Yes, OnStar does have remote slowdown and remote starter block, but it requires police intervention to use. It's used often and effectively in car theft and carjacking cases.Csszr said:
GM was caught tracking cars with inactive OnStar and pledged to stop doing that unless owners opted in.
But PayTeck and Passtime remote disablers have been used by lowlife used car dealers (as if there were any other kind) since at least 2005. What Renault has done is not at all new; it is only the level they have stooped to that is dismaying.
About tracking and stuff. Interestingly, practically all mobile phones have a closed additional OS which manages the radio modem. And it's apparently a security and privacy risk with little options for controlling it from the user's side. Plus it has direct access to the main RAM and other hardware components of the device (camera, microphone and etc.). I've heard about additional OS before, but didn't know how deep the problem can run:
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2011/Fahrplan/attachments/2022_11-ccc-qcombbdbg.pdf
That subsystem can be even potentially activated/tracked remotely when the device is "off" (unless of course you take the battery out). I wouldn't be surprised at all if more stuff from Snowden will surface up, about how this is being abused.
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2011/Fahrplan/attachments/2022_11-ccc-qcombbdbg.pdf
That subsystem can be even potentially activated/tracked remotely when the device is "off" (unless of course you take the battery out). I wouldn't be surprised at all if more stuff from Snowden will surface up, about how this is being abused.
I thought so, I remember here about, oh sometime around spring there in California I believe. Some guy who was a journalist who wrote an article(not going into politics) about the US government and reports said that he was going about 80 mph and crashed. The conspiracy is that the gov't remotely "hacked" his car and sped it up so that he would lose control and wreck.
I have no doubt that the technology exists but then again I don't believe in conspiracies.
I have no doubt that the technology exists but then again I don't believe in conspiracies.
You don't need to believe in conspiracies, it's enough for the technological means to exist. Some crook will find a way to use them against people.
Wikileaks releases the IP chapter of the drafted secret TPP agreement: http://wikileaks.org/tpp/
DRM lobby as expected attempts to spread DRM anticircumvention garbage there. Some countries attempt to propose fair use default exceptions, but others try to tank all those proposals. What a mess. Kudos to Wikileaks for releasing this, now there are more chances to sink this beast for good.
More detailed analysis: http://www.keionline.org/node/1825
DRM lobby as expected attempts to spread DRM anticircumvention garbage there. Some countries attempt to propose fair use default exceptions, but others try to tank all those proposals. What a mess. Kudos to Wikileaks for releasing this, now there are more chances to sink this beast for good.
More detailed analysis: http://www.keionline.org/node/1825
It's been awhile since I agree with you!Gilrond said:Wikileaks releases the IP chapter of the drafted secret TPP agreement: http://wikileaks.org/tpp/
DRM lobby as expected attempts to spread DRM anticircumvention garbage there. Some countries attempt to propose fair use default exceptions, but others try to tank all those proposals. What a mess. Kudos to Wikileaks for releasing this, now there are more chances to sink this beast for good.
More detailed analysis: http://www.keionline.org/node/1825
I fully subscribe to everything you said, including the toast to Wikileaks.
The fact the agreement has been kept secret is abysmal.
EU is seeking feedback from a broad range of individuals and organizations about the potential copyright reform. And it's not limited to EU citizens, because they admit that such reform will have global consequences.
You can read about it here: https://ameliaandersdotter.eu/copyright-consultation-model-responses
Make your voice heard on whatever topic interests you (opposition to DRM, reduction of copyright terms and so on).
You can read about it here: https://ameliaandersdotter.eu/copyright-consultation-model-responses
Make your voice heard on whatever topic interests you (opposition to DRM, reduction of copyright terms and so on).
Just found an interesting interview which I didn't see before, where Marcin Iwiński of CDPR equates DRM to malware and talks about DRM-free GOG (English translation is provided in the gray box on the right there):
http://polygamia.pl/Polygamia/1,95338,7498885,_Wy_to_chyba_na_GOGu_nie_byliscie___czyli_wywiadu.html
http://polygamia.pl/Polygamia/1,95338,7498885,_Wy_to_chyba_na_GOGu_nie_byliscie___czyli_wywiadu.html
Last edited:
An editorial by RPS:
- Why Games Should Enter The Public Domain
It was triggered by the discussion of the GOG's time machine sale.
- Why Games Should Enter The Public Domain
It was triggered by the discussion of the GOG's time machine sale.
I can accept the argument, but I'm not entirely convinced about the solution.
