course, now you say that my definition of successful is ridiculous and semantics and putting words in your mouth.
Aaand then you link me to some other cryptography Wikipedia page about a system that you purport has been proven to work... which again I point out is one about cryptography and not general mass media authorization, which is a completely different problem with different parameters, such that, as I note, your "proven to work" system would most assuredly not work any better than systems already currently in operation, such as Steam.
And then I make a statement about the general problem concerning mass media security and its intractability, and you seem to suggest your solution, which not only has been "proven to work" but is also the "only successful system" ... is just like the system that's currently on iTunes. Which is easily circumventable. Annd then of course now you come back and say that I'm willfully ignorant of the fact that no digital security system is perfect... which is exactly the point I just made.
If I'm putting words in your mouth, it's only because the ones coming out of it aren't making any sense and, as a scientist, I try to make sense of the insensible, and as a computer scientist who's studied issues of security, I'm capable of distinguishing cryptographic problems from security problems and in general I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
Yes, iTunes can be cracked. But why do most people want to crack iTunes? Because they want to use their media on a different device or operating system.
Why do people crack DVDs? 95% of the them so they can make copies for themselves or transfer it to a different medium.
I think it's pointless to attempt to make an uncrackable system as the reason why people crack DRM is mostly because they want to get around the restrictions present in the media. Making a system that doesn't restrict users in this way is a much more productive way to solve the problem, rather than trying to implement endless layers of DRM that will end up being hacked eventually anyways.
Mind you, there needs to be at least something in place to *deter* people from republishing the content without the author's permission. So let's just make that something using secure open parts (please don't tell me PGP is insecure, considering the FBI can't even hack it and it was considered a muntion by the US government for a long period of time), put in as few restrictions as possible, and call it a damn day.
Because your points are not contained within your posts. Sending me to a Wikipedia link to read something irrelevant isn't making a point; it's just throwing in extraneous information that doesn't lead to any further clarity or understanding.
What are contained in your posts are words, which you seem to have a habit of neglecting to use properly, as though we can read your mind, which would make the whole "posting on an Internet forum" thing kinda redundant, now wouldn't it?
This would be true.
This would not. Most of the publishers work has little to do with the exact method of distribution.
Lady Gaga, for example, is not huge because her publisher puts her music on CDs for her, she's huge because her publisher helps her make the music by giving her money and resources to do so and then promotes the shit out of her in order to sell those CDs.
I apologize if I didn't summarize my points well enough earlier on.
There are quite a few examples of bands on indie labels that have become quite popular without the help of the major record labels. Mostly due to blog coverage in their niche circles, word of mouth, or through music magazines.
True, they are not Lady Gaga popular. But that level of popularity is not necessary for success. In fact, I think a little bit of equalization in the music industry would help out quite a few smaller bands.
It will last exactly as long as it takes for Harper to say "Socialists and Communists working with Sovereignists!"
Well it's reactionary BS. I saw a bunch of headlines just recently of Iggy talking up the tarsands. So I guess we're only going to sell to the Americans?
If it's actually very dangerous to ship oil via water, then that should be managed. But it seems more likely that this is just "disaster politics" and using what happened to the US to stir shit up.
More than a year ago Iggy was saying:
Anyways, what's happening the in Gulf of Mexico should definitely cause us to react. But in a reasonable way. Not in a vote grabbing way.
Regardless, Ignatieff is not to be trusted. I do not relish the idea of him being the PM. The only reasons I would prefer a Liberal government to the current government is it would have cabinet ministers who aren't complete boobs, it would not be as image-obsessed, it would not actively try to dismantle the public service and bankrupt the treasury in order to make us all buy into ridiculous "government is the problem" ideological nonsense, and in the best case scenario, it would have to at least pretend to listen to the NDP.
Canada's governor general: Who should replace Michaëlle Jean?
The money quote:
That would be so. Fucking. Awesome.
TOUGH ON CRIME~! The real question is, how do you control the public discourse on something like this without the labelling choices being 'tough on crime' or 'pansy criminal supporter'?
But seriously, investing in drug rehabilitation efforts in the community would do a million times more than this law for a fraction of the price, but I guess I'm not 'tough on crime'
If making a 5 year sentence actually last 5 years, instead of 2 years because the trial took 1 year and they get triple credit for time spent in custody while being tried, if holding that criminal for the full 5 years is going to require some new prisons being built then I say build the damn prisons.
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of giving extra credit to criminals whose trials dragged on, since last I checked we dont reward/reimburse the people found not-guilty, only those found guilty.
MWO: Adamski
See California and their three-strike law.
Also, Who's sorry now? (Government) Scientist apologizes to oilsands critics (for calling them liars):
Go #1 Albertan government oilsands scientist, lie your ass off. Go out of your way to discredit your fellow scientists and ruin their careers, just to prop up your own political beliefs. Attaboy.
For every day your trial takes, if you're found guilty you get 2X that amount of time tacked onto your sentence. Give some people incentive to plead guilty.*
*
You should probably see your doctor and get that checked out.
Its not necessary to have the system in the first place. If you are guilty and your lawyer advises you that they wont be able to get you off, you strike a plea bargain. You get a lesser sentence and you start serving it sooner so that its over sooner.
If you force the court to drag the whole thing out, then you have the whole length of the court case plus the full sentence that wont be shortened by a judge being lenient because fighting tooth and nail does not show remorse.
I would love to have some way to repay people found not-guilty, but as they say, they are found not-guilty not innocent. The state doesnt admit that they were wrong, just that they couldnt prove it.
MWO: Adamski