Slashdot Mirror

It is still early enough in the race to consider a meta-view of what this is all about. I suggest the chapter T he Political Marketplace from David Friedman's book Price Theory: An Intermediate Text. I think the average Slashdot reader can handle the math. Friedman gives a lengthy discussion of the undesirability of tariffs. If that doesn't interest you, or you don't like all that math, skip to the section labelled, PUBLIC CHOICE: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE POLITICAL MARKET about halfway through.

It is still early enough in the race to consider a meta-view of what this is all about. I suggest the chapter T he Political Marketplace from David Friedman's book Price Theory: An Intermediate Text. I think the average Slashdot reader can handle the math. Friedman gives a lengthy discussion of the undesirability of tariffs. If that doesn't interest you, or you don't like all that math, skip to the section labelled, PUBLIC CHOICE: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE POLITICAL MARKET about halfway through.

I understand what intellectual property law is supposed to accomplish. Stated baldly, it grants a temporary monopoly to the person or company that invents something. It creates an artificial incentive to innovate. The problem with patent law, and this article didn't touch it, is that it is prohibitively expensive and uncertain these days to even try to determine whether your new product or idea would violate somebody's patent.

For a very readable discussion of intellectual property law, I recommend Chapter 11 of David Friedman's upcoming book, Law's Order: An Economic Account, entitled Clouds and Barbed Wire

I understand what intellectual property law is supposed to accomplish. Stated baldly, it grants a temporary monopoly to the person or company that invents something. It creates an artificial incentive to innovate. The problem with patent law, and this article didn't touch it, is that it is prohibitively expensive and uncertain these days to even try to determine whether your new product or idea would violate somebody's patent.

For a very readable discussion of intellectual property law, I recommend Chapter 11 of David Friedman's upcoming book, Law's Order: An Economic Account, entitled Clouds and Barbed Wire

I'm probably going to lose people because of the length of this post, but I'm going to try anyway, because this issue is very important to me. There are a lot of points in a lot of different messages, which I've collected and replied to in this single post. Throughout, I will use admittedly charged terms like 'foolish', 'silly', and 'childish'. I will justify the use of these terms in due course, so hang in there.

cliffski writes:
i must fundamentally disagree on the topic of id softwares right to use copy protection. [ ... ]

I am not disputing id's right to do anything. As creator of Quake, they have the absolute right to do anything they wish with it, including not release it at all. They don't owe us -- and we are not "entitled" to -- a single thing.

No. What I'm objecting to is the foolishness of adding copy protection at all. Digital media is a universe of infinite abundance, so how do you justify hoarding anything? Don't answer yet; I'll come back to this issue later...

nothing is [guaranteed] in the games world, especially when someone releases Unreal Tournament just before you!

It will be very interesting to compare sales figures of Unreal Tournament versus Quake 3 in about six months. UT simply has check-for-the-CD copy protection (which is still silly, but much less silly than cryptographic authentication).

if you belive that id have the right to benefit from their work, then they MUST have the right to enforce that protection.

Again, I'm not disputing their right to impose protection; I'm arguing that copy protection is socially unredeeming, and could lead to bigger problems down the road.

Copying games is theft, [ ... ]

No, it isn't. Theft is when you deprive somebody of their property, such that you now have it, and they don't. Copying creates a new instance; the original owner still has his/her original object. I covered this in my essay.

MrEd writes:
But it's not foolish to try and set up artifical barriers against software copying.

I contend that it is, precisely because it's artificial. Again, I'll justify this futher in a bit...

If they want to reap the rewards of all the hard work which they've put into it, they must prevent Quake III from suffering the same fate as Quake II, [ ... ]

The fate of Quake 2? Quake 2 sold millions of legitimate copies, and id Software made tens of millions of well-deserved dollars, even in light of the fact there were enormous numbers of unsanctioned copies. Seems to me they would want to repeat the fate of Quake 2.

jamesbulman writes:
The fact that the digital media makes it easy to copy things does not give you the right to copy those things.

Possibly not. But in a universe where there's infinite abundance, how can you justify, in social terms, demanding people not make copies?

Anonymous Coward writes:
First: Are you sure it's *one* server? Second: If the auth servers go down, they will be back up immediately.

id are certainly competent enough to keep their servers running. But if some nincompoop with a backhoe slices the fiber to their building, then you're hosed, and we're back to a single point of failure again.

I am afraid you represent the foolishness here. [Server-side authentication] has been done already, with huge success.

Just because a thing is technically possible or available doesn't make it a good idea. There are societal consequences here which most people haven't thought about.

"software piracy [sic] has become an enormous problem," without any hard data to back it up.

