Slashdot Mirror

I never stated it was hard to find stuff, just that they communicate with the MPAA/RIAA. Read about it hear: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/prosecution-rests-case-against-wealthy-pirate-bay-admins.ars

Heres a quote from the article: "We heard this claim during the trial when John Kennedy of music trade group IFPI flew up from London and talked about his antipiracy team and how they are in daily communication with Google. The Pirate Bay, on the other hand, famously posted (and then ridiculed) the letters it received from rights-holders asking for material to be removed from the site."

"There's also a good piece at Ars on the fall of the current tiered-pricing plans. "

There's also a difference of opinion by those who actually work in the field

And, from what I have read, it is the people who are being sued by the RIAA/MPAA that are doing questionably legal things.... if you get caught downloading or sharing movies/mp3s, you can and most likely will get sued. (and lose.)

From what I have read, it is just about anybody that is being sued by the RIAA. You don't have to be downloading music, you don't have to own a computer, you don't have to know how to use a computer, and heck... you don't even have to be alive to get sued. (and be forced to settle. Or, in cases where the RIAA has no evidence, at least have your day ruined.)

And furthermore, the law does not support the RIAA's methods. They have been specifically ordered to stop abusing the system by grouping all their "John Doe" suits together, yet they blatantly ignore those orders.

That is the problem with the RIAA lawyers being in the DOJ.

And, from what I have read, it is the people who are being sued by the RIAA/MPAA that are doing questionably legal things.... if you get caught downloading or sharing movies/mp3s, you can and most likely will get sued. (and lose.)

From what I have read, it is just about anybody that is being sued by the RIAA. You don't have to be downloading music, you don't have to own a computer, you don't have to know how to use a computer, and heck... you don't even have to be alive to get sued. (and be forced to settle. Or, in cases where the RIAA has no evidence, at least have your day ruined.)

And furthermore, the law does not support the RIAA's methods. They have been specifically ordered to stop abusing the system by grouping all their "John Doe" suits together, yet they blatantly ignore those orders.

That is the problem with the RIAA lawyers being in the DOJ.

We here in Austin have been paying close attention to the upcoming 'trial'.

One must wonder what they're smoking in the board room at TW, as their proposed per-gig prices are radically higher than all other nationwide competitors, and sure to drive business away from them if they're ever really put in place.

This link:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/the-price-gouging-premiums-of-time-warner-cables-data-caps.ars#

gives a breakdown of pricing between some of the bigger providers. If you go with their lowest package (an insanely paltry 1 gig a month - why not just go back to dialup?) TW is nearly 90 times more expensive than their next major competitor (Comcast), and over 150 times higher than their lowest (ATT). Go de-regulation!

Now, the numbers above assume a hard cap of 400 gigs for the competitors, as they have theoretically "unlimited" plans. However, even going to TW's 10 gig package, which is more in line dollar-wise to the competition, you'd still be looking at roughly 25 to 45 times the price of the same competitors' offering. Even at their maximum (which works out to $175/mo, not $150, and assumes the largest package with the most overage fees), you're still four to eight times higher, but that's coupled with the fact that your monthly bill has quadrupled from what you'd have with a different provider.

According to the new pricing scheme, I'll be allowed about 2 gigs LESS for the same price than what I already consume on average, and have been faithfully paying for over 11 years now. No gaming, no file sharing, no music or movie downloads here, but what with 2 VoIP lines, remote backups, email, etc., our house still goes through about 10 - 12 gigs a month. In today's ever-evolving data-heavy world, that's not excessive.

Oh, they'd get my voice business too, if only I could have the land line also ring the cell whenever anyone calls. It's so convenient only having to give out one number. All three of the VoIP providers I've used in the past five years offered this feature ("simultaneous ring", or "find me/follow me"), not sure why they don't. I've asked.

Though I swore off ATT years ago, it'll be U-Verse for me should these idiotically sized packages ever actually get put into practice. It'll have to be, as neither Verizon or Comcast has any physical presence in Austin, and Grande is concentrating on business. So once again, go deregulation! Competition, what's that?

Speaking of business, if you use RoadRunner at your shop you pay 2.5 times more than what you would for a residential account. If these caps really come into place, you can just about forget any such thing as complimentary WIFI at your local restaurant, bar or other establishment.

