×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

258 comments

Ironyyyy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419728)

Wikipedia has it.

Re:Ironyyyy (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419980)

Why is it irony? WP's article says the "free speech flag" apparently is the HD-DVD key. While the whole DVD key scheme is annoying, turning their key into your flag is, well, waving a flag the MPAA's face for a lawsuit.

True Names (5, Informative)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420386)

The key amounts to a "true name [wikipedia.org]", a label which is identical to the natural essence of that which is named. I'd never considered it anything other than an amusing literary device until now. Calling it "the HD-DVD key" is akin to "He Who Must Not Be Named". To state the true name itself - which is the only way to give an accurate reference thereto - is to reveal the great secret (of a now-defunct format - heh) and incur the wrath of the MPAA. To reference it using a peculiar sequence of colors is playing "I'm not saying it" games, akin to trying to tell someone the secret name without actually saying it. You cannot tell someone not to use that sequence of numbers, a short enough sequence that it could in fact be used by accident, without violating the [potential] copyright.

Upshot: the key amounts to a true name, and you can't assert legal right to a name and then prohibit anyone from ever using it (even in appropriate context). It wasn't copyrighted, it can't be copyrighted (heck, the copyright notice would be longer than what's copyrighted), and to ban use of the "free speech flag" is tantamount to fearing the utterance of "Voldemort" - silly. If there is in fact an issue, it need be fixed by means other than fearing a "true name".

Re:Ironyyyy (1)

JackOfAllGeeks (1034454) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420528)

turning their key into your flag is, well, waving a flag the MPAA's face for a lawsuit.

Uhm... so? Are you arguing that because the MPAA might get upset we shouldn't say it?

5 fucking color stripes in a square. (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419740)

This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated.

this is ridiculous. someday, someone will be able to claim 'rights' in the arrangement that someone's crap makes when out of their ass.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (5, Funny)

Necroloth (1512791) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419824)

this is ridiculous. someday, someone will be able to claim 'rights' in the arrangement that someone's crap makes when out of their ass.

didn't you know? Jar Jar Binks is copyrighted.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (5, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419870)

This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated.

No, this is Wikipedia process-wankery and why they're losing editors in droves.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (2, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420310)

No, this is Wikipedia process-wankery and why they're losing editors in droves.

It would be interesting to survey those whom leave. In comparison, most of the people I know whom left, hated the deletionist griefers. They are why I refuse to participate.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (2, Informative)

jimktrains (838227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420482)

Ditto, the deletionists are why I have such mixed feelings about wikipedia. I don't see any good reason a legit article shouldn't be deleted based on some persons definition of fame.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420522)

Ditto, the deletionists are why I have such mixed feelings about wikipedia. I don't see any good reason a legit article shouldn't be deleted based on some persons definition of fame.

I also stopped editing wikipedia, mostly because of the deletionists.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (4, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420322)

Too bad they can't arrange to lose the right editors.

Wikipedia appears to be the Web 2.0 equivalent of urban flight and blight: anyone with a clue is ditching fast, and pretty soon, the only ones left in the "inner city" will be criminals and psychos

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (1, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420480)

Wikipedia appears to be the Web 2.0 equivalent of urban flight and blight: anyone with a clue is ditching fast, and pretty soon, the only ones left in the "inner city" will be criminals and psychos

And the politicians and paid corporate astroturfers. Oh wait, redundant.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (0)

hduff (570443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420374)

No, this is Wikipedia process-wankery and why they're losing editors in droves.

This move to re-move is simply political trolling and biatchy bumfuggery on the part of some over-active asshat.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420410)

Someone could set up a FreePedia in Sweden.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (1, Interesting)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420452)

It is inevitable that all organizations become corrupt, as they attract people desiring Status or Power. Wikipedia did that as people sought status by become "moderators", and now it's an unfriendly place for contributors, due to these persons acting dictatorial (or bureaucratic - almost as bad).