Is there any doubt about this fact?

Yes. Big fat doubts with green hair growing on them.

Fact: Software publishers continually lament "losing" billions of dollars a year to unsanctioned copying. They routinely refer to these unrealized revenues inaccurately as 'theft'. Yet these 'thefts' are never reported to their shareholders. Fiduciary duty requires thefts, especially of the magnitudes claimed, to be reported to shareholders in the company's financial statements. Since the "losses" from unsanctioned copying are never so reported, we may conclude that true 'theft' is not occurring.

Fact: Despite "losing" billions of dollars a year to unsanctioned copying, software companies, on balance, continue to post rising profits. Micros~1, which portrays itself as the industry's biggest victim of unsanctioned copying, has posted record earnings quarter after quarter for years. Thus, these "losses" are not really occurring.

Fact: No software company has ever been driven out of business due to unsanctioned copying of its products. Such business failures are due to poor quality products, poor management, or lack of business acumen.

Fact: Quoted figures on industry "losses" to unsanctioned copying are completely theoretical, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. It is impossible to gauge the precise amount of unrealized sales because it requires measuring events (sales) that didn't happen. You'd have to fork() a copy of the universe where unsanctioned copying was impossible, and compare the results against the real universe. We must not take the SPA's numbers seriously; not only are their numbers, ultimately, made up, they refuse to even disclose how they made them up.

So, yes, the idea that "piracy" is a big problem is still very much open to debate.

Again you speak as if id were into charity.

Nowhere did I suggest id is into charity. Nowhere did I suggest that id should not be compensated handsomely for their work.

What I am suggesting is that, due to the infinite copyability of digital bits, the economic and social rules are different, and that copy protection is an attempt to force an old ruleset that, in the long term, cannot work. (Hang on, we're nearly there...)

The only ones who hate CD keys are warez puppies [ ... ]

...And people who want to keep the digital universe free and unfettered, so that its infinite abundance may be enjoyed by all.

As for being a w4r3z pUPpY, please be assured that, once Quake 3's copy protection is removed, I will be off to Fry's with my wallet so fast, you'll see a red shift on my butt.

Okay. Remember how I said I would try to justify all my weird claims up there? Here it comes:

I'd like you to indulge me for a moment, and use your imagination to picture what life might be like on the Starship Enterprise. More precisely, what would life be like where everyone had access to a matter replicator? What would society be like? What would the economy be like?

Let's take the economic consequences first. What happens to a market-based economy when you start handing out replicators? It collapses, that's what. A market-based economy relies on scarcity and inconvenience to operate. If you introduce a replicator, scarcity and inconvenience vanish, and suddenly you can't charge money for physical objects anymore, since your intended market is now simply copying them. Just ask your friend Brad to borrow his BMW for five minutes, stick it in the replicator, *ZAP*, and you get to have a BMW, too.

Okay, so what are the social consequences of this? Do we decide that copying objects is 'theft', or even unethical? Well, really, how can you make either claim? It isn't theft, because no one is deprived of anything. I also have a hard time seeing how it's unethical. If I copy your stuff, you are not diminished or deprived in any way; you still have all your stuff. It's just that now I have a copy of it, too. Why would that be a bad thing?

You may argue that such copying dilutes the value of your property. But if, on the Starship Enterprise, everyone has access to a replicator, then everyone's in the same boat (so to speak). Everything is copyable, and everyone has copies. Thus, the 'value' of your copy is not its relative scarcity (since scarcity doesn't exist), but how it enriches the quality of your life. You would select what to copy based not on what you could afford, but its utility, design, and its aesthetic qualities.

Let's say you were an artist in this future world, and you had just spent the last two years building a sculpture. Everyone you show it to thinks it's wonderful. Now, as the creator and owner of this sculpture, you have the right to demand that no one copy it. You may even be able to enforce this desire with force fields of some kind. But why would you do this? Why, with infinite abundance all around you, freely available to everyone, would you want to keep this fine creation to yourself? More importantly, how would the society around you view this behavior? Might they just possibly see it as foolish?

If a Star Trek universe is too abstract for you, let me offer a more familiar scenario: A schoolyard. There are plenty of balls for all the children to play with, all of them identical. Yet, invariably, some children will latch on to a particular ball and yell, "My ball!!" If someone tries to take it away from them, they will get upset. There they are, standing in the middle of an abundance of balls, all of which are free for them to grab, yet they will insist on a particular one being "theirs." We try to discourage this behavior in our children, because it's foolish.