And this is how we're increasing our broadband presence in America? Shame on you, TW. How unpatriotic can you be?

Yes.

Here you go.

June 1st 2010 actually. http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/windows-7-rc-download-page-goes-up-early-coming-in-may.ars

That URL looks like "Windows 7 RC download page goes up early coming in my ass"

Lapsus?

June 1st 2010 actually. http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/windows-7-rc-download-page-goes-up-early-coming-in-may.ars

I stand corrected. Came over here to post my findings, and you've already found something as well.

I just saw a similar article today on ars technica.

It looks like other music services are affected by this as well. From the article this line sums it up, "...pricing changes that the labels have managed to negotiate into their contracts with digital music distributors." The blame is squarely on the record labels in this case.

"/. wasn't upset because the FBI was enforcing the law. Most /.ers were upset because the FBI went in on a trumped up over-broad warrant and seized an entire data center."

And "/." couldn't get even THAT right. It wasn't an entire data center. Just CoreIP's 50 machines.

"Telephone delivered via voip is still an essential service. It's the best way to request emergency services (911). So why did the FBI cut off voip service to customers because their provider had been naughty? This is seriously unacceptable behavior."

No, it's because VOIP isn't a telecommunications service and is usually stated in most TOS that they're under different regulatory treatment.

100's of sets of tourist photos randomly scattered across the internet, being added and removed and reorganized by their takers at their whim is not remetely the same thing as a single permanent indexed geo-tagged database filled with photos that were carefully and systematically taken and stitched together.

Actually, there are people working on that.

2. There are many different factual scenarios within the penumbra of "file sharing".

I guess so, but wouldn't there be a scenario about which you could say, "if this is fair use, then most file sharing is fair use."? Something like: setting up your computer to be the server specifically with the intent of allowing others to download.

I don't really know. I tried reading something from the guy's weblog, and I couldn't understand what he was talking about. Plus, I don't think I can trust someone who looks like Senator Palpatine.

The only sense I can make out of it is, might he be trying for jury nullification? It seems like there is an argument to be made, that copyright law wasn't intended to address private non-commercial sharing. However, (IANAL) it doesn't seem like current fair use law makes a blanket exception for sharing non-commercial copies. I've always thought of the argument more as a reason to think about rewriting the laws to try to address copyright concerns in a sensible way, given the realities of the Internet age.

I could see a jury being persuaded to ignore the law, though. Given a random set of 12 people, how many of them do you think have engaged in file sharing themselves?

In related news, his blog is complete utter nonsense.

You're right that the number of portables is what matters. Good thing laptops have been outselling desktops since 2005.

What in the world makes you think that Google would want to fragment their app base into lots of little segments based on inane carrier licenses, and force devs to put out umpteen different versions of each app?

"A Google spokesperson tells Ars, "We inadvertently unpublished the applications for all carriers, and today we have corrected the problem so that all Android Market users outside the T-Mobile US network will now have access to the applications. We have notified the affected developers."

I don't want to hear one more word, whining about how "closed" the iPhone OS, SDK, or App Store is. iPhone is now (or soon will be) officially more "open" than Android.

Actually, google is playing hardball with tmobile: "A Google spokesperson tells Ars, "We inadvertently unpublished the applications for all carriers, and today we have corrected the problem so that all Android Market users outside the T-Mobile US network will now have access to the applications. We have notified the affected developers."

Quoth Ars Technica's article on this same thing (which was updated well before Slashdot's was posted):

A Google spokesperson tells Ars, "We inadvertently unpublished the applications for all carriers, and today we have corrected the problem so that all Android Market users outside the T-Mobile US network will now have access to the applications. We have notified the affected developers."

And while I'm sure some people will complain about it being blocked to anyone at all, the fault here lies with T-Mobile. While it'd be nice if Google could dictate terms as it pleased to the carriers, I somehow don't think that'd go over too well. And on top of that, you don't even *need* to get software from the Android Market to install it (insert jab at iPhone here).

The Witcher (original, not the Enhanced Edition) shipped with a CD-Key that most people thought was useless. It allowed you to register your game with publisher Atari and get... not much.