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (2, Informative)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419886)

Sony is just testing the waters to see how far they can go in their "California" matter and Wikipedia just doesn't want to waste resources in the eventual court battle. While I'm not going to applaud Wikipedia, I can't throw too many rocks at them either.

Soon someone big is going to have to deal with it and I get the feeling that it isn't going to be favorable for Sony, who has been pretty reckless since they don't have a wold conquering media format to rest their laurels on. Until then it is probably better for small players with out an army of lawyers, to keep their heads down until this thing comes to an end. Then again if the EFF wants to jump in, more power to them.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419924)

eff can jump in, mount a campaign for the particular case, and get donations. im sure a lot of people will donate to them.

then sony can get their ass straightened out and properly compliant with modern standards of liberty and freedom of knowledge and information.

262144 pixels on a grid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419910)

I agree that it is somewhat stupid, but an image is an image, and I'm not sure if we're better off if we start setting limits on how detailed an image has to be in order to have copyright apply to it. Or maybe we are. Is it weird that I find this whole thing analogous to the abortion issue?

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (2)

DCram (459805) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419926)

I am unsure how I feel about this. While I believe that IP and copyright are getting way out of hand I ask myself how would I react to a company flying my countries flag, family crest, company logo. How would you feel if Walmart changed its logo to the American flag? Would you want them to be seen as directly representing the US.

I don't know..I can see both sides. Not sure I agree with either.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (3, Insightful)

DJ Particle (1442247) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420004)

Many companies incorporate a US flag, or an avatar of it, in their logos

For example: America's Best eyewear [twopair.com]

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420180)

Define "most"

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (1)

sglewis100 (916818) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420234)

Many companies incorporate a US flag, or an avatar of it, in their logos

Define "most"

Why would he define most? He used MANY.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420236)

Most != Many

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (5, Informative)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419970)

Wikipedia doesn't challenge copyright.

For example they removed the List of 210 Television designated market areas (DMAs), because Nielsen complained it was copyrighted. Even after I provided a *public domain* version from the Federal Communications Commission (they call them 'television markets' for purposes of regulation), wikipedia still refused to allow it to be posted.

Don't look to wikipedia to challenge corporations. They won't do it.

Oh No, not another thing! (4, Informative)

Joe U (443617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420026)

Don't look to wikipedia to challenge corporations. They won't do it.

Well, that's 2 things they're not good for now:

1. Reliable information.
2. Challenging corporations.

However, they do excel at wasting my time and deleting things. So, it does make up for it in some way, I think.

Re:Oh No, not another thing! (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420652)

And even if they do present reliable information they present it in the driest most boring tone ever created. They suck the fun out of learning. When I was a child I used to get excited when I saw a shelf of encyclopedias. I can't imagine wikipedia does the same for kids these days.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420084)

nielsen can still sue wikipedia even if you put up a public domain version of something.

thats the fault of american system - the one with the money wins the court.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420584)

Yeah but since it's public domain information "owned" by the US Government rather than a corporation, the case would quickly be thrown-out.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (3, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420372)

... blah ... For example they removed ... blah ...

The deletionist griefers at wikipedia enjoy filling their empty lives by destroying others work. Thats why its gone, because you cared, and they wanted the rush of destroying something you wanted. If you expressed deep desire for a table of American Morse Code letters or perhaps semaphone signals, they would delete them. Everything else is rationalization and story telling. On both sides.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420402)

Wikipedia doesn't challenge copyright.

For example they removed the List of 210 Television designated market areas (DMAs), because Nielsen complained it was copyrighted. Even after I provided a *public domain* version from the Federal Communications Commission (they call them 'television markets' for purposes of regulation), wikipedia still refused to allow it to be posted.

Don't look to wikipedia to challenge corporations. They won't do it.

They'd probably let you keep your submission assuming you put the money in escrow to cover any potential court battle. Otherwise, are you surprised they choose to take potentially infringing things down?