The reason I bring these analogies into play is because the exact same forces are at work in the memories of our computers. Just as the crew of the Enterprise stand in the midst of infinite material riches, we stand in the midst of infinite digital riches. Therefore, the same economic and social consequences apply to digital works. Yes, you have the right to impose copy protection, and the technical means, but if, economically, it doesn't matter, and it makes you look socially foolish, why would you do it?

You're probably thinking I'm being disingenuous here. I'm not. I fully acknowledge that, as of this writing, the digital universe is a completely different thing from the physical universe. In the physical universe where we all live, we use the tool of the market-based economy to motivate people and get our basic needs met. Yet the digital universe heralds an age where this will no longer be true. The two universes are existing simultaneously side by side; how do we reconcile the two?

I haven't the faintest damned idea. We are still reacting to and building social models for this new universe. And this is why I feel that copy-protection is so wrong-headed. It's an expediency that potentially short-changes our replicator-laden future by causing the wrong social models to be built. The physical universe makes it a very compelling expediency, true, but it could have staggering consequences when the physical universe finally catches up and replicators appear (and they will appear; they're too cool not to).

So, if we were to acknowledge that copying is going to happen and that it's okay, how would we motivate people to create things in the first place, and compensate them for their work? This is the area that needs exploration, and I encourage everyone to think about it.

To be honest, I have no idea how our society would react to replicators. It may turn out that, as primates, we are biologically compelled to be territorial about things, even when it doesn't matter. We may decide that wholesale copying of physical objects is wrong. I don't know; I'm not an anthropologist. Since we have no idea what's going to happen, I personally would prefer to work toward and build the future toward which we as a species seem to have been striving for centuries: Unrestricted, infinite abundance for everyone at zero cost.

And that's why I can't support Quake 3's copy protection. It's not because Quake 3 is a poor product (it's excellent), or because id Software are evil (they're not), or even because it's too expensive. It's because copy protection is not part of the future I want to build.

Schwab

I'm really setting myself up as a target for massive flames here, but this latest development has made a tough personal choice even tougher.

As you all know, Quake 3 incorporates a new form of copy protection. Each copy of Quake 3 comes with a unique CD key. Basically, when you attempt to play a networked game, your CD key is sent to id Software's authentication server. If it's good, and not already in use by someone else, the server allows you to play. This scheme is to combat unsanctioned copying of their game.

I have several philosophical problems with this:

• If id Software's authentication server dies, no one can play a networked game. Designing in a single point of failure is always a poor idea.
• CD keys can be revoked at their sole discretion. This can theoretically be used to shake down legitimate users by claiming their key was compromised. This vulnerability to users bears consideration. (Note that this is theoretical; id Software's management would never do this. However, how far would you trust -- oh, let's say -- Microsoft with such a scheme?)
• It's an attempt to impose artificial scarcity in a Universe where it doesn't exist. Digital bits are, and always have been, easily copied at zero cost, which has certain unavoidable economic consequences. Trying to build walls against these consequences is, ultimately, foolish. See my essay, Digital Sculptures, for a more detailed discussion of why this is so.

id Software published Quake and Quake 2 without onerous copy protection in place (Quake 2 would check if the CD was in the drive, but that was it), and id Software made a lot of money. Now here we are at Quake 3, and we are suddenly informed that, "software piracy [sic] has become an enormous problem," without any hard data to back it up. To combat this alleged problem, hard-core cryptographic authentication techniques have been devised and implemented, presumably at significant cost to id...

For a game.

Moreover, id has been encouraging people to treat their Quake 3 CD keys as a secret as closely held as your credit card number. This analogy is grossly flawed in that the two numbers protect two very different things. Accidental disclosure of your credit card number could compromise your account and credit rating. However, accidental disclosure of your CD key probably won't compromise your copy of Quake 3. Rather, it compromises id's ability to sell more copies. Thus, with this flawed analogy, id attempts to conflate sales projections with personal property and reputation.

Are we to presume that, if this particular form of copy protection hadn't been implemented, it would have been impossible for id to turn a healthy profit? I find this very difficult to believe.

For primarily these reasons, I have elected not to purchase a copy of Quake 3. I find copy protection, on general principles, to be an unnecessary inconvenience, and smacks of an attitude of selfishness that has very little place in a Universe where scarcity does not -- and I contend should not -- exist.

Lest you think I am some kind of W4R3Z M0NK3Y, let me, a legitimate purchaser and owner of Quake and Quake 2, state very clearly and <STRONG>ly that John Carmack and everyone at id Software deserve every last penny they receive from sales of their software, plus more besides. Carmack is an absolutely brilliant man, far above my station and ability, and deserves every Ferrari he can lay his hands on. Same with the artists. They have done an absolutely incredible job of creating compelling new worlds for us to explore. All of them have worked unbelievably hard, and earned all the rewards we might wish for ourselves, were we in their shoes.