However, the studio later released an Enhanced Edition, which added more cutscenes, more dialogue, more quests, two side-missions that stand alone from the main game, the official soundtrack, a CD of music inspired by the game and a "making-of" DVD. All this stuff was available for purchase; but the best part is the studio and Atari made all the new content available FOR FREE DOWNLOAD to all the owners of the original game who had registered their games using those previously mostly-useless CD keys.

The content could not be installed without keys. Of course pirates could just download cracked versions of the enhanced editions, but that's a humongous download, six gigs-plus and I doubt casual copiers would bother. Offering all that content free to confirmed, legitimate owners of the original edition wasn't just a nice thing to do, it was also a good incentive to have a legitimate copy of the game.

There were some problems in Canada - the bilingual manual was printed without keys. Oops. I'm one of the people who bought the original game and was stoked when I learned about the new content - only to flip through every page in the manual and find there was no fucking key. Good one, hope the proof-reader got fired for that. However, Atari support was pretty good, I filed a key request and two weeks later was happily slaying drowners with my silver sword - enhanced edition style.

Anyway, this might be a copy-protection scheme worth considering - downloadable content available only for legitimate, registered owners. I don't know how this would work with your game, but for me in my example, I thought it worked great (except for that shitty Polish download server they decided to use to release the enhanced edition content. Good idea, bad execution - make it EASY for customers to get the good stuff and they'll be less likely to visit TPB.)

Let's not forget the time the PRS sued the police! This is all getting rather silly.

Slashdot people can read up on the joys of Mac Chrome here:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/chromium-for-os-x-state-of-the-browser.ars

"uncompressed source tarball occupies about 5GB of disk space"
"From start to end, the process took about 8 hours and the compilation is best run overnight."
"Make sure your directory path has no spaces."
The good part seems to be
"When you sync to the current build, you receive not only the latest OS X-specific updates but also those cross-platform ones that grow the Chrome project as a whole."
Long term Google really wants to get onto the Windows, Mac and Linux desktop it seems :)
They are working slowly and carefully learning from all the platform dependent junk and MS version creep of other failed projects.
One Code to track them all.

Not GP, but a note: TPB is fairly close in size to mininova. Mininova reported an income of over one million euros for 2007. Against the argument they don't make a profit, they rent the servers from themselves and set the expenses to match their income. Hollywood accounting works both ways, I suppose.

If there were someway to magically make illegal torrents go away, the TPB would cease to exist.

Bzztt! Wrong! If the "illegal" torrents were suddenly removed, only a mere 20% of TPB's torrents would go. 80% of the torrents are legal.

I feel your pain, bro. But look at the bright side - at least you're not in Louisiana.

And the follow-up that no one seems to be mentioning:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/03/cognitive-declines-affecting-science-reporting.ars

"Does brain rot set in after 27? Depends how you measure"

"Press reports have focused on a paper that argues that age related cognitive declines begin in the late 20s. Unfortunately, these stories ignore the fact that several papers appearing in the same issue of the journal as the original report contest these findings."

just tell this to the US developers who have recently been tried in France, only because people were using their freely distributed software over there...

the really ironic thing is that a couple of years earlier, all personal use of that type of software was deemed perfectly legal in France...

Here is a counter article at Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/app-store-refunds-will-not-bankrupt-developers.ars

Wikipedia is not a legal resource the fact that people put in their unresearhed opinions in it doesn't mean those opinions are always right. The truth isn't determined by who can pull the most citations out of their ass.

The DMCA prevents circumvention of measures put in place to prevent copyright infringement. Region locking is not a measure put in place to prevent copyright infringment nor is it meant to be.

DVD region locking, however, can be protected by CSS, which is protected by the DMCA and therefore in those cases, it would be illegal for you to circumvent CSS for other than purposes protected in the DMCA (such as interopability).

However, even then, you are not running afoul of the DMCA by poping that disc into a region free DVD player or a DVD player coded specificly for the region the DVD was encoded for.

And if you want me to believe otherwise, given the GP comment I was refering to included other such BS as the "ink cartridge" issue (btw, you can in fact legally refill chipped cartridges). I suggest you be the one to actually provide references. Specificlly one instance where anyone anywhere has been threatened to be or actually was sued for either selling region free players or utilizing them.