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (1)

eyrieowl (881195) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420548)

Yes. Everything is potentially infringing by that rubric. If you can demonstrate a public-domain source for the information, I'd say you've done a lot more legwork than most submitters do to prove that the information they're adding to the site isn't infringing a copyright, so if they're going to delete that out of potential infringement, literally nothing is safe from that protectionist red-herring.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420640)

Don't look to wikipedia to challenge corporations. They won't do it.

Maybe they should plaster a "Please read this personal appeal from Jimmy Wales" sign on every window, alongside a picture of him, staring intently forward, looking like he's about to try and kiss the viewer.

It worked for Wikipedia's fund drive, maybe it'd work for corporate activism too.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (4, Interesting)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419998)

"This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated. "

Arrangements of the 7 existing (western) musical notes are much worse.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (4, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420108)

You're taking things too broadly. Its a case of encoding.

Its very possible for me to grab something which has a copyright, convert it to binary and then convert it into:

1. Colours
2. Strings
3. Numbers
4. Music

So while "Owning Arrangements of Colour" sounds stupid in principle, what you could do if this was not the case would completely destroy copyright on many things. Now you could say that's a good thing, but meh.

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420164)

This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated.

The funny thing is that the flag is MORE worthy of copyright protection than the original key. If you pick 5 random colors and put them on a flag, that's creative work worthy of copyright protection. An arbitrary encryption key is the result of a purely mechanical process and should not meet the threshold of originality [wikipedia.org].

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420422)

TRADEMARK IT
(insert: Insanity Wolf pic)
AND SUE SONY!!

Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420448)

this is ridiculous. someday, someone will be able to claim 'rights' in the arrangement that someone's crap makes when out of their ass.

Not if there's prior fart.

It's the wrong key anyway! (4, Informative)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420582)

It's not the key that lets you sign your own code. It's not the key that lets you decrypt the OS. It's not the key that lets you decrypt games. It doesn't let you do anything interesting. Huh? What? Yes, you heard me.

It's a useless key that is used to authenticate factory service dongles (which will only let you run signed executables anyway, and those signing keys are secure as of the latest firmware and will never be obtained). Its only purpose so far was to perform downgrades (as released in a commercial product using stolen service executables) in order to use another commercial product (by ostensibly the same company) which used an exploit to enable game piracy (using a whole bunch of other methods unrelated to it). All of this predated the 27c3 presentation and geohot's release. It's useless now and has never served any "master" key purpose. It was called the "master key used to generate service dongle keys", then of course the clueless news websites just shortened that to "master key".

The PS3 has tons of keys and you can't "do everything" with one key. You need three or four to run stuff via metldr, that's why geohot released a whole bunch of keys, not just one (none of which are the one that was used here). But if you must pick one "representative" key to obfuscate and post and distribute and make an icon out of, at least pick Da from geohot's keyset (starts with C5). That's the metldr private key, originally stored at some vault at Sony's HQ, calculated thanks to their massive signing screwup, and which can be used to sign code that all existing PS3s will execute, forever (you still need to encrypt it, but signing is ideologically more important). And for fuck's sake, please let go of the "46 DC" dongle key already. Please.

Conspiracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419816)

I am not your usual conspiracy theory fanatic, but I might be behaving like one now. But recently, I am having the feeling that wikipedia, has been infiltrated(long time ago) by bunch of admins who want certain things gone. Maybe I just need to look deeper to realize it's wrong. But it's a feeling.

Re:Conspiracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420252)

Maybe I just need to look deeper to realize it's wrong. But it's a feeling.

More than a feeling. The Old Man Murray article deletion that was on here a few days ago was primarily driven by a single individual that had an old dispute with the site who had been RfD other articles about the same people behind OMM. Blatant conflict of interest.

I think most people start trying to improve wikipedia, but only those with less than noble intent seem to have the drive to put up with what the wikipedia rules have been twisted into.

This seems simple enough to fix (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419844)

There's only one question here that needs answered: Has the current copyright owner released the flag for use under a compatible license?

