80bower writes
"Looks like Microsoft is going to allow an MIT student to display security flaws in the XBOX and won't use the DMCA to stop him. Read about it at EFF via Politech." Microsoft deserves kudos for this. But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
But... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)
6 months from now they'll post a story like "Bill Gates sacrifices self to save boat full of children and puppies" and the editors will find a way to make us hate him for it. Like his shoes weren't environmentally sound or some shit.
Oh, and the reason they don't care is because no ones purchased an Xbox in 4 months.
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet today's headline is akin to "Bill Gates decides NOT to squeese trigger on gun aimed at puppy's head." A Slashdot editor points out that while this is all good of Bill, the real issue is the gun itself. You decide its further proof that Slashdot editors are out to get Bill.
Grow up, indeed.
Re:But... (Score:3, Interesting)
I cannot express in words the great feeling I get knowing that I have the maturity, perspective, and humility to know that should the day come that the DMCA gets everything it wants, and my warez collection goes bye-bye and I can no longer burn cd's for any purpose, I'll shrug, think about some people in the world that are starving or getting shot at or watching their parents hauled off to some death camp and think "Well, if I bitch about this and call unfairness, I'll really be nothing but a whiny bitch that thinks his problems mean shit in this world". It's a really awesome feeling, you should try it.
Re:But... (Score:2)
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Again - you miss the point. Its all good that Microsoft did The Right Thing but the issue at hand is that they had, as you put it, "every right to sue" in the first place. Its amazing how those with apparent pro-Microsoft leanings feel that this is some kind of dig against Microsoft. Re-read the comment. Its not.
I'm glad you feel great about it. Throughout history, there are always people who manage to justify the removal of theirs (or other's) rights. They come up with various justifications or label inaction as a kind of moral high ground. You can be rest assured that there has been a long history of your type logic. But don't kid yourself - its not maturity, perspective, NOR humility. It is the role of sycophant, apologist, or... at best... the tragicly passive.
The world's issues of human rights, hunger, and power struggles have little to do with the issues surrounding the DMCA. True. But then, giving up your right to copy a CD will not end world hunger. And the fact that there is civil war somewhere in the world does not detract from the importance of fair use - its still all about money, control, and power. Try to maintain some of that perspective you claim to hold.
Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:2)
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we mock and hate them when they do good things, then they will feel that there is no pleasing us, and will thus ignore everything we have to say. I'd rather have a small voice than none at all.
Re:But... (Score:3, Interesting)
I was going to commit mass murder, taunt cute little kittens with an open tin of tuna buy not let them have any, run around naked in public, and park on double yellow lines.
But I did none of that. So does this make me a saint? I hope not.
Microsoft decided not to use a totally OTT piece of legislation. They do not deserve kudos, but they don't deserve to be mocked (any more than usual).
If anyone deserves kudos it's the EFF for encouraging huge marketing machines like Microsoft to do the moral thing.
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
I recognize Apple user. Unix users dislike it for technical reasons.
Re:But... (Score:2)
Re:Mac OS X is not UNIX® (Score:3, Informative)
Mac OS X is UNIX.
Re:But... (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, didn't you get your training manual? (Score:3, Funny)
(day_of_week == friday || day_of_week == saturday) ){
RIAA.setEmotion(hate);
MPAA.setEmotion(love);
telcos.setEmotion(hate);
MicroSoft.setEmotion(hate);
for(int i=0; i<666; i++){
attemptSpoof("www.microsoft.com",
"www.goatse.cx");
}
} else {
RIAA.setEmotion(love);
MPAA.setEmotion(hate);
telcos.setEmotion(love);
MicroSoft.setEmotion(hate);
if(MicroSoft.getTopic() == "input_devices"){
cout << "Oh, yeah, but those are good";
Apple.mice->setEmotion(hate);
}
}
What the? (Score:2)
Re:What the? (Score:3, Insightful)
they are getting FREE PUBLICITY to the slashdot crowd... you know, the people that actually OWN these game systems?
and WHAT slashdot reader, WOULDN'T want to buy an M$ product to bring it home, run the exploit, and LAUGH at how dumb those M$ coders are?
plus, M$ gets the bug described IN DETAIL, DEMONSTRATED, and probably a solution described or maybe even created... all for FREE?!
WHAT DOES MICROSOFT HAVE TO GAIN FROM THIS??? what DON'T they have to gain from this?