That's why this release of the Quake source code makes it so much harder for me to stick to my decision. By doing this, Carmack, Zoid, and everyone else at id have reinforced their astonishing coolness and deservedness of my support. I have been enriched by this release, which has only strengthened my respect for them. Against all "common business sense" (which is frequently common but rarely sense), these guys dropped one of the best known jewels of gaming history into the Digital Commons and said, "Here ya go." id Software have done virtually everything right.

...Except for the Quake 3 copy protection.

The infinite copyability of digital bits at zero cost forces a new kind of economic model, one that is fundamentally incompatible with the market-based ecomony we know today (which depends on scarcity/inconvenience to survive). I prefer to acknowledge this new economic model, and try to find ways to live and survive in it. Copy protection, on the other hand, is an attempt to deny this reality and impose artificial scarcity/inconvenience. This is, to a very limited extent, necessary if we're going to continue to be able to develop and enjoy monsterously complex games like Quake 3 (I know I couldn't draw all those textures myself). But the fundamental nature of digital media makes this an extremely brittle solution, as any publisher beleaguered by "piracy" will tell you. Once your protection scheme is cracked, natural forces take over.

I don't even pretend to have a solution to this chasm between our current market-based economy and The (Real) New Economy heralded by digital media. We as a society are still coming to grips with these new capabilities, and have only just started to form new social rules about them. This process of exploration isn't anywhere close to complete yet, so now is definitely not the time to try to bend digital bits into an economically expedient pretzel. (This is true not only for id Software, but also for the RIAA, MPAA, and all the other content providers trying to impose copy protection on the entire digital stream.) If nothing else, it will only make the social shock all the worse when Star Trek-style replicators finally turn up.

id Software: Please pledge to, at some point, drop the copy protection. It is contrary to the nature of digital media, and your unique position in the industry makes me confident you don't need it, anyway.

Schwab

I wrote this essay some years ago, mostly out of personal catharsis. Perhaps others will find it worth reading.

I also have a set of pages containing some of the stuff I did for the Amiga.

Schwab

I wrote this essay some years ago, mostly out of personal catharsis. Perhaps others will find it worth reading.

I also have a set of pages containing some of the stuff I did for the Amiga.

Schwab

...you cannot sign a binding contract if you're a minor.

Which is precisely why license "agreements" of any kind are not only monsterously unethical, they are stupid. Do the clerks at EBX check your ID before selling you a copy of Unreal Tournament (which comes with a shrinkwrap "license")? Are we to suppose that such instruments should be enforceable against a minor's parents or guardian?

Please, stop deluding yourselves into believing that you're purchasing a "license." You are purchasing a copy, and enjoy all the rights and responsibilities afforded to you by copyright law. Any other responsibilities imposed by any so-called "agreement" are fictional.

Gratuitous link to my editorial on shrinkwraps.

Schwab

True, I could have gotten the interactivity for the exercises in my [shameless self-promotion] Russian alphabet and chmod tutorials with server-side scripting, but that would require a connection to a server.

By doing it in JavaScript, I can offer the tutorial as a downloadable file that can be used off-line at hard disk speeds -- we don't all have T1 lines into our houses, you know.

I must confess that I do open up a sub-window in part of the Russian tutorial for the audio player control. Now if only I could add some really annoying animation. :-)

True, I could have gotten the interactivity for the exercises in my [shameless self-promotion] Russian alphabet and chmod tutorials with server-side scripting, but that would require a connection to a server.

By doing it in JavaScript, I can offer the tutorial as a downloadable file that can be used off-line at hard disk speeds -- we don't all have T1 lines into our houses, you know.

I must confess that I do open up a sub-window in part of the Russian tutorial for the audio player control. Now if only I could add some really annoying animation. :-)

>Well obviously you wanted to push buttons...

there are three buttons to push on a female. guaranteed satisfaction for any tweakers.

Xah

xah@best.com

http://www.best.com/~xah/PageTwo_dir/more.html

did anyone notice that there are two heads of Einstein of differet size on top?

That is odd. Perhas it indicate that size does matter. Xah xah@best.com http://www.best.com/~xah/PageTwo_dir/more.html

I'm amazed that Tim O'Reilly, of all people, would think that when you buy commercial software you are actually paying for the bits on the CD. Of course you aren't! Those bits cost next to nothing intrinsically. You are paying for the license, [ ... ]

God dammit, get this through your thick skulls: Shrinkwrap licenses are a legal fiction.

