The battle against home taping. Pricing CDs at double records and tapes. At first, pricing VHS and DVD movies in the stratosphere, when it turned out that they could make half their income by selling them at $20 or less.
Suing Diamond Rio, the maker of one of the first mp3 players, because -- Piracy! Why not also sue Sony for making the Walkman?
Then the lawsuits against their own customers. Then SOPA / PIPA. Geographical restrictions. Collection societies. The raid against Megaupload, and all the sleaze and corruption that surrounded that.
Calling everyone a pirate -- including in this very forum.
Somehow, Google is the enemy.
And they wonder why nobody likes them.
(And, yes, I realize I'm conflating the RIAA / MPAA together here. But there is substantial overlap.)
They have locked up our culture. Both music and movies. They begrudgingly let us have access to it at their pleasure. Nothing EVER goes out of ever-expanding copyright.
Now they wonder why people don't listen to the music or attend movies? Maybe access to "their" culture is too restrictive and expensive. You get treated like a criminal to attend a theater. People can, and I dare say have, found other forms of entertainment.
Now Netflix, HBO, Amazon and others are making and funding production of their own new original series. And making it easy and economical to access.
The MPAA / RIAA what a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
With theater attendance at a two-decade low and profits dwindling, the kind of disruption that hit music, publishing, and other industries is already reshaping the entertainment business. From A.I. Aaron Sorkin to C.G.I. actors to algorithmic editing, Nick Bilton investigates what lies ahead.
A few months ago, the vision of Hollywood’s economic future came into terrifyingly full and rare clarity. I was standing on the set of a relatively small production, in Burbank, just north of Los Angeles, talking to a screenwriter about how inefficient the film-and-TV business appeared to have become. Before us, after all, stood some 200 members of the crew, who were milling about in various capacities, checking on lighting or setting up tents, but mainly futzing with their smartphones, passing time, or nibbling on snacks from the craft-service tents. When I commented to the screenwriter that such a scene might give a Silicon Valley venture capitalist a stroke on account of the apparent unused labor and excessive cost involved in staging such a production—which itself was statistically uncertain of success—he merely laughed and rolled his eyes. “You have no idea,” he told me.
Yes, that too. But his empire was built long before Linux. Once you're playing dirty, you might as well continue.
The 1980's and 1990's are littered with corpses of companies that competed with Microsoft. If you had something good, Microsoft either bought it from you on unfavorable terms, outright stole it, or built their own inferior product while destroying your business.
One tactic: 'partner' with a company. The agreement includes that if your company goes bankrupt, then your IP reverts to Microsoft. You agree, because it seems you're getting a good deal. However, before the ink is dry, Microsoft is already trying to put you out of business.
Here's another favorite: After saying "the internet is a fad" -- Bill Gates; suddenly Microsoft wakes up and smells the Internet. It needs a browser now! There is a company, Spyglass, with a browser made for Windows. Microsoft buys them for $100,000 up front, plus a royalty percent of sales. Guess how many copies of IE were ever sold?
Remember kiddies: Open Source is a cancer! -- Steve Ballmer. Open Source is Un-American and legislators need to be educated to the danger! -- Jim Alchin, the #4 guy at MS at the time, and later head of Longhorn and Vista.
If you use HTTPS (eg, TLS) how can anyone do an MiTM attack?
The MiTM doesn't have the private key for the certificate. So it is unable to negotiate a private session key with the end user browser.
I understand how the MiTM can pretend to be the browser and establish a connection to Amazon.com. But I would surely like to know how the MiTM can impersonate Amazon.com without Amazon's private key.
In short, while MiTMs are theoretically possible. And somewhat possible on a corporate network, it can be detected, and it is not likely to be impossible on your home ISP on your home computer. (Unless you install a trusty CD ROM into your computer provided by your ISP.)
One way that I do know, is to subvert the trust of the user agent (eg, your web browser). That can be done in a corporate environment by inserting a new trusted CA certificate into your local trust store. Now the MiTM can instantly issue it's own Amazon.com certificate, and it will have the private key since it issued the certificate. And your browser will trust it.
That's a corporate environment. Even then, browsers can discover that the certificate the MiTM is presenting is NOT the certificate it should be. Google, for example, knows who signed its certificates, and its browser knows who signs Google's certificates, and that signer is not the CA that was added to the local trust store.