DVD's have been in exsistance for over a decade now. Given the ravenous nature of the particular organizations watching over the content being sold on DVD's, if you can't even come up with one case of this happening in that amount of time with the MPAA watching over the format, then I call your arguement BS.

Remember? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/17/1452228

Given the way things are going with Intel and AMD, soon no one will be able to make x86 :P Thou it really seems like a lose lose for either party... http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/03/amd-intel-engaged-in-x86-licensing-staredown.ars

>Stardock isn't handing out loans amounting to hundreds of times more money than the assets of the whole company

How do you know? You have copies of auditor reports? Please post them.

>We're talking about software development companies, here - not unregulated banks.

unregulated software development companies.

>I expect Sun, IBM, Microsoft, Blizzard, Stardock, and Valve to be around for a while yet

Sun won't exist a couple of months from now.

Yahoo still exists but its music customers are SOL so the company still existing is
meaningless on whether your DRM product still works.

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/07/drm-still-sucks-yahoo-music-going-dark-taking-keys-with-it.ars

I've been in a lengthy argument about this guy on the Ars Technica forums. I ended up emailing Bruce Schneier about this and asked his thoughts.

Here was my email to him:

Hi Bruce,

I've been following the Pwn2Own contest for the last couple of years.
Last year a researcher from ISE ( http://securityevaluators.com/ )
named Charlie Miller used an exploit in a Perl library included in
WebKit, the base code for Apple's Safari browser and won a cash price
for his effort. In the press it was claimed he "hacked Safari in mere
seconds". In truth it took a lot more time than that to devise the
exploit and only seconds to execute it.

This year he did it again with another preplanned exploit which he
says he discovered while researching last years bug. Again he won a
cash prize of $10,000.

In an interview with ZDNet he said: "I never give up free bugs. I have
a new campaign. It's called NO MORE FREE BUGS. Vulnerabilities have a
market value so it makes no sense to work hard to find a bug, write an
exploit and then give it away," Miller told ZDNet. "Apple pays people
to do the same job so we know there's value to this work."

I have a major problem with his philosophy and feel this is a
dangerous precedent to set and a bastardization of the goals of
security in the fist place. I feel he has an obligation to inform
Apple and not dangle a dollar amount for the how-to.

Sure he should be paid for his time and effort which is why he works
at a security firm. This contest is basically bonus money and about
bragging rights. Sitting on a bug puts the safety of other users at
risk. But he is basically demanding bribe money for bugs. Who is to
say he wouldn't give up his research to the highest bidder? I'm sure
there are blackhat groups like those in Russia and China that would
pay handsomely for some juicy exploits like this.

Yes there is a long history of security firms hiring hackers and there
have been many questions of whether that is a good idea. But security
firms should take notice of this philosophy and not employee those who
engage in this kind of behavior. It's bad form for his employer and
makes the security industry as a whole look bad by proxy. Would you
hire a security company that employees hackers who blackmail for bugs
to work on your systems? If we hired his firm while I was working IT
at a large New York bank I would advised my boss to make sure he's not
on our project (and perhaps hire an entirely different firm altogether).

I've been in a discussion with other users about this. There seems to
be a split in viewpoint, one side saying he should let Apple and the
WebKit developers know about this exploit for the betterment of
everyone (for free). The other side feels this is purely about
capitalism and he has no moral or ethical obligation to tell anyone.

Some have likened it to seeing a crack in a bridge that might fail.
Are you obligated to inform someone of the problem? What if Dan
Kaminsky demanded $1 million to divulge details on the DNS BIND problem?

What are your feelings on this?

Thanks

Here's the discussion I've been following:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/996001677931?r=869003677931#869003677931

http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2009/03/21/pwn2own-wrap-up

Bruce wrote me back today with his response:

There's a fine line between being paid for your efforts and extortion. This seems to cross it.

What exactly is your point?

Is your point that publishers should work to minimize infringing copies of their works while encouraging purchase of legal copies? Well, I'm with you there!

Or is your point that publishers need DRM to accomplish that? Why would you believe that?

There is copyright infringement of music. And major music labels swore on their bibles, torahs, korans, and stock options that they needed strong DRM, or else there would be rampant copyright infringement and no new music would ever be created.