Re:This seems simple enough to fix (0)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419982)

There is no copyright owner. The flag is a graphical representation of an encryption key. Since an encryption key is arbitrary, and requires no creative input, it cannot be copyrighted.

Of course, none of that means that WP won't be sued anyway.

Re:This seems simple enough to fix (1)

SudoGhost (1779150) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420254)

Name a flag that isn't a graphical representation of something. A flag is nothing without meaning.

There was a copyright owner (2)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420326)

That's not right. While I fail to see how the key itself, as a short sequence of arbitrary numbers, can be copyrighted, the flag is a creative work and is just as eligible for copyright as anything else. The wiki page lists an author who released the image into the public domain.

Re:There was a copyright owner (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420526)

You're right. I was thinking of the copyright owner of the encryption key, of which the flag is a derivative work.

For all you non-Americans . . (4, Interesting)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419846)

This controversy is a metaphor of the beautiful paradox that is the USA.

We have a flag for free speech, yet the flag is legally unavailable unless a contract with the owner of the flag is secured.

Re:For all you non-Americans . . (1)

DJ Particle (1442247) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419956)

It's not the flag itself that's the problem, it's the apparently "copyrighted" number it represents.

Re:For all you non-Americans . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420586)

The "Internationale" song is copyrighted too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internationale
In 2005, Le Chant du Monde, the corporation administering the authors' rights, asked Pierre Merejkowsky, the film director and an actor of Insurrection / résurrection, to pay €1,000 for whistling the song for seven seconds.

Is this a joke? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419852)

This can't be for serious. They're deleting an image that represents free speech because it violates copyright law?

Am I missing something or is this really as stupid as it sounds?

This is on par with that whole debacle of 1984 getting remotely recalled from kindle's.

Re:Is this a joke? (4, Interesting)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419892)

Am I missing something or is this really as stupid as it sounds?

I'm afraid it really is this stupid.
Wikipedia has become more of a bureaucracy than an "open" encyclopedia. [citation needed]

Re:Is this a joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420000)

Wikipedia has become more of a bureaucracy than an "open" encyclopedia.

This comment does not currently meet our Notability standards. Unless you're capable of having this comment printed and referred to by a third party, and cite said third party as a reference, we'll have to revert.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420024)

I don't know why but that reminded me of this quote [bash.org]:

<CtrlAltDestroy> Here is my impression of Wikipedia.
<CtrlAltDestroy> "There are five fingers on the human hand [citation needed]"

Re:Is this a joke? (3, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420112)

This is why I *never* log in anymore for the few times I "edit" something (and I use random IPs). It's hardly worth the time to edit anyway.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420626)

QUOTE:

I'm afraid it really is this stupid. Wikipedia has become more of a bureaucracy than an "open" encyclopedia. [citation needed]

To that you can add NPOV, and notoriety.

Being Nice? (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419854)

Is this because people are scared there *might* be some legal ground for a take down or do they actually have some footing in this case?

Re:Being Nice? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420276)

It's because the MPAA claims to hold the copyright on the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 (used as an encryption key for HD-DVDs), and the "free-speech flag" is a representation of that number.

When confronted with a claim by the originator of a "work" that said "work" is copyrighted, and counterclaims that the "work" does not constitute a copyrightable work, it is Wikipedia policy to crawl away like a bitty little bug.

Re:Being Nice? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420662)

wait, you're saying that the number sequence:

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

is somehow special?

let me save that so that I can do some analysis on this, later on.

Free speech (1)

bragr (1612015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419856)

Well I guess wikipedia's right to free speech includes the right to not say anything at all I suppose.

waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419920)

the MPAA has asserted they own all rights to the number under the DMCA

It still astounds me that the (current interpretation of the) law allows someone to own all the rights to a number

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (3, Insightful)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419978)

In some ways it makes sense, but there needs to be better defined limits.