Re:What the? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What the? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:What the? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well... I suppose that by not attempting to sue this guy, the DMCA won't get struck down yet for being an unconscienable threat to legitimate study and free speech.
Re:What the? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What the? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to be cynical about it, then you can guess that Microsoft wants to make some truly egregious use of the DMCA further down the road, and they don't want to risk getting the law overturned on a trivial use.
Stabby-stabby. (Score:2, Funny)
Just can't avoid it, can ya?
Re:Stabby-stabby. (Score:2)
Is it up to MS? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is it up to MS? (Score:3, Informative)
No, and that's exactly why they're playing nice. The Sklyarov case taught them that the Feds will per^H^Hrosecute DMCA violations no matter what -- even an anonymous tip may be enough. And they end up looking cleaner than Adobe did.
Re:Is it up to MS? (Score:2)
Re:Is it up to MS? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is it up to MS? (Score:2)
Re:Is it up to MS? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Is it up to MS? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it up to MS? (Score:2)
Is this a decision that MS can make on its own?
Well, yes and no. Yes, because the person is not violating the DMCA "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain," so there is no criminal law being broken. But no, because the person isn't violating the DMCA to begin with.
My own personal Xbox mod (Score:2, Funny)
Step two: Place drink on X-Box
Step three: Turn on Gamecube and enjoy.
Re:My own personal Xbox mod (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My own personal Xbox mod (Score:2, Funny)
Re:My own personal Xbox mod (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My own personal Xbox mod (Score:2)
Re:My own personal Xbox mod (Score:2)
Re:My own personal Xbox mod (Score:2, Funny)
Step one: Place X-Box on secure platform.
Step two: Place drink on X-Box
Step three: Turn on Gamecube and enjoy.
Step Four: ???
Step Five: Profit
Anyhow, Gamecube had it right - build your own storage method that is completely non-standard and you don't have as much to worry about. Unfortunately, that means hacking my GC is a little out of the question - not that I would bother, but it's the principle man!
Re:My own personal Xbox mod (Score:2)
That's because it's irrelevant now. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:That's because it's irrelevant now. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's because it's irrelevant now. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's because it's irrelevant now. (Score:2, Informative)
bad juju (Score:3, Insightful)
Resistance is futile
Re:bad juju (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.gatesfoundation.org
Re:bad juju (Score:2, Informative)
When one of these cases came to trial, the court ruled against this kind of use of design patents. Here's [emory.edu] a link to the case. The company in the case was Epson.
I think MS would eventually lose in court if they tried to use the DMCA like that (who knows how long it could take though). Plus it would be terrible PR for MS since everyone is already screaming monopoly.
Microsoft deserves kudos for this. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Microsoft deserves kudos for this. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft deserves kudos for this. (Score:4, Insightful)
They must hate lawyers as much as we do (Score:2)
Hope that'll teach companies like HP, Apple, Adobe, etc. another lesson or two.
Re:They must hate lawyers as much as we do (Score:2)
They don't hate lawyers; they hire lawyers.
Maybe instead of rarely suing they are rarely noticed in courtrooms--all this takes is the bullying of several lawyers and strongly-worded cease & desist letters.
Re:They must hate lawyers as much as we do (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft won. In effect, Microsoft set the legal precedent that prevents a company like Apple from suing anybody who makes a desktop theme that looks like an Apple desktop.
It's been said more than once that Microsoft paid the legal bill for everybody else to copy their GUI. Because they don't believe in competing in the courtroom. They're far better at competing in the marketplace. Esp. when they have the kind of control of that market that they presently hold.
It's a mixed bag, but believe me, if Apple had won the suit, you'd be lucky to be allowed to use the Tab Window Manager on your X desktop.
Re:They must hate lawyers as much as we do (Score:2)
Also, communist Russia has fallen and there's now only two Beatles left.
Freedom of Speech: then and now (Score:5, Insightful)
in 1997: freedom of speech was understood by reading the following:
in 2002: freedom of speech is understood by reading the following:
Welcome to America kids! If you're lucky, you'll get permission to publish your paper too!
Perhaps if you wear a colorful, fanciful hat, decorated with bells and chimes, and prance about most amusingly, the King will pity you and grant your wish.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now (Score:2)
Or more likely because MIT has better lawyers then Microsoft can dream of. I believe the word inappropriate meant illegal.