This lie has been repeated so often and for so long that reasonable people are starting to believe it. When selling in a retail venue, software vendors have no rights over and above what is granted to them under copyright law; you own the bits. That's why they're trying to cram the UCITA through the state legislatures, which will cement their ability to continue abusing consumers. I have never, nor shall I ever, consider myself bound by any so-called "license" unless you get me to actually sign the thing. The ethical consequences of believing otherwise are just too staggering.

Read this editorial and this essay. The freedoms of your children may depend on it.

Schwab

I'm amazed that Tim O'Reilly, of all people, would think that when you buy commercial software you are actually paying for the bits on the CD. Of course you aren't! Those bits cost next to nothing intrinsically. You are paying for the license, [ ... ]

God dammit, get this through your thick skulls: Shrinkwrap licenses are a legal fiction.

This lie has been repeated so often and for so long that reasonable people are starting to believe it. When selling in a retail venue, software vendors have no rights over and above what is granted to them under copyright law; you own the bits. That's why they're trying to cram the UCITA through the state legislatures, which will cement their ability to continue abusing consumers. I have never, nor shall I ever, consider myself bound by any so-called "license" unless you get me to actually sign the thing. The ethical consequences of believing otherwise are just too staggering.

Read this editorial and this essay. The freedoms of your children may depend on it.

Schwab

One day, about two years ago, I received one spam too many, and ended up writing a self-righteous screed, which some of you may find entertaining, which I called The Anti Spam Manifesto. It is, alas, completely fictional. But don't tell the spammers that...

Schwab

I tried to register fuckyou.com, and was rejected. I put up a quick and dirty web page calling NSI a bunch of hypocrites.

A couple of days ago, and AOLuser writes me claiming that it is the NSF that has the seven dirty words policy, not NSI. He claims to be an employee [of NSI?], and that he therefore is so much better clued than the rest of the world.

If it is the NSF with the policy, why is NSI in court over it?

The Slashdot crowd remains one of the most technically-savvy discussion groups around, and this seems like an opportune time to ask since the discussion centers around high-speed connectivity.

Does anyone have experience with DSL in the Silicon Valley area? Some of the providers I've looked at have been:

• Pacific Bell -- the low price leader
• Verio/Best
• Brainstorm Networks
• Meer.net

Do any of you know of any web sites which have customer reviews of DSL in this area? Do any of you have personal experience with these (or other) ISPs? (I'm curious how well they are connected, and how well they tolerate those of us who use a real operating system.)

Have a look at this. Try not to laugh too hard.

Schwab

• By the way, this gem is written /. style. Spiffy, that! 'n' y'all after me will be screwed because /. people don't know how to design web app properly.
• ...

The ordinal of one.

Xah
xah@best.com
Xah
""Perl my ass" (there are more than one way to express love, too!)"

AN -- without

ARCHOS -- Leader, chief

So anarchy does not mean "no rules"; it means "no rulers".

David Friedman, the son of economist Milton Friedman, is probably the most widely known and published "anarchocapitalist", although he tends to argue just as much on utilitarian grounds as moral ones, if not more so. The 19th century lawyer and abolitonist Lysander Spooner can be read as a mixed bag of capitalist and socialist individualism. James Donald has a decent collection of writings on the subject, including Spooner, Frederic Bastiat and more.

I recall a discussion about Positive Sum Games in the thread about ESR's new paper. It's an interesting idea to think that by giving something to someone else, the total value increases.

Capitalists are often accused of wanting to do better while everyone around them does worse. The only way I can see for that to happen is by fraud or theft. If I want to be a capitalist and live honestly, I can't expect my fortunes to improve while all my neighbors' fortunes are worsening.

A good capitalist reason to write free software (and the reason I do, when I find the time) is to share ideas that you hope will improve the quality of life for everybody. I might decide that the benefits of widely distributing an idea outweigh the benefits of selling it. Then again, some ideas seem to gain credibility by being sold rather than given away.

I'd like to make one more book recommendation, but unfortunately it's out of print. It is The Machinery of Freedom; Guide to a Radical Capitalism by the economist David D. Friedman. Portions have been posted to the web. Fascinating discussions of a lot of different areas of life where libertarian principles could be applied to advantage. Also a lot of good reasoning about why one might choose to be a libertarian. Friedman points out that there are two kinds of arguments about how social things should be done, arguments from first principles, and arguments from consequences. He gives intereseting reasons for preferring the latter, inspite of the intellectual appeal of the former.