Everything is representable as a number. Software, this post, a scan of the Mona Lisa. Where do you draw the line?

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420080)

Even drawing the line at a creative work is problematic. For the next super-secret encryption key, they will make the flag first, claim they chose the colors for the aesthetics, and then use the number.

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (2)

Zerth (26112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420524)

And we'll just use a different colorspace. Invent one, if we have to. Scarlet, Orange, Navy, Yellow or something.

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420534)

Good, then we will not need to use hacking to find out the key, we allready have the key when they release the flag.

and the response will be a flag using the keys values as HSV values, instead of RGB values.

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (2)

boristdog (133725) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419984)

Fine. I'm patenting "1".

Now you and I can sue everyone who uses a binary computer.

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420160)

Computers do not use 1 or 0 as you believe. They use various potential differences (voltage) to handle state. We assign them as numbers/characters to ease our understanding.

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420350)

Who died and made *you* Captain Obvious?

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420434)

Obviously Captain Obvious

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420390)

It can easily (especially using historical documents and interviews) be argued that computers us the "potential differences (voltage)" to represent the numbers of 1 and 0 as designed by the humans that conceived of them.

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420138)

Software is a string of binary - number
Music can be digitised - string of binary - number
Images can be digitised - string of binary - number
Top Secret Military files - string of binary - number

Its a question of encoding.

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (0)

adonoman (624929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420156)

Every application, game, song, movie, image, story, or whatever that is stored in digital form is just a number - a really big number, but still just a number. You can argue that some numbers are too small to be copyrighted, but I don't think it's reasonable to say no numbers are copyrightable. For example, the text of the first three sentences in this comment could be copyrighted, and represented by the number:

0x45 76 65 72 79 20 61 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74 69 6f 6e 2c 20 67 61 6d 65 2c 20 73 6f 6e 67 2c 20 6d 6f 76 69 65 2c 20 69 6d 61 67 65 2c 20 73 74 6f 72 79 2c 20 6f 72 20 77 68 61 74 65 76 65 72 20 74 68 61 74 20 69 73 20 73 74 6f 72 65 64 20 69 6e 20 64 69 67 69 74 61 6c 20 66 6f 72 6d 20 69 73 20 6a 75 73 74 20 61 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 20 2d 20 61 20 72 65 61 6c 6c 79 20 62 69 67 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 2c 20 62 75 74 20 73 74 69 6c 6c 20 6a 75 73 74 20 61 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 2e 20 20 59 6f 75 20 63 61 6e 20 61 72 67 75 65 20 74 68 61 74 20 73 6f 6d 65 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 73 20 61 72 65 20 74 6f 6f 20 73 6d 61 6c 6c 20 74 6f 20 62 65 20 63 6f 70 79 72 69 67 68 74 65 64 2c 20 62 75 74 20 49 20 64 6f 6e 5c 27 74 20 74 68 69 6e 6b 20 69 74 5c 27 73 20 72 65 61 73 6f 6e 61 62 6c 65 20 74 6f 20 73 61 79 20 6e 6f 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 73 20 61 72 65 20 63 6f 70 79 72 69 67 68 74 61 62 6c 65 2e 20 20 46 6f 72 20 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 2c 20 74 68 65 20 74 65 78 74 20 6f 66 20 74 68 65 20 66 69 72 73 74 20 74 68 72 65 65 20 73 65 6e 74 65 6e 63 65 73 20 69 6e 20 74 68 69 73 20 63 6f 6d 6d 65 6e 74 20 63 6f 75 6c 64 20 62 65 20 63 6f 70 79 72 69 67 68 74 65 64 2c 20 61 6e 64 20 72 65 70 72 65 73 65 6e 74 65 64 20 62 79 20 74 68 65 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 3a

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420358)