WTF kind of logic is that? (Score:2)
Re:WTF kind of logic is that? (Score:2)
Re:WTF kind of logic is that? (Score:2)
That's just it. Microsoft perfectly well can stop him, using the DMCA. They just choose not to in this instance, for whatever reason. The law that gives them the ability to make that choice (Let's see, do I or do I not feel like abridging the freedom of speech today...) is obviously unconstitutional.
Re:WTF kind of logic is that? (Score:2)
Microsoft perfectly well can stop him, using the DMCA.
No they can't.
They just choose not to in this instance, for whatever reason.
"Microsoft told Huang and Abelson that while it might prefer that the paper not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper." "Inappropriate" is Microsoft's way of saying "we're not allowed by law". Otherwise why wouldn't they stop Huang and Abelson, since they clearly want to.
The law that gives them the ability to make that choice (Let's see, do I or do I not feel like abridging the freedom of speech today...) is obviously unconstitutional.
Agreed. But the DMCA is not such a law.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now (Score:5, Insightful)
Go back and read the first amendment. Note the subject.
CONGRESS--and by extension, the government--cannot abridge your freedom of speech, aside from military or criminal reasons. And for a lot of things, not even then.
PRIVATE PARTIES, like MIT and Microsoft, can do whatever the hell they please, up to the point where they're a goverment.
If Microsoft owns a town, they can't made a law abridging speech there. They can only let employees live there, and make the employees know that they're fired if they belittle MS (and deal with the PR backlash that does), but they can't make a law.
Think this is bad now? Try living under a real king, who can kill you just on a whim. Corporate politics are a light cold compared to the absolute void that we might find if the government wasn't restrained as it.
Private people--heck, if we make it so no one could tell anyone else to shut up, life would be like an early AOL chatroom that you could never log out of.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now (Score:2)
>just on a whim. Corporate politics are a light
>cold compared to the absolute void that we might
>find if the government wasn't restrained as it.
With soft money contributions still legal, I cannot see any difference, can you? I honestly belive if the RIAA wanted to make it a death penalty for breaking the DMCA they would have succeeded.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, all they'd need to do was say that anyone who committed terrorism against his home nation is committing treason. And of course terrorism would be extended to disabling (or telling someone how to) a security system vital for the "education the nation's youth in the field of eye-hand coordination", or whatever.
There, hacking the XBox or a DVD player (both are protected and to break them would potentially hurt the nation's economy in a serious way) is now terrorism; a supposed attempt to bring the nation to economic ruin, after all MS and the MPAA collective both are a large part of the markets. This terrorism, if committed by a citizen or resident of the US would then be treason, and there's the theoretical death-penalty for it.
And you can see that these half-way laws are both fairly realistic (have they already passed them?) in today's post 9-11 world.
Would anyone actually get put to death? No. But they don't really care as long as you cooperate. Few people actually get charged for DMCA violation now, normally it's enough to threaten. Who would risk it?
I honestly believe that it'd be possible for them to pass laws making DVD hacking technically punishable by the death penatly (even if such that it would never be actually used) inside of a year, with the right campaign contributions.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now (Score:5, Interesting)
Uhm, well, something is considered criminal if the Congress passes a law saying it's against the law. So, in other words, what you're saying is: Congress can't abridge your freedom of speech, except for when they abridge your freedom of speech.
I wanted to mock your post, but, unfortunately, it seems to be dead on.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct: private parties are not bound by the declaration of independence. You are incorrect: Microsoft really can't restrict your freedom of speech.
The reason for this apparent contradiction is that Microsoft cannot make laws. How would Microsoft limit your freedom of speech? By arresting you? All they could do would be to sue you if you damaged them, or make business arrangements to mess with your life. That's what AOL does. They kick you out of the chat room. They can't stop you from swearing on someone else's dime.
In this particular case, Microsoft is not the party accused of restricting freedom of speech. Since this student isn't using MS resources to make his speech, they would have no grounds at all. The DMCA is a law passed by the federal government. The federal government is restricting freedom of speech. Just like copyright. The constitution makes allowance for both the DMCA and regular copyright, however.
Article 1, section 8, clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
So I think it's pretty clear that the DMCA has grounds in the US Constitution. But it's not because MS can limit your freedom of speech. They can't. Of course, I don't think the DMCA has good enough grounds in the Constitution, given the absurd ramifications. Some day, we may see what the Supreme Court thinks.