Today the market has largely rejected DRM on music. It's easier than ever to make and distribute infringing copies of songs. There is absolutely nothing preventing infringing copies from being made. Yet the world hasn't ended. Music is still being made.

A combination of ways to discourage infringement and encourage purchasing legal copies were found: Lower prices. Watermarking of songs. Making the legal market more convenient than the illegal market. Ensuring that the legal versions were just as good as the illegal versions. Encouraging people to support the artists they like by paying for the songs. But DRM went out the window.

So if by "finding an acceptable solution" you mean "lowering prices, watermarking games, making the legal market more convenient than the illegal market, ensuring the legal versions are just as good as the illegal versions, and encouraging people to support developers whose games they like by paying for games," great! But if you mean "We just need to find the magical level of DRM," not necessarily.

The deal breaker for me is that a Steam game, like any DRMed game, is not as good as the illegal version. What if Steam goes out of business? Or moves to Steam2 and decides they don't want to support Steam1 anymore? I lose access to all of the games I "own." Surely I can trust a large corporation like Valve, right? Ha! Large companies who screwed their customers in exactly this way include Yahoo, Google (although you got a refund), Major League Baseball, Microsoft (temporary reprieve for a few years), Wal-Mart, and Sony. Given that lineup, why should I trust an itty-bitty little company like Steam/Valve?

(To be fair, I can actually see a DRM system I would whole heartedly support: a binding public commitment to strip the DRM from the game after a short period of time. Maybe 6 to 12 months. This would hamper illegal copies during the highest profit part of the games lifespan. The binding public commitment means that someone like me would buy sooner than later.)

What exactly is your point?

Is your point that publishers should work to minimize infringing copies of their works while encouraging purchase of legal copies? Well, I'm with you there!

Or is your point that publishers need DRM to accomplish that? Why would you believe that?

There is copyright infringement of music. And major music labels swore on their bibles, torahs, korans, and stock options that they needed strong DRM, or else there would be rampant copyright infringement and no new music would ever be created.

Today the market has largely rejected DRM on music. It's easier than ever to make and distribute infringing copies of songs. There is absolutely nothing preventing infringing copies from being made. Yet the world hasn't ended. Music is still being made.

A combination of ways to discourage infringement and encourage purchasing legal copies were found: Lower prices. Watermarking of songs. Making the legal market more convenient than the illegal market. Ensuring that the legal versions were just as good as the illegal versions. Encouraging people to support the artists they like by paying for the songs. But DRM went out the window.

So if by "finding an acceptable solution" you mean "lowering prices, watermarking games, making the legal market more convenient than the illegal market, ensuring the legal versions are just as good as the illegal versions, and encouraging people to support developers whose games they like by paying for games," great! But if you mean "We just need to find the magical level of DRM," not necessarily.

The deal breaker for me is that a Steam game, like any DRMed game, is not as good as the illegal version. What if Steam goes out of business? Or moves to Steam2 and decides they don't want to support Steam1 anymore? I lose access to all of the games I "own." Surely I can trust a large corporation like Valve, right? Ha! Large companies who screwed their customers in exactly this way include Yahoo, Google (although you got a refund), Major League Baseball, Microsoft (temporary reprieve for a few years), Wal-Mart, and Sony. Given that lineup, why should I trust an itty-bitty little company like Steam/Valve?

(To be fair, I can actually see a DRM system I would whole heartedly support: a binding public commitment to strip the DRM from the game after a short period of time. Maybe 6 to 12 months. This would hamper illegal copies during the highest profit part of the games lifespan. The binding public commitment means that someone like me would buy sooner than later.)

What exactly is your point?

Is your point that publishers should work to minimize infringing copies of their works while encouraging purchase of legal copies? Well, I'm with you there!

Or is your point that publishers need DRM to accomplish that? Why would you believe that?

There is copyright infringement of music. And major music labels swore on their bibles, torahs, korans, and stock options that they needed strong DRM, or else there would be rampant copyright infringement and no new music would ever be created.

Today the market has largely rejected DRM on music. It's easier than ever to make and distribute infringing copies of songs. There is absolutely nothing preventing infringing copies from being made. Yet the world hasn't ended. Music is still being made.