So the combination is... 0x45 76 65 72 79 20 61 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74 69 6f 6e 2c 20 67 61 6d 65 2c 20 73 6f 6e 67 2c 20 6d 6f 76 69 65 2c 20 69 6d 61 67 65 2c 20 73 74 6f 72 79 2c 20 6f 72 20 77 68 61 74 65 76 65 72 20 74 68 61 74 20 69 73 20 73 74 6f 72 65 64 20 69 6e 20 64 69 67 69 74 61 6c 20 66 6f 72 6d 20 69 73 20 6a 75 73 74 20 61 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 20 2d 20 61 20 72 65 61 6c 6c 79 20 62 69 67 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 2c 20 62 75 74 20 73 74 69 6c 6c 20 6a 75 73 74 20 61 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 2e 20 20 59 6f 75 20 63 61 6e 20 61 72 67 75 65 20 74 68 61 74 20 73 6f 6d 65 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 73 20 61 72 65 20 74 6f 6f 20 73 6d 61 6c 6c 20 74 6f 20 62 65 20 63 6f 70 79 72 69 67 68 74 65 64 2c 20 62 75 74 20 49 20 64 6f 6e 5c 27 74 20 74 68 69 6e 6b 20 69 74 5c 27 73 20 72 65 61 73 6f 6e 61 62 6c 65 20 74 6f 20 73 61 79 20 6e 6f 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 73 20 61 72 65 20 63 6f 70 79 72 69 67 68 74 61 62 6c 65 2e 20 20 46 6f 72 20 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 2c 20 74 68 65 20 74 65 78 74 20 6f 66 20 74 68 65 20 66 69 72 73 74 20 74 68 72 65 65 20 73 65 6e 74 65 6e 63 65 73 20 69 6e 20 74 68 69 73 20 63 6f 6d 6d 65 6e 74 20 63 6f 75 6c 64 20 62 65 20 63 6f 70 79 72 69 67 68 74 65 64 2c 20 61 6e 64 20 72 65 70 72 65 73 65 6e 74 65 64 20 62 79 20 74 68 65 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 3a? That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life! The kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!

Size matters (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420392)

Every application, game, song, movie, image, story, or whatever that is stored in digital form is just a number - a really big number, but still just a number. You can argue that some numbers are too small to be copyrighted, but I don't think it's reasonable to say no numbers are copyrightable.

Size matters. Words and short phrases, slogans, titles, etc. are ineligible for copyright, despite the fact that they are combinations of words just like a book or play. It is irrelevant that anything can be represented numerically. I cannot possibly see how the encryption key can be protected by copyright. It is functional, it is an extremely short sequence, it is arbitrary and required no creative effort... in short, it is everything that copyright is not. If it truly is protected by copyright, I would like to see them try to register it. Good luck with that.

A better question is whether the flag is a circumvention device, and that is nearly as hard to argue.

Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved (2)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420294)

This has nothing to do with patents. It has to do with the concept that the key, under the DMCA, "effectively controls access to a protected work".

So you don't even have to spend money on a patent. You just have to use a public domain cryptosystem (or roll your own, if you can avoid the patent minefield) and hand it a frequently-used-on-the-internet number as a symmetric key. Then go around demanding that people remove that number from various websites, because publishing it violates the DMCA.

Is this even a thing? (5, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419940)

How many of you were aware there was such a thing AS the "Free Speeg Flag"? I wasn't (I was half expecting to see an article about a bitfield struct.). How many of us have actually seen one, and not some SVG but an actual cloth banner on a pole, in an actual context in the RL? Does the Important Movement of Our Time, AKA ripping movies and posting them on a torrent, really need a flag?

This thing looks like it was invented by some self-aggrandizing dweeb who is now trying to get a slashdot flash mob to save his "original research."

Re:Is this even a thing? (1)

heckler95 (1140369) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420022)

The hex HTML color codes for the colors in the flag represent the encryption key. It's a way to publish the key without actually publishing the key. Pretty clever if you ask me.

Re:Is this even a thing? (2)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420090)

Presumably it can only exist online or in digital format. As soon as you display it, print it or make a flag out of it any mismatch from fading, dye inconsistencies, LED spec variation etc. would mean that the colors no longer have that exact hexadecimal representation.