Embrace (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like old times... (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps they would have won in court and silenced this person, but the flaws he speaks of would have still made it to the net pretty quickly. If they had lost the court battle, the flaws would have been released to the public in about the same amount of time. Either way, Microsoft comes off looking like free speech-killers (Read, bad PR) and the flaws are published. By not challenging release of the information, (and doing so about as publicly as possible), they appear powerful, yet merciful. (Read, good PR).
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft did something right here; at least something that's right for them - doesn't make a difference for us.
Re:Just like old times... (Score:4, Insightful)
You said:
The article said:
It seems to me that "it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper" is quite a bit different than "we'll allow you to publish the paper". Microsoft did the Right Thing (tm), in that they recognized that Huang's paper can and should be published without restraint due to the principles of Free Speech. Is it so hard to give kudos where kudos are deserved, even when it's a company that you "hate" ("hate" is rather strong, don't you think? but oh well ...)? Why must you try to make Microsoft look bad even when they've done good? If Redhat (for example. Or Sun, or any other Slashdot-favorite company) had done the same thing, you'd be lauding them for doing the Right Thing (tm) by saying it's "inappropriate" to block this, even though they could legally block the paper (hey, it's not just Microsoft that has that kind of power). Then again, if Redhat/Sun/Oracle/IBM/whoever had actually said, "We'll allow you to publish this, even though we could block it legally," I bet you'd still be crazy nuts happy about it without trying to say that they're doing so only to make themselves look stronger.
Re:Just like old times... (Score:2)
"it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper."
If they were doing the right thing, they'd simply say, "we don't feel it's appropriate" or "we do not believe we would be within our rights to.."
The language used assumes that Microsoft is the sole arbitor of what is or is not appropriate. Read between the lines; it's not supposed to jump out at you. This isn't something we usually don't see from Microsoft, in that it's subtle (unlike their new licensing).
Re:Just like old times... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they had lost the court battle, it may be because a court finds the DMCA unconstitutional. That would be much more harmful to MS than letting some insignificant techno-trifle out of the bag. When people openly defy the DMCA, they are challenging the law. Someone is picking a fight with an 800 pound gorilla, and the gorilla is sitting this one out. Microsoft's lawyers have decided to avert risk. That alone speaks volumes about the precariousness of the DMCA's standing.
Re:Just like old times... (Score:2)
Anything to do with the Australian MOD Chip case? (Score:2, Interesting)
Could it be that Microsft just doesn't want to fight it in court, and lose. Thus setting the precedent that such hardware protections are not protected under the DMCA?
David
Is it Just me or... (Score:2)
For e.g. they dont totally favor the "chip-in-all-hardware-to-prevent-copying" strategy. They are in favor to an extent, but they have carefully removed themselves from going all out in support of this approach.
Then this. They know that this doesnt amount to all that much, but coming from them, it would clearly garner a lot of public attention.
I for one would like M$ to wisen up a bit and learn to co-exist with the rest of the world.
Re:Is it Just me or... (Score:2)
learn to co-exist with the rest of the world.
Yeah. I mean after all, they'll need slaves to labor in the mines after they take over, right?
Perhaps like the psx? (Score:2, Insightful)
Makes sense (Score:2)
The real test will be whether they use DMCA to clamp down on vulnerability research on their .NET and XP technologies. If they don't, then it's good evidence that they're dedicated to becoming good citizens.
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
doubtfull for 2 reasons.
where still small, and since they are using legislation to implement there millenium plan, we don't matter. we will have to accept them, or not use any computers.
Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs (Score:4, Insightful)
But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
Especially things that they can't legally do anyway. The DMCA does not outlaw displaying security holes.
If it's sad to give kudos, why put someone who gives them on the front page? I guess it passes the "grep Microsoft story.txt" test.
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs (Score:2, Informative)
The DMCA outlaws the circumenvtion of copyright protection mechanisms, which is what the MIT hacker did. So the DMCA outlaws exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs (Score:2)
Oh, yes, the sort of students who would do this [mit.edu] or this [mit.edu] is the very paragon of seriousness...
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs (Score:3, Insightful)
The DMCA outlaws the circumenvtion of copyright protection mechanisms, which is what the MIT hacker did. So the DMCA outlaws exactly that.