When I first read the GNU Manifesto, it seemed to me to have a lot of Marxist-sounding stuff in it. On re-reading it years later, I see that RMS is following out logical consequences of his basic assumptions. It's not all stuff I agree with, but it has its own integrity.

I recall a discussion about Positive Sum Games in the thread about ESR's new paper. It's an interesting idea to think that by giving something to someone else, the total value increases.

Capitalists are often accused of wanting to do better while everyone around them does worse. The only way I can see for that to happen is by fraud or theft. If I want to be a capitalist and live honestly, I can't expect my fortunes to improve while all my neighbors' fortunes are worsening.

A good capitalist reason to write free software (and the reason I do, when I find the time) is to share ideas that you hope will improve the quality of life for everybody. I might decide that the benefits of widely distributing an idea outweigh the benefits of selling it. Then again, some ideas seem to gain credibility by being sold rather than given away.

I'd like to make one more book recommendation, but unfortunately it's out of print. It is The Machinery of Freedom; Guide to a Radical Capitalism by the economist David D. Friedman. Portions have been posted to the web. Fascinating discussions of a lot of different areas of life where libertarian principles could be applied to advantage. Also a lot of good reasoning about why one might choose to be a libertarian. Friedman points out that there are two kinds of arguments about how social things should be done, arguments from first principles, and arguments from consequences. He gives intereseting reasons for preferring the latter, inspite of the intellectual appeal of the former.

When I first read the GNU Manifesto, it seemed to me to have a lot of Marxist-sounding stuff in it. On re-reading it years later, I see that RMS is following out logical consequences of his basic assumptions. It's not all stuff I agree with, but it has its own integrity.

An ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure, eh? Check out the press release:

All Divx discs, including those previously purchased by
consumers and those remaining in retailer inventories, can be viewed on
registered players anytime between now and June 30, 2001.

The significance of this cannot be overlooked. This is empirical proof that any system that places consumer property under the access control of a remote body can, will, and just did repossess control of those goods, despite the (promised!) expectations of the customer.

Told you so.

The Geek Community was quite clear on this: DiVX gives corporations excessive control over the viewing habits of customers, and was generally an awful idea. Truly, we have the media outlets and electronic stores--corporations in their own right--to thank for realizing the inevitable result of any technically dependant system such as DiVX and protecting as many consumers as possible from what the Geeks always recognized as Bad Mojo.

What can we learn from this? SDMI--the MP3 competitor--is flat out doomed to fail if it attempts any sort of protection dependant on contacting anyone anywhere for permission to play a song.

After decades of ripping off artists, lets hope they don't move onto ripping off consumers. (Again. Spoiler Signal What?)

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
effugas@best.com



Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.

Pirating software is illegal. Period.

So is jaywalking. So is driving faster than 65 MPH. What's your point?

The law is out of step with the physical and economic realities of digital media. Right now, this incongruity is beneficial to society as a whole, but it won't be long before this is no longer true, and the law will need to change. Read my essay on the subject.

Schwab

You have described precisely the scenario that exists in the memories of our computers, in which the economics are fundamentally different from the market economy of the "real world".

I wrote an essay on this subject some time back, Digital Sculptures, which attempts to explain the true nature of The New Economy awaiting us, foretold by our computers.

Schwab

In a moment of weakness, I decided to get DSL, since I was sick of the 150+ pings I was getting in QuakeWorld.

I chose to remain with my ISP, Best Internet, which was recently acquired by Verio. The Common Wisdom is that Best, under Verio's ownership, will start to blow chunks, but since Matt Dillon (not the actor) designed and built the infrastructure, I figure it will take about a year for that to happen. I also wasn't yet ready to change my Web and email address again.

Verio's Website on DSL is badly designed and ridiculously unhelpful. You have to have JavaScript turned on in order to use it (dumbasses). Once you clear that hurdle, it will tell you everything except who the DSL provider is and how much it will cost, which makes shopping inconvenient.

Anyway, I called up, got a quote, had an argument with my checkbook, and decided to go for it. I signed a one year contract with them. In that time, I plan to change my email and Web address one last time, and transition to my own domain, hosting my Web and email locally. (O'Reilly security books, here I come...)

Fax 'n Figgers

Phone company: Pacific Bell
DSL provider: Northpoint
ISP: Best Internet
Distance to CO: ~2000 feet
Maximum possible data rate: 1.5Mbits (heh heh)
Selected DSL plan: 416K SDSL, "Workgroup" plan, 16 IP addresses (14 usable)
Highest observed download rate: 47K bytes/sec.
Lowest observed QuakeWorld ping: 30ms
DSL equipment: Netopia SDSL router
Monthly cost: More than I care to admit (> $200/month)
Usage restrictions: None. I can run a server if I wish.