Re:Is this even a thing? (4, Informative)

SethThresher (1958152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420208)

I was aware of it before today, but this is the first time I've ever really seen it mentioned outside of the HD-DVD encryption, or since that time. Back then folks were doing anything to keep the basics of that key from being suppressed or deleted, so the flag ended up emerging as another end for this goal. It's quite clever, really. The fact that wikipedia is moving to delete it speaks volumes for wikipedia's current attitude towards notability and their ability to mold information as a few select editors see fit.

Re:Is this even a thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420270)

I agree, I'm tired of these misguided hipster youths getting things like pirated DVDs and drugs confused with real free speech and human rights.

The notion of representing the PS3 key as a colored flag is a meaningless gesture. As is the Free Speech flag. If people want to spend their time fighting for a cause, there are better ways to do it than this.

Re:Is this even a thing? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420432)

Not to mention that once I read up on the "Free Speech Flag", I completely failed to see how it was about Free Speech at all. I could see how it was a 'clever' encoding of some decryption key, and now that's all it seems to represent to me.. somebody's idea of sneaking-in-plain-sight a decryption key past some manner of perceived Big Brother that comes down hard on those who dare publish it 'as is'.

Free Speech would be just publishing the key, in relevant articles, period. Not hiding it behind 'flag colors', or pointing out that the key exists in the digits of pi at digit #whatever, or any other sort of obfuscation.

If they're trying to show the opposite - that one has to go through such lengths in order to publish (privileged) information at all, then it still fails because the key -is- published up the wazoo on the internet. Just because a particular site doesn't want it published through their avenue - for whatever reason - doesn't mean you can't have it published and available to a wide audience.

Umm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419944)

The color combination is pretty unsightly, but not evilly so. Wonder if this'd look good in tie-dye?

The online encyclopedia almost anyone can edit (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419966)

... unless you're not one of the handful of pre-approved mods who require no justification for cutting out larger swaths of knowledge than the 1984 Ministry of Truth.

Re:The online encyclopedia almost anyone can edit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420078)

I'm not entirely convinced that deleting copies of something to which an as-yet unlitigated (and therefore possibly valid) copyright claim has been asserted is a "larger swath[] of knowledge than the 1984 Ministry of Truth" cut out. Have you read the book? It goes a good bit farther than this and is different on a fundamental level. In 1984, the Ministry of Truth is tasked with constantly rewriting history to manipulate every citizen's thoughts. This is just an argument over whether copyright can attach to a number which happens to be the key to decrypting and making copies of other copyrighted material.

Wikipolice? (5, Insightful)

margeman2k3 (1933034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420054)

I find it interesting (and maybe a little disturbing) that Wikipedia, which was supposed to be open for everyone, and always seemed to represent freedom, democracy, etc. now has a "secret police" system. There are a group of editors there who can just make pages... disappear. The logs are hidden from everyone (even the admins).
It's like those pages just never existed.

It makes you wonder what else is going on inside Wikipedia.

Re:Wikipolice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420280)

Why doesn't someone just mirror Wikipedia in real time and ignore all the deletion changesets?

Although I will say that Wikipedia is a good example of how 'open source' democracy is doomed to fail in short order. Ideals always take a back seat to reality.

Re:Wikipolice? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420428)

Why doesn't someone just mirror Wikipedia in real time and ignore all the deletion changesets?

Although I will say that Wikipedia is a good example of how 'open source' democracy is doomed to fail in short order. Ideals always take a back seat to reality.

Try something like that with git and some plain ole source code, and you'll rapidly learn the pain of merges.

Now you could mirror wikipedia but refuse to completely delete pages, or refuse to remove more than 50% of the text at a time or whatever. At which point the deletionist griefers will find a way around your protection, so as to destroy. Such as commit ten reverts each of which deletes 10% of the text, or let the file name stay the same but change the contents to some hash functions, etc.

