This study seems to prove what I've long suspected. The only way to eliminate terrorism would be to abolish all commercial software. Once all software is free, there'd be absolutely no more piracy...
While some of the encryption was really weak (rot13 was actually used), some was actually top grade stuff, including one that required a hardware dongle. Strictly speaking, the program never "cracked" any encryption. If you didn't have a valid key in the first place, you couldn't use this program to decrypt anything. What the program allows you to do is save, as a PDF w/out encryption, any "secure" document that you can open. No matter how great the authorization mechanism is, at *some* point, the key has to be transmitted for the application to open the document. Once opened, it can be saved w/out the "security". Heck, they could use a retinal scan and DNA sample and it wouldn't change the fact that, at some point, the application decrypts the document.
What I find so ironic is that they provide links to some of those sites. But by their own logic, they should not be ALLOWED to use the trademarked names of these companies or link to their copyrighted web sites.
It's bullshit that it was *ever* intended for "non-profit organizations". It is a catch-all TLD, not a "non-profit" TLD. Look at RFC 1591:
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-government organizations may fit here.
Yes, surely there are *some* bad business models. Look at the CueCat: give away hardware for free on the premise that people will want to start reading their magazines in front of a computer (instead of just reading online magazines), and also insist that everyone use their website in spite of the fact that it is drop-dead simple to use it anywhere else.
I'll give United the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a mistake. I'm taking their word for it, and not assunming that it was "too good to be true". Businesses have been known to sell stuff at a loss to either get business (loss leaders) or to drive others out of business (dumping).
Even with the assumption that it was a mistake, I feel that United needed to honor those prices. Otherwise, what's to keep a dishonest travel agent from offering too-good-to-be-true rates, only to claim a mistake after selling the tickets. How can a consumer ever prove that a business isn't running a scam? I suppose you could file suit and subpoena their records, but that's no way to save money...
What if someone honestly believed that United was selling tickets at that price? Airlines have been known to sell seats at a cost (frequent fliers, kill competitors, because you got bumped, etc). So someone buys the ticket and then makes their hotel and car reservation, only to be suddenly told to cough up a lot more money.
Others have made pricing mistakes in the past (Palm Vs for under $200; 19" monitors at 1/10th the cost). In both of these cases, the merchants made a reasonable attempt to honor their prices. They would only honor one order from each customer and they would only sell their current stock. They lost money, but they won on good will and image.
Not only are those customers mad at United, but so am I. If I see what I think is a cheap fare from United, should I believe it? Do I have to worry that they'll change the deal after it was made?
What's to keep United from doing this intentionally? At least *some* of those screwed are likely to buy more expensive tickets from United or lose deposits on hotels and cars. This is a classic bait and switch, even if it wasn't intenional an United's part.
Saw on the morning news yesterday (sorry, no links) that the Clintons had "changed their minds" (i.e. reacted to the negative press) and will not be giving Socks to Betty but will instead move Socks to Hillary's new abode in DC (Buddy will move to NY).
I think this is really old news, and I think it was settled by napsterstore.com partnering (and sharing $) with Napster. I notice that napsterstore.com even claims to be "Official" merchandise.
BT is using Kenyon & Kenyon, the lawyers best known for their C&D letters sent to various CueCat hack sites. As far as I know, they never followed through on any threats against any CueCat decoders.
"King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. . . . You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, fraudulent self is bared to the nation." - from an anonymous letter written by the FBI to Martin Luther King, Jr., urging him to commit suicide
I think Disney are the real bastards here. There's a 1992 law that gives broadcasters the right to charge cable companies to retransmit their signal (as if any broadcaster didn't *want* their signal seen far and wide). Disney has been pressuring Time/Warner to carry *other* Disney owned cable stations (which Time/Warner agreed to carry), but Disney wants a lot of money for these. If Time/Warner won't agree to pay, Disney won't allow them to carry ABC.
If Disney was *really* concerned about viewers seeing ABC, the 1992 law gives them (and only them) an option. They can invoke the "Must Carry" provision which would require Time/Warner to carry any broadcast station in the cable companies covered area. Of course, if a station invoke "Must Carry", they can no longer demand payment as well.
Fox and Cox Cable had a similar battle on New Years. Fox wanted Cox to carry some unrelated Cable networks and Cox didn't want to. Fox then withheld rebroadcast permission for Fox and Fox went dark for a few hundred thousand viewers for a week. In the end, the companies came to a secret agreement and Fox returned to Cox.
But face it, withholding rebroadcast consent is insane for "free" TV because your advertising rates are based on how many people can see it. But it gives the broadcasters the ability to leverage one product (free TV) to force the cable companies to carry another product (pay TV). *That* sounds like monopoly behavior to me.
And if this part of the 1992 law makes sense based on the notion of Property Rights, then the Must Carry provision contradicts it by saying that cable companies *don't* have property rights on their own wires. When the law was passed in 1992, my local cable company was forced to drop several channels (space concerns) because it was required to pick up a Home Shopping Channel that just happened to be broadcasting in the area as well as 3 PBS stations (one of which only broadcast from 8am-8pm).
On the post: How GPS Helps The Cab Get There Faster
Should have patented it...