You can also run browser plug in apps that watch for changes in the certificates of secure sites you visit.
In an ISP environment, I really can't see how an ISP can do this. My ISP definitely cannot change the trust store on my browser nor on my OS. So my ISP definitely should not be able to execute an MiTM attack.
Now there is one avenue left. Subvert the entire CA infrastructure. There are a lot of CA certificates in the trust store these days. You could get a Google.com certificate issued by Honest Achmed's Certificate Authority of Tehran Iran. And your browser might trust it. But do you really think a Google.com certificate presented that was signed by Honest Achmed's is real? Do you really think this is where Google purchases certificates from?
We've come a long way since the Clipper Chip fiasco
Government tried to mandate "government approved" crypto in the 1990's. (Clinton)
The absurdity of it became apparent.
They even classified crypto as a munition. They did everything to suppress exporting of good crypto. Because "going dark", or whatever they called it back then.
So what if you took an excellent crypto textbook (quite thick) across the border? The government didn't seem to be quite ready to stop people from taking academic textbooks available in any bookstore or library across open borders.
Also, the rest of the world got the message. Actually two messages: 1. Do NOT trust US government mandated crypto 2. Any real research on crypto would move outside the US
Another thing was learned by all. It's not intuitive. The only good crypto is OPEN crypto. The algorithm must be completely open. Only the keys are secret. If someone is selling you a proprietary or closed crypto, it is snake oil.
Now here we are today well over two decades later, with a lot of lessons learned. And they think they can do this again.
They can pass any laws they want. But they just don't get it.
When strong cryptography is outlawed only outlaws will have strong cryptography.
Terrorists won't be detered from strong cryptography. I'm sure they'll be quaking in their boots that it's illegal in some countries.
The only people without privacy will be law abiding people.
The back doors of government weak insecure crypto WILL be broken. It's only a question of when. Then an enemy will have access to a lot of secrets.
I don't think so. It's easy to stop looking like a greedy miser once you have more money than you could ever dream of spending. And Melinda may have brought this perceived change about.
But remember. Gates threw temper tantrums if he didn't get his way. Just like a lot of rich and powerful people. And this was even before Twitter.
Back in the mid 1990's, there was some prime time tv magazine show. It came and went. I don't remember the name. But the host was Connie Chung. She was interviewing Bill Gates. In his office. She asked a reasonable journalistic question critical of Microsoft's monopoly and Bill Gates just lost it. Major temper tantrum. He threw her and the entire crew out of his office on the spot -- all recorded -- and broadcast on national tv.
That was very informative to me about Gates to watch him instantly change from a calm, cool, collected, in-charge guy to a raving lunatic in seconds.
It's worse than closed source proprietary software.
It was that Gates is a monopolist. PC-DOS is IBM's OS for their PC. But Microsoft has the rights to sell MS-DOS on other brands. That was a smart move.
But then Microsoft dictates to all other PC OEMs that if you want to sell MS-DOS on your PCs, you must pay for a copy of MS-DOS for every PC you sell -- whether that PC has MS-DOS on it or not. Thus, all competing OSes are instantly disadvantaged. Companies that made better OSes, and there were some, can't compete with Microsoft, because every sale of their superior OS also funds Microsoft to compete against them with its inferior MS-DOS.
I hope history never forgets this. It's now so ancient most people don't remember. It was (just barely) before GUIs.
A president can ensure that his own agencies won't sue over it.
Private money and years of time must be expended to litigate against things unconstitutional. Depending on the subject matter, a successful litigation may be irrelevant by the time it is achieved through legal process.
What's not to love? Violating the constitution, as long as it's done at a high enough level is a win-win tactic.
Imagine if a US leader realized that if they do unconstitutional things, they could make sure their own government agencies don't sue them over it. It would then take private money, and years of time in court to bring a challenge. Depending on what kind of action we're talking about, the challenge might not even matter.
I agree that a human stenographer should still be used in addition to an audio / video system.
A human has far better hearing than an audio system. Can distinguish the direction a sound came from, and who said it.
I believe that at some point stenographers may no longer be necessary. But we're not (quite) there yet. It is just too important to have a record of the court proceedings. A failure cannot be tolerated. A human can speak up and ask to repeat something. And sometimes does. Or which juror asked that question? Etc.