Why the surprise? (2, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420152)

Wikipedia hasn't been about free speech since about thirty seconds after inception.

It's about control of information by a cabal (admittedly a very LOOSELY affiliated cabal, but a cabal nonetheless) of editors. All of whom have their own particular agendas and axes to grind. And it's not about what you know, but whom.

Re:Why the surprise? (1, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420338)

Oh, Wikipedia? Okay. For a second there, I thought you were talking about Anonymous.

Re:Why the surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420632)

A cabal, per definition, can't all have their own particular agendas and axes to grind. If it's not organized, there is no cabal.

Yeah, because that worked so well for Digg... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420168)

You just know that right at this moment, someone's spamming /b/ about this. Should anyone get the attention of the Anon army, it would result in a huge edit war that would only achieve two things, wikipedia being unavailable for a while due to traffic (whether intentional DDOS or just people flocking to see what's going on), and the flag being inserted in all manner of articles apropos or not.

Remember when this happened on digg?

Wikiwho? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420218)

Isn't Wikipedia that website that deletes knowledge in a time where 2TB drives cost less than 100 bucks?

Super Aspergers who control nothing in real-life but shoot milk out of their male breasts when they can label something they are not interested in "not noteworthy" and delete it then?

That place is an asshole... full of assholes...

The courts use "good faith" (2)

subanark (937286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420296)

The courts are going to use "good faith" in determining what violates copyright law. Part of the purpose of this flag is to encode Sony's copyrighted number sequence. The flag is for this reason not in good faith. If I published a list of every possible 10 byte number in a random order the courts would not find it violating copyright law. If however, someone said look at number 78654321 on my list, and it happened to be Sony's number, the courts would find that document, not mine infringing, as it is just encoding the number. If I came up with some interesting math question to which that number was the solution, it would be infringing if displayed by itself. The question is: If someone wanted to read that number, could they use your material to find it any easier than if they didn't have it?

Re:The courts use "good faith" (2)

oracleguy01 (1381327) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420476)

You shouldn't be able to copyright or trademark a number. That is just absurd. In your example you mention a list of numbers and a math equation, sure you are in good faith but if Sony has a copyright or a trademark on that number it still doesn't stop them from taking you to court and making you fold simply because they have the resources to tie you up in court for years. So you might be in right but because you don't have millions of dollars to spend to defend yourself, you'll lose. Since we use numbers to represent everything at some basis or another, they shouldn't be allowed to be copyrighted or trademarked.

If I came up with some interesting math question to which that number was the solution, it would be infringing if displayed by itself.

Isn't that just crazy, you are saying that just displaying a specific number shouldn't be allowed? So if a lottery happened to come up with the same number as Sony's encryption key, in your world Sony would be justified and in the legal right to sue them for infringement?

Re:The courts use "good faith" (1)

subanark (937286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420608)

I'm not saying what should and should not be. I'm simply stating what I think the courts will do. Tying people in courts using deep pockets is another issue in itself.

I'm not saying that displaying a specific number is disallowed by itself. What is disallowed is if the purpose of displaying the number is to relay Sony's number as "Sony's number". The size of the number doesn't matter. For example, if I say "Sony's PS3 master code is even" I would be infringing, as I am displaying part of the number. However, in that case I'm fairly sure I am protected under fair use.

For the above reason, if a lottery number came up to match that it wouldn't be infringing (unless it was rigged to do so) since its not designed to be Sony's number. Stating that the lottery number that appeared on that date, at that lottery location, is Sony's number would be infringing.

Dear Wikipedia (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420496)

As long as your getting ready to jump the shark anyway, could you be so kind as to delete all reference to the number 5? I fancy that number, so I'm claiming it as mine now in any and all manifestations.

Thanks

Flag of Japan (1)

shoppa (464619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420518)

In related news, the Flag Of Japan Inc. is suing all websites that contain any red circles.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...