The DSL signup contract I got from Best/Verio had a little clause in it saying effectively, "You agree not to reverse-engineer any of the software or hardware we provide." I crossed it out and initialed it. Didn't hear a peep out of them about it. (Heh heh)

It took about four weeks from the phone call until the Northpoint techs showed up and did the inside wiring. Alas, they didn't bring the Netopia router with them; that got sent to me the next day via overnight shipping.

I plugged in the router, turned it on, got a Green Light, and... Nothing. I could talk to the router, but I couldn't ping anything beyond that. I called up Best, and whined, "It doesn't work." They called Northpoint, who evidently threw some magic switches, and suddenly the Internet opened up before me. Yay!

I've successfully configured DSL for Windoze-98, Linux (Slackware, kernel 2.0.35), and BeOS R4. All three are happy as clams.

QuakeWorld pings have been as low as 30ms; Quake2 pings a bit higher. I don't have a 3D card (yet), so I can't report on Quake 3 Arena.

One weird thing I had to get used to was the "always on" nature of DSL. I'm paranoid about accidentally leaving the phone line connected (I only have one phone line), so when I'm "done" using the net, my instinct is to hang up the modem. Well, I don't have to do that now, and it feels weird.

Apart from the waiting to receive it and getting it to work, it has been overall a successful and pleasant experience.

Schwab

Short version: The good parts were outstandingly good, and the bad parts were surprisingly painfully bad. Long version: Follow this link.

I thought up this idea some time ago (though I've yet to actually put it into practice). The idea is to add a custom header to all my outgoing messages citing the license, so that spammers "stripmining" the net for email addresses are on notice that my email addresses are not to be spammed.

I figure, if shrinkwrap "agreements" are supposed to be enforceable for big corporations, then why can't us lowly peons use the same mechanic to our advantage?

Schwab

Gawd, the whole thing almost sounds like Heathers or the Toxic Avenger or something.

I must have gotten lucky to survive Hellmouth High by signing up for 'vocational', which meant spending half the day away from the main school engrossed in Electronics, which I really enjoyed, no matter what anyone thought. But that was mid 70's.

Chuck

Since NSI is retaining control of the database, will they be able to 'veto' registrations accepted by the new registrars if their criteria is not met?

Last week I 'applied' for a new domain name which Network Solutions refused to register, claiming indecency on my part. I would have agreed if they had not already registered a similar domain name with the same offensive word. check out my protest page for more info.

Would I be able to register it through one of the new agencies?

I have some principles on how to make Linux user-friendly while preserving its integrity...

check out
Linux Is For Everyone.

I've two more articles waiting for completion: 1 about licensing issues, and another about Matrox and starting a campaign to support companies that support Linux.

Anyone who can provide credible, solid legal counsel on the difference between the Apple license (APSL), the BSD License, the GPL, the LGPL, and the QT Public License (QT) would be GREATLY appreciated, as I am putting those analyses on my website so everyone can truly understand the differences (which will cut down on a LOT of confusion).

As for the Matrox thing, I've got that one (sorta) covered. :)

-- Steve
paladin@best.com

Stewart is closer to the truth than he realizes.

Once again, I'll trot out my lovable chestnut :-), Digital Sculptures, wherein I describe the economic realities of digital media, and the future it portends.

Alsop does overlook one thing, however. IP law shouldn't be abolished completely. Some laws would need to remain to prevent theft of reputation.

Schwab

The FSF makes the claim, for example, that just because software is easy to copy (as opposed to a book), that this is why you should be able to copy it and distribute it at will. What does the ease with which something can be reproduced have to do with a perceived right to distribute someone else's property?

Because the whole idea of property depends on scarcity (scarcity of resources, scarcity of access, etc.). Thus, the mechanics of property break down when things can be perfectly duplicated at zero cost.

And... What the heck, here's another gratuitous plug for my essay on the subject, Digital Sculptures, which attempts to illustrate the future foreshadowed by our computers.

Schwab

I can't get through :(

Is there a lawyer in the house? I need someone I can get a credible analysis from in order to write an article for my website about this APSL. I posted a while back that there would be this problem with the open source caving in, when the Troll Tech's QPL (for QT) came about.

But I don't wanna write the article without some solid legal facts.

My website is at Linux Is For Everyone. Thanks :)

Check out this page of instructions:

http://www.best.com/~er iko/www/linux/SE440BX_sound_setup.html


I got RedHat 5.1 working on a SE440BX, but the newer BX2 board has a different codec that AFAIK is not supported yet.

erik

The consensus of the literature in criminology is that guns in private hands save lives and prevent crimes.