A combination of ways to discourage infringement and encourage purchasing legal copies were found: Lower prices. Watermarking of songs. Making the legal market more convenient than the illegal market. Ensuring that the legal versions were just as good as the illegal versions. Encouraging people to support the artists they like by paying for the songs. But DRM went out the window.

So if by "finding an acceptable solution" you mean "lowering prices, watermarking games, making the legal market more convenient than the illegal market, ensuring the legal versions are just as good as the illegal versions, and encouraging people to support developers whose games they like by paying for games," great! But if you mean "We just need to find the magical level of DRM," not necessarily.

The deal breaker for me is that a Steam game, like any DRMed game, is not as good as the illegal version. What if Steam goes out of business? Or moves to Steam2 and decides they don't want to support Steam1 anymore? I lose access to all of the games I "own." Surely I can trust a large corporation like Valve, right? Ha! Large companies who screwed their customers in exactly this way include Yahoo, Google (although you got a refund), Major League Baseball, Microsoft (temporary reprieve for a few years), Wal-Mart, and Sony. Given that lineup, why should I trust an itty-bitty little company like Steam/Valve?

(To be fair, I can actually see a DRM system I would whole heartedly support: a binding public commitment to strip the DRM from the game after a short period of time. Maybe 6 to 12 months. This would hamper illegal copies during the highest profit part of the games lifespan. The binding public commitment means that someone like me would buy sooner than later.)

It's called "graduated response" and it's the weapon du jour of the media industry. France has voted it in but not implemented it yet, Germany has turned it down, the European Parliament has backed away smartly, as has the UK. Irish ISP Eircom has submitted to a voluntary arrangement to settle a law suit, though other ISPs have declined to join in. It's even happening in (gasp) the US! Wake up and smell the coffee. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/12/riaa-graduated-response-plan-qa-with-cary-sherman.ars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights#ISPs:_Graduated_response http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/ --my blog, where I've been chronicling this And ACTA is waiting in the wings.

Apple is petrified that people will decide it's not worth the extra cost for essentially the same exact parts/performance. Balmer was unkind enough to point exactly that out.

If Apple is so petrified people will not buy a Mac why ahs Apple's market share been growing? Apple has been slowly growing in market share for years. It was only after the economic downturn when Apple's market share slipped. Market analyst firm Gartner, Inc. said "Apple was the big winner with 38 percent market share growth, going from 6.4 percent of the market in 2007 to 8.5 percent during the second quarter of 2008".

Falcon

Will cost me about 1085 Pounds as a student (incl. wireless mouse/keyboard), but for this money I get a computer which provides me with excellent value for the price

Mac apparently keep resale value better, too: 1, 2, 3, 4

or it may be an error, like this other newly discovered untheorized particle may be:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/03/looking-for-exotic-matter.ars

Slashdot isn't a tech site, even though that's its origin and a key focus still. It's a nerd site, which includes science, and finance and economics is a form of nerdery all its own.

Seriously, if you want a site that's focused on just tech, Ars Technica is much better than Slashdot. But Slashdot is a more well-rounded geek site.

You provided no cites to back your "facts", it is nice to see that slashdot is working well this morning.

Well, let's see, there's this report claiming that although physical CD sales are down, music profits are UP due to the growth of iTunes, etc. (The article itself is on the front page of /. today.) Kinda like what buggy whip makers must have said when they started selling that new-fangled horseless carriage. "Nobody's buying buggy whips or saddles anymore, they must be STEALING them because EVERYBODY knows you can't live without them!!"

So, people are spending their $.99 on a single iTune track rather than dump $20 on a CD when they only want the one track. Obviously, they're downloading the remaining 8 or 9 or whatever tracks illegally.[/sarcasm]

Dunno bout you, but when we went from vinyl to CDs, I took my time. I had a couple grand in vinyl, and I didn't see the point in rebuying my entire collection just to listen to them on a $200 CD player cause I still had to copy them to cassette tape for my car. How many goddamned times did they expect me to keep buying the same music over and over and over again? Today I know that if they could figure out how to charge me a buck every time at least 3 notes hit my ears from the radio, they'd do it in a heartbeat. This is just 'vinyl to CD' all over again.