On the post: Microsoft Says Software Pirates Are Funding Terrorists
Can I have a spin?
On the post: Has The Register Become A Dot Gone?
They're back
Domain Name: THEREGISTER.CO.UK
Registered For: The Register
Domain Registered By: PSINET
Record last updated on 27-Dec-2001 by fg@Nominet.
Domain servers listed in order:
WHOIS database last updated at 12:04:01 27-Dec-2001
On the post: Advertisements Can Alter Memory
False memory test
On the post: Russian Programmer's Arrest To Test Copyright Law
Weak encryption or not
Strictly speaking, the program never "cracked" any encryption. If you didn't have a valid key in the first place, you couldn't use this program to decrypt anything.
What the program allows you to do is save, as a PDF w/out encryption, any "secure" document that you can open. No matter how great the authorization mechanism is, at *some* point, the key has to be transmitted for the application to open the document. Once opened, it can be saved w/out the "security".
Heck, they could use a retinal scan and DNA sample and it wouldn't change the fact that, at some point, the application decrypts the document.
On the post: Better Business Bureau Gets Stupid
Mega-hypocrisy
What I find so ironic is that they provide links to some of those sites. But by their own logic, they should not be ALLOWED to use the trademarked names of these companies or link to their copyrighted web sites.
On the post: Better Business Bureau Gets Stupid
robots.txt
I mean, everything is born copyrighted, so by their stance, no site can link *anywhere*.
They're also hypocrites. How else could you explain a page like http://www.bbb.org/outside/company.asp?
On the post: People Pissed Off At New ICANN/NetSol Plan
The roots of .ORG
On the post: No Such Thing As A Bad Business Model - Only Bad Management
Re: What is a Business Model
Tell me how a good manager could make that work.
On the post: United Changes Mind On Mistake Web Prices
Bait & Switch
Even with the assumption that it was a mistake, I feel that United needed to honor those prices. Otherwise, what's to keep a dishonest travel agent from offering too-good-to-be-true rates, only to claim a mistake after selling the tickets. How can a consumer ever prove that a business isn't running a scam? I suppose you could file suit and subpoena their records, but that's no way to save money...
On the post: United Not Flying People From San Francisco To Paris For $25
Bait and Switch
Others have made pricing mistakes in the past (Palm Vs for under $200; 19" monitors at 1/10th the cost). In both of these cases, the merchants made a reasonable attempt to honor their prices. They would only honor one order from each customer and they would only sell their current stock. They lost money, but they won on good will and image.
Not only are those customers mad at United, but so am I. If I see what I think is a cheap fare from United, should I believe it? Do I have to worry that they'll change the deal after it was made?
What's to keep United from doing this intentionally? At least *some* of those screwed are likely to buy more expensive tickets from United or lose deposits on hotels and cars. This is a classic bait and switch, even if it wasn't intenional an United's part.
On the post: VA Linux: Easy Come, Easy Go
Re: Counting chickens before hatched
On the post: Intellectual Property Questions Popping Up Again
More technical solutions
A better-still (non-technical) solution would be to just get over it. But I guess that's asking too much.
On the post: Where Does Socks Go?
Damage control: Socks to live with Hillary
On the post: Napster Suing Company For Trademark Violation
Old news
On the post: BT Sues Prodigy Over Hyperlink Patent
No Subject Given
On the post: CueCat Spits Up Emails; Possible Security Breach
Hacked, huh?
On the post: FBI deploys email snaring device
Re: Are you crazy?
source: http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring99/fbimlk.htm
It is true that King had something to hide. Should the government be allowed to blackmail a political opponent?
Of course, the FBI did have a damned good reason to bug King. After all, he was challenging the government's right to keep his people down.
And don't think it can't happen again. For all the crimes J. Edgar Hoover committed, he was memorialized with the naming of the FBI building.
On the post: Porn Site Suing CBS
Jennicam
On the post: Time Warner - Disney Dispute Might Cause Merger Problems
Disney are the bad guys here
If Disney was *really* concerned about viewers seeing ABC, the 1992 law gives them (and only them) an option. They can invoke the "Must Carry" provision which would require Time/Warner to carry any broadcast station in the cable companies covered area. Of course, if a station invoke "Must Carry", they can no longer demand payment as well.
Fox and Cox Cable had a similar battle on New Years. Fox wanted Cox to carry some unrelated Cable networks and Cox didn't want to. Fox then withheld rebroadcast permission for Fox and Fox went dark for a few hundred thousand viewers for a week. In the end, the companies came to a secret agreement and Fox returned to Cox.
But face it, withholding rebroadcast consent is insane for "free" TV because your advertising rates are based on how many people can see it. But it gives the broadcasters the ability to leverage one product (free TV) to force the cable companies to carry another product (pay TV). *That* sounds like monopoly behavior to me.
And if this part of the 1992 law makes sense based on the notion of Property Rights, then the Must Carry provision contradicts it by saying that cable companies *don't* have property rights on their own wires. When the law was passed in 1992, my local cable company was forced to drop several channels (space concerns) because it was required to pick up a Home Shopping Channel that just happened to be broadcasting in the area as well as 3 PBS stations (one of which only broadcast from 8am-8pm).
Next >>