There is an exception for research, and besides there is no evidence that the hacker circumvented copyright protection mechanisms. In any case, Microsoft has only agreed to let the hacker present his paper, which is not a violation of the DMCA. They haven't agreed to not sue him for circumventing the copyright protection mechanisms in the first place.
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs (Score:2)
Don't cheer yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
With this in mind, I like the fact that MS is doing this. However, I'd hate it to kill the mod-chip business. I'm fully in-favor of us being able to do ANYTHING with ANYTHING we buy (and dammit, if I pay $300 for the XBOX, I own it!) -- Imagine if you couldn't hop-up your car if you wanted to? The DMCA just sucks, in-general, and it sucks even more if companies can just CHOOSE when things are illegal and when they are not.
Cheers,
Ken
Thanks, EFF (Score:3, Insightful)
How about a non-borg icon today? (Score:3, Funny)
Felten Shockwave (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose someone dies and you know where they stashed $1,000 in cash. You might take that money, but later return it. Why? Did you return it because stealing it was wrong, and you came to this realization? Did you return it because you were afraid of being caught? Maybe you returned it out of guilt. The point is that honor and "good behavior" comes in many flavors which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell. Do I think they did the "smart thing?" You bet. I think they took one look at the Felten debacle [eff.org] and knew to not play with the academics. I think they know the power of public relations, especially this year.
Returning $1000 (Score:2)
-- Terry
Picked the wrong court (Score:3, Funny)
"All rise! The US District Court is now in session. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson presiding!"
MS: "Oh shit!"
Give credit where credit is due (Score:2, Interesting)
So, Microsoft does something half-decent - they don't try to exert any legal force to prevent the disclosure of information they don't want to see public, and pretty much every /. post is digging to find some sort of evil ulterior motive.
Why should this surprise me? This is the only place where the population can try to portray someone as being evil for donating a few billion dollars to charity....
Come on, people. Give credit where credit is due. If you can't do it to be fair, then do it because it ruins your credibility for when something bad does happen.
Re:Give credit where credit is due (Score:2, Insightful)
But as the article said, despite Microsoft's restraint, the effect of the DMCA on this research was still chilling. Credit to Microsoft for not going after this, but the net score is still negative . I mean, look at the basic absurdity. This guy was worried about getting in trouble for figuring out a flaw in a game console. It's not as if he was publishing a way to launch nuclear missiles.
Dr. Evil (Score:3, Funny)
"Hmmm... let's see... To hack XBox they have to buy it from us, and then they'll be busy on it playing video games instead of hacking our products... is that correct?"
"That's correct sir."
"Okie dokie then... give 'em the greenlight so I can take that vacation I've been wanting to take for the longest time..."
HP's name is forever tainted (Score:2)
Having retracted it after the shitstorm doesn't change the fact that HP will be on the list of DMCA-wielding thugs from now until the end of time.
Deserves Kudos for THIS? (Score:2)
I worry about mods here... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:XBox (Score:2, Funny)
Re:XBox (Score:2)
My thinking is that it was Nvidia, not MS, who wrote the security in the chipset, and a clause in the contract allowed MS to force a rewrite (and consequent dumping of chips) if the security was compromized.
I can't think of any other reason why MS wouldn't want to see the MIT hacker thrown in jail. Money is always the motivator to MS and if his talk doesn't cost them any loss of profit, then so be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ha! (Score:2)
If the same thing came out about Sun or Apple, they'd be praised, and there would be no "but" line at the end.
Baloney. I don't follow Sun religiously in these forums but I do read the Apple section daily. I can tell you for a fact that Apple does not by any means get a free (or even fair!) ride in these forums. Far from it. They take more than a fair share of abuse and FUD and just plain ridiculousness. Microsoft isn't the only company that gets dragged through the dirt here, even if (IMO) they do deserve it more than most.
Microsoft didn't support the DMCA, so stop trying to villify them
Maybe not, but aren't they the one's "cooperating" with major content providers to develop and stuff down everyone's throats all that great DRM technology?
Re:Toooooo late.. (Score:2)
For such a powerful company, it would take a LOT to make them drop into the red. Half of all modern computers and about 1/3 to 1/4 of older ones have an nVidia chip in them...the other half have an ATI chip.
With that much of a market and user base, they've got no danger of financial difficulty.