Michael Crook hit with a lawsuit for fake DMCA takedowns
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/12/04/update-michael-crook-responds-to-eff/

Diebold paid $125,000 for false DMCA takedowns
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/diebold-inc-v-online-policy-group

Universal: EFF SLAPPed us with dancing toddler DMCA lawsuit
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/04/universal-eff-slapped-us-with-dancing-toddler-dmca-lawsuit.ars

DMCA takedown backlash: EFF sues Viacom over Colbert parody clip
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/03/dmca-takedown-backlash-eff-sues-viacom-over-colbert-parody-clip.ars

Michael Crook hit with a lawsuit for fake DMCA takedowns
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/12/04/update-michael-crook-responds-to-eff/

Diebold paid $125,000 for false DMCA takedowns
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/diebold-inc-v-online-policy-group

Universal: EFF SLAPPed us with dancing toddler DMCA lawsuit
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/04/universal-eff-slapped-us-with-dancing-toddler-dmca-lawsuit.ars

DMCA takedown backlash: EFF sues Viacom over Colbert parody clip
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/03/dmca-takedown-backlash-eff-sues-viacom-over-colbert-parody-clip.ars

It has nice scripting and batch capabilities, if you're dorky enough to like script-fu or Python. Ars had a nice review of 2.6.4 recently:

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/01/gimp-2-6-review.ars

They compare it to photoshop and list a few areas where they think it is ahead. The last page has a set of good/bad/ugly bullet points.

I'm sure there's a bluetooth chip in the 2g ipod touch: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/09/new-ipods-dissected-ipod-touch-2g-has-bluetooth-sorta.ars

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/traffic-light-cameras-bad-choice/

"House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) recently called for congressional hearings in the wake of a report that claims local governments have progressively shortened yellow-lights since 1985 to maximize fines, and have endangered motorists in the process. "

And then look here: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/14/six-ities-busted-for-shortening-yellow-light/

"Chattanooga, Tennessee; Dallas, Texas; Springfield, Missouri; Lubbock, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; and Union City, California all cut the timing on their lights, and while some have paid back the fines, others have not. "

And for the international traveller: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/italian-red-light-cameras-rigged-with-shorter-yellow-lights.ars

"It turns out, however, that Arrighetti and a handful of public officials were allegedly a bit greedier than most. He's accused of conspiring with 63 municipal police, 39 local government officials, and the managers of seven different companies in order to rig the system so that it would turn from yellow to red quicker, therefore catching more motorists. "

You must live in a different Denver than I do. Otherwise, I hope you've got a license for that stuff you're smoking.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15530744/detail.html
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/16343895/detail.html?rss=den&psp=news
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/denvers-red-light-cameras-no-data-just-tickets.ars

As has been pointed out to you, there were other sites reporting the same.

Well, no actually. What happened was that one site looked at the new headphones and found there was a chip in there. Instead of coming to the most obvious conclusion -- that supporting the custom functionality of the headphones would logically require some sort of hardware in there -- that outlet (iLounge) jumped straight to OH NOES A DRM CHIP.

Everybody else who reported this "story" went solely on that, building increasingly purely speculative reports about third-party manufacturers potentially getting DMCA notices. Notably, all of them also are, in terms of credibility, largely the online equivalent of the tabloids you see at the grocery store checkout proclaiming that Elvis and space aliens are consulting with Obama to fight the recession. Actually credible tech news outlets (e.g., those who actually do basic fact-finding before they publish) either didn't touch this "story" or reported something different than the prevailing DRM line. See Ars Technica's article -- which actually talked to relevant sources to get information -- for an example of how this type of reporting should be handled. A choice quote:

We're no fans of DRM here at Ars--in many cases it simply makes life more difficult for honest paying customers to use the things they pay for. But iPod accessory maker Scosche told Ars that the chip does not use authentication.

Amazing what happens when you actually follow basic common-sense procedures before running a story...

Some good information on the switch: http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/10/5486.ars

I thought the problem was also because of they way they did the dropping the connection (via a "reset"); they "masqueraded" as someone else which is a no-no under the law.

Here's a simple diagram:

A is downloading from B.
C (Comcast/ISP) "throttles" by telling A that it's B and makes the changes that way.
Essentially, a "man-in-the-middle" situation.

If Comcast was some poor sap, it would be in the federal pokey...hopefully without soap on a rope.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of such things, and they have made repeated statements that they aren't sure such things are patentable.