The CDC-funded studies by Dr. Arthur Kellerman that claim to show otherwise have been pretty well discredited; you can find some relevant discussion in this Reason article. Kellerman's main sin seems to be selective use of data; he chooses to study a population that he thinks will support his thesis and finds excuses to throw out contrary examples until the data fits the thesis.

The Lott/Mustard study used the entire United States rather than a single city or county, and found a significant deterrence effect.

Folks interested in either side of the issue should consider reading these two books:
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws by John R. Lott
Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America by Gary Kleck.

I used ALSA to get the sound going, following the directions here.

It also has a Voodoo2 for Quaking. :)

Wanna know how? Go here for a theory.

BTW I posted the Linux Is For Everyone link before but I screwed up and it directed everyone to the wrong page. GRRRR. Sorry!!!!

Wanna know how? Go here for a theory.

BTW I posted the Linux Is For Everyone link before but I screwed up and it directed everyone to the wrong page. GRRRR. Sorry!!!!

I meant:
take a stand! for open source!

Crap. *smacks self*

Just because these so-called "zealots" are trying to keep the chassis of the great computer industry machine open for access by the People doesn't make them fanatics.

They're revolutionaries. They fight for what they believe in. Just because you're here for the free ride doesn't mean we all should just abandon the responsibility for defending that which made Linux great.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favour freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are people who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
-- Frederick Douglass, slavery abolitionist

Tell us - what is the price of freedom? Eternal vigilance. 'tis about time the Gen-X'ers figured that out. Salute!!

(Steve)
Linux Is For Everyone!

RMS is not in the minority.

Take a stand for the future of open source.

A few years ago, I tried to articulate what I saw as the fundamentally flawed assumptions being made by cable companies, phone companies, music and movie studios, and software companies in their rush to create the Information Superhighway.

What I ended up with was an essay I named Digital Sculptures. It takes the mechanical realities of today's computers and projects them into the future, leading to an unexpected economic discovery.

It's a bit dated today, and could probably stand a re-write. Nevertheless, it still makes the point reasonably well. If you read it, let me know what you think.

Schwab

Are you a Linux user For LIFE?

No more "...because I hate Microsoft!". We've outgrown that. No more "...but Linux can't do that." That's the strategy of the weak and fearful. No more excuses except for how Linux can triumph under the GPL! No questions except "How are we gonna get it done".

Linux Is For Everyone - on our terms!

Easy to design electronics? Cool.

Everything I use my computer for split into 89437598375 different random devices? Look ma, it's Push 2!

I don't want one box that's a web browser, another that's a music player, another that's a word processor, another that's a network router, another that plays Quake, another that organizes my schedule, another that checks my email, and so on ad infinitum. Jini? Universal Plug and Play? I prefer all my wires *INSIDE* my box(which may or may not be half open). As for wireless, oh yes I can't wait for my wireless Jini enabled stereo system to be hacked from scannerboy and for me to go deaf at 4AM.

You just can't beat security through impossibility.

Every once in a while I get the feeling that half of the fads in Silicon Valley are started when one or two venture capitalists nods their head in understanding. Like a lightning bolt, "Bob Richguy Inc. just dropped a million bucks on that stupid concept" turns into "This is finally how we'll make money on the net".

Well, that million bucks had to go somewhere, so somebody's right.

In this case, I think the VC meeting was some poor schmuck sputtering trying to save his product(who knows what) until he finally--very accidentally--opened his mouth and let the magic words "More types of gadgets = More Units Sold = More Items For The Profit Margin To Multiply = $$$".

Don't believe me? You *KNOW* Push came from "We'll solve the problem of users not wanting to download $500,000 sites by doing it while they sleep, and we'll get a chunk of that $500,000 by finally getting BigCorp some hits!" Nod. Fad. Blink.

This isn't to say that I think Transmeta is going to fail. They won't--I'll flat out go wayyyy out on a limb and say that Transmeta is playing the industry with just a little too much skill to not truly have something up their sleeve. (Not even Microsoft has managed so much good press with so little product.) My honest guess is that they're planning to replace all those tiny custom chips that the semiconductor industry spurts out in mass quantities and replace them with one chip, in various die sizes, that just does everything.

God, Transmeta's good, they've even got me postulating. They've got something. I just hope they don't think that they're going to sell ten gadgets for each app my one PC manages quite well. Beyond every other argument I've already given, nine times out of ten three buttons and an LCD display does not a good user interface make.

Hurm. I'm going to start archiving these posts on my home page.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
effugas@best.com



Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.