Yes, I'd totally agree that the current expiration of copyright is too long, and also that there's a problem specific to video games (and other software) regarding rights, a problem that this would solve.
There're far too many games that have disappeared not because a rights-owner is holding onto it and refusing to let it be updated for modern computers, but because there's just too many rights owners involved, some of whom aren't known. The games that were developed by Studio A (now defunct) but using input from Software Developers B, C and D (also now defunct). The games that only really worked because of patches provided by a modding community, whose real names aren't even known.
Reducing the period before works go into Public Domain would be one solution, and it's not as bad as proposals so far regarding Abandoned Works, which have a lot of ramifications, but it's still a brute force approach. Twenty years still means that a lot of games would disappear in the short term (such as those between 10 and 20 years old). Anything less than that would be unfair on those developers who do support their games.
Personally, I'd prefer Abandoned Works legislation that's fairer than previous proposals. Something with enough checks and balances built in to stop it turning into theft, with protection for all concerned. I have absolutely NO idea how this could be done though, given the way that greedy people can find loopholes in everything.
Yes, I'd totally agree that the current expiration of copyright is too long, and also that there's a problem specific to video games (and other software) regarding rights, a problem that this would solve.
There're far too many games that have disappeared not because a rights-owner is holding onto it and refusing to let it be updated for modern computers, but because there's just too many rights owners involved, some of whom aren't known. The games that were developed by Studio A (now defunct) but using input from Software Developers B, C and D (also now defunct). The games that only really worked because of patches provided by a modding community, whose real names aren't even known.
Reducing the period before works go into Public Domain would be one solution, and it's not as bad as proposals so far regarding Abandoned Works, which have a lot of ramifications, but it's still a brute force approach. Twenty years still means that a lot of games would disappear in the short term (such as those between 10 and 20 years old). Anything less than that would be unfair on those developers who do support their games.
Personally, I'd prefer Abandoned Works legislation that's fairer than previous proposals. Something with enough checks and balances built in to stop it turning into theft, with protection for all concerned. I have absolutely NO idea how this could be done though, given the way that greedy people can find loopholes in everything.
johncage: DRM means police-state-style power obsessed overseers control what their users do. DRM free means users' rights aren't violated and they are treated properly. Pirates have won either way, because they aren't affected by DRM or by its lack thereof. You choose your side.
Last edited:
Pirates win unless the user community repudiates them.So long as pirates are not treated as intolerable and driven off the Internet, advocates of DRM have what they consider good reason to continue to impose this burden that impinges on legitimate users but affects pirates and freeloaders not at all.
If you don't want DRM, it doesn't just take supporting anti-DRM publishers like gog.com; it also takes telling pirates to go to hell and standing behind those words.
If you don't want DRM, it doesn't just take supporting anti-DRM publishers like gog.com; it also takes telling pirates to go to hell and standing behind those words.
"Driving off the Internet" is not something you can possibly achieve without instituting a totalitarian censorship rule there (like the Chinese firewall and its kin). That's the whole point. And that is not something people should want, unless they are supporters of the police state. To deal with downsides of piracy, instead of driving anyone off, imposing DRM and so on, those who are affected by it should address the way they face their potential users. I.e. increase availability and user friendliness of what they have to offer. Most DRM obsessed publishers fail to realize it, and it causes a lot of damage to everyone.
As an example, any kind of regional restrictions, release windows and other such nonsense is what fueling piracy in the first place. Getting rid of that would already be a big step forward. Instead, they are obsessed with pushing DRM into HTML, introducing idiotic laws and regulations (from DMCA to TPP and Co.) and promoting censorship all around.
As an example, any kind of regional restrictions, release windows and other such nonsense is what fueling piracy in the first place. Getting rid of that would already be a big step forward. Instead, they are obsessed with pushing DRM into HTML, introducing idiotic laws and regulations (from DMCA to TPP and Co.) and promoting censorship all around.
Last edited:
No. Everybody who excuses pirates, tolerate pirates, believes piracy has to be connived at because it is inevitable or serves any legitimate purpose, advertises on pirate sites, or even uses fileservers operated for the purpose of piracy, is contributing to the perseverance of DRM. If there were no one willing to support pirates, there would be no profit in piracy and no significant loss to pirates.
Copyright owners who do not take a stand as forceful as CD Projekt's and GOG's are not going to be swayed by arguments that DRM is unnecessary or counterproductive. Their minds are made up, they have the money to buy the ears of government and standards boards, and they will have their way so long as piracy is tolerated by the community.
This is not a problem for governments or game publishers or standards bodies to resolve. It is OUR problem to make right.
Copyright owners who do not take a stand as forceful as CD Projekt's and GOG's are not going to be swayed by arguments that DRM is unnecessary or counterproductive. Their minds are made up, they have the money to buy the ears of government and standards boards, and they will have their way so long as piracy is tolerated by the community.
This is not a problem for governments or game publishers or standards bodies to resolve. It is OUR problem to make right.
Last edited:
Guy N'wah: It's not about excusing pirates. It's about the crooked mindset of those who are saying they are dealing with piracy while in reality they are simply satisfying control urges. It's a combined problem of governments and publishers (i.e. read legacy publishers). They converge in their intrinsic desire to control information (i.e. to be the gatekeepers of it). Piracy can be used as a pretense for them to do it, but it's not really the piracy that is the primary driver for that. It's demonstrated by the simple fact that often they disregard piracy completely. For example they know well that by not releasing some popular product in time in some market, it surely will be wildly pirated there. Do you think they are that stupid not to realize it? I don't think so. Yet, they don't seem to care about it, because they exercise some kind control in other areas which they deem more important than piracy itself. If they'd really cared about the problem of piracy so much, they'd never do such a thing.
Last edited:
No copyright owner is obliged to release his product in just any market, no matter how much you or I may want him to, and no matter what pressure pirates or other criminals may exert on him. They do so, not because they are control freaks or any other irrational sort of fools, but because they have determined by some strategy that they are entitled to follow and nobody else is entitled to question that this is the manner of achieving the greatest return on their investment.
The avoidance of piracy plays, as it well should, no role in their determination of what markets their product will be released in. The presence of piracy that you believe is the consequence of those decisions is in no way legitimate and in no way tolerable.
I'm sorry. I cannot believe other than that piracy is inexcusable and that any justification for piracy is in equal measure treated by owners of intellectual property, who are under no obligation to do otherwise, as a justification for oppressive DRM. If you want to stamp out DRM, you must ostracize pirates. I have had my say and will not pursue this point further.
The avoidance of piracy plays, as it well should, no role in their determination of what markets their product will be released in. The presence of piracy that you believe is the consequence of those decisions is in no way legitimate and in no way tolerable.
I'm sorry. I cannot believe other than that piracy is inexcusable and that any justification for piracy is in equal measure treated by owners of intellectual property, who are under no obligation to do otherwise, as a justification for oppressive DRM. If you want to stamp out DRM, you must ostracize pirates. I have had my say and will not pursue this point further.
Last edited:
The argument of "they have a strategy" is not convincing when it's combined with their constant rants about piracy which worries them so much they need to pollute laws with all kind of DRM related freakery. It's either piracy doesn't concern them and they are just hypocrites, or they are that dumb that they can't understand they are only increasing piracy with their own "strategies". My assumption - they aren't dumb, and piracy is not really what drives them. Control however is. And that won't change even if there would be no piracy at all.
Smarter publishers however understand, that in the end they can achieve more profit if instead of chasing piracy they could increase availability. Rejecting piracy as you mean on social level is pretty common and is a norm, but it has zero effect on DRM pushers. I think only market forces can break that (i.e. increasing competition from those who don't use DRM). In general the trend here looks positive (at least in gaming). From the public side, besides supporting DRM free creators and distributors, people can actively oppose various poisonous legislations and trade agreements driven by the DRM lobby.
Smarter publishers however understand, that in the end they can achieve more profit if instead of chasing piracy they could increase availability. Rejecting piracy as you mean on social level is pretty common and is a norm, but it has zero effect on DRM pushers. I think only market forces can break that (i.e. increasing competition from those who don't use DRM). In general the trend here looks positive (at least in gaming). From the public side, besides supporting DRM free creators and distributors, people can actively oppose various poisonous legislations and trade agreements driven by the DRM lobby.
Last edited:
I'm with Guy on this one.
I have a zero-tolerance for piracy. In my opinion (and I know some people might disagree), piracy equals theft. Not only that, but it's exactly as Guy says; as long as piracy is a big thing (and it is right now), publishers will keep using that as an argument to create more and more intrusive DRM. I don't like DRM, so we need to do something about this, we need to tackle the root of this problem, and the root of this problem are software pirates.
I have a zero-tolerance for piracy. In my opinion (and I know some people might disagree), piracy equals theft. Not only that, but it's exactly as Guy says; as long as piracy is a big thing (and it is right now), publishers will keep using that as an argument to create more and more intrusive DRM. I don't like DRM, so we need to do something about this, we need to tackle the root of this problem, and the root of this problem are software pirates.